Anonymous #2 10w

neither is Moses splitting the sea though, so…

0

Anonymous #1 10w

The monastic traditions of Europe and especially the scholarship of the Byzantines fostered scientific advancement too.

9

Anonymous #3 10w

Islam also believes in Moses splitting the sea.

10

Anonymous #2 10w

They did for sure but it was overshadowed by the church’s suppression of what eventually became the scientific revolution in Europe

15

Anonymous #2 10w

Islam’s theology is largely an addition on top of Judaism and Christianity. They believe in the Old Testament prophets and in Jesus as a prophet. It is not in some other category.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Read my last sentence

4

Anonymous OP 10w

How is it more accurate than Christianity? They both contain many inaccuracies.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

The church oppressed some ideas (particularly relating to astronomy and evolution) but not others. I am not defensive of the Catholic Church, but it is incorrect to act as if they did not have comparable scientific institutions to the Muslim world. Copernicus had a doctorate in cannon law and got his education from Catholic institutions.

10

Anonymous #2 10w

I’m not arguing in favor of Islam. my point is that it’s odd to try to cherry pick specific non-scientific instances when they’re riddled throughout every single abrahamic religion. I’d agree with 1 tbh, it’s probably because Islam was *more accepting* of conflicting scientific ideas in comparison to Christianity. they likely incorporated scientific discoveries into theological belief as new knowledge was made

1

Anonymous #2 10w

And the Muslim world had counterpart pushback to the Catholic world. The Muslim world had its own conservatives and strict fundamentalists who opposed scientific ideas which conflicted with Islam. Astrology and alchemy were opposed by conservative scholars

8

Anonymous #3 10w

I simply disagree with OP’s portrayal of Islam as being more accurate than Christianity and of #1’s portrayal of it as being uniquely scientific compared to Christianity. They both had their own scientific traditions and anti-science attitudes and inaccuracies. The Islamic world was important in the development of science but parallel traditions existed in Europe at the same time.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I think as we push back against a Christianity-dominated culture we have a tendency to over-romanticize non-Christian cultures

1

Anonymous #2 10w

and we “simply disagree” with your framing, especially considering the rich history within Christianity of explicit targeting of scholars and scientists, especially upon the publication of works that conflict with scripture. you cannot just glance over their blatant attempts at stopping progress within the fields of evolution and astronomy (two fundamental fields of scientific exploration in the modern day, I might add) and we’re both aware that it’s not limited to those two fields.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I’d argue, to contest your last point, is that as we push back against a Christianity dominated world (which was by force, I might add); that we end up seeing a counteracting force of pushback by those unwilling to let go of the status quo. I feel as if this is less of an over-romanticization of non-Christian religions, and more so a defensive stance on Christianity’s dominant standing.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

That isn’t unique to Christianity. It’s not like the Muslim world has been particularly accepting of evolution. Both (frankly all) religions tend to oppose science that directly conflicts with their theology.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Well absolutely, by nature I’d argue otherwise it wouldn’t be a system of theological belief; but I don’t think OP was saying that Islam is the *most* scientifically accurate, just more so than Christianity.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

And I still don’t see how it is *more* accurate compared to Christianity. Islam had its own scientific golden age and later Christianity had the renaissance and enlightenment. Historically Islam excelled in some disciplines. Evolution belief *today* is generally higher in Christian countries than Muslim ones. I don’t think one is more accurate than the other.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I’d need some stats on that claim regarding evolution belief; unless you’re including explicitly secular countries in the classification with Christian countries?? with all due respect, this genuinely feels like defending Christianity’s position in the world over anything else.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Honestly this sent me down a huge rabbit hole of how variable belief in evolution is within both Muslim and Christian communities.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Okay but seriously how tf is me saying “no I think Islam and Christianity are relatively equal on this in terms of their fundamental relation with science” defending Christianity???? That’s just not putting Islam on a pedestal.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Like I still don’t see how Islam is “more scientifically accepting” than Christianity like you claim. Catholicism did accept evolution and heliocentrism after initial pushback. Whereas evangelical Protestants still deny evolution. I think religion tends to be relatively anti-scientific inherently. I don’t think there’s some property of Islam that makes it more accepting than Christianity.

1