The similarity of scienctific method and faith

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

^ Well science defines anything as dead when it no longer respires there are 7 characteristics of life.

Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition

At the cellular level mitochondrian activity and nucleic activity needs to be present to be called 'living tissue' otherwise it is dead tissue.

It has to be organic to be called dead, but lifeless covers all things dead and inorganic. To be Organic something has to contain more than the right proportions of Carbon, Oxygen and Water. Rather the building block of life is called the amino acid. The amino acid is to biology that the atom is to chemistry that the forces are to physics.

It is known that all living things, plants, animals and humans contain combinations of a limited number of amino acids which demonstrates that all living things must be related:
But they can be related in two different ways.

1) One came from the other which came from the other
2) They all came from a common source

Because of the break of species observed in the evolutionary records and that there simply is no link to show that anything changes its genetic structure for a purpose of improvement that that process is not even conscious of that change. The patterns observed in all living things does not necessitate that they all came from one another rather that just like atoms and just like forces ... we have discovered a phenomenon.

Phenomenon = unexplained occurrence
Miracle = As above

22

:salam:

Interestingly, if we muse a bit of this, amino acids are only essential for us to exist within a biological nomenclature. So scientifically speaking, one might come to a conclusion that amino acids are one of the most rudimentary life-giving elements. However science is limited to study what life or organic means biologically or genetically.

Now speaking from a religious view point, our life does not start with the birth of our biological existence. Our spirits were created before our bodies and they are put into our biological selves. This is why in science there is no concept of life-after death unless the body could be revived to its biological state of life. Our life continues in Barzakh after our biological existence comes to an end in this world.

So again, do religion and science converge, diverge and just run separately in their perception of life? Life has a different meaning in terms of religion as compared to science which only deals with out biological presence. If in the future scientific advancements make it possible to revive a biological body what effect would that have on religion?

23

:wsalam:

Yes … the religious aspect. Before we go on to the eternal life the corporeal life or the aspect of our lives in this world is entirely in sync with the scientific world. It had been established many years back pre-science that animals and plants were as alive as us and this was determined through religion. Only in modern science we learn not only do all these creatures have in common their characteristics of life but also their genetic makeup is similar.

What’s the difference between plant DNA and animal DNA? Ask a Scientist | Earth & Sky

At the DNA level all life has cells with nuclei which have DNA in the double helix and contain nucleotides. What an amazing way to show that religion was right to associate life to plants and equally so to animals.

It is the broader aspect to life that science cannot cater for which is where religion and science depart.

24

Mashallah! This is the sort of discussion I was longing for. So at a molecular level we associate life with the basic building block of DNA. However does the definition of life include just our biological existence or also our spiritual existence i.e. our souls.

It seems we are drawing closer to the conclusion that religion and science view life commonly at its lowest rung in the ladder. However the difference is without scientific advancement we could not have understood this concept and interpret the religious view point of similarity of life between plants and animals. It would have remained an article of faith in the abstract.

The second conclusion we might deduce is that our soul is not to be associated with life then and science has no domain that extends itself to the study of the soul except energy.

So,

Religion and Science - Agree on the existence of life
Religion and Science - Science is devoid of an explanation of the soul.

The question becomes, Is soul part of our life?

25

Even in religious terms the existence of the soul is not part of life. Life is generally understood as the corporeal existence. We understand that our souls were created and then we were brought to life, the life will end and then our souls will enter the final abode.

Science as you say is devoid of the soul.

So we need to be content with the explanation and agree once more that science and religion are in agreement that the life of this world is what life in general means.

Backing up to the discovery of DNA we ask the question “so what is the significance that all life forms share the same units of life matter?” Or “What can we conclude or hypothesise from this discovery?”

The obvious one is that we see that religion will use this as evidence to suggest that:

Since all life is similar or shares common traits it therefore suggests that a God exists the one Who created all life. More fundamentally each atom shares it nature with the next meaning that all matter must have come from a common source.

Science when done properly will come up with two postulates

  1. All life is related therefore life forms vary due to genetic mutation
  2. All life is related therfore there will be a common factor to all life

Modern science tends to leave number 2 to be entertained by the religious, whereas it tries to find factors to support position 1). In in some cases there is some evidence. What needs to be noted however is that the evidence thus produced has not eliminated position 2) and until it can be found that position 2) is incorrect then God cannot be denied by science as a possibility.

For faith is wrong is it requires us to believe in something impossible, but if it is possible even slightly then we must accept it provided our scriptures say so.

{ For another side discussion as opened some time ago in philosophy is that a body on life support is functional but the soul is not there … another person could be sleeping and the only difference is that one is on life support the other is not. So what is the soul? Is it the life support system that exists in a domain outside our sphere of interaction and measurement? This is a concept rather derogatorily termed by some as Ghost in the Machine Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia}

Th reason why I actually like the idea of human dualism is because it defines us as that which is not single - alone … which by and by is the defintion of the Abrahamic God … the fact that we can be dualistic systems means that we cannot be One which means Only God is One …

Of course just like Darwinism … Dualism is begging for an upgrade so if there is such a thing as neo-dualism it is probably worth expounding upon.

26

So then we agree that Soul and life are not defined the same. Life will only be taken to means biological existence.

The points can be interpreted differently based on what context they are placed in. All life can be related and yet possess a common factor. This common factor cannot be classified as a Species whereas for life to be related in different life forms, it is termed the evolution of species. For instance, Neanderthals have been classified differently from Homo-sapiens based on DNA analysis yet still classified as Homo-erectus. I think scientific endeavours are forging ahead in both postulates 1 and 2 yet with a different goal, one different from religion. I think when we get to Hypothesizing, we can touch base here.

Human dualism might be something we visit when we discuss Data/gathering since it involves separating data about life within a biological entity and the soul (can science even gather data about it or not, to what extent does religion offer data on our soul).

So lets close the “Phenomena” discussion with the agreement that science and religion both define Life as the phenomena of our biological existence. Science has not definition of the Phenomena of a soul though or lets see it if does.

One thing I would like to fall back on is that our genetic makeup though constitutes a basic building block of our biological existence but does not tie us or plants together as alive because dead organisms also possess DNA and yet cannot clasify them as alive. Yet without DNA life is not possible for us or plants.

Ready for the next point. I’ll let you open the discussion on it.

27

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

^ JazakAllah khair for a nice round up ...

It takes us to the next level which is data gathering.

After determining what life is and after identifying the fact that we exist I would like to make a few observations:

There are a few dissenting voices amongst the philosophy domains that argue whether we exist or not. This is not going to be detailed here.

To acknowledge ones own existence we already surpass a level of understanding that puts us beyond other creatures. What we do to learn anything new is by learning the nouns. We make definition and then expand. Language is taught most effectively by making reference to nouns. And in the Qur'an Adam (AS) was taught the names of things. In computer programming before we make any function we declare constants and variables and this is how we work.

Coming to the conclusion that we exist and having defined our corporeal existence in religion and science we move to the gathering of data. That what can we learn about this existence?

Fundamentally in religion we ask "why are we here?" and in science we ask "what more can we gain about ourselves now that we understand that we are alive?"

There is a link between these two lines of questioning and that is purpose. We have an innate desire to have purpose and to give everything a purpose and that helps us with our definitions. It is the process to build upon the act of defining. In religion we ask the ultimate question .... in science we choose to walk a path of smaller questions and answers hoping to arrive at the answer to the ultimate question ... our purpose.

That fact that we realise our own existence must mean we have a purpose or that we desire purpose and must find that best fitting purpose for our harmonious existence.

Please share any more thoughts on this ....

28

Let us expound by what thus far religion has defined our purpose to be and what science has defined our purpose to be.

It cannot be clearer is the Quran where it says Allah SWT created the Jinn and Mankind for his worship. However what is meant by worship may coincide in many ways with normal secular values as well apart from ritual worship. What data can we gather in terms of religious philosophy that elucidates worship.

I have never found a satisfactory explanation in any scientific theory where it expounds our purpose of existence. Much of the work is still concentrated pon gathering data to explain how our existence came to being. Is there a scientific movement somewhere whose purpose is to define the purpose of our existence.

So what data does religion offer that offers an explanation to our purpose of existence?

And what data has science offered for the same question?

29

I skirted around it in my last post that either we realise that we must have a purpose (the extrinsic position) or that we give ourselves a purpose tacitly through what we have become (intrinsic position). For example religion appoints us the viceregent of the world. To take care of animals. Scientists arrive at the same conclusion because through studies of habitat preservation and understanding that there is an order and balance to the food chain we need to make sure that our actions do not disturb that balance too much or else we will harm ourselves in the process.

Knowing that we are the only 'animal' capable of thinking this way we appoint ourselves by default as the caretakers ... similar to viceregent?

For the sake of harmony (or peace) scientists will encourage many actions which are loosely translated as 'care'. Caring is one fundamental set of the group of actions which constitute worship.

The difference is that religion imposes this on us from our Divinely Ordained function and yet science reaches a form of this from an internalisation of the need through research and pondering. Rather in religion we would come to the same conclusions as science.

Whereas scientists conclude if we like our lives we should do x, y, z
Religious ponderers will conclude that God only instructs us to do what is better for us.

What the truth seeker will begin to realise is that science has shown us something that we discovered from years of research and thought is it not amazing that religion has said this to us all along?

30

:salam:

I agree with everything in the post though a bit confused about precisely which topic we are covering under Data gathering. Is the discussion to embark on a comparison of religious values versus how science has arrived to the same conclusion through centuries of thought and statistical theories. Or are we intending to focus on any one epic.

31

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

:salam:

Br. Psyah please continue …

32

:wsalam:

I am making snippets of parallels between the two to ensure people are following us. So they may not need to read the entire thread to get to where we are. But you are right we should focus on both strains independently and see where we get to.

About data gathering:

Religion at least gives us a means of gathering data which is through reflection and pondering, but we need to do so based on things firmly rooted in the ground.

Realising ones need to worship is something explicit to a people who believe in God. I would say that science for that reason is a self-centric order. It teaches that our research and our discovery is how we aught to operate and thus it is one of the orders which stresses the worshipping of man. Perhaps we can temper this conclusion with only those forms of science which have ‘no God’ as their premise.

33

:salam:

Sorry been busy these days.

Religion allows us data gathering even through scientific means besides reflection and pondering over Allah SWT creations.

Scientific order has also played a role in detaching people from the worship of God yet not replacing their belief in God though. These people choose to be somewhat agnostic or think that God does not play an active role in our lives yet still exists.

However lets us elaborate on how the phenomena of our existence lends itself to different aspects of data gathering related to the existence of a Creator. This I think is not where religion and science diverge but have been unable to converge.

Timepass-Jan 2013
34

a perfect example of why faith/dogma and scientific method = frog in pond mindset.

35

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

ah memri.

it wouldnt be so hard for a similarly motivated organization to paint western/secular society as comprising of flat earthers either queer.

36

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

oh im sure the west has equally dogmatic people as well. americans are pretty religious too. in all the dangerous ways.

Timepass-Jan 2013
37

Re: The similarity of scienctific method and faith

point is you cant suggest thats necessarily the route religious scientists will take. us religious scientists have a long and rich history. i wont go into the whole name dropping thing.

Timepass-Jan 2013
38

Peace queer

I’m afraid picking someone from the street to argue the Islamic position on the reality of the Qur’an and Sunnah and getting a scientist to refute it is not fair game. As ravage says you need to see what the Islamic scholars say about the verses not the layman. Or likewise talk to Islamic scientists.

This “perfect example” you have given is a perfect example of how unreasonable people set up false scenarios and people of their ilk use it to support illusory dichotomies.

39

:salam:

Bro Ravage, I would simply discredit someone as a religious scientist who does not have first hand knowledge of science to being with or either Quranic knowledge.

Timepass-Jan 2013
40

:wsalam:

Yes. The perfect example here is to cite the reasoning behind Ibrahim (AS) and his processes of deduction. This scenario provides the conditions where man already believed in God, but that belief is then refined. Then from another angle we need an example where a people are unaware of God as a community and hence need to develop the concept from scratch. The latter one is going to be very difficult. Every community in the world has some concept of a divine entity.

If not that then at least they have a concept of the limitations of normal man and to be worshipped he needs to transcend, this will eventually lead to idol worship so it may be the natural result for an unguided people to develop idols to worship irrespective of lack of belief in God the hypothesis being here that:

Worship is inherent to the function of man - we cannot avoid it and the moment we deny that we worship we are actually worshipping ourselves.

Let’s consider the first point. The first point is always a rejection of worship. That is exactly what Ibrahim(AS) did. He rejected the fallacious worship of idols because of their obvious inferiority to us.

Anything more to add USResident?