5 ms·

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

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.
- ComputerGuru 14y ago
  Your post completely conflates "secularism" and "science." They are not the same.
- rokhayakebe 14y ago
  "It is a shame that the human race tries to progress without the active help of a approximately a quarter of the world population." "Yes, some people in countries dominated by islam do fight for their freedom of conscience and for science to prevail. ." These two contradict themselves.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > One can only hope that islam will see the light like other religions did Because it's Islam that hinders scientific education in the US, right? It's Islamic Creationism that's pushed in US science classes; it's Islamists who oppose stem cell research?
  - joshuacc 14y ago
    FWIW, in the US, very few religious people oppose stem cell research as such. The opposition is to using stem cells derived from aborted embryos. The pro-life movement is largely in favor of research on embryonic stem cells obtained in other ways (like from umbilical cord blood.)
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Why do people call the 'pro life' movement the pro life movement? They're clearly not pro life, they use that self chosen label as a misdirection. There must be a better way to describe them.
      - joshuacc 14y ago
        Because it is a good way of referring to the group that believes the issue is fundamentally about human life, as opposed to the group that believes the issue is fundamentally about a woman's choice. I happen to agree with the pro-life side, but both terms are intended to highlight what the respective sides view as the most important aspect of abortion.
cpleppert 14y ago
You are right it is totally meaningless. The similar argument that science is particularly suited to the religion of western europe suffers from similar flaws and is generally overdrawn. It isn't really accurate to describe science "as flowering in muslim lands" when in reality the patronage of rulers with disposable income was far more important than any religious beliefs. Simply spending money won't create a healthy respect for science in a culture that doesn't respect it. The timidity that the article describes is still very pervasive. I don't see an easy way out for many of these societies. Simply changing government policy or spending more money can be counter productive and serve as a crutch that hides the real problem.
jacquesm 14y ago
> 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. Catholicism is the driver of policy in a number of nations today, and there is no obvious movement by these nations towards tolerance of science where it conflicts with rigid Catholic dogma. Even a United States president and a UK prime minister have admitted publicly that they prayed together for guidance. As long as politics and religion are intermingled this will likely continue.
- rdouble 14y ago
  In which countries is Catholicism still a driver of policy?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Ireland and the Philippines both stand out in recent events. Thankfully the influence of the RCC has been slipping in both in recent years.
    - rmc 14y ago
      Poland as well.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Malta, Honduras, Venezuela, The Phillipines, Dominican Republic, San Marino, East Timor, Andorra, Italy, Poland, Paraguay, Ireland and probably (lots of) others besides. You can basically take the percentage of the religious population in all countries and sort by that, the exceptions will be the ones that have a > 80% catholic population where it does not have a dominant influence on politics. I'm not too current on Spain and Portugal but those would be good candidates (Spain > 90%, Portugal > 80%). The good news is that in lots of places the church is still powerful but that its influence is waning. The bad news is that it is still pretty high.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
shn 14y ago
Many are jumbling things and coming to (wrong) conclusions. 1. Islam and Muslims are different things. Today's muslims are also different than muslims who lived 300 or 500 years ago. The political systems they lived under were completely different than the ones of today, as well as economic system. Judging a religion by its followers and by context of the time is a very misleading thing. Muslim rulers of Moorish Spain is very different than the Taliban of Afghanistan. Former lasted for 781 years and the latter lasted maybe just 30 years and there's a lot of controversy on the latter. How would you compare Mexican and Danish people. Both overwhelmingly Christian, but is it fair to compare these two nations? Which one would "sample" Christian population best? How about Danish of 400 years ago vs. of today? Unfortunately when I hear Mexico the first thing comes to my minds is Cartel. Anyway you got the point. 2. There's nothing in Islam that prohibits scientific research, only those who interpret it interpret within their own level of understanding and especially according to their interest. In a society there are a lot of interest groups and they twist the reality and truth for their own benefit. For example it took very long for printing machine to be used in Ottoman territories and the people who objected those machines used arguments they fabricated abusing the religious understanding. However the reason behind it was purely economical. At that time there was a huge industry of "copiers" whose sole bread winner was duplicating documents by hand and they had good ties with the Court of Sultan. Of course they could not turn around and say we don't want this because it will take away our monopoly but they fabricated all kinds of excuses to have it banned. 3. For a country to have any progress there has to be (relatively good) rule of law in that country. Most of the Muslim countries of today lack rule of law, most are artificial governments (supported by big boys, take Saudis, a client state of USA). This is a long subject so I just want to give a link. Long story short, if you can not build a strong legitimate political system everything else fails, and this has been the case for Muslim countries for the last 300 years. If the laws for the ordinary citizen is different than the ruling class, don't expect cohesion in the society.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?... 4. Western people have been brainwashing themselves. For them the only credible source is only theirs. If you hear from FoxNews it must be true. This credibility bias blinds many and unfortunately deprives themselves and gives themselves this Eurocentric worldview. So I'll just give another link, a BBC documentary (to overcome that bias). Teaser: many think that Renaissance has started in Italy. It actually started in Muslim Spain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtCj0NvhYyI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtCj0NvhYyI 5. There's this comment on this page: > Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) Were the Christians or the Christianity or the Church of that time hostile to Galileo. Are all Christians in the same bucket? Who gives one the right to generalize this much?! Final word, don't build your opinion on the news you hear on media.

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.

ComputerGuru 14y ago
Your post completely conflates "secularism" and "science." They are not the same.
rokhayakebe 14y ago
"It is a shame that the human race tries to progress without the active help of a approximately a quarter of the world population." "Yes, some people in countries dominated by islam do fight for their freedom of conscience and for science to prevail. ." These two contradict themselves.
DanBC 14y ago
> One can only hope that islam will see the light like other religions did Because it's Islam that hinders scientific education in the US, right? It's Islamic Creationism that's pushed in US science classes; it's Islamists who oppose stem cell research?
- joshuacc 14y ago
  FWIW, in the US, very few religious people oppose stem cell research as such. The opposition is to using stem cells derived from aborted embryos. The pro-life movement is largely in favor of research on embryonic stem cells obtained in other ways (like from umbilical cord blood.)
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Why do people call the 'pro life' movement the pro life movement? They're clearly not pro life, they use that self chosen label as a misdirection. There must be a better way to describe them.
    - joshuacc 14y ago
      Because it is a good way of referring to the group that believes the issue is fundamentally about human life, as opposed to the group that believes the issue is fundamentally about a woman's choice. I happen to agree with the pro-life side, but both terms are intended to highlight what the respective sides view as the most important aspect of abortion.

cpleppert 14y ago

You are right it is totally meaningless. The similar argument that science is particularly suited to the religion of western europe suffers from similar flaws and is generally overdrawn. It isn't really accurate to describe science "as flowering in muslim lands" when in reality the patronage of rulers with disposable income was far more important than any religious beliefs. Simply spending money won't create a healthy respect for science in a culture that doesn't respect it. The timidity that the article describes is still very pervasive. I don't see an easy way out for many of these societies. Simply changing government policy or spending more money can be counter productive and serve as a crutch that hides the real problem.

jacquesm 14y ago

> 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. Catholicism is the driver of policy in a number of nations today, and there is no obvious movement by these nations towards tolerance of science where it conflicts with rigid Catholic dogma. Even a United States president and a UK prime minister have admitted publicly that they prayed together for guidance. As long as politics and religion are intermingled this will likely continue.

rdouble 14y ago
In which countries is Catholicism still a driver of policy?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Ireland and the Philippines both stand out in recent events. Thankfully the influence of the RCC has been slipping in both in recent years.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Poland as well.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Malta, Honduras, Venezuela, The Phillipines, Dominican Republic, San Marino, East Timor, Andorra, Italy, Poland, Paraguay, Ireland and probably (lots of) others besides. You can basically take the percentage of the religious population in all countries and sort by that, the exceptions will be the ones that have a > 80% catholic population where it does not have a dominant influence on politics. I'm not too current on Spain and Portugal but those would be good candidates (Spain > 90%, Portugal > 80%). The good news is that in lots of places the church is still powerful but that its influence is waning. The bad news is that it is still pretty high.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

shn 14y ago

Many are jumbling things and coming to (wrong) conclusions. 1. Islam and Muslims are different things. Today's muslims are also different than muslims who lived 300 or 500 years ago. The political systems they lived under were completely different than the ones of today, as well as economic system. Judging a religion by its followers and by context of the time is a very misleading thing. Muslim rulers of Moorish Spain is very different than the Taliban of Afghanistan. Former lasted for 781 years and the latter lasted maybe just 30 years and there's a lot of controversy on the latter. How would you compare Mexican and Danish people. Both overwhelmingly Christian, but is it fair to compare these two nations? Which one would "sample" Christian population best? How about Danish of 400 years ago vs. of today? Unfortunately when I hear Mexico the first thing comes to my minds is Cartel. Anyway you got the point. 2. There's nothing in Islam that prohibits scientific research, only those who interpret it interpret within their own level of understanding and especially according to their interest. In a society there are a lot of interest groups and they twist the reality and truth for their own benefit. For example it took very long for printing machine to be used in Ottoman territories and the people who objected those machines used arguments they fabricated abusing the religious understanding. However the reason behind it was purely economical. At that time there was a huge industry of "copiers" whose sole bread winner was duplicating documents by hand and they had good ties with the Court of Sultan. Of course they could not turn around and say we don't want this because it will take away our monopoly but they fabricated all kinds of excuses to have it banned. 3. For a country to have any progress there has to be (relatively good) rule of law in that country. Most of the Muslim countries of today lack rule of law, most are artificial governments (supported by big boys, take Saudis, a client state of USA). This is a long subject so I just want to give a link. Long story short, if you can not build a strong legitimate political system everything else fails, and this has been the case for Muslim countries for the last 300 years. If the laws for the ordinary citizen is different than the ruling class, don't expect cohesion in the society.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?... 4. Western people have been brainwashing themselves. For them the only credible source is only theirs. If you hear from FoxNews it must be true. This credibility bias blinds many and unfortunately deprives themselves and gives themselves this Eurocentric worldview. So I'll just give another link, a BBC documentary (to overcome that bias). Teaser: many think that Renaissance has started in Italy. It actually started in Muslim Spain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtCj0NvhYyI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtCj0NvhYyI 5. There's this comment on this page: > Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) Were the Christians or the Christianity or the Church of that time hostile to Galileo. Are all Christians in the same bucket? Who gives one the right to generalize this much?! Final word, don't build your opinion on the news you hear on media.