Richard Dawkins criticised for Twitter comment about Muslims

[Razgovory]

Presumably Viking and Grumbler have both read the the actual works.

[The Minsky Moment]

All medieval philosophers accepted the truth of divine revelation and believed in God.  The Aristotleans believed that God caused all things, albeit as the "first mover" in a vast chain of efficient causes.  It was in this way they harmonized their theology with Aristotle's physics and metaphysics.  The notion of an empirical and purely material concept of causation was advanced by no one,  from our modern perspective they are all wrong.

Thus the significance of Ghazali is not that he uses God to fill philosophical gaps, all medieval thinkers did that.  The significance of Ghazali is that he turns his formidable skeptical critique on dogmatic concepts of efficient causation of the philosophers. To say fire burns cotton because it is in fires natures to burn things is an unveriable a priori claim about the nature of existence.  Or to put it another way, it is a giant question begging exercise.  Gazali's point (like Hume's) is that all we can really say is that there is a correlation of events, but we cannot derive or assume necessary causal relations from the mere fact of that correlation.  The true nature of the connection is unknown.

A modern post Hume could say, we can't know The Truth of the connection, but with sufficient experimentation and observations, we can construct provisional accounts that are however always subject to revision.   The medievals weren't there yet (umberto eco's Holmes being only fiction).  So Gazali has nothing to bridge the gap but the will and the mind of God.  That is not satisfactory to most of us.  But still the critical project is sound, and in that sense a step forward to Ockham, Descartes, Berkeley, Hume.

[grumbler]

Thus the significance of Ghazali is not that he uses God to fill philosophical gaps, all medieval thinkers did that.  The significance of Ghazali is that he turns his formidable skeptical critique on dogmatic concepts of efficient causation of the philosophers. To say fire burns cotton because it is in fires natures to burn things is an unveriable a priori claim about the nature of existence.  Or to put it another way, it is a giant question begging exercise.  Gazali's point (like Hume's) is that all we can really say is that there is a correlation of events, but we cannot derive or assume necessary causal relations from the mere fact of that correlation.  The true nature of the connection is unknown.

Except that this isn't what Gazali says at all.  I linked you to his work.

He says that the proper and correct a priori assertion about the universe is that it is false that cotton burns when exposed to fire; that God directly (or indirectly through angels) changes the cotton when and if he desires it, fire or not; that the fact that it only happens in the presence of fire is merely God's whim at the moment.

Cazali's assertion that that no assertion about the world that cannot be proven is true, and no assertion by him about God is false, proof or not.  Gazali explicitly rejects all correlations except "Goddidit."

[The Minsky Moment]

Gazali never says anything about the "proper and correct a priori assertion about the universe."  He is denying the possibility of a priori knowledge about causal facts in the world.  This is apparent from the first sentence of the problem where he states his position as denying the necessity of efficient causation.

[grumbler]

Gazali never says anything about the "proper and correct a priori assertion about the universe."  He is denying the possibility of a priori knowledge about causal facts in the world.  This is apparent from the first sentence of the problem where he states his position as denying the necessity of efficient causation.

To MinskyMoment your own post Gazali never says anything about "a priori knowledge about causal factors of the world." 

What he explicitly denies is that things in the world behave as they do because it is their nature to do so.  He asserts, instead, that everything occurs as god wills it to, and that god doesn't follow any rules.  It is not a priori knowledge about causal factors of the world he dismisses, it is observation and induction of those causal factors.

[The Minsky Moment]

What he explicitly denies is that things in the world behave as they do because it is their nature to do so.  He asserts, instead, that everything occurs as god wills it to, and that god doesn't follow any rules.  It is not a priori knowledge about causal factors of the world he dismisses, it is observation and induction of those causal factors.

The first sentence is true.
The second sentence is partially true.
The third sentence is not true.

The issue here is what the medievals mean when they talk about the "nature" of a generic noun like fire or cotton.  In Aristotle's philosophy these are "universals" and their qualities are inherent in them by definition.  To say the nature of cotton is to be flammable is NOT merely to say - we have observed in the past that cotton things exposed to fire burn and so infer from that fact that there must be some quality of cotton that causes that to happen.  It is to say the very definition of what it is to be cotton is to be a thing that burns.

Again, Al-Gazali explains this up front by telling the reader in hthe very first sentence exactly what his critique is directed at: the Aristotlean claim that the connection between cause and effect is necessary, i.e. that the world could not be other than one in which fire burns cotton.

If you think about it in Kantian terms, Gazali is essentially accusing Aristotle in his followers of confusing synthetic propositions (statements where the predicate is not contained within the subject) with analytic propositions (the predicate is contained in the subject). 

Going to your second sentence, the first part is correct (God's will provides the connection between cause and effect); the second part (God doesn't follow any rules) is not really accurate though.  Gazali contends that God is not *bound* by any rules but that is not to say that God's will does not unfold in predictable patterns, at least when God is not producing miracles.  From the point of view of human beings therefore it can and does appear as if God is acting in accordance with rules.  And because God's will often does unfold in regular patterns, induction is possible as Gazali argues later in the chapter:

If it is said Once it is denied that effects necessarily follow from causes, and it is maintained that an effect is to be ascribed to the will of the Creator and that will has no particular well defined course, but may be varied and arbitrary, then one might persuade himself to believe . . . [parade of absurdities]

In reply . . . In regard to the situations described by you . . . [t]hey are only possible - i.e. they may, or may not happen.  It is only when something possible is repeated over and over again (so as to form the Norm) that its persuance of a uniform course in accordance with the Norm in the past is indelibly pressed upon our minds.

[Josquius]

Islam is  a bit more of a real religion than Mormonism though

it's not that odd.
A young merchant on the periphery of the great civilizations of the day hears voices from God and claims to have received the revelation of a new scripture that will complete and cap the revelations of the old monotheistic faiths.  Those who accept the new faith will achieve a worldly paradise in the afterlife.

Wait now I forgot which one I was talking about.

One was invented over 1000 years ago, in pre scientific times when knowledge about the way the world works was hard to come by, particularly in the especially ignorant part of the world it has festered for going on  millennium and a half. It has become quite thoroughly integrated into the culture of  a lot of different ethnic groups over this time. It is the way things have always been.
The other was invented not two centuries ago, a time when people generally did know better, in a nation which is supposedly one of the more advanced places on earth. You don't have to go too many generations back to find a time before it. It makes a myriad of claims that can't quite hide behind the veil of pre history in the way old faiths can.

As much as I dislike monotheism whatever it's flavour Islam clearly stands out as a more valid religion than modern nonsense like Mormonism. You expect a lot more from adults than kids.

[Razgovory]

Why do you dislike monotheism?

[Malthus]

Why do you dislike monotheism?

Not as cool as having a whole pantheon of badass gods to worship? 

[Ed Anger]

Blood for the blood god!

[Josquius]

Why do you dislike monotheism?

Not as cool as having a whole pantheon of badass gods to worship? 

And it's so woefully generic and samey.
Also it's obsession with conversion or death (Jews are cool. The only valid monotheists), not playing well with others and religion being at the centre of life isn't so great.

[The Minsky Moment]

One was invented over 1000 years ago, in pre scientific times when knowledge about the way the world works was hard to come by, particularly in the especially ignorant part of the world it has festered for going on  millennium and a half. It has become quite thoroughly integrated into the culture of  a lot of different ethnic groups over this time. It is the way things have always been.
The other was invented not two centuries ago, a time when people generally did know better, in a nation which is supposedly one of the more advanced places on earth. You don't have to go too many generations back to find a time before it. It makes a myriad of claims that can't quite hide behind the veil of pre history in the way old faiths can.

I think you are vastly overestimating the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge and understanding in the 1830s, particularly among the common folk.  Keep in mind that in America of that time the dominant social force was the Second Great Awakening, which was characterized by widespread belief that the millenium was imminent.  This was also the same time in Europe that Vatican was denouncing new technology and banning railways from the Papal States; so it's not like the more traditional religions presented an uniformly enlightened front.

I also think you are underrating the level of sophistication of urbanized Arabia and the Levant in the 6th and 7th centuries. 

[Razgovory]

Why do you dislike monotheism?

Not as cool as having a whole pantheon of badass gods to worship? 

And it's so woefully generic and samey.
Also it's obsession with conversion or death (Jews are cool. The only valid monotheists), not playing well with others and religion being at the centre of life isn't so great.

I think you misunderstand ancient polytheistic religions if you don't think they were the center of life.   They also didn't exactly "play nice" with other religions either.

[Josquius]

ote]


And it's so woefully generic and samey.
Also it's obsession with conversion or death (Jews are cool. The only valid monotheists), not playing well with others and religion being at the centre of life isn't so great.

I think you misunderstand ancient polytheistic religions if you don't think they were the center of life.   They also didn't exactly "play nice" with other religions either.
[/quote]

Which religion are you talking about?
Ancient societies tended to be religious because they were ignorant and felt it would help them, usually not because God said so. You're wrong if you think paganism and Christianity are the same on an organizational level

And yes they did. Going out and converting heathens generally wasn't/isn't an issue.

[Siege]

Why do you dislike monotheism?

Not as cool as having a whole pantheon of badass gods to worship? 

And it's so woefully generic and samey.
Also it's obsession with conversion or death (Jews are cool. The only valid monotheists), not playing well with others and religion being at the centre of life isn't so great.

I think you misunderstand ancient polytheistic religions if you don't think they were the center of life.   They also didn't exactly "play nice" with other religions either.

You are very wrong. In the old days people recognized each other gods and acknowledged the supremacy of such gods in their local territories.