A Tunisian PhD student's submitted thesis claims the Earth is flat

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

He makes perfect sense actually, you cant seriously guesstimate what would have occured in an entirely alternate reality cuz the applicable agents would not have been in place for shit to unfold as it did.  

No he doesn't, he's taking complete bollocks!

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Dazey said:

No he doesn't, he's taking complete bollocks!

I ain't read the entire discussion cuz bollocks if I'm reading all that shite but that point, the Gallileo one, makes perfect sense. 

[Len Cnut]

19 minutes ago, The Glow Inc. said:

Not an atheist at all but I do find western islamophilia laughable sometimes.

I mean it took literally three posts for Soulmonster to be called a nazi because he dared making an observation about a religion.

Wtf...

It's part of an on-going thing with Dies' and Soulie, he's been calling him a Nazi for ages now, its not cuz Dies' acutely sensitive on Islams behalf

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It didn't make any sense at all and is contradictory lol.

Quote

Speculative. He might have, or he might have not even ventured into sciences. He would have been a completely different person if we remove his historic environment. He was brought up in a pious Catholic household - his sisters were nuns. To remove that background would produce a historic ricochet effect.

That makes perfect sense to me, to argue against it would be to basically say that we'd be the people we are and do the things we do regardless of the world around us and the lives that we led, which isn't true.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

"We cannot assume he would be the same so we must assume he would be different." is poor logic and makes even less sense considering the church greatly impeded him.

Thats not what he said though is it, he said its speculative to assume one way or the other, no ones assuming he'd be the opposite in his argument.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

It is not speculative to assume more science could have been done if the scientists had not been imprisoned and killed lol.

No its not at all but thats a lot broader a comment than what was being related with the specific point up there. 

[Graeme]

Why are we still debating this?  The thread was clearly won by team science a page ago...

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I mean you could get really cheeky and say something like "Well, he might of just decided fuck this and become a blacksmith instead or a boulder might have fallen on his head." But that would be taking the piss.

Reality is a one shot thing, it happens and thats it and everything that happens afterwards is touched by what happened before, cause and effect.  Ergo, assuming that Gallileo would have grown up the same person with the same interests and pursuits had he come up in a different envoirnment is wrong, or at least speculative in terms of the likelihood of him being into science...or any number of aspects of his being.

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It is not speculative to assume more science could have been done if the scientists had not been imprisoned and killed lol.

Who is being imprisoned and killed?

You are on dicey ground here. As I said, Back to the Future territory. Consider the following,

Consider the fact that the church was the repository of western knowledge, and that the humanitas movement, a sort of precursor of the Enlightenment, occurred within the church, you could actually make the reverse argument, that science would have proceeded at a tardier pace if not for the church. How were Renaissance/Enlightenment natural thinkers supposed to receive their vital European classical heritage if not through monasticism? Well, we arrive back at Islam's door if you require a second answer to that question.

Without the church, the philosophical thinkers and scientists of classical antiquity would have been lost to future generations of scientists.

Consider also the fact that western scientific speculation needed the inconsistencies of and frustrations with Western Christendom at about the 15th - 16th century mark in order to instigate rebellion, curiosity and a speculative mindset, a process which ran in tandem with the Reformation and the Age of Discovery.

PS

I can apply the latter to Galileo's situation. His staunchly Catholic upbringing may have been crucial in fabricating a man who challenges and speculates upon the existing order. Without that childhood frisson, he may have drifted off into obscurity.

Edited August 24, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What you and Diesel are saying is the same as thanking Apartheid for Nelson Mandela and what he did for human rights lol.

I am saying absolutely nothing other than what I said, I don't have any other dog in this race other than pointing out what I did about Gallileo, as a stand alone thing, I'm an atheist, I'm not part of the broader discussion here, I was just making a specific point to Dazey up there that, with that comment, Dies' was making perfect sense.  The broader context, his argument, I'm not a part of.

In an odd way though Mandela exists because apartheid existed, otherwise he'd just be Nelson the African bloke.  This does not mean to say that apartheid was a good and just thing, it just is what it is.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Why are we still debating this?  The thread was clearly won by team science a page ago...

Not really. I've not even received a reply, least of all an adequate reply, to this,

Quote

Scientific impediment has next to nothing to do with religion. Since the collapse of the caliphates, the Middle East/Arabic world has endured invasion (by the Turkic Ottomans), war, poverty, racial/tribal tension, colonisation (the French, British and Italians), de-colonisation/state-formation, dictatorship and (American) western interventionism.

How would one establish a successful place of scientific inquiry one may ask, under the aforementioned?

I can make that as literal and modern as, how is one meant to build universities when American bombers have leveled your city!

 

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really. I've not even received a reply, least of all an adequate reply, to this,

I can make that as literal and modern as, how is one meant to build universities when American bombers have leveled your city!

 

Couldn't religion be considered to be a part of things like wars, racial/tribal tensions, dictatorships etc?  I mean it at least colours those things to a degree.  Then again I suppose you did say 'next to nothing'.

[The Glow Inc.]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really. I've not even received a reply, least of all an adequate reply, to this,

I can make that as literal and modern as, how is one meant to build universities when American bombers have leveled your city!

 

 I posted an article two pages ago dating the decline in islamic science to 750 years ago and clearly linking it to the rise of anti-rationalism in suni islam in response to geo-political factors.

You ignored it so...

Edited August 24, 2017 by The Glow Inc.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Couldn't religion be considered to be a part of things like wars, racial/tribal tensions, dictatorships etc?  I mean it at least colours those things to a degree.  Then again I suppose you did say 'next to nothing'.

Partially but we run the risk of attributing every causal event to religion which is simply erroneous as it fails to take into consideration other ideologies such as nationalism/self-determination as well as geo-socio-economic forces such as the discovery of oil. It also fails to take into consideration that secular politics are not entirely absent from the middle east. Saddam for instance, an admirer of secularised western dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, had short shrift for Islamic extremism.

2 minutes ago, The Glow Inc. said:

 I posted an article two pages ago dating the decline in islamic science to 750 years ago and clearly linking it to the rise of anti-rationalism in suni islam in response to geo-political factors.

You ignored it so...

I must of missed it. I'm fighting about three or four of you heretics at once.

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Partially but we run the risk of attributing every causal event to religion which is simply erroneous as it fails to take into consideration other ideologies such as nationalism/self-determination as well as geo-socio-economic forces such as the discovery of oil. It also fails to take into consideration that secular politics are not entirely absent from the middle east. Saddam for instance, an admirer of secularised western dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, had short shrift for Islamic extremism.

Funnily enough i discovered the same about Jinnah and Nehru recently upon investigation.  I guess you have a point.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Funnily enough i discovered the same about Jinnah and Nehru recently upon investigation.  I guess you have a point.

Nehru was shagging Lady Mountbatten during the independence/partition era.

Jinnah was an advocate of a sort of westernised modern Islam for Pakistan. They were all - Gandhi included - products of the Anglicised 'English public school educated' Indian upper class. They all applied the arguments of English constitutionalism such as Locke and Hobbes.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Nehru was shagging Lady Mountbatten during the independence/partition era.

Now there's a courtship I'd've liked to've had a keyhole to

Quote

Jinnah was an advocate of a sort of westernised modern Islam for Pakistan. They were all - Gandhi included - products of the Anglicised 'English public school educated' Indian upper class. They all applied the arguments of English constitutionalism such as Locke and Hobbes.

Yeah, they all spoke like toffs too.  Funny to think all these houses across the nation have these portraits of Jinnah up there thinking he's like, Mr Islam when he weren't really.  At least not to their extent.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Len Cnut

[Dazey]

53 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

That makes perfect sense to me, to argue against it would be to basically say that we'd be the people we are and do the things we do regardless of the world around us and the lives that we led, which isn't true.

The point I was responding to was where he said that the church in no way impeded Galileo's scientific progress. I pointed out that the church actually jailed Galileo for his scientific achievements which is a pretty fucking big impediment. 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Now there's a courtship I'd've liked to've had a keyhole to

Yeah, they all spoke like toffs too.  Funny to think all these houses across the nation have these portraits of Jinnah up there thinking he's like, Mr Islam when he weren't really.  At least not to their extent.

The worst hypocrisy is Gandhi who was in reality a Middle Temple lawyer. His peasant attire and positioning as an Indian ascetic was mere image creation.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

The church has done(and is still doing) terrible, unforgivable things. Including but not limited to imprisoning/killing/oppressing free thinkers and scientists. I understand the point you are making but I dismiss it because it is moot. Not to mention narrow minded to the extent of being cynical.

Never understate the damage and impairment these scumbags have caused humanity. Maybe some of the countless children they rape and torment could have been the next Galileos. I choose to wonder what could have been and might still be because I want everyone to be free of our 2000 year old shackles which tether us to the past pseudo-glory of unpunished evil overlords.

@Len Cnut Fair enough. Please don't take my fervor personally.

If you remove the western church, you remove the entire corpus of western thinking. It was the church which was the repository of classical scripture and ideas. It was the church within which the humanitas movement developed, curiously as a movement of (religious) textual purity. You began a tabula rasa. That is the sort of 'hypothetical' scenario you'd be manufacturing.

Good luck with that.

The rest of your post is clearly a bigoted attack on religion and thoroughly unnecessary.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Fucking LOL. Just out of curiosity, are you a royalist?

Not especially. I'm rather neutral on the royals to be honest. I've never been very interested in their tabloid family doings - 'Diana stories' - unless Harry gets pissed and dresses as a Nazi.

[action]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

This guy gets it. Respect. And the irony is of course, that you having the good sense to think in this way does not detract from your faith and is actually far stronger and genuine.

everytime i google "the universe news" i see some article from nature or national geographic, about new scientific discoveries on the universe, and it only points more in the direction of a creator.

seriously, to the "scientific camp" in this thread. actually look up the science on the universe, the latest developments in quantum physics, string theory, parallell universes, strange discrepancies in background radiation, .... 

i'm not saying there definately is a creator, i'm just saying i believe so. anyone who disagrees, i'm happy to see the scientific articles that back your argument.

like i said, i despise religion. religion and science don't match: religion is stale, it's about status quo,  it's predetermined. science is about discoveries, change. both have to clash. but who knows, with every new scientific discovery, maybe we have proof of a creator some day? (though i doubt so)

Edited August 24, 2017 by action

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

(ignoring the first bit because I'd just be going in circles with you.)

How and what is a bigoted attack on religion and why is it thoroughly unnecessary?

P.S. Never heard the term Tabula Rasa but it's an interesting idea.

''Past pseudo-glory of unpunished evil overlords.''. Quite insulting language really if one was religious and read that, but then atheists are rather gross insulting people. You are in good company as you have Soul and Dazey for chums.

[The Glow Inc.]

20 minutes ago, action said:

everytime i google "the universe news" i see some article from nature or national geographic, about new scientific discoveries on the universe, and it only points more in the direction of a creator.

seriously, to the "scientific camp" in this thread. actually look up the science on the universe, the latest developments in quantum physics, string theory, parallell universes, strange discrepancies in background radiation, .... 

i'm not saying there definately is a creator, i'm just saying i believe so. anyone who disagrees, i'm happy to see the scientific articles that back your argument.

like i said, i despise religion. religion and science don't match: religion is stale, it's about status quo,  it's predetermined. science is about discoveries, change. both have to clash. but who knows, with every new scientific discovery, maybe we have proof of a creator some day? (though i doubt so)

I have no doubt that there is a creative force in the universe, that seeks to teach us more about ourselves and to learn more about itself through us. And yes I believe that we already have proof of the existence of such thing ( I believe Everett's Many Worlds theory is correct for personal reasons that I won't discuss here as the discussion is already messy ).

My guess is that well over a third of quantum physicists believe in some sort of creator simply because of the implication of the discoveries about individuality and the non-objective nature of reality.

However the topic wasn't really whether God ( no matter how you define the concept ) exists or not but how much organized religion impacted the pace at which scientific discoveries were made.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by The Glow Inc.

[SoulMonster]

As I said, I don't find the statement that religion impeded scientific progress in Europe very interesting. I find it self-evident and bygones are bygones. But okay, I can join the discussion. I suppose you can argue for why religion must have been a brake on scientific endaveurs in at least two different ways: (1) to either look at the nature of abrahamic religions before 1600 AD and how they were inherently opposed to large parts of science, or (2) look at specific historical events that supports the argument.

(1) Fundamental christian religion where the bible is interpreted literally and where there is no room for re-interpretation of scripture and doctrine, cannot perfectly coexist with the rationality of science simply because science will arrive at results that will contradict the former. A society where all answers are already answered by holy books does not make a safe haven for wonderment and exploration. When everything is already answered, and you can be punished for coming up with alternative explanations, or even for questioning god's mysterious ways, you don't have an environment conducive to science, to say it mildly. So friction between free science and dogmatic christianity was a given. This is self-evident, you cannot have two opposing forces coexisting peacefully, and to some extent, science and the religon back then was at odds with each other. The alternative situation, where Europe already back then had become largely secularozed and rational thought was not stifled by religious dribble because religion had been marginalized to not really provide answers to anything, would have been a much more fertile ground for scientific exploration, like it is today.

We could leave it here, but since people have been talking about specific events I might as well continue...

(2) Diesel, as fellow amateur historian like myself, will know that it is easy to cherry-pick events from history to support both the argument that religion was ultimately good for science and the argument that religion was ultimately bad for science. But if I understand Diesel's main argument, he is claiming that the Church provided an umbrella under which science could peacefully take place. I don't agree. Although science was promoted , to some extent, at monasteries (not so much through experiments but through the copying of older books so that knowledge was preserved), science only needed an umbrella, not necessarily a religious umbrella, to thrive. And fact is that whevever there was peace and quite and time to ponder and question the world, science would happen. We are born curious. We are born to question. We are born to not accept histories that simply don't make sense but rather come up with alternative, stronger explanations. It didn't juust happen in religious buildings like monasteries, it happened evevrywhere where people could be free to spend time on this and where persecution wasn't threathening. Take Charlemagne and his effort to gather a court of learned men from all over the world. He created a place where people had the opportunity and the encouragement to wonder. Yes, Charlemagne, like "everyone else" back then, was highly pious, but it was not his religiousity that was important here, but the facilities these stable, resourceful places, like monasteries and courts, provided, aand the fact that even if he was religous, he was still a man of curiosity and with respect for the virtue of questioning. So yes, there were some hotpots where science, to some extent, could survive in Europe. But, and this is important, if Europe has not been a religious place, it is reasonable to assume that such places would still be present and would provide an even more encouraging environment to do research and science.

Secondly, although there were a few of these oases of learning and research in a desert of ignorance and toil across Europe, only some scientific studies and findings were promoted, e.g. those that were intended to support the scripture, and those that were antagonistic to scripture had very little place at these places. So the argument that science was somehow promoted and survived in Europe due to the Chhurch is a truth with lots of limitations. If you happened to discover something that was anathema to religious doctrine, like poor Galileo did, you would be mercilessly persecuted. So much for science as a competitor to scriptural truth! Everything that smelled of heresy would be killed by death.

Compare this to the muslim world at the same time. This region was were science survived, not in the few dusty scriptories across Christian Europe. The wealth coming to muslim countries in the near east, and their strategic position between places of science like Greece and India where trade provided fresh and new ideas continously, and an influx of old ideas in the form of classical treatises and books, allowed muslim men to accumulate everything that was known to men in large libraries. And in contrast to Europe, people were encouranged to study everything people had discovered before, and expand upon this knowledge. This was a much more tolerant society than Europe at the same time. This was the Golden Era of Islam and a great era for science. Only much later, when Europeans started to rediscover Greek treatises that had survived only through the tolerance of the Arab world while they had been thrown on bonfires in Europe, was science in Europe kickstarted. So we have a lot to thank the caliphates back when we still lived in the Dark Ages.

So the Church wasn't the only umbrella were science could happen, it was just an umbrella and only some science were permitted, those that didn't contradict scripture.

The only thing I can, from the top of my head, admit that religion helped science with, was to stimulate the development of printing, copying and generally manuscripting. The Church had a need to copy their religious books, and that benefitted science because it allowed the survial of those texts that were permitted by the church, and some of these were later not found in libraries outside of christian Europe.

So regardless how you look at it, by either comparing how a fundamental religious society compared to a secular, rational society would be inherently disposed of to support free throught and scientific endaveurs, or by looking at exactly how the Church persecuted results they didn't like, I think it is obvious religion was an impediment to scientific progress back before the enlightenment. Much like it is today in many muslim countries were scientific results that contradict scripture, like the Earth being round, will be dismissed.