Is science against the Revealed Religion?

[paarsurrey]

I've can't recall hearing any scientist saying that science is against the so-called revealed religions. Since you are making the claim that you hear people say that science is against religions then why not cite a few examples that you have run into. Then, we might have something to actually talk about.

No sensible person would say that science is against the revealed religion.
Those who endorse it could simply say that yes, science is not against the revealed religion, no further arguments are needed.
Right?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But the highlighted part is a meaningless statement, paarsurrey, as science, as we know it today, simply did not exist at the time of Christ or even Muhammad.

Jesus and Muhammad did not oppose science and scientific research so any valid and truthful scientific research done any time is a part of the revealed religions in this sense.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

I understand. In other words one means to say that the field of science is different from that of religion. There is no question of science being against the revealed religion.

This part you understand what I am saying. (in red)

But this part (in green), you either (a) don't understand (b) or this is simply an expression of your own opinion, not mine.

Yes, I agree that they are two different areas of knowledge, therefore unrelated, and there irrelevant to each other. Irrelevant, meaning that science doesn't attempt to explain god, creation, miracles, or prophecies...while religion doesn't attempt to understand the natural world, the mechanism behind nature, etc.

Islam and its scripture - the Qur'an - is all about theology and mythological stories, old law and old teaching of moral and ethics, some prophecies, and old customs (eg praying 5 times a day).

The Qur'an cannot teach you or anyone maths, physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy. (And when I say "teach", I mean comprehensive or detailed explanation. Quoting a single verse or two from the Qur'an, is not really teaching any science or providing detailed explanation.) You cannot become a doctor, biologist, physicist, astronomer, engineer, by reading the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is not textbook. The Qur'an cannot even teach people how to farm, manufacture or sell products, construct a house, etc, because the Qur'an is very limited in subject matters.

They are not against each other. Religion is irrelevant to science, just as science is irrelevant to religion.

Jesus and Muhammad based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d. It is a different dimension. They were not against science which deals in physical and material.

I never said that Jesus and Muhammad is against science. I don't think either one knows anything about science.

As to yours: "based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d", that's really based on your belief and personal opinion, and nothing more than that.

I need more than the Bible or the Qur'an say-so that these are scriptures of God. I need more than Jesus' or Muhammad's say-so that they are messengers of god. Just as Christians can't prove Jesus was a messiah, nor can Muslims prove that Gabriel had visited Muhammad in a cave.

 

[gnostic]

The revealed religion never claimed that it teaches science. Did it?

I've never said I did, paarsurrey.

It's actually what I have been saying everytime all along whenever I argue with Christians and Muslims - that there are nothing "scientific" about any verses (that Christians or Muslims quoted).

I am not the one who quoted this verse or that verse, and say that it relate to anything with science; Christians and Muslims do this.

I don't have any problem with viewing and understanding verses in their original contexts, paarsurrey.

What I have problem with, is how Christians and Muslims interpret their verses. Their interpretations actually change the contexts of verses. It is these sorts of interpretations that I find Muslims and Christian creationists that I find "dishonest".

 

[YmirGF]

No sensible person would say that science is against the revealed religion.
Those who endorse it could simply say that yes, science is not against the revealed religion, no further arguments are needed.
Right?
Regards

I suppose, but doesn't that make this thread somewhat pointless? You have said that you have heard people say that science is against revealed religion, which begs the question, who is saying this? Are you meaning some person(s) on RF that have made rash statement?

 

[paarsurrey]

I suppose, but doesn't that make this thread somewhat pointless? You have said that you have heard people say that science is against revealed religion, which begs the question, who is saying this? Are you meaning some person(s) on RF that have made rash statement?

No.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I've never said I did, paarsurrey.

It's actually what I have been saying everytime all along whenever I argue with Christians and Muslims - that there are nothing "scientific" about any verses (that Christians or Muslims quoted).

I am not the one who quoted this verse or that verse, and say that it relate to anything with science; Christians and Muslims do this.

I don't have any problem with viewing and understanding verses in their original contexts, paarsurrey.

What I have problem with, is how Christians and Muslims interpret their verses. Their interpretations actually change the contexts of verses. It is these sorts of interpretations that I find Muslims and Christian creationists that I find "dishonest".

Interpretations are human understandings, if the context does not support them, they should be revised. Nevertheless, interpretations don't change the text of the verse of the Word of G-d.
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

No.
Regards

Ok. Who are you saying is saying that science is against revealed religions?
(This is like pulling hen's teeth.)

 

[gnostic]

Interpretations are human understandings, if the context does not support them, they should be revised. Nevertheless, interpretations don't change the text of the verse of the Word of G-d.

The Qur'an was composed and written by humans, not some mythological "God", but regardless who wrote the Qur'an, doesn't mean that Muslims themselves have different interpretations to the original contexts of the verses that they quoted.

Let's say the Big Bang didn't become the scientific theory, but Hoyle's Steady State cosmology (SSC) won out instead, then Muslims would change their stance, and still quoted a verse here or there, to say Allah knew all about SSC, and agree with SSC, instead of the BB.

That's not "scientific" with Muslim interpretations, nor is the verses they have quoted in any way "scientific".

The problem with the Qur'an is that many of the verses have ambiguities, so it is very easy and possible for Muslims (as well as non-Muslims) to twist it so, it represent what they think or believe that it agreed with modern science. This is because the passages they have quoted are often vague in their language, therefore open to interpretation. And anyone, whether it be Muslims or non-Muslims can twist any quoted passages for their own agenda.

That Muslims do it, show how little faith they have in their own scripture, and their desperation to convert people into accepting Islam.

Today's Muslims (some, not all) have shown their lack of understanding to modern science, when they twisted the verses that believe to be holy. I believed that they do this, because of their own sense of security and jealousy that have not contributed to modern science in the last couple of centuries.

The Muslim scientists and mathematicians in the golden age of Islam were great discoverers of science and technology, not because of the contents within the Qur'an itself, but because of their enquiry or intellectual minds, not because of this so-called divine authorship. They have stop scientific discoveries since 1500.

But (some) today's Muslims are more backward than Muslims of yesteryear. Instead of learning science and making new discoveries, they have lower themselves by trying match the Qur'an with modern science.

And that's really a shame, that Muslims lack the creativity that past Muslims possessed.

 

[paarsurrey]

That doesn't mean that science is against the revealed religion.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

1) For one thing, there's not a "THE" revealed religion, there's a jillion revealed religions, all conflicting with each other.
2) There's not a shred of evidence for any of them except hearsay evidence.

Without hard evidence, there's nothing regarding any revealed religion for science to work with. This isn't to say that the "revealed" sources of the various religions don't contain actual history. A lot of believers like to point to that history, particularly when it's verified by science, and say, "Look there....SEE!!!", thinking that somehow the miracles and revelations are also thus verified. So far anyway, we're talking a big ZERO once again, for all revealed religions.

The evidence a lot of people like to point to for there at least being a (non-revealed) God, is the universe. That evidence is massive to zero evidence for God either being non-revealed, or not existing at all. But there is zero evidence favoring one of those over the other--the Big Bang (or beginning) of the universe being a perfect (divinely designed????) firewall guarding any information from "before" seeping into this perfectly rational universe. You can believe what you want, based on reason and/or emotions, but honesty compels us to fall back on an overall agnostic position, no matter what we want or hope for. At least for now, we can't KNOW.

 

[gnostic]

That doesn't mean that science is against the revealed religion.

If you are referring to my post, I said it doesn't.

I am saying that when Muslims try to push their interpretations of the verses (in the Qur'an) as being "scientific" when it is not "science", that is when science is against Islam, because the interpretations are often flawed, relying on fallacious or circular reasoning.

 

[paarsurrey]

I see friends finding fault with the revealed religion; but not complying with the conditions in the OP:

• 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

where science has endorsed their views.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If you are referring to my post, I said it doesn't.
I am saying that when Muslims try to push their interpretations of the verses (in the Qur'an) as being "scientific" when it is not "science", that is when science is against Islam, because the interpretations are often flawed, relying on fallacious or circular reasoning.

It is obviously their misunderstanding yet no fault of Quran.
Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

I agree with you here.

Science isn't against anything...

But I will say, if a religious claim goes against established scientific understandings, it doesn't get a free pass just because it's an emotional issue for people.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science isn't against anything...
But I will say, if a religious claim goes against established scientific understandings, it doesn't get a free pass just because it's an emotional issue for people.

There is no such claim made by Quran.
The truthful religion does not interfere with the scientific research, yes, if science goes beyond its domain, it will be checked in a rational and peaceful manner.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

It is obviously their misunderstanding yet no fault of Quran.

There is no such claim made by Quran.

That's what I have been saying, paarsurrey.

It has been Muslims, who recently claiming "scientific miracle" or "scientific sign". They quoted a verse here and there, and trying to give credits for modern science theories and discoveries...but the Qur'an make no such claims.

The Qur'an make no such claims because it has no scientific merits and credibilities. The author of Qur'an (whether the author be the mythological Allah, Gabriel, Muhammad or Muhammad's disciples) have no knowledge of science.

It is the Muslims who have made recent claims that the Qur'an has verses containing the so-called "scientific miracles", are the people who making claims. And they so by reinterpreting certain passages from the Qur'an.

I have always argued against Muslims' baseless interpretations and their claims of the verses being "scientific", not the Qur'an itself making these claims.

 

[psychoslice]

Science wouldn't wast its money or time to be against anything to do with religion, there are more important things to discover.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I see friends finding fault with the revealed religion; but not complying with the conditions in the OP:

• 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

where science has endorsed their views.
Regards

What scientific journal is going to publish a paper expounding the correctness of a supernatural proposition--with no evidence other than hearsay to back it up? There could be no science to it.

There is no such claim made by Quran.

Any claim to a supernatural event or DIVINE REVELATION, is such a claim. You can point to historical events in "holy" texts, but those don't validate the supernatural by proxy--particularly after many hundreds of years with that information being delivered and "safeguarded" by those with a vested interest in that validation.

[/quote]The truthful religion does not interfere with the scientific research, yes, if science goes beyond its domain, it will be checked in a rational and peaceful manner.
Regards[/QUOTE]

Science's domain is the rational, natural universe and its natural law.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science wouldn't wast its money or time to be against anything to do with religion, there are more important things to discover.

I agree in spirit, but the pursuit of Truth is complex, as is natural law (the purely objective) and the other aspects of Truth--justice, love...and beauty (the purely subjective). Until we have some understanding about the nature of the aether in which our natural universe is suspended, and what caused it to be suspended there (here) in the first place, we are forced to deal with the purely objective. But we can't rule out the supernatural from having a place in the Big Picture. If and when we can start gleaning evidence from "before" the Big Bang, or from what is found "through" the Planck spacetime gaps in the fabric of our universe, then we may be able to draw some conclusions about the ultimate meaning of "before" and "through".