Is Science an actual Religion; and for who?

**Curaezipirid** · 09-30-2006

Assalamalaikum

Here I am intending to express at first only an individual perception that I am open to having changed for the better if that can be. However, I believe it is a worth regard that I am in for Science as a valid Religion of many Men in 'the west'.

I am expressing this within a comprehension of the fact that very very many good Men in 'western' industrialised democracies have not been given good Religious Education. My own father for example. There are countless examples of young boys whom were raped by clergy as altar boys etc. There are countless examples of Men whom were raped by prostitues whom prevented them sustaining their self within a Religious doctrine. This is sadly the state of modern society. Many Muslims readily regard most such persons as kafir. But it is also that case very obviously here in Australia; that very many good Men are among these groups. As I state, my own father, is a good example. He never speaks of God, but I know he believes; and he expresses his belief through science.

So can we, as Muslims, accept that Science has become a default Religion for persons such as my father?

There Faith is tantamount to never ever enabling any single belief to be regarded as true unless they are provided with immediate bodily evidence.

This same group of people most often only talk of God in terms of "I do not know" or "I can not know". And are trying to express that of all that exists which Men can not explain, neither can Men explain what God is or is not. In that we must know as Muslims that Allah Himself is alone in being able to explain what He is and is not; and that is of the miracle of Qur'an. But if a Man whom is in some distress from environment has never encountered Qur'an; and other Abrahamic Religion has sheltered shaytan whom abused his person; then what can he express if not "I don't know".

Is Science then qualifying for the status of a Religion?

I must add that to my own perception Science is only able to claim any such basis when teaching about the biological experience of death is a part of a persons general knowledge. Yet even simple facts like that electric signals can continue in the nervous system long after the heart stops beating; and that mono-sodium-glutimate consumption can lengthen that period; should really be enough to provide for that necessary fear in Allah of the grave, that will accord behavioural compliance with things proven to be good for health.

As I have elsewhere reported I became Muslim after it was proven to me that Ramadan is good for health; and that was also after having read a book within a Muslim teaching, but without realising it as Muslim then yet. So I had all the scientific evidence of Islam before the foundations of the Muslim culture; except as Muslim culture is contained within the Scientific teaching my Father provided, and in combination with the provision of a Traditional song cycle from Aboriginal culture. By the time I first learned what the five pillars are I just thought; well then that makes me already a Muslim; and I prounounced Shahada the moment I learned that it exists.

Are there scientists whom might engage in an experiment of pronouncing Shahada as an experiment upon themself, and how will Muslims regard them?

The reality is that modern Science came out of Islam; so surely we will be able to draw it back in. But in the time before that can occur, are agnostic scientists able to be regarded as true believers? and can that substantiate Science as a Religion?

mu'asalam

**Curaezipirid** · 10-02-2006

Originally Posted by wilberhum

Again, Wow, and Trumble complained about my wind analogy.

Where as I complimented it so that you might believe that you are on the right track despite you adversarial condition.

**Trumble** · 10-02-2006

Originally Posted by wilberhum

Ever heard of space travel? Do you think they might do some testing in near zero gravity? Silly silly! I will waist no more time.

Some 'testing' of what? I suggest you "waste" a few minutes actually thinking about the question. What IS "zero gravity"? You can't pick up a piece of zero gravity and place it in the midst of an experiment to see what happens. You can't remove it and see what happens. Ditto with the other fundamental forces I mentioned.

All you can do is examine what happens to a physical object, or objects, in different places in space. In all of those places that object or objects will begin to accelerate in some direction or other, relative to something or other (the observer, if you like) at varying rates. That is ALL you can observe, moving objects - not 'gravity'. The scientific explanation for that movement is called 'gravity', that being no more than some equations that happen to explain and be capable of predicting that behaviour.

Now, let's look at God. Say that it isn't gravity that moves those objects, its God. God, being both omnipotent and omniscient could, of course, move those objects and any other objects (stars, planets, whatever) any way he liked. He may well choose to do so in accordance with with what we call 'Newtonian motion' - or indeed relativistic motion if you want to be picky - most of the time. But He doesn't have to, one day He might decide to do something totally different for some deep purpose we cannot understand. We might be watching, we might not be.

The point is that both scenarios provide satisfactory explanations as to why those objects move. Neither can be 'proved' or 'disproved'. In neither case can we manipulate the 'force' concerned, be it gravity or God. There are such things as 'wind machines', but there is no gravity machine, or of course God machine. As I said, the only reason the 'gravity' explanation is preferred - even by theists (although they might believe, of course, that God 'created' gravity) - is that it seems more likely.

Originally Posted by Curaezipirid

You have to place an object near to a gravitational force and then move the object.

Which demonstrates exactly what? See above. In that instance you are just begging the question by assuming there is a gravitational force to place the object in.

I have been lead to believe that there are Buddhist Monks whom have undergone experiments upon their brain energy patterns, and have proven that Prayer helps them to relieve thier stress. Perhaps Trumble knows more about that?

No, although its hardly surprising. Most meditation activity, Buddhist or not calms the mind, thus relieving stress, which is one reason many people do it. The effect on brain activity can be scientifically measured, although that can't be directle equated to 'feeling' less stressed.

**Joe98** · 10-03-2006

Example of science at work:

We can observe that we have a “0” and a “9” but we don’t know what is in between.

A scientist comes up with an idea and discovers a “5”.

Three more scientists in different places completely independently do the same test and confirm the findings. Now we have a “5”.

Yeas later, the technology and instruments have improved. Yet another scientist does a completely different test and once again confirms the “5”. But during the experiment, he finds a “7”.

After finding the “7”, the scientist concludes that between the “5” and the “7”, there is a “6”.

This really excites the scientific community and they do lots of experiments to confirm the “7” and the “6”.

Unfortunately the “6” was not confirmed by the other experiments but it is reasonable to conclude there is a “6” between the “5” and the “7”.

For the purpose of other experiments, scientists will assume there is a “6” until it is proven otherwise.

Science is not religion, it is a methodology.

**Curaezipirid** · 10-03-2006

Is not all Religion methodology?

A methodological manner of prescribing what are the most healthy Human mental patterns.

A good Religion provides methodology for prescribing Human mental patterns which cause Human beings to form mental associations to examples of becoming certain that no Human could possibly be responsible for having caused much of what our experience is.

As for the oh so very seemingly difficult concept of God/Allah, that is clearly too simple for some folk, never associate any of your own mental patterns with what God might or might not be able, since you run the risk of deifying yourself in your own mind. And we can all agree I am sure that "I like my point of view best" does not qualify any semblence of belief in any amount of matter.

But I should get to the point here: Perhaps, just perhaps, God is less able to vary any real phenomena than we could suppose. Perhaps in one single instance of creation God conceived of every realisable possiblity: and then became the manifestation of, without any new possible arrangment able to be made, from the point of view of Elohim Allah, or God. In fact, that is what is meant by the teaching that Mohammed is the last Prophet. It does not mean that no other persons can exist whom will be capable of making prophesy; but that there are no further Prophesies Allah knows we need to be aware of. So Allah can not just decide to change any of it around now. We each in fact have more room to move than Allah because Allah is perfect, where as we are within the realm of being mistaken at times. So we may vary our mistakes and then find that either our variance accorded that we lost sight of prophesy and so missed a boat or two, or that our variance, oops, actually could make any of us responsible for having caused some of the nastier prophesies. But that is Islam as a known Religion, and here I am trying to make an argument that there is a form of Islam in which the only identity available is that of scientific method.

According to the will of Allah means according to the pattern predetermined to be the one which best enables the most life.

Incidentally the reason that "both scenarios provide satisfactory explainations for why objects move" might be because they are in fact the very same explaination.

Consider this: what are the full range of options for your own self in placing your own body in any city scape? If you can place your body in any place, the maybe Allah can rearrange matter also.

mu'asalam

**Trumble** · 10-03-2006

Originally Posted by Curaezipirid

Is not all Religion methodology?

A methodological manner of prescribing what are the most healthy Human mental patterns.

A good Religion provides methodology for prescribing Human mental patterns which cause Human beings to form mental associations to examples of becoming certain that no Human could possibly be responsible for having caused much of what our experience is.

Good point. I would agree that "methodologies" are precisely what all religions are.

Incidentally the reason that "both scenarios provide satisfactory explainations for why objects move" might be because they are in fact the very same explaination.

Indeed, but a theist could be on very dangerous ground there. The reason that the theory of gravity is universally (to all intents and purposes) accepted is that it both explains and is capable of predicting what will happen in every relevant case. Surely a theist would be very unhappy at the idea that the actions of God could be predicted in such a fashion?

**Curaezipirid** · 10-05-2006

Assalamu Alaikum Trumbe and others reading this thread

Originally Posted by Trumble

Which demonstrates exactly what? In that instance you are just begging the question by assuming there is a gravitational force to put the object in.

My apology for being imprecise, I was meaning that to experiement upon an object you place it in a myriad of different places in which there are different gravitational forces at work, from that of the Earth Sun and Moon; to being swung around in a bucket.
There is another way of describing gravitational force. As a Law of falling. Any object "FALLS" toward that which it is closest to in density of the particles of which it is comprised, and density of vibrating energy between the particles.

Originally Posted by Trumble

Indeed, but a theist could be on very dangerous ground there. The reason that the theory of gravity is universally (to all intents and purposes) accepted is that it both explains and is capable of predicting what will happen in every relevant case. Surely a theist would be very unhappy at the idea that the actions of God could be predicted in such a fashion?

Not at all. The explainations that Scientifically verifyable laws provide are the most common source of validating faith in one God. Who could have caused that such a Law is in existance besides that constance of creative universal, unifying and absolving, energy of intelligence whom God/Allah is, and within whose consciousness we all can only exist.

However: it is made a point now that we need to concentrate energy upon the what distinguishes scientific methodology as though it could ever have been seperate from Religion. So I now need to also make the point that was Science lacks in methodology which a Religion provides, is behavioural instructions and codes of conduct within which we must focus our minds upon ever causing no harm, and in causing the least possible harm, and in accepting that when we cause harm we must enable that such acts are for the advantage of other persons and not our own self.

I am also now thinking about the significance of Buddhism as a Religion that provides good self discipline in Scientific method for Religion. Pity about Buddhists allowing no belief in One God; but I believe that such a structure within a Religion has only a limited time duration. Trumble: have you the translation of the Kalama Sutra available? It is the best of any Prayer for the methodolgy of Science and I am sure Muslims can obtain beneficience from.

Assalamu Alaikum Curaezipirid