Religious extremists hate/fear of modern science

[flamingjimmy]

snip more insults

 

Hi tab, I hope you're having a nice day.

 

Bazooka, I'd still love it if you answered my question at some point. I'm not interested in discussing this with others, because it is specifically about a post that you made.

[tab1]

Hi tab, I hope you're having a nice day.

Nice try but there were no insults Jimmy, just a question, why are you acting the victim?

[flamingjimmy]

Nice try but there were no insults Jimmy, just a question, why are you acting the victim?

 

Yeah you're right you were perfectly civil, kid.

 

Anyway as I'm sure you must have gathered by now I'm not interested in arguing with you right now. Have a nice day.

[tab1]

Yeah you're right you were perfectly civil, kid.

Indeed I was, certainly more civil than these examples of your replies to me:

What utter nonsense.

 

That is utter nonsense, and I will make no bones about telling you so.

 

I'm not being nasty, I'm just telling you like it is. What you said was utter nonsense. If you think that's being nasty then that's your problem I'm afraid.

 

 

 

That is a stupid distinction to make,

 

Yet the stupid distinction was in saying the same thing that you were saying, I wonder what your measure is for civility?

[flamingjimmy]

yadda yadda yadda

 

I really do hope you're having a nice day.

[f0rd]

*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.

[f0rd]

Actually, I'm waiting for a bus, so I can deal with the second bit too.

 

Of course you will get people who will go ahead and try to break down anything that 'appears' to be out of line with their thinking- and they do.[/Quote]

Exactly, in which case why did none of the authors who wrote the Hadith challenge this verse, or note it's unusualness like with 'Alif Lam Mim' mentioned above ? As you said and I am quoting you verbatim:

 

"Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab."

 

But what is interesting of all, is that all the verses in the Quran, especially those which have a scientific reasoning, could not have been made by a man from the desert who was illiterate-uneducated- and if one wants to assume he was learned, how did he know of things that was not known AT THAT TIME.

 

The same reason Parmenides knew the sphericity of earth the before it could have been known at the time?

 

So hence, again, it is this sort of opening offer that Quran makes- even telling readers that 'Muhammad does not know these things' and even the great learned arabs in his time, could not match the fluency and consistency of the Quran

 

See the bold, I'm not trying to attack it, but please logically show me how you came to this conclusion. Other than just conjecturing it.

 

and no one has managed to do so after 1400 yrs-

I have to ask, what would it take to match the fluency and consistency of the Quran.

 

You have said nothing has reached it, but have not said why it hasn't.

 

so again, this is another reason why the Quran captures the mind and tackles the intellect- encourages you to read and learn and 'go find the facts' as well as 'bring a challenge if you can' and 'and produce a like of this Quran'.

And what is "like of this Quran", I'm seriously not trying to be a dick, but can you explain.

 

What criterion would something have to fulfill to be like the Koran.

 

No one could (the greatest arab poets in that era), no one did and no one can to this date.

Again please logically show me how you came to this conclusion. Other than just conjecturing it.

[Hughes]

I agree, it makes complete sense to me. . Thanks for your insight.

 

Do religious extremists hate the west for it policies or for it science ?

 

I know there is some foreign policy gaffs from the western world but its no coincidence that the advances in the western world has brought some hostilities. Science has given us ways to advance in ways un comprehensible even a few decades back.

One field in which science has taken to is the exploration of our universe, and more precisely the search for life (no matter how small) on other planets.

 

How do Religions that are so strict on the words of their holy books conform to the modern ways and understanding of life ?

If say they find that there's a uniformed species of bacteria spread around the cosmos, living in extremities that can be found here on earth, what would their explanations be and how could this new knowledge be accountable from their scriptures ?

 

Is it more about what questions western science could put in the minds of the

followers being more dangerous to the religious understanding/teaching of the universe than western attitude to the world.

 

In other words is it capitalist nations that they hate or the knowledge they discover in trying to advance and keep their capitalist growth

 

 

(btw I've had a drink so this probably won't make any sense to anyone including me in the morning )

[tab1]

I agree, it makes complete sense to me. . Thanks for your insight.

It would be very foolish not to consider you a troll, second post hey?

[Hughes]

It would be very foolish not to consider you a troll, second post hey?

 

Doesn't this post make you the Troll?