Australian Politics Forum - Islam stifles basic science

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › Islam stifles basic science

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21

Islam stifles basic science (Read 53606 times)

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #45 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 4:39pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Thanks Karnal. Gandalf, the inability to rationally assess the contributions of your peers would be a roadblock to success.

So there are no Muslim scientists, doctors, researchers, academics, or editors of scientific publications?

Sinister.

Karnal, have a look at the list of the top 100 scientists from the opening post. There are atheists, Jews, Catholics, various other Christian denominations, Quakers, ancient Greeks, and various other philosophies and religions, some of which I have never even heard of. Surpisingly (?), there is not a single Muslim on the list, either from the lengthy 'golden age' when Islam was at the centre of knowledge and learning, or from modern times. Contrast this with the much shorter Muslim-only list that Gandalf gave in response, which is dominated by people who translated other works, includes the bird feather guy, and another guy whose authenticity is also questioned (at the top of the list). Not one of them seem to measure up to the impressive contributions to our understanding of the fundamentals of the universe from the top 100 list:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Strangely enough, Gandalf seemed to consider this list some kind of crsuhing blow to my argument:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=1297

This is not to say that Muslims did not contribute in areas like warfare or agriculture, but the relative contributions to basic science are too divergent to be mere coincidence, given the ample and superficially fertile opportunities throughout Islam's history. Even more interesting than the stark differences between the lists is Gandalf's presentation of the Muslim list as some kind of crushing blow to my argument, as if I would be afraid to even look at it. Combine this with his attempt to pass off the bird feather guy as the inventor of the hang glider (some 1000 years earlier than the real thing), and you have to question what is going on here. Gandalf is probably the most sane Muslim we have had on this forum, and until this debate has come across as fairly normal, especially given the broad range of normal you get on internet forums. But the absurdity of this debate makes him look a lot like Abu. He even reminds me of Falah a bit. You may not have noticed, but before Falah left he was telling us how Muslims taught Australian aborigines to be violent and hostile towards Europeans and that they had glorious military victories, and how they all would have been better off if this hostility was more widepsread. He even started telling us about Aboriginal universities, embassies, and strict quarantine standards that kept foreign agriculture out of Australia. Seeing history as a propoaganda tool rather than an opportunity for learning is going to stifle learning. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #46 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 6:37pm

freediver:

let me present my case for why this debate shouldn't dislodge me from the status of "probably one of the most sane muslims" on this forum - and by the way thank you for that.

1. you start a thread supposedly for the purpose of discussing how islam stifles basic science - but refuse to even mention any arguments related to that. Instead its clearly just a petty point scoring exercise from a previously unrelated debate.

2. When pressed, you say its all about "propping up midgets" - which means that all islam can do is promote trivial and meaningless scientists and scientific achievements - with the camel urine claim and the ibn Firnas flight story as the only two examples provided. There are so many problems with this line:

we know now that your claim that muslims promote camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of scientific achievement was just a straight out lie. There goes 50% of your evidence - not to mention your credibility is in tatters
as argued at length, there is no objectively good reason to assume the ibn Firnas flight story was not true - since a) it was perfectly consistent and understandable with the historical character we know and b) we have documented evidence - both primary and secondary - that support the claim. Worth mentioning is the fact that I have not heard a single historian make the same claim you are making that it was almost certainly a "fabrication".
Your 'props up midgets' argument relies on the assumption that muslims rely on promoting trivial and/or historically dubious claims to scientific contribution. They don't. Muslims - as well as informed non-muslim analysts - focus on undisputed contributions - especially in the fields of mathematics, physics astronomy and medicine
Even if you were correct in your 'propping up midgets' claim, how on earth is that in any way evidence for "stifling" basic science?

3. Why do you hinge everything on a superficial and entirely subjective "top 100" list? Who defines "most influential"? Its an endless and ultimately meaningless debate that goes nowhere.

4. Don't misrepresent me and say I "responded" to your list with my own "muslim-only" list. I made it perfectly clear the post before that I despise such lists - and that I didn't care if they were all muslim - it would be just as meaningless. You asked what muslims should be added to the list (missing entirely my point about the inherent futility of such lists - but anyway...), and I responded by providing you with a sample of preeminent muslim scientsts - *NOT* as some counter to your random list, but to refute your persistent inference that no great muslim scientsts existed. And the sample is not my selection, but generally agreed upon universally. Also, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming I believed it was "some crushing blow" to your list.

5. One of the many flaws you have in your argument is that you think that because muslim scientists in the 7th to 12th century didn't invent the computer or space rocket, they didn't contribute. Only western scientists developed these modern innovations - therefore western scientists are the only worthwhile contributors.

Wrong. the advancement of science has been a staged process - with the baton passing from one civilization to the next, with each proceeding civilization building on the advancements of the previous. Thus you have philosophers in ancient times, such as the Greeks, building the foundations. The mantle was then handed to the muslims who adopted these foundations and developed them further. From there the mantle was handed to the west, who built on the islamic advancements. The point is, the space rocket was not built from scratch, but was the end of a very long and staged process, with equal credit going to the ancients, then the muslims, then the west - with significant contributions from others.

The question you need to ask yourself is would the great modern innovations we have today have been possible without western scientists building on the important contributions of islamic scientists? The best answer for that lies in the fact that western science only kicked off after the islamic scientific texts started arriving in western Europe.

Look FD, I'm all for having a healthy debate on this, but I resent being painted as the unreasonable, tunnel visioned person here. Especially when you straight out lie about a key piece of evidence (one of only two) to support your case, and can't even summon the balls to admit it.

« Last Edit: Mar 11^th, 2013 at 9:28pm by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #47 - Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:06pm

Quote:

Sorry Karnal, I gave the wrong link to the Muslim list before. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Notable_scientists

Gandalf:

Quote:

How about this FD: does it make sense for me to try and explain a phenomenon that I don't believe exists in the first place?

When I previously tried to engage you on whether the phenomenon exists you insisted we can only discuss the possible causes of it.

Quote:

The no-contribution fairy tale is simply a figment of your imagination. Western scientists themselves have no problem acknowledging the enormous contribution islamic science has made - for example:

Have you given up on attempting to prove something with your wikipedia list? Is this because the list is topped by a very questionable contributor? Just out of interest, I googled the first guy listed in your current example. This is what wikipedia had to say about him:

Jābir's alchemical investigations ostensibly revolved around the ultimate goal of takwin — the artificial creation of life. The Book of Stones includes several recipes for creating creatures such as scorpions, snakes, and even humans in a laboratory environment, which are subject to the control of their creator. What Jābir meant by these recipes is unknown.

...

Because his works rarely made overt sense, the term gibberish is believed to have originally referred to his writings

Do you think that guy belongs on the list of the top 100 scientists of all time?

Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? How about repeatedly ignoring examples of the many scientific contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy and medicine and others?

I am not ignoring them. I am mocking them. Like the bird feather guy, and your latest example of the great Muslim scientist whose name literally came to mean gibberish.

Quote:

How about dismissing undisputed mathematical contributions to science on the bizarre logic that "maths is not science"

Maths and science are not the same thing. A contribution to maths is hardly relevant to a debate about whether Islam stifles basic science. I am not sure why this seems so bizarre to you.

Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we?

Sure, your inability to comprehend that maths and science is not the same thing is a good example.

Quote:

Whats trully pathetic about this is its not just a "by the way" sort of comment, it is front and centre to your bullshit claim that islam props up midgets.

No Gandalf. You are front and centre of my claim, because you are propping up midgets.

Quote:

let me present my case for why this debate shouldn't dislodge me from the status of "probably one of the most sane muslims" on this forum - and by the way thank you for that.

Never fear Gandalf, it would take a sane Muslim to do that. You are still far ahead of Abu, Falah, Malik etc in my opinion.

Quote:

1. you start a thread supposedly for the purpose of discussing how islam stifles basic science - but refuse to even mention any arguments related to that.

You keep claiming this. I keep pointing out the relevant arguments that were copied into the opening post. How many times do we have to go over this?

Quote:

2. When pressed, you say its all about "propping up midgets"

That is one of the mechanisms. I am sure it is not the only one. It's just the easiest one to demonstrate at the moment (thanks).

Quote:

which means that all islam can do is promote trivial and meaningless scientists and scientific achievements - with the camel urine claim and the ibn Firnas flight story as the only two examples provided.

Wrong Gandalf, you have provided many more examples. Thanks again.

Quote:

as argued at length, there is no objectively good reason to assume the ibn Firnas flight story was not true

I notice you now refuse to state clearly what that story is, beyond the fact that the guy existed. Have you changed your mind about him inventing the hang glider?

Quote:

Your 'props up midgets' argument relies on the assumption that muslims rely on promoting trivial and/or historically dubious claims to scientific contribution. They don't. Muslims - as well as informed non-muslim analysts - focus on undisputed contributions - especially in the fields of mathematics, physics astronomy and medicine

You posted a wikipedia article as one example. The first guy on the list had this said about him:

There is considerable uncertainty as to the actual provenance of many works that are ascribed to him.

Does that sound like it is 'undisputed' to you? And the works weren't that special anyway. In your second example the first guy listed is the one who invented people and who came to be the definition of the term gibberish.

Quote:

Even if you were correct in your 'propping up midgets' claim, how on earth is that in any way evidence for "stifling" basic science?

I thought I had explained this previously. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets.

Quote:

3. Why do you hinge everything on a superficial and entirely subjective "top 100" list?

Because there are no Muslims on it, and even you are too honest to suggest there should be.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #48 - Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:07pm

Quote:

4. Don't misrepresent me and say I "responded" to your list with my own "muslim-only" list.

But you did. You even suggested I might refuse to look at it.

Quote:

I made it perfectly clear the post before that I despise such lists

Of course they do. They are an embarrassment to Islam and undermine your attempt at counterargument.

Quote:

5. One of the many flaws you have in your argument is that you think that because muslim scientists in the 7th to 12th century didn't invent the computer or space rocket, they didn't contribute.

What makes you think that? There are ancient greeks on the top 100 list. There are no Muslims because none deserve to be on the list.

Quote:

Only western scientists developed these modern innovations - therefore western scientists are the only worthwhile contributors.

If you have a look at the top 100 list, you will see that they are scientists, not inventors, with the possible exception of Ed Hubble. The inventor of the space rocket and the computer are not on the list. Neither is the inventor of the car, plane, phone etc. This should give you a hint as to what science is.

Quote:

The question you need to ask yourself is would the great modern innovations we have today have been possible without western scientists building on the important contributions of islamic scientists?

We'd probably be about 6 months behind.

Quote:

Look FD, I'm all for having a healthy debate on this, but I resent being painted as the unreasonable, tunnel visioned person here.

It is you who is doing that, not me.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18312
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #49 - Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Quote:

But the foundations of modern science were laid long before this time, and were particularly influenced by Islamic civilization. The Muslims were the leading scholars between the seventh and fifteenth ...... The public in the West is generally unaware of this important contribution to modern science and to the culture of the Middle Ages. Islamic civilization is part of our own heritage, and the great Islamic scientists whose works were translated into Latin, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razi (Rhazes), Ibn al-Haytham (Adhazin) and al-Khuwarizmi, are as important as any great European scientist.

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we?

Yes, and according to Abu or "some muslims", camel-urine drinking is held as the pinnacle of scientific achievement remember
.

Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate.

Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam.

The public in the west is unaware of the level of bullshit spruiked off by muslims in claiming atheists were muslims.

Gandalf what are your thoughts on Al Ghazali's book the incoherance of the philosophers where he gives it to Ibn Sina can you rationally asses that in this thread?
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1312088017

There have been many studies on camel urine try google,do those websites ending in ksa come from the kingdom of saudi arabia?

The saudis have been researching the health benefits from drinking camel urine so have many other muslims, western medicine might call that quackery.

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #50 - Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:50pm

Thats quite a comprehensive reply FD, and you covered most of my points.

Except one, and I think you know what it is.

I would like to respond to all the points you covered, but I really would like to settle this nagging issue. So I will just use this post to remind you yet again - 6th time by my count- and hopefully we can clear the air to get back to the other points.

Just to recap, you first brought up camel urine drinking here as an example of what muslims refer to when its suggested that science "suffers" under islam. You then elaborated on this point after I questioned it here:

Quote:

You are kind of missing the point here gandalf. Like the guy jumping off the building with feathers glued to his arms, it may contribute to knowledge in a narrow sense, but the fact that it is even mentioned as an example of Muslims contributing to knowledge is yet another symptom of Islam as a barrier to the acquisition of new knowledge.

Thus we are starting to develop our thesis on how science "suffers" or is "stifled" by islam - by using exactly two examples of what you would later term "propping up midgets".

As is perfectly reasonable, I tried to pin you down on the camel urine claim - since it is one of only two pieces of evidence to support your entire "propping up midgets" case - and thus quite important.

So I asked you directly whether muslims actually make the claim that camel urine drinking is the pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement. You replied here, saying:

Quote:

Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu. He also gave the example of the guy who jumped off a tall building with feathers glued to his arms in his Islam and science thread.

I replied with this:

Quote:

so they actually said "amongst the greatest islamic scientific discoveries is drinking camel urine"? Please humour me FD and show me where.

In fact after a quick search, the only threads that contain the words "camel urine" were this and this. On both occasions you were the one who brought it up, and no muslim on either thread came remotely close to saying the discovery of the benefits of camel urine was at the pinnacle of islamic scientific discovery.

You ignore this request - and the 5 or so others that I made after. Yet, within a few posts you are running with the phrase "propping up midgets". No other evidence to support this claim was presented - literally just the camel urine and Ibn Firnas's flight claim.

So FD, can we please just clear the air now? The camel urine drinking = pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement claim does not exist - it was made up by you. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but it needs to be acknowledged. Once that is done, we can move on, and understand that the "propping up midgets" claim - so central to your overall "islam stifles science" theme - hinges on exactly one example - one extremely dubious example. I think this is important to put this whole discussion into context.

Once we can get past this, then I would love to address your other points.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #51 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:03am

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate.

Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam.

- quoted for the lolz..

I didn't want to distract FD from his task of justifying his blatant lies, but really, I just could not let this pass.

Here we have the same guy thats been telling us ad infinitum that islam is the most intolerant of alternative views, and that the fate that awaits apostates and people who blaspheme is instant death. Shall I refer you to the thread on that very topic you yourself created Baron?

Now just take al-Razi - a man who criticised the prophet - indeed the very idea of prophets, and then openly questioned the authenticity of the quran.

Was he hunted down and killed? Was he forced into hiding? No and no. But how could that be Baron?? A philosopher whose work can only be described as blasphemy against islam is not only tolerated in the islamic world, he is able to thrive!

And yet you clowns insist that islam stifles knowledge - FD by making up blatant lies about what muslims say, and you with arguments like this. What a joke. Here's your argument Baron - "islam stifles knowledge - because islam tolerated philosophers that perpetuated ideas that openly challenged islam's core tenets" - does that make sense to you? You are simply hillarious.

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:31am by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18312
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #52 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:27am

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate.

Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam.

They have to be of sound mind before they can be executed for apostasy, it is not my rule it comes from your religion.
Quote:

If a muslim apostatizes and meets the conditions of apostasy- ie he is of sound mind, an adult and does that of his own free will- then his blood may be shed with impunity.
Islamic source-www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327/apostate

Were these guys considered to be not of sound mind?Did they pretend to be crazy to avoid the death penalty for apostasy?

Razi was pretty good-
Quote:

If people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up and get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question.They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries, this is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.
(It sounds like Muhammad al Razi understood what Islam was all about)

You claim that the evidentary miracle is present and available, namely the Quran.You say whoever denies it let him produce a similar one.
Indeed we shall produce a thousand similar from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets,which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly.They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter,By god what you say astonishes us!
You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation.
Then you say produce something like it!

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi

Razi said the Quran is full of contradictions which is something a muslim will deny.

Quote:

Allah speaking-

Then do they not reflect upon the Quran?,If it had been from any other than Allah they would have found within much contradiction.
www.quran.com/4/82

You claimed Al Razi was a muslim when blind freddy can see he did not care for your Quran.

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #53 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:47am

Good lord Baron - even I could have come up with a better response than that.

He must have been considered insane - thats your explanation of why he wasn't persecuted when everything you've ever said on the subject says that he should have.

Even though there is not a shred of evidence, or any reason whatsoever, to believe that might have been the case. This is what we call grasping at straws Baron. Its no more sensible than if I said that Al Razi wasn't persecuted because he was protected by a layer of kryptonite.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

You claimed Al Razi was a muslim

I'm afraid not my friend.

I'm really sad to see you adopting FDs tactic of "winning" an argument by simply making sh*t up about what muslims say.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18312
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #54 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

You claimed Al Razi was a muslim

I'm afraid not my friend.

I'm really sad to see you adopting FDs tactic of "winning" an argument by simply making sh*t up about what muslims say.

Death for apostasy shows Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights, article 18, defend your belief that is not compatible with human rights any way you like.
The Saudis give you 3 days to repent before they chop your head off,Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Islam and where do you go for Hajj which is one of the 5 pillars of Islam?
Muslims even face Mecca when they pray, they tap their heads on the ground 5 times a day with their asses in the air while facing Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

There are many reasons why al Razi and Ibn Sina were not persecuted for being freethinkers who thrived in spite of Islam and not because of Islam,being considered insane is one possible reason.

There are many Islamic websites today which claim al Razi and Ibn Sina were muslim so if muslims cannot figure out they were apostate today then i wonder how many thought they were apostates back then, he was smart enough to know you do not question Islam in public yet what he wrote in his books was great in my opinion.

What has come from anyone in the Islamic world since al ghazali ended rational thought to favour religious dogma?zip?zilch?nothing?

Quote:

Al Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential muslim after prophet Mo.
Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress (perhaps FD is in that list..lol)
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 95297 Gender:	Re: Islam stifles basic science Reply #55 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:51pm Yes, Baron, but they did invent camel urine, you have to concede that. Your posts on Islam might be farcical, but you’d drink it if you had warts, boils, some tumours, ,infected circumcision, or any of the myriad of diseases this marvellous medicine cures.
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #56 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 2:37pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

There are many reasons why al Razi and Ibn Sina were not persecuted for being freethinkers who thrived in spite of Islam and not because of Islam,being considered insane is one possible reason.

Yes, I agree you have absolutely no idea - so normally that would mean you haven't really got any right to blindly assume that the al-Razi's were the exception and not the rule during the golden age period - especially when that blind assumption has no basis whatsoever.

Far more likely:

Quote:

It may therefore come as a surprise to many people that there is a long and vibrant intellectual tradition of dissidence and freethinking going back to the Middle Ages. The Islamic thinkers of the early medieval period expressed ideas and engaged in debates that would appear strangely enlightened in comparison with the attitudes and views adopted by modern Islamic scholarship.

This is the basic argument presented by From the History of Atheism in Islam by the renowned Egyptian thinker Abdel-Rahman Badawi. Published in Arabic in 1945, the book was reprinted only once in 1993

[...]

Quote:

Most prominent among those scholars was Abu Bakr al-Razi (865-925 CE) who believed in the supreme importance of reason. He argued that the mind had an innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil, and between what was useful and what was harmful. According to him, the mind did not need any guidance from outside it, and for this reason the presence of prophets was redundant and superfluous.

Al-Razi directed his most vehement attack against the holy books in general, including the Qur'an, because he saw them as illogical and self-contradictory.

[...]

Quote:

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent. It might be reasonable to suggest then that the problem of Islam does not lie in inherited texts and traditions, but in interpretation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expression

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #57 - Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm

Quote:

Except one, and I think you know what it is.

You mean this?

You are fond of talking about camel urine, but would you drink it? Does Islam command you to? Should Muhammed be on the list of the top 100 scientists for this contribution to medicine?

Quote:

Thus we are starting to develop our thesis on how science "suffers" or is "stifled" by islam - by using exactly two examples of what you would later term "propping up midgets".

Like I keep pointing out, you have provided plenty more examples, and they are far better than mine. Thanks.

Quote:

Do you still think he invented the hang glider?

Quote:

So FD, can we please just clear the air now? The camel urine drinking = pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement claim does not exist - it was made up by you.

Are you suggesting Islam has contributed something more significant?

Quote:

Once that is done, we can move on, and understand that the "propping up midgets" claim - so central to your overall "islam stifles science" theme - hinges on exactly one example - one extremely dubious example.

It is the dubiousness of the claim (like your claim that he invented the hang glider) that makes it such a good example of Muslims propping up midgets at the expense of genuine science. However, I would like to add your further examples of the guy who came to define gibberish (first in the list from your second example) and the guy whose claims were described by your own link as dubious (top of the list in your first example). I am sure your lists contain plenty more examples of Muslims propping up midgets, but I think these will do for now. After all, the absence of any great scientists from the Muslim list says a lot more than the translaters, hacks and madmen that you have offered up instead.

Quote:

Here we have the same guy thats been telling us ad infinitum that islam is the most intolerant of alternative views, and that the fate that awaits apostates and people who blaspheme is instant death.

You have to do all the paperwork first. Abu got very hot under the collar about such misrepesentations. You should be careful about what you say around him, as he believes the the death penalty for apostasy, with a very broad definition of apostasy. I put it to you that he would kill you before he killed me.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #58 - Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:53am

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

You are fond of talking about camel urine

Well you did first bring it up - remember all that time ago? Back then it must have seemed like a good idea, but I can understand how you would rather not discuss it now.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Do you still think he invented the hang glider?

ah I see. My incorrect description (and yes, I will admit my mistake), is equivalent to lying about what muslims have said about the importance of camel urine - with the sole purpose of smeering islam. Right on Smiley

Ibn Firnas's invention may not have been a "hang glider" as we know it - but it was a glider. It seems like it was pretty much identical to Eilmer of Malmesbury's innovation. And interestingly enough Eilmer's feat is only known to us through a single secondary source written over 100 years after the event:

Quote:

All that is known of him is told in the Gesta regum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Kings), written by the eminent medieval historian William of Malmesbury in about 1125.

Contrast this to Ibn Firnas's feat, which has a primary source, plus several secondary sources - including near-contemporaneous ones.

Yet funnily enough, I don't see anyone disputing the feat attributed to Eilmer of Malmesbury.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Are you suggesting Islam has contributed something more significant?

algebra, the numerals we use today, hospitals, the scientific method, our understanding of human anatomy etc etc... all these things have been mentioned about 1000 times before.

Quote:

um no its the same person actually. So you need to make up your mind - was it a good case of "propping up midgets", or taking credit for something that never happened? You can't have both and claim it as two separate examples. Nice try though.

But to put the man in context, its worth noting:

Quote:

he historian of chemistry Erick John Holmyard gives credit to Jābir for developing alchemy into an experimental science and he writes that Jābir's importance to the history of chemistry is equal to that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. The historian Paul Kraus, who had studied most of Jābir's extant works in Arabic and Latin, summarized the importance of Jābir to the history of chemistry by comparing his experimental and systematic works in chemistry with that of the allegorical and unintelligible works of the ancient Greek alchemists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan#Legacy

Quote:

However, I would like to add your further examples of the guy who came to define gibberish (first in the list from your second example) and the guy whose claims were described by your own link as dubious (top of the list in your first example). I am sure your lists contain plenty more examples of Muslims propping up midgets, but I think these will do for now.

Yup - two examples, which is actually the same person will suffice - and we'll just assume that the rest are all "midgets" without having any idea. As always - nice objective analysis there FD Smiley

Sort of reminds me of your assumption that you had a conversation with "some muslims", who stated that camel urine drinking was the pinnacle of islamic science - when in fact it was you who came up with the bullshit claim all along, and falsely attributed it to muslims.

But if we are talking about the field of scientific "contribution", then it is full of scientists who came up with "gibberish" - in terms of ideas that are no longer accepted today - but who nontheless made incalculable contributions to the advancement of science overall. Aristotle, Lamarck, Freud leap to mind. The advancement of western science is full of scientific theories that are rejected - and ridiculed today: eg phrenology, eugenics phlogiston theory - even Einstein had a now debunked "static universe" theory. But all these were absolutely necessary to arrive at the knowledge we have of science today.

Its not about picking out which scientists were "right" and which were "gibberish" - its about what avenues of ideas and learning they opened up.

Gandalf wrote:
Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? How about repeatedly ignoring examples of the many scientific contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy and medicine and others?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

I am not ignoring them. I am mocking them.

No you're not - you continually refuse to even address them despite my constant pleas. If only you would mock them - then we might actually be able to discuss something.

But since you make this claim, explain to me how you would "mock" ibn al-Haytham - the man who not only made groundbreaking advances in the field of optics, but is widely regarded as the pioneer of the scientific method - being the first to combine the three main components - observation, experiments, and rational arguments - to test his theories.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #59 - Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am

Quote:

Ibn Firnas's invention may not have been a "hang glider" as we know it - but it was a glider. It seems like it was pretty much identical to Eilmer of Malmesbury's innovation.

That's odd. I don't think anyone actually knows what Eilmer's innovation was either. It certainly does not appear to involve gluing vulture feathers to your arm. So we have two early accounts of people apparently flying, with almost no details, and you leap to the conclusion that their inventions were identical. The only explanation I have is that this was a leap of faith.

Quote:

Contrast this to Ibn Firnas's feat, which has a primary source

You mean the one line reference to bird feathers and a phoenix?

Quote:

Yet funnily enough, I don't see anyone disputing the feat attributed to Eilmer of Malmesbury.

You don't see a huge Christian propaganda machine making up stories about him inventing the hang glider and being a great Christian thinker either, or putting him top of a list called "Christianity and science, setting the record straight". He doesn;t even make the top 100 list, nor does he deserve to. I would feel no need to call bullshit on Firnas if it wasn't for you and Abu being so desperate to believe any BS claim you read about him online. Your own links put claims about him into sufficient perspective. It is your inability to comprehend that information that is the problem.

Quote:

um no its the same person actually

Oh thanks Gandalf I didn't pick up on that. So the guy who tops both your lists is a guy whose actual contributions are questioned by historians, who deliberately tried to prevent any knowledge he generated from falling into the hands of non-Muslims, who wrote a recipe book on creating humans and scorpions in a lab, and whose name became synonymous with gibberish. Perhaps Muslims like to write their lists backwards. None of the 'scientists' on your lists are familiar, like Einstein, Newton etc from the top 100 list. I don't think any deserve to be either. To save me the effort of going through your list and trying to find one who measures up, can you please suggest who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time? I suspect you had your Islam tinted glasses on when you started posting lists of them. You didn't even read what was written about them in the links you provided did you?

Or, you could concede that there is a clear lack of contributions to science from the Muslim world and we can go back to what you wanted to discuss earlier - the reasons for this.

Quote:

So you need to make up your mind - was it a good case of "propping up midgets"

Yes, both Firnas and Hayyan were good examples of propping up midgets.

Quote:

or taking credit for something that never happened?

The hang glider invention never happened. The creation of scorpions and people in a lab never happened.

Quote:

Yup - two examples, which is actually the same person will suffice

Hayyan is your own example. Like I said, it is your lack of good examples that really proves my point. Your unwitting supply of really bad examples is just another nail in the coffin.

Quote:

and we'll just assume that the rest are all "midgets" without having any idea

Please suggest one who you think deserves to be in the top 100 list. I am not going to do your homework for you.

Quote:

But if we are talking about the field of scientific "contribution", then it is full of scientists who came up with "gibberish" - in terms of ideas that are no longer accepted today

Did Muslims accept at the time that Hayyan created humans and scorpions in his lab?

Quote:

The advancement of western science is full of scientific theories that are rejected

I think that is a bit different to a recipe book for creating humans and scorpions in the lab. You really should read your own evidence before you post it. It is a bit rude of you to post it without reading and expect everyone else to point out the absurdity of it to you.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page