Science and the Islamic world --- The quest for rapprochement

#72 Jang,

Let me take a guess at what the doctor is saying – he is asking how come muslim majority states (living under partly or fully implemented islamic governance architecture) are falling behind the states operating under Christian / jewish / hindu / buddhist / communist architectures.

We all know that muslims are fine productive people as long as they live under other architectures and they have not been infected with jihadi virus. This proves that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 'hardware'. Question is what happens to these intelligent and energetic people when they live under Islamic influenced operating system/government.

May be the good doctor can clarify it :)

Here is covincing ans scientific argument at the end of which the aethist professor ( like Arjunites )are proven wrong




Religion vs Science
====================


"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.

"From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience."I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian.

"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer] The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"

Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen him? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling."According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super- heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -

You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. "Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.

Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.

"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits down.

GT and pardesi,

chaos and fractals notwithstanding, (and ignoring those obscene pictures put up by iron..very offensive)..

this is what really pisses me off. creative shyte is not easy...it happens when stars align. its not like it can be done in any environment. its not easy to replicate. so the question why OIC countries dont produce high quality science is inherently godless. its perfectly fine to marvel why israel is a hotbed of creativity or why pakistan is a hotbed of jihadism, but to ask why jihad has not taken roots in india or nigeria or why Borneo is not a hotbed for Galois Field enthusiasts is patently silly. So many stars have to align for shyte to happen right...where do you start?

next the good doctor will write an article why men dont concieve.

folio #77 It is true that past glories mean nothing. However, in pointing to past arab openness to scientific inquiry and ideas, I was responding to my esteemed chowk colleague bjkumar's inquiry, vide licet: "an honest pursuit of science requires a questioning mind which must remain open to “other” ideas. Can Islam allow such openness without contradicting itself as expressed in its own Book?"

If Islamic societies could be so open to ideas a millenium ago (per examples provided), then clearly the answer to bj's question is yes.

#68 Posted by zeemax on August 3, 2007 10:00:57 am


Mr. UKP, do you think conducting numerous cold nuclear tests since the 80s and 5 hot ones in 1998 were without science?


huh? so just because you're using the internet means you invented it or made it better in anyway?

dumbass...

no wonder you find more dead cats in US universities than paki profs...

#83 what i mean is, if we ask question like men have very similar physiology to women, are smart, have money and often get screwed but never make babies, and there are creatures like earthworms..whats up with that?

Mr. Ahmed,

I endorse to what u said. I also wud like to emphasise tht if God has given us life and brains, we MUST use them for the purposes that would bring us prosperity.

I cant think of even this site without such spirit of inquiry and innovative thinking.

Though I hate to bring religion...our guys here follow religion in letter esp ur guyz (with an exception of sufis who follow it in spirit as well) but not in spirit.

When I was a student at Engineering College, in my spare time which was rare because the course work was so heavy and challenging, I used to reflect: All the books that are prescribed are written by the western authors; why aren’t there any books written by any Muslim authors? In all the science and engineering books, there was no reference to any work done by any Muslim. No mathematical theorem was attributed to any Muslims (other than at a very elementary level). All the theories that we were required to learn were developed by the western scientists and engineers. And if you wanted a higher degree in science and engineering, you headed to the western schools. The MITs, Harvards, Cambridge, University of London, etc. were the credible educational institutes.

I think Dr. Hoodbhoy is referring to this kind of science. Of course, there are thousand upon thousand of Muslim scientists who have even taken higher degrees in science and engineering. But how many of them have contributed fundamentally to science.

In my professional life, I came face to face with several prominent engineers whose work we had read in the class or used in the design offices; they were all westerners.

On the publication of my first paper, several of these engineers wrote discussions of my paper which was very encouraging. In one of my papers, I provided a formal derivation of an equation which was originally proposed by a Turkish Muslim engineer. I sent a copy of my paper to him (on the advice of American Society of Civil Engineers; he was one of several others), and his response was very heartening. I forgot his actual words but he effectively wrote that he was very pleased to read the worthwhile work of a fellow Muslim. Every time, I opened a science or engineering research journal, I would first check the list of contents to see if there was any research paper contributed by a Muslim. There were only few and far between. I received many requests for the reprints of my papers from Indian professionals but none from Pakistan.

Professor Hoodbhoy tried to underline the scarcity of science research in the Muslim world, in his own way. In this respect, his effort is commendable. I am not trying to win any points in any argument with others. The adverse effect of our lack of research activity reflects in our education system as well. Based on my knowledge of 1950s and 1960s (may be things have already changed for the better), many of my teachers did not quite understand what they were teaching. They had copied notes (verbatim) from text books which they would write on the blackboard without uttering any words from the mouth. And that was it.

I believe, it might help us if we cease to be emotional and realize our shortcomings; only then we can try to improve.

Mohammad Gill

#75 tahmed32

Tauheed sahib, aap chhotee si baatoN se buraa maan jaatey haiN! (What will you say if I start some REAL bad-mouthing! :) )

I would like to make a few points.

First, no real progress in science is possible unless one is NOT shackled by assumptions or axioms that one is never allowed to question. That would be like being asked to design a better mouse-trap while still being required to strictly follow a handed down blueprint of a long-ago already-constructed mousetrap. One can then only come up with cosmetic changes but nothing better or substantially different. The same is true also of all creative arts. The spirit must be allowed the ability to soar high – which is rather difficult if people are required to come down to ground every five minutes to prostrate themselves.

Second, having said the above (first) – most religions have few “from the heart” followers. Most people are born in a religion and stay with it (sometimes they merely put up with it) mostly out of habit, conditioning, and convenience and (in case of most religions in the past and perhaps within parts of the present day Islam) fear (both fear of retaliation and fear of “not belonging” (the hukka-paani issue)). Therefore, being a Muslim Pakistani (in real life day-to-day activities) is not much different from being a Hindu Indian – most people spend most of their waking moments trying to meet their day-to-day needs and not in worrying about the afterlife. When they do have some time for such thoughts or have to do related decision-makings, most people exercise their common-sense good judgment whose elements transcend individual religious labels. Therefore, even if it were (for argument’s sake) true that a strict literal interpretation of the Book stifles creativity and originality (which are the building blocks of both good science and good art) – there is absolutely no reason why the billion strong Islam-following crowd can not develop a substantially higher number (than now) of scientists and other creative artists provided….

…provided they limit the religion to a source of spiritual inspiration only and keep its detailed literal verbiage (to which most of them do not pay attention anyway) insulated from their day-to-day practice of their art, their trade, their profession. They can be excellent artists, excellent doctors, and yes – excellent scientists, too. (The significant number of excellent write-ups and works of art and literature which we see out there and which have a “Made in Pakistan” stamp – all bear testimony to that.) But the moment the practitioners of the trade blur the line – they get into trouble (as we saw in the case of the British doctors) because they are in a situation of trying to meet conflicting constraints and there is a physical impossibility and something has to give way.

Third, I personally believe that the problem is not in any particular religion but more in the mind-set. It is not rooted in the religion alone – but the way we bring up our young and condition them to blindly obey their elders and even make them feel guilty if they do not. Accordingly, a disproportionately low volume of original (scientific) work happens not just in Pakistan but in the sub-continent as a whole.

Fourth and last, you have often tried in your statements to lay the blame at the door of the maulvi. But the reality is not that clear-cut. Even if one were to accept (for argument’s sake) the highly dubious assumption that all maulvis are the same – they are a monolith body of brainless, evil-minded individuals bent upon bringing bad name to the spirit of Islam – the simple fact remains that the maulvis do not control armed brigades – they can at most point to the Book and exhort the masses. How the masses react to such maulvis is up to the masses.

Given that situation, what gives the maulvi such powers? And pray tell me, where do maulvis come from? Are they implanted by extra-terrestrial life among the masses? Highly doubtful!

What makes a maulvi a maulvi?

In answer to that question perhaps there may be a clue to what stops a Pakistani scientist from being a full-fledged scientist.

#88 Freethinker

Although I do not for a moment mean to distract from the fact of how excellent this article is, it is also only fair to bring to everyone's attention that a number of issues covered here are issues that you (in your own way and in your own articles) have tried to bring up and examine repeatedly in the past. Therefore, thank you! :)

dr. hoodhboy,

before pakistan can make progress in science at the research level surely it needs to develop a standardised, single, national public education system of international standard which encourages creative thinking and develops such skills from primary school right through to grade 12 (high school) instead of the mish-mash we have now where the only people who get a decent education are those rich enough to be sent to the elite private schools like Aitchison or KGS.
You cannot run before you can walk, or even, crawl. The education meted out by the State is pathetic.

What do you think? If Karnataka can manage to have 100% literacy why not Pakistan?
What we need is a modern education system for all pakistanis.

#88 Posted by freethinker

Gill,

I am surprised! Your post makes clear what Hoodbhoy failed to do in his article. You say:

"Every time, I opened a science or engineering research journal, I would first check the list of contents to see if there was any research paper contributed by a Muslim."

That is what you would do? You would NOT look at the abstracts to see what interests you FIRST but at Muslim names? Didn't you feel insulted when the Turk said that he appreciated that you were a Muslim ... what did he have to say about your contribution? Is this your science and sciencibility?

GT:
I missed the point of your discussion. Why should I feel insulted? He wouldn't have responded if there was no worth in my paper. In fact, my work elevated the status of his empirical equation. Research papers are not like articles at chowk in which the discussers abuse and curse the authors for reason or no reason (mostly for no reason). Scientists respect those whose work is respect worthy.
You probably did not understand fully what I wrote: "I provided a formal derivation of an equation which was originally proposed by a Turkish Muslim engineer." To provide a formal derivation (mathematical derivation) is not inconsequential. This was an original contribution which has been referred to in books and research papers.
Those who are involved in research work do not stop at reading the abstracts; they go deep into the essentials of a paper in which they are interested and occasionally, if they are lucky, improve the existing status of knowledge. The research scientists create knowledge.
With regards,
Mohammad Gill

Cont. from #91

I mean: Where is the confidence? In a group identity called Muslim? Where is the confidence of individuality which grows out of a group like that expressed by A. Salaam, by giving a damn to norms?

Being a Muslim is the ultimate expression (maybe I exrapolate too much) of individuality, as I understand from urstruly's reference of the Koran.

#93 Posted by freethinker

You underestimate me ... I know what it means to derive a formula from acceped assumptions for an empirical realization. It is presicely because these things are confined to say around 100,000 or so lucky theorist that I am surprised by your elation of being a Muslim than a discoverer.

#93 Posted by freethinker:

Gill:

Please remember you are not the only one to do so .... and do not underestimate chowk interactors as the author of this article does. ... There are many reasons to wish to remain anonymous.