quote:

---

originally posted by Unionist:
So according to you, they teach Darwin in madrassas?

Give me a break.

---

In Madrassas they usually teach people how to read. The first text they use for this is usually the Q'uran. It's combined reading and religious indocrination. You specified "science classes". Madrassas that also teach science, teach science, as far as I know.

The problem is really one of finding adequate teachers and resources. Maddrassas are often the stop-gap between professional schooling and no education whatsoever. Like with Christian missionizing, it is often only the Muslim Imams who take an interest in educating the poor, and it is an opportunity for them to spread their religion.

That said, there is no fundamental conflict, if the funding is there: Government to fund maths and science in madrassas

quote:

---

Depending on the educational demands, some madrassas also offer advanced courses in Arabic literature, English and other foreign languages, as well as science and world history

---

I suggest you read Edward Said's book on it. Have you? Reading is good for you.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Madrassas that also teach science, teach science, as far as I know.

---

My question was whether madrassas teach Darwin's theory of evolution.

My bet is that they don't.

From the thought-provoking pages of "Qur'an and Science":

A Brief History of Theory of Evolution

quote:

---

First and foremost, it has to be noted that the theory of evolution is not a scientific argument, but a dogmatic philosophy and a materialistic world view hiding behind the mask of science. However, it is not faith in this dogmatic philosophy, which has had a stimulating role on the birth and development of modern science, but faith in Allah.

Most of the people who have pioneered modern science believed in the existence of Allah, and while studying science, they sought to discover the universe Allah has created, to see His laws and the details in His creation. Scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Keppler, Galileo, Cuvier (the father of paleontology), Linnaeus (the pioneer of botany and zoology) and Isaac Newton all studied science by faith. They believed in the existence of Allah and that the whole universe came into existence by His creation. Considered to be the biggest genius of our age, Einstein was another devout scientist who believed in Allah.

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution came into view by the re-awakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. This philosophy supposes that matter is absolute and infinite. [unionist note: SHOCKING! HERESY! - actually, this "scholar" hasn't even read enough science to know that modern science considers matter to be quite finite in scope] [...]

Although Darwin’s hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment, in time, he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. [...]

All these developments should actually have caused Darwin’s theory to be banished to the dusty shelves of history. [...]

---

Perhaps you could find me some rival Islamic texts supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? No, not showing how the Holy Qur'an predicted it - but actually adopting it in clear opposition to creationism?

ETA: Interesting to note that even this "scholar" couldn't come up with a name of a Muslim scientist that he dared mention in his list. Not because there were no Muslim scientists - no, because there none that would stoop to ascribing their scientific work to Allah.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

My question was whether madrassas teach Darwin's theory of evolution.

My bet is that they don't.

---

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Look, Cueball and others, you're having such a hard time proving that Islam is beneficial to science, I'm starting to feel some pity welling up within me. So here's a helping hand:

From the thought-provoking pages of "Qur'an and Science":

A Brief History of Theory of Evolution

Perhaps you could find me some rival Islamic texts supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? No, not showing how the Holy Qur'an predicted it - but actually adopting it in clear opposition to creationism?

ETA: Interesting to note that even this "scholar" couldn't come up with a name of a Muslim scientist that he dared mention in his list. Not because there were no Muslim scientists - no, because there none that would stoop to ascribing their scientific work to Allah.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

Sure cherry pick all you want.

Your first Orientalist mistake is that Muslim's care about this issue, your second, that there is a unified opinion in Islam about it among the clergy.

In anycase, Muslim reaction to Darwin has been diverse, and there really has been "no decision" by Muslim scholars, some reject it, others support it, and some pick and choose what they like, rejecting randomized selection in favour of and "intellgent evolutionary design." However, the lack of a centralized authority in Sunni Islam means that there is no forced authentication determining the position of the whole religion.

Here is a discussion:

quote:

---

Thus the scientific impact of Darwinism on his contemporaneous Muslim world was minimal. Unlike the Christian world—which received his theory firsthand in the wake of a feverish scientific activity, which sought to provide answers to everything in an environment particularly suited for the rise of materialistic worldviews—the Muslim world had virtually no scientific activity in the nineteenth century.

[SNIP]
A full treatment of this theme of accommodation was to find its way in the works of Abu al-Majid Muhammad Rida al-Isfahani, a Shicite theologian from Karbala, Iraq who wrote a book in two parts, Naqd Falsafat Darwin, Critque of Darwin’s Philosophy, in 1941.[10] Isfahani defended a God-based version of evolution and counted Lamarck, Wallace, Huxley, Spencer and Darwin among those who believed in God. He referred to the works of Imam Jacfar bin Muhammad bin al-Sadiq (especially to his Kitab al-Tawhid) and to those of Ikhwan al-Safa’ to point out anatomical similarities found in Man and apes, claiming that Darwin could never provide full treatment of these similarities as compared to the Ikhwan. But he disputed the embryological similarities between man and other animals. He affirmed that the structural unity of living organisms was a result of heavenly wisdom and not a consequence of blind chance in nature; he also demanded identification of first causes.[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Thus the scientific impact of Darwinism on his contemporaneous Muslim world was minimal. Unlike the Christian world—which received his theory firsthand in the wake of a feverish scientific activity, which sought to provide answers to everything in an environment particularly suited for the rise of materialistic worldviews — the Muslim world had virtually no scientific activity in the nineteenth century.

---

Its only you who seem interested in proving the superiority of Judeao-Christian culture, here.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

alchemy - al-ki:mi:a: - from Greek
alcohol - al-koh''l 'the kohl'
algebra - al-jebr 'reintegration' - jabara reunite
algorithm - al-Khowarazmi 'the (man) of Khiva'
almanac - (Andalucian Arabic) al-mana:kh,
amber - `anbar 'ambergris'
antimony - al-íthmid 'antimony trisulphide' - arsenal - dar as,s,ina`ah 'house of making', i.e. 'factory' - s,ana`a make
artichoke - al-kharshu:f
assassin - h'ashsha:shi:n 'hashish eaters'attar - `itr 'aroma'
azimuth - as-sumut 'the paths'; see also zenith
caliber - qali:b 'mold, last' -
candy - short for 'sugar candy', from sugar + qandi 'candied', from qand 'cane sugar' -
carat - qi:ra:t 'small weight' - from Greek
carafe - gharra:f - gharafa 'dip'
carmine - qirmazi: 'crimson'
checkmate - sha:h ma:t 'the king is dead' -Persian
chemistry - see alchemy
cipher - s,ifr 'empty'
civet - zaba
coffee - qahwah
Copt - quft - from Greek
cork - qu:rq
cotton - qutn
crimson - qirmazi:, related to the qirmiz, the insect that provided the dye
dragoman - tarjuma:n - tarjama interpret
drub - daraba 'beat'
El Cid - al-Sayyid 'the lord'
elixir - al-iksi:r 'philosopher's stone' - from Greek
fakir - faqi:r 'poor man' - faqura be poor
fardel - fardah 'load'
felucca - fulk 'ship' - falaka be round
garble - gharbala 'sift' - perhaps from Latin
gazelle - ghaza:l
genie - jinni: 'spirit'
gerbil - yarbu:`
ghoul - ghu:l 'demon' - gha:la take suddenly
giraffe - zara:fa
hashish - h'ashi:sh 'dried herbs, hemp'
hazard - yásara 'play at dice'
henna - h'enna:`
jar - jarrah 'large earthen vase'
jasmine - ya:smi:n - from Persian
jinn - jinn 'spirits', plural of genie
kismet - qisma 'portion, lot' - qasama divide
kohl - koh''l 'kohl' - kah'ala stain, paint
lilac - li:la:k - from Persian
lemon - laymu:n - from Persian
lime - li:mah 'citrus fruit'
lute - al-`uD

macramé - miqramah 'striped cloth'
magazine - makha:zin 'storehouses' - khazana store
mancala - mank.ala - nak.ala move
mask - perhaps maskhara 'buffoon' - sakhira ridicule
mattress - matrah 'place where something is thrown, mat, cushion' - tarah'a throw
minaret - mana:rah - na:r fire
mohair - mukhayyar 'choice (goats'-hair cloth)' -
monsoon - mausim 'season' - wasama mark
mummy - mu:miya: 'embalmed body' - mu:m '(embalming) wax'
muslin - Maus,il 'Mosul'
nadir - nadi:r as-samt 'opposite the zenith'
natron - natru:n - from Greek
orange - na:ranj - from Sanskrit
ottoman - `uthma:n, a proper name
popinjay - babagha:
realgar - rehj al-gha:r 'powder of the cave'
ream - rizmah 'bundle'
rebec - reba:b
Rigel - rijl 'foot (of Orion)'
roc - rukh
safari - safari:y 'journey' - safara travel
saffron - za`fara:n
Sahara - çah'ra: 'desert'
Saracen - sharqi:yi:n 'easterners' -
sash - sha:sh 'muslin'
scarlet - siqilla:t '(cloth) adorned with images' - from Latin
sequin - sikkah 'die for coinmaking'
sherbet - sharbah - shariba drink
sect' - sha`a follow
shrub [drink] - shurb 'a drink' - shariba drink
sirocco - sharq 'east (wind)' - sha:raqa rise
sofa - s,uffah 'raised dais with cushions'
spinach - isfa:na:kh
Sufi - çu:fi: 'man of wool'
sugar - sukkar - from Sanskrit
sumac - summa:q
syrup - shara:b 'beverage' - shariba drink
tabby - `atta:biy, a neighborhood in Baghdad where taffeta was made
talisman - tilsam - from Greek
tamarind - tamr-hindi: 'date of India'
tandoori - tannu:r 'oven'
tare [weight] - tarh'ah 'rejected' -
tarah'a -reject
tariff - ta`ri:f 'notification' - `arafa notify
tarragon - tarkhu:n - possibly from Greek
tell [mound] - tall 'hillock'
zenith - samt 'path'
zero - sifr 'empty'

ETA: Too long. I took off some..

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Its only you who seem interested in proving the superiority of Judeao-Christian culture, here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think the origins of mathematical tools like algebra began with Arabic, Hindu and Chinese scholars prior to the first millenium. Without algebra, there would have been no upper level math for dudes like Newton to develop, no "ten equations" that changed biology, whatever those are. Biology and chemistry make extensive use of algebra and calculus in problem solving by what I've read. I'm not sure what it would have been like transposing and manipulating Roman numerals algebraically had it not been for the Moors and period of translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Cueball, I know you and your progressive spirit from your many posts. Don't accuse me of racism or xenophobia, and I in turn will refrain from telling you in very colourful language what I think of lying filthy statements like that one. What really confuses me is how you can wilfully shut your eyes to my attacks on the Christian and Jewish "cultures" (big word for superstition) and only wake up and yell when I attack Islam.

---

Errors of ommission are not necessarily errors of commision. This argument, is the same old same old if you condemn Israeli rocket attacks against civlians, you have to condemn suicide bombing at the same time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Errors of ommission are not necessarily errors of commision. This argument, is the same old same old if you condemn Israeli rocket attacks against civlians, you have to condemn suicide bombing at the same time.

---

For Christ's sake, man, that's what you and a.s. have been alleging about me (except that his attacks are rabid, so I won't answer them)! That's why I had to open that stupid thread about Judaism vs. science. Do you really mean what you're saying here?

quote:

---

Now, please explain why it is that their was a period of scientific achievement in early period of "Islamic" history, and less in the 19th century, and what this fact had to do with Islam? Anything?

---

I explained many times. Humanity progresses, religion recedes. Knowledge expands, need for mystical explanations diminishes. It's not just Islam, but Judaism and Christianity which no longer favour any scientific advance.

Look. Its one thing to show a correlation. So, ice cream sales increase in detroit in 1966. At the same time the local hockey does well. Does this mean the ice cream sales cause the local hockey team to do well?

quote:

---

For Christ's sake, man, that's what you and a.s. have been alleging about me (except that his attacks are rabid, so I won't answer them)! -unionist

---

Not as rabid as your "F*** off and die".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If you think it does, then in order to have a proper scientific method you must explain why.

---

I have cited examples of how Islamic writings run counter to science. You have cited absolutely nothing to show that Islam has promoted science. All you do is critique my examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I have cited examples of how Islamic writings run counter to science. You have cited absolutely nothing to show that Islam has promoted science. All you do is critique my examples.

---

Well, apparently many Muslim people feel that they do not.

I never said it "promoted" science. I said it was irrelevant to it, and that it did not get in the way of it. Apparently you also think that science progresses "despite religion". Your own words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yet, not promoting something is not the same as "opposing" it.

---

On this very page, I gave an example of a (pretty insipid) attack on Darwinian evolution by a Muslim scholar.

Your reply:

quote:

---

Sure cherry pick all you want.

---

I thought you'd follow up with a dozen or so examples of Islamic scholars who embraced Darwinian evolution.

quote:

---

I never thought I'd see so many Babblers defending religion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
So what? That is people arguing about stuff. So what? People are allowed to argue, no?

---

An argument means someone is arguing in favour of Darwin also - not just everyone arguing against. Which madrassa or Imam was doing that? I forget now.

quote:

---

Its not the same as throwing them in jail, or burning them or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I'm not allowed to give those examples, because those are all false applications of the true Islamic doctrine, right?

---

Well if you had bothered to read the article I posted rather than siezing on some stupid obvious fact that you thought supported your idea then you would see that there was some debate but no firm conclusion.

So you really can't say "Islam" as in the RELIGION, opposed it.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well if you had bothered to read the article I posted rather than siezing on some stupid obvious fact that you thought supported your idea then you would see that there was some debate but no firm conclusion.

---

Do you have an example of Islamic support for Darwin's theory of evolution or not?

To remind you of what you actually said:

quote:

---

In anycase, Muslim reaction to Darwin has been diverse, and there really has been "no decision" by Muslim scholars, some reject it, others support it, and some pick and choose what they like, rejecting randomized selection in favour of and "intellgent evolutionary design."

---

Who's prejudice? Unionist? Me? How?

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
Madrassas have a long history of teaching science. A bit of basic goggle gives me a long list of literature, articles, etc. describing that basic fact.

Unionist, what has got you painting such broad stereotypes about a Madrassa?

---

Thanks for the detailed references to madrassas teaching Darwinian evolution, scooter. In light of your incontrovertible evidence, I hereby withdraw my slanders against religion and hail Islam for finally coming down in favour of modern science.

ETA: Don't bother reading the previous three threads on this same topic. It's very time-consuming.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Read the link and stop coming up with what you think are clever arguements.

---

It's a very lengthy essay.

There is a significant quantity of material wherein Islamic scholars attack Darwinism in one way or another.

There are also those who say it's all irrelevant.

Then there is one scholar, Dr. Hamidullah, who tries (rather feebly) to "accommodate" Darwinism within the Qur'anic framework - even citing evidence that Darwin was a man of faith, contrary to Islamic opinion that he was an atheist.

The author of the essay dumps on Hamidullah, ridiculing and attacking him, even claiming that he delivered his lectures "without notes".

Finally, from the conclusion - and I think I will ask you, Cueball, to read this carefully, just as you asked me to read your link in the first place:

quote:

---

In 1981, Professor Nasr stated the need for a well-documented, contemporary response to evolution. “A complete response requires concerted effort on the part of a large number of Islamic thinkers working in harmony within the bosom of the Islamic tradition.”[46]

In 1987, he mentioned in his Traditional Islam in the Modern World, the trend among modernized Muslims to accommodate evolution:

" …usually modernized Muslims have tried to come to terms with evolution through all kinds of unbelievable interpretations of the Noble Qur’an, forgetting that there is no possible way to harmonize the conception of man (Adam) as he to whom God taught all the ‘names’ and whom He placed on earth as His Khalifah, and the evolutionists conception which sees man as having ‘ascended’ from ape. It is strange that except for a number of traditionalists and also ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim thinkers who have rejected the theory of evolution mostly on purely religious grounds without providing intellectual and rational arguments for their rejection of the theory, few Muslims have bothered to see its logical absurdity and to consider all the scientific evidence brought against it by such men as L. Bounoure and D. Dewar…[47]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I have asserted that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are inimical to science, because they posit the existence of supernatural and unverifiable causal elements in the world. I should have thought this was bleeding obvious to any progressive person.

---

You're saying religion is inimical or unfriendly to science. And yet the madrassas, as Cueball pointed out, are offering education to poor Muslims who would not be extended offers of free education by a western political and economic system that sometimes comes "highly recommended" to them in the form of shock doctrinaire capitalism. In this case, Islamic madrassas seem to be far less inimical to science and literacy in general than proponents of a political and economic belief system seeking to replace everything with those views, and who seek to include restrictions on academic and publicly-funded scientists for the sake of profit. It's no wonder scientists like Richard Levins have so little respect for the dominant world ism. Capitalism isn't always a violent and murderous religion, not when its followers choose to turn a blind eye to 30, 000 children dying of a merciless economic long run each and every day with Swiss precision. Capitalism isn't always an immoral belief system. Sometimes it's just amoral.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Shame.

---

Excelent so you read the entire piece I thought it was very intersting. And despite the obvious bias, it also seemed to try and be historically precise in terms of laying the arguements, and so on a so forth.

And you did ask me to find a scholar who accepted Darwinian theory, now of course he took exception to some ideas in it, but then do you accept all Darwinian theory, in a rote sense?

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Who's prejudice? Unionist? Me? How? - I suppose you'll be opposing prejudice against Intelligent Design next right? -IbelongtonooneI

---

quote:

---

Man, this is crazy trying to keep up with 300+ message multiple threads. - scooter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
And you did ask me to find a scholar who accepted Darwinian theory, now of course he took exception to some ideas in it, but then do you accept all Darwinian theory, in a rote sense?

---

Cueball, not one of the scholars mentioned there, not even Hamidullah, accepts modern science. They argue with each other over who is diverging more from the Holy Qur'an than the others. And how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

The frenzied attack on Hamidullah is a living, shining example of how difficult it must be for a scientist who wants to be true to his Muslim faith to speak out openly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Here's where the Qur'an unmistakeably foretold the discoveries of embryology, centuries before our mere mortal labs were able to confirm the results:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And I don't think any of the major religions were responsible for scientists standing firma behind a flat earth theory for a thousand years or so.

---

Fidel, don't go there. What "scientists" are you talking about? The ancients knew the earth wasn't flat - Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a high degree of accuracy about 2,200 years ago.

It was the great religions of the world which banned, banished, and burned the great minds, and tried to drag humanity back to darkness where so that they could rule unopposed.

Maybe start with cosmologist Giordano Bruno - burned at the stake after being found guilty on these "charges":

quote:

---

1. Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
4. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
5. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
6. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
7. Dealing in magics and divination.
8. Denying the Virginity of Mary.

---

Then you might read up on a dude called Galileo Galilei. They didn't burn him - because unlike Bruno, he "recanted" and said, "yeah, I was wrong, the earth really is the centre of the universe". He got off easy:

quote:

---

* Galileo was required to abjure the opinion that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth is not at its centre and moves; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." [...]
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Fidel, don't go there. What "scientists" are you talking about? The ancients knew the earth wasn't flat - Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a high degree of accuracy about 2,200 years ago.

---

These threads have a way of becoming absurd and tedious. Pythagorus ~500 B.C. apparently believed in spherical harmony of the heavens. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and spiritualist. Ancient Egyptians and even Mayan Indians knew about celestial events and how seasons are affected. But empirical proof wouldn't come until centuries later, after the written word would survive the dark ages, and the developement of higher level mathematics. Thank goodness for Muslims who taught paper-making to pre-renaissance Europeans and so forth. And as I was trying to say earlier, some of those scholars and later scientists became learned through the Church and by monks and rabbis and priests who minded the abbeys and doled out social services to poor people who were made desperately poor beggars post Henry the eighth and Liberal capitalists like John Locke and his private property laws, and the so-called intellectual arguments in favour of private property were anything but. The arguments were nothing more than clever legalese which deliberately misconstrued pre-existing natural laws for common rights granted by God to King, country and every citizen within the kingdom. The same Lockean and Smithean mumbo-jumbo is said to have been misinterpreted today by marauding capitalists and their hirelings in government as well as any biblical scribblings have by right-wing whackos everywhere.

And where would science be today without the public education of scientists like Rutherford, Bohr, and Einstein? What would have become of Isaac Newton had King's College not offered to waive tuition fees because of his family's poor circumstances?

I think bad people tend to do bad things when personal gain is the motivation. And apparently the one-dimensional self-interested homo economicus of the dominant ism is inimical to the teachings of Islam. That greedy little turd is an abomination as far as Islamists are concerned. Blowback shadow gov gave us an anti-communist jihad in 1980s-90s Central Asia. Now it seems taxpayers in the west are ponying up for an anti-Islamic jihad. And this running conflict of isms seems to be one ongoing conflict in parallel with the overall war of annihilation against communism since the Digger movement in imperial Britain and even before that when Henry and Louis waged their little wars against the Church. Science has nothing to say about religion, really. There are few mainstream leading edge scientists whose raison d'etre is to prove or disprove the existence of God or the unknowable in general. Just be careful of whose cause you believe it is you are arguing for, is all I am trying to say.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

In the 13th century, more than 600 years before Charles Darwin, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī developed a basic theory of evolution. Key differences exist between Tusi's approach and Darwin's The Origin of Species. While Darwin used deductive reasoning, gathering samples of plants and animals to work his way from facts to a theory, Tusi used a more theoretical approach. Tusi explained that "hereditary variability" was the leading force of evolution. He wrote that all living organisms were able to change and that the animate organisms developed owing to their hereditary variability, saying "the organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures." This sounds remarkably like a simplistic form of Darwin's writings about mutations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Hmmm

---

Well lots of people believed in evolution before Darwin - thousands of years before. Darwin's own grandfather wrote about it and it was much talked about in academic circles going back to the Greeks or maybe before. Darwin gets the credit because he provided not just the best mechanism for the cause, but compiled enough evidence to make the theory far more sensible than any other. Before Darwin it was just an idea (really more philosophy than science) - with no more evidence than of the other ideas like creationism, with Darwin it became a scientific theory.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Before Darwin it was just an idea - with no more evidence than of the other ideas like creationism, with Darwin it became a scientific theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I don't know what it is, but I'm suddenly not that high on Charlie. I'm beginning to think Persia is the cradle of western civilization, and that indigenous people around the world knew things about astronomy, keeping track of time and the seasons.

---

Lots of people had great ideas before charles darwin. Lots of amazing feats of science had been discovered. Certainly astronomy is a great example. But, the evidence collected in favour of evolution before Darwin would have no more than filled a pamphlet. Reading On the Origin of the Species makes one understand why it was such a monumental achievement. It was like he hit the reader with a sledge hammer. He provided hundreds of pages of proof - something no one before had done. That is why Darwin generally gets sole or most credit and Wallace doesn't get equal credit. Had Darwin not published Origins than people would have looked at Wallace's admittedly brilliant work and said nice hypothesis, now where is the evidence to support it? There is a reason why most every list I have ever seen ranking the all time greatest science books always place Origin at the top - it was that groundbreaking (edit - I don't know why I wrote most every list - in fact every single list I have seen places Origin at the top).

(Edit: It should also be mentioned that while Origin provided possibly 100 times more evidence in favour of evolution than everyone before him that is really understating his work. Origin was written as a popular science book for the public, the reality of his work output includes lengthy books on all kinds of evolutionary evidence probably totally 100 times that of Origin.)

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

However, it should be noted that Tusi argued for evolution within a firmly Islamic context — he did not, like Darwin, draw materialist conclusions from his theories. Moreover, unlike Darwin, he was arguing hypothetically: he did not attempt to provide empirical data for his theories.

---

While Tusi obviously made brilliant guesses, he could not - either because of his own anti-scientific religious beliefs, or because of external constraint - actually draw any scientific conclusions. He was restricted to arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin.

The reality is that no Muslim rulers could benefit from the development of large seagoing fleets in order to be able to achieve what the British, and the Dutch and the Spanish, and other European powers were able to when motivated by the relatively easy picking in America. The basic needs of the Muslim rulers were defined by the fact that they were surrounded by land, and or shallow seas, and such naval development would have been a costly and wasteful misappropriation of funds needed to support the large land armies they needed to secure, and I daresay expand their borders. Overtime a consitent effort in this direction would have bankrupted the Sultanate.

The truth is that the Ottomans could easily of replicated Cortez's miraculous invasion of the America's had they had the means to get there. Their land army was of similar ability, and armed in the same manner, more or less.

Once discovered, the rapaicious European monarchies then jealoulsy guarded their new found source of power, from all comers, using the exploited wealth to expand that power.

If not for this unique ability Darwin's "ideas" would still just be "ideas," too. Empircal scientific method came into being in lock-step with this expanded world view, and the gathering of further information, as well as the aquisition of the obscene wealth needed to fund scientific endeavour.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You are seriously of the impression that this ability stems from the repression of "heretical" ideas in Islam, and not merely a fact of the processes of the evolution of imperial power and how this is shaped by geographic location?

---

No, Cueball, that's not my view at all.

Tusi was not a scientist. Darwin was. That's why Darwin's contributions survive and are universally adopted, and Tusi's are an irrelevant historical footnote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No, Cueball, that's not my view at all.

Tusi was not a scientist. Darwin was. That's why Darwin's contributions survive and are universally adopted, and Tusi's are an irrelevant historical footnote.

I only snatched that little quote from Fidel's article because he seems to have become a fan of old religion. His very own source blamed Islam for holding Tusi's investigations back. I don't know if that's factual or not. I was just having some fun.

---

Wikipedia, is not immune to Orientalism. Sorry.

Fact 1) In 1400 AD the world, for all intents and purposes technologically flat. In other words, the basic technology in China was at a similar level to the technology in Asia, and that of Europe. The quality of a Japanese sailing vessel was only marginally inferior to that of European sailing vessel. Rudimentary gunpowder firearms were available to most societies, and in use in their armies -- Arquebusiers were in use in China in the 14th century.

All societies featured various orthodox religious institutions, and society were generally, but not exculsively run on feudal system, with the exceptions such as Venice, and some scattered oligarchies.

Fact 2) One particular region of the globe (Europe) made the tremendous discovery, that of an isolated, but bountiful region of the globe populated by people still operating in a previous era. This region was quickly occupied and exploited.

Fact 3) In the next 600 years there was a sudden rise of the technological, scientific, military and industrial power of one specific region of the globe: Europe.

My hypothesis: The sudden discovery, exploration, conquest, and exploitation of this new world, not only rapidly increased the wealth of the European conquests, but also widened the conceptual space of European thinkers, and gave them fresh evidence to rationally deduce how the world functioned. Furthermore the wealth itself was applied to funding further researches into alechemy, botany and many other fields. Rapid scientifc developement ensued.

Your hypothesis: Superior western rationalist thinking was at the heart of the rise of scientifc knowledge. The Muslim mind was blocked by Islam.

You assert that all religions equally repress active rational thinking. Yet this contradicts your hypothesis because it is quite clear that no such achievement should have been possible for European thinkers, either, since their minds should also have been blocked by Christianity.

Either you are saying that Islam is particularlly repressive, or you are not. This conudrum is at the heart of your Orientlalist thinking.

You assert that thinkers such as Tutsi are irrational and non-observational whereas Darwin was not. You ignoring the fact that Tutsi came to his hypothesis by observation and his work as a vetrinarian. What is empiricism other than observation and conclusions based on those material observations? They were "revealed" to him by god? Is that what you are saying?

Further, you ignore the fact that Darwin had unequal and superior access to information, and that he would never have been able to prove his thesis had he not made it to the Galapagos Islands, a direct result of fact two.

In other words you have no thesis that explains the process of how the scientific revolution came into being from the point at which the world is technologically flat, as in fact one, to the point where it reaches fact three. Your ideas are basicly sociological hocus-pocus based in latent (and persumed) sense of western culture superiority: Rationalism.

However you have not provided a rationalist arguement with proofs to establish your assertion.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Fact 1) In 1400 AD the world, for all intents and purposes technologically flat. In other words, the basic technology in China was at a similar level to the technology in Asia, and that of Europe. The quality of a Japanese sailing vessel was only marginally inferior to that of European sailing vessel. Rudimentary gunpowder firearms were available to most societies, and in use in their armies -- Arquebusiers were in use in China in the 14th century.

All societies featured various orthodox religious institutions, and society were generally, but not exculsively run on feudal system, with the exceptions such as Venice, and some scattered oligarchies.

Fact 2) One particular region of the globe (Europe) made the tremendous discovery, that of an isolated, but bountiful region of the globe populated by people still operating in a previous era. This region was quickly occupied and exploited.

Fact 3) In the next 600 years there was a sudden rise of the technological, scientific, military and industrial power of one specific region of the globe: Europe.

My hypothesis: The sudden discovery, exploration, conquest, and exploitation of this new world, not only rapidly increased the wealth of the European conquests, but also widened the conceptual space of European thinkers, and gave them fresh evidence to rationally deduce how the world functioned. Furthermore the wealth itself was applied to funding further researches into alechemy, botany and many other fields. Rapid scientifc developement ensued.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Your hypothesis: Superior western rationalist thinking was at the heart of the rise of scientifc knowledge. The Muslim mind was blocked by Islam.

You assert that all religions equally repress active rational thinking. Yet this contradicts your hypothesis because it is quite clear that no such achievement should have been possible for European thinkers, either, since their minds should also have been blocked by Christianity.

---

Why don't you give it a rest.

I'm a historical materialist. The impulse for scientific progress is economic. The conditions are geographic, cultural, historical, ideological (including religious). By the time of post-Columbian conquest, plunder and genocide in the Americas, religion had long since stopped playing any positive role and had become a brake.

I never said anything remotely resembling what you attribute to me.

Christianity - in particular the Catholic Church - has played a massively more retrograde role in human history than any other religion I can name. But religion, no matter where, cannot stop the forward march of humanity, of production, of science. It can only cause more or less misery and suffering along the way.

Europe advanced, and other regions stagnated, because of primitive accumulation, colonial plunder, the industrial revolution, uneven development - not because one religion was more benign to human advance than others (!!!).

You are so focused on this foolish thesis, and so anxious to defend Islamic nonsense (as opposed to the nonsense of other religions), that you even attribute this foolish thesis to others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I dunno. Those facts could also support the hypothesis that the conquest of the Americas was a consequence of those breakthroughs, not a cause of them.

---

I think any student of "economics" would be aware of the huge boom in economic development that occurred in Europe in the wake of the discovery of America. In a period of 200 years, what had been thriving trade centers such as Constantinople, were dwarfed by the huge amount of wealth that started flowing through London Andalusia, Tago and Falndern. Butfuck little dutchies like Holland and Portugal became world powers overnight, just by licking up offal off the floor left by England and France and Spain at the big imperial feast.

Its amazing how the so called rationalist blindly assert the prophesy of their rationalist scientific method, without making and argument, or provide proof, or even a basic hypothesis to explain, in a rationalist manner, the sudden aquistion of the root knowledge to which they attribute their success. Indeed it would seem that rationalism was a revelation.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I have tried to explain why constantly leaning on the concept that "Islamic societies have not produced any good science in the last few centuries," is prejudicial, several times now. But you don't seem to be getting it.

I thought going into a detailed historical sociological anaylsis of the comparative factors impacting Islamic society in the last 400 years, and those operating in Christian European society, would help illuminate why such assertions are damaging, and I have challenged you by asserting that "era" is irrelevant to this discussion several times without a response.

I think Stephen's assertion neatly sums up why I reject this notion, as it shows precisely the kind of conclusions that are routinely made when people ask, and then answer the question why have "Islamic societies not produced any good science in the last few centuries?"

And Stephen came along and nailed it, because his conclusion is precisely the one that this question implies: "Superior western rationalist thinking was at the heart of the rise of scientifc knowledge. The Muslim mind was blocked by Islam."

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I have tried to explain why constantly leaning on the concept that "Islamic societies have not produced any good science in the last few centuries," is prejudicial, several times now. But you don't seem to be getting it.

---

Hello, Cueball: Who said that thing that you put in quotation marks?

Your straw man?

I should think you would get that since that is the only thing that Stephen said, and my post was a reflection on his post, and your question.

He basicly cut my post in half then added a summary of the orientalist hypothesis, which was in my post already. It was funny. It's in quotes because I was quoting the part of my post that Stephen cut out, but what he said amounts to what I originally said, regardless.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, clearly you just want to argue, but that is precisely the exact logical extension of this assertion by Stephen: "Those facts could also support the hypothesis that the conquest of the Americas was a consequence of those breakthroughs, not a cause of them."

---

Do me a huge favour. Don't use quotation marks when you're paraphrasing people (especially when the paraphrase is wrong). It's very confusing.

quote:

---

I should think you would get that since that is the only thing that Stephen said, and my post was a reflection on his post, and your question.

---

Stephen's speculation was wrong. Your thesis is exactly in accord with my understanding:

quote:

---

The sudden discovery, exploration, conquest, and exploitation of this new world, not only rapidly increased the wealth of the European conquests, but also widened the conceptual space of European thinkers, and gave them fresh evidence to rationally deduce how the world functioned. Furthermore the wealth itself was applied to funding further researches into alechemy, botany and many other fields. Rapid scientifc developement ensued.

---

It speaks to Stephen's assertion that superior rationalist European "breakthroughs" are the cause of European ascendance. European cultural superiority. In the background is also the implied belief that "others" in this case Muslim people, since they are the topic at hand, are stupid, and that this has something to do with "Muslimness" in particular.

It is a very common part of the discourse, Muslim backwardness, our superior culture, etc. All spring from your question, wether you like it or not.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Your question: "Why have Islamic societies not produced any good science in the last few centuries?" Is entirely tuned to the orientalist world view.

---

Here:

quote:

---

originally (posted 24 February 2008 07:45 PM ) by Unionist:

So Cueball - what was the name of that Islamic scientist again? That Islamic régime that promoted scientific endeavour in the last half-millennium or so?

---

quote:

---

originally (posted 27 February 2008 04:59 AM ) by Unionist:
Great, Cueball - so if they were beheaded for their philosophical rather than scientific theories, give me examples of science thriving in an Islamic theological framework.

More recent than the 15th century, if you don't mind, because there is no doubt that in the previous period, certain of the Muslim societies were far more tolerant of scientific, artistic and philosophical thought than the barbaric Christian societies which succeeded them in Spain and elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally ( posted 23 February 2008 04:51 AM ) by Unionist:

I asked for evidence of a single Islamic ideologue, scholar, or régime in modern times (last 600 years, say) which has promoted and favoured scientific discovery. I try to maintain an open mind on this, although it is (I admit) hard for me to understand how Islam (or the rest of the B.S. mythologies) can favour scientific discovery. Needless to say, not a single example is forthcoming. Instead, Cueball takes refuge in attacking science. More power to him. I think religion is shit, he apparently feels the same way about science.

---

Islamic Creationism

None of these questions or assertions even come close to tendering the idea that there is anything other than "Islamic" backwardness behind the relative lack of scientific discovery in the Muslim world in recent times. There is not even a hint that this lack of scientific progress in Muslim societies, in comparison to European rationalism as the standard by which progress is to be judged, might have something to do with other objective factors other than the "Islamicness" of the society. No social analysis whatsoever, and in fact when I raised the issue of other possible factors, this was completely rejected as "irrelevant".

quote:

---

Originally ( posted 24 February 2008 07:07 PM ) by Unionist:
Go argue with yourself and convince yourself how the Ottomans were on the very verge of progress, science and Nirvana, but got screwed by someone else. I'm not playing, because it is utterly irrelevant.

---

After all this, and only now, do we get a sotto voice submission from you that "...Muslim societies were for the most part the victims, rather than the beneficiaries, of colonial plunder and pillage..." done by European rationalists, among others. Up until then, Scientific backwardness was presented entirely in the light of Muslimness, but with European rationalism as the standard of comparison. You demanded that the problems in Islam were to be considered entirely in and of themselves, as a result of Islamic supression of progress, and everything else was "irrelevant".

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
While Tusi obviously made brilliant guesses, he could not - either because of his own anti-scientific religious beliefs, or because of external constraint - actually draw any scientific conclusions. He was restricted to arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin.

---

I think Tusi was restricted by quite a bit more than religious beliefs. He disadvantaged by the very time in which he lived and the state of overall scientific knowledge, communication barriers etc. What if by some twist of fate Charlie Darwin was born several centuries earlier - before or at the start of European renaissance and enlightenment - in a time when empiricism was not a well developed method of scientific investigation?

Early empiricism

quote:

---

In the 11th century, the theory of tabula rasa was developed by the Persian philosopher, Ibn Sina (known as "Avicenna" in the Western world). He argued that the "human intellect at birth is rather like a tabula rasa, a pure potentiality that is actualized through education and comes to know" and that knowledge is attained through "empirical familiarity with objects in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts" which is developed through a "syllogistic method of reasoning; observations lead to prepositional statements, which when compounded lead to further abstract concepts." He further argued that the intellect itself "possesses levels of development from the material intellect (al-‘aql al-hayulani), that potentiality that can acquire knowledge to the active intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘il), the state of the human intellect at conjunction with the perfect source of knowledge."[3]

In the 12th century, the Andalusian-Arabian philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as "Abubacer" or "Ebn Tophail" in the West) demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, in which he depicted the development of the mind of a feral child "from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society" on a desert island, through experience alone. The Latin translation of his philosophical novel, entitled Philosophus Autodidactus, published by Edward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke's formulation of tabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

---

So it seems to me that gods of capitalism and evolutionary biology, Locke and Darwin, borrowed arguments for natural rights from England's first communist, as well as scientific points of view while standing on broad shoulders of Greeks and Persians who lived long before them.

"Save the cheerleader, save the world." -- Hiro Nakamura, TV series "Heroes"

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Now you are formalizing. You have asked this question repeatedly in one version or another over a series of threads, and selected it for special attention from various quotes:

---

You see, Cueball, when you actually quote what I said (thank you for finally doing so instead of concocting paraphrases which suit the purpose of your argument better), the subtle distinction comes out.

I never said, nor intimated, that "Islamic societies [have] not produced any good science in the last few centuries", as you fabricated.

I said - and repeat - that Islam (the religion and/or the regime) has done nothing in the last few centuries to encourage science, when it was not actively blocking it.

Exactly the same is true for Christianity. The difference is - as you yourself correctly analyzed - Christian societies "benefitted" from the murder and pillage they wreaked on other societies in the post-Columbian period, directly fuelling the conditions for the industrial revolution, all of which created a favourable economic context for the growth of modern science - a context which was lacking in the Muslim societies. So science lived and thrived despite the barbaric efforts of the Catholic Church (and occasionally other less powerful forces, like the Orthodox church and the Rabbinate) to crush science in the cradle.

If the sudden explosion in European wealth, and aquired knowledge had not happened then the standard you are using for comparison, would not have come into existence, and as likely as not technological development would likey have remained "flat" worldwide.

I think that around the 15th century humankind generally was more or less on the verge of making some critical advances, however, this process was accelerated for one specific group due to certain opportunities that appeared, and thus they accumulated knowledge, techology, wealth amongst themselves, and then this acceleration was increased exponentially by the aquisition of power that these advances allowed. Likewise, the sudden accumulation of overwhellming power within one group undermined the avancement of other societies, as they were forced to pay a lot of attention to defending themselves from the new and very powerful threat that has suddenly (in historical terms) appeared.

If this had not happened, your baseline standard, would not have appeared, either, and it would likely not be possible to make the comparison you are making, which assumes the baseline standared, because it is likely that technological development would have remained "flat", more or less, globallly.

The reason you are astonished is because you still believe (because you haven't been listening) that according to me, Islam is less conducive to science than Christianity.

I've never claimed that. I don't believe that. I reject that.

I am a historical materialist. I realize I'm repeating myself, but repetition can be salutary in the learning process.

"Era", and I daresay "religion" itself are irrelevant to the issue of how much scientific study people are engaged in. And these two points, often surface as part of European self-justification for their rapid delvopment, in various propaganda tropes (read Gordon above), and I think we should be careful about that.

And there is also this, which I think you should take into account as a historical materialist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unionist:

Religion, as a whole, is a force for suppression, for enforced ignorance, for preservation of the status quo. Marx said it was the opiate of the masses. Given an inch, it will put science to sleep as surely as it does the strivings for social change.

---

Narx nor Nengal's never said religion was a force for suppression or enforced ignorance. Engels's even said that "original sin" is the "first equality." Neither of them ever said anything about not giving it "an inch."

That is you.

He said the need for it will disappear when people no longer need the illusion of it, because it will be replaced by a material reality of their real happiness. There would be no need for religion in that context, he proposed.
Yes, they said that religion was the opiate of the masses, but in the full context he said:

quote:

---

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

---

I found your reference to Marx a little strange in this context, seeing as he never suggested the struggle against religion was at all central to his vision, because economy, and the matertial condition ruled his world view, and an outright attack upon religion, would be to miss the point in his view.

Even more clearly, Engels, in Anti-Dühring by 1877 argues against the "politically" anti-religious views.

quote:

---

But it does not matter what we want. What matters is what Herr Dühring wants. And he differs from Frederick II in this, that in the Dühringian future state certainly not everyone will be able to be happy in his own way. The constitution of this future state provides:

"In the free society there can be no religious worship; for every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers" {D. Ph. 286}. A "socialitarian system, rightly conceived, has therefore ... to abolish all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship" {D. C. 345}.

Religion is being prohibited.

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.... [cut for brevity]....Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life.

---

The last thing the Marx and Engels proposed was an evangelical rationalist attack on religion. In fact, they never argued for the direct abolition of religion, at all, contrary to popular belief but believe that once people had taken control of their material lives it would wither away.

They felt the emancipation of man would simply remove religion as a spirtual need altogether. They would have opposed Attaturks anti-religious reforms on the basis that "he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life."

And they would be right.

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I said - and repeat - that Islam (the religion and/or the regime) has done nothing in the last few centuries to encourage science, when it was not actively blocking it.

---

But hedonism, paganism, Chamber of Commerce, and Walt Disney have made few real contributions to science. Despite their efforts, I believe in something more than their narrow, self-interested focusses. I believe in taxation in support of society and publicly funded research, and I still have the freedom not to believe in Snow White and Seven Dwarfs.

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

The reason you are astonished is because you still believe (because you haven't been listening) that according to me, Islam is less conducive to science than Christianity. -unionist

---

unionist,

Jean-Pierre works in a restaurant. Three gentlemen, a rabbi, a priest and an imam stopped by after an inter-faith meeting and ordered their meals. He served two meals without pork.

Did Jean Pierre need to tell me who had the meal with pork? Did he need to tell me who had the meals without pork?

Do ou have any elementary notion of logic, deduction, induction?

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Narx nor Nengal's never said religion was a force for suppression or enforced ignorance. Engels's even said that "original sin" is the "first equality." Neither of them ever said anything about not giving it "an inch."

That is you.

---

Yes, of course that was my comment, not Marx's. For some strange reason you fiddled with the italics, quoting me from a previous thread, and made it look as if I was attributing this comment to Marx. Why are you doing this? Please have a look again, if it was a misreading, and retract your insinuation that I was adding something to Marx's quote.

quote:

---

The last thing the Marx and Engels proposed was an evangelical rationalist attack on religion. In fact, they never argued for the direct abolition of religion, at all, contrary to popular belief but believe that once people had taken control of their material lives it would wither away.

---

1) Why should I care what they proposed 150 years ago? I'm attacking some aspects of religion in 2008. I don't adhere to any "religion of Marxism", so I'm not bound by what any god or prophet said. 2) I'm not arguing for the "direct abolition of religion" either. I'm one of a very tiny handful of people in this society - indeed on babble - who states that religion is extremely destructive and divisive, and that religious ideology deserves no respect. But again, you're exaggerating my stand, because when I say I agree with your analysis of the development of science (which I do), you seem to get uncomfortable and look for some divergences.

Do you have a problem being in agreement with someone who says that the ideologies of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all bullshit?

quote:

---

They would have opposed Attaturks anti-religious reforms on the basis that [b]"he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life."

---

They proposed that religion was irrelevant to social development. You seem to be asserting the same thing, which is why your belligerence in this matter is suprising.

If something is irrelevant, you would think there was not much point to devoting a lot of time to debunking it and attacking it. I think, spending a lot of time in this endeavour is promoting a kind of ignorance of a another kind.

Its basicly jousting with windmills.

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
They proposed that religion was irrelevant to social development. You seem to be asserting the same thing, which is why your belligerence in this matter is suprising.

---

My belligerence regards your tendency to exaggerate, even misquote my arguments, making it seem our divergence is deeper than it is. I don't understand that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Opiate, as in a common 19th Century medicinal product, not Opiate as in a dangerous narcotic drug that should be banned, as it is to day. In his context he might as well have been saying, "religion is the Tylenol of the masses".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Geez. I saw three facts, and a conclusion drawn from those facts.

I have no dog in this fight. I was just pointing out that there was at least one alternate interpretation of the available evidence. Probably lots more than one.

---

And so Stephen, what was it about white Europeans that suddenly gave them access to this superior knowledge? Was is at revelation? A gift from god?

Or do you have some kind of emipircal theory of your own with a thesis and arguement, or is blind assertion good enough to get called a social-scientist in the field of "economics" these days?

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Not quite. If only the faithful felt no pain! Religion is more akin to a sleeping pill. That's what Marx meant, I think, and that's what I mean.

---

Its clearly evident that the western european naval powers were uniquely positioned to first discover, then exploit the new world. And this fact alone stands sailent in this history, as the one thing that really seperates these nations from the other more advanced nations in the world of the era.

It was way to far to go for the Japanese, and Chinese, while the Ottomans existed as an Asian land super-power, as was Russia. In other words they had no navy to speak of.

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In "A Short History of Progress", Wright describes societies of history and charasterized by ultra violent and savage. The progress made depended on how willing historical leaders of those societies were to subjugate or even exterminate natural surroundings and citizenry for the purpose of exploitation and excess enjoyed by an upper echelon. Societies pursuing excess continued for as long as natural environments could sustain them. I think Wright believes that evolution self-selected based on savagery and bred certain other characteristics out of the gene pool. If that were true, then we might be reading about a vicious empire today that has propped up megalomaniacal leaders in recent history from, say, Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, and the vicous empire might, for some window of opportunity post cold war era, attempt to continue with empire building to the point that excess threatens some sort of collapse or another, I don't know and only time could tell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Its clearly evident that the western european naval powers were uniquely positioned to first discover, then exploit the new world. And this fact alone stands sailent in this history, as the one thing that really seperates these nations from the other more advanced nations in the world of the era.

---

The Portuguese got the ball rolling because they were a maritime nation with a large economic incentive to discover new trade routes. It's hard to argue, however, that science wasn't in some way a precursor to the colonial period, because the development of navigation and ship building (which was Portugal's main contribution to the age of western imperialism that followed) requires science as an input.

You ask why the Europeans underwent a scientific revolution and nobody else did. Attributing it to colonization and exploitation of foreign resources is simplistic; certainly they did have influence, but it amounts to a single cause fallacy. And there's reason to think that may have been a lesser cause than many others.

Chronologically, we can see that Copernicus' scientific contributions to the theory of heliocentrism could not have been influenced by naval exploration and conquest, nor could the development of the printing press which is accepted as essential to the European renaissance In fact, the countries that exclusively engaged in colonialism during the sixteenth century -- Spain and Portugal -- made very little contribution to science during that time. Sir Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes lives in countries that had not yet begun developing empires.

We can speculate whether Leibniz and Newton would have been unable to develop calculus without European empire-building. But we should also consider the causes that had nothing to do with that.

In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, resulting in a few significant developments. The first was the migration of Byzantine scholars into central and western Europe, which decentralized many ideas. The second was the Ottoman replacement of the Byzantines as the main controllers of Mediterranean trade routes. Increased trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds allowed Christian scholars access to the accumulation of scientific knowledge that existed in Baghdad. The Catholic Church had attempted to wipe out classical scientific texts from Greek and Roman eras, but Islam had preserved many of them, and in many ways added to them.

So my assertion would be that the reason Europe developed technological sophistication beyond of the rest of the world is pretty much just luck. Lots of factors happened to play in together to get something started. Once the enlightenment took place, the rest was just inertia.

I'd also mark the development of Protestantism as a significant contributing factor to the scientific revolution. It broke the Catholic Church's chokehold on free-thinking. We can easily observe that scientific advances during this time came disproportionately (though not exclusively) from Protestant states.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

So, while we might say that Napoleon's decision to quit Moscow later in the year, combined with the lucky (or unlucky) circumstance of a particularly bad (good) winter, has a grave impact on the speediness of the collapse of his empire, geo-politcally speaking, his empire was doomed anyway.

The Protestant "free thinking" thing is really just part of the mythology. What really happened there was that the HRE could no longer hang on to the northern states as they solidified as social organism. There relationship with the Papacy put those Dutchies into a quasi-subservient position in relationship to the Hapsburgs because of the religious authority. Those states needed to break with the ruling religion, in order to fully establish themselves as independent states. Moreso, this comes as a direct response, chronologically speaking, to the ability of the Northern states, in particular the Dutch and the English to exploit new territories, and the consequent need to establish new rules for economy.

Lets not forget that a large body of Luther's "reform" target Catholic control of wealth, and the rules of the game, so to speak.

Regardless, of the fact that the Portuguese were more than adequate sailors, it should be noted that their travelling was strictly limited to plying the coasts of Africa, in the early part of their expansion, and their investment of South America came as hand baggage to the Spanish discovery of the Americas. You may remember their right was confirmed in the Treaty of Tordesillas, but an error was made because no one had considered the possibility of Portugal's westward exansion, only south.

Needless to say, were North America 3000 miles west of where it is, and thus 3000 miles closer to the Asian continent, it is very doubtful that any "discovery" of the America's would have happened in the 15th century given European sailing abilities of the era, and still doubful in the century after, and the probability is that large scale settlement and exploitation of North America would have been begun by the Japanese. The Chinese as well, as they were quite avid explorers. Both were more than capable of taking on the various indiginous Islander groups in the south pacific, and colonization went ahead at an astonishing pace.

At the very least, this would have meant that there would have been more card players at the table when North America was being carved up.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Regardless, of the fact that the Portuguese were more than adequate sailors, it should be noted that their travelling was strictly limited to plying the coasts of Africa, in the early part of their expansion, and their investment of South America came as hand baggage to the Spanish discovery of the Americas. You may remember their right was confirmed in the Treaty of Tordesillas, but an error was made because no one had considered the possibility of Portugal's westward exansion, only south.

---

There is some evidence that Bartholomew Diaz may have discovered South America before the Treaty was written, and Portugal kept it quiet deliberately so that the partition line would leave them a piece of the new world without the Spanish being aware of it. Useless bit of trivia.

Also, the Portuguese didn't limit their exploration to African coastline. They discovered and colonized the Azores quite early.

quote:

---

the probability is that large scale settlement and exploitation of North America would have been begun by the Japanese. The Chinese as well, as they were quite avid explorers. Both were more than capable of taking on the various indiginous Islander groups in the south pacific, and colonization went ahead at an astonishing pace.

---

The Japan thing is a bit of a stretch. Until 1900 the Japanese tended to keep to themselves as much as possible. Of course China did have a brief age of exploration, reaching the east coast of Africa at the same time Portuguese explorers were sailing down the west, but they lost interest in it. I don't know why.

And now I've completely lost track of the central theses that are being argued.

ETA: I missed this part, was it added later?

quote:

---

The Protestant "free thinking" thing is really just part of the mythology. What really happened there was that the HRE could no longer hang on to the northern states as they solidified as social organism. There relationship with the Papacy put those Dutchies into a quasi-subservient position in relationship to the Hapsburgs because of the religious authority. Those states needed to break with the ruling religion, in order to fully establish themselves as independent states.

---

The free thinking thing doesn't so much mean Protestantism arose as a revolt against the Church's scientific oppression (it didn't), but rather it enabled free thinking because it created jurisdictions where the Church was no longer able to suppress doctrinal dissent. This allowed heliocentrism to take root, among other unorthodox ideas.

quote:

---

Moreso, this comes as a direct response, chronologically speaking, to the ability of the Northern states, in particular the Dutch and the English to exploit new territories, and the consequent need to establish new rules for economy.

---

You lost me here. The Dutch and English didn't start colonial activities until the early 17th century. This was after all the Protestant/Reformist/Counter-Reform Catholic/etc movements had established themselves.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

Again saying things like "the Japanese tended to keep to themselves" is putting the cart before the horse, identifying the learned sociological behaviour as the cause, when in fact it is the outcome of the context.

Closure in Japan is clearly a result of the appearance of European influences -- I don't think there is an scholar who disputes this.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
You lost me here. The Dutch and English didn't start colonial activities until the early 17th century. This was after all the Protestant/Reformist/Counter-Reform Catholic/etc movements had established themselves.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

---

No Elizabeth one, champion of "tollerance" Daughter of the founder of the Anglican Church, was in fact the driving force behind early exploration and expansion of England into North America.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No actually both the Japanese and Chinese were avid colonizers. Particularly the Chinese. What inhibited them was that there was no where to go.

---

I'm not sure why they didn't bother with Africa.

quote:

---

Closure in Japan is clearly a result of the appearance of European influences...

---

With Christianity comes invasion, occupation, and exploitation. This the Japanese figured out soon enough. Their final subjugation had to wait until 1945.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

It could also be said that many early European traders were likewise good guests.

I don't subscribe to the notion that Christian Europeans are more likely to be abusive because of cultural factors, for the very same reasons that I do not subscribe to the notion that their technological superiority is a result of ideological indoctrination into Protestantism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No Elizabeth one, champion of "tollerance" Daughter of the founder of the Anglican Church, was in fact the driving force behind early exploration and expansion of England into North America.

---

I'm not getting how this works. England's early voyages were in the 1580s, and colonization didn't start in earnest until after 1600. Same with the Dutch. How could this be a cause of the religious schisms that had already occurred?

quote:

---

Africa was hardly accesible, in the way it was to the Europeans, since Africa is also next door. The Japanese and Chinease would have had to fight through the powerful Indian navies such as that of the Moghul Empire, and the Arabs of Oman to make such a trick work. The portuguese had much trouble with Oman at Zanzibar.

---

Are you making this up as you go along? The Chinese did reach Africa, and then gave up exploration. The Moghul Empire didn't exist in the 1400s, so the Chinese could hardly have been afraid of their navy.

quote:

---

With Christianity comes invasion, occupation, and exploitation. This the Japanese figured out soon enough.

---

Cheng Ho

And more

Zhang Quian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...for the very same reasons that I do not subscribe to the notion that their technological superiority is a result of ideological indoctrination into Protestantism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
In my opinion the European powers showed less respect for human life and that is why they were so good at colonising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

I'm not getting how this works. England's early voyages were in the 1580s, and colonization didn't start in earnest until after 1600. Same with the Dutch. How could this be a cause of the religious schisms that had already occurred?

---

You are not suggesting that the "reformation" happened overnight are you? You don't mean to say that "there was Luther and there was light", do you? I would think that the evolution of the reformations discourse evolved hand in hand with the evolving power of the states that found it useful as tool to establish liturgical and therefore political independence from the catholic hierarchy.

Note of course that the Dutch and English sign the treaty of Nonesuch, against the Spanish, and Drake is raiding Spanish possessions in the Caribbean. For this he becomes a knight of course. The imperial competition is underway, without a doubt.

Meanwhile domestically Elizabeth treads carefully. It would not be possible to say that England is "reformed" during her reign, though she does do a job on the highland Scots. Reformation is not just an idea but a political process that is happening in step with the expansion of the colonial empires, and "Protestantism" is the ideological mold which authorizes the assertion of independent power, in the colonial project.

What, pray tell, would the British have done had the Spanish insisted that the Treaty of Tordesillas should be respected by England?

In other words the apparent impact of the reformation is unduly magnified by the fact that it advances hand in hand with the assertion of independent power of the northern European states, and the colonial effort it emboldens.

Also, don't obfuscate by prevaricating, the phrase is "such as that of the Moghul Navy”. The Moghul Navy is one example of a powerful force in the Indian Ocean operating in the period we are talking about. Pointedly I also mentioned the slave traders of Oman. No such navies existed along the coast of Horn of Africa. We are talking about a colonial period taking place over four hundred years, not limited to the 15th Century The point is that this is not just a matter of “getting there” but being able to establish complete dominance of a trade route.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:

In my opinion the European powers showed less respect for human life and that is why they were so good at colonising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...for the very same reasons that I do not subscribe to the notion that their technological superiority is a result of ideological indoctrination into Protestantism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

No one has suggested otherwise.

---

How does that square with this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I'd also mark the development of Protestantism as a significant contributing factor to the scientific revolution. It broke the Catholic Church's chokehold on free-thinking. We can easily observe that scientific advances during this time came disproportionately (though not exclusively) from Protestant states.

---

This idea is thematic in Protestand ideological constructions that justify European cultural supremacy. The rationalists, simply, put aside the religious issue, and assert the "free-thinking" aspect of Luther's movement.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I don't have a hyperlink or definitive summary to offer but I read last year about historical evidence emerging from Chinese archives of China having visited and traded with India and Africa a number of centuries ago, even before Vasco de Gama and Cook's historical "firsts". They did so in huge boats that allowed them to bring back large animals (e.g. giraffes) from these countries. They did not attack, invade or colonize the countries they set sail for but traded equitably. (Of course, that is their version of the story.)
Does anyone else have more info on this?
The West still has to acknowledge how many of our so-called inventions were created centuries beforehand in China.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

He suggests that Mongol brutality is somewhat inflated by traditional Muslim sources, which is not to say they were lilly-white by any stretch of the imagination, but that their reputation is partly a result of their connection with Tamerlain, who claimed long after Chingiz Khan, that he was a Monghul Khan, as a way of legitimizing his reign. Or at least this is the way Wetherford constructs it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This idea is thematic in Protestand ideological constructions that justify European cultural supremacy. The rationalists, simply, put aside the religious issue, and assert the "free-thinking" aspect of Luther's movement.

---

Now this is back on subject.

I didn't say that protestantism has any magical property that makes its adherents smarter than that of other religions, as you seem to have interpreted it -- I certainly wouldn't, since it like all religions is antithetical to reason. I said the Catholic Church had been oppressive of free thinking, and the loosening of its grip allowed innovation to increase. It certainly wasn't a primary cause, but it happened to coincide with insemination of Europe with classical and Islamic texts on logic and mathematics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
When it comes to brutality, you Europeans have no imagination!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Now this is back on subject.

I didn't say that protestantism has any magical property that makes its adherents smarter than that of other religions, as you seem to have interpreted it -- I certainly wouldn't, since it like all religions is antithetical to reason. I said the Catholic Church had been oppressive of free thinking, and the loosening of its grip allowed innovation to increase. It certainly wasn't a primary cause, but it happened to coincide with insemination of Europe with classical and Islamic texts on logic and mathematics.

On the other hand, your thesis that the advance of science was driven by colonial activities is very weak, since the ideas that would lead to the enlightenment -- such as heliocentrism and the development of the printing press -- predate European colonialism.

---

No this is not on topic. This is to miss the point.

What you are missing is that I am not asserting a pure chronological ascendancy of process, but a collateral relationship between processess. I did not say that colonialism caused the enlightenment. I am saying that whatever innate benefit that some European technological achievments had was magnified by the opportunity that presented itself in the pillage of North America, as I said very far above the advantage was exponentially increased by the aquisition of power and wealth gained through colonial imperialism, and this in turn was rewarded by further technological advancement.

Your assertion seems to be that European power was caused by the existence of a few ideas and inventions, such as the printing press, and the "free thinking" Protestant (?!). I have pointed out that Columbus (a "close minded" Catholic in the pay of a "close minded" Catholic monarch) would certainly have been foiled, had he to travel and extra 2000 miles, even if we agree to assert that Europe had slightly superior naval ability in the 15th century. It is very likely he would have given up, or disappeard into legend, and no new expeditions would have taken place for years to come.

Furthermore, I am asserting that colonial domination, and the aquisition of power has created a environment where European narrative is suprmeme, so that it is Copernicus (another "close minded" Catholic) who is identified as the champion of "heliocentrism" when in fact this idea has been around for a long time, even though no one had the technical opporunity to overcome their geographic liability so that they could act upon it.

There is a particular convergence here where geography becomes a factor, given that naval technology the world over progressed at more or less the same rate up until it became really profitable for the European powers to invest in it. There was no need for great sea going fleets til that point, and most naval activity was coastal, like the Portuguese.

Please read my submission on the reformation in England, which is precisly on point, not off topic at all.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Oh, come on. Sowing smallpox epidemics was inspired, dammit!

---

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

In the 13th-14th centuries, the Muslim astronomers, Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and Ibn al-Shatir, developed mathematical techniques similar to those used by Copernicus, and it has been suggested that Copernicus may have been influenced by them.[citation needed] Copernicus also discusses the theories of Al-Battani and Averroes in his major work. Several Muslim astronomers also had discussions on the possibility of heliocentrism, such as Ibn al-Haytham, Abu-Rayhan Biruni, Abu Said Sinjari, 'Umar al-Katibi al-Qazwini, and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.

---

Copernican heliocentrism

In fact it was all a mistake:

quote:

---

Columbus, believed the (incorrect) calculations of Marinus of Tyre, putting the landmass at 225 degrees, leaving only 135 degrees of water. Moreover, Columbus believed that one degree represented a shorter distance on the earth's surface than was actually the case. Finally, he read maps as if the distances were calculated in Italian miles (1,238 meters). Accepting the length of a degree to be 56⅔ miles, from the writings of Alfraganus, he therefore calculated the circumference of the Earth as 25,255 kilometers at most, and the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles) Columbus did not realize Al-Farghani used the much longer Arabic mile (about 1,830 m).

The main problem was that experts did not accept his estimate. The true circumference of the Earth is about 40,000 km (25,000 sm), a figure established by Eratosthenes in the second century BC,[8] and the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan 19,600 km (12,200 sm). No ship that was readily available in the 15th century could carry enough food and fresh water for such a journey. Most European sailors and navigators concluded, likely correctly, that sailors undertaking a westward voyage from Europe to Asia non-stop would die of thirst or starvation long before reaching their destination. Spain, however, having completed an expensive war, was desperate for a competitive edge over other European countries in trade with the East Indies. Columbus promised such an advantage.

---

Christopher Columbus

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It has a good section of Muslims in Spain, and general life in Europe.

I've started a new one
here.