Islam and science?

[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]

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]

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

 

[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.