Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

[wandering peacefully]

Yes, another thread in Interfaith Discussion.

Coming soon

Oh great. Thank you. I believe it would be a very interesting and informative read.

I can't be here very often so a lot goes on here in between.
Were you able to start a thread about the government set up and my other questions?

 

[shunyadragon]

This is verbatim from your own source that you confirmed was accurate and told me to 'live with it':

Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other,


This just too perfectly encapsulates your contributions to this entire thread

This simply reflects the limits of his knowledge and not his science.

The most famous ridiculous quote in recent history.

"Isaac Newton was not a scientist." - @Augustus

This just too perfectly encapsulates your contributions to this entire thread

 

[Augustus]

This simply reflects the limits of his knowledge and not his science.

Quelle suprise...

A: Here is Isaac Newton in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian theological dimension to his natural philosophy.
SD: That doesn't count. His natural philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself. I know his mind far better than he did.

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention.. blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way ... Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other... Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact....he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect... Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

The most famous ridiculous quote in recent history.

"Isaac Newton was not a scientist." - @Augustus

Well you do seem to find it ridiculous to have more than a cursory knowledge of the topics you are discussing, I suppose...

The term "scientist" wasn't invented until the 19th C, so it seems just a little anachronistic to assume he was a "scientist" before they even existed. Natural philosophy wasn't simply modern "science" with a different name, and a natural philosopher wasn't simply a modern scientist with a different title. I fear such things may be lost on you though.

From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape...

Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.

This just too perfectly encapsulates your contributions to this entire thread

Of course, factually correct and based on actual scholarship rather than ideological prejudice and half-baked assumptions

 

[shunyadragon]

Quelle suprise...



Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention.. blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way ... Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other... Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact....he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect... Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.






Well you do seem to find it ridiculous to have more than a cursory knowledge of the topics you are discussing, I suppose...

The term "scientist" wasn't invented until the 19th C, so it seems just a little anachronistic to assume he was a "scientist" before they even existed. Natural philosophy wasn't simply modern "science" with a different name, and a natural philosopher wasn't simply a modern scientist with a different title. I fear such things may be lost on you though.

From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape...

Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.




Of course, factually correct and based on actual scholarship rather than ideological prejudice and half-baked assumptions

. . . from a Christian apologist with an agenda.

He was a scientist by the standards of the contemporary definition.regardless of his religious beliefs.

 

[Augustus]

. . . from a Christian apologist with an agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your devoted hero.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quelle suprise...



Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention.. blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way ... Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other... Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact....he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect... Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.






Well you do seem to find it ridiculous to have more than a cursory knowledge of the topics you are discussing, I suppose...

The term "scientist" wasn't invented until the 19th C, so it seems just a little anachronistic to assume he was a "scientist" before they even existed. Natural philosophy wasn't simply modern "science" with a different name, and a natural philosopher wasn't simply a modern scientist with a different title. I fear such things may be lost on you though.

From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape...

Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.

The rest of the video is educational for you.

From: https://www.biography.com/people/isaac-newton-9422656
Isaac Newton Biography
Astronomer, Scientist, Physicist, Philosopher, Mathematician (1643–1727)

• Scientific Revolution. In 1687, he published his most acclaimed work, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), which has been called the single most influential book on physics. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne of England, making him Sir Isaac Newton.
  

 

[Muffled]

To a certain extant I agree about Islam, but I believe the Islamic laws, particularly the Quran itself, was given to people for specific needs, and the Sharia is derivative, variable and inconsistent, which today they are out of context with the contemporary changing evolving world of diverse cultures and religions, and by the way science. I believe the problem with Christianity in that claims like 'Jesus is all the law we need and right up to date to satisfy our needs,' do not provide a coherent code for the contemporary world. The varied claims in Christianity concerning morals; values, and spiritual laws also result in variable derivatives and interpretations of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I believe it would not be so variable if people really did listen to Jesus instead of relying on their own thinking.

 

[Muffled]

The Qur'an provided almost everything needed, there is no need.....(nor did one formulate early on).....for a strict legal system in Islam, this is a religion/spiritual path not politics. Shariah is speculative too, anyone claiming they have the 'true Shariah' is lying and using it to control. Islam is an individualistic religion, you look after yourself, your family and your community. You do good works and try to make the world a better place along with your growth in spiritual realization.

(oh and following the Sunnah of the prophet is not blindly mimicking everything he said or did, it's supposed to be a way of internalizing our relation to the world around us, that the spiritual is not separate from the secular. Properly taken in by the believer, should inspire them in their own personal approach to reconcile the spiritual journey as within the world and not secluded from it)

I believe the key word is try. With Jesus there is no need to try since it is done for us by Him.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe the key word is try. With Jesus there is no need to try since it is done for us by Him.

Of course, this is what you believe, but so do the Jews and Muslims concerning their own religion.

 

[Augustus]

The rest of the video is educational for you.

From: https://www.biography.com/people/isaac-newton-9422656
Isaac Newton Biography
Astronomer, Scientist, Physicist, Philosopher, Mathematician (1643–1727)

• 
  
  
  • Scientific Revolution. In 1687, he published his most acclaimed work, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), which has been called the single most influential book on physics. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne of England, making him Sir Isaac Newton.

The most scholarly source you could come up with is Biography.com (which btw points out his most famous work is: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)

Anyway, if you wish to become slightly less ignorant, to the point you actually can actually understand the points being made to you, here is a basic primer:

Science, Religion and Modernity

Watch the first 5 of these lectures delivered by a respected academic historian of science: Peter Harrison (historian) - Wikipedia

They are very interesting to anyone with an interest in the history of science, and run to about 6 hours. They are aimed at an audience slightly more academic than the 3 minute videos at biography.com, so maybe they aren't for you, but you while you can lead a horse to water...

I'm more than happy to discuss any of the points raised, but if you are more interested in ad homs and pop-culture soundbites then I'll probably pass. As you know, I'm pretty busy with my secret undercover Christian mission

Ciao

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm more than happy to discuss any of the points raised, but if you are more interested in ad homs and pop-culture soundbites then I'll probably pass. As you know, I'm pretty busy with my secret undercover Christian mission

Ciao

Good luck on your mission. I have seen this ruse before. Your living in a nostalgic past paradigm before 1200 AD.


I looked up at least four sources, and all described Isaac Newton as scientist and physicist.

 

[Vouthon]

This entire thread-long interchange between @shunyadragon and @Augustus can be summed up thusly:

"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas"

- Lord Acton (1907) "Essays on Liberty"
​

The "pedigree of ideas" is the history behind ideas, in this case liberalism. Acton is explaining how the one brave enough to forage into history may be in for some unwelcome surprises; they may well find that an idea they value highly came from their political opponents, for instance.

 

[shunyadragon]

This entire thread-long interchange between @shunyadragon and @Augustus can be summed up thusly:

"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas"

- Lord Acton (1907) "Essays on Liberty"
​

The "pedigree of ideas" is the history behind ideas, in this case liberalism.

Liberalism in democracy is a 20th century phenomenon as defined.

 

[Remté]

A very intersting post. A friend of mine is a convert to Islam and refering to 'born muslims' he finds Islam to be totally lacking in culture. There is little in the world of literature or any of the arts that Islam can claim to be making any significant contribution too.

True Islam is supposed to be in a way completely lacking in culture, but the dominating form of it is not. Yet, a lot of Muslims find the reference of Islam being culture related an insult. They insist all of sharia law for instance is rleated only to Islam. But historically speaking that is not true.

 

[Remté]

Islam is outdated and archaic, and cannot deal with a more universal diverse contemporary world, and actually contributes greatly to the violent instability and divisions of the world.

What is Islam to you in itself? How do you define it?

 

[shunyadragon]

True Islam is supposed to be in a way completely lacking in culture, but the dominating form of it is not. Yet, a lot of Muslims find the reference of Islam being culture related an insult. They insist all of sharia law for instance is related only to Islam. But historically speaking that is not true.

The claim of lacking in culture is a claim of most ancient religions that assert their religion is for all cultures, and universal for humanity, and yes, they are offended by the view that their religion is anchored in culture. The reality is yes, ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are anchored in the culture of their origins. The requirement of Arabic to fully understand Islam, clothing, and the overwhelming cultural identity are only some of cultural aspects of Islam that separate Islam from other cultures of the world, and encourage a isolationist view of most Muslims living in countries where Christianity or other religions are dominant.

Also, Islam has a distinct tribal identity inherited by their origins.

 

[Remté]

Sunni and Shia are two worlds apart.

They're initially the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is Islam to you in itself? How do you define it?

Islam is the religion and belief system that has the Quran as its basis of belief, and considers it sacred text inspired by God. There are numerous divisions in Islam, and some have their Sharia Law, others do not.

 

[Remté]

The requirement of Arabic to fully understand Islam, clothing, and the overwhelming cultural identity are only some of cultural aspects of Islam that separate Islam from other cultures of the world, and encourage a isolationist view of most Muslims living in countries where Christianity or other religions are dominant.

But see there you say "cultural aspects of Islam" and then go on to say it separates Islam from other cultures. But Islam is not a culture. There is a culture related to it. And some, even Muslims, think that culture is part of Islam, which, taking the wide view, according to the Quran could be called blasphemy.