• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Islamic Civilization. How religion and science once merged.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dresden

Member
harSon said:
Or maybe he didn't want the discussion to become a dick measuring contest between the contributions of Islamic and Christian societies like so many of you seem to want to do.
Did you even read his posts in this thread? He wants to make it seem like Islamic faith was crucial to scientific progress made in that era, when all Islam ever contributed back then was the codification of the Hadith and the beginning of sectarian conflict between the different Islamic factions.

Plenty of Western scientists were Christian, and were, sometimes, even priests and monks as well. It doesn't mean that we glorify their contributions as Christian contributions to learning.
 
harSon said:
Or maybe he didn't want the discussion to become a dick measuring contest between the contributions of Islamic and Christian societies like so many of you seem to want to do.

Uh no. The aim is to discredit superstition as having anything to do with science.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
ElectricBlue187 said:
Uh no. The aim is to discredit superstition as having anything to do with science.

Sorry, if perhaps people aren't getting this. I am perfectly happy with the thread title changed to just "Islamic civilzation". I never meant to claim what some people think of it.
 

Dennis

Banned
Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the "first scientist" for his introduction of the scientific method.
:lol This will give my colleagues a good laugh.

Perhaps other muslims like yourself are trying to pretend that he introduced the Scientific Method, but I can tell you right now that view is not shared by actual scientists. Please stop trusting everything you read on Wikipedia.
 

Dresden

Member
Jibril said:
Sorry, if perhaps people aren't getting this. I am perfectly happy with the thread title changed to just "Islamic civilzation". I never meant to claim what some people think of it.
Jibril said:

Ibn Khaldūn

Who I'm currently reading on, frequently mentioned his faith and uses it as a way to explain his views on many aspects.
Jibril said:
This would be the case if Newton was a scholar in Christianity. And wrote texts based on his faith.

I see where you're coming from though!
Jibril said:
Many of the names mentioned in the first two posts. Are respected scholars in religious matters and in fact drew much of their inspiration from their faith.

What you claim and what you post have been two different things, though.
 

Dennis

Banned
harSon said:
Or maybe he didn't want the discussion to become a dick measuring contest between the contributions of Islamic and Christian societies like so many of you seem to want to do.
He clearly wanted to hype up Islamic contribution to science. I see this a lot from muslims.
 

C.Dark.DN

Banned
Why exclude this?


The Darker Impact of Islam on Europe

O'Neill also relates how most historians are cowed into silence by modern political correctness, avoiding the facts that the Islamic philosophers who did make valid contributions were considered apostates from Islam in their day, and that the real impact of Islamic philosophy is seen in the paranoia of war in Europe:

It is of course widely accepted nowadays that Islam had an enormous ideological impact upon Europe. Historians tend to focus on certain scientific and philosophical ideas, especially those of philosophers such as the tenth-century Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and the later Averroes (Ibn Rushd), who made extensive commentaries upon Aristotle, and who are routinely touted as examples of Islam's benevolent impact upon Europe. But there was a darker, a much darker, side to Islamic influence, the side that modern historians, chained by the bonds of political correctness, do not dare mention. The real ideological impression of Islam was not the enlightened thinking of Avicenna and Averroes, who were in any case rejected and expelled from the Muslim canon, but the darker thinking found in the Koran and the Haditha: the doctrines of perpetual war against non-believers; of holy deception (taqiyya); of death for apostates and heretics; of judicial torture; of slave and concubine-taking as a legitimate occupation. These were the teachings, and not those of the philosophers, which left an indelible imprint on medieval Europe.[243]

A similar and even more detailed analysis of Islam's impact on Europe can be found in Egyptian scholar and historian Bet Ye'or's The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, in which she meticulously documents the destruction of Western culture under the hands of Islamic conquerors.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
DennisK4 said:
:lol This will give my colleagues a good laugh.

Perhaps other muslims like yourself are trying to pretend that he introduced the Scientific Method, but I can tell you right now that view is not shared by actual scientists. Please stop trusting everything you read on Wikipedia.

Please then. Elaborate on who first introduced the Scientific Method instead? I don't mind getting things corrected. Remember, we're here to learn things.

QUOTE=DeathNote]Why exclude this?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reminding me! I reached maximum word count in OP. I had to divide it into seperate posts, got into debating too fast. I'll put it up on the second post. But yeah, I need to know the decline too.

That's O'Neil, I read up on it. Let's see if we can find some sources. He isn't a historian ( he's a journalist), and no one seems to actually have even read his book ( only one he wrote , it seems ). Since no one even knows anything about him. I can't find a lot on him on google or wiki.
 

MrHicks

Banned
how many of you believe like i do that many of those geniuses from the olden days would probably be atheists had they not lived BEFORE darwin and evolution showed up?

imagine newton having all of todays knowledge of evolution presented to him
what would he have done?

man i sometimes wonder shit like that
 
MrHicks said:
how many of you believe like i do that many of those geniuses from the olden days would probably be atheists had they not lived BEFORE darwin and evolution showed up?

imagine newton having all of todays knowledge of evolution presented to him
what would he have done?

man i sometimes wonder shit like that


there were atheist before than. look up the history.
 

Dresden

Member
crazy monkey said:
there were atheist before than. look up the history.

It's quite likely that many of these "Islamic" scholars were atheists at heart. Hard to proclaim your lack of faith, though, when lacking faith could mean lacking a head as well.
 

Tideas

Banned
MrHicks said:
how many of you believe like i do that many of those geniuses from the olden days would probably be atheists had they not lived BEFORE darwin and evolution showed up?

imagine newton having all of todays knowledge of evolution presented to him
what would he have done?

man i sometimes wonder shit like that

what does evolution have to do with the 3 laws of physics?

Einstein was after Darwin. Still came up with the theory of relativity that superceded Newton's law of motion
 

harSon

Banned
MrHicks said:
how many of you believe like i do that many of those geniuses from the olden days would probably be atheists had they not lived BEFORE darwin and evolution showed up?

imagine newton having all of todays knowledge of evolution presented to him
what would he have done?

man i sometimes wonder shit like that

I had similar thoughts when I watched a PBS documentary on Percy Julian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Lavon_Julian), makes you wonder how many people we've oppressed or killed off that could have potentially done brilliant things if given the opportunity.
 

besada

Banned
MrHicks said:
imagine newton having all of todays knowledge of evolution presented to him
what would he have done?

man i sometimes wonder shit like that

Newton was something of a deranged heretic anyway. It's difficult to imagine him as an atheist, considering he explicitly was attempting to understand God. Even though his own laws mechanized motion, he said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

I doubt evolution would have made much more of an impression on him.
 
Dresden said:
It's quite likely that many of these "Islamic" scholars were atheists at heart. Hard to proclaim your lack of faith, though, when lacking faith could mean lacking a head as well.
Did you read what the thread was about ?
 

Shorty

Banned
I acknowledge the impact of Islam on today's civilization. Muslims brought the world hygiene and important medical knowledge. Without them we'd probably still take max 3 baths in a lifetime :lol
 

MrHicks

Banned
Tideas said:
what does evolution have to do with the 3 laws of physics?

Einstein was after Darwin. Still came up with the theory of relativity that superceded Newton's law of motion

huh?
evolution has nothing to do with law of physics

not getting your point hehe
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
besada said:
Newton was something of a deranged heretic anyway. It's difficult to imagine him as an atheist, considering he explicitly was attempting to understand God. Even though his own laws mechanized motion, he said:



I doubt evolution would have made much more of an impression on him.

Hey now, that's an interesting quote from Newton. I don't mind Newton being called a Christian scientist. Since by the looks of it, he does seem to be thorougly influenced by his religion. Ibn Khaldun I was refering too also made similiar statements ( though he wrote many texts on his religion and seems to have been more engaged). You were right!
 

cntr

Banned
besada said:
Newton was something of a deranged heretic anyway. It's difficult to imagine him as an atheist, considering he explicitly was attempting to understand God. Even though his own laws mechanized motion

Heh, I remember reading a bit on Newton's insanity in A Short History of Nearly Everything.
 

cntr

Banned
Jibril said:
Hey now, that's an interesting quote from Newton. I don't mind Newton being called a Christian scientist. Since by the looks of it, he does seem to be thorougly influenced by his religion. Ibn Khaldun I was refering too also made similiar statements ( though he wrote many texts on his religion and seems to have been more engaged). You were right!

uh

you kinda missed the point
 

Dresden

Member
Shorty said:
I acknowledge the impact of Islam on today's civilization. Muslims brought the world hygiene and important medical knowledge. Without them we'd probably still take max 3 baths in a lifetime :lol

Obligatory "Romans did it first" Post.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
X-Ninji said:
uh

you kinda missed the point

Really? I went back to the previous conversation we had on how Newton was similiar to Khaldun in that sense.
That's basically what I meant.
 

Dennis

Banned
There was no one person who introduced the Scientific Method.

It was a gradual proccess starting with the ancient greeks or arguably even before that. Human beings have always observed nature and experimented with it. What gradually became apparent was the power of systematic repeated observations and experiments to generate theories that could explain what used to be the believed to be knowable only by God. Islam preserved (and expanded in some areas) knowledge lost to Europe during what is somewhat misleading reffered to as the Dark Ages. It was the very careful observations of celestial movements by Tycho Brahe that was later used by Keppler to formulate his laws that really accelerated the efforts of the later Natural Philosophers such as Newton and Leibniz to describe Nature by equations. Their heirs would later be described as Scientists.
 

cntr

Banned
Jibril said:
Really? I went back to the previous conversation we had on how Newton was similiar to Khaldun in that sense.
That's basically what I meant.

but we don't call him a Christian scientist because we don't see a link between his religiosity and his science
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
DennisK4 said:
There was no one person who introduced the Scientific Method.

It was a gradual proccess starting with the ancient greeks or arguably even before that. Human beings have always observed nature and experimented with it. When gradually became apparent was the power of systematic repeated observations and experiments to generate theories that could explain what used to be the believed to be knowable only by God. Islam preserved (and expanded in some areas) knowledge lost to Europe during what is somewhat misleading reffered to as the Dark Ages. It was the very careful observations of celestial movements by Tycho Brahe that was later used by Keppler to formulate his laws that really accelerated the efforts of the later Natural Philosophers such as Newton and Leibniz to describe Nature by equations. Their heirs would later be described as Scientists.

Rosann Gorini disagrees:

Gorini, Rosanna (October 2003). "Al-Haytham the man of experience. First steps in the science of vision" (pdf). Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine 2 (4): 53–55 [55]. http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/4/10.pdf. Retrieved 2008-09-25.

Read the PDF is it's still working. Remember, it is only an excerpt of the original.

X-Ninji said:
but we don't call him a Christian scientist because we don't see a link between his religiosity and his science

I see.
 
I don't see what the relevance of motives is. Perceptions of Islam are as varied as you can get and most of those opinions are negative. Presenting another aspect to Muslim/Islamic society - especially one which can be so universally applauded not to mention positive - should be welcomed. How that may be interpreted as anxiety or desperation by others makes no sense.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
PantherLotus said:
Didn't most of the great Arabic/Persian contributions to science/math actually occur before Mohammed?

The arabs did literally nothing before Muhammad. The persians, well I don't know enough about them.
 

harSon

Banned
X-Ninji said:
but we don't call him a Christian scientist because we don't see a link between his religiosity and his science

Would Western society refer to him as a Christian scientist if Theocracies or religiously influenced governments were common through out its regions? Yes. There's a difference in culture, you're using your cultural knowledge and assuming its the case for everyone in the world.
 
besada said:
Newton was something of a deranged heretic anyway. It's difficult to imagine him as an atheist, considering he explicitly was attempting to understand God.

Many of the scientists post Renaissance were studying science so they could understand God's work. It's certain religions and followers today that take a hard line view of the way the Earth works that fuck up that type of thinking. I think it's perfectly logical. Like how I believe God created evolution.

Religion and science need not be contrary positions.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
harSon said:
Would Western society refer to him as a Christian scientist if Theocracies or religiously influenced governments were common through out its regions? Yes. There's a difference in culture, you're using your cultural knowledge and assuming its the case for everyone in the world.

Actually, I couldn't put it in better words. That's exactly what I mean.
Long night guys. I'm gonna hit the deck. Will be reading this in the morning.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
If human progress was furthered by religion and not the conquest of centers of learning from the Byzantine and Persian empire, then Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia would have showcased the height of "Islamic Civilization", having been Islamic longer than anywhere else.

Islam had little to do with their contributions.
 

Zapages

Member
Nice post Jibril. :)

Why we Muslims are not in science, technology, etc

Because:

1) Mongols ran sacked Baghdad and destroyed much of the library and knowledge.
2) The Caliphate moved to Egypt. This was even after the Mongols converted to Islam, approximately 3 Khante of them did and other one did not convert.
3) Eventually the caliphate was transferred over to the Seljuk Turks which then became the Ottoman Empire.
4) The Ottomans expanded their economy through waging wars to much of their degree and their economy was based upon gold, which was scarce in the "old world".
5) Discovery of the Americas and caused an influx of Gold into Europe causing the down fall of the economy of the Ottoman Empire. Overall causing the decline of Islamic Civilization. During this time Spain/East India Company/Britain/France/Holland were colonizing the rest of the world due to having a lot of gold and trade which helped them build their military and navy.

Why the Islamic Civilization instead of Turkish/Arab/South Asian/etc, because in Islam there is notion of an united Islamic Country made of different ethnicity. So the modern nations in Islam are not really Islamic and the notion of nationalism is not present there at all.
 

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
Atrus said:
If human progress was furthered by religion and not the conquest of centers of learning from the Byzantine and Persian empire, then Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia would have showcased the height of "Islamic Civilization", having been Islamic longer than anywhere else.

Islam had little to do with their contributions.

I respect your opinion on the manner and wish you well.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think this would have been better titled:

Arabic Civilization: How Religion Destroyed a Great and Woundrous Culture of Scientific Learning
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
no offense, this thread is stupid. "Islam" wasn't a civilization. There were varoius Arab Caliphates (Ummayads, Abassids, etc) and the Ottoman Empire, those were actual civilizations under which scientific progress occurred. But saying it was an "Islamic" civilization is like saying that Europe from Constantine in 313 AD to the 20th century was a "Christian" civilization. It doesn't really make any sense.

I acknowledge the impact of Islam on today's civilization. Muslims brought the world hygiene and important medical knowledge. Without them we'd probably still take max 3 baths in a lifetime

Again, this is a cultural thing. the emphasis on ritual cleanliness in the middle east predates the spread of Islam. Don't get culture confused with religion (although the two generally impact eachother greatly, in both directions).
 
Nerevar said:
no offense, this thread is stupid. "Islam" wasn't a civilization. There were varoius Arab Caliphates (Ummayads, Abassids, etc) and the Ottoman Empire, those were actual civilizations under which scientific progress occurred. But saying it was an "Islamic" civilization is like saying that Europe from Constantine in 313 AD to the 20th century was a "Christian" civilization. It doesn't really make any sense.

in terms of history, it is written like Islamic civilization, Greek civilization, christen civilization.
 

cntr

Banned
harSon said:
Would Western society refer to him as a Christian scientist if Theocracies or religiously influenced governments were common through out its regions? Yes. There's a difference in culture, you're using your cultural knowledge and assuming its the case for everyone in the world.

Highly irrelevant. He would be a Christian scientist if religion played a major role in his science. It does not, therefore, he is most certainly not a Christian scientist.

And the idea of a secular government is recent, the majority of governments in past history were very religiously motivated. And I doubt that science would be accepted in any way by a theocratic government.
 

Yamauchi

Banned
Dresden said:
Plenty of Western scientists were Christian, and were, sometimes, even priests and monks as well. It doesn't mean that we glorify their contributions as Christian contributions to learning.
That about wraps up this thread.
 

harSon

Banned
PantherLotus said:
I think this would have been better titled:

Arabic Civilization: How Religion Destroyed a Great and Woundrous Culture of Scientific Learning

As in the language? How would that be better?
 
harSon said:
Would Western society refer to him as a Christian scientist if Theocracies or religiously influenced governments were common through out its regions? Yes. There's a difference in culture, you're using your cultural knowledge and assuming its the case for everyone in the world.
Except they were and they aren't.

They're not known as Christian scientists because faith has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with science
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom