It's interesting that one of the biggest/most famous examples of condemnation for anti-Christian belief/teaching was Galileo's imprisonment in the 1630s, but things like teaching philosophy in a non-religious context was present in the 1260s and 1270s. I wonder how this new teaching was received by the public--if it was shunned, accepted to the point where it was the actual cause of a rapid spread, or if it was merely tolerated. It would be interesting to read about more of these philosophical teachers and how they were perceived by the public eye.

I knew from the lectures that the works of Aristotle were translated from Greek to Arabic to Latin, but I didn't know that this change happened within a few decades. It's incredible to think about how the "scientific revolution" wasn't called that just because of how much progress was made, but also because of how rapidly it happened. My question is if the "decades" of Aristotle being translated was hindered or helped in any way by the society in which it was being presented. I wonder if Christians reacted it to it differently if it would have taken more or less time to translate and assimilate the works.

By "revealed truth," does that mean things like divine revelation? It makes sense that Greek science and natural philosophy being derived from reason would be a serious threat to something like divine revelation, where information is described to be given by God or interpreted through some sort of heavenly connection. Reason isn't just another way of thinking in this context, but its a method of disproving and discrediting revealed truth.

I wonder what would have happened if the printing press was more widely utilized in Islam, if things like geography, cartography, physics, and astronomy were more accessible to people who were not in secular and/or state power. An increased volume of literary works regarding these subjects might make them seem less like foreign sciences and more like achievable subjects of study.

I wonder that if these cultures had limited/no interaction with one another, would they each have developed/had a scientific revolution of their own? And if so, how long would it have taken? The mixtures of perspectives and worldviews of these different cultures gave way to various interpretations and more progressive thought, kind of like how a group of engineers who were working on a bridge would make more progress working as a group rather than singularly. How much different would the world be today if the Scientific Revolution was not given this catalyst of intercultural exchange?

I haven't figured out how to highlight the text yet so I'll quote the text for now. Page 1: "It was Greco-Islamic-Latin science and natural philosophy that unquestionably set the stage for the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, which would otherwise have been impossible."

I wonder that if these cultures had limited/no interaction with one another, would they each have developed/had a scientific revolution of their own? And if so, how long would it have taken? The mixtures of perspectives and worldviews of these different cultures gave way to various interpretations and more progressive thought, kind of like how a group of engineers who were working on a bridge would make more progress working as a group rather than singularly. How much different would the world be today if the Scientific Revolution was not given this catalyst of intercultural exchange?