Your analogy does not work ... 2 friends go to eat - infers that both the friends are intending to do the same thing ... whereas science and scripture are not both "metaphorically going to eat" - science always goes to eat and scripture always goes to drink ...
Exactly my point in a different connotation. Science and religions are two different entities.
[quote]
in other words scripture provides signs to point at truth ... whereas science seeks to measure objective reality. A sign can never tell us what science discovery can tell us ... it can only concur with science once it is discovered.
[/QUOTE]
In other words why is it so hard to understand the signs correctly. Why should it be after the discovery is made.
Here is a verse from the holy Quran that points out a fact unknown to the mankind earlier
25:31) Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
The above verse points out a very basic fact that life without water is impossible. Water is an important ingredient in all life forms.There has to be water before sign of any life-form. Whenever, scientists try to look for evidence of life in other planets, they first of all try to determine the presence of water over there. There could be life form that can exist in absence of air but not without water.
Importance of water was known to mankind for thousands of years. You see most of the earlier civilizations happened on the banks of rivers.
Exactly my point in a different connotation. Science and religions are two different entities.
In other words why is it so hard to understand the signs correctly. Why should it be after the discovery is made.
Peace HeadStrong
You are still viewing it wrong ... or else you would not ask that question. A sign leads you not to the functioning "cause and effect" of the phenomenon, but to "Who" put the phenomenon there and "Why" ... Science cannot tell us these things. On the other hand science can tell us how things happen through a medium of other things that are happening.
A sign leads to faith - science leads to knowledge ... when a sign is read while having the knowledge then the sign is better understood, but there is no way a sign can be read to increase us in knowledge, except for giving more depth about something we already know about.
Can you prove this concept of life requiring water was in play before the Qur’anic verses on life and water were revealed? And perhaps this is one example of the water-life connection being presented before it was discovered - but do you think they understood it the way we understand it today? Probably not … they probably understood it in a different way. But what makes the statement remarkable is its absoluteness … Science would never dare to say “All life requires water” … evidence … http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15568
because no scientist can ever claim to know all life … but since this is a Divine statement according to Muslims all scientists need to do is prove a life can and does form without water to prove that the Word is not from Divine Origin. Until then they should remain “open minded” to say it could be from Divine Source.
Verse 25:31 is remarkable for another reason … It talks about two origins …
The origins of matter - i.e. this universe (physics) and the origins of life (biochemistry) … both of these are hot topics for the skeptics. Stephen Hawking is an example of such a physicist and Richard Dawkins an example of such an evolutionary scientist … Talking about skeptics … the end of the verse concludes with
“Will they then not believe?”
To you that may be an annoying coincidence - to me that is a sign of a Divine Author.
Importance of water was known to mankind for thousands of years. You see most of the earlier civilizations happened on the banks of rivers.
Why are you overlooking the fact that "every living thing" is mentioned. When did man get to know that water is of prime importance for all forms of life even for life at micro level?
Quran is not a book of science but it points to things around us and in outer space for us to ponder over them and get to know their creator. Also it expresses certain facts in such a way that people irrespective of their era can get something out of it. It is true that importance of water to life was somewhat known since ancient times but as we got to know more, the stated fact made even more sense.
You are still viewing it wrong ... or else you would not ask that question. A sign leads you not to the functioning "cause and effect" of the phenomenon, but to "Who" put the phenomenon there and "Why" ... Science cannot tell us these things. On the other hand science can tell us how things happen through a medium of other things that are happening.
The Who and Why can come from religion, but not the how. That is my point :)
[quote]
A sign leads to faith - science leads to knowledge ... when a sign is read while having the knowledge then the sign is better understood, but there is no way a sign can be read to increase us in knowledge, except for giving more depth about something we already know about.
[/QUOTE]
Until a scientific discovery is made there is no way to understand the sign. Then what is the necessity of the sign.
Let us for a minute understand this better. Let me clarify with an example
Suppose a discovery is made i.e they find how to predict earthquakes Imagine this theory is wrong.
Now somebody reads the Holy text and claims according to the signs it is correct
Later the theory is rectified, now again the signs are reinterpreted again.
Why are you overlooking the fact that "every living thing" is mentioned. When did man get to know that water is of prime importance for all forms of life even for life at micro level?
Was'nt it quite obvious that water was essential for every living thing even at that time. Their concept of every living thing was limited to those that were visible.
Why are you overlooking the fact that "every living thing" is mentioned. When did man get to know that water is of prime importance for all forms of life even for life at micro level?
Quran is not a book of science but it points to things around us and in outer space for us to ponder over them and get to know their creator. Also it expresses certain facts in such a way that people irrespective of their era can get something out of it. It is true that importance of water to life was somewhat known since ancient times but as we got to know more, the stated fact made even more sense.
This post assumes there is a creator. Matter of faith. Not science. Zero evidence.
Of course people can get someething out of books, including holy books. Not sure anyone is debating that. These books have no predictive power in terms of scientific discoveries or inventions. That appears to be the bone of contention. And logic clearly is on one side here. Is all.
This post assumes there is a creator. Matter of faith. Not science. Zero evidence.
I hope you believe before you see the evidence. :)
[QUOTE]
Of course people can get someething out of books, including holy books. Not sure anyone is debating that
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
. These books have no predictive power in terms of scientific discoveries or inventions.
[/QUOTE]
yes! most likely, it did not help.
Or I restate, quran is talk from manufacture of all the things, so It could not, did not violate
any details about any thing it talked about on any level.
[QUOTE]
That appears to be the bone of contention. And logic clearly is on one side here. Is all.
[/QUOTE]
NO, op shift positions. He make to very distinctive statements:
He don't claim he read quran, yet he says no statement of divine nature , which deals with physical object is in quran.
And he says even if they were It did not help science.
(I think I mostly agree with him)
The Who and Why can come from religion, but not the how. That is my point
Until a scientific discovery is made there is no way to understand the sign. Then what is the necessity of the sign.
Let us for a minute understand this better. Let me clarify with an example
Suppose a discovery is made i.e** they find how to predict earthquakes** Imagine this theory is wrong.
Now somebody reads the Holy text and claims according to the signs it is correct
Later the theory is rectified, now again the signs are reinterpreted again.
Peace HeadStrong
The scriptures don't tell us how to 'predict earthquakes' ... They might however tell us something like whether predicting earthquakes is or is not possible ... So if someone claims to know something about predicting earthquakes when the scripture clearly says "and the earth will shake when they least expect it" ... For example then such a statement is categorical that no accurate method to predict earthquakes would be possible ... Ever ...
If the scriptures say ... "And they will not know what makes the earth shake until a time when The Lord Wills" ... This type of phrase indicates that it will become possible later on ...
the purpose of signs is only for one thing ... And that is to give us confidence that the scripture in which these signs are written are so amazingly deep and full of insight the scripture could only have come from God.
25:31) Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up *mass, then We opened them out? And **We made from water every living thing*. Will they not then believe?
1-Earth and heavens was all together at one point ???? hmmm
2-Then they were separated ???? hmmmm
3-disbeliever could not see(that mess) in , 500AD, not in 1000AD, not 1500AD not in 1900AD,
so this is addresses post_NASA disbeliever ??? hmmmm
4-so heaven is with in the opened_up_mess ?? or in opened up mess there other thinking moving beings then people. ??? hmmmm
5- so some one knew at some point at some point of time people were going to know, and see that closed-up mess ?? hmmm
6- does that mean , disbeliever were going to know and see, it before believers ???? hmm
BTW
Who does that?? Who addresses group of people 1400+ year in the future????? Who is so sure about him self.
The scriptures don't tell us how to 'predict earthquakes' ... They might however tell us something like whether predicting earthquakes is or is not possible ... So if someone claims to know something about predicting earthquakes when the scripture clearly says "and the earth will shake when they least expect it" ... For example then such a statement is categorical that no accurate method to predict earthquakes would be possible ... Ever ...
If the scriptures say ... "And they will not know what makes the earth shake until a time when The Lord Wills" ... This type of phrase indicates that it will become possible later on ...
the purpose of signs is only for one thing ... And that is to give us confidence that the scripture in which these signs are written are so amazingly deep and full of insight the scripture could only have come from God.
So according to you(Holy book) would it be possible to predict earthquakes. If not I think we should tell the scientists to stop trying. Or is the sign for telling if it is possible also from a different sign.
So according to you(Holy book) would it be possible to predict earthquakes. If not I think we should tell the scientists to stop trying. Or is the sign for telling if it is possible also from a different sign.
I was merely giving you an example ... If you want to look for earthquakes ... Read the Qur'an and reflect.
I was merely giving you an example ... If you want to look for earthquakes ... Read the Qur'an and reflect.
Good way of dodging a question.
Anyway let me take another example. There was a period of time when people believed that the earth was flat. What about the muslims during those times. Were they convinced that the belief was wrong and did they counter the so called scientists.
I know what the answer for this question also would be. I rest my case and I think it is better that we agree to disagree on this. My point was not just about the Qur'an. Every other religion claims this and I sincerely believe that to progress we need to look at things in a scientific manner.
Anyway let me take another example. There was a period of time when people believed that the earth was flat. What about the muslims during those times. Were they convinced that the belief was wrong and did they counter the so called scientists.
I know what the answer for this question also would be. I rest my case and I think it is better that we agree to disagree on this. My point was not just about the Qur'an. Every other religion claims this and I sincerely believe that to progress we need to look at things in a scientific manner.
Peace HeadStrong
No they did not challenge that belief ... But the Muslim scientists were the first to produce maps accurate enough to show that they understood the global nature of the world. It has nothing to do with scripture, but let's say the scripture inspired Muslims to pursue such goals. In order to prove the scripture false you would have to show that it portrays the world as flat and not as a globe. Also, where flatness is adequate for practical purposes then there is no need to remodel ...
for example when measuring the velocity of a car over 5km we still do not bother measuring the curvature of the Earth ... We assume it is flat for the measurements, but to be pedantic about it ... Yes, the car has moved in 3D space ... Across an arc that has it's radius in the centre of the Earth as well as as the specific route on the surface.
If we look to the sky and say the sun is setting and the moon is rising ... These are normal terms which are acceptable ... It does not imply a physical reality but a perceptive convenience ... It is possible however to depict from within scripture when a descriptive reality is being alluded to ... But you need to study the language and style in order to discover that as well as already be an expert or at least well versed in that particular science as well as logic to know when a contradiction is present and when a parallel understanding is manifest.
And entitled as you are to believe that science is the way forward ... You need to realise that like religion science has it's own parameters, assumptions and limits, some of which are not present in religion.