Slashdot Mirror
Science In Islamic Countries
biohack sends us to Physics Today for a thought-provoking article on the status of and prospects for science in Islamic countries. The author, a Pakistani physicist, posits that 'Internal causes led to the decline of Islam's scientific greatness long before the era of mercantile imperialism. To contribute once again, Muslims must be introspective and ask what went wrong.' The author makes a few strong conclusions, many of which are relevant to the general debate between science and religion. From the article: "Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world. If the scientific method is trashed, no amount of resources or loud declarations of intent to develop science can compensate. In those circumstances, scientific research becomes, at best, a kind of cataloging or 'butterfly-collecting' activity. It cannot be a creative process of genuine inquiry in which bold hypotheses are made and checked."
... the muzzies are sitting on all the oil. If it weren't for that, no one would give them the time of day.
Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world.
Fixed that for you.
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came Islam, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence).
One can only imagine what civilizsation would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"Pakistani physicist's head found 200 yards from body. 'Must have had an accident' says neighbors"
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Wow, for the first time ever, an article linked off a slashdot story that I find completely fascinating. As a scientist myself I find it utterly tragic that the past greatness of Islamic scholars is apparently largely forgotten outside of the work of science historians.
One can only hope that this current poverty of science in the islamic world is reversed.
> In those circumstances, scientific research becomes, at best, a kind of cataloging or 'butterfly-collecting' activity. ...you insensitive clod.
Que the Jihad. Poor scientist... Beheaded before his time.
Seriously: What is everything open to criticism except Islam. Islam has some major issues because the entire religion is controlled by very corrupt demagogues. Criticize it and some random clerics asks that you be killed and some person with mental problems does it. I really can't think of any rational non-oppressive solution except to have everyone openly criticize it. They can't kill all of us.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
While Charlemagne, an illiterate barbarian was converting the masses to Christianity (and brutally, I might add,) Middle Eastern doctors were actually successfully performing neurosurgery. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents...at least I learned something for the student loans I still owe!
Of course Islam has trouble with science. It's no different than any other religion. Once you start with the preconception that "X is automatically right (because it's in a specific book)" you've rejected the scientific method utterly.
It's the exact same thing that's going on in America. The Jesus freaks utterly reject anything that might come into conflict with their preconception of GOD MADE THE EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER. The "moderates" may be able to advance scientific despite their unscientific premises, but that only happens when the science is not in conflict with their religion, or when they ignore that conflict.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Freedom of speech and science are directly related. Both islamic and stalinist countries violently suppress free speech, consequently having almost no scientific breakthrough.
The best scientific advancements come when someone declares "everything we know about this is wrong" and formulates, tests, and publishes some bold new idea. The tendency to question established "knowledge"--which is often backed by the church or the government--is never encouraged in non-free states.
If you want a great example of this in western history, look at Galileo.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
...on this story This should be a cautionary tale for any society that allows fundamentalism to rule public discourse and science.
(This coming from someone living in Kansas USA, where many would like creationism in the schools)
You don't need to be Einstein to understand that scientific advances are proportional to the economical status of the land. And I'm not talking about the economical status of the elite of the country but about the MEDIUM economical status of the population. Good economics is almost always equal to good education, good universities, quality investigations, cooperation projects, etc. I don't see any direct connection between ideology or religion and science.Many good scientific have been religious in some form ot believe in god: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, etc.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
(if not complete overlap). Avicenna, Averoes, al-Khwrizm (the "algorithm" guy) all were muslim.
The Raven
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came fundamentalist Christianism, extreme patriotism, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence).
One can only imagine what civilization would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright.
"It's the exact same thing that's going on in America. The Jesus freaks utterly reject anything that might come into conflict with their preconception of GOD MADE THE EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER."
While the muslims do the same but actually set you on fire. In the street. Right now.
So no, it's not the exact same thing that's going on in America. Others will chime in with their opinions of why it is, but they'll have a hard time finding comparable behavior amongst religiosos in the US.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
It cannot be a creative process of genuine inquiry in which bold hypotheses are made and checked.
Just like the Holocaust issue in the western world.
the problem is the question itself because the question involves islam. if the question had involved christianity or judaism or buddhism the problem would be the same. the problem being, to think that science and religion have anything to do with each other at all, in a negative or positive way. they are simply oil and water, science and religion. they don't mix. at all
this in fact is not a call to abandon religion to embrace science, nor is it an assertion that there is a conflict between religion and science. they merely have nothing to do with each other. there can be no conflict between two systems that don't speak the same language or investigate the same phenomena. one has to do with fact based inquiries, the other has to do with transcendental thought. the aspect of scientific knowledge simply cannot involve, touch, comment on or otherwise involve the aspect of religious knowledge. and visa versa
once you realize this, all of the "problems" involving science and religion disappear. problems only appear when, mistakenly, someone tries to comment on science from the point of view of religion, or someone tries to comment on religion from the point of view of science. this represents instant failure of an ability to understand the subject matter you are concerning yourself with
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the rise of science in the arab world came along side of islam, from 800 AD to 1500. Islam started in the 600s. in history books you'll find both the phrase "islamic science" and "arab science", referring to this golden age of science. Now Roman Catholic christianity is another matter, that *did* stagnate science and human development in the west.
At my school, there is no shortage of Islamic scientists and engineers. As far as I can tell, they are as competent as anyone else.
The problem seems to be the country the scientist is operating in rather than the religion of the individual scientists. In that respect, most other countries don't do as well as the US of A. So, the fact that Islamic countries don't do as well as us doesn't make them different than most other countries. We could just as well ask: Why don't the European countries produce the quantity and quality of research that America does?
PS. I am in no way trying to defend certain countries that are way beyond defending. I have no axe to grind and am merely making an observation. Some of my best friends are Muslim, etc. etc.
In "The World is Flat", Thomas Friedman makes a similar point, comparing the number of patent applications originating from various parts of the world (as is mentioned in TFA).
... other ideological extremes are just as damaging, if not to the scientific establishment then in other ways.
It's a real shame when a small extremist class are able to hold the rest of a society hostage, but I also want to point out that this kind of thing is *not* limited to religious extremists
The following sentence from the article troubles me greatly: "The near-absence of democracy in Muslim countries is also not an especially important reason for slow scientific development. "
It should be clear to any human being in this world that democracy (and the rule of secular law), though not perfect by any means, leads to a populace who have a moral investment in the country in which they live - and this leads them to think of greater things, such as science, and not the day-to-day issues like how to not be killed for wearing the wrong clothes.
Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies.
What a nice perspective - so I could probably find a lot of common ground with one of those Mutazilites, relative even to say a dogmatic Christian, although a Scientific-Method-Christian would still be best-match. The battle between Science and Dogma is in other words the deeper battle, in our classification-tree of belief-systems.
What a troll. At least have the balls to not post as AC.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
"Sheeple" is Angsty Teenager for "I have nothing worthwhile to say".
Thanks to Al-Ghazali, REAL science has been anathema to Islam for almost a thousand years.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
When the author mentions the "extreme Hindu group", he misquotes its name as the "Vishnu Hindu Parishad". It's correct name is the "Vishwa Hindu Parishad".
Also, as far as I am aware, it has not asked for the ethnic cleansing of anybody, though many of its members are of a very extreme bent, and may well hold such opinions.
Thirdly, they have also not, to my knowledge, ever acted to block any piece of scientific research. It's an organisation concerned mostly with the social aspects of religion, and they don't bother with what goes on in the laboratories.
Probably the only thing they care about in regard to science and research is that we have bigger and better nukes than the Pakistanis.
:-P
This seems to apply pretty well to the Bush administration.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
(and a disclaimer, yes I know not every muslim country has vast amounts of oil, but many do and have an inordinate influence)
Oil rich countries can buy massive amounts of technology(including advanced weaponry) without having to ever invent any of it, somewhat rare if not totally unique in the modern world. Thus for many governments, there seems to be very little need to develop technology indigenously. This seems especially true in the case of the Saudis whose legitimacy in the eyes of many in the muslim world(they oversee the holiest places in Islam) seems to be largely dependent on their hardline Islamic views which means Madrassas and knowledge of Islam, not science, is th e most important thing to them. They can defend themselves from any threats(mostly Iran) without developing the know-how to engineer weapons themselves. Very few other civilizations in history could ever get away with that....
Monstar L
It is easy to mock the adversary's nest when your own is soiled rotten..
Christian dogmas have slowed down science throughtout history beginning from Heliocentrism and Galileo to Darwin. During modern days christian religion plagues issues like contraception and family planning to help the population problem. Its ideas oppose concepts like environmental destruction and climate change for man should be the master on earth. From this we can draw a rough timeline of opposition to first the astronomical and geological facts of science, then biological and now today the facts of ecology and sustainability. This series of scientific discoveries has diminished man to an oridinary creature bound by laws of physics, not laws of god. It is christian dogma, which is keeping humanity from moving on from industrial civilization to a sustainable scientific way of life.
Indeed as Revelations sais: "..Those who love the world are strangers to the eyes of my father.."
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
The following sentence from the article troubles me greatly: "The near-absence of democracy in Muslim countries is also not an especially important reason for slow scientific development. "
It should be clear to any human being in this world that democracy (and the rule of secular law), though not perfect by any means, leads to a populace who have a moral investment in the country in which they live - and this leads them to think of greater things, such as science, and not the day-to-day issues like how to not be killed for wearing the wrong clothes.
Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies.
It's because it's true. Nazi-Germany, Russia and China have done a lot of science without any real democracy. There doesn't seem to be a very strong link. Dictatorships/oligarchies do not have any intrinsic qualities that would preclude science. But it does depend on both implementation and leadership. The great leap forward in China was a immense leap backwards for industry and science but then again "No child left behind" and "intelligent Design" does the same damage within a democracy.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world. If the scientific method is trashed, no amount of resources or loud declarations of intent to develop science can compensate. In those circumstances, scientific research becomes, at best, a kind of cataloging or 'butterfly-collecting' activity. It cannot be a creative process of genuine inquiry in which bold hypotheses are made and checked."
...waiting for the knee jerk troll responses...
Translation: Science is god and the scientific method infallible.
Reality: Replacing one faith based system with another (i.e. the big "sweeping" theories taken as laws). Just the same argument as Christianity vs. Islam vs whatever only with the "you're all ignorant" caveat. Same old boring nonsense. Really, now when is the last time bold hypotheses were "checked"? Disagree with the stream and you are burned at the stake. Sound familiar? Yeah, that's right it's human nature and has nothing to do with religion or intelligence.
Perhaps you should read his rationale behind the statement.
Simply put: Countries with dictators still at times do better than the countries mentioned. It's not that big a factor unless they actually shut down the universities. Few dictators actually prevent papers from being published - it's not their concern. Heck, just yesterday I was reading a research paper in my field that came from a Cuban university.
Some of these countries, BTW, have democracies. Their scientific output still sucks.
Beetle B.
1. Religon 2. Science 3. ???? 4. War. War == Profit. Questions?
In the Islamic world, the answer to all questions that begin with 'Why' is "Because it is the will of Allah". Apples do not fall to the ground because of gravity, they fall because "it is the will of Allah".
The only time that something is not because of "the will of Allah" is when it is the fault of "the Great Satan".
If I had mod points, you surely would be modded up by me.
Plus, you just described the religion/science equivalent of Godwin's law.
Bernard Lewis wrote a book "What Went Wrong?" which described precisely (in his opinion) how Islam became the backward group when during the Dark Ages they were the advanced group and Europeans were the backwards ones.
After the Muslims started to lose battles to Vienna, one of the caliphates ordered his advisors to come up with a report on why they were losing. The two reasons given were (1) The Mullahs refused to allow "new" science to be researched, Muslim science was pretty much based on Greek science and they considered all the major problems solved and (2) not using 50% of their resources (women).
They just moved lower down the head, and use a much larger knife now.
"God is a fairy tale."
Prove it.
Scientists can't make scientific claims about things they have no evidence of or relating to; you seem to mis-understand that. Anything else is an opinion, not a fact, and thusly -- there is a god and there is no god are un-scientific statements based on *drumroll* faith or lack thereof.
"And it's not science that tells you there's no god, it's people who understand science."
Then it is outside of and not part of the set. An opinion. Funny you don't understand a basic maxim of correlation does not imply causation.
"Seems kind of pathetic when you realize what it's really all about, people running around buying in to stories because they failed to advance intellectually."
And an advanced intellect means you don't or can't prove your position, right?
Go back to the kiddie pool.
"... mercantile imperialism ..."
Spoken like a true scientist. You can stand tall with Marx, Engels and fellow "scientific materialists".
The "there is no God" notion isn't really a conclusion of science. It isn't even a hypothesis. It is a "metaphysical presupposition."
This presupposition must be made in order for scientific investigation to be possible. If one assumes that some phenomena (whatever it may be) is simply "the work of God," then there is no incentive to do controlled tests of it. If, however, one assumes that the phenomena has a physical (non-miraculous, non-conscious) mechanism behind it, then it makes sense to to tests aimed at uncovering and modeling the mechanism.
When a scientists (self-proclaimed or authentic) states that science has proven the non-existence of God, he has simply overstepped his bounds. Just as there is no experiment that could prove the existence of God, neither is there an experiment that could disprove it. God is beyond the scope of science. Any true believer can rest confidently in this simple observation. Any honest scientist should too.
However, a scientist is completely within his rights to presume the non-existence of God when doing his work. Theologians can clean up the mess later with notions about how God is the author of the mechanisms being studied, if necessary. But the first step any scientist must take is to clear his hypotheses of God.
It is easy to confuse a presupposition with a conclusion. It is also easy to wonder where God went when we look at a mechanical universe with a particularly incompassionate character to it. So we can cut the scientists some slack.
I would encourage the scientists to cut the theologians a little slack too, so long as the theologians are not inhibiting scientific research by making appeals to their own metaphysical presupposition.
There's my $0.02
Here's the Iranian leaders take on science is in the Islamic world:
Speaking as "an academic," Ahmadinejad said that from his perspective, the role of science is to serve Islam and that any science that does not serve Islamic goals is corrupt. As he put it, "Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity." Elaborating on this notion, he argued that Western scientists serve corrupt governments who reject the pure and pious path of Islam and therefore are used as agents for corruption.
From a Caroline Glick article on Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to "believe without evidence" or "faith." "Science" isn't always right but it's not about being right... it's about the continual pursuit of learning and understanding reality as we know it based on available evidence and the ability to prove through testing.
Religion is simply the opposite. It is based on the idea that what you were told is the truth. "Rumor" fits this description... as does "myth" and "gossip." But the fact is, religious belief cannot be admissible in a court of law with any reasonable rules for evidence and discovery. (Unless that court of law is based on religion... and we see what happens to 'rule of law' when it's based on religion... chaos and rather unjust proceedings.)
I think it's interesting that they are trying to make some connection between Islam and advanced knowledge. I'm probably wrong, but I believe things like advanced mathematics were developed in the "Islamic" part of the world, but predates Islam itself. It's more likely that Islam itself is responsible for the intellectual decline in that area just as it's often responsible for intellectual decline elsewhere.
Religion matters a lot. None of the people you mentioned accepted repressive dogmatic religions, many were heretics. Yes, many scientists believe in some kind of god, but really what separates them, and all intelligent people, is that they are willing to challenge
1. Einstein's religion is a matter of some debate, but it is generally acknowledged that the god that he believed in wasn't the Christian god. Many historical quotes that reference "god" do so in the context of a deist god, which has nothing to do with the Christian god. The deist god typically has no free will, for instance. Remember Einstein's quote about "God does not play dice"?
2. Newton and many of his contemporaries were considered heretics in their own time. Newton didn't believe in the trinity for instance, which was a no no at "trinity college" where he went to school.
So it's one thing to have religion, but what *sort* of religion you have matters a lot. If you are the sort of person that just accepts whatever your parents or other authority figures tell you as the truth, you aren't the sort of person who can engage in critical thought and make new scientific discoveries. If you are the sort of person capable of challenging established scientific views, you are the sort of person who will challenge established religious views. Historically there have been few great thinkers who have *not* done so.
From the article:
The Qur'an, being the unaltered word of God, cannot be at fault: Muslims believe that if there is a problem, it must come from their inability to properly interpret and implement the Qur'an's divine instructions.
The Qu'ran, far from being "the unaltered word of God", is actually an horrific and savage compilation of distilled hatred. Work on collecting the verses wasn't even begun until long after Mohammed was dead, and it was pieced together from people who claimed to have known him or known people who knew him. Thus it's put together out of chronological order (already one alteration) and to try to claim "Mohammed" wrote it is laughable.
The same is true for the other Muslim "holy books", the various collections of hadith (sayings of the so-called "prophet") that various factions believe are more or less authentic (the Sunni and Shi'a have their own favored set each, same for other sects).
Islam is not simply a religion; it is a design guidebook for the creation of a totalitarian state in which the "supreme leader" (Caliph) and his stooges get to use religion as an excuse to be really crappy to everyone else. And it's a lot easier to keep your population under control if they're too stupid to know better and terrified that a revolt might stop them from reaching "heaven."
And Mohammed, far from being a prophet, was an opportunist who figured like Akenaten, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard that he could use religion as a tool and scam. Look at the various things he was "exempted" from. He "limited" other men to only 4 wives (already a mysoginistic bastard but we'll move on), but he himself got at least an even dozen, plus he fucked a 5 year old (Aisha) just because he got bored with adults. He raped a girl who had just seen her entire family slaughtered (Safiya) and then retroactively declared it a "marriage" the next day when his troops started complaining.
Muslims like to try to rewrite history to hide embarassing details - such as the nature of the Ka'aba, their "holy box", which predates Mohammed. Mohammed's grandfather was a pagan priest of a specific deity of the Quraish tribe. He named his son (Mohammed's dad) "Abd'allah", literally "Slave of Allah."
This was before the monotheistic "Allah" was cooked up by Mohammed.
Question: Which pagan deity is Allah? Or else who was Abd'allah named for?
Islam is a joke. The more educated Muslims you get, the more educated ex-Muslims you'll have as they wake up to the utter absurdity of this bullshit. That's why Muslim leaders hate education so much.
Hell, that's why the Muslim religion has a standing death threat for converting away.
Seems like the Muslims DO have a nice history of scientific work. Let's recap.... Surgery Have patient kneel Chop off head Study remains Aeronautics Train people to fly planes without landing instructions Fly planes into buildings Study the results Sociology Have woman speak out of turn Beat woman to death Study remains Religion Study a MAN who was clearly pissed at the Catholic Church and reacted as such Study a MAN who was illiterate, yet was able to write a literary work on substantial materials such as leaves Study a MAN who performed no documented miracles Study a MAN who was a bigamist, pedophile, and murderer Logic Write a book that Include in that book instructions to never question the book's authority Kill anyone who questions the book (See Surgery above) Ethics ... ...
Oh, just forget it. Muslims are so wrapped up in their self-absorbed, self-centered quest for world domination that being dominated by the Chinese actually sounds like a GOOD plan just about now.
"The Jesus freaks prefer secret prisons in foreign countries..."
And they do that for teaching science?
Oh right, no they don't. So no, you're wrong. And a troll.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
That describes the fundamentalist Christian-dominated home town so well I want to hug this guy.
The problem with fundamentalists is that they value the knowledge and beliefs of people from thousands of years ago over any progress we have made since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258)
Just the other week I discussed this with my uncle, he is a die hard christian and I talked to him about what I perceived as a negative effect of religion. You hear it all the time. Whenever something bad happens, it Gods will. Lost your job? Gods will. Got sick? Gods will (Germs whats that?). Your grandma died? Gods will (No she was 100 years old and did just fine, what natural causes?).
It seems that any time a believer explains an event with "It was Gods will." they are basically saying, dont get any ideas, dont ponder, dont try to figure out why.
Im an atheist myself. I wish I could ban religion altogether.
-- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
and i also said that this represents an instant failure to understand the nature of religion and science
pointing out that some people don't understand that science and religion don't have any thing to do with each other does not invalidate the fact that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other
in other words, on arguments over things like creationism, there is a lot of noise, and no progress. because the very discussion topic itself is purposeless and pointless. the question about where we came from from a religious point of view and where we came from from a scientific point of view are completely separate fields of inquiry that cannot comment on, see or even observe each other
much as you say, this does not stop people from commenting on religion from the point of view of science, or people commenting on science from the point of view of religion. well there's a newsflash: some people in this world don't understand important and basic things. the existence of such people does not in any way validate some sort of clash between science and religion, it merely validates the observation that people open their mouths without understanding the subject matter a lot of times
anyone SERIOUSLY engaged in religion and science understand they have nothing to do with each other. and elsewhere, there is a lot useless heat and noise in this nonexistent "clash". and so what? a lot of people don't understand important things. about the nature of many things. including science, including religion. even intelligent people can be massively blinded by false starting assumptions they have invested a lot passion in out of simple stubbornness, and continue on in heated pointless rhetoric, to absolutely no demonstrable rhetorical victories at all, except to prove how much people can yell and scream about which they don't even fundamentally grasp
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
People who believe in a God who a) sustains the laws of nature so they are consistent and don't change and b) makes truth knowable have no problems with science.
Miracles and revelation present problems to those who believe in science as an "ism."
If you assume miracles as a barrier to scientific inquiry you are tipping your hat that you have presuppositions and philosophies which preclude the supernatural from the get-go. There is nothing about science, properly done, which excludes or has to include the supernatural.
It is no accident that those with an anti-theistic bent took a while to warm up to the Big Bang. Bad religious ideas can thwart good science. So can bad atheistic ideas.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
it demonstrated that religion did not have validity about commenting on science
it did NOT demonstrate there was a clash between religion and science
pointing out that some people don't understand that science and religion don't have any thing to do with each other does not invalidate the fact that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Abortion clinic bombings."
Have nothing to do with teaching science.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT NOW? DO YOU GET IT? MY COMMENT WAS NOT ABOUT RELIGION, BUT HOW RELIGION TREATS SCIENTISTS FOR TEACHING SCIENCE.
Try to keep up, you'll be able to avoid irrelevant commentary, like your last post.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
>this in fact is not a call to abandon religion to embrace science, nor is it an assertion
>that there is a conflict between religion and science. they merely have nothing to do with
>each other.
You evade the problem by being too abstract. There is no conflict between "religion" and "science" but there is clearly a conflict between specific established scientific views and specific established religious views.
Many sects dogmatically proclaim that the world was created in 7 days. You can say that "this is a metaphor, and so not at odds with science," but the problem, the conflict is that the people who say that don't *mean* it as a metaphor. They mean it as a factual statement about the world.
Saying there is no conflict between something abstract like "religion" and "science" is missing there point. There are concrete conflicts between various religious dogmas many specific scientific views.
Furthermore, it is well historically established that societies that accept dogmatic modes of thought are not conducive to scientific development. If scientists must do all of their important research in secret, for fear of public reprisal, they will get little done and their work will not be widely disseminated. This is a historical and ongoing problem in our society.
The problem isn't that "religion is bad," although I think an argument could be made for that, but that certain social institutions, especially some hard line religious sects, do much to harm the advancement of science by establishing dogmatic views that they refuse to accept rational challenges to.
Destroyers of the modern world. No need to bomb these people into the stone age, they've voluntarily moved back to it. The degree to which 'devout' religious people accept science is a measure of their hypocrisy. Note that these are typically the most strident and outspoken ones.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You mean there's no proof for the 72 virgins? Damn, thought I had an avenue there for a second.
Table-ized A.I.
In the Beyond Belief series he gives a general talk about science and part of it is about Islam in science. He's at the beginning the second video session. The part about Islam is at about 27 minutes.
http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/
What about the Soviet Union? Maybe they didn't contribute as much as they COULD have, but they certainly contributed significantly to science.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
science is static. it looks at what happened in the natural world and explains it, and extrapolates future predictions of activity outside of human intervention
religion is dynamic. it is about that human intervention that science cannot explain or comment on. humanity is an interesting creature: it creates it's own reality. something that is not real in the natural world is made real nonetheless simply by enough of humanity believing it into existence. and i am not talking about physical objects like pyramids or airplanes, i am talking about mental concepts like fairness and justice
there is no fairness and justice in the natural world. the concepts of fairness and justice is entirely made up by humanity. on faith. believed into being on faith, enforced as reality through enough human belief in it. but you tell me if that lack of existence of fairness and justice in the natural world means those concepts are nullified, or that such concepts are unworthy of investigation, codification, thought, and knowledge
such things as fairness and justice are necessary components to human life, just like food and water, without which you would go insane
in fact, if you say to me you are strictly a man of science, without any religion, i say that you lack self awareness. you have belief and faith in something. even a rudimentary humanism is a form of religion
science and religion: two entirely different fields. and yet two fields of inquiry invaluable to every single man woman and child on the planet. there is no such thing as a man of religion without any science, or a man of science without any religion. the existence of such people is impossible, strictly because a rudimentary form of one or the other is required by a human being to survive in this world
two completely unrelated issues that cannot comment on each other, and yet are utterly vital to what it means to be a human being
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Much of the problem is economic, not religious.
The prototypical state for the economic problem in this case is Saudi Arabia. Saudis obviously are not lacking for money - they pump it from the ground at alarming rates - and this is part of their problem.
The Saudi state distributes oil wealth among its people, and these distributions are a big problem.
When people receive fairly large amounts of money for doing nothing, they have little incentive for improving their technical skills. Subsequently, there is little reason for young Saudi men - who, incidentally, were likely raised by largely uneducated women - to go beyond what they already do and know. A great many will also not seek out employment of any kind (the CIA World Factbook puts unemployment in Saudi Arabia at between 13% and 25% - not to mention the massive hole women have left in the workforce). Living off of oil subsidies, there is little need for students to prepare to compete in the global economy - they already have a resource the rest of the world needs for survival and receive an annual cut sufficient to live quite nicely off of.
Pakistan is another example. With the state generally unwilling to invest serious amounts of money in education - and with teachers rightfully afraid for their lives in many areas - parents are given the terrible choice of choosing to provide little to no education at all for their children or sending them to a madrasa where their child will at least learn to read, write, as well as likely learn some basic math. The religious knowledge they will acquire will also help instill positive morals (they hope) and make them a beacon in the community as they grow older (also, they hope). While the later is admirable, it is when the religion overtakes ALL subject areas - as it does in many of these schools - that it becomes a problem.
I received my undergraduate degree at a religious university - BYU - in the U.S. Evolution was accepted as fact and discussed as such. I studied Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and other great philosophers. I took classes on deductive logic. I studied Islam and Judaism. I learned the laws of thermodynamics. Majors were offered in Biology, Chemistry, various engineering disciplines, and other quite scientific fields. There were, of course, religion classes as well, but the requirement to complete these - 12 credits - was a fairly minor part of the overall curriculum and I cannot recall any instance of religion being extensively mentioned in secular classes (the vast majority) with the exception of ethical issues - particularly in a National Security class and on the subject of war. If the Arab world could make a system like that work, it would be better than what they have now.
I wonder how much of this divergence has to do with the embracing or refusal of logic. Christianity, after the dark ages, made various attempts to reconcile its beliefs with logic with varying and certainly debatable results. St. Thomas Acquians and Pascal are good examples. But the idea that things should conform to logic and reason has been deep seated for centuries now, even though it is certainly not universal. As Christianity embraced reason, Muslims philosophers such as Al-Ghazali sought to move away from it for whatever reason. The courses I took on logic and philosophy, although somewhat infuriating at the time (professor's fault, not the material) have been the most useful to me by far in life. I cannot imagine a life - or a culture - without these ideas.
This is hillarious, watching all of you intellectual blowhards falling over yourselves for the throne of the moronic...as if you eve had a clue! As if history has ever been filled with anything other than the likes of you, those who would simplify it for your useful idiot hordes willing to suspend belief so readily.
Whenever this topic arises, so called arab/islam superiority, whatever your fucking calling it now you can always bet on some dopes rolling out the same old chestnuts like...
-we get our number system from them
-that guy named algorithm
-they preserved information in libraries
blah blah blah, yeah great stuff but there is so much more that did not originate from Siam or arabs and what it really comes down to is how truthful are you at keeping score because the way I see it, every major civilization and some not so major have made essential contributions so this old pissing contest of who was superior is bullshit, fucking idiots.
What is relevant though is the present and it is obvious that the wesatern tradition for the way we know it now is superior since we have shaken off our barbaric ways, have found a balance between science and religion and its because of western civilization, the whole of humanity has moved forward as they now enjoy the fruits of our collective historical suffering.
Of course since Islam is post Egypt, Greece and Rome, those empires and their contributions are conveniently forgotten and with Greece and Rome representing the foundations of Western Civ including what they may have borrowed from Egypt, while adding their own is whats obviously missing here. At this point isert other civilizations and empires that I have left out.
The fucking point is that throughout history, knowledge has been offered by all with each making major contributions along the way and regardless of what was but whats more important is what is, the here and now.
When you look at Islam today, what do you see?
I see a whole lot of misery and ignorance so stop fucking whining about they or them did this or that to us and get to fucking work. Get to work on your own Islamic Reformation and purge those amongst you who will see the whole lot of you destroyed.
If you dont believe that, you may want to research American History, your fucking with the wrong people.
We are not those alleged ignorant and drunken barbarian crusaders that our liberals, leftists and atheists so willingly offer us up to be historicaly.
You may want to re-think your present course over because no matter what, Islam will lose and your misery will continue until the sun sets on human civ and by then, we will have moved on into the cosmos and you will be left to melt on the surface.
If you think this forum is some guage of relevance or validation of your viewpoints on so called islamic superiority whether historical or present, your making the same mistake all over again.
As Mark Steyn puts it, you are the "state of the art primitive" and it shows!
pointing out that some people don't understand that science and religion don't have any thing to do with each other does not invalidate the fact that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other
the existence of a false conflict in some people's minds, the inability of some people to understand basic truths, does not invalidate those basic truths
if enough people think the world is flat, does that make it flat? no. it means people are simply ignorant on the issue
if enough people think there is conflict between science and religion, does that mean they are in conflict? no. it means people are simply ignorant on the issue
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"One can only imagine what civilizsation would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright."
Religion and science are NOT diametric opposites! ...nor are faith and reason.
Forget the fact that some of this nations best schools and hospitals are run by religious organizations. Never mind that Gandhi, Dr. King and even Pythagoras were men of faith AND reason.
There is room for more than one way to make sense out of the world around us. By now we should have reached the point where we can accept diverse paths to truth and the idea that not all questions have satisfying, simple answers that one and all can understand. ...at least not right away.
...and if we can't agree with each other about the questions and answers, we shouldn't have to be so disagreeable in that regard. We shouldn't need to demean others who don't believe what we believe or think the way we think.
I didn't need all that excess karma anyway.
The US was, in part, founded by fundamentalists. Of course these same fundamentalists were escaping persecution by a religious majority and saw the need to not allow a single religion to dominate all of society.
Even today, we get along just fine with the Amish, Mormons, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. I don't see anything to suggest that this will change.
The Middle East has had a thriving scientific and technological tradition long before 600 AD. It's not referred to as "Islamic" or "Arab", because neither term is used for what is today the Arab World prior to that time.
Early Islam did not retard scientific and technological progress, but it didn't necessarily help them either.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Yep. Thinking about Pakistan being "the islamic world" is like thinking Somalia is "islamic world". Or Rio de Janeiro is catholic world.
Besides, why on earth do you need stamp the "Islamic" on science. Kind of like how theory of relativity is the work of a Jewish scholar.
Fart. Fart. Fart.
Islam has some major issues because the entire religion is controlled by very corrupt demagogues.
Actually (as with current Christianity) it's only a small percentage that are followers of the, shall we say, "interpretations of Islam" in question. (Of course with somewhat more than a fifth of the Earth's population following some form of Islam it doesn't take a very large fraction to raise a sizable army.)
The bulk of Muslims are followers of juristic schools that forbid -or reserve for situations that aren't currently met (such as attacks on Islam itself) - essentially all of the activities of these factions. By their rules these factions are heretical.
The problem is that Islam has a rule about not calling other Muslims heretics. ("If one man calls another man a non-Muslim, one of them is not a Muslim.") This is apparently directed at avoiding faction fights. But it has the side-effect that most Muslims avoid criticizing other people who claim to be Muslim, for fear of sinning themselves.
Some of them DO criticize the troublesome factions as "brigands" - murderous criminals for whom the death penalty is actually required (and the various forms of avoiding imposing it for virtually any other offense are forbidden). But most won't call them heretics or point out how the things they're doing are not what (their own version of) Islam requires or permits.
Meanwhile the troublesome factions have no problem at all loudly proclaiming their version is the only true Islam, calling anybody who doesn't exactly match their interpretation a non-Muslim or (even worse) an apostate, and killing (or "force-converting") them whenever convenient.
This has the unfortunate result of making it difficult to judge how many Muslims actually oppose these factions. The media doesn't pick up on the "brigandage" criticism and the very few Muslims willing to call the factions heretics - but is perfectly willing to propagate the factions' claims of having the one true Islam and characterize their ideology as "Fundamentalist" - implying they have the real article and the non-rabid-Jihadists are just lazy or backsliders. So to non-Muslim eyes, the entire Islamic population appears to be at least quietly supporting these factions and to consider them legitimate practitioners of the faith.
(This also makes it hard on those individual Muslims who are being pressured by these factions to resist them, since they don't have outspoken social support from the other Muslims.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
People mod parent up! Muslims destroyed, not created culture. Most discoveries attributed to them were stolen from cultures they conquered and subsequently destroyed: astronomy, algorithms, not even the arab numerals were theirs!!
Somehow I find it difficult to believe you.
Both Islam and early Christianity had abhorance of charging interest on borrowed money. Its was sin in the eyes of many. However Christian Europe gave up its reluctance, especially employing an interest-indifferent proxy the Jews, before directly doing it themselves a few centuries later. Hence, Europe developed efficient ways of creating/accumulating large sums of money necesssary to finance exploration ships and building manufacturing enterprises.
Observant Islamic bankers use non-interest ways of growing money now. E.g. profit shares in a group enterprise (dividends), leases, etc. They are almost efficient at growing money, but perhaps not quite.
Less KILLING !! More Loving !! More Creating !! Put that in your jihad and smoke it !!
For example, scientists that challenge secular orthodoxy also find themselves persecuted. And I'm sure you'd find similar examples in other oppressive regimes. That science can thrive under oppressive regimes owes more to the usefulness of said science than the intellectual tolerance of those regimes.
As for considering opposition to genetic research as some sort of medieval clash between science and religion I would disagree. Science should not have the final word on morality -- scientists should be still subject to the general mores of society. Although progress is generally portrayed as the victory of science over religion, we would do well to remember Eugenics. Pre-WWII, eugenics was quite popular among scientists and quite unpopular among the religious. In this case (rightly, I believe) religion carried the day.
everyone has a religion. the most rabid atheist and scientific proponent is probably driven by some rudimentary form of humanism. this is a religion. anything based on faith or belief is a religion. for example, simply believing in fairness and justice, a belief that without which most people would go insane, is a form of religion. there is nothing in science that says fairness and justice should work. the natural world doesn't care in the least if someone is gravely unjust and unfair to you. but you do. fairness and justice is strictly a human invention, nothing to do with the natural world. and yet there it is, vital to human existence, a religious aspect of your life
and the most dogmatic religous zealot has a rudimentary form of science. cooking is a form of science. he observes that water boils at a certain temperature, and that if he applied the same amount of calories to the same amount of water, it will probably boil in the same amount of time. did allah will this to be? doesn't matter, it was his reliance upon the recreation of the manipulation of natural phenomena to arrive at the same results in his mind. he forecast that allah would make the water boil by recreating the starting conditions. science
you say i am being obtuse and abstract, avoiding the conflict. well what do you call arriving at the greater truth of things? when einstein based his theories on abstract math, is he being obtuse and abstract? when wittgenstein examines finer and finer gradations of transcendental thought, is he being obtuse and abstract? no and no. it's complicated, therefore, the turth is complciated. or "obtuse and abstract", if you will
if some other group of religious or scientific zealots wish to be brutish and simplistic in their approach, does that validate their understanding of the truth? does it redefine the truth of the matter? no, it merely demonstrates that some people are ignorant
you say i am avoiding conflict. no, i see the conflict. i am not engaging in it though because the conflict is invalid. do you get in ridiculous arguments about ridiculous things with ridiculous people merely because they are arguing? no, you recognize some sarguments are pointless and fundamentally flawed. so you simply sidestep them
pointing out that some people don't understand that science and religion don't have any thing to do with each other does not invalidate the fact that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
According to your same source:
Wikipedia on Arabic Numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
"These numeral glyphs ultimately derive from the Brahmi numerals, which arose in Maurya period India.[1][2] They were transmitted first to West Asia, where they find mention in the 9th century, and eventually to Europe in the 10th century.[1] Since knowledge of the numerals reached Europe through the work of Arab and Persian mathematicians and astronomers, the numerals came to be called "Arabic numerals." In the Arabic language itself, the Eastern Arabic numerals are called "Indian numerals," , (arqam hindiyyah) and a different set of symbols are used as numerals."
Salut!
this is a major reason.
Read radical news here
pointing out that some people don't understand that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other, does not invalidate the truth that science and religion don't have anything to do with each other
the truth on most things is deep and complicated, and yet a lot of people take a brutish and simplsitic approaches to fundamental truths, from the point of view of science or religion
just because these people do these things, does that alter the actual truth?
no. a bunch of people believing the world is flat does not make it so
liekwise, a bunch of people believing science and religion are intertwined does not make it so
if you use your mind to fundamentally define what science is, and what rleigion is, you wind up with the inescapable conclusion that they simply don't touch each other
some people don't choose to do that
well there ar eignorant dogmatic people in the world, from the realm of scienc eand religion
news at 11
the existence of the ignorant does not redefine the actual truth of the matter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You should be aware that your argument, while well-intentioned, is both flamebait to people who see no conflict between science and religion, and pretty disgusting in its arrogance to people who may actually agree with you otherwise.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world.
This is pretty obviously false. There are lots of evangelical and Catholic scientists. The ones I know don't throw their hands up in the air and cry "miracle" when they encounter something they don't understand. Leaving open the possibility of miracles doesn't mean that all the regularity and predictability in the world go out the window.
As a theologically conservative Christian, I think the bible provides authentic knowledge about the physical world. I believe science does, too. Many Christians make the mistake of trying to silence or ignore science that they don't like, but that doesn't flow necessarily from confidence in the bible. In fact, it probably often comes from a lack of confidence. As (if I'm not mistaken) Augustine said, "All truth is God's truth." Both science and biblical exegesis provide tentative knowledge. A conflict could indicate something as simple as the need to keep working.
if i had mod points, you would be modded up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's all to do with the head honcho - if he (it's always a man) feels he can express his power better by terrorizing his subjects and using the doctrine of the faith to this end, you'll get a period of repression and no scientific progress. Think Savonerola's Florence, or Calvin's Geneva or the current state of affairs in Iran. Because scientific progress is all about freedom. If, on the other hand, the ruler is weak, or sympathetic, or has so much power that he doesn't even have to care about the freedom of those around him, then you'll get a period of progress. Break down the hierarchy so that scientists can work independently, and you can guarantee progress. That is, until somebody builds the hierarchy back up again and starts using his power again. It's something that has to be fought for continuously, because believe it or not, even in the Western world, people are constantly plotting against even the most basic freedoms of what is perceived as 'the other group'.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Hawking: "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
I understand the distinction quite well, thank you.
"Please come down from the high abstract phrases and tell us one theory that is taken as law."
How about a whole slew of them? I don't have to do more than point you to a history book to show you how scientific history is littered with the corpses of those who objected to the theories of their times only to be vindicated later. You seem to think scientists have no egos.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/134/3479/596.pdf
Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to "believe without evidence" or "faith."
The only people I've ever come across who define faith this way are the ones who are setting religion up for a beating. I've never met a religious person who does. So, really, your entire post, which depends on this definition, is pointless.
"Actually, I had a rather easy time of it. Try Wikipedia: Abortion related violence [wikipedia.org] "
No, you didn't, you posted yet another abortion bombing rant that is both off topic and irrelevant.
Try reading the comments that proceed you in the future, you'll avoid being wrong again.
And just because I want to, you're listing shit that is over ten years old. Why? Because that's all you have. How much money would you like to wager that I can find more examples of muslim violence last year than you can find examples of abortion clinic bombings in the US in the last ten years?
Right, thanks.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I've wondered about this for years: why are there no famous Spanish scientists? Russian, German, Italian, French, Polish, English... I can readily think of names from each of these nationalities that would be easily recognized by the man on the street. I can't come up with a single Spanish scientist whose name sparks recognition.
but this just means that apes create their own reality in a rudimentary way like humanity does. that apes have their own religion, albeit a shadow of what humanity has, due to their far more limited communication abilities. humanity can create realities that span generations due to written texts. apes cannot do that, but they do limited actions based on faith and belief of their own creation within their short lifetimes. not as rich, but something
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It isn't even mildly challenging to determine what is, and isn't, in the scope of science and therefore amenable to scientific method.
You may as well say that if one thinks a particular type of music is "best", he wildly discards all science due to this view's unprovability, and hence is not merely personally incapable of science or engineering, but likely is contributing to the collapse of society.
Simple fact is, religion is -not- the sole "source" of opinion regarding an issue apart from a scientific investigation of a domain. We have quite unremarkably just -known less detail- about certain topics historically. If this seems unclear, feel free to explain why Native Americans didn't have fusion reactors in the 1300's, completely isolated from any "harmful" influence of the Catholic Church. This is, of course, ignoring the whole scope of things that quite unarguably exist (aesthetics, ethics, politics, etc., etc.) and fall into neither the domain of "religion" or "science".
Another false dichotomy from the same mindset that declares things "unscientific", and equivocates the meaning of that term to be both "not in the domain of science" or "disproven by science" according to their rhetorical purposes--irrationally. I'm lookin' at you, Dawkins.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
you know of course that religion and philosophy overlap. but you are taking a limited definition of what religion means. my definition is much broader and deeper than yours about what religion means
which quickly degenerates into a pissing contest between us: "my definition is better than your definition" whatever. the semantics are important. retarded fights over specific word meanings are pointless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ah well, doing sociology of religion was the reason I never went into the Ministry and ended up a systems designer.
Pining for the fjords
if a man kills his wife because she is possessed by a demon, does his willingness to go to brutal violence validate the observation that mankind is battling demons?
no
likewise, because there are idiots who don't understand the subject of science and religion who are willing to kill in the name of their misunderstanding... does that validate their misunderstanding?
no
so don't help them by trying to tell me that a willingness to kill in the name of a nontruth therefore makes it a truth
that's what you are saying
by supporting their retarded interpretation due to their willingness to kill, you are telling me truth is based on violent enforcement
you are saying that
i reject them, i reject you. i embrace the truth, regardless of the violence you show me directed against the truth
no. the truth is the truth, regardless of how many people think otherwise, or how passionately and violently they will defend their nontruth
don't support them
because right now, in the way you think, you are supporting them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The author harks back to the golden age of Islam (essentially, before 1500) and claims that Islam no longer rejects technology. The fallacy here is that Islam did reject technology like the printing press until very recently. It is not a surprise that Islamic culture did not keep up with the west when they ignored such technology for 400 years. It is true that cultures with complex writing systems, like Japan and others, also were slowed by difficulties with mechanized printing, but they have been able to assimilate western technology sooner than the Muslim cultures have.
Muslim countries that are less entrenched in fundamentalist belief are more culturally and technically advanced. The rich oil countries have science as an effect of their wealth, not as a cause of it. Southeast Asians are geographically adjacent to high tech territories, with a different culture than the north African Arabs and other Muslims in Africa and West Asia. The lack of science in those countries probably has more to do with poverty and oppression than Islam.
To state an obvious point, modern Islamic culture does embrace technology when it suits them - they adapt violent practices from the west when they feel it helps them to advance their goals.
this is just a retarded pissing contest about word definitions
with what you just said, you are standing by your derogatory definition of what religion is
no. your definition of what religion is is invalid, it does not embrace the whole scope of the subject matter, but only a small derogatory dogmatic section of religion. you are saying that is all that is religion. you are wrong
the proper response to me for you now is to insist your definition of religion is complete
and then i respond by resaying it is incomplete
ad nauseum
in other words, like i said, a retarded pissing contest. so i will make no more comment with you. this discussion is retarded
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What is your definition of faith?
you point out to me that religion has perpetually failed to comment successfully on natural phenomena
which is what i already said, but through some misunderstanding on your part, you think this invalidates my observations
when it actually supports them
there are apsects of human existence that science does not touch, but religion does
if you think that religion is mostly the history of its failure to explain natural phenomena, then i think you really don't know what the bulk of religious history has concerned itself with
your definition of what religion is is found to be lacking
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
TROLL ALERT:
that many very intelligent people can become emotionally invested in a mistaken point of view, and out of stubbornness, negate the gifts and insights of their intelligence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But what are the contributing now? The Romans contributed a great deal to the world, yet they don't seem to be doing so any more as there seems to be none left.
I'll call your attention as well to Dr. Tyson's speech on the matter. It's the start of Session 2. I encourage you to watch all of it, but the bit on Islam starts at about 27:00.
You are right that the Arab part of the world used to be the centre of this sort of thing. However that collapsed and it has never recovered.
http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/
I am moved to post after reading the horribly xenophobic posts in this thread. I am a Muslim but I am also a scientist. I am now doing my PhD in New Zealand, studying the evolution of hyperthermophilic archaeon and fully sponsored by the government of Malaysia, a nominally Muslim country. Despite what many of the posters here have said, not all muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are muslims. To paint broadly as have been done is doing injustice to muslims who are trying to regain our Golden Age. The largest number of muslims reside in Indonesia and there are 20 million muslims in China alone. Contrary to what you see in movies and the media, there exist modern and affluent muslim societies. Just as there are poor and backward "Christian" countries, there are also poor and backward Muslim countries. Don't make the mistake of generalizing from what the media shows you. For your information, Islam does not advocate the discrimination of women. I will not go into detail of this matter as it will take ten pages but the discrimination that you see in the Arab world is largely cultural, not religious. In Malaysia, we have women nuclear engineers, aerospace engineers, scientists, central bank managers, members of Parliment etc. Islam does not prohibit war but it is telling that the only surah in the Quran that deals directly with war does not begin with "In the name of Allah". Islam also does not prohibit the search of knowledge. The first words of the Quran revealed to the Prophet Muhammad implores him to read. This have been taken by all muslims to mean we must always seek knowledge. Which brings back to my field of study. How can a muslim like me, who believe in Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus do research involving evolution? My view is that what mankind have known and can ever know of the universe and beyond is like a drop of water in the ocean. Under this assumption, I approach my research with humility and I will never make the arrogant claims that atheists make. Perhaps the theory of evolution is only part of a larger pattern that we may never penetrate. So please, painting all muslims as terrorists and medieval book burners will only expand the gulf of understanding between muslims and westerners. I did not support the terrorists and I believe the majority of muslims don't as well, just as I believe not all Westerners are imperialists who seek to colonise us again.
Creating universe in six days, talking snakes, winged creatures under his command sent to destroy cities, people created out of other peoples body parts and various plot holes you could drive a truck through (Where did the Mrs. Cain come from?)...
Which part exactly of the story of his doings falls out of fairy tale definition?
Oh... you meant that HE is not a fairy tale but a fairy tale character? Like Prince Charming, Big Bad Wolf, Snow White or Shreck?
Oh... OK... I can go with that.
As long as we are not proposing that just because something is written in some book somewhere long time ago in a land far away - it is the truth.
Cause... then I'd rather go with Scientology. It kinda makes more sense then the Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Well, until fairly recently in the Western tradition, it was fairly dangerous to be openly non-religious or anti-religious. It only makes sense that a smart person would, at the very least, adopt the correct appearances.
Who's to say what those individuals would have thought did they not exist in an environment which more or less required religion in order to be taken seriously (or not be harassed or killed)? It's difficult, probably impossible, to pull any of them out from their environment.
But you're giving religion a ridiculous amount of credit to say, simply because a lot of people who were smart also were religious, that their being religious led to their being smart. A lot of criminals were also religious; do we lay them at the Church's doorstep, too?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I think the situation is generally pretty simple: any time a group declares that "God is on our side" they stake a position that they have to defend. If they see another group who is more successful -- more powerful, more money, whatever -- they *have* to explain to their followers why this is happening. There are only two explanations: "we were wrong: God isn't on our side" or "those people are in league with the devil!"
Guess which one people inevitably choose?
Once you've made that choice, it's much easier to demonize, literally, your opposition, and justify doing them harm. This same system of thought is seen in conservative Christian and Muslim movements, and has shown up in other religions as well, just not as strongly recently. And, while I'm at it, I like atheists because they never say that God is on their side, but many people say 'truth' when they mean 'whatever it is I believe' -- and that's no different, from the context of explaining why people do things, than saying 'God'. It's just human nature. The problem is that this particular bit of humanity has been stuck in this mindset for a thousand years.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"Whatever you were trying to communicate, you failed, and for any reasonable interpretation of what you actually said, you were wrong and stupid."
I see, YOUR inability to read for comprehension makes ME stupid. That would be funny if it didn't illustrate exactly how pathetic you are.
"Sorry for "assuming" you have the basic language skills necessary to put your thoughts to paper. "
No, no you were right for assuming that, what you shouldn't have assumed was that your education was sufficient to understand me. I'll gladly accept your apology for your ignorance in advance.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Science is the longest sustained meditation into the nature of reality; Reality is what continues to exist, after you cease believing in it.
The discoveries of science are public revelations.
The question is not "do we believe in evolution;" The question is "do we accept it" or not?
What gets me excited is **sacred tellings** of the 13.7 billion year history of the universe.
Meanings and communities are constructions of the brain. And yet, they exist. Psychological realities are empirical realities.
So a sacred understanding of the universe is a valid, and arguably even necessary understanding of the universe; The psychological reality cannot be denied, simply because it is constructed. Psychological realities evolved, just like everything else.
The concept of "heart" describes something material, but not in the chest.
From The Guardian (UK's main soft left newspaper): How Russia lost the moon Sergei Khrushchev: The Soviets squandered the lead in the space race that Sputnik gave them, despite my father's efforts. You can read it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2181418,00.html.
so you defeat ignorance by merely beating back it's poor conclusions forever, without any relief or change in the situation. rather than educating it, and changing it
how did the christian world crawl out of the endless brutality of the middle ages into the enlightenment? through that pointless tilting at philosophical windmills you describe, friend
which, ironically, started in the islamic world
but you desecribe a world where the islamic world is always dogmatic and stultified, and never capabale of reason and enlightenment, and must be met only on the realm of brutish violent enforcement, rather than enlightened reasonable discussion
really?
well, regardless of your level of pessisism and optimism on a coming islamic enlightenment, there is history's lessons for you about great islamic scholars studying their almanacs in the alcove, examining alkali alchemy, discovering alcohol and algorithms in algebra
while the christain world engaged in clubbing each other over the head
think about that change in position in the last centuries, and what is possible in the next centuries
you're view of the situation is static, fixed, unchanging. you see no enlightenement or potential for it. you think that is "tilting at windmills", usless and pointless and irrelevant to reality
which means you don't understand the solution to the problem at all. you are blind
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This must have been a joke.
Allah has no room for science, as he ( and his 'teachings' ) would be proven a farce and the entire muslim religion would disappear in a puff of logic..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The statement "Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world" is really, really odd given that modern science started in Christian countries where miracles were taken literally and revelation was considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world.
It has been argued that it was seeing the universe as created by a rational being enamoured of order (in particular, mathematical order) who created us to know both him and the universe that produced the confidence in reason and observation that was needed for the scientific enterprise. (Why else should we suppose in the first that there should be discoverable deep, non-accidental patterns beneath surface disorder?)
I am not an Islamic studies scholar, but my understanding is that Islam, historically, has been less willing to agree that God made us to know the truth (there are Qu'ranic passages about God deceiving people) or that he endowed the universe with a rational structure knowable by us. Moreover, while occasionalism--the view that there is no real physical causation, but instead God does everything directly (so that it is not the fire under the kettle that causes the water to heat up, but rather God, on the occasion of the fire, makes the water heat up)--was very much a minority view in the West, it has been a much stronger force in Islam. And occasionalism can make one very skeptical about the prospects of understanding how things work in the world, unless one has a view on which God's actions have clearly discernible patterns, and I don't think Islam is that committed to this.
>Also, no mainstream Christian church exists in the harsh climate--
> both social and environmental--of the middle east.
You are not only an idiot but a clueless moron who has to share his stupidity with the world.
>Then the Catholic Church happened
I would suggest you maybe looking into 'how it happened', the origins of christianity, the power play by Rome which resulted in the pillages of the crusades which by the way destroyed more christian cities than muslim (see all the loot the romans took pillaging Constantinople and the subsequent reasoning by Pope Innocent for attacking christians).
Rome was a part of an open source organization, didnt want to have to deal with community debates and decided to fork their own way into the proprietary world. Later, they tried to destroy their competition.
Its really like tech.
From an earlier post....
"Much of the science attributed to 9th-11th century Islam is actually Assyrian. The Assyrians produced significant scientific achievements for centuries, were defeated militarily by Islamic invaders, forced to convert, and, within about 100 years, stopped producing any meaningful science"
Ayn is more relevant today than ever and where is her truth more evident, Islam!
This was before the monotheistic "Allah" was cooked up by Mohammed.
Question: Which pagan deity is Allah? Or else who was Abd'allah named for? You know... that guy from the Bible. Him who is called I Am!
Islam is the same thing as Christianity - only with minor updates and changes. Same basic rules (plus couple of new ones), same prophets, same angels...
It even has Jesus - only his name is Isa (like the slot) in Qur'an.
Main difference that was very useful for all these holy wars all these centuries?
No crosses or icons.
Cause there is that rule about no idols in the HolyBookTM. Pick the one you like - its the same thing anyway.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The word "algorithm" comes from the famous, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi , and the word "algebra" comes from the Arabic title of his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Compendious_Book_on_Calculation_by_Completion_and_Balancing .
I'm surprised there isn't a widely available set of textbooks featuring Al-Kwarizmi to give a nationalistic nudge for science.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Whoa. This is a logic leap of Olympic proportions.
Democracy is a powerful means to its ends (e.g.: those typically described in democratic constitutions), but it inherited the lamentable romantic habit of taking strong assertions for rational arguments.
- Democracy does not, per se, lead to a moral investment of the population in politics.
It's remarkably difficult to get even minimal participation (voting on the most important elections) on mature democracies, much less 'moral investment'.
- Democracy does not lead the population to think of 'higher, greater things'.
On the contrary, participatory government focuses on concrete improvements to the way of life of the constituents. That IS one its main virtues - the resources of the state are to be invested into the happiness of the population, rather than the aspirations (however idealistic) of an autocrat.
- Democracies tend to worry, more than anything, about day-to-day issues.
Not being killed for wearing the wrong clothes is a central preocupation of citizens and politicians on most modern democracies - personal security is expensive to maintain, and a function of prosperity, not (directly) of constitutional freedom.
Even if the most secure and prosperous democracies, day-to-day issues are the center of popular thought and political action. People worry more about their job security, schools for their children, their parking situation, or whether there is too much fat in french fries.
Historically, worrying about "greater things" rather than the menial day-to-day problems of life is a very aristocratic feeling, not a democratic one; and the romantic rethoric of democratic documents has a lot to do with the aristocratic antecedents of those who wrote the seminal documents, and rethorical tradition.
Even when democratic nations do spend great effort and emotional investment in a "greater thing" (e.g.: space exploration, fundamental scientific research, solving world hunger, etc) it is typically a result of unilateral top-down leadership, whether motivated by national needs (war, foreign competition, etc) or by a strong push from a charismatic executive leadership.
In other words, the efforts are fundamentally 'dictatorial', in the original Roman sense of the word.
The causal chain that leads democracy to achieve 'greater things' is powerful but indirect. Leisure is the parent of such worries, and prosperity leads to leisure. The power of democratic societies lies on their capacity to best achieve and sustain prosperity, and reduce the number of worries of survival a citizen needs to deal with daily.
But it is human nature that, for the overwhelming majority of the population, even the most menial daily worries will take a higher priority than "greater things" in their political opinion.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Democracy has nothing to do with science.
Science progresses because people are given free rein to express their ideas, protection from persecution if those ideas run counter to the irrational masses, and a license to gather and share ideas.
None of that has the least bit to do with democracy. This country isn't especially science friendly; we underfund pure science, and allow commercial science to patent basic processes that could be used by anyone to advance knowledge.
The biggest problem with democracy and science is when you have a popular movement of anti-intellectualism, that has the potential to become public policy. Rule of the people indeed.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
from year 600 they had time until 1450. science has always been a 'curiosity' that was performed by scientists that were able to win protectorate from a nobleman or better, monarch in middle east. or you would get persecuted if you tried to do science without a protege. except if you were working on religion, islam. and the products of that science conducted wasnt spread to the society, or even other scientists. so noone can claim and say that there was science in middle east in islam era.
Read radical news here
Now replace "mullah" with "evangelical Christian", and it all applies on our neck of the woods as well. People somehow forget that this country was founded by religious nutcases.
First of all there are few evangelical and Catholic scientists, not lots.
Second, if you find falsifiable data that is counter to the Bible you can't be evangelical.
Third, The bible has no authentic knowledge of the physical world, at all. It has parables.
""All truth is God's truth." "
Do you even know what he meant?
Jeez, people suck at their own theology.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"You are a moron, unfit to live, and the error of your birth should be corrected through blunt force trauma."
No, what I am is an individual who trolled you successfully and got you to dance like my private ballerina.
For someone who claims such intelligence, you sure as hell didn't use it when replying to me or you'd realize that a) I don't care what you think and b) I was being intentionally contrary for the purpose of my own amusement.
I used you. I used you to make the last few minutes of my day go by a little aster, and I enjoyed it, and you played your part perfectly, oblivious the whole time.
This is where a man would say "GG sir, GG, you got me."
Let's see what you do.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Scientific inquiry started with these simple experiments. No one could codify the Scientific Method until enough people used it, and the pattern emerged. So, we can't just ignore pre-historic research on medicine.
Before anyone thought about the brain & blood flow, it made as much sense to think demons were inside the skull. Someone realized that something put outward pressure on the victims head. That pressure had to be relieved. Whether demons or blood flowed out, it provided the proper medical treatment.
Even today, a person who suffers bleeding on the brain has the blood removed surgically. This may be done using a carpenter's drill in an emergency. Failing to do so early enough allows brain damage.
... and God created light. Then he could see there was nothing. (Spike Milligan).
Move along please - nothing to se here.
So you mean basically that they should stop doing what the Catholic church got booted out of doing....oh....let me see....500 years ago. I suppose that we get to wait and see who their Galileo will be.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
The proper terms for the doctrine you speak of are Al-Mansukh (abrogated) and Al-Nasikh (abrogating).
Of particular note, the old "there shall be no compulsion in religion" (The Cow, Koran 2: 256) bullcrap that most Muslim apologists try to use to claim Islam is "peaceful" is an abrogated verse that was thrown away after Mohammed took over Makka. It was replaced by such nice verses as "O Muslim, do not take the Christians and Jews as your friends" (The Dinner Table, 5: 51) and "slay the idolaters whenever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush" (The Immunity, 9: 5).
Oops, I'm sorry. Did I reveal the truth about the world's most barbaric and hateful religion in their own words?
bomb them all, and let empirical analysis of the evidence sort em out ?
The 'elected' parliament refused to grant women their right to vote up until 2005 where, again, the 'dictatorship' government forced the law on the parliament and threated to dissolve it if it didn't pass. My sister completely covers up her face, if somebody saw me with her, they'd think "Oh look at that Arab suppression his wife/family", while in fact, I tried many time to convince her to take it off and how ridiculous it is but with no success, she's a devout Muslim and she doesn't want to do that and she thinks hideously of any thing western. While it is true that a lot wear it forcibly, it's mostly due to culture "oh everyone is wearing it so I'll do that". On many instances, I've seen women become more conservative by their own will. What's ironic is that in the last parliamentary elections where women got the right to run for office and vote, an Islamic MP (Daif-Allah bu Ramiah) who worked so hard to devoid women of their rights by launching numerous campaigns, actually won the race mostly due to the overwhelming votes he got from women voters (Women voters represent more than 50% of the total vote, despite that fact, no women MP was elected). It's completely insane and I truly don't understand it.
The country lives in a horrendous bureaucracy, most people are so lazy to work in an ethical manner, and most scientific institutions are run by zealot Islamic creationists who are wasting research money on 'scientific miracles of the Quran' and producing more books on why 'Evolution is a lie'. Their influence is heavy in education where kids are actually taught evolution, and how to 'disapprove it', not to mention the hatred driven religious classes which, thanks aga
Also:I completely agree with that. I don't believe anything just because it's written in a book. I also doubted my textbooks before I had a good reason to believe them (some didn't ever make the cut), I tend to doubt unverified claims in the news, and I've never given Moller any money for a skycar.
Onthe other hand, once I've verified a source as good, I use it (with ongoing verification, of course).
Now, am I religious or scientific? (Hint: It's a trick question.)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
In order to be a scientist and religious one has to be capable of doublethink.
Well of course, if you want to convert pre-existing religions, you start out by telling them they're on the right track, but *really* there's this other new stuff that they'll learn about in *your* religion.
;)
Aka embrace, extend... extinguish
You don't see too many religions go the other way, do you? Where they take an established religion, throw out parts, and get a smaller dogma. Oh people try it, but it never sticks because it's not "backward compatible" to incoming converts
Anyway, this is just evolution of a social meme, like one of those stupid chain letters zipping around the internet. Just because people like to tell themselves fairy tales doesn't make it true. Your parents probably did the whole Santa Claus and Easter Bunny thing when you were a kid, but you grew out of it. Funny how a lot of people don't see the obvious extension to the rest of religion from that...
I wouldn't say my mind is closed.
Of course you wouldn't. That doesn't mean it's not true.
In my experience most people (religious or otherwise) get irrational when their core beliefs are challenged. Not always hostile, but definitely irrational. They will spout logical fallacies left and right, seeming to have suddenly lost their ability to detect them, when only moments before they were pointing them out (as fallacies) in rival belief systems.
This seems to be a psychological defense mechanism that serves to protect one from the very disturbing feelings of uncertainty that arise in such discussions.
The people I've known who don't get irrational when their core beliefs are challenged were usually philosophers (by formal study). Also, they seemed to like it when they suddenly realized that the issues were deeper and less clear than previously thought. In other words, they didn't find uncertainty disturbing, hence they didn't need defense mechanisms, and hence they could remain rational when being challenged, and hence they could actually authentically be considered open minded.
My challenge to you: Humans are not perfect; in fact they often mess things up pretty good. Every single word in the Bible was written by a human. God himself didn't manifest before you and hand you a copy; a human did. Your belief that God used his divine power to preserve the accuracy of the Bible was also taught to you by a human (and, ultimately, cooked up by a human). You simply cannot escape the element of human fallibility present in the Bible, and in all arguments made to it's final authority.
So your faith isn't actually in God. It is in humans. That is to say, you have placed your faith in the specific humans who wrote the Bible, and the specific humans who gave you teachings about it.
In that light, what rational reason can you give me for believing that the (very strange) stories in the Bible (the ones about heaven, hell, superhuman powers, talking animals, and so on) are concretely and historically accurate?
Or even being openly gay, like Elton John. He gets death threats from Christians almost every day.
Truly, what is your definition of faith if it's not ultimately taking someone else's word that something is the truth? Does it depend on the presence of emotionally driven sensation as evidence of truth? Some people actually believe that's how they know what they believe is true... they just "feel" it somehow.
Religion *needs* to take a beating. It's largely responsible for all manner of human developmental loss along with outrageous human atrocity... all in the name of religious law and practice that is demonstrably opposing to nature, logic and natural human behavior.
(... and that doesn't mean a fucking lot ...)
There's basically two kinds of religion. Think of them as two sides of the same coin, if you will -- people will call them by one name and rarely distinguish between heads and tails in routine discussion.
The first is the kind you see in the news about backwards rural USA. Well at least I keep hoping it's just the backwards, rural parts. Generally people also assume it in countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban movement, Pakistan and so forth. In this kind, religion is used as an excuse to tell people what to think. "I am the priest, I interpret these words for you, therefore you must do as I say and think as I command". A vehicle for power, and a despicable abuse of basically any scripture from the pre-industrialized world and doubly so for the trusted position of a priest in a community. Powerful tie-ins with the local political system are more rule than the exception.
In this kind, the "points of faith" are taught as fixed, undebatable and in a way that one either accepts them verbatim, is ostracized or has their head lopped off or some other control mechanism comes into play. Generally just telling people as children that Jesus really hates them does the trick. The adherent's life is secondary to the requirements of the faith. Science? HERETIC, NONCONFORMIST, SEIZE HIM.
The second is where religion is a vehicle for philosophy, taken in its proper temporal and cultural context and interpreted and reinterpreted personally. In turn, where people aren't inclined to do the thinking for themselves, priests act as a sort of an outlet for wisdom, a weekly philosophy dispenser if you will, whether it is from whichever Book applies or just in general, so that the people have some sort of a minimum baseline of civilization even where they would turn to barbarianism otherwise.
Here, religion knows its proper position and sticks to it, taking a back seat to the adherents' own lives. Science pretty much just pops up where watered appropriately due to non-suppression of original thought, what with plenty of people being used to having thoughts for themselves even if they weren't scientists as such. Yet the faithful have some sort of a cultural backstop to fall back on in hard times (personal crises etc) without turning to juvenile, reductionist bo'shit like Ayn Rand or Nietzsche.
Oh, wait - the Jews in Israel are protecting thousands of gay Palestinian teens who came out of the closet and ran for their lives away from their murdering "parents."
At best, this is wishful thinking. Science and religion have a lot to do with each other and they are simply incompatible.
Religious thinking and scientific thinking are opposites: religion is based on the habit of accepting any kind of nonsense simply because somebody else tells you. It is based on the requirement that you MUST NOT question anything, because that makes you a sinner, a shame for your religion or similar.
Most religions still try to explain the world and the universe or how they came into being. How this is done, not only contradicts the scientific thinking but also often simply contradicts established scientific theories and tries to replace them with absurd superstitional nonsense.
And even when it comes to something that really has got nothing to do with science: ethics, religion is more a hindrance than an asset. Again, it is dogma and unquestioned rules instead of true compassion and emphaty that are at work and how that can fail miserably can be observed every day when religious fanatics use their very religion to abduct, murder, rape or just force their own views on everyone else.
linking to a site that isn't just out-and-out lies? Or as the Wikipedians would say: "Fails WP:V, WP:RS, Sanity check, and Bullshit Detector."
Whatever merits your argument might have had are negated by this sentence. Millions dead of starvation and the rest living in a bizarre society where they had to affirm as truth what was appallingly clear to be false != standardized testing which seems like a bad idea to you. However distasteful you find "intelligent design", it represents the views of the communities where it is taught and hasn't resulted in the total disappearance of evolutionary teaching.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's no proof, of course. No man has returned to tell the tale.
Rawr!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have they already announced a Fatwa against this science dude? It is just a matter of time you know...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They just use IEDs as their scalpel now.
The Pakistanis have the habit of painting Hindus/Indians with the same BS they are. This sense of insecurity has made the world see 9/11, 7/11, 7/7 etc. etc and other terror activites these people spread. Which other nation has 2% Christians, 2% Sikhs and 14% Muslims become Super PM/(PM/Army Chief)/President respectively at the same time when the rest of 80% is not represented in either of top 4 posts in the country.
Regarding Algebra being discovered outside of India, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB. The "inventor"'s book "On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals " played a major role and influenced discovery algebra again in the modern world. But Indians have been using it for a long time http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-231064. Lot of other inventions like Chess etc. are attributed to middle-eastern discovery because of India's 1000 years of plunder. It's sad to know that now Pakistanis can even think about raising fingers at others when all they do is "invent"/"design"/"research" new world events.
Thanks for verifying what I already knew to be true. Sad that there are people on slashdot that think telling the truth is a troll.
Must be the 'will of Allah'.
While I am an agnostic humanist I can see the how some of the memes associated with religions are so virulent. There is an attractive simplicity to the idea that I should behave in a socially beneficial manner just because a potentially vindictive omnipotent being (or his human "representative") tells me to. I am afraid that my best attempts to explain why I as a humanist I want my fellow human beings to be happy and fulfilled all end up getting bogged down in explanations around instincts we devoleped under selective pressures thousands of years ago.
I have come to the sad conclusion that the human brain as a meme reproducing machine doesnt have some kind of magical ability to home in on cosmic "truths", and that some of the ideas we have floating around at the moment may be the best it gets.
On a positive note however truths exist whether we believe in them or not and I see plenty of signs that (mostly) when a meme threatens the survival of its host the meme gets adapted. I suspect when too many people in America for instance start rejecting science and medicine and the standard of living starts to suffer then people will return to more practical belief systems (or die:). Likewise following the tsumani in asia, the "common sense" solution is to build a detection system, which is being done, whereas the religious "explanation" was that it happened because they had strayed from their leaders wishes, which ultimately has no real advantage for their survival.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".(Richard Feynman)
First off India and Turkey add up to a huge number of Muslims able to participate in democracy. Second Islam is not a religion that encourages superstition. Third look around you at any scientific institute in America, UK and beyond and see the vast contribution Muslims make to modern day research.
I aint Muslim but am getting a bit fed up of the continous bashing they get while working alongside them.
The basic problem is that Islam was never "reformed". Christianity went through the same sort of oppressive anti-intellectual period when the Catholic Church ran the world. That period, 600 years of "dumb", is called the "Dark Ages" for good reason.
There's hope. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are making progress, partly because they don't take Islam too seriously. Dubai has become a wealthy country without oil; it's a commercial center, like Hong Kong or Singapore. Saudi Arabia made a terrible policy mistake - the royal family let the religious types control education. Over 90% of the doctorates in Saudi Arabia are in "religious studies". Saudi Arabia ought to be training and exporting the world's oil experts, like Texas does. But they don't. They don't even train enough people to run their own country, which is going to hurt when the oil runs out.
Publishing in the Arab world is in terrible shape. The entire Arab world produces fewer books than minor European and Asian countries.
how is judaism the same? something like 1/3 of all nobels not to mention an inordinate amount of scientific and philosophic advances compared to the number of followers. The jews promote scientific and religious discussion. The only caveat is that the thing underlying everything is g-d (and for some that the torah is true).
>>Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies.
What the fuck? Why do people keep saying this? Do religious creation myths not conflict irreconcilably with the theory of the big bang? Aren't miracles pretty much a violation of the laws of physics (hence their name)? I'm willing to concede that a discussion of the afterlife can be seen as entirely separate from scientific issues, as it posits essentially an entirely separate universe for use after death, but that hardly implies that science and religion don't talk about the same things, and have very different opinions about the facts surrounding them and the mechanics driving them.
Sheesh.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
"Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to 'believe without evidence' or 'faith.'"
Religion and science are both endeavors to make sense out of the world. Religion was easier to access by the masses and was also easier to mis-use to exploit ignorance. But it also fostered values and understanding that allowed cultures to thrive, not merely survive. The involvement of religious organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
"Science" isn't always right but it's not about being right... it's about the continual pursuit of learning and understanding reality as we know it based on available evidence and the ability to prove through testing."
Neither science nor religion are good or evil by themselves. Let's leave the part about so many government science jobs involving weapons research by the door ...alongside the memories of bloodthirsty idiots killing in the name
of God.
"Religion is simply the opposite. It is based on the idea that what you were told is the truth."
Religion is supposed to be based on faith. At its best, it's supposed to inspire people, offer them meaning, and help them deal with questions that don't have easy, satisfying answers. In those respects, science is not a surrogate replacement for religion and really shouldn't be treated as such.
"'Rumor' fits this description... as does 'myth' and 'gossip.'"
There are times when even scientists work with what they have at hand. Meteorologists come to mind.
"But the fact is, religious belief cannot be admissible in a court of law with any reasonable rules for evidence and discovery."
Because religion is not a substitute for science, nor is faith for reason and vice versa.
"I'm probably wrong, but I believe things like advanced mathematics were developed in the "Islamic" part of the world, but predates Islam itself. It's more likely that Islam itself is responsible for the intellectual decline in that area just as it's often responsible for intellectual decline elsewhere."
...kind of off-topic, but Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he proved the existence of irrational numbers.
Imagine that. ...a man of reason AND faith.
Do you think it's possible to be intellectually honest without sinking into intellectual snobbery by demeaning folks who seek other paths to truth?
There are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation bouncing around this discussion, and the parent poster correctly addresses the grandparent's incorrect assertions about Catholic doctrine.
"Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies."
Oh right, except for that part where pure science contradicts religion and pure religion discourages science.
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
No offence intended of course - but the article we're commenting on actually suggests that veiled women in science class are less forthcoming - which is bad for scientific study in any country and so I would suggest also bad for the scientific elite. Of course my belief that democracies offer their populace more of a chance to morally invest in their country is base solely on the fact that people can vote for who represents them and one would assume they would vote for someone with the same outlook on life and morality as themselves. You don't get that in a democracy. ...
OK - so I might have offended some people by saying that "religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies" and I apologise to anyone who was offended - but do you really think that religious thought and practice have anything to do with what goes on in a science lab? Do you really think that God is hiding behind a Higgs Boson? That's a pretty depressing thought
Sorry you thought I was being arrogant though - I didn't mean to be - I was just stating some facts that I would fight to defend.
You're forgetting that at the root of catholicism, there is the freedom of thought. Ask the first catholic priest about it, and he'll certainly agree. Grudgingly, but agree nonetheless. That means that if you believe contraception is not a sin, you do as you please, you don't have to confess it, and you take the risk of being proven right or wrong on judgement day. Being catholic is only believing in the credo (there is one trinity, father, son, and holy spirit, and they are all the essence of God, basically). You're not even required to pay any reverence to the Pope. That's the reason why a priest who breaks his vows and marry a woman remains a priest. He's kicked out of the 'administrative' part of the Church, can't have a parish or publicly serve the mass, but all the sacraments he hold are nonetheless valid, and while catholics are advised to avoid attending such sacraments, there's nothing to nullify them once received. It goes as far as permitting (and even requiring) roman catholics to attend to an anglican mass when they can't find a catholic parish near enough. The core beliefs being compatible, there's no sin in doing so while missing the holy mass would be a bigger offense. Modern, european catholicism is in fact getting back in the line of the original rules of the primitive Church, to the great displeasure of the Holy See who only paid lip service for a thousand years to the respect of this principle of individual freedom of thought.
But you're right when you say that most catholics are being hypocriticals. Raised a catholic, I have been tempted for some times to describe myself as a 'believer from the steps', ie, paying reverence to the holy scriptures only and discarding all the cruft piled up upon them following Paul's epistles. I finally came to the conclusion that while all this crap can't be proven neither right nor wrong, I had no time to bother in this terrestrial life for what could really be fairy tales. To me, it's far more important to live a nice life and be good to others, not because there's a reward after death, but simply because it's a reachable aim to contribute, however slightly, to mankind welfare. Moreover, if there's something out there, being good for the sake of it can't do me any harm afterward. And if there's nothing, well, loved ones will have something kind to remember, and stories to pass on, and that would be the closest to eternity somone can expect.
All 3 fundamentalisms suck including that of Bin Laden, Bush and the Likudnics! The only way we will see peace is to move to a secular society and beyond tribal mythologies. Yes can we can still read the old books in the same way that we listen to an 18th century symphony as a museum piece, to believe in and fight for these books will be the death of us all in a age of jets, air craft carries, cruise missiles WMDs, etc.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
"You don't get that in a democracy." ;)
Of course I meant, "You don't get that in a non-democracy." - it's late
http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html
or perhaps he meant something along these lines
If some people knew a bit of history ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
European science flourished after the church lost its power. The Islamic world still mixes politics with religion. If a king and a bishop cooperate, together they are a great power that cannot be confronted by anything else (the king controls your body through violence, the bishop controls your mind through religion). Any discovery a scientist makes that is against their interests or preferences will be destroyed, together with the scientist, not by the king and bishop themselves but by an angry mob of zombies who believe they do what the Good Book teaches them. That's one of the many reasons that explain why science fails to flourish in a society, but it is one of the most important reasons, as scientific findings are often controversial and not in the interests of rulers and priests.
I cannot see that a belief in miracles (or rather, the belief that certain miracles have occurred) is inimical to science. The point about miracles is that they are NOT the normal working of the universe, and do NOT tell us how the natural world works in general. Indeed, the fact that they are normally impossible is what makes them miraculous. This leaves the field of normal events (i.e. 99.999999+% of all that happens) open to explanation by empirical science as the only source of reliable knowledge in that sphere.
The problem is with the use of ancient texts, no matter how inspired ("revelation"), to resolve general scientific matters. In particular, the problem lies in the assumption that fiction is not a valid form of scripture. I not only like fiction, but find some fiction profoundly moving and enlightening - why cannot scripture include fiction? Some ancient texts (like the parables told by Christ) are clearly meant to be fictions, and yet inspired and truth (just not truth in the narrative sense). The early parts of Genesis work very well as inspired *literature*, as vivid symbolism (e.g. with "Adam" and "Eve" as everyman and everywoman - the story is about human nature in general, not about some alleged first man and first woman in time). When people see the literary and personal value of many kinds of scripture (not all, but many), they worry less about whether it is narrative fact - the issue actually isn't important (e.g. the whole book of Job is an imaginary play about the meaning of suffering - it doesn't need to have a single iota of narrative truth to be worthwhile spiritual literature).
Even Christian scholars in the 4th century (Jerome, Augustine) thought that Genesis described the origin of the world in a poetic manner, rather than scientifically. It is modern (or at least more recent) fundamentalists, not the ancient religious scholars, who try to impose ancient religious texts onto scientists in a way that those texts were never written to be used. I have no trouble believing that the world is created (every moment) by God and at the same time holding that it is an evolving world, lasting billions of years. To use a literary example: who created the One Ring - Sauron or Tolkien? The answer is that both did, but in different ways. God, if you like, is the Tolkien of the universe - we are all characters in the story he is telling (and no, you are not likely to be the Frodo of the story - live with it).
Fundamentalism suffers from a lack of imagination. Those who think that fundamentalism is the only form of religion (or, somehow, that it is the "true" form, because it is the form they love to hate) are either biased or lacking experience of the real, diverse world of religion. And neither of these conditions is very scientific. Fundamentalism exists, and it is a real problem - not just for those outside the religion of the fundamentalists but also for the non-fundamentalists within that religion.
Science and religion are not in conflict. They are simply different things. And to the extent that this article discusses Muslim scientists and Muslim anti-scientists the conflict did not exist in the past either: both sides of the conflict were religious.
I am anarch of all I survey.
On the other hand, our scientific enlightenment was jump-started by:
-Stealing technology from England and other industrial powers (who were more advanced than the U.S. at the time)
-The use of slavery
-Physical isolation from two world wars that decimated most other industrial powers
-And don't forget all the advances that came out of the wars that wouldn't have been possible (at least in that time frame) without them
Germany, for example, made fantastic technological progress during world war two, from hydrocarbon dyes to explosives to rocketry to nuclear science. Had the war turned out differently for the germans, they could easily have been on par with the U.S., at least in terms of technology. And not only did we take most of their scientists and technology after the war, germany was in ruins and hardly able to leverage their newfound abilities.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, while the U.S. may have been a technological center, it was as a result of foreign policy, warmaking, and serendipity. And I suppose that's what everyone else relied on, too...
-ben
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Mexico (the country from which most immigrants to the US come) has separated church and state for 140 years.
In Mexico, unlike in the US, you don't pray in public schools where religious symbols are forbidden, all public servants swear their charges using the Mexican constitution, not the Bible, and many women ignore advice from the Pope regarding contraception (the Pope will not provide for my unwanted children - they say wisely).
Most Mexicans are catholic alright, but we have learned to live and let live, so your fears are unfounded (if anything, the exaggerated religiosity in the US may erode such healthy attitudes towards religion from Hispanic immigrants).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I find it ironic that the most vehement posts against Islam's scientific backwardness come from a country where a significant proportion of the population literally believe that the earth is 6000 years old.
Personally, I can't wait until all these overrated fairy tales are accorded the same level of respect, and have the same level of influence on social and political life, as Ashtarte, Zeus and Ra.
Perhaps this is true in the alternate universe you call home, but the reality is that Christianity has changed more in the last 500 years than it had in the preceding 1000 years. New editions of the Bible started to be published 400 years ago and new editions appear each year. Many protestant sects are radically different than Catholicism.
Check out the post in this topic. He is flooding slashdot.
What you are saying makes no sense.
Science can chose to test religious hypothesis of any kind in order to see if they provide new light rewarding our understanding of the world.
As long as the scientific method is applied consistently, there is no reason why science can't turn religion into a subject of study or possible knew knowledge (my take is that religion has provided precious little when it comes to scientific knowledge, but that does not mean they must be divorced).
As for religion dealing with science, well, there is no point. The moment scientific fact overrides religious dogma, religious people will not drop their beliefs, no matter what science is probing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are plenty of examples of non democratic countries where the populace was nationalistic and fully committed to the vision of their leaders.
Just for starters, neither the US or the UK (the great motors of the industrial and technological revolution in the last 300 years) were particularly democratic (unless you define democracy as the rule by a minority of white males). Slavery and racism was widespread in both countries and women couldn't vote until relatively recently, the UK ruled all the bits of the empire with differing version of apartheid, which many states in the US continued to uphold until quite recently.
So no, democracy is not really a big factor in technological progress.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He mentions science and God in a number of sentences...these are incompatible subjects, are they not? Islam and Islamic countries, by the very nature of religion would, and does, dispute, dispel and deny science...
The Qu'ran, far from being "the unaltered word of God", is actually an horrific and savage compilation of distilled hatred. Work on collecting the verses wasn't even begun until long after Mohammed was dead, and it was pieced together from people who claimed to have known him or known people who knew him. Thus it's put together out of chronological order (already one alteration) and to try to claim "Mohammed" wrote it is laughable.
Your point being? They were smart in the fact that anything that contained contradictions were burnt, one thing that the boys who compiled the bible were not so smart in doing as they never expected people to look at it criticly (there a handful in the Qu'ran but not many, making a Muslim apologist's job alot easier than a Christian one)
The same is true for the other Muslim "holy books", the various collections of hadith (sayings of the so-called "prophet") that various factions believe are more or less authentic (the Sunni and Shi'a have their own favored set each, same for other sects).
Anyone who claims to be a ]prophet is full of shit (including Paul of Tarsus) you should know better. Hadith makes the religion funny if you look hard enough. The sects mostly revolve around who should have aquired Mohammed's mantle. Then there are those who belive only Qu'ran has authority and those that belive both Qu'ran and Hadith have authority (in both Sunni and Shi'a sects)
Islam is not simply a religion; it is a design guidebook for the creation of a totalitarian state in which the "supreme leader" (Caliph) and his stooges get to use religion as an excuse to be really crappy to everyone else. And it's a lot easier to keep your population under control if they're too stupid to know better and terrified that a revolt might stop them from reaching "heaven."
Explain to me how that is any different from Christianity? It is a religion, thats the entire point of religion. The churches have lost their power in the west but in the old days they were very much based on totalitarian principles. The west went backwards because of Christianity which is a shame because of how far the Greeks advanced before the time of the alleged Jesus of Nazarath. When you troll Islam at least get it right, he married Aisha at 6 and f**ked her at 9. So he's still a kid f**ker but I just wanted to fix that one.
Muslims like to try to rewrite history to hide embarassing details - such as the nature of the Ka'aba, their "holy box", which predates Mohammed. Mohammed's grandfather was a pagan priest of a specific deity of the Quraish tribe. He named his son (Mohammed's dad) "Abd'allah", literally "Slave of Allah."
How is that any different than most religions? Not a single trace of Moses and his tribes "exile from egypt" Not a single contemparanious account of the alleged Jesus of Nazarath where they rewrite history to say Augustus and Herod ruled at the same time (read the first few verses Matthew and Luke chapters 2) 6CE and 4BC are a decade apart last time I checked. And thats just one simple example.
This was before the monotheistic "Allah" was cooked up by Mohammed.
It wasn't cooked up, he stole it from the monothesitic Yahweh (YHWH). Haven't you read the Qu'ran? Simple plagerism
Question: Which pagan deity is Allah? Or else who was Abd'allah named for? Yahweh the jewish war god, one of the "Sons of El" or "Elohim" who the jews turned made interchangable with El and adapted it to a monotheistic ideology. Judaism and as a result Christianity and Islam did start as pagan mythology.
Islam is a joke. The more educated Muslims you get, the more educated ex-Muslims you'll have as they wake up to the utter absurdity of this bullshit. That's why Muslim leaders hate education so much.
How does that differ from other religions? We have seen it first hand with Christianity
Hell, that's why the Muslim religion has a standing death threat for converting away.
Where do you think they got that idea? Its in the bible
If you are going to single out Islam, make sure its what makes it especially more repulsive than other religions, not pointing out the same flaws the others have.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Non sequitur. Miracles happen, revelation does provide authentic knowledge of the physical world, and this in no way barrens the soil for science -- unleß your religion is illogical, as Islam is. And the Pope got thrashed for pointing it out.
Convivence of science and religion is impoßible if any one side is demonised.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Doesn't look a damn bit different than the sorts of declarations found from Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute.
The Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute people do not represent the thinking of many people across a whole region of the planet, nor do they head any major governments, nor are they seeking to obtain neuclear weapons so they can run a "science expiriment" on the west.
That's why I don't really care what the folks you mention have to say about anything, whereas I take notice of what Ahmadinejad says and ponder it thoughtfully.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the reason that islamic countries are so backwards is because it takes too damned long to figure out what's being talked about. Add to that the internal struggles by militant islamists to take over ministries of education and shove their wahabbist bullshit down the throats of unsuspecting kids.
If what i read on another website yesterday Iran is world leading in genetic research so atleast they might win the manbearpig race.
You could say the same of us. Europeans didn't develop the first grain crops. They didn't domesticate the first animals. They didn't produce the first bronze and iron. They didn't create the first irrigation systems. They didn't create the first urban civilizations. They didn't create the first writing systems. They didn't discover the first complex mathematics necessary for large-scale engineering projects or for tracking complex economies.
The Medieval Muslims were no different than any other civilization, building upon previous discoveries and methods, adding their own, and yes, taking from conquered peoples different technologies and ideas. It's what the Romans did. It's what the Egyptians did. It's what the Persians and the Chinese did.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Ass sacking the city (Alexandria) in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library (of Alexandria, one of the great storehouses of knowledge in the ancient world), and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.
Your assertion is absurd.
an ill wind that blows no good
The land may have been settled by religious nuts, but the nation was founded by a mixed bunch of which many were atheists or at best deists.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
In a nutshell, Christian faith is belief in and reliance on Christ for salvation. A person's faith might be supported by evidence and arguments, or it might not be. The definition simply doesn't address that question.
Anyway, it is emphatically not the case that a belief only amounts to faith when it is held without evidence or good reasons. The bible is full of reasoning. See in particular Paul's epistles. You might not think any of the arguments are any good, but that's beside the point. The point is, the bible never says, "Just take my word for it." On the contrary, I can think of a couple of times when it says almost directly the opposite of that.
?????
I suspect that you'd be in trouble in most Muslim countries if you proclaimed that "God is not great", you aren't going to follow Islam's silly rituals, or that you're an atheist. Until you can, Islamic science is simply not going to be competitive.
For instance, even after the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the levels of prosperity and academic freedom that Iran had enjoyed before the Shah was installed never went back to normal. Everybody just became paranoid. And that's why to this day, we have a bunch of stupid paranoid extremists still running the show in Iran.
I get the sense I misinterpreted the main message of your last statement. Based on the context of your post, I believe you are saying culturally and politically science and religion have nothing to do with each other. In this sense, I agree: religion and science are basically culturally orthogonal.
However, one must be careful not to overstate the point with this non-overlapping Magisteria cartoon. Tacitly and overtly, religion makes many claims about the way the world works physically. When this happens, like it or not, religion is treading in the domain of science. There is an afterlife, or there isn't. Either someone rose from the dead, or didn't. Someone turned water into wine, or didn't. Created the world in 7 days, or didn't. Born of a virgin, or wasn't. And so on. If these things happened, then there had to be a mechanism. These claims are not just symbolic abstractions for most believers but real physical claims about the way the universe works at its most fundamental level. Science has a lot to say about the physical possibilities of these claims (usually not siding with the original claim). If religion were to stick to only unfalsifiable, untestable, unphysical claims, then non-overlapping Magisteria works fine.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
The remainder were wiped out because they didn't understand the concept of "Property Rights".
That's a myth. Native Americans understood property rights just fine. Heck, in the US they even went to court to try to enforce their contractually and legally guaranteed rights. The problem was that racists governments didn't honor those rights.
You are either a winner or a loser. Choose your side.
You're endorsing genocide and slavery.
Don't like it? Cry.
Quite to the contrary: cooperation has shown to be the better strategy in the long term. That's why we just put people like you into prison, where you belong. Don't like it? Cry.
Long before Christianity and Islam
Of course, one of the most egregious forms of dogmatism is censorship. When intelligence fails, intellectual cowards wish to silence competing opinions. While it is not an unusual occurrence, such a coward has apparently been given mod points in this forum.
Get this in your head: Good science doesn't depend on whether the person doing it was good, bad, whether their views aligned with yours or not. The whole idea of science is to deal in falsifiable hypotheses, which have nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs (and by the way, real, personal religion has the potential to be far above such trite questions as whether God is hiding beyond this or that, and to be deeply emotionally satisfying). So don't call people fools because they might mix science and religion in their minds. It's none of your concern, and it brings you one step down toward the level on which the very religious bigots you want to oppose think and act.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The extermination of the native people and their culture in North and South America was a terrible thing, but it was hardly a new concept in the area. North & South America had been populated for thousands of years. The people who lived there had been warring among themselves for most of that time. The Native people they found here were the victors... the groups which had absorbed or wiped out their neighbors in ways much more hideous than Europeans had used since the Inquisition.
I don't condone wiping out a whole continent of people and their collective knowledge, however to pretend they were innocent, peace-lovers is an idealized, unreal image. They were the strong. They were the survivors. Until the Europeans arrived and they met someone stronger.
Posting AC to protect my mighty moderation powers
We will take the book and its metaphors under consideration, but we will not speculate as to what "happens" when you are dead, except in venues of philosophy, neuroscience psychology, where we take reasoned approaches to understanding the nature of consciousness, existence, and so forth.
These are topics this particular book doesn't really get into in any consistent detail. So you'll forgive us if we're investigating in some different directions.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
>> Christian nutcases don't in general have murder and mayhem on their mind
Three hundred thousand dead Iraqis may disagree with you on that one. The christian nutcase currently in charge of this country seems pretty bloodthirsty, too.
Well, he's has hit a home run. This problem started with the appearance of Mohammad (Emphasis on the mad!) and continues to this day, Pie in the sky isn't helpful to any serious endeavor. As a matter of fact, if we could rid ourselves of my pie is more powerful than your pie, we wouldn't have any more pie fights. No more people dying for their pies. If we could just evolve a little more we might be able to survive this test of existence.
and it sounds like you just defend your own fairy tale.
What I talked about is not an extreme version of religion at all. It is the very nature of religion to replace reason with faith and to demand that somebody believes in only the dogma of this religion and not in that of the thousands of other, equally absurd religions that have been and still are in existance.
That does not prevent people from being good in arithmetics, but it prevents them from thinking scientifically. It does not prevent them from thinking scientifically in some aspects, but it always makes them hit those walls when they come to some "truth" of their religion where they *must* have "faith".
The only interesting question about religion is which kind of biological mechanism it is that causes that irrational lust of believing in the fairy tales of your peer group.
So far this thread has been just about ALL cheerleading the original post or cheerleading the cheerleading. You are less special than you would like to think yourself to be. Sorry about the Karma bonus - better luck next time.
Those who decry the "Politically Correct" because they see it as some sort of liberal reactionary resistance to reason often dont realise that the "liberal" bit isnt really the problem and it is the remaining three R's that are important.
What IS askew of the "new politically correct", one-of-the-herd line is the consideration that this is not about a single faith any more than a corrupt society is about a single political system. It is about ANY situation where a monoculture is allowed to develop and remain.
All religions.. All political systems.. All societies.. become dangerous to "the others" when allowed to close themselves off and wallow in their own dogma. We in the west sometimes decry our diversity - we vilify those in our society that are different to the current majority and we demand that they be more like us. The fact is that is it is this diversity (and even the discomfort that they engender in us) that prevents us from settling and becoming like the ignorant, insular, monocultural societies we fear so much. That we fear they may be turning US into.
So next time you find yourself chanting in the crowd (even if you think you're being special and original and edgy) ask yourself where you could be doing more good, because in the center of the crowd isnt it. The crowd will take care of itself.
Coward, Anonymous
People who feel they shouldn't adhere to ethics and morals, won't be prevented of doing so by religion, just as people who have the _right_ attitude don't need religion to steer them. Martin Luther King was a good man in and of himself, not because of religion. The truth is, religion has more often than not held humanity back in its most important areas of development. I am reminded of the words of Mustafa Kemal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk, the creator of modern Turkey.
"Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of his fellow men."
Fact is, religion has interfered with sane reason ever since it existed, and it holds back humanity to this very day. We want to shoot for the stars, but we're afraid we'll hit god.
"Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally" If that's true, how can the US be so successful in science?
Perhaps we should be asking why the Golden Age of Islamic science happened at all. As the article pointed out, the Arabs had no scientific tradition before their conquest of large parts of the (Greek speaking) Roman Empire. It was only when Greek texts were translated into Arabic that it was possible to continue the work that the Greeks had started. You could argue that the same thing occurred in Christian countries with the re-discovery of Greek philosophers in the Renaissance.
The price of Wikipedia is eternal vigilance
Given that steam engines, electricity and the concept of the atom where discovered at later Hellenistic periods (around 200 years around the birth of Jesus Christ), we could be at Star Trek level of technology and civilization right now. But instead of that, we got 1500 years of no progress, thanks to religion.
I am not defending Islam by any means. But there is this story about throwing stones and something about glass houses. Are you familiar with it?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Warning: Offensive Viewpoint ahead.
It is not Islam that is the problem for science & education in the Middle East. It is Islamic fundementalism.
It is not Christianity that is problem for science & education in the U.S. It is Christian fundementalism.
Fanatics of all types are the problem. As the famous bumper-sticker reads 'All Extremists should be shot.' Unfortunately, human kind will always have extremists. It's part of human nature.
I have come to the conclusion that Fundementalism, in just about any form, and by just about any religion, results in technological and mental impairment of the culture that tolerates it. Fundementalism also generates an openly hostile attitude towards perceived heretics, unbelievers, blasphemers, infidels, etc. Almost anywhere one has a fundementalist group, one has a conflict between adherents and non-adherents. No amount of HESH can be applied to fix that.
There is only one Fundementalist religious sect that I am aware of that actually manages to function without the believers be universaly perceived as foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics. That religous sect it the Amish.
Modern day science, literature, education, communications, and even language is under attack be fundementalism (Think Moral Majority vs everyone, PETA vs Carnivores, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals vs Conservatives, PC vs Mac, Windows vs Linux, etc) And it's going to get worse, because the human in-bred response to intolerance by others is more intolerance.
Somewhere there's a Slashdotter who lives near an Amish communty who is sitting back and thinking "Right now, Jeb would be telling me 'Yes, English, that is what we expected.'"
You're not clear on what you mean by "mainstream Christian church", but the Middle East is full of Orthodox and Maronite Christians.
Even after its civil war, Lebanon is still 35% Christian. Syria is about 10%, Jordan about 7%. The Orthodox Church is quite mainstream there, and increasingly so here in the West.
>The old testamenteers were big on the Word, and it was only when the whole focal point of the religion moved to the happy land of Europe that things got a little softer.
Europe has never been the focal point of Christianity for hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, Russia, Asia, the Americas and Africa.
>Then the Catholic Church happened. Happens. Really, it's interesting to watch judeochristians begrudge the muslim world one good crusade.
The crusades are often thought of in the west as something that Christians did to Muslims, but in the Fourth Crusade, Catholic Christians sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople, looted and destroyed churches, murdered priests and raped nuns. The crusades are as infamous to Middle Eastern Christians as they are to Muslims. This might be one reason why the White House apologized after Bush called his war a "crusade".
Just to stop people from stereotyping.. if you read the article you would know Abdus Salam won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the Standard Model in particle physics. If you read his biography http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/salam-bio.html you get the impression that he enjoyed teaching and collaborating with the world (like any other scientist) and he has this to say about religion: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart." It is not at all about hate and destruction... A.
... is Islam a meme yet?
Sig
"scientific history is littered with the corpses of those who objected to the theories of their times only to be vindicated later."
And do please remember that is it science that found its error and corrected it. You seem to be arguing that science should not do its best to weed out errant theories as they arise for fear it might make a mistake, hence all should be given equal weight. Maybe if we wait long enough, aether's day in the sun will come 'round for it.
Name one religion that ever admitted a mistake. I don't know, maybe the Pope apologizing for the Inquisition comes close, but that was hardly a central tenet of Christianity. Formalized religion does not admit recidivism. Operationally, people always modify it to suit their needs. And their needs sometimes involve justifying their behavior.
Science, on the other hand, is constantly reviewing itself. People may attempt to use it to justify their pet theories, but eventually, science corrects these because there is an independent objective yardstick against which to measure. Religion has no measure. Religion admits no measure. Religion claims to be the measure. It is the perfect Totalitarian philosophy.
Gerry
What Al-Ghazzali did was to balance Islamic teachings with Greek ideas and to prevent the former from being completely eclipsed by the latter.
Unfortunately in the process, he rejected THE single most important idea to be developed arising from the Greek philosophers: the valuation of empirical evidence from the senses over the "revelations" of pure reason (or faith). This seed is THE foundation rock on which all of modern science has been built: observation. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle observed via Sherlock Holmes, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Al-Hazzali's rejection of this key tenet bars the main body of the field of scientific endeavor from adherents. Mathematics is the only field where you can advance via a priori knowledge, but the "proofs" risk being flawed, and the picture may be woefully incomplete at best, if not Contradictory. If he had found a way to make Islam compatible with this single idea as Ibn-Rushd attempted, or if Ibn-Rushd's view had prevailed, the Caliphate (or its conceptual descendants) might now rule the Americas. Instead, the lands of the Americas are the legacy of Europe's Principalities.
It is, perhaps sadly, an example of evolution in the realm of ideas. Some ideas are more beneficial than others. Islam has rejected belief adapting from progressive observations via the senses, in favor of certain and unquestionable belief from revealed truth. The latter worldview has some advantages; it allows a individuals with an incredible level of commitment arising from fanatic certainty, that now endangers the survival of the West. However, the former view better facilitates progress, and the Western higher tolerance of diversity means the West still has a few comparably dangerous carriers of fanaticism in its ideological arsenal... who do occasionally rise to preeminence, and get all our available big hammers at their disposal.
Can you say "Mutually Assured Destruction" children? President Dubya might be able to....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Nah... my parental units didn't really give much credit to fairy tales.
And since Yugoslavia was still a communist country back then - I had the luck to grow up without having religion shoved down my throath with Easter and Christmas.
Santa was for New Years and Easter was the day when SOME neighbours (non-practising Orthodox Christians in my neighbourhood) painted their eggs.
Which we found fun, so our mother did it for us too. But no Easter Bunny. Found out about him only years later.
So, being born with a brain, and as I was taught to read in school - over the years I've checked out most of the major religions. Found them all to be a bunch of BS.
And what little affection (well... you could use crosses and holy water to kill vampires) I had for religion - I've lost it all during the '90s. The war and all...
But lately I am starting to despise it.
You know... when you see a village without a decent road (and nearest town with a hospital being about 30-60 minutes by car) but with a brand new mosque or a church - only thing comes to mind is that people building those are complete idiots. And I am yet to find a greater danger to the human rase then idiots.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yeah.. I guess that it is elves. I don't recall of any elves in the Bible.
There might be some Qu'ran though... Not sure (o_O)?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Science progresses because people are given free rein to express their ideas, protection from persecution if those ideas run counter to the irrational masses, and a license to gather and share ideas.
This part I think you have dead right.
None of that has the least bit to do with democracy.
This, not so much. The idea of Freedom of Speech is somewhat tied up with what is commonly referred to in the west as "Democracy", but more specifically ought to be referred to as "Limited Government"; that is to say, there are some things that the government Does Not Do, as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights attest. Limited Government usually comes from Democracy, but it's not invariably tied to that; there are also limited Monarchies.
This country isn't especially science friendly; we underfund pure science, and allow commercial science to patent basic processes that could be used by anyone to advance knowledge.
Patents are a compromise; the protection is supposed to be limited, and in exchange for the certainty of knowledge being made widely available for general use after a limited time. Patents spur advancement better than Trade Secrets, but still give private incentives for research. It's the overbroad abuse of what's considered patentable that's the current problem.
The use of patents allows for research not based on public funding, as public funding is generally inefficient and undereffective at the allocation of resources to research. While I agree such public research is underfunded, I'd think public funding should be limited to research in areas where the Marketplace is defective. EG, long-term basic research, the few projects too big for mustering the capital privately, or where the benefit derived will be too thinly and widely dispersed to allow a revenue-based model to recoup the investment.
Which is to say, we're not doing too badly, aside from our excessively pork-barrel politics. Maybe I should apply for a grant to study how to reduce the imperfections of resource allocation due to pork-barreling? Hm....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Seeing as you're claiming the high ground here, perhaps you'd care to see how low it really is...
Source: Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Nuff said..
Educated people who believe in the scientific method don't believe in supreme beings because there is no proof that they exist and there is no way to either directly or indirectly observe the existence of a supreme being. I believe that most scientists who claim to believe in a god are saying that for reasons of social acceptance in the community or simply grew up with their faith and haven't challenged their beliefs much since.
Needless to say, I don't believe in a god. And I don't think that people who do can also fully embrace the scientific method.
I think the lack of scientists in islamic countries is caused by the fact that not believing in the word of god/allah is not socially acceptable. They will at least be socially isolated, but probably worse things would happen. Therefore the smarter and more educated people either emigrate to other countries or stay low.
Yes, the collapse of a world-spanning empire into chaos and anarchy had nothing to do with it.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Muhammad didn't rape a six year old child. He married her when she was six. It wasn't until she was 8 or 9 that he raped her.
Since there wasn't any Statute against it at the time, I presume you can demonstrate lack of consent?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
There is room for more than one way to make sense out of the world around us.
No, there isn't. There is, however, still more than one sensible motive for doing so. This is where religion and philosophy come in.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
You're absolutely right. Democracy is a great form of government--arguably the best. However, it is frequently mis-attributed (especially as of late) for societial progress that is better explained by metrics like culture and wealth.
-Grym
Science in Islamic Countries...
...doesn't exist
...is mostly about nuking the infidels
...is about how to build a better bomb jacket
...is not taught to the women
Oh man, I could go on forever!!!
J1M.
Pity you don't speak Arabic.
Then again, if you did, you'd be shocked to see what they say that they think you don't understand.
Try reading up from Memri.org in the meantime.
If you feel insulted whenever someone challenges your beliefs, does it really matter what the reason is? Sure, you claim that they spent years studying something, but that doesn't mean they know everything- I've had plenty of teachers who I corrected, not because I knew more than them about everything, but because I knew at least one thing they didn't. Likewise, you're implying that it's not okay to question the beliefs of a theologian, philosopher, or astrologer, because they've spent years studying their field, and questioning them is an insult. If a scientist or priest can't accept people questioning their beliefs, they should stop mentioning them to others.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
If it were, then lifting society from ignorance into a state of "progress" would be like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
It may be that extraordinary individuals are responsible for some kind of transformation. If so, it doesn't mean those individuals aren't equally infected by superstition. Isaac Newton was not only an alchemist, but was considerably involved with studying the Bible to decode hidden prophetic messages.
I think the flowering of science in the early Islamic world is more readily explainable in simple terms: for once, a society had a means for extraordinary individuals to develop their latent intellectual powers, and a mechanism for distributing the fruit of those powers. The means was the Quran: as the literal word of God, it made widespread and sophisticated literary training available, and individuals who would have otherwise have lived their lives in illiterate obscurity had basic education and a means to communicate across great distances. The scope to communicate was created by a vast empire (and later collections of empires) sharing familiarity with a common language.
The reasons for the relative obscurity of the Muslim world in current scholarship is what is difficult to explain. In part, it is a matter of suffering by comparison. We live in the most learned era of human history. Muslim societies have not so much declined technologically as failed to keep pace with the advancement of European science.
The reasons may be (as some are quick to suggest) due to the character of Islamic society. Or they may be historical, rooted in the specific failure and decline of the Ottomon regime at the same time Europe began to develop technologically and industrially. I do believe the glamour of historical glories exerts an enervating effect on a society. I see some of the same exhaustion of creativity energy in current American attitudes, which increasingly are more obsessed with being innovative than actually innovation, or being leaders than actually leading.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Oddly enough, many so-called Christians support the death penalty, but not abortion. Why?"
There are plenty of people with inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent views. Why are so many people, atheist and religious alike, against reproductive cloning but for therapeutic cloning?
An answer, of course, is ignorance. But is it the answer? This is the problem that you are faced with. It is not enough to simply observe that a group of people have a seemingly contradictory view. It's contradictory to you but can you imagine a moral framework under which it would not be a contradiction?
It is easy to cherry pick facts to support your conclusions. We all do it. You did it your very post. Just a small fact, concerning the moral equivalence of one religion you don't like, and an other religion you don't have contact with. That is the fact of celebrations in the streets. Muslims did it after 9/11. Name one abortion bombing or gay murder that was followed by Christians rioting in the streets in support of bombings and murders.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I think that's a bunch of nonsense. It's a good hypothesis, but where are you getting the idea that intracranial pressure was the reason they drilled holes? And how are demons in your skull any kind of valid analogy for high intracranial pressure.
I NEVER said disregard the ancients. If you think I said that, then reconsider everything before you write back. What I am saying is that you cannot ascribe any kind of scientific motivation to their actions. Science didn't exist at that time.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Political ideologies result in the same kind of science as religious ideologies, that is, OBJECTIVE research is only done in topics that do not interfere with the current ideology. Research in "sensitive" topics is usually approved of ONLY if the results can be formulated to support the official ideology.
RTFP. How did you get modded insightful? ...more unscientific slashthink...if it sounds good, mod it up.
Burden of proof lies in making _any_ claim, including yours.
You had a crazy Emperor who decided that it was time to burn all the boats and stop learning new things, even suppressing the information their ships brought back. It's not like the west was much better- The Romans stopped/lost a lot of the Greek advancements in science, and much more knowledge was lost after Rome's fall. Europe was pretty much in the dark ages until we imported technology and knowledge from the Muslim world- sure, they may have learned a lot of it from Greek/Roman and Chinese sources, but it's not like the Italians or the Chinese were improving it. If not for the Muslims, both Europe and China would still be cultural and technological backwaters- we wouldn't have discovered America yet, and the Chinese would still be out of contact with Japan.
Oh, and I disagree with whoever modded you flamebait- You're absolutely correct that the Arabs gave us the technology they took from you. Of course, without the Arabs none of us would be posting on Slashdot right now, or even heard of electricity.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Subtleties are lost on you.
I make no such claim.
Read the post again.
Burden of proof for scientific means is required on making *any* claim, whether a negation or a positive one. Absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence; only a *fool* or someone with an *agenda* would claim so. Making *no* claim is also different than making a *negative* claim. The latter requires some form of evidence.
But keep on fooling yourself that you are right; your argument is a cop-out and is UN-SCIENTIFIC.
"This is the different between the scientist and the religious man: the scientist WILL change his mind if presented with proof."
A laughable lie that is proven wrong by history -- educate yourself about the corpses of those scientists who were right but burned at the stake by other scientists.
But I guess you're the intellectual giant who can't read past the first sentence of a post, missing the entire point.
"Not diametrically, no. But they are opposed. "
There are differences and there are similarities. Faith and reason really are meant to be different solutions to different problems. The same applies to science and religion. Do you think they always go in opposite directions?
There are times and places for both ways to the truth.
"The people you site are rationalists in some areas and faithful in others."
The people I cited by example were indeed wise enough to know the differences, yes.
They are not rational AND faithful in the same areas."
If by that, you mean that they knew the differences between matters of reason and those of faith, then I concur.
There have always been more problems than solutions. ...more questions than answers. Such is life. Aren't more options are better than fewer options?
"Yes, religion and science are diametric opposites."
No they are not. There are differences and there are similarities. They are both endeavors of humanity to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. All in all, I think both have done more good than harm.
I agree with you that we should not demean others, but in the same time we can not close our eyes to the revelations of science that are in direct opposition with religion.
The revelations of science are subject to change. Discovery is one of the really cool things about science.
Gandhi was not a scientist.
I don't think I said that he was. I think I claimed that he was a man of faith and reason.
"I don't know who is dr King,..."
He's no saint, but I think you'd like him.
Martin Luther King.
I think mentioning his name on Slashdot incurs a reverse Godwin violation. Perhaps Maimonides would have been a stronger example, especially in this thread.
Maimonides
"...but at the time of Pythagoras, religion was not a taken as seriously as today."
...before my time, but I think the line between science and religion wasn't quite as clearly defined in those days.
"The Dodekatheon religion was more of a theatrical play between people, a philosophical movement and not a totalitarian proposition. "
Apparently, it also involved animal sacrifice, because Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he proved the existence of irrational numbers.
BTW, the laws in the Old Testament required animal sacrifices in the form of burnt offerings, sin offerings, you get the idea. Those laws are still there in contemporary editions of the Holy Bible.
"Ancient Greeks knew that, and in many ancient texts you will find the reference to the 'one true god', especially by Socrates (as referred to by Plato)...because they realized that their Gods were anthropomorphic, they invented a better god without the weaknesses of the previous gods. Much like Israelites did."
Monotheism in that part of the world really began with Aten and his earthly prohet Akhenaten.
The Middle East can get really incredibly hot. If you baked your brain in the sun for too long, you might start inventing "better gods" too.
"Naturally, there were and are great scientists that believe in a god, but that does not mean that since they are top in their science, they are top in everything."
I cited a few names for purpose of example only. But they are fairly strong examples, aren't they?
"A great scientific mind that has not yet applied the scientific thought process to the problem of God can not be held up as an example of religion and science being compatible."
I don't think I tried to do that. I suggested that there is more than one path to truth.
I would also add that it's not very logical or reasonable to apply scientific solutions to religious problems or vice-versa. A chainsaw can be used as a nail-clipper, but not well.
secrets and power. a few weeks ago there was a show on the history channel (i believe..) that was showcasing the secrets of ancient priests. the priests used their wealth (i assume donated, or mandated fees) to hire the brightest people around and turned the temples into giant entertainment venues. light a fire underneath a canopy of sorts, heat some water, create steam, route steam to massive doors which open upon mysteriously during the sacrifice. everyone leaves in awe, someone just got roasted and the doors opened on their own. the only people at the time who knew of these tricks were the "scientists" and priests. everyone else blindly followed. priests also knew of various poisons, just incase. sure these scientiests, via being paid were motivated into creating incredibly advanced devices for the time, but they might just have done it on their own and the entire public would have benefit.
my point is that religion just CAN'T be good in the end from a humanity perspective. if you want instant gratification, want to feel good, donate to something other than give your time/money to people wearing silly hats, robes, and especially if they are threatening your life when you don't follow them. or smoke pot.
http://www.touregypt.net/science.htm
Just something i googled real quick to show scope
honestly, look at the scope, look how long this has been going on. I hope that, it being 2007, the world could wake up. free flow of information please, stop the stifling, the trickery, it is doing humanity so much more harm than good. it's frustrating enough knowing that big business uses power to deceive and steal these days.
just to poke some fun now, all these diety clubs are hindering the enjoyment of my sundays. so many people devoting 52 +/- days a year is causing a lot of traffic jams on my local roads. just knock it off already
"Excessive capitals"
If you see the same mistake being made over and over again by people who really are smart enough to know better, you might raise your voice too.
"No, there isn't."
Again, there are differences and there are similarities. They really are meant to be different solutions to different problems.
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. There have already been too many psychos hiding behind their religion using science to kill their fellow non-psychotic human beings.
Nobody questions whether a fetus is human. It is a member of our biological species, Homo sapiens; that question is easily settled. The question at hand is whether a fetus is a PERSON. Not all humans are necessarily people , and not all people are necessarily human. "What counts as a person?" is an important philosophical question, especially if you only extend moral rights and responsibility to things which count as people.
"When is it okay to kill another human?" is an equally fundamental question in this issue, but it's not *more* fundamental. Both questions must be answered to resolve the issue. You could have a clear answer as to whether a fetus is a person and still be unsure whether it's OK to kill it or not; or, like me, you could have a very clear answer as to when it's OK to kill a person, but be unsure whether a fetus counts as a person at all. If it doesn't, then your moral reasoning about people is irrelevant.
But beyond that, there is the further issue of "when is it OK to kill non-people?", or more generally "what are the moral rights of non-people?", which remains to be answered if you conclude that a fetus is not a person. To me, the issue of abortion and the rights of very young children is closely related to the issue of animal rights. I'm very clear about my stance on what's right and wrong with people, but less clear on the issue of what is or is not a person, and what rights (if any) non-people have. I'm having trouble finding a consistent philosophical position that would give normal infants (no abortion involved) the rights we usually grant them (e.g. infanticide is illegal) and not commit one to also being a strict vegetarian and hardcore pro-lifer.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
For instance - what difference does bending over with your rear end pointing in the air and touching the ground with your forehead five time a day, make to anything?
Further more I think having these 5 times daily interruptions, would breakup the flow of effective lab work.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
"I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not possible for faith and reason to coexist, both within a single person's mind, and within a large population."
I've seen that mindset on Slashdot. ...and more than once. Read some of the other messages.
"The problem is when faith overpowers reasons--that never turns out well."
In my country (the USA), some of the best schools and hospitals are owned and operated by religious organizations. Then again, religious organizations have an easier time of funding themselves.
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
Well, more precisely, science is about discovering the sense; religion merely fabricates it wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining questions. It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic: "Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible."
That both Science and Religion can be useful, and that both can be abused, I agree.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
"An open mind is distinct from an empty head"
...fair enough, but I haven't asked you to empty your head.
"Well, more precisely, science is about discovering the sense; religion merely fabricates it wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining questions."
Unfortunately that does happen a lot. Religion at its best, should offer meaning, inspiration, and hope. That could be why the church still has a good public image in spite of all those scandals in the news.
"It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic : 'Science is a way of talking
about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality.
Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it
cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible.'"
There are similarities and differences. The amusing thing about it is when I browse through Slashdot threads, I find mis-guided souls who really should know better, trying to apply scientific answers to questions of faith and religion. I think they are different answers to different questions, and there is a place and purpose for both.
http://www.365tomorrows.com/10/02/forever-and-ever-amen/
It seems to me that the only time Christianity (or religion in general) is ever considered a logical, palletable option after reaching adulthood is when you're psyche is so out of whack that up is down and left is right (not trying to be insulting). Is that the case with you, or did you come to Christianity without being "baptized by fire", so to speak?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
History of the Conflict between Religion and Science
sig sig sig siggy sig
"Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world. "
This is a claim often made by advocates of science who are unaware of (or hostile to) the verified existence of the paranormal. And yet, serious practice of the scientific method has uncovered many phenomena which don't fit the materialist paradigm, and which may challenge fundamentalist religion also, but seem to map more closely onto a spiritual view of the universe. What word other than miracle are we to use to describe healings without physical cause, or anomalous knowing, for example?
If you are seriously interested in the intersection of true science and the true miraculous, try these recent books:
Irreducible Mind by Kelly et al.
(This one is a huge mothership of a book, university textbook level. You may find the next two more readable for an introduction to the field).
Extraordinary Knowing by Elizabeth Mayer.
Entangled Minds by Dean Radin.
Miracles do exist, they are not just 'pseudoscience, and honestly confronting them will be the #1 challenge of the 21st century. And perhaps it may make us a little more accepting and less venomously hostile towards traditional cultures who know that these things are real and don't buy our studied disbelief.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
This country was not founded by "religious nutcases," it was founded by enlightenment aristocrats. Even in regards to settlement, only the Puritans in New England and the Huguenots in South Carolina could be described as religiously motivated. Most of the colonies to the South, like Jamestown, were completely secular.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It should be clear to any human being in this world that democracy leads to a populace who have a moral investment in the country in which they live - and this leads them to think of greater things, such as science, and not the day-to-day issues like how to not be killed for wearing the wrong clothes.
Oh, I see. So science in Soviet Russia was hindered by a lack of democracy?
Odd. I could swear that they managed some astonishing feats of science and engineering. Even and especially under Stalin, the very worst of their leaders. In fact, I seem to recall that before the Soviets, Russia was a backwater country where people routinely died of starvation in great numbers.
Likewise, Japan under Hirohito must have done very poorly scientifically by your hypothesis. As did Great Britain while the monarchy still held power. Or France. Or Italy. I seem to recall that they all spearheaded the industrial revolution during that time.
And of course, there's also the Obvious Example, which I won't bother to mention for fear of invoking Godwin.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
In a nutshell, Christian faith is belief in and reliance on Christ for salvation.
That is arguably what Christians have faith in, but it has nothing to do with what faith is.
A person's faith might be supported by evidence and arguments, or it might not be. The definition simply doesn't address that question.
Absolutely false. Religious faith is not ever nor can it be supported by evidence or *valid* arguments. The definition you gave demonstrates this. If you really believe that you're correct, then please provide an actual valid argument for it. You will be the first person in history to have ever done anything of the sort.
Anyway, it is emphatically not the case that a belief only amounts to faith when it is held without evidence or good reasons.
Except for the fact that that is the case. If that were not the case then it would be reason, not faith. That's why there are two different words with vastly different meanings.
The bible is full of reasoning. See in particular Paul's epistles. You might not think any of the arguments are any good, but that's beside the point.
Twaddle. The quality of the arguments are exactly the point. Every argument ever given in support of Christian faith has been shown to be fallacious reasoning. I could claim that the Goldbach conjecture (a particular unproven mathematical conjecture) is true because I really want it to be, or because it holds in all known cases or something like that, but those are not valid arguments. They are complete crap and examples of fallacious reasoning that lead to contradiction.
That does not in any way make them useful, meaningful or in any other way anything but ignorant nonsense.
It's the same with your assertions. If the arguments don't pass a basic sanity check, then making them anyway does nothing to forward your position.
So, yes, absolutely the fact that the "arguments" for your faith are totally invalid is very much the point.
The point is, the bible never says, "Just take my word for it."
Never, huh? You might try reading it again.
Funnily enough I am not agnostic or atheist - I have a religion in fact, but I still stand by my statement. Religion and science deal with different things and should not be mixed and I think even the chap who wrote the original article was trying to get at that in a way. It was tough for me to come to terms with but I did it and everyone else should, IMHO.
As an aside, I didn't mean to antagonise people or yourself - but sometimes things need to be stated plainly and in a forthright manner or we're all really screwed.
I don't totally agree with you but I see you're point. I probably should have also said that science has nothing, and should have nothing to do with, religion. I don't believe that there's any value in scientific investigation of religious stories or claims of miracles; because I don't think that religious stories have anything to do with asserting scientific facts. I mean what's the point of saying that water was turned into wine? is it to say that Jesus knew something we don't and that science is therefore a load of c**p? I don't think so - but that's what some people try to say. There's probably a deeper message about God and religion in that story - like Jesus will provide for your soul or something - so what's the point bringing science into it? None. People who do are missing the point of religion. ;)
And similarly there's no point bringing religion into science. People who are missing the point of science.
All, or course IMHO
I'm not saying that some people don't think that religion and science have things to do with each other - what I am saying that these people are wrong. Religion and science attend to different problem spaces - the first is for how we should lead good and productive lives - the second is for how things work. Getting these two mixed up is a freakin' disaster and a distraction. "AIDS in Africa vs Vatican against condoms" for example (and not meaning to attack Catholics at all). Or "civil engineers vs the land bridge built by Hindu gods" (not meaning to attack civil engineers at all ;).
Sorry to disagree, but democracy IS the end we are looking for - there is nothing more we can do to make things better than to have a democracy. That's it. So voting, or choosing not to vote, is part of that - i.e. you don't have to vote (unless you're in Australia) - but most people in democratic countries know that if they voted or not they still have a chance of a say in how their country is run and therefore they have a moral investment in it; I guess that's why democracies have less violent protests and guerrilla movements (except where democracy has broken down and the populace feel disenfranchised). Oh, and there's nothing "aristocratic" about thinking about 'higher, greater things' - we can all do it, even a pleb like me ;)
Thanks for agreeing with me on some points though - such as saying that "participatory government focuses on concrete improvements to the way of life of the constituent"; you're right to link that "participatory government" with a democracy and right to indicate that the government will make "concrete improvements to the way of life of the constituents" but I'm surprised you don't see how that will allow the populace to think of "higher, greater things".
"The causal chain that leads democracy to achieve 'greater things' is powerful but indirect" - yes! At least we agree on one thing - though I would put it more directly of course.
Thanks to slave labor, actually. The Greek steam engine was pistonless and driven by steam jets, making it incapable of generating much power. There was no incentive to develop it into an usable state, when slaves did all the heavy work. And even if they could had, they lacked the materials and skills to make machines which could had actually used that power rather than break.
For the Greek, technology was essentially a toy, and science (philosophy, really) just a fun pasttime. They seeked harmony with nature, not mastery over it. Furthermore, the citizens who made the toys were already free from physical labor, so why should they have cared about devices which made it easier ?
The reason the Greek failed to start the Industrial Revolution was that their society simply wasn't ready for it, neither was their science nor technology. And the Middle Ages saw constant advances in technology, mainly in warfare, but also in metallurgy and irrigation, and the invention of physics.
The Greek were smart, but they had no steam engines, they had steamjet-driven toys. And their atoms have very little to do with the particles so called today.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Religious faith is not ever nor can it be supported by evidence or *valid* arguments.
I think before we continue, you should explain what you mean, here.
"The difference is not in the purpose (both want to provide an explanation for what we perceive as reality) but in the approach: science is based on logic and rational thinking and religion is based on instincts."
I disagree. One purpose of science is to provide an explanation for what we perceive as reality. At its best, religion should offer meaning, inspiration, and hope. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way
"But, overall, religion has done more harm than good."
...if you only look at what went wrong and if you only call attention to how religion was mis-used to exploit ignorance.
Intellectual honesty is supposed to be key to rational thought, Masterp.
Of course there's more to it. Organized religion stimulated the arts, language, philosophy and exploration. Also the involvement of religious organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
...which suggests that religion helped to advance science. Before corporate and government grants, scientists had to find other patrons. There is one rather pressing scientific problem in the history of science that has yet to be solved. Research aint easy. ...or cheap.
"The 1500 years of no progress is a tiny evidence for that."
...because religious solutions didn't offer much in terms of scientific advancement? Do you think they should have? Specifically which 1500 years are you thinking of?
"Not those theories that are proven."
...which is why I'd suggest scientific solutions to address scientific issues. Even you shouldn't have a problem with that.
"It may be revealed that the current theories are subsets or specific solutions of greater theories, like Newton's theory of gravity which was a specific solution of general relativity."
...good point. But until you've conclusively proven that those theories really are the solutions, doesn't that rather blur the line between logic and faith?
"But not scientific reasoning. There is a difference between 'reason' and 'scientific reasoning'."
Yeah, not all reasoning is all that scientific. ...next.
"A, yes, Martin Luther King. So?"
Well, you didn't seem to know who Dr. King was. You're welcome.
"Indeed, and the ancient Greeks kept their customs. That does not mean they were full believers."
If that's the case, then I don't think I wanna know how many bulls those "full believers" sacrificed! ...or what the occasion was.
Yes, well, some of the other best schools and hospitals in the nation are secular, so that's irrelevant.
Think it through. Organized religion is actively promoting institutions of research, innovation, healing and compassion.
Doesn't it kindasorta fly in the face of your rather paranoid nightmare scenario of "faith overpowering the forces of reason"?
"The problem would be if all schools and hospitals were run by a single religious organization. Then we'd be in trouble."
Yeah, the terrorists win, right?
"LOL!"
I guess in my mind there is a practical component and a philosophical one; I've been arguing from a purely philosophical viewpoint: anyone who makes a physical, falsifiable claim is treading in the domain of science. However, I agree with you that there is a practical issue at hand: as a scientist, is it worth my time and energy to debunk supernatural claims if those making the claims will always try and wiggle out of any results refuting their beliefs. That's a tough call and I think it depends on the claim, how much the results matter, and how much impact it will have. One must choose battles carefully. For most religious claims, I think I agree with you: it is frequently rather futile and a waste of time. But not always. What about so-called "creation science" (really a religious dogma in disguise)? Are we as scientists (and citizens) supposed to just sit around while absurd claims about the way the world works are integrated casually into classrooms simply because it is beneath us to refute such obviously crazy ideas? There could be a heavy price to pay for ignoring such a responsibility.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
But they DO talk about the same things. Would save a lot of trouble if they didn't, but them's the facts.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
"'Answers' in science really aren't; they're just 'the best guess available for now', and an answer in one area shouldn't be assumed to be an answer in anything else until tested."
...tested and documented through enough iterations until we can get consistent, reproducible results. ...yes.
"The methods are another matter. And the advantage of the conceptual methods of science is that by answering one question, they can lead you to better questions. For example: suppose science shows there is no sign of God having every been anywhere, and that any "purpose" in life is merely the product of what humans choose to read into and/or impose on the blind uncaring laws of the universe. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."
Well there again, you're talking about findings which involved applying a scientific approach to a matter of faith. ...an act which is neither
reasonable, rational, nor logical, because faith doesn't require the sort of
evidence or proof that science does. You yourself posted words to that
effect earlier in this thread.
"This begs the question: what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should we go about seeking it?"
That might depend upon the individuals conducting the study. I'd suggest they consider other careers since they have no business calling themselves "scientists". ...not that they couldn't get their findings
published anyway, but...
"I find that one a much more interesting and complicated question than most simple religiously oriented minds can handle... "
Do you know anyone like that, personally?
"...and that, again, scientific and mathematical tools are can be more useful overall than the hallucinations of an epileptic pedophile, or the yarns spun by desert-trapped bullshit artists distracting themselves from the lack of air conditioning."
You've painted a vivid and quite specific image there.
De-humanizing and belittling people for the acts of a few bad seeds and thinking different beliefs and thinking different ways used to be the sort of thing that reasonable folks used to associate with intellectual laziness and disingenuousness.
"For the true answer to that question, send me $50; satisfaction assured or double your religious persecution returned back. =) "
...and thanks for raising the level of discussion.
I think we'd both agree that modern democracies are the best we've found. And I don't know of a better alternative to achieve and preserve prosperity and freedom for its population, while preventing abuses of power.
But I have to disagree strongly with the idea that "this is it".
Particularly when it is not clear what "this" is: we'd need to narrow it down to the characteristics of a 'good democracy', because all modern successful democracies are impure in some way or another.
The very concept of 'checks and balances' is a modern imposition that limits democratic power - yet a concept that I see as vital. The Athenians had no such obstacles when condemning Socrates to death.
Democracy as an end by itself is a very dangerous concept: it lacks consensus on its concrete meaning, it provides no good measure or metric of success, and it infuses the word with the magical, sanctifying effect of an absolute good. Democracy is a popular word, even (particularly!) in the most oppresive regime, because it is the political equivalent of papal infallibility.
Tyrannies tend to have democratic roots; a tyrant acquires power in two ways: by convincing the people to freely give it away, or by intervention by force from an external power. History has a very good record of the first case.
I'm a bit surprised at your statement that democracies have less political instability, though... care to elaborate on that?
That doesn't really match my impression; I haven't done a through research or a scientific comparison - but I'd have a hard time coming up with more than a few active guerilla/protest movements in non-democratic societies in recent times, while for democratic nations, just in Latin America I'd have a hard time just deciding where to start.
Ok, now back to the original point
I never said that democracy does not allow people to think of "higher things".
I said:
a) It does not lead them to those priorities
b) It does lead political decisions away from those priorities.
Why?
The point on a) is where I see a leap of logic, for the reasons described in the original post.
The reason for b) is quite simple: individuals are free to worry and think of 'higher things', but the majority of the people (by human nature) will look out for their self-interest first, and their immediate needs or desires as a priority. We have a long way to go before removing the long list of material needs from the priority queue... but even then, prosperous nations spend more resources on the most trivial hedonism than on any higher ideal.
This narrow self-interest is one of the basis of our modern democracies, since the population needs to demand their welfare from their government and be vigilant against misuse/abuse of power.
In the end, the qualities of democracy do allow individuals to accomplish a great many 'higher, great things'. Prosperity and freedom of action and expression are very effective on allowing that. But this is independent from the general democratic will.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
I have always been impressed by scientists from Iran and Pakistan. One of my closest friends in graduate school is from Pakistan as was one of my mentors. Also worthy of note: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/irans_superconc.html Students from the University of Tehran made concrete that is far stronger than anything designed by American engineers. Mad props to Jay Sappington for telling that story.
Don't be silly. The ancient greeks and romans were just as religious as the christians.
Seriously. You obviously know nothing about Islam.
Treading in someone else's domain is OK in my book - I mean who really cares. But sticking the boot in - well that's a different matter, and I'd agree with you that "creation science" is a good example of religion interfering with science - having the theory is OK but trying to suppress the scientific version of events is wrong. Trying to call a religious belief a 'science' is wrong too. I was taught the creation side of things in Sunday school as a child but not once did a Sunday teacher start to tell me that evolution was bunk - they knew better (in England - home of the great British compromise!) - as did my biology and science teachers at school. Not sure why it's changed in the US again (after the evolution trials many years ago) but it's a bad thing and has nothing to do with living a good and thoughtful life. In the UK there are groups of people trying out the creation science stuff but they know what will happen if they stick their heads too far up above the parapets (they'll be p****d on ;)
So what I'm saying is that people can make absurd claims if they want to - but once they start trying to interfere with scientific teaching or policy they need to be told where to get off in no uncertain terms. Creationists, religious fascists, cults, (homeopaths, vaccine-haters, Holocaust deniers) - they all need to get the hell out of our schools, government and TV and we need to tell them so without compromise.
In the article we're discussing - they author is mixing religion with science and then coming unstuck as he tries refute anti-science claims by religious leaders. He should just say that they have nothing to do with each other and leave it at that.
Yeah - I know they do - damn!
Are we sure that there was any "past greatness" of Islamic scholars? I've heard that the great scholars and scientists within the Islamic world were kidnapped non-Muslims who were forced to convert. Knowing the history of Islam, it sounds entirely plausible.
The Truth About Islam
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com/
"What, you think it wasn't obvious you were trolling from the get-go? "
It wasn't, and your posts prove you're a liar in pretending it was. Nice try liar.
"Further hilarious implication: It crossed your mind that I might care what you think, or that I wasn't being intentionally antagonistic."
No, it didn't, and my posts prove that too liar.
I'm not even a little surprised by your response little guy.
I owned you and you hate it.
But I owned you all the same, and your attempt to pretend otherwise made my day with it's transparency.
See ya little fela, look forward to makig you my bitch again.
"But of course I absolutely meant everything I said about you being a moron."
You meant everything else too, but now to save what little dignity you have left, you have to lie and pretend otherwise.
But we both know the truth, and you can't do a fucking thing about it.
You lose.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"They are conclusively proven."
Some might be, but "Newton's Theory of Gravity" hasn't been accepted by everyone as law as of yet. Even Newton himself had reservations.
So it's very compelling and probably dead-on. That does not make it conclusively proven. ...close but no cigar.
Well I see what you're saying - but I have to disagree that we need to know what a 'good democracy' is - all modern successful democracies are, as you say, impure in some way or another - but I think that's because there is no pure alternative. it's just not possible. It's the process of democracy that's important, not an end point or an ideal model. Just thinking about, and constantly trying to refine and change, the ideas of democracy is what we have to do. It's the process, not the end-point that's important.
Allow me to say---------- To the lack of author's knowledge and peowess , factors that led to the decline of Muslim scientific progress are NOT related to Islam (which was there then as it is present now) but due to the forms of governments and socio-economic and political conditions that flourished in those times. Most of the scientific and other developments and accomplishments were done under monarchies, feudalism and tyrannies. Hitler's regime is a very recent example. The author who claims to be a Muslim and yet puts all the blame on it ought of have gone beyond than his limited and academic study of theoretical physics to dare comment on the achievements or failures of others in Science! MazHur
"Ok, people find hope, but in a fantasy world. It's not better than finding hope in a video game."
Absence of evidence or proof does NOT conclusively dis-prove any claim, belief, or argument. Merely understand that even though your way of dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"Death will always be greater than us. But that does not mean religions have any truth in them."
Seek and ye shall find. Not everyone finds truth in religion, nor inspiration, nor guidance, nor meaning, nor anything remotely relevant in their own lives. However, religion has always been more accessible too more people, especially outside a university or otherwise cosmopolitan setting. Of course there are those who would use religion to belittle and dehumanize people who don't believe in what they do (not like you, of course), but overall, religious institutions still have a better public image, a better track record of helping those who need help.
"A German scientist. So? scientists can be as sinister as any other person. But that has nothing to do with science."
...and yet you can't really separate science from the scientist. Way too many jobs in science still involve behavior control, surveillance and weapons research. Scientists need to eat too.
"That they tried to make social changes does not invalidate my argument."
But you haven't really proven that religion itself is ignorance either. In this case, you don't have a real argument to invalidate until you offer up some evidence to support it..
...and though not at present, there may come a time when even you might need hope, comfort and inspiration in your own life. They might come from somewhere you didn't expect. At a time like that, you might find out what you really do believe in.
"We should all have been Dr Kings and Mahatma Gandhis."
If by that, you mean they were excellent role-models in spite of their flaws, then yes. Visionaries are noted for what they believed in, not for what they did not believe in.
"I can not disagree with that, and the middle ages is a testament to that."
Of course, there's more to it. The Middle Ages is also evidence that the world is imperfect, so are the people in it. If their belief in a god that is perfect helps humanity survive troubled times, let them have it.
"Music, again, in the context of religion."
He who pays the piper calls the tune. What else is new?
"Jesus was a philosopher."
...which is further evidence that religion did indeed stimulate philosophy.
"In his teachings, he talks about the human state."
...and you don't have to be particularly religious to gain really important insight from them. There really are valuable lessons for anyone who opens their hearts and minds to Christ.
"Of course, in this day and age, we can not be sure of the origin of the content of his speeches."
Of course, both then and now, you don't need to believe everything you read.
"Yeah, after 1500 years the Greeks have settled in all the Mediterranean. You missed something there."
...not really. I suggested that religion fostered exploration. I did not claim that religion was the only reason for exploration.
"But that's not the point. The missionaries went there in order to put the locals under the boot of religion."
The missionaries brought the gospel message, as well as knowledge of European languages, arts and sciences.
"And the explorers went there to loot."
They weren't all nice people. Neither were all of the missionaries.
"Or have we forgotten the massacre of native Americans by Spain?"
The history of the world is the history
Because faith doesn't cover everything. It wasn't meant to. ...neither does reason or logic.
Is the purpose of faith to inaccurately describe reality? =)"
That's actually more the role of science when researchers get the math wrong.
"More seriously: faith operates in reality."
Faith ideally, helps people deal with reality by reminding them that there's more to their existence than what they know as reality.
"It is only in observable reality that we can assess the usefulness of its operation towards its intended purposes."
...a matter best left to reason and logic, yes.
"Ultimately, of course, only the universe of reality can test the effectiveness, but scientific methods facilitate observing the testing process and results."
...common ground there.
"No; however, I don't recall ever claiming they were opposites, per se."
...fair enough. You did not.
"Though the dot product in some social metric spaces is probably negative, I suspect they generally have a sizable orthogonal component as well."
Faith wasn't meant to replace mathematics either.
...though I'd heard a story about Pythagoras sacrificing a bull to the gods after proving the existence of irrational numbers. I enjoy a good barbecue as much as the next man, but even I think that was a bit much.
"IT support to a philosophy department at an engineering school isn't all that different, but pays about 50% better than restaurant work (unless you own the restaurant)."
If I found out my Geek Squad geek applied scientific methods to a religious matter, I wouldn't want him replacing my damn toner cartridges.
"No, humans seem pretty much alike to me; two eyes, so, nose in the middle, mouth under."
Humans spend a lot of time prone, some more so than others, so mouths aren't always under. I learned that watching my girlfriend sleep.
Sometimes she yells at me when I do that.
"It's always the same. Now if some had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance -- or the mouth at the top -- that would be some help."
There's more to people than physical appearances, Abb3w. Life experience makes a huge difference and not everyone who was fortunate enough to be born with two eyes gets to keep them
"These days, politics and religion are too closely tied for that to be a discussion option."
...understandable. Politicians should know better than to simply write off voters who attend church regularly.
"Mostly we talk about how charming and polite their semi-domesticated little weasels are, how well they're doing in school, and so on."
Aww that's nice. :-)
"It takes all kinds to make a world; I didn't say I thought the ratios were right. Also, while I'm quite fond of swamps (they're great for the overall health of the ecology), that doesn't mean I want to have to deal with the Okeefenokee up close and personal on a regular basis."
You don't have to kiss them. Merely understand that even though your way of dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"I'm not convinced the latter view is sustainable." You may find The Limits to Growth [amazon.com] is an e
Science has a laboratory; religion does not. Neither belief nor evidence is proof of anything. "Meditation: it's not what you think."
Religious faith is not ever nor can it be supported by evidence or *valid* arguments.
I think before we continue, you should explain what you mean, here.
I mean exactly what I said. If you think it's not true, then all you have to do is provide one single valid argument to demonstrate it. As you, like everybody else in the entire history of the world who ever tried, will fail, my point stands.
I'm sorry you're not happy with that fact, but reality has no need to comply with your desperate desire to beleive in one particular silly fairy tale.