Is Science without Religion really Lame

Nothing but onion peels--but the tears are of laughter. Are we really so stupid. Just can`t believe it.
(did I just say believe?)

khait khalyaan mey mauj urra, too kaala teetar ho
phanday khaki hur jaa, chittaa baaj jo sur pur ho
aur naa gunjal ko uljhha, suun! chusni kay guur ko
ooper ooper say khush reh, aur bheetar bheetar ro.

Khuda Hafiz.

102:bullukhan

Thinkers are not ,a-priori, Islamic, christains, buddhists, western, eastern or whatever. They are THINKERS, period.
You are about to fall into the same trap we are trying to wriggle ourselves out.

Merely dropping names would not lead us anywhere. Please elaborate on Dirreda, the new kid on the block--where you are NOT impressed by him. Until then perhaps you and I are a BELIEVER in him (or Him)

Tareesheedum, Parasteedum, Shikastum. (I carve them, worship them, shatter them)

Tahmed

``Dont drag reliigion (whether to prove your belief in God, or to prove that you are a liberated man) into everything. We all understand that God is a belief, and we are all entitled to our beliefs as long as we dont stuff them down anyone`s throat and as long as we dont subvert democracy or rationality by thrusting our half-baked beleifs into everything. Lets discuss science. ``

This could very well serve as an apt summary of this board. There is no use of trying to use scientific logic to prove or disprove God. That is fundamentally inconsistent. The concept of religion and God is benign for humanity in subtle ways that we dont realize. Even Plato, the great rationalist that he was, wanted a spiritual religion to exist in his utopia. The concept of spiritual God has a lot to do with legitimizing a code of ethics with a supernatural aura. Kant was eager to prove the existence of ``spiritual God`` based on the absoluteness and universality of moral ethics. That he destroyed the anthropomorphic God of Bible was a natural by product. In the end, I conjecture that the spiritual God will exist, for we exist. And I want this God to exist for the sake of humanity.

‘Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame’ - a debate between science (S) and Religion (R)

R: ``Hi, longtime no see. How goes?``

S: ``excuse me. Do I know you?``

R: ``c`mon, we`ve been meeting each other for centuries``

S: ``not really. You`ve been knocking at my door for centuries``

R: ``oh, that is my habit. I knock at doors without invitation....like salesman``

S: ``so what do you want this time``

R: ``you have blinded me and I am gonna break your legs for it``

S: ``I didn`t blind you. Yor blindness is self-inflicted ``

R: `` no, you have. I was the one woh was standing still. you were moving fast and hit me``

S: ``you were standing in my way``

R: ``I have the right to stand anywhere, everywhere and whenever``

S: ``who gave you these rights``

R: ``god``

S: ``I am unfamiliar with him. You are trying to fool me and I am not buying``

R: ``believe me he exists. If you agree, I will spare you from becoming lame``

S: ``what if I dont?``

R: ``I will break your legs and you will be forever lame``

S: ``idiot, you have been trying it when you were not blind and failed. Now you are blind``

R: ``I will keep swinging my cane until it contacts your legs``

S: ``you have zero probability of making contact``

R: ``probability my ass. My god is beyond the confines of probability, space and time``

S: ``you mean kissing ass of non-existant will increase probability``

R: ``no, it means that I wont get tired of trying to swinging my cane``

S: ``why not smoke hashish and swing...same effect of mind control``

R: ``I am going to break you legs right now``...swinging

S: ``chal phoot. you missed by a wide margin``

R: ``F``

S: ``haha, I am not in your range``

R: ``F U``

S: ``sorry, I got to go back and think about the world and the universe``

R: ``F U I T A``

S: ``UKP``

#78 CHUSNI
Would this very enquiry and discussion be considered?
Scientific or religious?
It is heartening to see such issues getting discussed on this board- I have always maintained that Islam needs to get out of theology and concentrate on Philosophy- which is very advanced in Western thought- Quine, Kripke, Frege, Gadamar, Rorty, Feyerabend, Derrida, Paul de Man- we are very unfortunate not to have such thinkers in Islamic intellectual traditions. I hope that chowk may stimulate some to read these thinkers carefully and ponder over the solutions and dilemmas they have to offer which Chusni has raised currently.-

chusni #92 You are lying. It wasnt meant as a compliment. Learn to wash your face before you start spouting ghalib.

drumz #6 I went back 80 posts to get to this one (pant! pant!) that you had mentioned. What you are saying is that science ``has you believe BLINDLY in concepts you have no way of seeing, measuring or even conceptualizing (whats that remind u of?). `` I beg to differ.

``seeing, measuring, conceptualizing`` is in fact the heart of science. Science in this sense is the opposite of religion. There is no room for dogma in science. It is this demands for intellectual rigor and for coming up with TESTABLE theories, and its freedom from dogma that is in fact the reason we have seen so much human advancement over the past few hundred years.

Thus: Newton`s laws of physics were turned on their head by a 20-something year old patent clerk named einstein. and einstein`s astonishing results were sidelined by bohr and party with quantum physics. and now we are able to BUILD upon the work done by newton, einstein, by bohr since each is correcty within its context (newton for everyday life, einstein for cosmic scales and bohr for subatomic scales). Science has given humanity the direction it never had when priests and warriors ruled the earth.

I will agree with you that those who proudly proclaim to be ``liberated muslims`` (i.e. atheists) are being just as arbitrary and irrational as those who claim to be true believers in God. And that is why I refuse to join either side, and instead consider the whole thing to be a reflection of the fact that the Age of Reason has not yet dawned upon Homo Desius (the Desi Man).

Belief in God is a hunch. By definition you can never prove it one way or another - kant couldnt do it (he ended up proving both the existence of god and his non-existence, and thus proved nothing) a few centuries ago. We cant do it today despite having mulit-billion dollar telescopes looking outwards to the beginning of creation. And tomorrow we wont be able to do it even if we were to find a way to traverse all eleven dimensions predicted by the M-theory.

This is what I have been saying on this board: Dont drag reliigion (whether to prove your belief in God, or to prove that you are a liberated man) into everything. We all understand that God is a belief, and we are all entitled to our beliefs as long as we dont stuff them down anyone`s throat and as long as we dont subvert democracy or rationality by thrusting our half-baked beleifs into everything. Lets discuss science.

Maharana:

``Science: Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation.``

It duz not strike u as UNUSUAL the FACT that ``Math is the best possible language to express scientific facts concisely`` yet it contains variables which are by definition BEYOND THE GRASP OF OBSERVATION???

Readin Comprehension.... I did not discuss the USAGE of the concept Zero, therefore an explanation of its use was not warranted. I simply said (For the fourth time on this thread) that the concept of zero is INEFFABLE. If u disagee then DEFINE NO-THINGNESS. Simple.

This vast system called science attacks ideas which are unknowable yet it contains them too. This hypocrisy would be more apparent to u if u ppl did not blindly follow EVERYTHING ur teachers taught u.

Read the definition of science and explain how PI does not fall under the umbrella of science. Then (SOMEONE PLEASE) explain to me how a variable can extend till infinity (which is common in many graphical outputs) - as infinity is not something which can be observed or studied (thus by this definition it IZ unscientific).

We will leave the discussion here. I will Graciously disregard my ideas on some of ``sciences`` militaristic contributions, Its undisputedely bloodsucking nature (in capitalist systems) re: Viagra vs AIDS, its complete lack of foresight in many instances ($400 million missions to mars when ppl r starving to death on earth) and so on....

PPL. Do no make the mistake of inflating ur egos because u can make these religious idiots look dumb.

``...I refer to a wonderful Taoist concept (reflected incidentally in virtually all religions including i belive in the mahabharata and in the quran), viz. ``The Tao (God) that can be named is not the true Tao``. To extend that concept to put the point I am making another way: ``The belief that can be proved is not the true belief``...``

Wonderful tahmed saheb, Yes- it can only be ``comprehended / experienced`` in silence!!!!

PS: It CANNOT be comprehended/experienced in the ravings and rantings of the zealots!! (nod nod!)

DRUMZ,

``There is very little difference (sameer) between a modern day believer in the vedas then in the the quran (different toilet, same sh1t).``

Quite right...but with a twist.

The modern day believer in the quran has probably read it at least once. Overwhelming majority (maybe 99%) of hindus who regard the vedas as highly sacred, have never read them.

(I remember reading about Mr. Advani on rediff. He was telling the interviewer about his newly purchased copies of the vedas and how he was planning to read them and understand their essence. This...several years after his rath yatra and conversion to right-wing hinduism).

These modern day believers in quran,vedas,bible, etc do what is called `selective reading`. They extol the creation hymn (which is no doubt extollable) but ignore the pages and pages of c-rap that follow.

Silly #95 very well put. now try explaining this to some of my muslim co-religionists.

tahmed32:89

Explain to me why I should feel insulted because you said may origins were in the servant quarters.

No you shouldn`t. That was a compliment.

chusni, post #88:

Dair-o-harm a`ainah-e-takrar-e-tammana
Wamaandgi-i-shauq tarashay haiy panahahain

It`s a beautiful verse. Regards,

Mohammad Gill

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

In my opinion
Science: Proves every theory to its students.
Religion: Asks followers to blindly follow what it says.

Science/Scientists: Inherently corrects itself/themselves from any wrongs and accepts any errors in it and changes the views peacefully.
Religion/followers of religion: Never accepts anything that is inherently wrong in it and tries to give new, twisted interpretatiions often followed by violence.


There is no point of comparing these two. Sceince doesn`t need religion to validate it where as followers of religions always tried to prove their religion using science.(I know lot of Mulims who tried to explain me how Koran contained references to big bang, reproductive systems etc).

Drumz,

``Science does the same thing.... pi and zero``.

Hope you know that Math is not science, thats why Math falls under Humanities and Art. Neverthless, Math is the best possible language to express scientific facts concisely. A given partial differential equation for a system is an expression for the state of the entire system. By plugging in its boundary conditions and/or initial values, we know the state of the system. These B.C`s or IVP as they are called may have zero as input as well, but DOES give accurate results for any stage desirable.
The value of Pi is just a ratio between circumference and diameter of a circle and remains constant for any circle. There`s no science involved here.
Please don`t try to make statements without any basis.

Adios