firedragon
Veteran Member
Apparently those who are against vaccines have opened their minds so much that their brains fells out.
I didnt know that. who scooped it up?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Apparently those who are against vaccines have opened their minds so much that their brains fells out.
As well the over use of "They". It cannot be ignored or denied that his words lead to a significant increase in anti-Muslim attitudes throughout the nation, and even beyond our borders to various military bases.Oh my gosh. He called the terrorists "evil doers".
You are, again, missing the overall point by getting hung up on the minutiae. And yes, he did use that time of intense anger to set Us against Them, and it did inevitably lead to divisions between Christians and Muslims which he never tried very hard to dissuade.But did he ever say "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to distinguish we from they? Did he use that time of intense anger to sow division between Christians and Muslims?
Absolutely not.
Evidence needed.The Bush and Star Names fiction was a standard part of Tyson's routine from 2006 to 2014.
"So far as you know", which isn't fact.So far as I know he's still doing his Ghazali schtick to this day.
Then it looks like your problem is more with "Tyson's fans" than Tyson himself, as Tyson acknowledged the error years ago.Moreover, Tyson's fans continue to post and repost these fictions over and over again. I guess they didn't get the memo they've been debunked.
No. Far from it. But projection in that manner is also quite dishonest.You're angry--
As well the over use of "They". It cannot be ignored or denied that his words lead to a significant increase in anti-Muslim attitudes throughout the nation, and even beyond our borders to various military bases.
You are, again, missing the overall point by getting hung up on the minutiae. And yes, he did use that time of intense anger to set Us against Them, and it did inevitably lead to divisions between Christians and Muslims which he never tried very hard to dissuade.
Evidence needed.
Then it looks like your problem is more with "Tyson's fans" than Tyson himself, as Tyson acknowledged the error years ago.
Regarding al-Ghazali and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's depiction of him and the influence he had, the fact remains that at one time, Arabic culture promoted open discussion and intellectual pursuit, and then collapsed back into fundamentalism. We saw this in a small way just last month in Afghanistan, when a Western regime that promoted education was replaced by a government of fundamentalist zealots, and a return to the past.
Tyson's greater point was that at various times in history, various enlightened cultures have ascended and scholarship flourished. He illustrated this with what he called naming rights. In antiquity, it was the Greeks who were leading the world in philosophy, science, and mathematics as illustrated by the fact that they named the constellations (Scorpio, Orion, Gemini). By the middle Ages, it was the Arabs, and hence so many stars have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Deneb, Formalhaut, Algol, Betelgeuse). And in our time, it was the Americans that dominated the academic world when many new elements were named (Californium, Berkelium, Einsteinium, Lawrencium).
We know why the ancients lost hegemony and the West entered Dark Ages. Why did the Arabs? Tyson cites fundamentalism replacing academic enlightenment. He points to al-Ghazali. If he is being unfair there, then it's because he has misidentified the factors that led to the Arabic intellectual decline, which is still an issue today if one judges by Nobel prize awards, who get them, and who doesn't. It relates to who values scholarship and who doesn't. We saw clearly what led to that change in Afghanistan, but something analogous happened to the Arabs of the Middle Ages to knock enlightenment out of Arabic culture, and it's a good bet that as with the Taliban, it was religious belief. I understand that the Taliban has already begun destroying musical instruments: ‘The day the music died in Afghanistan’: Taliban destroys musical instruments; Afghan diplomat reacts
Historically, we have this from the Christian church: Here are two hugely influential church fathers telling you how they feel about those who study nature:
- "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine
Regardless of the church's historical role, my understanding of the relationship between it and its medieval universities is that they existed principally to train the priesthood in theology, canonical law, and how to read the Bible. What was meant by a liberal education then included grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy, when none of these were a threat to papal authority or church doctrine.
- "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther
As soon as church authority was challenged by the new science, it's demeanor changed. Centuries later, we had Bruno and Galileo. That was a whole other kettle of fish. These universities sponsored by the church were not the kind of institutions we think of today, which purpose is to promote academia, not the church as its medieval universities were intended to do through teaching the priesthood, whose purpose was to promote the faith. The education they received was not intended for the common man, and was not available to him, either. These weren't universities like we think of them today, where people of all stripes apply to acquire a liberal education, but institutions intended to promote church doctrine and authority.
But putting history aside, my view of the relationship of the church to science and liberal education is primarily derived from what I have seen in my lifetime, which includes an endless parade of scientifically illiterate creationists arguing against evolution without understanding it. What I've seen is denominations warning parents not to send their children to university. I've seen religious schools popping up just to keep children from getting a secular education, and diverting tax dollars toward the teaching. I've seen landmark legal cases protecting the church from injecting its pseudoscience into public curricula "to let the children decide." Christianity promotes faith as a higher virtue than reason. It's been that way for centuries. Where does the disrespect for science that we see in the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers come from? Religious teaching, where people are taught to respect faith over science. Where else could it be coming from? Not the public schools. Not the movies. Not the universities. The church (one could ask the same question about the source of Western homophobia, and the answer would be the same).
He's no al-Ghazali, but this guy will tell you why higher education is from Satan:
2018 JWBroadcasting "Higher education is useless" video CLIP
I don't see any facts supporting that theory, do you have any?Regarding al-Ghazali and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's depiction of him and the influence he had, the fact remains that at one time, Arabic culture promoted open discussion and intellectual pursuit, and then collapsed back into fundamentalism.
Regarding al-Ghazali and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's depiction of him and the influence he had, the fact remains that at one time, Arabic culture promoted open discussion and intellectual pursuit, and then collapsed back into fundamentalism.
I don't see any facts supporting that theory, do you have any?
This is a frankly infantile notion of science and academic culture that doesn't really hold up to empirical study or facts. The supposedly enlightened Greek poleis literally prosecuted people for crimes such as "atheism", "corruption of the youth", and "introduction of new deities and cults", whereas the vaunted "tolerance" of the Caliphate was largely based on the simple fact that Christians and Jews paid extra taxes that Muslims did not, and so they had a vested economic interest in not forcibly converting people - that was still often breached by forced conversions and the occasional persecution of notable Jewish scholars and officials. And it should be noted that the first major project where the US government put a large number if immigrant scientists to use was the creation of the nuclear bomb.Regarding al-Ghazali and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's depiction of him and the influence he had, the fact remains that at one time, Arabic culture promoted open discussion and intellectual pursuit, and then collapsed back into fundamentalism. We saw this in a small way just last month in Afghanistan, when a Western regime that promoted education was replaced by a government of fundamentalist zealots, and a return to the past.
Tyson's greater point was that at various times in history, various enlightened cultures have ascended and scholarship flourished. He illustrated this with what he called naming rights. In antiquity, it was the Greeks who were leading the world in philosophy, science, and mathematics as illustrated by the fact that they named the constellations (Scorpio, Orion, Gemini). By the middle Ages, it was the Arabs, and hence so many stars have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Deneb, Formalhaut, Algol, Betelgeuse). And in our time, it was the Americans that dominated the academic world when many new elements were named (Californium, Berkelium, Einsteinium, Lawrencium).
You are perpetrating a claim that most historians no longer adhere to and largely consider a myth at this point. The medieval "Dark Ages" are not only misplaced in their periodization (there was an economic crisis during the early medieval period in Western Europe, yes, but that crisis had started long before the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, arguably in the 3rd century AD) in its causes (the crisis was military and economic in nature, with religion playing a minimal role in it) and in its extent (while urbanization and large engineering projects declined during the Middle Ages in Europe and the Mediterranean basin, technological advancement and scholarship did not, and due to advances in agriculture and practical technology, West, North and Central Europe came out of the Middle Ages much more highly developed than it had entered them, to the point where the institutions of European scholarship all came out of the Middle Ages, not the Roman era).We know why the ancients lost hegemony and the West entered its Dark Ages.
This is a theory based on facts that have led other scholars to very different conclusions.Here's a paper discussing the Islamic Golden Age (approx. 8th-14th centuries AD)and reasons for its collapse. The author seems to favor a role for religion in this transformation, but considers other factors such as colonialism: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chaney/files/paper.pdf
This is a frankly infantile notion of science and academic culture
I attacked your position, not your person.You just lost my interest in further discussion with you on this matter when you made it personal and offensive. Your opinion on the matter is of no interest to me if you can't keep your game elevated when expressing it. I simply have no interest in what you think of me.
even the much-vaunted Wahhabite movement goes back to the 18th century AD.
We know why the ancients lost hegemony and the West entered its Dark Ages. Why did the Arabs?
Regardless of the church's historical role, my understanding of the relationship between it and its medieval universities is that they existed principally to train the priesthood in theology, canonical law, and how to read the Bible.
noting that the empirical patterns are most consistent with theories linking the decline to institutional changes.
A year later. Bravo him, right? All of the quotes you give are from 2002. November and December of that year. In 2001 he was not so clear, and regardless that he didn't go full bore with the "we're gonna hunt down those dirty Muslims" you cannot deny that such was the American sentiment as a result of the event and his "Us vs Them" statements."They" being terrorists. Not the general Muslim population. A point Bush makes repeatedly.
That is an address to the Islamic Center. Not a "9/11 Speech". What I quoted from three day later, Sep. 20th, was an address to Congress. Let's look at some statements from September 11th itself, shall we?Here is Bush's actual 9-11 speech.
No, it's not. As stated before, you're latching on to the involvement of 9/11. Not the overall point of the speech that it was claimed the Christian god named the stars (which was claimed, factually, just not on the date erroneously claimed), when a good number of stars have very non-Christian names, and are rather Arabic. You are shunting the entire point of the speech to focus on something that wasn't there at all. The essence and example of a Straw Man Argument.This is the elephant in the room when it comes to Tyson's slanderous speech.
Did you even look at the dates of those? The first is from 2006, yes. The second one is in 2008. And the last one that you give is dated at 2011. So, you're missing about 3 years or so in your claim of how long this "blatant false history" that wasn't even the point went on for.
No, I said you're referencing an event that happened over a decade ago. Now, bear with me here. I'm not a Chronologist, or an expert with this whole "Time" thing. I mostly make pretty pictures, but y'know I dabble in looking at a clock (and sometimes a calendar!) every now and again. You gave us a speech from 2008. The only speech you gave until the two additional ones above. Now again, not an expert in time, but I'm pretty sure that 2008 was over a decade ago.You were saying Tyson's misquote was a single event that happened more than 10 years ago. Evidence needed.
Firstly it doesn't seem he has very many "arguments against religion" at all. You make it sound like he goes on about that as much as Richard Dawkins. Secondly, he's not using "false history". He's using a misdated quote from George Bush - which was actually said - to illustrate a point that actually had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and he's using a quote from al-Ghazali that is and was commonly stated in the same manner all throughout Academia. Neither of these are "false histories", as the topics being discussed with these as illustration absolutely did happen. There is and was an arrogant "Christianity vs Islam" mentality that drives a wedge between two cultures despite numerous similarities and cultural facts, and there was a decline in the sciences following the Islamic Golden Age.He repeatedly uses false history in his arguments against religion.
using a quote from al-Ghazali that is and was commonly stated in the same manner all throughout Academia.
and there was a decline in the sciences following the Islamic Golden Age.
There is and was an arrogant "Christianity vs Islam" mentality that drives a wedge between two cultures
A year later. Bravo him, right? All of the quotes you give are from 2002. November and December of that year. In 2001 he was not so clear, and regardless ...
...that he didn't go full bore with the "we're gonna hunt down those dirty Muslims" you cannot deny that such was the American sentiment as a result of the event and his "Us vs Them" statements.
Prayers and god bless. Our Great Nation is being tested. 9/11
Address to the Nation, September 11th, 2001, 8:30 EST Words and phrases like "our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom", "evil, despicable acts of terror", "Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature", "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts ... We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them", "I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: 'Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.' "
No, it's not. As stated before, you're latching on to the involvement of 9/11. Not the overall point of the speech that it was claimed the Christian god named the stars (which was claimed, factually, just not on the date erroneously claimed)
No, I said you're referencing an event that happened over a decade ago. Now, bear with me here. I'm not a Chronologist, or an expert with this whole "Time" thing. I mostly make pretty pictures,
but y'know I dabble in looking at a clock (and sometimes a calendar!) every now and again. You gave us a speech from 2008. The only speech you gave until the two additional ones above. Now again, not an expert in time, but I'm pretty sure that 2008 was over a decade ago.
Firstly it doesn't seem he has very many "arguments against religion" at all.
Tyson has a number of different talks that push the same narrative: religion is destructive and it stifles scientific progress.
And just about all these talks are based on invented histories.
It's noteworthy that Tyson has repeated these false histories many times, often to large audiences of self proclaimed skeptics. Often these audiences contain many well known atheists and doubters. People like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Stephen Novella, etc. "Skeptics" who seem to swallow Tyson's false histories without question. If they had noticed Tyson's errors you would think they would have quietly informed him so as to avoid further embarrassment to a prominent member of the skeptic community.
At this time I will look at two of Tyson's invented histories. Later I will add more when I have time and energy.
Bush and Star Names
Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was a standard part of his routine from November of 2006 (maybe earlier) to September 2104.
Tyson tells us Bush's 9-11 speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That Bush was bragging "Our God is the God who named the Stars" evidently to set Christians above Muslims. That's just the sort of behavior we expect from Christian, Republican presidents, right? We all know they love to exploit disaster to sow division and whip up fear. Tyson then goes on to point out that most star names are Arabic. He seems to believe this refutes what he imagines to be Bush's slight against Arabic people.
Unfortunately for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from The Islamic Center of Washington D.C. Bush was exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson portrayed.
It turns out that Tyson managed to confuse Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. See this piece from the Washington Post. However in neither of those speeches did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims.
Hamid al Ghazali: Math is the work of the devil
Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was his intro to his talk on the Islamic Golden Age.
Tyson tells us the Islamic Golden Age ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math was the work of the devil. There are a few problems with that.
1) Ghazali never said that. Ghazali actually praised the disciplines of math and science saying they are necessary for a prosperous society.
I challenged Tyson to provide the Ghazali text containing that assertion. Here is his response. It reads, in part, "...I was misleading some people by mentioning the devil at all." He was misleading anyone who believed him, that is.
2) Islamic innovation did not end in Ghazali's time. There were many mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. See this list. Abu al Hasan, the father of symbolic algebra, was born more than 3 centuries after Ghazali's death.
What caused the decline in Muslim innovation? Personally I believe it was because sea routes rendered land trading routes obsolete. At that time the Middle East ceased to be a trading hub where diverse cultures would meet and trade ideas. There was also the Mongol invasion and a few other things going on.
Tyson argues that if Ghazali didn't cause the decline, then why hasn't the Islamic population regained their creativity? He points out the 1.4 billion Muslims today have earned only a handful of Nobel prizes in science. Well, you can say the same thing about the 1.4 billion people living in China. Or the 1.4 billion people living in India. And these are populations that have enjoyed periods of innovation and creativity. In fact the zero and our base 10 numbering system was invented in India, not by the Arabs as Tyson falsely claims.
Just about everything Tyson says in these talks are wrong.
I will post more of Tyson's false histories when I have time.
When I listened to Tyson a few times I noticed him making various assertions far afield from astronomy, and realized he was just preaching an ideology (including mistaken ideas, etc.), and therefore wasn't worth my time (of course). It's interesting to see more about that.
Ah, well, I sympathize with anger against his falsehoods, but it's enough to just point them out, and not worry too much past given friendly helpful correction against the falsehoods. In the end we will all be rewarded according to our deeds, and his only chance is similar to our own: repentance.He's worth listening to. Tyson provides us with great ammunition against the New Atheists.
I know of 5 of his arguments against religion. And all of them are steaming mounds. They are all based on invented history.
And he has delivered these repeatedly, often to large groups of self proclaimed skeptics. Folks who are always telling us to challenge claims to see if they are supported by evidence. And here we witness them swallowing Tyson's false claims without question. Thus demonstrating these "skeptics" are credulous.
Celebrity "skeptics" like Shermer, Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss, Novella, Harris, Plaitt, etc. have a mutual admiration society. They are warmly received guests on one another's podcasts. When they write books they give each other gushing reviews to put on the back cover blurbs.
I would like to see Dawkins, Krauss, et al confronted. Ask them if they are okay with Tyson using false history to push their narrative? Ask them why none of them have challenged Tyson's false claims? They've been listening to him tell these tall tales year after year after year.
Tyson tells us scientific literacy empowers us to know when someone is full of ****. And here Tyson does us the wonderful favor of leaving B.S. stains on the bibs of his legions of fans. Thus we can question if members of his toxic cult of personality are scientifically literate.
Tyson has a number of different talks that push the same narrative: religion is destructive and it stifles scientific progress.
And just about all these talks are based on invented histories.
It's noteworthy that Tyson has repeated these false histories many times, often to large audiences of self proclaimed skeptics. Often these audiences contain many well known atheists and doubters. People like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Stephen Novella, etc. "Skeptics" who seem to swallow Tyson's false histories without question. If they had noticed Tyson's errors you would think they would have quietly informed him so as to avoid further embarrassment to a prominent member of the skeptic community.
At this time I will look at two of Tyson's invented histories. Later I will add more when I have time and energy.
Bush and Star Names
Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was a standard part of his routine from November of 2006 (maybe earlier) to September 2104.
Tyson tells us Bush's 9-11 speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That Bush was bragging "Our God is the God who named the Stars" evidently to set Christians above Muslims. That's just the sort of behavior we expect from Christian, Republican presidents, right? We all know they love to exploit disaster to sow division and whip up fear. Tyson then goes on to point out that most star names are Arabic. He seems to believe this refutes what he imagines to be Bush's slight against Arabic people.
Unfortunately for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from The Islamic Center of Washington D.C. Bush was exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson portrayed.
It turns out that Tyson managed to confuse Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. See this piece from the Washington Post. However in neither of those speeches did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims.
Hamid al Ghazali: Math is the work of the devil
Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was his intro to his talk on the Islamic Golden Age.
Tyson tells us the Islamic Golden Age ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math was the work of the devil. There are a few problems with that.
1) Ghazali never said that. Ghazali actually praised the disciplines of math and science saying they are necessary for a prosperous society.
I challenged Tyson to provide the Ghazali text containing that assertion. Here is his response. It reads, in part, "...I was misleading some people by mentioning the devil at all." He was misleading anyone who believed him, that is.
2) Islamic innovation did not end in Ghazali's time. There were many mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. See this list. Abu al Hasan, the father of symbolic algebra, was born more than 3 centuries after Ghazali's death.
What caused the decline in Muslim innovation? Personally I believe it was because sea routes rendered land trading routes obsolete. At that time the Middle East ceased to be a trading hub where diverse cultures would meet and trade ideas. There was also the Mongol invasion and a few other things going on.
Tyson argues that if Ghazali didn't cause the decline, then why hasn't the Islamic population regained their creativity? He points out the 1.4 billion Muslims today have earned only a handful of Nobel prizes in science. Well, you can say the same thing about the 1.4 billion people living in China. Or the 1.4 billion people living in India. And these are populations that have enjoyed periods of innovation and creativity. In fact the zero and our base 10 numbering system was invented in India, not by the Arabs as Tyson falsely claims.
Just about everything Tyson says in these talks are wrong.
I will post more of Tyson's false histories when I have time.
Indians, as early as 500 BCE, devised a system of different symbols for every number from one to nine, a system that came to be called Arabic numerals, because they spread first to Islamic countries before reaching Europe centuries later.
Celebrity "skeptics" like Shermer, Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss, Novella, Harris, Plaitt, etc. have a mutual admiration society.