Thread: An Islamic history of Europe - a rarely told story

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

That you know of. Of course they may just have been understandably leery of being labelled skeptics

You provide speculation, I provide evidence. You lose.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Which kinda proves my point. If only they hadn't wasted so much brainpower on superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There's no way to know, of course, but it's likely that hard sciences would have progressed more, had religion not been in the way.

This is a different argument from the one you made before, namely
that Christianity was "inimical" to science. I take it, therefore, that
you recognize your earlier error.

It might interest you to know that I actually agree that science would
have progressed more if Newton, Descartes and others had devoted less
effort to religion, or no effort except perhaps for the harmless ritual of
weekly church attendance.

One thing- you are French? If so you must be aware of the literary stature
of Blaise Pascal's Lettres Provinciales, which I gather are so preeminent
that even Voltaire (a skeptic) said he wished he had written them. I have read
some of the Lettres in translation, and can appreciate their elegance. Do you?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Heh. Right. Of course, I'll shut up now, professor. Like hell...

If you don't intend to shut up then intend to learn and think a bit more
than you have in this thread.

Originally Posted by USViking

You provide speculation, I provide evidence. You lose.

Well, I readily admit that I was speculating, but I do have to point out that you have not provided any evidence yet.

Originally Posted by USViking

This is a different argument from the one you made before, namely
that Christianity was "inimical" to science. I take it, therefore, that
you recognize your earlier error.

No. Doctrine is incompatible with the scientific method by definition. The only way all these brilliant people could possibly have produced anything of value in the field of science must have been at the cost of incredible mental contortions. Or maybe they just faked their faith. It seems more likely to me. They can't all have been schizophrenic.

Originally Posted by USViking

It might interest you to know that I actually agree that science would
have progressed more if Newton, Descartes and others had devoted less
effort to religion, or no effort except perhaps from the harmless ritual of
weekly church attendance.

One thing- you are French? If so you must be aware of the literary stature
of Blaise Pascal's Lettres Provinciales, which I gather are so preeminent
that even Voltaire (a skeptic) said he wished he had written them. I have read
some of the Lettres in translation, and can appreciate their elegance. Do you?

I haven't read the Lettres provinciales. I think I probably read some of the Pensées. From what I remember, I did find Pascal's sharp wit fascinating, even when he was discussing issues of religion which would normally bore me to death. I feel I must say that if you found me virulent wrt Christianity, it was in the context of darth omar's assertions. I see no reason to cast aspersions on Islam and then give a free pass to Christianity. All religions are equally worthless in my view.

Originally Posted by USViking

If you don't intend to shut up then intend to learn and think a bit more
than you have in this thread.

I'll gladly do so if the thread moves in this direction. It hadn't until now.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Oh. In that case, that's not a retreat. Christianity IS inimical to science, however in your country it is Constitutionally prevented from influencing policy. As it is the case with religion in all the places that do contribute to science. My point was, the reason Islamic society does not contribute to science is that it has as yet failed to contain the influence of religion. Once it does, well, it won't really be an "Islamic" society any longer, much like our Western societies can't really be said to be "Christian", and it will contribute to science accordingly.

I see our friend Viking dismantled the historical aspects to your objection so I’ll take on the first part of that paragraph.

I don’t know if you intended to or not, but you conflated science with public policy. With the possible exceptions of stem cell research and how evolution is treated in public schools, the one word that best describes the Christian attitude towards the other 99.99% of science is ’indifference’.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I see our friend Viking dismantled the historical aspects to your objection so I’ll take on the first part of that paragraph.

I don’t know if you intended to or not, but you conflated science with public policy. With the possible exceptions of stem cell research and how evolution is treated in public schools, the one word that best describes the Christian attitude towards the other 99.99% of science is ’indifference’.

Great, and it only took 200 years of secular rule...It's nice to know that Christians can at least pretend to respect your institutions.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Great, and it only took 200 years of secular rule...It's nice to know that Christians can at least pretend to respect your institutions.

If only it were mutual.

Originally Posted by darth omar

If only it were mutual.

Mutual? Are Christians discriminated against in the US, then? More than Buddhists? Or Muslims?
As an atheist, if I were American and had to swear on the Bible or say "So help me God", I know I'd feel discriminated against.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Mutual? Are Christians discriminated against in the US, then? More than Buddhists? Or Muslims?
As an atheist, if I were American and had to swear on the Bible or say "So help me God", I know I'd feel discriminated against.

Let the Buddhists start their own country and then we can compare who gets discriminanted against more.

The Muslims probably shouldn't go there.

Originally Posted by USViking

First, I doubt the Ottoman, the Moghul or the Chinese Empires were less wealthy than Europe until
long after the European scientific monopoly was entrenched.

The old empire had lots of reserves it could live from. Its an example of the classic rise and fall of empires. That goes for both, wealth and scientific progress. In the 17th century the Osmanic Empire was still grand and powerful and its artillery and mining technology top notch. But from there on things started to crumble. The reasons for that might be indeed varied and complex.

Also consider European development of printing, firearms and naval architecture well before 1492.
...

Also consider that that Italy’s great trading cities, oriented to the East, were in relative economic decline
after 1492, and that none of the German states ever held any but 1-2 tiny transient colonial possessions
prior to the 1900s.

Also consider that Britain may not have shown a enough of a profit in its American ventures to add significant
national wealth until after Boyle, Hooke and Newton had performed their greatest work. Tobacco and
naval stores ~1605&ff were better than nothing, but it took the 1655 seizure of Jamaica (for sugar) and
the 1670 establishment of the Hudson Bay Company (for furs) to provide a large-scale economic infusion.

The rise of Europe was a gradual one of course. The colonial age was not the starting point of it. Actually it was rather a consequence of the development of the centuries before. The coming rise was already prepared in the deep medieval times. When North and West recovered from the dark ages and (re-)imported Italian and Islamic knowledge. The rise of the bourgeoisie in the cities was probably a key development there, with it came the foundation of many important institutions, also the formation of universities was supported by that newly strengthened social group.

One aspect that is often not sufficiently taken into account is however the knowledge transfer from Muslim Iberia and Sicily around/after 1000 AD. This was the basis of course and took centuries until Europe had largely caught up with the leading civilizations of that time. Europes strength was hereby that it was a bit like Greece vs the Persian Empire. Lots of small realms which were closely interwoven however, politically, culturally, scientifically, which also found together, more or less, when threatened from the outside. But at the same time all those realms where in tight competition with each other. Thats also why progress that was made in one realm rapidly spread to the whole continent and also why wealth did not remain limited to the big colonial powers alone. To look at those realms in a modern isolated nationalist way means missing a lot of the greater picture.

The German states were week for centuries, because it failed to unify like France but refeudalized until the modern German nation building under Prussian rule. Until then it was busy enough in colonizing the very own realms with people and also civilian expansion eastwards. But thats another story.

What is meant by “conflict”? War? If so that part of the premise is unsupported and is an exercise in
speculative mass psychology of unlikely insight. A more tenable premise is that war subtracts value
and retards progress wherever it occurs.

Not just war, all sorts of conflict or competition if you want: cultural, economical, representative one in general, scientific ...
War itself destroys and is counter-productive, but its not some weird unsupported hypothesis that military fueled progress and development contributed a lot also to civilian technology. That and the need for military resources made a solid economic development necessary (it was also necessary for financing the royal court itself of course). There is a delicate balance of course, because arms races often increase the risk of war. Europe bombed itself into its downfall when it was at the peak of its power, by utterly destroying itself in 2 world wars. Of course, this was not beneficial, nor was the 30th years war.

I agree with this, although curiously Pascal and Newton, two of the greatest minds of the rise of European
science, were secret dissidents. Newton in particular would have had difficulty pursuing his career if his
religious convictions had become known to authority.

Religious conviction in America has been gradually declining for decades, so your point of departure is falsified.

See link:

Gallup: US Religious Identification 1948-2008

That is interesting and goes against public perception in Europe for sure. Thanks for providing the link.
The finding is limited however, to the mere question of identifying with Christianity or not. It says a growing number does not do so anymore, but whats with the large remaining majority that still does? How does the religiosity change quantitatively? I mean beyond a Christian "Yes/No" answer (or whatever other relgion), the extend of religiosity. I doubt that its a homogeneous trend of secularisation across all groups. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but in the bible belt the strengthened religious pretext of the Republicans finds a mention worthy support base, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by darth omar

To whatever extent the radically religious refuse to accept evolution, the fact remains that Christianity posed to no obstacle to the development of science and technology in this country or the West more generally. In contrast, a similar development has been stunted---if not outright stifled altogether, in the Muslim world.

No? Certain scientific theories that the church opposed for whatever (unscientific) reasons, were considerably hindered and delayed by the church. The negative impact might have been even more extreme by radical Islam and this even a factor until today even though even salafist realms like Saudi Arabia are starting to overcome scientific retardation by religious zealots.

Well, like I said, there was never a time when this country wasn’t religious and if anything, it is getting less so. Though Europe is ‘post-Christian’ by comparison. But I don’t see us getting to that point here.

Europe is not homogeneous either. The Czechs might be the only ones that are truly post-religious. Religious people there are a minority like Atheists in the US. This development has its roots in the Austrian monarchy where Vienna lead a brutal fight against protestantism and forced catholicism onto them which lead to the early rejection of religion as a whole and when the communists came they found open hands for their atheist views. Unlike Poland for example. That was as communist as Czechoslovakia but it remained a catholic stronghold and is one to this day, for European standards at least.

In Austria the secularisation is progressing rapidly. Only a few decades ago it was still considered another catholic stronghold. A heritage from the monarchy. But Austrians are almost pushed out of the church due to scandals and the refusal of the Vatican to compromise with the rather liberal view of the Austrian catholics. Actually there is a silent priest revolution going on in Austria currently and the Vatican does not dare to crush it (yet) because it fears the public outleash if it did.

At the same time, orthodox Eastern Europe sees a rebirth of the orthodox church again. But this is also because there the communist persecution and opposition against the church was never fully supported by the people.

At any rate, I think it’s safe to conclude that Christianity poses no apparent obstacle to the development of science and technology whereas Islam apparently does.

Because, radical Christian movements are currently fringe developments. That is why I largely agree, with one major exception: life sciences. This is rather obvious, Israel for example has a big advantage over Christian countries where the religious views are met by legislation when it comes to important areas of research in life sciences.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

No? Certain scientific theories that the church opposed for whatever (unscientific) reasons, were considerably hindered and delayed by the church. The negative impact might have been even more extreme by radical Islam and this even a factor until today even though even salafist realms like Saudi Arabia are starting to overcome scientific retardation by religious zealots.

I think the negative impact has been overblown and confined to ‘certain theories‘, as you say. The most famous instance involved Galileo and Copernicus but it’s important to note the inquiry was never actually stopped by the church. They eventually conceded that the earth revolved around the sun---and with no detriment to the scriptures themselves.

Only to an interpretation of them.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Because, radical Christian movements are currently fringe developments. That is why I largely agree, with one major exception: life sciences. This is rather obvious, Israel for example has a big advantage over Christian countries where the religious views are met by legislation when it comes to important areas of research in life sciences.

According to most polling data born again Christians comprise anywhere from 30 to 40 % of the total US population. So if by ‘radical Christian’ you mean born again Christian that hardly qualifies as a fringe movement.

I’m also unsure of what you mean be ‘life sciences’. If you mean evolutionary sciences then, yes, the movement has a track record of making an issue out of evolution as it relates to public school curricula. However, as a group, they are indifferent to whether scientists study it or not.

Though currently, there is a bill before the TN legislature that would allow public school science teachers to instruct their students to think critically about global warming and evolution. Predictably, it has the usual suspects up-in-arms and predicting an ensuing return to the Dark Ages.

But if you read the bill, it’s actually pretty benign.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

We’ve come a long ways since Galileo. It makes one wonder who is ‘retarding science’ today.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

This is rather obvious, Israel for example has a big advantage over Christian countries where the religious views are met by legislation when it comes to important areas of research in life sciences.

Wow! As a religious Jew in his 50s I'd be rather interested in hearing what scientific research the Torah and Talmudic thought need overriding by legislation.
Unlike the other two religions, we get excited by technological advances; that's why we have such a disproportionate number of Nobel Peace Prize winners.

Originally Posted by AdreinXII

Well, I readily admit that I was speculating, but I do have to point out that you have not provided any evidence yet.

Please try to be more serious.

Assumption of holy orders may surely be taken as evidence
of religious faith, and I cited Copernicus and Mendel on that
note. It occurs to me that an even more obvious example is
Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who laid the very foundation of
the scientific method itself.

I also cited the religious writing of three mathematician-scientists
(Pascal, Descartes, Leibniz), although only Pascal’s Lettres by name.

That should be plenty of evidence, and Google can provide details
on the religious activity of Newton and Maxwell if you would care
to look for evidence rather than indulge in wild speculation.

Originally Posted by AdreinXII

No. Doctrine is incompatible with the scientific method by definition. The only way all these brilliant people could possibly have produced anything of value in the field of science must have been at the cost of incredible mental contortions.

Who is better qualified to judge this issue?- M. AdrienXII or MM. Bacon,
Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Mendel, and Maxwell?

Originally Posted by AdreinXII

Or maybe they just faked their faith. It seems more likely to me. They can't all have been schizophrenic.

Addressed.

Originally Posted by AdreinXII

I haven't read the Lettres provinciales. I think I probably read some of the Pensées. From what I remember, I did find Pascal's sharp wit fascinating, even when he was discussing issues of religion which would normally bore me to death.

If Lettres was good in translation it must be much better in French. As for Pensees
there could be no better evidence of genuine religious faith, could there?

Originally Posted by AdreinXII

I feel I must say that if you found me virulent wrt Christianity, it was in the context of darth omar's assertions. I see no reason to cast aspersions on Islam and then give a free pass to Christianity. All religions are equally worthless in my view.

Yet the results have been profoundly unequal.

There is no reasonable doubt that for several centuries all the titans
of Western science were ardently faithful to Western religion, and that religion was Christianity.

Originally Posted by USViking

There is no reasonable doubt that for several centuries all the titans
of Western science were ardently faithful to Western religion, and that religion was Christianity.

Let's be rational, Christianity is not based upon getting pussy in the next world.