Tweet
Islam Versus Science
As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
Science, and natural science in particular is an incremental procedure of acquiring knowledge of the natural world. This acquisition of knowledge proceeds in a gradual manner. Sometimes, scientists make great discoveries. And these new discoveries change the way we perceive our environment and how we think about our past, the present and the future.
However, science is merely a process of acquiring knowledge of the natural world, which is primarily based on empirical evidences. It serves a specific purpose. Mankind can benefit from the knowledge acquired from natural sciences. And thanks to development of the sciences, mankind has achieved great accomplishments. But not all scientific discoveries are beneficial. The development of weapons of mass destruction are an example of a scientific development that is not beneficial.
Islam is not an incremental process of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. It does not base itself on merely observation. Islamic knowledge is revelation. The knowledge we obtain of Islam originates from god. And this knowledge serves a different purpose than the knowledge of the natural world obtained by scientists.
People have different views regarding science and Islam. I will try to describe what I have gathered of the variety of views and opinions about this particular matter.
There is group of people who reject Islam all together. They claim that revelation and religion is not compatible with advanced scientific discoveries and modern world we live in. They argue that if anything is true, then it must be based on information judged with the same criteria scientists depend on to arrive to an understanding.
There is another group of people who argue that Islam and religion can perfectly coincide because Islam advocates acquisition of knowledge and learning. And that all scientific theories can be retraced back to qur'an.
Yet another group of people reject any scientific discover that contradicts Islamic dogma. They claim that there is a conspiracy of disbelievers against Islam. And that all Darwinist perceptions are evil.
I disagree with all three different views. I argue that Islam serves a different purpose. And it cannot be compared to natural sciences. I believe that what we know now of the natural world, and the environment we live in is something that depends on observations of human beings. We are only able to know and understand so much. We have not yet found very basic answers about the origin and the beginning of everything. But regardless of this, we still benefit from the incremental scientific progress.
Islam is independent of empirical evidence. Islam is the knowledge of the bigger questions far beyond the scope of the natural sciences. Islam serves a much greater purpose. And therefore, it is unnecessary to try to judge Islam with the methods of the natural sciences. Neither is it of any use to compare the knowledge of the natural world coed in scientific literature with Islam.
We do not become Muslims for the purposes bounded to this world. We are Muslims because we believe. And to believe, you do not need empirical evidence.
Proponents of scientific dogma consider religion to be inferior for it is not based on observation. Yet, the very same people who use such arguments to falsify religion are totally clueless of how to be civilized and well mannered. How to organize societies, and how to answer the bigger questions beyond the scope of science.
As a student of social sciences, I am taught to apply the methodology of the natural sciences while studying the social life. I have expanded the scope of my study far beyond my own disciple. I have ventured into cultural anthropology, political philosophy, sociology, conflict studies, psychology and various other disciplines within the social sciences and the humanities.
So far, I have not found any author who could provide an answer to very simple questions. How can science replace the function of a belief system? Any society without any belief system is bound to fall into a gradual process of decline. Soviet Union is a very good example of such an experiment.
And while we are observing the piling up of a vast number of societal problems in the most advanced prosperous communities, we cannot help but to conclude that the lack of a belief system is a major cause. The disappearance of a profound and all encompassing belief system has lead Europeans to question their identity, their self image, their purpose in life, their social conventions, the relationship with their kinsmen etc. Yet, these modern societies claim to be champions of scientific thought and process.
The absence of a belief system such as Islam might be able to solve many problems of prosperous societies. But likewise, Islam alone is not enough to improve some very practical problems of mankind.
Therefore, for a society to succeed in various fields, it depends on both, the sciences and Islam.
Science, and natural science in particular is an incremental procedure of acquiring knowledge of the natural world. This acquisition of knowledge proceeds in a gradual manner. Sometimes, scientists make great discoveries. And these new discoveries change the way we perceive our environment and how we think about our past, the present and the future.
However, science is merely a process of acquiring knowledge of the natural world, which is primarily based on empirical evidences. It serves a specific purpose. Mankind can benefit from the knowledge acquired from natural sciences. And thanks to development of the sciences, mankind has achieved great accomplishments. But not all scientific discoveries are beneficial. The development of weapons of mass destruction are an example of a scientific development that is not beneficial.
Islam is not an incremental process of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. It does not base itself on merely observation. Islamic knowledge is revelation. The knowledge we obtain of Islam originates from god. And this knowledge serves a different purpose than the knowledge of the natural world obtained by scientists.
People have different views regarding science and Islam. I will try to describe what I have gathered of the variety of views and opinions about this particular matter.
There is group of people who reject Islam all together. They claim that revelation and religion is not compatible with advanced scientific discoveries and modern world we live in. They argue that if anything is true, then it must be based on information judged with the same criteria scientists depend on to arrive to an understanding.
There is another group of people who argue that Islam and religion can perfectly coincide because Islam advocates acquisition of knowledge and learning. And that all scientific theories can be retraced back to qur'an.
Yet another group of people reject any scientific discover that contradicts Islamic dogma. They claim that there is a conspiracy of disbelievers against Islam. And that all Darwinist perceptions are evil.
I disagree with all three different views. I argue that Islam serves a different purpose. And it cannot be compared to natural sciences. I believe that what we know now of the natural world, and the environment we live in is something that depends on observations of human beings. We are only able to know and understand so much. We have not yet found very basic answers about the origin and the beginning of everything. But regardless of this, we still benefit from the incremental scientific progress.
Islam is independent of empirical evidence. Islam is the knowledge of the bigger questions far beyond the scope of the natural sciences. Islam serves a much greater purpose. And therefore, it is unnecessary to try to judge Islam with the methods of the natural sciences. Neither is it of any use to compare the knowledge of the natural world coed in scientific literature with Islam.
We do not become Muslims for the purposes bounded to this world. We are Muslims because we believe. And to believe, you do not need empirical evidence.
Proponents of scientific dogma consider religion to be inferior for it is not based on observation. Yet, the very same people who use such arguments to falsify religion are totally clueless of how to be civilized and well mannered. How to organize societies, and how to answer the bigger questions beyond the scope of science.
As a student of social sciences, I am taught to apply the methodology of the natural sciences while studying the social life. I have expanded the scope of my study far beyond my own disciple. I have ventured into cultural anthropology, political philosophy, sociology, conflict studies, psychology and various other disciplines within the social sciences and the humanities.
So far, I have not found any author who could provide an answer to very simple questions. How can science replace the function of a belief system? Any society without any belief system is bound to fall into a gradual process of decline. Soviet Union is a very good example of such an experiment.
And while we are observing the piling up of a vast number of societal problems in the most advanced prosperous communities, we cannot help but to conclude that the lack of a belief system is a major cause. The disappearance of a profound and all encompassing belief system has lead Europeans to question their identity, their self image, their purpose in life, their social conventions, the relationship with their kinsmen etc. Yet, these modern societies claim to be champions of scientific thought and process.
The absence of a belief system such as Islam might be able to solve many problems of prosperous societies. But likewise, Islam alone is not enough to improve some very practical problems of mankind.
Therefore, for a society to succeed in various fields, it depends on both, the sciences and Islam.
Comment