Question by Hmmm: Is it possible to unite religion, philosophy and science into one term, the truth, or search for?
not*
Do they all no hold value?
One common search for the truth. Add spirituality to that list too.
Do they all not* hold value?

Best answer:

Answer by china doll 3
No

Give your answer to this question below!

Some five centuries ago two donkeys on two legs proclaimed scientific reasoning. Their assertions of the so-called scientific method to find about the truth in things has misled sciences ever since.

Rene Descartes proclaimed the following presumptions in his treatise Discourse on Method for looking for the truth in our world:

- The first rule was never to accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be evidently such: that is, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudgment, and to include nothing in my conclusions unless it presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no occasion to doubt it.

- The second was to divide each of the difficulties which I encountered into as many parts as possible, and as might be required for an easier solution.

- The third was to think in an orderly fashion, beginning with the things which were simplest and easiest to understand, and gradually and by degrees reaching toward more complex knowledge, even treating as though ordered materials which were not necessarily so.

- The last was always to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I would be certain that nothing was omitted.

This reasoning does not admit anything except what is visible to the naked eye, nothing else. We believe in what is exposed to our senses. If a thing is not subject to our senses then, according to the genius Descartes, this thing is non-existent. So for example if three billions of people today believe in God and we cannot see God or hear God then God does not exist.

What bullshit!

The entire intelligible world is dismissed by this idiot at an abrupt sweep of his hand.

Thus and according to Descartes we cannot believe in religious texts for there is no proof they are divine scriptures. We cannot neither believe in God’s word for we need proof. We cannot believe in God’s angels, God’s messengers, God’s messages, nor can we believe in a day of judgment, where everyone shall be brought up to account for his, or her, own deeds in this life. No more belief in the Hereafter is necessary, for according to Descartes we cannot have proof of it. In this way the whole metaphysical existence that explains our reality is dismissed.

But with his wisdom Descartes forgets the big essential questions and that humans are in need for that. Who cares! As long as Descartes explains things. But he does not explain anything, nothing at all. Blind as he is to close his eyes to reality and truth in its ultimate sense, he recommends some erroneous rules to understand the universe, our existence and our purpose in life.

According to Descartes, there is no purpose for man’s existence for e cannot verify the empiric validity of such assumption.

Cartesian Scientific thinking and reasoning has dominated the world ever since the time of Descartes. Annulling all intelligible knowledge and reducing things to material existence. But in his superficial thinking Descartes omits from thought the most important questions of ultimate knowledge. He was blinded to the enigmatic problematic of the universe including his own existence and thought. No science, then ventures into such mysteries looking for explanations and light.

Francis Bacon, another genius on two legs, suggests in his scientific method in his treatise Novum Organum:  

That such a method required:

 (1) accepting as “truth” only clear, distinct ideas that could not be doubted, (2) breaking a problem down into parts, (3) deducing one conclusion from another, and (4) conducting a systematic synthesis of all things.

 Descartes based his entire philosophical approach to science on this deductive method of reasoning.

In short, Bacon’s method required (1) accumulating a store of particular empirical observations, (2) from these inductively inferring lesser axioms, (3) from these inductively inferring middle axioms, (4) and then proposing the most general of notions, each in progressive steps.

If we read modern meaning into the language used by Bacon, we might see a foreshadowing of the idea of a hypothesis in a “lesser axiom” and a theory in the “middle axiom.” This would make his method agree with the mature conception of science in use today; however, the context indicates that his ideas were not yet so fully developed.

Bacon also argued that this inductive method “must be used not only to discover axioms, but also notions,” which may be taken to correspond to the concept of a paradigm, but again this may be reading into the text. In any case, it is clear that Bacon’s view of the scientific method is progressive and cumulative.

The radical commitment to empiricism advocated by Bacon may imply for some that he did not accept any knowledge that was not received by personal observation.

In the same way we observe how Bacon advises us to use a certain method to find truth about knowledge. He like Descartes suggests that we do not believe in anything except of what we can verify and prove.

Again, another genius blinds himself to the intelligible world and limits his vision and knowledge to what he sees and can experience.

For such a genius there is no need for a God for we cannot see or hear or smell God and thus the whole religious argument is brought to ashes just like the bones of Bacon and Descartes.

The who question of what we see is presumably what we see. There is no one proof for what we see. There is no one proof for matter, its presence, its origin, its function, its nature and its finality. How did matter, subject of human knowledge come about? What made it in its shape and form, color and what controls its atoms? Who has created atoms? Who has assembled atoms together to be what it is?

But according to these two geniuses there is no need to break our heads of such problems. Matter is there in all shapes and forms, but in order to explain it we simply have to apply four idiotic rules, dismissing all other ultimate questions of the reality of matter, time, space and energy.

No one has access to what atoms are, quarks or strings, how did they come about and why? No one knows, not even Einstein had access to such knowledge, the reality and truth of things.

How naïve can Descartes and Bacon be along side their imbecile scientific followers.

What they see is false knowledge and what they miss is real knowledge.

Hypatia and Simplicio discuss the basics of metaphysics: what is it about? And what is the input of science on metaphysical questions? Is a theory in philosophy something different from a theory in science?
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Science is way of knowing things. It is responsible for discovering the truth about the facts and realizations which is the primary source of excellence among the human beings. It is very important that human beings recognize the development of Science that leads to the developments and the life that they are enjoying today. It is also important to acknowledge the Greeks in their contribution to the development of Science during mid-6th century BC . It is an open secret that the Greek civilization gave way to the understanding of so many things that existed on Earth. The Greeks are among the earliest Philosophers, the first Inventors and Scientists who explored the human minds of the society to the new era of understanding life.  This study believes that the Greek Civilization has a great influence in the development of Science.

The Copernican theory is the one responsible for the study of the Universe. The Astronomy has been the main reason behind the formulation of this theory. The Copernican theory studies the existence and features of the Universe that has been continued through scientific evidences. The Bible has their own beliefs regarding the Universe’s arrangement and systematical series of functions, religious groups. The verse from the Bible states that the same thing about Universal bodies revolves around the sun and each of these heavenly bodies found in the Universe exist upon nothing.  Aside from this, religious groups also accepted the fact that through the existence of Science, the general claims of the Bible which some consider as something that lacks much of the evidences needed for strong proof could be proven true through evidences. Lastly, the Copernican Model of the Universe is probably the closest model to the actual arrangement and the systems that the Universe follows, hence, religious enthusiasts are further convinced that God himself designed the awesome display of both power and complex plan of creation, to quote from the book,” Science without Limits” by James Perlman written in 2005.

“The history of astronomy shows the development of science as a discipline from the ancient world to the Renaissance, from the time of Ptolemy to the time of Galileo. Over that period, astronomy began to shift from a philosophy to a science. Science in the ancient world was not created out of whole cloth and was based on observations and the application of reason. By the time of Galileo, however, science was gaining a more experimental structure, and Galileo himself tested many ideas directly. His astronomy was also based on observations, but he was able to observe more directly and closely with the telescope.”(Perlman, 2005)

During the 13th century, a scholar named Thomas Aquinas combined the Aristotelian learning with Christian theology, later called the “Christian Aristotle.” Nevertheless, at some points he differed with Aristotle. Yet, despite of this foresight and a brilliant mind, Bacon was limited in his knowledge of the facts. He strongly believed in the principles of Astrology, Magic, and Alchemy. This demonstrates that Science is indeed an ongoing search for truth, always subjected to revision. Although, scientific investigation appeared to lie dormant in the 14th century, as the 15th century neared its end, mankind’s search for scientific truth was far from over.

In the general context, it could be considered that both science and religion play a great role in the human society. Their existence in the society makes it possible for man to understand things around him. Science continues to discover opportunities by which man could have knowledge about the system of things that evolve around him. At the same time, the ability of Science to uncover the mysteries that man used to misinterpret has guided human development a lot about the new inventions of technology, which are patterned from the different theoretical claims of Science. On the other hand, Religion functions as a social regulator. The Bible, which is known to be the basis of most existing religions in the human society, also uncovers the mysteries behind life and creation, which dated back much earlier than Science. Consequently, most Scientists consider the Bible deceptive because, according to them, the Bible does not provide much strong evidence to its claims. However, upon discovering reality through the processes that scientists believe to be authenticated.

The objectives of the Ionian Enchantment are to present the humans and the environment exists within the guidance of the laws given by nature itself. It could be observed that this particular idea points out that humans are able to live their lives without the particular laws from superior mandates from a more superior persona which is God.  According to this concept, the human capability of understanding the situations that they are involved with makes it easier for them to decide on which laws they are supposed to follow, thus making it identifiable obvious that humans are able to decide well for themselves, making it clear how science could be trusted with the explanations that they are suspending with regards the different basic issues in the society.

Curiosity gained through scientific knowledge, distant from god being disapproved, has only showed and taught us of how extremely complex, complicated, and breathtaking world in which we live in. Many philosophy people find it reasonable to conclude that the physical laws, chemical reactions, DNA, and the astounding assortment of life are all by one creator. There is indisputable proof to the opposing. If there is a Creator behind the universe, people cannot expect to comprehend him or his purposes by using telescopes, microscopes, or other scientific instruments.

 

MP3 available at www.symphonyofscience.com. With English Subs. “We Are All Connected” was made from sampling Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, The History Channel’s Universe series, Richard Feynman’s 1983 interviews, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s cosmic sermon, and Bill Nye’s Eyes of Nye Series, plus added visuals from The Elegant Universe (NOVA), Stephen Hawking’s Universe, Cosmos, the Powers of 10, and more. It is a tribute to great minds of science, intended to spread scientific knowledge and philosophy through the medium of music. Check out “A Glorious Dawn” by Carl Sagan, another Symphony of Science project! http And my website for more original music: www.colorpulsemusic.com Click HQ to watch in better quality. Enjoy!
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Question by —: Philosophy, religion and science?
What do philosophy, religion, and science have in common? What distinguishes them from each other? Is philosophy incompatible with religion?

Best answer:

Answer by rhsaunders
Religion requires belief in supernatural phenomena, while science explicitly prohibits it. Philosophy incorporates the question of what we can know, and how; since it is impossible in principle to have true knowledge of supernatural phenomena, philosophy includes science and excludes religion.

Give your answer to this question below!

I hope it will challenge, provoke & maybe even enlighten. Give it a go. If it does arouse something in you, please feel free to drop me a line & let me know what you think.

We all take part in this thing we call martial arts, but at the end of the day, what is the real point in the activity? What is it within man’s psyche which seeks to control something as harrowing as being attacked by another?

The martial arts are necessary to mankind, since every person has a built-in fear of attack. This is proved in the very existence of Adrenaline, a Fight or Flight hormone. It is part of a law of self-preservation & self-protection. Evolution has built every creature with this quality, which conforms to the natural law.

It is a sad truth that potential harm could be caused to you by another human being. There is no manner of protection you can give yourself, but to prepare for the worst. It makes no difference how big or strong you are, how intelligent you are, or how fast your reactions. You alone will not be enough to defend a gang, & therefore the fear is always present.

In that famous philosophical & political text, the Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued this case most succinctly. He stated that although some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death. This consequently justifies self-defence as man’s highest necessity.

This necessity, though slightly pessimistic is at the same time realistic. Even those with a “Love thy neighbour” philosophy recognise the natural necessity for self-defence. Evidence even suggests that Jesus himself was said to have believed in the need for self-defence. In the Gnostic gospel[EN-1] of St. Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas; “Fortunate is the man who knows where the brigands will enter, so that he may get up, muster his domain, and arm himself before they invade.“

So the case for self-defence as a necessary human endeavour is apparent. It does not matter how much money you have, how many bodyguards you surround yourself with, the fear of being attacked is a homo-psychological “ball & chain”.

How many people have actually considered Bruce Lee’s ideas & taken them further? Let us not forget the death of this legend, but also let us remember that he died whilst many of his theories were still evolving. As great as he was, (which I do not disagree with) he was a single man who was a part of the evolution of martial arts as Newton was to physics & his ideas were evolving continuously. Lee himself stated that:

“The founder of any branch of Chinese gung fu [or any form of martial arts] must be more ingenious than the common man. If his achievement is not carried on by his disciples of the same ingenuity, then things will only become formalized and get stuck in a cul-de-sac; whereby breakthrough and progress will be almost impossible.“

In other words, Lee has pinpointed the reason for crystallization and tradition in the martial arts (or indeed any subject). The fact that truly innovative & ingenious people are rare, means that if it is carried on by people with less ingenuity (not to be confused with intelligence[EN-2]), through the attempt to retain the innovation, the system is taught in a formalised way, lest any secret be lost in digressing. Eventually, the system becomes stale & hence “breakthrough and progress will be almost impossible”. Lee’s concepts were like the prism to a beam of light. His concepts showed the spectrum of colour present in light. But he did not invent light.

We must remember, that as innovative as Lee’s ideas are; they can always be improved upon. The danger lies in when people are satisfied, or accepting of the ideas & unwilling to challenge them [EN-3]. This is the very reason for martial arts becoming crystallised and traditionalised. When no fluidity & flexibility is present, death commences.

“Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great people; but seek that which they themselves had sought”

-My philosophy

There are many different paths which will lead to enlightenment. However, mastery can extend from understanding the path which so-called “Enlightened ones” have taken. The secret is not to assume it’s impossible because you find it hard. But to recognise that if it’s humanly possible, you can do it too [EN-4]. Basic psychology tells us that in most situations, under the same stresses, people act & react in much the same way. Therefore, given the same impetus as Lee had, taking the same course of study & reading the same books as Lee, you will come to realise that which Lee realised. For that reason, my philosophy is not to blindly follow Lee’s method, but to study that which he himself had sought. Furthermore, this resonates in the understanding of anything. I read that which Aristotle read, so that I may come to the same conclusions as Aristotle. Given the same impetus, most people will come to the same conclusions. Everything in the world manifests itself.

The secret of realising the so-called secrets of martial arts is to look at what is in your sight. The secret is that there are no secrets. Consider that the secrets descend from the founder of the style. The founder of the art discovered the truth, & naturally, after his passing this truth was protected by his followers in order to keep control of the school. However, if the founder discovered it in his own path, you may follow the path to reach the same conclusion [EN-5]. In the words of the Greek philosopher Meno, “by a process of mere questioning, will he attain a true science, knowledge in the fullest sense by the recovery of such science out of himself.”

]]>

Only then will what was once hidden become plain to you. Others will recognise the innovation of your thought, because they realise it has always been there – but they were unaware of it. Gravity has always been present on the earth, but the innovation of Newton was that he brought it to people’s attention. If gravity had always been present, what did he truly say that was innovative? He simply saw what was in his sight (the apple falling) & what was once hidden (the existence of gravity) became plain to him.

Lee looked at what was plain to him; the movements of the human body & their application to fighting – and what was out of sight became visible. His own teaching of this path was what he called Jeet Kune Do. By looking at what is in your sight; what is unknown will become evident to you. That was the purpose of JKD. “Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one’s back.”

So consider those basic techniques you practice over & over. Do not wish for more, for you have the secrets already. When you can truly understand this, then you too will have the secret of ingenuity.

Bruce Lee once stated: “The Truth in Combat is different for each individual.”

To critique this statement, we must first look at what “truth“ is. To the philosophical Pessimism movement in Western philosophy, no truth can ever be known, because our entire understanding of the world around us is constructed by what our senses tell us (and our senses can often be mistaken).

For example, our perspective of fire tells us that it is hot & causes pain & damage; but if we were to view it from the perspective of granite, fire would not cause any damage at all. It’s powers of destruction are purely relative depending upon the subject receiving its effects. Therefore, we can only know anything from a human perspective.

The meaning of truth was summed up perfectly by a Greek philosopher named Parmenides who stated that one should “…view the world with an independent, or true view (that is independent of time and position, the accidents & peculiar view point of the receiver)”. This is a much better explanation than that which the dictionary gives; “that which is not False…conforming with reality”.

It stands to reason that in any situation, there will be many different sides, but there remains only one truth. What happened, happened – that is the fact & the truth. But ask any observers & each version will be slightly different. Thus, the very meaning of the truth, suggests that an individual truth is impossible – a mere illusion.

The truth lies in seeing passed the “versions”; the perception, to see the totality; the truth. Each martial art is a version of the truth, a perspective. Tae Kwon-Do teaches that kicks are the answer, Judo demonstrates that throwing is the answer; Muay Thai promotes elbow & shins as the answer.

Lee had the right idea in “taking what is useful & discarding the rest”. With this idea, Lee infers that martial arts have elements that are useful, but they also have parts that have missed the point. This is true since all martial arts are a “version” of the truth. In the same way as a police officer will ask all the witnesses to build up a true picture of the event, or an historian who will look at all the sources in context. It is your faculty in discovering the truth to identify that which is useful as separate from that which is useless. What is useful is universal.

cientists are proud with their scientific discoveries. Science now explains everything as most scientists believe. But scientists forget that science does not explain everything. It only explains the how relationships among certain objects. But there remain an immense world where science, with all its progress, cannot even touch.

Values and value systems and evaluations of things are some examples where science does not even venture to explain. Morality and moral codes, where good and evil essential and dominant for man’s existence. Humans are not mechanical robots with springs and calculating devises. Good and bad is central in humanity.

These criterion decides the inter-relations among humans, groups, societies, states, super states. Science does not touch at all on morality. It is simply not its domain. Thus values an value judgment dominating men’s lives are outside the domain of science.

Morality with its complicated systems of judgment and arbitration, a criterion for self-assessment, self- esteem, self-respect and self evaluation is not even mentioned by science. Scientists are concerned with what they discover of how matter behaves.

This is limited strictly to what they can analyze and observe in the laboratory of experimentation. Scientists do not deal in the least with values and morality. Humans life is but subject to the criterion of evaluation and morality.

Science can measure the distance between two objects, does not explain whether such a procedure can be evaluated nor whether or not is subject to good and evil. Science is concerned of the physical aspect of things and never of the aesthetic or spiritual or moral aspect of objects. Thus anatomy, biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics deal only with the physical aspect of what is object to observation.

A tree, an animal, a metal, a microbe or a human being are all subject to physical investigation, study, analysis and conclusions. But the aesthetic side of an animal, flora, metal or a human being is not subject to scientific research, reasoning and concluding. It cannot be subject to science for its cannot be verified.

Science does not deal with value judgment and morality for these cannot be subject to empirical investigation. But knowledge is not only limited to physical chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, nano- engineering or astrophysics. Knowledge is especially concerned with everything, including the behavior of humans.

]]>

This is left to social sciences that are not at exact or applied sciences but left to experimental experiences that does not yield scientific fruits.

Scientific reasoning leading to scientific knowledge does not explain, with all its advancement today, scientific evidence for ultimate questions. Ultimate questions are concerned with scientific investigation as with regard to the origin of objects of science. What is the origin of a tree, an animal or a human being.

The Origin remains one of the fore enigmatic, a complete mystery, that science does not discover, or unveil. It falls short of explaining the origin of matter, the universe, galaxies and stars, life dimensions. Science does not explain in any way the presence of objects, the presence of the universe and the presence of life itself. Science is handicapped in explaining death for example, let alone explaining life and its development, life cycle, ageing and then death. These are domains of scientific investigations but science does not uncover its mysteries until the present time. Science with all its scientific discoveries is unable to explain its first subject namely matter. What is matter? Science remains silent. How did matter come about? Science remains silent. What is the origin of matter? Science remains silent. How did the structure of matter come about? Science remains silent. Well, what science is this?

Scientific thinking doe not deal with the most important question for mankind: God is or God is not? Scientists, being mechanical instruments of calculation and observation, in their scientific do not consider the question whether or not there is a creator for the universe. They do not answer the questions of where did the universe, object of their scientific research, come from. They are no concerned with its origin, its, presence, nor with its finality.

Finalities to science are in the real of conjecture for it cannot be subject to scientific analysis, evidence and proof. Everything has a finality which is made for. An apple tree has finality in the apple itself. Finality of a species is its mature adult form. Finality, science it cannot be subject to laboratory investigation, remains outside the real of science and scientific thinking.

The plausibility or implausibility of the religious argument is outside the real of science since it cannot be seen, or be subject of observation, analysis and conclusion. God is not subject of empirical knowledge, which explain the reject and denial of God by most scientists. In their scientific investigation they do not need a God. When Napoleon Bonaparte asked Laplace : ‘Your work is excellent but there is no trace of God in your treatise.’ Lapalce answered : ‘Sir, I did not need this hypothesis for my work.’

Thus science does not deal with God and hence rejects God as a hypothesis. But scientists themselves do not have any answers, scientific or otherwise to ultimate questions such as the presence of the universe, its origin, its dilution , its control, its foundation structures, and its change.

They have no answers about two millions of animal species, their presence, their coming about, their origin and their development and finalities.

Thus the most important questions are not dealt by science.

It is at this very crossing point that man is need to explain his presence, the universe, his origin and that of the origin of the universe. Until science uncovers such knowledge science remains limited and handicapped, just like Stephen Hawking, the astrophysicist who denied the existence of God, without explaining the origin of the universe, its presence and matter-structure.

The realm of metaphysics deal directly with the most important questions namely the reality of everything. It deals with the real, the principles of everything and the first principles at that. God being the first principle to Aristotle is not neglected by Descartes Bacon and Laplace, who believed in God by faith and tried to reason out His presence.

Only metaphysics asks such ultimate questions and attempts answers. Metaphysics is in this way more complete than science dealing not only with physical aspect but with all aspects of a thing or an object.

Find More Metaphysics Articles

Question by paula j: Main differences between philosophy, religion and science?

Best answer:

Answer by Gorgeoustx Go Spurs Go! 37wins 7loses
Philosophy deals with reason and logic.

Religion deals with man made dogma.

Science deals with evidence and facts.

Give your answer to this question below!

In the spiritual mind science or known as exclusive Fifth Science, the soul is being trained to be a conscious receiver more than being an actor. Through the mind that speaks to the soul, it is believed that the possibility of renouncing judgment can be achieved. This sounds to be a complex thing to do but this is exactly what the Druze logic reveals in many doctrines that make up their unique spiritual identity. The metaphysical realm of such practice emanated from the ancient wisdom and knowledge theories of great ancient Greek philosophers who have significantly influenced Fifth Science as practiced by the authentic Druze Gnostics. There can be an endless debate among traditional spiritual societies associated with religions and cultures from which norms and beliefs are derived. In this unique spiritual mind science, one may wonder why such elusive and secret brotherhood exists without the benefit of mass consciousness. There are doubts and dubious criticisms hurled at the Druze Brotherhood and humanity have frowned at this community. The spiritual distinction in which this mind science evokes can be as confusing and baffling if not for the limited resources that continuously faced suppression in the new world.

The Gnostic Logic stemmed from Gnosis, which is derived from the Greek term meaning knowledge. Knowledge comes from the mind that communicates directly to the soul. It is then the soul that receives what the mind conceives and expressed through a form known as the human body. The Platonic Theory of Forms substantiates how the practice of meditation can further lead to religious guilt and moral degradation. The Fifth Science elucidates how thought and action is synergized with existence to achieve a better insight into existence itself. The doctrines that www.substance.com present provide a better and richer insight of man’s existence, as opposed to the monotheistics’ point of view. Bear in mind that there is no intent from the substance to bring its readers to convert. Primarily, the people behind the website aim to give their brethren the resources which they feel they have been deprived of and to shed light to reverse the misconceptions and harsh criticisms that this spiritual society has long suffered from. The doctrines are derived from an authentic Gnostic Logic that guided the Druze Brotherhood for a thousand years but were kept in secrecy and away from mass consciousness.

According to the Fifth Science, The Universal Mind which is the light of the internal sun, allows the soul which is referred to by the Gnostics as Sophia, to see Wisdom in a conceptual realm. Without such light,  the soul becomes insensitive and could not receive anything. This negates the real function of the soul as a receiver rather than an actor. If this happens, the soul is cut off from the Universal Mind which is the source of wisdom. In effect, the internal realm is nullified, getting lost in the myriad of external events which leads to perpetual emptiness. www.substance.com is committed to make the Fifth Science comprehensible for humanity to benefit from the universal nature of the spirituality driven by the mind.

Related Metaphysics Articles

How should the science be treated in Islam? slam and science has been an oft quoted term for thinkers, writers and common people. It has created so many new interpretations, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Here our contention is to provide you the basic concepts in Islam to make the idea clear. Islam is a philosophy as well as science, only point to understand is how strong the link is between these two. Has there been any link or not? And if there is to what extent is it practical? We see number of people around us who do not consider science important and therefore do not bring it in their lives arguing that it is a materialistic approach towards life. Is this true for their lives? There have been so many Articles and lectures written on this specific topic and here our purpose is to show you the real picture and let you decide what the reality in Islam is.

Before going into any further detail it is important to know what science really means. There are so many interpretations and here is one of those, “Science basically is an understanding of a particular thing that exists physically and the use of the principles of that understanding for the benefit of the humanity”.

After reading the definition one can understand that it is not a new thing because its existence has been long since the beginning of humanity. Man has always tried to make things easier and simpler for his domestic and industrial life. Before Islam great names like Aristotle and Plato are examples for the great work that also highlights the importance of philosophy. Now we will discuss science after the existence of Islam.

Most of scientists and thinkers believe that arrival of Muhammad (SAW) and Quran was the most important and boasting point for science. It is basically arrival of reality that helps to understand the universe and purpose of its creation. In fact that was the period when science got new spirit despite of the fact that philosophical explanations were made continuously. Quran and Hadith describe their position openly and clarifies that there is no clash between Islam and science rather it is wrong explanation of science that has made it suspicious. First we look at the life of Muhammad (SAW). His life is true explanation of the basic of the science in which He rooted out superstitions and old traditions and told the people reality. He knew the importance of knowledge and made it compulsory for every men and women. He raised the degree of learning seventy times higher than prayer to prove that for the understanding of religion, knowledge about universe is important.  Is this not the purpose of science? Science also rejects superstitions and makes people aware of true facts of the universe. After Allah Almighty He is the only person who knows everything about this universe and to prove this He spent a practical life and gave principles with logics on all fields of life. Here a question rises, “Did He invent something?” The answer is no, because science is an awareness it does not require invention. Yet His teachings and philosophy are becoming theories of science day by day.

]]>

Now we come to Quran, almost every person believes that Quran is the only authentic and sacred book of this universe because books of other Prophets are either changed or not present today. The whole Quran is science in itself and calls the people to discern the hidden realities of the universe. It is said hundreds of times in Quran that there are signs for those who think and understand. Quran explains every field of science and predicts even those things that man does not know. From the creation of this world and man and to the destruction of this universe, Quran explains everything. To prove this following statement is enough, “There is no discovery or invention of the science which is against the basic teachings of Quran and Hadith,” Therefore Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews, they all know that Quran is the only book of this world that can guide them to find the hidden realities of this universe.

Then where the problem is? This is the real question and here is its answer. Islam says, “We should explore nature and universe to believe in oneness of Allah and to get the blessings of Muhammad (SAW).”  It means that the ultimate result should be the formation of a society where, by new discoveries, positive changes come and people becomes obedient to Allah Almighty. This is also the purpose of our creation and science makes it clear for us to be obedient to Allah and Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

What we have done is our wrong approach towards science. We have started to use science with materialistic approach which means we believe only those things that happen before our eyes or that have physical existence. This phenomenon makes us materialist. Basically this concept is against the construct of science because science can only predict something. It is true that there are so many theories that are considered final but on the other hand it is also true that they are not final verdicts. With the progress of science theories change time to time. Take the example of Biology that after every fifty years changes completely. Atom was considered undividable but now it has more than hundred sob-atomic particles. It is because Quran is final verdict not the science and Quran does not require any scientist. Science supports spirituality and those things that do not exist physically. With the scientific discoveries we can predict that there is Heaven and Hell, and that there is life after death. How strange it is that we believe Newton’s Gravitational Law and do not believe that if gravitation force is pulled out nothing will survive on the earth.

To make it short, Islam does not believe the materialistic approach towards science rather it takes science as an instrument to guide the people and to make the Quran and Hadith clearer for humanity. Its predictions are and discoveries, if we take them in their real sense, do take us near to Allah and show us the authority of Almighty. How strange it is that Quran that is sent for all the humanity, does not has the link with an ordinary field science.

(Your questions and comments are always welcomed by IQRA. You can send your comments or ask questions on svmnom@yahoo.com)

Very interesting debate about God, evolution, free will, consciousness and death. Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement. Robert Wright is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Ever since man’s existence some 9-8 millions of years ago, a recent phenomenon in the age of our universe estimated between 13.3 and 20 billions of years, man is curious about explanations. He seeks explanations for his presence, the presence of the universe, his whereabouts of his coming, his life and death, and the nature of the universe in which he lives. This inborn curiosity has led to the knowledge of today.

Science offers tools to look into the universe and describe what it sees. But this does not represent complete knowledge. It is only part of the whole framework of our existence in the universe.

As if it were we are to live and search for our meaning. We search for a meaning for our existence and wonder about this vast endless universe. This confrontations is inevitable, We are obliged to confront with the universe being part of it. We face its mystery and face its beauty, its precise order and harmony. We are faced with millions of things that constitute our universe. We are equipped with the mind to think and have a specific span of life to live, wonder, discover and conclude.

Science ( from Latin scire refers to know) is a way of reasoning enabling us to think in a certain mathematical rational manner. It is mainly concerned with how things are and not with their ultimate questions such as the meaning of their presence, their origins and their finalities. Science remain at best short of explaining what is beyond its capacities. I

t is concerned with nature or the physical part of nature. It does not discuss what is nature or why is nature, but investigates in what already constitute nature. Physical phenomena becomes thus the main concern of science and scientific thinking. Being so we are bereft of understanding and explaining our origin, our purpose and our finality.

]]>

Science does not tell us how did we come about, why did we come about, what are we doing here and where are we going. It simply has no tools for these questions. It touches only on our physical being in this world and the physical being of our universe.

Science is concerned with what is and what can be proven experimentally. It believes in what it sees. But science with all its proclamations to reality and truth remain short of answering ultimate questions which underlie scientific knowledge itself.

Science deals with what can be proven only and rejects all other knowledge as conjectural thinking. Thus if a layman explains this universe and his own being by reference to an Almighty God, All Knowledgeable, science denies him the right to do so and call s his a liar. Poor layman he has no choice then but to reject God, should his convictions of God be feeble, and to resort to the god of science.

The shortcomings of science by believing in what it sees and its sterility to prove the non-existence of God and the metaphysical world, recoils man on his own convictions. Man is thus cornered by no choice of his own, and for lack of proof of science, to think for himself and make up his own convictions about a creator, a designer, an architect and a masterly powerful originator and controller of everything, the universe and man himself.

If Man did not make the universe and did not contribute to the creation of an amoeba then there ought to be someone who has done it.

Science remains silence about a creator-cause or a prime cause for its tools are limited and its outlook is limited to what science is. Science does not look beyond the physical part of existence and hence remains handicapped and blind to ultimate reality and ultimate truth. Unable to provide answers science satisfies itself with what it discovers.

Science cannot claim to any creation, not even the creation of a fly’s wing. Science only discovers what is, what already is in existence and what already is provided. Science did not make stars and galaxies. It did not evolute life but discovers stars and galaxies, discovers the physical presence of objects.

In order to release ourselves from the clutches of the limitations of science we resort to our own thinking. Our own minds provide us with our personal systems of knowledge discovering. Our own mind enables us to think, observe, understand and conclude. Our own mind presents to us the whole framework of our existence as part of the universe.

We make up our own thoughts and should not let the shortcomings of science overtake our thoughts. Everyone is free, ad in this lies man’s dignity and value, to think and conclude. We do not need a sterile handicapped tool for physical knowledge that explains only a small part of the how of knowledge.

Science remains at best short of providing us with satisfactory answers to our existence, its origin and purpose and the existence of the universe and our role in it. This personal thinking, this individual reflection and meditation is known as beyond-nature or metaphysical thinking.

Everyone is entitled to think as he sees fir and go beyond mechanical explanation of the rotation of earth around itself for example to seize the majestic idea of its presence, its form and shape, its structure and function, its origin and its movement, its products and life manifestations, in relation to all other stars and planets, its life systems and conditions, its movement and change. This the right of every one who has mind to think on its own and eyes to see.

Whether we conclude the existence of, an need for, an Almight God is left then entirely to us and not to science to decide.