When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

[Kilgore Trout]

So, this thread has verified that "science going gibberish" generally means the person making the claim is simply ignorant of science.

 

[paarsurrey]

Other than sites this website (RF, back in 2006) and websites containing translations of religious scriptures, which I might quote from, I don't visit or quote any anti-religious websites or webpages, so I really don't know what you are talking.
In fact, since I have joined RF, I have not a SINGLE pro-atheist websites. So you are attacking strawman.
I have a lot experiences in reading ancient and medieval literature, especially those that are mythological and historical themes, that I don't rely on anyone to interpret the literature that I have read, including religious-theme literature, ie scriptures.
Most of replies you get from me, about religions, are from my own reading and research, therefore my own interpretations, whether it be the Tanakh, Bible or the Qur'an. I have also read and researched Egyptian, Sumerian-Babylonian, Ugaritic, Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic literature, that have religious, mythological or folkloric subjects.
Most of my experiences in researching literature come from building my websites, Timeless Myths and Dark Mirrors of Heaven, demonstrated my skills in reading and researching.
Unlike you I have read all 3 Abrahamic scriptures - the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an - from cover-to-cover. Have you?
Most Muslims I have come across here, have never read the whole bible, but only quoted something from Muslim webpages when they criticize the bible or the Tanakh. How can these Muslims criticise and compare something about the bible to the Qur'an when they have not read the whole bible?
I don't do this with the bible, and I certainly have done so with the Qur'an. My criticisms on the bible or the Qur'an are my own, and not based on interpretations of other people or other webpages, because I don't need to quote from 3rd party webpages.
I do my my own reading and research, so I don't rely on any atheist agnostic to interpret for me.
So your pathetic attempts at "giving me advice" or telling me to read, understand and research literature that I have already read and researched.
Do you have more lame advice for me, paarsurrey?

Yes, I have read OT and NT from cover to cover.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Naik is only general practitioner, so his knowledge in other areas of science are limited. He is not a specialist in any field of science.
He has been quoting verses of the Qur'an, and comparing some of them, to geology, earth science, oceanography and astronomy, which he have never study before. What he is doing is pseudoscience, not science.
Nice to know that you are defending that hack (Naik). It just shows me that you don't even know what a pseudoscientist is when there is one right in front of your face, but you are defending him.

Please don't get me wrong. I defend my religion, I don't defend Naik, necessarily.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

So, this thread has verified that "science going gibberish" generally means the person making the claim is simply ignorant of science.

Did I ever claim to be a master of science? I never did.
I am an ordinary man on the street to know truth about life, it is my own life.
Regards

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Did I ever claim to be a master of science? I never did.

And, as such, it is perfectly acceptable and understandable that much of science you would find confusing or incomprehensible. However, it would be wise to understand and accept that your lack of comprehension isn't an indication of gibberish.

 

[paarsurrey]

And, as such, it is perfectly acceptable and understandable that much of science you would find confusing or incomprehensible. However, it would be wise to understand and accept that your lack of comprehension isn't an indication of gibberish.

They say science is solution to all the human problems, even the ethical, moral and spiritual problems while it is incorrect.
One of our friends in another thread told us (Post #428, #455) that science follows an idea and then works on it. I asked if an idea has physical properties , which falls in the domain of science. He doesn't know, then why should science go after something that is not physical. Yet science would like to indulge in the domain of Religion that does not fall in its domain and would burn its fingers and get gibberish.
Regards

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They say science is solution to all the human problems, even the ethical, moral and spiritual problems while it is incorrect.

I don't know what "they" you are referring to, nor am I aware of anyone who claims that science is the solution to all human problems. There may be individuals who make such claims, but none of them would be representative of the views of any definable group.

One of our friends in another thread told us that science follows an idea and then works on it. I asked if an idea has physical properties , which falls in the domain of science. He doesn't know, then why should science go after something that is not physical.

I hope you're not basing any actual conclusions or judgments on this hilariously strange little anecdote.

Yet science would like to indulge in the domain of Religion that does not fall in its domain and would burn its fingers and get gibberish.
Regards

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. Can you rewrite it in a clear and cogent manner? Of course, you do need to realize that there is no monolithic SCIENCE which does or likes to do anything.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

They say science is solution to all the human problems, even the ethical, moral and spiritual problems while it is incorrect.
One of our friends in another thread told us (Post #428, #455) that science follows an idea and then works on it. I asked if an idea has physical properties , which falls in the domain of science. He doesn't know, then why should science go after something that is not physical. Yet science would like to indulge in the domain of Religion that does not fall in its domain and would burn its fingers and get gibberish.
Regards

Who in the world says that????

And wait, so, you still have zero examples of gibberish, I take it..

 

[Parsimony]

Yet science would like to indulge in the domain of Religion

In what sense?

 

[gnostic]

Yet science would like to indulge in the domain of Religion that does not fall in its domain and would burn its fingers and get gibberish.

The way I see it, it is the other way around.

It is when people tried to put or mix their religious belief with science, that their claims of what science is or is not, (their claims) become pseudoscience.

It is people, like Naik and other Muslims here, who make science gibberish, because they claiming is not science at all, but their own delusional wishful fantasy.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm curious.. if we started a "list off" of times in media, you could show "science stepping on religions domain" and examples of "religion stepping on science's domain"..
I wonder which list would be longer.

 

[paarsurrey]

The way I see it, it is the other way around.
It is when people tried to put or mix their religious belief with science, that their claims of what science is or is not, (their claims) become pseudoscience.
It is people, like Naik and other Muslims here, who make science gibberish, because they claiming is not science at all, but their own delusional wishful fantasy.

Did I do it ever?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm curious.. if we started a "list off" of times in media, you could show "science stepping on religions domain" and examples of "religion stepping on science's domain"..
I wonder which list would be longer.

One such example is:
"Scientists Create Synthetic Organism"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984
While it was not even fractionally near to creation. Right?
Creator created everything from annihilation, the synthetic organism or cell was not from annihilation. Was it pseudo-journalism or pseudo-science? or both?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

One has to adopt a proper measure to understand the truthful scripture, it is not like reading a novel or a story-book.
Please give it another try.
One should be clear of any bias while reading Quran.
Kindly start studying Quran from the beginning to the end, then read it again please and have a note-book with you while intently reading it. One should write down the valid question arising in one’s mind very naturally; this is not prohibited. If the context makes the questions clear or one realizes that one’s question is not valid; one could delete it and proceed further. This may take sometime of course; but it is worthwhile trying it, after all it is an oft quoted book of an important world religion.
I think it is not difficult to understand the verses by using a common sense approach which is generally helpful for understanding any book in the world.
A single verse without the text and the context could be sometimes misleading.
One cannot correctly understand the meaning of a word unless one knows the whole sentence in which it has been used; the value of a sentence could be best understood in a passage, and of a passage is best understood in a chapter. The reference with the context is therefore most essential for a meaningful understanding.
This helps to understand the verses; hence Quran is self-explanatory.
Quran in the very beginning make it known that it is a book for guidance to humanity to the righteous and as such it should be referred to in the ethical, moral and spiritual matters. Why persist to use it otherwise?
Another thing is that science is never final in anything; there is always a room for improvement in knowledge of science; nobody has closed yet the book of science; so why at all compare it with Quran.
Quran leaves the field of science open for search and research for the believers and the non-believers alike; it does not block science for investigation or oppose it.
Science does not have any absolute realities; it is a tool of human beings for physical advancements and with the available data it searches and researches till it matches with the nature; nature is the master. Nature existed when humans had virtually no knowledge of science; and science is subject to improvement as and when new data is obtained. It has no claims to perfectness.
It is therefore futile to look for any scientific mistakes in Quran; there is none there.
It provides guidance on temporal, moral and spiritual matters. Quran does not want that it should be believed only as a book of authority from an authority. It provides the wisdom to a thing and reason and logical arguments, in a way, that it is not a tedious book like the books of philosophy which are full with difficult terminology not understood by the common man. It mentions wisdom for the Philosophers, experts and the common people all at one and the same time; as it is guidance for everybody.
I think it appropriate here to suggest an on-line website for studying the same:
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/index.php
It is true that Quran if read in the Arabic language a little loudly in a manner that it does not disturb others has its own spell-bound charm; that cannot be denied.
Nevertheless; its real charm is its profound system of meaning conveyed in its message; one could benefit from it, in any language. Where-ever the translator has not been able to comprehend the meaning correctly, one could check the original Arabic word and find its etymology, available online.
I have personal experience of this; people borrow questions from unfriendly websites; but when referred to Quran, for the text and context, the questions become irrelevant.
I may add here that all translations, in fact, are commentaries as one could translate only to the extent one understands; if one does not understand fully one’s translation would be defective to that extent.
As is evident translations of Quran are not the real words of God; that is factual and reasonable; that does not mean that Quran should not be translated for understanding it.
When one has finished it, we can compare our notes with one another.

Regards

Do you have to preemptively assume it's validity? Because, I don't think natural skepticism is a "bias". We should all be skeptical of everything we read.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

One such example is:
"Scientists Create Synthetic Organism"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984
While it was not even fractionally near to creation. Right?
Creator created everything from annihilation, the synthetic organism or cell was not from annihilation. Was it pseudo-journalism or pseudo-science? or both?
Regards

Do I really have to go pull the definitions of create to see if one matches?
Have you, before you posted that? Because you should know by now that's what's next...

but fine, let see the definition. Using dictionary.com

verb (used with object), created, creating.
1.
to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2.
to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or aninvention.
3.
Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first productionof a play.
4.
to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute;appoint:
to create a peer.
5.
to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to:
The announcement created confusion.
6.
to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:


so, 1. You're saying none of these definitions fit. and 2. You're saying that would qualify as gibberish??? Even if the word wasn't a perfect fit for the semantic usage, that is not gibberish, it would be a poorly used word.

But, you think none of those definitions fit, for the article you linked????

 

[Parsimony]

One such example is:
"Scientists Create Synthetic Organism"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984
While it was not even fractionally near to creation. Right?
Creator created everything from annihilation, the synthetic organism or cell was not from annihilation. Was it pseudo-journalism or pseudo-science? or both?
Regards

People use the word "create" in that sense all the time (I created a sandwich, I created a work of art, I created a new invention). People don't generally assume that "create" means "from nowhere" unless it is specified as such. It's really not that big of a deal. It's just semantics.

 

[gnostic]

Another thing is that science is never final in anything; there is always a room for improvement in knowledge of science; nobody has closed yet the book of science; so why at all compare it with Quran.

Actually, it is Muslim RF members here in this forum, as well as contemporary Muslims outside this forum making webpages or YouTube videos, who are frequently making comparisons between modern science and the Qur'an, and who have been making claims that the verses that they have quoted matched with science.

Non-Muslims only challenged the Muslims' claims of scientific miracles (or scientific signs) and Muslims' interpretations to their verses. If anyone is blame for the comparisons between the Qur'an and science, are the Muslims themselves.

RF members, like FearGod, Union, Gharib, TashaN, mojtaba, ibrahimqais90. Each one of them have one or another, in different threads, have quoted verses in the Qur'an in the past, and claimed that these verses relate to modern science. They have put the Qur'an in the spotlight with claims.

If Muslims are going to make such claims, I don't see why non-Muslims shouldn't criticise their claims about the scientific signs of the Qur'an or why shouldn't we challenge their interpretations.

Often they would quote a single verse, then put the view that the Qur'an have know about this or that modern scientific discovery, and then claim that Allah is the author of the Qur'an, so Allah deserve the credits of recent discoveries, not the scientists.

If you don't want people to challenge Qur'an-science claims made by Muslims, then you shouldn't be starting a science and religion debate topic.

 

[leibowde84]

So, this thread has verified that "science going gibberish" generally means the person making the claim is simply ignorant of science.

Bingo!!

 

[leibowde84]

Did I ever claim to be a master of science? I never did.
I am an ordinary man on the street to know truth about life, it is my own life.
Regards

Which is why you should chalk up any lack of understanding (or "making sense") on your part to your own ignorance of science. It's tough stuff, and we all need to recognize that we aren't going to be able to "get" modern scientific concepts right away. It'd gonna take effort.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you have to preemptively assume it's validity? Because, I don't think natural skepticism is a "bias". We should all be skeptical of everything we read.

I am skeptical of the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics. Right?
Regards