The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Islam and the Closing of the Secular Mind

By on 9.19.12 @ 6:09AM

The  “enlightened” Western mind can no longer think seriously or coherently about religion.

Given the decidedly strange response of the Obama Administration and much of the Western commentariat to the violence sweeping the Islamic world, one temptation is to view their reaction as simple incomprehension in the face of the severe unreason that leads some people to riot and kill in a religion’s name. But while the Administration’s response has plenty to do with trying to defend a foreign policy that has plainly gone south, it also reflects something far more problematic: the Western secular mind’s increasing inability to think seriously and coherently about religion at all.

This problem manifests itself in several ways. The first is the manner in which many secular thinkers seem to regard all religions as “basically the same.” By this, they often mean either equally irrational or as promoting essentially similar values.

A moment’s reflection would indicate to even the most militant atheist that this simply isn’t true. Islam and Christianity, for instance, have very different understandings of who Jesus Christ is. Christians believe that he is God, the second Person of the Trinity. Muslims do not. Ergo, Islam and Christianity are not effectively the same. At their respective cores are fundamentally irreconcilable theological positions. It’s also very difficult to find robust affirmations of free will outside Judaism and Christianity (at least the orthodox varieties of these two faiths).

Likewise, as any informed Muslim will tell you, Islamic theology has no real equivalent of the Christian idea of the church. The Greek word for “church” (ekklesia) literally means to be “called out.” That, alongside Christ’s words about the limits to Caesar’s power, had immense implications for how Christians think about the state and its relationship to religion. Among other things, it means Christianity has always maintained significant distinctions between the temporal and the spiritual realms that are far less perceptible — again, as any pious Muslim will inform you — in Islamic theology and history.

All this, however, is a little complicated for those secular intellectuals who simply regard religion as just another lifestyle-choice rather than being essentially about people’s natural desire to (1) know the truth about the transcendent and (2) live their lives in accordance with such truths.

That’s why the left talks so much today about “freedom of worship” (as if your faith-decisions are akin to choosing which mall you shop at) and are trying to peddle a version of religious liberty that basically confines religious freedom to what happens inside your church, synagogue, mosque or temple on your given holy-day of the week. The notion that religious liberty is all about creating space for people to live out their beliefs consistent with others’ freedom to do the same and even permits us to peacefully argue — gasp! — about the truth of different religions’ claims seems to be beyond their grasp.

Then there is the sheer ignorance of history prevailing among much of the secular intelligentsia. This was unfortunately exemplified by the lamentable historiography that was on full display in President Obama’s once much-touted, now much-forgotten 2009 Cairo speech. Among other things, the President referred to how Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”

Really? Did the President’s advisors and speechwriters know that this thesis has been subject to withering critique for over 100 years? Were they conscious that, as the French professor of Arabic and religious philosophy Rémi Brague demonstrated in his book Europe, La voie romaine (1992/1999), the statesman-scholar-monk Cassiodorus (c.485-c.585 AD) not only collaborated with Pope Agapetus I in arranging for the translation of classical Greek texts into Latin, but also established a monastery-school on his family estate to safeguard and study the same works? Were they aware that the works of Antiquity never somehow vanished but were preserved for centuries by Greek-speaking Eastern Christians? Or that Aristotle was known and read in the medieval West long before Arabic translations appeared in Europe?

The answer to all the above questions hardly needs to be stated.

In other words, civilizational development is a much more complicated affair than many secular-minded people are willing to concede. And that partly reflects their ongoing efforts to whitewash Christianity’s immense civilizational achievements out of history.

Today’s history textbooks, for example, are full of mythologies about the so-called “Dark Ages.” These publications invariably overlook, for instance, the powerful contributions made to the development of the modern sciences by figures such as the 13th-century saint Albertus Magnus or the profound advances made in constitutional theories of limited government by medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas.

Why? Because acknowledging such facts raises the question of whether the various Enlightenments (which saddled us with such intellectual dead-ends as David Hume’s skepticism and Rousseau’s egalitarian-obsessions) were as radical and enlightened as many liberals make them out to be.

And that brings us to yet another problem with the secular mind regarding religion: its increasing embrace of what might be called suppressive tolerance. This is the art of discouraging people from expressing their views on particular subjects on the grounds that saying what you think might involve what’s become the ultimate crime of modern times: hurting other peoples’ feelings.

Of course, most secular intellectuals are very selective about applying this. You can, after all, say the most uninformed and truly bigoted things about Christians and that’s free speech. If, however, you ask polite but direct questions about aspects of particular schools of Islamic thought (even while acknowledging parallels with specific Christian thinkers) as Benedict XVI did in his 2006  Regensburg lecture, then you’re being “hurtful.”

Lastly there’s the difficulty of wishful thinking. This might be described as many secular intellectuals’ belief that, deep down, everyone really wants to be like them: what George Weigel calls “debonair nihilists.”

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Samuel Gregg is Research Director at the Acton Institute. He has authored several books including On Ordered Liberty, his prize-winning The Commercial Society, Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy, and, most recently, Becoming Europe: Economic Decline, Culture, and America’s Future.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) |

Belianis | 9.19.12 @ 6:30AM

Herr Gregg is talking about fundamentally shallow frivolous minds. You can't expect deep serious thinking from shallow frivolous people.

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.19.12 @ 5:20PM

"You can, after all, say the most uninformed and truly bigoted things about Christians and that's free speech."

christians waste our time with insignificant issues; for instance if all abortion ceased, life would be the same (life was the same before any abortion clinic ever opened). With all the important issues, you fret about abortion, gays, and other topics having less than 1% of an effect.
Politically you are penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 5:26PM

I'm sorry...and perhaps I'm a tad obtuse, but what?!?!

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 5:28PM

So Alan...how w old you feel about someone who wanted to abort their child because they fou d out that he/she would be gay?

Still a "woman's choice"?

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.19.12 @ 5:45PM

I wouldn't think about, there are other things to think about: you yourself think about your life and your kin and friends.
Abortion is .0000001 in importance to your life-- including your moral life-- and if you made a list of all your activities and interests, you would see so.

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.19.12 @ 5:54PM

... guys, we are more in debt than ancient Rome ever was, and you worry about little gays, little guns, and all the other little chicken-feather issues that have so little effect on you and your families' lives that such could never be measured? All wedge issues combined are a trillion times less important than nuclear proliferation alone-- materially you are astute, in all other ways you ae trapped in remote teleology.

Fact is, without Reagan, you have no priorities, no one to guide you to priorities.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 9:25PM

I don't worry at all about "little gays."

They'll have to answer to God one day for what they do; at that point, it's no longer my problem.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 9:23PM

Wrong again.

Stopping the murder of unborn children is incredibly important to me. Don't make assumptions.

If you support it with your vote, you're culpable.

btims86| 9.19.12 @ 6:56AM

When are Westerners, Americans in particular, going to wake up? There is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim". If a person is moderate, then they are not an observant Muslim.

Secondly, are the libs and neocons ready to say we should either stop or greatly reduce Muslim immigration into our country? Not a chance. The Beltway mentality is immigration obsessed.

Why are we importing more and more Muslims to erect more and more mosques throughout our countryside? Stooopid.....

Gary B| 9.19.12 @ 11:54AM

They vote for Democrats. Christians don't.

Aristocat| 9.19.12 @ 7:00AM

I watched the "Innocence of Islam" video and it's a piece of garbage...Not worth rioting over...My 12-year old niece could make a better video.

Appleby| 9.19.12 @ 7:13AM

Having studied religion for 3 years in Bible College (where a lot of draft dodgers were enlightened in spite of themselves, while ostensibly studying for the Presbyterian ministry -- some of whom actually became ministers -- I have continually been surprised by the echoing void in which most people seem to have been educated. Leaving aside the delightful object here at TAS who suggests that I kill myself whenever I mention that the Latter Day Saints are not Christians for some very sound theological reasons, the howling wilderness of ignorance on what fundamental beliefs one is required to hold in order to be counted as a Christian becomes daily evident as people are beginning to be first pushed around, then kicked around, and then silenced, jailed and executed for being Christians. We were told these days would come -- at least those who were brought up by Christian parents and taken to church whether we wanted to stay home and watch cartoons or play baseball instead. But many, many of those under 35 have had no exposure to critical thinking at all, far less the sort that leads to an ability to make an informed choice to be a Christian and what it means to lead a Christian life. If somebody can chant it in rhyme, they repeat it and believe it. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who simply screams what his handlers taught him.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 7:57AM

One thing about your post screams for a response:

Parentheses.

They're like Abbot & Costello...Lucy & Desi...Bill & Hillary.

In other words, they come in pairs.

Paul McGrath| 9.19.12 @ 12:52PM

Exactly, Dr. Right. And if you don't put in that second parentheses, real soon, I quit reading.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 2:56PM

It's like a tease.

The first parens indicates a closed (but wholly related) idea or statement (like the one I just made.) When that never happens, it gets confusing.

Appleby| 9.19.12 @ 4:52PM

That comes from being in too big a hurry. I will watch it in the future. Any comment about what I actually said?

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 5:26PM

Nope. Sorry.

John786| 9.19.12 @ 7:54AM

Christ is God. In Islam Jesus(pbuh) is a messenger, whose mission, was only to call the people to monotheism ( Tauheed). For Muslims the Christian creed as elucidated above is a fundamental break with the Abrahamic tradition ( - Christianity may be better called paulinity its real founder).The Quran is saturated with stories of Abraham, and How Islam is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic- monotheistic tradition: and therefore salvation. Muslims also have no church structure. Every Muslim is free to approach God directly. So, yes, not all monotheisms are the same.

CJW| 9.19.12 @ 8:00AM

I do not understand when you say Christ is God. Islam does not believe that Jesus Christ is God and does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Are you referring to Jesus as Christ?

John786| 9.19.12 @ 8:30AM

I'm referring to the Christian creed as referenced by the writer of the above article that Christ is regarded by Christians- as being God or part of the trinity. This concept of messenger as God is shocking to the Muslim mind. And a massive departure from the creed of Abraham ( pbuh).

CJW| 9.19.12 @ 8:42AM

But Jesus claimed he is God, not a prophet. As Chesterton , Lewis and others wrote, you either believe Jesus when he said he is God, or you believe he is a madman.

John786| 9.19.12 @ 9:28AM

Muslims believe in Jesus's miraculous birth and in his miracles. However, regarding his divine essence this is a point of disagreement ( Muslim also do not accept that he was crucified). There is a Christian Jesus (pbuh) and there is a Muslim Jesus ( pbuh). The Muslim Jesus is clearly in line with the Jewish tradition of monotheism. Where does the Christian Jesus come from? Monotheism is central to Islam. It does not at least in most Christian creeds seem to be important.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 10:27AM

Islam is essentially unitarian whereas Christianity is essentially trinitarian. When Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," he was claiming to be above time, which is an attribute of divinity. Christian teaching isn't just made up out of thin air.

KyMouse| 9.19.12 @ 4:05PM

Jesus' attributes of divinity also include His claiming to forgive other people's sins (e.g. Luke 7:48) and His accepting worship from His followers (e.g. Matt. 14:33). Either He had the divine authority to do both of those things, or he was (as Lewis put it) a liar or a lunatic.

"If Jesus isn't God, He isn't good," as one person put it. In other words, if He was merely a man, it would have been wicked of Him to have done such things.

CJW| 9.19.12 @ 10:28AM

I knew that Islam accepts the Virgin Birth, but does not accept the Resurrection and Incarnation. If Islam accepts the Virgin or miraculous birth, then how can it not accept the divinity of Jesus? How does it explain the birth?

Do some Muslims believe in the divinity of Jesus?

John786| 9.19.12 @ 10:41AM

In Islam God says "BE" and "IT IS" ( Quran). God blessed the virgin Mary with a child. A child born without any father: This is a miracle ( discussed extensively in the Quran). God made Adam ( pbuh) without a Mother and Father: a miracle. Both Jesus & Adam are part of God's creation. And not part of God himself. In islamic monotheism God does not become man. And nor does he beget.

CJW| 9.19.12 @ 10:49AM

John
What english translation of the Koran do you recommend.

John786| 9.19.12 @ 11:06AM

CJW

 There are very many translations of  the Quran in English. Non of them can match the sublime majesty of the Arabic. Of the very many I use the following stand out ( -remember all translations reflect in part the biases of the translator):

Abdullah Yusuf Ali - this has a lot of useful commentary and is very accessible.
Muhammad Asad ( Jewish Convert) is also worth looking at.

Occam's Tool| 9.19.12 @ 12:48PM

And, of course, somewhere there is the Cat Crucifixion Clause.

Great religion you got there, 786. Lots of Nobel winners in the sciences, literature, economics, etc. 1.6 Billion people with almost no geniuses. I wonder why?

John786| 9.19.12 @ 2:19PM

Tool box,
When Al Biruni, Al Khwazimi, Ibn Hatem, Al Jazzeri ..........etc where revolutionising the fields of mathematics, physics, Astronomy, engineering; the West was both physically and metaphorically in the swamp. The Islamic world was the centre of Global civilisation for over a thousand+ years. Civilisations are cyclical: I have no doubt that Islamic civilisation will rise again in the coming decades, centuries. Patience.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 2:54PM

John786, where are you getting your history? You've apparently forgotten about the Carolingian renaissance and the Scholastic renaissance. What about the great trading centers of Europe such as Venice, from where Marco Polo and his father began their journeys?

The fact is, the Islamic renaissance was short-lived and never attained such heights again. Was Islam the cause of the subsequent stagnation of the Arab world?

Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 3:57PM

Help me out here: when did Islam have a renaissance? I've read that the last half of the 20th Century can be understood as a period when Islam has had a renaissance (of fundamentalist revival, a claim I am skeptical about), but before then, when did Islam have such a thing? The term "renaissance" as we who are discussing it typically means a revival of knowledge and leaps forward in the quality of life, both material (as in technology) and non-material (as in art and music). Are you talking about the advances in Islamic medicine based on their translations of the works of the advanced Greek physicians in the time of Avicenna? Or do you mean some other period?

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 9:28PM

1,000 years???

LOL!

So what happened, Mustafa?

If the Islamic world was so advanced so long ago, then how did they become such an ignorant, backwards backwater?

See what worshipping false gods will do to you?

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 11:04AM

So you guys don't accept what the prophet said, that unto us a child is born, whose name shall be Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace?

Nor do you accept what Jesus said, that he was the first and the last, the Almighty, he who was dead but is alive for ever more?

In technical terms, Moslems are Arians, much like the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 4:01PM

Muslims are Arians? How can that be? They don't have any conception of any god other than Allah, so how can they have Arian notions about such things as God the Father and God the Son, or the human nature of the Son vs. His godly nature? It just seems like a contradiction to me.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 10:13AM

Or, you're simply mistaken.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 10:36AM

What is the "creed of Abraham?"

Why do Muslims dispute the crucifizxion?

John786| 9.19.12 @ 11:28AM

Because the Quran says ( the crucifiction) didn't happen. The Quranic verses say that someone of the likeness of Jesus was crucified. Jesus ( pbuh) was saved by God and will return ( as a defender of Islam) during the end times to lead humanity.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 11:44AM

Ah, so it disputes what really happened. Nothing in the Bible accounts that there was a "switch," and the theology within is incomplete unless Christ was crucified.

DRed| 9.19.12 @ 2:18PM

Maybe you're all wrong?

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 2:57PM

Nope.

Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 4:14PM

The idea that Jesus was not really crucified floated around in Christianity for a couple of hundred years. It contributed to the argument over the nature of Jesus, whether he was entirely divine, entirely God, or some combination of the two natures. This debate was eventually resolved by the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon in the 4th and 5th Centuries, although Arianism has reappeared from time to time over the centuries. The Mormons are the latest Christian group to be Arians.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 8:07AM

Your post is so totally wrought with error and falsehood that it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, any student of the Bible who understands both the Old and New Testaments knows that Christianity is not a "break with the Abrahamic traditions;" it is the FULFILLMENT of the promise that God made to His chosen people, and therefore completely consistent with the "Abrahamic tradition."

Second, calling Christianity "Paulinity" is ignorant. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin who delighted in persecuting Christians. Without the influence of Christ, there is NO compelling reason for Paul ("Saul") to have suddenly converted and become the world's most significant evangelizer.

Finally, Islam's attempts to attach the faith to Abraham have no basis in historical facts.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 8:24AM

That's a MASSIVE misinterpretation of why Christ came.
"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father but by me."

The Gospel isn't about a "call to monotheism." It's a call of repentance and deliverance by God from sin through Christ alone - by Grace.

Von Mises Jr| 9.19.12 @ 10:05AM

You make a great point Ryan. We do not deserve or earn Grace; it is a gift from God. He does not force Grace upon us; we are offered opportunity to accept God's Grace. We do not deserve Grace.

Islam forces people to comply with their religion and moral codes. To refuse is either Dhimmitude or Death by the Sword.

This seems to be the difference between the conservatives and socialist. We believe in liberty and real choice, and they believe in the force of the State. Perhaps that is why they are often in unison with Islam.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 8:25AM

One of the other problems with the "secular mind" is the attempt to compartmentalize religion, as if it had no other influence outside of Sunday morning.

They don't realize that what we do during the week is what we believe, is what our religion is because it is how we put it into practice.

c. j. acworth| 9.19.12 @ 8:40AM

Indeed. I've always wondered at those who profess a "personal" faith, that does not manifest itself in their daily lives. People who claim to be "good Catholics" for instance, but reject the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion. "If you love me, keep my commandments," Jesus said.

irish19| 9.19.12 @ 8:41AM

"They don't realize that what we do during the week is what we believe, is what our religion is because it is how we put it into practice."
And that is the bit they hate, because the practice of religion outside the place of worship shames them.

Anthony| 9.19.12 @ 8:54AM

I think your permise is wrong Mr. Gregg. Secularists are comfortable with religions that preach intolerance. Islam shares many values with leftist secularists, about whom we are mostly speaking about.
Islam is mostly a political philosophy disguised as a religion. Hence, its political component dovetails nicely with the totalitarian instincts of today's American leftists.
Nothing else could possible explain how leftist women, say like Sandra Fluke, has little or nothing to say about Islams barbaric treatment of women, yet they go crazy over Rs and their irrational fears over contraceptives.

Harry the Horrible| 9.19.12 @ 9:18AM

No, Mr. Gregg is right. The Left thinks they can use Islam as a tool to increase their own power. They have no idea how dangerous the materials they are working with are.

Anthony| 9.19.12 @ 4:19PM

Harry, I agree with the latter point you make, I disagree on the left's desire to use Islam.
Rather, they co-exist with similar aims, the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States in particular.
If the left/Islam achieve their goal, Islam will indeed finish off the useful idiots from the left.

Appleby| 9.19.12 @ 4:56PM

They belong to the group who believe Satan takes partners. If you're not religious, you can ask Saruman how that worked for him; but Luke 4 describes the process and Jesus' firm rejection of same.

scotchieguy| 9.19.12 @ 10:49AM

I think you nailed it. Islam IS "a political philosophy disguised as a religion." That is why it is so dangerous, and that is why they are so intolerant.

Pecos Pete| 9.19.12 @ 8:58AM

Here we go again. The Village Idiots will have a field day in this thread.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 11:14AM

Come now, no need to make autobiographical statements Pecos Pete.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 9:29AM

On the subject of those "Dark Ages" and the existence of Plato and Aristotle in the non-Muslim world, permit me to add to the commentary that the eminent scholar Boethius translated much of Aristotle's work from Greek to Latin in the Dark Ages, and Plato's works were entirely preserved in the West and formed the basis of at least a thousand of years of Christian thought, known for centuries as Neo-Platonism. Furthermore, Aristotle's work, even that portion that was preserved by the Muslims, is arguably not his own work, but editings of student notes taken by Aristotle's students. I realize that this argument is quite debatable, but it remains a valid one nonetheless, so it's arguable (not by me) that the group of works that did not survive in the West and were preserved by the Muslims does not represent original Aristotelean thought. Personally, I don't believe it, but scholars who know more than me are arguing it.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 9:44AM

It is not true that Islamic preservation of learned documents opened the way for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. While the Muslims preserved some of the works of Aristotle and the recovery of those works during the reconquista spurred the creation of the Western university system, the documents preserved by the Muslims were Greek documents, not Islamic ones, and the works that spurred intellectual inquiry were the works of Aristotle. The attempt to make Aristotelean (Greek) rationality and Christian faith accommodate each other was entirely a Western -and Christian- phenomenon, involving Western thought. Arabic Muslim thought added almost nothing, Averroes and Avicenna to the contrary notwithstanding. Besides, the attempt to "marry (Aristotelean) reason and (Christian) faith" turned out to be unsuccessful, and, on top of that, the scholastic method of analyzing Aristotlean thought was abandoned by the rationalists whose ideas were the ones that brought about the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment have their origin in European rejection of the ideas preserved by the Muslims. The proof of that is that there has, to date, been no Islamic/Arabic Renaissance or Enlightenment. So arguably Islamic preservation of Aristotle delayed the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. You can blame scholasticism (and its dependence on the Greek works recovered in the reconquista) for the treatment of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 10:35AM

Well, that and Galileo was a jerk.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 11:15AM

Huh?

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 11:42AM

Galileo's discourse wasn't exactly in being a decent human being. He insulted the Pope when he didn't have to.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 12:16PM

I don't think this is correct, but so what? The Roman denomination should not have persecuted Galileo.

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 12:45PM

There was no "persecution," Mr. Crisler.
See my comment, below.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:20PM

Galileo, imbued with the spirit of scientific inquiry, and drunk on his discoveries, insisted that the Catholic Church take the position that Galileo's observations of the cosmos be accepted as true and factual, and abandon the Ptolemaic view of the cosmos, until proven untrue.

The Catholic Church took the position that they would not accept any scientific data that overturns the scriptures until it was proven beyond a doubt.

Galileo's intransigence is what got him into trouble with the Church, not his observations.

Ryan| 9.19.12 @ 1:37PM

It's a historical fact Galileo wrote it in a way to be deliberately insulting toward the papacy.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 1:53PM

It is not a historical fact. It's just more dumping on Galileo by modern day defenders of Roman Catholicism at all costs.

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 2:22PM

No, Mr. Crisler.
Galileo is used as a cudgel by those who attempt to bash the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, for them, the facts are not on their side.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:52PM

The triggering event that resulted in Galileo running afoul of the Pope was that his first run-in with the Church ended in Galileo agreeing not to advocate for a heliocentric universe. A number of years went by, and Galileo and the Church got along well enough until Galileo wrote a famous letter to a woman who asked him about his beliefs. Once that letter was made public, the Church investigated whether or not Galileo had violated the earlier order. Galileo told the Church representatives that not only had he advocated for the heliocentric universe, but that the Church must accept it as incontrovertibly true. The position of the Church was that they wanted more proof before they would accept the heliocentric view. See, Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, for a complete treatment of Galileo's adventures with the Church.

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 1:55PM

Many of these people would not even look through his telescope. BTW, while Galileo didn't invent the telescope, he was the first who made it practical for astronomy. It would not be seriously improved upon until Newton invented a new type.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 2:17PM

The not looking through the telescope story has a parallel in the story that when Stalin would come before the Central Committee or some other body of Soviet Communist officials, they would continue clapping until they had to be silenced by Stalin telling them to stop.

They did what they did because they were spineless toadies who would do what was needed to keep the lord and master happy,

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 2:12PM

Are you unaware of Galileo's Dialogue on the Two World Systems, Bill?
Wherein, he has an argument of Pope Urban VIII's, his old friend, put forward in the character of Simplicio, thus, mocking His Holiness.

Here is a link to an article that explains the whole ordeal rather well:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts.....ontroversy

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 2:18PM

No. See below.

Ryan| 9.20.12 @ 8:29AM

If you know me on here, I am anything but a Catholic apologist. That being said, Galileo was a jerk.

JP| 9.19.12 @ 11:23AM

Bill,
The works of antiquity were not perserved by Islam. The Church perserved them (namely Irish monks perserved the works of antiquity on the Island of Columba. Not sure where you get your info. The documents used by the scholastics came from this source and not from Islamic ones.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:32PM

The works of Aristotle that were preserved by the Arab Muslims were: Metaphysics, Ethics and politics, Nicomachean Ethics, Magna Moralia, Eudemian Ethics, On Virtues and Vices, and Politics.
(1343a) Economics* (or Oeconomica

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 12:44PM

Bill,

You can blame Galileo, himself, for his treatment by the Church. He was WRONG about his pronouncements, as his math was in error. He did not PROVE that the planets revolved around the sun. He also thought the planets had circular orbits.

It was Johannes Kepler who accurately proposed 3 laws which showed the planets travel in elliptical orbits. Issac Newton would prove Kepler correct, some decades later.

Oh, and as Ryan previously stated, Galileo got into trouble because he was a jerk. He insulted the Pope, without provocation. Not too smart, for a supposed genius.
Blessed Pope John Paul II did apologize, in the 1990s, for the Church putting Galileo under house-arrest, in a lush villa.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:26PM

The scholastic view of the development of data is that one must rely on authoritative prior statements. Aristotle established the reliance on authority in his writings centuries before Christ, and the scholastics adopted the Aristotelean respect for authority as their own.

The difference between Aristotle and the scholastics was that Aristotle believed that new thought and new information may legitimately overturn the older authorities, while the scholastics gave greater deference to authority.

The Catholic Church, for a time, followed the scholastics, and Galileo had to bear the burden of Catholic doctrine on the issue of change due to new data.

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 1:43PM

This doesn't change the fact that Galileo was wrong, Bill.
His math just didn't add up.

When heliocentrism was finally proved, the Catholic Church had no problem accepting it. Although, it did take some time. As everything in the Church does.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:58PM

I don't know about his math adding up, but I agree that the Church eventually accepted the heliocentric view after some time without a problem.

The only problem was Galileo spending the rest of his life under house arrest; that wasn't such a hot outcome for him. But then, he acted like a jerk. On the other hand, generally you don't get life for being a jerk.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 2:03PM

The jerk part was that he is alleged to have put statements made by his personal friend, Pope Urban VIII, into the mouth of the character Simplicio (Italian for "simpleton") he created for his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 2:04PM

The moral of the story being: right or wrong, don't piss off the Pope.

Nick| 9.19.12 @ 2:19PM

Well, you answered my question about knowing about Simplicio, Bill.

Galileo stated as FACT that the planets orbited in the sun in circular orbits. Something he couldn't prove with measured data.
Because he was wrong. The planets have elliptical orbits.

Galileo suffered from the sin of pride, and it got him into hot water. Not literally, as the charge that he was tortured is bogus.
Please, check out the link I provided.

Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 3:46PM

Okay.

Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 3:50PM

On the letter thing, I think I had it backwards. After reconsidering (and, I admit it, consulting -hack! Gasp!- Wikipedia), I think the letter he wrote got Galileo into trouble with the Inquisition the first time, what was it, around 1615 or something? Then it was his book the second time that brought down the building around him.

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 9:54AM

Lastly, the works of Aristotle that were supposedly "lost" to the West and preserved in the domain of Islam by the Muslims were the metaphysical works. Aristotle wrote mostly about natural philosophy and mathematics, and those works were preserved in the West.

I believe that Aristotle's complete works comprised about 35 or 36 books; of that number, about 14 or 15 books existing in the present day are believed not be Aristotle's original work, and most or all of the rest consist of edited notes, either Aristotle's own teaching notes, or notes taken during his lectures by his students, and edited by another scholar early on. About six of those books -the metaphysical ones- are reputed to have been lost and preserved by the Muslims. Of course, among the "lost" books is the Nicomachean Ethics, which is priceless.

JP| 9.19.12 @ 10:27AM

Mr. Gregg is making this issue way too complicated. It is very simple - our intellectuals detest Christianity, but fear Islam. And fear is a stronger emotion than hate. It's as simple as that.

C Smith | 9.19.12 @ 11:02AM

Who is Jesus Christ?

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this" (Iasiah 9:6-7).

C. Vernon Crisler | 9.19.12 @ 11:17AM

This verse is a real problem for those who say (in Greek fashion) that deity could not be born into humanity. A child is born . . . his name . . . Mighty God.

Theo Prinse| 9.19.12 @ 11:45AM

All tru mr. Gregg but luckily Dutch and Americans are not great philosophers like most of the people in middle Europe. (Vaclaf Klaus http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3178)
My view is that the US must elect Mitt Romney Energy Independence in 2020 which will mark a dramatic change in geo politics

Who Knows?| 9.19.12 @ 11:59AM

When it comes to ANY so-called religion, there are two words to know, and then to apply---

Esoteric and exoteric.

Most believers were “taught” at an early age, usually by parents, who were “taught” at an early age, by parents who…

Few people “enjoy” the dark night of the soul, and get to wonder in true amazement, beyond the ritual trappings of merely exoteric church, temple or mosque life, a la a Soren Kierkegaard.

Read “The Perennial Philosophy”, by Aldous Huxley. He does the due diligence work for you, by investigating the major religions, and demonstrating the utter difference between true religious practice, called esoteric, and mass religion, called exoteric.

For example, even the horrendous faux-religion of Islam has an esoteric Sufi core.

Anyway, when I think of the conventional secular-religious divide, my sister comes to mind. She went to college, and became an atheist, back in the sixties, AND has been a confirmed Democrat, also, ever since.

My own “religious” journey began by adopting the agnostic “belief”, when around 18, since college surely proved to me that conventional religion was totally “unbelievable”, so full of contradictions.

Sex, Laughter, and REAL God-Realization---that’s the esoteric ticket. Eschew exoteric “religion”!

Bill8472| 9.19.12 @ 1:34PM

So somehow you were able to rise above what you learned and what your parents taught you.

Of course, no one else but you could have done that.

Doctor Right| 9.19.12 @ 2:59PM

I think "Who Knows?" is actually Obama...

KyMouse| 9.19.12 @ 4:29PM

Esoteric, shmesoteric. Christianity rises or falls on the question of whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead -- and not in the mists of some Before Time, but in a specific place within recorded history. Either His resurrection is a fact, or it is not.

"If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins." -- I Corinthians 15:17

Good article about this, "The Reality of the Resurrection: The Evidence and Significance," by Dr. David Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries:

http://www.lamblion.com/articl.....rines2.php

ElGordo| 9.19.12 @ 1:07PM

Jimmy Carter lost Iran
.
Pres. Obama lost Egypt and Libya
.
OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY STINKS
.
Either Obama is naive about the Muslim Brotherhood or he wants them to take over the Mideast.
.
See O'Reilly's Super Bowl Interview of Pres. Obama on Youtube where O'Reilly warns Obama about the Muslim Brotherhood....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk

.
DID YOU KNOW THAT OBAMA GAVE THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRONT ROW SEATS AT HIS 2009 CAIRO SPEECH
.

THE FACTS PROVE THAT OBAMA WANTS THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO TAKE OVER THE MIDEAST
.
A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

RAM| 9.19.12 @ 4:15PM

The Left seems to want a destructive force to wreak havoc on western society. Since the fall of the USSR, that force is radical Islam, so the Left backs it in any way possible despite the Left's own secular outlook.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.19.12 @ 5:58PM

The column would better be titled substtuting in "The Reprobate Mind".

JP| 9.19.12 @ 8:02PM

Islam more than likely came about from heretical Christians. There were quite a few heretical Christians sects between the 2nd and 5th Century AD. Many of them fled Egypt, Judea, and Asia Minor and found homes in the Saudi Peninsula (the Nestorians formed many Churches there, for instance). Mohammed took a mish-mash of heretical Jewish and Christian thought and put his own neuroses into the mix.

Islam is a religion for the insane.

Mnestheus| 9.19.12 @ 11:36PM

Chesterton's fears were justified- all the fathers of the Roman church, from the

More Articles by Samuel Gregg

More Articles From Special Report

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/19/islam-and-the-closing-of-the-s

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|31 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|26 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|10 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|8 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|8 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|17 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|7 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|5 comments

The Spectacle Blog

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.