Religious extremists hate/fear of modern science

[six45ive]

Unfortunately, history strongly disagrees with your sentiments about Islam and science (and Christianity and science) as this excellent article in yesterday's Guardian reminds us:

 

When Islamic atheism thrived

 

Good link milquetoast. Here's the article for those who are too lazy or scared to click the link.

 

"Freethinking is perhaps not one of the strongest suits of modern Islam. For one thing, the list of books that have been banned for challenging prevalent religious orthodoxies and sensibilities during the past hundred years is disconcertingly long.

 

Modern Islamic clerics and scholars in various Muslim countries are often highly selective of which part of the Islamic heritage to emphasise and bring to light. Out of the countless and varied sources from centuries of vigorous debates, commentaries and controversies, they seem to dig out, and revel in, interpretations that are hopelessly conservative or frustratingly and grotesquely at odds with the life of modern Muslims.

 

It may therefore come as a surprise to many people that there is a long and vibrant intellectual tradition of dissidence and freethinking going back to the Middle Ages. The Islamic thinkers of the early medieval period expressed ideas and engaged in debates that would appear strangely enlightened in comparison with the attitudes and views adopted by modern Islamic scholarship.

 

This is the basic argument presented by From the History of Atheism in Islam by the renowned Egyptian thinker Abdel-Rahman Badawi. Published in Arabic in 1945, the book was reprinted only once in 1993. It discusses the work of the Islamic philosopher-scientists of the medieval period and the way they upheld reason, freedom of thought and humanist values, while questioning and often refuting some basic Islamic tenets.

 

Although many of those thinkers, according to Badawi, did not attempt to disprove the existence of God, they lashed out against the notion of prophethood and argued against the privileged position occupied by the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

 

Most prominent among those scholars was Abu Bakr al-Razi (865-925 CE) who believed in the supreme importance of reason. He argued that the mind had an innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil, and between what was useful and what was harmful. According to him, the mind did not need any guidance from outside it, and for this reason the presence of prophets was redundant and superfluous.

 

Al-Razi directed his most vehement attack against the holy books in general, including the Qur'an, because he saw them as illogical and self-contradictory. He also believed that all human beings were equal in their intellectual capacities as they were in all other things. It made no sense therefore that God should single out one individual from among them in order to reveal to him his divine wisdom and assign him the task of guiding other human beings. Furthermore, he found that prophets' pronouncements and stories often contradicted those of other prophets. If their source was divine revelation as is claimed, their views would have been identical. The idea of a divinely-appointed mediator was therefore a myth.

 

Al-Razi understood the hold of religious belief on society, which he attributed to several factors. Firstly, systems of beliefs spread mainly through the human propensity for imitating and copying others. Secondly, religion's popularity rested on the close alliance between clerics and political rulers. The clerics often used this alliance to impose their own personal beliefs on people by force whenever the power of persuasion failed. Thirdly, the lavish and imposing character of the attire of religious men contributed to the high regard in which they were held by common people. Lastly, with the passage of time religious ideas became so familiar that they turned almost into deep-seated instincts that were no longer questioned.

 

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent. It might be reasonable to suggest then that the problem of Islam does not lie in inherited texts and traditions, but in interpretation. The Islamic heritage, like its Christian counterpart, is made up of a huge body of commentaries and interpretations that were produced in various periods of history to address problems specific to their age. We need to remember that the Christian scriptures have not changed since the middle ages. It was in the name of these very texts that innumerable so-called heretics were burnt at the stake.

 

There is little doubt that Islamic scholars have the task and the responsibility to review tradition and re-emphasise the human values of tolerance and freedom of thought. They do not have to look far for these values. All they are required to do is to reach deep into their own cultural coffers to retrieve the pearls and discard the dregs."

[Baz1]

Evolution is the most obvious one which you have denied in "]many threads including this one.

 

No- if you read it more carefully I was pointing some circumstances where 'evolutionists' (not all of course) have tried to distort some findings in history to show that there was a direct link to man and ape- there is no evidence of complete species to species change and that was what I alluded to.

 

Like this for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

I myself accept evolution took place from what has been proved scientifically (animal world etc). I reject the idea that evolution (all of it) negates the existence of God- in fact, the beauty of evolution itself shows that something powerful and extremely clever was behind it.

[Baz1]

Could you actually address the points I raised please.

 

Post your question(s) again.

[hard2miss]

I myself accept evolution took place from what has been proved scientifically (animal world etc). I reject the idea that evolution (all of it) negates the existence of God- in fact, the beauty of evolution itself shows that something powerful and extremely clever was behind it.

I agree. I think that the evolution way of thinking does not rule out the existance of God at all, the probability of any life evolving how they recon it did starting with the first amino acids ect show that altho there is a process the odds are against it and the fact it did happen only strenthens the argument for God for me.

 

I think it depends on whether you concider god as a being in mans image with a conciousness like us. I think the problem in understanding God is that the life we live is all we have for comparison so its hard to think of God existing in that sence to many.

 

What if God is not constrained by matter, gravity or time and the essence of God is outside of the physical universe as known to us ? Theres a lot of evidance to suggest different dimentions and alternate universes so why is it so hard to comprhend the existance of a God ?

[milquetoast1]

No- if you read it more carefully I was pointing some circumstances where 'evolutionists' (not all of course) have tried to distort some findings in history to show that there was a direct link to man and ape- there is no evidence of complete species to species change and that was what I alluded to.

 

Like this for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

I myself accept evolution took place from what has been proved scientifically (animal world etc). I reject the idea that evolution (all of it) negates the existence of God- in fact, the beauty of evolution itself shows that something powerful and extremely clever was behind it.

The thread is a discussion of how religious belief can result in denial of science. Plekanhov accused you of denying firmly established science, and provided an example.

 

No- evolution in the plant and animal kingdom happens (but not change from one species to another- unless you have 100% proof) bt to suggest humans went through the same process is not.

 

Scientists are still looking for evidences to support the Theory of Evolution

 

By saying that you accept evolution happens is simply accepting the observable fact, and is not a defense to the accusation that you deny science. Saying that you accept evolution happens, but then dismissing the theories behind it is a denial of science.

 

300 years ago you might have said that you accept that the sun rises and sets (an observation), but refuse to accept that it is because the earth orbits the sun (the science), and you would be just as much in denial as you are with the theory of evolution today.

[hard2miss]

Now that man has actually done the work accounted to God, is this the biggest scientific slap in the face to religions ?

 

Does it cheapen what God has done now man has made his own life ? (albeit built on Gods own creation)

 

This is the sort of science that I had in mind when I started this topic, what do people think of the conflicts of religion and science out of the light of this ?

[kipper]

The whole idea of religion is control over the masses, rather hate or fear they use the technologies for their own means of control.

 

They then frown on anyone else using science to voice opposing views.

[f0rd]

Post your question(s) again.

 

Here you go:

 

*Snip*

[/Quote]

I don't really disagree with any of this, in fact I listed Averroes on the very first page of this thread.

 

However what I do take issue with is the following:

 

There was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word "dharrah" commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man.Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e. the atom,which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts.This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this

information had already been documented in the Qur'an which states:

 

"He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."

 

Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab. For him, the dharrah was the smallest thing there was. Indeed, this is proof, that the Qur'an is not outdated.

 

First of all could you tell me why the translation you have presented here renders it "atom" yet others render is as 'an ant'? And secondly, could you explain list any Classical Arabic source thats references this verses differently from essential "a small ant", trying to demonstrate Allah's Omniscience? Or highlight any anomaly in their understanding as the Scholars have done with Alif Lam Mim.

 

Secondly, you are missing all context of the verse and what is used in, the verse is about Allah's judgment on the world and his omniscience, not observant statement of nature, even when atom is used and not ant:

 

"[4.39] And what (harm) would it have done them if they had believed in Allah and the last day and spent (benevolently) of what Allah had given them? And Allah knows them.

[4.40] Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

[4.41] How will it be, then, when We bring from every people a witness and bring you as a witness against these?

[4.42] On that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the Apostle desire that the earth were levelled with them, and they shall not hide any word from Allah."

 

I'll let you deal with this before moving on.