Can you answer this?

[firedragon]

My apologies, but I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean when you say Darwin did not give evolution? Is 'give' the right verb? Certainly you would not say that anyone has given evolution. What if we use the word 'describe'. Would you say Darwin described evolution? Or better yet, how about explained, that Darwin explained and gave evidence to support the existence and function of the natural process we label Evolution.

The Natural Selection/Random Variation or Mutation is the Mechanism Darwin gave us. I hope you understand. Anyway, there is no point in furthering this matter.

I enjoyed looking into the person you call, Ibne Haldhoon. Thank you for bringing him to my attention. I assume that you are talking about Abū Zayd ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī, or Ibn Khaldun, who lived from 1332 to 1406 CE. If this is not the same person you referenced, please let me know.

Same guy.

Based on the little I learned, I would not have characterized Ibn Khaldun as a theologian. Like many pre-modern great thinkers, he was a polymath with a wide range of interests. He could be described as a politician/statesman, philosopher, sociologist, and historian. I only saw reference to two minor works on solely theological topic and would not describe his main interest as theological by any means.

You will eventually find out. He was a theologian, philosopher, etc, etc. I never said "his main interest was theology" which is a strawman. Yes. Even in modern days people are still contemplating on his work on sociology. Many books. All Good.

Tell me brother. Which of his books have you read?

 

[MikeF]

The Natural Selection/Random Variation or Mutation is the Mechanism Darwin gave us. I hope you understand. Anyway, there is no point in furthering this matter.

You will eventually find out. He was a theologian, philosopher, etc, etc. I never said "his main interest was theology" which is a strawman. Yes. Even in modern days people are still contemplating on his work on sociology. Many books. All Good.

Tell me brother. Which of his books have you read?

I have not read any books by Ibn Khaldun, only summaries of the books.

Not my intent to create a strawman argument. I believe you introduced Ibn Khaldun into the conversation to support your position that religion has a positive influence on science. And I countered this assertion with the comment:
"You want to make the argument that religion influences science positively, and drives scientific discovery, but the drive to know, understand, and explore the world speaks to the personality and psychology of the person engaged in scientific exploration, not religious affiliation. These individuals would be driven to know and understand regardless of the religious tradition they were raised in, be it Christianity for Descartes, Greek Pantheon for Socrates, Islam for Ibn Khaldun, Hinduism for Aryabhata."

Again my premise is that science advances despite religion, not because of it, and that there is a clash between religious cosmology and science.

You seem to be arguing that there is a religious belief system who's explanations for how the cosmos was created and how human beings came into existence is in complete concordance with our modern scientific understanding of how the cosmos began/functions and how human beings began. That there is no clash between science and religion. I would love to know to which religion you refer.

Or are you saying that there is a religious belief system that declares that it is a complete mystery how the cosmos came into being and how human beings came into existence and that this religious belief system directs its adherents to explore and discover the origins and workings of the cosmos and the origin of humanity. If so, please identify.

 

[firedragon]

Not my intent to create a strawman argument. I believe you introduced Ibn Khaldun into the conversation to support your position that religion has a positive influence on science.

Brother. In discussion, we use the strawman fallacy as an easy way of explaining that one makes an argument not made by the other. So its not an insult. I dont say you take it that way, but might as well say it.

I said that religion and science influence each other. Its not one way so I think you misunderstood me.

Again my premise is that science advances despite religion, not because of it,

Depends on the time you are in or are referring to, and it goes hand in hand. Unless you have some deep research to prove what you are saying.

You seem to be arguing that there is a religious belief system who's explanations for how the cosmos was created and how human beings came into existence is in complete concordance with our modern scientific understanding of how the cosmos began/functions and how human beings began.

No. I didnt say that.

That there is no clash between science and religion. I would love to know to which religion you refer.

The clash between science and religion happens everywhere, everyday. But also, there is harmony and motivation everywhere, and everyday. You just have to dig deeper.

Anyway, since Ibne Haldhun was discussed that began with evolution of the human species, what you said about him was absolutely wrong. He was a theologian, a state recognised expert in the Maliki Fikh, Grand Khazi of the Shariah almahakimu, hasarath of the al zahiyyat madrasah where he spent the last decade of his life. I dont know if that is important to you, but that was since you said that he was no theologian.

You should read his work kithab al aebari. You will understand much better.

The perception you have is quite common so its not a blaming game, but in history there has been many a time when theology and science have gone hand in hand in perfect marriage, and ibne haldhun is one example of Akal or "human reason" takes precedence in analysis absolutely motivated by the curiosity in exploring God and the natural world. This so called father of the historical method, sociology, economics mentions God a thousand times in his one single work in discussion even in 2021.

This does not mean one has to believe in God. I mean you or anyone. But its better to research this so called science and religion divide a little deeper. It is not necessary, but better. After all, it is more scientific to do so.

Peace.

 

[Yazata]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

I guess that I'd say that it is how it seems to me.

If I am misrepresenting what some tradition believes, I'm sure somebody will point it out.

Then I would have to decide what I think about whatever I was told.

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

Yes. Always good advice.

 

[KerimF]

Blind belief is not appreciated in science. Whenever a scientific theory is described, its short-comings are also described. In scientific method, that extends to history also theories are always challenged. This is something that Abrahamic religions do not do. Hinduism and Buddhism delight in criticism and discussion.

Of course, blind belief is not appreciated in pure science, in any way.
But when some political agendas need to be supported by so-called scientists/doctors/researchers/investigators, all international news agencies try their best to let the ordinary peoples around the world accept blindly whatever they are supposed to believe. The tactic is simple, the idea (or ideas) of interest, said scientific, need to be repeated almost daily by all news agencies in the same way and for a rather long period of time.
By the way, this is how the religious Elders (priests, ministers... etc) let their followers be familiar to whatever they are supposed to believe and do... till they accept it as one of life's postulates.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

I cannot know for sure -- I always have a red flag up in the back of my mind that I may be wrong. However, I make the best decision I can, and I argue for it. Hopefully in the debate that ensues, the truth will come out.