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

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

What's it about, then?

If you have read TNT verse by verse, book by book, it is about people protesting oppression and caring about and acting upon people's most basic needs...food, clothing, shelter.
It is about not using one's financial or political position and power to stifle others or bring poverty upon them.
It is about human dignity being upheld in the face of those who used their power against them.
It is about a man who knew what his comeuppance was going to be but was pressed to experience misery so he could send a message to mankind not to be selfish, self centered, narcisistic aholes.

The hereafter is about being reattached to "The Father" or being damned to suffer for eternity the misery you pushed onto others.

Does my religion believe in the events as recorded by TNT...No.
Do my religion believe in the veracity of the message?...Yes.
Do Jews think TNT presents a violent religion?...No.
Do Jews think the Koran presents a violent religion?...Yes/No.
Does Islam offer pussy as one's final reward?...Yes.

Originally Posted by darth omar

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.

Yes, the church gave in to all these things, eventually. Thats the point. They kept back progress on a number of issues and probably its impact caused by voluntary self censorship was even larger than that.

Influential christian organizations (influential enough to have an impact on a number of regional entities for example) fight various aspects of evolutionary biology to this very day. These organizations might not represent such a big number of people but their influence goes beyond that.

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 don't know enough about what a "born again Christian" is exactly to give a judgement. As much as I know I'd call them at least very conservative Christians. If they are by large or only to a small extend also "radical" is an interesting question. How has this number changed over time? Is it somewhat constant or is it growing? If the latter is the case one would see a drifting apart of US society where one part is getting increasingly secular while the other is getting increasingly religious.

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.

Actually I was not thinking primarily about evolution in school as this really does not matter that much in research.

Life science is a pretty broad field indeed and not all of it is negatively affected by christian morality driven legislation. But important and not so small areas of it are. Basically everything that relies on stem cells is effected, in the US while in Israel for example you have a lot less restrictive legislation and almost no or no controversy at all about it.

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.

Pupils should learn scientific philosophy as such in school. Than being critical about scientific theories would be general good practice and nothing one would have to add to any theory specifically. Singling out the evolutionary theory when it is in fact among the most supported one in life sciences is a bit arbitrary... would be a bit arbitrary if the reason for doing so would not be so clear.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

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.

This does not address the early centuries of the European intellectual monopoly,
and omits discussion of two other examples I mentioned.

The Wiki article on the Ottoman economy indicates that agriculture was favored
more than commerce and industry compared to Europe. The advantage from this
incurring to Europe did not depend on colonial venture.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

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. Europe’s 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.

This does nothing to support your contention that income from colonial America
was the decisive factor enabling European scientific monopoly.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

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.

This does nothing to support your contention that income from colonial America
was the decisive factor enabling European scientific monopoly.

Internal development is not a form of colonization in American English usage, and
is off-topic in the context of this thread.

German eastern conquests reached their greatest extent before 1492, and the
German states in fact lost more ground than they gained for about the next 200 years.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

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).

It is insufficient to claim a hypothesis is “not unsupported”- you must give supporting examples.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

There is a delicate balance of course, because arms races often increase the risk of war.

Off topic, and IMO arms races are symptoms rather than causes of potential conflict.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

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.

Perhaps Europe’s self-inflicted misery is finally over.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Yes, the church gave in to all these things, eventually. Thats the point. They kept back progress on a number of issues and probably its impact caused by voluntary self censorship was even larger than that.

Influential christian organizations (influential enough to have an impact on a number of regional entities for example) fight various aspects of evolutionary biology to this very day. These organizations might not represent such a big number of people but their influence goes beyond that.

I’ll concede that the church might have slowed progress in some areas---with ‘some areas‘, being the key concept. But overall, science proceeded unhindered by the church during that time. They probably even funded quite a bit of it.

At the research level, what you call ‘fighting’ is the dastardly ID theorists trying to get their work published. But that’s not stifling evolution or scientific progress.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I don't know enough about what a "born again Christian" is exactly to give a judgement. As much as I know I'd call them at least very conservative Christians. If they are by large or only to a small extend also "radical" is an interesting question. How has this number changed over time? Is it somewhat constant or is it growing? If the latter is the case one would see a drifting apart of US society where one part is getting increasingly secular while the other is getting increasingly religious.

I haven’t researched the numbers to be able cite any trend one way or the other. My best guess is that it’s probably pretty stable. But they are only ‘radical’ with respect to the secular-progressive crowd. Actually, there have been ‘radical Christians’ in the US since the country was born and it’s the secularists that are the relative new comers on the block.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Actually I was not thinking primarily about evolution in school as this really does not matter that much in research.

Life science is a pretty broad field indeed and not all of it is negatively affected by christian morality driven legislation. But important and not so small areas of it are. Basically everything that relies on stem cells is effected, in the US while in Israel for example you have a lot less restrictive legislation and almost no or no controversy at all about it.

Well, the only morally significant branch of stem cell research involves embryonic stem cells [ES]. While the radical Christians have fought to keep the government from funding ES the problem with its development is biological and not a question of funding. In other words, any benefit from ES research is decades away because of the many problems with associated with it; indeed, it may be a dead-end. Whereas, adult stem cell [AS] research is already baring fruit.

And since the money should go towards the promising avenue of research---then the radical Christians may have actually done some good work in that respect.

So, I’m not really seeing where science and technology is being inhibited in this country by Christians.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Pupils should learn scientific philosophy as such in school. Than being critical about scientific theories would be general good practice and nothing one would have to add to any theory specifically. Singling out the evolutionary theory when it is in fact among the most supported one in life sciences is a bit arbitrary... would be a bit arbitrary if the reason for doing so would not be so clear.

Actually, AGW has gotten some much needed critical review and many people [not just Christians, btw] think public school students should be let in on it---rather than basically being indoctrinated with one side of what has become a very contentious issue amongst scientists.

Which side of that debate do you think Galileo would be on?

Originally Posted by USViking

This does not address the early centuries of the European intellectual monopoly,

What do you mean pecifically?

The Wiki article on the Ottoman economy indicates that agriculture was favored
more than commerce and industry compared to Europe. The advantage from this
incurring to Europe did not depend on colonial venture.

I dd not say that colonialism explained everything, merely that it explained a lot. Moreover is the question of the Ottoman Empire's fall not directly correlated with the rise of Europe and the other way round (apart from the direct neighbours maybe)

This does nothing to support your contention that income from colonial America
was the decisive factor enabling European scientific monopoly.

I was not talking about "scientific monopoly". I am talking about the rise to the most powerful region on earth. That is not quite the same, even though scientific progress is part of that development. Colonisation made a lot of increase in R&D necessary. That became obvious for the colonial powers and also lead to substantial progress in naval and military techniques for example. After Spain got into big business with exploitation of the new world this translated into big power gains also within Europe. Other European powers had a great interest in catching up and catching up meant also technologically, colonial power or not.

Apart from pure scientific progress colonization also meant the introduction of several very important plants to Europe. Some of them revolutionized European agriculture. Potatoes are just an example. I am not sure how much you value agriculture but progress in agriculture is a very important aspect even today. Many people keep underestimating that. It meant less farmers could feed more city dwellers and that meant more human resources for trade, manufacturing, research etc.

[quote]Internal development is not a form of colonization in American English usage, and
is off-topic in the context of this thread.

German eastern conquests reached their greatest extent before 1492, and the
German states in fact lost more ground than they gained for about the next 200 years.
[quote]
The term "east-colonization" for German settling of eastern realms exists also in English to my knowledge. But I am not a native speaker of course. That "east-colonization" does not mean conquest, it meant settling sparsely populated areas in the east. Sometimes on areas of German realms but also in a lot of totally other realms.

[quote]

It is insufficient to claim a hypothesis is “not unsupported”- you must give supporting examples.

Sorry if the arguments I have given above are not sufficient for you. I am just a layman and have not studied history. You are free to propose and support your alternative explanations.

Off topic, and IMO arms races are symptoms rather than causes of potential conflict.

That is a chicken egg problem. It is pretty clear in my opinion however that WWI was a consequence of the arms race at least as much as some conflict.

Perhaps Europe’s self-inflicted misery is finally over.

Well, not completely. The Ex-Yugoslaws did a fairly decent job in this regard only 15-20 years ago. But by large I am quite confident that these times are over.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Well, the only morally significant branch of stem cell research involves embryonic stem cells [ES]. While the radical Christians have fought to keep the government from funding ES the problem with its development is biological and not a question of funding. In other words, any benefit from ES research is decades away because of the many problems with associated with it; indeed, it may be a dead-end. Whereas, adult stem cell [AS] research is already baring fruit.

This is a rather biased summary. Both, ES, MSE or whatever are basic research with lots of challenges. To my knowledge adult stem cells are no less challenging, but more limited in their possible scope. Basic research is key to scientific progress and it is by definition far away from applications, otherwise it would be applied research. Anyway, if you want to do cutting edge research in this scientifically exciting field, you'd rather not go to the US but to other places.

Actually, AGW has gotten some much needed critical review and many people [not just Christians, btw] think public school students should be let in on it---rather than basically being indoctrinated with one side of what has become a very contentious issue amongst scientists.

Which side of that debate do you think Galileo would be on?

AGW is a theory supported by a strong majority of scientists of relevant fields. There are critical voices as well, which is a healthy thing. If mentioned in schools I am for a differentiated description. Climate predictions and studies in general are a very demanding field for sure, so far I don't see why I should distrust the majority position but I'd be not falling out of heaven if they should be proven wrong one day in a way that the majority should bounce back into the other direction.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

This is a rather biased summary. Both, ES, MSE or whatever are basic research with lots of challenges. To my knowledge adult stem cells are no less challenging, but more limited in their possible scope. Basic research is key to scientific progress and it is by definition far away from applications, otherwise it would be applied research. Anyway, if you want to do cutting edge research in this scientifically exciting field, you'd rather not go to the US but to other places.

AS cells have been used in a long list of clinical trials.

Search of: "stem cells" - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

Christians would like to see quadriplegics walking just as much as anyone else but I don’t think ES cells are nearly as promising as once thought; ten years ago they were saying they would be seeing ES cures in the next decade but the decade came and went and they are now saying it could be decades more till that happens. It makes it easy to think the problems with it are insurmountable.

At any rate, the smart money should go to the more productive route.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

If you have read TNT verse by verse, book by book, it is about people protesting oppression and caring about and acting upon people's most basic needs...food, clothing, shelter.
It is about not using one's financial or political position and power to stifle others or bring poverty upon them.
It is about human dignity being upheld in the face of those who used their power against them.
It is about a man who knew what his comeuppance was going to be but was pressed to experience misery so he could send a message to mankind not to be selfish, self centered, narcisistic aholes.

The hereafter is about being reattached to "The Father" or being damned to suffer for eternity the misery you pushed onto others.

Does my religion believe in the events as recorded by TNT...No.
Do my religion believe in the veracity of the message?...Yes.
Do Jews think TNT presents a violent religion?...No.
Do Jews think the Koran presents a violent religion?...Yes/No.
Does Islam offer pussy as one's final reward?...Yes.

Where, When and How?...I mean the specific quote from the Quran and with explanatory context please....I'm not trying to be argumentative but it seems you have access to something I've never heard of, or seen interpreted that way.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

AGW is a theory supported by a strong majority of scientists of relevant fields. There are critical voices as well, which is a healthy thing. If mentioned in schools I am for a differentiated description. Climate predictions and studies in general are a very demanding field for sure, so far I don't see why I should distrust the majority position but I'd be not falling out of heaven if they should be proven wrong one day in a way that the majority should bounce back into the other direction.

Ironically, it’s neither Christians nor Muslims that have done more damage to science in today’s world---it’s the folks who have suppressed and/or manipulated data and corrupted the peer-review process for the sake of politics and ideology.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Where, When and How?...I mean the specific quote from the Quran and with explanatory context please....I'm not trying to be argumentative but it seems you have access to something I've never heard of, or seen interpreted that way.

You even heard of that "70 virgins" thing?

What have you heard?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

What do you mean pecifically?

Discussing why the Ottomans did not progress scientifically fails to explain
why the Moghuls and the Chinese did not either, or why Europe did.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I dd not say that colonialism explained everything, merely that it explained a lot.

Of the four explanations given colonialism was first, and of the two I contest
it is the one to which historical fact can be most aptly applied.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Moreover is the question of the Ottoman Empire's fall not directly correlated with the rise of Europe and the other way round (apart from the direct neighbours maybe)

Ottoman decline was a result of Europe’s rise, but development of European
scientific monopoly was uncorrelated with the Ottoman decline: Copernicus-
Napier-F.Bacon-Brahe-Kepler-Galileo-Fermat-Pascal-Descartes-Newton-Huygens-
Leeuwenhoek-Leibniz did all or most of their greatest work before the 1683
Ottoman siege of Vienna.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I was not talking about "scientific monopoly". I am talking about the rise to the most powerful region on earth. That is not quite the same, even though scientific progress is part of that development.

Science was more important than all other factors combined.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Colonisation made a lot of increase in R&D necessary. That became obvious for the colonial powers and also lead to substantial progress in naval and military techniques for example.

Europe did not require colonies to provide motivation for military improvement,
and it never used more than a small fraction of its military power against non-European people.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

After Spain got into big business with exploitation of the new world this translated into big power gains also within Europe. Other European powers had a great interest in catching up and catching up meant also technologically, colonial power or not.

What most enabled Spanish strength was the unification of Castile and Aragon,
and the connection of its royal house with the Hapsburgs. American gold was nice,
but probably did as much overall harm through inflation as it did good. England
was never behind Spain in sea power, and although the Spanish army was the
best in Europe for about 100 years, it was not strong enough to dominate Spain’s
many enemies.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Apart from pure scientific progress colonization also meant the introduction of several very important plants to Europe. Some of them revolutionized European agriculture. Potatoes are just an example. I am not sure how much you value agriculture but progress in agriculture is a very important aspect even today. Many people keep underestimating that. It meant less farmers could feed more city dwellers and that meant more human resources for trade, manufacturing, research etc.

Here is a good article on the history of the potato in Europe:

The Impact of the Potato

The potato probably hastened and eased the transition to mass urbanization and
the industrial revolution. However, it was not generally accepted as a staple until
the mid to late 1700s, by when European scientific superiority had long attained
irresistible momentum, with the especially crucial Watt steam engine entering profitable
use in 1776.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

The term "east-colonization" for German settling of eastern realms exists also in English to my knowledge. But I am not a native speaker of course. That "east-colonization" does not mean conquest, it meant settling sparsely populated areas in the east. Sometimes on areas of German realms but also in a lot of totally other realms.

Your English is fluent, but anyone can lapse into ambiguity.

You wrote: “Until then it was busy enough in colonizing the very own realms
with people and also civilian expansion eastwards” I interpreted " 'the' very
own realms" as a typo which should have been “ 'theIR' very own realms", meaning
development of land already within sovereign borders, and not the same as the
“expansion eastwards” into "other realms".

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Sorry if the arguments I have given above are not sufficient for you. I am just a layman and have not studied history. You are free to propose and support your alternative explanations.

It is up to you to support your own argument regardless of whether anyone replies.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

That is a chicken egg problem. It is pretty clear in my opinion however that WWI was a consequence of the arms race at least as much as some conflict.

I do not agree. The fatal animosities which existed would not have been affected if,
for example, dreadnoughts were never built.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Well, not completely. The Ex-Yugoslaws did a fairly decent job in this regard only 15-20 years ago. But by large I am quite confident that these times are over.

The 1990s Balkan exception, sad though it was, was minuscule compared to
the terrible bloodlettings of the past. I doubt casualties were even as great
as those of the relatively minor Crimean War. For such an episode to be the
worst in 67 years is ground for optimism.

I exclude the territories of the former Russian Empire/USSR from the area having
the brightest outlook, although even there greater freedom prevails than at any
time in history.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You even heard of that "70 virgins" thing?

What have you heard?

It's actually 72 virgins.

And they're actually only promised to jihadin who die as martyrs to Islam.

It's not a general Muslim belief that everyone "is going to get pussy" in the afterlife.

If it were, I'd have taken the Shahada long since.

Originally Posted by darth omar

AS cells have been used in a long list of clinical trials.

Search of: "stem cells" - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

Christians would like to see quadriplegics walking just as much as anyone else but I don’t think ES cells are nearly as promising as once thought; ten years ago they were saying they would be seeing ES cures in the next decade but the decade came and went and they are now saying it could be decades more till that happens. It makes it easy to think the problems with it are insurmountable.

At any rate, the smart money should go to the more productive route.

Sorry, I have to correct a typo above, I was talking about MSC of course, not MSE.

I am not saying adult stem cells are useless, not at all. But they are limited more limited in their scope than ES. That is no argument against adult stem cells, it is one against overlooking or ignoring ES. Basic research is unpredictable by nature, 10 years delay even if they happen do not necessarily mean a lot.

What you are using here is the good old argument against basic research in favour of applied research. It has been shown over time however that cutting back basic research means loosing the lead in the next cutting edge technology that could not be foreseen by applied research.