he was also a hypocrite and did not apply his objective methods to his theology.
He was indeed one of the first true scientists in the tradition of Greek science. But, he did not apply scientific reasoning or methods to theology for the simple reason that religion is not the proper subject of science. Nothing of theology is testable in any sense.
"Alhazen's Treatise on the Influence of Melodies on the Souls of Animals was the earliest treatise dealing with the effects of music on animals."
When the term souls of animals is used here, today we refer to animal behavior. Melodic and soothing music is still provided to Grade A dairy milking rooms.
Nothing of theology is testable in any sense. [Post #71]
That looks like some serious waffling to me.
For one thing, if revelation is real then the events impinged on material bodies so would seem amenable or susceptible to observation and test. Although, curiously, Ibn Warraq asked why it is that every time some “visitation” happens it always happens to a lone individual. If God really wanted the biggest bang for the buck you’d think he would have gathered a crowd to begin with – even thrown in a few well known and reputable historians.
And, for another, if it is not testable then why should the rest of society give any credence or support to any claims for special status based on what can then only be called fictions if not outright delusions? If I told you that I had a bridge to sell you would probably ask for some proof that that was the case. Why should it be any different for claims for reduced or no taxation? Or insistence on the right to miseducate if not indoctrinate impressionable young, and not so young, children? Or for claims to the moral high ground on such issues as abortion and stem-cell research?
are you saying that humans have them but other animals don't?
No, I'm saying that al-?asan, or anyone, can't test the spiritual world, In his treatise on animals he was providing a scientific analysis of animal behavior not and treatise on theology. The title only past the Islamic sensors.
I also say that, I don't know what life is, what makes it work, what allows it to animate meat. I don't know what that certain spark is that makes single cells or the beasts of this planet live. Perhaps you need to read Mary Shelly and ponder what science, philosophy, and theology are.
a glutton for life and keep living for infinity
To consider anything else is suicide. As Joseph Cambell said, (para) '...in all cases, we live forever. ...' . As far as the sentient person believes, they live forever.
knowledge that has been amassed since then
The reasons behind, and her analysis of the result is still as viable as it was in the late 19th century. You should read the story. The monster and Victor had discussions lasting the whole night on the meaning of life, the soul, and death.
false gods of the past
A principle fairy-tail from the monotheists is that ancient societies worshiped many gods. Perish that thought; they worshiped aspects of a singular god as they observed in nature.
A principle fairy-tail from the monotheists is that ancient societies worshiped many gods. Perish that thought; they worshiped aspects of a singular god as they observed in nature. [Post #82]
Seems to me that that is presuming the existence of some singular god that is lurking, in amongst the smoke and mirrors, behind all of those supposedly separate manifestations. Seems that is the point in dispute and is a perfect example of begging the question.
About all that can reasonably be said with any degree of certainty is that it is plausible that all of those different gods were only the projections of the common perceptions of diverse groups of humans who shared a common history.
singular god that is lurking
Go ahead, find one set of gods where that singular god doesn't lurk behind: Greek, Roman, Hindu, Celt. I'm not the only one who has seen this.
- I talk as if the thing were born With sense to work its mind; Yet it is but one mask of many worn By the Great Face behind.
Thomas Hardy - The Last Chrysanthemum
Go ahead; find one set of gods where that singular god doesn't lurk behind: Greek, Roman, Hindu, Celt. I'm not the only one who has seen this. [Post #87]
Nice poem; I like it. But that is still only postulating the existence of some singular coherent entity behind all of those supposed manifestations of it and on par with our own individual senses of self and exhibiting the same set of attributes. Far more plausible to argue that they are each projections of the human observers – reflections in a mirror. You might want to take a look at this paper – courtesy of the gonz – on The Human Function Compunction.
While I have some reservations about their argument – notably related to the fact that, as Ernst Mayer observed in his Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, “Intentional, purposeful human behaviour is, almost by definition, teleological”, I think it is essentially correct that we see or ascribe purpose or intention in various natural phenomena, not all cases of which are appropriate or justified: we all generally assume that other people have the same or similar experiences of consciousness as we do even if it is quite possible, logically speaking anyway, that “I’m the only living boy in New York” ….
Although I’ll concede or argue that it is quite possible that consciousness is a ubiquitous phenomenon. In addition I think it is quite possibly manifested over a very wide physical and biological scale, if not "all the way down", and it may even give some support to the concept of panentheism – which I see is or was one thread that ran through Catholicism. But a decidedly moot point I think.