Islam and science?

[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.