Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[orbital]

Of course, there is worse than the Catholic church. Apparently, in Islam once you become a Muslim you cannot choose to abandon your faith under the penalty of death.

I can't believe I am in  a position to defend Islam for a second time in two days as it is a religion whose practice in almost every field I am vehemently against  However:
Quran does not say anything about a punishment in this world with regards to abandoning Islam. I think it only says that there will be punishment in the afterlife. Some schools of interpretation see it just for the offender to be put to death whereas others see imprisonment as suitable, and still Muhammad himself says "Your religion is yours, my religion is mine" (That of course, did not stop him from converting hoards of people to Islam under the threat of death  )

It is just that I don't think it is fair to judge one religion on its practicality while judging the other on its written principles, that's all.

[mozartsneighbor]

I can't believe I am in  a position to defend Islam for a second time in two days as it is a religion whose practice in almost every field I am vehemently against  However:
Quran does not say anything about a punishment in this world with regards to abandoning Islam. I think it only says that there will be punishment in the afterlife. Some schools of interpretation see it just for the offender to be put to that whereas others see imprisonment as suitable, and still Muhammad himself says "Your religion is yours, my religion is mine" (That of course, did not stop him from converting hoards of people to Islam under the threat of death  )

It is just that I don't think it is fair to judge one religion on its practicality while judging the other on its written principles, that's all.

Yes, I was aware of that. But if you will look at my posts you will see I was stressing that Christianity, other religions, and any ideology cannot be evaluated only on their theory but also on their practice. And it seems this is a fairly widely held view in contemporary Islam -- even a poll in the UK showed about 60% of British Muslims from 18 to 30 agreeing with that principle.

[DavidRoss]

Numerous Islamic scholars throughout history have regarded the Quran and other teachings of Mohammed as sanctioning apostasy with death.  See, for instance:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php

[aquablob]

Truth is that great art is the result of the free expression of the personality of the artist. Economical and political cicumstances play little role, if any.

I agree that the first part of your statement here has some truth, but I doubt that many anthropologists/sociologists/(ethno)musicologists would deny economic and political circumstances as artistic (in this case, musical) determinants.

[orbital]

Yes, I was aware of that. But if you will look at my posts you will see I was stressing that Christianity, other religions, and any ideology cannot be evaluated only on their theory but also on their practice.

I agree with that 110% (I even think that practice is the only real important aspect of an idea no matter how good it looks on paper)

And it seems this is a fairly widely held view in contemporary Islam -- even a poll in the UK showed about 60% of British Muslims from 18 to 30 agreeing with that principle.

I wouldn't be surprised. The problem with contemporary Islam is that it is not allowed to become contemporary 

Numerous Islamic scholars throughout history have regarded the Quran and other teachings of Mohammed as sanctioning apostasy with death.  See, for instance:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php

If you are not into Islamic thought, unfortunately none of the references really make a decisive point. Hadiths are extremely dangerous in that you can not really know which ones are reliable and which ones are not.  You even have to be wary of who is saying what about which hadith, because even the opinions on people who rate the Hadiths vary greatly among Islamic folk. It's a mess 

[bwv 1080]

Could you please give us some examples of Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese schools of thought whose tenets could have been used as a starting point for the Enlightenment as we know it?

This would be a good place to start

http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/031242602X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233158471&sr=8-2

[karlhenning]

I agree with that 110% (I even think that practice is the only real important aspect of an idea no matter how good it looks on paper)

Yes.

(And that's a point I've tried to make in relation to tonality any number of times ; )

[mozartsneighbor]

This would be a good place to start

http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/031242602X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233158471&sr=8-2

This is another book that certainly addresses this in China's case.


Read it a couple of years ago. It shows how in the 17th and 18th centuries many of the thinkers and scientists of the Enlightenment were extremely aware of how intellectual trends and scientific thought in China were on a par or surpassing those in the West. Some who had been to China or were familiar with it through reading about it or having acquaintances who had been there, were convinced that China held better opportunities for a thinker or scientist.  Leibnitz, for example, was very interested in ideas coming out of China, and he and other intellectuals actually tried to learn Chinese.

I can no longer remember all the details about the different conditions and schools of thought in China at that time, unfortunately.

China only lost its edge over the West starting in the 19th century, and this only became apparent around 1840. As bwv 1080 has pointed out, a major factor in this was the fact that China was ruled by one central government, unlike Europe, and therefore there wasn't so much motivation to invest in research in the technological field to compete. Moreover, China was until the middle of the 19th century, when the Western powers started encroaching and challenging it, the superpower of East Asia -- in their known world, they faced no competition.
Another factor that no doubt gave impulse to the scientific and technological advances of the Scientific Revolution was the advent of European expansion and colonialism. This of course ties in with the competition factor in a way. But the fact that Europeans started crossing oceans, reaching and subjugating other faraway civilizations, etc., was very important in leading European rulers to invest in science and technology. One good example is the school of navigation established by Prince Henry of Portugal in the late 15th century with hosts of cartographers, astronomists, and other scientists.
China gave up on far-flung navigation and closed itself off, content with supremacy in Asia. However, earlier in the 14th century the Chinese Emperor had authorized his eunuch Grand Admiral on a series of voyages that some hold reached America, West Coast of Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. See this very intriguing book:

That the succeeding emperor discontinued the plans for more voyages had more to do with chance than anything pre-determined. A faction of scholar-officials who envied the influence of the admiral gained favor with the new emperor and moved their strings to end the initiatives.
Otherwise, history might have been very different.

[bwv 1080]

That the succeeding emperor discontinued the plans for more voyages had more to do with chance than anything pre-determined. A faction of scholar-officials who envied the influence of the admiral gained favor with the new emperor and moved their strings to end the initiatives.
Otherwise, history might have been very different.

Great points

Think about Columbus and how his plan was initially rejected by the King of Portugal, had this been instead the Emperor of Europe the story would have ended there

[Josquin des Prez]

This is another book that certainly addresses this in China's case.


Read it a couple of years ago. It shows how in the 17th and 18th centuries many of the thinkers and scientists of the Enlightenment were extremely aware of how intellectual trends and scientific thought in China were on a par or surpassing those in the West. Some who had been to China or were familiar with it through reading about it or having acquaintances who had been there, were convinced that China held better opportunities for a thinker or scientist.  Leibnitz, for example, was very interested in ideas coming out of China, and he and other intellectuals actually tried to learn Chinese.

Ok, assuming that the book isn't just liberal propaganda. Can we get any names? It shouldn't be too hard to name the Chinese counterpart to European genius.

[mozartsneighbor]

Ok, assuming that the book isn't just liberal propaganda. Can we get any names? It shouldn't be too hard to name the Chinese counterpart to European genius.

Again, as I said, I read this a few years ago and I don't have a copy since I checked it out of a library.
But I can try to put together some ideas I remember from this and other readings:
-- first of all, the Chinese thinker that had the most influence on European Enlightenment thinkers  was Confucius without a doubt. He could be said to be the Chinese equivalent to Plato, with Mencius and Lao Tzu being, let's say, the Aristotle and Plotinus. Enlightenment thinkers were very interested in Confucius and considered him a major figure because of his formulation of a system of morality without recourse to a personal God, but rather only to a very vague depersonalized higher power called Heaven. This interested many European thinkers because it coincided with their attempt to formulate a more depersonalized "Watch-Maker" God in accordance with the increasingly scientific and secular ethos of their era. It also of course interested those who were anti-clerical and wanted to formulate deistic ideas. The esteem in which Confucius was held as a thinker in 18th century Europe is shown by the fact that Goethe was flatteringly called the "Confucius of Weimar"
Some ancient Chinese ideas on government and economic policy were also circulated, and may have had some influence in the formulation of of liberal economic concepts, such as "laissez faire", which may have derived from the Chinese concept of Wei wu wei -- "action without action".

-- Chinese civilization produced a great deal of very important scientific discoveries, many of them much earlier than in Western civilization. Since these occurred farther back and Chinese culture did not value the concepts of genius and individualism as much, it is not always possible to say who were the geniuses who conceived of them. China invented gunpowder, the compass, papermaking, and printing hundreds of years earlier than they were ever known of in Europe.

-- in the area of literature I have had the pleasure of reading some of most well-known products of Chinese civilization, and some of them certainly compare very well with European literature of the same era. In the area of classical novels "The Dream of the Red Chamber" by Cao Xueqin is a masterpiece, as is Wu Chengen's "Journey to the West". Drama I don't know as well, but from the little I have seen there were some very worthwhile plays, particularly "The Peony Pavilion" by Tang Xianzu. As for poetry, do yourself a favor and buy an anthology of Tang dynasty poetry, which was the time in which the apex of Chinese poetry was reached. Among these poets Li Bai, Du Fu, and Bai Juyi can hold their own with the great poets of Europe.

-- Sun Tzu's "Art of War" put forth similar concepts of international diplomacy and statemanship as Machivelli's "The Prince" -- and again, hundreds of years earlier.

-- if you are looking for a prototypical European-style genius, you could look up Shen Kuo, who was a Chinese polymath that compares to Leonard Da Vinci

[Florestan]

This would be a good place to start

http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/031242602X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233158471&sr=8-2

Thanks for the recommendation, looks interesting. Still, it doesn't answer my question. Maybe I wasn't very explicit, so I'll reformulate it. Could you --- and I mean, you bwv 1080 --- point to the Indian, or Chinese, or Muslim counterpart of, say, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton? What is needed are a few names and some references about them.

[drogulus]

Let me clarify.  I am not one to push well crafted language that captures my thoughts aside and try to be overly original.  Ocassionally I will pull off an original quote worth repeating in minor circles.  However, as far as "gut feelings", I am right more often than not.  When acting on pure reason, I'm a human coin flip.....on my best days.



From left to right: drogulus and Bogey 

     I'm not a fan of pure reason, Bogey. Logical chains are vulnerable at the weakest link, which is often the first one, such as the Ontological Proof. That's why I say you should reason about experiences.

     Any belief system ought to be judged by its practice, certainly, as well as which of its tenets gives rise to whatever is good or bad about it. With Christianity and Islam what you notice is that you can find a wide variety of encouragements for all kinds of behavior. It no good to cite the passages about justice and mercy and claim "real Christianity hasn't been tried". It has been, because all of it is real. When the truth of beliefs is made irrelevant because belief makes it so, you can take it anyway you want, and anyway you take it is real in its consequences. Pure unquestioned experience and perfect reason about perfect beings are the poles you must navigate between. Pure experiencers and pure reasoners always find it easy to murder, because they do not credit consequences. The evidence the world provides is nothing to them compared to their principles or Holy Book.

     The best results in politics and ethics have been produced by people who have treated the truth and good as things which must be discovered, analyzed, debated and decided upon. This is a messy, error-filled process without supernatural or logical guarantees. It's the approach of democratic politics and open societies, which requires restrictions on the ability of religion to torment people generally and even their own followers to some extent. It has been so successful as a strategy that Christians now wish to take credit for it, as you see here. I'll be glad to give them credit for everything they are responsible for, but it's a package deal.

   

Thanks for the recommendation, looks interesting. Still, it doesn't answer my question. Maybe I wasn't very explicit, so I'll reformulate it. Could you --- and I mean, you bwv 1080 --- point to the Indian, or Chinese, or Muslim counterpart of, say, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton? What is needed are a few names and some references about them.

     I'd like to see that, too. Christianity certainly can claim credit for not killing or even suppressing all of these great thinkers. There was a worm in the apple. The new thought didn't appear outside the Church alone. For a long time there was essentially no outside. Science and philosophy took place within its embrace, and the struggle was within the Church for a means to permit the new thought. Here is an example of the advantage the Christians had over the Muslims. Christians started with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle*, and inherited a pagan empire with a high culture they admired. Some, like Augustine, were pagans themselves in their youth. They never could entirely disavow their heritage.

    _{*They did not, however, start with Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, or Anaxagoras. These philosophers had some indirect influence through Plato. Plato, incidentally gave us the idea that perfection was located in an unreachable Elsewhere which gave rise to the dualist affliction which persists to this day, as well as $5,000 speaker cables, and "Use the Forms, Luke!", or some other mystical bullshit.}

[Florestan]

          Here is an example of the advantage the Christians had over the Muslims. Christians started with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle*, and inherited a pagan empire with a high culture they admired. Some, like Augustine, were pagans themselves in their youth. They never could entirely disavow their heritage.

This is true but, then again, science started to gain impetus only after the false ideas of Aristotle about natural world were rejected on theological grounds. Actually, Aristotelism as such was inimical to the development of science as we know it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Again, as I said, I read this a few years ago and I don't have a copy since I checked it out of a library.
But I can try to put together some ideas I remember from this and other readings:
-- first of all, the Chinese thinker that had the most influence on European Enlightenment thinkers  was Confucius without a doubt. He could be said to be the Chinese equivalent to Plato, with Mencius and Lao Tzu being, let's say, the Aristotle and Plotinus. Enlightenment thinkers were very interested in Confucius and considered him a major figure because of his formulation of a system of morality without recourse to a personal God, but rather only to a very vague depersonalized higher power called Heaven. This interested many European thinkers because it coincided with their attempt to formulate a more depersonalized "Watch-Maker" God in accordance with the increasingly scientific and secular ethos of their era. It also of course interested those who were anti-clerical and wanted to formulate deistic ideas. The esteem in which Confucius was held as a thinker in 18th century Europe is shown by the fact that Goethe was flatteringly called the "Confucius of Weimar"
Some ancient Chinese ideas on government and economic policy were also circulated, and may have had some influence in the formulation of of liberal economic concepts, such as "laissez faire", which may have derived from the Chinese concept of Wei wu wei -- "action without action".

-- Chinese civilization produced a great deal of very important scientific discoveries, many of them much earlier than in Western civilization. Since these occurred farther back and Chinese culture did not value the concepts of genius and individualism as much, it is not always possible to say who were the geniuses who conceived of them. China invented gunpowder, the compass, papermaking, and printing hundreds of years earlier than they were ever known of in Europe.

-- in the area of literature I have had the pleasure of reading some of most well-known products of Chinese civilization, and some of them certainly compare very well with European literature of the same era. In the area of classical novels "The Dream of the Red Chamber" by Cao Xueqin is a masterpiece, as is Wu Chengen's "Journey to the West". Drama I don't know as well, but from the little I have seen there were some very worthwhile plays, particularly "The Peony Pavilion" by Tang Xianzu. As for poetry, do yourself a favor and buy an anthology of Tang dynasty poetry, which was the time in which the apex of Chinese poetry was reached. Among these poets Li Bai, Du Fu, and Bai Juyi can hold their own with the great poets of Europe.

-- Sun Tzu's "Art of War" put forth similar concepts of international diplomacy and statemanship as Machivelli's "The Prince" -- and again, hundreds of years earlier.

-- if you are looking for a prototypical European-style genius, you could look up Shen Kuo, who was a Chinese polymath that compares to Leonard Da Vinci

Sorry, but i don't see any evidence here that the intellectual achievements of the Chinese were on par or even surpassed those of Europe. That the Chinese are capable of great intellectual feats nobody is disputing, but that wasn't what was being asked.

[Herman]

't Is pretty clear where this is coming from...

[drogulus]

Great points

Think about Columbus and how his plan was initially rejected by the King of Portugal, had this been instead the Emperor of Europe the story would have ended there

     Yeah, but I think this is a bit weak as an argument. Who says everyone got just one bite of the apple? The great divergence of the Europeans did not rest on a single pivot point. I think Europeans always were going to go wherever they could because so many of them did just that, and the Chinese always were more satisfied with dominance in Asia. The Age of Discovery did not depend on the whims of a ruler or a single voyage. You have to step back and look at the era as a whole and stop worrying about accusations of cultural chauvinism. If the Chinese have a case that some Emperor ruined their chance for world preeminence that still did not explain why the decision was never reversed.

     The "myth" of Chinese insularity and incuriousity, like the "myth" about Islam, is a simplified explanation of a long and complex story, and the compensatory reaction about how these cultures really "coulda woulda" if only some Emperor or Sultan hadn't pitched a fit at exactly the wrong moment seems to misunderstand the broad scope of things. History is full of contingent moments, but the question isn't why the Emperor recalled the fleet, it's why they, unlike the Europeans, let this one incident determine their fate.

     Sometimes the cliche is basically right. The Muslims and Chinese thought that what mattered in the world was what they believed and everything else was inferior. This was much less true of the Europeans who were curious, ambitious, and open to influence*. The geography of Europe as well as it's religious and political history are partly responsible. But a big part is that we are all still in some measure like the Greeks. Remember, they went everywhere, too, and wrote about it and ended up conquering the lands they visited.

     _{*They, and we, call people who are not like us "barbarians" but we're not too proud to learn from them.}

[Josquin des Prez]

But a big part is that we are all still in some measure like the Greeks. Remember, they went everywhere, too, and wrote about it and ended up conquering the lands they visited.

Not surprisingly, considering western civilization essentially begins with them.

[drogulus]

This is true but, then again, science started to gain impetus only after the false ideas of Aristotle about natural world were rejected on theological grounds. Actually, Aristotelism as such was inimical to the development of science as we know it.

     Are you sure that "theological grounds" were responsible? This is incoherent. Finding some scientific postulate theologically unsound after so many centuries just might be the shortest path to correcting scientific error in a world where all discourse must be given a theological spin. Incidentally this kind of reasoning often occurs in other contexts: You impeach a President for sexual indiscretions because he lied to a jury about it. Slavery is unconstitutional even though it's in the Constitution, and so on. Does a theological error exist out in space, or is it a product of reasoning around a blockade? How can we make Aristotle wrong theologically so we can safely say he's wrong? 

[Florestan]

     Are you sure that "theological grounds" were responsible? This is incoherent.

Aristotle held, in regard to the natural world, pagan ideas: that the Heavens were itselves divine; that celestial bodies were animated, incorruptible and eternal; that their motion were caused by something similar to animal desires; that they had influence over the fate of the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being pagan these ideas are patently false as well).

Now, the Judeo-Christian theology says something completely different: that the Heavens were created at a specific moment in time; that they are not divine; that they are inanimated, corruptible and will have an end; that their motion is caused by God setting them in an orderly motion; and that they have no influence over the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being Judeo-Christian these ideas are also scientifically true, the God part notwithstanding).

(Aristotle held yet more false ideas, such as heavy bodies fall faster than light ones, or organisms are spontaneously generated, but these were not in manifest contradiction to Christian theology).

Now, those Aristotelean views were rejected (most vigorously by Etienne Tempier, bishop of Paris) on strict theological ground, specifically because they were at variance with the Christian doctrine regarding the natural world --- not because they were scientifically unsound. And having been rejected, they made way for the orthodox ideas which assisted the birth, and nurtured the childhood, of rational-empirical science.

"If the motion of celestial, or terrestrial bodies, is governed by immutable God-given laws, not by whims and desires; if God, Who is rational, made us in His image, thus imparting to us reason too; and finally, if God, Who gave us a true book of morals, cannot give us a deceiving book of nature --- then it is possible, nay, desirable, for us to investigate nature and try to discover its functioning principles and governing laws." Such was the reasoning of truly orthodox Christians as Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan, Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste and William of Ockham, whose works spelled, in the long run, the doom of Scholasticism.

Incidentally, Buridan came close to formulate Newton's First Law; judge for yourself:

"Also, since the Bible does not state that appropriate intelligences move the celestial bodies, it could be said that it does not appear necessary to posit intelligences of this kind, because it would be answered that God, when He created the world, moved each of the celestial orbs as He pleased, and in moving them He impressed in them impetuses which moved them without His having to move them any more except by the method of general influence whereby He concurs as co-agent in all things that take place[...]. And these impetuses which He impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor corrupted afterwards, because there was no inclination of the celestial movements for other movements. Nor was there resistance which could be corruptive or repressive of that impetus."

"[...]after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion".

Thus, eventually the theological refutation of Aristotle went hand in hand with its scientific rejection, but the latter would not have been possible without the former.