
Islam and science: The road to renewal - rosser
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21570677-after-centuries-stagnation-science-making-comeback-islamic-world-road
======
richardjordan
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
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> \- 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&...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342402572541947&set=a.293399670775571.67113.292778557504349&type=1&theater)

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.

~~~
DanBC
> _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
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
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
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.

~~~
jacquesm
This leads to such elegant conflicts as: what if abortion is going to save the
life of the mother?

Let's make this clear: if you want to call yourself 'pro life' then you have
to be pro life across the board. What I notice is that those that call
themselves 'pro life' will usually use the abortion issue as a way of forcing
their way of life on others, regardless of what happens to unborn children.
They're just a convenience to use in order to restrict the lives of others,
they're not a goal per se.

'pro lifers' appear to have no compunction when it comes to bombing abortion
clinics and assassinating doctors.

If you're pro-life then I assume that you have transferred 90% of your savings
to help out kids in countries where food is scarce?

That would be a lot more effective then getting on the anti-abortion
bandwagon.

~~~
joshuacc
I do donate significant portions of my income to providing food for the
hungry, safe housing for single mothers, etc. I also campaign against war and
the death penalty, for immigrant rights, etc. This is not about partisan
politics for me (and many others).

"'pro lifers' appear to have no compunction when it comes to bombing abortion
clinics and assassinating doctors."

That's about as sensible as saying that "Islam" has no compunction when it
comes to bombing civilian targets. Or that "atheists" have no compunction
about executing people because they're religious. You're painting a very broad
group with the actions of a small handful.

Regardless, this conversation has strayed very far from the small factual
correction I intended to make.

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

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

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

~~~
mda
Some other scientific terms of arabic origin: Algebra, Zero, Cipher, Azimuth,
Zenith, Nadir, Chemistry, Alkali etc.

~~~
redwood
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
This is correct. Zero for example, definitely came from India. The root word
is Sunyata in Sanskrit, which rather means "noneness"

There is also the claim that most of these discoveries weren't actually
Arabian discoveries, rather Assyrian ones, co-opted by the Arabs.

Interesting read: <http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm>

~~~
userulluipeste
Zero may have originated in India, but it indeed was preserved and then
transmitted further not by Indians. It's not hard to understand Peter
BetBasoo's feelings toward Arabs/Muslims, but it's improbable that the Muslim
progress stopped because "the Christian Assyrian community was drained of its
population through forced conversion to Islam" and "it ceased producing the
scholars that were the intellectual driving force of the Islamic
civilization". Mr. Muhammad al-Khwarizmi (who's name is bared by the
"Algebra") was a prominent scholar born in a traditional Persian family (not
Arabian but Muslim nevertheless). I agree with mda (a post in the same level
as yours) - it is unfair to reduce everything as just "sitting neatly
between".

------
amalag
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

~~~
cpleppert
You have a category problem. Science's ability to seek causal explanation to
phenomena is why it functions. You can't selectively reject theories just
because they conflict with religious belief.

By the way,Einstein's quote wasn't in the context of defending the intrusion
of religious dogma into the scientific method. Einstein called his religion 'a
cosmic religion' and described himself as agnostic.

~~~
amalag
I think that the concept that reality can be explained by causality is itself
an erroneous belief. How can we gain perfect knowledge though imperfect means?

~~~
macspoofing
>I think that the concept that reality can be explained by causality is itself
an erroneous belief.

... because why?

And who says that we are trying to gain "perfect" knowledge (whatever that
means?). We are trying to create the most accurate model of the universe we
can. Thus far the scientific method has been wildly successful at doing just
that, and we already answered several big questions, such as "Where did we
come from" (a: evolution via natural selection), "What is the purpose of life"
(a: there is none), not to mention that we discovered some fundamental facts
about the Universe. We know the Earth is round, and orbits the Sun. We know
roughly how and when the Earth and the Solar System formed. We know that every
species on Earth shares an ancestor with every other one. We know the Universe
has a Quantum nature (as described by QM) and that on large scales it follows
principles laid out by Einstein. We can also trace the history of the Universe
to within nanoseconds of its creation. And we've only been doing proper
science for about 200 years, out of the 250,000 we as a species have been
around. Not too shabby, wouldn't you say?

And if the scientific method is too imperfect for you, pray tell, what is a
better way of discovering the nature of reality? Thinking really really hard?
Meditating on texts written by bronze age peoples?

~~~
rosser
Really? It's been _definitively_ demonstrated that there's no purpose to life?

I must've missed a memo.

~~~
amalag
Oh yeah, didn't you must have missed Dawkins book. He 'proved' our existence
is nothing more than chemicals and molecules trying to survive. This is the
pinnacle of science and the search for truth apparently. And people wonder why
tragedies like Newtown happen in such a nihilistic worldview preached by
scientists, the modern priests.

~~~
macspoofing
If you try to link materialism or atheism to atrocities, you run into a major
hurdle, in that, you have to admit that religious belief is no guarantee of
morality either. And in fact, can sometimes directly cause great pain and
suffering. So what are you left with?

------
userulluipeste
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).

------
novalis78
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&...](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)
\- 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.

------
rmc
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.

~~~
crusso
_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
_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.

~~~
crusso
_Most Muslims aren't belligerent._

 _or against the faith_

Wrong answer.

When "against the faith" includes calling for the death or even censorship of
cartoonists in other countries who draw disrespectful pictures of a religion's
"prophet", the belligerent label is very justified.

 _And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right?_

I didn't say "all". I believe the words I used were "large swathes", meaning
enough of those societies to dictate policies that are indistinguishable from
the nut job radicals that you claim don't represent everyone. For example, see
the stories regarding the destruction of ancient monuments in Afghanistan. See
the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt. See the jailing/killing of
Christian preachers in Iran.

 _Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace_

That's a bumper sticker and something politicians have to say because they
rarely speak simple truths. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to
commit violence toward infidels. The Judeo/Christian texts (the Bible) aren't
a whole lot better, although the mixed books and accounts in it are so
imprecise, contradictory and watered down that there isn't a consistent call
for domination of others in the world.

~~~
rosser
If it helps you feel better about your prejudices, you go right on ahead and
keep judging a _billion and a half_ people by the actions of ... wait, how
many orders of magnitude fewer was that, again? Let's see...

Taliban? 20-50,000, by the US military's own estimates. Hezbollah? 1,000
active, with another 6-10,000 volunteer fighters. Hamas' militant wing, the
_Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades_? Maybe another 10,000.

No, that's by no means all the bad apples in the Muslim world, but the
remainder are even smaller and less well-organized. That should be enough to
give some sense of the actual numbers of actual "bad guys".

So, summing the three most widely-known militant Islamist groups, we haven't
yet broken a six figure count of people, and you'll apparently happily judge a
population five orders of magnitude larger by their actions. Let's also judge
all Jews (some 14 million) by the actions of Bat Ayin, a comparable ratio (to
within an order of magnitude, anyway), shall we? Let's judge all Christians by
the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church and Anders Behring Breivik.

Or, how about this for a novel idea: let's not judge _anyone_ by the behaviors
of _someone else_.

 _The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward
infidels._

The Qu'ran is clear about justifying the _defensive_ use of violence. It's
also very clear that violence must never be used against the innocent, women,
children, anyone with whom you have a treaty or pact, anyone who ceases their
active attack against you, or anyone otherwise not _actively_ involved in
_actively_ attacking you. And, no: "attacking" doesn't mean calling names. It
means physical violence.

As for "violence towards infidels", I assume that like most people with this
attitude about Islam, you're referring (knowingly or otherwise) to 9:005,
which says, in part, "...kill the idolaters wherever you find them..."
("idolaters" is regularly mis-translated as "infidels").

What everyone blithely (or worse, deliberately) ignores about that verse is
that in the verses immediately preceding it, "idolaters" are explained to be
people who _had declared war_ on Islam, and were actively, militarily
attacking Mohammad and his followers — which is what is meant by attacks
"against the faith". The verse is also typically shortened to omit the fact
that a Muslim should only "kill the idolaters" after suffering their attacks
through the holy months, during which fighting of any kind _is not allowed_.

But what about 2:190 "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you,
but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."?

That sounds awfully bloodthirsty to me...

Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a
simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the
actions of a tiny portion of the human race.

Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans
lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?

~~~
crusso
_Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a
simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the
actions of a tiny portion of the human race._

And my only point is that excusing Islam for being hostile to Science because
it's "younger" than Christianity is a demonstrably poor argument.

All the rest of this discussion about "billions or trillions of nonviolent
Muslims" is pretty useless. When a religion and culture seems to produce
suicide bomber after suicide bomber and assholes who take over planes to kill
thousands of innocent people - at some point the rest of the world has to ask
"WTF?"

 _Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans
lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?_

What are you talking about? Everyone thought Saddam had an arsenal of
dangerous weapons because HE pushed that belief because he was scared of Iran.
Numerous non-American intelligence sources supported the belief that Saddam
had WMDs. I didn't actually support going into Iraq due to the cost, but
military reasons to do so were there. Saddam could have ended the whole thing
any time by letting the inspections happen.

Sure, there was a lie. Saddam's. There was also incorrect intelligence.
However to still call it a lie by the American government is itself an
untruth.

------
jpxxx
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.

------
rorrr
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_m...](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vubyx/only_a_tiny_minority_of_extremists/)

~~~
hekark
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
_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
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
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
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.

