Careful_perspective Posted July 9, 2016 #1 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I just became aware of the author Michael Shemer this week, and his book The Moral Arc. In this book he discusses why science, through the enlightment period specifically, improved humanity as a whole, including religions. This however, excludes Islam. According to Shemer, Islam never went through the radical changes of Judaism or Christianity, hence its proclivity for violence. He goes into it in on his website: http://moralarc.org/why-islam-of-the-three-great-monotheistic-religions-one-did-not-go-through-enlightenment/ for all those who want to read. Naturally I thought of you folks over here when I read this, and was curious what your thoughts were. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted July 9, 2016 #2 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I'm probably going to shock a few here with this statement but I believe that Islam HAS at least partially undergone a de-facto enlightenment. It is expressed by the great majority who simply ignore the warlike rhetoric and commands of the text. Unfortunately these Muslims mostly refuse to countenance any outside "attacks" on their beliefs. It's a very strange attitude and I assume it stems from a certain amount of guilt about not following the verses in as strict or devout a fashion as those who deal in death and terror. Quite a conundrum for them I'd say. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #3 Share Posted July 9, 2016 There are numerous reasons why Islam has not followed the path of [Protestant] Christianity (and to a lesser degree, Judaism) and been effectively stripped of temporal authority with regards control over the State, but I believe one of the most important - but perhaps least talked about - is a basic historical difference between Europe (where Christianity lost it's power to Secularism) and Arabia (where the "core" of Islamic authority resides). Europe was Romanised during that Empire's expansion, and this brought about a degree of tolerance (initially enforced, but eventually self-perpetuating and persistent) towards other peoples, including differences in culture and religion. Arabia was never effectively Romanised, and has remained much more fiercely tribal in it's basic culture. The reasons for this difference probably hinges mainly on geography, the terrain and resources which made the respective territories attractive to the expansion of Rome. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 9, 2016 #4 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I think there may be another reason... though they 'reasons' may not be mutually exclusive. Christianity - in terms of the New Testament - never offered a political system. It didn't lay down any laws of society or behavior... other than "love they neighbour" type stuff. It was a moral testament, not a social one. Judaism DID incorporate "laws of society", to an extent. But Islam was the most prescriptive of all; if it was created in the modern age, it would be regarded as a cult. Its own adherents frequently describe it as not so much a religion, as a complete manual for living and organising society. Hence the concept of Sharia. Christianity - under the Popes - DID try and influence society... but it did so without direct Scriptural authority, and was effectively a political organisation rather than a religious one. THAT is why we where able to have movements like the Protestants, Lutherians etcetera; they where based not on social reform, but on their ability to read the scriptures, and recognise the doctrinal fallacy of the Vatican's position. Islam, however, simply CAN'T have a reformation. Their scriptures... and the primary testament of the Koran .. explicitly forbid it. There is no explicit disconnect between - say - ISIS and the Koran/Hadiths. There IS scope for interpretation within limits, but no explicit disconnect.There is no scope for a reformation, without actually re-inventing the religion and directly rejecting their Scriptures. In summary, I'd suggest that the lack of a reformation is not down to Geography or society, but is an embeded function of their Scriptures. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted July 9, 2016 #5 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Rinna said: I just became aware of the author Michael Shemer this week, and his book The Moral Arc. In this book he discusses why science, through the enlightment period specifically, improved humanity as a whole, including religions. This however, excludes Islam. According to Shemer, Islam never went through the radical changes of Judaism or Christianity, hence its proclivity for violence. He goes into it in on his website: http://moralarc.org/why-islam-of-the-three-great-monotheistic-religions-one-did-not-go-through-enlightenment/ for all those who want to read. Naturally I thought of you folks over here when I read this, and was curious what your thoughts were. I don't agree with you. I think you'll find the reason why there is religious freedom in the West is because Napoleon conquered the Vatican and forced the Pope at the time into giving it. Edited July 9, 2016 by RabidMongoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaeton80 Posted July 9, 2016 #6 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Id beg to differ. Movement towards secularism does not equate 'enlightenment', which is one of the main differences between Occidental and Oriental historic societal development - with a high level of Masonic influence in the former.. Playing a decisive role in most of the Occidental revolutions that were fomented in the enlightenment period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 9, 2016 #7 Share Posted July 9, 2016 19 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said: I don't agree with you. I think you'll find the reason why there is religious freedom in the West is because Napoleon conquered the Vatican and forced the Pope at the time into giving it. Interesting thought RM. However, the protestant reformation preceeded the occupation of the Vatican by a couple of hundred years. Protestantism (or Puritanism) was associated with increased liberty of thought and conscience, and a reduction in the stiflling influence of religion on social and scientific progress. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Rights_and_liberty) . Napoleon certainly accelerated the process, but the process was already well under way before he arrived on the scene. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted July 9, 2016 #8 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Islam and Christianity couldn't be more different there founders couldn't be more different. Mohammed killed had war horses and swords named after him. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Mohammed was sex mad, he had many wives, sex slaves, raped wives of the men he killed. Jesus had no interest in the pleasures of the flesh. Mohammed robbed and plundered his way across the region giving himself the largest cut of the booty. Jesus was as poor as a church mouse. The Quran can't be changed there won't be an Islamic reformation. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #9 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, RoofGardener said: I think there may be another reason... though they 'reasons' may not be mutually exclusive. Christianity - in terms of the New Testament - never offered a political system. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, promotes it's tenet as "law", and indeed promotes this "law" as superceding secular laws. There are very few who wouldn't agree this foundation of "law" forms the basis of a political system of government. Edited July 9, 2016 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaeton80 Posted July 9, 2016 #10 Share Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, hetrodoxly said: Islam and Christianity couldn't be more different there founders couldn't be more different. Mohammed killed had war horses and swords named after him. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Mohammed was sex mad, he had many wives, sex slaves, raped wives of the men he killed. Jesus had no interest in the pleasures of the flesh. Mohammed robbed and plundered his way across the region giving himself the largest cut of the booty. Jesus was as poor as a church mouse. The Quran can't be changed there won't be an Islamic reformation. You exemplify a complete lack of understanding of both Yeshua's teachings as well as Muhammad's, positioning them in extremes; while neither was on the extreme side you imagine them. Yeshua wasnt the pacifier you hold him to be, and Muhammad wasnt the warmongerer you claim. Only if one regards Paulinism in a complete vacuum in respect to all the other Abrahamic prophets - their teachings and actions - can you suppose what you do here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted July 9, 2016 #11 Share Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, RoofGardener said: Interesting thought RM. However, the protestant reformation preceeded the occupation of the Vatican by a couple of hundred years. Protestantism (or Puritanism) was associated with increased liberty of thought and conscience, and a reduction in the stiflling influence of religion on social and scientific progress. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Rights_and_liberty) . Napoleon certainly accelerated the process, but the process was already well under way before he arrived on the scene. You are linking to a Wiki on the Protestant faith, scrolling down to a small section about liberty where it says some notable protestants campaigned for freedoms, and then trying to use that to concoct a fake history where protestants were responsible for social and scientific progress. That is a flawed argument if ever I saw one. The Protestants of several centuries ago were fanatical just like their Catholic counterparts. In fact they were more fanatical because they rebelled against a Pope selling indulgences (this is what let to the creation of the Protestant Faith) replacing his religious and moral authority with what was written in the Bible. And for a long time afterwards both sides waged genocidal campaigns against each other usually via a good old fashioned burning at the stake. The Protestants hampered social and scientific progress just as much as the Catholics. If you don't believe me then please read up on Issac Newton (as an example). He had to do much of his scientific research in secret because he feared the Protestant, not the Catholic Faith, would come get him. The Western World only started to liberalise into what it is today following Napoleon conquering the Vatican. He forced religious freedom onto the Catholic upper echelons and then ideas of religious freedom spread changing the Western World. The Americans loved Frances fight for Liberty but the bug went on to infect us all. The horrors of WW2 did much to advance freedom in the Western World as peoples rights started to be placed first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 9, 2016 #12 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I wasn't trying to concoct anything, Oh Rabid One, merely linking to what I had read. You say that the protestants hampered social and scientif progress just as much as the Catholics ? Well, thats very interesting, and contradicts what I thought was the case. Can you give any citations supporting that position ? I'm a trifle skeptical of the reference to Isaac Newton; some of his "secret" work verged on Witchcraft, and his personal religious phillosophy was at best heretical, and extreme by the standards of the time. He would have risked censure under Catholicism as much as Protestantism. The fact he feared Protestant outrage was merely a co-incidence; they happened to be the 'official' religion of the realm at that particular time , and the reformation and liberalisation of religion in the UK had only really just started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 9, 2016 #13 Share Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Leonardo said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, promotes it's tenet as "law", and indeed promotes this "law" as superceding secular laws. There are very few who wouldn't agree this foundation of "law" forms the basis of a political system of government. I'm not sure that your quotation from the Bible actually supports your subsequent statement, Leonardo ? Whillst it is true that we had "canon law" in the UK back in the old days, I don't believe these ever had any direct scriptural authority. Can you give me an example of where the New Testament specifies a social law ? (in the sense that - say - Sharia does ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 9, 2016 #14 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Quote Islam and the Enlightenment Issue section: Feature Issue: March 2006 (304) By Neil Davidson *** Perhaps we should therefore consider the possibility that the decisive factor in both the emergence of Enlightenment in the West and its failure to do so in the East may not be religion as such, but the kind of societies in which their respective religions took root, and which these religions helped to preserve. We will in any case have to qualify the claim that Islam knew no form of scientific rationality. After all, it was Muslim scholars who translated and preserved the philosophy and science of Greece and Persia, which would otherwise have been lost. It was they who transmitted it to their equivalents in Europe, who came to be educated by Muslim hands in Spain and Sicily. But Muslim achievements in scientific thought were not simply archival. The 13th century Syrian scholar and physician Ibn al-Nafis was first to discover the pulmonary circulation of the blood. In doing so he had to reject the views of one of his predecessors, Avicenna - himself an important medical thinker who, among other things, identified that disease could be spread by drinking water. Ibn al-Nafis died in his bed at an advanced age (he is thought to have been around 80). Compare his fate to that of the second person to propose the theory of circulation, the Spaniard Michael Servetus. In 1553 he was arrested by the Protestant authorities of Geneva on charges of blasphemy, and was burned for heresy at the insistence of Calvin after refusing to recant. socialist review org link Neil Davidson was the joint winner of the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize in 2003. ~ Perhaps the views presented by the OP's article was woefully misinformed if not totally based on confirmation bias ~ Quote Michael Brant Shermer is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 9, 2016 #15 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I have problems with that quote, Third_Eye. Firstly; there is a mixture of "strawman" and "bait and switch". The author starts to talk about a failure of enlightenment, but diverts to talking about preserving and transmitting ancient texts, and .. in the next sentence... it's suddenly "achievments in scientific thought". Preservation of texts does NOT constitute "achievements in scientific thought". Then we have the idea that the failure of a reformation might relate to the "societies in which their respective religions took root". The author introduces this idea, but then declines to actualy justify it. And yet both "Christian" and "Islamic" societies each covered a wide range of nations and cultures. The ONLY common factor seems to be the religion itself, bringing us back to square one. He then introduces a 13th Century (e.g. pre-enlightenment) physician who proposed a (pretty accurate) model of human circulation. Admirable, but what has that got to do with the failure of Enlightenment ? This particular physician lived in the 13th century. We KNOW that Islamic scientific development stalled in the sixteenth century and never recovered; why mention "previous glories" (and rather sparse and modest ones at that). What have they got to do with it ? The full article is full of the same. As for your final comment - "Perhaps the views presented..." - I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you expand on that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 9, 2016 #16 Share Posted July 9, 2016 It is what it is because that is what it is now , maybe it could have been better, perhaps it may have been worse ~ you see ... what Michael Brant Shermer claims as is because of as were, was never the case as in the manner as he presented them. ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #17 Share Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, RoofGardener said: I'm not sure that your quotation from the Bible actually supports your subsequent statement, Leonardo ? Whillst it is true that we had "canon law" in the UK back in the old days, I don't believe these ever had any direct scriptural authority. Can you give me an example of where the New Testament specifies a social law ? (in the sense that - say - Sharia does ?) I took it directly from the NIV version, which doesn't differ from various other versions and not significantly from those it does differ from. The quote is accurate. The NT does not have to specify any more laws than the OT does, as both are canonical Christian scripture - and nothing in the NT suggests the laws set out in the OT are not still "in effect" as far as the religious authorities are concerned. The reasons modern Christians do not still practice those laws as law, are cultural rather than religious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted July 9, 2016 #18 Share Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said: You exemplify a complete lack of understanding of both Yeshua's teachings as well as Muhammad's, positioning them in extremes; while neither was on the extreme side you imagine them. Yeshua wasnt the pacifier you hold him to be, and Muhammad wasnt the warmongerer you claim. Only if one regards Paulinism in a complete vacuum in respect to all the other Abrahamic prophets - their teachings and actions - can you suppose what you do here. What did i say about Jesus that wasn't true? What did i say about Mohammed that wasn't true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careful_perspective Posted July 9, 2016 Author #19 Share Posted July 9, 2016 5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said: I don't agree with you. I think you'll find the reason why there is religious freedom in the West is because Napoleon conquered the Vatican and forced the Pope at the time into giving it. Well its not me you are agreeing or disagreeing with, I don't have a dog in this fight, I posted on here because I am curious about what the forum thinks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted July 10, 2016 #20 Share Posted July 10, 2016 20 hours ago, Rinna said: I just became aware of the author Michael Shemer this week, and his book The Moral Arc. In this book he discusses why science, through the enlightment period specifically, improved humanity as a whole, including religions. This however, excludes Islam. According to Shemer, Islam never went through the radical changes of Judaism or Christianity, hence its proclivity for violence. He goes into it in on his website: http://moralarc.org/why-islam-of-the-three-great-monotheistic-religions-one-did-not-go-through-enlightenment/ for all those who want to read. Naturally I thought of you folks over here when I read this, and was curious what your thoughts were. MY thoughts are its hogwash . The enlightenment came VIA Islam. Islam virtually resurrected the hermetic sciences from oblivion and used them to help rise its civilization ti the heights ... while Europe was in the Dark Ages and people in England threw their **** out the windows into the public streets. Also , centers where this as evident were quiet enlightened and peaceful , many allowing (according to Islamic Law) the peaceful settlement of Jews and Christians alongside Muslims . It just happened earlier in Islamic History as they were practicing those things first, by the time the Enlightenment happened in Europe, things had moved on considerably. ... beat Erope by 400 years about ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted July 10, 2016 #21 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I think if it hadn't been for the breakup of the Ottoman empire and Europe colonizing the Middle East and generally upsetting region, splitting up region into kingdoms and dictatorships, then Islam may have naturally become more moderate on its own. But when governments start using religion as a means of controlling the population, then a conservative theocracy can make for a stagnant culture. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted July 10, 2016 #22 Share Posted July 10, 2016 9 hours ago, back to earth said: MY thoughts are its hogwash . The enlightenment came VIA Islam. Islam virtually resurrected the hermetic sciences from oblivion and used them to help rise its civilization ti the heights ... while Europe was in the Dark Ages and people in England threw their **** out the windows into the public streets. Also , centers where this as evident were quiet enlightened and peaceful , many allowing (according to Islamic Law) the peaceful settlement of Jews and Christians alongside Muslims . It just happened earlier in Islamic History as they were practicing those things first, by the time the Enlightenment happened in Europe, things had moved on considerably. ... beat Erope by 400 years about ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age Muslims didn't invent or discover anything, Persians, Iraq etc did, Taken from Omar Khayyám's Rubaiyat. “And do you think that unto such as you A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew God gave a secret, and denied it me? Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!” does that sound like the words of a Muslim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted July 10, 2016 #23 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I have to agree with Hetrodoxly, many of the things people attribute to Islam, actually predates Islam. Arabic numbers have their origins in India along with '0'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaeton80 Posted July 10, 2016 #24 Share Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) Enlightenment is not defined by 'inventing things', and Back to Earth doesnt imply Algebra was invented by Muslims, he doesnt even use the term; strawman argument. Fact remains, the Islamic world was prospering intellectually, financially and socially while the West was stumbling around in the dark, walking on streets paved with excrement; destitutes living in serfdom. To claim the subsequent period of European enlightenment is unique to 'Judeo - Christian' / Western culture is excessively biased, and indicates a strong lack of knowledge or misrepresentation of Occidental history. It does ofcourse perfectly fit the contemporal anti Islamic trend.. conditioning that is prevalent throughout Western society today, and as such - like so many other popular fallacies that serve certain agenda's - easily gains tract amongst 'the public at large. Edited July 10, 2016 by Phaeton80 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted July 10, 2016 #25 Share Posted July 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said: Enlightenment is not defined by 'inventing things', and Back to Earth doesnt imply Algebra was invented by Muslims, he doesnt even use the term; strawman argument. Fact remains, the Islamic world was prospering intellectually, financially and socially while the West was stumbling around in the dark, walking on streets paved with excrement; destitutes living in serfdom. To claim the subsequent period of European enlightenment is unique to 'Judeo - Christian' / Western culture is excessively biased, and indicates a strong lack of knowledge or misrepresentation of Occidental history. It does ofcourse perfectly fit the contemporal anti Islamic trend.. conditioning that is prevalent throughout Western society today, and as such - like so many other popular fallacies that serve certain agenda's - easily gains tract amongst 'the public at large. Utter nonsense, Bede was writing books on science and translating the Greeks in the 7th century as was Gildas before him Christian monks translated Greek and Latin for the Arab hordes, it was only the Arab warlords and their ilk that didn't walk in excrement the poor did and still do today, what went wrong? nothing of any worth as been written in Arabic for over 500 years, the big myth is the European 'dark-ages' constantly stated by every ignorant Muslim. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now