From: fafat@usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Science/Islam/Religion
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:46:58 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

From: gt7242a@prism.gatech.edu (KHAN,RAHEEL)
I have been following the on going debate on SCP about the imcompatability of 
relgion and science. The debate in many ways is not a new one, but rather, it


	It's been clobbered out of shape on sci.skeptic.


At the heart of the debate is a deeper issue.  The issue infact is of man's
rebellion against his Creator, of his conceited proclamation of sufficiency and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^

	The issue is whether there is an a priori *need* for a concept of God
	to explain anything at all. It's not a matter of conceit but of 
	critical analysis.


Science is a tool for acquiring knowledge, given to man by his Master, Allah 
(SWT). Another of his innumerable bounties.  


	Allah/God is a tool for propagating *ethics*, given to man by some
	scriptures. As far as that is concerned, God is outside the purview
	of Science, by definition. However, if you are claiming God to be
	a physical entity "sitting out there, pulling strings", Science
	denies it till now since there is no need for such a catastrophic
	assumption - catastrophic because it signals the end of *logical*
	analysis. 


Sceince was given to man so that he could see the
signs of his Creator and submit his will to the Allah, and thus fulfill the 
aim of his creation.  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	aim of creation = submission to Allah?? hmmmm.
	Science was developed by man so that he does'nt have to resort to
	ad hoc hypotheses which have no *predictive* power.



Islam, unlike Medieval Christianity, encourages man to seek, to learn, so 
that he may be better able to appreaciate the signs of his Lord.


	But it's "conceit" to question the existence of Lord??



is reliable.  That man's knowledge (individual and collective) is finite 
is an undisputed fact.  Our physical senses are tools with which we acquire
information about our surroundings, our reasoning is a tool with which 
we piece together this information into a gossimer of reality (or, more
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
accurately, what we percieve to be reality.  Our knowledge(of reality) is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	Depends on what you mean by "reality". As long as you don't give an
	operational definition, Science can't touch it and you're dabbling
	in metaphysics. And if you do try, then Quantum Mech. would tell you
	that the "gossamer of reality" is the *only* definition of reality.
	There's nothing more to it. You could, of course, challenge QM, but
	remember that there's not a single experiment to violate QM while
	God remains a largely *subjective* idea.




Reality, however, has infinite dimensions, and our senses and our reasoning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	A very ambiguous statement. In what sense do you refer to "infinite
	dimensions"? Complexity?? The power of Science lies in the fact that
	it's able to collate and correlate seemingly unrelated phenomena at
	vastly different scales and summarize them in the form of a handful
	of laws.


are admittedly finite.  This is why two seemignly contradictory observations
may infact be correct.  What we know at a given time constitutes our view of 
reality, but does not encompass reality in its entirety. An analogy that 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       [deleted]

Similarly, the our perception of reality is made up of shadows of Reality.
We can never encompass it completely.  The short comings of science must be 
accepted and its value in the determination of the absolute truth must not 
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	The main problem with the theists has been an inability/unwillingness
	to define the terms they use. Perhaps you want to try?? 


be over-estimated.  Relativity, Quantum Physics, the Theory of Evolution are
all tranistory in nature.  Tommorrow, some other, "more comprehensive" theory
will replace them.  


	That's the basic requirement of any scientific theory: that it should
	be falsifiable. That does not relegate them to a level below the
	"theory" of God. 



Islam uses a very simple terminology.  Its teachings are very easy to
understand, perceive and believe in.  It invites man to make use of 
the faculties given to him and try to acquire the fullest possible 
understanding of life surrounding him.  It does not as such admit of
any inborn hositility between reason and religon or, for that  matter,
between science and relgion.  It does not force man to believe in  silly
stuff as a prior condition to his belief in God.  


	Even Science uses a simple terminology :), it's teachings are easy to
	understand and perceive and believe in. It also invites, etc. And
	it does not have any need to believe in any silly stuff. In fact, it
	does away with the need for a Creator.



Not content with this, Islam impresses upon man in clear and unequivocal
terms that it is God and God alone Who has in His immense mercy
subjected all the things on this earth to man, and that all the facts 


	Science impresses upon man in clear and unequivocal terms that it is
	physical laws and laws alone which govern everything. And Science 
	does'nt demand blind faith like Islam does...



a worthy slave of so Merciful and Beneficent a Master. Thus Islam
holds knowledge and science as a part of faith rather than regard    
these as an evil intrinisically opposed to genuine belief in God."


	Whereas the concept of God is intrinsically opposed to the basic tenets
	of Science.



Science is a powerful instrument to help us increase our knowledge of 
things around us.  As such it has an impressive record of achievements
to its credit.  All these brilliant achievements were, however, vitiated
by on fatal mistake of the westerners:  they installed science as 
supreme God, declaring that it alone had the right to claim the 
adoration and submission of man unto it.  


	And of course one fatal mistake by the Easterners : they installed
	Religion and God as the governing factors, declaring that God alone had
	a right to adoration and submission from man.



Thus they denied themselves
all means of acquiring knowledge save that recognized by empirical 
sciences which let humanity wander farther away than bring it nearer
to its real objective or destination.  


	... which is???



Consequently, the otherwise
vastly immense range of human endeavor and progress shrunk small with
limitations such as all empirical sciences entail....."


	yea. I say a pink turtle swimming in Indian ocean governs all creation.
	Deny that.


"The protagonists of science also claim that science alone can introduce
man to the secrets of this universe and life:  hence, only that which
is upheld by science is true; the rest is trash!  


	Not trash but idle speculation which has to be taken on faith, not
	any kind of demonstration as to the veracity of the speculation or
	the reasons underlying them.


But while making such
a statement they overlook the fact that science with all its brilliant
and impressive record is still in its infancy and ever hesitant to 
commit itself as regards the veracity or supposititiousness of many 
things for the simple reason that it cannot penentrate deep into the 
heart of reality beyond effecting a mere superfluous survey of it.  But
still its votaries clamour and tell us with a very authouritative air
that there is no such thing as  a human soul in existence...."


	And all the Priests say very authoritatively that there *is* such
	a thing called "human soul" without a shred of evidence. Science is
	slow since it's thorough; Religion is a flight of fancy and hence
	claims to go deeper when it really is'nt saying anything.


"Such then is the 'enlightened ignorance' man suffers from today, which


	The same can be said about Religion :)


shows how desperately he stands in need of Islam to blow away these 
'scientific cobwebs' of today as well as the imbecilities inheritied 
from a remote past. 


	No. He stands in need of Science to blow away these "religious cobwebs"
	as well as all the imbecilities inherited from the past.



needs must be shaken off.  It is in this persepective that Islam 
emerges as the only hope for humanity, for it alone can restore 
peace between religion and science, bring back once more the tranquillity
and concord to this distressed world of today that has lost them through 
the perverted attitude towards life of the dominant West, forestalling 
an irreconcilable antgonism between man's reason and intuition, between
his desire for knowledge and his craving for God."


	Every Religion claims the same and there's nothing which says that
	Islam is better than Christianity. each one is a different way of
	life and there's nothing God-given - pun unintended - about Islam
	or Christianity or Science, for that matter.



So it is not science or knowledge that Islam opposes.  It is the diefication
of science that it rejects. 


	For all Science would care. Science, in its turn, rejects the 
	deification of Islam (say).



In spite of its advances, science fails in presenting a unified picture of 
the reality.  It takes more belief to believe in science than it does to 
believe in God.


	You're kidding on both counts, no?? The merit of Science is in 
	Unification and it certainly asks for no blind faith. It produces
	results for you to see.


  Lets assume, that form a scientific point of view,
the existence of God cannot be proven.  That only means two things:  either
there is God, or there is no God. Lets assume that there is no God.  Then
we are left with a whole spectrum of unexplicable and disjoint observations
which can never be explained by science.
         ^^^^^^^

	Pretty strong, that.


  What was there before the universe
came int being by itself?  How and why did it come into being?  The very
existence of the universe, the existence of natural laws, the existence of
air and water, the existence of life and the our own existence can not be
explained by science alone.  The answers to such questions are beyond the 
scope of scientific knowledge. 


	You seem to be lagging in Modern Physics. Some reading might be 
	helpful in enlightening you about the current status and direction of
	Science. But to play your own game : What was there before God came
	into being by itself? How and why did He come into being? The very
	existence of God cannot be "explained" by Islam/Religion alone


 In Islam, given the fundamental beliefs, 
of which the most fundamental is the existence of God, every thing else
makes perfect sense! 


	In Science, given the necessity of Field Theory, everything else makes
	perfect sense! You see, with God, you're just regressing one step
	further. And what happens to the Pink turtle in the Indian Ocean? 
	Why can't I say that he keeps track of whether someone can time-travel?



Do we think that if we have recognized the existence of the very laws
that he has set in motion that we are independent of him, that we can
rival his authority?                     


	Sure. Nothing wrong with being *objective*. If your God does exist,
	he should be most happy with this.



for the past fourteen hundred year?   In spite of this I appreciate the 
sincere efforts of my brothers and sisters and I pray that Allah give us all
enough knowledge and guidance to judge between the truth and the falsehood. 
I will, Insha'Allah (if God wills) try to post an explanation of the verses 
according to Maulana Maududi and Imam Ibn-e-Kathir.

Wassalam

Raheel Khan


	It's a matter of faith whether you want to accept Allah or whatever.
	Science does perfectly fine for me..

	FFT


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan