tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post3737152371261029006..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Steven Weinberg on tension between science and religionSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-39637576516902215222008-09-27T00:20:00.000-04:002008-09-27T00:20:00.000-04:00We have some idea of why Ibn-Rushd became popular ...We have some idea of why Ibn-Rushd became popular in Europe, and it has to with Aristotle. He did the most extensive translation and commentary on Aristotle's work. In fact, while Aristotle was called "The Philosopher", Ibn-Rushd was called "The Commentator". These commentaries sound light, but these are considered full philosophical works. <BR/><BR/>The reasons for the lack of popularity in the Islamic world are not clear, but al-Andalus' remoteness to the Islamic heartland may have played a big role. Plus, there was much political instability in the Islamic Caliphate, as well as the ongoing crusades in the 12th century. In any case, may be the intellectual history of Islam be completely different if Ibn-Rushd's works had been influential - but it did not happen.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-673796036848449312008-09-26T06:59:00.000-04:002008-09-26T06:59:00.000-04:00Great post. Thanks for the info on al-Ghazzali too...Great post. Thanks for the info on al-Ghazzali too. <BR/>As to why Christianity took the course it did as regards science; I read a great historical analysis years ago, whose author I don't recall, that said that because Europe was still reeling after the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants people increasingly sought intellectual satisfaction in studying nature and stayed away from all the live wire issues based in biblical interpretations. As I understand it too, Islamic culture while it preserved Greek writings was much more wary of being influenced by the Greek worldviews than Renaissance Europe.<BR/>Then there was the pursuit of power over nature through magic as in the case of people like Bruno; an attitude which would have been more threatening to Islam with its strong idea of everything depending on the will of Allah. It seems that there were currents in Europe that left it more open to heretical ideas.<BR/>Not to be too long winded, I have had arguments with Theists about the difference between religious authority and the authority of scientific consensus. When they cherry-pick quotes of Einstein to show he wasn't Atheist (and he did seem more vaguely Deist to me) I always get that sense of them seeing him in the same light as a religious authority, that his ideas about God should somehow hold weight with us. It's not like he was vouchsafed an insight into the nature of things by some higher power like a prophet of old, rather he was the first to comprehend the world in a particular way that led us down a new path. That doesn't lend weight to any speculations he might have had about a spiritual power in the Universe. Scientific authority is always provisional and must be tested in light of new discoveries and not something sacred and inviolable like religious revelation. People like Einstein are heroes but they're not prophets.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02113192159669193981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-7850368288470146112008-09-26T05:34:00.000-04:002008-09-26T05:34:00.000-04:00"if one has a worldview that includes an interveni..."if one has a worldview that includes an intervening God, then such a view will fundamentally be in opposition to science"<BR/><BR/>That's very true, and I think that the acceptance by renaissance Europe of a god that created laws and then acted for the most part as an observer was fundamentally important to the development of science. But the interesting thing this that there is nothing in Christianity that would lead one to that view in particular when compared with Islam. In other words, the idea of a law-creating god was an invention of christians, but not a christian invention. The really interesting question is why, then, were Europeans so much more receptive to this idea. Why was Ibn-Rushd so much more influential in Europe than the Middle East. I wish I knew the answer!Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-56425214713277719592008-09-26T03:06:00.000-04:002008-09-26T03:06:00.000-04:00This is a really interesting post. I think that so...This is a really interesting post. I think that so much of the debate around science and religion focuses on Christianity that not enough attention is paid to how the debate affects other religions. If you're interested, there's a really interesting book coming out in October called <A HREF="http://healingtheriftbook.com/" REL="nofollow">Healing the Rift</A> by Leo Kim that looks at the question in terms of science and spirituality, without focusing on one religion in particular.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15996662643984783625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-89413308684376858882008-09-25T22:08:00.000-04:002008-09-25T22:08:00.000-04:00I'm glad for the breakdown of Weinberg's comments ...I'm glad for the breakdown of Weinberg's comments on science and religion, but I think your commentary does a better job of describing the relationship than his original points (at least until point no. 4). Easily my favorite of your posts so far.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733799054106197853noreply@blogger.com