Note about the graph: No doubt some will argue about the starting and ending dates of the various periods and yes, the Eqyptian, Greek and Roman periods overlap, but the intent of the graph aims to show an approximate relationship through time. The scale of scientific advancements show no numbers because we have no numbers to go by. The graph shows a relative scale of scientific advancement compared to other periods. Historians, for example, would agree that the Romans in the first few centuries CE had more knowlege about nature (science) than the Greeks of 400 BCE, and that the Age of Enlightenment built on the scientifc discoveries made during the Renaissance. Feel free to adjust the scale to your liking, but regarless of how you adjust the graph, it will do little to change the fact that scientific knowlenge (or the loss of it) fell dramatically during the Christian Dark Ages.

I agree that the graph is fuzzy, but as a general conversation-sparker, it gets the point across.

1) “Scientific Advancement” is a pretty vague concept for a y-axis; the fact that said axis is unnumbered makes it seem arbitrary to me. Using an arbitrary graph in support of science feels wrong somehow.

2) It ignores the contributions that Muslim nations made to the progress of science. Consider words like “algorithm” and “algebra”, and star names like Altair, Rigel, and Fomalhaut — all words that came to us from Arabic.

“Moralist” captures it best — a moralist is one who make moral proclamations and judgments, frequently directed toward others. Moralists may reason, but it isn’t a necessary condition. So I’d say the moralist umbrella covers both moral philosophers and faith leaders.

Perhaps, I’m guilty of using “philosopher” in too much of a layperson sense. Would “moral thinker” be better?

?

A moralist does not a moral philosopher make. Moral philosophy requires a commitment to reason, which priests, imams, shamans, and others of their ilk, by definition, lack.