From: THS1@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science (was Re: Islam & Rushdie -- Icarus.)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:12:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92272.091247THS1
 <92267.103714THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Sep24.201050.29830@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep24.201050.29830@cs.yale.edu>, ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU
(Shakil Waiz Ahmed) says:

Shakil:
>> >One's belief in religion is also supported by experience.  If I read
>> >certain basic truths in the Qur'an, many of them relating to science,
>> >and I see these truths in real life, my beliefs are being supported by
>> >experience.
Me:
>> Fine. But then this experience is not universal. If in my life I find
>> that belief in God and religion is unnecessary, should you have a
>> problem with that? There are millions of people who find religions
>> other than Islam to be perfectly satisfactory for their spiritual
>> needs, and there are others who are atheists (like me). What is wrong
>> with their experience? If you wish to believe that Islam is THE perfect
>> religion, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to accept that, ok?
Shakil:
>When did I ask you to accept that?  You forget that I am *defending*
>here.  I never went and made snide remarks about *your* religion, but
>there seem to be no end of ones made at mine.  Of course, none of them
>are based on fact or evidence of any sort, making them very easy to
>refute.

    If the claim is that Islam is the perfect religion, for all of
    (wo?) mankind, for all time and space, and you believe in that claim,
    then how can you not ask anyone else to accept it? You will find it
    somewhat hard to make snide remarks about *my* religion, as I profess
    none. Also, you never answered what is wrong with the experience
    of atheists or believers of other religions, whose experience support
    such belief. (This arose because you claimed that your belief is
    supported by experience).

Shakil:
>> >can question the obvious.  From the religious perspective, a person
>> >can also question God until he/she ends up in hell.  But most people,
Me:
>> Is there any verified/verifiable incident where one ended up in hell
>> by questioning God? I wonder why I am not shivering in my boots by
>> the prospect of ending up in hell?
Shakil:
>What does that have to do with it?  Your original statement was:

    So what kind of experience (direct, historical) supports the concept
    of hell? Or are we just going back to faith here?

I indeed said earlier:
>   Scientists do not operate in a belief-free world. It's just that the
>   established set of beliefs can be questioned.
Shakil:
>Who said that all their established set of beliefs is based on
>experience?  Most scientists believe that they will die.  Have they
>been through the experience?  Nope.  So how do they know it will
>happen?  Again, one can question anything.  Most people just choose
>not to question the obvious.  For a Muslim, Islam is obvious.

    Looks like you are missing out on a great advantage of belonging
    to the human race. You see, we do not have to know everything via
    direct experience, as we can share the experience of others by
    a variety of means. That's how science can advance. Yes I do
    believe that I will die (and so will you, brother Shakil), but this
    belief is not blind. And if I get to be 150 years old with my mental
    and physical faculties intact, I will start questioning this belief
    of mine.

Shakil:
>And you seriously think that someone who goes around wetting his pants
>in the above-mentioned manner will be looked upon favorably by society?

    No. But wetting pants will not invite a death threat. But look what
    happened to Salman Rushdie. [Actually, I would have preferred it if
    Rushdie had written a scholarly work subjecting Mohammed's motiva-
    tions in creating Islam to critical analysis, but I don't know if
    historical materials exist to permit such an enterprise].

Me:
>> Why does a supposedly "timeless" document preoccupy itself so much
>> with the social conditions back then?
Shakil:
>Because a timeless document has to relate to *all* times, including
>the time in which it was revealed.

    The keyword in my original question is "so much". Why is it that
    for problems we face today, the answers are not given directly,
    whereas social ills of the past time at a particular locale
    were addressed in detail?
    Also, you did not care to mention how Islam would accomodate
    women with many husbands who may wish to convert to Islam, or men
    with >4 wives who wish to do that. Remember, you claimed that
    the permission for upto 4 wives were to accomodate such situations
    of preexisting polygamous marriages.
    I can think one of the following as a plausible explanation:
    1. God (or his prophet) did not know about certain social customs
         in Tibet.
    2. Quran is not complete. It does not address certain situations.
    3. Islam discriminates against women.

    On to Bucaille (Since the topic is Islam and Science).
    I have read parts of his book. He went to great lengths to show
    that Quran is consistent with modern science. From a very narrow
    point of view, he may be right. But then, there are many other
    books that are consistent with modern science. Some Hindu epics
    describe fantastic weapons. Some people believe these are pointers
    to nuclear weapons. The real question is, is there anything of
    scientific value in Quran? If Quranic description cannot be used
    to discriminate between competing scientific theories, then the
    answer would appear to be no. For instance, Bucaille shows that
    Quran is consistent with modern astronomy. What he fails to mention
    is that Quranic descriptions are also consistent with geocentric,
    Ptolemaic astronomy. Thus it is that Arab astronomers, with Quran
    by their side, were unable to hit upon the Copernican framework.

T.H.Sanyal.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:32479 soc.culture.tamil:2544