Science versus Non-Science

                                                    ’¢Ž¦  Ÿ�˜¢   â×ÐÑá

        „¢  ¥  ‹¤œ§�  ¦¥  �’  “Š”  œ¢  ‡¢  ‹¤   ⇢  œ¦   —�Ÿ  ¦¥  ŸŠž¢›  œ¤  Š¤Ž Š¢�¦¤  œ�  á  œ¢  ‡§¢…�  ›Ž�Ž  ‹¤„�
¦¥  õ  ƒ’  ¤¦  ¢¦  “Š”  ¦¥  ‡¢  ‹§œ¥  ‹¤„�  ¦¥  ‚¥  È’Ž�  ⤄¤Ÿ  á  œ¢  �¢Ž   ¦¤¡  „Ž™¤‚  ‹ž�„�  �¢ƒŽ  œ§� �  ‹¤ ¥
œ¥  ™Ž¤‚  œ¢  õ  ƒ’  ‚Ž‚�‹¤  ¦¥  �¤’¥  Ÿ”ž­¤¢¡  â   Ÿ��¤¢¡  á  œ¥  ž¤¥  ‡¢  �ƒ ¤  ”ž�„  œ¥  Ÿ›”‹  ’¥  ‚¤Š‚Ž
¦¤¡  õ  ¢¦  ‹œ§�¢�  œŽ„¥  ¦¤¡  �ƒ ¤  ‹¤ ‹�Ž¤  œ�  ž¢�¢¡  œ¥  ’�Ÿ ¥  Ÿ�Ž  Ÿ œŽ  ¦¤¡  ‰›¢›  � ’� ¤  œ¥  õ

I think if God was omnipotent why in the first place He took six days(equal to billion of years?) to create earth when he was wont to say `Kun` to a thing (which did not exist, mind that)and it came into being. Secondly what the `day` meant at all when there was no earth.

And about science: I had a fried whose father was a baker who had worked with the British Army in Europe in the World War II. His father always scolded him by saying ``Is saale ne `sense` naheeN parhi`. He was illiterate and could not differentiate between `sense` and science but actually used to insist upon his son to study science. In our boyhood we used to laugh at this mix-up but now I see he was quite right; there is actually `science`, (called `sense`by my friend`s father) and `non-sense`. We could have laughed about this non-sense but for the dreaded LOB.

Dear nasah:

Agreed.

Mohammad Gill

those who seek Science instead of Spiritual Comfort from Qoran -- will get neither.......and that is exactly where the so called Umma`s position is right now......neither and nor

freethinker: well said. couldnt agree more.

the reason the Quran is treated as a magical book rather than simply a form of communicating a message to mankind (per our muslim belief) is i think obvious when one studies the Quran the way way it should be studied - with understanding and using common sense, not reading it like a parrot without any interest in what the message is. when one reads the Quran in this manner, one finds that there is no place for a maulvi in islam. Nor is there any place for the maulvis message - one of irrational hatreds - in islam. There is thus a very rational reason for this irrational manner in which the Quran is treated by maulvis - to preserve their livelihood and control over muslim populations.

personally, i find the Quran to be a book of great beauty, and one that strongly supports the peaceful persuit of science and knowledge (which, as the Quran says, is the reason God created man). Reading about the sun and the stars in the Quran, one gets the same sense of wonder at the grandeur of the universe as one does when reading about things like the space-time continuum, the hidden dimensions of the universe, and the life and death of stars in a good book on science. All this beauty (whether in the Quran or in science books) is lost on these ignoramuses.

Dear nasah:

I appreciate your feedback although I did not quite figure out your metaphorical locution. The Quran does have musicality to it.

The point I tried to make is that we respect the holy book so much that we kiss it every now and then but seldom open it to read it with comprehension. If you drop the book even by accident, which you’re unable to prove, you are culpable under the blasphemy law.

To understand a book, you’ve to read it and read it again trying to understand its meaning and intent; sometimes you like to highlight some text, which you want to read more carefully. How many of us have read the Quran with understanding? That task we have entrusted to the ulema whom we usually do not trust and with whom we disagree most of the time. If any other person quotes from the Quran with chapter and verse, we don’t trust him either because the suspicion lurking in our mind is that he probably does not understand what he is saying. Quran is not enigmatic.

If we really respect Quran, we should read it with comprehension. Have self-confidence you can understand it even if you do not understand Arabic in which the Quran is written. Read translations by several different translators together with their footnotes and compare and contrast. If Quran is truly ‘the word of God’, He wouldn’t make it incomprehensible for ordinary mortals like us.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

``I don`t quite remember if it was Manto who said that Quran was the most victimized book because people are scared even to touch it, out of great respect for it.``

Gill Sahib it was Manto -- I am sure Manto did not or couldn`t read the translation .....

.....Quran is a great spiritual book -- every Muslim AND Non Muslim -- must Hear it with Qiraat recited by Malyasian or Alazhar`s -- Blind Qaris -- it could rejuvenate ones sagging tired materialistics spirits -- and send them soaring in a flashing moment of Irfan -- to 7th heaven in between those -- eerie silent waqfas.....when the world comes to a stand still -- just for a fleeting quantum moment....

...but it becomes -- and has always been -- a great Victimizer Book -- of the Umma -- by the Umma -- for the Umma -- once those who are paid to understand it.......understand it...

tahmed32`s post admirably epitomizes the intent of the paper and my motivation for writing it. Incidentally, ``The Age of Reaon`` was the title of a classic book by Thomas Paine. The book is worth reading. It is posted on the Internet and is readily accessible. Wishing well,

Mohammad Gill

khurram #19 I think you are missing a fundamental point being made here - no one in the muslim world (or the third world generally) is against the FRUITS of scientific progress. However, very few people in the third world/muslim world understand WHAT is needed to have scientific progress in the first place. This article indicates what this WHAT is when it discusses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD for reaching conclusions. What is needed is not a reformation in the muslim world (as is sometimes said), but the dawning of the Age of Reason in the muslim world/third world. That took place in europe in the 17th/18th centuries, and led to monumental advancements in science in europe. It is now taking place in the third world - but quite slowly.

irfanhamid:

Thanks for uor correction. Einstein won his Nobel for Photoelectric Effect.

Mohammad Gill

Gill sahab,

Your first line says ``Scientific truths do not attain the status of truths until they have empirical support.``, however some things in sciences can be `proven` as truths without having any empirical evidence for them whatsoever. I think you are taking science to mean only the physical sciences. Also Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, not for his work on specific heats.

Regards,
Irfan.

Mr Gill,

I think you are misdirecting your efforts. No one in the Islamic world except a lunatic fringe will disagree with you that the Islamic world needs to be more scientifically developed. Not even the reliogious conservatives.

The under-development in science is a result of economic backwardness, not any philosophical opposition or obsession with metaphysics. The Islamic world needs to free their economies from state control. Rising prosperity will promote scientific development.

ballukha and dost mittar:

I appreciate your interest in the paper. I agree with ballukhan that the holy book should be interpreted metaphorically; that is exactly what I have been wrting about in my papers. I admire dost mittar`s knowledge of the Islamic civilization. He is right about the issue of createdness or eternality of the Quran. Similar issue exists in the Christianity also. But the Christians have other things to do also such as doing science and innovative technology besides quibbling on the religious issues.

We have left the interpretaion of Quran in the hands of the Ulema for too long and they are not going to move away from a literal understanding which has already become anachronistic. The people should take time to read the book with comprehension and see for themselves what it has within its covers. I don`t quite remember if it was Manto who said that Quran was the most victimized book because people are scared even to touch it, out of great respect for it. It is placed on the highest shelf in the house and is used only for Quran Khwani which is literal reading without comprehension.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill Saheb:
``The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.``
I agree with ballukhan that you are doing a great service in giving science its rightful place in the Islamic culture. I did not want to give the impression that this is not possible. People of other faiths have always been able to put their faith aside when exploring science (just like putting one`s brain aside when watching a Bollywood film!). And as has been frequently suggested, Islamic civilisation -not the empire- was at its zenith when it encouraged a spirit of enquiry. In other words, it followed that part of the tradition which asked to go to China, if necessary, in pursuit of knowledge, rather than the part which said that not a word of this book was to be questioned. If I am not mistaken, this was also the time when the issue of whether the quran was creaed or revealed was itself hotly debated.

I think Gill has been doing a great service by raking up the issues which are at the heart of the Islam`s conflict with the modernity. It gives us a great opportunity to discuss allegoric and metaphoric interpretations of Islam which have been over shadowed by the literalists and political Islam. This contra juxtaposition of Sciences and Islam helps us understand the stupidity of literalists like Maulana Maudoodi who have to bring in entities like Buraq in order to explain a spiritual journey.
Let us hope that with the spread of sciences and scientific thought in Islamic world literalists and their fanatic followers are shown their true place by the faithfuls.

dost mittar and other Interactors:

Let me explain. Aristotle had used Physics as a broad category for all the sciences known in his time; almost everything also was categorized as metaphysics (excluding Politics, for example, Ethics, Epistemology, etc. which were used as specific categories). I used Science versus Non-Science as the title of my paper although I could have used Science versus Metascience also.

There are all kinds of metaphysics but one of the harmless kinds is that of Wolfgang Pauli. He said of Paul Dirac who was an atheist, ``There is no God and Dirac is his prophet.`` I gave an example of metaphysics fro m religion but I didn`t mean that is all there is. The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill