Most religions including Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Jews etc. have claims that all scientific facts already have been mentioned in their respective Holy Books. In modern world, however, It is Islam which is most extremist on this issue. Their is a class of Muslim scholers who try to understand the results of scientific researches made by scientists (including recent and older researches). When they half understand the research results, they then mould the meaning of their Holy Book and say that this research result was already mentioned in their Holy Book verse number so and so. I had a lot of disscussion with average Pakistani Graduate Students. Normaly they are not ready to accept the the great role of western scientists towards science. According to them all what todays scientists know has been derived only from work of ancient Muslim Scientists and from the Islamic Holy Book. It is this irrational and non-realistic approach which is responsible for this on ground situation that Muslim Nations are being led by western nations in the areas of science, technology and economy. The role of Muslim is not that of a Leader. His role is only that of a ‘follower’.
why do u wish to ignore that the west has borrowed all the fundamental principles of modern science from muslims????
its another thing that the muslims did not build up on them while the west did....
but to completely deny the contribution of muslims is a reflection of hatred and study of biased history....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
why do u wish to ignore that the west has borrowed all the fundamental principles of modern science from muslims????
its another thing that the muslims did not build up on them while the west did....
but to completely deny the contribution of muslims is a reflection of hatred and study of biased history....
[/QUOTE]
Not all fundamental principles of modern sciences have been borrowed from the work of ancient Muslim Scientists. Those Muslim Scientists, themselves, borrowed so many fundamental principles of science from the work of Great Greek Philosophers and Scientists. Most work of those Muslim scientists was only the translation of Greek writings (Mostly of Aristotle and Ploto etc.) into Arabic. It was no doubt a good effort of them. Must have to be appreciated. They performed some original work also and I accept it. The work of Ibn-el-Hassam, Al-Khawarzimi etc was original. This work along with some other original work of ancient Muslim scientists was a good contribution by Muslims towards science. But it is not comprised on all the fundamental principles on which modern sciences rests.
Mr. armughal, your answer is not different from the answers of average Pakistani graduates which I mentioned in my previous post.
To say that west have borrowed all the fundamental principles of sciences from the work of Muslim scientists is totally misleading. It is a reflection of un-necessary hatred towards western nations and is a result of studying biased and half history.
According to Pakistani Science Textbooks, history of science started with the work of ancient muslim scientists. These books totally ignore the work of Greeks such as Thalese, Anaximender, Democrates, Pethagoras, Socrates, Ploto and Aritotle etc. The known history of science was started with these founders of scientific thought. Their role can rightly be considered as that of founders. This is an example of what is ment by 'studying biased and half history'.
The role of ancient muslim scientists is also important because they re-found the forgotten knowledge of greeks and they translated it into Arabic. They also made some important additions and contributions. This kind of role can be called as a role of re-founders and contributors.
To be realistic, this work, however, cannot be called as a role of founders.
Then what was contributed by Muslims, that work was taken over by west and they made even more important contributions. Muslims then made no contribution. They only feel pleasure with the false idea that 'Muslims founded the sciences.' And this false idea is responsible for their poor and miserable conditions in the areas of science, technology and economy.
following site gives time line of science
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Chronology/full.html
Yes! this time line is the best way to show that science is not limited to any particular religion.
Science and religion are sort of like different paths. This is not to say that they are contradictory, rather I do feel that science will always be in accordance with Islam (being the religion of truth). Science however is just an attempt to uncover the mysteries of life independently of religion (and since it is just an attempt to uncover these mysteries this knowledge can never be absolute (as history as shown time and again) and as such its 'compatibility' with religion will always be debatable), and because of that it can never be said that science originated from people of a certain religion.
The pakistani textbooks you talk about always make me feel as if the authors are trying to give an impression of a glorious past instead of encouraging the student to actually develop an inquisitive and observant mind.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ammarr: *
Science and religion are sort of like different paths. This is not to say that they are contradictory, rather I do feel that science will always be in accordance with Islam (being the religion of truth). Science however is just an attempt to uncover the mysteries of life independently of religion (and since it is just an *attempt to uncover these mysteries this knowledge can never be absolute (as history as shown time and again) and as such its 'compatibility' with religion will always be debatable), and because of that it can never be said that science originated from people of a certain religion.
The pakistani textbooks you talk about always make me feel as if the authors are trying to give an impression of a glorious past instead of encouraging the student to actually develop an inquisitive and observant mind.
[/QUOTE]
Science and religion are after all two different paths. This should always be considered that they are contradictory in so much ways. In fact the methodology suitable to study science is totally different from that of studying the religion. To develop the scientific theory, you have to investigate the truths of nature (Not the truths of religion). Then you have to construct an hypothesis which is in accordence with the accepted scientific facts and is logically correct. Again this hypothesis need not to be in conformance with religion. It can be different from religious beliefs. There are so many such examples. Then this hypothesis is to be verified by laboritory experiments etc. Again note that laboritory experiments do not include testing and verifying the hypothises with religious holy books. So the end result, i.e. the verified hypothesis which has acquired the status of a valid scientific fact, can be contradictory to established religious beliefs.
Religion on the other hand, has to be accepted in as it is form. Unlike science, there is no place for critical thought. Not only you cannot verify religious beliefs with indipendent proofs but infact you are not even allowed to do any such attempt. You are not allowed to leave those beliefs which have become obsolete and out dated with the new developments in science.
Yes I can accept that scientific knowledge may never be absolute. I agree to it. But I also think that religious beliefs also can never be absolute. Most religious beliefs are non-verifiable. Even the most verifiable facts of sciences contain paradoxes. The religious beliefs, which are already non-verified, contain even more paradoxes.Religion, not only has contradictions with the facts of nature, it has so many internal contradictions also. No two religions on this earth has same set of beliefs. Even in a single religion, there can be so many sects having different sets of beliefs. For example Mr. Ammarr, your feeling as you have described in your post that "science will always be in accordance with Islam (being the religion of truth)." is totally against the thinking of Prominent Muslim Leader Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who thought that "Islam should always be in accordance with science." He proposed that such quranic verses which appear contradictory to the established facts of science, must have to be given the scientific meanings. He also wrote the Tafseer-e-Quran for this purpose. This kind of thinking is surely opposite to your feeling.
But science, in a particular period of time, always have universal set of theories because whenever, in the light of newly found facts, new theories emerge, they autometically replace the older ones and so the older theories are no more considered science. They are, however, considered the history of evolution of science.
Science, however, perhaps is unable to disclose the ultimate and absolute facts of reality but it is the only path which is going towards the ultimate reality. This path may be longer than the total age of human race but after all this is the only right path and is the only hope.