[noufalibrahim]

This is an oft repeated piece of idle scholarship that atheists and orientalists use to "explain" the decline of the so called "Islamic Golden Age". I've seen Steven Weinberg mention this as well as Neil Tyson.

The factors were complex. There were economic and socio-political events that affected the stability and life in these societies. Several other reasons contributed to this downfall and it finally happened. To pin all the blame on a single scholar is disingenuous. Al Ghazzali's "Incoherence of the philosophers" was a warning against some of the techniques philosophers used especially in the context of interpreting the primary texts of Islam to come up with religious rulings. There were also philosophical arguments against scientific (read material) explanations precluding the hand of God in material affairs but this wasn't one killing blow against centuries of scientific scholarship.

Here are a few articles that discuss this from a traditional Muslim point of view if you're interested. https://mohamedghilan.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/an-illusion-o... https://traversingtradition.com/2020/11/19/science-history-a.... I had something that addressed it more directly but can't find it right now.

[2Gkashmiri]

no. You are not answering my question. you are simply saying dont blame ghazali. My question is, what caused the death of "desire for scientific temper" and economic conditions do not change someones quest for knowledge or for that matter, influence an entire population away from science who took to avoid it like the plague. I had this talk with a guy last week and when i mentioned ghazali, he said something on the lines of "are you talking about his first phase or second phase?" then when i showed him this quote, this person goes "yes. obviously his first phase. in his second phase he rejected his earlier texts and even started learning the same thing he rejected earlier but the damage was done".

You cant just tell a population to reject a way of thinking but apparently someone did manage to do that

[artem247]

>> economic conditions do not change someones quest for knowledge

In my country science almost ceased to exist after the fall of Soviet Union. So economic conditions do play a role. The western Age of Reason in XVIII also has relationship to complex changes in the society - rise of merchant class, acceptance of usury, etc. And I would say that "whole population avoids science like a plague" would be a strong overstatement more echoing the modern view on Islamic countries with strong Salafi influence.

[heavenlyblue]

I would like to see what the OP would do if they were suddenly forced to live in the Stone Age. Would they spend time doing philosophising or restoring the civilisation and actually feeding themselves?

[2Gkashmiri]

imagine living in the stone age and finding yourself in ancient greece meeting a madman named plato and socrates

[heavenlyblue]

We're speaking of the degradation of our living conditions to the Stone Age, not an actual time travel into the past.

[andrepd]

> economic conditions do not change someones quest for knowledge

Come on... are you for real? You're telling me that subsistence farmers should have the same "thirst for knowledge" as scholars in a rich economic and cultural centre of an empire? Of course economic conditions matter! Some people are even of the opinion that they're the only things that matter.

[selimthegrim]

Mongol invasions, Hulagu and Ibn Taymiyyah probably had as big a role. Albiruni in Punjab and Ibn Shatir in Damascus made fine contributions which are just not studied in Islamiyat classes because everyone thinks of glory in terms of Alauddin Khliji/Ziauddin Barni or Aurangzeb Alamgir/Shah Waliullah instead of building universities, observatories etc