It is a common trend in discussions everywhere in the world to resort to the word “science” to give respectability to one’s point of view.
Science, by its nature, is the investigation of the universe. This investigatory process yields results that hint to us how the universe works. It is up to us to make of those hints what we may. What we may deduce can be wrong also. That is why no scientific theory claims to be infallible or the absolute truth.
In fact, every bit of science there is, always stands ready to be torn down by new theories. In fact, by modern thinking, science is defined by this property. If you can design an experiment to refute some bit of knowledge then that bit of knowledge is science!
Theocracies, for example, don’t tend to foster technological breakthrough. If the only questions deemed relevant are those pertaining to a god, then other questions don’t get asked.
The reason being, the Holy Quran and other Islamic beliefs are often compared to scientific ones, as if science were the ultimate criterion. My point is, it is not.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by worried: *
... Islamic beliefs are often compared to scientific ones, as if science were the ultimate criterion. .....
[/QUOTE]
OK!
Just curious about your assertions.
Who compares those beliefs?
What beliefs are compared?
What is the outcome of such comparisons?
Let's get the list of such comparisons and go through them one by one. Is that fair enough?
No, Mr worried, mostly Muslim intelligentsia compare Quran to science and thru vague interpretations get the desired conclusion. You are absolutely wrong.
often science is taken as the backgound against which everything is projected and weighed. I think science is as flexible as any other human thought. I think science only helps one to grasp the world around him. It is as subject to time and place as anything else. Although science is overvalued at times, I think it can give u a good basis to build on, but for me so does philosophy or art for that matter
That is actually incorrect rvikz. The Mayan's, Aztecs and Ancient Egyptains were the backbone of invention and progress of their times and their societies were extremely religious. Their rulers were considered to be the children of gods. They were theocracies.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by worried: *
Dear Anjjan,
The reason being, the Holy Quran and other Islamic beliefs are often compared to scientific ones, as if science were the ultimate criterion. My point is, it is not.
Regards,
worried.
[/QUOTE]
Science is respected because unlike religion, it is not considered to be secred.
Only religion is considered to be secred. Religion is secred so it is rigid. Science has got more respect because unlike secred religion, it is flexible. It can review its own beliefs. It can accept its own mistakes. Science is progressive and it positively adopts and absorb new and fresh ideas and theories.
Religion is losing its respects due to too much secredness. Due to its rigidity. Religion is never ready to accept its mistakes. Religion do not want to keep itself update. Religion is not progressive. Religion is regressive. Only religion tells that the followers of other religion or non-followers etc. should be killed etc. Relgion is the source of division among the humanity. A muslim man cannot marry a hindu women. Why? Is she not a human? The answer of the religion is YES. The religion is the single impassible herdle in the way of unity of humanity.
On the other hand science promotes humanism. Science tells us that genetically all humans are same and there is no harm in marriage between hindu and muslim.
That is why science is given more respect all over the world. The name of religion also brings the ideas of fundamentalism, extremism, and terrorism in mind. Actually the idea of religion, now has become associated with these kind of activities.
Science is not secred. Actually science is given more respect than the secred religion.
I see that Science is easier to convert to, easier to trust and admire than religion can tend to be. Religion has its fissions, its diversities, and its odd peculiarities; while science will always remain in one devotable position, with no biases.
Science is "sacred" because everyone in the world more or less agrees upon it, regardless of their religion. Some religious values might be important to us but they are complelty meaningless to someone who belongs to some other religion
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by I'm Kool: *
Science is "sacred" because everyone in the world more or less agrees upon it, regardless of their religion. Some religious values might be important to us but they are complelty meaningless to someone who belongs to some other religion
[/QUOTE]
conversely, there are many scientific 'facts' that aren't agreed upon by various groups
I think you will find that he actually has better answers to your questions than you can wager. Specifically Chapter 7 would be especially useful I think.
conversely, there are many scientific 'facts' that aren't agreed upon by various groups
[/QUOTE]
but wouldn't you agree that if you and some hindu were to talk about science and religion, you would have more to agree upon in science than in religion?
^it depends. If I were to talk about a 'scientific' problem with one of their 'scientists', then there would be as much difference between us as if we were talking about something religious. For example, if I were to have a discussion about rain with some shaaman in Africa, he would give a different scientific explanation (often with some religious content) than I would.
^
You just proved my point. If the shaman didn't believe in whatever religion he does and kept the discussion to strictly scientific facts, you guys would have no argument at all. Well not "not at all" but certainly less argument than a dissusion on some religious issue, like lets say the punishment for adultery.
but do you think that any science is possible without some preconceived ideas (often they take the shape of religion........moreover, even modern science is considered a 'religion' by some)
Science still fails to answer so many questions…and it is definitely not the ultimate criterion…