Hello Brothers and Sisters.. I am new here... sorry i didnt see the science an relgion section please move this... Sorry
I am a muslim.
Islam and Science
The Quran and Modern Science - Dr. Zakir Naik
-THE BIG BANG
-INITIAL GASEOUS MASS BEFORE CREATION OF GALAXIES
-SHAPE OF THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL
-MOONLIGHT IS REFLECTED LIGHT
-THE SUN ROTATES
-THE SUN WILL EXTINGUISH
-INTERSTELLAR MATTER
-THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE
-ATOMS CAN BE DIVIDED
-THE WATER CYCLE
-MOUNTAINS ARE LIKE TENT PEGS
-MOUNTAINS FIRMLY FIXED
-BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS
-DARKNESS IN DEPTHS OF OCEAN
-ANIMALS AND BIRDS LIVE IN COMMUNITIES
-THE FLIGHT OF BIRDS
-THE BEE AND ITS SKILL
-LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNICATION OF ANTS
-HONEY: HEALING FOR HUMANKIND
-BLOOD CIRCULATION AND MILK
-DROP EMITTED FROM BETWEEN THE BACK BONE AND THE RIBS
-FOETUS PROTECTED BY THREE VEILS OF DARKNESS
-EMBRYOLOGICAL STAGES
-EMBRYO PARTLY FORMED AND PARTLY UNFORMED
-SENSE OF HEARING AND SIGHT
-FINGERPRINTS
-PAIN RECEPTORS IN THE SKIN
AND MORE
I really want to know what your religion says on "Science"... because i love science and i am religious i like to learn about both
What does your relgion say about science?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Muslim_man
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:00 pm
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #3
Moved to Science and Religion. Your link has also been fixed.
I for one should like to know what the common consensus is in Arab circles concerning evolutionary theory.
Fundamentalist Christians generally regard Science as evil. Or rather, they will accept any scientific notions that do not otherwise interfere (even remotely) with a strict interpretation of the Bible. Do you see a similar attitude amoung conservative Muslims?
I for one should like to know what the common consensus is in Arab circles concerning evolutionary theory.
Fundamentalist Christians generally regard Science as evil. Or rather, they will accept any scientific notions that do not otherwise interfere (even remotely) with a strict interpretation of the Bible. Do you see a similar attitude amoung conservative Muslims?
Post #4
Welcome to the forum Muslim-man.
Persnickety Platypus gives a reasonable and concise description of fundamentalist Christian views. I would also add that, even for those who don't consider science evil, fundamentalists typically consider the Bible as more reliable than modern science, and thus, that any 'true' science must be in agreement with the Bible.
As a non-fundamentalist Christian, I of course, have a different view.
For the most part, I view the Bible as being irrelevant to science. It was written at a time when science as we know it didn't exist. It was not intended in general to address scientific matters, but rather spiritual, moral, religious, and with respect to the Hebrew culture, historical matters.
I do not view Christianity as incompatible with either cosmic or biological evolution.
Persnickety Platypus gives a reasonable and concise description of fundamentalist Christian views. I would also add that, even for those who don't consider science evil, fundamentalists typically consider the Bible as more reliable than modern science, and thus, that any 'true' science must be in agreement with the Bible.
As a non-fundamentalist Christian, I of course, have a different view.
For the most part, I view the Bible as being irrelevant to science. It was written at a time when science as we know it didn't exist. It was not intended in general to address scientific matters, but rather spiritual, moral, religious, and with respect to the Hebrew culture, historical matters.
I do not view Christianity as incompatible with either cosmic or biological evolution.
Re: What does your relgion say about science?
Post #6Hello Muslim_man.
Nice to have someone who can comment on our debates from a different perspective.
I've come across these arguments before and they don't really work. The obvious demonstration of this is the claim that before Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the Earth people thought it was flat. The ancient Greeks not only knew that the Earth was round they even had a very good estimate of what size it was.
Eratosthenes (276?-194? B.C.) found a way to determine the size of the earth. He assumed that the earth was a sphere and that the sun was far enough away from the earth that the light rays coming to it would be almost parallel. Then he found that at the sun was directly overhead on the summer solstice at noon at a town called Syene because a pole cast no shadow. He also found that at noon of the same day at Alexandra, which was about 7 degrees or 4900 stadia (1 stadium equals about 0.16 km) to the north, a vertical pole casts no shadow. He then used Euclidean geometry to calculate the circumference of the earth at about 252,000 stadia (40,320 km) which was close to today’s mean value of 40,030 km.
Uneducated people may have thought the Earth was flat but educated people knew that it was round. This knowledge was would have been available to people in the middle east at the time the Quran was written down.
If Dr. Naik can get something as simple as this wrong how can we trust anything else he has to say?
Nice to have someone who can comment on our debates from a different perspective.
Muslim_man wrote:The Quran and Modern Science - Dr. Zakir Naik
I've come across these arguments before and they don't really work. The obvious demonstration of this is the claim that before Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the Earth people thought it was flat. The ancient Greeks not only knew that the Earth was round they even had a very good estimate of what size it was.
Eratosthenes (276?-194? B.C.) found a way to determine the size of the earth. He assumed that the earth was a sphere and that the sun was far enough away from the earth that the light rays coming to it would be almost parallel. Then he found that at the sun was directly overhead on the summer solstice at noon at a town called Syene because a pole cast no shadow. He also found that at noon of the same day at Alexandra, which was about 7 degrees or 4900 stadia (1 stadium equals about 0.16 km) to the north, a vertical pole casts no shadow. He then used Euclidean geometry to calculate the circumference of the earth at about 252,000 stadia (40,320 km) which was close to today’s mean value of 40,030 km.
Uneducated people may have thought the Earth was flat but educated people knew that it was round. This knowledge was would have been available to people in the middle east at the time the Quran was written down.
If Dr. Naik can get something as simple as this wrong how can we trust anything else he has to say?
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: What does your relgion say about science?
Post #7One problem I see about this is that the phrases are taken out of context , and reinterpreted to fit what we know about science. I have seen the same thing happen with a number of Christians and the Bible. .. even to insisting such things as saying the Bible says the world is round when it is very distinctly using Bablyonian cosmology.Muslim_man wrote:Hello Brothers and Sisters.. I am new here... sorry i didnt see the science an relgion section please move this... Sorry
I am a muslim.
Islam and Science
The Quran and Modern Science - Dr. Zakir Naik
-THE BIG BANG
-INITIAL GASEOUS MASS BEFORE CREATION OF GALAXIES
-SHAPE OF THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL
-MOONLIGHT IS REFLECTED LIGHT
-THE SUN ROTATES
-THE SUN WILL EXTINGUISH
-INTERSTELLAR MATTER
-THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE
-ATOMS CAN BE DIVIDED
-THE WATER CYCLE
-MOUNTAINS ARE LIKE TENT PEGS
-MOUNTAINS FIRMLY FIXED
-BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS
-DARKNESS IN DEPTHS OF OCEAN
-ANIMALS AND BIRDS LIVE IN COMMUNITIES
-THE FLIGHT OF BIRDS
-THE BEE AND ITS SKILL
-LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNICATION OF ANTS
-HONEY: HEALING FOR HUMANKIND
-BLOOD CIRCULATION AND MILK
-DROP EMITTED FROM BETWEEN THE BACK BONE AND THE RIBS
-FOETUS PROTECTED BY THREE VEILS OF DARKNESS
-EMBRYOLOGICAL STAGES
-EMBRYO PARTLY FORMED AND PARTLY UNFORMED
-SENSE OF HEARING AND SIGHT
-FINGERPRINTS
-PAIN RECEPTORS IN THE SKIN
AND MORE
I really want to know what your religion says on "Science"... because i love science and i am religious i like to learn about both
When you do retrofiting , you can make anything you want fit if you don't look at the context very closely. This is done with the Koran, this is done with the Bible. If the words are vague enough, they can mean anything.
-
AB
Post #8
The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Moved to Science and Religion. Your link has also been fixed.
I for one should like to know what the common consensus is in Arab circles concerning evolutionary theory.
Fundamentalist Christians generally regard Science as evil. Or rather, they will accept any scientific notions that do not otherwise interfere (even remotely) with a strict interpretation of the Bible. Do you see a similar attitude amoung conservative Muslims?
Science is not evil. It is just irrelevant. In other words, science is an "exercise of futility".
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #9
Oh sure it is all magic and superstition.Science is not evil. It is just irrelevant. In other words, science is an "exercise of futility".
Turn your computer off it is futile and irrelevant and you are wasting electricity.
-
AB
Post #10
Cathar1950 wrote:Oh sure it is all magic and superstition.Science is not evil. It is just irrelevant. In other words, science is an "exercise of futility".
Turn your computer off it is futile and irrelevant and you are wasting electricity.
Clarification: Science has limitations. And those limitations are exposed when trying to explain our being. God is beyond science. Sure, when it comes to my computer and electricity science is relevant.
