babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Islamic Creationism: A Short History

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Islamic Creationism: A Short History
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 21 February 2008 06:16 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Creationism, we often think, is a conservative Christian preoccupation. In the United States, young-earth creationists insist that the universe and all life were created in six days about six thousand years ago. There is also the newer intelligent design movement, which is a potent source of pressure on science education. Christian-flavored anti-evolutionary thought has a worldwide constituency, surfacing in Canada, Britain, Poland, Australia, Africa, Russia, and elsewhere. Still, attempts to promote “creation-science” and intelligent design as alternatives to mainstream science seem especially strong in the United States.

Muslim populations, however, provide a counterexample to this picture. Indeed, Islam has been the world religion that has proved most resistant to Darwinian evolution. Creationist distortions of science enjoy considerable support among modern Muslims. Among devout Muslim intellectuals, antievolutionary views are not fringe ideas but mainstream options. And Islamic versions of creationism have enjoyed official support to a degree that is the envy of American creationists. In many ways, the world’s most successful creationists are those who rise up to defend Islam, not Christianity.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 21 February 2008 08:28 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In many ways, the world’s most successful creationists are those who rise up to defend Islam, not Christianity. -

Hmm! I didn't know that there is a war between Islam and Christianity and that people are called to defend one camp or another.

Taner Edis, the author of this article, is of the same school of thought, and of the same voodooism in their knowledge of Islam as Irshad Manji.

Both lack training in the very subject they approach. Neither of them speak one word of Arabic, besides, maybe "Assalamu alaikom". Both have their academic training in other areas but somehow, after Spet 11, have suddenly discovered some 'academic' talent they did not know -nor did anyone else- they had. Both are vague in their discourse as to how Islam is backward. Both rely on anecdotal narratives of folks who are generally iliterate and definitely iliterate in Islamic theology and history. To both, Islam started with the Ottoman Empire (!?)

But why should knowledge and facts stand in the way of some personal aspirations and private interests ?

Wanted: Muslim, with some academic background who has something negative to say about Islam. promtion to "expert on Islam" guaranteed following first publication. We guarantee publication and wide, attentive and appreciative audiences. Generous compensation, opportunity to build public profile and excellent prospects for further promotions.

What a backward religion this Islam is!! This has become some kind off sport, non?

http://tinyurl.com/2zb27j

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 February 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 21 February 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
Profound and insightful.

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 10:14 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
What a backward religion this Islam is!! This has become some kind off sport, non?

All of them, religions that is, bear similar backward traits. None can be raised above or lowered through comparison, because doing so speaks to agendas, and not objectivity.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 10:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the enemies of science and scientific discovery. This has always been so, and many have suffered and been silenced for trying to counter the official superstitions. They haven't given up trying, and they know that the schools are one of the most fertile grounds for poisoning minds.

The suggestion, in the opening linked article, that Islamic hocus pocus is somehow more successful than than the evangelical Christian variety, smacks to me strongly of Islamophobia.

Here in Québec, we have taken the bull by the horns and told the religious fanatics that they must keep their "creation" myths - and their Puritanical anti-sex creed - out of the schools, or we will padlock them:

Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

With the intense pressure from the U.S. in favour of religious brainwashing, I am afraid that our secular society may change. The Mario Dumonts would happily reinstate Jesus Christ as King here, and Pauline Marois is more secular when it comes to non-Christian faiths (funny how that works).

The suggestion that Islam has some insight to offer about creation is, of course, laughable and offensive, but even more so is the rant against Islam as being somehow worse that Christianity or the others. It isn't. It is just as braindead.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 11:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the enemies of science and scientific discovery. This has always been so, and many have suffered and been silenced for trying to counter the official superstitions. They haven't given up trying, and they know that the schools are one of the most fertile grounds for poisoning minds.

I don't agree Islam appeared at a time of rapid scientific development in 8th century in the Middle East and precided of a period where scientific inquirey was very much encouraged and respected. Uncovering the mysteries of the devine has never been antithetical to Islamic culture generally.

I seen tons of Islamic literature wedding modern science to their religious belief, and conversations with Muslim people where they pose that the "big bang" is proof of gods existence.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 11:16 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I seen tons of Islamic literature wedding modern science to their religious belief, and conversations with Muslim people where they pose that the "big bang" is proof of gods existence.

Maybe I was too hasty.

For example, Islamic automotive sciences are on the verge of a gigantic breakthrough:

Women driving is not in conflict with religion

quote:
A well-regarded Saudi religious scholar said that there is nothing in Islamic law that bans women from driving and that the fatwas issued in this regard are based on individual judgments.

“In principle women driving is permitted in Islam,” said Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, a member of the Kingdom’s Council of Senior Islamic Scholars. [...]

The Saudi government has pointed out that there is no law that states women cannot drive. “The Interior Ministry’s stand is clear on this,” said ministry spokesman Gen. Mansour Al-Turki.

But in reality women are occasionally arrested when found driving. Arab News reported several instances in recent years of situations where women have been stopped by authorities and detained for the infraction of driving a vehicle.


Of course, one might say that they're not following the "correct" version of Islam.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 11:28 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
...With the intense pressure from the U.S. in favour of religious brainwashing, I am afraid that our secular society may change.
I do not believe the pressure is coming from just the USA, nor from just the "Christian" crowd.

You think you are afraid? Try being a woman viewing these things. Religion is and has always been in our fairly recent history, about repression of women and denying women equality rights, even if their religion does not call for it.

Last evening Jon Stewart had a repeat show with Mark Siegel, Benazzir Bhutto's friend and political advisor, on. He was doing a interview on "Reconciliation". And he detailed that Islam actually called for equality between men and women and that is what Bhutto was committed to bringing forth.

Now IMV, this is just another example, of men co-opting religion in order to further patriarchial hegemony and oppress/subjugate women.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Maybe I was too hasty.

For example, Islamic automotive sciences are on the verge of a gigantic breakthrough:

Women driving is not in conflict with religion


Scientific progress is not synomymous with social progress, as any perpipheral survey of human society can show, I believe. Rationalists, were mistaken in this regard, unfortunately.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Cueball, I didn't follow your point. I was trying to ridicule Islam in that particular post. What was your point?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scientific progress is not synomymous with social progress, as any perpipheral survey of human society can show, I believe. Rationalists, were mistaken in this regard, unfortunately.

Nor is religion, as exampled by a great swath of Islamic teaching, necesarily antithetical to scientific progress.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 22 February 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
(Doubled)

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 11:41 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, so even though some Saudi Muslim scholars have now determined that women can drive (under very carefully controlled conditions, of course), that doesn't necessarily mean that gender equality is just around the Saudi corner?

I have to wholeheartedly agree with that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 22 February 2008 11:43 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
If we are to take Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter as an indicator of what Islam is or is not, what it discourages, encourages and so on, might as well take gulags as an indicator of what "secularism" is all about.

A deal, unionist and Remind?


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
If we are to take Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter as an indicator of what Islam is or is not, what it discourages, encourages and so on, might as well take gulags as an indicator of what "secularism" is all about.

A deal, unionist and Remind?


I knew it! Saudi Islam isn't the true faith!

Which Islamic regime or scholar would you like us to take instead, adam, as representing the real thing? You choose.

ETA: Perhaps it's the Afghan variety?

Afghan on trial for Christianity

quote:
Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law, and prosecutors in the case says this means Abdul Rahman, whose trial began last Thursday, should be put to death.

When he was arrested last month he was found to be carrying a bible and charged with rejecting Islam which is punishable by death in Afghanistan.

Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41, would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan.

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

But if he refused to reconvert, then his mental state would be considered first before he was dealt with under Sharia law, the judge added.


So you see, Islamic science has obviously made tremendous strides in the psychological sciences as well.

Will wonders never cease?

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 22 February 2008 11:53 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
The ones that put into practice the true message of Islam: equality of men and women.
From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 11:55 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
The ones that put into practice the true message of Islam: equality of men and women.

Must be a short list...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 22 February 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
Islam is a religion that encourages free thinking, questioning and allows dissent. For better or worse! It has no central authority or hierarchy to dictate interpretations. No excommunication. No Muslim is allowed to judge another as Muslim or non-Muslim.

Saudi Arabia has Wahhabism as its interpretor of Islam. Other societies do not give a hoot about Wahabism and follow theirown path.

Only in the minsformed's eyes that Saudi Arabia (or Iran) constitues the "model" of what Islam is all about. It is not because Saudi Arabia has Mecca and Medina that it is the "leade" in interpreting the Islamic mission.


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 22 February 2008 12:10 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Must be a short list... -unionist

To some, quipping -and interjecting with vulgarities, for that matter- constitue "discussing".

ETA: a coma after "some".

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 12:36 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Now IMV, this is just another example, of men co-opting religion in order to further patriarchial hegemony and oppress/subjugate women.[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

MV too.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 12:37 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
Islam is a religion that encourages free thinking, questioning and allows dissent. For better or worse!
That is what Siegal was saying last night, and I fully intend to buy "Reconcilliation" next week.

quote:
It has no central authority or hierarchy to dictate interpretations.
Perhaps this is a downfall as much as having a central authority is?

quote:
No excommunication.
Other religions, or beliefs in mythology also do not excommunicate.

quote:
No Muslim is allowed to judge another as Muslim or non-Muslim.
Really, now this is news, I wonder how come there has been an on going judgemental war between Shia and Sunni then, for several hundred years, I might add?

And whom are they not allowed by, if there is no central authority?

quote:
Only in the minsformed's eyes that Saudi Arabia (or Iran) constitues the "model" of what Islam is all about.
Fair enough, then what country do you suggest as a good model?

quote:
It is not because Saudi Arabia has Mecca and Medina that it is the "leade" in interpreting the Islamic mission.
I do not think anyone suggested that, and I know it never crossed my mind to even think that.

But then I put little store in mythological relics and alleged holy places, as I tend to see them as worshiping the idol and not practising the ideal.

Though I do acknowledge the existence of Ley Lines and those things that stand upon them, but then they are not mythogical.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
So you see, Islamic science has obviously made tremendous strides in the psychological sciences as well. Will wonders never cease?
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Ha. Do you have any good ones involving the guys with the pointy hats, dreadlocks, frocks and gowns etc.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 12:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Fair enough, then what country do you suggest as a good model?.

Well, I don't think there are any "good" models for any of the current systems in place around the globe. None, ever seems to approach the ideal they set for themeselvs, and in terms of ideologies, there is a great disparity between what the ideal is meant to be from country to country.

But, one could easily say that Turkey, more accurately reflects traditional Islamic ideals, even though it is highly secularized, because secularization of some kind is a very common theme in many Islamic traditions. The idea, for example, that Jews should be banned from living in Saudi Arabia, is unique to modern Saudi Arabia, and a concept completely out of touch with any other Islamic tradition, historically speaking.

Yes, it can be said that most majority muslims societies are prejudicial against minorities to a geater or lesser extent, though almost all societies are prejudiced against minorities, regardless of the composition of the majority ethnic group. But the outright banning of non-believer populations is completely out of wack with mainstream Islamic tradition anywhere.

Even on this point alone, it can be seen that Saudi Arabia, is not at all representative of core Islamic traditions.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 February 2008 12:51 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Ha. Do you have any good ones involving the guys with the pointy hats, dreadlocks, frocks and gowns etc.


Not funny at all, in fact I find it reprehensible. If you had bothered reading anything Unionist has ever written about religion he always includes the Middle East triad; Xianity, Judaism and Islam. So far he seems to balanced in his disgust for all three.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 12:56 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
....But the outright banning of non-believer populations is completely out of wack with mainstream Islamic tradition anywhere.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

True, as long as the non-believer's know their place.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Not funny at all, in fact I find it reprehensible. If you had bothered reading anything Unionist has ever written about religion he always includes the Middle East triad; Xianity, Judaism and Islam. So far he seems to balanced in his disgust for all three.

This is why I asked him, knowing this. I wouldn't want this thread to solely involve the ridicule of one tenant, when so many others are just as deserving. We'd want to avoid narrowing it down to just one, which has potential to bring forth some distasteful overtones. Respectfully, I'd ask you to withhold your wrath, if only momentarily...ok.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

True, as long as the non-believer's know their place.


This could be said, of any society containing culturally distinct groups. Tollerance is often predicated on the passive co-operation of ethnic minoroties. This is not unique to Islamic majority societies.

For example, the Thai Budhist majority is actively supressing its Muslim minority as we speak. The USA quite speedily rounded up Japanese American's during the war, on the basis, that a few of them had been turned to the Japanese cause.

The question is wether or not such "intollerance" is uniquely different in Islamic custom, or if "intollerance" is justified differently depending on the ideological orthodoxy that is dominant.

Russian Communists found plenty of justification for the repression of ethnic minorities under the guise of promoting the universal brotherhood of man. My feeling is that the rulling ideology is more often than not the source of the authorizing justification for resolving matters that are otherwise really the real-politik political expediency. The ideology is just the veneer, not the source.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 01:05 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, I don't think there are any "good" models for any of the current systems in place around the globe. None, ever seems to approach the ideal they set for themeselvs, and in terms of ideologies, there is a great disparity between what the ideal is meant to be from country to country.
Well, the most constant theme is the oppression of woman, in most all Muslim countries, except as you noted Turkey. But then Turkey, and its concepts of Islam are rejected by other Muslims, and hence the fighting between Sunni and Shia, no?

However, I recognize it is not just Islam, that for the most part, its adherents teach and practise oppression of women, all the major religions do. They all are an expression of patriarchy, and one could say they are the vehicle through which patriarchy has been administered throughout the recent ages.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 01:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

This is why I asked him, knowing this. I wouldn't want this thread to solely involve the ridicule of one tenant.


This thread, for your information, is about Islamic creationism.

I said - for your information - that the linked article looks Islamophobic to me.

If you have a problem with my ridiculing Islam and challenging its defenders in this thread, say so openly.

So far, none of them have given us an actual benign example of Islam promoting scientific advance (other than the Golden Age of which we are all aware, which ended in the 14th century).

Instead, they say: "Oh no, that's not Islam! Don't use that example!"

Give us an example, or retract your idle speculation.

Religion - all religion - is the sworn enemy of science. Occasionally they live in truce - but never at peace.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 February 2008 01:14 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

This is why I asked him, knowing this. I wouldn't want this thread to solely involve the ridicule of one tenant, when so many others are just as deserving. We'd want to avoid narrowing it down to just one, which has potential to bring forth some distasteful overtones. Respectfully, I'd ask you to withhold your wrath, if only momentarily...ok.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]



I guess this is an example why ironic racism is not allowed. It is just too easily misunderstood.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Unionist, I didn't just talk about the Golden Age. What I said was that the Golden Age was foundational to Islamic traditions, and its self-conception, hence the fact that many Muslim people welcome scientific progress, and do not see it as conflicting with their essential spirtual beliefs, but instead welcome it as further proof of gods infinite wisdom.

But then I pointed out that mere scientific progress, can not be said to synonymous with social progress. Darwin's explorations of South American anminal evolution would simply not have taken place, were it not done in the context of the expansion of European imperial hegemony into America.

In other words, scientific progress alone, is no measure of civility.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 01:28 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.
Yes exactly as as you say below:

quote:
The ideology is just the veneer, not the source.

The source is patriarchy.

And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This could be said, of any society containing culturally distinct groups. Tollerance is often predicated on the passive co-operation of ethnic minoroties. This is not unique to Islamic majority societies....The question is wether or not such "intollerance" is uniquely different in Islamic custom, or if "intollerance" is justified differently depending on the ideological orthodoxy that is dominant.

I'm inclined to accept that each dominant non-secular society struggles to organize themselves within the confines of their respective doctrine, as a way to demonstrate at least some legitimacy both inward and outward. The culturally distinct enclaves adapt to the restrictions in order to achieve co-existence, or merely survival in some cases. To view this paradigm as unique to a single culture would ignore what occurs within our own. In the North American context, we see examples of how Muslim communities who wish to hear the call to prayer from mosques facing controversy within the dominant culture.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

The source is patriarchy.

And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.


How so? When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."

Of course this is an expression of latent cultural and ideological bias infecting the scientific progress, but these cases are numerous.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 01:41 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But then I pointed out that mere scientific progress, can not be said to synonymous with social progress. Darwin's explorations of South American anminal evolution would simply not have taken place, were it not done in the context of the expansion of European imperial hegemony into America.

In other words, scientific progress alone, is no measure of civility.


Perhaps if I was a God believing person, then I would see the hand of God creating imperial hegemony to further social progress?!

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Darwins theory has often found a place as the justification for capitalist "competative" social relations.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

I'm inclined to accept that each dominant non-secular society struggles to organize themselves within the confines of their respective doctrine, as a way to demonstrate at least some legitimacy both inward and outward.


I assert that this rule is not limited to non-secular ideological forms.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 22 February 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
Back to the main issue, I disagree with the article's point about comparison of Islam and Christianity with regard to creationism.

First one should note that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not three independent and separate religions. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity is supposed to be a continuation of Judaism. Islam is considered a new version (or re-adjustment) of Christianity and Judaism. That's why Muslims essentially believe all three religions were one "true religion", just presented and interpreted at different times. Because of that, the beliefs of these three religions are based on the same foundation (even Islamic Sharia law is rooted in Old Testament laws in the book of Leviticus) and that's why you hear muslims sometimes claim Abraham or other biblical figures were "muslim", i.e. followers of that one true religion.

In my view, as the human race progressed over the 2000 years period from Judaism to Christianity to Islam, the common religious view in these monotheistic religions evolved as well. As a result we could say theologically Islam is more modern than Christianity and Christianity is more modern than Judaism. It seems to me the God of Judaism almost has a physical nature, like the grand patriarch of a tribe, with human like emotions and actions on a grand scale. The Christian God is more detached, having both a human side and an eternal one. And the God of Islam is essentially an eternal "force" with no physical attribution. Because by the time of Islam, people's mind would no longer believe the idea of a physical strong man sitting in the sky and taking care of the universe.

Now with regard to Creationism, I am not a theological expert, but from the little I have read I think there are a few issues in Juedo-Christian thought that essentially mandates the believers to reject evolution. Those are:

- The belief that Earth was created only a few thousands years ago (6000-7000?) and within six days.
- The belief that all creatures were created at the same time with the universe (I read an article from a leading American conservative columnist that he had no doubt Dinosaurs and men used to live side by side).
- The belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created alongside with the universe.

None of the above beliefs exist that firmly in Islamic theology.

1) Quran does not provide a timeline for the human history since creation of universe (Old testament does). Only states that the universe was created in six "Youm", a word that can be interpreted as "days" or "Period/era". Modern muslim thinkers often interpret it as "period/era". It is therefore no problem in Islamic theology to accept that the earth may be billions of years old.

2) There is no indication anywhere in Quran or other Islamic sources that implies all creatures were created at the same time. On the contrary, Quran states that God is "continuously creating".

3) The issue of Adam and Eve is extremely interesting. While Quran quotes essentially the same story as Bible, it adds a twist: "and God said to the angels: I am going to create the man to be my representative on the earth. The angels cried: Are you going to have about ANOTHER creature who would ruin the world and bring blood and destruction AGAIN"?

Several Muslim thinkers thought that the notion of "Another" and "Again" implied man existed in the past on the earth and went extinct, and as such, Adam and Eve were the first of the "new generation" of humans. I read an opinion from one of them that, in his view, the timeline might refer to the ice age; i.e. several human races were destroyed during the ice ages and the Adam and Eve story reflects the new "humans", us.

Based on the above, it is incorrect to say that opposition to evolution in Islamic world is stronger than Christians. The concept of ape evolving to men sounds unacceptable to most there; however, the basic notion that an animal could evolve into another, based on God's order, is in line with Islamic theology. So in a way many Islamic scholars do support the idea of a God-driven evolutionary process. This concept does not, in any way, conform to Juedo-Christian thought.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 01:49 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
This thread, for your information, is about Islamic creationism. If you have a problem with my ridiculing Islam and challenging its defenders in this thread, say so openly.
So far, none of them have given us an actual benign example of Islam promoting scientific advance (other than the Golden Age of which we are all aware, which ended in the 14th century).
Instead, they say: "Oh no, that's not Islam! Don't use that example!"
Give us an example, or retract your idle speculation. Religion - all religion - is the sworn enemy of science. Occasionally they live in truce - but never at peace.

No, I don't appreciate threads where there is a single preoccupation with one belief or another, because the trend in doing so invariably leads to places both of us would avoid I'm certain. I asked for your assistance in creating a broader perspective, away from a cascade towards Islamofobia, while other fobias go unmentioned. What do you expect from an infidel.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sanizadeh:
Back to the main issue, I disagree with the article's point about comparison of Islam and Christianity with regard to creationism.

First one should note that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not three independent and separate religions. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity is supposed to be a continuation of Judaism. Islam is considered a new version (or re-adjustment) of Christianity and Judaism. That's why Muslims essentially believe all three religions were one "true religion", just presented and interpreted at different times. Because of that, the beliefs of these three religions are based on the same foundation (even Islamic Sharia law is rooted in Old Testament laws in the book of Leviticus) and that's why you hear muslims sometimes claim Abraham or other biblical figures were "muslim", i.e. followers of that one true religion.

In my view, as the human race progressed over the 2000 years period from Judaism to Christianity to Islam, the common religious view in these monotheistic religions evolved as well. As a result we could say theologically Islam is more modern than Christianity and Christianity is more modern than Judaism. It seems to me the God of Judaism almost has a physical nature, like the grand patriarch of a tribe, with human like emotions and actions on a grand scale. The Christian God is more detached, having both a human side and an eternal one. And the God of Islam is essentially an eternal "force" with no physical attribution. Because by the time of Islam, people's mind would no longer believe the idea of a physical strong man sitting in the sky and taking care of the universe.

Now with regard to Creationism, I am not a theological expert, but from the little I have read I think there are a few issues in Juedo-Christian thought that essentially mandates the believers to reject evolution. Those are:

- The belief that Earth was created only a few thousands years ago (6000-7000?) and within six days.
- The belief that all creatures were created at the same time with the universe (I read an article from a leading American conservative columnist that he had no doubt Dinosaurs and men used to live side by side).
- The belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created alongside with the universe.

None of the above beliefs exist that firmly in Islamic theology.

1) Quran does not provide a timeline for the human history since creation of universe (Old testament does). Only states that the universe was created in six "Youm", a word that can be interpreted as "days" or "Period/era". Modern muslim thinkers often interpret it as "period/era". It is therefore no problem in Islamic theology to accept that the earth may be billions of years old.

2) There is no indication anywhere in Quran or other Islamic sources that implies all creatures were created at the same time. On the contrary, Quran states that God is "continuously creating".

3) The issue of Adam and Eve is extremely interesting. While Quran quotes essentially the same story as Bible, it adds a twist: "and God said to the angels: I am going to create the man to be my representative on the earth. The angels cried: Are you going to have about ANOTHER creature who would ruin the world and bring blood and destruction AGAIN"?

Several Muslim thinkers thought that the notion of "Another" and "Again" implied man existed in the past on the earth and went extinct, and as such, Adam and Eve were the first of the "new generation" of humans. I read an opinion from one of them that, in his view, the timeline might refer to the ice age; i.e. several human races were destroyed during the ice ages and the Adam and Eve story reflects the new "humans", us.

Based on the above, it is incorrect to say that opposition to evolution in Islamic world is stronger than Christians. The concept of ape evolving to men sounds unacceptable to most there; however, the basic notion that an animal could evolve into another, based on God's order, is in line with Islamic theology. So in a way many Islamic scholars do support the idea of a God-driven evolutionary process. This concept does not, in any way, conform to Juedo-Christian thought.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


Thanks for this post.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
How so?
By being able to definitively state where all our ancestors origins were, and when, by tracking DNA markers. And by advancing the teaching of history through this framework, and one that has patriarchy removed as bias.

quote:
When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."
Men will always use whatever they can to keep patriarchy alive and well. But I believe the methodology of science when propeerly used, dispells gender bias.

quote:
Of course this is an expression of latent cultural and ideological bias infecting the scientific progress, but these cases are numerous.

Yes, it is and it should also be removed where it exists. But I in no way think that there are a majority of sociologists and antropologists who hold a gender bias.

Moreover, if a study done has an apparent bias to the dominant gender, it should be restudied by a gender opposite.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 02:00 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sanizadeh:
(I read an article from a leading American conservative columnist that he had no doubt Dinosaurs and men used to live side by side).

Stockwell Day's penpal.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 February 2008 02:03 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Darwin was wrong and Kropotkin was right about how evolution works. It is not survival of the fittest it is the species that engage in Mutual Aid that have an advantage over species that don't.

quote:
It happened with Darwin's theory as it always happens with theories having any bearing upon human relations. Instead of widening it according to his own hints, his followers narrowed it still more. And while Herbert Spencer, starting on independent but closely allied lines, attempted to widen the inquiry into that great question, "Who are the fittest?" especially in the appendix to the third edition of the Data of Ethics, the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits. They came to conceive the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another's blood. They made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology. They raised the "pitiless" struggle for personal advantages to the height of a biological principle which man must submit to as well, under the menace of otherwise succumbing in a world based upon mutual extermination. Leaving aside the economists who know of natural science but a few words borrowed from second-hand vulgarizers, we must recognize that even the most authorized exponents of Darwin's views did their best to maintain those false ideas.

...
As soon as we study animals -- not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and the prairie, in the steppe and the mountains -- we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favours the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.


Mutual Aid


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 02:05 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Stockwell Day's penpal.


Oh, btw, thanks for that poem in another thread, the one inscribed at the UN. The author is a favorite of my companion, originally from Shiraz.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 02:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly right. "Survival of the fittest" has been actively inserted into common capitalist discourse, as scientific authorization for standing social norms.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 02:08 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As in the market will correct itself..
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scientifisism and Rationalist Fundamentalism, has been an active force in National Socialism, Soviet Communism and Western Capitalism.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Point? Religiousity started committing crimes against humanity, women in specific long before any of the isms you mentioned did.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 February 2008 02:24 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds better to say god made me do it and put me charge than the devil made me.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 22 February 2008 03:17 PM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Stockwell Day's penpal.

Here it is:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977
"Why I believe in Creation" by Joseph Farah

quote:

Since the evolutionists don't want to tell me why they believe in their theory, I figured I would explain why I believe in mine.

The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.

But what about the worldly evidence?

The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!


Of course he is right on that point though. He knows better than anybody else that dinosaurs (such as himself) are not extinct.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 03:20 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Darwins theory has often found a place as the justification for capitalist "competative" social relations.

And bank robbers use the rules of arithmetic when divvying up the loot... Very impressive argument, Cueball.

I guess Islam, Judaism and Christianity have been getting a bum rap after all.

It's just all their mortal practitioners who have distorted the teachings to commit murder, rape, pillage, persecution, misogyny, genocide of Aboriginal people and of infidels worldwide...

The teachings themselves are simply wonderful - love, virtue, science, hell socialism - all inherent in the ravings of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 February 2008 03:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Darwin was wrong and Kropotkin was right about how evolution works. It is not survival of the fittest it is the species that engage in Mutual Aid that have an advantage over species that don't.

Ummm, hello, Darwin never applied his theory of natural selection to society - only to biological evolution. You must be thinking of that asshole Herbert Spencer. Have you actually ever read any Darwin?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

And bank robbers use the rules of arithmetic when divvying up the loot... Very impressive argument, Cueball.


Yes. Its pretty obvious I agree. It was odd that I had to mention it. The means of transport for Darwins explorations were paid for with resources stolen from "West Indies" and the safety of his passage guaranteed by the European navies that plied the coasts, and set armies robbing and pillaging the local people, just as Columbuses discovery of the shape of the world was made primarily as a mission of exploration of new territories to conquer, to glorify the coffers of the Spanish monarchs.

So no, there is not a lot of evidence that scientific achievement, in and of itself, goes hand in hand with ethical, moral or social advancement, per se. This is not to subvert the intrinsic value of many scientific achievements, but seperate them from their casus beli, which is that scientifc achievement is in an of its self a guiding light for moral rectitude, as it has been posed by rationalists.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 February 2008 03:35 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Ummm, hello, Darwin never applied his theory of natural selection to society - only to biological evolution. You must be thinking of that asshole Herbert Spencer. Have you actually ever read any Darwin?


quote:
It happened with Darwin's theory as it always happens with theories having any bearing upon human relations. Instead of widening it according to his own hints, his followers narrowed it still more. And while Herbert Spencer, starting on independent but closely allied lines, attempted to widen the inquiry into that great question, "Who are the fittest?" especially in the appendix to the third edition of the Data of Ethics, the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits.
I think this from the quote above is what you mean. Yes I said Darwin instead of Darwinists, sorry.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 22 February 2008 06:20 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I guess this is an example why ironic racism is not allowed. It is just too easily misunderstood.

And you found an instance of this?


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 22 February 2008 06:35 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wonderful post by sanizadeh. Looks like the fundamentalist Xians are the main culprits in perpetuating this sort of crap:

quote:
I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!
Show me the dinosaurs in the bible, dude.

quote:
But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.
True. But religion sanctifies the oppression of women.

From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 08:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So does Lionel Tiger under the authority of social biological science.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, I person, as opposed to centuries of multiple religions.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 08:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, in fact sociobiology is closely linked to many of the false scientific doctrines errected in the name of science, such as "eugenics", which relied, and continues to rely today on research into DNA, and other scientific fields, giving scientific authority to gender opression, and also racism. Its not "a" person, it is a whole field of scholastic research which fell into disrepute, not because it was scientifically proven to be false, but because it was politically discredited.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 08:44 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read exactly 1 report about persons trying to use DNA to prove gender inequality.

But really none of this aside discussion matters, as men will use whatever vehicle they can to oppress women and I, as a woman, would rather give science the next 2000 years, as opposed to allowing religions to have another 2000.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 08:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually the biological arguement that is intended to prove the natural status of womens inequality is probably the most common one around, imo.

Speaking of which, ever see this:

quote:
A review of the most prominent late 19th century writings by biologists focusing on Charles Darwin reveals that a major plank of evolution theory was the belief that women were intellectually and physically inferior to men. Female inferiority was a logical conclusion of the natural selection worldview because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war, competition for mates, food and clothing. Conversely, women were protected from evolutionary selection by norms which dictated that men were to provide for and protect women and children. Darwinists taught that as a result of this protection, natural selection operated far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas. As a result, males evolved more than females. The female inferiority doctrine is an excellent example of the armchair logic that has often been more important in establishing evolutionary theory than fossil and other empirical evidence.


The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism


quote:
Vogt argued that ‘the child, the female, and the senile White’ all had the intellectual features and personality of the ‘grown up Negro,’ and that in intellect and personality the female was similar to both infants and the ‘lower’ races.22 Vogt concluded that human females were closer to the lower animals than males and had ‘a greater’ resemblance to apes than men.23 He believed that the gap between males and females became greater as civilizations progressed, and was greatest in the advanced societies of Europe.24 Darwin was ‘impressed by Vogt’s work and proud to number him among his advocates.’25

Racist and sexist all in one.

quote:
As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves, the brain would almost certainly become larger. … the large proportion which the size of man’s brain bears to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers … . … that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilized races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series.’47

-- Darwin

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2008 09:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank goodness science has progressed well beyond that structure based upon empirical evidence otherwise. And in such a short time frame too, as cpompared to religions, who have still not gotten to the truth of equality after 2000 years of trying.

In fact, their resounding failure over 2000 years really says it all.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2008 10:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you are being consistent, really. Either the source is patriarchy, or the source is religion. I am perfectly willing to accept that religion is a tool through which patriarchy can be manifested, but, there are numerous examples of how patriarchy can be manfiested in the rationalist "scientific" frame.

Summers' remarks on women draw fire

quote:
CAMBRIDGE -- The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

I would also submit that science, both directly in terms of it institutions (universities for example), and as an field of philosophical endeavour (e.g. Jesuit scholars), is embedded in previous religious practice, wherein the attempt to explain the world through the mechanism of a devine being has been replaced by by an attempt to explain the world as a set of physical processes. Not that they are the same, but they are both "explanations" that carry social authority and can be used justify or explain the reigning social order, and function similarly in the organization of society, whereby, at least in most peoples experience, knowledge is handed to them by persons of authority, even if the receiver of the knowledge really does not understand what is being said.

Most people do not for example understand the basic processess that go into a nuclear explosion, and even those lay people who do endeavour some level of understanding, are required at some point, to accept certain issues on faith, for example the complex mathematics required is far beyond the scope of most peoples abilities. Certainly mine, though I can more or less explain the rudimentary principles behind what happens when a nuclear reaction takes place.

So, in many cases, the general experience of the population when exposed to "science" is one where they are cut off from the exact understanding of the science which they are being asked to accept. So, for example, the sceintific authority can easily lend itself to false, and extremely politcized ideas, such as those of eugenics which were extremely popular in the 30's and not merely the domain of Nazi racialists. Roosevelt (or was it Truman?) believed that the Japanese were 5000 years behind on the evolutionary scale.

Nonetheless, in these conditions it was very, very possible for science to become politicized, to the extent where all German universities were teaching bogus science, that was the transmitted to the popular press to justify Nazi racialist policies, and given weight by its presumption of its "scientific" authority.

Surely we can say, this was false and improper use of science, but then most religious scholars faced with clearly prejudicial or immoral interpretations of their religious doctrines will likewise cleave to the idea that these abrogations of "what is right" are improper interpretation of religious text.

So, in the end I really come down to the conclusion that the issue is not one of ideolology per se, but one of how power and politics manifest through ideology, whatever that ideology may be.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 02:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually the biological arguement that is intended to prove the natural status of womens inequality is probably the most common one around, imo.

You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?

Don't try teaching this in Québec. We'll padlock your "school".

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with male v. female nor social structures.

I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. Carry on and let us know the results of your research, though.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 04:06 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?

Don't try teaching this in Québec. We'll padlock your "school".

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with male v. female nor social structures.

I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. Carry on and let us know the results of your research, though. -unionist


I do not think you understood the point Cueball was making (and demonstrably succeded in making).

Here is what I understood. Remind wrote about the source of oppression of women:

quote:
The source is patriarchy.

And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.


Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.

Indeed Jean Jacques Rousseau, humanist, rationalist, who does not believe in "mythology", wrote:

quote:
The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy."

http://womenshistory.about.com/blrous1.htm


quote:
I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. -unionist

He is not. But I will let Cueball answer.

"Islam is nonsense." unionist's humanism makes much more sense. (Read above quotation of humanist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thousand of years after Judaism, about 17 centuries after Christianity and about 11 ccenturies after Islam.)

Or is humanism allowed some "aberrations" but not people who interpret religions ?

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 04:21 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the enemies of science and scientific discovery. -unionist

As a friend of science, yourself, could you abide by its rules and provide the evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and scientific discovery.

Unless you are merely peddling mythologies, pun intended.

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 04:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.

Cueball doesn't like the topic of his thread (religion vs. science), so he is trying hard to derail it (as you are) into religion vs. social good, religion vs. morality, whatever.

That's why talk of creationism immediately gets distorted into irrelevant attacks on Darwin's theory of evolution via: (1) how some colonial ideologues tried to apply (falsely) the theory of evolution to social and racial matters; and (2) comparing Darwin to Columbus (hahaha) to discredit his science. You could probably do the same with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

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.

quote:
"Islam is nonsense." unionist's humanism makes much more sense. (Read above quotation of humanist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thousand of years after Judaism, about 17 centuries after Christianity and about 11 ccenturies after Islam.)

Or is humanism allowed some "aberrations" but not people who interpret religions ?


You really can't sleep easy without pinning some idiotic label on me?

I am not a "humanist". Who told you I was? I'm a human being, an atheist, a person who respects scientific, artistic, cultural, social and political achievements of all societies and all human beings greatly. I also honour and respect non-human living things and oppose the abuse and destruction of the natural world.

It is because of these feelings and prejudices of mine that I despise religion. And because most people are terrified shitless to say anything negative about religion, I have to give them a voice from time to time.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 04:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?


Is there something worng with the information other than the fact that it is being parlayed by Christians? I thought that was kind of clever actually.

Sure all information is suspect to bias because of its source, but as judge once said of the cops a trial I was attending: "The same could be said of your witnessess."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 05:07 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(1) how some colonial ideologues tried to apply (falsely) the theory of evolution to social and racial matters -unionist

But you would not allow that some elements would apply (falsely) the mission of a -any- religion to advance their own patriarchal interests.

What is good for the gander is not good for the goose ?

Anyway, you have yet to provide your evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and discovery. Should I hold my breath or simply assume that you refuting mythologies by peddling your own brand of mythologies ?

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 05:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
As a friend of science, yourself, could you abide by its rules and provide the evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and scientific discovery.

I can't imagine that you're being serious, but I'll suspend disbelief for a moment:

quote:
83 They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story."

84 Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.

85 One (such) way he followed,

86 Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

87 He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard of (before).

88 "But whoever believes, and works righteousness, he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command."


Whoever wrote this foolishness - and it is re-printed and shoved down children's throats to this day - obviously didn't care that science had long since established that the earth wasn't flat (one of the underlying assumptions of this silly story). Indeed, Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) had long since measured, to a remarkable degree of accuracy, the circumference of the earth (and its distance from the sun and the moon).

Religious obscurantism then - as today - continues to deny scientific progress and tries to attribute humanity's achievements to some unemployed deity.

quote:
But you would not allow that some elements would apply (falsely) the mission of a -any- religion to advance their own patriarchal interests.

Of course I allow that. The difference is that you can't apparently name one single piece of Qur'anic or Islamic doctrine or scholarship that truly favours science. In science, on the contrary, accepted experimental and theoretical accomplishments are the rule - Spencerian distortions are the temporary exception, which are swiftly refuted and widely reviled.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 05:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a metapahor.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 05:14 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It's a metapahor.

Hahahaha. It means whatever I say it means! The good bits are to be taken at face value - the stupid and evil bits are a "metaphor" for something good and intelligent!

Give me a serious break.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 05:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like poetry to me.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 05:20 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Looks like poetry to me.

Not a single Islamic regime or scholar is within a century of modern progressive scientific thought. Same goes with the Jews, the Catholics, and others. At the very best, they have to drag their religious idiocy kicking and screaming into "metaphorical" concordance with the simple facts that any schoolchild, today, understands better than the men of the cloth (because there are really no women, are there).

These scholars and regimes should select another poem to inspire them, instead of waging war with each other over whose Supreme Deity can kick the ass of the others.

Might I suggest a poem to replace the Qur'an, the Tanach, and the Gospels?

quote:
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 05:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice. But very unscientific.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 05:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Nice. But very unscientific.

Owen's poem is not scientific - it is realistic. Find me a few shuras, pesukim or verses that can boast that quality.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 05:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

That doesn't sound very realistic or scientific... looks metaphorical to me, since it is obviously niether scientific or realistic.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 05:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

That doesn't sound very realistic or scientific... looks metaphorical to me, since it is obviously niether scientific or realistic.


Right. Luckily, the poem hasn't yet been used as an authority to wage wars, kill infidels, crush women, censor free speech, or undermine science - all of which are done, today, in the name of the Qur'an, the Tanach, and the "Holy" Bible.

Are you starting to get it?

ETA: Still looking for a single example of where Islam promotes and favours scientific investigation? Take your time.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 February 2008 05:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, it's a simile. (Uses the word "like".)

Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 05:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I assume when I see things that conflict with knowledge I have that the author is not intending to be realistic, rather that they are being metaphoric.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 06:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.

Exactly - and in this case, there doesn't appear to be a single credible "scholar" around to explicate the consistency of this fairy-tale stuff in the Qur'an with science.

There certainly aren't any Islamic régimes around that use Islamic doctrine to promote science.

They're too busy cracking down on the sale of red roses on Valentine's Day.

Allah be praised.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 06:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Actually, it's a simile. (Uses the word "like".)

Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.


Which brings us back to the point I was making about intepretation, and how the text serves the power. It is not the source of it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 06:15 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
unionist,

In your attempt to support your -baseless- argument that Islam is the enemy of science and discovery you took the quotations -that you posted- literally. How are you different - in terms of intellect, reasoning and logic- from people who take the promise of 72 (?) virgin huryias literally and go blow people and themselves into smitherins ?


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 06:21 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
unionist,

In your attempt to support your -baseless- argument that Islam is the enemy of science and discovery you took the quotations -that you posted- literally. How are you different - in terms of intellect, reasoning and logic- from people who take the promise of 72 (?) virgin huryias literally and go blow people and themselves into smitherins ?


Because I'm not an Islamophobe, and I'm an enemy of U.S.-Canadian-British imperial murder and conquest.

Apologists for religion (like those in this thread) have a habit of saying: "Oh sure, all those Islamic regimes are evil and nasty, but that's because they're distorting the beautiful teachings that they claim to uphold."

So, I go back to the teachings.

And you and Cueball say: "Hey, don't do that, they're only metaphors!"

LOL, you don't bother saying what they are metaphors FOR!

So, if you don't want me to quote the bullshit out of the Qur'an (and its predecessor holy books), and if you don't want me to allude to the evil reactionary obscurantism of the practitioners of Islam, then please refer me to something which actually supports your spurious defence of Islam.

Take all the time in the world.

You'll need it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 06:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes well. You did degenerate the level of discourse to a bunch of tropes, amid some really nasty rhetoric, so there was not much that could really be said.

You completely ignored the point that I was making which was that scientific advancement has never been shown to co-incide with social development, and the point I was making, which was that such advancement does not guarantee social advancement in any society, Islamic or not.

Furthermore, you trotted out the usual right wing gossip about Saudi Arabia, and decided to ignore any evidence that shows that Saudi Arabia, is very much outside of the norms of Islamic society both present and past.

You, decided that the right to drive cars is somehow associated with scientific progress, and was relevant to the discussion. It is not.

The fact that there is no prohibition in most Islamic societies against women driving cars is yet another example of this. Your exmaple is like suggesting that Pol Pot is norm in terms of Socialist leadership, and is exemplarary of it.

Completely spurious arguementation, which is nigh on slanderous, because you know better than that, and you are just using cheap rhetoric in the place of real arguement.

There has been nothing at all scientific in your examination of the differences between religious ideologies, and you have supplanted mass generalization in the place of precise investigation. There is nothing glorious about Islam, nor is there anything glorious about making unfair stygmatizations of Islam, in excess of the actual fact, based on the excesively morally abberant behaviour of one specific clique that you then extend to all of that group.

As if one could sum up Judaism by exampling the repressive policies of Israel.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 06:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You completely ignored the point that I was making which was that scientific advancement has never been shown to co-incide with social development, and the point I was making, which was that such advancement does not guarantee social advancement in any society, Islamic or not.

That's not the topic of this thread, which you have tried to derail from your very first post. This is about Islam and SCIENCE, not science and social advancement. I appreciate that you can't make one single argument on the thread topic, but that's really not a very good reason to derail it. Go open another thread.

quote:
Furthermore, you trotted out the usual right wing gossip about Saudi Arabia, and decided to ignore any evidence that shows that Saudi Arabia, is very much outside of the norms of Islamic society both present and past.

Name me a country that is within the norms of "Islamic society". And don't name one from the past, please. TODAY. Which model are you promoting here? Oh and by the way, condemning Saudi Arabia as a country of murderers and torturers is not "right-wing gossip". It is the right-wing Mr. Bush who props up those barbarians, in case your memory is failing.

quote:
You, decided that the right to drive cars is somehow associated with scientific progress, and was relevant to the discussion. It is not.

That was a joke. I was mocking the view that Islam and science are like Romeo and Juliet. Hope it worked.

quote:
The fact that there is no prohibition in most Islamic societies against women driving cars.

Inshallah, you're taking my joke seriously! Sorry, Cueball, I retract all jokes, past and future.

quote:
Completely spurious arguementation, which is nigh on slanderous, because you know better than that, and you are just using cheap rhetoric in the place of real arguement.

A brilliant characterization of the very paragraph which contains it.

quote:
There is nothing glorious about Islam, nor is there anything glorious about making unfair stygmatizations of Islam, in excess of the actual fact, based on the excesively morally abberant of one specific clique that you then extend to all of that group.

Name me the great glorious Islamists that you want me to analyze, and I'll have a look at them. In the meantime, forgive me if I take as "Islamic" those who use the name every day in the real world.

And again, I am not talking about believers. I'm talking about the snake-oil salespersons, issuers of fatwas, torturers, enemies of women, etc., who speak officially in the name of Islam.

quote:
As if one could sum up Judaism by exampling the repressive policies of Israel.

Israel does not follow Jewish doctrine. It is an ethno-national-religious supremacist state, not a theocracy, except for certain civil matters. Orthodox Jewish doctrine is far more anti-human than the savage policies Israel follows. Israel improves on it in some ways (e.g., not shutting down schools that teach Darwinism), and is far worse in others - example, many scholars had concluded that Yahweh's mandated genocide against Amalek was only a metaphor (excuses, excuses - sound familiar?), whereas Israel, not showing much poetic sensitivity, is applying God's sacred command literally in the case of the Palestinian people.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 07:16 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
Listen, unionist, I am not religious myself nor am I defending any religion. I simply oppose prejudice against peoples' beliefs). I oppose fanatism of the religious, the secular, the humanist, the atheist and the holy flying spaghetti worshipper alike.

You have no clue about Islam, yet you are making wild statements about it being the enemy of science and discovery, wondering why in the last 600 years it has been stagnant. Why did you pick the last 600 years, you did not say.

Anyway, it appears that science and discovery are and will continue to be catching up to Islam. here is an example:

quote:

E) The Quran on Seas and Rivers:

Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth..


...

The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress. God has said:

"He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress." (Quran, 55:19-20)

But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:

"He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition." (Quran, 25:53)

One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”.. This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water..

This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).


Must be part of some mythology spun about 14 centurie ago...

Science and knowledge are referred to as "3ilm" in Arabic. (the 3 is the same as in the Hebrew letter 3ayn -eye). "Seek 3ilm from the craddle to the grave" is a commandment to men and women in Islam.

"Seek 3ilm even (if you have to find it) in China.", said the prophet Mohammed.

Quite an enemy of science and discovery!!


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 February 2008 08:16 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.

Not true, I have stated the patriarchy uses whatever vehicle it can to oppress women and that it has used religion for at least 2000 years.

And that I believe empirical evidence, such as science provides, in combination with today's secular thought has more of a chance at eradicating patriarchial notions than does religion of any type.

Religions would try to keep things status quo, while science is continually searching. Though admittedly men have used, and no doubt will continue to try to use science to foster their own supremacy desires. But I believe they have less chance to do so than religion that seeks to keep things status quo and women oppressed.

I would rather live in a secular country than a religioun driven country, nothing GOOD for women, has came out of such countries over the ages. And in fact contries that use Creation Myths that suggest women were and after thought and only companions for men, really need to study biology, or at least look at how unrational that belief is.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 08:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
You have no clue about Islam, yet you are making wild statements about it being the enemy of science and discovery, wondering why in the last 600 years it has been stagnant. Why did you pick the last 600 years, you did not say.

Because if you are interested in reading, or capable of reading, you will note that I referred to the Golden Age, during which science of various kinds flourished under the Caliphate. That ended in the 15th century (a bit earlier actually), and it's been obscurantism ever since. By the way, I have seen no evidence that science flourished because of any doctrinal aspects of Islam.

I won't comment on your silly quote from the Qur'an allegedly prefiguring scientific discoveries. That's the kind of story clerics tell little kids. We're all grown up here.

And please don't accuse me of being "prejudiced" against religion. I loathe and despise religion. But I came to that on my own, not because of some prejudice.

Bring me evidence that religion is not deceptive, divisive, and destructive, and I will definitely listen.

You, on the other hand, have not a critical word to say about Islam - you just excuse the horrors committed in its name as being some misinterpretation. That's fanaticism and prejudice in my book.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 February 2008 08:59 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Religions would try to keep things status quo, while science is continually searching. Though admittedly men have used, and no doubt will continue to try to use science to foster their own supremacy desires. But I believe they have less chance to do so than religion that seeks to keep things status quo and women oppressed.


Exactly, yes science has been influenced by the social norms of the time, such as the general view that women were inferior during Darwin’s time. (scientists are only human and like all people were and are influenced by social norms) But science has come much further in 100 years than religion has come in 2000 years because science progresses through improving on and correcting errors, inaccuracies and biases of previous science, whereas religion, for the most part feels that the original work was perfect.

quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin1951: Darwin was wrong and Kropotkin was right about how evolution works. It is not survival of the fittest it is the species that engage in Mutual Aid that have an advantage over species that don't.

Well first, Darwin used the phrase “natural selection” in place of “Survival of the fittest.” Second, Darwin never said that individualism was the best mechanism, or only mechanism for propagation of genes in a social species. Latter on you say that it was not Darwin that was wrong, but “Darwinists.” Sure some were on this issue, but most people who are called “Darwinists” advocate cooperation as a better form of passing on your genes than non-cooperation among social species. Dawkin’s book the Selfish Gene, for instance, is about cooperation.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: Exactly right. "Survival of the fittest" has been actively inserted into common capitalist discourse, as scientific authorization for standing social norms.

The term “survival of the fittest” came from capitalist discourse and was nowhere to be found in the first 4 editions of Origin of the Species.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: “When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."

Patriarchal and matriarchal structures can and have evolved through natural selection and are therefore “natural” in those situations. So what? Doesn’t mean that it is natural for us, and I don’t really understand the appeal of “natural” anyways. Cannibalism is quite natural (and indeed anthropologists say it was common and widespread). Just because that appears to be natural for early humans doesn’t mean that it should be accepted in modern society. Evolution doesn’t mean that we must behave the exact same way as our last common ancestor did – in fact evolution means that we evolve – and not just physically, but in every way. But of course if you look at our closest living relatives – Chimpanzee’s, Bonobo’s, Gorilla’s and Baboon’s you will see completely different social structures. Furthermore most of the evolutionary changes that have occurred in humans since splitting with our closest common ancestors indicate (to me anyways, but through study on these issues) that those evolutionary changes were towards a social structure that is more equal between men and women, more equal between those of the same sex, and more monogamous. For instance the difference in size in between men and women is smaller than patriarchal species such as baboons and gorillas. Changes such as losing of hair (which makes us more sensitive to the touch) , and women maintaining breast size outside of times of breast feeding (no other primate species does) are indications of long-term coupling (ie monogamy at least for significant periods of time). There are hundreds more, but the point is as humans developed larger brains our reproductive years were delayed and as such the raising of offspring required immense parental resources, so we were more successful – and thereby passed on our genes more successfully – if we lived in a cooperative society, with parental care being provided by more than the mother alone (hence group cooperation, long-term coupling as it was an evolutionary advantage for those that stayed together, and often help from grandparents – in many species animals don’t live past their reproductive years, but as we can live long past ours the evolutionary advantage may be that those who had long living parents and grandparents were more successful at raising more children because they had more help and therefore those genes which better favored longevity were passed on.)

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: No, in fact sociobiology is closely linked to many of the false scientific doctrines errected in the name of science, such as "eugenics", which relied, and continues to rely today on research into DNA, and other scientific fields, giving scientific authority to gender opression, and also racism. Its not "a" person, it is a whole field of scholastic research which fell into disrepute, not because it was scientifically proven to be false, but because it was politically discredited.

First Sociobiology is not in disrepute but has been fully credited. Second Kropotkin’s book “Mutual Aid” talks about altruism being an evolutionary favored behavior which would make it a sociobiological trait. Can’t have it both ways. Sociobiology is not “determinism” so although it is often linked to “eugenics” the comparison is weak, especially as eugenics has been discredited. Mostly sociobiology deals with the behavior of animals as has been very successful at that – such as social insects. Obviously humans are animals too. Recognizing that we too can be influenced by our genes (again influenced not determining behavior) may make many people uncomfortable, and yes many people may conduct research which is affected by their biases, but over time science’s self correcting mechanism will correct those biases. I don’t think that the state of sociobiology has much resemblance to what you make it out to be.
But those who want to find out for themselves might want to check out E. O. Wilson’s “On Human Nature” (which won the Pulitzer prize in the 80s) and more recently Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate.”

(Edited due to having three paragraphs in a row starting with the word "well" and finding that embarrassing.)

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 February 2008 09:50 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent post trevor, I agree and you fleshed out what I was getting at wonderfully..
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 09:58 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, well, well done trevormkidd!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 10:39 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Because if you are interested in reading, or capable of reading, you will note that I referred to the Golden Age, during which science of various kinds flourished under the Caliphate. That ended in the 15th century (a bit earlier actually), and it's been obscurantism ever since -unionist

Help me out here, unionist.

1) Up until 600 years ago, Islam does not appear to have been the enemy of "golden ages".

2) For the last 600 years it has become their enemy.

3) The doctrines of religions (and here we are talking about Islam) are the forces of darkness

4)"This", (you say about the forces of darkness comment), "doesn't apply to the believers of those religions."

If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on.

Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.

Do you have an argument or is this just some version of speaking in tongues ?


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 11:04 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But science has come much further in 100 years than religion has come in 2000 years because science progresses through improving on and correcting errors, inaccuracies and biases of previous science, whereas religion, for the most part feels that the original work was perfect. -trevormkidd

How about providing concrete examples rather than indulging in generalities and vagueness such as "for the most part", "feels" and "perfect".

You may have extentive reference about evolution. Do you have any about religions, especially Islam, in order to move on from your generalities and impressions to something more precise.

Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.

Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 23 February 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
When discussing the relationship between science and an ideology (or religion), I think we could make a distinction between how the theological aspects of a religion and social values of religion contribute to or block the progress of Science.

There is no doubt that theological teaching of every religion stands against science, basically by attributing the secrets of the nature to an almighty God without having to investigate any further. That harms science.

The impact of the social impacts of religion on science is more complicated. I can suggest an explanation for the fact the introduction of Islam resulted in fast growth in scientific and literary activities of that region. It is based on the historical realities of that time.

in 7th century, the two main civilizations of the middle east (Persian and Roman empires) were rigid ,aristocrat and hierarchical societies. In the Persian Sassanid empire, learning and knowledge was restricted to the noblemen and clergy. A common man was not allowed to be educated. Now it should be obvious that most bright minds don't often come from highly privileged classes. That contributed to the decline of science and literature in the last centuries of Persian empire.

On the other hand the Islamic religion, young and fresh, was based on equality of people regardless of their wealth, rejection of nobility and aristocracy, and racial equality. The conquest of middle east by islam, more than anything else, released the underprivileged class from the restriction of their time. Thus science and literature got a huge boost. There is no surprise that Persians, released from their rigid class-based restriction, became by far the largest contributors to Islamic civilization, art and scientific achievements: Avicena, Farabi, Rhazes, Geber, Biruni, kashani, and hundreds of other scientists during the golden age of Islam.

Later on when gradually the Islamic empire started to decline, and particularly after the Mongol conquests, another basic tenet of Islamic thought, the belief in God's will, or fate, contributed to rapid decline of science. While strong belief in fate was a ray of hope for the people during those hard times of wars and destruction, it contributed to laziness, lack of ambition and will for change in Islamic societies.

So in a way, Islam was responsible for both the rise of the middle east into a mighty empire and later for its fall into despair.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 23 February 2008 11:26 AM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:


If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on.

Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.


There was a doctorinal change. for the first 300-400 years of Islam, there was an intellectual battle between those who believed in human rationalism and men's ability to learn the issues on his own, and those who believed exclusively in following the script and "sunnah". The first group were mainly philosophers who brought the work of Greek philosophers into the Islamic teaching.

However in 11th century, the scriptists got a boost from Ghazali, the brilliant and prominent scholar of the time, who spent his life fighting the philosophers and the ideas of Greek philosophy and rationalism. He singlehandedly destroyed the basis of Islamic philosophy for centuries to come, and the efforts of a few remaining rationalists like Averros after him did not lead any where.

For more on Ghazali's work, you can check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazali

So in a way, a doctorinal change did happen in Islamic teachings around 11-12th century that continues to this day.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 11:40 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not true, I have stated the patriarchy uses whatever vehicle it can to oppress women and that it has used religion for at least 2000 years. -Remind

This is what you have stated.

quote:
That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior -Remind

Again, Jean Jacques Rousseau was not inspired by any mythology (does not believe in any) when he wrote:

quote:
"The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy."

From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 February 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
How about providing concrete examples rather than indulging in generalities and vagueness such as "for the most part", "feels" and "perfect".

The Koran is supposed to be the divine revelation of God. How is that not perfect? The God of Christians, Muslims and Jews would fail an elementary school science test badly.

quote:
You may have extentive reference about evolution. Do you have any about religions, especially Islam, in order to move on from your generalities and impressions to something more precise.

I know more about religions then I care to know. I have been an atheist since I was 7, but I have still read the bible and (most of) the koran. Didn't care for either, but a religion is not simply what is written in an old book - it includes the cultures and biases of its holy people and followers. Whether there is or is not specific quotes anti-science passages in the Koran I couldn’t say and it would mean little to me. The religion IS anti-science, much like I believe Canada, the US and Western Europe would be if had allowed Christianity to maintain in an infallible position of power. Yes, in the Golden Age it appears as though Islam and science got along fine, however this was also at a time when science was not discovering and providing evidence for things that were going against religious mythology and holy scripture. The Golden Age was over before Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo provided the evidence to show that the earth was not the center of the universe (yes, some before like Democritus believed that the earth revolved around the Sun, but they didn’t have the evidence for it so their beliefs had almost no support. It was well established over 2000 years ago that the earth was round, but that round earth was still at the center of the Universe with the Sun revolving around it.) The earth not being at the center of God's creation was bascially the first real test from science towards religious tolerance and the major religions all didn’t respond very well as far as I am concerned. Yes Islam didn’t oppose science when science was supporting Islam, but that is like saying that you support freedom of speech as long as you agree with what is being said.

quote:
Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.
Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?

No it doesn’t hinder or discourage scientific endeavor etc. But Islam does. Again I consider a religion to more than a book. Let me know when holy leaders start preaching that Islam and muslims must or should not hinder or discourage scientific endeavors and starts preaching that Muslims should be seeking knowledge so that science and discovery starts to flourish.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 February 2008 12:35 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Point adam? And why are you repeating yourself now, when I have already addressed that above? Please do feel free to read the whole thread again, if you are having issues with comprehension and remembering already covered territory.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:

If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on.

Religion was developed by humanity when nature, humanity, and society are mysterious and unknowable. Even then, it became a tool of some to be used against others.

As the world becomes knowable, humanity proportionally discards religion. If religion resists the trash can, it fights back and becomes ugly.

Religion didn't shift. Humanity marched onwards. But vested feudal interests weren't pleased.

quote:
Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.

Sure, fine. Muhammad and Jesus and Moses were wonderful and perfect, and people are evil. I'll stick to my interpretation, thanks very much.

quote:
Do you have an argument or is this just some version of speaking in tongues ?

Both.

ETA: Holy Mary Mother of God, I just read sanizadeh's account after penning my riposte, and he put it far better and more knowledgeably than I could have done... Thank you for that.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539

posted 23 February 2008 12:54 PM      Profile for Ibelongtonoone        Edit/Delete Post
Isn't this the same reasoning used for any system which promises a utopia on earth - Religions, Democracy, Communism, Capitalism - the system is always perfect - it's just imperfect humans who mess it up. Hence the totalitarian impulse is a self-fufilling prophesy - I must protect the system from these humans trying to screw it up, and then it becomes what it was supposed to be the solution to.

round and round we go.


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 February 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Holy Mary Mother of God, I just read sanizadeh's account after penning my riposte, and he put it far better and more knowledgeably than I could have done... Thank you for that.

Agreed.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 February 2008 01:39 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
round and round we go.

Yes, and no, it is more like a progressive spiral onwards, we have not yet gone back to the dark ages, or even to pre 1929, nor will we. Though the regressive Conservatives would like to try so much so they are trying..

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 02:00 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So in a way, a doctorinal change did happen in Islamic teachings around 11-12th century that continues to this day. -sanizadeh

1)You are mixing Islamic philosophy with Islamic doctrine (core tenet). I have written that the fundamental core of Islam is Tawhid. Show me that Al Ghazali has performed a "shift" in the doctrine. Your implication, if I understand well, is that with his anti-rationalism and his determinism (cause-and-effect determined by Allah or intermediate angels), he shifted the doctrine. This is not the case at all.

2) If by you mentioning Al Ghazali you wanted to show that the "forces of darkness" reside in Muslims themselves and not the religion, you did succeed in refuting unionist's contention.

3) At least two centuries after Al Ghazali, Islam was still living its "golden age".

4) The causes of the decline of the Islamic civilization are very complex and still a matter of debates. Yet, you summarized it in one name: Al Ghazali.

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 February 2008 02:02 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A little off topic, but why haven't I heard of this guy before? Marcus Brigstocke - 7 minute comedy on the abrahamic religions. Pretty much sums up my position.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 23 February 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:

1)You are mixing Islamic philosophy with Islamic doctrine (core tenet). I have written that the fundamental core of Islam is Tawhid. Show me that Al Ghazali has performed a "shift" in the doctrine. Your implication, if I understand well, is that with his anti-rationalism and his determinism (cause-and-effect determined by Allah or intermediate angels), he shifted the doctrine. This is not the case at all.
...
4) The causes of the decline of the Islamic civilization are very complex and still a matter of debates. Yet, you summarized it in one name: Al Ghazali.



I disagree. "Tawhid" (Or belief in one supreme God) is one of the core tenets, but not the only one. And a doctorin shift does not require a change in a core tenet. Ghazali's influence created a major shift in the way Islamic scholars created religious rules, in particular by shutting the door to "ijtihad", which had allowed previous muslim scholars to rely on reason and judgment (in addition to Quran and prophet's words) in determining religious rules. Ghazali essentially froze Islamic sharia in time, not allowing any revision in it as time progressed. This became a major reason for backwardness of Islamic teachings later on.

Iranian scholar Motahhari (who tilted toward the rationalist thinking) called the battle between rationalists and scriptists "the battle for Islam's soul", which according to him, was won by scriptists only because of Ghazali. So I am not the one creating a "dark force". Others have noted it too.

Here is a summary from wiki's page on Ghazali:

quote:
"Ijtihad is the process through which Islamic scholars can generate new rules for Muslims. Ijtihad was one of the recognized sources of Islamic knowledge by early Islamic scholars - that is, in addition to Quran, Sunnah and Qiyas. While it is not widely agreed that Al-Ghazali himself intended to "shut the door of ijtihad" completely and permanently, such an interpretation of Al-Ghazali's work led the Islamic societies to be "frozen in time". Works of critics of Al-Ghazali (such as Ibn-Rushd, a rationalist), as well as the works of any ancient philosopher, were practically forbidden in these "frozen societies" through the centuries. As a result, all chances were lost to gradually revitalize religion - which may have been less painful had it been spread over a period of centuries.

Whether the actual outcome of "freezing Islamic thinking in time" was the goal of Al-Ghazali is highly debatable. While he himself was a critic of the philosophers, Al-Ghazili was a master in the art of philosophy and had an immense education in the field. After such a long education in philosophy, as well as a long process of reflection. But only taking Al-Ghazali's final conclusions, while lacking a comparable education (and a reflection process) in the area, and as a result being unable to trace Al-Ghazali in his thought process, only exacerbates the probability of the misuse of Al-Ghazali's conclusions."


That's why I consider it a doctorin shift, because it changed the main sources for developing Sharia rules.

However, I am just an ordinary muslim, not an Islamic scholar. So don't take my word as authoritative on this subject. Someone else with a deeper knowledge of Islamic theology could correct any errors in what I said, and provide better insights on this topic.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 23 February 2008 03:07 PM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:

Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.

Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?


Tawhid is not the only tenet or core belief in Islam. There are several more, as following:

1) Tawhid, or belief in uniqueness of God, as you mentioned.

2) Prophethood of Mohammad, i.e. he was a true prophet from God and brought to us God's words in Quran.

3) Afterlife: There is an afterlife, and people will be judged and punished or rewarded after death.

4) Just God: That God is just and fair, and anything he does or orders people to do is based on justice.

5) For Shia muslims, Imamat is also a core tenet, the belief that at any time, there is one individual who is God's representative on earth.

Rejection of any of the above principles is sufficient ground for apostasy in Islam.

I'll let you decide whether these core tenets hinder science or seeking of knowledge.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
Sanizadeh,

Here is the issue. Unionist claimed that the forces of darkness is in the religion itself (its doctrine), not its followers.

What you are demonstrating is that there was a shift -not in the doctrine of Islam- but in Islamic philosophy, operated by a follower, Al Ghazali.

So it is the Muslim Al Ghazali -and followers- who incarnate the forces of darkness, not the faith, the doctrine itself.

Hence my comment that your arguments come as a refutation of what unionist is contending.


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 03:29 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Le terme tawhîd (تَوْحيد [tawḥīd], monothéisme) est le principal enseignement du Coran et le dogme central de l’islam qui se proclame la religion du monothéisme strict. Il est indispensable afin d'accéder au paradis.

Translation: Tawhid is the core teaching and the main dogma of Islam that proclaims itself as strictly monotheist, it is indisoensable as to enter paradise..

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid


Shia may have others, but this is the common pivotal tenet for Shia and Sunnis.

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


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
Sanizadeh,

Here is the issue. Unionist claimed that the forces of darkness is in the religion itself (its doctrine), not its followers.


Whoa, wait a minute. I said religion is evil, not religious people.

As in: "I hate Islam, but not Muslims."

Did you think I was blessing all religious people??

Take Benedict Rat-singer, for example. The man is Evil Incarnate.

So please grasp the subtlety of my thesis before trying to refute it, or you'll miss the mark.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 23 February 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, unionist. I stand corrected. But that does not change anything in your thesis.
From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 23 February 2008 07:01 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Take Benedict Rat-singer, for example. The man is Evil Incarnate.

So atheists do believe in evil?


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 February 2008 07:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

So atheists do believe in evil?


I never used to, but Benedict converted me.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 February 2008 07:35 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I acknowledge evil as being in existence only because of the the reality of opposites. If there is good there must be evil.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2008 10:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Well, well, well done trevormkidd!

Not really. Not only is a straw-primate for the most part, it in an example of what I am talking about.

quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Patriarchal and matriarchal structures can and have evolved through natural selection and are therefore “natural” in those situations. So what? Doesn’t mean that it is natural for us, and I don’t really understand the appeal of “natural” anyways. Cannibalism is quite natural (and indeed anthropologists say it was common and widespread). Just because that appears to be natural for early humans doesn’t mean that it should be accepted in modern society. Evolution doesn’t mean that we must behave the exact same way as our last common ancestor did – in fact evolution means that we evolve – and not just physically, but in every way. But of course if you look at our closest living relatives – Chimpanzee’s, Bonobo’s, Gorilla’s and Baboon’s you will see completely different social structures. Furthermore most of the evolutionary changes that have occurred in humans since splitting with our closest common ancestors indicate (to me anyways, but through study on these issues) that those evolutionary changes were towards a social structure that is more equal between men and women, more equal between those of the same sex, and more monogamous. For instance the difference in size in between men and women is smaller than patriarchal species such as baboons and gorillas.


This is a nice summary of some themes in sociobiological anthropolgy, but it is not addressed to the point.

The fact that I put "natural" in quotes is indicative of the fact that I am not enthused with the conceptualization. The "naturalist" arguement is one used to authorize types of behaviour, as unavoidable inate charachteristics. Read this in the context of much of the sociobiological anthropological work of the 60's and 70's that I directly referred to prior in this thread, such as Lionel Tiger, whose work was used to assert the "natural" (and therefore innate) social order among primates to justify patriarchy.

We agree, yes, that anthropolgists assert their own culturally imbued understanding upon that which they study and that the "object" of study is never free of the "objectifiers" world view. But simply reframing this by saying that partiarchal and matriarchal social structures can be the naturally evolved "norm" is not to confront the issue that the applied norm is most often one set in the partiarchal frame.

The idea that "natural" can be any existing social norm that flows from any set of biological factors, is reductionist and misses the point that "natural" as it is framed by people like Lionel Tiger, is meant as jusxtoposition against the what we might call the socially constructed reality. Anything can be construed as natural. So what? The distinction is being made between what is an innate, and therefore unchangeable social or biological proccess, against those that have conscious human intervention: the unatural.

If you are simply saying that any socially constructed realities are just a natural outcome of any given set of biological factors, you have deflected the point not met it, because that is not what Lionel Tiger is about. He is about reifying the "natural," as a reflection of the partriarchal norm.

You may see different social structures in primate societies, he sees his own. This was the point. I suggest that your assertion that size is functional in determining a "natural" partriarchal state in Baboon society, is likely an assertion of exactly that kind of projection of patriarchal ideology upon a primate society, because, of course, "size" is really only functional as a tool in violent assertion of power in intraspecies social discourse. What other conclusion can we come to other than the implication that intraspecies violence is the norm, and that patriarchy "naturally" flows from that "biological" trait, as an outcome of the concept that the advantage goes to the bigger parties ability to use superior force.

The idea that body mass and strength are key to determining social superiority, are key concepts that justify patriarchal relations in human society, and you have just repeated them in a defence of sociolbiology wherein you claim it is "credited" not "discredited." I should say your arguement is an example of why sociobiology is in my mind, largely discredited because you have just imposed a human patriarchal conceptual mode, as a common sense deduction based on what you see.

I ask, if it is the case that it is "natural" for Baboon society to be extremely patriarchal because male Baboons are substantially larger than female Baboons, would you also say that it is "natural" for human society to be somewhat patriarchal, even if much less patriarchal than Baboon society, because human females are slightly smaller than human males?

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 24 February 2008 03:16 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
I acknowledge evil as being in existence only because of the the reality of opposites. If there is good there must be evil.

Just plain bad works too.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2008 03:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Just plain bad works too.


Not always. When "bad" is presented as being mandated by some supreme infallible force, it metamorphoses into Evil. That's my definition, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 24 February 2008 03:59 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Not always. When "bad" is presented as being mandated by some supreme infallible force, it metamorphoses into Evil. That's my definition, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.


So this chant they do about 'deliver me from evil' suggests a desire for an out of body experience. Very spiritual.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2008 04:07 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

So this chant they do about 'deliver me from evil' suggests a desire for an out of body experience. Very spiritual.


The chant they do is very accurate and supports my definition:

Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

Both in Latin and English, they are pleading to be released, or freed, or delivered from Evil - meaning that they are already within its clutches. The Church might say that's talking about Original Sin. But I maintain it's referring to the Church.

Bad words and deeds, backed up by an Authority which forgives you in advance of even committing them and in fact blesses your rifle, leads to Evil Incarnate.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2008 04:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoa, dudes. Long thread. Feel free to start a new one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 24 February 2008 06:02 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
New rule on babble! Infinite thread lengths! There could be theological significance to this. Babbling forever and ever, to the end of time and beyond.
What do the experts on Islam have to say about this?

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2008 06:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
New rule on babble! Infinite thread lengths! There could be theological significance to this. Babbling forever and ever, to the end of time and beyond.
What do the experts on Islam have to say about this?

It is Our will that the dialogue continue here.

This thread is now locked.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 February 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

It is Our will that the dialogue continue here.

This thread is now locked.

No it wont.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca