Originally Posted by Zafran
I'm done with the fighting. It has no use.
The argument is about the relation between science and Islam.
according to Bushwack science is the opposite of Islam. They occupie the same "space"...so they can't coexist...where there is Islam, can't be science...just like water and air...where there is water, there cannot be air.
furthermore, Islam is objective, therefore science must be subjective...
Science uses assumptions, therefore it is not the truth...it cannot be trusted...
Science is bad...it is evil...etc.
unfortunately, a lot of people think like this...as if science is the opposite of religion.
it's really not...time and time again I am trying to make that clear...that science and religion have a whole different function...they do not occupie the same space.
I'm going to be a bit technical here...but I'm sure you can follow me.
think of a black box with multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
for the ones who do not know what a black box is:
definition of black box in wikipedia:
"In science, computing, and engineering, a black box
is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics
), without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is "opaque" (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor
, an algorithm
, or the human brain
So, we have this black box...it has multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
We do not know how this box looks like from the inside and how does it work.
we have also a users manual of it which describes what the device can do and how to operate it...but it does not show what is inside the box.
we can read the instruction manual the get some clues of what might be inside the box, or we can choose not to.
so, in order to find out what is inside the black box we can give the box a defined input, measure the output and analyze the results...and this will give us a slight impression of its content.
the outcome of this will lead to a certain conclusion with some possible assumption like:
the input is xxxxx....the output is yyyyy....therefore, there must be a zzzzzz somewhere in it.
This automatically leads to the next step where you test the assumption:
if there is a zzzzzz in it, the output should be aaaaaa if the input is a bbbbbbb
and depending on the measurement of the output, this assumption can be true or false.
either way, with every attempt you learn more and more stuff about the black box, and you get a better impression of what is inside.
but you are never absolutely sure what is inside exactly.
now to show you why I am telling this.
This black box is the analogy for a creature, world, the universe or all creation
the users manual is the Divine revelation.
you never doubt the correctness of the users manual, because it comes from the maker of the black box. you trust it...it does not need any validation....but during your tests on the black box, you see that the outcome matches with what the users manual describes, and therefore that is still a validation of the users manual.
the testing and measuring part is science.
you see, that religion is more focussed on how to use the black box in a proper way.
science focus is pointed towards learning more about the black box how it works, or maybe to find out extra features or extra functions of it.
they do not fullfill the same...but do have a contact area somewhere.
but you can also see that science HAS to make assumptions on a certain level...but it continuously strives to test these assumptions and with each step, the assumptions get smaller and smaller.
I do not know if this was clear enough for everyone...I hope you guys could follow me.