One thing has been holding back the Middle East

It happens everywhere, not only in the middle east, not only with religion. People who crave control rise to the top, apply tight control to stay there, kill creativity in the process.

While this article focuses on the anti-science stance of fundamentalist Islam, I wonder if it isn't also an oblique reference to the current anti-science campaign in the U.S., and for the same basic reason, to stifle logical and critical thinking for church-state control.

> I guess I am not alone in wondering how different the Middle East might have been had it not been for the seismic influence of Al-Ghazali, that revered scholar of Sunni thought, who in the 12th century argued that science is not a liberator but a threat to the word of God and a danger to the clerics, who had every incentive to thwart the thirst for knowledge to maintain their power and privileges. “Innovator” was not regarded as a term of praise but, as the scholar Toby Huff has put it, “a term for a heretic and non-believer, subject to death”.

This quote has two parts, both of which are wrong and sensationalized. About al Ghazali being anti science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjSXJSt7KI

And on the status of innovator. The author is equivocating, the negative term innovator is applied to people who innovate in religious matter, ie: altering the religion. Not referring to people who advance knowledge of the "worldly sciences".

Philosophers have long pointed out the missing feature with Science/Rationalism.

And that is when faced with randomness, unpredictability and lack of control, in general, a retreat takes place.

"There is no solution in the book/there is no time/there are no resources/it's not my fault/everyone else has to do x y z/don't hold me responsible for that persons suffering".

Basically any time a problem doesn't have a solution or a "elegant" solution, do a poll on how many scientists/innovators/business leaders/engineers will avoid it or not take responsibility for orchestrating an organized response to hold the space, until a solution is found. Its not in their training. So the majority just retreat. Into their work. "Doing" science/tech provides a very easy path to detachment. And then that detachment gets defended in all kinds of misguided ways, causing more confusion and misunderstandings as can be seen in this specific debate. But it applies in all debates.

Religious systems are much older and they have learnt to occupy the space when things get unpredictable. They will be there when people get cancer holding hands. They will offer rituals and prayer. They will be there praying with soldiers about to enter the battlefield and die. They will be there after they die. They will show up when people have health issues/financial issues/relationship issues. Do they fix all the problems? No. But all problems can't be fixed.

Showing up and holding the space and having something to offer and doing it in an organized and institutional way until a solution is available is what is missing.

All religious systems, not just the Abrahamic ones, people are trained for years to not run away from suffering but hold ground and have something to offer. Its not easy and can't be done without training.

Very few Fred Rodgers are produced by science and engineering institutions.

What is produced instead is mockery of religious systems, the uneducated, the misguided, the ignorant. And it naturally creates more issues.

I was about to say the same thing.

a lot of things rhyme.