9 ms·

Islam and science: The road to renewal

71 points by rosser 14y ago

rorrr 14y ago
Islam is in the position of control in many countries. It's in the position evangelicals want to be in (and try in the US at least). There's not much secularism going on in any of heavily islamic countries, and it's actually getting worse. Religious extrimism is on the rise. Here are a few facts and polls: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vubyx/only_a_tiny_minority_of_extremists/ http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vubyx/only_a_tiny_m...
- hekark 14y ago
  Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. There is a word that's used in Islam text, called Bi'dah; which can roughly be translated to "innovation in the religion". People label their own delusions under Islam, when they have nothing to do with the religion (ie. murder, suicide bombings, etc). There is a class war and power struggle in the middle east right now. I think middle easterners are divided between those that want the empire back and those that want to integrate into the European (pseudo-Roman) way of life. Neither side is achieving their goals in a proper manner though. Suicide bombings obviously don't help with anything. Integration with Europe has simply lead to colonization and poorer living standards. The middle east is pretty complicated. It's better to actually understand the history of the middle east, rather than post a link to /r/atheism.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. That is the position that was widely taken in Western countries. It only lasts so long as the description of God's creation that comes from science is compatible with religion. But once science disagrees with the description of your religion, you're forced to make hard choices. For most strands of judeo-christianity (including Islam), that point is hit with Darwin. Integration with Europe has simply lead to colonization and poorer living standards. The decline of the Middle East actually goes back farther than that. People in the West celebrate the voyages of discovery. But we seldom think about the consequences that direct trade routes from Europe to India and China had on people who were dependent on pre-existing trade routes along the Silk Road, such as the Middle East.
    - yareally 14y ago
      Metaphorically speaking (and taken at the higher level comparison), the Europeans, were exploring for alternative ways to the Asian trade routes without the middle man. In effect, they were just doing a form of "hacking" -- finding an easier way to their goal and upsetting the status quo. In some ways, that's similar to how most of us try to do in our own ventures what drives progress. It's fairly easy to ignore the consequences involved in disrupting a market, but holding back progress generally has a negative outcome for humanity as a whole.* It may have caused the Middle East to become more isolated, but at the same time, humanity needs to find a way to avoid repeating itself (as we still see such things even today in any rural part of the world). Open communication and integration generally leads to a more free exchange of ideas and calms fears between different cultural groups and nationalities. *I'm ignoring the ethical consequences here that came with finding North/South America and focusing on the trade routes to avoid going too far off the subject.
      - btilly 14y ago
        There is no question that opening up direct trade routes has been beneficial overall for the world. But it wasn't for the Middle East, and the reasons for the decline, being distant, were not immediately apparent to anyone. More generally everyone who has learned even a little economics knows that when you open up trade, you improve production. That's the whole point of comparative advantage. However lurking in the math is that if 2 parties are engaged in trade, and the third is not, adding the third makes the total better off, but is not necessarily better for all parties.
        yareally 14y ago
        Agreed. I don't think anyone, even if it happened today would have saw the Middle East's gradual isolation over several hundred years as the likely outcome of Europeans "hacking" the silk road trade routes (though if a similar case happened today, it would probably be far less gradual). There were other factors as well, such as consecutive bad leadership in the Ottoman Empire following Suleiman the Magnificent (which is often cited as a big reason for the decline of the Western Roman Empire), but the consequences of the trade route disruption has too many ripple effects over time it's hard to say what or what was not in some way attributed to it. Comparing the Ottomans and the Western Romans once again, both lost out on most of their profitable trade (as most of the trade was in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire and was no longer filling the Western tax coffers when the Empire split into two). Although I wouldn't take my conclusion as fault proof, but it would appear that countries can survive a string of bad leaders, but if trade that's taken for granted dries up and never returns, then the country is in bad shape if it cannot adapt.
  - safeerm 14y ago
    ^great comment and clarification.
  - camus 14y ago
    >>>> Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. of course it does , angel and djinns are not scientific facts , neither are people claiming they received the word of "god" from whatever spook out there... Science looks at nature and try to draw conclusions , facts that one can experiment or things than can predict something. Prove me that djinns or angels exist as the reproducible phenomenon and i will believe in whatever fairy tail you believe in. Religion is based on faith since you cant reproduce any so called "miracle" written in holly books. Read your sentence : your assume at first place everything is god creation , that's not how science works. But i dont blame you , some believe in Hubbard or Smith , no matter how smart they think they are. Just dont lie to yourself in saying religion doesnt contradict science , it is dishonest at best.
  - rorrr 14y ago
    > Islam doesn't really contradict science Sure it does. Qur'an is full of things that contradict science.
  - userulluipeste 14y ago
    Islam doesn't really contradict science. I'm afraid science might contradict Islam (like any other religion).
rmc 14y ago
Eventually things will change. Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). Most Christian groups now are often hostile to science that disagrees with them from Creationists & evolution to Catholics and security.
- _wwz4 14y ago
  Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) I've seen this speculation that this is just a phase that Islam is going through. When Christianity was going through a similar conflict with Science, there were no real fruits of Science to validate it as a system of learning about reality. Christianity came first and had its roots firmly planted before that upstart Science came along. The power struggle was understandable in that progression. These days, the results of Science are all around us. We have computers, cell phones, nuclear power, and robots exploring other planets. There's really no excuse for the utter dismissal of reality exhibited by large swathes of the Islamic world. Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it.
  - rosser 14y ago
    Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? You're making an incredibly common mistake here: judging the religion in its entirety — some quarter of the human population — by the behaviors of a very scant minority. Yes, it happens that the minority in question hold positions of power, but are they behaving that way because they believe that way, or because it seems to help them keep that power? (Put more pointedly, are they pandering to a pre-existing, cultural ignorance, or are they manufacturing an ignorance that's easier to control?) Most Muslims aren't belligerent. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, and only justifies violence in direct response to direct attack, whether against the individual, or against the faith. Most Muslims are in the unfortunate position of being kept from the knowledge that would allow them to participate fully in the modern world. They're being kept from that knowledge not for anything to do with the religion, itself (though the religion is often twisted to justify their being kept that way), but to preserve the temporal power of the people that happen to have that power right now. So, yeah. Let's blame Islam for that.
steeve 14y ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the downfall of Science in Islam during the 1100s beautifully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rR8stuQfk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rR8stuQfk
- supersaiyan 14y ago
  I love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but he explains this with such broad reasoning, ignoring the economic side of the problem.
richardjordan 14y ago
It is very tiring to hear the same old irrelevant statement repeated over and over again. That early in its life Islam was less hostile to learning and what we now think of as science. This is largely meaningless of course and as irrelevant to Islamic nations and movements today as comparing the leadership and policies of any country or region a thousand years ago to today. Islam is the driver of policy in a number of nations today - there is no obvious movement by these nations towards tolerance of science where it conflicts with rigid Islamic dogma. I get the instinct of many to not want to tar all Muslims with the brush of radicalism and extremism. I share it. But the facts are not flattering when you look at the actual effects of policies and positions in the nations where Islam plays a key role in governance today. Papering over that by reaching back a thousand years to a supposed golden age of Islamic science is not helpful though. Uncomfortable truths are better faced honestly. You can do this without resorting to bigotry and pointing out things that make people uncomfortable does not have to be bigotry.
- guylhem 14y ago
  Unfortunately. It is a shame that the human race tries to progress without the active help of a approximately a quarter of the world population. One can only hope that islam will see the light like other religions did - yet I doubt that, for it seems even more opposed to science that the other religions were/are. There have been various sects trying to bring the enlightenment to islam, but they more or less have failed. (in fact, I believe Mustapha Kamal in Turkey is one of the only example of success - and even that one was not perfect, with religious persecution of the religious minorities) There are signs that a united califate (islamist empire) might emerge again - the various revolutions could have been an opportunity for democracy to emerge, but the islamists did dominate. Some serious ideological division between islamists are blocking, but politics does wonder everywhere, and when you notice a peace agreement between sunnis and shias, be very worried. Maybe it can't be like the pacific fall of communism - maybe it will take a war like the fall of fascism. The way things are, the west will prevail and so will science - with strong collateral damages however. It is just a shame to spend so many years and resources for such a pointless confrontation - and that's not even counting the human losses. At least science and progress will prevail. Too bad it might seriously hurt the current leader of the free world - like it did for France and England in WW2. BTW for those who will cry wolf and racism, here's a nice facebook page in french : https://www.facebook.com/Athes411 https://www.facebook.com/Athes411 - algerians atheists. Yes, some people in countries dominated by islam do fight for their freedom of conscience and for science to prevail. Odds are against them however. Science requires a "critical mass" to bear its fruits, or people end up burned or with their heads on sticks - like many did, in the middle ages or the other dark periods of humanity. Society, in the countries where these people live, is fighting against them and their un-islamic beliefs, there are fewer and fewer of them to make a political difference, while we are offering very little opportunity to leave for greener pastures. Odds are against them - just like they were against galileo, or the russians who did not believe in communism and saw it for what it was but couldn't manage to flee. Science, facts and all that will certainly win in the end- but meanwhile, it won't do any good for the people stuck in a fight against an angry mob of people, which includes some who sincerely believe they have 40 virgins waiting for them in heaven! EDIT: Secularism and science do conflate. Just like fascist and communist suppressed research that was against their dogmas, and subsidized stupid theories that played well with their beliefs. In the catholic world there was that thing called "the middle ages" for a reason - and then enlightenment. We are currently in the islamic middle ages. Go read the atheist page - it's worth spending some time on. Their last post from only 2 hours ago even has a nice picture of science as a book/shield to protect against religious dogmas : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342402572541947&set=a.293399670775571.67113.292778557504349&type=1&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342402572541947&... Downvotes ? Does not matter. True science holds no belief - just paradigms, which can be reversed with enough time, theories and matching evidence. Any form of political or religious belief is good and helpful - until it starts believing that dogmas are better than facts. Then it steers away from the truth. Science is not a body of knowledge, but more a process of thought.
amalag 14y ago
Modern science has become increasingly atheistic and pitting itself against faith and religion with it's own dogma and leaps of faith. This is a relatively recent phenomena probably started by religious persecution. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
- RexRollman 14y ago
  Are you serious? If anything is pitting itself against something, it is the religious trying to suppress knowledge in order to prop up their superstitions.
  - rosser 14y ago
    Dawkins? EDIT: In order to avoid simply offering a flippant (if true) one-word reply, let me also say that your comment is as guilty of painting with an overly broad brush as the GP comment. Some religious folk are anti-science. Some scientists are rabidly anti-religious. Most of both are neither. There are just a lot more religious people than there are scientists, and religion tends to lend itself towards being a pulpit for extreme views more readily than science. Coupling those facts, of course it's going to seem like religion wants to beat science up and leave it for dead.
    - tokipin 14y ago
      the important difference, i think, is that in our culture science argues through its own coherence, whereas religion, devoid of coherence, argues and manifests itself through politics. coherence is a stronger case, but politics is a bigger stick
      - rosser 14y ago
        religion, devoid of coherence That's a pretty broad brush, too.
        tokipin 14y ago
shmerl 14y ago
By the way, the word algorithm is derived from the name of Muḥammad al-Khwārizmī.
- mda 14y ago
  Some other scientific terms of arabic origin: Algebra, Zero, Cipher, Azimuth, Zenith, Nadir, Chemistry, Alkali etc.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Alchemy is a more obvious one than chemistry :)
    - rosser 14y ago
      Chemistry was alchemy until people realized that if they shared the knowledge that drinking mercury was a bad idea, fewer people would drink mercury.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        Exactly. Alchemy means "the chemistry". Alchemists were true experimentalists and researchers and discovered many chemical reactions, elements as well as invented various tools. They focused on mystical application of this knowledge in a sense of drawing parallels between processes in the soul to chemical processes. Only later this distinction between "chemistry" and "alchemy" appeared, when interest in mysticism stopped being part of this field of study.
  - redwood 14y ago
    What we forget is much of the knowledge we attribute to the Arabs actually came from the Indian Subcontinent. It's just that Arabs, sitting neatly between Europeans and the Subcontinent, became the conduit for the knowledge to reach Europe.
    - chewxy 14y ago
jpxxx 14y ago
Maybe if we torture them harder they'll do more science. I'd give it a whirl, but Christ-God Of The Sky disapproves of work on Sabbath.
derpmaster 14y ago
Didn't even read the story as soon as I saw it was an economist article. It's a complete rag written by hipsters, there's a reason no article has writing credits. Here's an older yet excellent argument and slash piece why the economist is a piece of trash http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35 http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&#38...
novalis78 14y ago
This is especially sad if you happen to read A.K Warder's chapter on the utter destruction and annihilation of Universities in ancient India ('Indian Buddhism' => http://books.google.com/books?id=sE8MgUVGNHkC&lpg=PA479&dq=islam%20warder%20indian%20buddhism&pg=PA479#v=onepage&q=islam%20warder%20indian%20buddhism&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=sE8MgUVGNHkC&lpg=PA479&... - places where logic, mathematics, (invention of zero, etc.) linguistics, grammar, astronomy etc etc where taught to students from all over Asia - as early as 400 AD. Many of the scientific discoveries of Islam where results of plundering and exterminating scientific endeavors in other more peaceful cultures.
userulluipeste 14y ago
In Europe a lot of early scientists come off from cleric circles. It's just it couldn't go along with religion much time. The basis of science is questioning things. The basis of religions is belief and their non-questioning basis - dogma. As long as the science pursuit fits the religion, like predicting all kind of events, it's fine. But sooner or later, to evolve, science would have to start eroding religion's basis and here is where things will fall apart and difficulties begin (this is mentioned in the article here and there). Yes, "rulers are realizing the economic value of scientific research", but those rulers depend more on their good relations with religious leaders and the religion's offerings (like the public order among other things).

71 points by rosser 14y ago

rorrr 14y ago

Islam is in the position of control in many countries. It's in the position evangelicals want to be in (and try in the US at least). There's not much secularism going on in any of heavily islamic countries, and it's actually getting worse. Religious extrimism is on the rise. Here are a few facts and polls: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vubyx/only_a_tiny_minority_of_extremists/ http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vubyx/only_a_tiny_m...

hekark 14y ago
Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. There is a word that's used in Islam text, called Bi'dah; which can roughly be translated to "innovation in the religion". People label their own delusions under Islam, when they have nothing to do with the religion (ie. murder, suicide bombings, etc). There is a class war and power struggle in the middle east right now. I think middle easterners are divided between those that want the empire back and those that want to integrate into the European (pseudo-Roman) way of life. Neither side is achieving their goals in a proper manner though. Suicide bombings obviously don't help with anything. Integration with Europe has simply lead to colonization and poorer living standards. The middle east is pretty complicated. It's better to actually understand the history of the middle east, rather than post a link to /r/atheism.
- btilly 14y ago
  Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. That is the position that was widely taken in Western countries. It only lasts so long as the description of God's creation that comes from science is compatible with religion. But once science disagrees with the description of your religion, you're forced to make hard choices. For most strands of judeo-christianity (including Islam), that point is hit with Darwin. Integration with Europe has simply lead to colonization and poorer living standards. The decline of the Middle East actually goes back farther than that. People in the West celebrate the voyages of discovery. But we seldom think about the consequences that direct trade routes from Europe to India and China had on people who were dependent on pre-existing trade routes along the Silk Road, such as the Middle East.
  - yareally 14y ago
    Metaphorically speaking (and taken at the higher level comparison), the Europeans, were exploring for alternative ways to the Asian trade routes without the middle man. In effect, they were just doing a form of "hacking" -- finding an easier way to their goal and upsetting the status quo. In some ways, that's similar to how most of us try to do in our own ventures what drives progress. It's fairly easy to ignore the consequences involved in disrupting a market, but holding back progress generally has a negative outcome for humanity as a whole.* It may have caused the Middle East to become more isolated, but at the same time, humanity needs to find a way to avoid repeating itself (as we still see such things even today in any rural part of the world). Open communication and integration generally leads to a more free exchange of ideas and calms fears between different cultural groups and nationalities. *I'm ignoring the ethical consequences here that came with finding North/South America and focusing on the trade routes to avoid going too far off the subject.
    - btilly 14y ago
      There is no question that opening up direct trade routes has been beneficial overall for the world. But it wasn't for the Middle East, and the reasons for the decline, being distant, were not immediately apparent to anyone. More generally everyone who has learned even a little economics knows that when you open up trade, you improve production. That's the whole point of comparative advantage. However lurking in the math is that if 2 parties are engaged in trade, and the third is not, adding the third makes the total better off, but is not necessarily better for all parties.
      - yareally 14y ago
        Agreed. I don't think anyone, even if it happened today would have saw the Middle East's gradual isolation over several hundred years as the likely outcome of Europeans "hacking" the silk road trade routes (though if a similar case happened today, it would probably be far less gradual). There were other factors as well, such as consecutive bad leadership in the Ottoman Empire following Suleiman the Magnificent (which is often cited as a big reason for the decline of the Western Roman Empire), but the consequences of the trade route disruption has too many ripple effects over time it's hard to say what or what was not in some way attributed to it. Comparing the Ottomans and the Western Romans once again, both lost out on most of their profitable trade (as most of the trade was in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire and was no longer filling the Western tax coffers when the Empire split into two). Although I wouldn't take my conclusion as fault proof, but it would appear that countries can survive a string of bad leaders, but if trade that's taken for granted dries up and never returns, then the country is in bad shape if it cannot adapt.
- safeerm 14y ago
  ^great comment and clarification.
- camus 14y ago
  >>>> Islam doesn't really contradict science. Science is simply viewed as the study of God's creation. of course it does , angel and djinns are not scientific facts , neither are people claiming they received the word of "god" from whatever spook out there... Science looks at nature and try to draw conclusions , facts that one can experiment or things than can predict something. Prove me that djinns or angels exist as the reproducible phenomenon and i will believe in whatever fairy tail you believe in. Religion is based on faith since you cant reproduce any so called "miracle" written in holly books. Read your sentence : your assume at first place everything is god creation , that's not how science works. But i dont blame you , some believe in Hubbard or Smith , no matter how smart they think they are. Just dont lie to yourself in saying religion doesnt contradict science , it is dishonest at best.
- rorrr 14y ago
  > Islam doesn't really contradict science Sure it does. Qur'an is full of things that contradict science.
- userulluipeste 14y ago
  Islam doesn't really contradict science. I'm afraid science might contradict Islam (like any other religion).

rmc 14y ago

Eventually things will change. Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). Most Christian groups now are often hostile to science that disagrees with them from Creationists & evolution to Catholics and security.

_wwz4 14y ago
Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) I've seen this speculation that this is just a phase that Islam is going through. When Christianity was going through a similar conflict with Science, there were no real fruits of Science to validate it as a system of learning about reality. Christianity came first and had its roots firmly planted before that upstart Science came along. The power struggle was understandable in that progression. These days, the results of Science are all around us. We have computers, cell phones, nuclear power, and robots exploring other planets. There's really no excuse for the utter dismissal of reality exhibited by large swathes of the Islamic world. Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it.
- rosser 14y ago
  Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? You're making an incredibly common mistake here: judging the religion in its entirety — some quarter of the human population — by the behaviors of a very scant minority. Yes, it happens that the minority in question hold positions of power, but are they behaving that way because they believe that way, or because it seems to help them keep that power? (Put more pointedly, are they pandering to a pre-existing, cultural ignorance, or are they manufacturing an ignorance that's easier to control?) Most Muslims aren't belligerent. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, and only justifies violence in direct response to direct attack, whether against the individual, or against the faith. Most Muslims are in the unfortunate position of being kept from the knowledge that would allow them to participate fully in the modern world. They're being kept from that knowledge not for anything to do with the religion, itself (though the religion is often twisted to justify their being kept that way), but to preserve the temporal power of the people that happen to have that power right now. So, yeah. Let's blame Islam for that.

steeve 14y ago

Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the downfall of Science in Islam during the 1100s beautifully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rR8stuQfk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rR8stuQfk

supersaiyan 14y ago
I love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but he explains this with such broad reasoning, ignoring the economic side of the problem.

richardjordan 14y ago

It is very tiring to hear the same old irrelevant statement repeated over and over again. That early in its life Islam was less hostile to learning and what we now think of as science. This is largely meaningless of course and as irrelevant to Islamic nations and movements today as comparing the leadership and policies of any country or region a thousand years ago to today. Islam is the driver of policy in a number of nations today - there is no obvious movement by these nations towards tolerance of science where it conflicts with rigid Islamic dogma. I get the instinct of many to not want to tar all Muslims with the brush of radicalism and extremism. I share it. But the facts are not flattering when you look at the actual effects of policies and positions in the nations where Islam plays a key role in governance today. Papering over that by reaching back a thousand years to a supposed golden age of Islamic science is not helpful though. Uncomfortable truths are better faced honestly. You can do this without resorting to bigotry and pointing out things that make people uncomfortable does not have to be bigotry.

guylhem 14y ago
Unfortunately. It is a shame that the human race tries to progress without the active help of a approximately a quarter of the world population. One can only hope that islam will see the light like other religions did - yet I doubt that, for it seems even more opposed to science that the other religions were/are. There have been various sects trying to bring the enlightenment to islam, but they more or less have failed. (in fact, I believe Mustapha Kamal in Turkey is one of the only example of success - and even that one was not perfect, with religious persecution of the religious minorities) There are signs that a united califate (islamist empire) might emerge again - the various revolutions could have been an opportunity for democracy to emerge, but the islamists did dominate. Some serious ideological division between islamists are blocking, but politics does wonder everywhere, and when you notice a peace agreement between sunnis and shias, be very worried. Maybe it can't be like the pacific fall of communism - maybe it will take a war like the fall of fascism. The way things are, the west will prevail and so will science - with strong collateral damages however. It is just a shame to spend so many years and resources for such a pointless confrontation - and that's not even counting the human losses. At least science and progress will prevail. Too bad it might seriously hurt the current leader of the free world - like it did for France and England in WW2. BTW for those who will cry wolf and racism, here's a nice facebook page in french : https://www.facebook.com/Athes411 https://www.facebook.com/Athes411 - algerians atheists. Yes, some people in countries dominated by islam do fight for their freedom of conscience and for science to prevail. Odds are against them however. Science requires a "critical mass" to bear its fruits, or people end up burned or with their heads on sticks - like many did, in the middle ages or the other dark periods of humanity. Society, in the countries where these people live, is fighting against them and their un-islamic beliefs, there are fewer and fewer of them to make a political difference, while we are offering very little opportunity to leave for greener pastures. Odds are against them - just like they were against galileo, or the russians who did not believe in communism and saw it for what it was but couldn't manage to flee. Science, facts and all that will certainly win in the end- but meanwhile, it won't do any good for the people stuck in a fight against an angry mob of people, which includes some who sincerely believe they have 40 virgins waiting for them in heaven! EDIT: Secularism and science do conflate. Just like fascist and communist suppressed research that was against their dogmas, and subsidized stupid theories that played well with their beliefs. In the catholic world there was that thing called "the middle ages" for a reason - and then enlightenment. We are currently in the islamic middle ages. Go read the atheist page - it's worth spending some time on. Their last post from only 2 hours ago even has a nice picture of science as a book/shield to protect against religious dogmas : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342402572541947&set=a.293399670775571.67113.292778557504349&type=1&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342402572541947&... Downvotes ? Does not matter. True science holds no belief - just paradigms, which can be reversed with enough time, theories and matching evidence. Any form of political or religious belief is good and helpful - until it starts believing that dogmas are better than facts. Then it steers away from the truth. Science is not a body of knowledge, but more a process of thought.

amalag 14y ago

Modern science has become increasingly atheistic and pitting itself against faith and religion with it's own dogma and leaps of faith. This is a relatively recent phenomena probably started by religious persecution. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

RexRollman 14y ago
Are you serious? If anything is pitting itself against something, it is the religious trying to suppress knowledge in order to prop up their superstitions.
- rosser 14y ago
  Dawkins? EDIT: In order to avoid simply offering a flippant (if true) one-word reply, let me also say that your comment is as guilty of painting with an overly broad brush as the GP comment. Some religious folk are anti-science. Some scientists are rabidly anti-religious. Most of both are neither. There are just a lot more religious people than there are scientists, and religion tends to lend itself towards being a pulpit for extreme views more readily than science. Coupling those facts, of course it's going to seem like religion wants to beat science up and leave it for dead.
  - tokipin 14y ago
    the important difference, i think, is that in our culture science argues through its own coherence, whereas religion, devoid of coherence, argues and manifests itself through politics. coherence is a stronger case, but politics is a bigger stick
    - rosser 14y ago
      religion, devoid of coherence That's a pretty broad brush, too.
      - tokipin 14y ago

shmerl 14y ago

By the way, the word algorithm is derived from the name of Muḥammad al-Khwārizmī.

mda 14y ago
Some other scientific terms of arabic origin: Algebra, Zero, Cipher, Azimuth, Zenith, Nadir, Chemistry, Alkali etc.
- shmerl 14y ago
  Alchemy is a more obvious one than chemistry :)
  - rosser 14y ago
    Chemistry was alchemy until people realized that if they shared the knowledge that drinking mercury was a bad idea, fewer people would drink mercury.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      Exactly. Alchemy means "the chemistry". Alchemists were true experimentalists and researchers and discovered many chemical reactions, elements as well as invented various tools. They focused on mystical application of this knowledge in a sense of drawing parallels between processes in the soul to chemical processes. Only later this distinction between "chemistry" and "alchemy" appeared, when interest in mysticism stopped being part of this field of study.
- redwood 14y ago
  What we forget is much of the knowledge we attribute to the Arabs actually came from the Indian Subcontinent. It's just that Arabs, sitting neatly between Europeans and the Subcontinent, became the conduit for the knowledge to reach Europe.
  - chewxy 14y ago

jpxxx 14y ago

Maybe if we torture them harder they'll do more science. I'd give it a whirl, but Christ-God Of The Sky disapproves of work on Sabbath.

derpmaster 14y ago

Didn't even read the story as soon as I saw it was an economist article. It's a complete rag written by hipsters, there's a reason no article has writing credits. Here's an older yet excellent argument and slash piece why the economist is a piece of trash http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35 http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&#38...

novalis78 14y ago

This is especially sad if you happen to read A.K Warder's chapter on the utter destruction and annihilation of Universities in ancient India ('Indian Buddhism' => http://books.google.com/books?id=sE8MgUVGNHkC&lpg=PA479&dq=islam%20warder%20indian%20buddhism&pg=PA479#v=onepage&q=islam%20warder%20indian%20buddhism&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=sE8MgUVGNHkC&lpg=PA479&... - places where logic, mathematics, (invention of zero, etc.) linguistics, grammar, astronomy etc etc where taught to students from all over Asia - as early as 400 AD. Many of the scientific discoveries of Islam where results of plundering and exterminating scientific endeavors in other more peaceful cultures.

userulluipeste 14y ago

In Europe a lot of early scientists come off from cleric circles. It's just it couldn't go along with religion much time. The basis of science is questioning things. The basis of religions is belief and their non-questioning basis - dogma. As long as the science pursuit fits the religion, like predicting all kind of events, it's fine. But sooner or later, to evolve, science would have to start eroding religion's basis and here is where things will fall apart and difficulties begin (this is mentioned in the article here and there). Yes, "rulers are realizing the economic value of scientific research", but those rulers depend more on their good relations with religious leaders and the religion's offerings (like the public order among other things).