Jump to content
Afzali

Is religion in conflict with science?

Recommended Posts

Some religions like Christianity may be in conflict with science, for according to science two plus two is equal to four whereas according to some religions it may be equal to five. One and the same thing cannot be one and three at the same time, but there are religions that may make such claims. As far as Shia Islam is concerned it is a religion that is not opposed to science or scientific achievements. There is no real conflict between Shia Islamic teachings on the one hand and proven scientific theories on the other. There might be, prima facie, some disagreements between the two but investigation reveals that no real conflict between the two is plausible. This is because the God of religion is the same as the God of nature. The very one who has authored the book of nature has similarly authored the book of religion. A good author, especially if he is wise and intelligent, does never produce self-contradictory and paradoxical statements. Given this, Shias are of the view that a proven religious statement cannot contradict a proven scientific theory. If there is potential discrepancy between the two it has reviewed and understood in a manner that does contain any contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it conflicts with science when some scientists claim that the systems like universe & life originated spontaneously & try to negate the existence of creator on scientific grounds.

And they use science, reason & logic to justify their claims.

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Engineer73 said:

Yes, it conflicts with science when some scientists claim that the systems like universe & life originated spontaneously & try to negate the existence of creator on scientific grounds.

But saying the universe sprang into existence from nothing is proof of a creator. 

The conflict between religion and science is fabricated. Always question everything! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conflict is when 'an unproven - fact' is attributed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله by tawatur.

One such issue is: The splitting of the moon in 2 actual pieces far apart.

Some Shia Scholars claim that this is tawatur, while Sunnis disgaree that it is mutawatir.

One requires one of 2 things:

[1] Gather scientific evidence that the moon actually split

[2] and show the asaneed to prove tawatur.

Edited by Ozzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[1] Gather scientific evidence that the moon actually split

It is not necessary for that, because miracles even if they happen physically by particular observers, it does not mean that to prove it really happen, we need scientific evidence for it.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

It is not necessary for that, because miracles even if they happen physically by particular observers, it does not mean that to prove it really happen, we need scientific evidence for it.

It is not necessary that we be able to describe everything on the basis of science such as the example of "infinity", no one knows who much it values ? Miracles is a science that may or may not understood by science, it is due to this reason they are called miracles which means things that happen in an unthinkable way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and religion generally focus on separate domains. Science strives to explain the physical universe. Religion provides social and spiritual explanations and guidance. Sometimes they cross, but they can't possibly be mutually exclusive: science alone lacks spirit, religion alone lacks curiosity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

But saying the universe sprang into existence from nothing is proof of a creator. 

I have used the word "spontaneously", Sister. You can see vacuum fluctuations as an example. They simply deny the need of creator and the famous scientists saying this are Stephen Hawking & Lawrance Krauss.

Religion certainly in conflict with such assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The example of conflict between religion and science is "Theory of evolution" specifically where it says humans & apes share common ancestor.

Second example, scripture tells us examples of human devolution, science says evolution is irreversible hence rejects the idea of devolution.

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

It is not necessary that we be able to describe everything on the basis of science such as the example of "infinity", no one knows who much it values ? Miracles is a science that may or may not understood by science, it is due to this reason they are called miracles which means things that happen in an unthinkable way. 

Exactly. My whole point is that science is a tool which is limited by its own definitions and it can't sometimes answer to these questions that can't even been investigate by the methods of science in first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

السلام عليكم

 

In some areas, yes. In others, no. The biggest contradiction I can think of is the creation of Adam عليه السلام. As a Muslim, I have no problem believing that the universe was created with the Big Bang model, or that the earth and solar system came about due to natural processes. I also have no issue with the theory of evolution insofar as it deals with animals. However, I do take issue with human evolution. Allaah عز و جل breathed his rooh into Adam عليه السلام and I cannot deny this.

 

Other "contradictions", however, I don't have an issue with. Things such as the flood of Nooh عليه السلام being allegorical and not literal is not a problem with me.  I have to believe, however, that Adam عليه السلام was created by Allaah عز و جل because this distinction is what separates humans from the animals. We have intellect and creative abilities. We have language. We are different. 

 

But it to each his own. I'm sure there are other Muslims that would not have a problem believing in human evolution and thinking that it is compatible with the teachings of the Qur'aan. 

 

الله اعلم

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

They simply deny the need of creator and the famous scientists saying this are Stephen Hawking & Lawrance Krauss.

Atheists will manipulate facts to match their beliefs just as religious people will. To a believer there is no contradiction that can't someday be resolved. We don't know everything yet, but inshaAllah someday after the Judgement some of us might. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is a creation of Allah and as such there can be no conflict between science and Allah's true religion.

The conflicts we see are a direct result of man's limited understanding of science and man's corruption of Allah's message prior to the Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dhulfikar said:

Exactly. My whole point is that science is a tool which is limited by its own definitions and it can't sometimes answer to these questions that can't even been investigate by the methods of science in first place.

We have limited the scope of science, actually, there is "metaphysics" which is a part of "science" but many consider "science" only to be restricted fro "physics, Chemistry, Mechanics". There is also a science of faith whose rule is that believe Him, He can do things which unimaginable and impossible for us but not for him. If this rule is understood, nothing is difficult to understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, notme said:

Science and religion generally focus on separate domains. Science strives to explain the physical universe. Religion provides social and spiritual explanations and guidance. Sometimes they cross, but they can't possibly be mutually exclusive: science alone lacks spirit, religion alone lacks curiosity. 

Notme, I have seen religion everywhere, even science is a part of it. Imam Ali a.s says "Friend of Friend is friend; enemy of enemy is friend; friend of enemy is enemy; enemy of friend is enemy". This rule is same in mathematics: "plus into plus is plus; minus into minus is minus; minus into plus is plus and plus into minus is minus". Copernicus believed that every natural phenomenon can be represented mathematically and I believe that every science is taken from religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Afzali said:

If there is potential discrepancy between the two it has reviewed and understood in a manner that does contain any contradiction.

 

From an earlier post.

The flaw in Science is that it can only determine truth in the Physical.
It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon.

The flaw with Faith is that it is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable.
Metaphysics' deals with all things outside of the perceivable realm.

If a God exists then its purest expression is reality itself.

If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth. 
The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.

wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is a medium of knowledge, not knowledge itself. Just as television is a medium of message. Television as a medium is limited, it cannot convey taste, smell, or touch. Science as a medium of knowledge is limited as well. If the truth of creation is what Allah has revealed, then the limitations of science are as follows:

- Denial of existance of Allah. Belief in god is outside of science

- Denial of existence of the unseen (angels, jinn, soul). 

- Inability to determine our purpose of existence. No evidence of after life or before life.

- Denial of existence of miracles (miracles are what Allah wills, be and it is)

- Reduction of humanity to just evolved animals, ignoring the internal soul, our purpose on earth, and the creation of first human (prophet Adam, outside of evolution, without father or mother)

- Denial of system of creation depending on our spiritual distance to our creator. eg. Sins and corruptions remove Allah's mercy on the society and bring about calamities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2017 at 0:48 PM, Shiawarrior313 said:

Science is a medium of knowledge, not knowledge itself. Just as television is a medium of message. Television as a medium is limited, it cannot convey taste, smell, or touch. Science as a medium of knowledge is limited as well. If the truth of creation is what Allah has revealed, then the limitations of science are as follows:

- Denial of existance of Allah. Belief in god is outside of science

- Denial of existence of the unseen (angels, jinn, soul). 

- Inability to determine our purpose of existence. No evidence of after life or before life.

- Denial of existence of miracles (miracles are what Allah wills, be and it is)

- Reduction of humanity to just evolved animals, ignoring the internal soul, our purpose on earth, and the creation of first human (prophet Adam, outside of evolution, without father or mother)

- Denial of system of creation depending on our spiritual distance to our creator. eg. Sins and corruptions remove Allah's mercy on the society and bring about calamities. 

Herein resides the issue.

What quisant says is true that

" The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both. "

The subjective nature however, in both science and religion (though predominantly in scripture as it " is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable "), leads to conflict between observable reality and subjective thought.

I figured someone would bring up evolution, here we have someone who mentioned prophet Adam, created outside of evolution.  A subjective thought, without that "examinable" trait.  This thought is in conflict with observable evidence that supports a human lineage of evolution from millions of years ago, The subjective thought of Adam, having been created independently of an evolutionary lineage, is in conflict with observed and wells supported science.

So, some interpretations people have of scripture, come in conflict with observable evidence in science. Other peoples interpretations do not.

So, does religion conflict with science? It depends on how people are interpreting that religion.

And sorry to take this hardline role here, but this is the reality of biological evolution and religion.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

What quisant says is true that

" The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both. "

That's assuming what he is saying is the truth vs what god reveals to be truth. Science as form of knowledge without acknowledging god and what his messengers have revealed cannot be a means to reveal the truth of god's creation. Reality of creation has aspect beyond what humans can theorize, conceptualize or imagine, hence the need for revelation. 

 The nature of miracle is what god wills (be and it is), bypassing the laws of nature. If god wills for a human to be created out of thin air, then he can. 

When prophet Isa (Jesus) created a bird from clay follow the evolutionary process?

"And (make him) a messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah’s permission," Qur'an 3:49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 4, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Shiawarrior313 said:

That's assuming what he is saying is the truth vs what god reveals to be truth. Science as form of knowledge without acknowledging god and what his messengers have revealed cannot be a means to reveal the truth of god's creation. Reality of creation has aspect beyond what humans can theorize, conceptualize or imagine, hence the need for revelation. 

 The nature of miracle is what god wills (be and it is), bypassing the laws of nature. If god wills for a human to be created out of thin air, then he can. 

When prophet Isa (Jesus) created a bird from clay follow the evolutionary process?

"And (make him) a messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah’s permission," Qur'an 3:49

Don't think I ever saw this post. Whether or not you believe that someone instantaneously made a bird from dust, comes down to how you perceive scripture, who wrote it, what it means etc.

personally, I do not believe in miracles in the sense you're describing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2017 at 2:02 PM, Engineer73 said:

Yes, it conflicts with science when some scientists claim that the systems like universe & life originated spontaneously & try to negate the existence of creator on scientific grounds.

And they use science, reason & logic to justify their claims.

If someone claims that something comes from nothing, they are not a scientist. Causality is the foundation of science. 

There is a difference between some scientists "nothing" and the real nothing. 

https://www.medinaminds.com/nothing-physics-vs-philosophy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 5:32 PM, Engineer73 said:

Yes, it conflicts with science when some scientists claim that the systems like universe & life originated spontaneously & try to negate the existence of creator on scientific grounds.

And they use science, reason & logic to justify their claims.

No Real Conflict between Religion and Science

There is no real conflict between religion and science on the one hand and religion and reason on the other. The reason is clear; the author of nature is the same as the author of revelation. If the law of nature contradicts the law of revelation it will imply that one and the same thing contradicts its own self. We cannot accept contradictory statement from a normal politician let alone God who is absolutely wise, knowledgeable and powerful. When a normal person cannot contradict himself how can God contradict Himself? But there are however some cases where it is alleged that natural laws are not in harmony with divine laws. For example, it is claimed that Darwin's theory of evolution is not in line with divine words. In response to such controversial cases, it has to be pointed out that as we alluded the indisputable natural laws are not in conflict with indisputable divine laws. But if you find controversial natural and divine laws conflicting with each other it will not harm our principle of non-contradiction, for we said that the indisputables are not in conflict but as far as the disputables are concerned they might be seemingly in conflict but if they are given a second though they will also get along with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 5:47 PM, Ozzy said:

One such issue is: The splitting of the moon in 2 actual pieces far apart.

The Splitting of the Moon

The splitting of the moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر‎‎) was a miracle attributed to Prophet Muhammad.  It is derived from the Quranic verses 54:1-2, and mentioned by Muslim traditions such as the Asbab al-nuzul (context of revelation). Most Muslim commentators interpret the event as a literal split in the moon, while some others identify it as an event that will happen on judgement day. Additionally, let's suppose it has happened in the literal sense of the term, who says it breaks natural laws? If you mean, by natural law, the law of causality, the law of causality says that every effect has a cause, but as to the nature of cause it is silent. This law cannot tell us that the cause needs to be physical. If the law does not have such a requirement then we can say that it is not in contradiction with the splitting of the moon in case it literally happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 7:53 PM, Engineer73 said:

The example of conflict between religion and science is "Theory of evolution" specifically where it says humans & apes share common ancestor.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not proven yet!

Science is not in conflict with religion, but Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientific proven theory. It is a hypothesis. It still needs to be proven. In addition, it has to be pinpointed that even if it is supposedly proven it will not be in contradiction with religious texts, because there is not consensus among the interpreters in regard with the origin of human creation. If all scholars were of the view that man is directly created from mud then there would be a possibility for conflict between the two. But since the scholars are not unanimous in this regard and since there are varied interpretations therefore we cannot claim that the religious truth is clear here and this religious truth being very clear is not harmony with evolution that is likewise clear. But since we face ambiguity on both sides we cannot assuredly say that there is a conflict. What is a matter of certainty is that a crystal clear truth of religion is not in conflict with a crystal clear truth of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 9:04 PM, Guerrilla said:

In some areas, yes. In others, no. The biggest contradiction I can think of is the creation of Adam عليه السلام. As a Muslim, I have no problem believing that the universe was created with the Big Bang model, or that the earth and solar system came about due to natural processes. I also have no issue with the theory of evolution insofar as it deals with animals. However, I do take issue with human evolution. Allaah عز و جل breathed his rooh into Adam عليه السلام and I cannot deny this.

 

On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 10:28 PM, Sindbad05 said:

We have limited the scope of science, actually, there is "metaphysics" which is a part of "science" but many consider "science" only to be restricted fro "physics, Chemistry, Mechanics". There is also a science of faith whose rule is that believe Him, He can do things which unimaginable and impossible for us but not for him. If this rule is understood, nothing is difficult to understand. 

Science and Philosophy

Science and philosophy are not the same thing. In distant past, natural science was considered as part of philosophy, but as human beings evolved and science advanced, science was separated from philosophy. Today science and philosophy are two different disciplines dealing with different sets of problems and using different methodologies. Science is mainly based on observation and experiments whereas philosophy relies on arguments and conceptual analysis. They are different from each other but they are not the enemy of each other. If we want to reduce science to philosophy or vice versa, we will definitely regress. Since we do not intend to go back to the Stone Age we must not try to reduce them to each other. In the past, they were dealing with them as the same subject, because at that time they were new-born, having no definite nature or clear definition, but today due the advancements in each field, they are no longer reducible to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۱/۱۵ ه‍.ش. at 10:31 AM, Quisant said:

The flaw in Science is that it can only determine truth in the Physical.
It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon.

The flaw with Faith is that it is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable.
Metaphysics' deals with all things outside of the perceivable realm.

Interaction between Science and Philosophy

 

It is true that philosophy and science are different but this does not mean that there is no relation between the two. As a matter of fact, there is a close relation between science and philosophy. Philosophy helps science through proving its axioms and science helps philosophy through providing it with new problems. To take any step forward, science depends on the principle of causality, but this principle is dealt with in philosophy. Philosophy shows that nothing occurs accidentally in this world; whatever occurs, occurs within the framework of the law of causality. So philosophy is very helpful to science. As to science, it is also helpful to philosophy. Science lays emphasis as an example on brain saying that brain is responsible for anything we do. This creates a question for philosophy. The philosophy that allocates a special space for soul, must come forth and show its role in human life, a role that must be different from that of the brain. The interaction between the two leads to progress. The scientific laws called 'mujarrabat' is of great help for philosophical argumentation. That is why we are of the view that there is no enmity between science and philosophy; instead there is interaction between the two.

Edited by Afzali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2017 at 10:31 AM, Quisant said:

The flaw with Faith is that it is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable.

Subjectivity is not equal to meaningfulness

The point you have mentioned here implies that you are knowingly or unknowingly getting along with positivists. Positivists are of the view that it is only the empirical statements that are meaningful, because they can be verified on empirical grounds. According to them if a statement can be verified or falsified on empirical grounds it is meaningful; otherwise it is meaningless. For example if it is said that it is raining outside, it is a meaningful statement for we can check its accuracy on the basis of experiments, but if it is said that ‘soul exists’, it is according to them meaningless, for there is no way to find out whether or not it is true. The fact of the matter is however that positivists are not so much right. To give a counter example, we can ask the positivists who emphasize on experiment, whether their own theory of meaning is empirical. Can we prove empirically that every meaningful statement must be verifiable on empirical grounds? Additionally, there are certain axioms such as the principle of none-contradiction that cannot be proven on empirical grounds. Thus we cannot restrict meaningfulness to the propositions that are empirical. None empirical statements can also be true, given the fact that sometimes they serve as the bases of empirical facts. Based on such analysis, religious truths even if not empirical can be meaningful. Moreover, there are some religious truths that can be verified on empirical bases as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Afzali said:

 

Science and Philosophy

 

Science and philosophy are not the same thing. In distant past, natural science was considered as part of philosophy, but as human beings evolved and science advanced, science was separated from philosophy. Today science and philosophy are two different disciplines dealing with different sets of problems and using different methodologies. Science is mainly based on observation and experiments whereas philosophy relies on arguments and conceptual analysis. They are different from each other but they are not the enemy of each other. If we want to reduce science to philosophy or vice versa, we will definitely regress. Since we do not intend to go back to the Stone Age we must not try to reduce them to each other. In the past, they were dealing with them as the same subject, because at that time they were new-born, having no definite nature or clear definition, but today due the advancements in each field, they are no longer reducible to each other.

 

Every science has its philosophy. Philosophy makes science understandable. Without it, books are just papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Afzali said:

but Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientific proven theory. It is a hypothesis. It still needs to be proven.

:) While you're saying that, a vast majority of scientists believe that humans & apes share common ancestor. 

They put forth similarities in the design & structure of DNA of humans & apes as evidence. They claim that evolution is irreversible, while the revelation has mentioned the cases of human devolution twice. It is mentioned that humans turned into monkeys and swines. This human devolution is scientifically impossible for them. Here is an example:

"Dollo's law of irreversibility (also known as Dollo's law and Dollo's principle) is a hypothesis proposed in 1893[1] by French-born Belgian paleontologist Louis Dollo which states that evolution is not reversible.

A 2009 study on the evolution of protein structure proposed a new mechanism for Dollo's law. It examined a hormone receptor that had evolved from an ancestral protein that was able to bind two hormones to a new protein that was specific for a single hormone. This change was produced by two amino acid substitutions, which prevent binding of the second hormone. However, several other changes subsequently occurred, which were selectively neutral as they did not affect hormone binding. When the authors tried to revert the protein back to its ancestral state by mutating the two "binding residues", they found the other changes had destabilised the ancestral state of the protein. They concluded that in order for this protein to evolve in reverse and regain its ability to bind two hormones, several independent neutral mutations would have to occur purely by chance with no selection pressure. As this is extremely unlikely, it may explain why evolution tends to run in one direction."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    •   so you saying islam does not offer morality, ethics and laws... you keep blurting out false sentences.
    • One day on my way to library I saw a desk that was written:" Ask an atheist". I came over and asked:"who built this desk?" That guy, university professor unfortunately (poor students), said:" What did you say?" I said:"Who built this desk?" He said:" people". I asked:" who built your glasses?" He said: "people". I asked:" who built you?" He said:" I don't know". The guy next to him said:" my parents". I said:" I'm sure your parents worked hard everyday to build your eyes, your heart, and everything." Then they became speechless. They didn't say anything. Some people are rational. If you give them reason, they accept, but majority are biased. They won't accept anything.
    • Absolutely! Atheism has no logical base.
    • did you talk to him face to face? is he anti shia?
    • Salaam Aleikum, Question: So only the people who can observe the total solar eclipse need to do salat al-Ayat?
×