• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If the Chinese people were Muslims, we would not have Covid -19!!

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can't beat "rationalists" whose "evidence-based rationalism" abruptly ends when they talk about religion. While he may know a lot about astrophysics, he knows very little about the history, philosophy and theology he is pontificating on.

He puts the end of the 'Golden Age' down to al-Ghazali writing about how "Mathematics is the work of the devil", the main problem is that he didn't even say anything like this. It's just an internet myth that people uncritically repeat based on the most egregious misrepresentation. It basically says "just because you are good at maths, doesn't mean you are good at religion too".

If he had actually bothered to read it, Tyson could have learned from the following passage:

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.

He says this combined with al-Ghazalis occasionalism to end the GA, the problem again being that 1. occasionalism existed throughout the GA 2. AG's occasionalism is an argument for why miracles can exist even though there are laws of nature, not an argument for why science is pointless.

So his argument is based on something completely made up, paired with a ridiculous strawman. Hooray for Reason!

Strangely not quoted from the same text, I wonder why...

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.

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


He could have fact checked this in 5 mins, or by actually reading the text himself rather than parroting an internet meme. It's hilarious how credulous "sceptical rationalists" become when they hear anything that chimes with their ideological worldview whilst confirming their own sense of superiority.

Can check for yourself how easy it would have been: http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/western_religions/gazali.html
I agree that it is important to represent history and quote people accurately, however Ghazali may have been guilty of some double speak on mathematics.

Consider what Ghazali says here;
‘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.’

So from my uneducated perspective it looks as though Ghazali did believe in interference with the study of mathematics.
 
I agree that it is important to represent history and quote people accurately, however Ghazali may have been guilty of some double speak on mathematics.

Consider what Ghazali says here;
‘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.’

So from my uneducated perspective it looks as though Ghazali did believe in interference with the study of mathematics.

You missed out the previous sentence that shows context and completely changes the meaning:

"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..."

He's not talking about maths, but saying "just because you are good at topic A doesn't mean you are good at topic B"

This is the same thing as I was saying earlier: Tyson is a famous astrophysicist, but is pig ignorant on history yet many people uncritically trust him on history because he's good at astrophysics.

aG also notes that maths, far from being the 'devil's work' is not really relevant to the question of religion:

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.

Also worth noting the context of the discussion, which is explained in the preamble to the linked text:

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.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
If Chinese were Muslims, then the virus would have been blamed on Muslims. There's no point in trying to argue that the virus wouldn't have happened.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I agree that it is important to represent history and quote people accurately, however Ghazali may have been guilty of some double speak on mathematics.

Consider what Ghazali says here;
‘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.’

So from my uneducated perspective it looks as though Ghazali did believe in interference with the study of mathematics.

Brother, I have reservations against Imam Ghazzali, yet in this case he is directly speaking of absolutism.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
And I apologize to anyone who sees this offensive.
I don't see it as being offensive to the Chinese. You using the virus to make your religion look good is offensive and disrespectful to the ones who lost their lives or those who have lost someone from the virus.
 
Top