Science V Religion does it have to be this way

[3rddec]

I find it infuriating how every scientific advance is immediately jumped on by the Anti God brigade and I don't mean honest athiests because they can understand why a belief in God is as valid as their own. They just can't understand many religios peoples inability to understand their logical choice.

But back to my original thought; why does their have to be conflict between Science and Religion surely they are just exploring the Universe from opposite perspectives. Religion starts with God and leads to his creation whereas Science starts at his Creation and leads to God even if some scientists think otherwise.

Lets have some scientist come on and say I'm a scientist and I love God and dispell this myth that science and religion don't mix.

this video could be a good catalyst to discussion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/li...wking-m-theory

Love and Respect

[Fivesolas]

I am not a scientist. But there are plenty of scientists who are not atheists. The broader heading for this subject is epistomology. How do we know what we know? All knowledge is not emperical. And because some knowledge is not emperical, does not automatically mean it is untrue or untrustworthy. Some knowledge cannot be known apart from Divine Revelation. You might be famililar with the concepts of general and special revelation in Christian theology.

With regard to present or past scientific knowledge, we know that science has been wrong in the past. This does not render it useless of course, but when certain theories are accepted as supported, but do conflict with Divine Revelation, it is not ignorance but wisdom that gives us pause to adopt that which is contradictory. What those within the Christian faith have done is conduct their own research based on different presuppositions. This should be looked at as healthy and good, and not with disdain as it often is.

This is clearly evident in the on-going debate between Creationist and Atheistic/Theistic Evolutionists. Those arguing against the Creationist view are usually dismissive rather than open their research and findings. And I don't see in Creation Science the attitude of anti-science. They simply disagree with the others.

[Little_Lion]

The greatest issue I see in the Science Vs. Religion debate is when either side tosses out the scientific method in favor of supporting their view. Sadly, I must say I see this more from a religious standpoint than others (and not just in things like Creationism, it's RAMPANT in Archaeology, which is what I am studying to move into). And the scientific method does not allow for presuppositions. :/ Any time a belief is used as a starting point, it introduces bias into the findings.

[CosmicPathos]

The greatest issue I see in the Science Vs. Religion debate is when either side tosses out the scientific method in favor of supporting their view. Sadly, I must say I see this more from a religious standpoint than others (and not just in things like Creationism, it's RAMPANT in Archaeology, which is what I am studying to move into). And the scientific method does not allow for presuppositions. :/ Any time a belief is used as a starting point, it introduces bias into the findings.

every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

every scientist has a belief that his experiment will be right before he/she starts the experiments.

dont you think such beliefs can introduce biases and its only religious belief that is so blameworthy?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Little_Lion]

every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

every scientist has a belief that his experiment will be right before he/she starts the experiments.

dont you think such beliefs can introduce biases and its only religious belief that is so blameworthy?

I never said that only religious belief was blameworthy, I did say it happens on either side. The major difference is that when subjected to peer review and experimentation by other scientists, the results must be repeatable and consistent within an acceptable range. This does a great deal to eliminate bias and narrow down the margin for error (and if it's one thing it seems that scientists love to do, it's point fingers. XD ), as biased findings often do not stand up to repeatable experimentation. Religiously based or not, they are shown to not work.

[Pygoscelis]

Science and Religion will be at odds so long as Religion continues to make claims about the physical world. Such claims can be investigated by science and Religion can stand in the way, so there will be conflict.

They are opposite in direction, science bottom up and religion top down, but they are also opposite in approach, science being investigation and religion being revelation. Religion is authority driven and science in method driven. They will often conflict.

[Pygoscelis]

every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

This is true. But the big difference here is that in Science these biases and assumptions ("Faith" if you will) are to be kept to a minimum, whereas in religion they are amplified and rendered holy.

A little "faith" may be necessary with scientists, such as faith in their own senses and measuring equipment, but this "faith" is a necessary flaw, not a virtue.

[Little_Lion]

And scientific biases are shown to be incorrect all the time; thus, scientists continue experimentation and research and learning. Many of the things Einstein taught, for example, are now under major, major review, because we've learned so much since his time.

*grumbles* The big one that I really wish scientists would stop spouting as "fact" is the age and size of the universe. You can bash them over the head with a mallet screaming in their ear "you cannot state such things as fact when measured from a single point! You can only make a valid conclusion when measured from multiple points, which we cannot do yet, so stop saying you're right!" all you want and it's in one ear and out the other. GRRRR! :lol:

[marwen]

IMO, there should not be a "RELIGION" VS "SCIENCE" comparaison, as if we have two interchangeable systems of living. Science cannot substitute religion, neither religion could exclude science. If there is contradiction between the two, that's because we should have a better understanding of our religion or we should revise some of our scientific theories; but we can't say that the totality of our science is incorrect, or that one cannot be religious in order to be a scientist.

I think a perfect human should have an interest in science and also should have a religious doctrine.

With a clear and coherent religion, we can have a wider understanding of science, and with a scientific knowledge we can understand more our religious texts and concepts.

[CosmicPathos]

I never said that only religious belief was blameworthy, I did say it happens on either side. The major difference is that when subjected to peer review and experimentation by other scientists, the results must be repeatable and consistent within an acceptable range. This does a great deal to eliminate bias and narrow down the margin for error (and if it's one thing it seems that scientists love to do, it's point fingers. XD ), as biased findings often do not stand up to repeatable experimentation. Religiously based or not, they are shown to not work.

I dont know much biostatistics and biometrics (ill try to master it in summer, outside of school studies) hence I cant comment on narrowing down the margin of error. The fact remains is that no matter how many times an experiment is repeated by different scientists in different parts of the world, new biases are introduced, new confounding factors are induced. Margin of error can be narrowed by repetition under same conditions, but it is never eliminated. Moreover, the uncertainty in the validity of the results always remains, even if its 99% certainty that the results are valid.

[Little_Lion]

I dont know much biostatistics and biometrics (ill try to master it in summer, outside of school studies) hence I cant comment on narrowing down the margin of error. The fact remains is that no matter how many times an experiment is repeated by different scientists in different parts of the world, new biases are introduced, new confounding factors are induced. Margin of error can be narrowed by repetition under same conditions, but it is never eliminated. Moreover, the uncertainty in the validity of the results always remains, even if its 99% certainty that the results are valid.

Quite correct, which is why long-term experimentation by a variety of individuals is necessary. It is a foregone conclusion that any finding in science has a margin of error (a good example of this is the significant figure, which is pretty much universal in science). But that is quite different from say, a chemist saying that they have isolated a new element in a laboratory under X conditions, and no one else can do it given the same conditions.

[Little_Lion]

Anywhoo, back to the original point . . . I do not believe at all that science and religion need to be at odds with one another. I'm proud to call myself both a fledgling scientist and a religious person.

Like I said, I'm hoping to go into archaeology (to be more specific, preservation of archaeological sites and artifacts against environmental damage in the Middle East) when I am done with my schooling. One of my own teachers asked me, "What would you do if you found evidence that the Qur'an had changed? Would this change things for you?" Which you can imagine is a tough question for any Muslim! I answered the best I could, "No, it would not. We believe that the word of Allah is absolute. But believe you me, I would be doing a LOT of research investigating this inconsistency!" We went on to discuss it further, about how to determine if it was an isolated incident (maybe someone made a mistake) or if it was an actual change (did someone later write it wrong and somehow THAT version got copied?) but it came down to the same thing: I'd still think that the error was in Man, not in Allah, and therefore my faith would not be swayed.

So me personally? I think religion and science are not something that needs to be switched for one or the other by any means. They can easily go hand in hand, but it starts with an open mind.

[Lynx]

Hi

Science does not necessarily oppose Religion, but it's naive to think Science and Religion are just 'different perspectives'. Religions make claims about the universe and Science makes claims about the universe; if the two claims contradict, then logically only one can be true.

[CosmicPathos]

Anywhoo, back to the original point . . . I do not believe at all that science and religion need to be at odds with one another. I'm proud to call myself both a fledgling scientist and a religious person.

Like I said, I'm hoping to go into archaeology (to be more specific, preservation of archaeological sites and artifacts against environmental damage in the Middle East) when I am done with my schooling. One of my own teachers asked me, "What would you do if you found evidence that the Qur'an had changed? Would this change things for you?" Which you can imagine is a tough question for any Muslim! I answered the best I could, "No, it would not. We believe that the word of Allah is absolute. But believe you me, I would be doing a LOT of research investigating this inconsistency!" We went on to discuss it further, about how to determine if it was an isolated incident (maybe someone made a mistake) or if it was an actual change (did someone later write it wrong and somehow THAT version got copied?) but it came down to the same thing: I'd still think that the error was in Man, not in Allah, and therefore my faith would not be swayed.

So me personally? I think religion and science are not something that needs to be switched for one or the other by any means. They can easily go hand in hand, but it starts with an open mind.

How could then believe in Allah swt if it was proven through extensive, peer-reviewed scientific research that Quran has been changed? Isnt the concept of Allah swt we believe in derived from the Quran itself? If Quran has changed, it means the very concept of Allah swt, which was derived from the Quran, is wrong. Hence you would be wrong in keeping on believing that it was a man-made error and not in Allah.

[Little_Lion]

How could then believe in Allah swt if it was proven through extensive, peer-reviewed scientific research that Quran has been changed? Isnt the concept of Allah swt we believe in derived from the Quran itself? If Quran has changed, it means the very concept of Allah swt, which was derived from the Quran, is wrong. Hence you would be wrong in keeping on believing that it was a man-made error and not in Allah.

I would have to disagree. Let us say, for example, that the section changed was in reference to . . . Ibrahim, may be be blessed. I find a "different" Qur'an that adds three lines, and says that he went to this village, stayed the night, and spread the word of Allah, for example; lines that are not in the Qur'an on my desk. I see no reason why this would change my faith in Allah? In this case the addition could like I said, be an error of the person writing it, or, we would have to consider, there had been a different version. Yes, that would be HUGE news in the Islamic world! It would go against everything we believe about the Qur'an's history. But by the same respect, it doesn't actually change anything about Allah's message. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Perseveranze]

Muslims were once #1 in Science. They still can be, only contraversial subject like evolution (basically saying we evolved from monkies rather than Created) may be disregarded, everything else is a go as far as you can.

[CosmicPathos]

I would have to disagree. Let us say, for example, that the section changed was in reference to . . . Ibrahim, may be be blessed. I find a "different" Qur'an that adds three lines, and says that he went to this village, stayed the night, and spread the word of Allah, for example; lines that are not in the Qur'an on my desk. I see no reason why this would change my faith in Allah? In this case the addition could like I said, be an error of the person writing it, or, we would have to consider, there had been a different version. Yes, that would be HUGE news in the Islamic world! It would go against everything we believe about the Qur'an's history. But by the same respect, it doesn't actually change anything about Allah's message. Do you see what I'm saying?

yes i do know what you mean. Failure of being able to preserve Quran would jolt the very foundations of Islam, do you know that? It will reduce Islam to crumbles in the minds of those believers who do reflect and ponder.

Allhamdulillah it has not happened in 1500 years. And it wont happen ever.

[Little_Lion]

I sure hope that it would not, and I hope that the faithful would remain faithful, insha'Allah.

[CosmicPathos]

I sure hope that it would not, and I hope that the faithful would remain faithful, insha'Allah.

it has to be more than "i hope so." That means we accept that there is a possibility that Quran will not be preserved in future. It means we do not believe in Allah swt word whole-heartedly, there is still doubt about His existence and Being. Something to think about for you and for me as well.

[Pygoscelis]

Just because the Quran has been changed (assuming for the moment that it has been), that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that Allah does not exist.

[CosmicPathos]

Just because the Quran has been changed (assuming for the moment that it has been), that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that Allah does not exist.

Allah has promised in quran that it wont change. if it does change, it raises questions about existence.

[Pygoscelis]

Or just about that one particular claim attributed to him. It could very well be that Allah does exist but not precisely as muslims see him. Or is the idea that if that were so he'd cease to be considered Allah? 'Would you all stop worshiping him if one detail was shown to be incorrect about him and the truth shown to be that he was slightly different?

[Little_Lion]

*psst* Pygo, be careful of the use of the word "all", because I'm sure we'd "all" answer differently. ;)

mad, IMVHO it would not raise questions about existence, it would raise questions about the ability of Man to follow His Word. But that is only my opinion, and Allah knows best.

[Ali Mujahidin]

Lets have some scientist come on and say I'm a scientist and I love God and dispell this myth that science and religion don't mix.

I have no accreditation as a scientist so I offer these in lieu:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

btw those quotes were from Albert Einstein. Is that what you were looking for?

[Trumble]

Is that what you were looking for?

I suspect not, as Einstein stated he did not believe in a personal God, let alone love Him. Spinoza was a pantheist whose concept of God got him excommunicated (or whatever the Jewish equivalent is). That view is actually pretty common among scientists, though - particularly cosmologists. Read into that what you will.

In my opinion religion and science don't 'mix'. That does not mean scientists cannot be religious, and vast numbers of them are, nor that science and religion cannot co-exist (indeed, I believe it is essential that they do). It doesn't even mean people can't have hours of harmless fun looking out for 'parallels' between passages in whichever scriptures they read and articles in the latest Scientific American, as long as they don't take the exercise too seriously.

There are rarely cases where science and religion appear contradictory, various creation myths and the theory of evolution by natural selection being the most significant exceptions. In those cases, where accomodation cannot be reached, the issues must simply be put aside and both sides be willing to acknowledge there are simply some things one can explain, but not the other - and vice versa. They represent, in effect, totally different epistomological realms. There is no 'versus'; science cannot address the moral and ethical and (if we are honest) many ontological claims of religion, while religion cannot substitute for the scientific method. 'Creation science' is a complete nonsense, no such thing exists except as a label to fool the gullible into believing that somehow religion can 'compete' with science on its own ground. It can't. The irony is that such an idea demonstrates not only ignorance of what science is, but of what religion is as well!

[- Qatada -]

Science is purely neutral, because it only tells HOW the universe around us works.

Then people make their own conclusions as to WHY it works in such a way through religion and philosophy.

[Fivesolas]

I would have to disagree. Let us say, for example, that the section changed was in reference to . . . Ibrahim, may be be blessed. I find a "different" Qur'an that adds three lines, and says that he went to this village, stayed the night, and spread the word of Allah, for example; lines that are not in the Qur'an on my desk. I see no reason why this would change my faith in Allah? In this case the addition could like I said, be an error of the person writing it, or, we would have to consider, there had been a different version. Yes, that would be HUGE news in the Islamic world! It would go against everything we believe about the Qur'an's history. But by the same respect, it doesn't actually change anything about Allah's message. Do you see what I'm saying?

The only thing that would change would be the Islamic apologetic with regard to the preservation of the Qur'an. There would have to be internal contradictions, genuine contradictions, to get you to doubt the message on the basis that the message has changed. But if you have two manuscripts that recite more or less information that is non-contadictory, you don't have a problem with the message. Just a dilemma on which reading is genuine. i.e. the one given to Muhammed.

[Fivesolas]

Science is purely neutral, because it only tells HOW the universe around us works.

Then people make their own conclusions as to WHY it works in such a way through religion and philosophy.

I disagree Qatada. Having been versed in the creation/evolution debate, I can tell you from my study, science is not pure, nor is it neutral.

[Trumble]

I disagree Qatada. Having been versed in the creation/evolution debate, I can tell you from my study, science is not pure, nor is it neutral.

In practice rather than theory, you may well be right about 'pure'! As for 'neutral', it cannot be in this case because as I explained above there simply is no 'creation/evolution debate' in any meaningful scientific context. Such is left for philosophers and theologians.

[Fivesolas]

In practice rather than theory, you may well be right about 'pure'! As for 'neutral', it cannot be in this case because as I explained above there simply is no 'creation/evolution debate' in any meaningful scientific context. Such is left for philosophers and theologians.

See, you have to explain what you mean. The scientific gestapo doesn't allow the scientist to begin unless they begin with naturalistic presuppositions. What these Darwinian Fundamentalists have done is to re-define science to include materialism a priori. For example, consider the following from Richard Lewontin:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

[Verdetequiero]

No. Science is neutral in terms of materialism as well. Scientists use materialism and naturalistic frameworks because they work better than alternatives. If a scientist wants to posit a non materialistic or naturalistic framework that adheres to scientific standards they are free to. Mostly you get creationist or religious scientists who rightly point out flaws in the materialist and naturalist framework but then get hurt when science rejects their appeals to ignorance or their conclusion leaps. Naturalism and materialism are not absolutes, some just needs to create a credible alternative which has mostly failed so far.

[Zafran]

salaam

science isnt Neutral - It all depends whos doing the science - science has and probably always will be restricted to ethical, cultural and religious norms.

peace

[Fivesolas]

No. Science is neutral in terms of materialism as well. Scientists use materialism and naturalistic frameworks because they work better than alternatives. If a scientist wants to posit a non materialistic or naturalistic framework that adheres to scientific standards they are free to. Mostly you get creationist or religious scientists who rightly point out flaws in the materialist and naturalist framework but then get hurt when science rejects their appeals to ignorance or their conclusion leaps. Naturalism and materialism are not absolutes, some just needs to create a credible alternative which has mostly failed so far.

This is what happens when you don't know the facts. This statement is patently false and can't be subtantiated. In fact, there would be no science if it were not for those who believe in God, a God of order, and sought out knowledge in what was made. Here are some of the folks and discoveries from scientists who believed in God:

Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister, 1827-1912.
Bacteriology, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.
Calculus, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.
Celestial Mechanics, Johann Kepler, 1571-1639.
Chemistry, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.
Comparative Anatomy, George Cuvier, 1769-1832.
Computer Science, Charles Babbage, 1792-1871.
Dimensional Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.
Dynamics, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.
Electrodynamics, James Clarm Maxwell, 1831-1879.
Electromagnetics, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.
Electronics, Ambrose Fleming, 1849-1945.
Energetics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.
Entomologyof Living Insects, Henri Fabre, 1823-1915.
Field Theory, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.
Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes, 1819-1903.
Galactic Astronomy, William Herschel, 1738-1822.
Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.
Genetics, Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884.
Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.
Gynecology, James Simpson, 1811-1870.
Hydraulics, Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519.
Hydrography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.
Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662.
Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.
Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsay, 1852-1916.
Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.
Natural History, John Ray, 1627-1705.
Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernhard Riemann, 1826-1866.
Oceanography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.
Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster, 1781-1868.
Paleontology, John Woodward, 1665-1728.
Pathology, Rudolph Virchow, 1821-1902.
Physical Astronomy, Johann Kepler, 1571-1630.
Reversible Thermodynamics, James Clark Maxwell, 1831-1879.
Stratigraphy, Nicholas Steno, 1631-1686.
Systemic Biology, Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778.
Thermodynamics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.
Thermokinetics, Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829.
Vertebrate Paleontology, Georges Cuvier, 1769-1832.

[Pygoscelis]

salaam

science isnt Neutral - It all depends whos doing the science - science has and probably always will be restricted to ethical, cultural and religious norms.

peace

Lets try not to confuse science itself with the scientists that try to adhere to it. Science is a method. It is neutral. Scientists are biased and will contrain what science they do based on what you say, and they will also stray from the scientific method from time to time and misreport etc. That is not a flaw of science. That is a flaw of humanity.

[Verdetequiero]

This is what happens when you don't know the facts. This statement is patently false and can't be subtantiated. In fact, there would be no science if it were not for those who believe in God, a God of order, and sought out knowledge in what was made. Here are some of the folks and discoveries from scientists who believed in God:
<snip>

For the life of me I can't figure out what this has to do with my post in any way. I am assuming that you think that somehow there were people who believed in God who invented things and then.... I don't know. That there were and are people who believe in God and are scientists isn't even in dispute.

[Perseveranze]

Hi

Science does not necessarily oppose Religion, but it's naive to think Science and Religion are just 'different perspectives'. Religions make claims about the universe and Science makes claims about the universe; if the two claims contradict, then logically only one can be true.

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

[Zafran]

Lets try not to confuse science itself with the scientists that try to adhere to it. Science is a method. It is neutral. Scientists are biased and will contrain what science they do based on what you say, and they will also stray from the scientific method from time to time and misreport etc. That is not a flaw of science. That is a flaw of humanity.

There is no science without scientists.

Some things that are in the realm of science are Controversial - For example lets say if scientists would test people from different races and find that some races were smarter then other races - that would be seen as racist in many socities - same thing about gender and sexuality.

Furthermore the same thing could be said about Nukes and weapons testing, clones etc etc.

These have been and probabaly always will be controversial and will have ethical, cultural and religious norms restricting there research.

[Verdetequiero]

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

The mainstream answer is, of course, no one knows as there is very little to no data on it.

[Trumble]

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang.

Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

Why should those particular claims be taken account of? There is no reason to even assume they are true, let alone any proof that they are. Not to mention that if there is a God, then logically both of those claims cannot be true.

[moonseo]

So I hear about a debate between Bill O’Reilly and some atheist the other day. I was going to post the video, but it is a mind-numbingly stupid conversation all around. So anyway, the part that got a lot of people’s attention was O’Reilly’s assertion that since the tide goes in and then goes out and that no one (in his mind) could explain it, that was proof that God exists. Um, no Bill, things that you do not understand is not proof of God’s existence (though if it were, the proof of God’s existence would be overwhelming!). Bill seems to have gone to the Kirk Cameron school of religious logic.

But hearing about this did remind me of something that I’ve always wondered. Why is religion a threat to science and why is science a threat to religion in some people’s minds? Why can’t there be evolution AND a God? Why can’t there be a Big Bang AND something bigger than ourselves? OK, just because I can’t explain something does not prove the existence of God. But I would also argue that just because I can explain something does not prove the lack of existence of God. It is called faith for a reason, I don’t see a need for either side to try to apply the scientific method to it for definitive proof one way or the other.

If anyone has a theory about why some scientists and some religious folks feel the need to be at odds with each other, I would love to hear it. And while we are on the subject of trying to find answers for things I don’t understand, can anyone explain to me why the heck Two And A Half Men is America’s number one comedy? I mean, it can’t be because people actually enjoy this show, can it? Could it be that by just random chance, Two And A Half Men just happens to be on the tube in Nielsen households as they are attending to other things like washing dishes, doing laundry, watching paint dry……? Because really, I’m leaning toward believing that this is undeniable proof of the existence of Satan!

Quran Tutor:
we are providing Online Quran Reading we have qualified Quran Tutor and we are providing Best services in the World. teachingquran.com

[Little_Lion]

Personal theory on the Big Bang: didn't happen. I DO think there are Little Bangs that are generated by supermassive black holes that in essence recreate the region of the universe around them. Why? Because that is what Allah intended.

I don't think there has to be any separation either. I know the very vast majority of Muslims would disagree with me, but I fully believe in evolution (though I think there is some big flaws in the way it is generally understood by most people). There is no scientific explanation for the "spark of life", consciousness, and everything else that comes with the start of life, and while I fully believe we should keep researching it, the anthropological evidence of "faith" - that we were created, believed by the vast majority of humans since recorded history and never definitively disproved - should be at least considered as part of the equation.

(And because I know people will jump down my throat, and demand an explanation of "how can you be a Muslim and accept evolution", I believe that Allah DID create us in His form, but that for His own reasons, it took us a while to get there, as did some of His other creations take time to take their current form, and some He decided weren't working out, like saurians. We didn't evolve "from monkeys"; we evolved from our own creature of His design into today's humans, monkeys from their own creature evolved into monkeys, and dinosaurs evolved into theme park rides and top-grossing feature films.)

[Insecured soul]

Science and Religion will be at odds so long as Religion continues to make claims about the physical world. Such claims can be investigated by science and Religion can stand in the way, so there will be conflict.

They are opposite in direction, science bottom up and religion top down, but they are also opposite in approach, science being investigation and religion being revelation. Religion is authority driven and science in method driven. They will often conflict.

Subhan allah for a muslim its just complete harmony, science is nothing but to understand how allah created everything and his attributes, there is complete universal order in the universe, everything happens for a reason but what are these so called atheist scientist trying to find in the universe anyway? they are no less than a 1400 year old illiterate and ignorant bedioun who denied the existence of allah.

And i can certainly understand science standing in the way of all other man made religions.

[LavaDog]

can anyone explain to me why the heck Two And A Half Men is America’s number one comedy?

lol I have wondered that for a while now. But I believe we have a better chance of understanding cold fusion or dark matter before we can answer that question.

[Verdetequiero]

Subhan allah for a muslim its just complete harmony, science is nothing but to understand how allah created everything and his attributes, there is complete universal order in the universe, everything happens for a reason but what are these so called atheist scientist trying to find in the universe anyway? they are no less than a 1400 year old illiterate and ignorant bedioun who denied the existence of allah.

And i can certainly understand science standing in the way of all other man made religions.

So what is your opinion if, given all known scientific knowledge, the information points away from an Islamic explanation for something, or if there is no scientific knowledge for an Islamic precept should a Muslim accept the scientific weight of evidence and claim that for all intents and purposes that precept can't be established or should they proclaim that such a precept exists even without evidence or even contravening evidence?

[siam]

So what is your opinion if, given all known scientific knowledge, the information points away from an Islamic explanation for something, or if there is no scientific knowledge for an Islamic precept should a Muslim accept the scientific weight of evidence and claim that for all intents and purposes that precept can't be established or should they proclaim that such a precept exists even without evidence or even contravening evidence?

I see no problems at all between science and Islam. All knowledge is from God it does not matter if it is religious knowledge or scientific knowledge---the source is God. If there are differences between the two---it springs from human misunderstandings.--that is, we have misunderstood science or religion.

Natural phenomenon are "signs" (ayah) that point to God. Science takes us part of the way---that is, it explains the wondrous workings of the natural phenomenon---religion takes us the rest of the way in showing us the power of God behind it. I think both types of knowledge work in harmony.

There is no god But God---Science takes care of the "there is no god" part---and Islam shows us the "but God" part. Science keeps us from worshipping the natural phenomenon---and Islam points us to the Divine power that controls the natural phenomenon.....:D