Credulous skeptics

[exchemist]

I find it interesting that the only people I ever see passionately arguing about how the Catholic Church didn't stifle scientific progress are Catholics.

OK, but then how about offering evidence for it, as I requested, instead of an ad hominem dodge? You can do better, I'm sure.

You see, whenever I ask this, all I get is the Galileo affair. What other examples are there? Given that so many scientists of the past were religious, or even actually clerics (Buckland was a clergyman, Mendel was a monk, Copernicus had taken Holy Orders, Newton was a somewhat unconventional Unitarian, Faraday was a devout Christian, Lyell was religious, etc) what is the counter-evidence to show that religion has stifled science? What is this assertion based on - apart from the Galileo affair?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

One of the main intellectual problems I see with certain public figures is the notion that because they're professionally qualified in one field, they must also be authoritative in other fields outside their expertise.

There is also no shortage of contradiction and inconsistency within the New Atheist movement. One doesn't need to look further than the initial support of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens for the Iraq War to see this. Sam Harris also has a video where he makes historically inaccurate statements about the Islamic Golden Age in order to minimize it and portray Islam as being at odds with scientific pursuits:

That said, I don't think not correcting or challenging inaccurate or otherwise problematic statements during a conference necessarily means the attendants agree with said statements. I have known fairly liberal religious people who attended churches, mosques, etc., where the clerics had saliently illiberal beliefs (e.g., that same-sex marriage should be banned or that non-believers deserve eternal punishment). They didn't object during the lectures/speeches, but they still disagreed.

The more overarching problem I see here is the intellectual complacency that results from some people's assumption that they have already figured out reason and logic completely. We can see the effects of this when Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Sam Harris, among others, speak so confidently on topics they know little about. This is especially harmful when they have fervent fans who treat them as some sort of celebrity idols and barely question what they say.

I would say Jordan Peterson is another example of such misinformed ultracrepidarianism, and he also has a lot of fans who unquestioningly believe what he says on various subjects even when he's mistaken or unqualified. Such lack of skepticism and rational analysis seems to me a common flaw of human nature rather than an exclusive flaw of any specific religious or non-religious group.

 

[KWED]

Who says "holy scripture" is the basis of a religion, though?

Erm, that would be god.

Only the teaching of the religion in question can specify what texts are considered to apply.

And even then, as I say, there is a lot of teaching about how to interpret all these words from thousands of years ago, with all their inconsistencies and internal contradictions. If you ignore all that and insist on simply reading ancient scripture for yourself, you will get completely wrong idea about what these scriptures are held to signify.

Furthermore in some religions, for instance the original branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodox etc), the teaching encompasses not just scripture but subsequent pronouncements of the priestly hierarchy, through whom God is held to continue to speak to mankind. In other words, it didn't all stop when the scriptures were written, but goes on.

I'm afraid with your approach you will get a great deal wrong about what religions actually consist of.

As I said, your approach is fine if you only want to know how various different people interpret or implement the word of god in a given context. If you want to know what the actual word of god is, you need to refer to the word of god, rather than what people say what they think the word of god should be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By "experts" you mean the single economic historian quoted on wikipedia whose quote is followed by numerous criticisms of his position from other scholars who specialise more in Islamic history?

The expert who devoted a grand total of 8 sentences to AG in his book?

You will just take it on faith that this guy is correct?

Scepticism is indeed alive and kicking!

I see you never check out anyone's links. Though Wikipedia is at least as good of a source as almost any other I did not go to Wikipedia.

Come on, you can do better than this.

And what is a "sceptic".
C" before "a" or "o" hard. Before "i" or "e" soft. Use a 'k".

 

[ChristineM]

You've done no more than glance at my complaints. But that doesn't stop you from making pronouncements.

So says the king of making pronouncements.

I read you op, i checked out you blog... Oh look you had another visitor.

So good guess but a failure.

 

[exchemist]

Erm, that would be god.

As I said, your approach is fine if you only want to know how various different people interpret or implement the word of god in a given context. If you want to know what the actual word of god is, you need to refer to the word of god, rather than what people say what they think the word of god should be.

But what we are discussing is religious belief and its practical results, in terms of practices encouraged or discouraged in a society. That's what will determine whether or not religion stifles science, which is what is being claimed. Words on a page don't achieve anything by themselves. It is how believers interpret them that matters.

 

[KWED]

There is also no shortage of contradiction and inconsistency within the New Atheist movement. One doesn't need to look further than the initial support of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens for the Iraq War to see this.

Sorry, but what does their political position on US/ME foreign policy have to do with their atheism.
You may as well say that Catholicism shows contradiction and inconsistency because Pope Francis supports San Lorenzo while Benedict supports Bayern.

Sam Harris also has a video where he makes historically inaccurate statements about the Islamic Golden Age

A few people have made such claims on here without specifying what the inaccurate statements are and how they are wrong.

in order to minimize it and portray Islam as being at odds with scientific pursuits:

Any philosophy or ideology that claims that a supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it, and who controls what goes on in the universe, or any of the other nonsensical claims of religion is by definition "at odds with science". That is not to say that followers of those religions cannot engage in scientific pursuits or make discoveries and inventions, but the religion plays no part in that work.

 

[KWED]

But what we are discussing is religious belief and its practical results, in terms of practices encouraged or discouraged in a society. That's what will determine whether or not religion stifles science, which is what is being claimed. Words on a page don't achieve anything by themselves. It is how believers interpret them that matters.

But I'm not - as explained (clearly, I thought).

If a holy scripture says "maths is the work of the devil", then that religion is anti-science. If some followers of that religion ignore the holy scripture and learn maths, then the religion is still anti-science. It is the individual who has rejected the anti-science dogma. The religion stifles science. The individual rejects the stifling.

 

[Augustus]

I see you never check out anyone's links. Though Wikipedia is at least as good of a source as almost any other I did not go to Wikipedia.

AFAIK this is the only source you have quoted that supports your claim:

And maybe the OP should look at it as well since there does appear to be some that credit al Ghazali largely with the fall of the Golden Age from a cultural viewpoint:

"Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the author of Incoherence of the Philosophers, "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science" and that this led to a cultural shift shunning away from scientific thinking.[150] However, it is argued that al-Ghazali was instead an admirer and adherent of philosophy but was criticizing the use of philosophy in religious matters only.[151] Additionally, Saliba (2007) has pointed out that the golden age did not slow down after al-Ghazali, who lived in the 11th century,[152][153] while others extend the golden age to around the 16th[3] to 17th centuries.[154][155][156]

You posted a link to a webpage about AG which says nothing about him causing the decline of the Golden Age, and I've already provided both the original writings of AG and a peer-reviewed scholarly article explaining why his views are not incompatible with maths and science.

So despite claiming to be basing your views on your reading of "experts" you have provided one, off wikipedia. Other than a couple of footnotes, this is all he says btw:

One could cite the case of the Islamic philosopher Al Ghazali (1058–1111), a Persian whose influence on thought in the Muslim world led to a rising mysticism and occasionalist thinking. He was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science, which had flourished in the first centuries of Islam. In the views of some historians of science it was due to his influence and that of his followers that the “Arabs” never became “a nation of Galileos, Keplers, and Newtons” (quoted in Cohen, 1994, p.395).9 Cohen (2012, p. 66) argues that this outcome was far from the author’s original intentions, but the very nature of cultural entrepreneurship means that the forces set in motion often exceed what was originally intended.

Note that he simply asserts AG was a key figure, and makes no argument and provides no evidence.

He does quote one author though, so what does Cohen (1994) say?

"More than a century ago E.C. Sachau, the translator of al-Biruni’s book on India, observed that:

The fourth [tenth] century is the turning point in the history of the spirit of Islam. ... But for Al Ashari and Al Ghazali the Arabs might have been a nation of Galileos, Keplers, and Newtons.51

As it stands, the assertion is untenable. Not even authors as influential as al-Ashari (the founder of a long-lived tradition in Islamic theology in the late 9th [3rd]–early 10th [4th] century) and al-Ghazali (the author of The Incoherence of the Philosophers) could on the force of their books alone effect so major a turnabout. "

What does he say caused the decline? Economic decline, territorial fragmentation, warfare and being conquered. The rise in austere religion was a consequence of decline, not a cause.

And what did Cohen (2012) say?

What happened to al-Ghazali’s treatise The Incoherence of the Philosophers serves well to illustrate the profound change. The author’s intentions centered on the issue of indubitable certainty and where to attain it (his ultimate answer being, not in philosophy, but in mystical revelation). In a move far exceeding those well-circumscribed intentions, his treatise now [after the Mongol conquests i.e. centuries after AG died] came to be perceived as a symbol for what it was not: a wholesale attack on foreign learning as incompatible with the faith.

So rather than AG causing the decline, centuries later, his views were misrepresented by hardline clerics to justify the position they already held after the decline.

A nice summary for you:

And what is a "sceptic".
C" before "a" or "o" hard. Before "i" or "e" soft. Use a 'k".

A sceptic is someone who challenges their biases and preconceived assumptions and bases their views, as much as possible, on the rational consideration of evidence rather than that which they find ideologically appealing.

i.e. the opposite of what you are doing in this thread

 

[KWED]

You mean "skeptic". Sce should be a soft c.

"Sceptic" (A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions) is spelled with a "c" and pronounced with a hard "k". (OED)

But let's forget about how messed up British spelling is for a while.

That is how it is done in English. No idea how it is spelled or pronounced in Amerikan.

 

[Hop_David]

Errors are excusable because we all make them. It is excusable when the person admits an error. Tyson admitted his errors.

Tyson had no choice to admit his Bush and Star Names story was garbage. It was getting a lot of attention, even appearing in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And it was very obvious he was wrong. It took quite a bit of arm twisting. See this piece from The Washington Post.

So far as I know he has never admitted his falsehoods regarding Newton.

In his reply to me he acknowledged he was being misleading with his Ghazali quote. But my blog is not read by many.

Tyson has told and retold these stories many times, often to large audiences. His stories are still in circulation. He should make some effort to correct the misinformation he's spread.

Dawkins et al don't seem bothered that these fictions are still being circulated. They push the New Atheist narrative so who cares if they are false?

 

[exchemist]

But I'm not - as explained (clearly, I thought).

If a holy scripture says "maths is the work of the devil", then that religion is anti-science. If some followers of that religion ignore the holy scripture and learn maths, then the religion is still anti-science. It is the individual who has rejected the anti-science dogma. The religion stifles science. The individual rejects the stifling.

Leaving aside the absurdity of your imaginary example, scripture is not dogma. Dogma is teaching.

As it happens, no scripture can possibly claim that science is the work of the devil, because they were all written long before natural science existed as a discipline. The only way science could possibly have been stifled by religion, as claimed, would be through teaching that it was bad and to be avoided.

 

[KWED]

To support his New Atheist narrative Tyson has straight up invented false histories. I'm not just annoyed, I'm angry.



Tyson has been repeating his false histories over and over again for decades. His following has been posting and reposting his false histories. I came to this forum because one of the participants here was aggressively attacking someone who openly admired Ghazali. He was attacking him with Tyson's false claims regarding Hamid al Ghazali.

Maybe Dawkins could be excused for swallowing Tyson's bovine excrement at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference. But by now he should have a clue that Tyson is full of it.

And yet Dawkins will be giving Tyson an award this October at a "skeptic" conference in Las Vegas.



No. But that does not prevent Tyson from stating his addled speculation as fact. The man is comfortable speaking confidently on subjects he knows nothing about.



A true skeptic makes it a habit to challenge claims and assumptions to see if they're supported by evidence. And I do indeed believe such skeptics are less vulnerable to misinformation. But they are human with human failings

However Tyson does not practice this. Tyson preaching skepticism and critical thinking skills is like an adulterous Republican preaching family values.



I'm not that familiar with his peer reviewed papers. I know he counted nova in the galactic bulge for his doctoral dissertation. He has been the lead author of a small handful of peer reviewed papers in the late 80s and early 90s. He has done very little astrophysics research in the past three decades.

My, you really don't like him, do you?

I do make misteaks.

Found one!!

It's possible some of my criticisms are unwarranted.

Ya don't say?

I invite you to check my work. Maybe you will find errors.

See above.

 

[Augustus]

Leaving aside the absurdity of your imaginary example, scripture is not dogma. Dogma is teaching.

As it happens, no scripture can possibly claim that science is the work of the devil, because they were all written long before natural science existed as a discipline. The only way science could possibly have been stifled by religion, as claimed, would be through teaching that it was bad and to be avoided.

Anti-theists and fundamentalists have the same approach: religion is simply rank scriptural literalism, devoid of context.

That that this bears no connection to the historical reality seems completely unimportant to them.

 

[KWED]

I'm not a Catholic and I argue the exact same.....

Because its true.

It's true that the Catholic Church never took positions or actions that stifled science in some way, to some degree?
Jeez, seems like even Brexit has stifled science more than centuries of the Catholic church. Who knew?

 

[F1fan]

Tyson had no choice to admit his Bush and Star Names story was garbage. It was getting a lot of attention, even appearing in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And it was very obvious he was wrong. It took quite a bit of arm twisting. See this piece from The Washington Post.

Of course he had a choice. Look at people like climate deniers or Trump who have choices to acknowledge they are wrong, but refuse. Tyson made a mistake, he admitted his mistake. Now what? You want his head on a platter? What's up?

So far as I know he has never admitted his falsehoods regarding Newton.

So what? You seem to have an axe to grind here. It's not as if Tyson was spreading a whole cloth load of crap like creationism. He made mistakes. He's admitting the mistakes.

In his reply to me he acknowledged he was being misleading with his Ghazali quote. But my blog is not read by many.

The quote is an embellishment but it didn't exaggerate Ghazali's negative attitude about math.

Tyson has told and retold these stories many times, often to large audiences. His stories are still in circulation. He should make some effort to correct the misinformation he's spread.

Well that's a claim you have to show evidence for. Did he give talks before realizing the mistake and not after, as you imply here? Or are you saying something untrue because you seem to have a problem with Tyson? If that's the case, well, irony at work.

Dawkins et al don't seem bothered that these fictions are still being circulated. They push the New Atheist narrative so who cares if they are false?

You are guessing here, so I'm not interested given your strange obsession with Tyson and a set of mistakes he made.

Is there any video of Tyson saying the mistakes AFTER he's acknowledged them? If not, then what's going on with you?

 

[KWED]

OK, but then how about offering evidence for it, as I requested, instead of an ad hominem dodge? You can do better, I'm sure.

You see, whenever I ask this, all I get is the Galileo affair. What other examples are there? Given that so many scientists of the past were religious, or even actually clerics (Buckland was a clergyman, Mendel was a monk, Copernicus had taken Holy Orders, Newton was a somewhat unconventional Unitarian, Faraday was a devout Christian, Lyell was religious, etc) what is the counter-evidence to show that religion has stifled science? What is this assertion based on - apart from the Galileo affair?

It's not really a debate I get involved in, not least because it is impossible for either side to prove their case.
However, from the perspective of the impartial observer it seems equally nonsensical to claim that organised religion/the church, etc did not stifle science in any way, to any degree, as it is to claim that science under religion is not possible.

 

[KWED]

And what is a "sceptic".
C" before "a" or "o" hard. Before "i" or "e" soft. Use a 'k".

Bloody colonials mangling our language!

 

[F1fan]

Here is President Bush's actual 9-11 speech:

Bush's 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque. It was not "an attempt to distinguish we from they" as Tyson claims

As I recall Bush had a huge concern about there being violence against Muslims after 9-11 and his speech was surely in part to help minimize that retribution many folks wanted. I was in college at the time and there were numerous rallies on campus by Muslims to help explain that they are a religion of peace. I think was successful for some time.

Nowhere in that speech did Bush say "Our God named the stars". To my knowledge Bush has never said those words. And he has certainly never said those words to set Christians above Muslims.

As we all know this doesn't sound unusual of conservative Christians to claim. Tyson does appear to embellish quotes by those he's referring to which isn't uncommon for critics and commentators. Its not as if Tyson is claiming Bush believes in Bigfoot.

Furthermore, Tyson has admitted he gave a wrong account of the speech.

OK, now what?

Tyson claimed there is a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. It is his obligation to back up his claims.

Again if Ghazali had a negative attitude about math then the interpretation by Tyson isn't far off.

However when challenged Tyson admitted that he was being misleading by mentioning the devil at all. See his reply to me.

OK, now what?

 

[Augustus]

The quote is an embellishment but it didn't exaggerate Ghazali's negative attitude about math.

What was AG's attitude to maths that is remotely comparable to saying it is "the work of the devil"?

Can you provide a quote?

AG did say this though:

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.

Full text of "Al Ghazali Munkidh Min Al Dalal ( Deliverance From Error"


And from the foreword:

In philosophy, Ghazali upheld the approach of mathematics and exact sciences as essentially
correct. However, he adopted the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic
procedures and employed these very tools to lay bare the flaws and lacunas of the then
prevalent Neoplatonic philosophy and to diminish the negative influences of Aristotelianism
and excessive rationalism.


Note: "excessive rationalism" in this context relates to the classical Greek view that that we can gain perfect knowledge through reason alone. This is why the ancient Greek didn't really develop a substantial experimental method. It was the rejection of this view that led to the development of modern science.