Islam and science: The road to renewal - ECONOMIST

[FaujHistorian]

I

What I said was that if the alleged allusions towards scientific facts in the Koran are true than maybe thats worth looking into & a form of corroborating the authenticity or the divinity of the Koran. !

Divinity of Quran comes from faith

Because only faith allows us to believe in divine things.

Science on the other hand is never based on "divinity". Any scientist referencing "divinity" as one of the sources in his "reference" section will be promptly be thrown out of community.


So I wonder why on earth you want to support your faith using science.

Will someday you will leave your faith if the science says so?

See the danger hidden in your arguments?


This is why I urge you guys not to drag Quran through the scientific mud. You will not like it if some scientist using "scientific methods" to discard your beliefs.

Thank you

 

[Developereo]

Sorry for the late responses; it was Friday night and I had to do other stuff...

Was Mullah Khomeni a proxy TOOL? if so, whose TOOL? American? French? or Martians?

Is Ayatullah Khaminae a proxy TOOL? if so, whose TOOL? American? French? or Martians?

I thought I mentioned that in my earlier post. In cases where the political and religious leadership merges into a single entity, the formula still holds. The Iranian Ayatollahs, for all their religiosity, have not put the lid on science in Iran; they know that, without science, they might as well fold up and accept defeat.

Was Mawdoodi a proxy tool? if so, whose TOOL? American? French? or Martians?

Once again, we have a case of religious/political leadership merging (to some extent). Despite the pious exhortations, these mullahs were more interested in worldly power than eternal salvation; hence their desire to keep the people in control.

But this would be fact, that pre-Islamic North India was dominant in Learning, and Post Islamic South India is dominant in Learning.

I don't want to sidetrack into what is essentially a domestic Indian debate, but I know for a fact that Tamil nationalists would vehemently dispute your claims.

The Currency of victimhood seems to be appreciating very fast and bringing you good returns.

If you had bothered to actually read my comments instead of bloviating, you would note that no one is playing victim here. We accept that Muslim societies are backwards in science and the fault lies entirely with those communities. The debate is about which part of the society shoulders the largest blame for this calamity.

I agree with the OP that the blame lies with the people in charge, i.e. the political ruling classes. Note that, by and large, Muslim societies which are democratic also tend to be more progressive in science compared to the totalitarian regimes. This is not a random coincidence.

So Faujhistorian taking on your ummah gang singlehandedly become islam bashing by "usual suspects".

I am not castigating anyone specific and there is no ummah gang. Once again, it helps to actually read before posting.

I think different groups prioritize things differently. For muslims its more about being religious, and living simple. They tend not to be into havy tool usage and making money. The leaders of the muslim world (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc) have oil and thus no need to really be focued on producing products and services to make money like resource barren Japan and Korea do.

It's dangerous to generalize since Muslims are not a homogenous group.

Certain subgroups within Muslims are notorious/famous for exactly the characteristics you deny to Muslims (worldly + money focus). Also, I know for a fact that madrassa graduates from these communities (Khoja, Bohra, etc.) tend to land in Ivy League schools. What it shows is that the supposed apathy towards science and modernity are not mandated by Islam, but are artificial constructs of certain community/political leaders.

 

[Contrarian]

Develepero even today its not tamil nadu that is high in research and technology. Tamil whatevers can debate how much ever theywant.

The 2 hubs are karnataka aand hyderabad(andhra pradesh). TN is not even in the picture.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Hello my good friend. Hello.

For some reason you are too brief in this post.

Please clarify what I said and contrast it with Ghazali's stance or Ibn Rushd's.

What the poet said

--- Saaf chuptay bhi nahi
--- Saamnay aatay bhi nahi


Hazoor-e-wala?


peace

Qibla .... Salam.

Religion - becomes strong by solidifying old myths and traditions

Science - becomes strong by destroying and superseding old myths and traditions.


Religion and science are like oil and water.

They cannot mix and should not be mixed.

This post defines exactly the dilema we have faced since the inception of our religion.
The absolute nature of religion is what was proposed by Imam Ghazali, whereby all pillars of religion were thought to be perfect and absolute as they are;
leaving little or no room for improvement or questioning leave alone explanation.

Ibn Rushd however was of the opinion that religion is as explainable by logic as any other axiom of science.

I believe Science and mathematics are nothing but tools. Tools that help us understand the natural order.

There is no such thing as a miracle, it's just the execution of natural order at a higer level.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Divinity of Quran comes from faith

Because only faith allows us to believe in divine things.

Science on the other hand is never based on "divinity". Any scientist referencing "divinity" as one of the sources in his "reference" section will be promptly be thrown out of community.


So I wonder why on earth you want to support your faith using science.

Will someday you will leave your faith if the science says so?

See the danger hidden in your arguments?


This is why I urge you guys not to drag Quran through the scientific mud. You will not like it if some scientist using "scientific methods" to discard your beliefs.

Thank you

Again Sir, you are debating with the premise that Religion CAN NOT be explained by logic.
However you have not given enough proof as to how you came to that conclusion.
May I ask to re-think this premise ?

Sorry for the late responses; it was Friday night and I had to do other stuff...



I thought I mentioned that in my earlier post. In cases where the political and religious leadership merges into a single entity, the formula still holds. The Iranian Ayatollahs, for all their religiosity, have not put the lid on science in Iran; they know that, without science, they might as well fold up and accept defeat.
.

Hello,
Actually this is funny.
If the Ayatullahs tried to lid science it would be very very Ironic indeed.

I don't want to indulge further in this aspect; but let me tell you that it all goes back to 4 Calips and Ghazali after that.

 

[Redbull]

Asking whom ? There is nothing to suggest that he had any correspondence or acquaintance with a man of science ! Therefore thinking that somehow 1400 years ago a merchant with no formal or informal education whatsoever would find himself asking questions of a nature that seasoned academics were debating in Constantinople.

You don't need any sort of education to simply ask someone "what happens in the Womb?" Infact Muhammed the Prophet who was searching for answers to life would have been most curious to this question. You do not need an education to simply memorise information told to you and repeat it in a much shorter form.

Now is it impossible to think that on his journeys outside of Arabia he could not possibly asked this of a learned person and then memorised the answer(it's a paragraph long) and then transmitted it. Again, is it impossible to believe that throughout the 40 years previous to prophet hood, not a single learned person made his way to Arabia, and Muhammed, the man who spent years in the cave searching for answers could not possibly been looking for such answers?

Oh its no theory, Galen himself had to rewrite some of his manuscripts because of forgeries & there really is no authoritative collection of work that can be attributed to him.

I wouldn't know that ! I never studied Biology; I think @Talon would be a better bet at explaining away this !

Either way I found a nice article on this maybe its right maybe its not but it does seem referenced reasonably well enough : Embryology in the Qur’an: Fetus acquires a skeleton « The Islam Papers

I was referring to the "Muhammed copied from Galen" part as a theory. These verses comes out of no where as though there is no context, the previous verses are talking about heaven hell, and guarding your private parts. Galen wrote volumes on this subject and he came to his conclusions from dissections and observation. Galen went into much more detail.

And regarding the biology part, I've personally gave these verses to an embryologist at my university to convince of the truth of Islam, he was not impressed. There is a long history regarding the so called, 'Science in the Quran' and the link you gave is by Dr Keith Moore's research in the 1980's. It is now outdated, and Mr Moore refuses to comment on it, he did not convert to Islam. Modern embryologists like Dr PZ Myers who have studied it have not been impressed either. I will recommend you read his views on it.
Islamic embryology: overblown balderdash » Pharyngula

I also have another 100 page in depth analysis of embrology in the Quran by another Embrology masters student.

Actually the San'aa Manuscripts predates that by quite a few years & maybe written between 15 & a few dozen years after the Prophet (PBUH) 's death.

But what exactly does this establish ? That the Oldest surviving copy of the Koran belongs to the 7th or 8th century ? So ? The authenticity of the Koran is established through historical continuity between generations & not individuals where one generation transmitted the oral, written & historical evidence to the succeeding generation. And this continued on for generations upon generations without any evidence to suggest that the Koran was tampered with or reconstructed from any of the historical sources, to the best of my knowledge, from that era all the way up til the 8th century & later on.

Furthermore the role of the Hufaz cannot be belittled because herein there was no ecclesiastical structure to suggest that anything close to a differentiation between the Holy Texts being made available to the common man from the clergy. Thousands of Hufaz learned this at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) with one generation transmitting it to the other till now they measure in the millions each reciting the Koran in the same manner down to the last letter.

The Sanai is half and diverse, regardless, two questions:
1. You have two hufaz and a dispute occurs regarding what the verses are, what do you do?
2. Even if there were multiple variants of the Quran, can we trust the believers of the Religion to have transmitted it to history, the Quran was supposed to be "protected by God" after the Prophet died, to simply assert that there were multiple variants of the Quran would mean the Quran is self-evidently false.

Anyway, as I have asserted above, I don't believe it is altogether impossible for Muhammed himself to have got this knowledge.

This is one of many alleged scientific miracles of the Koran from everything from the Nature of the Universe to the parting of seas.

Think about it; how did he know so much...not one, two but quite a few !

Dude, we'll discuss the rest of the 'scientific miracles' later. If you had youtube, I would have given you videos to show that all this science in the Quran business was propoganda, funded by the Saudi government, and the scientists were framed to make such assertions.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

If you had youtube, I would have given you videos to show that all this science in the Quran business was propoganda, funded by the Saudi government, and the scientists were framed to make such assertions.

Western Scholars Play Key Role In Touting 'Science' of the Quran - WSJ.com

 

[Armstrong]

You don't need any sort of education to simply ask someone "what happens in the Womb?" Infact Muhammed the Prophet who was searching for answers to life would have been most curious to this question. You do not need an education to simply memorise information told to you and repeat it in a much shorter form.

Now is it impossible to think that on his journeys outside of Arabia he could not possibly asked this of a learned person and then memorised the answer(it's a paragraph long) and then transmitted it. Again, is it impossible to believe that throughout the 40 years previous to prophet hood, not a single learned person made his way to Arabia, and Muhammed, the man who spent years in the cave searching for answers could not possibly been looking for such answers?

I concede that were this looked in a vacuum it is indeed possible that he could have asked a learned person to tell him the intricacies of embryology - the stages etc. But there is no evidence to suggest that he did. Furthermore were this the only alleged scientific miracle in the Koran we might be able to attribute it to a single haphazard occurrence but you've got dozens upon dozens of them of a nature that were established much later on; therefore there must have been some evidence to suggest a sojourn with someone more than just a 'learned man' to have acquired such knowledge.

I was referring to the "Muhammed copied from Galen" part as a theory. These verses comes out of no where as though there is no context, the previous verses are talking about heaven hell, and guarding your private parts. Galen wrote volumes on this subject and he came to his conclusions from dissections and observation. Galen went into much more detail.

And regarding the biology part, I've personally gave these verses to an embryologist at my university to convince of the truth of Islam, he was not impressed. There is a long history regarding the so called, 'Science in the Quran' and the link you gave is by Dr Keith Moore's research in the 1980's. It is now outdated, and Mr Moore refuses to comment on it, he did not convert to Islam. Modern embryologists like Dr PZ Myers who have studied it have not been impressed either. I will recommend you read his views on it.
Islamic embryology: overblown balderdash » Pharyngula

I also have another 100 page in depth analysis of embrology in the Quran by another Embrology masters student.

That link had quotes to a book on embryology that was published in 2010.

Ask @Talon - a plant geneticist - on the veracity of this; I did, she seems convinced that such is the embryological cycle.

I asked a Doctor as well he seems convinced about that also.

I wouldn't know the first thing about Science behind Embryology so I can't comment on it; I can only rely on the opinions of others to know what the heck is being talked about ! And for all the naysayers I've come across many others who've made a similar case as well. I dunno talk to @Talon further about this !

The Sanai is half and diverse, regardless, two questions:
1. You have two hufaz and a dispute occurs regarding what the verses are, what do you do?
2. Even if there were multiple variants of the Quran, can we trust the believers of the Religion to have transmitted it to history, the Quran was supposed to be "protected by God" after the Prophet died, to simply assert that there were multiple variants of the Quran would mean the Quran is self-evidently false.

Anyway, as I have asserted above, I don't believe it is altogether impossible for Muhammed himself to have got this knowledge.

(1) Were there two Hufaz I would understand where you're coming from but the thousands & hundreds of thousands in turn are what are testament to its historical continuity. Furthermore there isn't a schism in recorded history that I've ever come across within the Muslim Society whereby the authenticity of one version of the Koran was pitted against another on the contrary the question of different 'versions' never arose. Surely if that were the case, with so many diverse Empires, Cities & so-called Scholars, many of whom were vying against one other, at least a few instances would have been recorded whereby the Koran in one region or being taught by one set of scholars, was found to be textually different than the other ?

Surely its not a very hard question to say : Dude, these two copies don't add up ?

Why isn't there any such mention of it before ? No rebellion to such effect, no schism, no differentiation or even a grudge ? Why ? In fact why this unanimity across the Muslim World & across Recorded History on the textual content of the Koran ?

(2) I'm sorry I don't quite follow; there is nothing to suggest that there were multiple variants of the Koran ! There were Koran written in the Qureshi & the Non Qureshi dialect but they were discarded & replaced by Usman (the 3rd Caliph) with an official copy of the Koran in the Qureshi dialect that it was revealed in !

One might be justified in arguing that what if he (Usman) tempered with it & that tempered copy is what has stood the test of time but one might also be justified in asking - Why isn't there any recorded evidence to suggest that there was a feeling, never mind, an actual revolution or a schism, two very likely things seeing that we've pretty much butchered each other & created our own sects on the slightest of pretense ?

Dude, we'll discuss the rest of the 'scientific miracles' later. If you had youtube, I would have given you videos to show that all this science in the Quran business was propoganda, funded by the Saudi government, and the scientists were framed to make such assertions.

I have youtube - Hotspot Shield !

But you do realize that for the nays you've got the ayes as well !

I remember going through a similar 'Quran's scientific miracles' debunked site which ended in 'So what is the right path ?' - 'Believe in Jesus..he is the way' ! Doesn't help with the credibility does it !

 

[FaujHistorian]

Your post shows you are weak in logic; I am not sure how much further this debate will go.
and btw, I never claimed to be a Ghazali supporter, I sympathize with his POV,
I have remained Rushd's admirer and uptil now I have been blessed with enough knowledge to let the two be in peace.

FYI.

I don't find many followers of Rushd in Pakistan. What I have seen is that true followers of Rushd are modern day Europeans.

peace

 

[Developereo]

Do you understand how science works?

Just for balance, it should be noted that science, too, is ultimately based on faith. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any non-trivial system of logic can never prove itself; there will always remain a kernel of unprovable assumptions -- otherwise known as "faith".

For example, one of the most basic assumptions in science is the belief (based on blind faith) that the laws of nature are the same throughout space and time. We have no reason to believe that is so; we just assume it because, otherwise, science would grind to a halt.

 

[FaujHistorian]

......., it should be noted that science, too, is ultimately based on faith. ......

Well said.

You go to these different conferences and guess what, you find these groups gathered together like cults. They hammer their opponents with the zeal very similar to a Mullah or an Ayatullah.

Some of them know that I have nicknamed them "Ayatullah Bob", and "Mullah Dick" (actual names changed to protect the fine scientists from MIT )

Ayatullah Bob and Mullah Dick used to issue fatwas and there were (and still are) "hertics" and there are "apostates" in their book.

So yes. Many good/revolutionary scientists who do not agree with well accepted theories (read religion) are not treated well. They can and do lose funding etc. and they have hard time getting graduate students. The grad students who do the slave work not unlike the robot monkeys in Mad-house Rassah madrassahs forced into rote learning for years on end.



However the similarities stop here.

the main characteristic of scientists is that they do come around when faced with solid mathematical proof or at least by repeatable experiments. And they reject "faiths" that cannot be proven with repeatable experiments (remember the cold fusion experiments?)


Religion on the other hand lives on one-off deals. Much of it is not repeatable experimentally and forget about providing mathematical proof, unless you are a douche bag Pakistani scientist trying to provide a mathematical proof for the weight of a Jinn .

Mircales like cutting moon into two halves, or flying Burraq to heavens is something like a one off deal.

Either you believe it or you don't.

And believers like me (an otherwise strong proponent of science) say Oh well may be it was a spiritual journey and not a physical one. But you go to our Ansari Baba Ji in Bihar, and this poor man does believe that Mohammad pbuh used a physical flying horse like an airplane to fly off to Aqsa, and then the same angel turned into something like spaceship and took our prophet to 7th heaven.

Do you think I should try to convince innocent old man in his 80s that no no Baba Ji, 1400+ years ago was not the time of planes, trains and automobiles.

But if the same baba Ji (like you my dear poster) comes over hear and tries to say the travel from Makkah to Aqsa to 7th heaven can be proven mathematically, well then I'll ask for a proof and I'll make fun of him for making mockery out of our beautiful religion.


So you see develpro Sahib, you can choose to live like 80 year old Ansari baba from Bihar,

Or be a real scientist and defend science from these phony Islamo-scientists(like this Egyptian Baba pseudo-geologist pseudo-Islamist).


Thank you.

 

[Developereo]

Many good/revolutionary scientists who do not agree with well accepted theories (read religion) are not treated well. They can and do lose funding etc. and they have hard time getting graduate students.

Very true. However, my point was even more basic than that.

the main characteristic of scientists is that they do come around when faced with solid mathematical proof or at least by repeatable experiments. And they reject "faiths" that cannot be proven with repeatable experiments (remember the cold fusion experiments?)

What you are describing is the scientific method, which I am not impugning or trying to equate to religion in any way.

My point was simply to address the claim that religion is based on faith, whereas science is 100% based on logic. That is false.

The unprovable assumptions I mentioned in my post are fundamentally unprovable. It's not a question of anyone coming around or not. It is mathematically proven (by Goedel) that there will ALWAYS be some assumptions that simply can not -- not ever -- be proven within science itself. They lie outside science and MUST be taken on faith.

The particular example I gave, about the immutability of nature's laws, was just one example. It may turn out that someone will eventually prove that particular assumption to be true through logic, but they will only do so by invoking more primary assumptions which, in turn, will have to be taken on faith.

To tie it to your example, I agree that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method. An experiment repeated in another country two years later must yield the same results to be scientifically acceptable. However, that can only happen if the laws of nature are the same in both countries and across the years. They happen to be, and we rely on that, but that is merely an observation. No one has proved from first principles why that should be so.

Anyway, this is probably getting away from the topic and I agree with the general thesis that religious texts should not be viewed as encoded repositories of scientific knowledge.

 

[Dubious]

Whats going on here? I was summoned! I am too lazy to read some 13 pages! A summary of whatnot will be useful @Armstrong @redubull ?

 

[Echo_419]

I don't know why people are comparing holy books with modern science
They are 2 different things

& nesscity drives innovation & science why Saudi Arabia & Quatar such resource rich nations lack in science & not Japan & South Korea

Bcauz Saudi Arabia & Quatar have a lot of resources if they don't innovate fine but Japan & South Korea need to innovate bcauz they don't have this luxury

Religion has nothing to do with science

 

[Gentelman]

Whats going on here? I was summoned! I am too lazy to read some 13 pages! A summary of whatnot will be useful @Armstrong @redubull ?

Islam has relation with science or not...
thats all...
both types of stupids are here...
am the one who suppose that Science is related with Islam and also a third type is here...
yeppp!!
that type who have nothing to do with it but spreading conspiracies among is.....
well i have a great issue with third type...