Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[JoStories]

Their knowledge in science were lacking, for example they thought that the moon
has its own light whereas today we know it isn't, just one example of many.

Just because their understanding of science and technology is not what we have today does not mean that their contributions were or are not as rich. There are many things that I do see as rich as today, and at times, even more so. I see technology as a serious issue. For example, kids today have no clue how to count money without a calculator, and most don't know where US landmarks are. There was a poll recently where 47%...47! did not know where Mt Rushmore was, or the Grand Canyon. None could state the first lines of books like Moby Dick or A Tale of Two Cities, and most had no idea what those books were about. Asked about Plato, they again had no clue. So is this better than then or no? I think not in many respects.

 

[paarsurrey]

leibowde84 said: ↑
So, you don't evaluate religious claims on their own merit?
paarsurrey said: ↑
Did I ever say that? Please
Regards

I believe so (see below).

I did not say that I don't evaluate religious claims on their own merit.
I said "Is an Artist bound to evaluate each argument/theory of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology and etc, etc, etc (?). I do what is essential for my life. I am an ordinary person in the street with no claims of any scholarship or piety whatsoever. I need not do all that."
That is a practical approach.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

leibowde84 said: ↑
So, you don't evaluate religious claims on their own merit?
paarsurrey said: ↑
Did I ever say that? Please
Regards

I did not say that I don't evaluate religious claims on their own merit.
I said "Is an Artist bound to evaluate each argument/theory of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology and etc, etc, etc (?). I do what is essential for my life. I am an ordinary person in the street with no claims of any scholarship or piety whatsoever. I need not do all that."
That is a practical approach.
Regards

Wouldn't the practical approach be to question and analyze your beliefs according to evidence and reason rather than just accepting them as fact?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

An ordinary man in the street may respect them for their services but need not believe in "Academia" or the "Scholars" essentially, as they are never 100% correct and out of their specific fields they could be simply quacks.
Regards

 

[morphesium]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

The computer you sit in front of as you typed your post is an achievement of science. The internet, medicines etc. Otherwise you would be still saying "camel urine is a universal antidote for everything" (hoping you have progressed from this stage ).

Yes, as science progresses, technology gets advanced (and vice-versa) and so is the understanding of our nature. From the concept of "constant time" to time dilation, quantum mechanics, we may re-write the rules (because,often the mathematics far predates the actual physical experiments and the results of which may ask for refinement) - but thats how one progresses. You can see the results for yourself - from satellite navigation, to quantum computers (it is just a beginning and it is promising - and big companies are investing heavily on this), to MRI's, to Genetics.

What can Koran/Hadith put forward other than saying things like " Camel urine is the best antidote". You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran - but did you make a single achievement from the science in Koran?

Open your eyes - there is a world out there, far progressed intellectually, far civilized culturally and morally. A world that is more truthful. Free yourself from the clutches of your religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

The computer you sit in front of as you typed your post is an achievement of science. The internet, medicines etc. Otherwise you would be still saying "camel urine is a universal antidote for everything" (hoping you have progressed from this stage ).
Yes, as science progresses, technology gets advanced (and vice-versa) and so is the understanding of our nature. From the concept of "constant time" to time dilation, quantum mechanics, we may re-write the rules (because,often the mathematics far predates the actual physical experiments and the results of which may ask for refinement) - but thats how one progresses. You can see the results for yourself - from satellite navigation, to quantum computers (it is just a beginning and it is promising - and big companies are investing heavily on this), to MRI's, to Genetics.
What can Koran/Hadith put forward other than saying things like " Camel urine is the best antidote". You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran - but did you make a single achievement from the science in Koran?
Open your eyes - there is a world out there, far progressed intellectually, far civilized culturally and morally. A world that is more truthful. Free yourself from the clutches of your religion.

And what brought the tool of science at its inception? Please
Regards

 

[morphesium]

And what brought the tool of science at its inception? Please
Regards

Bigbang, Evolution. Your god has nothing to do with this

Can you answer this - (Quote from my previous post).
You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran - but did you make a single achievement from the science in Koran?.

 

[paarsurrey]

You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran

I didn't say that. Did I? Please
If yes please , give post #. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Bigbang, Evolution. Your god has nothing to do with this
Can you answer this - (Quote from my previous post).
You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran - but did you make a single achievement from the science in Koran?.

Please correct your information. They started with a Word from G-d.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Bigbang, Evolution. Your god has nothing to do with this

Can you answer this - (Quote from my previous post).
You say all scientific knowledge that we have achieved so far is in Koran - but did you make a single achievement from the science in Koran?.

Did Quran claim it?
What has it to do with the truthfulness of Atheism?
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The only thing that has to do with the truthfuness of Atheism is whether the person claiming not to believe in a deity is lying about it.

 

[paarsurrey]

The only thing that has to do with the truthfulness of Atheism is whether the person claiming not to believe in a deity is lying about it.

I respect the Atheism people.
I don't agree with the contents of the post. One could be genuinely under a false impression .
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I respect the Atheism people.
I don't agree with the contents of the post. One could be genuinely under a false impression .
Regards

That does not make atheism any less true, just less accurate.

 

[gnostic]

Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

An ordinary man in the street may respect them for their services but need not believe in "Academia" or the "Scholars" essentially, as they are never 100% correct and out of their specific fields they could be simply quacks.
Regards

Your Qur'an is not 100% correct.

Muhammad's teaching isn't 100% correct.

So, really what's your point?

The question is, can you question the teaching of the Qur'an, critically and analytically, without letting your bias not see the incorrectness of your scriptures?

I seriously doubt that you can?

I doubt any Muslim can critically analyse the Qur'an for errors...unless they are apostates. The problem with Muslims is that they see as a perfect book, and believe in the silly propaganda that Allah is its true author. That only showed Muslims are blinded by their faith.

This is why Muslims can't see the errors in the Qur'an, and have to resort to petty lies to align specific verses to modern science.

Modern Islamic scholarship have become a dishonest practice, especially when they are trying to mix scripture with modern science. Medieval scholarship in Islam, is far better than today's modern scholarship. Muslims were better at maths, science and technology 700 to 1000 years ago; today's Muslims are useless in science, because they have to make up all sort of lies about the Qur'an being a perfect science book.

Is modern Islamic scholarship 100% correct, paarsurrey?

 

[paarsurrey]

Is modern Islamic scholarship 100% correct, paarsurrey?

I never said that.

I doubt any Muslim can critically analyse the Qur'an for errors...unless they are apostates. The problem with Muslims is that they see as a perfect book, and believe in the silly propaganda that Allah is its true author. That only showed Muslims are blinded by their faith.

Quran claims it in so many words and gives reasons for it. No other revealed scripture provides both the claim and the reason. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Don't you know how pseudo scientists flout the peer review and published articles that were fake? There were fake doctors who made their name in the medical profession. Right?
If one man being a human could make one mistake, the same could be done by two because even two together would be humans never becoming perfect , not error-free and the mistake could be added, so on an so forth to infinity. One cannot follow any number of humans blindly.
I am sceptic of the Skeptics.

"The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested."
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong​

Regards