Afzali

Is religion in conflict with science?

62 posts in this topic

On ۱۳۹۵/۱۲/۲۲ ه‍.ش. at 5:10 AM, Sindbad05 said:

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

What are the contributions of philosophy to science (3)

b) Philosophy discusses the principle of causality on which all sciences are based. As has been repeatedly indicated, the most general principles required by all the real sciences are discussed in first philosophy, and the most important of them is the principle of causality and its subordinate laws, which we explain as follows: All scientific endeavors turn about the discovery of causal relations between things and phenomena. A scientist who spends long years of his life in the laboratory to analyze and synthesize chemicals searches to discover what elements cause the appearance of what material, and what properties and accidents will appear in it, and what factors cause the analysis of compounds, that is, what is the cause for the appearance of these phenomena? Likewise, a scientist who sets up an experiment to discover the microbe which causes a disease and the medicine for it, really is searching for the cause of that disease and its cure. (For further details see, Ubodiyat, An Introduction to Islamic Philosophy)

     Hence, scientists, prior to beginning their scientific endeavors, believe that every phenomenon has a cause, and even Newton, who discovered the law of gravity, by observing the falling of an apple, was blessed by this same belief. If he had imagined that the appearances of phenomena are accidental and without a cause, he would never have been able to make such a discovery. (For further details, see, Misbah Yazdi, Philosophical Instructions)

 

 

shia farm girl likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۶/۱/۲۰ ه‍.ش. at 2:13 PM, Afzali said:

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

What are the contributions of philosophy to science (4)

Likewise, the subordinate laws of causation, such as the law that every effect has a specific and suitable cause, for example, the roaring of a lion in the jungles of Africa does not cause a man to be afflicted with cancer, and the singing of a nightingale in Europe would not cure him. Also the explanation of these and the following laws are worthy of no science but philosophy: the law that wherever a complete cause occurs, its effect will also necessarily come into existence, and until a complete cause occurs, its effect will never be existent. (For further details see, Ubodiyat, An Introduction to Islamic Philosophy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۶/۱/۲۰ ه‍.ش. at 2:13 PM, Afzali said:

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

What are the contributions of philosophy to science (4)

Likewise, the subordinate laws of causation, such as the law that every effect has a specific and suitable cause, for example, the roaring of a lion in the jungles of Africa does not cause a man to be afflicted with cancer, and the singing of a nightingale in Europe would not cure him. Also the explanation of these and the following laws are worthy of no science but philosophy: the law that wherever a complete cause occurs, its effect will also necessarily come into existence, and until a complete cause occurs, its effect will never be existent. (For further details see, Ubodiyat, An Introduction to Islamic Philosophy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۶/۱/۲۰ ه‍.ش. at 2:53 PM, Afzali said:

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

What are the contributions of science to philosophy? (5)

A) science demonstrates the premises of some proofs. At the beginning of

this lesson we indicated that sometimes in order to solve some problems of the philosophical sciences empirical premises can be used. For example, from the absence of the occurrence of perception despite the existence of material conditions the conclusion may be drawn that perception is a non-material phenomenon. Likewise in order to establish the existence of the spirit one may employ the biological fact that the cells of the bodies of men and animals gradually die and are replaced by other cells so that during several years all the cells of the body (except the cells of the brain) are replaced, and by adding the fact that the structure of the cells of the brain also gradually change with the consumption of their contents and renewed nourishment, for individual unity and the persistence of the spirit are cases of consciousness and are undeniable. The body, however, is constantly in a state of change. Hence, it becomes clear that the spirit is other than the body, is persistent and unchangeable. Even in some proofs of the existence of God the Exalted, such as the proof from motion and the proof from creation, in one sense, empirical premises are used. (For further details see, Ubodiyat, An Introduction to Islamic Philosophy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۶/۱/۲۰ ه‍.ش. at 2:43 PM, Afzali said:

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

What are the contributions of science to philosophy? (6)

 

(B.) Science prepares new grounds for philosophical analysis. Every science begins with a number of basic and universal problems, and they develop in order to elaborate and explain specific and particular cases with the appearance of new fields which sometimes appear with the aid of other sciences. Philosophy is no exception to this rule, and its first problems are limited, and it has developed and will develop with the appearance of wider horizons, horizons which sometimes are discovered by mental efforts and the exchange of ideas and thoughts, and sometimes through the guidance of revelation, or by gnostic disclosures, and sometimes they appear by means of things which are established in other sciences, which prepare the ground for comparison with other philosophical principles and new rational analyses, such as the problems of the truth of revelation and miracles given by religion, and other problems, such as the world of images and forms, given by the gnostics (`urafa). These have prepared the grounds for new philosophical investigations. Likewise, the progress of empirical psychology has opened up new problems for the philosophical science of the soul. Therefore, one of the services the sciences render to philosophy, a cause for the broadening of its vision, the widening of the range of its problems, its development and fruitfulness is to prepare new subjects for philosophical analysis and comparison with its general principles. (For further details see, Ubodiyat, An Introduction to Islamic Philosophy)

 

Share this post


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

but there are people who are [Edited Out]-sure that this is scientifically proven. Below is an instance:

What is the source of all this info?

You still need to prove that it is mutawatir by showing the asaneed, not takhreej.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Afzali said:

b) Philosophy discusses the principle of causality on which all sciences are based.

Agreed, this is the first thing we learn in every science. 

43 minutes ago, Afzali said:

the methods of the natural sciences are empirical, but the real existence of their subjects must be established by the rational method

Yeah, Indeed, it means that first discipline of science is rationality which is part of Philosophy so philosophy is science itself.

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

On the whole, on the one hand, it assists other sciences and satisfies some of their fundamental needs, while on the other hand, it benefits from the other sciences in one sense.

True, everything is interdependent, Philosophy is actually a description while science is practical, first one is theory and second one is application of that theory. Both are interdependent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Afzali said:

 

 

     Feuerbach is a philosopher. In the beginning he was a practicing Christian. As he found out that Christianity was full of contradictions (that are in disagreement not only with science but also with reason), he abandoned Christianity. According to Christian god is both human and divine; something we cannot understand!!

 

Lol. I can find ex-Muslims who argue the same thing about Islam ("It is fraught with contradictions! It is a primitive anti-intellectual superstition! It doesn't make any sense!") This is common for people who leave a religion in favor of atheism, which Feuerbach did.

 The concept of God , the Trinity, etc. are not something modern science deals with. 

Quoting  Feuerbach's opinions to me ( such an "expert "he did not even seem to know that " Jehovah" has been debated as not a proper name of God for two hundred years before he was born in Prot estant, including German, circles...Catholic scripture  did not use it )is a total non-sequitur and does not deal at all with what I said.

I said our Church does not consider our religion to be at odds with science. Religion is not science, but it is not hostile to it. 

All that was done was to  throw something up in an attempt to attack the faith itself,as per usual for some around here, not deal with the actual issue I introduced.....Catholicism's views on religion and science. We are not literalist fundamentalist Protestants. In fact, most Protestants aren't either.

These cheap shots in an attempt to make Islam " look superior"  are not worthy of Muslims, IMHO. Fortunately there are Muslims on this site who know better. 

Here is our Catechism: on the matter:

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are".

Besides the fact the Church was patron of the sciences for centuries and produced many outstanding scientists such as Gregor Mendel,this  is why science and scientific methodology  is taught in all Catholic schools and universities. And why one of the Brothers of one of our Orders ,the Jesuit Guy Consolmagno,received the Carl Sagan Award a couple of years back. And why the Pope has a Vatican advisory panel on science which includes notable contemporary scientists.

 

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


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

Nothingness

The mutakalimīn (Muslim scholastic theologians) have imagined that the qualification is ‘udūth’ (the property of having come into existence), that is, every existent which is ādith, and which at one time did not exist and afterward came into existence, will be in need of a cause. So, being qadīm (eternal) is considered to be confined to God, the Exalted. They argued that if an existent had existed from eternity (azalī) and had no previous condition of nothingness, then it would not be in need of another existent to bring it into existence.

 

      Contrary to them, the philosophers believed that the qualification for the subject of the noted proposition is contingency (imkān), that is, every existent which essentially has the possibility of non-being, such that the supposition of its non-being is not impossible, is in need of a cause. The shortness of length of its life will not make it needless of a cause, rather the longer its life the more it will be in need of a cause, and if it is supposed that its life is infinite, then its need for a cause will also be infinite. Thus, it is not intellectually impossible for an existent which is an effect to be eternal. (For further details see, Misbah Yazdi, Philosophical Instructions)

 

     Based on the above explanation, if you are a theologian you need to suppose a state called non-existence that precedes the existence of any existent, because according to theologians the criterion for needing a cause is huduth.  If you are, however, a philosopher you do not need to have such a presupposition, for according to a philosopher, it is the contingency of an existent that tells us that it needs a cause.    

 

Salam,

Thanks for that well written post.   I would not consider myself as siding with a theologian or even with a philosopher (at least as far as this issue is concerned).

My position is Akbarian or Sadrian (it is neither Peripatetic nor is it Kalami) .  It is the position that states that no sooner the world is created than it becomes nothing.  At every moment the world is created anew.  It's existence is momentary, not in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal sense.  At every moment there is a new creation.  But this process is endless without any beginning and without any end.  This is because God is infinite.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۶/۱/۲۰ ه‍.ش. at 7:53 PM, LeftCoastMom said:

 The concept of God , the Trinity, etc. are not something modern science deals with. 

Reason is more respectable than science!

When a religion does not respect the laws of reason - laws such as the impossibility of contradiction, how can we expect it to respect the laws of science? When people like Feuerbach criticizes Christianity he does it from a more fundamental standpoint i.e. the standpoint of reason. He says: 

THE grand principle, the central point of Christian sophistry, is the idea of God. God is the human being and yet he must be regarded as another, a superhuman being. God is universal, abstract Being, simply the idea of Being; and yet he must be conceived as a personal, individual being or God is a person, and yet he must be regarded as God, as universal, i.e., not as a personal being. God is; his existence is certain, more certain than ours; he has an existence distinct from us and from things in general, i.e., an individual existence; and yet his existence must be held a spiritual one, i.e., an existence not perceptible as a special one. One half of the definition is always in contradiction with the other half: the statement of what must be held always annihilates the statement of what is. The fundamental idea is a contradiction which can be concealed only by sophisms. A God who does not trouble himself about us, who does not hear our prayers, who does not see us and love us, is no God; thus humanity is made an essential predicate of God; – but at the same time it is said: A God who does not exist in and by himself, out of men, above men, as another being, is a phantom; and thus it is made an essential predicate of God that he is non-human and extra-human. A God who is not as we are, who has not consciousness, not intelligence, i.e., not a personal understanding, a personal consciousness (as, for example, the ―substance of Spinoza), is no God. Essential identity with us is the chief condition of deity; the idea of deity is made dependent on the idea of personality, of consciousness, quo nihil majus cogitari potest. But it is said in the same breath, a God who is not essentially distinguished from us is no God. (The Essence of Christianity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. You still aren't dealing with whether or not Christians feel their religion is antithetical to science. I think I have given ample evidence Catholicism feels it is not.

As for Feuerbach, How do you think he would feel about Islam, being an atheist? Do you feel he would think a holy book being delivered by a supernatural being to a desert prophet was " logical and reasonable"? 
Doubtful.
He did not believe in God,which would ,of course, negate the possibility of any revelation to humans. Pretty sure he would feel about Islam the same way he felt about Christianity. Had he been from, say, Turkey, he would have been refuting the claims of the dominant religion there.

No religion is scientifically provable, therefore ...not the purview of science.
Religions are matters of faith.
If you do like dealing with philosophies of religion,however,then many religious philosophers have found  the Trinity to be perfectly reasonable. You might want to check out Richard Swinburne's a priori arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, April 09, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Afzali said:

Based on the above explanations the perfecting character of every motion can be accepted only in

 

the sense that the existence of the moving thing attains to something existing, which it previously lacked, although it previously may have possessed something similar or more perfect, as was mentioned regarding the relation between the potential and the actual.

Ok, but the another problem here that would arise is if you try to prove human devolution as possible, that would mean that you're confirming their claim that humans and monkeys share common ancestor. They evolved over time & devolved through natural laws instead of any divine intervention.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.