Science is important... and even holy.

[outhouse]

Correct. Emphasis on "if" and what's similar in confirming theories 100% and fully knowing the meaning of what's said in the book.
Also, the topic is about science being important and holly. Right?

There is no debating "if" nor emphasis.

Science is not holy, it is perceived as such by people who have faith not science. Hypocritical people who only believe cherry picked portions, while perverting the rest with pseudoscience to match their mythology.


It saddens me deeply in this modern age, some people chose mythology over credible science placing a book of plagiarized theology before reality.

 

[outhouse]

I agree - to me science is the lens through which the mind can appreciate the wonder and elegance of God's universe.

Very few people can actually hold faith and do credible science. Many scientist are theist and do good work.


But we can all agree, there is no such thing as a credible YEC scientist, doing any credible work in biology, history, or dating methods, or anthropology, or geology and on and on and on.


Keeping faith and doing credible work is tough, and if you truly do follow this my hats off to you.

 

[Smart_Guy]

There is no debating "if" nor emphasis.

Science is not holy, it is perceived as such by people who have faith not science. Hypocritical people who only believe cherry picked portions, while perverting the rest with pseudoscience to match their mythology.


It saddens me deeply in this modern age, some people chose mythology over credible science placing a book of plagiarized theology before reality.

Specifics in science are highly subjective and what goes against religion cannot be proven. Our topic is not about specifics in science, but in science as a notion. It is the specifics that makes people confused about religion and science as two opposites while in fact they are not. That's what this thread is all about.

I understand people can be saddened by many things, but I wonder why do they get offended by it if it does not do harm, unless if others believing what they don't believe is considered harm and offensive, which it should be not. An example is: people get offended and defensive just because other people chose mythology over subjective credible specifics science.

 

[outhouse]

Specifics in science are highly subjective and what goes against religion cannot be proven

That simply is not true.

This to me is a perfect example of the dangers of faith, and religions that do not embrace knowledge, instead avoid it. Cherry picking knowledge based on what many call mythology.


Science helps us determine history, credible history all muslims refuse, because they are forced to refuse, or they would not be muslim.

Cultural anthropology combined with scientific dating methods have shown pages of koran possibly date to Warakas time. Waraka was heretic Christian priest who was known to pervert the bible in Arabic. This man found muhammad at age 5 wondering alone and took him in.

Yet you refuse tio admit he learned anything about religion from his own cousin.

islam goes against academia, in many places of science and history. Many of what your calling specifics are actually facts, facts you refuse because your religion requires you to avoid it.

 

[outhouse]

I understand people can be saddened by many things, but I wonder why do they get offended by it if it does not do harm,

Because it harms humanity.



What if all of the USA were young earth creationist avoiding science and history and most academic knowledge, and hell bent to spread this message globally, would you say that would be positive for humanity or negative for humanity???

it is an A or B question, no answering with another question please.

It does harm, and it would be negative to humanity, Is my honest answer.

 

[outhouse]

Here is academic global knowledge on the topic, and most religions are guilty. We are just in context talking about levels of fanaticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science

In the Muslim world today, most of the focus on the relation between Islam and science involves scientific interpretations of the Quran (and sometimes the Sunna) that claim to show that these sources make prescient statements about the nature of the universe, biological development and other phenomena later confirmed by scientific research, thus demonstrating proof of the divine origin of the Qur'an (and sometimes the Sunna). This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories.[2][3]

 

[viole]

Lets put this in a way you might be able to understand.

.

If I may. This sounds a bit condenscending.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

If I may. This sounds a bit condenscending.

Ciao

- viole

I deleted it due to your request.


The perceived problem however was quite obvious to me that he did not understand the dangers of fanaticism and fundamentalism, I had to provide an example that demonstrates this danger to humanity.

He was basically stating fanaticism and fundamentalism are not negative to society or humanity so why be saddened, its not harming anyone.

 

[outhouse]

people get offended and defensive just because other people chose mythology over subjective credible specifics science.

Because we are having global problems with islam, for many reasons.

Islamic people are murdering innocent civilians here, and what is worse is how many are murdered over sectarian violence in the middle east.

The deaths due to this religion in the middle east is just terrible. Its terrible for muslims more then anything, but also non muslims.

 

[outhouse]

religion and science as two opposites while in fact they are not.

Yet they are factually opposites.

Religions are factually faith based and contain mythology. It factually does not offer a credible explanation of nature, it does not pass any peer review to maintain any credibility, and has a bad habit of avoiding evidence and knowledge.

Science is evidence based, and offers credible observations of nature, peer reviewed before accepting anything as credible knowledge.

One is accepted by all credible standards. The other is rejected by credible standards.

 

[sun rise]

Here is academic global knowledge on the topic, and most religions are guilty. We are just in context talking about levels of fanaticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science

In the Muslim world today, most of the focus on the relation between Islam and science involves scientific interpretations of the Quran (and sometimes the Sunna) that claim to show that these sources make prescient statements about the nature of the universe, biological development and other phenomena later confirmed by scientific research, thus demonstrating proof of the divine origin of the Qur'an (and sometimes the Sunna). This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories.[2][3]

That Wikipedia article you posted pointed out how Islam and science are compatible and you took one part of it out of the context of the whole. And it's important to differentiate the understanding of the knowledgeable and the false claims of the ignorant:

It's generally accepted that there are around 750 verses in the Quran dealing with natural phenomenon. In many of these verses the study of nature is "encouraged and highly recommended," and historical Islamic scientists like Al-Biruni and Al-Battani derived their inspiration from verses of the Quran. Mohammad Hashim Kamali has the stated that "scientific observation, experimental knowledge and rationality" are the primary tools with which humanity can achieve the goals laid out for it in the Quran.[17] Ziauddin Sardar built a case for Muslims having developed the foundations of modern science, by highlighting the repeated calls of the Quran to observe and reflect upon natural phenomenon.[18] "The 'scientific method,' as it is understood today, was first developed by Muslim scientists" like Ibn al-Haytham and Al-Biruni, along with numerous other Muslim scientists.


The physicist Abdus Salam, in his Nobel Prize banquet address, quoted a well known verse from the Quran (67:3-4) and then stated: "This in effect is the faith of all physicists: the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlment of our gaze"[19] One of Salam's core beliefs was that there is no contradiction between Islam and the discoveries that science allows humanity to make about nature and the universe. Salam also held the opinion that the Quran and the Islamic spirit of study and rational reflection was the source of extraordinary civilizational development.[20] Salam highlights, in particular, the work of Ibn al-Haytham and Al-Biruni as the pioneers of empiricism who introduced the experimental approach, breaking way from Aristotle's influence, and thus giving birth to modern science. Salam was also careful to differentiate between metaphysics and physics, and advised against empirically probing certain matters on which "physics is silent and will remain so," such as the doctrine of "creation from nothing" which in Salam's view is outside the limits of science and thus "gives way" to religious considerations.[21]

 

[outhouse]

That Wikipedia article you posted pointed out how Islam and science are compatible

No it factually does not.

you took one part of it out of the context of the whole.

That is he lead paragraph that places everything you stated into context.

It is the context of the whole page.

This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories.[2][3]

What part of that do you not understand???

 

[viole]

I deleted it due to your request.


The perceived problem however was quite obvious to me that he did not understand the dangers of fanaticism and fundamentalism, I had to provide an example that demonstrates this danger to humanity.

He was basically stating fanaticism and fundamentalism are not negative to society or humanity so why be saddened, its not harming anyone.

I am aware of that.

But I can hardly imagine how it feels like being a peaceful Mulim today, as I am sure very many are.Especially the ones embedded in Europe. Imagine having your faith and try to make a honest living in a foreign place, whose language you hardly understand, under the Damocles sword of the next terrorist attack that will turn you into a potential public enemy overnight.

America is much more different. You have a natural multicultural environment. We do not. Despite having Trump calling for the exodus of all muslims, I think they are safer there than in Europe. I expect the chancellor of Germany will soon lose her job because of her tolerance towards immigrants from the middle east. The same will happen with the French president, too.
You threaten to buid walls, we do not. We do not threaten, We are building them as we speak.

I cannot myself rationalize my feelings about Islam in Europe, either, in all honesty. Sometimes I feel tolerant, sometimes I do not. I have a lot of unresolved cognitive dissonance about this. As a swiss citizen, I admit I voted, like the majority of swiss people, against the construction of minarets in Switzerland. We diplomatically sold it as a visual violence to our alpine scenery, but the truth is much more subtle. We made a cultural statement. We were prejudiced. Period. Not proud about it, but that is the way it is.

However, I don't think moderate Islam makes enough to distance itself here, but I think it is difficult to get in their shoes, considering the contradicting cultural pressures coming from everywhere, and our innate bias. And prejudices.

What would you do if you were a Mulim who rejects any form of violence, assuming you believe such Muslims exist? Renounce your faith?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

The physicist Abdus Salam,

Left his own country because of their religious fanaticism. He was a great muslim.

historical Islamic scientists like Al-Biruni and Al-Battani derived their inspiration from verses of the Quran.

Would today be known as apologetic biased with no credibility. Their methodology is no longer acceptable in any academic circle.

 

[outhouse]

However, I don't think moderate Islam makes enough to distance itself here, but I think it is difficult to get in their shoes, considering the contradicting cultural pressures coming from everywhere

There is no such thing as moderate islam IMHO. It would be the same as calling any YEC moderate, there is no such thing. The fanaticism is severe in all. Look at the examples by good muslims in this thread fighting science and academia, promoting only their personal version right or wrong.

I just think maybe peaceful islam would be a better description, as an example here.

What would you do if you were a Mulim who rejects any form of violence, assuming you believe such Muslims exist?

Its dynamic at best.

They do exist. Most are probably fitting that description, the problem is the possible 1/3 that do not hold peaceful thoughts. They would do anything to protect their faith, violent or not.

The religion needs education in a terrible way, and the problem there is as you noticed they refuse it, and many of their countries do not promote it.


The root of the problem exist in the severe fanaticism required by all. Example. We don't have a severe christian problem in the USA because we actually have and use moderation.

Not only do we have freedom from religion, but it is not lived so deeply here.

Our society fights the belief of YEC, all credible universities teach real knowledge, we have TV shows that teach the opposite of the fundamentalism, as we are trying to reach and educate the children with open minds. Our public schools also teach the opposite of these fundamentalist. And our government does not promote this fanaticism.

Islam promotes this fanaticism, all their schools teach it, all their TV shows promote it, their governments are tied to it. They are the complete opposite of our ideology of advancing humanity.

Renounce your faith?

No the key is moderation. They are like how we were a few hundred years ago IMHO when our moderation did not exist.

The world is outgrowing mythology, and not all cultures are evolving forward if you want my honest opinion.

Mythology is being replaced with education and knowledge.



Let me ask you this question now that answered yours fully with honesty. Do you think 100 years from now humanity will look back and view islam as an embarrassment the same way we look back on the Christian crusades?

 

[sun rise]

No it factually does not.




That is he lead paragraph that places everything you stated into context.

It is the context of the whole page.

This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories.[2][3]

What part of that do you not understand???

You are ignoring the facts and dismissing modern PhD researchers to fit your prejudice. You ignore the word some. And you ignore the non-fundamentalist who does not take the Quran as stating scientific fact but as containing statements of how to approach truth in a scientific way. The later error is the more problematical.

 

[outhouse]

You are ignoring

No I am not.

islam is not a credible means of study. It is a religion that contains mythology, and its followers claim the mythology is real when no evidence exist.

dismissing modern PhD researchers to fit your prejudice.

You did not post any modern researchers. Just 2 ancient men not relevant today, and a dead muslim scientist who fled his country because of Islamic fanaticism.

And you ignore the non-fundamentalist who does not take the Quran as stating scientific fact but as containing statements of how to approach truth in a scientific way. The later error is the more problematical.

We are not talking about one example out of a billion people.

You factually do not use religious books as a guide to study anything but religion.


All your doing is making excuses for fanaticism and fundamentalism.



Religions are factually faith based and contain mythology. It factually does not offer a credible explanation of nature, it does not pass any peer review to maintain any credibility, and has a bad habit of avoiding evidence and knowledge.

Science is evidence based, and offers credible observations of nature, peer reviewed before accepting anything as credible knowledge.

One is accepted by all credible standards. The other is rejected by credible standards.

 

[outhouse]

The koran has many scientific mistakes in it, but I have never met a muslim who will debate such.

It would be like trying to get a YEC to believe the facts of evolution.

 

[outhouse]

http://eacpe.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Islam-and-Science-unhappy-bedfellows.pdf


Science without the scientific method simply


does not work, says Pervez Hoodbhoy. That is

the problem Muslim societies have to confront



No evidence of progress


This profound lack of scientific understanding in

an Islamic country is odd given the bold progress

that is often claimed for Islam and science. Ziauddin

Sardar, a Pakistani scientist and journalist, has

asserted in Britain’s New Statesman: “Now Muslim

leaders are planning its revival and hope to

restore a golden age.” These are brave words.



So here a msulim addresses the severe problem for lack of scientific understanding

 

[outhouse]

http://www.history-science-technology.com/articles/articles 8.html

FACTORS BEHIND THE DECLINE OF ISLAMIC SCIENCE

Nature,the international journal of science, with headquarters in London, has published on 2 November 2006 an issue devoted mainly to Islam and Science. The articles and items are written by Muslim and non-Muslim writers who express mainly the official points of view of some international organizations. Although some of the presented ideas are useful, yet they badly miss the point about the factors behind the decline of science in the Muslim countries. Therefore, we deemed it useful to publish here our analysis of the factors behind the decline of Islamic science after the sixteenth century. What was true in the last few centuries is still true in the present day world of Islam