6 ms·

It is referred to as Islamic science because: a) Scientists came from a wide variety of backgrounds, but were usually of Muslim faith. For example, the term "M

by Cyph0n 8y ago

It is referred to as Islamic science because: a) Scientists came from a wide variety of backgrounds, but were usually of Muslim faith. For example, the term "Middle East" would not be accurate since many scholars were Persian and West Asian. b) Scholars were typically funded by patrons who were associated with the Muslim empire/caliphate. c) To a lesser extent, many of the prominent scholars first learned Islamic science and philosophy -- typically at a young age -- before delving into the natural sciences.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
It's interesting we don't [in the UK nor in English language sources online] refer to the likes of Kepler as being part of Christian science, despite the characters often being trained priests in one denomination or another [Copernicus, say, was a doctor of canon law], often being funded by Church patrons. There's an interesting divergence in the perceptions; I'm interested in whether that's a modern issue or if it represents something inherent in the mode of the science being performed? Wikipedia mentions scientists who were historically - and are elsewhere - known for their Christian faith, priests and such but without mentioning that they were Christian believers but with scientists who were living in Islamic countries [I don't know the history to know if they, for example were Imams or wrote religious treatise] they're flagged as Muslims. Copernicus/Kepler/Brahe [I didn't check further] aren't claimed to be Christian, Al-Kindi is claimed in the first sentence as a Muslim amongst Muslim scholars, in a Muslim World, etc.. Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations?
- Chris_Jay 8y ago
  Interesting question! My guess is that a part of the difference was actually doctrinal - Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order - its founder was not a martyred revolutionary but a successful political entity. Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Islam sets forward a system for religious governance. Therefore, while both Christian and Islamic scholars generally got their education in their respective religious traditions, I think Christian scholars were seen as breaking with the past in part because that kind of behavior is celebrated in Christianity, while Islamic scholars were seen as being involved in their political processes because that is celebrated in Islam.
  - cat199 8y ago
    > Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. This is a hugely low-church protestant viewpoint. That 'monarchic system' you refer to was indeed intended to be the administration of the 'just order' which was founded by the 'revolutionary figure' of Jesus. Just because the protestants viewed the western Christian regime as corrupt, doesn't mean it wasn't at least philosophically aligned with such a viewpoint (see also "Holy Roman Empire", etc.). And although the reformers are happy to paint those adhering to this regieme as non-christian, it doesn't mean they actually were not so (either in reality or philosopically, according to ones analysis) > Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order Isn't a major tenet of islam restoring the people of god from the apostasy of the jews and of christians, etc? > Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Again, hugely post-enlightenment protestant viewpoint. Non-protestant Christianity, not just in the west under the roman pontiff (again, holy roman empire), but everywhere that it was not dominated by the islamic conquest viewed church and state as two distinct entities administering to the two different aspects of a single society (spiritual and temporal) in concert (see also 'holy russia', etc).
    - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
      I think you're unfairly circumscribing the OP's viewpoint since many Catholics also view Christianity as overthrowing an old order (the headship of Adam, the violence of Rome, the rites of blood sacrifice). I don't think contemporary Catholics support the practices Luther rebelled against such as selling indulgences either.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    "Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one" Mostly disagree with this characterization of christianity. Christianity was first a small cultish endeavour amalgamizing judaistic and greek cultures. Then it suddenly replaced roman state religion, with church fathers taking strong political leadership within the religions domain. The roman state religion was always a part of keeping the empire in cohesion. This same political intent was laid onto christianity. So, where Islam gained prominence as the administrative creed of an arabian trade town, christianity rose to prominence as part of the administrative structure of an empire. Only after a millenia protestants started to question the papal authority. Martin Luther and his ideas survived because the german princes wanted to undermine catholic churches authority. While definetly NOT toppling their own. Luther was vehemently anti-revolutionary, saying rebelious peasants should be severely punished. Most flavors of christianity are not about toppling old regimes but supporting them. The rebelious sects like the huguenots were vehemently persecuted. The more rebellious sects only started thriving in the american colonies.
- cat199 8y ago
  > Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations? Not OP, but I wouldn't be so sure the differences aren't a result of characterizations both originating in the west.. Our dominant philosophical lens (enlightenment rationalism) tends to downplay any religious belief within science as something 'cultural', etc - therefore Kepler, etc, were not 'christian' in anything other than a historical footnote.. since these 'islamic scientists' were outside of the western scientific lineage, they were labelled accordingly - and we can't label 'our own' lineage as 'christian' since it would be to some extent anti-enlightenment to do so (after all it was the church which 'held back' science in the enlightenment view)...
- jamiek88 8y ago
  A lot of the ‘priests’ were quasi landed gentry who inherited church titles and lands and read a couple sermons from a book per week. Hey had incomes from local farms and lots and lots of education and free time. A good introductory to this and the history of western science is Bill Bryson’s ‘a brief history of everything’and the one he edited on the Royal Society. Some of course were deeply religious, it I think it’s correct to treat their Christianity as incidental. I dont know if it’s the same with the ‘islamic’ scholars. I’d like to think so and I’d like to know more about them. Anyone recommend any laymen focused books on Islamic scholarship in antiquity?
  - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
    Church offices aren't hereditary and church lands don't belong to individual clergy. Time and money are necessary to scholarship, but not sufficient.
    - contoraria 8y ago
      Indeed. I bet you have time and money. bazinga https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_(Burg) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_(Burg) > Da er zu wenig Geld für den Bau der Burg hatte, bat Radbot seinen Bruder, Bischof Werner von Strassburg, um Unterstützung > Because of insufficient funds to construct the castle, Radbot begged his brother, Bischop Werner of Strassburg for support. Whether or not that's a legend, it was not unbelievable, which is the whole point. That castle was situated at an impasse of a river, where they likely extorted money, I mean "took taxes". The rest is convoluted history. I guess you heard the name.
      - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        If you're interested in more examples of worldly clergymen check out Thomas Wolsey in the novel "Wolf Hall", Thomas a Becket in the movie "Becket" (1964), and of course Cardinal Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
- ppacce 8y ago
  I can't think of a western scientist being labeled as a christian scientist. However, if we talk about western thinkers we have Augustine of Hippo, usually known as St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, know as St. Thomas Aquinas. They played a major role shaping the Church as we know, but they were also highly influential in western society and philosophy as a whole. Descartes jesuit education is constantly brought up when talking about his work, at least when comes to philosophy.

by Cyph0n 8y ago

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

It's interesting we don't [in the UK nor in English language sources online] refer to the likes of Kepler as being part of Christian science, despite the characters often being trained priests in one denomination or another [Copernicus, say, was a doctor of canon law], often being funded by Church patrons. There's an interesting divergence in the perceptions; I'm interested in whether that's a modern issue or if it represents something inherent in the mode of the science being performed? Wikipedia mentions scientists who were historically - and are elsewhere - known for their Christian faith, priests and such but without mentioning that they were Christian believers but with scientists who were living in Islamic countries [I don't know the history to know if they, for example were Imams or wrote religious treatise] they're flagged as Muslims. Copernicus/Kepler/Brahe [I didn't check further] aren't claimed to be Christian, Al-Kindi is claimed in the first sentence as a Muslim amongst Muslim scholars, in a Muslim World, etc.. Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations?

Chris_Jay 8y ago
Interesting question! My guess is that a part of the difference was actually doctrinal - Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order - its founder was not a martyred revolutionary but a successful political entity. Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Islam sets forward a system for religious governance. Therefore, while both Christian and Islamic scholars generally got their education in their respective religious traditions, I think Christian scholars were seen as breaking with the past in part because that kind of behavior is celebrated in Christianity, while Islamic scholars were seen as being involved in their political processes because that is celebrated in Islam.
- cat199 8y ago
  > Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. This is a hugely low-church protestant viewpoint. That 'monarchic system' you refer to was indeed intended to be the administration of the 'just order' which was founded by the 'revolutionary figure' of Jesus. Just because the protestants viewed the western Christian regime as corrupt, doesn't mean it wasn't at least philosophically aligned with such a viewpoint (see also "Holy Roman Empire", etc.). And although the reformers are happy to paint those adhering to this regieme as non-christian, it doesn't mean they actually were not so (either in reality or philosopically, according to ones analysis) > Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order Isn't a major tenet of islam restoring the people of god from the apostasy of the jews and of christians, etc? > Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Again, hugely post-enlightenment protestant viewpoint. Non-protestant Christianity, not just in the west under the roman pontiff (again, holy roman empire), but everywhere that it was not dominated by the islamic conquest viewed church and state as two distinct entities administering to the two different aspects of a single society (spiritual and temporal) in concert (see also 'holy russia', etc).
  - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
    I think you're unfairly circumscribing the OP's viewpoint since many Catholics also view Christianity as overthrowing an old order (the headship of Adam, the violence of Rome, the rites of blood sacrifice). I don't think contemporary Catholics support the practices Luther rebelled against such as selling indulgences either.
- fsloth 8y ago
  "Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one" Mostly disagree with this characterization of christianity. Christianity was first a small cultish endeavour amalgamizing judaistic and greek cultures. Then it suddenly replaced roman state religion, with church fathers taking strong political leadership within the religions domain. The roman state religion was always a part of keeping the empire in cohesion. This same political intent was laid onto christianity. So, where Islam gained prominence as the administrative creed of an arabian trade town, christianity rose to prominence as part of the administrative structure of an empire. Only after a millenia protestants started to question the papal authority. Martin Luther and his ideas survived because the german princes wanted to undermine catholic churches authority. While definetly NOT toppling their own. Luther was vehemently anti-revolutionary, saying rebelious peasants should be severely punished. Most flavors of christianity are not about toppling old regimes but supporting them. The rebelious sects like the huguenots were vehemently persecuted. The more rebellious sects only started thriving in the american colonies.
cat199 8y ago
> Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations? Not OP, but I wouldn't be so sure the differences aren't a result of characterizations both originating in the west.. Our dominant philosophical lens (enlightenment rationalism) tends to downplay any religious belief within science as something 'cultural', etc - therefore Kepler, etc, were not 'christian' in anything other than a historical footnote.. since these 'islamic scientists' were outside of the western scientific lineage, they were labelled accordingly - and we can't label 'our own' lineage as 'christian' since it would be to some extent anti-enlightenment to do so (after all it was the church which 'held back' science in the enlightenment view)...
jamiek88 8y ago
A lot of the ‘priests’ were quasi landed gentry who inherited church titles and lands and read a couple sermons from a book per week. Hey had incomes from local farms and lots and lots of education and free time. A good introductory to this and the history of western science is Bill Bryson’s ‘a brief history of everything’and the one he edited on the Royal Society. Some of course were deeply religious, it I think it’s correct to treat their Christianity as incidental. I dont know if it’s the same with the ‘islamic’ scholars. I’d like to think so and I’d like to know more about them. Anyone recommend any laymen focused books on Islamic scholarship in antiquity?
- loggedinmyphone 8y ago
  Church offices aren't hereditary and church lands don't belong to individual clergy. Time and money are necessary to scholarship, but not sufficient.
  - contoraria 8y ago
    Indeed. I bet you have time and money. bazinga https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_(Burg) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_(Burg) > Da er zu wenig Geld für den Bau der Burg hatte, bat Radbot seinen Bruder, Bischof Werner von Strassburg, um Unterstützung > Because of insufficient funds to construct the castle, Radbot begged his brother, Bischop Werner of Strassburg for support. Whether or not that's a legend, it was not unbelievable, which is the whole point. That castle was situated at an impasse of a river, where they likely extorted money, I mean "took taxes". The rest is convoluted history. I guess you heard the name.
    - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
      If you're interested in more examples of worldly clergymen check out Thomas Wolsey in the novel "Wolf Hall", Thomas a Becket in the movie "Becket" (1964), and of course Cardinal Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
- Cyph0n 8y ago
ppacce 8y ago
I can't think of a western scientist being labeled as a christian scientist. However, if we talk about western thinkers we have Augustine of Hippo, usually known as St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, know as St. Thomas Aquinas. They played a major role shaping the Church as we know, but they were also highly influential in western society and philosophy as a whole. Descartes jesuit education is constantly brought up when talking about his work, at least when comes to philosophy.