Many times I see ignorant arrogant atheists say things based on this fallacy. I have no issue with anyone being atheist but when they arrogantly say such ignorant things then I should say something right?
Religion in essence is the belief that the universe has a Creator. Science is the study of the universe. To say that Science and Religion are opposites is like saying a Macbook factory and a Macbook manual are opposites. It make's no sense does it? Yet some of these people think themselves so "intelligent".
That said, the question that comes to mind is whether or not this defense is Islam-Specific. I say this because when the person who make such false statements I doubt that when he thinks of religion he thinks of Islam, or if he is then he probably has insufficient knowledge on it. I imagine that their idea of religion is as so popularly imagined "an invisible man in the sky", such a sad case of intellectual laziness. We should be grateful that we were guided, may our hearts be protected from arrogance. I believe such things can blind us from truth..
"Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime. Give a man a religion and he will starve to death praying for a fish."
This is another popular statement often said by atheist as "intellectual humor". Supposedly it's trying to say that religion is useless, imaginary, brings no benefit.
Does it work with Islam? No.
Islam is not a religion that expects faith without action. People of knowledge are frequently praised in the Quran. Our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged us to strive for knowledge.
The error in the statement often made by ignorant atheists is that it assumes all religions are faith without action. In Islam we have 'Amal(action) which is based on Niyah(intentions). When we want something to be done we make the right Niyah(intentions) and then we carry out the 'Amal(actions).
If we are hungry we make the proper intention to eat, we make dua, and then we use our hands and mouth to eat feed ourselves. We don't just pray for our hunger to disappear. We are blessed with the proper tools to achieve such goals.
It wasn't long ago that science and religion were separated. This is the age of materialism, and it took off during the enlightenment period, also known as the age of reason.
The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason could free humankind from superstition and religious authoritarianism that had brought suffering and death to millions in religious wars. Also, the wide availability of knowledge was made possible through the production of encyclopedias, serving the Enlightenment cause of educating the human race......
Enlightenment thinkers reduced religion to those essentials which could only be "rationally" defended, i.e., certain basic moral principles and a few universally held beliefs about God. Aside from these universal principles and beliefs, religions in their particularity were largely banished from the public square. Taken to its logical extreme, the Enlightenment resulted in atheism.
Let's remember that Iblis was the first to use reasoning:
Ibn Jarir reported that Muhammad Ibn Sirin said that the first one to reach a conclusion by reasoning was Iblis and that the sun and moon were not worshipped except through this method.
This means that Iblis tried to compare himself to Aadam. He believed that he was more honorable than Aadam. Therefore he abstained from prostrating even though Allâh had commanded him to do so, just as He had commanded the angels. If an analogy is made we see that Iblis is vain. For indeed clay is better than fire because in it can be found the qualities of calmness, clemency, perseverance and growth; whereas in fire can be found heedlessness, insignificance, haste, and incineration.
Iblis tried in vain to justify his refusal:"Shall I prostrate to one whom You created from clay?" Iblis said: "See? those whom You have honored above me, if You give me respite (keep me alive) to the Day of Resurrection, I will surely seize and mislead his offspring (by sending them astray) all but a few!"(Ch 17:62 Qur'ân).
Unfortunately, it has come to a place where, if it's not tangible and if you cannot make it happen in a laboratory, it doesn't exist. Supposedly, the enlightenment period ended with the french revolution, however, the fruit of the seeds planted then are prevalent today, as these ideas are what is taught to children on a regular basis, and that's what was taught to the majority of adults now, if you don't believe it, check the textbooks. After Darwin published his book on evolution, the separation of the two became more blatant and that brings us to where we are now. Before the enlightenment period we had scientists like Ibn Sina who didn't separate the two.
Ibn Sina gives a theory of knowledge, describing the abstraction in perceiving an object rather than the concrete form of the object itself. In metaphysics ibn Sina examined existence. He considers the scientific and mathematical theory of the world and ultimate causation by God. His aims are described in [1] as follows:-
Ibn Sina sought to integrate all aspects of science and religion in a grand metaphysical vision. With this vision he attempted to explain the formation of the universe as well as to elucidate the problems of evil, prayer, providence, prophecies, miracles, and marvels. also within its scope fall problems relating to the organisation of the state in accord with religious law and the question of the ultimate destiny of man.
honestly I find using science to discover ancient history and the origin of life etc is ridiculous. theres too much room for error.
100% agreed on this! I mean the conclusion drawn from studies for 'knowing' ancient history, and origin of life always baffles me. I never really understood why they draw such 'secular' conclusion about these things. It looks like they try their best to not agree with Abrahamic faiths.
Science is and will always be an ongoing field of study that if anything we should appreciate as it allows us to appreciate and understand the creations of Allah.
The problem when you think that science is the only source of knowledge or conclusion.
We are able to receive knowledge through our senses, reason, and revelation..
The arrangement between these three sources of knowledge is such that each one has its limits, and a particular sphere of activity beyond which it does not work. In natural sequence, the knowledge of things man collects through his senses cannot be deduced through bland reason. For instance, you know by seeing a wall with your eyes that its colour is white. But, should you close your eyes and try to find out the colour of that wall on the sole strength of your reason, this will then be impossible. Similarly, the knowledge of things that comes through reason cannot be discovered by senses alone. For instance, you cannot find out as to who made that wall by simply seeing it with your eyes or touching it with your hands. Not at all, you rather need reason to arrive at that conclusion.
In short, reason gives no guidance as far as the five senses work efficiently, and when the five senses become helpless, reason starts functioning. But, even the guidance given by this reason is not unlimited. This too stops at a certain limit. Then there are things the knowledge of which can neither be acquired through senses nor through reason. For instance, to find out about this very wall, as to what manner of its use will please Allah Almighty and what manner of its use will displease Him, is possible neither through senses nor through reason. In order to give man the answer to such questions, the source that Allah Almighty has prescribed is what is known as Wahy. And the method it follows is that Allah Almighty selects one of His servants, ordains him as His messenger and to him He reveals His Word. This Word is Wahy/Revelation.
I never really understood why they draw such 'secular' conclusion about these things. It looks like they try their best to not agree with Abrahamic faiths.
I believe that the Theory of Evolution arose as an attempt to explain where we came from in direct opposition to the faith-based story of creation by God. Brother Hulk mentioned senses, reasoning, and revelation as being sources of knowledge. ToE is an attempt to use reasoning to provide a naturalistic means for the origins of life, particularly of man. We rely upon revelation from God as a super-natural explanation for our origination. Since science by its nature denies anything that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, scientists try to develop an explanation for for our origin using only naturalistic means. Sadly, scientists who support ToE don't admit its inadequacies or point out the extreme improbability of what they propose.
I believe that the Theory of Evolution arose as an attempt to explain where we came from in direct opposition to the faith-based story of creation by God. Brother Hulk mentioned senses, reasoning, and revelation as being sources of knowledge. ToE is an attempt to use reasoning to provide a naturalistic means for the origins of life, particularly of man. We rely upon revelation from God as a super-natural explanation for our origination. Since science by its nature denies anything that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, scientists try to develop an explanation for for our origin using only naturalistic means. Sadly, scientists who support ToE don't admit its inadequacies or point out the extreme improbability of what they propose.
MashaAllah well said akhi, and you are a scientist!
ToE is an attempt to use reasoning to provide a naturalistic means for the origins of life, particularly of man. We rely upon revelation from God as a super-natural explanation for our origination. Since science by its nature denies anything that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, scientists try to develop an explanation for for our origin using only naturalistic means. Sadly, scientists who support ToE don't admit its inadequacies or point out the extreme improbability of what they propose.
What baffles me, is that those who mock the fact that people of faith believe that the universe was created, come up with theories that if people of faith came up with, they'd be rolling on the floor laughing at their ridiculousness. Yet they are accepted as plausible theories and published in scientific journals. Like this one, which states that in the early years of the earths history, the earth was warmed by giant dinosaurs farting (pardon the crudeness).
Stunningly beautiful adhaan from the Dome of the Rock in Masjid ul Aqsa Download (right click and choose "save target/link as").
This is a clear message for mankind in order that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He is only One God, and that those of understanding may take heed (14:52)
Indeed Allah knows, and you know not (16: 74, part)
This has always been a subject that interested me. Signs and Science. And I'm walking into the firing zone .
I believe that science became all the rage (although it was not like how science is taught in school these days) when it started to disprove some claims made by religious leaders with regards to nature and stuff. Hence, there were people who wanted to prove religion is inconsistent with the 'facts' and 'findings'.
Examples like the Earth is the centre of the universe only to be proven wrong by 'scientific observations', or that the Church will be protected from lightning (believed to be God's wrath(?)) whilst the brothel down the road installed lightning rods, the church did not, and was struck, bringing down the steeple and stuff and the churches eventually installing lightning rods, or that the Jews calculated when the earth was created by counting backwards to the creation of Adam and 7 days of creation amounting to thousands of years only to discover dinosaur bones dating back millions of years, made some people even more motivated to prove these men of God wrong.
However, the same situation does not apply to Islam, especially the Quran as the Quran IS the word of Allah, and Allah is the creator and it is impossible to be wrong. Like the examples of life made out of water, the embryo, and many more statements made in the Quran including the creation of the universe although commonly viewed as 'days' it also means 'periods'
So it was from this ideology that the belief of science and religion do not mix, when actually it does not conflict with Islam or the Quran. It may conflict with other Books due to the inaccuracies of their text.
Some atheists say that we believe in God because we don't understand how nature works. They call it "God of the gaps". Funny thing is that this reasoning is made up by them to try to make sense of why we believe in God. So actually the "gap" is on their side. Argument of the gaps.
It is not that we don't understand how nature works and we attribute it to God because we are too lazy to think of an explanation. It is through reason that we understand that the things we perceive around us must have a Creator. And, if we were to study how they work. I'm sure most muslims would say "SubhanAllah!" or "MashaAllah!", because it gives us even more to reflect upon.
That said, I think that aligning verses from the Quran and modern scientific discovery should be considered only as additional knowledge to have. The Quran is enough by itself. It does not need to lean on the fallible discoveries of modern science.
It is through reason that we understand that the things we perceive around us must have a Creator. And, if we were to study how they work. I'm sure most muslims would say "SubhanAllah!" or "MashaAllah!", because it gives us even more to reflect upon.
I agree with what you wrote. The thing that is odd to me is that those who believe in naturalistic evolution accept what some so-called scientist said as 100% true, but seem to not understand the basic biology of life.
human ignorance with a made up explanation that has no proof or reliable basis.
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
Precisely what atheists do and militantly so!
I assume you mean the Theory of Evolution. If so, I agree that it is a made up explanation with no proof or convincing evidence of veracity. Faith in ToE for the purely naturalistic origin of existing and extinct species of life is held as tenaciously by its adherents as faith in their creation by God is held by theists. Science does an excellent job of helping us to understand the intricacies of the natural world as it exists today and it can render some understanding of the past, but it can go only so far in answering questions of a metaphysical nature including those of where we ultimately came from and where we are eventually going. Science rejects anything that cannot be measured, observed or quantified to one degree or another. Science is incapable of determining the existence of a human soul that continues after physical death and it cannot accept the supernatural as an element of explanation for the origin of human existence.
Religion is by definition metaphysical as its core is belief in God that is beyond reduction to human comprehension. Religion addresses questions that science is incapable of answering including our purpose for existence and what comes after our death. I don't see that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but rather that they are complimentary. The issue at hand is that some people hold that ToE is a scientific theory; however, macro-evolution is not subject to experimentation or falsifiable in the same way that creation is not. ToE did not really take hold until Mendelian genetics was rediscovered in the early 1900's and some people latched onto genetics as the means for heritable changes over time from a basic Common Ancestor to give rise to the various species of life through natural selection that gave rise to survival of the fittest. I find it exquisitively revealing that ToE has not advanced beyond a most rudimentary level despite tremendous advances in molecular biology and genetics with sequencing of the genetic code of several species.
Note the definition of Theory:
1) a coherent group of tested general propositions,commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Science rejects anything that cannot be measured, observed or quantified to one degree or another.
Interestingly the word for "measure" in arabic is also the word for "power". For when we are capable of "measuring" something we in a sense have "power" over it.
"And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure.."
- Quran Sura Al 'An`Am Verse 91
"No just estimate have they made of Allah, such as is due to Him.."
- Quran Sura Az Zumar Verse 67
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks