Mustafa Akyol presents the 2011 Lou Church Memorial Lecture in Religion and Economics:
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15998/the-commercial-heritage-and-contribution-of-islam-mustafa-akyol/
The Commercial Heritage and Contribution of Islam
Previous post: That didn’t take long (Broken Window Fallacy alert)
Next post: Bow Ties Are Banned In Bahrain: No Bourbon For Breakfast!
{ 30 comments }
There are so many things incredibly wrong with this presentation, I was initially tempted to list them out, but figured if I did, it would make a boring comment that no one would be inclined to read.
Then I figured out what I needed to do. Find a framework to categorize what he said, so that we can understand why he said it. I found it, so I share it with anyone who care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOFyVFjo5ak
I thought of adding my thoughts to the discussion here. So I have dutifully added some verbiage. If you can read my mind, you know what I was thinking when I read your comment.
Abhilash, this is the Lou Church lecture. It’s a lecture on religion and economics, and not validation of any particular religious ideology.
The purpose of the lecture is to discuss the influences of religion on economics and economics on religion.
It has got to do with the way religion works – “Our world view is perfect, every other is wrong.” In this case they have to appeal to the libertarian idea of perfection. So here is where religious scholars can show that is the case, by presenting a less than honest view of their faith. It is their window. Mustafa Akyol does just that. I would expect any religious scholar of any religion to do just that.
The simple fact is, there can be no unbiased open discussion of any religion that people are still taking seriously and practicing. Even Murray Rothbard who can speak on the influences of Christianity on economics did not or could not speak about the influence of Judaism. And he was at the least an agnostic maybe even an atheist.
Which means, even when wearing secular clothes and discussing things in a secular set up, the practitioners of their faith wants to show it to be perfect and the opponents wants to expose its flaws and thereby hope to demean it. And then there are those opportunities who hope to use the chance to promote their own brand of the faith.
In short, I do not consider these lectures to have much scholarly significance unless one is talking about religions that are no longer practiced. Like the religion of the Ancient Romans, Greek, Egyptians, the Arab Pagans, the Mayans and so on.
All of that is irrelevant to what I wrote.
I’m not a theist, but I enjoy the Lou Church lecture each year because it offers enormous insight into economic and social development in different cultures.
I have noticed that none of your criticisms of this lecture actually talk about the lecture. You seem to be attacking it only because it is about Islam, which as I have addressed already, is the purpose of the lecture. Not to ignore Islam and economics, but to discuss the relation of the two.
Like it or not, Islam exists. It is reactionary to ignore the economic consequences and economic development of a philosophical belief held by one quarter of the world’s population.
Consider the fact that what you are being offered are not insights but distortions. I have already explained why. I have also explained why I chose not to address the content of the lecture itself.
Then you’re just trolling bro.
Really, I have. It is all written.
The Acts17Apologetics Youtube channel is run by Christians, I find it to have the most reasonable criticisms against Islam I have ever seen.
The Bad Fruits Of Economics And Religion.
Those who criticize Islam forget that ego-driven interpretation is a destructive force just like ego-driven interventionism is a destructive force. Why are there not the good fruits of Islam prominent everywhere is the same question as “Why are there not the good fruits of laissez-faire prominent everywhere?”
So just as economists who know that the gems of laissez-faire can be discovered despite ego-driven interventionism so too can they also find the gems of Islam despite the destructiveness of ego-driven interpretation.
Of course if the exploration is preceded by indoctrination in neoclassical positivism or Keynesian nonsense then it may be well nigh impossible for that economist to discover the merits of laissez-faire. Likewise if the economist who tries to explore the merits of Islam begins under the indoctrination that has been foisted upon most of us by the ego-driven interpretations of the opponents of Islam then that pursuit will end in rejection also.
One of the great similarities between religion and economics is that both have been attacked and perverted by the ego-driven. Our job it to understand this and not to be fooled by these foolish ones.
Ego-driven appears to be just a place holder for people you want to demonize. Ideologies being attacked does not make the content of the attacked ideologies similar. To understand what is being attacked and why it is being attacked requires understanding. As for the ‘good fruits’ like a wise man once said, ‘Even the broken clock is right twice a day.’
You really, really should read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer.
You might be interested in reading a very fascinating and lucid description of Islam. Its a book titled The Vision of Islam by William Chittick and Sachiko Murata.
You can read some of the reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Visions-Reality-Understanding-Religions/product-reviews/1557785163/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
“Ego-driven appears to be just a place holder”
What you don’t understand may appear the way you want it to.
Or, it may appear that way to me, because I understand. Let us have my full quote
“Ego-driven appears to be just a place holder for people you want to demonize. “
Since you understand I am sure that you would be willing to give the definition of ‘ego-driven’ that you are using (to substantiate your claim that you understand).
I already told you how I think the word ‘ego-driven’ is being used by you. So I won’t repeat it. As for my proof..it comes from the way you act. You disagree with me and now you are trying to demonize me, it is very consistent with my understanding of your use of the word ‘ego-driven’.
What you are doing now is a very simple trick. You challenge me to make you understand, giving you complete control of the situation. You can keep telling that you did not understand, no matter what I say and then claim the reason is because I did not explain well to begin with.
There is no demonization and no one is trying to trick you. Ask those who know you if you are showing signs of paranoid tendencies.
Apparently your stance is “I already told you how I think the word ‘ego-driven’ is being used by you.” This is an incorrect understanding of what I refer to when using “ego-driven” and so I regard your opinion about my comment as baseless.
You reacted exactly as I anticipated. Extreme self-righteousness, no substance. Moving on.
Abilhash
Off topic for a moment:
“What you are doing now is a very simple trick. You challenge me to make you understand, giving you complete control of the situation.”
I gather you are unaware that you employ exactly that device yourself… (see previous threads).
—–
Returning to the topic again, please elaborate what you do mean by the term “ego driven”. I think I understand what Bruce is referring to. If you were to provide a definition of what you mean by the term, then the debate (between you and Bruce) would easier to follow and understand. Your point would be easier to grasp.
Sione
And I gather you can make any claim about previous threads especially since you do not go into details.
Again I am not here and convince you are Bruce in particular. In fact you two represent the type of people that I am going out of my way to not try and convince. Especially you.
You put on a front of reasonableness but I know from experience the kind of game you play. The meaning I deduced form the way Bruce used the word ‘ego-drive’ is plainly written. So the dishonesty in asking me to explain myself is plainly evident.
How I use feedback from people like you is not by trying to convince you about the validity of my claim. Rather, the proper reaction from you is used as a test to verify the validity of my claim.
You have reacted as I expected. No surprises here.
Abhilash
I’m not making some arbitrary claim about previous threads, I am making you specifically aware that you employed exactly the device you are here accusing Bruce of using- that is, attempting to force other people do your homework instead of you doing it for yourself. You actually employed it in response to a critique I raised about your behaviour recently.
No doubt you remember that. It wasn’t very long ago that it was explained to you that you fail to consider the points other people raise and instead restate position statements again and again and again and again. You ended up making a petulent demand that I review the entire thread (which was a long one of dozens of entries) and provide you with an list of all the times you’d ignored what other people had raised for consideration. That is, instead of you rereading your exchanges with everyone else, in order to comprehend what you had been doing, you preferred to demand I do it all for you. That is, you demanded I undertake your homework. No doubt after all that homework was produced you’d have arbitraily denied the whole of it. Again, this is exactly what you accuse Bruce of doing.
Think on it this time.
You write, ” Again I am not here and convince you are Bruce in particular.”
Then why post to me? Fact is you are indeed attempting to convince me of the correctness of your position. You are also trying to convince yourself. The trouble is that you are utterly unconvincing. It’s because you do not address the fundamental issues when challenged in debate or even when merely asked for clarification.
You write, “You put on a front of reasonableness but I know from experience the kind of game you play etc”
You are projecting what you consider your own failings onto others. Your “experience” is that of your own behaviour towards others.
Anyway, there is nothing preventing you from dealing with my (and other people’s) challenges and questions in a reasonable manner- so make a start. No need to evade and wriggle twist and turn and dissemble and the like. Just be reasonable enough to directly address the specific questions and points put to you for your consideration. It’d save a lot of effort and anguish on your part.
You write, “So the dishonesty in asking me to explain myself is plainly evident.”
This is merely a vague attempt to wriggle a half-arsed justification for your inability to explain yourself. The dishonesty lies with you for the refusal and for the smearing.
And this, “How I use feedback from people like you is not by trying to convince you about the validity of my claim. Rather, the proper reaction from you is used as a test to verify the validity of my claim.”
Here, again, you are only trying to convince yourself. The trouble is that your approach is not convincing- even to you.
–
After reading what you’d contributed to the Ghandi thread I’d thought you were far more intelligent than what you’ve demonstrated since. Pity.
Sione
For the record. Just for the record.
Consider then, if you can, that ignoring what you wrote my actually be me trying to use my time intelligently.
To state Wildberry from the previous thread
It is after all easier to accuse people of ignoring points that you have made rather than to actually make any points. You are remarkably good at it.
If you want me to address you need to re-establish your credibility with me. Right now I have no confidence in you and what you say.
“Consider then, if you can, that ignoring what you wrote my actually be me trying to use my time intelligently.”
You see, that there is another example of you doing exactly what you like to pretend you don’t. You frequently resort to this sort of thing. When a contribution moderates or rebuts you, you pretend it doesn’t exist. Go take a look at the Higgs thread for examples. Yours are not the habits of an intelligent adult.
It is long past time to stop playing the fibber. Take a good long look at what you have been doing. Think on it this time.
Sione
I expected no better from Sione and I got no better from Sione. You be the moderate then.
Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Do not feed the trolls.
You agreed with me on a previous thread, but label me a troll on this one? Nice. I seem to have irritated a lot of people by exposing Higgs misquote Lincoln. That is a relief.
I agreed with you on a previous thread because you made an assertion and provided evidence of that assertion which I found persuasive. Here you have disagreed with everyone and attacked everyone, even those who have tried to engage you. And, frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Higgs. I didn’t even remember that was you until you brought that up.
You’re trolling. It doesn’t mean you are wrong. It just means you’re trolling. And, in case you’re wondering, a troll is “someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Wow. You have actually appealed to my sense of fairness and I find myself agreeing with you somewhat. Inflammatory maybe. Extraneous or off-topic, probably not.
The fact is you cannot in fairness judge what is being said without also judging the person who said it and the reasons they said it. Mises tried just that. He tried to judge what was being said without being judgmental of the person who said it and speculating on their reasons for it. And what happened? He never held an official position. His work got buried, unknown and almost lost to posterity until now.
My time (and yours) is a scarce commodity. It has to be used well. I understood that I could not have any quality interaction with Sione or Bruce. So I stopped trying. How I know it is no mystery either. It is a conclusion from past interactions.
Now I know this can be used as an excuse to avoid interactions, as people will. In fact for all others know about me, I could be doing the same thing. And despite my best efforts, my sense of judgement is not flawless.
What we are coming to here unfortunately is the limits to which interaction can be used to resolve differences and enhance understanding.
Anyway once, you explained to me why you called me a troll, my sense of being offended vanished. Even though I did not fully agree with your reasons, I could recognize your sincerity.
Watched this last night btw. Was familiar with the speakers other work, and wasn’t sure how good it would be, but it was fantastic. As entertaining as the speakers from the last two years but in a more serious and scholarly way.
Comments on this entry are closed.