UKC

Congratulations to Mr Khan on (almost ) becoming Mayor of London. A nasty spiteful campaign by the Tories backfired.

I saw Zac Goldsmith on the news earlier tonight. He was caught out by a journalist who asked him what was his favourite Bollywood film after he claimed he was a big fan of the Indian film industry. He looked like a right twit.

In reply to Gone for good:

Here here

In reply to Gone for good:


Generally an awful election strategy by Goldsmiths team, he looked awkward throughout the campaign. He has been my MP for the last five or so years and I have met the guy several times and he is actually a very nice affable bloke and the dirty tricks campaign that was apparently foisted upon him does not suit his character or style at all. That said if he did not have the balls to tell Central Office to go f*ck themselves when presented with their election strategy he probably does not deserve to mayor.

In reply to Gone for good:

From Zac's sister:
https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

That must sting.

In reply to Gone for good:

As a non Londoner, I know I should say that this is more metropolitan irrelevance, but I'm genuinely pleased that London could make this decision and that for once the hoary old "dog whistle" tactics inspired by Lynton Crosby (wait, that's sir Lynton Crosby) have backfired so comprehensively

In reply to toad:

Might as well call him Lord Crosby of Oz – Lord Crozby? – now and be done with it.

In reply to toad:

I think it's disgusting that he's got a knighthood. Odious shit that he is.

In reply to Trevers:

Take a look at @Jemima_Khan's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/728650886050922496?s=09

Presumably being a nice affable independently minded bloke....if only he wasn't a non dom, with a crypto fascist father and a member of the nasty party. That good looking environmentalism and covert rascist shtick goes down well in Wimbledon and Mumsnet Land.

D

In reply

Can the thread get back to congratulating Mr Khan, hopefully a pivotal moment not just for him but for UK politics in general. A fair campaign and fought hard.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

I was surprised to find so many headlines refering to him being the first Muslim mayor. I voted for him but his religion never crossed my mind, I just wanted a Labour mayor.

In reply to Dauphin:



Zac Goldsmith epitomises everything that's wrong with the conservative party. They couldn't have found a more repellant individual for a candidate.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I didn't pay too much attention to the campaign (as I didn't have a vote) and have voted for all the major parties along with the Green party and numerous independents (never UKIP though).

Why did you just want a Labour mayor?

In reply to Ridge:


In what way? Bland yes but doesnt come across as repellant. Unless you mean the overall campaign strategy which I dont think he was responsible for.

In reply to KevinD:

No, he was responsible for the campaign being the figurehead of all that work and money and quite happy to take thr job had he won and errr oh yeah what's this - being a grown man.

Let's see him stand up and tell everyone how he wasn't responsible for it and disavows himself from the rascist bigoted smears, which he spoke through his own grown man beak.

D

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I noticed that the author of The Reluctant Fundamentalist sounded pleased that as a mayor or London, he can be a prominent example of a modern western Muslim type of person who is more progressive with being in favour of same sex marriages and things, to help disprove the viewpoint of Muslims being one homogeneous mass of people who all think and live in the same ways - as he put it when talking about him.

In reply to Gone for good:

Well done Sadiq Khan! A well fought campaign.

I no longer live in London but I can't help thinking that the son of a bus driver may have slightly more in common with the aspirations of 9million Londoners than yet another old Etonian.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


...and some of the odious shits in the Labour Party have even been given peerages

In reply to Dauphin:
I wonder whether the general kicking Goldsmith has received over this will now facilitate the expansion of Heathrow, to which of course he is implacably opposed. He's definitely not the force he was two days ago.

In reply to KevinD:
If he is not responsible for his campaign how can he be fit for the responsibly of being mayor.

In reply to Gone for good:
Sajid Javid Tory MP and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

@SadiqKhan from one son of a Pakistani bus driver to another, congratulations

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/728677799356211200

That's a good tweet.

In reply to Gone for good:

Great for Sadiq

But do the Conservatives still not learn from they mistakes, a shit campaign, and even now they can't answer a simple question ??? FFS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36235427


A shameful example of the scum in charge of our country.

In reply to elsewhere:


Never said he was. Blaming him for the dirty campaign though lets others off the hook.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I take it we're agreed that odious shits shouldn't be given honours?

In reply to elsewhere:

Sort of borrowed from a rather good joke of Khan's.

You wait for an age for prominent son of a Pakistani Bus Driver, then two come along at once!

In reply to Gone for good:


but London votes Labour, so not likely any campaign was likely to get Zac Goldsmith in, it needed an anomaly like Boris ?

In reply to KevinD:


Yes, I wish some of the people criticising him now had been more vocal a week ago

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

But a few of the Labour odious shits that have been honoured have been pretty hypocritical about it.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I see. I'm anti-odious shits and you're pro-Tory odious shits but anti-Labour odious shits.

In reply to krikoman:


Politics 101 - never, ever answer a question that you (a) don't want to answer and (b) haven't been told how to answer by your handlers.

In reply to Timmd:

The sad thing is we now have religion as key aspect of getting elected. After centuries of effort removing it, it js now an imortant factor again, unfortunately.

In reply to pneame:

Problem with that is its led to the present situation with Farage and in the U.S. Trump being held up as a paragon of straight talking. PMQ's is going to be fascinating to watch this week.

D

In reply to MG:
Where, in which country or capital city? Khan is a cultural Muslim not a religious one. Unholy f*ck. Can I just add I'm pretty ambivalent about a Labour major and Khan himself I couldn't care less about, hardly the protean go getter and shit kicker that was Livingstone, who had to let back into the labour party. Give him a chance though...

D

In reply to MG:

I'm not sure his religion is why he was elected. He has alienated a lot of conservative (note the small c) Muslims by standing up for gay rights and questioning why women wear hijab in London now when they didn't during his childhood.

I think its more of a class thing, council estate boy done well vs yet another Eton type politician who wouldn't know what it is like for the average Londoner.

In reply to Dauphin:


I don't think that's correct - He attends a mosque. But regardless, we now have religious groups celebrating having "their" man in and politics are discussed in terms of religious grouping. It's deeply unhealthy in my view.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/07/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-bri...

In reply to Dauphin:

To add, Ive nothing particularly against Kahn. It's the change I dislike. Tony Blair by contrast went out of his way to avoid religion (until he didn't, and went off the rails)

In reply to MG:

Did Khan make a big thing about his religion? I thought it was rather more the other side dog whistling.

In reply to toad:


But he might have won and so it would have been all ok. Its ok to be a wanker so long as you finish first.

In reply to KevinD:

Yes, it was both sides.

In reply to MG:


Examples. Since I didnt see anything significant from him which wasnt in response to the tory attacks.

In reply to marsbar:


I find that.sort of thinking troubing too, really. It should be the best person for the job who is elected, not determined by background. No one, of any background, will have direct experience of the livestyles of more than a fraction of the electorate, so background is irrelevant, or should be.

In reply to KevinD:

Try Google

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/02/a-muslim-mayor-of-london-wo...

In reply to MG:

SO 'best person for the job' based on nothing?
Looks?
Clubbable character?
Or net worth statement?

I'm pretty sure working class immigrant (muslim if you must) human rights lawyer trumps silver spoon trust fund tosspot who never did a days work in his life apart from swaddle himself with fake environmentalism and write fanzines. Buts thats just the way I look at things.

(Im sure Zac is a lovely normal affable bloke, they normally are.)

D

In reply to Dauphin:


Perhaps policies and abilities at.leadership? Just a thought... Still, you vote based on some chip.on your shoulder if you prefer.

In reply to MG:

Once we get past the headline the comment about being a muslim is down the bottom of the list and he then goes on to comment about being judged as just a muslim as opposed to everything else.
So really not an example of it being a key part of his campaign.

In reply to KevinD:

“The idea that the mayor of London could be son of an immigrant, son of a bus driver, ethnic minority – and by the way, of Islamic faith – would speak volumes, "

That sort of stuff is new and I don't like it. Putting ones religion forward as a reason to vote form you is inherently divisive.

In reply to MG:


I wouldnt be a fan but having it down the bottom of the list really doesnt strike me as being a key part of his strategy. Particularly since the interview was at the time of a terrorist attack.
So, do you have any more examples of it being a key part of his strategy?

In reply to MG:

When the public are presented with anything so much utilitarian as a policy at an election its normally used to wipe the arse of the winning candidate. Everyone of those 1%er's involved in british politics doing it for public service, for the good of the nation. Fairy stories.

Chippy as fook luver.

D

In reply to MG:
What about if the candidate were Jewish playing for the Jewish vote? Would you feel uncomfortable with that?

They all do it, there's a not unsubstantial ticket in playing to cultural, ethnic and religious strands in society. Cameron's recent platitudes about this being a Christian nation. Instant Kunt status in my book, but i'm not the personality and ideological vacuum trying to get elected.

D

In reply to MG:

To my thinking it shows that to have made it to University from a rough comprehensive in South London he is probably a fighter and a grafter and pretty intelligent as well.

I am sure I can be forgiven for assuming
that kids at Eton assume that going to university is their next step and that tutors will get them there somehow. It doesn't have the same appeal to me (and other voters it seems) or the same feeling that this person will fight for social justice.

In reply to Dauphin:

Cameron also sent letters to non Muslim British Indians suggesting that they should vote for Goldsmith. No actual mention of don't vote for the Pakistani but certainly quite an uncomfortable elephant in the room.

In reply to MG:


Surely the result suggests it's not important?

In reply to Dauphin:


Yes, and they don't all do it. In fact it is rare (Ruth Kelly?), unlike in say the US.

In reply MG


You've got this completely the wrong way round.
Khan's point is that it's great that in a predominantly non Muslim country a Muslim can get elected. That's not divisive. It's Zac wot done the devise religious stuff.

Quite astonishing right wing bias even for you. Pretty scummy behaviour.

In reply to marsbar:

Sorry, I think that is just prejudice. Would you say people from a poor background have no interest in business and therefore can't be trusted with the ecomony too?

In reply to Donald82:



That wasn't his point - read the quote. It's also not a left right thing eithrr the Tories were going at Kahn hammer and tongs, in case you have missed that. And drop to the pathetic abuse.

In reply to MG:

I thought religion only really became a part of things because attempts were made to link him to extremists?

In reply to MG:

this quote?

“The idea that the mayor of London could be son of an immigrant, son of a bus driver, ethnic minority – and by the way, of Islamic faith – would speak volumes, "

In reply to Gone for good:

The better candidate won, well done Mr Khan.

In reply to Big Ger:


Agree entirely; very heartened to see a party "doing a Trump" does not mean winning elections in London. Whilst Zac was no DT, a lot of the noise around him was very reminiscent, albeit at a less odious and direct level.

b

In reply to MG:


To be fair, Blair was fairly upfront about being a Christian, he waited until he was no longer PM before he declared his conversion, to what in political terms was the wrong sort of Christianity.

In reply to MG:

The fact that someone who isn't white anglosaxon and Protestant is elected to a significant political position is big news, is rather sad. The fact that the person being elected is being blamed for it being news is utterly bizarre.

In reply to Gone for good:

youtube.com/watch?v=hX9E44mClKs&
I love her!

In reply to Gone for good:

youtube.com/watch?v=hX9E44mClKs&
I love her!

In reply to Gone for good:

youtube.com/watch?v=hX9E44mClKs&
I love her!

In reply to Dave the Rave:

You've got the wrong Khan mate

youtube.com/watch?v=NpotliFjpg0&

In reply to Ridge:


Oh, they could. Easily. My God, have you seen the state of them?

jcm

In reply to MG:

You call it prejudice, I call it statistics.

As for running the economy I would want someone with a good grasp of mathematics as well as business.

Alan Sugar seems to have a good grasp of business for someone from a "poor" background. I expect there are others.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He seems quite in to the environment. I'm sure there are many worse than him. Stupid of him to let them play such a nasty campaign.

In reply to marsbar:


Yup and thats why I am dubious about all the blame being heaped on Goldsmith. He was useless but I honestly dont think he was to blame for the nastiness of the campaign.

In reply to KevinD:

That matches what his sister said too. It still makes me think he isn't the best person to be mayor, he isn't actually in charge and would be too much of a puppet of his advisors.

In reply to Big Ger:

No that Khan is Zac Goldsmith's ex brother in law.

In reply to The New NickB:


Compared to where? Pakistan? France?

D

In reply to Gone for good:

2 rising stars in politics -Khan and Ruth Davison. Interesting to watch !

In reply to neilh:

Not really. They are both centre ground politicians. They have easy appeal, even Daily Mail subscribing UKIP voters would have a problem saying whats wrong with them, middle class and boring to a tee. Give them a change though. You'd have thought the conservatives won the election in Scotland from the BBC's coverage.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I would hardly describe Khan as middle class. Considering davidsons partner I would hardly put her in a traditional middle class perspective .

To me both reflect the good side of uk .

In reply to marsbar:



Well I agree, which is why it puzzles me.you don't apply the same thinking to other areas. There is in fact a long tradition of some old Etonians being very socially.minded, E.g. Orwell and Dalyell.

In reply to MG:
I was explaining the thinking of the electorate not just me.

As it happens I'm a big fan of the current Eton headmaster and pleased that rightly or wrongly, he is listened to because of his position, whereas other headteachers may not be.

Edit, I meant the one who just left - don't know about the current one.

In reply to neilh:


I get where you're coming from but he strikes me as the very epitome of middle class. I have to admit I haven't looked deeply into his family history but I 'd be gobsmacked if a study didn't reveal that he's only the son of a bus driver because his family moved over here with no recognised qualifications and the "wrong" colour skin so their career options were severely limited. However, they instilled in their children a determination to study hard and achieve qualifications in order to get on in the world. And until now he's a human rights lawyer, How much more middle class can you get?

In reply to BnB:
So what do you want. Somebody who is a second generation immigrant who is a bricklayer. Does that tick your box?

In reply to BnB:

The desire to work hard and get your kids educated used to be a working class thing, up to the point where working class became the new name for the non working class.

He is middle class with working class roots if that description fits better.

In reply to neilh:

You said he wasn't middle class and I disagree. And I should know, I'm a second generation immigrant arriviste myself. Whether I would prefer someone else as mayor is irrelevant.

Khan has made a big play of his "lowly" roots during the elction but the trajectory of his career gives the lie to this. Khan isn't proud of being born in a council house, he's proud to have worked his way out if it. And that is a story that plays well in the world of business, which is a big part of what London is about. Good luck to him, and the same to the people of London who I believe have made the right choice.

In reply to BnB:

I don't know if I'm following you? Shouldn't he be proud he worked his way out of a council house? Aspiration is a good thing.

In reply to marsbar:

That's exactly what I said. Using almost exactly those words.

In reply to pneame:


But that's exactly what pissing people off, Fallon seemed to think it was all a bit of fun to be honest, "just the rough and tumble of politics".

Well I think the self serving shit should either have the balls to stick by his statement or admit he was wrong. I know I'm expecting too much and I'm glad the Goldsmith campaign faltered, but I'm pretty much fed up with our f*cked up system and the people who are supposed to represent us. Just think how much better our country would be if they stopped bickering with each other, stopped the lying and to some responsibility.

Things your taught not to do in school basically.

In reply to krikoman:

I don't agree with many of your posts, but have a like for that one.

In reply to Gone for good:

I voted for Sadiq Khan. Hopefully he will be as good a mayor as Ken Livingstone.

In reply to Dauphin:




Don't think he's been a non dom for a while and, whatever his own beliefs, he's not responsible for those of his father (which were, admittedly, pretty odious) .

Anyway, according to your user name, your father believes he has a god-given right to absolute power!

In reply to Gone for good:

Why don't we just reconvene in 12 months time and see how the lad is getting along.

In reply to krikoman:

I hope to be having a tete to tete with Mr Fallon shortly about this as I agree with your viewpoint.

In reply to Dauphin:

I will agree that what David Camerons said was platitudinous, and the position neither clearly nor helpfully stated. As an atheist, I disagree with your opinion of status. What we seem to be forgetting (as a society) is that modern Western European values, founded during the Enlightenment, spring directly from the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. The French philosopher Monique Canto-Sperber in Moral Disquiet and Human Life writes a compelling argument that, in our rush to embrace secularism, we have forgotten or even repudiated these roots and abandoned (or been left without) even the pretence of engaging in moral reflection. I would also suggest that forgetting the roots of our ethics, moral and values system leaves discussion and debate dangerously exposed to cultural and moral relativism. It's easy for us to take for granted the values that enable us to live freely and safely when we've never known what it's like to live otherwise - or for those of us who have never had to risk our lives or security to achieve or defend these values.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Anyway, according to your user name, your father believes he has a god-given right to absolute power!

Its a play with names and meanings of said names. Glad you like it.

D

In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Wrong thread mate. I'm not sure what you are alluding to. You're an atheist? Or me? I doubt that the enlightenment springs entirely from the Judeo-Christian tradition, more likely science, engineering and medicine starts to overtake theology and church philosophy in their practical application and then the games over (the Church). There also would of been plenty of other ideas coming from all over the world. That's what happens in Empires.

The Church still seems to be unable to come to terms with its own feebleness today, edicts on anything, well sorry chaps but you have no moral authority on because the texts you insist on being the word of the almighty are empty of wisdom, filled with bigotry and violence.

Ten Commandments? Golden Rule?

There's plenty of us that engage in moral reflection every day, whether its just 'being there' (Dasein! ) in society. tumultuous life events or through whatever career we practice. The guy you quote is a professional 'Philosopher' so sits around all day thinking very hard about why people make the choices they do without thinking as hard about these choices as himself and his ilk. And then wrings his hands about it. I'm not sure there is anything left but moral and cultural relativism, but since the legal system and moral code of most cultures is typically similar I don't see where the problem is. Laws get modified as cultures evolve and change.

D

In reply to MG:

Kind of like Obama being the first black president and Margaret Thatcher being female. Noting these is not a terrible thing but rather a celebration of successfully knocking down (some) barriers for minority groups. Did you want a white christian instead?

In reply to FreshSlate:

I don't remember Obama campaigning on his blackness, or Thatcher on her gender. No,.I didn't want a white or black or brown person, or Christian or atheist or Muslim, I wanted a good mayor. This may of course have happened, but despite the campaign.

In reply to MG:


It is not about gender in Scotland, we have 4 out of the 6 leaders that are openly gay.
Dugdale; Harvey; Davidson; Coburn , and not forgetting SSS Mundell.
All white though.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

In this country an honour is 'earned' by much dishonour .

In reply to Jim C:


From that post you seem to be confusing gender and sexuality.

In reply to Dauphin:



Of course, I was assuming that it's not because you have a massive forehead with a hole in it!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Was your dad Alf Garnett?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Nice one, could I ask you to kick him in the shins for me?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Are you really Icelandic?

In reply to Moley:
Did he campaign on being a muslim? I'm sure he's mentioned it, how could he not, but has he asked Londoners to vote for him because he's a muslim? Genuinely asking.

In reply to Gone for good:

What a fantastic result in the London Mayoral election! For the son of an immigrant bus-driver with dignity to put up with a foul and disgusting racist campaign from the Tories and win with 57% of the vote is such a brilliant outcome, and also a great tribute to the decency of the London electorate. The Tory campaign which included a picture of Sadiq with a bus blown up by the 7/7 bombers was beneath contempt.
Sadiq Khan is a very sensible middle-of-the-road Labour man who by his own efforts – no inherited money, public school or old boys’ network to help him – has become a high profile human rights lawyer and MP and now holds the Mayoralty of one of the world’s greatest cities. He is clearly a man of principle who is not motivated by money (he wouldn’t be a human-rights lawyer if he were) but by the desire for public service. We need more politicians in his mould (and fewer like self-obsessed and self-serving idiot Johnson).

In reply to Rog Wilko:



Donald Trump obviously agrees with you as he has said that he will make an exception to his 'no Muslims' policy in Mayor Khan's case.

Big, I thought.

In reply to Andy Say:


I think Khan has already made it clear where Trump can stick his exceptions.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I haven't a clue, don't know anything about the bloke nor interest in London politics. I simply get a little tired of continuous speculation on here (though I'm possibly as bad as the rest!), so I thought, let's just wait and see how he does and then criticise or praise in 12 months time.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Nope, they come from the Greeks. Christians often try to take credit for the Enlightenment, but they were actually a repressive and regressive force, not a progressive one:

https://youtu.be/fYzUj0GSPHg?t=1m6s



If you're suggesting that those roots come from God (or religion) then, again, it just ain't so. This has been done to death on UKC before, so I'll not labour the point.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Thanks, Tony, for highlighting what should really be common knowledge. It's sad just how widespread is the ignorance of our cultural, ethical and even scientific-rational roots. And classicism in general. I feel strongly that the basic history of western philosophy, science and culture should be taught in schools.

In reply to FreshSlate:

He said something like "I'm a muslim who isn't afraid to discuss /tackle extremism"

It was not the main focus of his campaign, but given the times we live in it would have been odd if he didn't mention it. London schools are quite edgy after the girls disappeared from Bethnal Green and so called isis have been in the news a lot.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Agreed, in fact I'd go a little further: I think philosophy should be a *mandatory* course in schools, along with maths and English. I'm not suggesting a deep study of Kant and Kierkegaard, but a good grounding in critical thinking and an overview of Greek and European philosophy. 'Critical Thinking' might be a good title for such a course. It would feed into, and make sense of, things like the scientific method, history, religious education, sociology, and literature.

It seems to me that this kind of course is a missing foundational pillar in our education system.

In reply to Tony Naylor and Gordon Stainforth:

Most Greek philosophers were as anti-scientific as they come, however we seem to exclusively remember the exceptions. As you will be aware, many of them paid a high price for challenging the scientific and /or religious dogmata of their time.

I also fully agree that for many years the church did its best/worst to slow down scientific and social progress (despite the scientific efforts of e.g. the Jesuits in particular). However, reformation introduced the idea that every Christian should be able to test any religious decrees against the scripture.

While this initially was intended to strengthen a rigid, literal interpretation of the bible, it also contained the eventually destructive seed that scripture must be interpreted in the first place: Over time, challenging church and scriptural authority based on scriptural arguments evolved to questioning them in general.

European Christianity thus became, unvoluntarily of course, permissive for the enlightment to happen here, rather than in contemporary Islamic societies (which were way ahead scientifically for the few hundred years before but then regressed).

The Christian tradition has thus - for better or worse - shaped our European societies, and it would be wrong to claim we have become what we are now independently of this influence, e.g. via a philosophical tradition that was maintained straight from the Greeks.


CB

In reply to Tony Naylor:


Actually, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm just super-cautious about making any strong statements these days on UKC because typically within minutes the mud has started flying and all hope of a constructive, useful discussion has been lost. A pity.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Dead right!

edit: I think.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


And let's not forget the debt that we all owe to the Islamic world in the fields of mathematics, science, medicine and art. Intellectually they provided the spark for much of the scientific advancement of the enlightenment.

In reply to cb294:



I hesitate to let fly at so obvious a target but, "We enabled the Enlightenment when we stopped burning people for heresy" is not the best argument in the world. It's like the Waffen SS claiming credit for Dutch liberalism by saying, "Hey, we lost the war, so... chalk that one up to us". Christianity lost a war with science.


You're right, of course - it would be wrong to claim that. I hope you noticed that I didn't claim it. I did claim that the influence of the church was overwhelmingly bad, in that it was regressive and oppressive.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Ah, come on, Gordon - ya gotta love the mud

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Not really. A completely separate problem I have is that I am working so hard on a massive book project at the moment that I simply haven't got time to enter into a discussion like this. (Partic. with those who haven't done the spadework. I'd be very happy to discuss this with you any time, but preferably when I'm off work, and preferably in a pub somewhere )

In reply to Andy Say:


An excellent point, and indirectly illustrative of my comments about Christianity in pre-Enlightenment Europe, I think.

The Islamic world made huge strides in the directions you mention - and then it all went horribly wrong. It stopped and then it stagnated. I've heard this at least partially attributed to a very senior imam (whose name escapes me) some thousand odd years ago who declared the manipulation of numbers to be the work of the devil. Religion superceded science and the Islamic world paid the price for that. Even Omar Khayyam, the great poet and polymath, complained about it.

Just found the imam link:

youtube.com/watch?v=WZCuF733p88&

In reply to Tony Naylor:

The point I would like to understand is why the enlightenment happened in Christian societies, not in the Islamic ones that in scientific terms were massively ahead for hundreds of years (and who carried many philosophical Greek texts over the dark ages that were lost or suppressed in monasteries over here). Religious dogma and hierarchy was similarly regressive in both cases.

Clearly, the answer to this question is extremely pertinent for understanding and dealing with political fundamentalist Islam today.

If you don't attribute this difference to blind chance, something must have been responsible, and I think that the protestant idea of sola scriptura was responsible for challenging church authority.

Accepting a need for interpreting scripture eventually meant testing it against all conceivable standards, and from then on the church case was lost. From the fundamentalist protestant view, they must feel that they shot themselves in the foot big time.

This did not happen in Islam to the same degree, making reform movements from within that much harder.

I agree that the intellectual history of our societies should be part of the core curriculum, but in this you will find Christian ideas/concepts/traditions lurking behind every corner, whether you like it or not and regardless of whether they appear good or bad from a modern POV.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Quick answer: it's all to do with European history, pre-dating Christianity. The fact that Christianity became superimposed on it later is secondary. I suppose, though, that you could argue (I'm not in a worked out way, it's just a thought) that the Christian creed (to some extent the 10 commandment, but partic. the two extra Christian ones) is fundamentally rational (and so not necessarily God-given) in a way that earlier religions were not. I.e. so that there was no great quarrel between Enlightment moral philosophy and Christianity at the level of moral precepts. I suppose you could argue that Kant indirectly upheld Christian values, but it would sound distinctly odd, as [result of v quick Google -- can't be arsed/havent got time to take relevant books off shelf/going shopping] 'Kant has long been seen as hostile to faith. Many of his contemporaries, ranging from his students to the Prussian authorities, saw his Critical project as inimical to traditional Christianity.' He had much more in common with Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle.

Regarding your original question: why modern philosophy and early science came out of Greece is more of a riddle. Perhaps at a very simple level we could say that it was at the centre of early civilization at the centre of the ancient world, centred around the 'medi-terranean' sea. Nice climate etc. At a crossroads of that very small 'world' [though one could immediately counter with earlier, eastern civilizations, China, and even the Incas etc etc.]

I suspect Kenneth Clark's wonderful book 'Civilization' would be very good on this. Haven't looked at it for years, but remember it as being exceptionally good/useful. Suspect also a close link with the evolution of language (particularly Greek/Roman] and number/maths [Arabic]

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree that Christianity did not come from nowhere, but was superimposed on - and made use of - a pre-existing, shared cultural background. What mystifies me is that much of that background is shared with Islam, itself a spin-off of Judaism and Christianity in much the same way Christianity arose from Judaism. Again, what makes the two religions, or more precisely the societies shaped by them, differ, so that a region culturally defined by one religion (and I hope we can agree that the society Kant operated in was shaped by Christian cultural and religious tradition) was amenable to enlightenment, while the other, that was initially ahead civilizationally, eventually regressed?

Ockham´s razor would suggest that the difference lies within the religions themselves, but I could happily be convinced otherwise if someone had a good alternative explanation.

Just to make sure, personally I do not believe in the existence of gods, not even as nonpersonal creators, and am convinced that religiosity arises in our brains as an accidental by-product of our evolution: Essentially, the strong selective benefit toward attributing causality (the twig does not snap itself, maybe there is a bear behind the bush, better run right now ...) eventually led to inventing causes for as yet unexplained phenomena (someone must make the clouds release rain...). Also, there may initially have been a selective advantage for groups (contentious, I know) that could enforce social cohesion by invoking a higher authority.

As for the other question, why Europe and not South America, I recommend Jared Diamond´s book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", where he makes a good argument why geography gave budding near eastern civilizations a head start following the end of the last ice age. Why Greece in particular I don´t know, but will definitely have a look at the book you recommended.

CB

In reply to cb294:

'Ockham´s razor would suggest that the difference lies within the religions themselves'

Not too sure about that. Given that both/all religions are equally bonkers, with equal scope for advocating regression and misery, I suspect there are other factors like the ability to create agricultural surpluses etc. Once agriculture got going in the Middles Ages in Europe (partly due to a better climate, partly due to ingenuity, n doubt partly due to luck e.g. the invention of the horse collar), then suddenly there is a much greater capability to support multiple non-manual classes who can think about stuff, invent things and indulge in politics.

In reply to cb294:


I always think of Occam's razor as something to prioritise hypotheses prior to testing, but not something useful in proving them per se.

So it could be that the geographical difference between cultures and other incidents happening at the same time had a big role to play, and the religions are just correlated with that, not the cause. Regardless of what Occam has to say, they're both reasonable hypotheses and you can't really work out the real answer.

That's my personal opinion, I know that from that really long thread a couple of years ago that Coel disagrees with that interpretation!

In reply to climbwhenready:

OR is essentially a rule of thumb, suggesting that when faced with two competing hypotheses, in the absence of additional evidence the simpler one should be preferred.

Simpler in this case means the hypothesis that requires fewer arbitrary parameters, even if the actual formulation of the hypothesis may become technically more difficult. In maths or physics this is often equated with elegance.

In biology, where everything is messy and derived from evolution tinkering with whatever it found, the true answer is often the much less elegant one, limiting the usefulness of OR.

CB