Credulous skeptics

[Subduction Zone]

Bloody colonials mangling our language!

Fixing it. Well attempting to fix it . Even we gave up finally. It is a mess.

 

[F1fan]

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"

I doubt Ghazali said this in English, right? So the interpretation could soften what he said.

Any sort of prejudice against science by theists tends to be framed in a way that sides good versus evil. Look at what creationists argue, we see extreme cases go as far as claiming that belief in evolution has led to Nazism and abortion, and this means evil at work in the minds of those who reject creationism.

I don't know what the truth is behind this quote or what Tyson was saying or meant. From what I have seen in this debate is that he embellished a sentiment by a religious leader that is similar to the anti-science, anti-education attitude of many religious extremists.

Tyson could have been more careful about the quote, but it's not as if he got Ghazali's attitude toward math wrong. If Ghazali was reported to wanting math to be taught to everyone because it is important, then Tyson would be way off base. But that isn't the case.

 

[KWED]

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.

Many apologists seem unable to understand nuance or context, despite their faux-intellectual pretensions. The actual content of people's argument seem completely unimportant to them, as it might interfere with the deployment of their beloved straw men.

 

[Augustus]

I doubt Ghazali said this in English, right? So the interpretation could soften what he said.

Why do you assume it is a mistranslation?

I don't know what the truth is behind this quote or what Tyson was saying or meant. From what I have seen in this debate is that he embellished a sentiment by a religious leader that is similar to the anti-science, anti-education attitude of many religious extremists.

The problem of framing AGs arguments against the philosophers as an argument against science in the modern sense is that science in the modern sense didn't exist then. People seem to think it was akin to modern US fundies attacking Darwinism or something.

11th C Aristotlean and neoplatonic philosophers were not remotely modern scientists. Modern science basically developed from the rejection of Aristotle, actually for the same reason AG mentions (although he obviously wasn't arguing for experimental science).

He was arguing against the idea that reason alone leads to certain knowledge (modern science rejects this view, hence the experimental method).

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...

Also, people tend to think maths = science, so people in the past who did maths were the equivalent of modern scientists. Neoplatonism was basically a religion, and maths played a symbolic and mystical role.

If you want an example: Plotinus on Number

(no, I don't understand it either )

AG obviously wasn't a modern Secular Humanist, but neither were those he was arguing against.

Tyson could have been more careful about the quote, but it's not as if he got Ghazali's attitude toward math wrong. If Ghazali was reported to wanting math to be taught to everyone because it is important, then Tyson would be way off base. But that isn't the case.

On what grounds do you assume he was roughly accurate in saying AG believed maths to be the work of the devil?

Which of AGs views makes you believe this?

This is the closest I can find, and, unless one applies a very anachronistic reading too it basically translating philosophy for "modern science", it really doesn't say anything remotely like what Tyson claims.

Basically it argues against "excessive rationalism" [i.e. the idea that human reason is perfect], and the credibility of philosophers to speak on matters of religion.

(1) Mathematics. Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry,
and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves
nothing for or against religion; it rests on a foundation of proofs which, once
known and understood, can not be refuted. Mathematics tend, however, to
produce two bad results. The first is this: Whoever studies this science admires the
subtlety and clearness of its proofs. His confidence in philosophy increases, and he
thinks that all its departments are capable of the same clearness and solidity of
proof as mathematics. But when he hears people speak of the unbelief and impiety
of mathematicians, of their professed disregard for the Divine law, which is
notorious, it is true that, out of regard for authority, he echoes these accusations,
but he says to himself at the same time that, if there was truth in religion, it would
not have escaped those who have displayed so much keenness of intellect in the
study of mathematics.

Next, when he becomes aware of the unbelief and rejection of religion on the part
of these learned men, he concludes that to reject religion is reasonable. How many
of such men gone astray I have met whose sole argument was that just mentioned.

And supposing one puts to them the following objection: "It does not follow that a
man who excels in one branch of knowledge excels in all others, nor that he should
be equally versed in jurisprudence, theology, and medicine. It is possible to be
entirely ignorant of metaphysics, and yet to be an excellent grammarian. There are
past masters in every science who are entirely ignorant of other branches of
knowledge. The arguments of the ancient philosophers are rigidly demonstrative in
mathematics and only conjectural in religious questions. In order to ascertain this
one must proceed to a thorough examination of the matter." Supposing, I say, one
makes the above objection to these "apes of unbelief," they find it distasteful.

Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for
learned men, they persist in maintaining the preeminence of mathematicians in all
branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil, and for this reason those who study
mathematics should be checked from going too far in their researches. For though
far removed as it may be from the things of religion, this study, serving as it does as
an introduction to the philosophic systems, casts over religion its malign influence.

It is rarely that a man devotes himself to it without robbing himself of his faith and
casting off the restraints of religion.

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.


As mentioned in 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.


Again, it was the rejection of "Aristotelianism and excessive rationalism" that led to the development of modern science.

So what we have is not "science and maths are bad", but a dispute over which is the ultimate arbiter of truth, religion or pure reason?

The answer to this question is neither.

 

[Hop_David]

I doubt Ghazali said this in English, right? So the interpretation could soften what he said.

I contacted an Islamic scholar familiar with Arabic. This was his reply.

Tyson could have been more careful about the quote, but it's not as if he got Ghazali's attitude toward math wrong. If Ghazali was reported to wanting math to be taught to everyone because it is important, then Tyson would be way off base. But that isn't the case.

It is absolutely the case. Among Ghazali's quotes:

Sciences whose knowledge is deemed fard kifayah comprise [all] sciences which are indispensable for the welfare of this world such as: medicine which is necessary for the life of the body, arithmetic for daily transactions and the divisions of legacies and inheritances, as well as others besides. These are the sciences which, because of their absence, the community would be reduced to narrow straits

And also

Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.

Nowhere does Ghazali say that math is the work of the devil. Nor does that arise from his philosophy.

 

[Hop_David]

Found one!!

You're sharper than a basketball!

Ya don't say?

See above.

All I heard was a whooshing noise.

You have not produced Bush's 9-11 speech where he was bragging his God was the God that named the stars so as to "distinguish we from they"

You have not produced the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You have not produced evidence Newton did Principia before he turned 26.

Nobody in this thread has provided any evidence for the Tyson claims I call out.

 

[F1fan]

I contacted an Islamic scholar familiar with Arabic. This was his reply.



It is absolutely the case. Among Ghazali's quotes:



And also



Nowhere does Ghazali say that math is the work of the devil. Nor does that arise from his philosophy.

Didn't someone post a quote where Ghazali indicated a negative attitude about math?

But still, you are doing a lot of work criticizing a guy who admitted and apologized for mistakes. What now?

 

[F1fan]

Why do you assume it is a mistranslation?

I never said it was a mistranslation. See how easy it is to misrepresent someone?

I only say that interpretations can be skewed depending on what the interpreter wants heard. So I have very dubious attitudes about translated texts, especially religious texts. Just look at various Bibles and compare samples.

The problem of framing AGs arguments against the philosophers as an argument against science in the modern sense is that science in the modern sense didn't exist then. People seem to think it was akin to modern US fundies attacking Darwinism or something.

11th C Aristotlean and neoplatonic philosophers were not remotely modern scientists. Modern science basically developed from the rejection of Aristotle, actually for the same reason AG mentions (although he obviously wasn't arguing for experimental science).

He was arguing against the idea that reason alone leads to certain knowledge (modern science rejects this view, hence the experimental method).

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...

Also, people tend to think maths = science, so people in the past who did maths were the equivalent of modern scientists. Neoplatonism was basically a religion, and maths played a symbolic and mystical role.

If you want an example: Plotinus on Number

(no, I don't understand it either )

AG obviously wasn't a modern Secular Humanist, but neither were those he was arguing against.




On what grounds do you assume he was roughly accurate in saying AG believed maths to be the work of the devil?

Which of AGs views makes you believe this?

This is the closest I can find, and, unless one applies a very anachronistic reading too it basically translating philosophy for "modern science", it really doesn't say anything remotely like what Tyson claims.

Basically it argues against "excessive rationalism" [i.e. the idea that human reason is perfect], and the credibility of philosophers to speak on matters of religion.

(1) Mathematics. Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry,
and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves
nothing for or against religion; it rests on a foundation of proofs which, once
known and understood, can not be refuted. Mathematics tend, however, to
produce two bad results. The first is this: Whoever studies this science admires the
subtlety and clearness of its proofs. His confidence in philosophy increases, and he
thinks that all its departments are capable of the same clearness and solidity of
proof as mathematics. But when he hears people speak of the unbelief and impiety
of mathematicians, of their professed disregard for the Divine law, which is
notorious, it is true that, out of regard for authority, he echoes these accusations,
but he says to himself at the same time that, if there was truth in religion, it would
not have escaped those who have displayed so much keenness of intellect in the
study of mathematics.

Next, when he becomes aware of the unbelief and rejection of religion on the part
of these learned men, he concludes that to reject religion is reasonable. How many
of such men gone astray I have met whose sole argument was that just mentioned.

And supposing one puts to them the following objection: "It does not follow that a
man who excels in one branch of knowledge excels in all others, nor that he should
be equally versed in jurisprudence, theology, and medicine. It is possible to be
entirely ignorant of metaphysics, and yet to be an excellent grammarian. There are
past masters in every science who are entirely ignorant of other branches of
knowledge. The arguments of the ancient philosophers are rigidly demonstrative in
mathematics and only conjectural in religious questions. In order to ascertain this
one must proceed to a thorough examination of the matter." Supposing, I say, one
makes the above objection to these "apes of unbelief," they find it distasteful.

Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for
learned men, they persist in maintaining the preeminence of mathematicians in all
branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil, and for this reason those who study
mathematics should be checked from going too far in their researches. For though
far removed as it may be from the things of religion, this study, serving as it does as
an introduction to the philosophic systems, casts over religion its malign influence.

It is rarely that a man devotes himself to it without robbing himself of his faith and
casting off the restraints of religion.

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.


As mentioned in 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.


Again, it was the rejection of "Aristotelianism and excessive rationalism" that led to the development of modern science.

So what we have is not "science and maths are bad", but a dispute over which is the ultimate arbiter of truth, religion or pure reason?

The answer to this question is neither.

I think there is way too much effort going on here about these Tyson quotes. I get the feeling you guys are trying to defend Islam more than trying to examine Tyson's mistakes. Trying to defend the thinking of ancient people in modern times isn't always easy to do, even when there are still people whose attitudes and beliefs are similar and have not progressed into modern tolerance and open mindedness.

 

[Hop_David]

But still, you are doing a lot of work criticizing a guy who admitted and apologized for mistakes.

Tyson will admit to a mistake if it gets a lot of attention. The Bush and Star Names debacle was getting coverage in major media outlets.

Where is Tyson's admission and apology for his Newton falsehoods?

Where is Tyson's admission and apology for his Ghazali falsehoods?

What now?

Self proclaimed skeptics are still circulating these false histories. I see zero effort on their effort to correct the misinformation they are spreading to this day.

I am hoping Tyson and toxic cult of personality will become known for credulity and dishonesty.

 

[Hop_David]

I get the feeling you guys are trying to defend Islam more than trying to examine Tyson's mistakes.

Newton's Islamic? Bush is Muslim? Who knew?

No, I'm not defending Islam.

I am going after those who are okay with using fictitious histories to attack the flying sphagetti monster.

 

[KWED]

View attachment 64861

You're sharper than a basketball!

All I heard was a whooshing noise.

Not a fan or irony then?

You have not produced Bush's 9-11 speech where he was bragging his God was the God that named the stars so as to "distinguish we from they"

You have not produced the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You have not produced evidence Newton did Principia before he turned 26.

Nobody in this thread has provided any evidence for the Tyson claims I call out.

No idea what point you are supposed to be making here. Was it meant for me?

 

[KWED]

Why do you assume it is a mistranslation?

Why do you assume it wasn't?

 

[KWED]

I contacted an Islamic scholar familiar with Arabic. This was his reply.

From that link...
"I am aware of the argument that al-Ghazali is to blame for the downfall of sciences in Muslim world."

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the argument isn't "he was to blame". It seems that you refuse to debate in good faith.
Your obsession with Tyson is bordering on the bizarre and unhealthy.
Maybe take up an outdoor hobby?
Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From that link...
"I am aware of the argument that al-Ghazali is to blame for the downfall of sciences in Muslim world."

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the argument isn't "he was to blame". It seems that you refuse to debate in good faith.
Your obsession with Tyson is bordering on the bizarre and unhealthy.
Maybe take up an outdoor hobby?
Good luck.

It is always easier to refute a strawman than an actual argument. It does show some strange logic. How does proving that someone was not the only cause refute that person from being a major cause of only one part of Islam's decline?

 

[Hop_David]

No idea what point you are supposed to be making here. Was it meant for me?

Yes, it's meant for you. I didn't stutter.

I invited you to review my criticisms of Tyson. I acknowledged that I'm human and make errors.

So far this is the only "error" you've found.



Again, I invite you to review my critiques. You might actually find a mistake.

For example Tyson says the famous Newton/Halley encounter occurred before Newton turned 26. And that Newton invented calculus and explained elliptical orbits all in two months because of Halley's dare.

I, on the other hand, say Edmund Halley presented his famous question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. Newton had been working on orbital mechanics with fits and starts since 1665. Huygens 1673 paper on centripetal force was helpful to Newton.

Also Fermat, Descartes, Barrow and Cavalieri and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz. Barrow was Newton's older colleague at Cambridge and he very likely was the one that steered Newton to think about calculus. Newton's calculus work from1665 to 1668 sure the hell wasn't prompted by Halley's dare made in 1684.

TL;DR Tyson compresses decades of collaborative efforts into two months saying Newton did it all in two months.


So go for it. Maybe you can cite a source showing Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

 

[Hop_David]

From that link...
"I am aware of the argument that al-Ghazali is to blame for the downfall of sciences in Muslim world."

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the argument isn't "he was to blame".

F1Fan suggested the English version of Ghazali might soften his words. I cited someone who knows Arabic.

Nobody has presented evidence that Ghazali said math was the work of the devil. Not in Arabic or in any other language.

And Tyson certainly does blame Ghazali's fictitious quote for the downfall of the Islamic Golden Age. So, yeah, that is Tyson's argument.

 

[KWED]

Yes, it's meant for you. I didn't stutter.

I invited you to review my criticisms of Tyson. I acknowledged that I'm human and make errors.

So far this is the only "error" you've found.

View attachment 64867

Again, I invite you to review my critiques. You might actually find a mistake.

For example Tyson says the famous Newton/Halley encounter occurred before Newton turned 26. And that Newton invented calculus and explained elliptical orbits all in two months because of Halley's dare.

I, on the other hand, say Edmund Halley presented his famous question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. Newton had been working on orbital mechanics with fits and starts since 1665. Huygens 1673 paper on centripetal force was helpful to Newton.

Also Fermat, Descartes, Barrow and Cavalieri and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz. Barrow was Newton's older colleague at Cambridge and he very likely was the one that steered Newton to think about calculus. Newton's calculus work from1665 to 1668 sure the hell wasn't prompted by Halley's dare made in 1684.

TL;DR Tyson compresses decades of collaborative efforts into two months saying Newton did it all in two months.


So go for it. Maybe you can cite a source showing Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

You still seem to be addressing me regarding issues I have not commented on.
I am not NdG Tyson. Leave me alone!

 

[KWED]

F1Fan suggested the English version of Ghazali might soften his words. I cited someone who knows Arabic.

Nobody has presented evidence that Ghazali said math was the work of the devil. Not in Arabic or in any other language.

And Tyson certainly does blame Ghazali's fictitious quote for the downfall of the Islamic Golden Age. So, yeah, that is Tyson's argument.

Sorry, but you appear to have lost the plot.
I wish you all the best.
(Tyson is not hiding under your bed)

 

[Hop_David]

Sorry, but you appear to have lost the plot.
I wish you all the best.
(Tyson is not hiding under your bed)

You'd rather focus on spelling debates. Is it spelled "sceptic" or "skeptic"?

You wish to ignore Tyson's false histories. I get it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

When did God appoint you as His spokesperson?