Languish.org

Richard Dawkins criticised for Twitter comment about Muslims

Controversial scientist accused of 'dressing his bigotry up as atheism' following comments on social networking site


The outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins (http://twitter.com/RichardDawkins) was involved in an online Twitter row on Thursday after tweeting: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."

As users piled in to criticise him, the scientist continued: "Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science."

His other posts included: "You can attack someone for his opinion. But for simply stating an intriguing fact? Who would guess that a single Cambridge College" and "Muslims aren't a race. What they have in common is a religion (http://www.theguardian.com/world/religion). Rather than Trinity, would you prefer the comparison with Jews? Google it."

With the debate escalating, Dawkins, who has more than 777,000 followers, said: "Many are asking how many Nobels have been won by atheists. Needs research. I'd love to know. I suspect the proportion is v high, and growing."

Owen Jones (http://twitter.com/OwenJones84), the left-leaning commentator and author of Chavs, told Dawkins: "How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment." Legal blogger Jack of Kent (http://twitter.com/JackofKent) added: "Following @RichardDawkins tweet, Trinity Cambridge has presumably also produced more Soviet-supporting traitors to the UK than Islam (http://www.theguardian.com/world/islam)."

The row also drew in historian Tom Holland and Channel 4's economics editor Faisal Islam who commented: "I thought scientists were meant to upbraid journalists for use of spurious data points to 'prove' existing prejudgements".
@jptoc chipped in: "A similar (and infuriating for Dawkins) 'fact' is that Islam has more recipients of Nobel Prizes than Dawkins. It's bad scientific method."

But some users appeared more forgiving. @Chriss_m, said: "Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow. He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar."

Trinity College, Cambridge, has 32 Nobel laureates, as against 10 Muslims listed in Wikipedia. When the Guardian contacted Dawkins by email to ask whether he was surprised by the uproar, he replied: "Prompted by exasperation at hearing boasts of (a) how numerous Muslims are in the world and (b) how great is their science.

"This prompted the thought that if they are all THAT numerous, shouldn't they have more to show for it in terms of achievement? The comparison with Trinity Cambridge I judged less offensive to Muslims than the even more dramatic comparison with Jews (who have garnered an ASTOUNDINGLY large number of Nobel Prizes)."

He continued: "Am I surprised? Only at the number of people who seem to think Islam is a race, rather than a religion. I regard that view as racist. Anything you can convert to, or convert from, is NOT a race.

Dawkins has previously been involved in acrimonious Twitter exchanges over Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, prompting Owen Jones to comment "If atheism means being bigoted about Muslims or wanting to drive people of faith from public life, then I am not an atheist."

BTW, Orhan Pamuk is a self described "Cultural Muslim" only. So if he counts as a muslim then I count as a christian. Abdus Salam is Ahmediyha and is about as much of a Muslim as Mitt Romney is a Christian. The Muslim Brotherhood tried to kill Nagib Mahfouz and successfully murdered Anwar Sadat (who got it for promising not to try to kill jews anymore). Arafat got it for the same reason Sadat did, and like Obama got it before doing what he got it for "doing". The post Arafat peace prizes don't count simply because as Machiavelli said, titles don't make men, men make titles. That leave Ahmed Zewail who got it for studying intermediate stages of a group of kinds of chemical reactions.

But, then again, if I applied these criteria to christians and jews there wouldn't be too many of them left either.

Dawkins is factually right and the points he has made on the topic reflect the problematization suggested by the UN Arab Human Development Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Human_Development_Report . Dawkins adds that there is a clear theological basis for this situation and a clear theological reason for the end of the islamic golden age pointing to the Al Gazali's Incoherence of the Philosophers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers as the starting point for the end of Philosophical side of Kalaam (Islamic apologetics and academic theology).

I'm shocked, shocked that Dawkins would say such a thing.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 05:56:13 PM
I'm shocked, shocked that Dawkins would say such a thing.

Some muslims or at least more of those on-line are easily trolled, who knew. 

Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 05:56:13 PM
I'm shocked, shocked that Dawkins would say such a thing.

I'm not shocked that anyone would say such a thing.

This seems a bit of a weird non-sequitur. As Muslim Trinity alumnus Faisal Islam pointed out as it happens in the last twenty years (in real Nobel prizes) Muslims are beating Trinity.

But it just seems bafflingly stupid. Most of the Muslim world is in the developing world, very few countries there have outstanding research universities. China has 10 Nobel prize winners and I think the overwhelming majority of those are based in US and (some) European universities. India has 6-7 and one of them's Mother Theresa.

I don't understand the point Dawkins is making here. When all it suggests to me is that most of the best education institutes in the world are in the West, most of the world's Muslims (Chinese, Indians, sub-Saharan Africans) aren't so you'll get very few of the latter and lots of the former in any list of Nobel prizes. You add in that the Nobel prizes started during the high Edwardian era and there's even more complications.

I can't find it but Private Eye have a brilliant spoof of Richard Dawkins. The New Statesman described it: 'It captures perfectly, with almost documentary verisimilitude, in fact, the blend of irascibility, conceit and high-handed disdain for religion that shines through Dawkins' online persona. Brown's version of the God Delusion author berates a shop assistant wearing a crucifix, criticises Bach for sneaking references to Jesus into his St Matthew Passion and wonders exasperatedly why anyone would be stupid enough to think it a "good point" that you can't prove God doesn't exist.' But it is better and pretty accurate.

Quote"Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow. He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar."

I think this is sort-of true. Everyone seems to have found Dawkins pretty tiresome for the last few years. Also I'd note that many of his critics are suddenly finding him refreshingly direct because he said something about Muslims.

Personally I think the Telegraph had a point, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Jesuit secret agent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10233530/Come-in-Agent-Dawkins-your-job-is-done.html

 :secret: I'm not really shocked either.  It's simply par for the course to make such absurd observations.  People in the first world have earned more Nobel prizes then people in the third? Not exactly surprising.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:20:08 PM
I don't understand the point Dawkins is making here.

I think it's quite obvious.  Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:20:08 PM
But it just seems bafflingly stupid. Most of the Muslim world is in the developing world, very few countries there have outstanding research universities. China has 10 Nobel prize winners and I think the overwhelming majority of those are based in US and (some) European universities. India has 6-7 and one of them's Mother Theresa.

I don't understand the point Dawkins is making here. When all it suggests to me is that most of the best education institutes in the world are in the West, most of the world's Muslims (Chinese, Indians, sub-Saharan Africans) aren't so you'll get very few of the latter and lots of the former in any list of Nobel prizes. You add in that the Nobel prizes started during the high Edwardian era and there's even more complications.

Lack of resources is not an excuse. Tiny Israel has as many Nobel laureates as the whole of Islam. So do Hungary or Norway.

The simple fact is an environment that focuses on blind obedience instead of personal initiative will naturally lead to lacklustre performance. And that's just as true in science as in many other areas, like warfare.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 07:38:37 PM
I think it's quite obvious.  Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.

But how does he actually make that point?

As it is it just looks like the 'look what happened to Greeks/Romans' argument against gay marriage. It seems maybe slightly interesting but totally off-point.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 07:38:37 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:20:08 PM
I don't understand the point Dawkins is making here.

I think it's quite obvious.  Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.

I'm guessing that Shelf was hoping there would be something more to it then that.  There's not, but he's an optimist.

Quote from: Iormlund on August 11, 2013, 07:49:05 PMLack of resources is not an excuse. Tiny Israel has as many Nobel laureates as the whole of Islam. So do Hungary or Norway.

Those countries don't lack resources, they lack size.

As I say tiny Israel also has almost as many as China and more than India (both roughly the same population as 'Islam' from my understanding). The whole of sub-Saharan Africa's got five and of them four are for peace and one's for literature. South America's got ten and, with the exception of Argentina, most of them are for literature. I don't see what this is demonstrating about Islam as opposed to the developing world.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
But how does he actually make that point?

As it is it just looks like the 'look what happened to Greeks/Romans' argument against gay marriage. It seems maybe slightly interesting but totally off-point.

Very few people are capable of writing a PhD thesis in the 140 characters allowed in a tweet.  I think you are WAY over-analyzing this.

Quote from: Iormlund on August 11, 2013, 07:49:05 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:20:08 PM
But it just seems bafflingly stupid. Most of the Muslim world is in the developing world, very few countries there have outstanding research universities. China has 10 Nobel prize winners and I think the overwhelming majority of those are based in US and (some) European universities. India has 6-7 and one of them's Mother Theresa.

I don't understand the point Dawkins is making here. When all it suggests to me is that most of the best education institutes in the world are in the West, most of the world's Muslims (Chinese, Indians, sub-Saharan Africans) aren't so you'll get very few of the latter and lots of the former in any list of Nobel prizes. You add in that the Nobel prizes started during the high Edwardian era and there's even more complications.

Lack of resources is not an excuse. Tiny Israel has as many Nobel laureates as the whole of Islam. So do Hungary or Norway.

The simple fact is an environment that focuses on blind obedience instead of personal initiative will naturally lead to lacklustre performance. And that's just as true in science as in many other areas, like warfare.

I'm not sure how pointing out Israel has more Nobel Laureates as the whole of Islam proves your point about resources.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
Those countries don't lack resources, they lack size.

Israel has no resources to speak of, Hungary not much more, whereas the Gulf states have some of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

What Israel has in abundance is human capital, which is sort of the point.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:04:11 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
Those countries don't lack resources, they lack size.

Israel has no resources to speak of, Hungary not much more, whereas the Gulf states have some of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

What Israel has in abundance is human capital, which is sort of the point.

What sort of resources are we talking about?

Yeah. I really don't understand that argument.

And by the by I'm not necessarily arguing against the idea that 'Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.' I'm not sure. But Dawkins tweets and his longer defence of them are a bit of a non-sequitur.

He made exactly the same point as Yi, 'But . . . oil wealth? Might it be more equitably deployed amongst the populace of those countries that happen to sit on the accidental geological boon of oil. Is this an example of something that Muslims might consider to improve the education of their children?' That's a fair point but, again, doesn't seem to make his point and, again, surely the relevant comparison is other petrostates.

Why is that Shelf?  Why is the whole of humanity not a valid comparison?

Oh, and Yi do you believe that, 'Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.'

I think it's a defensible thesis.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:37:40 PM
I think it's a defensible thesis.

Very well, then what has "Stultified intellectual inquiry" in China, S. Korea, India, Latin America and the non Muslim parts of Africa?

It's valid, it's not terribly useful though.

If you're saying the important aspect is Islam then surely you'd want to try and compare with otherwise similar situations to eliminate as many of the other variables as possible. Though obviously that's never entirely possible.

So there's around 1.6 billion Muslims the vast majority of whom live in developing countries. Comparing their number of Nobel laureates against a world-class seat of research in a developed country with a long history of higher education tells you less about Islam's impact than comparing it against, say, India or China which are largely not Muslim but also diverse and developing. And of course though we don't hear a great deal about India or China saving Greek science for the West we do hear a lot about their scientific histories - Indian numbers and mathematics, the advances of the Chinese Empire and so on.

He could've made the exact same point about two-thirds of the world based on all sorts of groupings. It's a fact, it doesn't necessarily lead on or to anything. That's why it reminds me of the Greco-Roman moan about gay marriage, it's terribly tangential.

QuoteI think it's a defensible thesis.

Which is fine but that's a different argument. It doesn't lead from Dawkins point.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
Very well, then what has "Stultified intellectual inquiry" in China, S. Korea, India, Latin America and the non Muslim parts of Africa?

China: Before the Communist victory, a culture that prized the maintenance of the status quo as the highest virtue.  Under Mao, Communism.

S. Korea: until about 1970, grinding poverty.  Then they started to do pretty well.

Sub-Saharan Africa: grinding poverty.

India: I don't know.  The country produces some of the best mathematical minds in the world.  Why they aren't more involved I don't know.

Latin America: I don't know.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 09:08:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
Very well, then what has "Stultified intellectual inquiry" in China, S. Korea, India, Latin America and the non Muslim parts of Africa?

China: Before the Communist victory, a culture that prized the maintenance of the status quo as the highest virtue.  Under Mao, Communism.

S. Korea: until about 1970, grinding poverty.  Then they started to do pretty well.

Sub-Saharan Africa: grinding poverty.

India: I don't know.  The country produces some of the best mathematical minds in the world.  Why they aren't more involved I don't know.

Latin America: I don't know.

It would seem to me that poverty can apply to all of those countries.  In fact, it's a common thread that applies to them and the Muslim world.

Only a few people on the internet seemed to point out that out that Trinity College is short for "The Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. "

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:50:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 07:38:37 PM
I think it's quite obvious.  Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.

But how does he actually make that point?

As it is it just looks like the 'look what happened to Greeks/Romans' argument against gay marriage. It seems maybe slightly interesting but totally off-point.

There was something mentioned about some islam people claiming "BUT LOOK AT OUR SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS ZOMG!!!!1111oneoneoneone" and Dawkins merely pointed out: "what scientific achievments"

they still to live off the fact that they had the lead for like a couple of centuries a thousand years ago. It is not a problem if somebody points it out to them that, well, it was a thousand years ago.

In a related issue, I only recently realised, that the Caliphate, that oh-awesome golden age all radicals are yearning to re-establish, lasted for what, 70 years? That's probably worse than Romanians claiming one of their robber barons united their country first in the 1600s because he actually held Transylvanian ground for a couple of years.

So what?  The American Golden Age only lasted for about fifteen.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2013, 03:39:10 AM
So what?  The American Golden Age only lasted for about fifteen.

yeah but referencing the caliphate 1400 years after it happened like the Way Things Are Supposed To Be Normally, is quite a push

also there is an other thing here which is spot on: this guy has been trashing Christianity regularly, and nobody gave a damn. He makes one comment on Islam and gets all this shit thrown at him.

And, as a teacher of mine once said: you can only be offended about something that is true.

Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2013, 05:02:24 AM
also there is an other thing here which is spot on: this guy has been trashing Christianity regularly, and nobody gave a damn. He makes one comment on Islam and gets all this shit thrown at him.

And, as a teacher of mine once said: you can only be offended about something that is true.

I have take issue with that. When he has been trashing christianity he still shit thrown at him. It's just right wing and christian shit. Now that he takes on Islam he gets left wing and islamic shit thrown at him. Success is to Islam what Morality is the Christianity; a supposed confirmation and necessary consequence of the faith. Christians lose their marbles when you show that you can be morally good without god and mooselimbs lose their marbles (more than usual) when you show that you can be successful without submitting.

Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2013, 05:02:24 AM
also there is an other thing here which is spot on: this guy has been trashing Christianity regularly, and nobody gave a damn. He makes one comment on Islam and gets all this shit thrown at him.

And, as a teacher of mine once said: you can only be offended about something that is true.

Yes, clearly nobody gave a damn. :rolleyes:

Isn't snark like Dawkins posted the entire purpose of Twitter?

Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2013, 03:22:21 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:50:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 07:38:37 PM
I think it's quite obvious.  Islam has stultified intellectual inquiry in the Muslim world.

But how does he actually make that point?

As it is it just looks like the 'look what happened to Greeks/Romans' argument against gay marriage. It seems maybe slightly interesting but totally off-point.

There was something mentioned about some islam people claiming "BUT LOOK AT OUR SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS ZOMG!!!!1111oneoneoneone" and Dawkins merely pointed out: "what scientific achievments"

Actually I believe what he said was that we so often hear about their scientific accomplishments. Pretty freaking weak.

I thought Dawkins was supposed to be an atheist, but looks like he just proved that a mass conversion to Judaism would lead to huge scientific and cultural advances.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 09:04:42 AM
I thought Dawkins was supposed to be an atheist, but looks like he just proved that a mass conversion to Judaism would lead to huge scientific and cultural advances.

:D

Quote"

But some users appeared more forgiving. @Chriss_m, said: "Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow. He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar."

Dawkins is a ethnic Brit and ex-Christian ergo he is totally entitled to bash Christianity all he likes. He's a complete outsider to Islam.
Sorry right wing poor oppressed Christianity moaners but your complaint doesn't work.


The way Twitter comments are all over the news lately rather annoys me

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM
Dawkins is a ethnic Brit and ex-Christian ergo he is totally entitled to bash Christianity all he likes. He's a complete outsider to Islam.
Sorry right wing poor oppressed Christianity moaners but your complaint doesn't work.

Would this same logic extend to, say, ex-pat Brits bashing the US?  :hmm:

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM

The way Twitter comments are all over the news lately rather annoys me

Agreed.

The medium really has become the message.  Its very inexpensive for new agencies to create content from social media.  Much more difficult and expensive to send reporters out to find what used to be considered real news.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM
Dawkins is a ethnic Brit and ex-Christian ergo he is totally entitled to bash Christianity all he likes. He's a complete outsider to Islam.

Think for a bit about the implications of what you are saying here.  Are you really claiming that only an insider is permitted to be critical?

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 10:48:19 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM

The way Twitter comments are all over the news lately rather annoys me

Agreed.

The medium really has become the message.  Its very inexpensive for new agencies to create content from social media.  Much more difficult and expensive to send reporters out to find what used to be considered real news.

Yes indeed. The flawed re-election of Mugabe received far less attention in the British media last week than a buffoon referring to "Bongo Bongo land".

One is a gibbering no-account asshat stuck in the 1940s, the other is a nasty dictator stuck in the 1940s who has buggered the lives of millions of people.

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 10:53:08 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM
Dawkins is a ethnic Brit and ex-Christian ergo he is totally entitled to bash Christianity all he likes. He's a complete outsider to Islam.

Think for a bit about the implications of what you are saying here.  Are you really claiming that only an insider is permitted to be critical?

No. That's not what I'm claiming. It is a very different sort of criticism however. Particularly with stuff like religion and ethnicity, I.e. Jewish or black comedians telling a joke about their folks vs. A white Christian guy doing the same.

Is Tyr too PC :hmm:

Islam is not an ethnicity though - Dawkins is right about that part. 
And it's hard to think of something that gets more criticized by outsiders than religion.  Whether by other religions or by non-believers.
One of most successful plays on Broadway is a three hour full bore mockery of Mormonism.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:57:16 AM
No. That's not what I'm claiming. It is a very different sort of criticism however. Particularly with stuff like religion and ethnicity, I.e. Jewish or black comedians telling a joke about their folks vs. A white Christian guy doing the same.

Black comedians tell jokes about "white people" (generally only applicable to upper middle class urbanites) all the time.

I think we may have a long wait before we get a good crop of Islamic comedians  :hmm:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 12, 2013, 11:09:33 AM
I think we may have a long wait before we get a good crop of Islamic comedians  :hmm:

There is/was a group of Muslim comics doing a tour which made it to cable.  I never watched it.

Islam is  a bit more of a real religion than Mormonism though ;)
And  it is very tied into ethnicity. In the UK especially.

I'm not saying it's not allowed to criticise other religions. It is however different for an outsider to criticise than an insider to do so. As an insider anything goes, as an outsider you do have to be a bit more careful you've got your facts  straight and you're not being offensive.
It's just common social convention. A brit moans about Britain being shit... well that's what  we do. It's what being British is all about. A foreigner does the same however and he's not moaning with us, he's moaning at us

As an insider you get fatwaed and a bounty put on your head.  :lol:

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM

Quote"

But some users appeared more forgiving. @Chriss_m, said: "Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow. He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar."

Dawkins is a ethnic Brit and ex-Christian ergo he is totally entitled to bash Christianity all he likes. He's a complete outsider to Islam.
Sorry right wing poor oppressed Christianity moaners but your complaint doesn't work.


The way Twitter comments are all over the news lately rather annoys me

Does it follow that ethnic and philosophical outsiders should not bash or criticize the west or it's actions then as well? If only ethnic muslims (whatever the fuck that might be) or ex-muslims were allowed to bash islam... oh, well, you see where I'm going.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
And  it is very tied into ethnicity. In the UK especially.

Is the "it" you are referring to Muslims and if so what ethnicity are Muslims in the UK?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2013, 11:12:02 AM
As an insider you get fatwaed and a bounty put on your head.  :lol:

That's their doing. It's not the British way. :contract:

Though I'm not so sire that's always the case. Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2013, 11:10:52 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 12, 2013, 11:09:33 AM
I think we may have a long wait before we get a good crop of Islamic comedians  :hmm:

There is/was a group of Muslim comics doing a tour which made it to cable.  I never watched it.

I keep on intending to buy that Iranian novel which is supposed to be hilarious, My Uncle Napoleon, in fact I'll order it now while my mind is on it.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
Islam is  a bit more of a real religion than Mormonism though ;)
And  it is very tied into ethnicity. In the UK especially.

I'm not saying it's not allowed to criticise other religions. It is however different for an outsider to criticise than an insider to do so. As an insider anything goes, as an outsider you do have to be a bit more careful you've got your facts  straight and you're not being offensive.
It's just common social convention. A brit moans about Britain being shit... well that's what  we do. It's what being British is all about. A foreigner does the same however and he's not moaning with us, he's moaning at us

WTF Tyr? Humans are Humans for fucks sake. The Identity politics and Cultural Relativism of today's multi-culturalism is not only vapid and immoral but also actively deprives people grouped into these identity groups of their individual human rights.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:16:02 AM
WTF Tyr? Humans are Humans for fucks sake.

That is what Brain has been trying to tell us for years.

Muslim  comics.... omid djahili and shappi whatsherface were ok for  a while but their act grew old. :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:13:43 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
And  it is very tied into ethnicity. In the UK especially.

Is the "it" you are referring to Muslims and if so what ethnicity are Muslims in the UK?

Mostly Asian up my way.
Nigerian and Somali are big groups elsewhere.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2013, 11:12:02 AM
As an insider you get fatwaed and a bounty put on your head.  :lol:

That's their doing. It's not the British way. :contract:

Though I'm not so sire that's always the case. Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Yeah, cause that worked so well on the Nazis and Communists.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
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.

............and they are mainly Gujarati round my way; but, confusingly, half the Gujaratis in my district are Hindus.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

No, the original point of this thread was a discussion about if an outsider is legitimate in criticizing any idea associated with an ethnic or social or cultural identity.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

What you are talking about is not people within the conservative group making changes but people that have made a choice to leave the conservative group and are making changes from the outside.  Isnt that generally how change occurs?

The conservative group will fight those changes just has hard wither the people proposing the change are white, brown, yellow or pink.

Quote from: Legbiter on August 12, 2013, 06:42:39 AM
Isn't snark like Dawkins posted the entire purpose of Twitter?

Indeed - this latest brouhaha only shows how useless Twitter truly is.  Storms in a teapot central - with very little substance other than a few good witticisms.  I despise the thing.  I find it reveals an exacerbated need to share yourself with others, down to the the most insignificant trivialities, that is quite vulgar - the bling bling - get rich/famous quick type of vulgarity.  It's also depressing to consider how empty these people apparently are - to lap up avidly whatever whisper echos down this glorified grapevine.

As for what Dawkins said he was right of course - Islam is a regressive influence now that it's fossilized past precambrian levels.



G.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
I'm not saying it's not allowed to criticise other religions. It is however different for an outsider to criticise than an insider to do so. As an insider anything goes, as an outsider you do have to be a bit more careful you've got your facts  straight and you're not being offensive.

Well so long as being factual and not offensive is something you are going for.

Regarding "being offensive" it is literally impossible to be offensive. Offense taken is in the eye of the beholder not in the content of the statement or even the intention of the putative offender. The object of provocation always has the option of not being offended or provoked. This is what makes us humans and not animals. We can consider the consequences of our actions. When you are offended or provoked you are so on purpose. When you can't control your offense taking or provokedness being then that is grounds for psychiatric treatment, not respect.

If you can't not be provoked or offended you cease to be a moral agent or a person, you are nothing more than a madman or an animal. At that point your opinion doesn't count.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:23:13 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM
Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

What you are talking about is not people within the conservative group making changes but people that have made a choice to leave the conservative group and are making changes from the outside.  Isnt that generally how change occurs?

The conservative group will fight those changes just has hard wither the people proposing the change are white, brown, yellow or pink.

Not really. Liberal Muslims still call  themselves Muslims. Due to its cultural ties in fact even people who completely abandon the religion will often still call themselves Muslim.

I really don't think things work that way. Just look at how so many good ideas get attacked in the US on account of being socialist,un-American, etc....
Identifying something as the other, as a dastardly outside influence, is a key way conservatives rally people behind them. If it actually does come from the inside then they have a harder  time doing that (which isn't to say they can't still do it....Not at all)

But anyway. This has totally abandoned my original point which  is simply that it is different for a member of a group to attack his own group than it is for an outsider.
For the record the only problem I have with what Dawkins originally said is that it was rather asinine. It is the comments from offended Christians that I have a problem with

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:29:53 AM
Regarding "being offensive" it is literally impossible to be offensive. Offense taken is in the eye of the beholder not in the content of the statement or even the intention of the putative offender. The object of provocation always has the option of not being offended or provoked. This is what makes us humans and not animals. We can consider the consequences of our actions. When you are offended or provoked you are so on purpose. When you can't control your offense taking or provokedness being then that is grounds for psychiatric treatment, not respect.

If you can't not be provoked or offended you cease to be a moral agent or a person, you are nothing more than a madman or an animal. At that point your opinion doesn't count.

So if I said your mother was a whore, you wouldn't be offended?

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:31:13 AM
Not really. Liberal Muslims still call  themselves Muslims. Due to its cultural ties in fact even people who completely abandon the religion will often still call themselves Muslim.

Yes, they choose that affiliation. Your Asian suppsoed muslims could identify as Bengali, Sindhi, Baluchi, Punjabi or Indian or whatever. They choose Muslim and will as a consequence have to suffer the baggage of that choice. Just like if modern Germans choose to identify as Aryan they will have to deal with the baggage.

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:22:01 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

No, the original point of this thread was a discussion about if an outsider is legitimate in criticizing any idea associated with an ethnic or social or cultural identity.

Was that the original point?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2013, 11:32:48 AM

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:29:53 AM
Regarding "being offensive" it is literally impossible to be offensive. Offense taken is in the eye of the beholder not in the content of the statement or even the intention of the putative offender. The object of provocation always has the option of not being offended or provoked. This is what makes us humans and not animals. We can consider the consequences of our actions. When you are offended or provoked you are so on purpose. When you can't control your offense taking or provokedness being then that is grounds for psychiatric treatment, not respect.

If you can't not be provoked or offended you cease to be a moral agent or a person, you are nothing more than a madman or an animal. At that point your opinion doesn't count.

So if I said your mother was a whore, you wouldn't be offended?

Given that you don't know anything about her apart vicariously through the character I play on languish I wouldn't be offended. Even if you did know her and even if there was some grounds for that insult and it caused me shame and distress none of those emotions on my part justify anything.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:31:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:23:13 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM
Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

What you are talking about is not people within the conservative group making changes but people that have made a choice to leave the conservative group and are making changes from the outside.  Isnt that generally how change occurs?

The conservative group will fight those changes just has hard wither the people proposing the change are white, brown, yellow or pink.

Not really. Liberal Muslims still call  themselves Muslims. Due to its cultural ties in fact even people who completely abandon the religion will often still call themselves Muslim.

I really don't think things work that way. Just look at how so many good ideas get attacked in the US on account of being socialist,un-American, etc....
Identifying something as the other, as a dastardly outside influence, is a key way conservatives rally people behind them. If it actually does come from the inside then they have a harder  time doing that (which isn't to say they can't still do it....Not at all)

Sure they still consider themselves Muslim but they are not "within" the conservative group, as you put it.  For example, almost all of the Muslims I know are Iranian families who fled Iran during or after the revolution.  The have absolutely nothing in common with the society that has been transformed by the revolution into a theocracy.

Simply being a Muslim does not put a person within the conservative group anymore than someone considering themselves to be Christian puts them within the same group as any number of conservative denominations of Christianity.

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 11:39:06 AM

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:22:01 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

No, the original point of this thread was a discussion about if an outsider is legitimate in criticizing any idea associated with an ethnic or social or cultural identity.

Was that the original point?

From the horses mouth

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/8/9/calm-reflections-after-a-storm-in-a-teacup

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:36:30 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:31:13 AM
Not really. Liberal Muslims still call  themselves Muslims. Due to its cultural ties in fact even people who completely abandon the religion will often still call themselves Muslim.

Yes, they choose that affiliation. Your Asian suppsoed muslims could identify as Bengali, Sindhi, Baluchi, Punjabi or Indian or whatever. They choose Muslim and will as a consequence have to suffer the baggage of that choice. Just like if modern Germans choose to identify as Aryan they will have to deal with the baggage.

They often  do that too. There's a lot of history there though and they want to differentiate themselves from non-Muslim Indian groups.

It's not like Muslims are the only  ones doing this. Just look at all those people who dutifully tick Christian on the census despite only ever going to a church for an occasional big 3 and never having read a bible.

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:39:59 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2013, 11:32:48 AM

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:29:53 AM
Regarding "being offensive" it is literally impossible to be offensive. Offense taken is in the eye of the beholder not in the content of the statement or even the intention of the putative offender. The object of provocation always has the option of not being offended or provoked. This is what makes us humans and not animals. We can consider the consequences of our actions. When you are offended or provoked you are so on purpose. When you can't control your offense taking or provokedness being then that is grounds for psychiatric treatment, not respect.

If you can't not be provoked or offended you cease to be a moral agent or a person, you are nothing more than a madman or an animal. At that point your opinion doesn't count.

So if I said your mother was a whore, you wouldn't be offended?

Given that you don't know anything about her apart vicariously through the character I play on languish I wouldn't be offended. Even if you did know her and even if there was some grounds for that insult and it caused me shame and distress none of those emotions on my part justify anything.

It must be nice to be a robot.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:40:12 AM

Sure they still consider themselves Muslim but they are not "within" the conservative group, as you put it.  For example, almost all of the Muslims I know are Iranian families who fled Iran during or after the revolution.  The have absolutely nothing in common with the society that has been transformed by the revolution into a theocracy.

Simply being a Muslim does not put a person within the conservative group anymore than someone considering themselves to be Christian puts them within the same group as any number of conservative denominations of Christianity.

Most Iranians you meet in the west whether they came over 30 days or 30 years ago have little in common with the religious rural masses, just as it was pre revolution.

And sure they are. That's a pretty big thing with Islam particularly, once you're in you can't get out.

To a Lutheran a Calvinist is a very different thing. Compare the two of them to a Buddhist however?
Groups have layers.

Remember your point was that criticising from within a conservative group is more effective than criticising from outside that group.  Now you are making my point that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Muslim who are not within the conservative group.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
Remember your point was that criticising from within a conservative group is more effective than criticising from outside that group.  Now you are making my point that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Muslim who are not within the conservative group.

Islam is the conservative group.

Quote from: Warspite on August 12, 2013, 11:52:11 AM

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:39:59 AM
Given that you don't know anything about her apart vicariously through the character I play on languish I wouldn't be offended. Even if you did know her and even if there was some grounds for that insult and it caused me shame and distress none of those emotions on my part justify anything.

It must be nice to be a robot.

Robots don't feel shame and distress. Humans can choose to act of their emotions and are judged by their choices. Animals act on instinct.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 10:48:19 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 AM

The way Twitter comments are all over the news lately rather annoys me

Agreed.

The medium really has become the message.  Its very inexpensive for new agencies to create content from social media.  Much more difficult and expensive to send reporters out to find what used to be considered real news.

Indeed and I rather like this tweet which is somewhat tangential to the issue:

Quote
Jack of Kent @JackofKent
Modern news cycle: event; incomplete news report; social media anger at incomplete news; comprehensive news report about social media anger.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 12:11:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
Remember your point was that criticising from within a conservative group is more effective than criticising from outside that group.  Now you are making my point that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Muslim who are not within the conservative group.

Islam is the conservative group.

No its not.  Islam is a religion composed of many and varied views.  There are conservative groups within Islam (as there are within other religions) who care not one wit what their more liberal co-religionists might say.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:30:19 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 12:11:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
Remember your point was that criticising from within a conservative group is more effective than criticising from outside that group.  Now you are making my point that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Muslim who are not within the conservative group.

Islam is the conservative group.

No its not.  Islam is a religion composed of many and varied views.  There are conservative groups within Islam (as there are within other religions) who care not one wit what their more liberal co-religionists might say.

As opposed to ranting madly when a non Muslim says something along the same lines.

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 12:31:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:30:19 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 12:11:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
Remember your point was that criticising from within a conservative group is more effective than criticising from outside that group.  Now you are making my point that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Muslim who are not within the conservative group.

Islam is the conservative group.

No its not.  Islam is a religion composed of many and varied views.  There are conservative groups within Islam (as there are within other religions) who care not one wit what their more liberal co-religionists might say.

As opposed to ranting madly when a non Muslim says something along the same lines.

Tyr, Dawkins believes all religion is evil.  I am pretty sure no liberal Muslim would make an argument along the same lines. ;)

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:17:53 AM
Muslim  comics.... omid djahili and shappi whatsherface were ok for  a while but their act grew old. :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:13:43 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
And  it is very tied into ethnicity. In the UK especially.

Is the "it" you are referring to Muslims and if so what ethnicity are Muslims in the UK?

Mostly Asian up my way.
Nigerian and Somali are big groups elsewhere.

He's not, I thought it was maybe Farsi (ethnicity) and/or a lapsed Zoroastrian ? :unsure:

edit:
I was wrong he and his parents are Bahá'í , though I was right that he was a non-muslim Iranian/persian.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
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.

The Hajj also has obvious direct parallels. I suspect Smith and Mohammed were very similar people, And despite the fact that they're at completely different ends of the Monotheist scale there are just a shitton of similarities. Always amused me.

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:40:59 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 11:39:06 AM

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 11:22:01 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:20:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
Constructive criticism from within, even with very conservative groups, works better than outsiders shouting a  them to change their ways.

Where does internal criticism come from within very conservative groups who, by definition, would be very reluctant to make any changes and by extension even contemplate such changes.

Kids realising how fucked up things are I guess.
You do increasingly see liberal Muslim groups in the west.
Though I've no idea where on earth this is going, it has all rather veered away from the original point :s

No, the original point of this thread was a discussion about if an outsider is legitimate in criticizing any idea associated with an ethnic or social or cultural identity.

Was that the original point?

From the horses mouth

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/8/9/calm-reflections-after-a-storm-in-a-teacup

I like how he uses quotation marks on things that aren't quotes.

Also seems like he says that this was his point:
"did intend to raise in people's minds the question of whether the religion itself is inimical to scientific education. I don't have the answer, but I think it is well worth asking the question."

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 12:44:23 PM
Also seems like he says that this was his point:
"did intend to raise in people's minds the question of whether the religion itself is inimical to scientific education. I don't have the answer, but I think it is well worth asking the question."

Dawkins answered his own question with regard to the Jewish Nobel recipients.  It appears that religion itself can be a boon to scientific education.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:37:40 PM
I think it's a defensible thesis.

seems this guy (Al-Ghazali) is taken as the killer of critical thought within that religion. It sputters on a bit after his passing though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 12, 2013, 03:50:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:37:40 PM
I think it's a defensible thesis.

seems this guy (Al-Ghazali) is taken as the killer of critical thought within that religion. It sputters on a bit after his passing though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers.

Yes, Viking posted about that in the 2nd post of this thread. ;)

Neil Degrasse Tyson takes down the Asharites and Al-Gazali with his "Naming Rights" bit from the Beyond Belief Conferance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q

Al-Gazali's critique was focused on Aristotle's and neo-platonic metaphysics, not the natural sciences.  It certainly wasn't a criticism of modern experimental science, which didn't exist yet. 

ijtihad is just a method of jurisprudence - it deals like all jurisprudences with the problem of how to deal with gaps or ambuguities in the law; it doesn't entail a general attitude of open social inquiry.

To seek simple unicausal explanations for the "death of critical thought" is not only terribly misguided, it also stems from the basic error of assuming there was a period in which "critical thought" was a norm and a period where it ceased.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 05:22:32 PM
To seek simple unicausal explanations for the "death of critical thought" is not only terribly misguided, it also stems from the basic error of assuming there was a period in which "critical thought" was a norm and a period where it ceased.

:D

And I always feel sorry for Al-Gazali. I don't think any thinker's that influential as opposed to real material forces. It seems like blaming Augustine for the Dark Ages.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2013, 05:42:16 PM
It seems like blaming Augustine for the Dark Ages.

Sounds fair. At least blame him for being dreadful.

Al-Gazali is really more like Kant as against the Leibniz or Wolff of Avicenna and Averroes.  Or like Okham against the schoolmen.   His argument is that the philosophers are "incoherent" - i.e. that their reasoning doesn't satisfy their own criterion of logical demonstration. In that sense his argument probably stands the test of time better than that of his opponents.  It's rather unfair IMO he seems to have taken the blame as a poster child for broad-based civilizational decline.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2013, 12:37:28 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
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.

The Hajj also has obvious direct parallels. I suspect Smith and Mohammed were very similar people, And despite the fact that they're at completely different ends of the Monotheist scale there are just a shitton of similarities. Always amused me.

Smith seems to have identified with Mohammed.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 05:22:32 PM
Al-Gazali's critique was focused on Aristotle's and neo-platonic metaphysics, not the natural sciences.  It certainly wasn't a criticism of modern experimental science, which didn't exist yet. 

Correct, thought you ignore the fact that he attacks and declares heretical the very building blocks of the rationalist and empiricist scientific methods. Al Gazali argues that contemplating the nature of god is blasphemous and that philosophy is a waste of time since it doesn't prove Islam to be true. He literally makes attempting to understand a sin.

Ibn Rushd pointed out the obvious, that Al Gazali had used reason to argue that reason should be condemned, and I think the point was very well made. Needless to say Averroes books got burned.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 05:22:32 PM
ijtihad is just a method of jurisprudence - it deals like all jurisprudences with the problem of how to deal with gaps or ambuguities in the law; it doesn't entail a general attitude of open social inquiry.

Yeah, but Gazali is against Ijtihad (diligence/independent reasoning). He favours Taqlid (following/imitating) which means only copying from the past rather than attempting new understandings.  Gazali effectively ends Ijtihad. At the same time in Europe the Scholastics are contemplating the nature of god and it's implications for the nature of the world. In islam this stops with Gazali (though it takes a few generations (and the power of the almohads) to reach spain.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 05:22:32 PM
To seek simple unicausal explanations for the "death of critical thought" is not only terribly misguided, it also stems from the basic error of assuming there was a period in which "critical thought" was a norm and a period where it ceased.

Presenting this as a search for a unicausal explanation for the death of critical thought is misguided in itself. There are other causes for the decline in learning in the islamic world e.g. the burning of the beit al hikma (house of knowledge) library in baghdad and the increasing political power of slave soldiers and imported steppe mercenaries among the ruling classes are two more reasons. It's just that in the islamic world they went out of their way to ban it and they succeeded in banning it. In europe they tried this hundreds of years later and failed catastrophically.

Whatever the complex causes for the end of the islamic golden age of learning Al Gazali and his teaching and the teaching of his school is almost certainly the most important part of that cause.

JR, I have to say there is something slightly scheisterly about your argument here. Gazali did argue against what was the closest thing there was to a scientific method at the time. If a scientific method did exist he certainly would have denounced it. Empiricism would have horrified him. The man argues AGAINST cause and effect ffs. It is also scheisterly to argue that in defense of Gazali that there was such a thing as Ijtihad when he was against it (for everybody else but not himself it seems). I expect better of you.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
Al-Gazali is really more like Kant as against the Leibniz or Wolff of Avicenna and Averroes.  Or like Okham against the schoolmen.   His argument is that the philosophers are "incoherent" - i.e. that their reasoning doesn't satisfy their own criterion of logical demonstration. In that sense his argument probably stands the test of time better than that of his opponents.  It's rather unfair IMO he seems to have taken the blame as a poster child for broad-based civilizational decline.

I think it stems from the old conflict thesis and the myths and nonsense that goes with it (Columbus, the rational man of science, was hampered by clergy who thought the Earth was flat.).

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2013, 05:42:16 PM
And I always feel sorry for Al-Gazali. I don't think any thinker's that influential as opposed to real material forces. It seems like blaming Augustine for the Dark Ages.

It's more like blaming Luther and Calvin for the Wars of Religion, or blaming Rousseau for the French Revolution, or blaming Marx for the Russian Revolution. Without the idea the materialistic forces don't work.

Is there anybody who blames Augustine for the Dark Ages? That seems a bit Post Hoc ergo Procter Hoc to me.

Gazali does have some reasonable points about the philosophy of his time and it's problems. However, his solution is to abandon the project of trying to understand the world and source all knowledge in the Koran which is a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I love it when Jos gets involved in a thread like this. :lol:

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 05:59:08 PM
you ignore the fact that he attacks and declares heretical the very building blocks of the rationalist and empiricist scientific methods.

No so - in the preface to the Incoherence he refers to astronomical theories of the causes of eclipses, and states - "He who thinks it is his religious duties to disblieve such things is really unjust to religion, and weakens its cause. For these things have been established by astronomical and mathematical evidence which leaves no room for doubt ."

Al-Gazali's objection was not to such scientific inquiry based on observation and mathematical proof but the Aristotlean or neo-platonic projects of constructing a scientific system based entirely on a priori reasoning from syllogistic logic - an effort which, far from being a building block for empricist methods, was in fact a wrong turn, a dead end.

QuoteGazali is against Ijtihad (diligence/independent reasoning). He favours Taqlid (following/imitating) which means only copying from the past rather than attempting new understandings.  Gazali effectively ends Ijtihad.

I don't know where this comes from; it seems to echo some of the old Western scholarship on the "closing of the gates to ijtihad" that my understanding is not au courant in modern scholarship about medieval Islam.
In any event, I disagree about the signifiance of these kinds of technical jurisprudential theories for the broader history of thought.  Even in our own day, there are jurisprudential debates between formalists who insist that interpretations must be strictly limited and hew to literal legal texts and "realists" or others who advocate looser interpretive methods.  While I might disagree with the formalists, I hardly think that their position amounts to intellectual philistinism.

QuoteJR, I have to say there is something slightly scheisterly about your argument here. Gazali did argue against what was the closest thing there was to a scientific method at the time. If a scientific method did exist he certainly would have denounced it. Empiricism would have horrified him. The man argues AGAINST cause and effect ffs. It is also scheisterly to argue that in defense of Gazali that there was such a thing as Ijtihad when he was against it (for everybody else but not himself it seems). I expect better of you. 

I don't think it is "shysterly" to disagree on how to interpret the facts.  I don't think Avoerestic metaphysics was the "closest thing . . . to a scientific method" and this gets to our disagreement in the other thread.  I also think you misunderstand Gazali's argument in key respects or take it out of context.  I have seen you badly miscontrue occasionalism before in other threads.  David Hume argued against the logical connection of cause and effect.  So did Berkeley.  Gazali isn't arguing there isn't a connection in the empiricist sense we understand today - indeed the bold quotation from his Second Preface above demonstrates otherwise.  What he rejects is the notion that effect necessarily follows from cause as a matter of pure a priori syllogistic logic.  And in that respect he has quite a bit in common with Western philosophers as well.

Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2013, 06:06:39 PM
Gazali does have some reasonable points about the philosophy of his time and it's problems. However, his solution is to abandon the project of trying to understand the world and source all knowledge in the Koran which is a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Gazali was not a Rennaissance man like Avicenna or Maimonides.  He wasn't an astronomer or doctor.  Just because he didn't discuss these things in detail doesn't mean he opposed them or thought them offensive to religion.  Needless to say, Gazali wasn't shy about saying what he found offensive to religion.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 07:00:23 PM
Gazali was not a Rennaissance man like Avicenna or Maimonides.  He wasn't an astronomer or doctor.  Just because he didn't discuss these things in detail doesn't mean he opposed them or thought them offensive to religion.  Needless to say, Gazali wasn't shy about saying what he found offensive to religion.

Wasn't Gazali the guy who argued that all physical effects were the result of god imposing his will on the world - that, if you drop a hammer, it goes to the ground because God pushes it to the ground, and that if God doesn't push it to the ground, nothing happens?  That, thus, all "natural laws" were just the way god had decided to do things and that he could change his mind at any time (and did, thus resulting in what some called "miracles"?  That, thus, it was foolish to study the world rather than gods will because studying phenomena just told you what God had done in the past, and not what God would do in the future?

If he is the guy I am remembering him to be, that's a pretty far cry from being indifferent to (or even supportive of) empiricism.  He dismisses observation because it doesn't "prove" anything, and then asserts mere theory as "truth" to replace that merely deduced from observation.

Quote...  Since the inquiry concerning these things (which are innumerable) may go to an indefinite length, let us consider only one example — viz., the burning of a piece of cotton at the time of its contact with fire. We admit the possibility of a contact between the two which will not result in burning, as also we admit the possibility of the transformation of cotton into ashes without coming into contact with fire. And they reject this possibility.

There are three points from which the discussion of the question can be started

Firstly, the opponent may claim that fire alone is the agent of burning, and that being an agent by nature (not by choice), it cannot refrain from doing what it is its nature to do — after it comes into contact with a subject which is receptive to it.

This is what we deny. We say that it is God who — through the intermediacy of angels, or directly — is the agent of the creation of blackness in cotton; of the disintegration of its parts, and of their transformation into a smouldering heap or ashes. Fire, which is an inanimate thing, has no action. How can one prove that it is an agent? The only argument is from the observation of the fact of burning at the time of contact with fire. But observation only shows that one is with the other, not that it is by it and has no other cause than it.

http://www.ghazali.org/books/tf/Problem_XVII.htm (http://www.ghazali.org/books/tf/Problem_XVII.htm)

That seems to show JR's point though. Fire is an inanimate object with no teleological cause.

I think we use cause in a different way now. My understanding of Medieval thought was that it was closer to purpose or making than just consequences - hence his mention if fire as an agent of burning. So Medieval science wouldn't say fire burns cotton, but fire (of its nature and purpose) makes cotton burn.

Though I'll easily yield to others, I'm very out my depth here.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM
That seems to show JR's point though. Fire is an inanimate object with no teleological cause.

I think we use cause in a different way now. My understanding of Medieval thought was that it was closer to purpose or making than just consequences - hence his mention if fire as an agent of burning. So Medieval science wouldn't say fire burns cotton, but fire (of its nature and purpose) makes cotton burn.

Though I'll easily yield to others, I'm very out my depth here.

Interesting that you take your conclusion from the writing:

Quotethe opponent may claim that fire alone is the agent of burning, and that being an agent by nature (not by choice), it cannot refrain from doing what it is its nature to do — after it comes into contact with a subject which is receptive to it.

This is what we deny.

That's not what JR was arguing at all, and, in fact, argues against the idea that things happen because it is their nature to happen.  Instead, Gazali directly states that " it is God who — through the intermediacy of angels, or directly — is the agent of the creation of blackness in cotton; of the disintegration of its parts, and of their transformation into a smouldering heap or ashes" - that all that is necessary is that god wills it, and the fire is unneeded.  If this is true, then any observation that applying fire to cotton results, every time it is observed, in the transformation of the cotton to "a smouldering heap of ashes," and looking for exceptions and extensions of those observations, is a foolish waste of time, since those will only represent different choices by God, and thus tell us nothing of what would happen if you apply flame to cotton in the future.

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

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
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."

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2013, 08:44:43 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2013, 10:03:28 AM
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:

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2013, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2013, 11:11:09 AM
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.

Why do you dislike monotheism?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Why do you dislike monotheism?

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

Blood for the blood god!

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 04:29:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Why do you dislike monotheism?

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

:yes:
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.

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 04:19:43 PM
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. 

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 04:34:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 04:29:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Why do you dislike monotheism?

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

:yes:
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. :lol:  They also didn't exactly "play nice" with other religions either.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 05:04:45 PMote]

:yes:
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. :lol:  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.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 05:04:45 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 04:34:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 04:29:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Why do you dislike monotheism?

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

:yes:
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. :lol:  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.

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 05:12:43 PM
And yes they did. Going out and converting heathens generally wasn't/isn't an issue.

Judaism isn't either and nor did early Islam put a focus on converting people outside Arabia.

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 05:12:43 PM


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.

I'm thinking of Indo-European Paganism.

You have to realize that there is no difference between "felt it would help them" and "because God said so".  Their entire lives were structured around rituals to appease the gods.  The concept of a personal faith was foreign to them.  If something went bad, it meant the gods were unhappy, and if someone in the community was making the gods unhappy the community would either cast them out, or kill them.  In a very real sense, they were theocracies.

The Romans are an excellent example of a religion that didn't play nice with others.  They pretty much annihilated the religion the Celts, attempted to do so with the Jews, and made worship of the Emperor mandatory.  More commonly recorded is the tendency for one ethnic group to enslave another because of some origin myth.  The Sons of Mars or Odin or whatever the ancestor hero was were given the right to enslave the neighboring inferior peoples.  It was this aspect that attracted many extremists in Germany to the idea of restoring ancient German pagan faiths.

I'm less familiar with say Japan, but I'm to understand that official Shinto had no problem attempting to force conversions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%8Dsen_Jing%C5%AB in addition to it's racist Japanese supremacy concepts.  So while you might find this all lovely and quaint I do not.

Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 07:16:22 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2013, 05:12:43 PM
And yes they did. Going out and converting heathens generally wasn't/isn't an issue.

Judaism isn't either and nor did early Islam put a focus on converting people outside Arabia.

You must have an extremely narrow interpretation of the word "early".

Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
I'm thinking of Indo-European Paganism.

You have to realize that there is no difference between "felt it would help them" and "because God said so".  Their entire lives were structured around rituals to appease the gods.  The concept of a personal faith was foreign to them.  If something went bad, it meant the gods were unhappy, and if someone in the community was making the gods unhappy the community would either cast them out, or kill them.  In a very real sense, they were theocracies.

Exactly. Totally different outlook to Christianity.
In paganism you pray to the gods to help you make your life better/ to stop fucking with your life. In Christianity the reason you live your life is to pray to the gods.
To the old Germanic peoples the gods just were a force they believed existed. They weren't at all central to their everyday lives. Even despite the primitive times they lived in.

Quote
The Romans are an excellent example of a religion that didn't play nice with others.  They pretty much annihilated the religion the Celts, attempted to do so with the Jews, and made worship of the Emperor mandatory.  More commonly recorded is the tendency for one ethnic group to enslave another because of some origin myth.  The Sons of Mars or Odin or whatever the ancestor hero was were given the right to enslave the neighboring inferior peoples.  It was this aspect that attracted many extremists in Germany to the idea of restoring ancient German pagan faiths.

The Jews and druids fucked with the Romans politically.
Generally the Romans regarded other people's gods as manifestations of the Roman gods. They didn't wipe out the Celtic faith so much as assimilated it along with the Celtic people. Religion was not a factor in their conquests.

Quote
I'm less familiar with say Japan, but I'm to understand that official Shinto had no problem attempting to force conversions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%8Dsen_Jing%C5%AB in addition to it's racist Japanese supremacy concepts.  So while you might find this all lovely and quaint I do not.

Militarist Japan?
Yeah, perfect example of normalcy there...
With imperial Japan religion was used as a partial excuse for a lot. You shouldn't put the horse before the cart though. They quite specifically decided they needed heavy nationalist feeling and exploiting people's beliefs was the way to do this.
In Korea religious conversion wasn't  at all the point of their invasion. It was decided as standard policy in Japan however that the people should revere the emperor. It is quite incomparible to Christians suddenly telling Jews to go to church.
For  a better and more accurate use of Japan as an example- look at the way Buddhism and Shinto exist side by side with no trouble. There are even suggestions that Shinto itself is formed of the merging of two main belief groups.

I don't think you understand, the pagan outlook made religion more central to their lives, not less.  Proper veneration of the gods was necessary to their very survival. The idea that you could separate religion from any other human activity was impossible.  For them life was religion.

And they sure as hell destroyed the Celtic religions, and religion was always a major factor for Roman behavior be it war or peace. The Romans suppressed the Druids long after they had conquered what's now France, Northern Italy etc.

I used Japan as an example of a Pagan religion in the far East "not playing nice" with other religions.  I imagine I can find quite a few more.

Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2013, 07:10:28 PM
You are very wrong. In the old days people recognized each other gods and acknowledged the supremacy of such gods in their local territories.

This was often because the various religions simply thought the other society's gods were just local names for the same gods.

"Oh, you have a mother-goddess figure too? Well, ours is named Isis."

Note that this practice didn't totally stop with Christianity ... local saints etc. often have surprisingly similar characteristics to pre-Christian local gods.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 04:59:03 AM
I don't think you understand, the pagan outlook made religion more central to their lives, not less.  Proper veneration of the gods was necessary to their very survival. The idea that you could separate religion from any other human activity was impossible.  For them life was religion.

And they sure as hell destroyed the Celtic religions, and religion was always a major factor for Roman behavior be it war or peace. The Romans suppressed the Druids long after they had conquered what's now France, Northern Italy etc.

I used Japan as an example of a Pagan religion in the far East "not playing nice" with other religions.  I imagine I can find quite a few more.

In most paganism the gods were just part of the world you had to deal with, not something to be actively worshipped for the sake  of worship ala Christianity.
It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

As I said the druids were a political threat to Rome. The Romans couldn't give a toss about their religion . And no. I suspect you're building a stupid argument base  on generals looking  to omens and that sort of thing here. That Gods were part of war, that omens even said it as a good time  for war, is a very different thing to Christians an  Muslims going  to war FOR religion.

Except Shinto did get along with other religions. It was for irreligious reasons that Japan had a spell of dickery.

Raz,

The Roman suppression of the Druids and the Jews are remarkable because they are isolated incidents.  Generally the Romans didnt care what Gods the population worshipped, unless those religious beliefs interfered with the civil administration of the territory.  Then the Romans took steps to remove the trouble makers.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 04:59:03 AM
And they sure as hell destroyed the Celtic religions, and religion was always a major factor for Roman behavior be it war or peace. The Romans suppressed the Druids long after they had conquered what's now France, Northern Italy etc.

Well yes and no.  Yes they thought the Druids were black magic wizards or something because of their human sacrifice traditions so they were outlawed.  But Celtic religions (along with their Gods and weird superstitions) continued without any persecution.

Quote from: Tyr on August 15, 2013, 01:06:25 AM
The Jews and druids fucked with the Romans politically.
Generally the Romans regarded other people's gods as manifestations of the Roman gods. They didn't wipe out the Celtic faith so much as assimilated it along with the Celtic people. Religion was not a factor in their conquests.

Yeah.  The only religion the Romans ever really tried to destroy was Christianity.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 10:39:08 AM
Well yes and no.  Yes they thought the Druids were black magic wizards or something because of their human sacrifice traditions so they were outlawed.  But Celtic religions (along with their Gods and weird superstitions) continued without any persecution.

My (admittedly imperfect) understanding was that the druids were more than just a priestly caste. They served a political leadership role somehow alongside the nobility and this made them a threat to Roman interests.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 10:44:32 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 15, 2013, 01:06:25 AM
The Jews and druids fucked with the Romans politically.
Generally the Romans regarded other people's gods as manifestations of the Roman gods. They didn't wipe out the Celtic faith so much as assimilated it along with the Celtic people. Religion was not a factor in their conquests.

Yeah.  The only religion the Romans ever really tried to destroy was Christianity.

No.  Although when Chriistianity became the State Religion of Rome the Romans did try to destroy all vestiges of Paganism.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 11:13:39 AM
No.  Although when Chriistianity became the State Religion of Rome the Romans did try to destroy all vestiges of Paganism.

Sorry I meant pagan Rome.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 11:16:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 11:13:39 AM
No.  Although when Chriistianity became the State Religion of Rome the Romans did try to destroy all vestiges of Paganism.

Sorry I meant pagan Rome.

I know, and you are wrong.  While it is true that there were some periods of intolerance, it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that Pagan Rome tried to destroy Christianity.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 11:18:19 AM
I know, and you are wrong.  While it is true that there were some periods of intolerance, it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that Pagan Rome tried to destroy Christianity.

Wildly inaccurate?  If you say so.  But the main point is there is no other similar thing to the Great Persecution, or the persecution of Decius, for other non-Christian religions.

Quote from: Tyr on August 15, 2013, 10:16:48 AM
It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

Christianity spread well because it called for more humane treatment of women and slaves, who made the bulk of the early converts.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 11:45:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 11:18:19 AM
I know, and you are wrong.  While it is true that there were some periods of intolerance, it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that Pagan Rome tried to destroy Christianity.

Wildly inaccurate?  If you say so.  But the main point is there is no other similar thing to the Great Persecution, or the persecution of Decius, for other non-Christian religions.

I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

As for the "pursecution of Decius" that is a good example which proves my point.  Up until that point Christians had been tolerated - despite what the Gospels have to say (which is a good reason to belief that are not historical documents but that is another argument).  But increasingly Christians were themselves becoming an intolerant bunch as they believed that everyone else was wrong and their religion was the only possible religion.  The kind of intolerance already pointed out in this thread.  Ironically it was because of this Christian intolerance of other religious belief that they came to be known as athiests.  The edict by Decius was not aimed to eradicate Chrisitainity - although Christians have certainly tried to view it that way.  It was a means of attempting to re-create public order by forcing the Christians to be tolerant of the Pagans around them.  It didnt work of course but it has nothing to do with trying to destroy Christianity.  You are correct that there is nothing similar to this simply because there were no other religions as intolerant of other religions and so such an edict was never necessary in relation to other religions.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2013, 11:56:08 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 15, 2013, 10:16:48 AM
It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

Christianity spread well because it called for more humane treatment of women and slaves, who made the bulk of the early converts.

Yes, and the poor.  There were some notable conversions among the elite but they have come down to us because they were so rare and remarkable.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 12:07:47 PM
I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple was entirely political (and it seems was carried out by the Roman Army against Titus' orders) and the Romans never persecuted Judaism in the sense that they tried to get Jews to stop being Jews.  The Druid thing is probably also an exception, but it largely focussed on a tiny elite.

In any case the persecution was relatively short lived, though it did carry over into more than one Emperor's reign and it was mainly localized in the East.  However the fact is that nothing as widespread or systematic was ever elsewhere done by the Romans in a (granted ineffectually and futile) effort to eradicate a religion.

QuoteYou are correct that there is nothing similar to this simply because there were no other religions as intolerant of other religions and so such an edict was never necessary in relation to other religions.

Indeed.  I was not intending this as a value judgement for or against the Romans or Christians just noting the uniqueness. 

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 12:31:06 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 12:07:47 PM
I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple was entirely political (and it seems was carried out by the Roman Army against Titus' orders) and the Romans never persecuted Judaism in the sense that they tried to get Jews to stop being Jews.   

:frusty:

Everything the Pagan Romans did against the Christians was political.  The Chrisitians would have been left alone if they had just left others alone (using the Jewish model as a guide).  Going back to my point.  The Romans didn care what religion you had so long as it did not disrupt the civic administration of the Republic and then the Empire.

Contrast that with the Christianized Rome which did care very much what people believed which is the point Tyr was making.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 12:39:40 PM
Everything the Pagan Romans did against the Christians was political.  The Chrisitians would have been left alone if they had just left others alone (using the Jewish model as a guide).  Going back to my point.  The Romans didn care what religion you had so long as it did not disrupt the civic administration of the Republic and then the Empire.

Well I do not think that is entirely accurate.  They had real anxiety about Christianity, for good reason as it turned out, and there was a great deal of hostility towards it for theological reasons attacking it for being atheistic and endangering the Roman State by denying the Gods.  Also since I entirely agree with your point I do not see why you keep bringing it up.  Yes indeed the Romans did not care and were generally very tolerant.  The Christian thing is (mostly) unique.

QuoteContrast that with the Christianized Rome which did care very much what people believed which is the point Tyr was making.

I agree with this point.  Eradicating religions was mostly a Christian Roman Empire thing.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 12:44:08 PM
Well I do not think that is entirely accurate.  They had real anxiety about Christianity, for good reason as it turned out, and there was a great deal of hostility towards it for theological reasons attacking it for being atheistic and endangering the Roman State by denying the Gods.  Also since I entirely agree with your point I do not see why you keep bringing it up.  Yes indeed the Romans did not care and were generally very tolerant.  The Christian thing is (mostly) unique.

The point where I think you and I disagree is you originally said the Pagan Romans tried to destroy Christianity.  They didn't.  The only concern the Romans had was that the Christians were becoming disruptive.  It was a political matter.  There were large areas of the Empire where the Christians were not viewed as disruptive but rather worked in quite well for the efficient running of civic life.  In other words you are generalizing too much.

Pagan Romans didnt want Christians to stop being Christians they just wanted Christians to be good Romans.  Which, in the end, is a cautionary tale of being careful what you wish for.

Quote from: Tyr on August 15, 2013, 10:16:48 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 04:59:03 AM
I don't think you understand, the pagan outlook made religion more central to their lives, not less.  Proper veneration of the gods was necessary to their very survival. The idea that you could separate religion from any other human activity was impossible.  For them life was religion.

And they sure as hell destroyed the Celtic religions, and religion was always a major factor for Roman behavior be it war or peace. The Romans suppressed the Druids long after they had conquered what's now France, Northern Italy etc.

I used Japan as an example of a Pagan religion in the far East "not playing nice" with other religions.  I imagine I can find quite a few more.

In most paganism the gods were just part of the world you had to deal with, not something to be actively worshipped for the sake  of worship ala Christianity.
It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

As I said the druids were a political threat to Rome. The Romans couldn't give a toss about their religion . And no. I suspect you're building a stupid argument base  on generals looking  to omens and that sort of thing here. That Gods were part of war, that omens even said it as a good time  for war, is a very different thing to Christians an  Muslims going  to war FOR religion.

Except Shinto did get along with other religions. It was for irreligious reasons that Japan had a spell of dickery.

I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 04:45:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

Okay.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 05:00:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 04:45:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

Okay.

Oh good.  That was easy.