Dear David,

I am very new to Al Ghazali's teachings, but to summarise what I learnt so far about him:

1) Al Ghazali was a teacher par excellence on religious matters.
2) Al Ghazali also tried his hand at material-philosophy/science/logic, but from what we know today, he made some errors there (which likely contributed to his remorsefully leaving Baghdad).
3) Al Ghazali did not preach against material-philosophy/science/logic, but only against it overstepping its rightful purpose and attempting to draw conclusions about God and spirit.

I agree with Al Ghazali there: science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science. But similarly also, religion should not attempt to discuss the world and its science - doing so weakens religion. These areas of knowledge are mutually exclusive and even the personnel who are experts at one are normally novices in the other.

Yuyutsu,

That may very well be the case.

<<...science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science.>>

But all that means is that we cannot know that the spiritual is anything meaningful at all.

Evidence and reason, based on logical absolutes, is the only pathway to truth, given what we currently know. Assertions about God or the spiritual are pure stabs in the dark, and that's being generous. Science is, as Sagan alluded to, at least a candle in that dark.

If you concede that I am right, then please don't say anything in response. Your silence will speak louder than words. Thank you.

Jayb,

I'm glad that quote of mine touched you too. I got it from a random nonsense generator and the fact that it contained as much meaning as the nonsense that comes from some of the theists here really says something.

I was hoping to see if I got a response to it as if it actually meant something in order to create my own Earn Malley moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern_Malley). It wouldn't surprise me if I did. Nonsense like this and the supposed wisdom that comes from these gurus and theologians is referred to as "pseudo-profound" and "deepities" (e.g. God is not a being, God is being itself).

I once had a discussion with a post-modernist on OLO and added a randomly-generated paragraph from http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo to a response of mine to see if he noticed that one of my paragraphs didn't actually make any sense at all (à la the Sokal Afair), and he didn't seem to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

"Orderliness is an ingredient of the progressive expansion of fulfillment" - Deepak Chopra

I didn't think Ghazzali was that bad I loved the song.

Up there Ghazzali
In there & fight
Out there & at 'em
Show 'em your might.
Fly like an angel
You're out there to win.

Loved it.

Yuyutsu wrote: "I agree with Al Ghazali there: science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science."

I also agree with Al Ghazali in that science is not equipped to understand the spiritual since there is no evidence that such a thing as a spiritual exists. However, science is well equipped to discuss why people have the delusion that there is a spiritual. Psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and many other scientific disciplines can focus on the reasons people believe in a spiritual. Science is also not equipped to discuss God since there is absolutely no evidence that any such entity exists. However, science is well equipped to discuss why people believe in God. Psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and many other scientific disciplines can focus on the reasons people believe in the particular nonsense of deity.

Chapter 9 of “The World until Yesterday” by Jared Diamond discusses various attributes of religion. They are:

1. Belief in supernatural agents. Our senses can’t give us evidence for the existence of these supernatural agents, but they are invoked to explain things of which our senses do give us evidence.
2. Social movements of people who identify themselves as sharing deeply held beliefs.
3. Adherents make painful or costly sacrifices to display their commitment to others.
4. Rules of behavior
5. Belief that supernatural agents reward and punish. Prayer, donations and sacrifice can cause these agents to intervene.

Scientific study of the above attributes yield reasons why those attributes exist and what functions they serve.

Dear David,

Science can potentially study all that is physical, including the human brain. Humans are animals, so when we make no spiritual effort to rise above this animal state and de-identify with our human bodies, then we behave as predicted by their instincts, which is researchable.

I disagree with Jared Diamond that his list comprises of religious attributes: if anything, I would name them primitive social attributes.

Sure, people can believe in all manner of things as a result of their herd-instinct and similar biological functions arising from human nature. This is the default, the lowest common denominator: when belief is not accompanied by spiritual effort, it cannot be called "religion".

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religion is made up of primitive social attributes. It is mumbojumbo that is basically nonsense. Apparently you want to believe in that nonsense and see something worthwhile in it. You certainly don't need my permission to continue doing so. Enjoy.