Islam and science?

[Halima]

:sl:

Islam and science..the same theories?

Tell me What do you think.

[Halima]

:sl:

okay. you know how in Islam there is some science in it like how the mountains were formed or how are bodies are made up of different cells ..or the way how are bodies are made up.

Do you think that science--more specifically biology holds the same theories as inscribed in the quran? Or do you think science and islam differ in some ways?

:w:

[chacha_jalebi]

salaam

i think that islam makes science look good :D

like science always produces theories, and theries r jus thins that scientists thin happend, they aint proven, but the Quran mashallah, wherever it mentions somethin it has always been proved right, lemme give a example in surah Rahman it says

"he has set two seas flowin that meet, and there is a barrier upon them so they cant cross each other"

and science has proved that seas do meet, but dont cross over each ova :D

and again in surah rahman it says

"pearls and corals come from the sea"

which is true, and these words were said to RasoolAllah (saw) so so so long ago, mashallah and sciencists jus came up with thins now

like what you got remem all d source of knowelgde is from the Quran, like it came 1st, then all dis science n maths n bla bla came nex, so the stuff said in quran is 100% accurate, n science has theories, so i wud say NO they arent the same, but science has proved some of the stuff, and then i would say yes lol, im confused:playing: lol, but ya get me :D:D:D

[QuranStudy]

I recommend the videos by Zakir Naik if you wish to see the link between Islam and science.

I will post the links under request, if you wihs to see the video for free.

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

[chacha_jalebi]

I recommend the videos by Zakir Naik if you wish to see the link between Islam and science.

I will post the links under request, if you wihs to see the video for free.

yesh that would help berry much :D

[QuranStudy]

Excellent list of videos related to science by Zakir Naik:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...r+Naik+Science

[mlsh27]

I am a huge science person. I believe they can co-exist-however, many Muslims seem to dislike biology, other than medicine.

[lolwatever]

quran seems to approve alot of what science has to say about stuff... which is a miracle in itself considering alot of what Allah says was impossible to discover with the resources back then.. which isn't a surprise because it's Allah who revealed it.

all i can say is... we shouldn't put the Quran on trial in a science court, rather we judge science based on what the Quran has to say. Science evolves and changes over time.. the Quran doesn't. so that's an important fundamental theorem lol.

e.g. we accept the law of conservation of energy because Allah says that we can't create or destroy anything no much how much we try... but we shouldn't approve of what Allah says becasue science comes along 1400 years later and decides to agree...

similarly emperics many years ago seemed to show that the idea of water undercurrents is nonsense (especially to bedoins in the desert), and so was the idea of the sun heading to a point in space and many other things that science only agreed to many many years later... if quran was to be judged on science, the sahabah wouldn't have become Muslims becasue quite simply, they barely understood what Allah exactly meant when he revealed some of those verses (e.g. the verses about relativitistic motion of mountains)

salamz

[Fishman]

:sl:
Sciencists and Islam only disagree on one matter, the origin of man.

Islam doesn't disagree with evolution (regardless of what some ignorant non-scholars like 'Harun Yahya' say), it simply rejects that humans are an evolved species.
:w:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I disagree. Many atheists seem to be anti religious because religions often attack the foundations of the atheist's beliefs, science, logic and critical thinking. .

lol naturally, they disbelieve in God and we believe, cant expect cat and dog to get along but honestly islaam gets along with science (believe it or not) and critical thinking is good because islaam is very logical. Its really long but you can quite easily see many proofs in

www.islamcan.com

if i had you in real life i would have told you myself sir :)

[Pygoscelis]

but honestly islaam gets along with science

I hope this is an upward trend.

Islam * WAS * the centre of learning during Europe's Christian Dark Ages.
Muslims were discovering pretty much everything during that time, as Christians were turning against science and killing heretics (scientists). There's a reason why we use "arabic" numerals today and why Algebra has that name, and why numerous star clusters have islamic names.

Unfortunately Islam fell into a similar funk that Christianity fell into during its dark ages. It became in religious fashion to oppose science and discovery and stick strictly to dogma. And then for a long time not only did Islamic discoveries slow down, they pretty much ground to a halt.

Christianity managed to fight back agaisnt the dogma that kept science down for the centuries of its dark ages. I hope Islam will do / is doing the same.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol what? i just meant that the science in the Quraan only gets vefiried by scientists as the years go past. It doesnt matter much to me what is discovered cause its all created by our lord :)

[Dirk_Deagler]

That link was funny. But theres no proof there at all.

Looking at birds fly and saying "Allah keeps them in the air" IS NOT proof. What keeps them flying? Millions of years of evolution that has sculpted an aerodynamic light weight body structure with a great amount of surface area.

Allah may very well have created the air and the feathers and the complex cellular respiration systems within the bird. But its not proof.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:salamext:

ye i would have replied but this aint the thread


as if something as complicated as aerodynamics can just be prevalent without anyone to control it. :hiding:

btw i see you picked the one which talks about common sense and contemplation but wat about he proof of the feotus or the atmosphere or the shape of the world or the moon reflectin light etc etc etc which have hardcore proof :p

[Dirk_Deagler]

I was replying to a link someone posted. Sorry.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I was replying to a link someone posted. Sorry.

Im sry for making you go off-topic :)

[Dirk_Deagler]

I read the "proof of Allah in our solar system" and that didn't convince me either.

First of all, they offer no proof for any of the claims they make, no explanations or citations. Critical thinkers would not just believe whatever is shown to them (guess thats why we're not religious) JK!

And OF COURSE the conditions we live in are perfectly suited for us. WE EVOLVED IN THEM! Muslims believe in evolution right? Surely you can see the difference between evolving to your environment and having it made for you.

And none of that is proof for a god. Because you can only prove what can be disproved. And god cannot be disproved therefore there is no proof!

[Malaikah]

And OF COURSE the conditions we live in are perfectly suited for us. WE EVOLVED IN THEM! Muslims believe in evolution right? Surely you can see the difference between evolving to your environment and having it made for you

No, the first human was created by God, his name was Adam, I'm sure you are familiar with the story. He was sent to earth as an adult. No room for evolution.

And none of that is proof for a god. Because you can only prove what can be disproved. And god cannot be disproved therefore there is no proof!

Call it what you want but you can not deny that there are signs for people who think.

:)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

btw dirk, recent discoveries lead to a new theory that all mankind came from a single pair, did you know that, but its still a theory (soon to be a fact inshaAllah) to prove that we did indeed come from Adham and Hawaa (peace be upon them).

Peace

[Malaikah]

btw dirk, recent discoveries lead to a new theory that all mankind came from a single pair, did you know that, but its still a theory (soon to be a fact inshaAllah) to prove that we did indeed come from Adham and Hawaa (peace be upon them).

:sl:

Wah?! What happened to the monkeys? :eek:

Can you give a link or something for more info?

[Dirk_Deagler]

Can I get a link to a scientific article explaining that theory please.

[Dirk_Deagler]

It doesn't really make any sense to me. It doesn't seem live Islam gets along with science anymore than Christianity does. But I suppose it depends on the person.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I heard it from Dr.Zakir Naik, im currently searching for an article, please wait :)

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think any muslim could reasonably dispute that the progress of discoveries in the islamic world slowed down dramatically a few hundred years back.

Islam was THE centre of knowledge and discovery during the Christian Dark Ages. Discovery was repressed then by Islam very similarly to how it was repressed by Christianity. Christianity then had the enlightenment and it reformed a little, enough for science to skyrocket again. Islam still hasn't, though from what I read above it may be making progress.

If not for religious supression of "heretics" and opposition to discovery who knows how far along human technology could be by now. Maybe we'd have a colony on mars. Maybe we'd have cured cancer.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I have moved the posts about Islam and science into this thread. Seeing as this discussion has arisen many times before, I was not sure where to move the posts, but this thread seems to be quite similar to the issues brought up (in the 'When friends lose faith' thread) and seems quite "peaceful" as of yet.

Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic!

Thank you.

[Woodrow]

In my view Science does not prove the Qur'an, but many times the Qur'an proves science. There is no contradiction in truth, truth is truth no matter how it is found. It is just that the Qur'an came before modern science and the world is finaly "discovering" what was already revealed.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Regarding the issue of Islam and science, I think an important point is one which addresses the following quote:

Many atheists seem to be anti religious because religions often attack the foundations of the atheist's beliefs, science, logic and critical thinking.

While that is understandable to some degree, it is not understandable in the case of Islam. Islam does not "attack" science, nor does it attack logic or critical thinking. On the contrary, it encourages these things. Focusing on science, it has been debated how much science is actually mentioned in the Qur'an and where such knowledge could have originated, but a key point to note is that Islam does not contradict science.

Unfortunately Islam fell into a similar funk that Christianity fell into during its dark ages. It became in religious fashion to oppose science and discovery and stick strictly to dogma. And then for a long time not only did Islamic discoveries slow down, they pretty much ground to a halt...

Discovery was repressed then by Islam very similarly to how it was repressed by Christianity.

The Islamic golden age did indeed see an unfortunate decline. However, I disagree that such a decline was due to a change in "religious fashion". The religion of Islam has remained the same, and it was precisely the "sticking strictly to this dogma" which was the seed of that civilisation. What has changed, however, is the followers of that faith. The people became disunited and the embellishments of this world caused them to lose sight of the most important thing for their success. So the loss of Islam in the hearts of people brought an end to that era, not a change in the religion itself.

Peace.

[Abdul Fattah]

Islam * WAS * the centre of learning during Europe's Christian Dark Ages. Muslims were discovering pretty much everything during that time, as Christians were turning against science and killing heretics (scientists). There's a reason why we use "arabic" numerals today and why Algebra has that name, and why numerous star clusters have islamic names.

Unfortunately Islam fell into a similar funk that Christianity fell into during its dark ages.

Well it's true that Islam is no longer the center of learning, but I think that's a problem of poverty, not a result falling into a simular funk. Since the colonisation and all the war in the middle east it has become hard for Islam to still be the center of the learning world.

It became in religious fashion to oppose science and discovery and stick strictly to dogma. And then for a long time not only did Islamic discoveries slow down, they pretty much ground to a halt.

I don't know which discoveries Islam slows down or opposes science and discovery? Would you care to illustrate with examples?

[Skillganon]

So what was this topic about?

The Quran is a book of signs not a science book.

[Keltoi]

I think the issue of science and religion boils down to cultural phenomena and not so much religious dogma. Yes, during the Dark Ages science was put on the backburner and religious dogma from the Catholic Church frowned upon scientific discovery. That being said, the Dark Ages began as a result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not Christianity. Culturally, the Dark Ages produced centuries of warfare and feudalism. A similar situation occurred with the Islamic centers of learning, as colonization and warfare put academic and scientific discovery on the backburner. It's not so much a question of dogma, but cultural realities. Of course religion has interfered with science in obvious ways, but the primary reason for scientific decline in societies are cultural and not so much due to religious interference.

[Dirk_Deagler]

I've seen many prominent Muslims attack some of the tenants of modern science.

Dr.Zakir Naik for instance has spoken against evolution. But let me assure you, Evolution is the singular unifying theory of biology. There are literally mountains of evidence for it, and only hypothetical conjecture against it.

There is a definite correlation between religious people and people who don't believe in evolution.

Now, I'm not saying that the theory of evolution has to be correct. But I think its safe to say that the chances of it being disproved are less than the chances of finding out that the universe DOES IN FACT rotate around the earth.

Until you explain this discrepancy between Islam and science I don't see how I'll be able to understand the agreement.

[Goku]

I hope this is an upward trend.

Islam * WAS * the centre of learning during Europe's Christian Dark Ages.
Muslims were discovering pretty much everything during that time, as Christians were turning against science and killing heretics (scientists). There's a reason why we use "arabic" numerals today and why Algebra has that name, and why numerous star clusters have islamic names.

Unfortunately Islam fell into a similar funk that Christianity fell into during its dark ages. It became in religious fashion to oppose science and discovery and stick strictly to dogma. And then for a long time not only did Islamic discoveries slow down, they pretty much ground to a halt.

Christianity managed to fight back agaisnt the dogma that kept science down for the centuries of its dark ages. I hope Islam will do / is doing the same.

Peace Pygoscelis. Thats interesting, I knew about the Islamic golden age but i didnt know they were discovering stars even back then. During Islamic law, Science flourished while during Christian law, science diminished. I really hope the Islamic world can bounce back and excel in the fields of Science once again. Can you give examples of stars that have Islamic names? Thanks.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Dr.Zakir Naik for instance has spoken against evolution.

Has he spoken against all aspects of evolution, or has he spoken against evolution of mankind specifically?

There is a definite correlation between religious people and people who don't believe in evolution.

Perhaps you will be interested to read: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rspective.html

Now, I'm not saying that the theory of evolution has to be correct. But I think its safe to say that the chances of it being disproved are less than the chances of finding out that the universe DOES IN FACT rotate around the earth.

Out of interest, who said the universe rotates around the earth?

Until you explain this discrepancy between Islam and science I don't see how I'll be able to understand the agreement.

Seeing as Islam does not oppose the concept of evolution altogether, we have not yet found a discrepancy.

Regards.

[Pygoscelis]

Out of interest, who said the universe rotates around the earth?

Was around for a long time before being firs codified by Ptolemy, 150 AD in "Almagest", which I believe is arabic for "the greatest" (correct me if I'm wrong about that translation). They believed the movement of the heavens to be the work of the Gods.

This is a trend that we have seen again and again. Religious thought pops up at the limits of our knowledge, when we can't explain something. It is the God of the gaps and it stands in the way of discovery. It is how people give up the search without feeling bad about it.

Newton is another example. Brilliant guy. But even he, at the limit of his intellect/knowledge he invokes religious thought. He explains how the planets keep themselves working (two body force, universal law of gravitation) without any mention of God. But when he gets to third, fourth, and fifth bodies all tugging away at each other it got too complicated for the tools he had at hand (Computers and higher math had not yet come to be) so he invokes God. ANd after doing that people accept its God and nobody tries to answer the question for another 100 years.

The problem with Religion vs Science is that Religion is about revelation and science is about investigation and the two frequently conflict. Religion puts some claims beyond investigation and questioning, and that impedes science.

[Woodrow]

Peace Pygoscelis. Thats interesting, I knew about the Islamic golden age but i didnt know they were discovering stars even back then. During Islamic law, Science flourished while during Christian law, science diminished. I really hope the Islamic world can bounce back and excel in the fields of Science once again. Can you give examples of stars that have Islamic names? Thanks.

Here is a link to 165 of the most common. There are many more but not as well known.

LINK: http://www.icoproject.org/star.html

[Pygoscelis]

I don't know which discoveries Islam slows down or opposes science and discovery? Would you care to illustrate with examples?

The golden arabic age was between approximately 800 and 1100 AD. I can't agree to calling it the golden islamic age, as baghdad at the time was completely open to jews, christians, doubters, eastern people, everybody. Also, many arabics of the time were hostile to religious thought.

I agree that politics and wars and other climatic factors were part of what ended this period, but the influence of religion should not be overlooked.
Look up Imam Hazid Al-Ghazali, who was around between 1058 to 1111, right at the end of this golden age.

My understanding of his writings is not perfect but from what I understand he was a leading thinker of his time and much like aquinas his early writings had him enfactuated with greek discovery and thought which he later turned against in favour of religious dogma.

He declared that discovery must have a purpose and must line up with revalation from Islam. He was openly hostile to physics and mathematics, declaring it the work of the devil. He refused to consider that fire, for example could burn things, and instead opted for the religous explanation that God was doing it and the fire was just what we see.

He was a leading mind of the time (was pro-science within a religious setting) and when HE turned religion to be anti-investigation many others did likewise and stopped investigating.

More recently you've got Dirk's example re evolution, where religious folk won't accept the idea even though the evidence is so strong. And it isn't like many of them investigate it and find it wanting, they refuse to even consider it because they perceive a conflict between it and their religion. They only know of it the misunderstandings spoon fed to them by religious leaders. Many of them will flatly tell you that evolution says we came from monkeys.

Another example of religion standing against science in the modern world is stem cell research. Christians over here forbid scientists from researching on stem cells (we're not talking about living breathing fetuses here, just cells). They have actually placed the imagined interest of these cells over the intersts of living breathing people who will die because this research is impeded and new treatments will be delayed or not found at all.

[Goku]

Here is a link to 165 of the most common. There are many more but not as well known.

LINK: http://www.icoproject.org/star.html

Salam

Jazak Allah Khair, very nice. Alhumdulillah. Did the Muslims invent the telescope?

:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Salam

Jazak Allah Khair, very nice. Alhumdulillah. Did the Muslims invent the telescope?

:w:

Don't think so. Not sure. I'm pretty sure these star clusters were named without the aid of telescopes. Could be wrong about that though.

[Woodrow]

No the telescope was invented by Galaleo (However, you spell his name). However The Arabic Countries are probably the best viewing areas for naked eye viewing. The extremely dry air and the cold night (Yes, the nights can be quite cold) minimise light diffraction and scattering making extremely dim and distant stars to be visible with the naked eye and even tho they can not be seen in most of the rest of the world. A good example is the star cluster Pleides also called the 7 sisters throughout much of the world. Typical from any observation point the naked eye observer will see 7 stars. However, most of the Arabs were able to see at least 15 there are some reports of some early astronomers in the region seeing over 30. We now know with telescopic observation that the cluster consists of thousands of stars, most not visible to the naked eye.

[Dirk_Deagler]

No one really knows who invented the telescope. Although Galileo was the first person to have used it to observe the heavens and to record such data and have it popularized.

[Dirk_Deagler]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

[Woodrow]

No one really knows who invented the telescope. Although Galileo was the first person to have used it to observe the heavens and to record such data and have it popularized.

True, however it is safe to say he is the one who is most often credited as having invented it in the modern western world. It is known that several earlier civilizations had eyeglasses so the technology was there for it to have been invented by several different people at different times.

[Woodrow]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

Darwin's theory of Evolution is the most misunderstood theory that I have ever seen. Darwin never made any claims of discovering evolution. In Darwins time it was already accepted that evolution occured. Darwins theory was the "Theory of Natural Selection" in which he proposed an explanation as to how evolution occured. Yes, if it can be proven that Humans never changed, then that would dismiss Darwin's theory of natural selection and would mean that changes in other organisims is the result of some other factor either seperate from or in addition to natural selection.

[Abdul Fattah]

The golden arabic age was between approximately 800 and 1100 AD. I can't agree to calling it the golden islamic age, as baghdad at the time was completely open to jews, christians, doubters, eastern people, everybody. Also, many arabics of the time were hostile to religious thought.

I agree that politics and wars and other climatic factors were part of what ended this period, but the influence of religion should not be overlooked.
Look up Imam Hazid Al-Ghazali, who was around between 1058 to 1111, right at the end of this golden age.

I've searched a couple of queries, most of 'm came out blank in the end I found nothing, absolutely nothing, perhaps you could point me in the right direction here? I'm inclined to think this is a standalone case and hardly worth mentioning as an example to back up that sweeping generalisation.

More recently you've got Dirk's example re evolution, where religious folk won't accept the idea even though the evidence is so strong. And it isn't like many of them investigate it and find it wanting, they refuse to even consider it because they perceive a conflict between it and their religion. They only know of it the misunderstandings spoon fed to them by religious leaders. Many of them will flatly tell you that evolution says we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a whole topic on it's own altoghether I personally don't buy the theory, but I don't buy it because it's full of flaws and at the very least needs tons of modification before I can accept it, but if I would except it that would have no raifications for my belief, evolution theory can easely be "fused" with religion into some kind of intelligent design theory. So it's not like there's a need not to accept the theory. But I'd advise not to get into that here there's already a bunch of evolutionthreads here so lets not make this one another one.

Another example of religion standing against science in the modern world is stem cell research. Christians over here forbid scientists from researching on stem cells (we're not talking about living breathing fetuses here, just cells). They have actually placed the imagined interest of these cells over the intersts of living breathing people who will die because this research is impeded and new treatments will be delayed or not found at all.

Well I don't know what most imams say about stemcell so I wont voice an opinion here. But two interesting things to note here. First of, just because christians are against it doesn't mean Islam is necesairly against it to. Secondly, if certain groups are against it it's a matter of ethics, they do not oppose the theory, they simply think it's unethical. That's a whole difrent thing. In that line of thinking you could say that international treaty's holding back development of nuclear weapons are also dogmaticly holding back scientific advancement. And in a way you'd even be right. But obviously the problem here is noth the advancement or the theory, but simply the ethical question of the aplication of the theory.

[Dirk_Deagler]

They only know of it the misunderstandings spoon fed to them by religious leaders. Many of them will flatly tell you that evolution says we came from monkeys.

Well I don't know what most imams say about stemcell so I wont voice an opinion here.

Notice any patterns here? I think not thinking for yourself is a common theme. This is why I believe people of religion lack the ability to be critical thinkers. It's basically against their religion to do so.

[Pygoscelis]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

In the magical world where Gods exist, ANYTHING is possible, so I don't think this holds true. Evolution could exist and then God could come along and create an unchangeable master species, man.

[Abdul Fattah]

Notice any patterns here? I think not thinking for yourself is a common theme. This is why I believe people of religion lack the ability to be critical thinkers. It's basically against their religion to do so.

I do have my personal opinions and I do think for myself, the reason I didn't voice them here is to avoid the risk of anyone associating my personal opinion to the classical Islamic view, which regarding this issue I am unaware of. Especially here since it's not a matter of linear thinking which can easily be proved. But a matter of ethics and values which is much more trickier.

But that's not really the issue here is it? It's not about stamcell or evolution or anything like that. The problem at hand here is with people considering their own opinion inferior to their religion. Now if people find their religion superior over their own opinion does that mean that religion holds back science? I don't think so. Well first of all it's interesting to note that I'm biased by my belief that my religion is true and therefor holding on to it can only help advancement in science where on the other your biased by the opposite belief and therefor believe that at some point religion is bound to work against science.

But apart from those two views, the Qur'an does tell us to investigate and learn, in numerous verses. So obviously just believing religion is right doesn't mean one can't be critical, ask questions and investigate. So your conclusion is utterly wrong. We are very much allowed to be critical and think for ourselves we are even encouraged to do so. But just because we're encouraged to do so does not mean that I will "preach" the outcome of this personal questioning in this tread. My personal opinion about stemmcell is irrelevant and of topic here. The title is Islam and science, not Steve and science.

The only thing I will agree on is that a religious person will be biased with his religious views when making a conclusion even if he is a critical thinker. However the same could be said from an atheist. An atheist will be just as biased. In sociology we speak of paradigms. A set of ideas and values by which a person is biased. For a religious person it might be his belief and for an atheist it will be his disbelieve, and some other stuff depending from person to person. So in a way I could argue that if that is the level of "criticism" that you are looking for that you won't find it in any human being. The only difference between atheistic paradigms and theistic paradigms is that theistic paradigms will bear greater resemblance to one another whereas the atheistic ones will differ greater because they will be based on different experiences which in their turn will be interpretated differently.

[Abdul Fattah]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

I said it before, lets' not turn, this in another evolution thread, there's plenty of those, but I would quickly like to post out that there is macro and micro-evolution and then there's common descent. Three different theories which all are grouped together under evolution. Now the correctness of micro evolution for example tells us nothing about the correctness of macro evolution, and the correctness of macro evolution would tell us nothing about the correctness of common descent. So it is nothing like a ball of wax, it's all slices of uncompleted theories hanging together with strings.

[Dirk_Deagler]

ow the correctness of micro evolution for example tells us nothing about the correctness of macro evolution, and the correctness of macro evolution would tell us nothing about the correctness of common descent. So it is nothing like a ball of wax, it's all slices of uncompleted theories hanging together with strings.

That simply isn't true. They all rely on the same common threads. Variation and evolution at ALL levels is due to natural selection and mutation.

And that wasn't just my opinion, Darwin stated that himself while he was still alive.

Scientists have studied the genomes of humans and our closest ancestors, the great apes. They've found (I believe) our genes to be 99% similar. We also have a fairly good fossil record going back to almost the time when great apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Evolution of human beings has clearly taken place.

The idea that God would just come to a 5 billion year old earth take a look at some apes and make a species thats only 1% different is absurd. Its analogous to a fifth grader handing in the same report he did for 4th grade changing only five words.

So obviously just believing religion is right doesn't mean one can't be critical, ask questions and investigate. So your conclusion is utterly wrong.

I guess it depends on your definition of being a critical thinker. When believing a religion where there are definite rights and wrongs, there are bound to be conflicts of interest. For instance, Islam seems to be butting heads with evolution now. You claim that atheists have this same conflict of interest but this simply isn't true.

Atheists, or at least atheists like me, base their thought processes almost completely off of science. Whereas strict religious folks MUST first and foremost base their thought processes on their religion (which oh btw just happens to be the *truth* told in in hundreds of different versions that all absolutely positively must be correct.)

Like I said, I define critical thinking as keeping an open mind, not believing in absolutes, and not being fooled by everyone with a charming demeanor and catchy opinion.

You probably define critical thinking as believing in <insert whatever religious version of truth you were brought up with>

And believe me, thats understandable.

[Dirk_Deagler]

But, I also feel its regrettable!

[Abdul Fattah]

That simply isn't true. They all rely on the same common threads. Variation and evolution at ALL levels is due to natural selection and mutation.

And that wasn't just my opinion, Darwin stated that himself while he was still alive.

Scientists have studied the genomes of humans and our closest ancestors, the great apes. They've found (I believe) our genes to be 99% similar. We also have a fairly good fossil record going back to almost the time when great apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Evolution of human beings has clearly taken place.

The idea that God would just come to a 5 billion year old earth take a look at some apes and make a species thats only 1% different is absurd. Its analogous to a fifth grader handing in the same report he did for 4th grade changing only five words.

Really, you should take this to the evolution treads I won't respond to these specific arguments here.

I guess it depends on your definition of being a critical thinker. When believing a religion where there are definite rights and wrongs, there are bound to be conflicts of interest.

Well that's exactly what I meant with both of us being biased. You believ religion is false therfor it's bound to conflict with science. I believe it's true so it it must go well with science.

You claim that atheists have this same conflict of interest but this simply isn't true. Atheists, or at least atheists like me, base their thought processes almost completely off of science.

Well odd thta you should say so because you relied on belief just a few sentences before. If you only rely on science you wouldn't have said: "religion and science are bound to be in conflict of interest"
You are not basing this on empirical testing are you? No, you voiced an expectation based on your personal belief so you are just as subjective as the rest of us.

Whereas strict religious folks MUST first and foremost base their thought processes on their religion (which oh btw just happens to be the *truth* told in in hundreds of different versions that all absolutely positively must be correct.)

First of all we CHOOSE to follow because we believe, it's not like we believe because we must. As for the hundreds versions; that is not something a scientist would say. A scientist would not judge one religion based on a difrent one. Logic would tell him that just because one religion is false, not all religions are false. A true scientist would either stay agnostic or examin all religions before shooting them down untill he is convinced by one or neither one.

Like I said, I define critical thinking as keeping an open mind, not believing in absolutes, and not being fooled by everyone with a charming demeanor and catchy opinion.

Yes, that is a healthy attitude. I don't like being fooled with charming demeanor and cathy opinions either. And I try to be as open minded as possible. But none of those stop me from believing. In fact it is due to this critical attitude that I came to Islam even though my mother is christian and my father was an atheist, and even though I've been atheistic in the past.

You probably define critical thinking as believing in <insert whatever religious version of truth you were brought up with>

I guess not :)

[Dirk_Deagler]

Well odd thta you should say so because you relied on belief just a few sentences before. If you only rely on science you wouldn't have said: "religion and science are bound to be in conflict of interest"
You are not basing this on empirical testing are you? No, you voiced an expectation based on your personal belief so you are just as subjective as the rest of us.

This isn't a belief, this is the conflicting nature of science and religion. Science bases its data on previous knowledge and always allows for itself to be proven wrong. Religion bases its data on its version of "the truth" and cannot allow itself to be proven wrong.

Because science allows for this possibility and religion does not, conflict is inevitable. This is not a belief, this is a fact. And asking me to do empirical research documenting such various conflicts is a straw man argument. Clearly science and religion have clashed in the past and clearly Islam and science is clashing now over the Theory of Evolution.

You believ religion is false therfor it's bound to conflict with science

Thats where you're wrong. I believe religion's methodology is false. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve something just because a religion said it was true.

A scientist would not judge one religion based on a difrent one. Logic would tell him that just because one religion is false, not all religions are false. A true scientist would either stay agnostic or examin all religions before shooting them down untill he is convinced by one or neither one.

A true scientist would not hold Islam above the hundreds of religions as you do. A true scientist would acknowledge that they can't all be right, and that there's really no good scientific reason to believe that any of them are right.

I'm really beginning to wonder what some of you guys are thinking. Do you really think that one of these days a group of scientists is gonna come along and get a research grant for finding "the one true religion" and actually find it?

Do you really think they're gonna find Adam and Eve test their genetics and find that we all came from them? Science isn't in the business of proving or disproving religion. Science works separately at its own pace independent of religion.

Thats why religion attacks science, as opposed to the other way around, because science has nothing to do with religion!

In fact it is due to this critical attitude that I came to Islam

Well, what can I say? I guess you're just more critical than I am. Maybe if I become as good of a critical thinker as you are then I'll convert too. :okay:

[Abdul Fattah]

This isn't a belief, this is the conflicting nature of science and religion. Science bases its data on previous knowledge and always allows for itself to be proven wrong. Religion bases its data on its version of "the truth" and cannot allow itself to be proven wrong.

true, but IF religion is true then why would you need to be able to prove it wrong. Your argument only works after you assume religion is false. Only then it would be preferable that one can proove it wrong or at least modify. What your doing here isn't being critical it's being prejudgeded.

Because science allows for this possibility and religion does not, conflict is inevitable. This is not a belief, this is a fact.

No, conflict only comes if religion is false, if it is true then it wouldn't have conflict with science at all. So for you to claim that this is an inevetible fact shows just how subjective you are on this matter.

And asking me to do empirical research documenting such various conflicts is a straw man argument. Clearly science and religion have clashed in the past and clearly Islam and science is clashing now over the Theory of Evolution.

As for the past, again, you cannot judge one religion based on the expieriences of other religions. As for evolution, untill we got mechanistics theories evolution is still uncertain. And even if evolution is proven it is perfectly compatible with Islam. We just think it's unlikely. But it isn't directly contradicting Islam so there's really no problem.

Thats where you're wrong. I believe religion's methodology is false. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve something just because a religion said it was true.

Well when you give a religion the benfit of the doubt. Then you have to examin it under the assumption it is correct, otherwise you are running in circles. Once you assumed that it is true your objective with methodology becomes irrelevant.

A true scientist would not hold Islam above the hundreds of religions as you do. A true scientist would acknowledge that they can't all be right, and that there's really no good scientific reason to believe that any of them are right.

How can you say there's no good reason without first profoundly examening it? Again this isn't being critical but being prejudged. That's exactly the opposite of a scientist. A scientist examines and then draws conclusions.

I'm really beginning to wonder what some of you guys are thinking. Do you really think that one of these days a group of scientists is gonna come along and get a research grant for finding "the one true religion" and actually find it?

No I think to many people are stuborn, confused or malevolent for that to happen.

Thats why religion attacks science, as opposed to the other way around, because science has nothing to do with religion!

Islam doesn't attack science either. Islam only questions dodgy theories which are commonly viewed as scientific.

Well, what can I say? I guess you're just more critical than I am. Maybe if I become as good of a critical thinker as you are then I'll convert too. :okay:

Only time can tell :)

[Keltoi]

Religion and science are sort of opposite in one important way. Religions believe they have the truth, science is a search for the truth based on testing and the scientific method. Science changes constantly to adapt to new information. Most religions aren't designed to change with new information. While there are conflicts between Christianity and science in many ways, I'm able to accept the contributions and importance of science alongside the contributions and importance of my faith.

[Dirk_Deagler]

How can you say there's no good reason without first profoundly examening it? Again this isn't being critical but being prejudged. That's exactly the opposite of a scientist. A scientist examines and then draws conclusions.

This argument applies to everything. The truth of the matter is, I'm sure theres a lot of research being done to prove religion_a or religion_b correct. It's not scientific because the goal presents itself before the research.

A scientists goal is to learn, a Muslim's scientist's goal would be to find proof for what he always knew. And this is in no way scientific.

Theres no good reason to research Islam because it can't be disproved, so all efforts to prove it would reveal and original bias. If something can be proved it can be disproved. And even you have to admit that the very nature of God keeps him from being disproved. Because god cannot be disproved hes not even within the realm of science.

No, conflict only comes if religion is false, if it is true then it wouldn't have conflict with science at all. So for you to claim that this is an inevetible fact shows just how subjective you are on this matter.

I've said this before, but I hope now that you listen more carefully to my words. It's not the information that conflicts, it is the methodology. Science allows itself to be augmented or rewritten. Religion does not. It is this methodology that causes religion and science to come into conflict.


I view all religions as being the same. They're all basically -cut to the chase- bs. And often people of religion define people who believe in science as requiring the same faith they do, in an attempt to make science seem no more valid than religion, and while its true that nothing is certain and that a measure of faith is required in all aspects of life, science is not like religion. Science is not a form a truth. Science is a methodology for discovering some degree of truth in an unbiased, empirical and consistent way.

So in short, Religion is an end that has consistently been proven wrong over the years. Science is a means to an end that we are trying to comprehend.

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)

Listen to the holy Quran---the Final Testament
Recitation of Sura Fathiha by Shiekh Saad Al-Ghamdhi of Saudi Arabia
http://www.islamworld.net/fathiha.au


&&&


Amazing Quran

by Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad_Omar) ex-Christian missionary




1 hour 59 minutes

http://www.mydeviant.com/miller/audi...zing_Quran.mp3

[Pygoscelis]

There is a fundamental ideological conflict.

Change in Science is progress.

Change in religion is heresy.

People have been given nobel prizes for debunking theories in science previously thought to be Truth.

People have been put to death for debunking religous claims people previously thought to be, and still do think to be Truth.

Science searches for truth, and knows it will never have perfect truth, always revising and bettering theories.

Faith is the acceptance of a 'truth' without evidence, and the cessation of investigation and revision.

Science is constantly striving to change itself (improve).

Religion is constantly striving to avoid changing (maintain tradition and dogma).

[Pygoscelis]

The problem at hand here is with people considering their own opinion inferior to their religion. Now if people find their religion superior over their own opinion does that mean that religion holds back science?

I believe so. It certainly means holds back free thought. If you accept religious dogma as truth and stop thinking for yourself, shelving your own ideas and opinions in deference to what your culture is telling you, I's say that comes close to the very difinition of ending free thought.

===

Somewhat on topic, somewhat off topic...

This reminds of of the Asch two lines experiment. Its a rather famous study of how social pressure can force your views even when your senses are screaming against it.

Its a classic and has been repeated numerous times. It goes like this....

You sit with a group of five others and look at a screen upon which there are two lines. The line on top is 5% longer than the line on the bottom.

The psychologist then asks the person next to you which line is longer. He says its the bottom one.

The psychologist then asks another person in the group, then another, and another, until each of them has said the bottom line is longer. You are the only remaining person in the group.

He asks you which is longer. You say the bottom one.

And whats amazing, is that further studies have been done indicating that you not only say this to fit in, but you actually BELIEVE it.

They redid this study with the line on top being 10% longer, then 25% longer. They were able to get to about 30% on average and still get this effect.

[ashara]

Dirk (correct me if i am wrong) you make it sound like you think that because the theory of evolution is not fully accepted without question by muslims in general, islam is against science or in the very least tries to stop the progress of science. (what makes science great - as u argued is that it is dynamic and changing as new information is added.but do not forget that this 'dynamic property of science' is created by many arguments and counter-arguments by scientists and sometimes the general public. so if it's still a theory, then why can't people still try to prove or disprove it?)
I do not know what your concept of science is, but i think you agree with me that it is the ability to think critically to solve a problem or to find reasons for an occurance or any application for that matter so long as it is based on logical thought. Biology is not the only science around - and not all science are based on empirical data. but the point is, to be a muslim of the highest degree one must be able to think and reason rather than follow whims and fancies or emotions. I agree that there are those who try to prove what they already believe - but i ask you, is that not very much like a scientist who based on certain observations/intuition/desire to get answers formulates a hypothesis and then tries to prove it? and please don't tell me that in the scientific field there has been no 'cheats'/those who falsify their results to prove their hypothesis. in the same way, an over zealous believer might bend over to make what he thinks is true proven. but two things to consider here - no muslim will ever tell you that he understands all the meanings of the quran perfectly or that it can be perfectly translated to another language due to the subtlety and syntax of the arabic language. so either this 'religious' person labors on a misguided notion of the world or simply that science has not reached the stage where it can explain a phenomenon in detail. just like your story (i think it was u who posted it) about Newton - when the method (higher level maths etc) was not there, he relies on God. now i do not know what he said or wrote exactly, but i see nothing wrong if an intelligent person recognizes that he doesn't have the necessary tools to carry on with his work to acknowledge his limitation and as a person of faith acknowledge that God knows so much more.
secondly, we muslims believe that the quran is for everyone - a poet sees beauty in it's prose. a scientist sees that it does not go against established facts in science and so on. U must understand that it is easy for us to argue now about science and religion but about 1400 years ago when the quran was revealed the believers did not have the luxury of multimillion dollar labs and research funding - or did science have much popular support for that matter i think. but in order to become good muslims, they went all out to figure out the world around them - not necessarily to understand the scripture but to gain 'good points' to go to heaven. finding the way to determine exact time was important in order to pray on time. curing someone became important as saving one person is likened to saving the whole society or the entire human race (i can't recall the exact verse in the Quran -muslim bros and sis help pls).

i do not think there are any 'headbutts' going on between science and islam. there nothing wrong in islam to use science to make life on earth better for everyone. science is a tool for society to use, just like morality is a tool for binding the society together. for early muslim and many of us to this day, science is a tool to get closer to God. and if there is any conflict, it is either because the tool is incomplete (or the wrong one is used altogether), or the believer's understanding of the words of God is wrong. and muslims in general acknowledge this. so how can religion be 'stopping' the progress of science when it is required by our faith to increase knowledge?

and i also would like to say that although as muslims, we can't 'see' God (and put God in a lab for testing - just like in most other religion), we acknowledge this whole world is the 'kalam' - 'word' of God. just like u can perceive the intelligence and get inspired by an author of a book, we can look, test and appreciate things in this world to perceive and get inspired by the 'author' of this world - God ... which again requires ability to explore this universe

so, i do not think that science has no place in religion - so long as that science is based on logic, reason and with as little bias as humanly possible.

[KAding]

Well it's true that Islam is no longer the center of learning, but I think that's a problem of poverty, not a result falling into a simular funk. Since the colonisation and all the war in the middle east it has become hard for Islam to still be the center of the learning world.

Hmm, didn't the Islamic Golden Age end long before the Europeans colonized most the Islamic world? When were the first European colonies founded in North Africa? Wasn't it in the early 19th century? The Middle East didn't even get touched until the early 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Remember that the Ottomans were one of the leading European powers until at least the late 18th century.

Surely colonization is rather a consequence of the decline of Islamic civilization, rather than the cause of it? Since the decline started long before Europeans set foot on Muslim soil (save Indonesia perhaps).

[Dirk_Deagler]

Thank you ashara. You made your point very clearly and rationally and I appreciate that. There are a few things I want to point out though :)

you make it sound like you think that because the theory of evolution is not fully accepted without question by muslims in general, islam is against science or in the very least tries to stop the progress of science.

No, I wouldn't think Islam is inherently against science solely due to this. But in that sense its no different from other religions. If science proves one aspect of a religion correct, (perhaps an event that occurred in scripture) then it will be hailed as a break through by the pious. But if science disproves an aspect of religion, then it's the specific scientist that is wrong.

Islam going against this one aspect of evolution, is just a symptom
of a problem that I've been trying to describe. It's religion using science as a tool, but only when its convenient. Thats not science!

I guess what I've been trying to get at is that its the methodology of science and religion that conflicts, and through that methodology gradient, conflict is enviable in other ways as well.

but i ask you, is that not very much like a scientist who based on certain observations/intuition/desire to get answers formulates a hypothesis and then tries to prove it? and please don't tell me that in the scientific field there has been no 'cheats'/those who falsify their results to prove their hypothesis.

Yes, you're right, scientists have preplanned out goals and expectations. They may even have a 'desire' to prove their own theories. But that isn't science, thats just another bias that comes along with being human.

The main difference between science and religion in this respect is that its considered just as important to prove something false as it is to prove it true, because either way, you're making progress.

As far as the cheaters that falsify their own results. That's human bias and vanity. Sometimes the people don't always live up to the institution. But thats not the discussion here. We're not comparing the people, we're comparing the institutions. Science would love nothing more than to disprove itself, religion would love nothing more than to perpetuate itself.

and i also would like to say that although as muslims, we can't 'see' God (and put God in a lab for testing - just like in most other religion), we acknowledge this whole world is the 'kalam' - 'word' of God. just like u can perceive the intelligence and get inspired by an author of a book, we can look, test and appreciate things in this world to perceive and get inspired by the 'author' of this world - God ... which again requires ability to explore this universe

Yes, you assume the Universe was "written". Which I imagine is borderline intelligent design with an emphasis on Allah as the one designing it. That assumption in my opinion is a bias.

Science defers judgment to such things until such time as they are experimental. (which is probably never). But in the mean time we can safely say, that because there are hundreds of religions theres no more reason to believe one is more right than any other or that any of them are right at all.

I don't believe science will ever reach the point where it can disprove religion.
Why? Because it already has, on several different occasions. But obviously this proof isn't enough. So I find myself asking, what would be enough? Thoughts?

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Hmm, didn't the Islamic Golden Age end long before the Europeans colonized most the Islamic world? When were the first European colonies founded in North Africa? Wasn't it in the early 19th century? The Middle East didn't even get touched until the early 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Remember that the Ottomans were one of the leading European powers until at least the late 18th century.

Surely colonization is rather a consequence of the decline of Islamic civilization, rather than the cause of it? Since the decline started long before Europeans set foot on Muslim soil (save Indonesia perhaps).

Colonisation may not have been the only reason for decline of the golden age - and I don't think that was what steve was saying either - although perhaps in some cases it was, such as with Spain.

As I mentioned earlier, I think there were also problems within the Muslim world that led to disunity or weakening of some kind. The main point in this case is, however, that it was not Islam that changed; it was its followers.

Peace.

[Dirk_Deagler]

so, i do not think that science has no place in religion - so long as that science is based on logic, reason and with as little bias as humanly possible.

And if events in scripture are disproved due to a lack of human bias. Then what?

[Pygoscelis]

Well DIrk that depends on if you are the Dhali lama or the pope. :)

[Abdul Fattah]

@Dirk_Deagler

I never said that one should examin Islam in order to prove it right. I realise in the end of the day it's a matter of faith. What I was saying is that one cannot make conclusions about something and go around saying this is like this and this without first examening it. A bookcriticus has to read a book before giving a revieuw. No matter how expierienced he is, he has to read the book. Just because he has read hundreds of books does not mean he can critesize a book without reading it first.

I've said this before, but I hope now that you listen more carefully to my words. It's not the information that conflicts, it is the methodology. Science allows itself to be augmented or rewritten. Religion does not. It is this methodology that causes religion and science to come into conflict.

Yes, I did understand that from the start. However, this different methodology is only an issue if religion is unaccurate. If for a second we assume religion is true, and is the guidance of an omniscient creator, then religion doesn't need to be rewritten. I know that argument doesn't mean much since you don't believe that. Be that as it may, if one claims religion is uncompatible with science based on the assumption that religion is false then that is also circular thought and thus unsuficient as an argument.

I view all religions as being the same. They're all basically -cut to the chase- bs.

But how would ou ever know that if you never look into it and examin it?

And often people of religion define people who believe in science as requiring the same faith they do, in an attempt to make science seem no more valid than religion, and while its true that nothing is certain and that a measure of faith is required in all aspects of life, science is not like religion. Science is not a form a truth. Science is a methodology for discovering some degree of truth in an unbiased, empirical and consistent way.

Well I never tried to suggest this, if it seems I did, my apologies. I understand very well what the difrence is between my belief and science. The tread was never meant to say that the two are alike, but only that they are perfectly compatible.

So in short, Religion is an end that has consistently been proven wrong over the years. Science is a means to an end that we are trying to comprehend.

You're generalising again, just because some religions are (proven) false doesn't mean every single religion is false. Name one thing in which Islam has been proven wrong. (That is, if it doesn't force you to examin religion to much, I wouldn't want to make you do something you don't feel like)

And if events in scripture are disproved due to a lack of human bias. Then what?

Well that's the whole point, so far they haven't.


@Pygoscelis

Your observations are quite accurate, however reading between teh lines I feel like you're missing out on some context.

There is a fundamental ideological conflict.
Change in Science is progress.
Change in religion is heresy.
Science is constantly striving to change itself (improve).
Religion is constantly striving to avoid changing (maintain tradition and dogma).

Science claims to be incomplete.
Religion claims to be perfect.
If you change something perfect you get something less perfect.

People have been given nobel prizes for debunking theories in science previously thought to be Truth.
People have been put to death for debunking religous claims people previously thought to be, and still do think to be Truth.

Nobleprizes are designed for recognising scientific achievement, so naturally they are handed out to scientists. Islam doesn't support the killing of people because they have a theory. Just because some people might have done that in the name of Islam doesn't necesairly make it Islamic. To illustrate with an anology, if a stalker kills he might claim that it is an act of love, but instead it is an act of hate.

Science searches for truth, and knows it will never have perfect truth, always revising and bettering theories.
Faith is the acceptance of a 'truth' without evidence, and the cessation of investigation and revision.

Islam encourages people to question and investigate. Also I don't think that faith is acceptance of truth without evidence. Back when I was an atheist I might have thought simularly, but now I know that that defenition is unacurate. Accepting suggests that ones allows certain truths for certain motives. Or perhaps vieuwing it as likely, probable. But if one believes it's not a matter of accepting, it's a matter of being convinced. To believe in something means you see that something as factual.

I believe so. It certainly means holds back free thought. If you accept religious dogma as truth and stop thinking for yourself, shelving your own ideas and opinions in deference to what your culture is telling you, I's say that comes close to the very difinition of ending free thought.

Just because you consider your opinion inferior does not mean that you cannot think or that you suddenly lose al freedom. In fact all sorts of people do this all the time. When you go to your docter you consider your opinion on whats wrong with you less valuable as the docter's. If you read a manual on a device you consider the opinion of the manufacturer more valuable then your own opinon on how to operate the machine.
In none of those examples one would consider it as a limitation on free thought. It is not like it stops you from thinking, you just value a difrent opinion and consider it when making up your mind.

As for the peer pressure I have heared of many simular tests. and they are defenitly intruiging phenomena. However I don't see exactly why you'd bring this up here, it's a double-edged sword that cuts both sides of the discussion. Both the theist as the atheist's views might be explained by this phenomena.

@KAding

Hmm, didn't the Islamic Golden Age end long before the Europeans colonized most the Islamic world? When were the first European colonies founded in North Africa? Wasn't it in the early 19th century? The Middle East didn't even get touched until the early 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Remember that the Ottomans were one of the leading European powers until at least the late 18th century. Surely colonization is rather a consequence of the decline of Islamic civilization, rather than the cause of it? Since the decline started long before Europeans set foot on Muslim soil (save Indonesia perhaps).

Yes you're right as far as military economy and so on is concearned. They did fail much sooner. But I think colonosation is still responsible for a large amount of the loss in educational level.

[Dirk_Deagler]

But how would ou ever know that if you never look into it and examin it?

Because I don't need to exam the methodology of religion. The methodology is for all intents and purposes, the same. I need look no further than that.

Well that's the whole point, so far they haven't.

Hence the hypothetical question?

You're generalising again, just because some religions are (proven) false doesn't mean every single religion is false.

Of course not. But don't you ever think, "Wow, there are thousands of religions out there, and everyone's claiming they have the right one. Everyone is as adamant about their own religion as I am about mine. Is it possible that if they're wrong, I could be wrong too?"

You never think that?

[Abdul Fattah]

[QUOTE=Dirk_Deagler;587698]Because I don't need to exam the methodology of religion. The methodology is for all intents and purposes, the same. I need look no further than that.

We can go back and forward like this endlessly. I say you cannot judge without examining. You say it's the methodology that's wrong. I say if religion is right then the methodology's no longer problematic in nature. You don't think it's worth to examine religion so my assumption is useless. I say you cannot judge without examining and we're back at square one.

Hence the hypothetical question?

Well I was under the impression that the hypothetical was meant to prove a point, in which case it would have been a point that is flawed by nature. Hence I tried to stress that. But given your reply I have misjudged and apparently you were genuinely inquiring (or shall I call it, examining) rather then making a point. Well to answer, if we're proven wrong then I'd face those proofs. Now obviously I won't drop my whole religion at the spot and instead I would try to look at all the angels and see if the proofs are solid, and even try to refute them. But if there is absolutely no way around it, then it's idiotic to ignore it. However the very notion of such proof seems highly unlikely. In the end we can only know if such a thing would actually happen and then we'd have to look at the specific details of such an event. So I don't really see the point in indulging such a hypothetical. Now if your point was to suggest I'd stick my head in the ground I would say that my past proves you wrong. I have been on this discussion plenty of times. I used to be an atheist, and not just a atheist who is atheistic due to a lack of a religion but an atheist who was genuinely convinced that atheism was the right view for various reasons. At a certain point I felt I was deceived and that my arguments were wrong, I faced this new information and turned my life around 180 degrees. How about if I turn the question back, if hypothetically speaking tomorrow you would be addressed by an angel. would that turn you into a believer or would you come up with alternative theories in search for an explanations in order not to have to accept religion?

Of course not. But don't you ever think, "Wow, there are thousands of religions out there, and everyone's claiming they have the right one. Everyone is as adamant about their own religion as I am about mine. Is it possible that if they're wrong, I could be wrong too?" You never think that?

No I don't, because I believe. I am convinced. My religion is more of a certainty to me then anything else. On top of that I see huge differences between Islam and all those other religions. I won't go into that because I don't think it's appropriate to "break down" other people's religions. But to put it this way, I can think of plenty reasonable explanations as to why some many people each claim their religion is the true one. And none of those explanations undermine my religion and faith.

[Dirk_Deagler]

At a certain point I felt I was deceived and that my arguments were wrong, I faced this new information and turned my life around 180 degrees.

What exactly was it that made you feel this way?

How about if I turn the question back, if hypothetically speaking tomorrow you would be addressed by an angel. would that turn you into a believer or would you come up with alternative theories in search for an explanations in order not to have to accept religion?

Good question. The first thing I would think is, someone is screwing with me. Someone slipped me some LSD and is dressed as an angel. The second thing I'd think is that I was insane. This second thing would be a lot more convincing than the first. I'd probably go with probabilities. For instance, in this world, a lot of people DO probably see angels. Because they have some sort of neurological disorder. Does that mean I believe they're seeing angels? Of course not. They're hallucinating.

So no, if an angel came to me I'd never think that was proof enough. If an angel came to everyone in the world. And was being nationally televised performing otherwise impossible magic tricks... I still probably wouldn't believe.

I've seen too many Star trek episodes with Aliens impersonating native deities to just blindly believe something like that. Too much SG-1 too. The only way I'd ever believe, is if it somehow managed to be explained scientifically.

But like with your example, its a moot point, that will never happen. Although I don't think its unreasonable to state that Islam probably will be proven wrong.

[Pygoscelis]

Science claims to be incomplete.
Religion claims to be perfect.
If you change something perfect you get something less perfect.

Yes I agree. The approaches to knowledge within Religion and the approach to knowledge within Science are fundamentally opposed. It is Revelation vs Investigation.

If you have the perfect truth, further research on a given question is pointless and in fact damaging because it may take you off of the "perfect path". Science seeks to alter your understanding of Truth and will lead you astray *. This is how science conflicts with religion.

If you dogmatically hold to ancient supersticion that is not truth push your views on society demanding equal time with science, you are standing in the way of scientific progress. This is how religion conflicts with science.

* - This is what folks like Al Gazali preached and was a huge part of why the arabic golden age of discovery ended to abruptly. Science was getting in the way of religious peity and had to be stopped.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think that faith is acceptance of truth without evidence. Back when I was an atheist I might have thought simularly, but now I know that that defenition is unacurate.

How so?

Accepting suggests that ones allows certain truths for certain motives. Or perhaps vieuwing it as likely, probable. But if one believes it's not a matter of accepting, it's a matter of being convinced. To believe in something means you see that something as factual.

But being convinced based on what? Emotional forces or material evidence? Or just a leap of wishful thinking?

If you believe in a religious worldview because you wouldn't want to live in a world where that view isn't correct, that is faith. And I say that is what leads people to convert or maintain their religion more often than not.

If you believe based on material evidence, that is not faith.

Maybe we're just playing semantics here, but thats how I see it. I don't understand what else a "leap of faith" could mean.

Just because you consider your opinion inferior does not mean that you cannot think or that you suddenly lose all freedom.

You're right, it doesn't mean that you stop thinking altogether.

It means that you think as you are told to think. Hence, you lose freedom of thought.

In the doctor analogy you provide, you may still seek a second opinion when a doctor tells you something. You may still have doubts that the doctor understands your symptoms or maybe he misdiagnosed you.

But given a perfect God, and a perfectly honest God, these factors don't exist. What a perfect God (and honest God) tells you MUST be truth. It would be insanity to continue thinking competing thoughts.

As for the peer pressure I have heared of many simular tests. and they are defenitly intruiging phenomena. However I don't see exactly why you'd bring this up here, it's a double-edged sword that cuts both sides of the discussion. Both the theist as the atheist's views might be explained by this phenomena.

It was somewhat off topic,yes. I was only raising it as a possible explanation of why people believe as they do.

[Skillganon]

Yes I agree. The approaches to knowledge within Religion and the approach to knowledge within Science are fundamentally opposed. It is Revelation vs Investigation.

This is a statement and not a fact.

If you have the perfect truth, further research on a given question is pointless and in fact damaging because it may take you off of the "perfect path". Science seeks to alter your understanding of Truth and will lead you astray *. This is how science conflicts with religion.

The science is not set on stone, so how could it alter anyone's truth. Secondly their is no conflict between my religion and science, well atleast in my case.

If you dogmatically hold to ancient supersticion that is not truth push your views on society demanding equal time with science, you are standing in the way of scientific progress. This is how religion conflicts with science.

If you believe that "the creator" is an ancient superstition than that is your "belief". The statement is a red-herring.
"He is standing in the way of science because he pushes his view on a society demanding equal time with science.
Therefore science conflicts with religion."?
What logic is that?

* - This is what folks like Al Gazali preached and was a huge part of why the arabic golden age of discovery ended to abruptly. Science was getting in the way of religious peity and had to be stopped.

Making simple statement to obscure thing and support one's theory that science conflicts with religion will not get you anywhere.

Science is progressive, and it's progress depends on many factors, and to simply point the finger at someones religiouse affiliation is not entirely correct or for example pointing the finger at the bible is not an argument to make on behalf who does not believe in the bible as a whole.

You must take it as it is "we do not find our religion hamphering cience or it's progression.

[Dhulqarnaeen]

:sl:
If theres a science fit to Quran, then it doesnt mean Islam encouraging us to learn science, and it doesnt mean we can call Quran as scientific books like some people call it. We must say and nisbat that Quran is a way of life, and al Furqon.
If theres a science fit to Quran (Islam:Quran and sunnah) then its the sign that ISlam is the true religion, and Quran is the truth, and its from Allah, and its original. And its a test to us muslim and especially to unbelievers

[Abdul Fattah]

@Dirk_Deagler

What exactly was it that made you feel this way?

Well I'm writing a whoel book about it. so far I'm at about 100 pages and I still dfeel I haven't bee nable to adequatly answer that question and explain it. But the gist of it is: I read the qur'an and I recognised it (in both meanings of the word). Alongside were certain events and the sum total of it all was that I reverted into Islam. Well actually I feel like I was guided by Allah subhana wa ta'ala into Islam rather then claiming this as an ocomplishment of my own.

Interesting to se how by your own admission you claim that even if you would have plenty of "signs" you'd still prefer to believe alternative explenations.
Let's try yet another hypotetical if you desire. Let's say hypotetically speaking that religion is true. God, angels, hell and heaven, life's a test, it's all true. Now given that hypothesy; is there anything that could make you believe (=convinced without proof)? Or would you say you are incapable of believeing at all?

Although I don't think its unreasonable to state that Islam probably will be proven wrong.

In a way any attempt to predict the future could be considered unreasonable. Time will tell.



@Pygoscelis

If you dogmatically hold to ancient supersticion that is not truth push your views on society demanding equal time with science, you are standing in the way of scientific progress. This is how religion conflicts with science.

* - This is what folks like Al Gazali preached and was a huge part of why the arabic golden age of discovery ended to abruptly. Science was getting in the way of religious peity and had to be stopped.

We've reached the same point in this dicussion as I had earlyer with Dirk. The difrence in methodology is only problematic under the assumption that religion is ancient superstition. If you believe religion is true then science is just a difrent method of looking at the same thing and eventually will grow closer and closer to religion. Now if that would be the case, then the interference of religion in science would only adress the corrupted/flawwed science, thus leaving more room foro the accurate/correct scientific theories and it could therefor even been seen as speeding up developments.

But being convinced based on what? Emotional forces or material evidence? Or just a leap of wishful thinking?
If you believe in a religious worldview because you wouldn't want to live in a world where that view isn't correct, that is faith. And I say that is what leads people to convert or maintain their religion more often than not.
If you believe based on material evidence, that is not faith.
Maybe we're just playing semantics here, but thats how I see it. I don't understand what else a "leap of faith" could mean.

See that's exactly why I don't like the "acceptance" part in your defenition. I really don't see faith as wishfull thinking and I really don't think that is the case with the majority of people. Believing isn't taking something fior truth just because one is unwilling to take the alternative. I don't think it's even possible to get people to invest so much into religion as religious people do if it would be only for that reason. If you're familiar with paradigms, (if not check out my userpage) the leap of faith is the following: to believe a religion you have to first endulge the thought. If you take one seperate part of a religion and consider it for possability then it's very likely you'll reject it. Now religion just as any other paradigm is a circular sum of thoughts. If you see the whole picture it all adds up. But for someone to go to a position where he sees the whole picture one needs to venture in teh unknown. and by this I don't mean look up stuff. Eevrybody can read. It's the matter in which you look it up. You can pour a whole bottle of water on a glass that's upside down, it will never be able to hold one dropplet. You really have to consider the paradigm. But I'm getting of topic. To get back to your question, for most people what causes this willingness is some spiritual event in their live. We can philosophise and argue here al day and all of that can be negated by a simple event in our lives. Personal expieriance goes a long way.

In the doctor analogy you provide, you may still seek a second opinion when a doctor tells you something. You may still have doubts that the doctor understands your symptoms or maybe he misdiagnosed you.

But given a perfect God, and a perfectly honest God, these factors don't exist. What a perfect God (and honest God) tells you MUST be truth. It would be insanity to continue thinking competing thoughts.

Well usually people have thought things trough and have sought other opinions "before" accepting the faith. This is especially true for people like me born in difrent enviroments who reverted to Islam at a later stage in there life. But people born in to Islam go trough a simular proces to. Just because you're raised a certain way doesn't mean you "believe" it. You might be inclined towards it, but that's still not the same as believe. And even afterwards, if new information is revealed. It's not like it's a sin to ponder upon something or have questions about something. But so far I haven't encountered something that doesn't have a good and easely acceptible answer.And we will always think competing thoughts, wheter you call it human nature or shaytan's whispers. These doubts do come and go. But in the end of the line it's not a matter of "are we allowed to doubt" But more like a questions of: what reason do we actually have to doubt?

It was somewhat off topic,yes. I was only raising it as a possible explanation of why people believe as they do.

Yes but from my p.o.v. it could just as well explain why peopel are taken in by the lies of the devil and how peer pressure makes them think they have nothing to worry about. And that they don't need to prepare for the next life.

[ashara]

Thank you ashara. You made your point very clearly and rationally and I appreciate that. There are a few things I want to point out though :)

first comes the complement and then the 'but'. but thanks anyway :)


first of all, before i carry on i would like to state my perception (or at least i will try to state it as clearly as i could) about religion. because it does seem that we are at different 'wave lengths' here. [please correct me if i make the wrong assumptions about u] U perceive God/religion as a thing that should follow your 'ideal' of science or it is invalid altogether. or that it has to be something that can be empirically tested/ if it's a theory there is ample evidence to prove that it is right. in other words u should be able to study 'religion' the way u can study physics or biology where certain methods and standards has been established. i assume that what u meant when u emphasized that it's the methodology of science and religion that is in conflict.

now i look at god/religion in a different light.first lets separate God and religion altogether.
to me God is the creator. period. Kary Mullis (i think) invented PCR (polymerase chain reaction - a technique to amplify DNA). does that mean Mr Mullis has the ability to replicate or amplify himself hence the invention of PCR? in a cartoon maybe - but not in real life. what people do think is that he's creative/ smart, inteligent etc to think of that technique. my point is that to me God is an entity that i must always remember not to 'limit' based only on my senses or my intelligence. and because the created being can only see and hear other created beings (and not all of it at that) and not the creator, some form reminder is necessary that we are not the only 'existence' in the world. hence prophets - messengers. religion therefore serves as a 'reminder' or 'inspiration' of the creator and other creations, as well as a moral code because people unfortunately need also to be reminded not to be so selfishly thinking only about their own gain all the time (or from an evolutionary perspective their survival).

(the reason i wrote all the above, as u must have guessed is because it is difficult to have a discussion when two people see the world in different perspective and hence can't understand each other's argument.
it would seem like we both 'glorify' science to a certain degree - so it's mere the perception of how religion 'fits in' that is different.)

Yes, you assume the Universe was "written". Which I imagine is borderline intelligent design with an emphasis on Allah as the one designing it. That assumption in my opinion is a bias.

so when u state the statement above, my question is why does the notion of creator create a bias that makes any logical scientific discovery/argument by a muslim biased? like i said there is a clear distinction between the creator and the created. no muslim with a right mind will try to empirically study God. but i guess u know that already. so u must mean only the scriptures. because u also said

If science proves one aspect of a religion correct, (perhaps an event that occurred in scripture) then it will be hailed as a break through by the pious. But if science disproves an aspect of religion, then it's the specific scientist that is wrong.

for a muslim the Quran is devine. some say it should be taken literally some say it's allegorical but one thing is for sure anything 'derived' from it is human. so when i say that if there is a mistake it's either the tool or the scientist, i do not mean the science i meant the derivation from the Quran. for example - (these are not exact but just to give u an idea) the Quran says that human are made of clay/earth, it could easily mean that human are made of various minerals found in earth and like clay, has some water in it. or it could mean that like clay that can be molded, a person can be 'molded' be the environment he'she is in. people derive what they want and are capable of deriving. when the quran say human originate from 'liquid', proponents of evolution use this to say that oh see.... even the quran says early life forms were from water. what i am getting at is i do not take the scriptures as a methodology or technique by itself, but like nature something that can and should be scrutinized, studied using what ever tools appropriate - and i also acknowledge science is not the only tool too.

hence, i do not see a clash between science and religion because my perspective of religion itself is different from yours.

Islam going against this one aspect of evolution, is just a symptom
of a problem that I've been trying to describe. It's religion using science as a tool, but only when its convenient. Thats not science

again, just like

Yes, you're right, scientists have preplanned out goals and expectations. They may even have a 'desire' to prove their own theories. But that isn't science, thats just another bias that comes along with being human.

there are those in religion who instead of figuring out where their understanding of scripture went wrong, they attack science or refuse to accept science when it does not fit in their 'zone of comfort'.
u might ask how come scripture is not taken literally or why i can put the 'blame' on misunderstanding the scripture - but i believe that is a discussion i would have with u after u have read a few good translation of the Quran. since i am sure u agree we can't do justice by discussing the conclusion of a study without first reading the methodology and result :)

u also mentioned in another post if we ever wonder about other religion. many of us do i think. but i agree with steve that this is not the time or place for comparitive study of religion. but i would like to point out that for muslims, religion has been 'evolving' since the beginning of human concioussness. dont get me wrong- it's still the concept of one creator just that the other aspects change with the society the message is sent to as is appropriate. islam does not reject all other religion but states that there are deviations from monoetheism that is unacceptable.

i think i've written a lil too much for a forum. looking forward to u feedback. till then - i a'm agreeing to disagree with you :)

[Dirk_Deagler]

but states that there are deviations from monoetheism that is unacceptable.

What would you define as not being monotheistic? It's a term that an apply to many religions. Hindus believe in one god... But that one god just so happens to be the entire universe. And since they're a part of the universe, they are holy too.

They absolutely consider themselves monotheists, some could argue that they're more monotheists than Christians are.

first of all, before i carry on i would like to state my perception (or at least i will try to state it as clearly as i could) about religion. because it does seem that we are at different 'wave lengths' here. [please correct me if i make the wrong assumptions about u] U perceive God/religion as a thing that should follow your 'ideal' of science or it is invalid altogether.

I really don't think religion should do anything except stay within its own area of expertise (making stuff up).

But religion is stomping on sciences territory now. It needs to play by sciences rules.

it would seem like we both 'glorify' science to a certain degree - so it's mere the perception of how religion 'fits in' that is different.

I think you only glorify it as long as it doesn't conflict with religious beliefs. Well maybe not, but most religious people. And to that all I can say is that theres been a lot of scientific progress that went counter to the contemporary beliefs of a religion.

for a muslim the Quran is devine.some say it should be taken literally

the Quran says that human are made of clay/earth

I don't see anyone arguing that humans are literally made of clay and earth. Why should evolution any different?

Its clear to me that a lot of you are overly wary about the theory of revolution. And I wouldn't consider this being a critical thinker or open minded because theres a direct correlation between people of religion and people who don't believe in evolution. (addressed to steve) so if you don't want to believe in evolution then thats fine, but try not to fool yourself into believing that its only because you're a critical thinker.

It's a theory yes. The idea that our heart pumps blood is also a theory. We know evolution to be true about as much as we know anything. We know Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Theres no question of whether its 10 millions years old or a hundred million years old.

People of religion don't really believe this I don't think. And it honestly pisses me off a bit. Either the numbers are too big for them to comprehend, or it flies in the face of convention or its a direct contradiction with their religion, but its ridiculous.

Tell me ashara, how much of science do you believe to be true.

Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe the Universe is about 13 billion years old?
Do you believe in Evolution?
Do you believe man was a part of evolution and not separate from it?
Do you believe we live in a Universe where life could not form if not for a God?
Do you believe we evolved from a common ancestor of apes?
Do you believe light travels at 300,000 kilometers per hour?
Do you believe that telescopes seeing stars billions light years away are seeing what those stars looked like billions of years ago
Do you believe the previous point is adequate proof for the age of the Universe?
Do you believe God took six days to create the Earth?
Do you believe we all descended from Adam and Eve?
Do you believe every other religion in the world is wrong?
Do you think worshipers of those religions are going to hell?
Do you think somebody can be a good person and not believe in a single god?
Do you think its fair that someone could be raised to believe in multiple gods and be sent to hell for it not having known any better?

These are my questions :p

[Pygoscelis]

We've reached the same point in this dicussion as I had earlyer with Dirk. The difrence in methodology is only problematic under the assumption that religion is ancient superstition. If you believe religion is true then science is just a difrent method of looking at the same thing and eventually will grow closer and closer to religion.

Perhaps in the long term yes. But in the short term, science is only going to distract and maybe even derail you from the Truth your religion provides, given that your religious belief is Truth. This is a clear conflict.

On the other hand, religions that are not true, and most of them MUST not be true (even if your particular one happens to be true) will still impede scientific progress.

[Abdul Fattah]

It's a theory yes. The idea that our heart pumps blood is also a theory. We know evolution to be true about as much as we know anything.

The theory of evolution isn't anything close to the theory that blood pumps trough the heart or the theory of gravity or any other theory in science.
all the other theories can be proven, for example you can take you cellular phone and release it from your hand and see how it drops to the floor (wouldn't advice that though :) ). But you can't test common descent for example. Sure you can make a virus evolve in a laboratory. But just because some species evolve doesn't mean all species evolved from a single being. You also can't proof evolution, there were no camera's in the past, no videotapes. The whole theory is based on the biased assumption that similarity proves descend. But an author who wrote several books might have several similar storylines. Also all other theories are linked. For example if you say gravity is false, we'd have to reevaluate the whole realm of science and one by one other theories will eventually start to fall to. But the same does not go for common descent or macro evolution. You can easily shoot those down and it will have absolutely no repercussions for the realms of science.

Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe the Universe is about 13 billion years old?

I have absolutely no idea how old it is, but yeah i suppose those numbers are accurate. And Islam has no problems with science trying to determine the age of the world.

Do you believe in Evolution?

I believe certain species have evolved since they got here yes. But I don't think all species evolved from a single ancestral being. Not because religion tells me differently, because Islam leaves the freedom for some sort of ID-theory. The reason I don't believe it is because I consider it very improbable. And there are way to many questions that need answering first. If you're interested in answering me those questions you're welcome to visit any of our evolutionary threads. Furthermore I also don't believe it was possible for life to arise from lifeless matter. I don't know if you ever looked into abiogenesis theories, but there's even more gaps there then in evolution.

Do you believe man was a part of evolution and not separate from it?

Seperate.

Do you believe we live in a Universe where life could not form if not for a God?

I believe we live in a universe that was custom made to accommodate life.

Do you believe we evolved from a common ancestor of apes?

Again, no I don't.

Do you believe light travels at 300,000 kilometers per hour?

More or less. See there are two speeds of light. You have the theoretical value used in E=mc^2 And then you have the actual speed by which light moves which is slightly below the theoretical value. This is because the theory assumes that photons have no mass. If they would have no mass then according to the formula for speed:
E=(mc^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)

E=0/0

In reality experiments have shown that the speed is slightly below c and that photons actually do have some mass, albeit so small that it is usually neglected.

Do you believe that telescopes seeing stars billions light years away are seeing what those stars looked like billions of years ago

Yes I do believe that.

Do you believe the previous point is adequate proof for the age of the Universe?

No, not necessarily the universe could be older then the stars. There's not enough data to work with.

Do you believe God took six days to create the Earth?

We are told in the qur'an that this aren't six days as we count days (not earth-days) but counted from another standard unknown to us.

Do you believe we all descended from Adam and Eve?

Yes, and I don't see how that would conflict with science. Is science able to make a different claim as to the name of the first human ever on earth?

Do you believe every other religion in the world is wrong?

I believe every other religion on earth is inaccurate. However these theories might have grown out of genuine prophets. We are told that the total number of prophets is around hundred thousand. We only know the names of a few, all the others aer unknown to us.

Do you think worshipers of those religions are going to hell?

I think what you belief isn't enough to determine your afterlife. In teh end we will be judged by our deeds, not by our belief.

Do you think somebody can be a good person and not believe in a single god?

Yes, and the other way around. However I do think believing will make a person a lot better. But that doesn't mean a bad person can't belief or a good person can't disbelieve. So it's more like, the person is still good despite not believing, because his goodness survives trough his disbelieve. And the other way around a bad person can be bad despite believing because his bad characters survive trough religion.

Do you think its fair that someone could be raised to believe in multiple gods and be sent to hell for it not having known any better?

Peopel will not be sent to hell for things they had no knowledge on.
Hope this answers your questions

[Trumble]

But religion is stomping on sciences territory now. It needs to play by sciences rules.

There's certainly truth in that, although the converse is also true. That's the big problem I have with 'Intelligent Design', it's a perfectly respectable philosophical idea that got hijacked when it seemed for a time there might actually be real scientific evidence to support it. The 'evidence' was debunked a while ago, but that's something those still trying to push ID as science find it convenient to ignore. Whatever the weaknesses of (neo) Darwinism - and it certainly has some - it is still by far the strongest scientific theory we have. In no other area of science do people preach that a weaker theory should also be taught just because the stronger one has weaknesses; teaching ID as science is a purely religious agenda that should be resisted. If people want to teach ID or creationism as philosophical alternatives, that's fine.

I really don't think religion should do anything except stay within its own area of expertise (making stuff up).

That's unfair in that religion, by it's very nature, must encompass everything (as does philosophy). It's important to realise that 'science', just like particular religions, is based on a fundamental set of assumptions as to the nature of how things are. Assumptions is all they are, just like assuming there is a creator God.. and their validity cannot be proven or disproven. Perhaps the most significant event in science in the last century was the realisation by Bohr, Heisenberg and others that some of those assumptions may, in fact, be plain wrong. There is a whole field now not just in quantum mechanics but in the philosophy of quantum mechanics and associated fields, which deals not with the 'science' itself but with the assumptions it is based on, and how it should be interpreted in terms of the way we percieve our own 'realities'.

'Making stuff up' is all science does too. It creates models that allow us to explain and predict what we percieve as reality. It cannot prove that the perception is correct, indeed it is incapable of proving it is correct any more than theists can prove their version of the model is 'correct'. In one sense a model never can be 'right', it has to be a simplification to some degree or other. If I said 'go show me a proton, or a graviton, or a superstring' you would be completely incapable of doing so.. as would anybody else. All those things are are ideas, models, that happen to fit (at the moment).. they do not represent 'reality' in any meaningful sense.

[ashara]

i agree with some of the things that Steve and Trumble has to say. for example many things in science is based on assumptions -and as long as it works or fits in - it's acceptable. thermodynamics is a good example i think.
Quoting Trumble:

It creates models that allow us to explain and predict what we percieve as reality. It cannot prove that the perception is correct, indeed it is incapable of proving it is correct any more than theists can prove their version of the model is 'correct'. In one sense a model never can be 'right', it has to be a simplification to some degree or other. If I said 'go show me a proton, or a graviton, or a superstring' you would be completely incapable of doing so.. as would anybody else. All those things are are ideas, models, that happen to fit (at the moment).. they do not represent 'reality' in any meaningful sense.

and also i very much agree with steve on this one:

Quote:
Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe the Universe is about 13 billion years old?
I have absolutely no idea how old it is, but yeah i suppose those numbers are accurate. And Islam has no problems with science trying to determine the age of the world.

What would you define as not being monotheistic? It's a term that an apply to many religions. Hindus believe in one god... But that one god just so happens to be the entire universe. And since they're a part of the universe, they are holy too.
They absolutely consider themselves monotheists, some could argue that they're more monotheists than Christians are.

i must say i very much feel close to my jewish 'bros' and 'sis' in their strict observance of monoetheism.
as for heaven and hell - that is not for me to determine nor am i allowed to judge. but God is wisest of judges and merciful above all else as stated in many quranic verses, hence as a muslim i believe God judges based on the environment u are in and ur personal ability.

Its clear to me that a lot of you are overly wary about the theory of revolution

like i said it's a theory, i see no problem with being wary - after all much of science is not an absolute - it's relative if you think about it. for example 1 kilogram is not an 'absolute' - it's relative to the mass of a platinium-iridium alloy kept in France (Sevres in think).but we 'religious' people as u label us acknowledge 'truth' in science and understanding the world around us is very much related to not just our belief system but it's also based on established scientific facts. i don't see anyone arguing about theory of gravity - Steve's experiment is a hazard to my social life :) (maybe there are some refinements going on i am oblivious of) but my point is - if the 'wariness' is non-existant, then one becomes exactly the 'irrational' people you seem so frustrated with, who demand no proof but merely follow - except that now the 'religion' is science and the 'prophets' are the scientist. a dose of skeptisim born of curiosity and a genuine desire to know truth is healthy i think - religious/not.

as for your list of questions, i see where u are going. but seem's more like it's targetted to the home-schooling system some parents have adopted which includes textbooks that is not very 'scientifically' correct.or maybe u did mean me specifically. in that case, i would like to disagree with u if u think that i like science that agrees with my belief system and trash the rest.

I don't see anyone arguing that humans are literally made of clay and earth. Why should evolution any different?

yes why shouldn't it be? some muslim might say no, but many i think are genuinely waiting for some indisputable proof before jumping into the 'evolution' bandwagon. initially our discussion was about belief systems in religion stopping progress of science - because science does not agree with parts of scripture. as a muslim, and from my understanding the Quran (please take note that i am not claiming to be a scholar of quran), there is much 'space' for me to figure out things around this world. so going back to the original argument - no, as a muslim i do not think there is a 'fight' between science and religion.simply because quran will be conflicting itself if so many verses says use your reason and ability to make intelligent choices - and then suddenly says reasoning is useless or dangerous to faith. no verse in the quran prohibits the attainment of knowledge - the only thing a non-believer might be against is it's requirement to remember that it's to God our awe and praise should be directed to when we marvel at this universe.

i've stated this before (also my simplistic definition of monoethesim): i believe in a Creator creating this universe and this dimension and multiple universes and dimensions that i do not know of. whether God created a single particle first, or a cloud of gas, or created earth and various planets with a 'bang' - does not alter my belief system nor does it 'attack' my religious sentiments requiring a counter attack from me by stomping around science. it does not alter the divinity or wisdom of God. maybe (i'm using maybe coz evolution is the best possible answer at this moment as u say) life did evolve, maybe Adam and Eve 'sent' down is part of a mutation in the natural evelotion this planet was and is undergoing. i do not claim to know the answer. and since it's not my field of study or passionate interest, i'm waiting for the scientists to come up with a precise and accurate answer and then figuring out if there's any conflict with my belief system - and i doubt conflict will exist. as far as my understanding goes, God created particles, souls and laws of physics - it does not matter whether God individually created each species or created many species through random mutation - there has to be a beginning. Whether that beginning is a complete human 'beamed' to earth ala' star trek (assume for a moment u believe in creator - since creator created rules - wouldn't have any problems bending it or more appropriately add a degree of randomness or chaos without altering the 'balance' don't u think?); or merely a particle undergoing big bang and evolution, it does not change the power of God or my belief system. i guess my point is, from nothing there was something. and creator of that something is god. the bickering about how this something became the everything we perceive now exists among scientist and i tink it's a lil unfair for u then, to generalize all religious people as the (only) opponent that must be KO-ed in the fighting ring of natural world.

i did say earlier for many muslims, science is a tool to get nearer to God and became better muslims. and then u pointed out that science is only acceptable when it doesn't conflict with religious beliefs.
ur assumption is that there is conflict. pls tell me exactly what is it in quran that u find is in conflict with established science? if ur point of reference is the muslim people in general, then i must say that we don't have codified general scientific beliefs based on quran guideline we follow. each generation brings new light and understanding of phenomenon described by science and mentioned in the quran. but that is beside the point - the main theme i tink is that one should gain knowledge and make sure that this knowledge is best used to serve the society one is in. this is more of the spirit of science as a tool for being closer to god (besides admiring God's wisdom and creativity) that i was talking about.

p/s : it does seem that u are very lax about other human falliability except when those human profess to a religion (pls refer to quote - this some of it). any personal reasons against this rather (from my point of view) biased attacks?

I view all religions as being the same. They're all basically -cut to the chase- bs.

Yes, you're right, scientists have preplanned out goals and expectations. They may even have a 'desire' to prove their own theories. But that isn't science, thats just another bias that comes along with being human.

and , if u feel i still must answer your list of question, pls let me know.

[Pygoscelis]

It's important to realise that 'science', just like particular religions, is based on a fundamental set of assumptions as to the nature of how things are. Assumptions is all they are, just like assuming there is a creator God.. and their validity cannot be proven or disproven.

This is a good point, but one that could easily be misleading. Religion and science both rely on fundamental assumptions, yes. But science's assumptions are open to revision.

Science's anwers are never final and its assumptions are admitted. If an assumption was proven to be wrong, good science would change accordingly.

Science is maleable. Religion is rigid.

[Pygoscelis]

a dose of skeptisim born of curiosity and a genuine desire to know truth is healthy i think - religious/not.

I agree completely. We SHOULD maintain a healthy skepticism about scientific theories, as we should maintain healthy skepticism about all things. Just don't confuse healthy skepticism with closedmindedness (not saying you are).

the only thing a non-believer might be against is it's requirement to remember that it's to God our awe and praise should be directed to when we marvel at this universe.

If you're saying that you won't let scripture and dogmatism stand in the way of investigation and questioning, and that you wish to go forward with the investigation viewing it as understanding how God works, I don't object to that at all.

Early priests had this mindset. They were very much the birth of modern science. They investigated the world to see how God works. Only later did other clergy stamp down on them because they were discovering things and developing theories that was branded heresy.

As to evolution, must there be a conflict with it and religion? Could one not
believe that God made us and Evolution was simply the tool that she used?

and then u pointed out that science is only acceptable when it doesn't conflict with religious beliefs.

This is historically the view of most religious institutions, including Christian and Muslim ones. Galileo was killed as a heretic for suggesting the idea that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth. Al Galazi and his ilk contributed greatly to the fall of the arabic golden age with their anti-science stance.

ur assumption is that there is conflict. pls tell me exactly what is it in quran that u find is in conflict with established science?

If you interepret Islam as not in conflict with science then I applaud you.

I think the greatest barrier that religion puts in front of science isn't this at all though. I think its that once we label something as "God Did It" we often consider that a satisfactory answer and stop investigating.

This happened to many of the greatest scientists in history, including Isaac Newton.

He was able to explain how two bodies in space act on each other and developed his theory of gravity. Then he realized that in space there are many bodies all acting on one another and he was unable to explain how the solar system keeps itself together. He was stumped for a very long time. Eventually he invoked "God Does It" and then he stopped his research on the matter. It was over a hundred years (300 if I recall correctly) before the problem was taken up again, by another great scientific mind and solved.

[Abdul Fattah]

This is a good point, but one that could easily be misleading. Religion and science both rely on fundamental assumptions, yes. But science's assumptions are open to revision.

Science's anwers are never final and its assumptions are admitted. If an assumption was proven to be wrong, good science would change accordingly.

Science is maleable. Religion is rigid.

Yes exactly, and I think that's the point Trumble (correct me if I'm wrong, it's just an assumption ;) )tried to make. Since it's based on admitted assumptions and susceptible for changing, then we shouldn't base ourself upon this to rule out other theories which in turn are based on assumptions. Basically what this comes down to is one person saying: my assumption is better then yours. Yet there is absolutely no way to verify which assumption is more likely. That's what makes them assumptions.

[Trumble]

Since it's based on admitted assumptions and susceptible for changing, then we shouldn't base ourself upon this to rule out other theories which in turn are based on assumptions. Basically what this comes down to is one person saying: my assumption is better then yours. Yet there is absolutely no way to verify which assumption is more likely. That's what makes them assumptions.

Yup. The big problem, at least in terms of facilitating constructive debate, is recognising them as assumptions. It's not easy to do, as some are very fundamental to the way we see both the world and ourselves. But if you don't, it isn't really possible to get anywhere.

[Dirk_Deagler]

It sounds very catchy to say that religion and science are both based on assumption so at the end of the day they're both equal. It makes a lot of sense and its quite honestly hard to counter it without getting into a circular argument.

The truth is, science should not be compared to religion in that sense. Science makes assumptions based off of a strict set of criteria. These assumptions are necessary to forward our understanding of the Universe.

Religion can certainly be compared to other religion with the discussion of assumptions in mind. People of religion all make an identical assumption about their religion; That their religion is truth. I don't think people of religion like comparing themselves to people of other religions because eventually the subject of who is right has to come up.

Science makes different assumptions, bottom-up assumptions. Religion makes top-down assumptions. That's the major difference. Because sciences' knowledge of the universe is built on previous knowledge, we cannot get to the next stage of understanding unless our previous assumptions were made solidly in accordance with truth. Science has built in checks and balances to make sure that the assumptions made can be predicted and verified.

I like to imagine an analogy for this situation so try to bear with me. Pretend that truth is some distance in the air. Maybe its 100 feet maybe its 1000, maybe its at the other side of the universe, but its up there somewhere.

Religion is almost like someone standing on the ground pointing to a random height between here and infinity and saying, "There it is!"

The chances of him being right are just about nothing. So small and arbitrary that is should automatically be discounted.

Science on the other hand does not presume to know what the ultimate truth is. And instead of making grand assumptions it makes small ones. Assumptions so small that they can be proven and disproven. And every time Science proves or disproves one of its assumptions, a little bit of truth is had.

And I imagine that truth is creating the foundation on which more truth can be built. Very slowly and methodically, truth builds and gets taller until our knowledge has grown 10 feet tall. If the foundations of our knowledge are weak then the structure will topple over. And science will begin anew.

Moral of the story. Religion makes huge absolute assumptions. Science makes small ones. They're entirely different, they're not equal.

Yet there is absolutely no way to verify which assumption is more likely

Logic and reason would say otherwise. There are hundreds of religions with a grand scheme already in mind. Logic would dictate that they can't all be right and that theres no particular reason to think that any of them are right. And while science may never reach an absolute truth. It's assumptions are absolutely completely more likely than the assumptions of religion.

[M.I.A.]

sometimes i have doubts over modern medicine.. or what it has developed to.
wonder where mad scientists exist today? ;D

[Woodrow]

Science is a tool of life. Through science we learn how to understand the mechanical limitations of the physical world and how best to utilise them.

We know that if we step out of a high window, we are going to hit the ground with strong force. Now learning why that happens and how to prevent it allows us to make airplanes. Perhaps one day we will find that our concepts of aerodynamics is all wrong, but that does not matter as what we did see was sufficient for our purposes.


Islam has no problem with using the findings of science to better our life. Science is simply a tool, not a final reason.


Trying to compare Science and religion is not even like trying to compare apples and oranges. It is more like trying to compare a block of ice with a giraffe.

This is a very pointless arguement and the only good that will come out of it is an agreement that religion and science are 2 different things and are for different reasons.

[Trumble]

Science makes different assumptions, bottom-up assumptions. Religion makes top-down assumptions. That's the major difference. Because sciences' knowledge of the universe is built on previous knowledge, we cannot get to the next stage of understanding unless our previous assumptions were made solidly in accordance with truth. Science has built in checks and balances to make sure that the assumptions made can be predicted and verified.

You are missing the point as to what those assumptions are. They cannot be 'made solidly in accordance with truth'. I'm not sure how you 'predict' an assumption, but they can't be 'verified' either. Neither are they 'bottom up'.

For example, at least until the last century, science going back to Aristotle assumed that the physical world and everything in that world that it attempted to describe had an intrinisic existence, with inherent properties, apart from those observing it. That is an absolutely fundamental assumption, but it is not based on previous knowledge, and neither can it be verified. It is purely metaphysical. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption as it undoubtably 'fits' everyday experience, so well in fact that the assumption is frequently not recognised at all. But, for many centuries that is an assumption that some religious traditions, including my own, have rejected. Science is fine as a tool to describe and predict the world as we percieve it (and, generally, have to live in it), but we believe that that perception is only a construct, a glimpse in a mirror, of what 'reality', and indeed unreality, actually is. Science can no more get a handle on what is actually real than it, from the Islamic perspective, could look upon the face of God.

Moral of the story. Religion makes huge absolute assumptions. Science makes small ones.

No. Those basic assumptions made by science are just as large. They are just harder to recognise.

Logic and reason would say otherwise. There are hundreds of religions with a grand scheme already in mind. Logic would dictate that they can't all be right and that theres no particular reason to think that any of them are right. And while science may never reach an absolute truth. It's assumptions are absolutely completely more likely than the assumptions of religion.

If anything, I would have thought logic suggested that they are probably all right, including science. They are all merely different perspectives, different roads leading to the same thing, there being only one thing for them to lead to.

[Abdul Fattah]

Science makes assumptions based off of a strict set of criteria. These assumptions are necessary to forward our understanding of the Universe.

Actually the very nature of assumptions means that there just as good as any other assumption. An assumption that is lead by a criteria is a contradiction in terms.

Religion can certainly be compared to other religion with the discussion of assumptions in mind. People of religion all make an identical assumption about their religion; That their religion is truth. I don't think people of religion like comparing themselves to people of other religions because eventually the subject of who is right has to come up.

I beg to differ. I don't mind comparing at all, however I do try to refrain from it because I don't want to break down other people's religions. I do think Islam will come out as way more convincing and plausible as other religions.

Science makes different assumptions, bottom-up assumptions. Religion makes top-down assumptions. That's the major difference. Because sciences' knowledge of the universe is built on previous knowledge, we cannot get to the next stage of understanding unless our previous assumptions were made solidly in accordance with truth.

Explain me how science is bottom up and religion top down. To me assumptions are assumptions. And they're always at the start. Whether you metaphorically place them on top or on the bottem seems more like a matter of point of view. The point is that they are the start.

Science has built in checks and balances to make sure that the assumptions made can be predicted and verified.

Well that depends, science is a broad spectrum. Some theories are very testable and verifiable others are more challenging in that department. But they are only testable within the system which is based on assumptions.

Religion is almost like someone standing on the ground pointing to a random height between here and infinity and saying, "There it is!" The chances of him being right are just about nothing. So small and arbitrary that is should automatically be discounted.

Well that is because you assume that it is random, that you assume that it's just a guess, then the chances are low. But if you assume it's transmitted trough a prophet. then the chances of being right increase dramatically.

Science on the other hand does not presume to know what the ultimate truth is. And instead of making grand assumptions it makes small ones. Assumptions so small that they can be proven and disproven.

Assumptions can rarely be proven of disproven, not the assumptions that are on the base. It's like the axioms from math. The axioms of paradigms. They're the whole base of the system. So you cannot use that very system to prove them because then your proofs are just circular and hence meaningless.

And I imagine that truth is creating the foundation on which more truth can be built. Very slowly and methodically, truth builds and gets taller until our knowledge has grown 10 feet tall. If the foundations of our knowledge are weak then the structure will topple over. And science will begin anew.

But the whole point here is, science is far from reaching that final point, so you can't say to the believer: "you're pointing at the wrong cloud" when science isn't even that far up yet.

Moral of the story. Religion makes huge absolute assumptions. Science makes small ones. They're entirely different, they're not equal.

but you're judging other assumptions by the standards of the system of your own assumptions. Huge or small; it's all relative to your perspective. They are different and not equal, but you can't measure them as being superior or inferior, that goes in against the very definition of assumptions.

Logic and reason would say otherwise. There are hundreds of religions with a grand scheme already in mind. Logic would dictate that they can't all be right

That's the third time now. They don't all need to be right for one of them to be right. Just because some are false doesn't mean all are false, this generalistion is illogical.

And that theres no particular reason to think that any of them are right.

But there's no reason to think the opposite either.

And while science may never reach an absolute truth. It's assumptions are absolutely completely more likely than the assumptions of religion.

Really? why? Ask yourself this simple question: “By what authority are my assumptions better then my neighbor’s?
You should check out my user's page, specifically the first chapter:
http://www.islamicboard.com/userpage.php?userid=397

[Dirk_Deagler]

It's funny. All the questions you brought up in response to my post, I already answered within the context of my post.

What makes science more plausible? Small assumptions.

What makes small assumptions better than big assumptions? Less faith involved; less chance of error.

You're talking about plausibility which at the end of the day comes down to a matter of chance. Assuming theres one single religion on this planet that is the truth, how much of a chance does any particular religion have at being true? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? The chances are low.

Science takes it a step further and sees no reason why one of them should be true. It also sees why all of them WOULDN'T be true. Why? Chance, Probability. It's basically the said arbitrary simplistic nature of religion vs. the complex nature of the Universe.

There is nothing scientific that points to Islam or any other religion for that matter being true. Statistically speaking, its not even worth looking into.

[Dirk_Deagler]

I skimmed over what you linked. I honestly don't have time to read it over and even if I did, I probably wouldn't.

I'll grant that from what I did see it seemed reasonable.

[Abdul Fattah]

What makes science more plausible? Small assumptions.

why do you consider the assumptions "smaller"?

You're talking about plausibility which at the end of the day comes down to a matter of chance. Assuming theres one single religion on this planet that is the truth, how much of a chance does any particular religion have at being true? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? The chances are low.

This is the forth time I caught you one the same illogicality. The number nor the correctness of all other religions haven't got any bearing on the correctness of a single one. If you assume that one religion is true then the presence of different religion do not make that any less or more plausible. plausibility is not determined by chance. what you have done here is calculate the chance of FINDING the one assumed correct religion. Not the chance of a the assumebly correct religion actually BEING correct.

Science takes it a step further and sees no reason why one of them should be true. It also sees why all of them WOULDN'T be true.

Actually science is neutral towards religion. It doesn't say anything about it being correct or not. Science bases itself on empirical testing so it is impossible for science to take a stance on an untestable theory.

Why? Chance, Probability.

Again, chance does not have any bearing here.

It's basically the said arbitrary simplistic nature of religion vs. the complex nature of the Universe.

You're refering to the anthropic argument here right?
[Pro anthropic principle:] When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would make life impossible. It all started with the design of life; the universe was created in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.
[Contra anthropic principle:] This appreciation of the inherited characteristics of nature is a result of ignorant people being overwhelmed by information. Order is subjective. Things are very disordered but we just categorize them in an ordered way. If the laws of physics were different, life could very well exist albeit then in a completely different way. Probably to different for our limited minds to comprehend. Such a hypothetical life would simply evolve different then the way it has evolved now; since different laws of nature would call for different adaptations. Everything started as a result of the laws of the universe. That life rose out of these natural inherited laws is the result of mere luck.

We notice the contra argument can defend itself with Ockham’s razor because an explanation without a design is easier then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also defend itself with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. This because coincidence in its turn asks to be explained by imagination and is thus less “easy” to comprehend.

In my opinion this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of the anthropic principle, but rather the result of two different backgrounds of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore –to him- such a design seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes coincidence look like an uncalled expansion of his worldview.

There is nothing scientific that points to Islam or any other religion for that matter being true.

If there would be something pointing out to Islam, how would you even recognize it if you said yourself religion isn't even worth looking in. You said since it has a certain methodology you won't consider it, so how can you determine whether or not science points towards it when you don't even look into it?

Statistically speaking, its not even worth looking into.

How is the value of looking into something correlated to statistics? Logic tells us the value of looking into something is determined by the result we get out of it, not by the number of different things we can possibly look into. Because again, the different things have no influence or bearing on that one specific thing.

[M.I.A.]

It's funny. All the questions you brought up in response to my post, I already answered within the context of my post.

What makes science more plausible? Small assumptions.

What makes small assumptions better than big assumptions? Less faith involved; less chance of error.

You're talking about plausibility which at the end of the day comes down to a matter of chance. Assuming theres one single religion on this planet that is the truth, how much of a chance does any particular religion have at being true? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? The chances are low.

Science takes it a step further and sees no reason why one of them should be true. It also sees why all of them WOULDN'T be true. Why? Chance, Probability. It's basically the said arbitrary simplistic nature of religion vs. the complex nature of the Universe.

There is nothing scientific that points to Islam or any other religion for that matter being true. Statistically speaking, its not even worth looking into.

statistics lie.. there used to prove/disprove anything. sampling and handling of data is nearly always flawed. the fact that you state small assumptions are better than big assumptions leads me to ask, if small assumptions are based on small assumptions what is the likelyhood of error?
how many times has a professor confessed... well the mechanism for that is unknown? ...iv heard it a few times in my life believe me. but research continues, development continues. ..i had the misfortune(thanks allah for all the time iv been given) to repeat a unit or two(>) during my education, and i can tell you the drugs keep coming but the mechanisms remain unknown.. sure maybe the last time you thought about it science was driven my intellect. now its driven by money.. quite dangerous realy.
i cant say science has come to a turning point.. but surely cloning and stemcell research is showing how it can be pushed as far as WE are willing to take it.

[ashara]

It sounds very catchy to say that religion and science are both based on assumption so at the end of the day they're both equal. It makes a lot of sense and its quite honestly hard to counter it without getting into a circular argument.

umm, i did not state this and i am not sure if the others meant it this way either. my point was simply that since evolution is a theory u should not lambast those who are a little skeptical about it just because they are 'religious'.

initially this discussion was about whether religion makes people less 'scientific' but it does seem like now it's a comparison between science and religion. i can't compare a carpenter with the chisel he's holding, so i'd rather not say anything. i quite agree with what bro Woodrow wrote on this.

Pygoscelis wrote

I think the greatest barrier that religion puts in front of science isn't this at all though. I think its that once we label something as "God Did It" we often consider that a satisfactory answer and stop investigating.

an unfortunate mistake some make, but that does not warrant blaming religion instead of the individuals i think. about Newton, I don't really know the details but i did say earlier that it could be he realized he can't go any further and decided to study other things, or like u say he simply gave up - by pointing to God (an excuse?). that does not make God the culprit right? :)

[cihad]

jeeps! how many 'islam and science' threads have we had already man.

[Pygoscelis]

So many that I didn't even see this one go by.