6 ms·

> In trying to explain the Islamic world’s intellectual laggardness, it is tempting to point to the obvious factors: authoritarianism, bad education, and underf

> In trying to explain the Islamic world’s intellectual laggardness, it is tempting to point to the obvious factors: authoritarianism, bad education, and underfunding (Muslim states spend significantly less than developed states on research and development as a percentage of GDP). But these reasons are all broad and somewhat crude, and raise more questions than answers. At a deeper level, Islam lags because it failed to offer a way to institutionalize free inquiry. This is a pretty blunt and unconvincing dismissal of some pretty huge factors. --- The article makes some pretty strong claims that Islam currently has some fundamental beef with science due to a philosophical beef with causality as a "natural" force that does not exist in the West. I must disagree, not with the idea that Islam has this beef, but that this beef does not exist in the West. It is simultaneously true that Christians have been scientists, and that Muslims have been, and that both institutions have, at various times both endorsed and indicted the scientific method - and more specifically the idea that natural phenomena are causal without the influence of god. Perhaps the author has heard of Leibniz's seminal work, Monadology? In this work Leibniz essentially argues that all action and causality in the universe is the result of God's great plan unfolding, that every action and reaction is predetermined, stored in every fragment of matter and that causality effectively does not exist. Now, according to the article, this kind of denial of causality is antithetical to scientific thinking and progress. Leibniz, along with Newton, is widely credited with the discovery of Calculus.

porpoisely 8y ago
Interesting point. Descartes, who influenced science, math and philosophy, also placed god at the center of everything. Even his own existence ( cogito ergo sum ) depended on god existing and being fundamentally good. Newton also credited god for the natural motion of the planets and gravity in principia. And of course some of the giants in biology like Linnaeus and Mendel were clergymen. They were men of their times and their belief that god directed the natural world ( or that the natural world worked according to god ) didn't stop their scientific pursuits. I doubt religion is solely responsible for the arab world's lack of scientific research. It's probably a mix of political instability, levels of poverty, lack of leadership by the elites and dependence on oil, gas and natural resources for wealth.
- MichaelMoser123 8y ago
  > I doubt religion is solely responsible for the arab world's lack of scientific research. It's probably a mix of political instability, levels of poverty, lack of leadership by the elites and dependence on oil, gas and natural resources for wealth. The article sites some hard reason here but then argues them away: the Mongols sacking of Baghdad and the Spanish reconquista. I wonder how Europe would look like today if somebody had sacked Italy during the renaissance. In my book Europe was just lucky that it was shielded from significant disruptions (relative to the rest of the world) during the high and late middle ages due to geography and partition into competing centers.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    The destruction of baghdad and the spanish reconquista are convenient excuses with very little merit. The islamic empire was already very old and in decline by the time of the mongol and spanish conquests. Also, much of eastern europe was conquered by the mongols. It hasn't stopped them from embracing science. China was conquered by the mongols, they have embraced science. Europe ( italy mostly ) was lucky because the pope decided to "submit" to the mongols and they were rewarded handsomely with trade privileges. The italian renaissance was a direct result of immense wealth generated by trade with the mongol empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum Without the mongol empire, there is no trade, no transfer of knowledge and technology from the east to the west and no italian wealth and hence no italian renaissance. Interestingly enough, without the mongol empire ( or the collapse of it ), there is no columbus, no discovery of americas, no european exploration and therefore no enlightenment. In 1480, the russians finally ended the reign of the Golden Horde and ended europe's trade link to the east. 12 years later, an italian sailor set out to find another trade link to the east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river We aren't taught this in school but central theme of the past 500 years has been europe trying to establish trade links with the east ( primarily china and india ) that the mongol empire had provided them from the 1200s to the 1400s.
    - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
woodandsteel 8y ago
>Perhaps the author has heard of Leibniz's seminal work, Monadology? In this work Leibniz essentially argues that all action and causality in the universe is the result of God's great plan unfolding, that every action and reaction is predetermined, stored in every fragment of matter and that causality effectively does not exist. Leibniz's strange philosophy has had no impact at all on science in the West. > It is simultaneously true that Christians have been scientists, and that Muslims have been, and that both institutions have, at various times both endorsed and indicted the scientific method - and more specifically the idea that natural phenomena are causal without the influence of god. The author did not deny that. He is talking about the overall trends.
- tomlock 8y ago
  >Leibniz's strange philosophy has had no impact at all on science in the West. What is this claim based on? His philosophy didn't have an impact on his own science, so perhaps a claim that a belief that God creates a mere appearance of causality, kills science, is a little overblown. >The author did not deny that. He is talking about the overall trends. While hand waving away GDP and other, more obvious indicators.

porpoisely 8y ago

Interesting point. Descartes, who influenced science, math and philosophy, also placed god at the center of everything. Even his own existence ( cogito ergo sum ) depended on god existing and being fundamentally good. Newton also credited god for the natural motion of the planets and gravity in principia. And of course some of the giants in biology like Linnaeus and Mendel were clergymen. They were men of their times and their belief that god directed the natural world ( or that the natural world worked according to god ) didn't stop their scientific pursuits. I doubt religion is solely responsible for the arab world's lack of scientific research. It's probably a mix of political instability, levels of poverty, lack of leadership by the elites and dependence on oil, gas and natural resources for wealth.

MichaelMoser123 8y ago
> I doubt religion is solely responsible for the arab world's lack of scientific research. It's probably a mix of political instability, levels of poverty, lack of leadership by the elites and dependence on oil, gas and natural resources for wealth. The article sites some hard reason here but then argues them away: the Mongols sacking of Baghdad and the Spanish reconquista. I wonder how Europe would look like today if somebody had sacked Italy during the renaissance. In my book Europe was just lucky that it was shielded from significant disruptions (relative to the rest of the world) during the high and late middle ages due to geography and partition into competing centers.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  The destruction of baghdad and the spanish reconquista are convenient excuses with very little merit. The islamic empire was already very old and in decline by the time of the mongol and spanish conquests. Also, much of eastern europe was conquered by the mongols. It hasn't stopped them from embracing science. China was conquered by the mongols, they have embraced science. Europe ( italy mostly ) was lucky because the pope decided to "submit" to the mongols and they were rewarded handsomely with trade privileges. The italian renaissance was a direct result of immense wealth generated by trade with the mongol empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum Without the mongol empire, there is no trade, no transfer of knowledge and technology from the east to the west and no italian wealth and hence no italian renaissance. Interestingly enough, without the mongol empire ( or the collapse of it ), there is no columbus, no discovery of americas, no european exploration and therefore no enlightenment. In 1480, the russians finally ended the reign of the Golden Horde and ended europe's trade link to the east. 12 years later, an italian sailor set out to find another trade link to the east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river We aren't taught this in school but central theme of the past 500 years has been europe trying to establish trade links with the east ( primarily china and india ) that the mongol empire had provided them from the 1200s to the 1400s.
  - MichaelMoser123 8y ago

woodandsteel 8y ago

>Perhaps the author has heard of Leibniz's seminal work, Monadology? In this work Leibniz essentially argues that all action and causality in the universe is the result of God's great plan unfolding, that every action and reaction is predetermined, stored in every fragment of matter and that causality effectively does not exist. Leibniz's strange philosophy has had no impact at all on science in the West. > It is simultaneously true that Christians have been scientists, and that Muslims have been, and that both institutions have, at various times both endorsed and indicted the scientific method - and more specifically the idea that natural phenomena are causal without the influence of god. The author did not deny that. He is talking about the overall trends.

tomlock 8y ago
>Leibniz's strange philosophy has had no impact at all on science in the West. What is this claim based on? His philosophy didn't have an impact on his own science, so perhaps a claim that a belief that God creates a mere appearance of causality, kills science, is a little overblown. >The author did not deny that. He is talking about the overall trends. While hand waving away GDP and other, more obvious indicators.