Islam: It’s the Intolerance That’s Scary

I think the problem here is the very existence of a government taking a stand on what is fact and what is not fact, and then enforcing it in any official capacity. It is the free exchange of speech and ideas that discover truths, and if governments should take any stance, it should be the stance that we must encourage the freedom of speech and ideas to be opened up to the marketplace.
Governments should focus on ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to make good for themselves and their families without others maliciously trying to prevent their well being.

Indeed.

Let me put this another way:

Your headline is: "Islam: It’s the Intolerance That’s Scary"

Why not stick to that theme (especially since that is what you've given evidence for)? Don't pretend that the evidence also supports the assertion that Islam is incompatible with scientific progress.

I am STILL trying to teach you this basic principle of argument: Present evidence and use that evidence to make a point. Don't try to make the evidence say more than it does.

Yikes. Stop trying to teach/force the world your point of view, your argument for/against religion, your ability to debate and let the guy write about what he feels. Not everything in the world needs to be a debate. It's just a blog dude.

Hi Scooter, thanks for the support here, but Carl and I are friends and he is simply trying to help me make tighter arguments. It's all in good fun for us. :)

Scooter: I'm trying to help a friend frame his arguments better (even
when I disagree with him on things I want him to frame his arguments
in a more convincing manner). If I didn't respond with my
observations (positive or negative), there's no point in my reading
what he writes. It's a conversation. He knows there is no malice in
anything I say .. and it's directed only at his argument. Relax.

Agreed. We actually consider this a good time. :)

There hasn't been any significant advancement of mathematics in Islamic countries since the 18th century. (Yes I read your reference.) In fact the last contributor died in 1482. I agree with Daniel, it is humorous that this gentleman is stifled by his own ignorance.

It should have been clear that my reference to "Mathematics in medieval Islam" was not intended to be anything but a quick and easy (for me) to find reference that showed that religion (and Islam in particular) is not incompatible with scientific progress. It wasn't meant to be a complete history of scientific progress made by believers in Islam. I had neither desire nor need for such a sweeping presentation. I had a very narrow point.

The problem with this guy and the likes of it is that he thinks that there is an absolute truth.

He thinks that there is an absolute truth, that it is knowable, and that he knows it.

Daniel,

I agree entirely that religious intolerance is wrong (whether it comes from fundamentalist Muslims like this guy or from fundamentalist Christians or from agnostics or atheists). This IS your point, right? If so, then I have no argument with you.

Unfortunately, once again, you have taken your point and run too far with it. Stick to the issue. This guy is an intolerant bigot. Of that there seems no doubt. But, it is not the case that all Muslims share his attitude about (the lack of) religious tolerance, just as it is not the case that all Christians are intolerant of those with different faiths. It is also not the case that religion is somehow incompatible with developments in science and technology. In particular, I'd direct you to the following historical Wikipedia entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Mūsā_...

More recently, there are many examples of deeply religious people who have made important contributions to science. Just this week the LA Times published this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-masci...

which talks about the "low" numbers of scientists who believe in a God or a higher power. This number is low in comparison to the general public, but it 51% .. and it's safe to assume that scientific progress IS being made by religious people.

So, yes, the guy in the video is a widely-listened-to bigot. The same can be said of Pat Robertson. This should not serve to condemn their religions any more than the existence of whites who are bigoted against blacks should serve to condemn all whites.

The difference is that the Islamic countries are well known to be experiencing a science and technology drought, and most openly attribute this lack of progress to religious doctrine.

Many European countries are "religious", as is the U.S. But no western countries so overtly reject progress the way the Islamic countries do, and this shows in where they are. This video is simply a snapshot of the very phenomenon being described.

Once again you are wildly contorting yourself, and reality, in order to try and bring some sort of PC balance to the world--a PC balance that I don't see existing in this case.

Daniel, don't twist what I was saying.

My ONLY point was that religion (and in particular Islam) is not incompatible with scientific progress. This isn't the same thing as saying that a repressive government is not incompatible with scientific progress. I was making the point that you may have been pointing your finger in the wrong direction. I agree entirely that when a country tries to craft its laws from a single very narrow interpretation of a single religion, it can interfere with scientific exploration. But I suspect that this has less to do with the fact that it is a religion-based government than that it is a government that restricts freedoms of many kinds. Freedom of thought is rather important to scientific progress (and I'd argue that it is rather important for most kinds of progress). Governments (religious or not) that repress freedom of thought are going to diminish the contributions of its citizens to scientific discovery. Put the blame where it lies .. on the repressive government.

Here is part of the quote you took from the clip: "Non-Muslims are the experts at science and technology, and we invite them from the U.S. and Europe to teach us those things." This is not evidence of what you call an overt rejection of progress.

The video is a snapshot of a religious bigot who is so blinded by his religious belief that he doesn't even recognize that he is a bigot. I don't think that there is any question that the world would be better off without this sort of attitude, but (though I've learned that it's pointless to tell you this) it is NOT a representative snapshot of how religious people behave.

But it is representative of how religious people behave WHO CREATE
POLICY--and that's what matters.

These people are telling you, right to your face, that they have
created these policies DIRECLY BECAUSE of their religion. But when
that policy takes effect, people like you do everything possible to
say religion is not the problem.

Despite what you think, religion has no equal when it comes to setving
as a reason to be evil. You like to argue that people can do bad
things in the name of anything, and religion is just one of them.

This is ridiculous.

The promise of an eternal afterlife of pleasure, or of suffering,
metered out by the creator of the universe, is NOT the same as other
motivators.

No no no no no no no! That's not my point. I swear, Daniel, there is almost no point in debating with you on some topics. You don't seem to pay any attention to what I've written.

If you had stuck to your point that the intolerance is scary, I'd have been with you, because I agree with that point completely.

If you had wished to make the point that it is evil when people create repressive governments out of some fanatical devotion to their narrow interpretation of their particular branch or their particular religion, I'd have been with you, because I agree with that point completely.

I do not think that governments should be religion-based. There are repressive governments that claim that their repressive nature is required by their narrow interpretation of their religion. Not being able to read the minds of the founders of these governments (or their current leadership), I can't be sure that the repression really stems from their religious beliefs. Perhaps they prefer a repressive form of government for some other reason. (It doesn't really matter .. it's evil either way .. but history contains examples of governments that were repressive for reasons other than the ones they stated publicly.)

In any case, the reason I posted a reply was that you didn't stick to those things. Please read this carefully because you seemed to have missed my point thus far. I'll put it between little markers to make it easier for you to find.

----------

Religion (and in particular Islam) is not incompatible with scientific progress.

----------

That is my ENTIRE point.

If religion isn't responsible for death, then neither are guns. The
only difference is that religion is a *reason* to kill, and guns are
merely a means.

I don't know the emoticon for "throwing up ones hands in resignation that the other person refuses to stick to the point under discussion" but if I did, I'd use it here.

Wow .. there's a bug in this software. I just wrote a reply and it was replaced with my earlier reply when I tried to edit a typo. Very bizarre. I'll try to reconstruct it.