Even opponents of Christianity, like Nietzsche, recognize its pacifistic, democratic tendencies, while Jesus' line about "rendering unto Caesar" is the kernel of the separation of church and state. It's hard to say those things about the Quran and Islam. — Thorongil

I seem to recall Nietzsche also observed that Christianity bears the seeds of its own destruction, in that it recognises two roads to the truth: faith and reason. Reason will, of course, lead to conclusions different from faith.

Islam lacks any appeal to reason, or even reasonableness. And the 109 sura that exhort violence towards the infidel, stand in stark contrast to the Sermon on the Mount.

Physics isn't reductionist. The physical world isn't "just matter in motion", or some such. Not everything is explained by the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- it's not all "just entropy increasing". — Moliere

Well, a physicist would certainly seek to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and in doing so may achieve a reduction or a unification.

Neither is chemistry. There are two broad pillars of chemical theory -- thermodynamics and kinetics -- and several subsets of chemistry which focus on the reactions of chemicals in many various ways. — Moliere

Quantum mechanics is also extremely important, providing as it does the explanation for the existence of atoms, the various phases of matter, atomic bonding ...

I'd say some phenomena can't be explained by some simpler and more general statements -- perhaps they require another simpler, more general statement, or they are an anomaly of sorts. — Moliere

I gave a list above of fundamental objects of certain theories that cannot be reduced: replicators, variation, selection, information, steam-engines, universal computers, perpetual-motion machines of the 2nd kind.

To the above I'm going to add knowledge, which seems to play a fundamental role in an emerging physical theory.

But to reduce myself to anti-reduction would be terribly reductionist, don't you think? — Moliere

Reductionism has been an extremely successful methodology, but even a reductionist must be puzzled that there are so many branches of science.

In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation

Maybe you would be willing to accept that that particular branch of mathematics studies, essentially, the Turing Machine, which is a purely abstract entity.

My original claim was:

Computation - the fundamental object of study being the universal computer. — tom

In which I did not mention the Turing Machine, which is abstract, but rather the Universal Computer, which is real.

And then:

Computers are real things, and the theory of computation has been a branch of physics since 1984. — tom

I was wrong in my second claim, the year was 1985. The Universal Computer is a real device, that has certain properties not found in the Turing Machine, due to the laws of physics, which the UC must obey because it is real, and the TM does not because it is abstract.

The theory of computation became a physical theory with this paper:

http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/deutsch85.pdf

Whooaaa...hold on a minute here. We do agree that the replicators are DNA (and RNA for some lifeforms) right? — Frederick KOH

Whooooooaaaaaa!

Strictly speaking the the instances of replicators that occur in the Earth's biosphere are genes - portions of DNA that have specific information encoded in them.

However the replicators happen to be instantiated, to be reductionist, one must demonstrate that the existence of replicators is deducible from quantum mechanics, thus rendering use of "replicator" as an explanatory fundamental, nothing more than shorthand.

In these cases, the objects of study are abstract and not coincidentally, they are not considered branches of the natural sciences. — Frederick KOH

You think "replicators", "variation", and "selection" are not abstract?

Computers are real things, and the theory of computation has been a branch of physics since 1984. You are similarly wrong about Information Theory.

If I say "the relationship between the energy, pressure volume and temperature of a gas in a container can be completely explained by atomic theory and the kinetic theory of gasses" , would I be a reductionist? — Frederick KOH

But can you construct a perpetual motion machine of the second kind? Can you improve on the Carnot Cycle?

If I say "the replicators are the way they are because of chemistry and physics" would I be a reductionist? — Frederick KOH

Perhaps you should try the reduction? Take a physical theory and demonstrate that replicators, variation, and selection can be reduced to it. If you manage that then Life could be fully explained by, say the Schrödinger equation.

I don't think you will be able to. Life is a phenomenon that as far as we know, requires an explanation at a certain level of emergence, and could be somewhat independent of the underlying physics.

So theoretically at least, Islam is no more "fascist" than Christianity or Judaism. It's just that Christians and Jews have stopped doing that sort of thing. — Frederick KOH

You will find nothing equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran.

I was hoping to provoke "anti-reductionists" to comment here. — Frederick KOH

In that case, reductionism is simply a mistake and obviously so.

Some examples:

NeoDarwinism - the fundamental objects of study are replicators subject to variation and selection.
Computation - the fundamental object of study being the universal computer.
Information Theory - The study of counterfactuals (I'm being deliberately tendentious)
Thermodynamics - The theory of steam engines (")

Thus the claim that high level explanations cannot be fundamental is false.

I've heard it said that the establishment of the theocracy in Iran was a reactionary response to too radically abrupt a societal shift toward western ways and values. And also that there has been a continuous undercurrent of resistance to the theocracy, and pressure to reform or even replace it. — Brainglitch

Hence the violence. Islam's power rests in the use and religious justification of killing.

But the individuals and societies they were interacting with were not evidencing or demanding the widely established liberal values that interactions with present day individuals and societies do--the very values that could influence reform. There was none of the pressure on them to reform that I spoke of. — Brainglitch

I think there was an opportunity lost in 1960s and 70s. Google "Afghan/Iranian women 1960s" etc and you will find photographs of beautiful, liberated, educated, modern women barely distinguishable from Europeans and Americans of the day. You might even find some photographs of the Hajj, which reveals women dressed in many different and colourful ways. Modesty 50 years ago did not mean the oppressive black burqa of today.

Then we had the Islamic revolutions and the rise of Saudi religious imperialism.

Muslim societies have not had anywhere near the external interrelationships and pressures that are currently in play. It is these that can and do provide influence for possible reform. — Brainglitch

You've got to be joking! There was once an Islamic empire that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Also, let's not forget the Ottoman empire which lasted until 1922.

There's not enough pushback to constrain them. Yet. As Harris often has said, it will require moderate Muslims to constrain the fundies, and it is such moderates that we non-Muslims would do well to encourage and support. — Brainglitch

This is C21. If reform of Islam was possible, it would have happened by now. Instead Islam as a whole is becoming increasingly fundamentalist, and yes, it achieves this through violence.

Islam's greatest tools are death to apostates, death to those who cause offense, and death to the kufar. Submission or death!

Obviously, sex with a goat is to be preferred over child-rape. — Bitter Crank

And you can rape a child in many Muslim countries. There is no minimum age of "marriage" in Saudi and Yemen for example. The perfect moral example married a 6yr old after all.

So, are we to suppose here that there are no objections to sex with an animal in Islam? I doubt it. — Bitter Crank

What do you think is worse, having sex with a goat or raping a child?

In order of highest percentage of FGM from the UNICEF document, here's a couple of statistics that show that it isn't a practise informed by Islam — Benkei

According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.

FGM is also banned in UK. There are 1000's of cases of FGM notified in UK every year. As yet not a single prosecution.

Actually the Egypt "ban" appears to be nothing more than a ministerial decree which only affects those that work under the auspices of the Ministry of Health.

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15 — Michael

No such prohibition is to be found in the Quran or the Sahih.

The Quran does contain 109 verses that call Muslims to war with the kufar though.

Pipes' insight is not an indictment of the behavior of the average Muslim. It's the observation that there is no religious apparatus behind a so-called moderate Islamic viewpoint. That apparatus is like a baby trying to be born. — Mongrel

Actually there is, it's called the Ahmadiyyah Community, though membership of it risks you being murdered in Pakistan and UK.

Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives. — mcdoodle

Anywhere near Rotherham?

... circumcision for men. — TimeLine

This is just tragic.

The rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. You being an apologist and expert must be aware of this.

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."

Plenty of other references to circumcision for women both explicitly and implicitly.

But of course according to you, being an apologist, the hadith don't really exist. But then again, you are in denial!

Sudan? What a joke!

There is no the hadith. There are a number of different hadiths. I implore you to speak only when you know what you are talking about. — TimeLine

FGM is mandated in the Hadith. It's one of the fitra, and is referred to in many places across several books, most notable Sahi Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

It is called the spread of stupidity. Not an uncommon thing in human beings. Still got nothing to do with Islam though. — TimeLine

Sure, nothing is to do with Islam, even if it is mandated in the Hadith.

Food for thought. How do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews treat co-religionists who leave their religion? — Frederick KOH

Speaking as an atheist, no one seems to care, though there are 13 countries in which I would be murdered by the state for declaring atheism.

It isn't Islam, but there are certainly cultural attitudes amongst certain Islamic communities that are violent. Think of Sudanese Muslims circumcising women; it is not a practice by all Muslims, — TimeLine

According to UNICEF 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have suffered FGM.

According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.

According to UNICEF 44,000,000 of those are girls under the age of 14.

According to UNICEF of the of the countries who mutilate girls under 14, the highest prevalence is in Gambia and Mauritania.

According to UNICEF about 50% of girls under 11 have been mutilated in Indonesia.

According to UNICEF Countries with the highest prevalence among girls and women aged 15 to 49 are Somalia 98%, Guinea 97% and Djibouti 93%.

In most of the countries the majority of girls were cut before reaching their fifth birthdays.

But yes, as you say, child mutilation also occurs in Sudan.

https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf

What is important is that there are, on average, far lower levels of drinking in Muslim countries, and hence lower levels of violence. I felt much safer walking back streets in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey than I would in many neighbourhoods of the urban USA. — andrewk

The conceit! The narcissism!

Next time you take a quiet stroll round the back streets of Pakistan or Iran, while deluding yourself that because no one is enjoying a glass of wine with their pork casserole, you must be safer than in urban USA, please spare a thought for the victims of Islamic violence. It's not all about you.

Or perhaps you simply prefer to ignore the institutionalized violence of these countries. The death to apostates, the death to atheists, the death to bloggers and tweeters. The public beheadings and beatings are easily avoided I suppose, just don't follow the crowd.

The denigration of women is also easily ignored: the honour killings, the acid attacks, the beatings for wearing the hijab in not-quite-the-right way. The women would certainly be punished or worse for talking to you alone.

Something tells me that a large chunk of these inmates "convert" to "Islam" while in a high security prison because it affords you gang like protection. I'm not exactly sure what about Islam makes it work well as the basis for a prison gang culture, but I guess it does. — VagabondSpectre

Islam divides the world in two: dar-al-harb (House of War), and dar-al-Islam. It is the duty of all Muslims to wage war against the infidel.

There are also instructions on how to treat atheists(polytheists) and Jews or Christians. The atheists must be killed, but the "people of the book" can accept subjugation if they pay protection money.

You basically have violent gang rules encoded in a holy text.

According to some Muslims, committing suicide and killing innocent people are both sins per the Qu'ran. — VagabondSpectre

They are lying to you. There is an Islamic principle for lying to kufar, it's is called Taqiyya.

Quran (3:169-170) - "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve."

All Muslims spend time in hell. Prophets and Martyrs go straight to heaven, which for Muslims is basically a brothel.

That's in interesting perspective considering how much attention is given to the most extreme and shocking violent events and groups of the Islamic world; ways in which Islam could be better at preventing violence seem to be least on people's minds — VagabondSpectre

In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons.

And let's not forget, there is only one way to guarantee paradise according to Islam.

No excuses for you free-thinking heathens now:

"Automating Godel’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence ¨
with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers"
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf — Frederick KOH

My goodness, something actually interesting! (and challenging!)

"Modal collapse" is intriguing.

Why can't moral relativism be applied to an advanced civilisation? — Javants

Because they will be objectively advanced as a civilization.

What evidence do you have to suppose that it must be immoral to simulate our reality? — Javants

Human suffering is objective and real.

We can have no possible understanding of the society which simulated our own, or how similar ours is to then, and thus, we can make no assumption of what can be considered 'moral' or 'immoral' by their standards, only our own. — Javants

They will be our descendants. Morality is objective.

You're connecting scientific development with developing a 'pure' morality. What basis do you make this on? Science does not necessarily progress only when certain moral principles are made in society. — Javants

Science is only possible in the presence of certain values: integrity, honesty, commitment to the truth, openness to criticism and change.

This is the exact attitude an advanced civilization may have re us and our reality. — TheMadFool

It's not an attitude, it is a feature of reality.

What is there to suggest that moral relativism could not apply to other advanced civilisations? You're arguing that it is immoral, but it is only immoral from our perspective. It could be viewed in a completely different light in that civilisation. — Javants

Moral relativism cannot apply to an advanced civilization.

What are the scientific achievements of those cannibals by the way? Any top universities in their culture?

It's not an exaggeration to think that we may be to a sufficiently advanced civilization what animals are to us. We ignore the ability of animals to suffer and may be treated likewise by an advanced race of people. — TheMadFool

Animals don't have qualia, simulate them as much as you like.

Well, to draw from our experience - animal experimentation - I don't think advanced civilizations will have any qualms about conducting tests that, perhaps, serve a greater good.

Also, look at the videogame market. It's mostly got to do with killing virtual people who have no legal standing whatsoever. — TheMadFool

So you think a civilization advanced enough to perform a vast number of computer simulations containing us, our universe, and our qualia, will perform animal testing and play crappy C21 computer games?

That's a dim view of our reality. Do you think morality would have progressed in proportion to technology. Looking at the way things are technology is far far ahead of morality and there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case for all civilizations. — TheMadFool

There can't be scientific progress in the absence of certain values. In order to survive and become advanced, a civilization would require an advanced morality, culture, and probably aesthetics.

Would such people be willing to bring the suffering of humanity back into existence once?

However, option 2 seems reasonably easy to deal with. We need only observe our own behavior. With existing computing power we have created many simulations - just look at the PC game market. Therefore, it's not a long shot to say advanced civilizations will behave in a similar way and create simulations. — TheMadFool

An advanced civilization would not simulate this reality because it would be utterly immoral to do so.

Still, whether or not Humans created the idea of a God or not does not detract from these scenarios, as even if God is a human construction, other explanations for our creation and the existence of other beings (such as those above) are still relevant. — Javants

Probability calculus cannot be applied to explanations:

Take for example the explanation of why the sun shines - that the pressure in the interior of the sun is such that hydrogen (created after the big-bang) nuclei fuse to give helium nuclei and some photons etc. Call this explanation T - it is after all a theory!

Then, in order to apply probability calculus, the following relation must hold:

P(T) = 1 -P('T)

The problem becomes immediately obvious - what is 'T? Whatever it is, it is not an explanation (or a theory), it is not the same sort of thing as T.

So, you can waste your time pretending that applying probability to the existence or otherwise of imaginary beings from your particular culture has any meaning, but once you claim that "God" supplies any sort of explanation, you can't do it anymore.

It is revealing that probability games are often applied to "God", as if more evidence were needed that it is an empty concept.

So, theoretical probability of a head = 1 ÷ 2 = 50% — TheMadFool

Unless the coin, or some aspect of its flipping, is biased.

Again, I understand this, but you are just asserting conceptual atomism rather than arguing for it. — Luke

It is however mildly ironic that the atomic concept of an atom isn't atomic any more.

I'm still intrigued whether there is a set of atomic concepts or not.