From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Summary: Maybe it is cool to discuss it intelligently
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:08:16 GMT


           Religions and Science
           ---------------------

 Well I guess I started the discussion on how a set of beliefs may hinder
scientific discovery. That discussion entangled into many different sub-topics
and I made several remarks about Quran and Mohd (which I consider as true) which
turned to be counter-productive. As a result, I decided to take a leave to 1-2
weeks to let matters cool down. 

 I think we ought to keep ISLAM, QURAN and MOHD out of this discussion. This
will enable muslims to contribute to this discussion. Also, we should not
indulge into name calling because that is counter productive. Finally we should 
keep posts to a page or so, to anable people to contribute without losing their
jobs. (I know I can only devote 15-30 minutes to all newsgroups, and I have
rec.sport.cricket for 10 minutes).



As a result, the topic of discussion is:

      COMPARISION BETWEEN  A SET OF BELIEFS AND SCIENCE
      -------------------------------------------------

 
Definitions; 

 Set of beliefs: Any set of axioms held true by a set of people. Axioms may or
                 may not be consistent. Example include religions, nationalism,
                 racism, etc

                 A racist (white) may not investigate how white skin actually
                 increase your chances of getting skin-cancer, since that is
                 against his/her belief that white skin is superior.

 Science: A consistent set of axioms held provisionaly true by a set of people.
          Axiom may be changed or modified at anytime, as long as they do not
          make any other axioms inconsistent. If they do, then those axioms may have
          to be removed or reworded. At any given time, the set of axioms must
          be consistent or under investigation.

 Given the definition above I see two factors that may shape a given set
of people.

        1. Hinderence (as explained above) to scientific discovery.
        2. The energy that people find in these set of beliefs.

It is easy to see that (generally speaking) people are more motivated on 
the issues of race, nationality, religion, etc . They are willing to give
up their life for their set of beliefs. 

So I think, while a set of beliefs may provide energy for the cause
it may ultimately fail, since it rules out investigation of all possibility.
Even if one axiom is wrong, it may prove fatal.
On the other hand, science allows to examine ALL possibilities, which slows
down the progress, but if something is wrong with our axioms, it will be found.

In this sense, science is self-correcting, while a set of beliefs is ASSUMED
correct.

Maybe science is too slow to solve real problems, maybe people should just
go with one solution and bear the consequences ?
Maybe set of belief systems are too rigid that they allow no minor adjustments
toi fine tune the system.

Unfortunately, both systems cannot be fixed very easily.
In science, we cannot say that we will not question a fixed set of questions
anymore. If we do, the science loses its definition. Same is true for a set of
beliefs. If we allow flexibilty, their charm as a CORRECT system is gone.

I dont know how to find middle ground, or even if there is any middle ground
or that we should even look for one.

One way out of this mess is to separate the areas of application of both
systems:

 1. In our work, business and career, we use scientific system.
 2. In our relationships (including with god), we use a set of beliefs.

It works okay for most people. Once, one of friends said, it is tough to have
relationship with you, you reexamine it everyday. While this is an not entirely
true. But I do tend to do that. Thus application of science can be hazardous
to one's relationships. 

regards,

-Naveed





Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian