Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

[kerndog]

Skwim said: ↑

Thing is, only a very, very small handful of historians are eye-witnesses. Reputable historians take information from as many sources as they can or deem necessary, and then present their information as provisional conclusions ---the unstated provisional aspect is expected to understood by the reader, just as conclusions by scientists always come with the unstated, but implicit, qualification that they are not absolute facts No reputable historian would ever claim all their conclusions are absolutely, 100% factual, particularly those involving the particulars of an event. It's not how they work. So, in a very real sense the conjectures of historians are opinions. Some based on damn good evidence, and some on hardly any evidence at all. Moreover, pronouncements about history don't gain any more validity if made part of the public record than if they lay unseen and gathering dust on the the historian's closet shelf.

paarsurrey said: ↑
An excellent and thought revealing post.
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please


I don't agree with you.
Quran is more than the history. Quran is 100% correct, while history/historians could be anything between 0 % to below 100% from case to case.
Regards

Give me an EXAMPLE of something you think that is 100% correct that most non-muslims don't ! I have talked to number of members of Islam in my ministry in the correctional systems here, I know a lot of their views, they vary a good bit , some good, some bad, a few , very bad !

 

[paarsurrey]

Give me an EXAMPLE of something you think that is 100% correct that most non-muslims don't ! I have talked to number of members of Islam in my ministry in the correctional systems here, I know a lot of their views, they vary a good bit , some good, some bad, a few , very bad !

Everything written in Quran, if correctly understood is 100% correct.
Regards

 

[kerndog]

Everything written in Quran, if correctly understood is 100% correct.
Regards

That's not what I asked , and you know it ! I don't know for sure why I thought I would get a straight answer from you, I get much better dialog with children, no one, and I mean NO ONE. is going to take you serious, being that evasive, So I will take your response as , I HAVE NOTHING WORTHWHILE TO SAY !!!......Peace to you sir.

 

[Shia Islam]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

When it comes to proving which religion is right (assuming that there is a right one), intellectual abilities, logic, and philosophy plays a big part...

Also, unbiased mentality is a must.

A deep understanding of some fields of science may guide the scientist to a conclusion about how the world could have came into existence.

 

[kerndog]

When it comes to proving which religion is right (assuming that there is a right one), intellectual abilities, logic, and philosophy plays a big part...

Also, unbiased mentality is a must.

A deep understanding of some fields of science may guide the scientist to a conclusion about how the world could have came into existence.

With exception of "Philosophy " i wholeheartedly AGREE ! ...Unbiased attitude is a definite must, i am at peace with ALL men, I hate NO man, i try my best to follow my lords example, he always took the time to listen to peoples concerns and thoughts, therefore , i try hard to do the same !.....1 Peter 2:21

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

If you meet someone at a party who is very knowledgeable about medieval history, which is more likely?

A) he's a history professor
B) he's a plumber

The answer is B, because even though the percentage of history professors who are very knowledgeable about medieval history is relatively high and the percentage of plumbers who are very knowledgeable about medieval history is relatively low (at least compared to history professors), there are orders of magnitude more plumbers than history professors, so the number of plumbers who are very knowledgeable about medieval history turns out to be much greater than the number of professors of medieval history.

TL;DR: the quality of what's being said is much more important than the job title of the person saying it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Give me an EXAMPLE of something you think that is 100% correct that most non-muslims don't ! I have talked to number of members of Islam in my ministry in the correctional systems here, I know a lot of their views, they vary a good bit , some good, some bad, a few , very bad !

According to Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayah>there are said to be 6,236 to 6666 verses in Quran, every verse is an example of being 100% correct, if correctly understood, which ever you choose from it. If you cannot choose one, I will help you to choose one for you.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Does any of this stuff has got anything to do with Biology? Please

Does the Qur'an offer anything of scientific values to biology?

Does it explain anything in detail, that you wouldn't get from any biology textbook?

Until it does, the Qur'an have nothing to offer.

 

[paarsurrey]

Does the Qur'an offer anything of scientific values to biology?
Does it explain anything in detail, that you wouldn't get from any biology textbook?
Until it does, the Qur'an have nothing to offer.

Quran never claimed to be a text book of science. Did it?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

When it comes to proving which religion is right (assuming that there is a right one), intellectual abilities, logic, and philosophy plays a big part...
Also, unbiased mentality is a must.
A deep understanding of some fields of science may guide the scientist to a conclusion about how the world could have came into existence.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[s13ep]

Some would say modern scientists are 'quacks' in science, because the majority don't really know anything, only how to be useful to the Government's ideology and therefore are not real scientists.

 

[paarsurrey]

Some would say modern scientists are 'quacks' in science, because the majority don't really know anything, only how to be useful to the Government's ideology and therefore are not real scientists.

Any body who differs with the above expression. Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

When it comes to proving which religion is right (assuming that there is a right one), intellectual abilities, logic, and philosophy plays a big part...

Also, unbiased mentality is a must.

A deep understanding of some fields of science may guide the scientist to a conclusion about how the world could have came into existence.

Except that the Qur'an, or any other scriptures, never explained how the world came to existence.

I have seen Muslims do it time and time again, quoting a verse (or two, at the most) and trying to twist the vague context of those verses to fit the current understanding of modern science.

That's not unbiased mentality. What it is, is confirmation bias.

Muslims, those who resort such tactics, are not employing logic at all.

There have been great scientists, mathematicians and inventors among Muslims, but they have been long gone. There have been no good Muslim scientists for centuries.

All we have today, are some dishonest apologetic Muslims trying to twist both the Qur'an and modern science as if they are one and the same. All they ended up doing is tarnishing islam's image with their dishonesty and manipulation of certain verses in the Qur'an.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I am a humble ordinary person, I am neither proud nor I get impressed with those who are proud.
Regards

... don't you have a blog where you like to show the internet that people like the posts you make here?

 

[paarsurrey]

Except that the Qur'an, or any other scriptures, never explained how the world came to existence.
I have seen Muslims do it time and time again, quoting a verse (or two, at the most) and trying to twist the vague context of those verses to fit the current understanding of modern science.
That's not unbiased mentality. What it is, is confirmation bias.
Muslims, those who resort such tactics, are not employing logic at all.
There have been great scientists, mathematicians and inventors among Muslims, but they have been long gone. There have been no good Muslim scientists for centuries.
All we have today, are some dishonest apologetic Muslims trying to twist both the Qur'an and modern science as if they are one and the same. All they ended up doing is tarnishing islam's image with their dishonesty and manipulation of certain verses in the Qur'an.

Does Quran claim to be a text book of science? No, it never claimed as such.
It is Recitation to guide humans in ethical, moral and spiritual domains, one should keep it in mind. Right? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Does Quran claim to be a text book of science?

I didn't state that the Qur'an itself making claims that it is a scientific book.

SERIOUSLY!!! Did you even bother to read BEYOND THE FIRST LINE of my post?

I stated that Muslims make such claims when they quote from the Qur'an.

You highlight the 1st line, BUT YOU ARE NOT READING THE WHOLE POST!!!!

If you bother to read the whole post, you will see that my reply relate to what Muslims are doing, and how they are interpreting the verses are wrong.

Re-read my reply again, but read more than just one line, then you can get back to me with questions or with your rebuttal.

 

[paarsurrey]

I didn't state that the Qur'an itself making claims that it is a scientific book.
SERIOUSLY!!! Did you even bother to read BEYOND THE FIRST LINE of my post?
I stated that Muslims make such claims when they quote from the Qur'an.
You highlight the 1st line, BUT YOU ARE NOT READING THE WHOLE POST!!!!
If you bother to read the whole post, you will see that my reply relate to what Muslims are doing, and how they are interpreting the verses are wrong.
Re-read my reply again, but read more than just one line, then you can get back to me with questions or with your rebuttal.

Muhammad was a Muslim- rather the First of them; did he claim as such? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Muhammad was a Muslim- rather the First of them; did he claim as such?

Good grief....

I am not talking about Muhammad, there, in post 93.

Trying re-reading post 93, AGAIN!

Post 93, which you quoted is about Modern Muslims.

This would have been your first clue, that I wasn't talking about Muhammad, but MODERN Muslims:

I have seen Muslims do it time and time again, quoting a verse (or two, at the most) and trying to twist the vague context of those verses to fit the current understanding of modern science.

Muhammad know nothing about "modern science", so you should not confuse Muhammad with modern Muslims. Muhammad know nothing about science that was contemporary to his time (7th century). Why would you think that Muhammad would know MODERN SCIENCE of the 20th and 21st century?

How on bloody earth did you confuse that line that I just quoted from myself, that I was referring to Muhammad?

The last paragraph would have given you clue that I wasn't talking about Muhammad.

Stop jumping to conclusion about what I am writing, and actually read and write what I writing.

I was referring to modern Muslims, like you or any RF Muslim members, not Muhammad. And i am not talking about any Muslim who has been dead for centuries. I am talking about Muslims, like here, today, making "modern" interpretation of the Qur'an.

I am talking about Muslims of TODAY, who write books, created webpages, YouTube videos (like Zakir Naik, a Muslim version of televanglist), or take part in forums (like here @ RF), Islamic organisations (like Islamic Research Foundation (IRF)).

I am talking about MODERN MUSLIMS. Modern Muslims who can printed or published books, make videos or webpages, or take part in discussion and debates in forums.

These modern Muslims are trying to promote the Qur'an as if it was scientific book, by quoting verses in the Qur'an and comparing one of the fields in modern science.

Do you understand now, paarsurrey?

Read and understand what I am actually writing before you jump in, and make a big fool of yourself. I would rather that you answer my questions intelligently or providing astute argument against my view, then you continually misunderstanding my reply and posting lame replies, like the last 2 replies of yours (posts 95 & 97).

 

[gnostic]

Just how many more times that I have to explain to you, paarsurrey, what you have quoted from me from post 93, BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND?

Understand that my post was referring to modern Muslims making modern interpretations to the Qur'an. And in these modern interpretations, Muslims are trying to give credit to science, to the Qur'an, not the modern scientists who have discovered the discoveries.

I would think that "current understanding of modern science" would give you a clue that I wasn't talking about Muhammad or anyone else who have been dead for centuries.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Why would you think such a thing? Isn't religion supposed to exist in and make claims about the same world that science observes, studies and describes?

At the very least, it is possible and in fact very much advisable to take a scientific view of phenomena of religious significance, such as belief and social identity.