Spiritual vs Materialist Dogmatism Discussion

[Waarnemer]

[ edit: discussion split from Turkish prosecutor probes whether atheist book "The God Delusion" assaults values ]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I'm not sure about values, but it certainly insults the intellegence

And what you wrote surely qualifies as even less then a straw man argument. Seriously this thread is about intellectual restrictions in the Islamic world not about your poorly off content attacks on a book Im sure you didn't read.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

And what you wrote surely qualifies as even less then a straw man argument. Seriously this thread is about intellectual restrictions in the Islamic world not about your poorly off content attacks on a book Im sure you didn't read.

Not really. The thread thus far was only a piece of news about some event which can give place to discusion in more than just one direction. Yours, or his.

But if your intention was to intellectually restrict it into just one direction, you should have been clear about it.

Having said that, without digging into the book I sense some kind of scientistic (not necessarily scientific) inquisition trend over Man's spiritual beliefs.

Truth being told, it is your world of materialistic beliefs that is crumbling, more than the world of people with a strong spiritual beliefs. Your defeat is inside you.

[Waarnemer]

I had and have no intention in starting a discussion on the book nor the author. This is a thread about restrictions in the Islamic world as you can read in the first post. If you want to discuss the matter of Mr.Dawkins be free, but please create a new thread. Thank you

[Menydh]

I think that I've understood the message to the last comma:

"This is a thread about intellectual restrictions in the Islamic world, with intellectual restrictions by the pro-science-materialistic world."

No problem.

[Ricardo Reis]

How can a book on atheism cause "religious hatred"?

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Truth being told, it is your world of materialistic beliefs that is crumbling, more than the world of people with a strong spiritual beliefs. Your defeat is inside you.

Since the Enlightenment its the Theistic view that got rearranged and later on with general superstition its world view got drastically undermined by biology, cosmology and genetics. So sure I understand your way of spreading lame arguments, what else would be left?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

what else would be left?

Live some few years more and observe around you, and beyond. Then ask yourself what makes some people stand long while others crumble easily.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Since the Enlightenment its the Theistic view that got rearranged and later on with general superstition its world view got drastically undermined by biology, cosmology and genetics.

From the viewpoint of theism, all of these are irrelevant (discoveries in biology, cosmology and genetics). They explain the exterior-material world, how it funcions and say nothing about either the question of the first mover, of the purpose of life and everything etc.

What got undermined, was the world view of pseudo-religious fundamentalists who want to explain the origin of the world on the ground of the literalistic interpretation of the Bible. I have no time to spend with them. In fact, these fundamentalists and militant atheists are spiritual brothers. Let them argue with each other all the time, if they wish to, I have better things to do.

As for the original theme of this thread, that is, the intellectual censorship in the Islamic world, it is well known and well documented. In the first centuries of the Islamic era it was directed chiefly against the Islamic heretics, sufis and others. Later on, against all those who wanted to relax the stiff ritualism of Islam and stress the "interior" aspects of religion (man's personal relation to God, coming from heart, instead of the strict observance of sharia as main criterion for one's attachment to Islam). There was even an Islamic humanism or proto-Renaissance, however, it lasted shortly and was suppressed from the 12th century on. Instead on independent inquiry, the stress was laid solely on details of the observance of sharia. There arose different schools who quarrelled only on what should and what shouldn't be done in everyday life and pursuit of philosophy and knowledge in general died down. Islam changed a little from those times to the day of today. Anyone who dared to question the tenets of the Four Orthodox Schools of jurisprudence, even someone who would try to interpret Koran on his own, not relying to the existing "orthodox" opnions, was heavily censored. What are the reasons of this intellectual stagnation, it is hard to say. Some attribute it to the fact that the rule of the Islamic world was taken over by Turks and Mongols (who first conquered Baghdad in 1258 as pagans, but later converted to Islam and became its propagators - I am referring to Mongols who conquered Middle Eastern lands and Russia, while the original Mongols in Mongolia retained their ancestral heathen religion), warrior tribes that needed some simplistic religion and worldview...

But it is their countries and their rules and laws, what can we do about that? Or what should we do? I personally don't care either for the fate of Dawkins' book in Turkey (or its fate in general) or for the laws in vigour in Turkey. It is their matter and I don't see how it could interest too much European nationalists.

Turkey has anyway a long tradition of censorship, but not religious one. They have laws against offending "Turkishness", according to which those who state that, for example, the Armenian genocide happened, can be judged and condemned to prison sentences. This has nothing to do with either Islam or religion in general, but with the Turkish nationalism.

The modern Turkish republic was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who was overtly inimical to Islam after he consolidated his power. He had made such statements about Islam, which could make him target of fanatics, if he lived these days. Turkish Republic was for decades very secular, with Islam repressed to the status of private matter. However, there is a process of re-Islamification going on in Turkey since 2002, when Erdogan's Islamists won the elections.

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Plethon

From the viewpoint of theism, all of these are irrelevant (discoveries in biology, cosmology and genetics). They explain the exterior-material world, how it funcions and say nothing about either the question of the first mover, of the purpose of life and everything etc.

What got undermined, was the world view of pseudo-religious fundamentalists who want to explain the origin of the world on the ground of the literalistic interpretation of the Bible. I have no time to spend with them. In fact, these fundamentalists and militant atheists are spiritual brothers. Let them argue with each other all the time, if they wish to, I have better things to do.

Its easy to broaden faith in such a way that it could mean anything, but philosophical approaches like this tend to end in contradiction. For one, if Genesis is not a correct display of events that directly undermines Christianity, the need of Jesus crucifixion and the idea of original sin.

But you are right, moral conclusions are not to be drawn from empirical data, sure. Still it limits speculations on the purpose of life and it narrows down the first cause and even more it delivers an idea of the mentality of the possible creator in that the Human spieces at this point is about 130 000 years old, and it seems heaven waited and watched 128 000 years of a harsh and meaningless waste of human lives until it decided to interfere with ideas of sin, hell and immaterial human liberation.

Religion was a manner of explaining and justifying events in the material world which still is the only reality we know of. Speculations on immaterial realities and entities hold no grounds, they don't mean anything since they don't exist, to exist is to be observed, that is the only real standard in a logic world.

Originally Posted by Plethon

But it is their countries and their rules and laws, what can we do about that? Or what should we do? I personally don't care either for the fate of Dawkins' book in Turkey (or its fate in general) or for the laws in vigour in Turkey. It is their matter and I don't see how it could interest too much European nationalists.

It concerns us, Islam is a religion on the rise on our grounds and this event provides us a good idea of religious censorship in even secular models.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Its easy to broaden faith in such a way that it could mean anything, but philosophical approaches like this tend to end in contradiction. For one, if Genesis is not a correct display of events that directly undermines Christianity, the need of Jesus crucifixion and the idea of original sin.

That presumes that the spiritual beliefs of Christianism are in the Book of Genesis. Which is as wrong as it can get. Needless to says, it points to a total lack of knowledge of Christianism and Christendom itself.

Religion was a manner of explaining and justifying events in the material world which still is the only reality we know of.

Are you by chance referring to the external signs of primitive religions? Because if that's so, it is unrelated.

It concerns us, Islam is a religion on the rise on our grounds and this event provides us a good idea of religious censorship in even secular models.

To bring Islam into the debate as if pretending that it is the cause of all our problems, in defense of a pretended scientistic (materialistic) absolute, is a swindle that diverts the attention from the source of all problems.

And the fact is that Islam only becomes a problem for European societies from the moment that this materialistic (your scientistic) approach to Man takes over and destroys the strong foundations upon which European societies had been built up.

It is only when Europeans have been largely stripped off the strength once provided by their spiritual beliefs (Pagan at a time, then Christian), by the religion of materialism and pseudo-scientism, that we are left out in the cold as easy preys for peoples from societies which are stronger than us. Call them Islamics or call them something else, it matters little.

Though I personally appreciate you, I see what's wrong with your expositions and I believe that I know the source of it, which if discussed in more depth they should take us to an inter-ethnic conflict of interests.

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That presumes that the spiritual beliefs of Christianism are in the Book of Genesis. Which is as wrong as it can get. Needless to says, it points to a total lack of knowledge of Christianism and Christendom itself.

Without Genesis, no original sin, and no need for Christ.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Are you by chance referring to the external signs of primitive religions? Because if that's so, it is unrelated.

The evolution of religion reigns from the concept of the taboo towards polytheism and then monotheism. It got an increase of complexity but the basic definition still stands; Christianity delivers its version of events and justifications in the world.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To bring Islam into the debate as if pretending that it is the cause of all our problems, in defense of a pretended scientistic (materialistic) absolute, is a swindle that diverts the attention from the source of all problems.

And the fact is that Islam only becomes a problem for European societies from the moment that this materialistic (your scientistic) approach to Man takes over and destroys the strong foundations upon which European societies had been built up.

It is only when Europeans have been largely stripped off the strength once provided by their spiritual beliefs (Pagan at a time, then Christian), by the religion of materialism and pseudo-scientism, that we are left out in the cold as easy preys for peoples from societies which are stronger than us. Call them Islamics or call them something else, it matters little.

Though I personally appreciate you, I see what's wrong with your expositions and I believe that I know the source of it, which if discussed in more depth they should take us to an inter-ethnic conflict of interests.

What you call pseudo scientism is influenced by your personal feelings, your reference to materialism as a religion is of course false, Western materialism as a philosophical idea takes a stand against religion, only by corruption of the concept of religion and broadened it in a almost nihilistic way statements like yours can make sense, religion in this thread asks for the supernatural. Your criticism on materialism on todays problems is easy and false, it is general cultural relativism that allows naivete to settle down in the Western consensus, and that is a result of the totalitarian past in which scientific racism caused much harm.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Its easy to broaden faith in such a way that it could mean anything, but philosophical approaches like this tend to end in contradiction.

It does not broaden anything. Allegorical explanations of the Biblical passages were commonplace in the Christian theology since the inception of the Christianity. So nothing new, no broadening.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

For one, if Genesis is not a correct display of events

Allegory...

Bible was never meant to be a textbook on geology or biology anyway.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

that directly undermines Christianity

It does not undermine Christianity, but some fundamentalist sects only.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

the need of Jesus crucifixion and the idea of original sin.

The original sin is something people knew of since times immemorial. There is something wrong with the world...and there being some primordial cause to it is a well known theme of many myths and legends.

As for Jesus' crucifixion, it is something that fits in perfectly with what we know how the world functions in general. You need first ti humiliate yourself, in order to later elevate yourself. Nothing of worth is ever achieved, no worthwhile achievement, by presumption and arrogance. All the most brilliant scientists in history, who discovered great things, were humble and modest people. You need to sit a lot in order to learn something, you need to train, in order to achieve results in sports etc. Most things that are of value, are achieved by a kind of self-sacrifice. Jesus' (God's) self-sacrifice fits with this analogy perfectly.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

But you are right, moral conclusions are not to be drawn from empirical data, sure.

They obviously can't, otherwise there would be no ethics. Of course, I don't say that only Christianity brings ethics. You can find ethical teachings, or seeds thereof, in Confucians', Buddhists' scriptures. But they did not come to those conclusions through empirical observations either. It came from their heart, so to say.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Still it limits speculations on the purpose of life and it narrows down the first cause

Well, I think not. It seems to me that it is rather the strictly materialistic view that narrows down speculations on the purpose of life and eliminates even the question of the first cause. As if it had a commandment: "Thou shalt not ask after the first cause!" While the assessment of an intelligent creator arouses speculations about his nature and on how to approach him...

I was brought up in materialistic atheism, but I rejected it because it seemed illogical to me and as a mental prison.

If the world were only material, there would be no poetry, no aesthetics, no nothing, we would be robots and slaves to our instincts. No free will...

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

and even more it delivers an idea of the mentality of the possible creator in that the Human spieces at this point is about 130 000 years old, and it seems heaven waited and watched 128 000 years of a harsh and meaningless waste of human lives until it decided to interfere with ideas of sin, hell and immaterial human liberation.

Religious conceptions similar to Christianity existed since times immemorial. For me it is one yet proof in favour of God and immaterial reality. Some bigotted versions of Christianity claim that all people who did not hear the Christian message, go to hell automatically. The explanation is that man's nature got so corrupted with the fall (original sin), as to make him practically uncapable of any good deeds. We are so evil, evil and irredemiably evil that we all automatically deserve hell, only through blind faith and not through any good works can we attain salvation. Some protestant sects, but even some branches of Catholicism (Jansenism), make this claim. Well, it seems very illogical to me and, if that were the essence of Christianity, then I wouldn't be Christian (because such an approach is illogical and leads nowhere). Another extreme, saying that there is no original sin (Pelagianism) is also unacceptable (the everyday evidence defies it).

The question of why Jesus was born only 2000 years pertains to the mysteries of the world. We cannot know the whole truth and understand everything, being in the state of fall and captured in the material world and dependent on it (yet having the ability of knowing something about the immaterial world, unlike animals). Our capability for knowledge is limited, but it does not mean that we should not pursue (sceintific) knowledge. On the contrary...

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Religion was a manner of explaining and justifying events in the material world which still is the only reality we know of.

And what about the first cause? you observe something, yet you can't observe the ultimate cause and/or purpose thereof.

And it seems to me that since the development of the quantum physics the old-fashioned materialism became out-dated. They say that matter is energy. And what it energy? Not something very observable...

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Speculations on immaterial realities and entities hold no grounds

The whole life is composed of speculations. You need speculation on immaterial concepts even in order to posit a scientific hypothesis (or theory), after you have collected observable data.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

they don't mean anything since they don't exist

How can you be sure they don't exist? You can only be sure that you don't see them, nor hear, nor smell them, but that they don't exist, you can't be sure.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

to exist is to be observed, that is the only real standard in a logic world.

However, to posit that the world moves by itself, through accident, is not very logical. For example, mental concepts cannot be observed, but they still exist.

What about infinity? There is an infinity of particles of the material world, whenever you discover some small one, you can always discover a smaller etc. It is something impossible to solve seen only from the materialistic point of view.

There are two types of cognition: one is strictly empirical-rationalistic. It collects observable data and draws some conclusion on how the world externally works. By the way of this cognition you cannot reach any ultimate truths. You can only come to the conclusion: "We (I) don't know." (the agnostics)

Another is more profound and it works through intuition and analogies. You need this kind of pre-conceived knowledge even to start any scientific inquiry. Some general principles that you simply "know" that they are such. It is through such intuitive-analogical cognition that you come to the knowledge of immaterial things and ultimately God.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

It concerns us, Islam is a religion on the rise on our grounds and this event provides us a good idea of religious censorship in even secular models.

If it can be used as an argument against immigration, then it is OK. But I don't see any point in interfering into how they sort out these things in their own lands. It leads to moral imperialism and to negecting the more important themes (such as ethnic preservation here).