Islam and science?

[Dirk_Deagler]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

 

[Woodrow]

No one really knows who invented the telescope. Although Galileo was the first person to have used it to observe the heavens and to record such data and have it popularized.

True, however it is safe to say he is the one who is most often credited as having invented it in the modern western world. It is known that several earlier civilizations had eyeglasses so the technology was there for it to have been invented by several different people at different times.

 

[Woodrow]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

Darwin's theory of Evolution is the most misunderstood theory that I have ever seen. Darwin never made any claims of discovering evolution. In Darwins time it was already accepted that evolution occured. Darwins theory was the "Theory of Natural Selection" in which he proposed an explanation as to how evolution occured. Yes, if it can be proven that Humans never changed, then that would dismiss Darwin's theory of natural selection and would mean that changes in other organisims is the result of some other factor either seperate from or in addition to natural selection.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Re: When friends lose faith ...

The golden arabic age was between approximately 800 and 1100 AD. I can't agree to calling it the golden islamic age, as baghdad at the time was completely open to jews, christians, doubters, eastern people, everybody. Also, many arabics of the time were hostile to religious thought.

I agree that politics and wars and other climatic factors were part of what ended this period, but the influence of religion should not be overlooked.
Look up Imam Hazid Al-Ghazali, who was around between 1058 to 1111, right at the end of this golden age.

I've searched a couple of queries, most of 'm came out blank in the end I found nothing, absolutely nothing, perhaps you could point me in the right direction here? I'm inclined to think this is a standalone case and hardly worth mentioning as an example to back up that sweeping generalisation.

More recently you've got Dirk's example re evolution, where religious folk won't accept the idea even though the evidence is so strong. And it isn't like many of them investigate it and find it wanting, they refuse to even consider it because they perceive a conflict between it and their religion. They only know of it the misunderstandings spoon fed to them by religious leaders. Many of them will flatly tell you that evolution says we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a whole topic on it's own altoghether I personally don't buy the theory, but I don't buy it because it's full of flaws and at the very least needs tons of modification before I can accept it, but if I would except it that would have no raifications for my belief, evolution theory can easely be "fused" with religion into some kind of intelligent design theory. So it's not like there's a need not to accept the theory. But I'd advise not to get into that here there's already a bunch of evolutionthreads here so lets not make this one another one.

Another example of religion standing against science in the modern world is stem cell research. Christians over here forbid scientists from researching on stem cells (we're not talking about living breathing fetuses here, just cells). They have actually placed the imagined interest of these cells over the intersts of living breathing people who will die because this research is impeded and new treatments will be delayed or not found at all.

Well I don't know what most imams say about stemcell so I wont voice an opinion here. But two interesting things to note here. First of, just because christians are against it doesn't mean Islam is necesairly against it to. Secondly, if certain groups are against it it's a matter of ethics, they do not oppose the theory, they simply think it's unethical. That's a whole difrent thing. In that line of thinking you could say that international treaty's holding back development of nuclear weapons are also dogmaticly holding back scientific advancement. And in a way you'd even be right. But obviously the problem here is noth the advancement or the theory, but simply the ethical question of the aplication of the theory.

 

[Dirk_Deagler]

They only know of it the misunderstandings spoon fed to them by religious leaders. Many of them will flatly tell you that evolution says we came from monkeys.

Well I don't know what most imams say about stemcell so I wont voice an opinion here.

Notice any patterns here? I think not thinking for yourself is a common theme. This is why I believe people of religion lack the ability to be critical thinkers. It's basically against their religion to do so.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

In the magical world where Gods exist, ANYTHING is possible, so I don't think this holds true. Evolution could exist and then God could come along and create an unchangeable master species, man.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Notice any patterns here? I think not thinking for yourself is a common theme. This is why I believe people of religion lack the ability to be critical thinkers. It's basically against their religion to do so.

I do have my personal opinions and I do think for myself, the reason I didn't voice them here is to avoid the risk of anyone associating my personal opinion to the classical Islamic view, which regarding this issue I am unaware of. Especially here since it's not a matter of linear thinking which can easily be proved. But a matter of ethics and values which is much more trickier.

But that's not really the issue here is it? It's not about stamcell or evolution or anything like that. The problem at hand here is with people considering their own opinion inferior to their religion. Now if people find their religion superior over their own opinion does that mean that religion holds back science? I don't think so. Well first of all it's interesting to note that I'm biased by my belief that my religion is true and therefor holding on to it can only help advancement in science where on the other your biased by the opposite belief and therefor believe that at some point religion is bound to work against science.

But apart from those two views, the Qur'an does tell us to investigate and learn, in numerous verses. So obviously just believing religion is right doesn't mean one can't be critical, ask questions and investigate. So your conclusion is utterly wrong. We are very much allowed to be critical and think for ourselves we are even encouraged to do so. But just because we're encouraged to do so does not mean that I will "preach" the outcome of this personal questioning in this tread. My personal opinion about stemmcell is irrelevant and of topic here. The title is Islam and science, not Steve and science.

The only thing I will agree on is that a religious person will be biased with his religious views when making a conclusion even if he is a critical thinker. However the same could be said from an atheist. An atheist will be just as biased. In sociology we speak of paradigms. A set of ideas and values by which a person is biased. For a religious person it might be his belief and for an atheist it will be his disbelieve, and some other stuff depending from person to person. So in a way I could argue that if that is the level of "criticism" that you are looking for that you won't find it in any human being. The only difference between atheistic paradigms and theistic paradigms is that theistic paradigms will bear greater resemblance to one another whereas the atheistic ones will differ greater because they will be based on different experiences which in their turn will be interpretated differently.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Human evolution is an integral part of evolution. Darwin himself once said that if it is found to be true that there exists a complex system which is found to be not evolved from a previous life form then the theory of evolution (THE ENTIRE THEORY) cannot be true.

Thinking human evolution is separate from the rest of evolution is the whole ball of wax. You can't separate it without debunking the entire theory.

I said it before, lets' not turn, this in another evolution thread, there's plenty of those, but I would quickly like to post out that there is macro and micro-evolution and then there's common descent. Three different theories which all are grouped together under evolution. Now the correctness of micro evolution for example tells us nothing about the correctness of macro evolution, and the correctness of macro evolution would tell us nothing about the correctness of common descent. So it is nothing like a ball of wax, it's all slices of uncompleted theories hanging together with strings.

 

[Dirk_Deagler]

ow the correctness of micro evolution for example tells us nothing about the correctness of macro evolution, and the correctness of macro evolution would tell us nothing about the correctness of common descent. So it is nothing like a ball of wax, it's all slices of uncompleted theories hanging together with strings.

That simply isn't true. They all rely on the same common threads. Variation and evolution at ALL levels is due to natural selection and mutation.

And that wasn't just my opinion, Darwin stated that himself while he was still alive.

Scientists have studied the genomes of humans and our closest ancestors, the great apes. They've found (I believe) our genes to be 99% similar. We also have a fairly good fossil record going back to almost the time when great apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Evolution of human beings has clearly taken place.

The idea that God would just come to a 5 billion year old earth take a look at some apes and make a species thats only 1% different is absurd. Its analogous to a fifth grader handing in the same report he did for 4th grade changing only five words.

So obviously just believing religion is right doesn't mean one can't be critical, ask questions and investigate. So your conclusion is utterly wrong.

I guess it depends on your definition of being a critical thinker. When believing a religion where there are definite rights and wrongs, there are bound to be conflicts of interest. For instance, Islam seems to be butting heads with evolution now. You claim that atheists have this same conflict of interest but this simply isn't true.

Atheists, or at least atheists like me, base their thought processes almost completely off of science. Whereas strict religious folks MUST first and foremost base their thought processes on their religion (which oh btw just happens to be the *truth* told in in hundreds of different versions that all absolutely positively must be correct.)

Like I said, I define critical thinking as keeping an open mind, not believing in absolutes, and not being fooled by everyone with a charming demeanor and catchy opinion.

You probably define critical thinking as believing in <insert whatever religious version of truth you were brought up with>

And believe me, thats understandable.

 

[Dirk_Deagler]

But, I also feel its regrettable!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That simply isn't true. They all rely on the same common threads. Variation and evolution at ALL levels is due to natural selection and mutation.

And that wasn't just my opinion, Darwin stated that himself while he was still alive.

Scientists have studied the genomes of humans and our closest ancestors, the great apes. They've found (I believe) our genes to be 99% similar. We also have a fairly good fossil record going back to almost the time when great apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Evolution of human beings has clearly taken place.

The idea that God would just come to a 5 billion year old earth take a look at some apes and make a species thats only 1% different is absurd. Its analogous to a fifth grader handing in the same report he did for 4th grade changing only five words.

Really, you should take this to the evolution treads I won't respond to these specific arguments here.

I guess it depends on your definition of being a critical thinker. When believing a religion where there are definite rights and wrongs, there are bound to be conflicts of interest.

Well that's exactly what I meant with both of us being biased. You believ religion is false therfor it's bound to conflict with science. I believe it's true so it it must go well with science.

You claim that atheists have this same conflict of interest but this simply isn't true. Atheists, or at least atheists like me, base their thought processes almost completely off of science.

Well odd thta you should say so because you relied on belief just a few sentences before. If you only rely on science you wouldn't have said: "religion and science are bound to be in conflict of interest"
You are not basing this on empirical testing are you? No, you voiced an expectation based on your personal belief so you are just as subjective as the rest of us.

Whereas strict religious folks MUST first and foremost base their thought processes on their religion (which oh btw just happens to be the *truth* told in in hundreds of different versions that all absolutely positively must be correct.)

First of all we CHOOSE to follow because we believe, it's not like we believe because we must. As for the hundreds versions; that is not something a scientist would say. A scientist would not judge one religion based on a difrent one. Logic would tell him that just because one religion is false, not all religions are false. A true scientist would either stay agnostic or examin all religions before shooting them down untill he is convinced by one or neither one.

Like I said, I define critical thinking as keeping an open mind, not believing in absolutes, and not being fooled by everyone with a charming demeanor and catchy opinion.

Yes, that is a healthy attitude. I don't like being fooled with charming demeanor and cathy opinions either. And I try to be as open minded as possible. But none of those stop me from believing. In fact it is due to this critical attitude that I came to Islam even though my mother is christian and my father was an atheist, and even though I've been atheistic in the past.

You probably define critical thinking as believing in <insert whatever religious version of truth you were brought up with>

I guess not

 

[Dirk_Deagler]

Well odd thta you should say so because you relied on belief just a few sentences before. If you only rely on science you wouldn't have said: "religion and science are bound to be in conflict of interest"
You are not basing this on empirical testing are you? No, you voiced an expectation based on your personal belief so you are just as subjective as the rest of us.

This isn't a belief, this is the conflicting nature of science and religion. Science bases its data on previous knowledge and always allows for itself to be proven wrong. Religion bases its data on its version of "the truth" and cannot allow itself to be proven wrong.

Because science allows for this possibility and religion does not, conflict is inevitable. This is not a belief, this is a fact. And asking me to do empirical research documenting such various conflicts is a straw man argument. Clearly science and religion have clashed in the past and clearly Islam and science is clashing now over the Theory of Evolution.

You believ religion is false therfor it's bound to conflict with science

Thats where you're wrong. I believe religion's methodology is false. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve something just because a religion said it was true.

A scientist would not judge one religion based on a difrent one. Logic would tell him that just because one religion is false, not all religions are false. A true scientist would either stay agnostic or examin all religions before shooting them down untill he is convinced by one or neither one.

A true scientist would not hold Islam above the hundreds of religions as you do. A true scientist would acknowledge that they can't all be right, and that there's really no good scientific reason to believe that any of them are right.

I'm really beginning to wonder what some of you guys are thinking. Do you really think that one of these days a group of scientists is gonna come along and get a research grant for finding "the one true religion" and actually find it?

Do you really think they're gonna find Adam and Eve test their genetics and find that we all came from them? Science isn't in the business of proving or disproving religion. Science works separately at its own pace independent of religion.

Thats why religion attacks science, as opposed to the other way around, because science has nothing to do with religion!

In fact it is due to this critical attitude that I came to Islam

Well, what can I say? I guess you're just more critical than I am. Maybe if I become as good of a critical thinker as you are then I'll convert too. kay:

 

[Abdul Fattah]

This isn't a belief, this is the conflicting nature of science and religion. Science bases its data on previous knowledge and always allows for itself to be proven wrong. Religion bases its data on its version of "the truth" and cannot allow itself to be proven wrong.

true, but IF religion is true then why would you need to be able to prove it wrong. Your argument only works after you assume religion is false. Only then it would be preferable that one can proove it wrong or at least modify. What your doing here isn't being critical it's being prejudgeded.

Because science allows for this possibility and religion does not, conflict is inevitable. This is not a belief, this is a fact.

No, conflict only comes if religion is false, if it is true then it wouldn't have conflict with science at all. So for you to claim that this is an inevetible fact shows just how subjective you are on this matter.

And asking me to do empirical research documenting such various conflicts is a straw man argument. Clearly science and religion have clashed in the past and clearly Islam and science is clashing now over the Theory of Evolution.

As for the past, again, you cannot judge one religion based on the expieriences of other religions. As for evolution, untill we got mechanistics theories evolution is still uncertain. And even if evolution is proven it is perfectly compatible with Islam. We just think it's unlikely. But it isn't directly contradicting Islam so there's really no problem.

Thats where you're wrong. I believe religion's methodology is false. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve something just because a religion said it was true.

Well when you give a religion the benfit of the doubt. Then you have to examin it under the assumption it is correct, otherwise you are running in circles. Once you assumed that it is true your objective with methodology becomes irrelevant.

A true scientist would not hold Islam above the hundreds of religions as you do. A true scientist would acknowledge that they can't all be right, and that there's really no good scientific reason to believe that any of them are right.

How can you say there's no good reason without first profoundly examening it? Again this isn't being critical but being prejudged. That's exactly the opposite of a scientist. A scientist examines and then draws conclusions.

I'm really beginning to wonder what some of you guys are thinking. Do you really think that one of these days a group of scientists is gonna come along and get a research grant for finding "the one true religion" and actually find it?

No I think to many people are stuborn, confused or malevolent for that to happen.

Thats why religion attacks science, as opposed to the other way around, because science has nothing to do with religion!

Islam doesn't attack science either. Islam only questions dodgy theories which are commonly viewed as scientific.

Well, what can I say? I guess you're just more critical than I am. Maybe if I become as good of a critical thinker as you are then I'll convert too. kay:

Only time can tell

 

[Keltoi]

Religion and science are sort of opposite in one important way. Religions believe they have the truth, science is a search for the truth based on testing and the scientific method. Science changes constantly to adapt to new information. Most religions aren't designed to change with new information. While there are conflicts between Christianity and science in many ways, I'm able to accept the contributions and importance of science alongside the contributions and importance of my faith.

 

[Dirk_Deagler]

How can you say there's no good reason without first profoundly examening it? Again this isn't being critical but being prejudged. That's exactly the opposite of a scientist. A scientist examines and then draws conclusions.

This argument applies to everything. The truth of the matter is, I'm sure theres a lot of research being done to prove religion_a or religion_b correct. It's not scientific because the goal presents itself before the research.

A scientists goal is to learn, a Muslim's scientist's goal would be to find proof for what he always knew. And this is in no way scientific.

Theres no good reason to research Islam because it can't be disproved, so all efforts to prove it would reveal and original bias. If something can be proved it can be disproved. And even you have to admit that the very nature of God keeps him from being disproved. Because god cannot be disproved hes not even within the realm of science.

No, conflict only comes if religion is false, if it is true then it wouldn't have conflict with science at all. So for you to claim that this is an inevetible fact shows just how subjective you are on this matter.

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.


I view all religions as being the same. They're all basically -cut to the chase- bs. 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.

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.

 

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)

Listen to the holy Quran---the Final Testament
Recitation of Sura Fathiha by Shiekh Saad Al-Ghamdhi of Saudi Arabia
http://www.islamworld.net/fathiha.au


&&&


Amazing Quran

by Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad_Omar) ex-Christian missionary




1 hour 59 minutes

http://www.mydeviant.com/miller/audio/mp3/GM_Amazing_Quran.mp3

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is a fundamental ideological conflict.

Change in Science is progress.

Change in religion is heresy.

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.

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.

Science is constantly striving to change itself (improve).

Religion is constantly striving to avoid changing (maintain tradition and dogma).

 

[Pygoscelis]

The problem at hand here is with people considering their own opinion inferior to their religion. Now if people find their religion superior over their own opinion does that mean that religion holds back science?

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.

===

Somewhat on topic, somewhat off topic...

This reminds of of the Asch two lines experiment. Its a rather famous study of how social pressure can force your views even when your senses are screaming against it.

Its a classic and has been repeated numerous times. It goes like this....

You sit with a group of five others and look at a screen upon which there are two lines. The line on top is 5% longer than the line on the bottom.

The psychologist then asks the person next to you which line is longer. He says its the bottom one.

The psychologist then asks another person in the group, then another, and another, until each of them has said the bottom line is longer. You are the only remaining person in the group.

He asks you which is longer. You say the bottom one.

And whats amazing, is that further studies have been done indicating that you not only say this to fit in, but you actually BELIEVE it.

They redid this study with the line on top being 10% longer, then 25% longer. They were able to get to about 30% on average and still get this effect.

 

[ashara]

Dirk (correct me if i am wrong) 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. (what makes science great - as u argued is that it is dynamic and changing as new information is added.but do not forget that this 'dynamic property of science' is created by many arguments and counter-arguments by scientists and sometimes the general public. so if it's still a theory, then why can't people still try to prove or disprove it?)
I do not know what your concept of science is, but i think you agree with me that it is the ability to think critically to solve a problem or to find reasons for an occurance or any application for that matter so long as it is based on logical thought. Biology is not the only science around - and not all science are based on empirical data. but the point is, to be a muslim of the highest degree one must be able to think and reason rather than follow whims and fancies or emotions. I agree that there are those who try to prove what they already believe - 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. in the same way, an over zealous believer might bend over to make what he thinks is true proven. but two things to consider here - no muslim will ever tell you that he understands all the meanings of the quran perfectly or that it can be perfectly translated to another language due to the subtlety and syntax of the arabic language. so either this 'religious' person labors on a misguided notion of the world or simply that science has not reached the stage where it can explain a phenomenon in detail. just like your story (i think it was u who posted it) about Newton - when the method (higher level maths etc) was not there, he relies on God. now i do not know what he said or wrote exactly, but i see nothing wrong if an intelligent person recognizes that he doesn't have the necessary tools to carry on with his work to acknowledge his limitation and as a person of faith acknowledge that God knows so much more.
secondly, we muslims believe that the quran is for everyone - a poet sees beauty in it's prose. a scientist sees that it does not go against established facts in science and so on. U must understand that it is easy for us to argue now about science and religion but about 1400 years ago when the quran was revealed the believers did not have the luxury of multimillion dollar labs and research funding - or did science have much popular support for that matter i think. but in order to become good muslims, they went all out to figure out the world around them - not necessarily to understand the scripture but to gain 'good points' to go to heaven. finding the way to determine exact time was important in order to pray on time. curing someone became important as saving one person is likened to saving the whole society or the entire human race (i can't recall the exact verse in the Quran -muslim bros and sis help pls).

i do not think there are any 'headbutts' going on between science and islam. there nothing wrong in islam to use science to make life on earth better for everyone. science is a tool for society to use, just like morality is a tool for binding the society together. for early muslim and many of us to this day, science is a tool to get closer to God. and if there is any conflict, it is either because the tool is incomplete (or the wrong one is used altogether), or the believer's understanding of the words of God is wrong. and muslims in general acknowledge this. so how can religion be 'stopping' the progress of science when it is required by our faith to increase knowledge?

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

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.

 

[KAding]

Re: When friends lose faith ...

Well it's true that Islam is no longer the center of learning, but I think that's a problem of poverty, not a result falling into a simular funk. Since the colonisation and all the war in the middle east it has become hard for Islam to still be the center of the learning world.

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).