"Islamic" Golden Age

[S.A.M.]

Thought as much. I hope the UN does something soon. I'm getting real tired of everyone ignoring this ongoing occupation.

 

[GeoffP]

amazing just amazing. u guys claim to be so true, so accepting

We are. It isn't "muslim science" any more than all the developments of the Western world are "Christian science". Michael's question was whether or not Christianity should take credit for almost all scientific innovation since. Should it?

(I'm sure Sam and you will have many, er, non-jealous, non-petty objections to this idea. Because you're both so accepting and open-minded.)

 

[S.A.M.]

Except that Christian science had nothing to do with Christianity [unless you count the scientific advances of 700 years that converted Jesus to God]. Islamic science had everything to do with Islam.

 

[GeoffP]

And there we are! No surprises there. No actual facts developed either, mind, but there we are. Oh, and a religious slur thrown in.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its not a slur, its a fact. Look up Nicean council, trinity and idol worship. I'd call that an advance in thought.

No "actual" facts? Its historical consensus.

The Islamic Golden Age was soon inaugurated by the middle of the 8th century by the ascension of the Abbasid Caliphate and the transfer of the capital from Damascus to the Persian city of Baghdad illustrating the strong Persian presence in the Abbasid Caliphate. The Abbassids were influenced by the Qur'anic injunctions and hadith such as "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" (Considered a weak hadith by Al-Bani Hadith No./4832) stressing the value of knowledge. During this period the Muslim world became the unrivalled intellectual centre for science, philosophy, medicine and education as the Abbasids championed the cause of knowledge and established a "House of Wisdom" (Arabic:بيت الحكمة) in Baghdad; where both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars sought to translate and gather all the world's knowledge into Arabic.

...Some scholars have referred to this period as a "Muslim scientific revolution",[90][3][91][92] a term which expresses the view that Islam was the driving force behind the Muslim scientific achievements,[93] and should not to be confused with the early modern European Scientific Revolution leading to the rise of modern science.

 

[GeoffP]

It's a slur on Christians and Christianity, which is a trite favourite with you. Not too surprising. :yawn:

As for your "historical consensus" - argumentation by popularity ring any philosophical bells? Besides which, it was only "some scholars". So what are their arguments? How does islam fit into their research and findings? What of it was predicted by their faith? Is there any evidence at all for this hopeful monster of an assumption?

 

[S.A.M.]

It's a slur on Christians and Christianity

Why? Its a known history of the church. They decided on the divinity of Jesus and they approved his idol worship. The Councils were deliberate.

argumentation by popularity

So quoting historical consensus is argument by popularity? Because history is based on minority reports? I'll remember that for future occasions

<bookmarks GeoffP's post>

Thanks.

 

[GeoffP]

Why? Its a known history of the church. They decided on the divinity of Jesus and they approved his idol worship. The Councils were deliberate.

Your intentions have long been noted, Sam.

So quoting historical consensus is argument by popularity?

YES. Consensus is part of popularity. That's why you don't find me arguing points on their popularity. If you think you can find some, please go ahead and search for them. The question is whether or not there's logical justification for that argument. As a purported scientist, you should follow this concept implicitly.

Because history is based on minority reports? I'll remember that for future occasions

<bookmarks GeoffP's post>

Thanks.

HAW! What are you, three? Oooh, Sam's a gonna git me! Wooooooo! Heh.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your intentions have long been noted, Sam.



YES. Consensus is part of popularity. That's why you don't find me arguing points on their popularity. If you think you can find some, please go ahead and search for them. The question is whether or not there's logical justification for that argument. As a purported scientist, you should follow this concept implicitly.

As a purported scientist yourself, you should know that historical consensus is what defines history, just as scientific consensus defines science.

HAW! What are you, three? Oooh, Sam's a gonna git me! Wooooooo! Heh.

Yup

 

[GeoffP]

As a purported scientist yourself, you should know that historical consensus is what defines history, just as scientific consensus defines science.

Ah, no, it doesn't. Only for closed minds, really. Science is based on evidence, not opinion. So again: which staggering breakthroughs have been made based on an islamic religious approach to science and how have they been structured in theology?

Yup

Hmm. A threat? I sincerely hope not.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah, no, it doesn't. Only for closed minds, really. Science is based on evidence, not opinion. So again: which staggering breakthroughs have been made based on an islamic religious approach to science and how have they been structured in theology?

.

I'm sorry, how exactly, apart from historical consensus, do you derive any history?

 

[GeoffP]

We're discussing science, not history. Consensus - and false or misinformed consensus - is the reason we have argumentative fallacies in the first place. So consensus isn't as important as truth.

Now, about that threat again? You will confirm it wasn't one?

 

[S.A.M.]

No we're discussing history. The Islamic Golden Age is not science.

 

[GeoffP]

No we're discussing history. The Islamic Golden Age is not science.

Oh, really?

Except that Christian science had nothing to do with Christianity [unless you count the scientific advances of 700 years that converted Jesus to God]. Islamic science had everything to do with Islam.

We were discussing science, Sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, really?



We were discussing science, Sam.

Yeah, the history of Islamic science.

 

[GeoffP]

Heh. Nice try at evasion again, but no: you make no such allusion until this last post.

Now: is there any scriptural basis for such evidence, or is it all bunk? Assumption? This would be hard to argue given your statement: "Islamic science had everything to do with Islam". But if you want to retract, fair enough.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure, the Quran is full of directives to empiricism. Since you're so smart, I'll let you find them yourself.

 

[GeoffP]

I take it that you're done.

 

[wayne92587]

You dodged the issue again: the "Golden Age" was golden if you were a male and muslim. Otherwise, not so golden.


The Age of Fundamentalist Islam is the color of something born of fundament for the Muslim Woman.

 

[wayne92587]

amazing just amazing. u guys claim to be so true, so accepting, so broad visioned but u can not see, hear or feel beyond ur pre set limits of jealousy and hatred. ur folks have done a great job in erasing all the facts and figures and incorporating vague data in ur minds. but lets not talk about it. it useless cuz we both wont bear it. lets talk about realities. DIDNT NON MUSLIM SCIENTISTS PROVE ALL THE BASIC FACTS AND FIGURES ALREADY MENTIONED BY THE GREAT MUSLIM SCIENTISTS? DIDNT THEY FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE MUSLIMS AND PROCEEDED FROM WHERE THEY LEFT? the muslims lagged behind cuz of their own weaknesses and ur conspiracies but this does not, in any way, allow u followers to snatch away the credit of all the greay work they have done in different fields of science and technology. come on. be bold enough to face the truth.

Islam lags behind because Islamic Law, Sharia, was hijacked by the Fundamentalism,
the distorted sense of Manliness.

Fundamentalists to not allow submission to God's Law, Freedom of Spirit, Freedom of Mind, is the Law, Boundlessness. Fundamentalism is to basic to allow for innovation, Freedom of Spirit, Freedom of Mind, Boundlessness, Joy, Happiness, in this Life Time.