22 replies to this topic

[.InshAllah.]

There are two ways in which Science and Religion can be said to be in conflict.  The first way is in the content of their teachings, so for example science says that the Universe is billions of years old, but some evangelicals relying in the Bible say that its much younger.  So here we have a conflict between what science tells us and what (a particular) religion tells us.  This is one type of conflict

The second type of conflict is between the methodologies of science and religion.  An atheist writes:

Quote

The most essential conflict between science and religion is not in their conclusions — such as evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or the origin of disease — but in their ways of arriving at their conclusions. The fundamental disagreement is in how, rather than in what.
Religion relies on authority — from a person, book, or tradition — and its Truth is supposed to be universal and eternal. But in science, the authority is in the evidence and reasoning, which are always open to challenge; so science's truth is relative and tentative.
A scientific investigation starts with a question, and tries to reach a conclusion by finding evidence and applying reason. A theological investigation, though, starts with a conclusion, and tries to wiggle around any impediments of evidence and logic in order to justify that conclusion.

http://mwillett.org/atheism/relsci.htm

The basic idea is that the method science uses to arrive at conclusions is very different to the method of religion.  Science relies on observation, repeated testing, and is tentative.  Religion on the other hand relies on authority, inspiration, and is closed to challenge.

This post is about the supposed latter type of conflict between science and religion: the methodological conflict.  I'll start by granting (for the sake of argument only) the following implicit assumptions that atheists like the one quoted above make:

1.  There is such a things as The methodology of science and The methodology of religion
2.  These methodologies are truly different

These assumptions can be challenged, but I'm not going to do that.  Instead I will show that even if science and religion have different methodologies, it doesn't follow that there is a conflict between them.  There is a third implicit assumption which I'm not willing to grant:

3.  If two methods of gaining knowledge are different, then they are in conflict

Those who argue that there is a conflict between science and religion need 3 to be true, because if it wasnt, then merely pointing out that science and religion have different methods of arriving at conclusions wouldnt be enough to show that there is a conflict.

So why believe that 3 is true?  Just because there is a difference doesn't mean that there is a conflict.  For example, there is a difference between French and German, football and tennis, and yellow and blue.  Does that mean that French is in conflict with German, or that football is in conflict with tennis.  Is the colour yellow in conflict with the colour blue?  Quite obviously, difference does not entail conflict, so the proponent of 3 needs to do some work to convince us that 3 is true.  He may argue that whilst difference per se doesnt entail conflict, difference in methodologies does entail conflict.  But this is just begging the question.  Why should we believe that?  Restating the premise is no good, we need an argument for why it's true.

We can go further than simply pointing out that 3 is unsupported by giving a positive argument against 3.  Take the following two methods of arriving at conclusions: vision and testimony.  The method of vision is different to the method of testimony, but that doesnt mean that there is a conflict between vision and testimony.  Sure sometimes testimony might tell us one thing but vision will tell us something else, but that doesnt force us to say that the method of testimony is in conflict with that of vision.  Likewise with religion - even if religion sometimes tells us one thing but science another, this doesnt mean that there is a conflict between science and religion.  The argument that religion conflicts with science because of different methods is bunk.

Edited by .InshAllah., 10 January 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[MajiC]

Interesting question, which I wrote about once although to demonstrate that the methods of science and religion, at the fundamental level, are in fact not too dissimilar and that the elements of conjecture and the "unseen" are actually a huge part of the scientific method.

I will hopefully share a few opinions on this when I get some time.

Edited by MajiC, 10 January 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Pascal]

I wasn't going to come on today but i quickly saw this and i thought i'd just quickly mention something before i forgot (and i know i will). So, if i totally went over the head of the topic and totally msised what thats about apologies.

.InshAllah., on 10 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

An atheist writes:

Right off the bat i don't think thats the right thing to say.  It kind of implies one person represents the whole and that all atheists belong to some monolithic block and all believe what this guy does. It could be the equivalent of writing A muslim writes...then interview a salafi.

I know its just something little but these things can be important. Even more so in atheism, where the only thing that unites atheists are the lack of belief in God. Thats all they necessarily need to share, even less than muslims.

You may like to look into the idea of the conflict hypothesis or NOMA ( https://en.wikipedia...ping_magisteria ).

The cambridge companion to science and religion actually does a fairly good treatment of this. It's a pretty good book, i read most of it untill i had to return it.

[eThErEaL]

.InshAllah., on 10 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

There are two ways in which Science and Religion can be said to be in conflict.  The first way is in the content of their teachings, so for example science says that the Universe is billions of years old, but some evangelicals relying in the Bible say that its much younger.  So here we have a conflict between what science tells us and what (a particular) religion tells us.  This is one type of conflict

The second type of conflict is between the methodologies of science and religion.  An atheist writes:



http://mwillett.org/atheism/relsci.htm

The basic idea is that the method science uses to arrive at conclusions is very different to the method of religion.  Science relies on observation, repeated testing, and is tentative.  Religion on the other hand relies on authority, inspiration, and is closed to challenge.

I think that modern science is not in pursuit of knowledge.  It is the pursuit of meaninglessness and illusion.  It is motivated by nothing but ignorance, greed and selfishness.  the heliocentric model, evolution, are examples of how delusional modernists are.  

Religion is the pursuit of happiness (sa'ada) in this world and the next.  This is done by 1) following the authority of those who guide rather than those who misguide and 2) by self-realization, i.e. actualizing the Intellect and attaining certitude.  

Now inasmuch as science helps in the case of the latter then it is a religious pursuit by the above definition. And if it is not a religious pursuit it is what we just called : "modern science".

Edited by eThErEaL, 16 January 2012 - 02:01 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

What's wrong with the heliocentric model?

[eThErEaL]

.InshAllah., on 17 January 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

What's wrong with the heliocentric model?

Because it is not how humans are meant to see the cosmos--it is not human centered.  In the geocentric model planets had a direct significance for humans.  On a different thread there was someone who said the geocentric model is an illusion while the heliocentric model is not an illusion.  But why isn't it the other way around?  what criteria do we use?

[Pascal]

eThErEaL, on 16 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

I think that modern science is not in pursuit of knowledge.  It is the pursuit of meaninglessness and illusion.  It is motivated by nothing but ignorance, greed and selfishness.  the heliocentric model, evolution, are examples of how delusional modernists are.  

If you were in charge it would be people like you that would plunge the Islamic world into a totally new dark age. Islamic Spain flourished precisely because of their value of science, reason and tolerance. If you're not busy suppressing alternative ideas or science you'd be amazed you could get done with all that extra time.

Are you going to join bin laden in rejecting the modern evil of chilled water? Perhaps antibiotics that have probably saved your life more than once.

Is eradicating smallpox and almost eradicating polio, diseases God inflicted upon this world (which have killed and horribly maimed billions of children over history), a pursuit of ignorance, greed and selfishness?

What about the (recent) discovery of planets that orbit other stars far away? How can you at all construe this to be any of those things?

What about scientists discovering blood groups so blood transfusions don't have the potential to kill people or developing organ transplantation to save lives, i guess this is selfish as well though. Along with cataract surgery to cure blind children or cochlear implants to allow people to hear again. I guess vaccinations join the list of what you would call meaningless... i mean preventing epidemics is pretty meaningless after-all. Oh, look down, see the keyboard? Plastic. Plastics are pretty useless though...look around at all the plastic things. Now look around at all the things with microprocessors (including the computer you're using to argue against creating such objects), see the wonderful progress?

Your proof is stellar parallax and the phases of venus.

If you point a telescope at venus, you can see the moons orbit venus as well. So, astronomical bodies can clearly orbit things other than the earth.

This may help:
http://science.jrank...ric-Theory.html
https://en.wikipedia...tellar_parallax
http://cse.ssl.berke...otes/lec13.html
http://hyperphysics....astro/para.html
http://ase.tufts.edu...asp?id=1&page=1
http://astronomy.nms...11/slide02.html ( look at the venus diagram )
http://science.jrank...ric-theory.html (also important)
http://scienceblogs....lileo_wrong.php (this guy does fairly well)

Did you just decide to believe the earth was the center of universe or all the planets in the solar system out of spite for modern science, without any proof either way? Did you even look into the proof that shows it to be so obviously wrong?

eThErEaL, on 17 January 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Because it is not how humans are meant to see the cosmos--it is not human centered.  In the geocentric model planets had a direct significance for humans.  On a different thread there was someone who said the geocentric model is an illusion while the heliocentric model is not an illusion.  But why isn't it the other way around?  what criteria do we use?

So, science and the truth suddenly have to conform to how you want the universe to be? Your sole scientific objection is...its not human centered like you think it should be? Sheesh, i can definitely tell you haven't seriously studied science.

Science isn't democratic, you don't get to choose which truth you think is nice to believe. The truth is the truth and its there in facts for all to see.

[eThErEaL]

kingpomba, on 17 January 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

If you were in charge it would be people like you that would plunge the Islamic world into a totally new dark age. Islamic Spain flourished precisely because of their value of science, reason and tolerance. If you're not busy suppressing alternative ideas or science you'd be amazed you could get done with all that extra time.

Are you going to join bin laden in rejecting the modern evil of chilled water? Perhaps antibiotics that have probably saved your life more than once.

Is eradicating smallpox and almost eradicating polio, diseases God inflicted upon this world (which have killed and horribly maimed billions of children over history), a pursuit of ignorance, greed and selfishness?

What about the (recent) discovery of planets that orbit other stars far away? How can you at all construe this to be any of those things?

What about scientists discovering blood groups so blood transfusions don't have the potential to kill people or developing organ transplantation to save lives, i guess this is selfish as well though. Along with cataract surgery to cure blind children or cochlear implants to allow people to hear again. I guess vaccinations join the list of what you would call meaningless... i mean preventing epidemics is pretty meaningless after-all. Oh, look down, see the keyboard? Plastic. Plastics are pretty useless though...look around at all the plastic things. Now look around at all the things with microprocessors (including the computer you're using to argue against creating such objects), see the wonderful progress?

Your proof is stellar parallax and the phases of venus.

If you point a telescope at venus, you can see the moons orbit venus as well. So, astronomical bodies can clearly orbit things other than the earth.

This may help:
http://science.jrank...ric-Theory.html
https://en.wikipedia...tellar_parallax
http://cse.ssl.berke...otes/lec13.html
http://hyperphysics....astro/para.html
http://ase.tufts.edu...asp?id=1&page=1
http://astronomy.nms...11/slide02.html ( look at the venus diagram )
http://science.jrank...ric-theory.html (also important)
http://scienceblogs....lileo_wrong.php (this guy does fairly well)

Did you just decide to believe the earth was the center of universe or all the planets in the solar system out of spite for modern science, without any proof either way? Did you even look into the proof that shows it to be so obviously wrong?



So, science and the truth suddenly have to conform to how you want the universe to be? Your sole scientific objection is...its not human centered like you think it should be? Sheesh, i can definitely tell you haven't seriously studied science.

Science isn't democratic, you don't get to choose which truth you think is nice to believe. The truth is the truth and its there in facts for all to see.

I didn't even read your post.  because your just not worth it.  

Edited by eThErEaL, 17 January 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Lanatin]

Ethereal don't be put down by the first paragraph! Elucidate on your definition of 'modern science' and what motives and means classifies secondary synthetic judgements as such.

[Dhulfikar]

^No he is not Joking. If you are interested to understand what he ment, read his post in this thread:

http://www.shiachat....2/page__st__100

[Pascal]

eThErEaL, on 17 January 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I didn't even read your post.  because your just not worth it.  

How did you know its not worth it if you didn't read it?

I delivered the proof you asked for, its up to you if you want to either read it, which proves that the other plants orbit around the sun or stay blind and ignorant. It's you're choice.

I'd like to hear how you feel about the things i challenged you on as well...eradicating polio...vaccinations ect.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

We can only observe and take note, mould, manipulate and engineer; but we can never truly create.

Science therefore is the means by which humans study God's creation. And we have a long way to go.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 17 January 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

In order for the earth to be in the center of the universe, the earth actually must be in the center of the universe.

Quote

Otherwise the earth is not in the center of the universe and is not human centered.  What criteria do we use to judge what is in the center of the universe?  Well we use things like telescopes and our universal ability to see colors and shapes, aka stars in the sky. The geocentric model proposed the idea of earth being in the center of our solar system and the universe, however it is not in the center.

The meaning of the word "universe" is understood differently between us.   What does it mean to be a "universe"?  If you ask a traditional person, the universe---what I prefer calling "cosmos"---is everything other than the Absolute.  And everything other than the Absolute includes not only everything sensible (or potentially sensible) or unconscious, but also everything which is essentially imperceptible (namely consciousness, awareness, or knowledge).  There also exist those things which are able to--more or less--integrate perceptible and imperceptible qualities together.  Thus we have not only rocks (unconscious), and angels (conscious), but a whole array of things in between them from less conscious to more conscious things----like plants, animals, and jinn.  The human being however is---by definition---in the unique situation of inwardly being the nexus between the Absolute and the cosmos (the relative).  Thus the human being is relatively-Absolute and is inwardly the center of the cosmos due to his relatively-absolute frame of reference.

What a traditional person means by "earth" is the sensible domain—i.e. the domain of the essentially unconscious, dead, multiple, and quantifiable.  The earth was always understood in relation to heaven and vice versa.  That which is understood by "heaven" is the imperceptible domain---i.e. the domain of the essentially alive, simple, whole, one, unifying and qualitative.  There is no such thing as an earth in itself except that it doesn't exist.  And there is no such thing as a heaven in itself except that it is the Absolute.  These are relative terms.  The land is earth in relation to the sky which is heaven.  But the sky in relation to the celestial or "heavenly" spheres is earth.  The rock is earth in relation to the plants.  Plants are earth in relation to animals and heaven in relation to rocks.  Animals are earth in relation to angels and angels are heavenly in relation to animals.  The day (wherein the sun shines) is heaven in relation to night and night is earth in relation to day.  The sun is luminous in its self and illuminates everything just like awareness as such which is self-aware and is aware of everything else.  In other words the heavenly qualities permeate even what "modern scientists" call the sensible world.  How and in what way you may ask can the "sky" be conscious in relation to the land? The sky in relation to the land symbolizes and is analogous to awareness and consciousness.  This symbolism is ontologically real and is not wishful thinking or poetry because the sky in relation to the earth and land only exists for this very reason—to reflect awareness.  The sky has the qualities it has (it is up, relatively invisible to land) and not any other quality because it was meant to reflect imperceptible awareness and consciousness. In relation to the land the sky is up and above because knowledge or awareness precedes what is known and perceptible.  It sends down water to the dead and makes the dead alive because knowledge, consciousness and awareness animates the sensible bodies.  We cannot divest the perceptible things from their corresponding imperceptible things because they ought to be seen in proper relation to each other.  This is why the cosmos is strictly all that is relative (i.e. it is everything other than the Absolute).  The perceptible, the imperceptible, and all that is in between them, are all relative to each other.

What dictates the truth of anything in traditional cosmology is its symbolic significance to higher realms of existence and eventually to the Absolute; it is the higher significance found in anything one sees!  Inasmuch as the heliocentric model (which is perceptible in our imaginations--if not from a bird's eye view from space) signifies higher realms of existence and ultimately God it is true because it unveils the Truth.  But inasmuch as this image does not signify the higher realms of existence and God it is false because it veils the Truth.  We are not denying that people are able to see the heliocentric model (at least in their imagination), but we are simply stating that it is for majority of people an illusion or veil because of its lack of intrinsic and direct significance for the human being.  There is a hierarchy of symbols.  Some symbols are more effective than others.  Some of the greatest symbols are virgin nature as seen with the naked eye itself, the Holy Scriptures or avatars, and the phenomenon of religion, the human being himself.  The heliocentric model is a weak symbol compared to the geocentric model because it is not easy to see how the heliocentric model signifies higher realms of existence  The geocentric model is not so much of a model as it is something which is directly perceptible with the naked eye.  Many people in today's world (even the religious)—due to the distraction of modern gadgets, and a modern lifestyle---very rarely contemplate the significance of things which are perceptible to their naked eyes--- how then can it be expected that the heliocentric model that people have (practically imaginary and only indirectly accessible) are more effective in symbolism?

So I am not saying that the heliocentric model is intrinsically false but just harmful to those who have not even contemplated the greater and more direct symbols accessible to the naked eye.  So practically it is illusory and deceptive for most people.  Before, people were entertained, more than anything else, by virgin nature itself--- stars, the moon, trees, and mountains.  Now our entertainment is the flickering light on our TVs or computer screens.  And it will just keep getting more and more distracting with the iphones, ipads, and only God knows what.  This was fated and it is totally natural in the grand scheme of things from things to move from Perfection towards lower levels of perfection since this is the process of creation.  The creation starts from the One by descending and then goes back to the One by ascending.  The world was subtle and become more and more solidified or condensed.  It was nothing but heavenly at first, and this gradually descended into lower levels of heaven (or earths).  And the different creatures appeared during this process.  Before the creatures where archetypes---they were just universal identities in awareness itself--- and while the world was descending in levels of existence so also were the different creatures becoming solidified, sensible, and instantiated.  There was no evolution!  The fossils gaps we have---which will be, even in theory, impossible to connect--- in fact prove this descent from the invisible to the visible because that descent happened in accordance with the pre-established hierarchy of archetypes in awareness.  The lesser archetypes solidified first and then the higher archetypes solidified later one after another.  

Edited by eThErEaL, 19 January 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 19 January 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Alright, well i stripped out a lot of stuff.  Sounds like youre promoting your own view of your faith, placing value in some things moreso than others without giving more consideration to other concepts, though we are all entitled to our opinions.  But yea, thanks. And theres really no need to talk about gas in any fossil record.  It seems unecissery for this discussion.

you welcome.  

Edited by eThErEaL, 20 January 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Pascal]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 19 January 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

We can only observe and take note, mould, manipulate and engineer; but we can never truly create.

I personally know people who have created new molecules and compounds that never previously existed in the entire world and never been seen by anyone else.

Depends on your definition of create though... You could just say they moved around atoms.

Jebreil, on 18 January 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Because you prejudged him before hearing him out or asking for an explanation of his unorthodox views, and the prejudgment was not polite.

Prejudgement implies i judged his views before i had a chance to even hear them, based on his appearance, religion, creed, ect.

I read his views. There was no prejudgement involved. I judged based on what was presented. What else am i meant to go off, afterall, i am not psychic.

Jebreil, on 18 January 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

The condescending, strawmanning, uncharitable, stingingly sarcastic and intolerant tone right at the start did not devalue the worth of the rest of your post, but devalued the worth to have a discussion with your person. I'm sure if you show remorse for the totally uncalled-for prejudice, he would be prepared to hold a discussion.

Mentioning bin-laden was about the only thing i regret and i am apologetic for, that was too far. He seems to have a distate for all modern science, i wanted to see how far this stemmed. Astronomy is obviously off the list for him but what about plastics? Vaccinations? Those are scientific discoveries. However, i stand by the rest of my statement.

He thinks (according to his post) all modern science is meaningless, full of greed and full of selfishness and that is all.

Science has saved billions of lives, it innovates, it pulls people out of poverty. Scientists dedicate their lives to improving the human condition. I am categorically unapologetic about the rest, if he really believes this and tries to downplay the role scientists in our society serve, he deserves no quarter.

All of you reading, how many of you have ever been prescribed antibiotics? That means you've had at least one bacterial infection in your life, if not more than one. Before the advent of antibiotics, those infections would of killed many of you reading this. Antibiotics have ensured your survival and the survival of hundreds of millions of other people around the globe. Tuberculosis is a bacterial infection, without antibiotics we would be utterly helpless but now, directly because of science, we have a chance to SAVE LIVES, including your own.

Look at infant mortality. Compare the top to the bottom (https://en.wikipedia..._mortality_rate). Singapore with a rate of 2 and afghanistan with a rate of 144. That gap? Its a 6000%+ difference. A child born in afghanistan has a 72 fold worst chance (sadly) of surviving than a child born in singapore. Why the difference? Largely as a result of differing medical facilities, access to food and water, ect which are a direct result of improved science.

Look at the historical data. Look at how dismal the situation use to be a mere 60 years ago. Some countries started out fairly low but they already had access to great health care. I think its more telling to look at the ones that didn't do so well. Japan reduced it from 50 -> 2.6 (~2000% decrease) in a mere 50 years due to increased access to healthcare and other factors. Croatia, 108 -> 6.7  (1600% decrease) also in 50 years. These are massive reductions. Science is saving lives and doing good on a day to day basis. To call this meaningless is extremely ill-guided.

In the united states, in the 1850s infant mortality for african american babies was 340.00 per 1000 live births. This means, 340 babies out of every 1000 did not even make it till age 1. Thats a little over 1/3rd. 1 in every 3 babies was doomed to die before the age of one. In the united states it is now 6.81 for the whole population. That is 3/500ths as opposed to 1/3rd. Don't try to tell me this isn't worth something, because it is.




See this? These are 3 graves belonging to three innocent babies belonging to the same family who sadly died only 3 years apart and because of modern science things like this can be prevented now. To be against that, to be against science is simply heartless. Show me, how is decreasing infant mortality greedy? You can see why i am so firey about this and i believe i ought to be.

Look at all the positive things science has brought onto the world: http://science.disco...100/big100.html

Planes, vaccination, the germ theory of disease, cars, planes, plastics, surgery, medicines, electricity, xrays, computing, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, metallurgy. These are things that drive our economy, they pull societies out of poverty, the constant assault of disease and enrich our lives. They improve the human condition. I will not stand idly by whilst he simply dismisses these things out of hand as useless, meaningless and only done out of greed and selfish motivation, simply because he has some kind of ideological conflict with science. With great fire i will defend these people while he stands by an accuses them of doing nothing or even having bad intentions. The enormous contribution of science to society stands as testament to itself. When was the last time he made a contribution as useful as these to humanity rather than simply putting down science as greedy? This man (Norman Borlaug) alone saved one billion people from starvation using science. To downplay him or any other useful scientific contribution as greedy or meaningless is something i find so profoundly disturbing. He can hardly speak to downplay any of these great things.

Edited by kingpomba, 22 January 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

kingpomba, on 22 January 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

I personally know people who have created new molecules and compounds that never previously existed in the entire world and never been seen by anyone else.

Depends on your definition of create though... You could just say they moved around atoms.

Exactly my point. Nano-engineering and alchemy is just that, the re-alignment of atoms. You could go deeper, perhaps even manipulation of quarks. Or if the theory turns out to be right, engineering of strings. But they will never truly create energy/matter, they just move some 'thing' around into different states. 'Creating' a table out of wood therefore isn't true creation, you've just manipulated wood into a different structure. Again, it's the genesis problem, for which humans will never figure out, because their minds are bound by a finite domain.

Therefore science and religion (i mean Islam), do not conflict in any way. In fact, Shia Islam's teaching basically says, go out, observe and explore and see how God created the universe and set its laws. I personally find not being a scientist is in a way unislamic, because you're not pondering God's creation.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

I personally find not being a scientist is in a way unislamic, because you're not pondering God's creation.

Brother, It is unislamical if we do not seek or see the wisdom (True Knowledge) behind God creations and laws. That is the "reflection" mentioned in Quran. It's start from How then it goes to Why. Also just studying for example Physic laws and understand them and try to find new laws is not enought, this is where Modern people fall to trap.

Edited by Dhulfikar, 22 January 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Pascal]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 22 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Exactly my point. Nano-engineering and alchemy is just that, the re-alignment of atoms. You could go deeper, perhaps even manipulation of quarks. Or if the theory turns out to be right, engineering of strings. But they will never truly create energy/matter, they just move some 'thing' around into different states. 'Creating' a table out of wood therefore isn't true creation, you've just manipulated wood into a different structure. Again, it's the genesis problem, for which humans will never figure out, because their minds are bound by a finite domain.

Oh, definitely, i mean at a fundamental level you're just moving things around or channelling them. Bit iffy about the alchemy though haha, just a little out-dated that particular pursuit.

I still definitely think there’s value in the manipulation itself though. To bring a new form of something into being, to produce a new arrangement for a new purposes, there’s something very special in that. A lot of people think science is fairly uncreative as compared to music or art but my chemistry lab manager made the point of new molecules, creating something no one has ever seen before. For me it rings more true about producing new medicines, creating a new medicine that never has existed before to jam up a particular enzyme site in HIV that no one previously knew existed. So, i think there definitely is a level of creativity there, at least among the better scientists and researchers.

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 22 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Therefore science and religion (i mean Islam), do not conflict in any way. In fact, Shia Islam's teaching basically says, go out, observe and explore and see how God created the universe and set its laws. I personally find not being a scientist is in a way unislamic, because you're not pondering God's creation.

Yeah, definitely. I don't know why this silly (and i don’t often call ideas silly seriously but i am serious here) idea has persisted that religion and science have to be in conflict (for those who don't know or would like to read more about this trend - https://en.wikipedia...Conflict_thesis is a good place to start, the idea that religion and science are in conflict). I really think it springs from a lot of ignorance in Europe at the time and the church trying to suppress Galileo and hide books. That said im sure this conflict has been prevalent in the history of science and most religions to one degree or another, i think its largely a Christian creation though. Same with the whole creationism/intelligent design movement, its largely an evangelical Christian creation. It appears quiet strange to me sometimes when some Muslims try to adapt an idea that is largely an evangelical Christian thing.

Your idea in some way echos what stephen j gould has said and i linked it earlier in the thread but ill link it again - https://en.wikipedia...ping_magisteria .

I just wish people would hurry up and move on from that position so we can work on more important things with all that wasted time.

I can definitely see the tradition though comming from some of the Islamic scientists and philosophers.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

^ nicely put.