The similarity of scienctific method and faith

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

:bism:

Scientific methods are undertaken in the following manner:

  1. Observe Phenomena
  2. Gather data/Analyse
  3. Hypothesise
  4. Test
  5. Refine Hypothesis
  6. Model plus Assumptions

Steps 1 and 2 are and should be done by both groups of scientists and people pondering over the world for the meaning of it.

Phenomena are unexplained happenings, but this definition is given to miraculous things when it concerns people of faith.

To hypothesise is to make a stab at guessing the pattern. Patterns are found in intelligent life and structure and harmony is indication of intellegence.

When certain models are set up assumptions are put in place, these can be either limitations to the context of the model or they could be ‘as taken starting points’ the premise to prove that would be too difficult and based on what is generally accepted by people. These assumptions are blind beliefs in a model that is only nearly mapping the perfect world.

So quite a lot of science lends its terms to religion, please discuss

2

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

Is this something new we should discuss about now?

3

Not a good thread. Sorry to say.

Religion and Science are like oil and water, that do not mix (not at least at normal temperature and pressure).

FYI - Religion is based on belief system. So either you are believer or non-believer. Non believers are supposed to go to hell, and believers will end up in good places.
Belief systems do not change or upgraded. If you ever do try to change, you will simply form a new sect, mazhab, or brand new religion.

Science on the other hand changes all the time. Scientistsbelieve in one theory today, and tomorrow it may change completely. Surely there will be resistance to change but ultimately the scientific notions get updated.

Religions are static, etched in stone.
Science is dynamic, constantly evolving.

Thus they are complete opposite in nature, just like oil and water.

4

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

^ Peace burqaposhx

When do you think science will say that the earth is not spherical then?
Or do you think the periodic table is due to change in the near future?

Religion has its variables and constants so does science .... it is not right for you to compare the pioneering aspects of science with the dogmatic areas of religion. Had you looked at the character requirements of religion you would see that it demands continual improvement from us, which is a changing thing. Albeit our core beliefs are firmly established but the same goes for science.

More accurately science is the building upon of previous laws doesn't fiqh achieve this for Islam?

5

In theory you may be correct in some sense. In practice, things are not the way you are putting them. For example you can't refute religious ideas, but in science you can. I hope you understand the difference.

Science not only builds on existing foundations, but in some cases it totally shatters them too.

In religion perhaps you can build on existing laws, but you can't negate them. In fact negation may be a way out thing. You can't even reinterpret unless your work falls within a very narrow band of "acceptable change".

One of the problems faced by the likes of Ghamdi or Hoodboy is precisely that. They go out of the a very narrow allowable band of change, and thus being shunned by the hard-cores.

6

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

psyah

Aap parahy likhay logon wali baatain religion forum main kyon likh detay hain?

7

so sweet of u hareema :)

8

:salam:

I think Point 1 would differ depending on what part of religion we are applying this to. The creed or dogmatic part of our religion may not fit the definition of a Phenomena as it is not observable in the same terms as what can be observed from a scientific perspective. A phenomena must still be observable though sensory means for it to lend itself to scientific data gathering and hypothesizing. In in abstract sense data gathering and hypothesizing occur in both science and religion however the subject matter is different in nature or its objectivity.

9

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

^ This is the sort of the response that adds to a discussion jazakAllah khair bro USResident

10

Scientists have a similar level of requirements. To be acknowledged scientists review your work viva and dissertation and article writing quoting references are all part of credible scientific works .... this is like the process of ijaza in Islam.

11

Ok. If you insist on Islam to be approached by its followers like science is approached by scientists, then be prepared to be flexible.

As a first step,**

no one should be called Murtad or Kaafir just because he had a different AND peaceful disagreement with the mainstream.
**.

12

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

^ Peace burqaposhx

Flexibility is defined by Islam. Scientists all around the world are removed from the community if they differ in certain ideas considered part of science but in reality are just as much articles of faith as the creed of any religion.

I do insist however that scientists begin to approach science like the scholars approach Islam.

But this topic is about religion and I was showing how and why science is no better than any other order in the world established to explain our existence.

13

I think this discussion would/could be very nice if choose "Our existence" as the topic and then relflect upon the points Br. Psyah has mentioned and compare how each religion and science perceives it.

So to start. Lets consider point1:

1 - Phenomena

How does religion look at our existence in terms of a phenomena?
How does science look at out existence in terms of a phenomena?

How did we become aware of the Phenomena of our existence from the perspective of both?

14

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

Interesting no replies. Must be a hard topic to discuss or not of interest.

Timepass- December 2012
15

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

its faar too broad a topic.

which scientific method are we talking about? it is a vaast topic ranging from empericism to rationality to pragmatism to social science views of scientific development.

i personally believe that science evolves most closely according to the social construction of science movement’s viewof it. And yes thats similar to religion in many many ways, but not quite the way its framed in this discussion.

16

Dude, you need to read 'Symbiotic Universe'. You will be amazed how easily the oil and water can be mixed ..

17

Peace USResident

When you ask for meaningful input people will run away. But when you have something to say then you get some who will come along only to pick holes. JazakAllah khair for trying to stimulate contribution ... I have so many things I would like to add to this but I fear it may end up off track and too much of me for it to be interesting. Anyway ... lets give it a go.

I think by doing this exercise we will be able to demonstrate that science and faith are really not that far apart.

1) I will use the Abrahamic religions to represent the term religion. And accordingly religion views the phenomenon of our existence as that what is a result of Creation. In that it views we have come about as a matter of intelligent and well planned processes for a purpose that befits the wisdom of the source of that intelligence.

Science is the study of nature and distinctly views our existence as a physical phenomenon and attempts not to go into matters which are distinctly philosophical. It makes no judgement about why we are here rather it attempts to draw a pathway between two ends life and lifelessness. How did life occur? In a manner that can be tested and ratified using observation and data gathering.

Science will go on forever in this pursuit because thus far we have not managed to observe the act of lifeless become life except in the natural processes that already exist such as fertilization and embryo development. The premise for modern secular science is that it makes the assumption that there is no God, because there is not possible way to ratify the existence of God. It therefore attempts to embark on observation in a completely unbiased manner, but by ruling out the possibility it has already made an act of faith.

Surely any time a scientific assumption is made it is in effect a statement of faith provided any laws are extruded from a scenario where these assumptions are applied.

However both science and religion see the need to have a Grand Unified Theory which in the case of religion is God, but in the case of science is a set of complex equations and reasons. Both have come to the conclusion that something must have been in existence always for there to be a start to everything. Theoretical science therefore dips in and out of philosophic constructs.

18

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

Islam and science are very closely intertwined. I get mesmerized by the wordings in Quran about the universe, sun, moon, honey bees, cattles, human psychology, human physiology, seasons and the nature, and the fruits and grains, ecology and geography, the process of conception and birth .... Beautiful !!!

19

Please elaborate, I’m not sure I caught the drift of what you are saying.

20

JAK. Akhi very nice post. So the source of creation is the matter of dispute. What I can deduce is that:

  • Neither science nor religion disputes that life came about as a result of highly intricate processes.

    • Science attempts to model the processes which form the constituents of life however religion does not provide scientific details however attributes to the phenomena of life to the source of its creation i.e. Allah SWT.
    • Science builds on an article of faith in the sense that it negates the existence of a creator and only relies on whatever phenomena that plays a part of the creation of life can be observed and statistically recorded. The ingrained article of faith in both is related to God yet opposite to one another i.e. Gods exists in religion and is the source of our creation yet in science there is no existence of God and the source that put all the right processes in place for creation to come about happened randomly and incrementally (evolution) whereas in religion such randomness is not accepted but rather attributed to one (God) who can bring about such controlled and perfect change that is unimaginable given our own limitations.
    • Since science does not rely on the existence of God and cannot statistically and emperically record Gods existence it is bound to trek on a pathway which will always be bound to what already exists and can be observed physically and measured emperically and statistically. Even if science ever succeeds in bringing about life it will still be from procedures or phenomena which already exist in nature. It can never drawn the line between life and lifeless, the most it will ever achieve is reconstruct life from life or its life-giving constituents.
    • As religion highlights this the difference between creator and creation. Science is the best that creation can achieve. It can never achieve that which the creator is capable of. And to understand this is also the essence of submission though very few understand this.

One point of further discussion would be how do religion and science differentiate LIFELESS. How is it defined in terms of each?