Conflict of Science with Theocracy

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The opening sentence;

[The question whether science can survive in a theocratic environment had been gnawing at my mind for a long time.]

should have been

[The question whether theocracy can survive in a scientific environment had been gnawing at my mind for a long time.]

Because the larger of the two subjects logically is independent and smaller of the two is dependent variable, whether one talks about X and Y coordinates of cartesian plot or talks in terms of solute and solvent. Only in rare conditions do we talk in terms of the survival of solvent dependeny upon a minor solute, impurity or pollutant - as in conditions where high purity of solvent is utmost important or impurities starting a chain reaction leading to solvent destruction.

Science is a big business whereas theology is restricted to few religious colleges and seminaroes. The amount of money spent on R & D in various branches of sciences and the literature generated alone suffice theorcracy to be treated as insignificant.

The concept of god or theology was a linear extension of very few of the available data points by mediocre tribes on the fringes of great civilizations during antiquity. The data has increased many-fold since then, reversing the basic understanading of the working of nature. As time passed, the theology became more and more irrelevet and needed constant re-interpretation. For the last couple of hundred of years, since the flowering of scinetific revolution, further patching, white-washing or re-interpretations are mostly futile attempts. The scientists no longer take it seriously. That is why 93 percent of the member of most prestigious, National Academy of Science, 85 percent of the science faculty at universities and 73 percent of overall science teachers no longer gnaw on this topic; they have made up their mind - away from theology and away from god(s).

{{There was God, And God was All-That Was. God’s Love overflowed and God said,}}

The Reverend Peacocke introduces unnecessary hypotheses in his very first sentence.

{{Many theologians of Christian faith with scientific back-ground, like Rev. Canon Peacocke, are already seeking accommodation with theory of evolution despite the ongoing vendetta waged by the creationist scientists, as evidenced by Peacocke’s formulation.}}

They have no choice. From ruling the roost, the princes of the church have been reduced to helpless me-too-ing. They’re just trying to steal a ride on a vessel where they serve no useful function. Oh what a fall!

Despite Galileo being the center of a historical cause celebre, it’s far from clear that the popular account of his conflict with the Church of Rome is faithful in detail to what actually transpired.

Galileo was a thoroughly egotistical man with strongly held views on a multitude of scientific and philosophical questions. His advocacy of empirical-deductive methods over revelation and adherence to dogma would have led him into doctrinal conflict with religious dogmatists sooner or later. He was able to beat scientific contemporaries and rivals, including some of the Catholic clergy, to several discoveries, any one of which would have ensured his lasting fame as a scientist. To make matters worse, he was a most effective expositor of his scientific and philosophical views. These were published in vernacular Italian writings aimed at the literate general public – in the form of multi-cornered dialogues where the notions of Galileo’s opponents (including at least one Pope) were put into the mouths of designated simpletons. Thus there was no way for the Church establishment to treat his disagreements with his scientific contemporaries as esoteric academic debates, and open war was inevitable.

That said, there is evidence that Galileo’s heresy trial in 1633 – ostensibly centred on his advocacy of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – was actually a church cover-up for another matter where his doctrines posed an absolutely insurmountable problem to Church teachings. Namely, Galileo’s advocacy of atomism threatened the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist – i.e., that the consecrated communion bread and wine became, through a process of transsubstantiation, the ‘body and blood of Christ’ – and thus amounted to clear heresy. That, more than the Copernican theory, may have been the reason to keep this dangerously outspoken man under house-arrest for the remainder of his earthly days.

I would like to suggest that this piece contains a mistaken emphasis encapsulated in the title “Conflict of science with theocracy”.

Theocracy is worldly rule in the name of, and on the claimed authority of, “God”, by this alleged being’s self-appointed regents, or by self-certified custodians and interpreters of “God’s word”.

The supposed justification for these claims of worldly, political authority does not properly belong in the field of politics, but rather in metaphysics and epistemology. The crux of the matter lies in:

(1) the metaphysical assumption of a world brought into existence by a ‘divine being’, and perhaps sustained by that being’s constant interventions (‘Divine Providence’)

(2) the epistemological validity or meaningfulness of ‘revelation’, ‘revealed truth’ as a means of acquiring knowledge

It is curious that no form of the word ‘revelation’ occurs in this piece even though the epistemological validity of ‘revealed truth’ is vital to the political authority of theocracy, and theocracies are notorious for fighting tooth-and-nail to defend this authority through such notions as ‘blasphemy’.

Theocracy of course typically has a chilling effect on free thought and scientific activity, as the author correctly notes.

If the question is, ``Whether science can survice with theocracy,`` and we take theocracy in the traditional terms of a close-minded, ``theocracy,`` then obviously the answer is No. A subject like science, which is based on discovery and proof, cannot survive when someone already presents a solution without requiring any proof.

If the question is, ``Whether science can survive with religion,`` then obviously the answer is Yes. Since it has been surviving with religion since the begining of mankind. And continues to survive and thrive. The ratio of athests to believers (in any religion) is microscopic. An overwhelming majority of the sceintists who graduate every year, identify themselves with some religion. They may practice it or they may not, but they belong to one. And despite all their education, they rarely switch to athiesm.

Man has stuck to religion, since times immerial, primarily because science, regardless of how advanced it gets, can never answer two questions: a) what is the purpose of creation b) what happens after death. This fear of the unknown, keeps individuals within the bound of some religion, and within the concept of a, ``Creator.``

The West, nowdays, is considered the biggest practicalists in the world. However, even the West, which produces the most scientists, is unwilling to get rid of religion. It has decided on an in-between of secularism (and that to due to the political issues). The pure scientific solution for the West would be athiesm, i.e. if one cannot scientifically prove that a God exists, then scientifically speaking, He does not exist. This clinging to religion by the West is also, based on the fear of unknown after death.

I think scientific research and religion can co-exist, as long as they don`t contradict each other. If they do contradict each other, then people should be willing to give up on their religion. Personally, I believe in Islam, because it does not contradict my scientific curiosities. There are quite a few things in the Quran which map directly onto scientific research, that in no way could have been known by a human in 7th century. In that science actually justifies my religion, instead of contradicting with it. Interestingly, people who critique the Quran, have a much easier time critiquing its verses on women, jihad etc. And a much more difficult time criitiquing its verses on scientific facts.

I think people should use science to discover their religion, maintaining a rule that every thing on the right side of the equal sign equates to what is on the left. And that everything makes scientific sense, at least within the bounds of the scientific knowledge avaiable at the time, i.e. everything in their religion should be able to pass through the test of science.

The moment their is an obvious scientific conflict with what religion states, should be the time when people should lose faith in their religion. For example, if the Quran stated that the Earth is flat, and scientifically the Earth turns out to be an oblate spheriod, then that would be the moment to find a new religion - or at least lose faith in the Quran as the word of God. Since, while one can apply a lot of subjectivity to the social issues presented in the Quran. But scientific statements are all objective.

Until then, at least, in my life, I have never had any conflict with my religion and my science. Both of which I believe in strongly - science for what mind can comprehend and analyse, and religion to answer the two questions that science can never answer. I cannot imagine life without either science or religion.

However, life without theocracy would be a blessing for both science and for religion (at least for Islam, which is not supposed to have a theocracy, to begin with).

doctor romair,

you said, ``Personally, I believe in Islam, because it does not contradict my scientific curiosities``

............ does this mean that you believe in the miracle baby who grew up to walk on water and raise people from the dead ?........ do you also believe that someone took off on a white winged horse to go talk to the big chief in the seventh heaven? ............ and what about book bearing angles, and fire breathing jinns, and the seventy houris ?..........and if you believe in all that than why don`t you believe that a monkey once ruled india .........

.............according to dr hoodbhoy the chairman of suparco once wrote a ``scientific`` paper on how to solve pakistan`s energy problem by harnessing jinns .......... actually you might want to dig up the proceedings of the first islamic scientific conference that was held in islamabad during zia`s time ..........it will help you with rationalizing your superstitions and also satisfy your ``scientific curiosities``........

Dear Prof. Gill thank for putting together your write up. Better to see good thinking than retards throwing mud. It has turned me off recently by expaks and exindia intelligent peole who parrot party line and just vomit hate and anger , creating heat and no light( they have too much time at hand or why this religious and sexual frustration converted in poisoned pens). So dogmental people one gets disgusted.

It is my feeling our world(Muslim) is crippled intelluctually by extreme religious influence.
`` There is not god but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is the last messenger and Allah is greatest ( proper translation). ``

In my business I come across almost major all countries and religions who visit pakistan in many capacities. And had got benefit of their visdom knowledge and experience.

You had taken Galieo so it remineded me same time a educated prince Ulugh Beg, philosopher, artist and astronomer , mathematician was building great observatory in Sumerkand. He enjoyed more looking at open skies and movements of stars and planets and shunned wasting time in 5 prayer ( he may have knee problem), so mullahs killed him and brought religious king. And Samarkand never reformed and burial of inquiry started and religion shoot up great heights. And that all story of heartlands of Muslim world.

What Islamic heartland and most of 53 hardcore( predominant muslim population) muslim societies lack is reform for 1400 years comparable to near by christiandoms. All socities and contries and subgroup of people who shunn and frown reforms get calcified. And that is what what muslim world today a calcified civilisation ruins. Stiill religion as command and control of masses. You step out holy warriors will shut you and muslim educated masses will justify and no ripples will be heard. Bless holy warriers and mercenary educated . people. Unfortunately the our split of Shia and Sunny was not on line of thoght but personal interests of important ruling clans. While protestant refornation led by Luther , Calvin benifited all people. It it marvellous work. IT BROKE DOWN THE IDEA OF ONLY ONE JUST OR PURE PATH TO TRUTH. So no one church can controll and oppressed the ``blasphamous`` rebels as is happening in islamic world even today. This religious reform led to rise of western civilisation and SECULAR RELIGION OF SCIENCE.

There are many reasons for decline of muslims as people but once decline started it became irreversible. Still I do not see roundabout. This is because they had no reformation that demolished IDEA OF ONE AND ONLY ONE PATH TO TRUTH AND INTOLERANT TO OTHER WAYS. ( Little unrelated Hindus had flexibility as in Veddas sages openly declared `` water falling from sky finally goes to sea through different rivers same is for worship ways. That flexibility helped to even accept as great schlar and honorable Brihspati Brahmin Charvak declaring burnt bodies turned to ashes have no rebirth it just ashes to ashes or total rejection ideas of ``judgement days or hell or heaven and advocay not of secularism but Athesism``. The** french auther puts interestingly why british were never believed or have faith in brahmins of India as they had for jats or warrier classes of India. Incidently all marxist ideas and parties were propagated by Major contribution of Brahmins of india. That flexibility , no belief in one path and lively experimentation. Recently studied two books of same title `` culture of India`` one by chinese scholar and other book by** frenchman- 1963 vintage, it helped lot to look india with more wide open way. I will not get into that subject. Let them go to hell or heaven , let us go to our people.)
Due to lack of any sizable reformation even away from heart lands Muslims lost the courage. If they have to say anything little modify they will look for sources in Koran, Hadith , Profets(PBUH) life. Let me explain, recently there was article regadring sex or lack of sex education in our country. It extremely clear. The Author ( or female author) went to Koran and what is says about it , then Prophets(PBUH) sex and sexual practices to justify sex education. It appears the author even needed to appease religious educated readers. What if things we want to do contrarary to teachings is real crux of dilemma. That idea of confirming to holy book or hadit or what not is contrary to ideas of search and science.
Every pakistani dreams of Arabia as dreamland S. Arabia is resisting even slightest chanes. I have talked to educated and uneducated Saudis visiting pakistan for pleasure and business. They openly say and show disgust of their counrty and declare themselves as barbarians devoid of any cultural or intelluctual Oasis. Through out history carried few plunders but nothing , no Badshahi mosque literally nothing. These people got great wealth has proved disater to many countries like egypt, pakistan, sudan, afghanistan and all poors. By money without telling all regimes became oppressive no question of inquiry or science. Saudy money supports extremely repressive versions of islam. Most of above have culture that oppresses women, no freedom of information, DO NOT VALUE SECULAR EDUCATION . They have dominant religion power and which affects the govt or state and religion is powerful than state, state is afraid of religion. Also nation like ours is controlled by clans and tribes or extented families they can not compete with world and suffocate the free people their thoughts.
There are groups of people who claim Islam is great but muslims are not true follower. Or some pick selective pieces from holy book and say its great tree. I always say let it be great tree but why we have bitter fruits all over. The answers can be found but they may transdent or blasphmous. Some times we always say we are backward as we are not walking on path given by god. They ask for more control, take those women out of advertisement. We have no kafirs to any extent. We had hindu kafirs of about 25 to 30 % today they are less than 1%. So even after purging no improvement is science and free spirit of Inquiry. Still most feel there is not sufficient ``islam``. We had 55 years of Islamic republics but still no sign of resurgence of science of free inquiry witnessed in many countries. I think most understand who are wise there is no science and inquiry and most educated and free minded do right. They can not change this moribound scienceless pakistan , they just go to other Kafir places in west. No body can blame them, one has to live in pond, I can not clean pond so find new pond kafir pond full science devoid of god and islam.
My feeling is only Iran in neighbourhood has chance, they had Islamic revolution and rule and they are exhausted by religion. They openly like west over all other and this burns mullahs and Aytullahs. But they can do nothing. Iranians will break srtong hold suffocationg they. They will be free people ,they will do work in science IN THEIR OWN country.

Science Technology will not flourish for near future in Pakistan due to great influence of religion. Religion and science are different, Inscience there is no surrender to any body which is contraray to ideas of submissiom of man to allah.

in the whole history of islam there has never been a conflict between science and islam because their domains are totally different. science is concerned only with the material world and that is as far as its ambit reaches: it can never answer the Big questions. also the primary domains of religion are the Unseen world and morality/ethics/ human character.

The greatest of muslim scientists were also islamic scholars. of course where there is a clash then one believes the Words of Allah and the sayings of Aaqa alayhisalatusalam over the latest scientific theories because the latter are just the latest hypotheses by men (as you get into higher levels of scientific research u realise just how much of it is just trial and error and hypotheses) whereas the former is the Divine Truth and cannot be wrong.

science actually makes one more certain of the Existence of Divine Truths rather than the opposite! As the great Sufi Ibn Arabi said, ``someone who doesn`t believe in God--a donkey knows more than him!``

I have problem with this article: it assumes that Religion and Theocracy are the same. In fact they are the opposite.

Theocracy is about exertion of power over society by the clergy.

Religion is about the awe and love for creation (the vastness of space, the subtlety of life, the mystery of the sub-atomic particle) by the individual.

Theocracy is incompatible with not just Science but with Religion as well. Theocracy is incompatible with a civilized society, with human decency, with common sense and rational thought. And finally: Religion and Science are in fact fully compatible. It is the awe and love of creation that goads the individual towards expanding the frontiers of science.

It is no wonder that Einstein, arguably the greatest Scientist the world has seen, was a deeply Religious man. And Theocrats have been the enemy of science in every society and at all times: Galileo in Christendom, and Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna in the west) in the Islamic world were both hounded throughout their lives by Monks and Mullahs respectively.

Romair,

``There are quite a few things in the Quran which map directly onto scientific research, that in no way could have been known by a human in 7th century.``

This is very interesting.

Please explain what these `quite a few things` are that no human in 7th century could have known.

Ref#8, Hamidm2: Dear Sir, You have confered Doctorate Degree to some body. Please let me know what I can do to get it ?
How much it cost in local currancy? Is it as good as we get from advt. in local offers on internet to get your Bsc, MSc or PhD from USA.( They offer PhD with thesis in 6 months for 13,00Rs). They give you choice for color of degree certificates for extra 2300Rs). Give me better deal as elderly over 55 , all concessions. ( short time left to use Doctorate, please put on fast track)

I remain obdient servant to you sir

Yours obident servant
Ahmed Madani, KHI, Sindh,PK

hamidm Saheb:

With madrassa israr-ul-uloom haqqania type questions in the following quote from air marshall romair`s post, i am convinced that this level of understanding and attitude towards science can coexist under theocracy ( or under religion) without any problem. I hope nobody learns basic freshmen-sophomore level science from him.

[Man has stuck to religion, since times immerial, primarily because science, regardless of how advanced it gets, can never answer two questions: a) what is the purpose of creation b) what happens after death. This fear of the unknown, keeps individuals within the bound of some religion, and within the concept of a, ``Creator.`` ]

The serious religioin history dates back to around 6-7 thousand years. Most of the religion practices early on did not include any supernatural diety and mother earth godess ruled gor thousands of years before that. The concept of one sky god is credited to jews although many paternalistic tribal cultures had similar beliefs. For almost 1500 (from Moses to Roman Emperor Constantine converting to christianity in 325 AD) years it was failure by all accounts. In the absence of power, Islam was also a big failure wherever preachers took it on their own. The success of Christianity and Islam in modern world owes it to the political history of empires and invasions. Sio it is crap to sugest innate nature of human psyche to follow either of the two with supernatural all-encompassing powerful diety or any other for that matter. Many Chinese never had any religion or myths for generations without any more depressed from the fears than the rest of the world.

The answer to question no. 1 is that life as most other things is accidental to begin with but through evolution acquired the skills and strategy to make survivable copies of themselves - commonly known as reproduction. The answer to question no. 2 is that all organic matter decays through a process called oxidation (using oxygen to decompose and decay to smaller more stable compounds like carbon dioxide, ammnia, sulphur dioxide and water). Burning is also an oxidation process because it consumes oxygen. The body undergoes oxidation after death, much faster oxidation through cremation, and the water, carbon dioxide and ammonia become part of the natural cycle leading back to carbohydrates and proteins through plants and animals respectively.

hmmmmm......the science taught at paf or madrassah might not be advanced enough to the freshmen or sophomore level.

The non-linear unknowns can not be known with very high accuracy without supercomputing abilities - linitation of human mind - but the fear of linear unknowns is no longer unknown.

Between a theocrat who proclaims the supremacy of his religion over science and an educated person who claims that his holy book is full of miraculous knowledge of science, there really isn`t much to choose from.

professor ahmed madani,

......... you, sir, are indeed a true scholar (and a gentleman) and as far as i am concerned you don`t need a phd..........your post #7 is better than any phd dissertation written by the the scholars at the islamic university in islamabad (talk about a den of ignorance and stupidity!)...........

........... but if you still want a phd, write to paf academy, risalpur, nwfp........... the diploma will come blessed with aab-e-zamzam and sduly igned by maulana fazal-ur-rehman, who is the chancellor of the university of akora khattak and the dean of science, maulana sami-ul-haq ............

science says: only the fittest will survive. so its ok to lie, kill etc for the sake of survival.

religions teach: live by the principles of truth and live-and-let-live.

so those who say science is so cool and religion is nothing but a logically unjustified obstacle in the way... just tell me: would u kill those who make you feel insecure? and would you do ``anything`` for your survival? its all ok from the science`s view point.

well, if you say the answer is yes... i would suggest you can also go and sleep with your mother, or dont mind if she does with the rest of your neighborhood.... cuz guess who introduces the moral values?

point: religion is undenyable. do whatever you will.

and as far as the development of science is concerned, it is not hindered at ANY place by the religion, but by the sect who thinks the religion is their jaageer (property).