12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
"In other words, Islamic civilization did not have a culture hospitable to the advancement of science, while medieval Europe did."

This part alone is incorrect, it was the opposite. The first university in medieval Europe was built in Islamic Spain, in Cordoba. When the rest of Europe was still wallowing in superstition, and reading and writing were mostly limited to the Clergy. One of the people who helped found the university of Oxford was an Islamic scholar from Cordoba, who was asked to come help build a university there.

it wasn't until the Rennisance that Europe finally had a climate ripe for scientific discovery and pursuit of knowledge. And this was, in large part, due to the fractures in the Church as well as politics, which allowed a climate for questioning.

[Pro_Consul]

Addai67 wrote...

On a more serious note, you might be interested in this article I read on science and philosophy in medieval Islam.

I read that twice. The first time through I thought, "Boy, this guy seriously needs to hit the books and do some research before submitting his work for publication." The second time through I came away more with the impression that he was attempting to force a square peg into a round hole, i.e. force his preselected conclusion to work by remolding the "facts" in order to get it to fit. I seriously suspect that he had chosen his introduction and conclusion paragraphs before he ever did the factual research he would use to create a logical connection between them.

The sad truth is that the main reason many Islamic countries have "turned away" from science is that they suffered so long under conditions of crushing poverty that their local cultures gradually came to disdain what they could not have. A scientific renaissance, such as Islam enjoyed during the latter stage of the West's dark ages, first requires that the society lift itself sufficiently above the subsistence level so that education and research can become mainstream professions, rather than a rare privilege only enjoyed by a small elite.

But the wheel turns. Even now we can see clear indicators that the West is gradually cycling back toward a more stratified societal model, where quality higher education is slowly being made less accessible to those of financially modest origins. Simultaneously some Islamic countries are moving more in the other direction, as those nations attempt to modernize. Oddly Iraq under Saddam Hussein was one of the most successful at making education a more egalitarian element of society, although to be fair this was largely because it used a heavy handed secular authority to force modernization on both the Sunni and Shi'ite segments which otherwise would never have been able to cooperate in this area. But both Islamic sects accepted the rebirth of education and research gratefully, which was one key reason the dictatorship never became the target of large reactionary forces from any Islamic movement.

Pakistan is another example where Islamic culture has accepted and embraced science, to the point that they were able to become a nuclear power long before anyone would previously have thought possible; the first, and so far only, Islamic nuclear power. Again one could argue that this was due to the secular government, but that is disingenuous, since that government was created by a wholly Islamic population for Islamic reasons. The entire country was created in the first place for solely Islamic purposes.

I am gassing on a bit now, I see. But in any case there is plenty of real world evidence right out in plain sight today for anyone to see, much of which totally contradicts that author's overgeneralized and factually warped case for science and Islam being at odds with each other. But then warping facts to fit preconceptions is certainly not a new phenomenon. At least this author made some effort to have a few facts, when so many people who speak or write on these issues today don't even bother.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't think poverty had that much to do with it. Even at its height, Islamic intellectualism was always reserved to an elite and was helped by the patronage of the Caliph or sultans. It is true that the Islamic populace was relatively educated, but there was still a divide between them and the philosophers and scientists. The intellectual elite so to speak. They weren't rich, indeed some of them were slaves, but they received the patronage of the political elite.

And the decline of intellectual output generally came after political decline. When new polities were either unwilling or unable to patronize sciences and philosophy. The European Renaissance started that way as well, thanks to political patronage.

Poverty now is certainly a major issue and an obstacle to better education. But I would not consider it the major reason as to why Islamic medieval science declined.

[Costin_Razvan]

I would consider the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire as the greatest point in regards to the stagnation of Islamic Science, but that's me.

That and the colonial rule, two world wars then the proxy wars between the USSR and the US and you understand quite clearly why the Arab world is in such a state.

"Sighs" Another article by some idiot claiming religion and science are against each other.

[Addai]

Poverty? We're talking about the Persian and Abassid empires. It has nothing to do with the Ottomans- this is earlier. I thought the article was well-researched and very balanced. It is also not a religion vs. science article. As it points out, it depends on what kind of religion you're talking about. There are those religious philosophies that are pro-rationalist and those that are anti-rationalist, which is true in Christianity as much as Islam. Apparently no one can look past modern lenses and read a historical survey without assuming some nefarious polemic purpose.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I would consider the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire as the greatest point in regards to the stagnation of Islamic Science, but that's me.

That and the colonial rule, two world wars then the proxy wars between the USSR and the US and you understand quite clearly why the Arab world is in such a state.

"Sighs" Another article by some idiot claiming religion and science are against each other.

I actually think you are correct, as I've often debated this before on other boards. The decline of the Ottomans and their stagnation was felt all over the empire, and it is primarily in thiose regions that were under Ottoman rule until its eventual collapse are the ones that remained the most backwards. 

Religion and science do not have to be at odds, nor should they. But they are, and this happens mainly when a religion is very rigidly dogmatic and absolutist, to the point where it believes everything in its scriptures as absolute, undeniable truth, and anything that says otherwise is blasphemy or the work of evil agencies. Anything contradicting holy scripture is an evil that must be destroyed.

Science can be equally dogmatic and rigid, especially when one gets into the realm of the paranorma/metaphysical. However, science is also more willing to revise and adapt to new discoveries than many organized religions are.

In order for science and religion to exist together harmoniously, it requires an open-minded flexibility on both parts. Which is ironic, since both science and religion are concepts dedicated to exploring and discovering truth.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

 I thought the article was well-researched.

It's not. A very rudementary understanding of political history, and an outdated view on people like Al-Ghazali, or al Ma'mun.

And the conclusion of the artile is that Christianity, that seperates private and public, is better suited than Islam, which he thinks for some reason does not understand the concept of private life.

It's not balanced at all.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Addai]

The point is that science is always affected by guiding philosophies, and some of these are more conducive to creative thinking and research than others. These may be religious, political, or economic theories- the article talked about them all. Technology also plays a role, having the right tools at the right time, but human factors play a large role.

As far as religious perspectives, the very same conflicts were present within medieval Christianity, as the article points out, but thus far the people who see divine agency as working through natural means (and thus investigating natural means is a worthy endeavor) have won out. The only criticism I would make of the article is that he assumes that science will never decline in the West, whereas I think it already has and will continue to do so.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It's not. A very rudementary understanding of political history, and an outdated view on people like Al-Ghazali, or al Ma'mun.

And the conclusion of the artile is that Christianity, that seperates private and public, is better suited than Islam, which he thinks for some reason does not understand the concept of private life.

It's not balanced at all.

That's not how I read it at all.  Perhaps because I am more familiar with the same sorts of conflicting theologies in medieval Christianity, so I read in what I know were parallel conflicts going on in Europe, whereas the article only touches on these very briefly (it's not the scope of the article, after all).

The West has done a better job of maintaining scientific progress longer- that is just a fact of history.  Whether that is religious in nature or not, I doubt.  As I said above, I also don't see it as a fait accompli.  The writer would have been better to say "science always declines, and it will do so in the West too, and probably already has."

But never mind- I'm not going to argue.  It's obvious this subject can't be discussed without rancor.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I agree about science in the west declining. And this time, it has less to do with religion and more to do with the climate of social, political, and economic decadence and decay. Hell, the fact that our schools are turning out idiots in droves, and the number of students pursuing the harder subjects of science and mathematics in universities is rapidly declining, does not bode well for progressive, healthy future.

At least this is not a problem for Asia, and in our universities, there are more foreign students from Asian countries studying math and science than there are western kids. Probably because those societies are on the rise while the west decays into decadence.

[KnightofPhoenix]

He is inaccurate in that he assumes that Ash'aris are against science, when they were not. They were against metaphysical philosophy, that was heavily inspired by Greek philosophy. But they didn't say anything about science.

The Mu'tzalite / Ash'ari divide had nothing to do with science, but it was on metaphysical questions, such as the nature of the Qu'ran. But the latter never burned scientific books, or burned "scientists" at the stake.

So the author jumps from science, to philosophy and like many others, makes it an issue of "rationalists" vs "irrationalists", when it wasn't that clear cut and did not encompass science.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
The West has done a better job of maintaining scientific progress longer- that is just a fact of history. 

How? They did a better job making it drastic (due to the industrial revolution), but length wise, it's not unique or better at all. And to say that would be ignoring all the scientific progress today made by the East.

But never mind- I'm not going to argue.  It's obvious this subject can't be discussed without rancor.

Did I give the impression that I had rancor?

[Addai]

To what would you attribute the decline of the Islamic renaissance, then? The fact that it happened is beyond question. The question is why. I know that this is a mystery to historians, so there is controversy over how to understand it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

To what would you attribute the decline of the Islamic renaissance, then? The fact that it happened is beyond question. The question is why. I know that this is a mystery to historians, so there is controversy over how to understand it.

There is no one reason.
The major one imo is economic and political. Like I said before, most of those scholars were patronized by the elites, the same way the European renaissance started. There were no strong institutions to make it long lasting, so it was entirely dependent on their financial support. Nizam al Mulk tried to institutionalize it, but didn't go far.

The political defragmentation, which resulted in a centralized state fragmenting into pseudo-feudalism (you want to know why I despise political decentralization? Here it is), with warlords controlling Iqta' (land), and a merger of that with the clergy to keep it from going worse, coupled with external enemies being emboldened due to this, led to a shift in priorities.

The warlords were no longer interested or simply incapable of patronizing scholars. That's why the Mongols did patronize a few, while Islamic polities did not. They were in a position of strength and prosperity.

I'd also argue that the coming of the Turkic peoples was very destablizing to the political status quo, and the Abbasid attempt to use them which backfired, is a major reason for this political defragmentation. Their sudden inclusion into the Islamic civilization as primarily warriors, imo, led them to being unlikely to patronize science and learning as much as their Arab and Persian counterparts.

And it is in such a context, that we understand why the "gates of Ijtihad" were *officially* closed, and why al-Ghazali created the Sunni-Sufi synthesis and reject isoteric metaphysical philosophy. Because he didn't want religious defragmentation on top of a political one. Indeed, it's quite interesting to see how political fragmentation in some ways resulted in religious consolidation.

But religious consolidation, or the consolidation of a few schools of thought, has no necessary corrolation with the decline of science, especially since none of them opposed it (al-Ghazai even encouraged it). It were reasons on a more "macro" level. Political and economic.

The major weakness of Islamic Civilization was not an inability to reconcile faith and reason, or the lack of understanding of what private life is (seriously, what?). Its major weakness is the lack of real institutions. And this is something I wrote about. All Islamic political theory is so idealistic and detached from reality, that they did not have the mindset required to create institutions. That's where the West beat us thoroughly. They institutionalized, we didn't.

Which is why I am readng about Richelieu, who imo, was one of the most important pioneers of the development of the modern state. The West had its Richelieus. We didn't (with the sole exception of Nizam al-Mulk who was an exception with no one to expand on his work).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:56 .

[Addai]

Alrighty. I'm no expert on the subject, but your thoughts give me some idea of how to learn more. It makes sense that the encounter of the Turkic tribes with the Abbasids would be a factor. That was certainly a huge sea change.

Richelieu is getting out of my time frame. I mostly stick to ancient and medieval.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In terms of religious sciences only, the Turkic peoples were not that enthusiastic to continue real religious debate, due to the political context (who can blame them), and expanded on al-Ghazali's strategy. So they decided to embrace all 4 schools of law and effectively made it impossible to create a 5fth. They were subjugated to the state.

A major reason why Islamic thought is very stagnant, imo (the other is authoritarian regimes controlling religious institutions like al-Azhar that are intellectually almost inactive). I find it mind boggling that no serious attempt has been made to create a new school of law. Sure, we have a few Dr. Phils of Shari'a who go ahead on TV and attempt to modernize (more often then not, it ends up being do whatever you want). But there has been no serious intellectual and institutional attempt to revitalize it.

Some people are even under the impression that 4 schools of Law and the ulamah dominating religious discourse is something inherently Islamic, when it's not. It's something developed by al-Shafi'i 2 centuries after Prophet Muhammad.

[Pro_Consul]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

...the other is authoritarian regimes controlling religious institutions like al-Azhar that are intellectually almost inactive...

It often goes quite a bit further than this. Authoriarianism in a religious sense most often leads to rigid orthodoxy, which is inherently closed-minded by nature. In the political and economic climate created in a regime controlled by such an inwardly focused union of religion and politics, reform is only possible where it strengthens the orthodoxy of the religious regime. Any reform that "improves" upon a practice advocated by the orthodox regime is, by nature, a criticism of that regime and is therefore "heretical". Just look at the way the Catholic Church, with its often rabid reactionary methods of enforcing its own brand of orthodox religion ended up prolonging the Dark Ages, arguably by centuries. Of course one could also argue that its intellectual repression created the very forces which would break its stranglehold on Western thought: the Protestant reformers.

So it isn't really that religion itself is anti-science. But rather religious conservatism when coupled with political power or control, which almost inevitably employs the power of the state to prune anything that does not neatly fit within its particular conservative religious worldview.

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 24 septembre 2011 - 08:11 .

[Joy Divison]

The article is not so much about a lack of research as it is about advancing old ideas that used to have currency in academia that are now outdated.

I do think there is a connection to religion and science, but it has nothing to do with one religion being more "science-friendly" than others. Religion, or at least the religious elites who hold real power and influence, are by their nature conservative and hostile to change, new ideas, new institutions, etc. Which is ironic because most of the intellectuals in human history were not laymen and educated by the Church. It's more of an institutional thing; if the religious sect has a particularly strong hold over society vis-a-vis the politicians, merchants, aristocracy, military, etc., they will resist change and reform whether in the scientific realm or the political, economic, etc.

I am a European historian so my expertise does not extend to China or the Islamic World, but I can and will assert that there was a fundamental weakening of the hold the Christian Church held over society from say 1350 to 1650. The Black Plague, the Schism, and the Protestant Reformation all eroded the institutional and -- importantly the moral -- authority over not just the elites of society but the masses. New groups and institutions, particularly the emerging business class and the state, were able to fill this vacuum with real power and patronage which had real incentive to question tradition.  The state, particularly the monachies in Spain, France, and England, became real centers of political power which could tax its subjects and sponsor soliders, merchants, and scientists to act in its own interests, not the Church's.

Europeans weren't particularly smart, nor was the culture someone more science-friendly, most of the explanation for their advances in science, economics, and State power vis-a-vis the rest of the world were largely the combination of historical circumstances which just happen to promote these fundamental changes in society.

In a way, it is possible to infer what I am saying is that religion holds back science. Not really. Galileo and Newton were devout believers and about as important as you get when talking about the Scientific Revolution. Religion as an organized institution, and that means the elites in power, is ostensibly hostile to any form of new thinking which threatens their position. That is why they stamp out heresies, codify morality, and in the case of the Catholic Church, drew a line in the sand and denounced Galileo.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 septembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[Joy Divison]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
"In other words, Islamic civilization did not have a culture hospitable to the advancement of science, while medieval Europe did."

This part alone is incorrect, it was the opposite. The first university in medieval Europe was built in Islamic Spain, in Cordoba. When the rest of Europe was still wallowing in superstition, and reading and writing were mostly limited to the Clergy. One of the people who helped found the university of Oxford was an Islamic scholar from Cordoba, who was asked to come help build a university there.

I think you're taking this too far.  It is true that medieval European universities were founded later and for the same purpose as Islamic ones - to better educate those specialists in society tasked for record keeping and instruction (i.e. the Clergy).  They were built later primarily because European civilization was increadibly unstable, fragmented, backward, and busy fighting off invasions.

Relatively speaking, medieval Europe would be more hospitable to science than Islam, but that had little to nothing to do with Christianity or Islam.  Exactly what date that would become apparent is not exactly clear; certainly not before the 1150 when University of Paris was officially founded (though it existed before that), but the Renassaisance didn't just appear out of nowhere...

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 septembre 2011 - 09:17 .

[Pro_Consul]

We also should not ignore the fact that much of the scientific advancement of the Western cultures was really a matter of rediscovering knowledge and techniques which their pre-Dark Age predecessors, the Roman Empire, had already enjoyed.

Medicine is a great example. Medicine as it was practiced in the Roman Empire was more advanced that anything its Western successor civilizations would have until arguably the early twentieth century. But many of the practices and concepts were by no means new. Antisepsis, dissection, surgical procedure etc were all well known to Roman era medicine, but were branded anathema, witchcraft or otherwise suppressed by superstition until late in the Renaissance. And those concepts and methods would not reach their Roman era effectiveness until well into the Industrial Revolution.

[Joy Divison]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Which is why I am readng about Richelieu, who imo, was one of the most important pioneers of the development of the modern state. The West had its Richelieus. We didn't (with the sole exception of Nizam al-Mulk who was an exception with no one to expand on his work).

Who is a great example of Early Modern European society and the position of the church.  CARDINAL Richelieu advocated for and enacted policies in the French Monarchy at the EXPENSE of the Church.  Hell, he was pivotal in bringing CATHOLIC France in the Thirty Years War (ostensibly the last of the European Wars of Religion) to support the PROTESTANT cause.  The heydey of the Catholic Chruch, probably 1215 with the 4th Lateran Council, was a distant memory.

Of course, this rise of the French Monarchy was already well underway.  As early as 1314 Phillip IV could send out thugs to beat up the Pope over an argument about taxing the Church.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Joy Divison wrote...


Relatively speaking, medieval Europe would be more hospitable to science than Islam, but that had little to nothing to so with Christianity or Islam

It had much to do with Christianity in Europe, the Church did not encourage or promote non-religous study. And they did not encourage education or scholarship amongst the people, quite the opposite. The Church was very much keeping scholarship in the hands of the Clergy, Europe's nobility was mostly ignorant and illiterate.

And beyond the Church, society itself was quite superstitous and backwards. It was not a culture that was conductive towards scholarship. The nobles and elites, who are traditionally the wealthy patrons that promote scholarship and science, did not do so on any signoifgant level before the rennisance. They were still barely out of the dark ages.

It wasn't until the rennisance, and the reformation, that the climate became more and more favorable towards scientific discovery.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...
Relatively speaking, medieval Europe would be more hospitable to science than Islam

"Medieval" is too broad.
Late Middle age Europe I believe would be more accurate, but even then, Islamic civilizations were relatively superior (but in decline). It's really by the 17th century that the gap between West and East was clearly reversed. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Pro_Consul wrote...
So it isn't really that religion itself is anti-science. But rather religious conservatism when coupled with political power or control, which almost inevitably employs the power of the state to prune anything that does not neatly fit within its particular conservative religious worldview.

I don't think religious conservativism is necessarily opposed to science, at least in a medieval Islamic context. As I said, even the most conservative schools of thought either encouraged or did not mind science, they just opposed metaphysical philosophies.

What ultra-conservative schools do is cause stagnation in religious thought, which is what Islam suffered from and still suffers from (which is not to say that there was no religious innovations in all those past centuries. Just that they were minimal). But there is no necessary and direct corrolation between that and material sciences.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 septembre 2011 - 09:49 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Christianity in Europe is NOT represented by the Catholic Church only. Yes it was the most important group but don't forget the Orthodox Church ( and before anyone suggests they are similar...well let's just say that quite a lot of priests here in Romania or Russia would beat you to death for such a comment. These guys fight because someone sweeped the floor in THEIR part of the Church in Jerusalem ). Yes there wasn't much scientific study here in Eastern Europe, but that is not related to what the Churches ( yes Churches, the Orthodox Church is not united ) did in terms of suppressing those with progressive scientific views rather due to the Ottoman rule, the constant wars and civil war strife inside our countries.

Not that the Orthodox Churches held no power. They controlled ( and still do a smaller extent ) vast amounts of land, they provided education ( as Skadi mentioned ) but to my knowledge never supressed those who sought scientific study.

Currently Romania has a 86% of the people as Orthodox, ( and a total of 94% belonging to major religions ) yet we most of our scientists and doctors as religious people who are strong believers. Some of them are even renowned across the world so I always find it irritating to hear anyone suggest religion and science can't coexist: They can, and very well at that.

P.S. A very small side note, but Romanian programmers invented SecuROM. At least that's what I am lead to believe, dunno for certain. Yeah I guess a lot of people have reason to be pissed at us for that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 24 septembre 2011 - 10:09 .