Science V Religion does it have to be this way

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3rddec
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44
  • Views Views 8K
3

3rddec

Account Disabled
Messages
117
Reaction score
8
I find it infuriating how every scientific advance is immediately jumped on by the Anti God brigade and I don't mean honest athiests because they can understand why a belief in God is as valid as their own. They just can't understand many religios peoples inability to understand their logical choice.

But back to my original thought; why does their have to be conflict between Science and Religion surely they are just exploring the Universe from opposite perspectives. Religion starts with God and leads to his creation whereas Science starts at his Creation and leads to God even if some scientists think otherwise.

Lets have some scientist come on and say I'm a scientist and I love God and dispell this myth that science and religion don't mix.

this video could be a good catalyst to discussion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/sep/03/god-stephen-hawking-m-theory

Love and Respect
 
I am not a scientist. But there are plenty of scientists who are not atheists. The broader heading for this subject is epistomology. How do we know what we know? All knowledge is not emperical. And because some knowledge is not emperical, does not automatically mean it is untrue or untrustworthy. Some knowledge cannot be known apart from Divine Revelation. You might be famililar with the concepts of general and special revelation in Christian theology.

With regard to present or past scientific knowledge, we know that science has been wrong in the past. This does not render it useless of course, but when certain theories are accepted as supported, but do conflict with Divine Revelation, it is not ignorance but wisdom that gives us pause to adopt that which is contradictory. What those within the Christian faith have done is conduct their own research based on different presuppositions. This should be looked at as healthy and good, and not with disdain as it often is.

This is clearly evident in the on-going debate between Creationist and Atheistic/Theistic Evolutionists. Those arguing against the Creationist view are usually dismissive rather than open their research and findings. And I don't see in Creation Science the attitude of anti-science. They simply disagree with the others.
 
The greatest issue I see in the Science Vs. Religion debate is when either side tosses out the scientific method in favor of supporting their view. Sadly, I must say I see this more from a religious standpoint than others (and not just in things like Creationism, it's RAMPANT in Archaeology, which is what I am studying to move into). And the scientific method does not allow for presuppositions. :/ Any time a belief is used as a starting point, it introduces bias into the findings.
 
Little_Lion said:
The greatest issue I see in the Science Vs. Religion debate is when either side tosses out the scientific method in favor of supporting their view. Sadly, I must say I see this more from a religious standpoint than others (and not just in things like Creationism, it's RAMPANT in Archaeology, which is what I am studying to move into). And the scientific method does not allow for presuppositions. :/ Any time a belief is used as a starting point, it introduces bias into the findings.
Click to expand...

every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

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

dont you think such beliefs can introduce biases and its only religious belief that is so blameworthy?
 
mad_scientist said:
every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.

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

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


I never said that only religious belief was blameworthy, I did say it happens on either side. The major difference is that when subjected to peer review and experimentation by other scientists, the results must be repeatable and consistent within an acceptable range. This does a great deal to eliminate bias and narrow down the margin for error (and if it's one thing it seems that scientists love to do, it's point fingers. XD ), as biased findings often do not stand up to repeatable experimentation. Religiously based or not, they are shown to not work.
 
Science and Religion will be at odds so long as Religion continues to make claims about the physical world. Such claims can be investigated by science and Religion can stand in the way, so there will be conflict.

They are opposite in direction, science bottom up and religion top down, but they are also opposite in approach, science being investigation and religion being revelation. Religion is authority driven and science in method driven. They will often conflict.
 
mad_scientist said:
every experiment conducted has biases, known or unknown.
Click to expand...

This is true. But the big difference here is that in Science these biases and assumptions ("Faith" if you will) are to be kept to a minimum, whereas in religion they are amplified and rendered holy.

A little "faith" may be necessary with scientists, such as faith in their own senses and measuring equipment, but this "faith" is a necessary flaw, not a virtue.
 
And scientific biases are shown to be incorrect all the time; thus, scientists continue experimentation and research and learning. Many of the things Einstein taught, for example, are now under major, major review, because we've learned so much since his time.

*grumbles* The big one that I really wish scientists would stop spouting as "fact" is the age and size of the universe. You can bash them over the head with a mallet screaming in their ear "you cannot state such things as fact when measured from a single point! You can only make a valid conclusion when measured from multiple points, which we cannot do yet, so stop saying you're right!" all you want and it's in one ear and out the other. GRRRR! :lol:
 
IMO, there should not be a "RELIGION" VS "SCIENCE" comparaison, as if we have two interchangeable systems of living. Science cannot substitute religion, neither religion could exclude science. If there is contradiction between the two, that's because we should have a better understanding of our religion or we should revise some of our scientific theories; but we can't say that the totality of our science is incorrect, or that one cannot be religious in order to be a scientist.

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

With a clear and coherent religion, we can have a wider understanding of science, and with a scientific knowledge we can understand more our religious texts and concepts.
 
Little_Lion said:
I never said that only religious belief was blameworthy, I did say it happens on either side. The major difference is that when subjected to peer review and experimentation by other scientists, the results must be repeatable and consistent within an acceptable range. This does a great deal to eliminate bias and narrow down the margin for error (and if it's one thing it seems that scientists love to do, it's point fingers. XD ), as biased findings often do not stand up to repeatable experimentation. Religiously based or not, they are shown to not work.
Click to expand...
I dont know much biostatistics and biometrics (ill try to master it in summer, outside of school studies) hence I cant comment on narrowing down the margin of error. The fact remains is that no matter how many times an experiment is repeated by different scientists in different parts of the world, new biases are introduced, new confounding factors are induced. Margin of error can be narrowed by repetition under same conditions, but it is never eliminated. Moreover, the uncertainty in the validity of the results always remains, even if its 99% certainty that the results are valid.
 
mad_scientist said:
I dont know much biostatistics and biometrics (ill try to master it in summer, outside of school studies) hence I cant comment on narrowing down the margin of error. The fact remains is that no matter how many times an experiment is repeated by different scientists in different parts of the world, new biases are introduced, new confounding factors are induced. Margin of error can be narrowed by repetition under same conditions, but it is never eliminated. Moreover, the uncertainty in the validity of the results always remains, even if its 99% certainty that the results are valid.
Click to expand...

Quite correct, which is why long-term experimentation by a variety of individuals is necessary. It is a foregone conclusion that any finding in science has a margin of error (a good example of this is the significant figure, which is pretty much universal in science). But that is quite different from say, a chemist saying that they have isolated a new element in a laboratory under X conditions, and no one else can do it given the same conditions.
 
Anywhoo, back to the original point . . . I do not believe at all that science and religion need to be at odds with one another. I'm proud to call myself both a fledgling scientist and a religious person.

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

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

Science does not necessarily oppose Religion, but it's naive to think Science and Religion are just 'different perspectives'. Religions make claims about the universe and Science makes claims about the universe; if the two claims contradict, then logically only one can be true.
 
Little_Lion said:
Anywhoo, back to the original point . . . I do not believe at all that science and religion need to be at odds with one another. I'm proud to call myself both a fledgling scientist and a religious person.

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

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

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

I would have to disagree. Let us say, for example, that the section changed was in reference to . . . Ibrahim, may be be blessed. I find a "different" Qur'an that adds three lines, and says that he went to this village, stayed the night, and spread the word of Allah, for example; lines that are not in the Qur'an on my desk. I see no reason why this would change my faith in Allah? In this case the addition could like I said, be an error of the person writing it, or, we would have to consider, there had been a different version. Yes, that would be HUGE news in the Islamic world! It would go against everything we believe about the Qur'an's history. But by the same respect, it doesn't actually change anything about Allah's message. Do you see what I'm saying?
 
Last edited:
Muslims were once #1 in Science. They still can be, only contraversial subject like evolution (basically saying we evolved from monkies rather than Created) may be disregarded, everything else is a go as far as you can.
 
Little_Lion said:
I would have to disagree. Let us say, for example, that the section changed was in reference to . . . Ibrahim, may be be blessed. I find a "different" Qur'an that adds three lines, and says that he went to this village, stayed the night, and spread the word of Allah, for example; lines that are not in the Qur'an on my desk. I see no reason why this would change my faith in Allah? In this case the addition could like I said, be an error of the person writing it, or, we would have to consider, there had been a different version. Yes, that would be HUGE news in the Islamic world! It would go against everything we believe about the Qur'an's history. But by the same respect, it doesn't actually change anything about Allah's message. Do you see what I'm saying?
Click to expand...
yes i do know what you mean. Failure of being able to preserve Quran would jolt the very foundations of Islam, do you know that? It will reduce Islam to crumbles in the minds of those believers who do reflect and ponder.

Allhamdulillah it has not happened in 1500 years. And it wont happen ever.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope that it would not, and I hope that the faithful would remain faithful, insha'Allah.
 
Little_Lion said:
I sure hope that it would not, and I hope that the faithful would remain faithful, insha'Allah.
Click to expand...

it has to be more than "i hope so." That means we accept that there is a possibility that Quran will not be preserved in future. It means we do not believe in Allah swt word whole-heartedly, there is still doubt about His existence and Being. Something to think about for you and for me as well.
 
Just because the Quran has been changed (assuming for the moment that it has been), that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that Allah does not exist.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top