WHY WAS IT SO MUCH HARDER FOR SCIENCE TO TAKE ROOT IN THE MUSLIM WORLD?
It was harder for science to achieve intellectual and institutional independence. This was not restricted just to science. In the Western world, the institution of law achieved a kind of autonomy from religion early on. Some historians argue that this was really a precursor to science achieving autonomy as well. In the Muslim world, law was never entirely disentangled from religion. Islamic culture has not been as supportive of intellectual independence for different areas of life.
DID SCIENCE ACTUALLY DECLINE IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD IN THE 14TH OR 15TH CENTURIES? OR IS IT JUST THAT SCIENCE IN EUROPE EXPLODED A LITTLE LATER, LEAVING SCIENCE IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD FAR BEHIND?
It depends on which historian you consult. The older point of view has been that Islamic intellectual life and science went into a period of decline after the Golden Age. But nowadays, many historians argue that science in the Islamic world continued to develop at its own pace. I don't know if I would entirely agree. But it's definitely true that much more emphasis has to be put on Europe taking off and therefore a relative gap opening. It's not so much a story of Islamic decline as Europe inventing an entirely new way of thinking about the natural world and really making a break with medieval ways of thinking. That didn't happen in the Islamic world.
Yes, its more complicated than that, but still this is an important point when considering why scientific revolution didn't take place in the Islamic world.
On "Islamic Science" or "Islamization of science":
MANY MUSLIM THINKERS TALK ABOUT TRYING TO RESURRECT AND TAP INTO THE PAST GLORY OF ISLAMIC SCIENCE. ARE YOU SAYING THIS IS A MISTAKE?
Yes and no. If you go back to the 9th through the 12th centuries, some practices were useful, such as being more open to intellectual currents from many directions. But other things are not going to be helpful. If you look into the literature on Islam and science, one of the names you will very soon encounter is Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who is a Muslim philosopher of science. He works in the United States but has origins in Iran.
HE TEACHES AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. CLEARLY, HE HAS A DISTINGUISHED ACADEMIC POSITION.
That's right. Seyyed Hossein Nasr says he's trying to revive certain distinctly Muslim ways of thinking about the universe. But it's a revival of all the strands of classical Islamic thought, including those strands which are very antithetical to science as we understand it today.
WHERE DOES THIS ACTUALLY CREATE PROBLEMS?
One of the features of medieval Islamic science that some modern Muslim thinkers want to revive is the way of perceiving the universe as a spiritual, God-centered place. This tends to work against the independence of science from religious institutions. It's precisely this autonomy that helped science make the breakthrough in the Western world. In the Muslim world, this is still a relatively controversial concept. There is a tendency to say that science should operate under the guidance of religious concerns. I think this is one of the obstacles facing science in the Islamic world.
BUT THIS IS COMPLICATED. EVERYONE AGREES THAT WESTERN SCIENCE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT IT DOES. AND YET I'M WILLING TO BET THAT MANY ISLAMIC THINKERS WOULD SAY THE PRICE OF SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS IN THE WEST HAS BEEN TOO HIGH. ONCE SCIENCE WAS DIVORCED FROM RELIGION, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SECULAR VALUES WOULD TRIUMPH, ATHEISM WOULD BECOME A VIABLE OPTION, AND THE MODERN WORLD WOULD END UP WITH THE RAMPANT MATERIALISM AND CONSUMERISM THAT WE HAVE TODAY. A LOT OF ISLAMIC THINKERS DON'T WANT THAT VERSION OF WESTERN SCIENCE.
This is a dilemma for many people in the Muslim world who are thinking about science and religion. On the one hand, there is a desire to catch up, especially in the technological realm which underpins the military and commercial superiority of the Western world. On the other hand, there is a desire to adopt modern science in such a way that local religious culture is not corrupted. So yes, they are very concerned not to go down the Western path. You can find many Muslim thinkers who say that Western Christians made a mistake by allowing science to operate independently of religious constraints. However, that is the way modern science has achieved the success it has. So it's hard to negotiate between these options.
I don't want to sound like I'm describing the Muslim world as a monolithic entity with no differences between Muslims. There is a very heated internal debate in Muslim countries about how to respond to the modern West, and science is only one concern. Some say the Islamic world has to secularize. Turkey has for many decades been an example of taking a more secular path and adopting westernization full scale. It has had some successes, though it hasn't fully taken root. But a lot of people think if you try and westernize totally - if you separate science from religion and you separate politics from religion - then you end up with the more compartmentalized modern society that we're familiar with in the West. And they're reacting against it. The intellectual options in the debate over science and religion are very similar to what we have in the West. What's different is the historical background and the institutional landscape. In the Islamic world, the liberal option is much weaker compared to what we have in the Western world.
BY "THE LIBERAL OPTION," DO YOU MEAN READING SACRED TEXTS AS METAPHOR RATHER THAN LITERAL TRUTH? FOR INSTANCE, LIBERAL CHRISTIANS DON'T TAKE THE CREATION STORIES IN GENESIS AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. THEY READ THESE STORIES MORE AS POETRY. ARE YOU SAYING THAT OPTION, FOR THE MOST PART, DOESN'T EXIST FOR MUSLIMS BECAUSE THE QURAN IS SEEN AS A TEXT THAT'S BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM GOD?
It would be an overstatement to say that option does not exist, but it has a much weaker social position. Let me give an example. Here in the United States, the mainstream scientific community has a big problem with creationist movements and intelligent design. As scientists, one of our closest allies in trying to combat creationism is the liberal religious community. It's much more effective to send somebody to a school board meeting who's not a scientist but actually a priest or rabbi or minister in a more liberal denomination and to explain that they don't see a conflict between teaching evolution and religion. But in the Muslim world, this is much more difficult because the public affinity toward creationism is much stronger. Darwinian thinking really hasn't penetrated the popular discourse. Plus, it's very hard for scientists who work in Muslim countries to find liberal religious figures who would go out there and publicly say Darwinian evolution is not a problem for Islam.
This is the new science battle ground in the Islamic world. Some religious scholars have somewhat accepted evolution, for example, very conservative Israr Ahmad in Pakistan, but they are outnumbered and even those that have accepted still have problems with human evolution.
Tags: islam apostasy death black magic sites faith in affirmative action continues in west michigan nearer to my god than thee my quest has taken me through the physical the metaphysical the a spell for money sheldan nidle update july
