Fitzgerald: Qur'anic science

"A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray....The meeting in Qatar is part of a popular trend in some Muslim societies of seeking to find Koranic precedents for modern science." -- from this article

Mecca is the center of the universe because it is the most important city on earth, because that is where Muhammad got his revelatory start, and -- there is no Muslim Galileo, just as there is no Muslim William Wilberforce or Muslim Mozart or Muslim Leonardo or Muslim Shakespeare -- the earth is the center of the universe.

It's the hometown of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. It's where the uncreated and immutable text of Islam first began to be revealed to Muhammad, Mecca's most famous native son. It's the cynosure of all Muslim eyes, the center of all Muslim hopes and dreams. Now that the more than ten trillion dollars Muslim members of OPEC have received since 1973 alone, or a hundred billion of it at least, has been deployed as the Money Weapon, and now that millions of Muslims have been permitted to settle deep behind what they have taught to regard as enemy lines, within the countries of Western Europe, Muslims are busy making demands, putting pressure, and even uttering such outlandish nonsense as this, for one reason: because they feel strong enough to do so -- that is, because they can.

Muslims are touchingly aware, even as they outwardly express other, more triumphalist notions, that Muslim societies have been, from every point of view, failures -- failures in their encouragement of despotisms, failures in the inshallah-fatalism that underlies economic stasis, failures in their societies, where both women and non-Muslims are subject to unequal and intolerable treatment.

And among those many failures, there is the dreamy belief that there was once a "Golden Age of Islamic Science," its achievements greatly exaggerated, with no recognition of how much was simply taken, lock, stock, and algebra-gunpowder-and-printing barrel, from India and from China, and claimed for Islam and for Muslims.

When one looks at the non-orthodox beliefs of, say, ar-Razi (Rhazes), one realizes that many of those in lands under Islamic rule whose achievements are now celebrated were not Muslims but Arabic-using Christians and Jews, or new converts who were only one generation, or possibly two, away from a Christian or Jewish milieu. Much that has been described as "Islamic science" or "science under Islam" took place despite, not because of, Islam, which in spirit and letter is opposed to free and skeptical inquiry, and unlike Western Christendom, has remained so opposed, and will always do so. Muslims do not want to recognize the failures, the absence of achievement in science, after the first few hundred years of Muslim conquests. Nor do they wish to recognize that the end of the period of scientific achievement in Dar al-Islam can be linked to the mass conversions in lands conquered by Muslims that inexorably brought about a change from a largely non-Muslim to a largely Muslim population. Islam discourages the very attitudes that the enterprise of modern science most requires. And there is no solution for this, except either to forego participation in that worldwide enterprise, or to limit the power of Islam over the minds of its adherents, and its role in their lives.

The desperate attempt to read into the Qur'an all kinds of modern developments in science reflects this felt inferiority -- behind all the Muslim bluster about "Islamic science" or, in George Saliba's version, "Arabic science" (which means, or should mean, science as conducted by those who, whether Muslim or not, used Arabic as their main language). Since Islam encourages the habit of mental submission, the number of those who believe in conspiracy theories, and in crackbrain theories of every kind, are not merely present, as they are in all societies, but in fact far outnumber the handful of those whom we might recognize as fellow inhabitants of something like the same mental universe that all the rest of us inhabit. These crackbrain theorists locate in some vague Qur'anic phrase now all of vulcanology, and now, in another phrase, all of Mandelbrot's fractals, and over here, in this phrase, we can find Muhammad setting out the double-helix in all of its Mill-Hill glory. No need for Watson, Crick, Maurice Wilkins, or Rosalind Franklin to come along. It was there, all of it, already, in some phrase in the Qur'an, if only poor naked forked Infidel man had known where to look. But he didn't, the dope.

| 39 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

39 Comments

" Muslims are busy making demands, putting pressure, and even uttering such outlandish nonsense as this, for one reason: because they feel strong enough to do so -- that is, because they can.'

You can thank your governments for their terrible immigration policies, their weak judicial systems, their enforcement of diversity and multicultural programs upon the citizens of the country and their unwillingness to deport Muslim criminals and terrorists, and their allowance of certain organizations to exist (i.e. CAIR) and their unwillingness to prosecute those who openly march the the streets with banners and slogans proclaiming Death to (insert the name of the country or leader of your choice).
Even if the governments have not announced surrender, they, in effect, have pen in hand.

Hugh,

How does Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy explain that for the first 2 years of his prophecy, Muhammad had the faithful pray toward Jerusalum, not Mecca?

Did the center move?

"How does Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy explain that for the first 2 years of his prophecy, Muhammad had the faithful pray toward Jerusalem, not Mecca?"
-- from a posting above

I don't think Al-Qaradawi would welcome being reminded of that, nor of how, later on, even without the qibla being pointed at a spot closer to his Damascene home, the Umayyad caliph staked a Muslim claim to Jerusalem by using his power and influence to locate the "furthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aksa), from which Muhammad ascended to seventh heaven on his fabulous steed Al-Buraq, in the famous Night Journey ("miraj" -- mirage forsooth) -- a speedy flight, practically faster than a speeding bullet, for the aller-et-etour took 24 hours, in Jerusalem, and not merely in Jerusalem but smack on top of the Temple Mount, thus taking a great big trimphalist simutaneous geopolitical whack at both Jews and Christians.

Hugh,

Have a quick question. Is it true that the Koran does not mention even once the name Jerusalam, that any mentioned of it comes in the Hadith? Thanks for the response.

"islamic science" is the apotheosis of oxymorons.

A crank named Bucaille is one of the worst peddlers of this pretentious piffle.

The omphalos (navel of the world) is in Greece, as anyone knows, since they claimed and named the locale first.

And that rational science arose from their land only emphasizes their right.

But "whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" is a bit more profound.

Something Islam has never been known for.

Plagiarism precludes it.

Just like they don't like being reminded of the Satanic verses or scientific mistakes in the Al-Quran.

Scientifically saying the sun prostrates itself under Allah's throne when it is night time also laughable (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421.).

The following is my favorite example of Muhammad's inconsistencies that I use in conversation with Muslims. I'll use Yusuf Ali's translation.

Sura 6:2 It is He who created you from clay, and then decreed a stated term (for you). And there is in His presence another determined term; yet ye doubt within yourselves!

Sura 25:54 It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).

Sura 96:1-2 Proclaim in the name of your Lord and Cherisher, Who created, Created man out of a mere clot of congealed blood.

Is it me or did Muhammad...I mean Allah have a hard time deciding how he made man? Or is this just another case attributed to abrogation, Allah changing his mind when he wanted to and finally decided on how he created man?

The only thing Mecca is the center of is Satan's domain.

from the article:One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca's was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.

Aren't we all in alignment?

Does the "geologist" mean that Mecca's longitude is perfectly aligned with both magnetic and true north? Missoula Montana would be more accurate than Mecca.
And since the magnetic poles are constantly moving about, no doubt this will change in another 5 years.

They are pakleds, profitsbeard. The fictional semi retarded race of travelers of Star Trek fame who go looking for stuff to make their ships go. Such is Islam. Now for the life of me, I can't understand why Mecca would be the center of the world, when only Muslims consider it holy. The others are not allowed in. But nevermind, because it is as barren and empty as its religion. Still looking for reasons to make their religion go.

Jewel Atkins-

"Still looking for reasons to make their religion go."

Camel's urine and denying the obvious are big on their list.

If only it would go... away.

"Is it true that the Koran does not mention even once the name Jerusalam, that any mentioned of it comes in the Hadith?"
-- from a posting above

Yes, it is true that nowhere in the Qur'an is Jerusalem mentioned.

Muhammad's Night Journey -- up and back to Seventh Heaven -- is reported as originating from the "furthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aksa). After argument -- the text of the Qur'an was not settled for a while (see Ibn Warraq on variant readings) and interpretation of that phrase took a while, before finally it was decided, with a little help from early Umayyad caliphs, that the "furthest mosque" surely must refer to Jerusalem. To seal that interpretation, they either built, or possibly took over and transformed a pre-exsiting, Byzantine martyrium, on top of the Temple Mount. It was like La Salle planting the flag for the French king in the middle of the American wilderness, beside the Mississippi. Not a religious, but a geopolitical claim.

This is a very small point, and I am no scholar, but, as I understand it, historians are now very doubtful that Mecca actually was Muhammad's birthplace.

It was the birthplace of Islam, for the simple reason that it was the centre of the polytheistic religion of pre-Islamic Arabia, and its sacredness deriving from that connection was assumed by the new "simple imitation of Judaism and Christianity", as C S Lewis called it.

Mere folkore then located Muhammad's birth there, a factoid for which there is no evidence other than folklore.

(Oh for a little currency for this kind of reflection - and for satanic verses, influences from the Diatesseron, rock carvings, artificial usage in the Koran reflecting no particular stage in the development of Arabic. I'm no scholar, but I do know how to read Ibn Warraq.)

"Mecca is ... the hometown of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil."
== == == == ==

I'm not too clear on Arabic, not sure about uswa hasana; but I'm thinking al-insan al-kamil is "from the insane one, from the camel"??? It sounds about right, the Bedouins are SO fond of their camels...

Is this the "geologist" they're referring to?

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1349.htm

Yeah, he's got a firm grip on science... the magnetic field in Greenwich is 8.5 degrees or there's a time discrepancy of 8.5 minutes or --y'know, something scientific-- so the people from the North & South Poles can get to --uh, somewhere-- without disturbances in their blood due to the magnetism... and in Mecca you're filled with energy if you circle the Ka'ba counterclockwise.

Riiiight....

So if this is the famous Islamic mastery of science, tell me again about that little explosion at the nuclear plant in Pakistan a couple weeks ago... Has anybody been there with a geiger counter since then?

As has been pointed out so often, but I'll do it again anyway, "Islamic Science" is an oxymoron. The terms "Islamic" and "Science" refer to mutually incompatible domains of thought. "Creation Science" has the same problem. Both have a conception and understanding of science that is akin to what the Cargo Cult natives in New Guinea had of airplanes.

Eastview,

I couldn't agree more.

Both are mutually exclusive, 'Creation Science & "Islamic science" are absurd concepts.

I posted something similar here a few years ago and was attacked by some Christian believers who tried to convince me that I was wrong.

sheik,

Well, support for various issues seems to wax and wane according to who has time to spend running the blogs. Try it again and I think you'd find a lot of posters springing to your defense.

BTW, love your site. It's one of the few I have on my bar of bookmarks (along with JW/DW, Dawkins, MM, Asia Times Online, Atlas Shrugged, Foehammer, GOV, NRO, etc.)

I see more and more likeness between Islamic excuses and rewriting of history on the one hand, and on the other the ridiculous lies and propaganda the Soviets used to spread about communism. That gives me some hope, though Islam is surely more formidably evil a movement than the Soviets were. (Notice I said "Islam" -- not all Muslims.)

A problem with modern science is that it tends to inculcate a view of the world that excludes the existence of anything non-material. This is more a problem in the life sciences than in physics, since non-material factors, i.e., mind-like or quasi-mind-like factors, are clearly present in living things, in addition to neo-Darwinian physical factors.

But the solution to this shortcoming of science is not to create an alternative science based in some form of religious fundamentalism, or worse, based in Islam. The solution rather would be to go in some such direction as someone like Alfred North Whitehead indicated. Whitehead cannot reasonably be accused of being scientifically or mathematically ignorant. Or one could consider the work of other serious scientists who have questioned the almost exclusively materialist vision of current science. Rupert Sheldrake would be one example. Also, physicist Henri Bortoft and some of his colleagues, and Craig Holdredge in biology, have done fascinating work that takes off from Goethe´s pioneering efforts in this direction. Goethe discovered the intermaxillary bone in the human skull, and did other scientific work with colors, plants, and so on. At the time, few scientists much appreciated Goethe´s attempts to develop a more phenomenological approach to science, but some very famous 20th century physicists reevaluated more positively what Goethe (whose name scholars today often mention in the same breath with names like Shakespeare and Dante) had been doing with science.

sheik yer'mami

'Both are mutually exclusive, 'Creation Science & "Islamic science" are absurd concepts.'

Pray tell me, why are 'Creation' and 'Science' mutually exclusive, and why is 'Creation Science' an absurd concept?

So the stunning Islamic scientists want to move the zero meridian to Mecca, as there wasn’t enough with ciphers all ready. :O

Previewing your Comment

"Pray tell me, why are 'Creation' and 'Science' mutually exclusive, and why is 'Creation Science' an absurd concept?"
Posted by: Sonshine

It's because "science" is usually taken to refer to a philosophy and mindset that doesn't automatically presuppose the answer in advance. It doesn't constrain itself to asking only certain questions, instead it takes the entire realm of existence, in all its forms, as its subject matter. It rejects the idea as a matter of principle that there are things that we are not supposed to know. It is largely based on common sense observations and repeatability of results. Self correction is built in, guaranteeing that information and ideas that, no matter how plausible they might initially seem, are aways subject to revision if new information becomes available that invalidates old ideas. It freely adapts theories to accord to observations and experience. It employs a quantitative metric that is able to tell the difference between a dollar in your pocket and 1 million dollars in the bank.

"Creation" science, by way of contrast, presupposes answers are already given, usually made known by divine revelation, and the main problem is simply to gather evidence in support of this answer. There is no intellectual infrastructure that supports inpartial investigations that might contradict presupposed answers. If it were a science, there would be symposiums on the sociology of heaven and hell, and expeditions would be mounted to heaven to visit and report back to verify that, yep, it really is as wonderful as they say, and there would be reality TV shows about guys surviving 7 days in Hell. There would be discussions on what you will likely be doing during the first 1000 years in paradise, what you'll most like be doing after 10,000 years, 1 million years, how long eternity really is and how to cope with it. You get the picture. Asking questions like these come naturally to any scientist (indeed, that's why they became scientists). The fact that some might be aghast at the idea of asking or contemplating such questions illustrates the divide. The mere fact that Creationism tries to wrap itself in the mantle of science, without at the same time embracing the essence of what makes science, science, in the face of such obvious differences in ways of thinking, is what lends the appearance of "absurdity" when the terms "Creation" and "Science" are used together. Both Creationist and Islamic "sciences" like to put on airs that it can talk the talk, but in fact it cannot, and certainly can't walk the walk.

The mind set and methods of these two endeavors are so different as to be mutually incompatible. This is what leads to statements of "absurdity." Although usually used derisively, it is usually rooted in a fairly solid understanding of the actual issue involved, such as I've discussed above.

At the risk of igniting flames, let me say a few words about that much benighted term "theory" that creationists sometimes, and anti-evolutionists always, are so fond of hurling at science, as in "It's only a theory." The word "theory" is used rather differently in science than it is in popular jargon. A check of Dictionary.com gives the following definitions, but any reputable dictionary yields similar results.

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

In most informal conversations definitions 6 or 7 are the assumed definition. However, in science, the meaning is as given in 1, or 3 if it's mathematics. Examples are Electromagnetic Theory, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Numbers, Statistical Theory, Theory of Mechanics, Theory of Evolution. These could all be (in fact, they are) titles of textbooks that, along with many others, comprise the accumulated knowledge gained over a very long period of time. All of these subjects fit squarely within Definition 1 above. None of them could even remotely be construed to fall in categories 6 or 7. Thinking of them as "only theories" could be done only by someone who is profoundly ignorant in the sense of ANY of the 4 definitions below.

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/
Spelled Pronunciation[ig-ner-uhnt]
–adjective

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

It is this contrast between the attitudes and way of thinking within science and the attitudes and way of thinking that prevails in Islam and Creationist circles that is the source of our hostility.

I'll turn my rant off now. Having said all the above, I think that both science and religion are still both in their infancies, shouting at each other in mutual incomprehension. If we don't destroy ourselves first, eventually they will grow together. At least that is my hope. I have some ideas about how that might happen but my fingers are tired and I need to sleep.

Well at least creation scientists attempt to use the scientific method, trying to find evidence that contradicts the current scientific paradigms rather than relying on mere scriptural authority. They have a different starting point - a n alternative hypothesis, you could say - but, at the moment, it's inviolable. The necessary step is for them to start adapting that hypothesis as evidence is presented refuting it's existing form. Some do this. Others... not so much. The ID thing started by the adaptation of exiting creation science theories to fit more recent evidence.

The problem with invoking God is that God is, by his nature, untestable. You can't experimentally disprove the existence of God any more than you can experimentally disprove the notion that the entire universe is painted pink on the outside. The solution is simple: as a Christian I fully believe the creation story as part of my faith. As a rationalist I completely accept the possibilities of evolution with the caveat that there's still a question mark over how it got started, a tiny gap between non-living and living that hasn't been bridged in the current understanding of the science involved, or a mechanism for converting energy from one form to another in order for it to be utilised by those early chemical reactions.

The God problem itself comes when people say "Oh, we don't understand that; God must have done it." It's not faith, certainly not rational faith, if you believe that God created a rational material universe but have to invoke God as a direct motivator for things you don't understand. Would he make something like this and then sit spinning a single wheel of it by himself? Or would he simply give the first atom a flick and sit back to watch the results? Newton's unmoved prime mover is certainly as rational as the big bang (or the big membranous slap as it appears to be now).

As a Christian I look at the world in-toto and say "God did that", Evolution, missing bits and all. God gave us minds to think, so you'd expect he would want us to use them to actually figure out the details of the world he created to better understand his nature. But, then, I'm a programmer, so I tend to view God in that light. For me, the logical nature of the universe is proof of God, and the gaps are simply proof of things we haven't figure out yet. Evolution is conceivably the world's Business Logic. :)

It's always worth asking who wrote the rules. :)

Of course, in the Islamic understanding of things, the universe has no rules. Allah moves every atom along its path and could simply get bored one day and drop them all. Islamic "Science" rests on this foundation of absolute 'holy' determinism in all things, which means there's little point in attempting to understand the rules as they might change tomorrow. On the other hand, creation science has to constantly struggle with its roots in christian rationalism, which absolutely demands the acceptance of a logical, rational creator and logical, rational creation; that is, there are rules in the universe, which science should find and explain, and faith should use to understand God. Mixing the two, even with the best intentions, can be... problematic. My point is that creation science will come around in time, whereas islamic "science" will never be able to change it's stance.

So there is a difference.

Let us state then right from the start that we reject the notion popularised, perhaps inadvertently, by Francis Bacon in the 17th century that there are 'Two Books' (i.e. the Book of nature & the Scriptures) which may be mined independently for truth. Rather, we stand firm upon the bare proposition that God has spoken authoritatively and inerrantly in the pages of holy Scripture. However fragile, old-fashioned or naive this assertion may ostensibly appear, especially to an unbelieving, TV-drunk modern culture, we can be sure that it is as robust a foundation as it is possible to lay down and build upon.

As we stated at the beginning, Christians, with very good reason, reckon the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments a reliable guide concerning just what we are to believe. They are not merely religious documents. They provide us with a true account of Earth history which we ignore at our peril.


Stephen Layfield the head of science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead UK

A school into which the British government is pouring money, and which is Tony Blair's pride and joy.

A school whose head of science teaches that the entire universe began after the domestication of the dog, there just might be something a teeny weeny bit wrong with the standards

"Well at least creation scientists attempt to use the scientific method, trying to find evidence that contradicts the current scientific paradigms rather than relying on mere scriptural authority. They have a different starting point - a n alternative hypothesis, you could say - but, at the moment, it's inviolable. The necessary step is for them to start adapting that hypothesis as evidence is presented refuting it's existing form. Some do this. Others... not so much. The ID thing started by the adaptation of exiting creation science theories to fit more recent evidence.'
-from post above

It's still based on scriptural authority, no matter how much the IDers might try to paint it differently or repackage it using different words. Although I see that they're at least starting to move in the right direction, which is an improvement of sorts, the underlying concepts remain the same and their mindset is still all wrong. They won't achieve any respectability until, using the scientific method, they refute something they themselves had previously asserted. This happens every day in science. I have yet to see it in ID circles. And you can see why they cannot do this. Acknowledging error in even one of their biblical interpretations undermines their entire position. It's the same conundrum that the Church was in during the Middle Ages, and Fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic stripes are in today.

About the God question. Part of the problem here is, and always has been, the absence of a clear and uniformly accepted definition of "God". As part of this problem, it has often been uncritically assumed that God does exist and the burden of proof has been placed on people who question this to prove otherwise. This is exactly backwards, in that the onus should be on proving the existence of something that is asserted to exist, rather than on proving its nonexistence. Define the term properly, with no hidden or unjustified (or justifiable) assumptions, and the question of existence becomes easy.

That last sentence should have read "...with no hidden or unjustified (or unjustifiable) assumptions..."

Archon, Thanks for your thoughtful post. I just re-read it, and realized I was unfairly harsh in my subsequent reply. It is obvious that you have thought deeply about these matters, including questions of existence/nonexistence. Most of my remarks were directed at those of your compatriots who are less thoughtful than you are, so my apologies for lumping you with them. There is room for discussion on all these issues, but in the current atmosphere the debate is still focused on what might be called coming to agreement on the procedural rules. I have hope that with continued discussion these will all be sorted out.

Actually, the entire concept of "existence" needs to be defined before it can be applied. Until this term is defined unambiguously all answers to questions invoking this concept are not very meaningful.

I note that some of the posters on this forum have backgrounds in philosophy. Care to jump into the discussion?

Goethe the scientist, hmmm. I don't mean to get the thread off topic (although the discussion here does seem to be over) but: Goethe discovered the intermaxillary bone simply by noticing a probable analogy to animals; his theory of colour is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong (as even Eckermann was able to demonstrate); and as for his "urpflanze" (primordial plant) I believe his friend Schiller was correct when he described that as "not an experience" but an "idea".

Eastview said:

"It's because "science" is usually taken to refer to a philosophy and mindset that doesn't automatically presuppose the answer in advance."

The current 'scientific' establishment does just that. It presupposes/allows only naturalistic answers to questions. Intelligence is Expelled from the discussion. It must not be allowed to get a foot in the door!!

Interesting that virtually all the founders of modern science would have comfortably worn the label 'creation scientist'. Why? Because they were all firmly convinced that the universe and life was the result of a Supreme Intelligence who made a world of order and those thoughts they were just thinking after him. Further more, most were thorough-going Biblical creationists, not just IDers.

Funny that these guys saw no conflict between their commitment to a creation position and the science/technology they produced. And that they did not see the two as mutually exclusive in anyway, nor detriment to the doing of science.

All scientists today are crypto-creationists in contradiction to claims of many of them. In fact science can only be done under creationist assumptions. The scientists use their intelligence to devise experiments to test certain propositions. They try to exclude randomness as much as possible so that an accurate conclusion can be reached. The whole exercise is presupposed to be be meaningful, something which is also a basic creationsist assumption.

Sonshine,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think we could continue the discussion further, and I would enjoy just that. However, right now I have other duties to attend to. Let me just say that I'm actually not as hostile to religion as my above posts might suggest, in fact quite the opposite, as some of my colleagues would attest. But with the debate involving ID the burden of proof now lies with the IDers, as it is with the challenger to any prevailing paradigm. It's part of the old C.P. Snow "Two Cultures" debate, which promises to keep us all entertained for quite a long time.

Eastview said:

"Let me just say that I'm actually not as hostile to religion as my above posts might suggest, in fact quite the opposite, as some of my colleagues would attest."

All people are religious. No one is hostile to religion per sae, only hostile to those religions not their own. This applies to all the Dawkins' and professed atheists of this world as much as anyone else.

Everyone has a view of where things came from, where they are going, who rules and makes the rules, and what those rules should be. These and others are all religious questions, and everyone has answers of sorts to them and thus everyone is religious. It is not a matter of being religious or not. It is a matter a of which religion we hold.

The difference between people on this issue is not whether or not they are religious, but what answers are given to the universal religious questions. Some of these answers may include or exclude a Creator, but the fact some exclude a Creator does not mean they are any less religious. Just that those religious answers exclude a Creator, that's all.

Engelbrekt said:

"A school whose head of science teaches that the entire universe began after the domestication of the dog..."

This is crap, an example of irrational mixing frameworks. No creationist believes or teaches that 'the universe began after the domestication of the dog'.

You should go to Emmanuel College and get a decent education.

Stop listening or caring to what some rats and cocroaches say!

Novalis, you said:

Goethe discovered the intermaxillary bone simply by noticing a probable analogy to animals;

It may seem simple now, but at the time other scientists had not merely not found the intermaxillary bone in human beings; they claimed it did not exist. Goethe concluded that there had to be an intermaxillary bone in human beings, based on his way of viewing living organisms.

You said Goethe´s

theory of colour is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong (as even Eckermann was able to demonstrate);

You have not been reading Physics Today, have you. See Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and Color Theory and you will see the matter is hardly so simple as you present it. Goethe did some very important experimental work.

You said:

and as for his "urpflanze" (primordial plant) I believe his friend Schiller was correct when he described that as "not an experience" but an "idea".

Believe what you want, but I´d ask you, is the distinction between an "idea" and an "experience" itself an "idea", or an "experience"? Even today, science is not clear what an "idea" really is, or for that matter what "experience," is. I think Goethe´s scientific work provides new insight on such questions. But I don´t think one is in a good position to judge what Goethe meant by ideas, unless one has worked through his experiments and his explanations of them with some care.

traeh,

Thanks for your comments and the PT link. It's interesting that the same issue also contains an article on the failures of Islamic science pertinent to this thread.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml

Yes, traeh, I take the point(s). I was moved to comment on Goethe's scientific work because at one time I became a little weary of how the English writer Owen Barfield kept
on recommending it, practically without qualification, for all the world as if Newton was a ninny, and if every medical researcher was practising "sympathetic
imagination" we would have cured cancer by now.

That distinction between an experience and an idea, which Goethe seems to have virtually prided himself on ignoring, points up, as he himself recognized, the differences between him and Schiller, the latter having immersed himself in Kantian epistemology. That difference has gone on resonating in modern thought ever since (and will not be resolved here, or by me anywhere!)

Of course I recognize the originality in Goethe's discovery of the intermaxillary bone, particularly since, in that case, there is
no arguing with results. I have (since reading Barfield) had a little difficulty in seeing it as earth-shaking, but perhaps its importance lies in its implications.

About Goethe's theory of colour: I'm afraid that, not only do I not read Physics Today, but I was only thinking of those passages in Eckermann where he demonstrates to Goethe himself that some of the implications of his theory are not borne out in experiment. Hardly enough knowledge to be commenting from, is it? Thank you for your reference, I will try to have a look at it.

I hope we haven't taken up too much space here with a discussion that has nothing to do with Islam. But I thank you for your remarks.

Novalis,

I am intrigued by your reference to the "...distinction between an experience and an idea..."

Could you expand on this? Somehow this sounds like it is relevant, or should be, to discussions of the roles of reason and faith.

Eastview, the distinction I had in mind there was simply the familiar philosophical dichotomy between empirical and ideal theories of knowledge.

This distinction, when taken far enough (or too far, as I gather Kant thought David Hume had taken it) divorces thought from sense impression to the point of making the one irrelevant to the other: Hume's denial that it can be known that the sun will rise tomorrow, the mere fact that it has always done so being an empirical fact only.

Kant's philosophy (now bear with me, I am only an interested anateur with this stuff) was an attempt to bridge this gap by demonstrating that there is no empirical experience, no sense impression, without thought - that the nature of thought is the nature of reality, so to speak. This concept can be found in Romantic thought in both reasoned and unreasoned forms - Ralph Waldo Emerson would be a good example of the latter.

The influence of this, however, rapidly gave rise to perspectives of which Kant would only have disapproved, and the dominance of 19th century philosophy by "German transcendentalism" in a variety of forms, until that too was overturned by modern empiricists, starting with a mathematician (who, amazingly, wasn't English) named Gottlob Frege.

That mathematics is the language of nature ("measurement began our might" as W B Yeats put it) would seem to most Western minds to have proved itself since ancient times, but Goethe interestingly denied this. He seems to have thought that the intrusion of abstractions into empirical knowledge could only falsify perception, virtually replacing realities in which the human mind partakes with posited distinctions and definitions which are not in fact there.

But as far as religion is concerned, the modern Western conception of that would be primarily psychological, and once again a dichotomy sets in: follow Freud and you will see psychology as deconstructing religion, follow Jung and you might see the two as complimentary.

What did Samuel Taylor Coleridge say, that everyone is born a little Platonist or a little Aristotelian? With religion rapidly dying in the West (at least our own religion - there seems to be another one poised to take over) I think we are all little Freudians on this subject.

Novalis,

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I am not well enough versed in classical philosophy to be able to comment on some of the subtle distinctions you allude to in your post (with the exception of Geothe's position regarding the role of mathematics), but am happy to take your remarks as a springboard for delving into this rather neglected part of my education.

Actually, I was rather hoping that your "...distinction between an experience and an idea..." might refer to the difference between knowledge that is acquired from without (experience), versus knowledge that seems to spontaneously spring from within (idea), as perhaps may be manifested in revelation experiences. Science tends to focus on the former while devaluing the latter, to its detriment, I think, even though it is happy to enjoy its fruits.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter