ddasfv

Sacred sciences are acquired through prophets, not (like arithmetic) required through reason, or (like medicine) through experience, or (like language) required through “hearing” (social discourse). 82 al-Ghazali


While generally showing support for the sciences in the Islamic empire, the relationship between science and Islam is very strained by the vast expanse of area the empire took up, causing a void of authority that needed to be filled in order for the scientific community to flourish. The general belief system of the empire was less challenged by a larger authoritarian framework as well, meaning that the exploration of certain topics was possible. however, it would be getting the information verified through the scientific community for any sort of discovery to be considered valid science.

Practical discoveries would always trump theoretical discoveries, with more abstract ideas having the possibility of being labeled as Talismanic.




Should we view the history of science and religion in the West as a history of conflict or harmony?
Intro: 		The history between science and religion has shown that neither is willing to concede their views, regardless of the religion or field of science. While both spirit and theory has overlapping beliefs in a multitude of areas, neither has ever been in a sort of harmonious state politically, ethically, or socially for long enough to deem it historically relevant. Between the two conflicting philosophies is a fundamental difference in thought; with science focusing on tangibility and evident reason, and religion focusing on faith and its scripture. This divide is made more evident by the interactions of Islam and Christianity against the scientific community.

While generally showing support for the practical applications of science, the relationship between science and Islam is strained by the applications of science which directly challenge their religious worldview. Practical discoveries would always trump theoretical discoveries, with more abstract ideas having the possibility of being labeled as Talismanic. The origin of Islam rests in the interaction between Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.  “During one such retreat, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad…declaring to Muhammad that he was the chosen messenger of Allah.  Soon thereafter, Muhammad began preaching monotheism—belief in Allah” (Dhanani 74).  Making impactful, moral decisions based on the words of a deity directly conflicts with a scientific conception the world.  Whereas Islam’s origin claims knowledge from a prophetic source in order to establish an agenda, the origin of science is grounded in a search for empirical data to explain one’s surroundings.  Additionally, the ultimate goals of Islam and science differ greatly.  “[Muhammad] was particularly critical of social injustices resulting from the breakdown in traditional values of charity and hospitality and of the accumulation of wealth without regard to the needy” (Dhanani 75).  Here, the most important goal of Islam is explained as the drive to follow the teachings of Muhammad (and by extension Allah), that being social and economic reform.  Oppositely, the duty of scientific inquiry is to attempt to gain a deeper, objective understanding of the world.  Finally, due to the monotheistic nature of the Islamic nation, the general belief in one set of values taught by the sacred text has led to a lack of free interpretation that prevents science from philosophically matching its beliefs with the empire. Unlike the teachings of Islam, the scientific community believes in a stringent methodology of factual, tangible evidence proven by empirical research, thus creating the further divide between the theological standing of the Muslims and the scientific community of the time. These two are fundamentally different in the sense that one is about belief, with religion being based on faith, and the other is about logical conclusions based on evidence.  These factors coincide with one another to illustrate the conflict between science and religion.
Along with Islam, the epistemology put forth by Christianity is heavily contradictory to theories of knowledge put forth by the scientific community.  The centralization of the scientific community (which was mostly due to knowledge being owned by the churches) and stricter adherence to the sacred text had made Christianity much more like an authoritarian figure to the scientific community than a harmonious equal.  Few scientists stood to make statements for the scientific community out of fear of disapproval or being chastised.  Christianity steadfastly opposed any theories of knowledge that went against the canon, and therefore actively persecuted scientists and subsequent bodies of research.   In the Islamic empire, libraries were founded out of patronage and usually made public/accessible. Conversely, the books and vehicles for learning were owned by the lordship in the Christian church, meaning staying in good standing with the church was essential for continued research. This conflicts with the scientific community that promoted a dynamic, free-range approach to the pursuit of knowledge.


You have a really good start, this is what you need to do now:
Find sources regarding Christianity and Galileo and incorporate them into text
Write the Galileo paragraph, and expand the Christianity paragraph w/ quotes
Expand your intro and conclusion, and then you’re done! I can help on a google doc perhaps?






the vast expanse of area the empire took up, causing a void of authority that needed to be filled in order for the scientific community to flourish. What??

Sacred sciences are acquired through prophets, not (like arithmetic) required through reason, or (like medicine) through experience, or (like language) required through “hearing” (social discourse). 82

Perhaps the greatest example of scientific and religious conflict would the Galileo affair.
Those who belonged to the empire were much more aware of the disciplines of Shar’ia and Kalam and were much more knowledgeable on the system of knowledge in place. ****
	While some may argue that the true issues lie between theology and science and that there is no conflict between science and religion. ***


Conclusion:	Contextually, history shows us that most of the scientific discoveries were operationalization-based discoveries, meaning that most of the findings in the scientific community were very vaguely outlined, skeptically received, and decentralized.


Christianity:



















perhaps the most prolific example of the conflict between religion and science would be the Galileo affair. Galileo was a prominent scientist, contributing to the field of physics, the scientific method and (most controversially) his studies of astrology. He came under great criticism for his theory that the Earth was based around the sun. This directly contradicts the bible (pg 110,,, genesis 1, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6, Joshua 10:12, and psalm 19:4-6). His response to the criticism from the church was dismissed by the consensus that "all factual and historical knowledge about the natural world contained in the bible falls within the scope of religious faith and is governed by the authority of the church (pg111).