Censorship of Science.

Islamic scholarship has actually contributed a great deal to 'Western' science - in the some areas providing the basis for disciplines.
 
Look at most of their existences, you're asking about detriments to science, and the Wahabis want to turn the clock back to Muhammed's time, hardly scientific progress.
 
Have you ever been to an Islamic country to 'look at most of their existences'?

Also, can you please explain, for the benefit of readers of the thread, the specifics of Wahhabist censorship of science?
 
The dark ages of Europe were precipitated by the Church's widespread destruction of ancient knowledge. By the time of Newton, Europe had already rediscovered Islamic texts and copies of their copies of Greek works, which were responsible for the Renaissance.
 
IAC - I thinks its a little unfair that you are proceeding with posts whilst ignoring questions relevant to your point...otherwise it appears you are making things up.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
And Islam provided little scientific innovation thereafter, it was the West, with its Christianity.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make any logical sense....first you say that Christians censoring science isn't because of Christianity just because Christians do it...then you say Christians making scientific discoveries in the past must be because of Christianity itself, not because Christians did it.......

Islam really never tried to censor science at all....and the West took all their information from them.....
 
Literalism in religion breeds intolerance for new ideas, particularly scientific ones. You can argue about which religion is worst...
 
Umberto Eco, writing in The Guardian on 4/9/04 gave a clear account: "Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of ' fallibilism ' (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes - and by considering that an experiment that doesn ' t work our is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or start over from scratch... This way of thinking is opposed to all forms of fundamentalism, to all literal interpretations of holy writ - which are also open to continuous reinterpretation - and to all dogmatic certainty in one ' s own ideas. That is good ‘philosophy’ in the everyday and Socratic sense of the term, which ought to be taught in schools."

There are topics where “balance” or equal treatment is not called for. You can value both story and science if everyone acknowledges the differences and values them for different reasons – myths, legends and stories can be very beautiful and pleasing and may even tell us much about ourselves and our emotions – while science explains how the world works.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1771
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top