Can Science Survive?

Science and religion will both survive.

They have survived for this long in all societies, which indicates their resilience. People tend to go unnecessarily overboard in their criticism of either. This is especially true when the critics have third world countries to pick on. The maulvis place the blame on the backwardness of these countries on their lack of following enough religion. The anti-maulvis place the blame on these countries excessive following of religion.

When in reality, the reasons are lack of education, lack of good leadership, corruption etc. Maulvis want their kids to study engineering and science to get ahead in life, just like the rest of us. Given the opportunity, nearly all of them woudl send their kids to LUMS and not to Dar-ul-Haqania. And there are very very few engineers and scientists I have come across who are athiests. They all seem to want to hold on to a religion. Dr. Abdus Salam being an example.

Even the West with all its scientific advancements, overwhelmingly still clings to religion. It has created the cocept of secularism to take it out of its public life somewhat. But at a personal level, the population of athiests in the West is a huge minority. All historically succcessful societies, including successful Muslim societies, never became athiest.

The reason is that religion fills in the gap where scientific knowledge reaches its limitations. As the frontiers of scientific knowledge increase, the gap reduces. But I doubt it will ever disappear. People will need religion, because there are two questions they cannot answer: a) What is the meaning of life b) What happens after death.

If these two questions ever get answered, then the whole world will go through a major metamorphosis. If it turns out that a certain religion had it right, everyone will switch to it and follow it to the letter. The whole world will go under some sort of a Shariah. If it turns out that we just decompose into the ground, with no afterlife, then everyone will become athiest, and our moral defintions will go through major changes.

Until then, the debate of religion vs. science will be dominated by those who are overly interested in religion as the solution to, or the cause of all of man`s problems. While the rest of us quitely get our degrees, write our software, and go to our mosques and churches, without having too many issues about either.

On Causality and Islam:

Islamic tenets of faith do not deny causal relations as such, but rather that causes have effects in and of themselves, for to believe this is to ascribe a co-sharer to Allah in His actions. Whoever believes in this latter causality (as virtually all evolutionists do) is an unbeliever (kafir) without any doubt, as ``whoever denies the existence of ordinary causes has made the Wisdom of Allah Most High inoperative, while whoever attributes effects to them has associated co-sharers (shirk) to Allah Most High`` (al-Hashimi: Miftah al-janna fi sharh `aqida Ahl al-Sunna. Damascus: Matba`a al-taraqi, 1379/1960, 33). As for Muslims, they believe that Allah alone creates causes, Allah alone creates effects, and Allah alone conjoins the two. In the words of the Qur`an, ``Allah is the Creator of everything`` (Qur`an 13:16).

A Muslim should pay careful attention to this point, and distance himself from believing either that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them. Both of these negate the oneness and soleness (wahdaniyya) of Allah, which entails that Allah has no co-sharer in:

(1) His entity (dhat);
(2) His attributes (sifat);
(3) or in His acts (af`al), which include the creation of the universe and everything in it, including all its cause and effect relationships.
...In this connection, evolution as a knowledge claim about a causal relation does not seem to me intrinsically different from other similar knowledge claims, such as the statement ``The president died from an assassin`s bullet.`` Here, though in reality Allah alone gives life or makes to die, we find a dispensation in Sacred Law to speak in this way, provided that we know and believe that Allah alone brought about this effect. As for someone who literally believes that the bullet gave the president death, such a person is a kafir. In reality he knows no more about the world than a man taking a bath who, when the water is cut off from the municipality, gets angry at the tap.



( quote in bold taken from Shaykh Nuh Keller`s article: Islam and Evolution
a letter to Suleman Ali
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1996 at www.masud.co.uk)

**
sameer--your point doesn`t prove anything as you have assumed that this material world-earth--on which humans live for a short while is all there is so killing all people on earth in a nuclear holocaust doesn`t prove anything about God!

....really no point of squaring off Taimiyyah and Ghazali of 800-900 years ago with madrassah education and big mouths, fearful of the afterlife and big egos against millions of workers, philosophers, scientists, writers and thinkers of last 400 years.....with little IQ and much larger lifespan than most in the animal kingdom (yet no indication of shorter lifespan animals rushing to their salvation any other way than reproduction) the decision to take sides for me does not take more than a split second....

..reminds me of a Urdu verse that goes something like, ``khof khao gay jitna khuda say, utna hi yeh draye ga``.

..leaving aside the literary value of poetry and role in partition movement, Iqbal came out quite irrational, illogical and detrimental to Muslims in his thoughts as presented in this article. I guess one can strike a balance between khirad and intuition; khirad 6AM-midnight and intuition midnight-6AM or intuition in the bathroom and in bed while khirad everywhere else..;)

Actually science has achieved a threshold several decades ago to defeat god. It is simple logic....the collective energy of nuclear arsenal in the world is enough to kill all human beings (alongwith their gods). Similarly in germs and chemical warfare, most of the bible thumping and quran following people could be extrerminated accidentally or intentionally. God without human - a species with the luxury to think without need - is an irrelevent matter. Therefore, science is perfectly capable of killing god(s), except for the suicidal proportion of collateral damage.

hamidm...astaghfirullah...i used to have my doubts but no doubt about it you are a kafir pure and simple. You will see the result of your endeavours in the Next World.
**

Gill Sahib, this was a good article but it is not suprising coming from you! You seem to be on this mission to sing the praises of science and rationalism and attack the orthodox Muslims!

The article was well written but there were errors. Imam Ghazzali was not totally against rationalism in all spheres but he was against it when it contradicted the Quran and the hadith which are Revealed Truths from Allah and His Infallible Messenger alayhisalatuwasalam. Yes he was against deterministic theories of Causality but this is only because this is the belief of the mainstream Muslims of the Ashari and Maturidi schools of theology (whom form the vast majority of the world`s Sunni Muslims) and it follows from the verses of the Qur`an which say Allah is the Creator of all possible things. If you believe that fire burns by itself that is shirk because you are attributing creation to other-than-Allah. Such anti-causality is not exclusive to Imam al GHazzali may Allah have mercy on him!

The other error was that you implied that Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Ghazzali were of the same thoughts and ideas: this is not true--Ibn Taymiyyah was an extreme literalist and a ghair-muqallid who was jailed in his own lifetime for his heterodox views on some issues and he severely (and incorrectly) criticised the Ash`arite theologians like Imam GHazzali! He was an anthropormorphist and jailed for it although it is reported that he repented of his errors at the end of his life--may Allah forgive him if that is true. The Wahabis of today are the descendents in ideology of Ibn Taymiyyah whereas the mainstream Sunni world is following in the footsteps of Imam Ghazzali.

**

You think it is illogical for people like Imam Ghazzali --and Muslims in general--to concentrate more on the Next World than this one but actually it is logical because one`s life in this world lasts, say 100 years at most. What is that compared to eternity?! So the logical and intelligent person is the one who concentrates on the Eternal life and not on the temporal one! You yourself admitted that al GHazzali`s logical argument cannot be refuted and although you say that does not necessarily mean it is correct, if you believe in Allah and the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam you will know it is correct! The Qur`an constantly reminds people of the permanence of the Next World and the temporary nature of this life.

The Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam said that for the Believer this World (as opposed to the Next World) is like a prison.

The whole philosophy of Islam is based on the fact that this world is but a harvest for the Next World. You reap what you have sown!

**
Yet you and your fellow rationalists will have us Muslims exchange the temporary for the Infinite even at the cost of Iman!
We prefer the Akhirah!
**

Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said, ``What have I to do with this world?!``

***
Hazrat Iqbal was correct in his summation of WEstern philosophy--and he studied it deeply and experienced life in Europe! His critiques are spot-on. The Real Knowledge is found not in the intellect but in the Heart and is REvealed. Al GHazzali--and the Sufis in general--get experiental confirmation of this on the Path; he describes it in his al MUnqidh min al Dalal. The highest form of Revealed Knowledge is that given to the Prophets.
**

Science--and i speak as a practising scientist

---

is only limited to this material world but that is a tiny drop compared to all of Creation. It is the hubris and arrogance of scientists which deludes them into thinking that only what their rational minds can comprehend and measure is all that is important! What losers!

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

Trying to comprehend or make a logical sense of all matters of universe, either individually or collectively thorough out the beginning of humane race sure generates tons of philosophies, understanding & ideas. But this sort of writing always draws in interacts of bashing Islam by exampling mullahs & Pakistan. Many of these rational thought and logical exploration, no matter how indirectly they try, ends up with one notion and that is ‘believing god doesn’t make sense’. We have proven to ourselves so many times that so many of our theories/logics/explanations are later proven either incorrect or falsified. This is not to say that science and logics are wrong, but only a prove to ourselves that how little we know yet are quick to make judgment over matters that may exist beyond our 5 senses. Honestly how sure do we feel that we know enough through our science and logics to say ‘believing god is irrelevant’? How often we criticize Islam on the basis of the pro and anti science Muslim scholars or what Pakistan does or not, or what a Muslim did or not. The very people we take as an example to quote about Islam are they the prove of what Islam and God is? Did Quran mentioned about these so-called scholars in anywhere? Did Quran named the nations & race as the future prove of what Islam and God is?

Quran did say this, believing what Quran is completely free of your choice, and this is where the ‘if’ logic kicks in:

You believe God and God doesn’t exist- null
You do not believe God and God doesn’t exist-null
You believe God and God exist- OK
You do not believe God and God exist-????

With having a low IQ and short span of life, my logic dictates to choose #3.

...... can islam survive?

................ i believe this is the more appropriate question that nobody is willing to ask ............ actually an even more appropriate question would be :should it survive?........

............if it was silly to believe that zeus was angry when people saw a thunderstorm, or to blame it on poseidon when the sea was rough , why is it okay to believe that an unseen god named al-lah makes the trafiic lights blink?........... what makes him better than zeus and poseifon?.............

.......... it is amazing how some of us have come to accept the stupidity of religion as a fact of life!............ one way or the other science will survive, it is religion with its impotent omnipotent gods that will, and should, fall...........

``You can be extremely religious and yet be an extremely good scientist.````(bharatvasi)

certainly a bharatiye concept:-)....can one eat the cake and save it too?:-)

Ditto!

Gill, I love that when you quote Popper and Carnap- I am a great admirer of their Scientific Materialism.

So, can science survive in the Muslim milieu? (in Pakistan)

Jusy take a look at the number of research paper in reputed journals on pure sciences in Pakistan and then compare with those in Islamic studies- you would get the answer.

Your remarks on nuclear infrastructure is unclear-
```A theocratic government in Iran is struggling very hard to build its own nuclear infrastructure. Even the Saudi Arabia, the conservative of the conservatives, is secretly planning for the acquisition of the nuclear know-how. If the technological infrastructure is established in the Muslim world, scientific research and development together with rationalism cannot be excommunicated.````
These are not infrastructures built to conduct pure semi-conductor physics or nuclear physics- these are limited enterprises with the aim of developing bombs only- despite all the blah blah on pure research by the officials. These facilities have nothing to do with dismantling the theoratical and philosophical regimes developed by al-gazali and his followers in the Islamic theology.

Pathetic

``However, the reasons for germination of a scientific tradition in the Muslim world are mostly external so far. For example, the incessant enmity between Pakistan and India drove Pakistan to develop its own nuclear infrastructure to deter India which already had developed nuclear devices. A crash program was undertaken in Pakistan for the development of nuclear technology. Technology is not fundamental science but it derives its life blood from science. Some spin-off research facilities may have come into existence, which might facilitate further research in other related areas. ``

Mushy has admitted that it got missile technology from north korea, and it is only a matter of time that the country will admit that the bomb has chinky eyes.
A country that has not built a push bike, that has got no metallurgy worth the name cannot make missiles of bomb. There is no way pakistan could have leaped from bullock carts to nuclear tech, absolutely no way. See the plight of pakistan today, it has no engineering capability worth talking about, 90 percent of its export income is based on cotton.

There was a big article when the pakistan exported some copper a few months ago, pakistans first metal export. Pakistan has no culture, has no history, and its identity is being shaped by the jihadis. Where is the room for science, when the schools are coverted to cattle sheds, 5000 teachers vacancy has not been filled, and mushy has directed 30 billion rupees to the madrassas.

There should be some restriction on fantasy.

Gill sahib, I have read your article - it makes for an interesting read and does a good job of putting forward the current theories on the ummah. However this doesnot address some issues. The follwoing from the above seems to sum up your article rather neatly

``Ibn Taimiyyah who was born soon after the fall of Baghdad started preaching, in his adult life, to the Muslims to return to the original roots of Islam in which philosophy and the rational sciences did not play any role. Despite the apparent anachronism, this appealed to the defeatist Muslims who wanted to recapture the old glories. Ibn Taimiyyah despised rationalism and the philosophers and chose to adhere to the literal meanings of the Holy Scriptures. ``

This is a classic reaction of civilisations/nations which have lost battles/wars. There is a book called ``The Culture of Defeat `` by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, and translated by Jefferson Chase. It gives an interesting insight into this particular aspect. (I am currently reading this tract for a review).

Most nations/civilisations in modern times (last 150 years) have had a response similar to what you describe. However, they didnot go down the route of the ummah but took it out on other - eg. the French (after the routing by the prussians - took it out on the North Africans, and a few others), The Germans after WWI on the Jews with the Nazis at the helm.

Essentially the idea is to invent alternate realities which is comforting - where the people at the receiving end create an alternative story where the reversal is just temprorary and that they have not lost.

Your thoughts on this would be welcome. If you are interested there is a very good review in last weeks The Guardian by Martin Woollacott and is available at

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1095587,00.html

To carry on - from my last post

your optimism, when you say ``No matter what ulema may rule, for or against scientific research, it would have to continue``, is not misplaced up to a point. Since you put the finger on the button for some of the reasons. Surely, the problem, of irrationalty (scietific) is far more deep rooted than this. It is simply not a case of seperating religion from science or seperating religion from anything else. You can be extremely religious and yet be an extremely good scientist.

Someow I donot think that the Ummah is as yet ready for the case you are making. It will need something more drastic than the fall of Baghdad in the 1200s. To catch up with the world requires more than just, to quote you from your article, ``A skeptical and rational attitude is fundamentally important for doing research``.