Science and Love, Religion and Hate ?

[Martinus]

Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates.  I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.

What about Christian Scientists eh?  Oh they believe what?  Nevermind.

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

Calling Copernicus one "for religion" is a bit of a stretch. He was denounced by the Church and his works were put on the Index Libri Prohibitorum.

[Martinus]

Anecdotal.  Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out.  Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"

Yeah, plenty of hateful atheists around. Some nice ones too.

Same for religionists.

Maybe it's a people thing?

I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Islamic "Golden Age" ends usually at either the sacking of beit al hikma or the publication of the tahafud (incoherence of the philosophers).

This is an oft-cited view but wrong.  Al-Ghazali is often cited, but very rarely read.  The Incoherence is in many respects a modern work of philosophy that takes a skeptical approach to some of the extravagant claims of Aristotelian metaphysics.  He also distinguishes such claims from claims of natural science (e.g. astronomy) which he argues are coherent and consistent with revelation.  It is also clearly mistaken to suggest that the Incoherence cut off further inquiry as ibn Rushd was writing radical Aristotelian tracts  years later.

I don't think one can say with any certainty why scientific inquiry in the Islamic world declined, but it is interesting to note that many of the most famous scientists and philosophers were from Iran or its immediate environs (like Basra) and that inquiry does seem to peak in the early 900s and drop off by the 1100s.  As it happens, Iran enjoyed a period of economic growth and rapid urbanization from around 800-1000 but that a deep decline had set in by the late 11th century, possibly due in part to climatic factors.  If I had to guess I would surmise that the rise and fall of Islamic science is related to these demographics and economic phenomena.

[Valmy]

Calling Copernicus one "for religion" is a bit of a stretch. He was denounced by the Church and his works were put on the Index Libri Prohibitorum.

I was just making a joke about how many of our famous scientists were actual members of the clergy.  Whether or not it is a stretch or not depends on which facts one prefers to dwell on.

[Sheilbh]

What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy?

What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.

You're not suggesting that various thinkers within the Roman Catholic Church havent adopted and applied Aristotle and Plato are you?

I got the impression that Sheilbh implied that the RCC's use of Aristotle and Plato was less "adopting and applying" and more "wholesale reorganization to use for own purposes."

I am not sure what the difference is between adopting and applying vs using for their own purposes.  That is essentially my point.

Exactly what Jacob says. They didn't just adopt and apply, rather there was a synthesis - which in my view was a pretty impressive intellectual system (from what little I've read). It's the difference between a sort of deduction where they get their support from antiquity and a creative process that ends up producing something new.

They didn't adopt the philosophy that supported their views, because Plato and Aristotle couldn't possibly have done that. They took the great intellectual legacy of the Classical world and argued with and reshaped and merged it with their own intellectual tradition. To call Renaissance neo-Platonism for example just an adoption of something for the Church's own purpose is a very narrow way of looking at it.

I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

I'm betting that someone wasn't from the Eastern Bloc.

[Jacob]

I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

I disagree with that someone. Any kind of entrenched moral, social, or political system can cause otherwise good people to do bad things.

[Malthus]

I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

I disagree with that someone. Any kind of entrenched moral, social, or political system can cause otherwise good people to do bad things.

Yup. And the history of the last century is absolutely rife with 'otherwise good people doing bad things' out of sincere, non-religious conviction.

Example: sincere Communists supporting Stalin's atrocities as 'necessary for Soviet society to advance'. Sincere scientific eugenicists supporting sterilizing "inferiors". Etc. etc.