Science V Religion does it have to be this way

[CosmicPathos]

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.

Allah has promised in quran that it wont change. if it does change, it raises questions about existence.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Or just about that one particular claim attributed to him. It could very well be that Allah does exist but not precisely as muslims see him. Or is the idea that if that were so he'd cease to be considered Allah? 'Would you all stop worshiping him if one detail was shown to be incorrect about him and the truth shown to be that he was slightly different?

 

[Little_Lion]

*psst* Pygo, be careful of the use of the word "all", because I'm sure we'd "all" answer differently.

mad, IMVHO it would not raise questions about existence, it would raise questions about the ability of Man to follow His Word. But that is only my opinion, and Allah knows best.

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

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.

I have no accreditation as a scientist so I offer these in lieu:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

btw those quotes were from Albert Einstein. Is that what you were looking for?

 

[Trumble]

Is that what you were looking for?

I suspect not, as Einstein stated he did not believe in a personal God, let alone love Him. Spinoza was a pantheist whose concept of God got him excommunicated (or whatever the Jewish equivalent is). That view is actually pretty common among scientists, though - particularly cosmologists. Read into that what you will.

In my opinion religion and science don't 'mix'. That does not mean scientists cannot be religious, and vast numbers of them are, nor that science and religion cannot co-exist (indeed, I believe it is essential that they do). It doesn't even mean people can't have hours of harmless fun looking out for 'parallels' between passages in whichever scriptures they read and articles in the latest Scientific American, as long as they don't take the exercise too seriously.

There are rarely cases where science and religion appear contradictory, various creation myths and the theory of evolution by natural selection being the most significant exceptions. In those cases, where accomodation cannot be reached, the issues must simply be put aside and both sides be willing to acknowledge there are simply some things one can explain, but not the other - and vice versa. They represent, in effect, totally different epistomological realms. There is no 'versus'; science cannot address the moral and ethical and (if we are honest) many ontological claims of religion, while religion cannot substitute for the scientific method. 'Creation science' is a complete nonsense, no such thing exists except as a label to fool the gullible into believing that somehow religion can 'compete' with science on its own ground. It can't. The irony is that such an idea demonstrates not only ignorance of what science is, but of what religion is as well!

 

[- Qatada -]

Science is purely neutral, because it only tells HOW the universe around us works.

Then people make their own conclusions as to WHY it works in such a way through religion and philosophy.

 

[Fivesolas]

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?

The only thing that would change would be the Islamic apologetic with regard to the preservation of the Qur'an. There would have to be internal contradictions, genuine contradictions, to get you to doubt the message on the basis that the message has changed. But if you have two manuscripts that recite more or less information that is non-contadictory, you don't have a problem with the message. Just a dilemma on which reading is genuine. i.e. the one given to Muhammed.

 

[Fivesolas]

Science is purely neutral, because it only tells HOW the universe around us works.

Then people make their own conclusions as to WHY it works in such a way through religion and philosophy.

I disagree Qatada. Having been versed in the creation/evolution debate, I can tell you from my study, science is not pure, nor is it neutral.

 

[Trumble]

I disagree Qatada. Having been versed in the creation/evolution debate, I can tell you from my study, science is not pure, nor is it neutral.

In practice rather than theory, you may well be right about 'pure'! As for 'neutral', it cannot be in this case because as I explained above there simply is no 'creation/evolution debate' in any meaningful scientific context. Such is left for philosophers and theologians.

 

[Fivesolas]

In practice rather than theory, you may well be right about 'pure'! As for 'neutral', it cannot be in this case because as I explained above there simply is no 'creation/evolution debate' in any meaningful scientific context. Such is left for philosophers and theologians.

See, you have to explain what you mean. The scientific gestapo doesn't allow the scientist to begin unless they begin with naturalistic presuppositions. What these Darwinian Fundamentalists have done is to re-define science to include materialism a priori. For example, consider the following from Richard Lewontin:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.



​

 

[Verdetequiero]

No. Science is neutral in terms of materialism as well. Scientists use materialism and naturalistic frameworks because they work better than alternatives. If a scientist wants to posit a non materialistic or naturalistic framework that adheres to scientific standards they are free to. Mostly you get creationist or religious scientists who rightly point out flaws in the materialist and naturalist framework but then get hurt when science rejects their appeals to ignorance or their conclusion leaps. Naturalism and materialism are not absolutes, some just needs to create a credible alternative which has mostly failed so far.

 

[Zafran]

salaam

science isnt Neutral - It all depends whos doing the science - science has and probably always will be restricted to ethical, cultural and religious norms.

peace

 

[Fivesolas]

No. Science is neutral in terms of materialism as well. Scientists use materialism and naturalistic frameworks because they work better than alternatives. If a scientist wants to posit a non materialistic or naturalistic framework that adheres to scientific standards they are free to. Mostly you get creationist or religious scientists who rightly point out flaws in the materialist and naturalist framework but then get hurt when science rejects their appeals to ignorance or their conclusion leaps. Naturalism and materialism are not absolutes, some just needs to create a credible alternative which has mostly failed so far.

This is what happens when you don't know the facts. This statement is patently false and can't be subtantiated. In fact, there would be no science if it were not for those who believe in God, a God of order, and sought out knowledge in what was made. Here are some of the folks and discoveries from scientists who believed in God:

Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister, 1827-1912.
Bacteriology, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.
Calculus, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.
Celestial Mechanics, Johann Kepler, 1571-1639.
Chemistry, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.
Comparative Anatomy, George Cuvier, 1769-1832.
Computer Science, Charles Babbage, 1792-1871.
Dimensional Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.
Dynamics, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.
Electrodynamics, James Clarm Maxwell, 1831-1879.
Electromagnetics, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.
Electronics, Ambrose Fleming, 1849-1945.
Energetics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.
Entomologyof Living Insects, Henri Fabre, 1823-1915.
Field Theory, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.
Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes, 1819-1903.
Galactic Astronomy, William Herschel, 1738-1822.
Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.
Genetics, Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884.
Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.
Gynecology, James Simpson, 1811-1870.
Hydraulics, Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519.
Hydrography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.
Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662.
Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.
Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsay, 1852-1916.
Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.
Natural History, John Ray, 1627-1705.
Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernhard Riemann, 1826-1866.
Oceanography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.
Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster, 1781-1868.
Paleontology, John Woodward, 1665-1728.
Pathology, Rudolph Virchow, 1821-1902.
Physical Astronomy, Johann Kepler, 1571-1630.
Reversible Thermodynamics, James Clark Maxwell, 1831-1879.
Stratigraphy, Nicholas Steno, 1631-1686.
Systemic Biology, Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778.
Thermodynamics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.
Thermokinetics, Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829.
Vertebrate Paleontology, Georges Cuvier, 1769-1832.

 

[Pygoscelis]

salaam

science isnt Neutral - It all depends whos doing the science - science has and probably always will be restricted to ethical, cultural and religious norms.

peace

Lets try not to confuse science itself with the scientists that try to adhere to it. Science is a method. It is neutral. Scientists are biased and will contrain what science they do based on what you say, and they will also stray from the scientific method from time to time and misreport etc. That is not a flaw of science. That is a flaw of humanity.

 

[Verdetequiero]

This is what happens when you don't know the facts. This statement is patently false and can't be subtantiated. In fact, there would be no science if it were not for those who believe in God, a God of order, and sought out knowledge in what was made. Here are some of the folks and discoveries from scientists who believed in God:
<snip>

For the life of me I can't figure out what this has to do with my post in any way. I am assuming that you think that somehow there were people who believed in God who invented things and then.... I don't know. That there were and are people who believe in God and are scientists isn't even in dispute.

 

[Perseveranze]

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.

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

 

[Zafran]

Lets try not to confuse science itself with the scientists that try to adhere to it. Science is a method. It is neutral. Scientists are biased and will contrain what science they do based on what you say, and they will also stray from the scientific method from time to time and misreport etc. That is not a flaw of science. That is a flaw of humanity.

There is no science without scientists.

Some things that are in the realm of science are Controversial - For example lets say if scientists would test people from different races and find that some races were smarter then other races - that would be seen as racist in many socities - same thing about gender and sexuality.

Furthermore the same thing could be said about Nukes and weapons testing, clones etc etc.

These have been and probabaly always will be controversial and will have ethical, cultural and religious norms restricting there research.

 

[Verdetequiero]

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

The mainstream answer is, of course, no one knows as there is very little to no data on it.

 

[Trumble]

Would love to hear your scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang.

Keeping two things in mind ofcourse -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
2. Nothing is infinite in Reality.

Why should those particular claims be taken account of? There is no reason to even assume they are true, let alone any proof that they are. Not to mention that if there is a God, then logically both of those claims cannot be true.

 

[moonseo]

Science Versus Religion – Why Does There Have To Be A Versus?

So I hear about a debate between Bill O’Reilly and some atheist the other day. I was going to post the video, but it is a mind-numbingly stupid conversation all around. So anyway, the part that got a lot of people’s attention was O’Reilly’s assertion that since the tide goes in and then goes out and that no one (in his mind) could explain it, that was proof that God exists. Um, no Bill, things that you do not understand is not proof of God’s existence (though if it were, the proof of God’s existence would be overwhelming!). Bill seems to have gone to the Kirk Cameron school of religious logic.

But hearing about this did remind me of something that I’ve always wondered. Why is religion a threat to science and why is science a threat to religion in some people’s minds? Why can’t there be evolution AND a God? Why can’t there be a Big Bang AND something bigger than ourselves? OK, just because I can’t explain something does not prove the existence of God. But I would also argue that just because I can explain something does not prove the lack of existence of God. It is called faith for a reason, I don’t see a need for either side to try to apply the scientific method to it for definitive proof one way or the other.

If anyone has a theory about why some scientists and some religious folks feel the need to be at odds with each other, I would love to hear it. And while we are on the subject of trying to find answers for things I don’t understand, can anyone explain to me why the heck Two And A Half Men is America’s number one comedy? I mean, it can’t be because people actually enjoy this show, can it? Could it be that by just random chance, Two And A Half Men just happens to be on the tube in Nielsen households as they are attending to other things like washing dishes, doing laundry, watching paint dry……? Because really, I’m leaning toward believing that this is undeniable proof of the existence of Satan!

Quran Tutor:
we are providing Online Quran Reading we have qualified Quran Tutor and we are providing Best services in the World. teachingquran.com