Comments on: TIA: The Good Old Dark Ages http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/02/19/good-old-dark-ages/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/02/19/good-old-dark-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-376 Deacon Duncan Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:51:32 +0000 http://realevang.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-376 Well, I hope to learn more about it anyway. The thought did occur to me that the early liberalism of Islam might have been a by-product of the initial conversion-by-conquest approach that Muslims took. If you force large numbers of people, across a wide range of cultural backgrounds, to confess Mohammed or die, you've got a much greater likelihood that significant numbers of "believers" will continue to hold the same values and philosophies as before, with only a superficial layer of Islamic "loyalty" on top. By absorbing too much too fast, Islam increased the amount of time required to truly and completely dominate the cultures it controlled. Well, I hope to learn more about it anyway. The thought did occur to me that the early liberalism of Islam might have been a by-product of the initial conversion-by-conquest approach that Muslims took. If you force large numbers of people, across a wide range of cultural backgrounds, to confess Mohammed or die, you’ve got a much greater likelihood that significant numbers of “believers” will continue to hold the same values and philosophies as before, with only a superficial layer of Islamic “loyalty” on top. By absorbing too much too fast, Islam increased the amount of time required to truly and completely dominate the cultures it controlled.

]]> By: jodyw1 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/02/19/good-old-dark-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-375 jodyw1 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:46:43 +0000 http://realevang.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-375 While I'm not an expert by any means on the subject, I believe Karen Armstrong offered a hypothesis on why Islam did so well with science relative to Christianity. <i>In The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam</i> she suggested that most of the insights of Islam were based during a fairly open "liberal" period in the collective faith. She believes that their scientific advancement was stifled after the Caliphate and the religious bodies that controlled it, came to be dominated by very literalist / fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, sometime... and this is off the top of my head... between the 12th to the 14th Century. You might know more on the subject. While I’m not an expert by any means on the subject, I believe Karen Armstrong offered a hypothesis on why Islam did so well with science relative to Christianity. In The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam she suggested that most of the insights of Islam were based during a fairly open “liberal” period in the collective faith.

She believes that their scientific advancement was stifled after the Caliphate and the religious bodies that controlled it, came to be dominated by very literalist / fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, sometime… and this is off the top of my head… between the 12th to the 14th Century.

You might know more on the subject.

]]> By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/02/19/good-old-dark-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Deacon Duncan Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:58:34 +0000 http://realevang.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-374 Now that's a very interesting point. Modern Islam <a href="http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html" rel="nofollow">does seem to have evolved</a> to the point that Christianity was at in the Middle Ages, but in its early centuries it does not seem to have been as dogmatic about scientific endeavors. Bear in mind, of course, that Islam didn't get started until the early seventh century, so Christianity had an extra six centuries to work on "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=every+thought+captive&searchtype=all&version1=49&spanbegin=1&spanend=73" rel="nofollow">taking every thought captive</a>". But even taking cultural and historical influences into account, there still seems room for the conclusion that science and religion <i>can</i> co-exist peacefully. As <a href="http://realevang.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/day-v-dawkins-et-al/" rel="nofollow">I said before</a>, <blockquote>Vox wants to show that it is an error to claim that religious faith is inherently bad. This is a thesis that I might actually agree with, to some extent. It is not religion, <i>per se</i>, that is dangerous and unhealthy. Rather, certain elements within religion are dangerous and unhealthy, namely superstition, self-righteous intolerance, and the willful inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. These factors are clearly and demonstrably detrimental, and do indeed deserve our condemnation and rejection.</blockquote> Now that’s a very interesting point. Modern Islam does seem to have evolved to the point that Christianity was at in the Middle Ages, but in its early centuries it does not seem to have been as dogmatic about scientific endeavors. Bear in mind, of course, that Islam didn’t get started until the early seventh century, so Christianity had an extra six centuries to work on “taking every thought captive“. But even taking cultural and historical influences into account, there still seems room for the conclusion that science and religion can co-exist peacefully. As I said before,

Vox wants to show that it is an error to claim that religious faith is inherently bad. This is a thesis that I might actually agree with, to some extent. It is not religion, per se, that is dangerous and unhealthy. Rather, certain elements within religion are dangerous and unhealthy, namely superstition, self-righteous intolerance, and the willful inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. These factors are clearly and demonstrably detrimental, and do indeed deserve our condemnation and rejection.

]]> By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/02/19/good-old-dark-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-373 Deacon Duncan Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:43:34 +0000 http://realevang.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-373 There's a comment on Vox's <a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/02/patience-godless-grasshopper.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a>, (number 32, from "derp") that the author says he would have left here except for his dislike of WordPress. I trust he won't mind if I reproduce it here. <i>The first thing that occurred to me while reading this was, "While I'm no expert in Arab history, if the good Deacon wishes to point out how bad religion is when it's wedded to the state, why did he note that the Arabs were so much more advanced than the Christians during the Middle Ages? I'm 92% sure that the Caliphate wasn't exactly secular. Seems to me like our tenured friend made a strong argument for Islam, not atheism." </i> There’s a comment on Vox’s blog, (number 32, from “derp”) that the author says he would have left here except for his dislike of WordPress. I trust he won’t mind if I reproduce it here.

The first thing that occurred to me while reading this was, “While I’m no expert in Arab history, if the good Deacon wishes to point out how bad religion is when it’s wedded to the state, why did he note that the Arabs were so much more advanced than the Christians during the Middle Ages? I’m 92% sure that the Caliphate wasn’t exactly secular. Seems to me like our tenured friend made a strong argument for Islam, not atheism.”

]]>