Religion and Technology?

[Diuretic]

I think the core of the problem comes from the fact that modern science works on the basis of assuming only naturalistic explanations whereas religion almost by definition works of the basis of assuming the reliability of supernatural explanations.

That's a fair comment, I was about to say that science was looking for answers but religion had already decided it had them - not very elegant and a bit closed-minded of me I admit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think the core of the problem comes from the fact that modern science works on the basis of assuming only naturalistic explanations whereas religion almost by definition works of the basis of assuming the reliability of supernatural explanations.

That's a fair comment, I was about to say that science was looking for answers but religion had already decided it had them - not very elegant and a bit closed-minded of me I admit.

Seems to me like science and religion used to be answering two different questions, until people who didn't like religion's answer decided science could answer both.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

November 10, 2007

Fjordman: The Truth About "Islamic Science"
A new piece from the ever-insightful European essayist Fjordman:

According to University of Columbia's Arabic and Islamic Studies Professor George Saliba, "Islamic science" virtually created the modern world. This is a bit odd, since Saliba has reviewed the work done by scholar Toby E. Huff, which concludes that Islamic countries largely failed in developing modern science. I have made a series of posts about this issue myself at Jihad Watch. These posts have also been translated to German, and I made a slightly longer essay about this available at the Gates of Vienna blog. I have also had the pleasure of reading Huff's book The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, second edition. If anything, I believe he is sometimes too kind with the Islamic world.
He writes: "Our concern is with the fact that from the eighth century to the end of the fourteenth, Arabic science was probably the most advanced science in the world, greatly surpassing the West and China. In virtually every field of endeavor - in astronomy, alchemy, mathematics, medicine, optics, and so forth - Arab scientists (that is, Middle Eastern individuals primarily using the Arabic language but including Arabs, Iranians, Christians, Jews, and others) were in the forefront of scientific advance. The facts, theories, and scientific speculations contained in their treatises were the most advanced to be had anywhere in the world, including China."

I'm glad he specifies that by the term "Arab science" he actually means anybody who happened to live under Arab-Islamic rule, not necessarily Arab Muslims. Nevertheless, I don't approve of the term. Whatever was achieved in science during this time period was rarely done by Arab Muslims. "Islamic science" was almost totally dependent upon translations, frequently made by non-Muslims, of the achievements of pre-Islamic cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc. Moreover, a striking number of Muslim thinkers were Persians, who owed more to their pre-Islamic heritage than they did to Islam. Still, I consider Huff's work to be one of the best books I have read on the subject of early modern science.

According to Huff, "From the point of view of this study, the modern scientific revolution was both an institutional revolution and an intellectual revolution that reorganized the scheme of natural knowledge and validated a new set of conceptions of man and his cognitive capacities. The forms of reason and rationality that had been fused out of the encounter between Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian theology laid a foundation for believing in the essential rationality of man and nature. More importantly, this new metaphysical synthesis found an institutional home in the cultural and legal structures of medieval society - that is, the universities. Together they laid the foundations validating the existence of neutral institutional spaces within which intellects could pursue their intellectual inspiration while asking probing questions. Having laid those foundations, large sections of the Western world in the years after the Renaissance were enabled to go forward with the scientific movement as well as economic and political development."

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer has given an excellent overview of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology, including their attitudes toward science, in his book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Social scientist Rodney Stark states that Islam does not have "a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science...Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws in that they deny Allah's freedom to act." Professor Stanley Jaki observes that the improvements brought by Muslim scientists to the Greek scientific corpus were "never substantial."


Dhimmi Watch: Fjordman: The Truth About "Islamic Science"

 

[Kalam]

Whatever was achieved in science during this time period was rarely done by Arab Muslims.

Demonstrate this.

"Islamic science" was almost totally dependent upon translations, frequently made by non-Muslims, of the achievements of pre-Islamic cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc.

Demonstrate this.

Moreover, a striking number of Muslim thinkers were Persians, who owed more to their pre-Islamic heritage than they did to Islam.

Demonstrate this as well.

Thank you.

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer

I've met rocks more intelligent than that prejudiced moron. You and your pals here are sure giving him a run for his money, though.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The post stands as is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whatever was achieved in science during this time period was rarely done by Arab Muslims.

Demonstrate this.

"Islamic science" was almost totally dependent upon translations, frequently made by non-Muslims, of the achievements of pre-Islamic cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc.

Demonstrate this.

Moreover, a striking number of Muslim thinkers were Persians, who owed more to their pre-Islamic heritage than they did to Islam.

Demonstrate this as well.

Thank you.

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer

I've met rocks more intelligent than that prejudiced moron. You and your pals here are sure giving him a run for his money, though.

Demonstrate THIS. Thank you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Seems to me like science and religion used to be answering two different questions, until people who didn't like religion's answer decided science could answer both.

For example..

 

[Kalam]

Whatever was achieved in science during this time period was rarely done by Arab Muslims.

Demonstrate this.


Demonstrate this.


Demonstrate this as well.

Thank you.

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer

I've met rocks more intelligent than that prejudiced moron. You and your pals here are sure giving him a run for his money, though.

Demonstrate THIS. Thank you.

What?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Demonstrate this.


Demonstrate this.


Demonstrate this as well.

Thank you.




I've met rocks more intelligent than that prejudiced moron. You and your pals here are sure giving him a run for his money, though.

Demonstrate THIS. Thank you.

What?

That Robert Spencer is unintelligent and a prejudiced moron, or that the poster is. S'matter, you couldn't read your own sentences?

 

[JBeukema]

The post stands as is.

by which you mean it stands as unsupported assertions you refuse to back up?

 

[Ralph]

The methodology and ideology of approach were scientific. It was science that brought all of those developments, regardless of the what led to the personal or social need for an answer. It doesn't matter why they wanted to set bones, the fact remains that it was as scientists that they approached the problem and furthered human knowledge

True religion and true PHYSICAL SCIENCE do not conflict in the least. I find it amusing that some propagate the false premise that Religion and Science clash. The only format of Science that clashes with religion is that which is based upon nothing but theoretical philosophy......all theory that cannot provide enough empirical evidence to be defined as a Physical Law. No one can submit any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates a CONFLICT with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures with PHYSICAL SCIENCE that is based upon the scientific method of observed, reproducible experimentation. In fact PHYSICAL SCIENCE merely confirms many passages of the Holy Scriptures...that which can be tested by the Scientific Method have all been found lacking nothing in relation to TRUTH.

Some would declare the miraculous events mentioned in the Scriptures as conflicting with physical science....but the inverse is demonstrated to be true, natural physical science does not hold the authority nor the capacity to TEST the SUPERNATURAL.....as physical science is based upon the laws that regulate the NATURAL...therefore any SUPERNATURAL event that is self professed to be unmeasurable by the NATURAL is beyond the capacity of SCIENCE to measure in any fashion other than THE NEGATIVE fashion that declares since the natural cannot define it....it must not be TRUE. Yet the the universe and life itself....exists in a state of reality, and both are unmeasurable by the SCIENTIFIC method of OBSERVED, REPRODUCIBLE, EXPERIMENTATION. Thus, I find it amusing that some claim that PHILOSOPHY dressed as physical science has the power to debunk the SUPERNATURAL....when it cannot even define its own origins with any empirical observable, repeatable experimental evidence. Any such argument is constructed of STRAW......and tilted drastically toward the NEGATIVE that precludes something from being true because the KNOWLEDGE to measure it does not exist. The only thing that philosophical theory does is ASK QUESTIONS that cannot be empirically proved or disproved.....yet we are to be gullible enough to accept this unprovable format as having the power to debunk anything that it cannot measure?

An example would be LIFE ITSELF. We are informed in this format that LIFE came from the self gestation of morphing dead matter into a living biological entity that has the power of REASON.....reasoning so great that it became self aware of its own mortality. But....there is not one example of this propagated message of COMMON descent having been gestated from DEAD matter. In the entire history of mankind....not ONE example of LIFE having originated from dead matter has ever been OBSERVED, or REPEATED in EXPERIMENT....yet we are told that it is TRUE and the CONFIRMED, OBSERVED and REPEATED physical law of Biogenesis is not a valid example of SCIENCE...simply because the nature of what is OBSERVED and REPEATED has demonstrated that LIFE comes from only one source.....OTHER LIFE...OF THE SAME SPECIES....yet, this philosophy based upon NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE....declares that ALL LIFE created itself....apparently before it existed....from dead matter. Talk about an ideology being based upon THINGS not observed but simply believing that at some point in the future that which is propagated will one day be proven as true......FAITH DEFINED...believing in something not observed but hoped for.

www.flmilw.org/CorrOfTheBilblAndSciense.html

 

[JBeukema]

No one can submit any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates a CONFLICT with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures with PHYSICAL SCIENCE that is based upon the scientific method of observed, reproducible experimentation.

like the Earth sitting on pillars and grass growing on Earth before the sun even existed?

Some would declare the miraculous events mentioned in the Scriptures as conflicting with physical science....but the inverse is demonstrated to be true, natural physical science does not hold the authority nor the capacity to TEST the SUPERNATURAL.....

There is no such thing as the 'supernatural'; it is a meaningless word.

The religious must continuously change their story and reinvent 'giod's truth' because it is constantly being shown to be false.

 

[KittenKoder]

No one can submit any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates a CONFLICT with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures with PHYSICAL SCIENCE that is based upon the scientific method of observed, reproducible experimentation.

like the Earth sitting on pillars and grass growing on Earth before the sun even existed?

Some would declare the miraculous events mentioned in the Scriptures as conflicting with physical science....but the inverse is demonstrated to be true, natural physical science does not hold the authority nor the capacity to TEST the SUPERNATURAL.....

There is no such thing as the 'supernatural'; it is a meaningless word.

The religious must continuously change their story and reinvent 'giod's truth' because it is constantly being shown to be false.

Actually, you are both wrong ... you both need to learn something new, one needs to learn more about science ... the other needs to learn how to use science correctly. You can sort out who is who.

 

[JBeukema]

I love how KK, thinking herself wise, states that others are wrong while never being able to demonstrate any such thing.

 

[KittenKoder]

I love how KK, thinking herself wise, states that others are wrong while never being able to demonstrate any such thing.

You didn't get the connection between a rainbow and life ... don't need anymore proof than that.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, because the prism effect and optics really have shit to do with finding that which bring contentment Try saying something meaningful for a change; I can't recall the last time you ever contributed anything to a discussion.

 

[editec]

Doesn't surprise me.

Most the real hard science and numbers guys I know understand enough about social sciences to understand my post.

OTOH, most of the Darwin thumping atheists -- people who typically claim to be science and reality-based thinkers, but who usually don't actually understand the limitations of science -- don't get social sciences any better than they get hard sciences.

There is nothing to debate whatever between a thinking believer and science fact or theory

Science and social sciences are simply ways to try to understand how the plumbing and wiring of the universe works.

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand why the plumbing and wiring exist to begin with.

I think religion is a conclusion rather than a process of seeking understanding.

I agree that most of them are exactly that, Di.

 

[edthecynic]

No one can submit any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates a CONFLICT with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures with PHYSICAL SCIENCE that is based upon the scientific method of observed, reproducible experimentation. In fact PHYSICAL SCIENCE merely confirms many passages of the Holy Scriptures...that which can be tested by the Scientific Method have all been found lacking nothing in relation to TRUTH.

BALONEY

The First Law of Thermodynamics, proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, says essentially that you can't create something from nothing.
Biblical creation says essentially that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.

How is that not a CONFLICT?????????????????????????

 

[Diuretic]

I think the core of the problem comes from the fact that modern science works on the basis of assuming only naturalistic explanations whereas religion almost by definition works of the basis of assuming the reliability of supernatural explanations.

That's a fair comment, I was about to say that science was looking for answers but religion had already decided it had them - not very elegant and a bit closed-minded of me I admit.

Seems to me like science and religion used to be answering two different questions, until people who didn't like religion's answer decided science could answer both.

Both are products of the human ability to wonder.

 

[JBeukema]

That's a fair comment, I was about to say that science was looking for answers but religion had already decided it had them - not very elegant and a bit closed-minded of me I admit.

Seems to me like science and religion used to be answering two different questions, until people who didn't like religion's answer decided science could answer both.

Both are products of the human ability to wonder.

One is also the product of the ability to seek real answers, while the other is the product of giving up and just making things up.