It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

muslim science dead

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Why did i assume you were speaking to me? because you mentioned my name just two sentences above that statement...




Posting what he did is a guaranteed way to elicit responses such as those made by Alxandro and Kr0n0s.

Mark my words, before this thread dies, there'll be a few more ignorant posters shooting of their flawed opinions.



Now i really have to get some sleep.. no hard feelings..




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Now i really have to get some sleep.. no hard feelings..


None taken.

makeitso: If you open a thread pertaining to the silver lining you pointed out, I'd me more than happy to participate in a lively discussion.

I'm done with this thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Oops didn't see your post.

Later

[edit on 9/14/07 by makeitso]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Sorry I'm a little late in this discussion but the reason the Muslims are not active in the scientific community is that the Koran is the only book necessary in their religion according to Mohammed. They don't need anything else. All other books or information sources are unnecessary. Going to heaven is the big thing. All you need to do in this life is to get to heaven (and get your virgins). This was written by Mohammed, given to him by the angel Gabriel (under duress) somewhere in the dessert way back when. If you think there is something else going on more complicated with the Muslims, you are wrong. I have been there, lived with them, studied their strange religion and this is my conclusion IMHO. Prove me wrong.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Are you speaking of "radical Islam" or "Islam"?

This article is very biased, and if you ever question the contribution of arabic thought and science, maybe you should use Roman numerals.

Of coarse the muslims in the world contribute to science. Hell, Ameirca outsources a lot of the techinical jobs to arab counties. Why is that?
Some of the have a higher standard of education than we do.
Some of them learn Arabic and English. The AMA keeps close watch on the number of doctors working in the USA, but a huge number of them come from arabic-counties and are Muslims.

What if the article said "Christian Science Dead"?
That would make the same point.
The OP states that at least the christians have the creationist idealogy.
Don't all religions?
Isn't this against current scientific theory as it stands?
What kind of point is this trying to make, other than being a politicaly biased attempt at spreading bvll#?

[edit on 14-9-2007 by buttonpsi]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I still stand by my statement that this thread was not opened to shed light onto the problem, that is, "why science in the muslim world is stagnant." If that was the intention of the OP, he would have made it abundantly clear. Instead he posts:


i found this interesting article on there being no new contributions to science from the muslim world and i cant help but think that not only is the muslim religion flawed but it doesnt seem to inspire creativity[...]


Add to that the title of the thread:


muslim science dead


Even the article he linked has a bias in the first paragraph, where the thesis statement is, although the author is much more tactful.


Though Muslim math, science and medicine flourished while the West was mired in the Dark Ages, followers of Islam have not produced a single major discovery since, writes Quaid-e-Azam University physics professor Pervez Hoodbhoy.


Now compare that to the original article the Wired blog was inspired from:


Internal causes led to the decline of Islam's scientific greatness long before the era of mercantile imperialism. To contribute once again, Muslims must be introspective and ask what went wrong.


If the OP was meant to address these issues, why didn't the poster quote anything from the articles linked? Why post what he did, knowing full well that most people on these boards don't bother to open links? In fact, forget these boards, it's the same everywhere else. Posting what he did is a guaranteed way to elicit responses such as those made by Alxandro and Kr0n0s.

Mark my words, before this thread dies, there'll be a few more ignorant posters shooting of their flawed opinions.
This isnt the first time i saw you rise to the occausion and instead of ask questions you make accussations and i biased my question from this statement from the article Max Weber, who

claimed that Islam lacks an "idea system" critical for sustaining a scientific culture based on innovation, new experiences, quantification, and empirical verification. Fatalism and an orientation toward the past, they said, makes progress difficult and even undesirable." Now i have nothing against muslims and it is my right to believe and have a opinion that their believe in science may be flawed without having to fear you accussing me of bigotry. i am trying to spark insightful honest discussion with this thread



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by buttonpsi
Are you speaking of "radical Islam" or "Islam"?

This article is very biased, and if you ever question the contribution of arabic thought and science, maybe you should use Roman numerals.

Of coarse the muslims in the world contribute to science. Hell, Ameirca outsources a lot of the techinical jobs to arab counties. Why is that?
Some of the have a higher standard of education than we do.
Some of them learn Arabic and English. The AMA keeps close watch on the number of doctors working in the USA, but a huge number of them come from arabic-counties and are Muslims.

What if the article said "Christian Science Dead"?
That would make the same point.
The OP states that at least the christians have the creationist idealogy.
Don't all religions?
Isn't this against current scientific theory as it stands?
What kind of point is this trying to make, other than being a politicaly biased attempt at spreading bvll#?

[edit on 14-9-2007 by buttonpsi]
noticed i to said that creationism was flawed but it was a attemot at MESHING science and religion i do wish if people quoted me they did so in the right context



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I'd side with the Wired poster response that said, "define Islam." In an number of Islamic countries, science has slowed to a crawl -- however, more secularized places (Kuwait, Turkey among them) have not seen such a decline. In these countries, a number of social reforms are taking place that change the face of society.

(I have friends at the university from both countries as well as classmates from these countries, so I get some first-hand reports.)

.... i biased my question from this statement from the article Max Weber, who

claimed that Islam lacks an "idea system" critical for sustaining a scientific culture based on innovation, new experiences, quantification, and empirical verification. Fatalism and an orientation toward the past, they said, makes progress difficult and even undesirable."

Ugh. Forgive me, but ... UGH!

The truth is that any religious system in a culture where religion and science are seen as opposing forces will "lack an idea system" that can sustain science. Have a close look at some of the extremist Christians (I've seen memorable discussions by that group that said it was dangerous to your faith to send your children to college because they would turn out to be horrible liberals) and you can see that extremist religions of any stripe are against science.

The original article also seemed to make the mistake of assuming that significant scientific publications and research are ONLY done in English.

It ain't true.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
i agree with you to some extent and see your reasoning i think for religion and science to coexist they need to reassess their ideals but with what max said and i do NOT say this out of bigotry i dont think most muslims are capable of this because their religion is very constraining and at the same point in fact so is christianity.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

I'd be interested to hear what these changes are??(sorry your quote didn't come through, it was social changes in Turkey and Kuwait)
When I was overseas in a moslim country, it was difficult to get my employees to do much work because they spent far too much time praying and reciting verses of the Koran. Then they pray 5 times a day and that takes a lot of time down on the prayer mat. No kidding, the only book many of them read was the phone book. I guess it was permitted reading or something but they would sit around for hours looking at the names, addresses and phone numbers. We used to joke about it. I was a new university graduate, hard working agricultural type at the time and I couldn't believe those people, how unmotivated they were. The university students were only slightly better. We were flunking them out in large numbers due to lack of interest, not trying. They were plain, ordinary kids but no motivation.
Apparently they (Muslims) have a big fear of not going to heaven and the cure they apparently think is to pray a lot and learn verses of the Koran. All their friends do it and it kind of reinforces the belief in their minds.
Go spend some time in a Moslim country sometime! They're amazing!



[edit on 14-9-2007 by plumranch]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   


at the same point in fact so is christianity
reply to post by zeroeffect
 

If you are trying to say both religions are the same regarding limiting education they aren't. Hardly a comparison. Typically Christian faiths will establish their own schools and universities like the Catholics and the Mormans. They don't go easy on their students, however. An education in one of their universities is often world class and students go on to do great stuff. Compare for instance the education a muslim boy would get in a madressa with the quality education kids get in a Catholic school.
Madressa graduates come out qualified to do nothing, zip (except perhaps become a terrorist). They are taught almost nothing about how to deal with practical life problems.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Why are you such a terrorist sympathizer?
You may not like what I stated in my earlier post but I really don't care because you failed to point out where I am wrong.
I stand by my statement about the rest of the bunch that refuse to denounce the actions of the extremists for fear of beling labeled infidels.

Religion of Peace my freakin' ass.

If you think my statement is based on hate, answer me this, why do all the conflicts in the world today directly involve the so called the Religion of Peace?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by makeitso
 


Why are you such a terrorist sympathizer?
You may not like what I stated in my earlier post but I really don't care because you failed to point out where I am wrong.
I stand by my statement about the rest of the bunch that refuse to denounce the actions of the extremists for fear of beling labeled infidels.

Religion of Peace my freakin' ass.

If you think my statement is based on hate, answer me this, why do all the conflicts in the world today directly involve the so called the Religion of Peace?


Once again another post heading out into orbit away from the planet of 'on-topic' fuelled by irrational hate. All the conflicts in the world? Come on please, conflict are driven by politics not religion and only in a few cases is it because radical religion use it as a means to mobilise'forces'.

One of the elements of islam that drives this is that the Islamic people see themselves as a brotherhood in their religion first and country second. Therefore if one muslim is oppressed in one country all muslims take an affront to it. The fact is that only a very small percentage of these affronted muslims take up arms in any kind of armed struggle, often in direct contravention of what is stated in the Koran.

OK, back to topic. As stated many times in this thread there are many muslims contributing to science all over the world, the difficulty for those who live in radical islamic countries is that they are fighting the backward thinking fundamentalists, in exactly the same way it is being fought in the USA. The Dark Ages was caused by religious suppression of the knowledge brought to us by the Arabs and Greeks by Christians, this put back the development of mankind immeasurably - maybe we would be going to work on environmentally friendly jet packs by now if it wasn't for that suppression.

This would have reduced the need to colonise the middle east now in the search of oil and therefore reduce how much musilms, the world over, are cheesed off with the West. Anyway, if as the OP contends, that Muslim science is dead then why are we so worried about them producing WMD?





[edit on 1-10-2007 by EJHoover]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EJHoover
 


He EJ,
There is little evidence to indicate that they are doing the groundwork and discovering WMDs of their own. What they usually do is "borrow" the weapon or its design from us, the Russians, the Chinese, whomever.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The premise of the article is inherently flawed: it links scientific research with religious activity, rather than economic ability to support scientific research.

Do American universities have a greater percentage of foreign students at a post-graduate level than any other country because America is a predominantly Christian nation, or because it is a capitalist society with a high degree of historical investment by private corporations in university-level (and above) scientific research? On that note: what percentage of published authors based at US universities are Muslim?

Comparing Indonesia`s physics research output with that of a western nation solely on the basis of religious affiliation smacks of social darwinisim, plain and simple.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   


The premise of the article is inherently flawed: it links scientific research with religious activity, rather than economic ability to support scientific research.
reply to post by vox2442
 

Hi vox, How does religious activity not necessarily affect scientific output? In my experience it does. (read my posts) Ones religion and beliefs seems to have a great effect on ones life and actions. I was a Peace Corps worker by the way and have been there done that.




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Lack of historical knowledge ITT.

Up until the Crusades, the Muslim Caliphate was the most scientifically advanced nation on the planet. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Highly advanced mathematics, an excellent working knowledge of the human body and medecine, the basics for modern physics...all were laid down in the Islamic Caliphate.

Now, I would tend to agree modern Muslim countries do not seem to have such a focus on science as the western world, and are quite lacking in some respects. But as my old stats teacher kept saying: correlation does not equal causation. After all, many of these countries also have dirt poor population and are ruled by military dictatorships/royalty, two factors which traditionally make the free and unhindered pursuit of knowledge rather difficult.

But I forgot, this is a post 9/11 world and bashing on Muslims is not only perfectly fine, its a patriotic duty.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   


Up until the Crusades, the Muslim Caliphate was the most scientifically advanced nation on the planet. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Highly advanced mathematics, an excellent working
reply to post by Kaliayev
 

Hi Kal, This is a well used arguement. They were advanced a thousand years ago. What in your opinion has changed? Was it something to do with the Caliphate? Was the Koran interpreted differently?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch



Up until the Crusades, the Muslim Caliphate was the most scientifically advanced nation on the planet. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Highly advanced mathematics, an excellent working
reply to post by Kaliayev
 

Hi Kal, This is a well used arguement. They were advanced a thousand years ago. What in your opinion has changed? Was it something to do with the Caliphate? Was the Koran interpreted differently?



Jumping in to answer a question directed at others (sorry), yes the Koran was interpreted differently, even recently. The Ottoman Empire for instance that ruled the whole of that area up to 1924 used to deliberately maintain a separation between religion (Vizier) and the political / military ruler (Dragoman). This meant that despite having a strong faith with the empire it did not cloud political or military judgement. Radical muslim sects were actually put down as trouble makers (Dervishes).

Muslims would tradionally live in peace with those of a monotheistic religion such as Jews or Christians, though they would persecute religions with multiple deitys. At one point they used to charge a small tax against Christians and Jews to allow them to live in their cities. Constantinople was full of Jews and welcomed them for the skills they brought, they even welcomed Sephardic Jews who were thrown out of Spain by the Holy Catholic church.

In years gone by religions were a lot more tolerant of each other because basically everyones relative position was similar. Schools studied both science and religion because they were not then in control of a religious body who, suprise suprise, feels that all you should study is religion.

You have to remeber that what an individual imam teaches is not the word of Allah, it is just their opinion. Muslims are no more blind followers of the word of man than Christians are. These pronunciations are just like a ministers sermon, something that only the most religious of people will actually remember after the service.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
No problems EJ, you actually gave a very good answer. Just to add to what you said, I would add that a nugget of historical knowledge that may help explain the change from then to now. Up until the eleventh century, the Caliphate was dominated by a certain school of philosophical thought called Falasifah, which was the direct heir of Greek rational thought and the Athenian Academy, a reconciliation of Aristotle and Islam, if you will.

However, the eleventh century philospher Al-Ghazali wrote a number of highly influential tracts criticizing the nascent scientific method that was being developed at the time. While his theories were actually quite sophisticated and subtle, they were exaggerated by religious leaders of the time, especially Sufi mystics, to mean that causal considerations should be left to God and not man.

And since science is built on causal relations....

Of course, thats not the whole story. It explains the retrograde turn the Middle East took, but then you have to factor in numerous wars, internal revolts, the dissolution of the Caliphate as a political entity, the weak economies of the current states etc as well, if you want the full story.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join