Debate: Science and religion, do they mix?

[al-fateh]

Science and religion, do they mix?

why is that everytime we hear different people saying that they do mix, and some say they dont. Religion and science can never be one

i on the other hand see a great relation between science and religion and work together in harmony be proving eachothers point of view.

what are the thoughts?

[x Maz x]

No they mereley compliment eachother, they work side by side like Rod and Bob...
I would reccomend for all those who think otherwise to pick up a copy of Naiks debate Science Vs Religion InshAllah :)
Peace x

[root]

Personally I think religion and science don't mix. The reason for this is the way that science obtains it's knowledge and how religion obtains it's knowledge.

Who will deny that whenever a scientific discovery is made, the Koran and the thousands of available hadiths are scrutinized with a fine tooth comb looking for any direct or indirect relavence to the discovery, once found they are free to manipulate this to suit their own interpretation then claim it as a miracle or devine knowledge:? . we can do this with Nostradumus as well as the Koran and the bible. What a sham and a farce.

Finally, can anyone show me a scientific theory where the reference for data is in scripture.:heated:

[Woodrow]

Truth is Truth no matter how it is presented. The only problem I see is that the criteria for poof will sometimes differ. It is far easier to validate Scientific proof with Qur'anic references then it is to validate Qur'anic truths using Scientific methods, as many times the tools for measurement do not exist as of yet.

The 2 can validate each-other but they are not the same.

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

[wilberhum]

Religion mixes with science like oil mixes with water. One is based on faith the other on facts. Both are good but mixed together they destroy each other’s value.

[HeiGou]

Truth is Truth no matter how it is presented. The only problem I see is that the criteria for poof will sometimes differ. It is far easier to validate Scientific proof with Qur'anic references then it is to validate Qur'anic truths using Scientific methods, as many times the tools for measurement do not exist as of yet.

Actually easiest of all is to negate scientific proof with Scriptural references and God knows this has been done a lot. So if a scientist says "Evolution" or "Orbit the Sun", a pious person can turn to the Torah/Gospel/Quran/Book of Mormon and say "Your science is not right because this is what God said".

Science and Religion can mix. But science can only exist in a tolerant world and religion can only thrive on certainty. So they can't mix for long. One has to give.

[wilberhum]

Australian aboriginals believe that the valleys were created by a giant snake. Does that count? Or is it only your religion that counts?

[thepotatomasher]

Now basically science is the study of truth, in the sense of what we can physically see and touch and observe, what doors our senses open to us in order to delve into it deeper. e.g. Does the microscope not take our eyes to see it?

its to see the small subcomponents of every creation, to understand what it is and that it is.

But there happens to be alot that science simpily can't prove, this is where religion fills the gaps. The reason anyone ever found god was a result of thinking. "I wonder why that beautiful flower is. I can see that it is. But why is it?" Thus the great revalation, it cannot have created itself, therefore designed by god.

Science and religion CAN co-exist, but a large deal of scientific evidence clashes with doctrine, making it a difficult existance

[Woodrow]

Actually easiest of all is to negate scientific proof with Scriptural references and God knows this has been done a lot. So if a scientist says "Evolution" or "Orbit the Sun", a pious person can turn to the Torah/Gospel/Quran/Book of Mormon and say "Your science is not right because this is what God said".

Science and Religion can mix. But science can only exist in a tolerant world and religion can only thrive on certainty. So they can't mix for long. One has to give.

Religion can only prove the truth of scientific statements if they are true. It can not disprove falsehoods. Can only state reasons why they are believed to be false.

Problem, is that a negative can not be proven. In religion something that is "proven" negative is actually a matter of faith based on belief. It would only be universaly acceptable proof if all people were of the same belief and interpreted the belief in the same manner.

In the scientific sense a person doubting a statement is not responsible to prove a statement is false, it is the responsibility or the person who makes a statement, to prove the statement is true.

I can say that you are harboring a fugitive, giant, purple, live elephant in your refrigerator at this moment. There is no statement or validation you can show to prove that is a false statement. You can offer evidence as to why you are not harboring a purple elephant in your refrigerator, but you can not disprove the statement. It is my responsibility to prove the statement, not your responsibility to disprove it.

[sharvy]

Science and religion, do they mix?

why is that everytime we hear different people saying that they do mix, and some say they dont. Religion and science can never be one

i on the other hand see a great relation between science and religion and work together in harmony be proving each others point of view.

what are the thoughts?

:sl:
Hi Al-Fateh,

For what it is worth, there does seem to be a conflict between the consensus opinion of science and what the Qur'an and Sunnah says. the Fatwa committee of Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri:
Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

According to consensus science, humans evolved from non-human ancestors, whereas according to the fatwa they did not.

Peace,

Sharvy
:sl:

[HeiGou]

Religion can only prove the truth of scientific statements if they are true. It can not disprove falsehoods. Can only state reasons why they are believed to be false.

Well that is not true or at least only true from the scientific viewpoint of someone trying to reconcile religion with science. If you follow me. In the past religion has been used to prove the truth of scientific statements. It has been used to provide evidence of crimes against scientists. It depends on what sort of truth you think is more important and which "truth" will give way to the other - if science says one thing and religion says another, a religious attitude is to say that the religion is right and the science is wrong. A scientific attitude is to say that the science is right and the religion wrong. An attempt to reconcile the two says "well what religion really says is....."

Problem, is that a negative can not be proven. In religion something that is "proven" negative is actually a matter of faith based on belief. It would only be universaly acceptable proof if all people were of the same belief and interpreted the belief in the same manner.

And never had any doubts.

In the scientific sense a person doubting a statement is not responsible to prove a statement is false, it is the responsibility or the person who makes a statement, to prove the statement is true.

Actually in science it is rare to prove much true, you usually prove things false. Mathematics I'll agree works this way. But other sciences usually a theory or model is put up, if it explains the evidence it is kept, if it is shown to have flaws a better model is searched for.

I can say that you are harboring a fugitive, giant, purple, live elephant in your refrigerator at this moment. There is no statement or validation you can show to prove that is a false statement.

Well you can look in the fridge surely?

[sharvy]

Actually in science it is rare to prove much true, you usually prove things false. Mathematics I'll agree works this way. But other sciences usually a theory or model is put up, if it explains the evidence it is kept, if it is shown to have flaws a better model is searched for.

:sl:
Hi HeiGou,

While many working scientists do in fact use the word "prove" and "proof", most contemporary philosophers of science avoid this language. We prefer to use the terms "confirm" and "disconfirm", where "confirm" means to gather or obtain evidence which raises the probability of a hypothesis (never absolute certainty), and "disconfirm" means to gather evidence that lowers its probability (without rendering it impossible). The concept of "proof" is essentially mathematical, relating to deductive logic, and dates back to Aristotle, when the paradigm of justified belief was a valid deductive argument, or a mathematical "proof", in which the truth of the conclusion followed by necessity from the truth of the premises and axioms. Science essentially uses inductive, not deductive, logic – the truth of a scientific claim is never "proved" or disproved with deductive certainty but only with a degree of probability in relation to the strength of the premises, observation, or evidence. So, science cannot "prove" with anything like deductive or mathematical certainty that the earth is not a flat disk. After all photos can be faked, minds can be tampered with and influenced. No matter what evidence that a scientist puts forth to claim that the earth is not flat, there is a member of the flat earth society that would find a compatible hypothesis to explain away the contrary evidence. And the flat-earthers are right! Science can't "prove" the earth is flat, but it's a mistake to play the "proof" game to begin with. What science can do is to systematically bring overwhelming evidence to bear on the claim that the earth is flat, and render the claim highly improbable with no good reason to believe or bet on its truth.

So I would put the point more strongly: science doesn't "prove", in any deductive sense, either positive or negative claims. The most any single experiment can do is disconfirm a hypothesis and make it's truth more unlikely, not in anyway establish falsehood with certainty. If I drop a cannonball tomorrow from the Tower of Pisa, having carefully weighed it beforehand and having established the cannonball is real, and the cannonball floats up, I have not absolutely falsified the existence of gravity or some law of physics. And we would never accept any such single demonstration to have established that: I can always be the victim of some elaborate hoax for example.

And while I agree that science is constantly dealing with theories and explanatory models - a newer one often replacing the former based on new evidence - we must not forgot the connection between choosing one model over another, based on strong confirmatory evidence, and probable truth. The better confirmed one theory is over another, the more probably true that theory is, and is therefore a better bet for managing and spending time, money, and resources. Without probable truth in the picture, there is no cogent explanation as to why science is useful, or why one explanation is better or more useful than another.

Peace,

Sharvy
:sl: