-

;>-. Journal Title: Science and religion, 400 B.C.

l-; Call #: BL240.3 .G74 2004
C) to A.D. 1550 : from Aristotle to Copernicus /
;;>
,....,
'",,"

Volume: Location: Lauinger Library Stacks

C)
Q Issue: Available
..... Month/Year: 2004
c
C)
;;;;;;;;;;;;; Pages: 225-249 Item#:
~
8 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
~ Article Author: Edward Grant
o ==
Q
0

;>-.
.....
-
~
;;;;;;;;;;;;;

==
Article Title: Relation between science and
religion in the Byzantne empire, the world of THIS MATERIAL MAY BE
-
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;; Islam and the Latin West
'''''"
rJ:J
l-;
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
C)
;;>
~
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Imprint: LAW (TITLE 17 U.S. CODE)
'",," ~
c
Notes: Error creating RAPID request:
~ 'I'""
N ERROR Book Chapter borrowing is
C 0
co disabled for DGU.
~ 0
0
..... co
C) ..
en
l-;
Z
t-
o
C) "C
ctI
0 :::i
..J
 Chapter8

Relations between Science

and Religion in the Byzantine
Empire, the World of Islam, and
the Latin West

We have now described in detail the long history of the relations be-
tween science and religion as it developed in Latin Christendom, or,
more generally. Western Europe. Developments in Western Europe
during the late Middle Ages, from approximately A.D. 1150 to 1500,
were the end process of a lengthy evolution derived from two other
great and important civilizations: the Byzantine Empire and Islam. It
will be illuminating, and even essential, to compare the fate of sci-
ence-religion relationships in these two civilizations with what we
have described thus far for the medieval West. It is from these three
disparate contemporary civilizations, each distinguished by use of a
different language-Greek in the Byzantine Empire; Arabic in the do-
minion of Islam; and Latin in Western Europe--that we derive the firm
foundations of Western civilization after the Middle Ages, founda-
tions that have, for better or worse, brought us to the present. Because
the Byzantine Empire was the direct successor of the Roman Empire
and survived, albeit in much diminished circumstances, until it fell to
the Ottoman Turks in 1453, it is appropriate to begin our comparisons
with the Byzantine Empire.

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

From the foundation of the Roman Empire in 27 B.c.-when Oc-
tavius assumed the title of Augustus and was thereafter known as
Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor-until the fourth century
 226 Science and Religion, 400 e.c. to A.D, 1550

A.D., Rome was the capital of a vast geographical area that stretched
from the coastal regions along the Atlantic Ocean to the lands bor-
dering the eastern Mediterranean. After relative peace for the first two
centuries of its existence, the Roman Empire fell into turmoil and in-
ternal conflict during the next three centuries. Eventually the emperor
Diocletian (A.D. 284-305) divided the empire in two, a western and
eastern part, the former embracing the Latin-speaking regions of the
empire, the latter the part in which Greek was the dominant language.
Thus it was that in A.D. 286, the emperor Diocletian appointed Max-
imian, one of his trusted generals, to rule as co-emperor in the west,
while he ruled in the east. Although this split did not work very well,
it remained in effect until the late fifth century and then in name only
until A.D. 800, when, on Christmas day, Pope Leo III crowned Charle-
magne Holy Roman Emperor.
The split Diodetian made between East and West was strongly re-
inforced by Constantine the Great, Roman emperor from 313 to 337.
In the year 330, Constantine moved his capital from Rome to the city
of Byzantium, on the Bosphorus, the narrow body of water that sep-
arates Europe from Asia. The new capital was named after the em-
peror and called Constantinople, which, after the Turks conquered it
in 1453, became Istanbul, the capital of modem Turkey. As Rome grad-
ually emerged as the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church,
Constantinople became the great center of the Roman Empire. Al-
though in theory, the Roman Empire was one empire under two sep-
arate but equal rulers, the western part fell into a chaotic state, and its
fate was virtually independent of the eastern empire, which contin-
ued on with what was left of the Roman Empire until its fall in 1453.
Constantine the Great also played a Significant role in the triumph
of Christianity when, in 313, he issued the Edict of Milen (or the Edict
of Toleration), granting Christians full equality with other religions,
and thus freedom of worship. In 392, the emperor Theodosius made
Christianity the state religion of the empire, its only legal religion.
Pagan temples were dosed and it became illegal to worship pagan
gods. To do so was regarded as treason. Thus it was that as the em-
pire in the West weakened and gradually declined, the church grew
in strength and numbers and became the dominant force in Western
Europe.
Following the split in the Roman Empire itself, there followed a split
within Christianity producing a Greek Orthodox Church in the east-
ern half of the empire and a Roman Catholic Church in the western
 Relations between Science and Religion 227

part. This dramatic event occurred in the sixth century, when the
Catholic Church changed the Nicene Creed that had been proclaimed
in A.D. 325. Where the creed had originally declared that the Holy
Spirit proceeded "from the Father" alone, the Catholic Church added
the words "and the Son" ifilioque). The Greek Orthodox Church found
this highly objectionable, regarding it as tantamount to a declaration
that the Holy Spirit proceeded from two distinct Gods. Thus was the
split between the western and eastern Christian churches begun and
carried on for centuries until it became a de facto reality in 1054, when
the Pope sent legates to Constantinople who excommunicated the pa-
triarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, along with his associates. The
officials of the Orthodox Church responded similarly, by condemning
the papal legates.
In the relations between church and state, the Byzantine Empire and
the West differed in a major way. Where the West, as we saw, recog-
nized a difference between church and state, the Byzantine Empire
was essentially a theocracy. The Byzantine Emperor was regarded as
the head of church and state. He had the authority to appoint and re-
move the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church. Despite their great au-
thority, emperors rarely tried to change church dogma, failing on the
few occasions when they tried. Although this lack of separation of
church and state was a hindrance to the development of science and
natural philosophy the Byzantines confronted an even greater prob-
lem than dwelling in a theocratic state. The Byzantine Empire was al-
ways surrounded by actively hostile enemies and was constantly at
war. So ongoing and unrelenting were the wars, that "neither litera-
ture nor science benefited from those strong impulsions which they
normally derive from the human energies that are released in the sea-
sonal transformations of sodety. For all progress, all movement was
blanketed by the requirements of defence. Nor on the other hand
could literature and scientific advancement exercise their potentially
great influence; for the developments which they might have set in
motion were at every turn stopped by the same obstacle" (Bolgar 1954,
89).
Within the Byzantine theocracy. the Orthodox Church proved an ob-
stacle to the study of science and natural philosophy. From the ninth
to fifteenth centuries, the church sought more to discourage than to
facilitate the study of Greek science and natural philosophy. Indeed,
philosophy and science were always regarded as the handmaidens of
theology, an idea that was eventually abandoned in the medieval
 228
Science and Religion, 400 e.c. to A.D. 1550

West. The Orthodox Church was hostile to the study of secular disci-
plines for their own sake. Before the church's deadening influence
took hold, Greek scholars in the first three centuries of the Roman Em-
pire made remarkable contributions to science. Some of the greatest
names in the history of Greek science flourished in this period. Among
these are included the greatest astronomer of antiquity, Claudius
Ptolemy (c. A.D. 100-e. 170), and the most renowned physician and
medical researcher of the ancient world, Galen (c. A.D. 129-e. 200).
Other lesser but nonetheless important contributors could also be
mentioned. Indeed, until the end of the sixth century;. important con-
tributions to natural philosophy were made in the Byzantine Empire
by a number of commentators on the works of Aristotle, such as
Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. 2nd-3rd century A.D.), Themistius (c.
A.D. 317----e.388), Simplicius, and most important of all, the Christian
ueo-Platonist John Philoponus, whose ideas were destined to have a
large impact on both Islamic and Latin natural philosophy.
But the level of achievement was seriously affected in A.D. 529,
when, on religious grounds, the emperor Justinian ordered the clos-
ing of Plato's Academy in Athens, forcing a number of philosophers
to depart the Byzantine Empire and move to the East. After that nat-
ural philosophy and science played a minor role in Byzantine intel-
lectual life. This is surprising when we realize that, as compared to
their contemporary counterparts in Islam and the Latin West, Byzan-
tine scholars were truly fortunate, because their native language was
Greek. They could read, study, and interpret, without problems of
translation, all the works available in the Greek language that had ac-
cumulated in the Byzantine Empire, especially in Constantinople,
since the fifth and fourth centuries H.C. Indeed, most of our Greek
manuscripts come from Byzantium. And yet, Byzantine scholars ap-
pear not to have taken advantage of this readily available treasure
house of science and natural philosophy. Although many of the works
of Byzantine scholars lie unread in libraries and archives, especially
in Istanbul, it is not likely that discoveries of previously unknown
works will alter OUI overall judgment of their scholarly contributions.
The explanation lies in the fact that the attitude of Byzantine scholars
was overwhelmingly backward looking, as is evident from a state-
ment by Theodore Metochites, a fourteenth-century student of classi-
cal thought, who declared in the preface of his Historical and
Philosophical Miscellanies: "The great men of the past have said every-
thing so perfectly that they have left nothing for us to say" (Runciman
1970, 94). This negative attitude may be compared to Islamic and
 Relations between Science and Religion 229

Western Christian scholars, who often went beyond the ancient Greek
authorities and regarded it as wholly appropriate to disagree with
them and thereby add to the sum total of human knowledge. It is a
paradox of history that the civilizations of Islam and Western Europe
contributed significantly to the store of human knowledge, using
translated works and often lacking important earlier texts, while the
Byzantines, who had command of the Greek language and easy ac-
cess to the manuscript so'urces of their great Greek predecessors, failed
to capitalize on their good fortune.
Despite a generally negative assessment of Byzantine contributions,
there were periods during the eleventh century, and especially during
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, even as the empire was disin-
tegrating, that Byzantine intellectual life burgeoned forth to such an
extent that scholars have labeled these periods "renaissances." In the
first half of the fifteenth century, some Byzantine scholars brought
knowledge of Greek and Greek manuscripts to Italy, helping to spark
what has been called the Italian Renaissance. Although during these
"renaissance" periods we find much greater interest in Greek litera-
ture and science, no significant works were composed that had any
detectable influence.
Constant warfare undoubtedly sapped the intellectual strength of
Byzantine intellectual life. But the Orthodox Church also played an
inhibiting role. The church sometimes persecuted those scholars
whom it viewed as too drawn to pagan, secular thought. The church
recognized that it could not stop the study of traditional Greek secu-
lar works, from which it itself drew some benefits. But efforts were
made, sometimes unconsciously, to keep Hellenism under control. In
the ninth century, when the main secular interest favored science, the
church preferred to encourage the formal study of language. In the
eleventh century, when a secular revolution with a nationalist bias had
made the pagan past momentarily popular, the church took over ed-
ucation on a large scale and introduced techniques of study that left
the shell of Attidsm without its substance. In the fourteenth century,
some of the more daring Hellenists were persecuted, and had it not
been for the general collapse, the church would no doubt have tried
again to get control of the educational system (Bolgar 1954, 89-90).
We saw that in the Latin West theologians embraced Greek science
and natural philosophy to such an extent that we can actually speak
of a class of theologian-natural philosophers. Because the theologians
embraced the study of natural philosophy as essential for theology,
the West was able to institutionalize the study of natural philosophy
230 Science and Religion, 400 8.C. to A.D. 1550

in the universities, so that students all across Europe were routinely

exposed to it, as well as to logic. The centuries-long study of natural
philosophy by generation after generation of students in Western Eu-
rope established the rationalistic approach to nature that was an in-
dispensable prelude to the advent of early modem science. Nothing
like this occurred in the Byzantine Empire, where theologians were
indifferent or hostile to the study of a secular subject like natural phi-
losophy, which never became a regular subject of study in the schools
of Byzantium.
Although they failed to take advantage of their command of the
Greek language and advance the legacy they inherited from one thou-
sand years of Greek science and natural philosophy, Byzantium did
make a momentous contribution to the ultimate advancement of sci-
ence: Byzantine scholars preserved the texts of Greek science and nat-
ural philosophy. It was from the Byzantine Empire that the
manuscripts of Greek scientific texts were transmitted to the emerg-
ing civilizations of Islam and Western Europe, where they were even-
tually translated into Arabic and Latin. This vital contribution more
than makes up for the failure of Byzantine scholars to do intellectual
justice to the treasures that lay at their disposal for so many centuries.

ISLAM
If the Byzantines failed to take genuine advantage over their good
fortune to possess the Greek manuscript treatises of ancient science
and natural philosophy, those to whom the Greek language was a for-
eign tongue, and who had to read those treatises in translations, were
destined to carryon the traditions of ancient science in ways that far
surpassed anything achieved by their Byzantine predecessors and
contemporaries. Greek science and natural philosophy were trans-
lated and made available to the new civilization of Islam, which first
appeared in history during the seventh cenhtry A.D. In contrast to
Christianity, which was disseminated slowly, taking almost 400 years
to become the state religion of the Roman Empire, Islam was trans-
mitted with remarkable speed, taking approximately one hundred
years to become the dominant religion in a vast geographic area.
The contrasts between the beginnings of Islam and Christianity are
striking. Without armies at its disposal, Christianity spread by mis-
sionary zeal; Islam spread largely by military conquest. Where Mus-
 Relations between Science and Religion 231

lim armies prevailed, the Muslim religion was installed. The conver-
sion of the conquered people was encouraged and facilitated. Indeed,
the aim of Muslim armies was to convert conquered peoples. Another
striking difference lay in the fact that Christianity was born within the
Roman Empire and was subordinate to it for four centuries, during
which time Christians adjusted to pagan Greek thought and learned
to use it for their own purposes. By contrast, Islam was born outside
of the Roman Empire and was never in a subordinate position with
respect to other religions and governments. Thus, Islam did not have
to adjust to one or more alien cultures or to Greek philosophy and sci-
ence. Although Greek science and natural philosophy eventually
played a significant role in Islamic thought, it was always an outside,
alien force, as is apparent from the fact that Greek science and natu-
ral philosophy were known within Islam as the "foreign sciences," in
contrast to the "Islamic sciences" that were based on the Qur'an and
Islamic law and traditions, which always held the highest place in Is-
lamic life.
Despite the fact that the "foreign sciences" were not part of the ini-
tial Islamic tradition, they were destined to become part of it as Islam
moved onto the world stage. Muslim scholars, and a number of Chris-
tians and Jews who lived within the civilization of Islam, came to look
with favor on the idea of absorbing the fruits of Greek science and nat-
ural philosophy. To accomplish this, itwas necessary to translate much
of the Greek legacy in science and natural philosophy into Arabic, the
language of the Qur'an and of Muslims in the heartland of Islam in
the Middle East. The translating activity began even before Islam was
born. Christian scholars in Syria and Persia, many of whom were na-
tive Greek speakers, began translating Greek texts into Syriac, a Se-
mitic language related to Arabic. During the ninth and tenth centuries,
when the Arabic phase of translations was underway; numerous schol-
ars knowledgeable in both Greek and Arabic, or Syriac and Arabic,
translated many of the great Greek treatises into Arabic. So intense was
the desire for Greek science and natural philosophy, that A. I. Sabra,
the eminent historian of Islamic science, has characterized the massive
translating activity of the ninth and tenth centuries as an "appropria-
tion" rather than a mere passive "reception" (Sabra 1987, 226-229).
These translations laid the fotuldation for Islam's great contributions
to science and natural philosophy over the next four or five centuries.
Islamic contributions to the exact sciences and medicine occasioned
no concern, because those disciplines were not controversial and were
232 Science and Religion, 400 a.c. to A.D. 1550

indeed regarded as useful Great contributions were made in a vari-

ety of sciences by al-Biruni (A.D. 973-d. after 1050), perhaps the most
far-ranging scientific writer of the Islamic world, who left treatises on
astronomy, geography, chronology, mathematics, mechanics, medi-
cine, and pharmacology, as well as other fields. The list of Islamic sci-
entists and natural philosophers to the beginning of the thirteenth
century is lengthy and illustrious. Among the most noteworthy are al-
Khwarizmi (fl. c. A.D. 800-847; algebra and arithmetic); al-Farghani (d.
after A.D. 861; astronomy); al-Kindi (c. A.D. 801--c. 866; optics, medi-
cine, music, and natural philosophy), known as the "first Arab
philosopher"; al-Battaru (fl. c. A.D. 880; astronomy); Ibn al-Haytham
(A.D. 965-c. 1040; optics, astronomy, and mathematics), known in the
West as Alhazen; Omar Khayyam (c. A.D. 1048----c.1131; various aspects
of mathematics, especially algebra in which he solved cubic equations;
also a famous poet best known in the West for his Rubaiyat); al-Khazini
(fl. c. A.D. 1115-c. 1130; astronomy, mechanics, and scientific instru-
ments); al-Bitruji (c. A.D. 1190; astronomy and natural philosophy),
known as Alpetragius in the West.
There were also a number of famous physicians, some of whom ex-
erted a large influence on Western medicine. Noteworthy in this group
are al-Razi (c. A.D. 854--c. 935; known in the West as Rhazes, he wrote
on measles and smallpox; a number of his works were translated into
Latin and were quite influential); Ibn Sina (A.D. 980-1037; known in
the West as Avicenna; his famous medical treatise was translated into
Latin and used as a textbook in medical schools under the title Canon
of Medicine); Ibn Rushd (A.D. 1126-1198; known in the West as Aver-
roes, he was not only a physician but, like his predecessor, Ibn Sina,
a famous commentator on the works of Aristotle); and Ibn al-Nafis (d.
A.D. 1288; medicine; he discovered the lesser, or pulmonary, blood cir-
culation). Many more names could be added to the list of Islamic sci-
entists who contributed significantly to the exact sciences and
medicine. These scientific and medical treatises did not stir any ani-
mosity or religious hostility. It was quite otherwise with natural phi-
losophy.
In Islamic natural philosophy, Aristotle was the major influence,
with Plato playing an indirect role to the extent that his ideas were in-
corporated into neo-Platonic treatises that were translated into Ara-
bie. Plato's dialogues were too difficult to translate into Arabic and
too difficult to utilize. Although Aristotle's treatises were hardly easy
to comprehend, they were far more intelligible than Plato's dialogues.
 Relations between Science and Religion 233

With all of Aristotle's works-except the Politics-available in Arabic

by the mid-eleventh century, the translating movement that had
begun in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur (ruled A.D.
754-775) in the eighth century was essentially concluded (Peters 1968,
58-61). Included in what might be called the Islamic Aristotelian cor-
pus were works by Greek commentators of the fourth to sixth cen-
turies, such as John Philoponus and Simplicius. With Aristotle's texts
available, and those of some of his late Greek commentators, scholars
in the Islamic world began to write their own commentaries as well
as independent works utilizing Aristotle's natural philosophy. Among
the most important Islamic natural philosophers were al-Kindi, aI-
Parebi (c. A.D. 870-950), Ibn Sina (see Figure 8.1), Ibn Bajja (d. A.D.
1139), and Ibn Rushd. Some of the works of each of these five natural
philosophers were translated into Latin and had a significant impact
on Western thought. Indeed, Ibn Rushd had a great impact on West-
ern thought but virtually none in the Islamic world, where he was lit-
tle known. But there were many other Islamic natural philosophers
who were unknown in the West but quite influential in the Islamic
world. In Baghdad, the intellectual center of the Islamic world, nu-
merous other natural philosophers were important in the late tenth
and eleventh centuries. Moreover, there was an important tradition of
philosopher-physicians in Baghdad and elsewhere. One of the great-
est was Hunayn ibn Ishaq (A.D. 808--873), an important translator of
Aristotle's works and also an author of commentaries and original
works in philosophy, natural philosophy, and medicine. The tradition
of philosopher-physicians extends to the eleventh and twelfth cen-
turies, with Ibn Sina in the former century, and Ibn Rushd in the lat-
ter.
From the ninth to the end of the twelfth centuries, and perhaps even
a century or two later, natural philosophy was a vibrant subject dis-
cussed and taught by numerous individuals, with a few centers where
it was especially concentrated-often at the court of a ruling caliph.
If it was vibrant during this period, its existence was also ephemeral
and precarious. Throughout the history of medieval Islam, the role of
Greek philosophy was problematic. At any particular time, there were
those who viewed it favorably, while others, undoubtedly a consid-
erable majority, viewed it, at best, with indifference, and often enough
with some degree of hostility. Occasionally, the attitude of a caliph was
instrumental in altering attitudes toward natural philosophy, but
more often attitudes toward natural philosophy and Greek thought
 234
Science and Religion, 400 B.C.to A.D.1550

Figure 8.1. Avicenna (Ibn Sinal. (The National Library of Medicine.)

were governed by Muslim religious leaders, who exercised great in-

fluence in particular regions or cities. Not only was Greek philosophy
regarded as a foreign science, but the term philosopher lfaylasuf or
falasifa) was often employed pejoratively.
In the intellectual hierarchy of medieval Islamic society, scholars
 Relations between Science and Religion 235

distinguish three levels (Huff 1993, 69). Because Islam was a nomoc-
racy, the first level was comprised of legal scholars. Religious law and
traditions were valued above all else and, therefore, valued even more
than theology. Next in order came the mutakallimun, scholars who
used Greek philosophy to interpret and defend the Muslim religion.
The mutakallimun emphasized rational discourse, to which they
added the authority of revelation. And finally, at the bottom were the
falasifa, the Islamic philosophers, who followed rational Greek
thought, especially the thought of Aristotle. Not surprisingly, the
philosophers placed greatest reliance on reasoned argument while
downplaying revelation. The philosophers sought to develop natural
philosophy in an Islamic environment, and, as A. I. Sabra has put it,
did so, n often in the face of suspicion and opposition from certain
quarters in Islamic society" (Sabra 1994, 3).
Of the three Islamic groups just distinguished-namely, legal schol-
ars, who were almost always traditionalists, the mutakallimun, and
philosophers-the traditionalists made no real use of Greek philoso-
phy, largely because they found it a threat to revealed truth and the
Islamic faith. In their bitter struggle with each other and with the tra-
ditionalists, the mutakallimun and the philosophers made much use
of Greek philosophy. The mutakallimun were primarily concerned
with the kalam, which, according to A. I. Sabra, is "an inquiry into God,
and into the world as God's creation, and into man as the special crea-
ture placed by God in the world under obligation to his creator"
(Sabra 1994, 5). Thus, kalam is a theology that used Greek philosoph-
ical ideas to explicate and defend the Islamic faith.
Two groups of mutakallimun have been identified: the Mu'tazilites,
who were the more extreme, and the Ash'arites (see Hyman and
Walsh 1973, 205). Both groups shared an attitude "against the passive
acceptance of authority in matters of faith." It was their intention to
replace the "passive acceptance of authority" with "a state of knowl-
edge Cilm) rooted in reason" (Sabra 1994, 9). The Mu'tazilites were re-
garded as Islamic rationalists who equated the power of reason with
that of revelation (Huff 1993, 111).They are said to have "made an out-
standing contribution to Islamic thought by the assimilation of a large
number of Greek ideas and methods of argument" (Watt 1985, 54).
These arguments and methods were not adopted for their own sake
but rather for their utility in understanding the Islamic religion. In the
ninth century, the Mu'tazilites gained the support of caliphs like al-
Mamun and Mutassim, as well as influential intellectuals. The sup-
portive caliphs persecuted those who opposed the Mu'tazilite belief
 236
Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550

that the Quran was created by God. They implemented a virtual in-
quisition. Because many thought the rationalism of the Mu'tazilites
was extreme, Sunni Muslims often regarded them as heretics (Watt
1985,55). Their ascendancy ended with the rule of the Sunni caliph
al-Mutawwajjj, who destroyed their movement (see Hoodbhoy 1991,
99-100).
The Ash'arites, Who followed the teaching of al-Ash'an (d. A.D. 935),
are the second group of mutkallimun. They broke with Mu'tazilism
and replaced it as the main representatives of kalam. Ash'arism, how-
ever, was a complicated movement, with some of its followers em-
phasizing rationalism, while others argued in the traditionalist mode
(see Makdisi 1962, 37-80; 1963, 19-39). Although both Mu'tazilites and
Ash'arites were severe critics of the philosophers, they were them-
selves regarded as too rational and were bitterly opposed by more
conservative Muslims, both from the Sunni and Shiite sides.
In treating the attitudes toward natural philosophy and science in
medieval Islam, it is essential to have a good sense of the relationship
between Muslim traditionalism and Muslim rationalism, which were
engaged in an ongoing and bitter struggle about the role of Islam in
intellectual life. George Makdisi provides a useful way to distinguish
between Muslim traditionalism and Muslim rationalism:

The traditionalists made use of reason in order to understand what they con-
sidered as the legitimate sources of theology: scripture and tradition. What
they could not understand they left as it stood in the sources: they did not
make use of reason to interpret the sources metaphorically. On the other hand,
the rationalists advocated the use of reason on scriptum and tradition; and
all that they deemed to contradict the dictates of reason they interpreted
metaphorically in order to bring it into harmony with reason. (Makdisi 1963,
22)

The antithetical approaches of the Muslim traditionalists and the

Muslim rationalists can be illustrated directly from the mutakallimun
themselves, namely from the Mu'tazilites and Ash'arites. What was
one to make of anthropomorphic statements in the Qur'an that speak
of "the face of Allah, His eyes and hands, his sitting on His throne,
and His being seen by the Faithful in Paradise" (Arberry 1957, 22)?
The strong tendency in Islam was to take such statements literally.
Thus al-Ash'ari himself, for whom reason in theology was still im-
portant, declared: "We confess that God is firmly seated on His
throne .... We confess that God has two hands, without asking
 Relations between Scienceand Religion 237

how .... We confess that God has two eyes, without asking how ....
We confess that God has a face" (Arberry 1957, 22).
Mu'tazilites, however, viewed these same statements metaphori-
cally: God has no bodily parts; he has no parts or divisions; he is not
finite. They also believed that "He cannot be described by any de-
scription which can be applied to creatures, in so far as they are cre-
ated The senses do not reach Him, nor can man describe Him by
analogy Eyes do not see Him, sight does not reach Him, phantasy
cannot conceive Him nor can He be heard by ears" (Arberry 1957, 23).
I am unaware of any analogous discussion in the Christian West dur-
ing the Middle Ages. Medieval Latin theologians regarded anthropo-
morphic descriptions of God as metaphorical pronouncements.

The Philosophers in Islam

-Of the three groups distinguished earlier, the least popular were the
philosophers, whom the rnutakallimun and conservative Muslims at-
tacked because they used natural philosophy and logic to acquire truth
for its own sake, which usually signified that they were ignoring reli-
gion. One of the most significant Ash'arite thinkers, the famous al-
Ghazali (A.D. 1058-1111), leveled a devastating attack against
philosophy. He was fearful of the detrimental effects on the Islamic re-
ligion of subjects like natural philosophy, theology (actually meta-
physics), logic, and mathematics. In his famous quasi-autobiographical
treatise, Deliverance from Error, he explains that religion does not re-
quire the rejection of natural philosophy, but that there are serious ob-
jections to it because nature is completely subject to God, and no part
of it can act from its own essence. The implication is obvious: Aris-
totelian natural philosophy is unacceptable because it assumes that
natural objects can act by virtue of their own essences and natures. That
is, Aristotle believed in secondary causation-that physical objects are
capable of causing effects in other physical objects. Al-Ghazali found
mathematics dangerous because it uses clear demonstrations, thus
leading the innocent to think that all the philosophical sciences are
equally lucid. As al-Ghazali relates, a man will say to himself, "if reli-
gion Were true, it would not have escaped the notice of these men [that
is, the mathematicians] since they are so precise in this science" (trans-
lated in Watt 1953, 33). Al-Ghazali explains further that such a man
will be so impressed with what he hears about the techniques and
demonstrations of the mathematicians that "he draws the conclusion
238 Science and Religion, 400 e.c. to A.D. 1550

that the truth is the denial and rejection of religion. How many have I
seen," al-Ghazali continues, "who err from the truth because of this
high opinion of the philosophers and without any other basis" (Watt
1953,33). Although al-Ghazali allowed that the subject matter of math-
ematics is not directly relevant to religion, he included the mathemat-
ical sciences within the class of philosophical sciences (i.e.,
mathematics, logic, natural science, theology or metaphysics, politics,
and ethics) and concluded that a student who studied these sciences
would be "infected with the evil and corruption of the philosophers.
Few there are who devote themselves to this study without being
stripped of religion and having the bridle of godly fear removed from
their heads" (Watt 1953, 34).
In his great philosophical work The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-
Ghazali attacks ancient philosophy, especially the views of Aristotle.
He does so by describing and criticizing the ideas of al-Farabi and Avi-
cenna, two of the most important Islamic philosophical commentators
on Aristotle. After criticizing their opinions on twenty philosophical
problems, including the etemality of the world, that God knows only
universals and not particulars, and that bodies will not be resurrected
after death, al-Ghazali declares: "All these three theories are in violent
opposition to Islam. To believe in them is to accuse the prophets of
falsehood, and to consider their teachings as a hypocritical misrepre-
sentation designed to appeal to the masses. And this is blatant blas-
phemy to which no Muslim sect would subscribe" (al-Ghazali 1963,
249).
AI-Ghazali regarded theology and natural philosophy as dangerous
to the faith. He had an abiding distrust of philosophers and praised
the "unsophisticated masses of men," who "have an instinctive aver-
sion to following the example of misguided genius." Indeed, "their
simplicity is nearer to salvation than sterile genius can be" (al-Chaz-
ali 1963, 3). As one of the greatest and most respected thinkers in the
history of Islam, al-Chazali's opinions were not taken lightly.
In light of al-Chezali's attack on the philosophers, it is not surpris-
ing to learn that philosophers were often subject to persecution by re-
ligious leaders. Many religious scholars regarded philosophy, logic,
and the foreign Greek sciences in general as useless and even ungodly,
because they were not directly useful to religion. Indeed, they might
even make one disrespectful of religion (Huff 1993, 68). In the thir-
teenth century, Ibn as-Salah ash-Shahrazuri (d. A.D. 1245), a religious
leader in the field of tradition (hadith), declared in afatwa that "he who
 Relations between Science and Religion 239

studies or teaches philosophy will be abandoned by God's favor, and

Satan will overpower rum. What field of learning could be more des-
picable than one that blinds those who cultivate it and darkens their
hearts against the prophetic teaching of Muhammad." Logic was also
targeted, because, as Ibn as-Salah put it, "it is a means of access to phi-
losophy. Now the means of access to something bad is also bad"
(Goldziher 1981, 205). Ibn as-Salah was not content to confine his hos-
tility to words alone. In a rather chilling passage, he urges vigorous
action against students and teachers of philosophy and logic:

Those who think they can occupy themselves with philosophy and logic
merely out of personal interest or through belief in its usefulness are betrayed
and duped by Satan. It is the duty of the civil authorities to protect Muslims
against the evil that such people can cause. Persons of this sort must be re-
moved from the schools and punished for their cultivation of these fields. All
those who give evidence of pursuing the teachings of philosophy must be
confronted with the following alternatives: either (execution) by the sword or
(conversion to) Islam, so that the land may be protected and the traces of
those people and their sciences may be eradicated. May God support and ex-
pedite it. However, the most important concern at the moment is to identify
all of those who pursue philosophy, those who have written about it, have
taught it, and to remove them from their positions insofar as they are em-
ployed as teachers in schools. (Goldziher 1981, 206)

Although many others shared the attitude of Ibn as-Salah, logic con-
tinued to be used as an ancillary subject in scholastic theology (kalam)
and in many orthodox religious schools. But there was enough hos-
tility toward philosophy and logic in Islam to prompt philosophers to
keep a low profile. Those who taught it did so privately to students
who might have sought them out. Following the translations in the
early centuries of Islam, Greek philosophy, primarily Aristotle's, re-
ceived its strongest support from a number of individuals scattered
about the Islamic world. As we have already mentioned, al-Kindi, al-
Razi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd were among the greatest Islamic
philosophers. All were persecuted to some extent.
Al-Kindi's case reveals important aspects of intellectual life in Islam.
The first of the Islamic commentators on Aristotle, al-Kindi was at first
favorably received by two caliphs (al-Mamun and al-Mutassim), but
his luck ran out with al-Mutawwakil, the Surmi caliph mentioned ear-
lier. According to Pervez Hoodbhoy, "It was not hard for the ulema
[religious scholars] to convince the ruler that the philosopher had very
 240 Science and Religion, 400 a.c. to A.D. 1550

dangerous beliefs. Mutawvvakil soon ordered the confiscation of the

scholar's personal library .... But that was not enough. The sixty-year-
old Muslim philosopher also received fifty lashes before a large crowd
which had assembled. Observers who recorded the event say the
crowd roared approval with each stroke" (Hoodbhoy 1991, 111). The
other four scholars were also subjected to some degree of persecution,
and a number of them had to flee for their safety.
Persecution and harassment of those who advocated the use of rea-
son to explicate revelation are unknown in the medieval Latin West
after the mid-twelfth century, when, as we saw in chapter 5, Bernard
of Clairvaux and other traditional theologians opposed the applica-
tion of reason to theology. In his relentless assault on Peter Abelard,
Bernard undoubtedly had much in common with Islamic traditional-
ist theologians. Bernard's hostile attitude lingered on into the first
forty years of the thirteenth century, but only at the University of
Paris, where church authorities first banned the books of Aristotle
from public or private use, then sought unsuccessfully to censor them.
By the 1240s, however, Aristotle's books of natural philosophy were
taught and read at the University of Paris. Indeed, they had become
the core of the curriculum in the arts faculty of that great medieval
university (see Grant 1996, 70-80). After the 1240s and for the rest of
the Middle Ages, attacks on reason would have been regarded as
bizarre and unacceptable. Some theologians were opposed to certain
of Aristotle's ideas, but, like Saint Bonaventure, they used Aristotelian
natural philosophy and fully recognized that they could not do the-
ology without it. Scholars were sometimes accused of heresy, and oc-
casionally the church tried to curb the excessive use of logic and
natural philosophy in theological treatises, but I know of no instance
where religious authorities sought to prevent the study of natural phi-
losophy because it threatened religion. Indeed, as time passed, Aris-
totelian natural philosophy only became more entrenched in the
medieval universities. By the time of the Galileo affair in the seven-
teenth century, the church went to great lengths to defend and pro-
tect Aristotle's natural philosophy.
How different it was in Islam, if we judge by a question that Ibn
Rushd (Averroes) posed in the twelfth century in his treatise On the
Harmony of Religion and Philosophy (see Figure 8.2). In this treatise, Ibn
Rushd sought to determine "whether the study of philosophy and
logic is allowed by the {Islamic] Law, or prohibited, or commanded-
either by way of recommendation or as obligatory" (Averroes 1976,
 Relations between Science and Religion 241

Figure 8.2. Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Commentator. (Woodcut portrait, Wellcome
Library, London.)

44). In the thirteenth century, Ibn as-Salah ash-Shahrazuri, an expert

on the tradition of Islam whom we have already met, issued a writ-
ten reply lfatwa) to a question that asked, in Ignaz Goldziher's words,
"whether, from the point of view of religious law, it was permissible
to study or teach philosophy and logic and further, whether it was
pennissible to employ the terminology of logic in the elaboration of
religious law, and whether political authorities ought to move against
a public teacher who used his position to discourse on philosophy and
write about it" (Goldziher 1981, 205).
What is remarkable in all this is the fact that, in the twelfth century,
Ibn Rushd and, in the thirteenth century, Ibn as-Salah were grappling
with the question of whether, from the standpoint of the religious law,
242 Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550

it was legitimate to study science, logic, and natural philosophy. even

though these disciplines had been readily available in Islam since the
ninth century. Ibn Rushd felt compelled to justify their study, while
Ibn as-Salah, astonishingly, denied their legitimacy (as we saw earlier
in this chapter). I know of no analogous discussions in the late Latin
Middle Ages in which any natural philosopher or theologian felt com-
pelled to determine whether the Bible permitted the study of secular
subjects. It was simply assumed that it did.
Even so enlightened an author as Ibn Khaldun (A.D. 1332-1406) was
hostile to philosophy and philosophers. On the basis of his great lnt-
roduction to History (Muqaddimah), Ibn Khaldun is regarded as the first
historian to write a world history. According to Franz Rosenthal: "The
Muqaddimah was indeed the first large-scale attempt to analyze the
group relationships that govern human political and social organiza-
tion on the basis of environmental and psychological factors" (Rosen-
thal 1973, 321).
Despite his brilliance as an historian, Ibn Khaldun included a chap-
ter in the Muqaddimah titled" A refutation of philosophy. The corrup-
tion of the students of philosophy" (Ibn Khaldun 1958, 3:246-258). In
this chapter, Ibn Khaldun condemns the opinions of philosophers as
wrong and proclaims to his fellow Muslims that "the problems of
physics are of no importance for us in our religious affairs or our liveli-
hoods. Therefore, we must leave them alone" (Ibn Khaldun 1958,
3:251-252). He regarded the study of logic as dangerous to the faith-
ful unless they were deeply immersed in the Quran and the Muslim
religious sciences to fortify themselves against its methods.
When religious authorities in a society are fearful of the effects of
natural philosophy on religious beliefs, and are also sufficiently in-
fluential to curtail and weaken the impact of science and natural phi-
losophy on the faithful, they will almost certainly use their powers to
limit the spread and dissemination of those secular disciplines. This
scenario is avoidable only if at least three conditions exist (1) Natural
philosophy is Widely regarded as an independent discipline worthy
of study; (2) The state supports and protects natural philosophy; and
(3) The religious authorities regard natural philosophy favorably.
Without the third condition, it is unlikely that the first two conditions
could be attained. In Western Europe during the late Middle Ages, the
third condition was clearly in effect, which enabled the first condition
to come into being.
None of these conditions were met in Islam, perhaps because Islam
is a theocracy in which church and state form a single entity. There is
 Relations between Science and Religion 243

no secular state apparatus distinct from the Islamic religion. ABa con-
sequence, the schools, or madrasas, had as their primary mission the
teaching of the Islamic religion, and paid little attention to the foreign
sciences, which, as we saw, were comprised of the science and natu-
ral philosophy derived ultimately from the Greeks. The analytic sub-
jects derived from the Greeks certainly did not have equal status with
religious and theological subjects. Indeed, the foreign sciences played
a rather marginal role in the madrasas, which formed the core of Is-
lamic higher education. Only those subjects that illuminated the
Qur'an or the religious law were taught. One such subject was logic,
which was found useful not only in semantics but was also regarded
as helpful in avoiding simple errors of inference. The primary func-
tion of the madrasas, however, was "to preserve learning and defend
orthodoxy" (Mottahedeh 1985, 91). In Islam, most theologians did not
regard natural philosophy as a subject helpful to a better under-
standing of religion. On the contrary, it was usually viewed as a sub-
ject capable of subverting the Islamic religion and, therefore, as
potentially dangerous to the faith. Natural philosophy always re-
mained a peripheral discipline in the lands of Islam and was never in-
stitutionalized within the educational system, as it was in Latin
Christendom. Hence, it was never able to create a large body of stu-
dents who would use the techniques and methods of natural philos-
ophy to approach nature and its operations in a wholly rationalistic
manner. The absence of a large body of students trained in natural
philosophy may well have affected the exact sciences, which eventu-
ally faltered and faded. Many of the problems of the exact sciences are
drawn from natural philosophy. Without a vibrant, inquisitive natu-
ral philosophy that has substantial societal support and encourage-
ment the exact sciences are not likely to receive the requisite degree
of intellectual stimulation to make dramatic advances. They are likely
to stagnate and eventually grind to a halt. nus is perhaps why the
great initial promise of Islamic science and natural philosophy failed
to come to fruition, so that between 1500 and 1600, the science and
natural philosophy of Western Europe surpassed that of Islam.

THE LATIN WEST

Prior to this chapter, I focused on the relations between science and
religion in the Latin West and it is therefore unnecessary to summa-
rize what has already been said. Instead, I shall compare the natural
244 Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550

philosophy in the West to its fate in the Byzantine Empire and Islam,
concentrating much more on the latter than the former.
Because the three civilizations with which we are concerned were
intensely religious, the attitude of the religious authorities toward a
secular natural philosophy that was derived essentially from pagan
Greek sources is a vital consideration. If that attitude was sufficiently
fearful, and even hostile, it is not likely that natural philosophy could
have flourished. Although clerics in all three civilizations had prob-
lems with Aristotle's natural philosophy, those in the West eventually
embraced it with a zeal and enthusiasm that was truly astonishing.
By the end of the thirteenth century, natural philosophy and logic
served as the basic curriculum in the arts faculties of all medieval uni-
versities.
Perhaps the most striking development in the West was the church's
eager acceptance of Greco-Arable (or Greco-Islamic) natural philoso-
phy and science. The path to this acceptance had been prepared over
many centuries, as Christians first arrived at a state in which they were
willing to accept secular pagan learning as the handmaiden to theol-
ogy and it was understood that a good Christian would study such
subjects only to the extent that they shed light on the Christian faith.
When Aristotle's natural philosophy reached the West in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, some, if not many, Christian theologians
were alarmed at certain of Aristotle's opinions about the physical
world, and they sought to ban and then censor his views. By the end
of the thirteenth century, however, Aristotle's natural philosophy was
no longer a contentious issue. It had been so thoroughly embraced
that it formed the basic curriculum for all students in the faculties of
arts of medieval universities. This was a momentous achievement. It
signified that the Catholic Church and its theologians had fully em-
braced and accepted Greco-Arabic science and natural philosophy.
Without this acceptance, natural philosophy could not have become
the basis for a liberal arts education in medieval universities and
would therefore not have been institutionalized throughout Western
Europe.
It is important to point out that not only did university-trained the-
ologians fully accept and embrace the discipline of natural philoso-
phy, but many, if not most, of them were eager and active contributors
to the literature of natural philosophy. It is for that reason that it is
wholly appropriate to call them "theologian-natural philosophers."
They were equally at home in both disciplines and were keen to im-
 Relations between Science and Religion 245

port as much natural philosophy as they could into the resolution of

theological problems, while avoiding any temptations to theologize
natural philosophy. This explains why some medieval theologians can
be equated with the best of the secular natural philosophers, such as
John Buridan and Albert of Saxony. Some theologians, such as Alber-
tus Magnus and Nicole Oresme, were clearly superior to them.
By their actions, theologians in the West were full participants in
the development and dissemination of natural philosophy. They made
it possible for the institutionalization of natural philosophy in the uni-
versities of the late Middle Ages, and therefore its extensive dissemi-
nation. Nothing like this occurred in the Byzantine Empire or in Islam.
We saw that in Islam there was often overt hostility to natural phi-
losophy and to natural philosophers, who were derisively called
"philosophers."
Why did theologians in the West embrace natural philosophy and
logic so ardently? There can be little doubt that they were convinced
that these disciplines were essential for the analysis and explication
of theology. This attitude was already embodied in the conception of
natural philosophy as the handmaiden of theology, an attitude that
was formed in the early centuries of Christianity. Over the centuries,
theologians had gained much experience in dealing with problematic
issues in natural philosophy that were potentially subversive of
church doctrine. In the final analysis, the benefits the theologians
thought they could derive from the study and use of natural philoso-
phy in theology, and for its own sake, far outweighed any feelings of
uneasiness they may have felt.
With regard to natural philosophy, which, as I have argued, was the
vital element in preparing the way for early modem science, the atti-
tude of the theologians and of the church they served was instru-
mental, firstly, in permitting natural philosophy to develop as it did,
and secondly. in contributing Significantly to the rationalistic and an-
alytic nature of medieval natural philosophy. There was nothing like
this among the theologians and clerics of medieval Byzantium and
Islam. Indeed, it is very likely their basic hostility toward the claims
of natural philosophy that made it, at best, a peripheral activity. To
flourish, and take deep and extensive root, natural philosophy re-
quires a tolerant attitude from the society within which it functions.
There has to be a strong sense that natural philosophy provides the
key to an understanding of the operations of the natural world. In
Islam, there was no such confidence in the powers of natural philos-
246 Science and Religion, 400 B.C.to A.D.1550

ophy. It was far better, many of the powerful theologians and opinion
makers believed, to trust in the Qur'an and the religious law and tra-
ditions to understand and cope with the world. To trust in the rea-
soning of natural philosophers-the falasifa-was regarded by many
Muslim clerics as dangerous. As F. E. Peters explains, "when con-
fronted with radical falsafah, Islamic orthodoxy reacted with determi-
nation and frequently with violence" (Peters 1968, 220).
To conclude this comparison of the relations between science and
religion in the three great medieval civilizations, I have left the most
profound difference for last-namely, the separation of church and
state (see chapter 4 for a brief discussion). The manner in which Chris-
tianity developed proved favorable to the theoretical separation of
church and state. As a minority religion within the vast Roman Em-
pire, Christians wanted freedom to worship, and if this were granted,
they were quite prepared to be good citizens of the Roman state. The
Bible itself offered strong support for separation. In his famous re-
sponse to the query by the Pharisees as to whether his followers
should pay taxes to the Roman emperor, Jesus urged that they "Ren-
der therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God
the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). Thus did Jesus acknowledge
the state and urge his followers to be good citizens. A Christian had
two allegiances: one to God and the church, and the other to the sec-
ular state. Although church and state within Christendom were often
in conflict, with one seeking to dominate the other when the oppor-
tunity presented itself, each nonetheless recognized the other as an in-
dependent entity. The long Christian experience of living within the
Roman Empire, and the absence of explicit biblical support for a theo-
cratic state, made the establishment of a theocracy by the Christian
church unlikely. Ironically, a theocracy developed within the Greek
Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire. This state of affairs was
not the doing of the church but rather of the Roman Emperors, who
made the eastern Christian church subordinate to their rule and pro-
duced a variant version of a theocracy known as Caesaropaplsm, in
which the emperor was head of both church and state. Within Islam,
the caliphs were regarded as heads of both church and state.
The Byzantine Empire and Islam paid a heavy price for failing to
separate church and state. In both societies, Aristotle's natural phi-
losophy was regarded as potentially dangerous because it encom-
passed ideas and concepts that were hostile to both religions, and
because it was often felt that scholars who focused too much on nat-
 Relations between Science and Religion 247

ural philosophy would either neglect religion or come to regard it as

inferior to natural philosophy. Islam's failure to separate church and
state nullified an institutional advantage it had over Western Chris-
tendom. Where the latter was organized as a centralized, hierarchical
religion with a single individual-the Pope-holding ultimate power,
Islam was a decentralized religion with no hierarchical structure.
What power there was derived from local religious leaders who drew
on the support of their fellow Muslims. Under these circumstances,
we might expect that freedom of inquiry and the cultivation of a vi-
brant, sustained natural philosophy would have been more likely to
occur within the decentralized Muslim religion than within the highly
centralized Catholic Church of Western Europe. A5 we now know, the
reverse occurred: the West developed a lively natural philosophy.
whereas in Islam natural philosophy became a peripheral and suspect
discipline, whose study could even prove dangerous.
The separation of church and state in Western Europe, however,
proved an enormous boon to the development of science and natural
philosophy. The church did not view natural philosophy as a disci-
pline that had to be theologized or made to agree with the Bible. Al-
though the church felt threatened in varying degrees by Aristotle's
natural philosophy in the first three-quarters of the thirteenth century,
by the end of that century Aristotle's natural philosophy was fully ac-
cepted by all, and it formed the basis of a university education. Al-
though the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453,
Western Christianity continued on with its separation of church and
state. Indeed, as the centuries passed, some nation states of Europe
became as powerful as, if not more powerful than, the church, which
had a diminished capacity for influencing science and natural philos-
ophy. With the advent of the Protestant Reformation, the sphere of in-
fluence of the Catholic Church diminished further. As the nation states
gained parity with the church and then surpassed it in power and in-
fluence, science and natural philosophy had as much, if not more, to
fear from the state as from the church. Although this was not a prob-
lem during the late Middle Ages, it became one in the twentieth cen-
tury, as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union bear witness. With regard
to these two European states, the traditional problems between sci-
ence and religion became problems between science and the state.
The separation of church and state that was an integral part of West-
ern Christianity from its outset was of momentous significance. It
made numerous mstitutional developments feasible that might not
248 Science and Religion, 400 B.C.to A.D. 1550

otherwise have occurred. Indeed, the very separation of natural phi-

losophy into the faculty of arts and the location of theology in a sep-
arate faculty of theology reveals an understanding that these are
different subject areas that require very different treatment. The great-
est benefit for science and religion is that each was left relatively free
to develop independently of the other, although every individual sci-
entist or theologian was free to incorporate ideas and concepts from
the one area into the other. Above all, however, the fear and uncer-
tainty that afflicted all too many Islamic and Byzantine natural
philosophers was largely absent in the West. The separation of church
and state, and the analogous disciplinary distinction between theol-
ogy and natural philosophy, made possible the independent develop-
ment of each of these two fundamental disciplines. Indeed, it is ironic
that natural philosophy permeated theology to so great an extent that
it transformed it into an analytic discipline, whereas theology had al-
most no effect on the development of natural philosophy.
The factors that can produce a separation between church and state
in any society and civilization are largely rooted in the religious and
cultural forces that shape that society. Those factors were largely ab-
sent from Byzantine and Islamic civilizations, but were manifestly
present in Western Europe during the Middle Ages and thereafter.
Without the separation of church and state, and the developments that
proceeded as a consequence, the West would not have produced a
deeply rooted natural philosophy that was disseminated through Eu-
rope by virtue of an extensive network of universities, which laid the
foundation for the great scientific advances made in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, advances that have continued to the present
day.