Is science against the Revealed Religion?

[psychoslice]

You're coming at me with your preconceived ideas. I didn't start with hope and then find a place to back it in; reason reduced the possibilities to deism and atheism--that but for hope, are the same from our perspective. How is it childish to choose hope? To me, many atheists believe as they do as a form of rebellion for it's own sake, while they all try to rationalize the pointlessness of our threescore-ten and out. Even if you saved the world, it would be a meaningless gesture.

Telling me to keep my hope to myself is defensive in the extreme. Comparing Santa with God is ridiculous. Santa Clause, like all the revealed gods, is a lie. But God, a deist God, is a 50-50 possibility against no God. Reasonable atheists, like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have been forced to admit that a deistic, laissez faire God is a possibility. You have no evidence either way because there is none--but the universe remains, demanding an explanation.

Its all fun isn't isn't oh year.

 

[paarsurrey]

The thing is that, there are NO PEER REVIEW at all, with regarding to ANY religion, so it is pretty pointless asking if there are science journals that oppose religion.

That's not to say that ANY religion is correct, right or being "factual". That's because religion, whether they be "revealed" or not, have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Science and religion are two different areas, and totally unrelated to one and another. That's why science is not against religion, again, whether they be revealed or not.

It is when religious people who make claims that their scriptures have "scientific values" or "scientific merits", that when their respective religion under spotlight or under scrutiny. It is these people who need to back up their claims, not the scientists. And often Muslims and Christians are the ones making baseless claims about their holy books, not any scientist (unless that scientist is either Christian or Muslim).

There are no science journals about religion, so it is pointless of you to even ask for one. Religion is not science...and science is not a religion.

Thanks for acknowledging.
Then why do the pseudo-scientists oppose religion in the name of science, (the real scientists don't do it), and interfere with the religious matters? The religions should be left to discern truth and resolve the issues related to them under their own parameters. Science has got nothing to do with it?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?

"Science" didn't, so neither did scientists.

You mean neither the scientists nor the science existed in the times of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad?
Science is a recent phenomenon in the evolution of man that usher in due to the complex physical/temporal problems to resolve them; religious people, atheists, agnostics, skeptics etc all contributed and do contribute for its advancement, as it has no bearing in the ethical, moral and spiritual domains that man confronted in the past, present and future.
Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You mean neither the scientists nor the science existed in the times of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad?

Yes.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
You mean neither the scientists nor the science existed in the times of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad?

Yes.

And, what do you say about?:

"Science is a recent phenomenon in the evolution of man that usher in due to the complex physical/temporal problems to resolve them; religious people, atheists, agnostics, skeptics etc all contributed and do contribute for its advancement, as it has no bearing in the ethical, moral and spiritual domains that man confronted in the past, present and future."​

Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And, what do you say about?:

"Science is a recent phenomenon in the evolution of man that usher in due to the complex physical/temporal problems to resolve them; religious people, atheists, agnostics, skeptics etc all contributed and do contribute for its advancement, as it has no bearing in the ethical, moral and spiritual domains that man confronted in the past, present and future."​

Regards

That it is fundamentally mistaken. Some argue that we can thank Christianity for science. I don't think this accurate, but I acknowledge that the Christian worldview of the early modern period allowed the long-held incorporation of Greek philosophy into Christian theology to develop into a manner of thinking that combined some incredibly rare developments in a tiny number of cultures:
1) Logic (a product of Greek philosophy)
2) Teleology or the belief that the universe is progressing towards something (or more generally a linear, progressive conception of cosmic "evolution").
3) A desire to explain natural phenomena to explain spiritual

The result was the emergence of scientific culture. Had scholasticism not changed in the ways it did to produce science, I don't doubt that eventually another culture would have, but when, how, why, etc., will remain unknown to us as the scientific endeavor did in fact emerge out of early modern Christian thought (had Christians embraced natural philosophy as a method to understanding god centuries earlier, I doubt the result would have been the sciences as e.g., the refining of and expanding upon Greek logic & mathematics by Islamic culture hadn't yet taken place). Humans have existed for many tens of thousands of years. For most of that time, we haven't even been capable of "civilization". After the development of writing, we see a natural desire among humans to explain and understand our environments, but not using any of the tools of science or something like a scientific framework (the way Greek philosophical thought involved frameworks). Logic, probability, and critical reasoning are foreign to humans while attribution errors and seeing patterns where none exist tend to characterize our cognitive faculties. Thus even though the Greeks developed a method that made possible the systematic investigation into natural phenomena and the means by which to determine what such empirical results entail, they failed to utilize the logical framework they developed with natural philosophy to produce the kind of proto-science we find practiced by Galileo, Newton, Laplace, etc.

 

[gnostic]

You mean no scientist existed in their times?
Regards

No, I am saying they have never personally met any scientist.

And I seriously doubt that Krishna and Moses are real people that exist, because I think they are both mythological figures.

 

[gnostic]

Then why do the pseudo-scientists oppose religion in the name of science, (the real scientists don't do it), and interfere with the religious matters? The religions should be left to discern truth and resolve the issues related to them under their own parameters. Science has got nothing to do with it?

The pseudo-scientists are those Muslim and Christian creationists, who are trying to claim that their respective scriptures are science textbooks.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, I am saying they have never personally met any scientist.
And I seriously doubt that Krishna and Moses are real people that exist, because I think they are both mythological figures.

Did they refuse to meet any scientist that existed at that time? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That it is fundamentally mistaken. Some argue that we can thank Christianity for science. I don't think this accurate, but I acknowledge that the Christian worldview of the early modern period allowed the long-held incorporation of Greek philosophy into Christian theology to develop into a manner of thinking that combined some incredibly rare developments in a tiny number of cultures:
1) Logic (a product of Greek philosophy)
2) Teleology or the belief that the universe is progressing towards something (or more generally a linear, progressive conception of cosmic "evolution").
3) A desire to explain natural phenomena to explain spiritual

The result was the emergence of scientific culture. Had scholasticism not changed in the ways it did to produce science, I don't doubt that eventually another culture would have, but when, how, why, etc., will remain unknown to us as the scientific endeavor did in fact emerge out of early modern Christian thought (had Christians embraced natural philosophy as a method to understanding god centuries earlier, I doubt the result would have been the sciences as e.g., the refining of and expanding upon Greek logic & mathematics by Islamic culture hadn't yet taken place). Humans have existed for many tens of thousands of years. For most of that time, we haven't even been capable of "civilization". After the development of writing, we see a natural desire among humans to explain and understand our environments, but not using any of the tools of science or something like a scientific framework (the way Greek philosophical thought involved frameworks). Logic, probability, and critical reasoning are foreign to humans while attribution errors and seeing patterns where none exist tend to characterize our cognitive faculties. Thus even though the Greeks developed a method that made possible the systematic investigation into natural phenomena and the means by which to determine what such empirical results entail, they failed to utilize the logical framework they developed with natural philosophy to produce the kind of proto-science we find practiced by Galileo, Newton, Laplace, etc.

Does Newton belong to proto-science? Please
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Its all fun isn't isn't oh year.

Ahhhh, I think the problem is now evident.

 

[gnostic]

Did they refuse to meet any scientist that existed at that time? Please
Regards

Not "refuse". They simply didn't meet any scientist.

I'm being very clear in what I am saying.

Why are you complicating my replies?​

"Refuse" implied that they are ignoring scientists, or avoiding them.

I am saying that none of them meet any, because they didn't know any.

And clearly, they have nothing to say that were any way indicate they have any knowledge of science that were contemporary to their times.

The reasons being, that -

1. two of them are mythological figures (Moses and Krishna),
2. three of them (Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad) didn't leave any writing of their own,
3. and Muhammad didn't even know how to read.

None of them possessed knowledge of science, either because they didn't meet any scientist or they haven't read scientific treatises.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does Newton belong to proto-science? Please
Regards

Newton spent more time studying the bible and with alchemy than mechanics. He was a natural philosopher, not a scientist (but yes, I'd call him a proto-scientist as I call all natural philosophers from the early modern period).

 

[Milton Platt]

If so, to prove this, please, quote from :

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Can I refer to the Bible instead??? Does science support the existence of talking serpents, trees that impart knowledge, men living in the stomach of fish, men walking on water, water turning into wine, men rising from the dead???

 

[paarsurrey]

Can I refer to the Bible instead??? Does science support the existence of talking serpents, trees that impart knowledge, men living in the stomach of fish, men walking on water, water turning into wine, men rising from the dead???

A Jew and or Christian should come forward to answer the questions. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Can I refer to the Bible instead??? Does science support the existence of talking serpents, trees that impart knowledge, men living in the stomach of fish, men walking on water, water turning into wine, men rising from the dead???

paarsurrey is a Muslim, so the bible is irrelevant to paarsurrey.

Try the Qur'an:

Like can Solomon control the wind, birds and jinns, and use them as his army?
Can Solomon understand and communicate with ants?
Can Muhammad visit a mosque in Jerusalem in one night without leaving Medina or Mecca?
Did Allah create the world (or universe, as some Muslims have claimed) in 6 days?​

Or the hadiths:

My personal favorite is - did Muhammad really ascend to 7 heavens, mounted on winged horse?
​

Are any of these above claims from either the Qur'an or hadiths "scientific"?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey is a Muslim, so the bible is irrelevant to paarsurrey.
Try the Qur'an:

Like can Solomon control the wind, birds and jinns, and use them as his army?
Can Solomon understand and communicate with ants?
Can Muhammad visit a mosque in Jerusalem in one night without leaving Medina or Mecca?
Did Allah create the world (or universe, as some Muslims have claimed) in 6 days?​

Or the hadiths:

My personal favorite is - did Muhammad really ascend to 7 heavens, mounted on winged horse?
Are any of these above claims from either the Qur'an or hadiths "scientific"?​

​

Please quote from Quran for the first on your list that I have coloured in magenta.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

What is the "revealed religion?"

OPs whole thread is non sequitur.

There is no such thing as a revealed religion scientifically speaking.


Its like saying is science is against unicorns.

 

[Milton Platt]

paarsurrey is a Muslim, so the bible is irrelevant to paarsurrey.

Try the Qur'an:

Like can Solomon control the wind, birds and jinns, and use them as his army?
Can Solomon understand and communicate with ants?
Can Muhammad visit a mosque in Jerusalem in one night without leaving Medina or Mecca?
Did Allah create the world (or universe, as some Muslims have claimed) in 6 days?​

Or the hadiths:

My personal favorite is - did Muhammad really ascend to 7 heavens, mounted on winged horse?
​

Are any of these above claims from either the Qur'an or hadiths "scientific"?

Shoulda caught that. That's what happens when you try to juggle too many threads.

 

[gnostic]

Please quote from Quran for the first on your list that I have coloured in magenta.

Solomon not only commanding men in his army, but also jinn and birds (27:17):

Pickthall
And there were gathered together unto Solomon his armies of the jinn and humankind, and of the birds, and they were set in battle order;
Sahih International
And gathered for Solomon were his soldiers of the jinn and men and birds, and they were [marching] in rows.
Yusuf Ali
And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts,- of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

Got angry when the hoopee (birds) were not there (27:20-22):

Pickthall
And he sought among the birds and said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent?
Sahih International
And he took attendance of the birds and said, "Why do I not see the hoopoe - or is he among the absent?
Yusuf Ali
And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: "Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

Pickthall
I verily will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily shall bring me a plain excuse.
Sahih International
I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization."
Yusuf Ali
"I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence)."

But the hoopoe returned with tiding:

Pickthall
But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings.
Sahih International
But the hoopoe stayed not long and said, "I have encompassed [in knowledge] that which you have not encompassed, and I have come to you from Sheba with certain news.
Yusuf Ali
But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: "I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

This is a hoopoe (picture from Wikipedia, hoopoe):

I doubt very much it has the ability to speak in human's voice or that Solomon could understand what this bird saying. They are like the parrot or cockatoo species that could mimic human's words. They (talking about parrots and cockatoos, not hoopoe) only mimic words, not understand what those repeated words mean.

Here, we have Solomon controlling both winds and jinns, his servants (34:12):

Pickthall
And unto Solomon (We gave) the wind, whereof the morning course was a month's journey and the evening course a month's journey, and We caused the fount of copper to gush forth for him, and (We gave him) certain of the jinn who worked before him by permission of his Lord. And such of them as deviated from Our command, them We caused to taste the punishment of flaming Fire.
Sahih International
And to Solomon [We subjected] the wind - its morning [journey was that of] a month - and its afternoon [journey was that of] a month, and We made flow for him a spring of [liquid] copper. And among the jinn were those who worked for him by the permission of his Lord. And whoever deviated among them from Our command - We will make him taste of the punishment of the Blaze.
Yusuf Ali
And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient): Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

And the jinns building statues, synagogues, wells (or reservoirs) and boilers (34:13):

Pickthall
They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful.
Sahih International
They made for him what he willed of elevated chambers, statues, bowls like reservoirs, and stationary kettles. [We said], "Work, O family of David, in gratitude." And few of My servants are grateful.
Yusuf Ali
They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!"

All of the above is what you requested. Below is a little extra.

Understanding the speech of and talking to ants (27:18-19):

Pickthall
Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving.
Sahih International
Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."
Yusuf Ali
At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

Pickthall
And (Solomon) smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, arouse me to be thankful for Thy favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my parents, and to do good that shall be pleasing unto Thee, and include me in (the number of) Thy righteous slaves.
Sahih International
So [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech, and said, "My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do righteousness of which You approve. And admit me by Your mercy into [the ranks of] Your righteous servants."
Yusuf Ali
So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace, to the ranks of Thy righteous Servants."

Any more requests.

Nothing in 1 Kings mentioned that Solomon's have these abilities. But the story of Solomon's magical abilities and ability to talk to animals does exist centuries before Muhammad, before they were transmitted to writings by the rabbis, in the Aggadah. The Aggadah was more embellished biblical stories told to children, not meant to be taken seriously by adults; they were fables and folklore, not history, and certainly not canonical texts.

And Muhammad lived in land where, both in Mecca and Medina, where there were many tribes of Jews. Arabs were the only ones who could tell stories, without reading; Jews have a long history of oral traditions.

Modern English translation of Aggadah by Louis Ginzberg in 1909 - The Legend of the Jews. See Volume 4, Chapter 5.

The Jews called them demons, while Arabs and Muslims called them jinns.

In section called Lessons in Humility (The Legend of the Jews: volume 4, chapter 5):

Great and powerful as Solomon was, and wise and just, still occasions were not lacking to bring home to him the truth that the wisest and mightiest of mortals may not indulge in pride and arrogance.

Solomon had a precious piece of tapestry, sixty miles square, on which he flew through the air so swiftly that he could eat breakfast in Damascus and supper in Media. To carry out his orders he had at his beck and call Asaph ben Berechiah among men, Ramirat among demons, the lion among beasts, and the eagle among birds. Once it happened that pride possessed Solomon while he was sailing through the air on his carpet, and he said: "There is none like unto me in the world, upon whom God has bestowed sagacity, wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge, besides making me the ruler of the world." The same instant the air stirred, and forty thousand men dropped from the magic carpet. The king ordered the wind to cease from blowing, with the word: "Return!" Whereupon the wind: "If thou wilt return to God, and subdue thy pride, I, too, will return." The king realized his transgression.

On one occasion he strayed into the valley of the ants in the course of his wanderings. He heard one ant order all the others to withdraw, to avoid being crushed by the armies of Solomon. The king halted and summoned the ant that had spoken. She told him that she was the queen of the ants, and she gave her reasons for the order of withdrawal. Solomon wanted to put a question to the ant queen, but she refused to answer unless the king took her up and placed her on his hand. He acquiesced, and then he put his question: "Is there any one greater than I am in all the world?" "Yes," said the ant.

Solomon: "Who?"

Ant: "I am."

Solomon: "How is that possible?"

Ant: "Were I not greater than thou, God would not have led thee hither to put me on thy hand."

Exasperated, Solomon threw her to the ground, and said: "Thou knowest who I am? I am Solomon, the son of David."

Not at all intimidated, the ant reminded the king of his earthly origin, and admonished him to humility, and the king went off abashed.

Here you see he commanded winds to stop. Have jinn, lion and eagle delivering messages for him. And an ant talking to Solomon.

As you can see from this above quote, and the Qur'an that I have quoted, the ideas were already there for Muhammad, to borrow and modify from Jews, and modify it to suit his own audience.

Like it or not, I find that the Qur'an tends to exaggerate stories that Muhammad learned from the Jews.