Science V Religion does it have to be this way

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

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

every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

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

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

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

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

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

Hi

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

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

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

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

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