Is Science without Religion really Lame

YoursTruly:

Outdated are these folk, so just let them be,who think mere wine & song`ll set them free.
P.S:It has been ages, that the yaar was my guest .

some questions for the Scientific Atheist:

1. In what year did God assure Hazrat Popper, Kuhn and Fayerbund that He did not exist?

2. How many more names does bullukhan need to drop in order to prove his scholarship?

3. How does the Theory of Automatic Combustion explain that Fayer`s bund is on fire?

4. How many atheists does it take to screw a lightbulb? (answer: zero. wait long enough, and the lightbulb will screw itself. just like you wait long enough, and the atheist will screw himself).

PS: Once these profound questions (for both the atheist and the maulvi that i have asked in a separate post) are addressed, THEN can we have some proper article on science, Gill sahib?

some questions for the Scientific Maulvi:

1. How many megawatts of power does a djinn generate if you beat it with a stick? How many megawatts if you kick it`s ass instead?

2. How many sins are destroyed when you perform one hajj? How many sins are destroyed when the hajj is performed at your own expense rather than through misuse of pakistan government funds?

3. In what year did Abu Hanifa invent the internet?

4. Why is the assembler language written in Arabic?

5. How many angels can balance on ustruly`s nose?

ballukhan

And if Rene Descarte`s example does not convince you of the philosophy of vision then take the example of Kekule`s ``revelation`` (in his dream) about the cyclic structure of Benzene.

ballukhan

Here is an example of philosophy of reason:

Once there was an avid atheist who challenged Imam Abu Hanifa for a debate. The topic off course was to prove that there is God or not. A time and place was set up and it was announced all over. At the given time the atheist showed up and a huge crowd of people also gathered at the convention hall, but Hanifa was nowhere to be seen. An hour passed by and Hanifa doesn`t show up. The crowd started getting impatient. Another hour went by and still Hanifa was nowhere to be seen. Now this atheist starts boasting in front of the crowd that Hanifa probably got scared and he wouldn`t show up. As he was boasting about beating the greatest scholar of his time with out even a match, people see Hanifa coming at a distance. When Hanifa reached close the atheist asks him about what took him for so long.

Hanifa says ``I set out on a journey to reach and on my way I came across the river. There was no boat at the river and I didn`t know how to swim. So I couldn`t get here on time``

Atheist asks ``But how did you finally managed to get across``

Hanifa replies ``Well I was standing at the river bank, thinking what to do, when suddenly a tree at the bank fell into the river. As I was looking at it, it carved itself and turned into a boat. So I rode that boat and that is how I got here``

The atheist started laughing ``What a bunch of bull crap, yo Hanifa dude. How can a tree fall by itself in the river and turn into a boat``

Hanifa calmly replies ``Well if this whole universe, and we the human beings can come into being by ourselves then why it is impossible for such an insignificant event i.e. turning a tree into a boat by itself, to happen.``

Moral: The atheist immediately converted to Islam and spent the rest of his life praying his good Lord and doing jihad with heathens in Hind.

#14 by Urstruly on January 14, 2004 12:00pm PT

I think our guy needs to read some thing from Karl Popper.

``because of the people who claim to hold a scientific opinion``- who are you talking about? do not create imaginary opponents.


``..they betray the very principles of scientific investigation that they claim to follow.``

the first two principles of scientific investigation you talk about are actually subset of the Hypothetico-deductive(HD) model and the deductions are tested with empirical experimentation or other observables.
I think Urstruly needs to go through Karl Popper`s classic titled THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, Hutchinson, 1959.
He also needs to read his ``Open Society and its Enemies``.

Perhaps he can then read Thomas Kuhn and Feyerabend.

I swear Gill sahib that you have done this for the sole purpose of annoying me!! In your previous article I had suggested that for once we discuss your fine article on science without anybody - ANYBODY - dragging in that same dumb question that every muslim genius does when someone is trying to discuss science (the question being: ``How does science relate to religion``. Well. du-uh!!). I had begged - pleaded - that for once we stick to science - and if someone is not interested in science he should not feign interest by writing ``But, how does science....`` (same question as before). Instead, he/she should go and curse the opposing religion (hinduism or islam), or moan about western imperialism, or tell us for the 9 millionth time that pakistan is lagging behind india economically. ANYTHING, but come back to this same dumb issue.

And despite my lamentation, pleadings, you go ahead and write and ENTIRE ARTICLE on this question. YOU, of all people. One of the few on chowk who is actually interested in science. et tu, brute!!!

``...An example would be that of Rene Descartes who imagined that matter consisted of tiny indivisible particles called atom. This the prime mover behind any scientific investigation being done for the first time. ...``

This is false . Atomism has been there since the Greeks. Descartes was a philosopher well versed with the greek though- his atomism cannot be a product of a REVELATION.

#13 by Urstruly on January 14, 2004 11:10am PT

Philosophy of vision!!!! What nonsense.

Religion is too fuzzy a word. Catholics often use ``mystery`` as a substitue for religion. Some people make a distinction between the spiritual and the religious. Music can be spiritual, awakening the spirit, inspiring the soul. The sound of thunder as a harbinger of the monsoon, the setting sun on a rainwashed evening and a good scientific theory can all reach something deep down and touch something that is hidden within all of us. Without this kind of ``religion``, anything is lame.

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense?

........... how silly can you get ?

.........to prove that a theory (scientific or rleigious) is absurd, untrue and totally ridiculous one has to simply prove just one ``fact`` to be untrue and the whole thing is reduced to gibberish ........ so, since man cannot walk on water, and it is generally impossible for virgins to give birth ,and i haven`t talked to gabriel or seen a burning bush, it is obvious that christianity, islam and judaism are bunkum ............. it is that simple .......... hindooism might be a valid theory since i have seen many a flying monkey from my office window ..........

........... it is sad to see grown men discuss stupid things so seriously ...............

-digit

Having said that, I would, however, agree with your assertion about `religion vs science`. It is nonesense, because of the people who claim to hold a scientific opinion. As a matter of fact their opinion is as biased and prejudiced as that of any unscientific `jahil`; because they betray the very principles of scientific investigation that they claim to follow.

Let me explain it by an example.

let us suppose that a scientific investigator is trying to find out whether an idea X is true or false. Now there are three possible ways the idea X can be validated as true or false and an investigator would formulate his strategy in these possible ways.

Method 1. I suppose that idea X is false, therefore, I will find all the evidence that will prove my thesis.

Method 2. I suppose that idea X is true, therefore, I will find all the evidence that will prove my thesis.

Method 3: The idea X may either be true or be false. I will gather evidence, evaluate it, and then by process of elimination I will prove the idea to be true or false.

A cursory look at the three methods will tell you that the first two are absolutely unscientific. These are a priori methods to prove which you have already convinced yourself of being true or false. The Method 3, however, is the true scientific method where the investigator leaves the door for either outcome open. He has an open mind and he will accept what his investigation will lead him to.

Historically, in the matter of religion vs. science the Western scientists use the Method 1. They have convinced themselves that there is no God, therefore, we should find all the evidence that will prove our thesis - the outcome of this thinking is the forced juxatposition of observation of phenomenon of Evolution to ``prove`` the origin as well. Alas the missing link is ever elusive. And I dont blame them because their religion failed them when church unleashed misery upon the people in the name of God.

The predecessors of Western scientists that is early Muslim scientists, on the other hand used Method 2. They observed a phenomenon. Philosophized its reasoning. And then cross-checked it with their religious convictions. It always verified. That is the reason the old manuscripts of those scientists occasionally contained Quranic verses and ahadith that they noted down alongwith their observations. But I will not blame Muslim scientists for using Method 2, because the way they did it was in reverse in fashion. Keep in mind that it was the early stage of the age of discovery. They observed a phenomenon - philosophized it - and then cross refernced their findings with their conviction. However, if they tried to verify their religious convictions with philosphy and then observe it in natural phenomenon, then it would have been utterly unscientific. Religious scholars have done that but not the scientists.

The third method is the true method of investigation. Doubt is the seed that has worked wonders in the field of scientific investigation. It is the engine that drives the human mind.

-digit

yaar wohi murghe ki ek taang?

I think, in order to understand the point that I am trying to make, we should divide philosophy in two parts. (of course it is my classification)

- Philosophy of vision

- Philosophy of reason

What I am referring to is philosophy of vision where a philosopher concieves an idea as a sort of ``revelation`` if you will. An example would be that of Rene Descartes who imagined that matter consisted of tiny indivisible particles called atom. This the prime mover behind any scientific investigation being done for the first time. Whereas, the philosophy of reason is a subset of philosophy of vision. An example would be that of Newton`s observation of a falling apple. He observed a phenomenon and then tried to philosophize the reason behind it. The philosophy of reason is dependent on observation. The philosophy of vision is dependent on imagination. One is incomplete without the other.

Just keep in mind that the sky scrapers that we see today, the planes that we see flying across the continents, and the vaccines that we create today are the result of someone`s vision. Someone had created them in his mind first. Then he reasoned how to turn his vision in reality.

Urstruly wrote,

``I don`t agree with your thesis. Its always the philosophical thought first that has triggered and initiated any scientific investigation and not the other way around. What you are proposing is absurd - its like an engineer doing calculations and making drawings after he had already made the bridge. ``


I appreciate your sentiment. Certainly the motivation for doing science comes from elsewhere...I tried to make that point - probably wasn`t successful :-(.

However I think in a modern context, the observance of phenomena and reflections on Mathematical models of our Universe play a larger part in maintaining the momentum of science than, say, any philosophical question. That, of course, doesn`t cheapen the value of philosophy! But I think the two are in fact distinct. At least for the `natural` sciences...which I think is what we really mean by `science` anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that we can still do `useful` science without invoking a philosophical motivation. In fact, our scientific knowledge can be used to enrich our philosophies. However, I don`t think any particular, well-established philosophy is required to do `good` science...unlike others here, I don`t think science offers a philosophy on it`s own either...so really this whole `religion vs science` stuff is entirely nonsensical!

Another thing I didn`t touch on was what we should do to restrict the way in which we do science...ethics and the lot. In that context, we may well want to see Science tied to some sort of Philosophy...so I`m not hardened in my opinion! :-)

Agree with Urstruly. Very well put.