Monthly Archives: August 2013

Was Hitler a Christian?

One of the more dubious positions held by skeptics, left leaning secularists, and atheists is that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime held to theistic ideology and were specifically Christian in their theology.  It is clear that this attack against Christians is a poor attempt to seek retribution because of the atrocities that lay at the feet of state-sanctioned atheism and the debris left over for the push for the utopia that never came.

Atheist propagandists claim vociferously that Hitler was a Christian because he was born a Catholic and he never renounced this Catholicism.  Secondly, they bring forth that he wrote in Mein Kampf,

“By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

There are problems with this, however.  It is clear that the atheists are mistaking the logical error of  genetic fallacy with Christian theology of Salvation and secondly, just because someone writes something—doesn’t mean it is endorsed by the person they write it about.  Hitler was born Catholic, yes.  Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church as Mao was a Buddhist by birth.  The facts of their heritage and birth prove nothing.  Can a person be born into a heritage or established tradition and then reject it?  I would argue emphatically, yes.   From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes, Hitler

“had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.”

So, when atheist writer Sam Harris writes that since

“the Holocaust marked the culmination of…two hundred years of Christian fulminating against the Jews,”


“knowingly or not, the Nazis were agents of religion,”

we know this is a blind leap at best.

What about Hitler’s claim that he was carrying out the handiwork of God with his anti-Semitism? As Hitler was gaining traction and ascending to power, he needed the support of the German people—both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans.  Like any silver-tongued politician, he was a skilled rhetorician and used the technique of verbal power play and rhetorical gesture to influence his constituents.   To secure their support, he occasionally used rhetoric such as

“I am doing the Lord’s work.”

To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political expediency with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

Then there is the Nazi foundational idea of an Aryan Christ who would use the sword to empty the world of Jews.  This modification of Christianity, or what historians refer to as “Aryan Christianity” is obviously a radical departure from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.   This theological understanding was even condemned as heresy by Pope Pius XI at the time. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews wasn’t founded in religious doctrine, it was racially motivated. Jews were targeted not because of their religion—indeed many German Jews were completely secular in their way of life—but because of their racial identity. This was an ethnic and not a religious designation. Hitler’s anti-Semitism was secular.

Assembled by a close aide, Hitler’s Table Talk is a revealing collection of his private opinions that were collected during the war years.  This collection shows Hitler to be vociferously anti-religious.  He is noted as calling Christianity one of the great “scourges” of history, and said of the Germans,

“Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.”

He would go on to promise that

“through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.”

He blamed Jews for manufacturing Christianity.  He would also condemn Christianity for opposing Darwinian evolution as fact.


What is of profound interest is the special scrutiny he placed on Christian values like equality and compassion—he labeled these as weaknesses in man.

Richard Evans writes in his multi-volume history of the Third Reich that,

“the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.”

He goes on to say that the goal of the regime was to subdue and weaken the church in Germany.  After 1937, the overarching policy of Hitler’s government became anti-religious.

One writer says it well:

“The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Führer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a “culmination” of Christianity.”

If the Nazi regime represented any culmination, perhaps it represented the ideology of social Darwinism.  As historian Richard Weikart documents, both Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a “law of nature” that guaranteed the “elimination of the unfit.” Weikart argues that Hitler himself

“drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy”

and concludes that while Darwinism is not a “sufficient” intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a “necessary” one.  Had Darwinism not come about, we may never seen the Nazi regime.

For a foundational structure, Hitler drew heavily on the philosophy if Friedrich Nietzsche.  He used his “God is dead” theory and adapted it to his purposes.  Nietzsche’s idea of the strong-man and his idea of liberation from traditional morality was thoroughly embraced by the regime.  The idea of Nietzsche’s “will to power” became a recruitment slogan for the Nazi military.  No one is arguing that Darwin or Nietzsche would have proved of Hitler, but Hitler DID approve of Darwin and Nietzsche.  Writers like Harris ignore this, and lay the blame at Christianity—albeit without evidence.  Harris simply dismisses the evidence of the Nazis’ sympathies for Darwin, Nietzsche, and atheism. So what sense can we make of his claim that the leading Nazis were “knowingly or unknowingly” agents of religion? Clearly, it is nonsense.



the agenda of a liberal education with a commitment to a priori naturalism

Bruce Ackerman, a Yale Law School Professor is one of the numerous scholars who has tried to give an overall theoretical justification for liberal rationalism, and philosophical naturalism—which are the stalwart positions on the academy today.  His book titled Social Justice in the Liberal State isn’t widely known among lay people; however, among the intellectual elites, judges, and those who ascribe to the religion of the left, they know the work.

The book lays out a case for what could be called today’s atheistic or skeptical liberalism, and focuses on the idea of the pedagogy of education.  One of the major claims of the book is that ‘opinions’ about values or morality are strictly that—opinions—and are subjective.  What this says is that your decisions are just as good as mine, and that each person in the liberal society is free to do as he/she pleases—up to the point that their fist does not touch my nose.  If this happens, it is the role of the government to step in and stop the problem.

Now, since there is no way to rate ‘good’ and ‘bad’, Ackerman suggests that contentious issues must be resolved through what he calls a neutral debate.  What he is saying here is that a dialogue must occur in which no citizen has any intrinsic superiority for his or her values.  A philosopher says it this way: “If I like to collect wild orchids and you like to hunt foxes on horseback, there is no way to rank any of our desires as superior or inferior.  This neutrality-in-principle does not mean that in practice all persons will actually be able to realize their life plans, because Ackerman’s liberalism contemplates an egalitarian distribution of wealth.  Fox hunters will not be banned on  moral grounds, but they have no right to compel their fellow citizens to finance this costly activity.”

This idea of citizens according to Ackerman, who get to hold the dialogue, include all persons including juveniles who are old enough and wise enough to utter the phrase that Arthur Leff called “the grand sez who.”  Simply speaking—citizens are all persons who are capable of demanding a certified justification for any “restraint” on their behavior.

He goes on to say that what comes about through this is not chaos, but a set of legislation not unlike those lobbied by liberals in the United States today.  The statist aims to maximize personal autonomy within a framework of economic egalitarianism, while maintaining a strict neutral playing field when it comes to ideas of right and wrong, along with a stringent skepticism of deity.


The question is, how can parents and teachers educate children without imposing a concept of the good life on them?


Ackerman states that liberal education must not be authoritarian.  He posits that an authoritarian education attempts to funnel a child in a particular direction intellectually, so that he will turn into what the parent or the educator wishes for him to become.  If you raise Billy to take over the family store or to become a priest—this is authoritarian, says Ackerman.  He says that the purpose of liberal education should give Billy the ability to decide for himself what future he wants.  If I raise my daughter to be a mother and homemaker—this to Ackerman is child abuse—she should be encouraged to think of careers outside the home and possibilities for her social life beyond a heterosexual bonding with a man.  The goal of Ackerman’s system is to produce autonomous, self-definers who choose their own lives and values and lifestyles—rather than be obedient children who follow a course laid in front of them by their elders.

But this is difficult—the child lives at home with the parent.  He realizes this.  Alternatives cannot be given at once—and he agrees that a child must be given a coherent upbringing rather than a smorgasbord of choices.  His solution?  The first five years of a child’s life, the parents have a free reign.  At age 5, however, the well-functioning child begins to say, “sez who?”  They will demand a justification of the limits put down by the parent.  He says that the parent must have an answer that works better than the neutral, “sez me!”  He goes on to say in a disturbing way that educators rather than the parent become the one able to answer that question and are entitled to offer the child choices that the parents have withheld.

Ackerman uses an illustration to highlight this point.  To illustrate the problem of a rebellious kindergartener, he imagines a “Daughter” who wants to play with trucks instead of dolls and an authoritarian “Parent” who insists that girls should play only with dolls.  An adult citizen named “Noble” who seems to represent the public school system, demands the right to encourage the girl in her resistance to gender stereotyping.  “Parent” feebly resists, but “Noble” has the better of the argument, because “Parent” cannot come up with a value-neutral justification for “his continuing effort to monopolize his “Daughters” moral vocabulary and perception.”  By the way, it is no accident that the public school official who announces his intention to undermine “Parent” is named “Noble” and not “Meddler.”

The meaning of this frightening but realistic dialogue is that the state should actively seek to liberate the child from the parent’s authority, especially if that parent is conservative or an Evangelical Christian.  Now—as an aside, I have studied the Philosophy of Science and Physics at some depth.  In fact, I have spoken to classrooms on topics from cosmology, the anthropic principle, the big bang, and even the supposed war between religion and science.  Based on the reaction I see when I show up, what the state fears more than anything is a conservative Evangelical who is trained in the sciences, who does not hold to an a priori philosophical naturalism and is able to put into retreat their most cogent arguments.

Back to the dialogue—what would happen if into the situation, “Parent” was an agnostic and instead of “Noble,” “Evangelist from the Baptist Church” appeared at the door to introduce the child to the claims of Christ, or if “Theistic Creationist” asked to be admitted to tell children that the theory of evolution at least in the macro sense is not true?  Ackerman doesn’t broach these topics, but  he does say that all would-be interveners are screened by the “educational authorities” to ensure they are “trustworthy.”  “Evangelist” and “Creationist” fail for sure because Ackerman’s liberal state—like our own—implicitly excludes all claims about God, and denies anyone access who does not hold to an a priori commitment to liberal rationalistic scientific naturalism.

That hypothetical situation mirrors what is happening in America today.  Liberal educators armed only with a degree and propaganda, and an a priori commitment aim to free the children under their care from what they see as authoritarian parents.  By the way, authoritarian parents means parents who hold to traditional views.

Consider this quote from liberal professor—and respected atheist philosopher Richard Rorty:

“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ … It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own … The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students … When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank… You have to be educated in order to be … a participant in our conversation … So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours … I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents … I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.”

Now, you are saying—send them to private school.  Consistent with his support for this practice, Ackerman and Rorty vehemently disapprove of any plan to offer parents tuition vouchers that would make private schools affordable for families with modest incomes.  Here is Ackerman on the issue:

“Surely, parents will refuse to spend “their” vouchers on anything but “education” that strives to reinforce whatever values they have—with so much effort—imposed on “their” children.  Thus [voucher plans] legitimate a series of petty tyrannies in which like-minded parents club together to force-feed their children without restraint.  Such an education is a mockery of the liberal ideal.”

Now, of course he extends this criticism to all private schools right?  Not exactly.  This condemnation does not extend to those that are funded solely by private tuition and endowments.  This is consistent with current liberal educational policy, which doesn’t object to parents or private education as such, but to those parents who seek to pass traditional religious and moral values to their children.  Ivy League professors and high government officials tend to send their kids only to private schools that provide a purely liberal based education based on an a priori naturalistic philosophical framework, and hence—they are compatible with the state.

The problem with voucher plans is this:  They would extend to the lower class the privilege of a private education, and many of the voucher schools would reflect the values of the conservative parents.  When liberals argue that voucher plans would violate the constitutional principle of church and state, what they mean is that the established religious philosophy might lose control of public education.

Do We Misunderstand Muslim Rage?

I was looking at a liberal website that had an article up focusing on the widespread myths about Islam in the West.  It basically came to the premise that it is the West and specifically unenlightened conservatives  that are in the wrong for much of the problems between warring nations/competing religious ideologies, and that Westerners who do not speak Arabic cannot make any statements about Islam because they cannot read the Qu’aran in its intended tongue.  It also goes to make some embarrassing claims in the name of Islam that are just–well, intellectually fraudulent.

One of the most blatant assertions in the article is that

“Even before the whole terrorism thing, Islam had a reputation in the West for violence. Part of it has to do with how abruptly Islam was all up in everyone’s face. For instance, while Hinduism took about 1,000 years to spread through India, and Christianity took about 400 years to go from persecuted cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, Islam went from one guy’s epiphany to the dominant political and religious force in the Middle East and North Africa in about 100 years.

So a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the religion spread like holy wildfire for one reason: the sword. The next logical leap from this viewpoint is that as a people, Muslims must be violent and barbaric conquerors. Even before 9/11, you saw this portrayal in popular culture all the time:

But actually…

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued “a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors” that included:

  • No killing of women, children or innocents — these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants;
  • No wanton killing of livestock or other animals;
  • No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and
  • No destruction of wells.

In short, Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies. During the (expletive) Dark Ages. And they did.

But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad’s death, right? Maybe that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe “exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame,” in the words of one expert.

So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like oversized hacky sacks, their Muslim counterparts had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies.”

Now—I am going to respond to this.  Normally, revisionists need a lot of space, because it takes quite a bit of room to rewrite world history.  This website is certainly no exception!  One of the things I noticed in the article was a repeated use of Wikipedia as a reference source, and other non-scholarly websites as if they are authoritative–all the while invoking intellectual authority.  This is suspect.  They claim to be arguing from a point of enlightenment and ‘capital R’ Reason, but source their work with Wikipedia.  Credible.

Speaking of credible, liberal historian  James Carroll wrote a book recently titled Crusades.  This work of intellectual sciolism and historical revision portrays the Crusades as a horrific act of Western aggression on the poor Muslim people.  In the book, Carroll says,

“The Crusades were a set of world hihstoric crimes.  That trail of violence scars the earth and human memory even to this day–especially in the places where the crusaders wreaked their havoc.”

This is where the first lie peddled by liberal scholars and apologists of radical Islam comes into play:  The Muslim world, and specifically Radical Islamists, furious with the West because of the Crusades.  This is one of the dominant arguments of this blog.  The author spent a good deal of space making his case for this point of view.

Is this claim legitimate?  The Crusades happened nearly 1,000 years ago!

Before the rise of Islam, the region we call the Middle East was predominately Christian.  There were Zoroastrians in Persia, polytheists in Arabia, and Jews in Palestine, but most of the people in what we now call Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were Christian.  The sacred places where Christ lived and died are in that region.  Its holy site was Jerusalem.  Inspired by jihad, Muhammad’s armies conquered Jerusalem and the Middle East, then moved to conquer Africa, then moved east to Asia, and finally went north into Europe.  This was an offensive campaign that was highly successful.  In the 11th Century, and more than two hundred years after Islamic armies conquered the Middle East and spread into Europe, the Christians decided it was time to do something.  This is what we know as the “Crusades,” though this term is a recent one, and those involved knew nothing of the term “Crusade.”  Rallied together by the Pope, Christians attempted a recovery of the Heartland of Christianity.  They also attempted to repel the irredentist forces of Islam from recovery.  The Crusades represent an important moment in Christian history.  This was a fight to recover the holy city of Christianity and also because this fight was literally for the survival of Europe.  To support that claim is Edward Gibbons, certainly no friend to Christianity–he says in his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that had the spread of Islam not been stopped,

“Perhaps the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the Revelation of Mahomet.”

To Muslims however, the Crusades are not important (even when Bin Laden used the term Crusader–it didn’t refer to the Crusades).  Think about it.  They already had their holy sites—Mecca and Medina—and never did the Crusades ever threaten the Heartland of Islam.  If you look at this from the point of view of a Muslim historian, the Crusades were a dubious attempt to hold off Islam from conquering what was theirs to begin with.  This was only a minor disruption that sat on the periphery of the Islamic empire.

This response to Islam was poorly timed, dubious, ill-conceived, and unsuccessful.  But make no mistake; this was a counter against a relentless Muslim assault on Christendom.  The glaring hole in the liberal critique (and there always is one) is the focus on the defensive campaign of the West and the horrors that took place at its hands, and to ignore outright the jihad that prompted the need for a defense in the first place.

Even if you detest the Crusades, there is no good reason for today’s Muslim’s to care.  I think if you look into it, you will find that there is no evidence that they do.

It isn’t pointed out in bold headings in the article, but another one of the underlying gripes that I see is that Muslims are Mad about Colonialism.  I am reminded of liberal scholar Edward Said who basically said that all Muslim rage could be attributed to the ‘fresh wounds’ of Western conquest and subjugation.  He talks about the difficulties of,

“The ravaged colonial people who for centuries endured summary injustice, unending economic oppression, distortion of their social and intimate lives, and a recourseless submission that was the function of unchanging European superiority.”


Interestingly enough, the USA—is the focal point of Muslim aggression (as conveniently pointed bout by the American secular left) despite having virtually NO history of Middle Eastern colonialization.  If Filipinos or American Indians wanted to unleash suicide bombers in New York, this could be legitimately attributed to colonial subjugation—but this is not the case with Muslim countries.  Until President Bush led America into the Middle Easter after 9-11, the USA never occupied a Muslim country.  This was however, not due to a lack of opportunity.  After WWII, we could have easily colonialized the entire Middle East, but we never even gave it a thought.

I think another area that I can read between the lines in the article is that it portrays America as being hated by Muslims because America has Killed Many Muslims.  I think the point should be made that in actuality, Americans have fought alongside Muslims in several recent conflicts.  In the 1970’s, the US supported the Afghan mujahideen and their Arab allies in driving the USSR from Afghanistan.  In 1991, the US formed a coalition of forces that included Muslim countries to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in order to restore sovereignty to its people.  Even with the Clinton presidency, we saw him order bombings and interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia in order to save Muslim lives.

Many Muslims do hold the United States accountable for Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes and for the Israeli shooting of Palestinian stone-throwing youth.  Muslims also deplore the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan—as do liberals in our own country.  Now, granted these deaths are horrible; however, they are small in comparison to the devastation that other invading armies, including Muslim armies, have wrought throughout history on the Muslim people to the present day.

More recently however, would be the Iran-Iraq war.  This conflict has produced unbelievable horrors and casualty lists.  Over an 8 year period, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Muslims were killed.  Islamic radicals KNOW this, which is why you cannot find in their literature the kind of indignation over Americans killing of Muslim civilians that one routinely sees on our liberal television shows, magazines, and websites.

On another subject, the article makes the Islamic empire to seem as if they played a great role in the development of science, mathematics, and the academy.  In fact the article plainly states,

“Science and math as we know it wouldn’t even exist without Islam. The Islamic  Golden Age caused a revolution in virtually every field of human thought,  during which they (expletive) invented algebra — and advanced everything from geography and exploration  to the arts, architecture, philosophy, urban development, medicine and health.”

What a bold assertion.  This is interesting because, only once in human history has science been organized and sustained enterprise.  Where did it arise?  The Middle East?  No.  Europe.  The West.  Why did modern science develop here and nowhere else? In his September 12, 2006, speech in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI argued that it was due to Christianity’s emphasis on the importance of reason. The pope argued that reason is a central distinguishing feature of Christianity. While the Regensburg address became controversial because of the pope’s remarks about Islam, on his point about Christianity and reason he was right. An unbiased look at the history of science shows that modern science is an invention of medieval Christianity, and that the greatest breakthroughs in scientific reason have largely been the work of Christians. Even atheist scientists work with Christian assumptions that, due to their ignorance of theology and history, are invisible to them.Before religion as we understand the term, there was animism, which was based on the idea of an enchanted universe. Every river, every tree, and every stone was thought to be populated by spirits. The world was mysterious, capricious, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. Then came the various polytheistic religions, like those of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. Each of these religions posited divine beings—sometimes immortal, sometimes not—who involved themselves in the daily workings of nature, creating storms and earthquakes, turning humans into stags, and so on. Then appeared the great religions of the East, Hinduism and Buddhism, followed by the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Now out of all these different views, only one—Christianity—was built upon reason.  Islam is primarily a religion of law—which says there is a divine lawgiver who issues commands both for nature and humans.  The laws are revealed to man, and they must follow them.  Muslims may debate amongst themselves, but at the end of the day, they are confined to the best way to interpret and apply the written edicts.  Christianity is not like this.  Christianity is based around creed.  It is interested with doctrine, which is a true set of beliefs about man’s relationship to God.

In Christianity, the highest discipline may be theology, while in Islam it is jurisprudence.  The Christian is expected to employ reason in order to understand the ways of God.  This is not so in Islam.   So, how does theology matter here?  Look at the church father, Augustine.  He had a deep problem, namely that–before today there was a yesterday, and before yesterday, there was a day before yesterday, and so on.  How could this be true?  Does a series of yesterdays extend infinitely into the past?  If it does, how could God have created a universe that has always existed?  If not, there must have been a beginning, but what had been going on before that?  If the universe was created by this all-powerful God, what was God doing before he created?  His answer?—God created time along with the universe.  In other words, “before” there was a universe, there was no time.  He was making a bold claim; however, today we know from modern physics, cosmology, and astronomy that he was right.  Time is a property of our universe, and it came into existence with the universe itself.  How did he come to find this?  By edict?  No.  He found it through reason.  CS Lewis says it this way, “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”   Christianity brought forth the rise of modern science.  A final example from science: one of the first tasks given to man by God in the Bible is taxonomy.  We know this as the science of naming and categorizing.  This was not dictated by Allah.

Another point worth raising about Christianity and its influence on science is this:  It is the idea of a superrational God that allows us to work with the presuppositions that we use in modern science.  I stated this above in regard to atheism–yet it is important to note here as well.  Science works off of a tripod of faith-based presuppositions; namely, that our universe is rational, that our universe obeys laws, and that our mind corresponds with reality and nature.  There are no REASONS for these three accepted tenants of science.  They are just accepted.  They cannot be proven in a lab–yet they must be accepted before science can be engaged in.  Where did this come from?  Answer–Christianity.  How is this in contrast with Islamic science?  Well the philosopher of science Al-Ghazali stated that it is absurd to imagine that an electron obeys a law, or that a proton acts a certain way.  He posits that the universe exists in Allah’s mind–and every action that happens from the action of a quark to the gravitational pull of the earth affecting a falling rock–is the will of Allah.

Another point worth mentioning is that the vast list of scientists in the 19th and 20th century are composed of–well–many Christians.  Where is the Islam Kepler, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, or even Pascal?

The article asserts that mathematics were created by Muslims.  The source?  Wikipedia.  This is fallacious and embarrassing.  It is clear that arithmetic evolved from the Babylonian Empire and also from early Egyptians.  Even algebra was refined in a way by Arabic people, but certainly not created.  This is absurd.  To assert otherwise is foolish.  What about the arts?  Has Islam influenced it?  Lets look at music.  Now, this is misleading, as is the entire argument–  Yes, the arts did develop in Muslim countries–but that is only the Arts in THOSE countries.  What did the early musicians in Perisa do to influence J.S. Bach?  How are Verdi’s operas influenced by the Quran?  I think this is a poorly constructed argument.  When is the last time you bought tickets to hear one of the great keyboard sonatas by one of Islam’s great composers–or a setting of the Mass by one of their own?

Muslims have contributed to history; however, to assert that they have influenced all of Western culture as this article seems to imply is tomfoolery.

I would link to the article but it is poorly written, and has even less consideration for its readers with its use of profanities.