Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or Conciliation?

[downtroad]

Sigh, yawn, here we go again...yes, we can't prove that something doesn't exist and thus we should strictly be agnostic, but then should I also be agnostic about nessie, pixies and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Are these any more or less valid than a God? Why?

 

You seem to equate faith in the scientific method (here defined as the hypothethico-deductive method but most models of science would do) with faith in a supernatural entity...bizarre. I have faith in a petrol engine, the science is well understood and freely available. Given the tools, time and will I could replicate one. My faith in science (the engine) is based on observation and replication. Faith in a god is based on...let me see, essentially a load of hand me down stories and blather bound up in a 'good book' created by middle eastern goat herders (I'm referring to the Abrahamic faiths) and the old refrain of 'I just know'.

 

Can you really suggest that the 'faith' required of these two positions is one and the same?! Perhaps you could get a job with the home office classifying drugs (see other thread today).

 

Clearly, YOUR understanding of science is incorrect.

 

So you are saying you understand string theory or relativity fully? You presumably work in a high level science lab? Do you specialize in advanced applied mathmatics, biology or phsyics? Quantum mechanics?

 

Because if you are not what are you doing? You are reading books and taking other mens opinions as your own. And because you do not undertand those concepts fully, it is a faith. Because you have to place your faith in science, as you yourself do not understand.

 

While science is proven, no scientist worth his salt will tell you the deity issue has been solved.

 

Pointing towards the combustian engine does not prove that other areas of science are fact.

 

I have read maybe a dozen books on String and M-theory, i understand the concepts. But i certainly do not understand the math, do you? As i do not, i am at least honest enough with myself to admit that while i beleive String therory will be the single unified theory, it is blind faith that allows me to do that. You it seems are not as honest with yourself.

 

I don't need a lecture on the merits of science as i have made all the argument for science before.

 

In fact if you look through science history stretching back over 100 years, not a single major scientist has every come out and said that there is no deity. In fact if you look at science history it has been a debate through relativity, general relativity and now string theory. But amazingly you have solved this problem?

[artisan]

So you are saying you understand string theory or relativity fully? You presumably work in a high level science lab? Do you specialize in advanced applied mathmatics, biology or phsyics? Quantum mechanics?

 

Because if you are not what are you doing? You are reading books and taking other mens opinions as your own. And because you do not undertand those concepts fully, it is a faith. Because you have to place your faith in science, as you yourself do not understand.

?

 

You are trying to confuse three things here, fact, theory, and fantasy.

The things we have around us are fact. Things such as string, quantum and the others are theories. Religion is a fantasy. It has no basis in fact whatsoever, it is totally abstract.

I can understand people basing their lives on the teachings and tenets of self respect and respect others, but to actually believe verbatim the writings are so beyond my frame of reference that they are incredible.

 

From what I have read on here today, is that there are people at large in society, capable of using IT equipment who actually believe that god physically created mankind, and that Adam was a real man.

Surely this is a joke?

The writings of Clarke and Baxter are far more credible than any of this.

Until I started to read about these so called holy books I had an open mind regarding them.

How can anyone seriously believe that an entity capable of creating the Universe can be bothered to think about them is vanity in the extreme, coupled with arrogance.

Both of which are sins against mankind, sufficient to condemn any one to hell, I would have thought.

[plekhanov]

Why would you interpret that? its not a verse from the Quran.

I interpret it because that’s how my brain comprehends things, regardless of whether or not I'm reading extracts from religious texts.

 

Dr. Keith Moore, Joe Leigh Simpson, Gerald C. Goeringer are they Muslims?

I wouldn’t know about them, what I do know is that all the extracts that you copied and pasted in response to my posts come from Islamic apologist websites.

 

Fact? according to? "sophist arguments put together by professional" homosexual "apologists"?

How is pointing out that many other species apart from homo sapiens have been observed engaging in homosexual behaviour a ‘sophist argument’? Do you even know what sophism is?

 

I really rather doubt that the scientists who have independently observed and recorded homosexual behaviour across so many species were part of some grand conspiracy put together by homosexuals to fund ‘professional homosexual apologists’ in an attempt to discredit the Koran.

 

This like fact like the "fact" that homosexuality is genetic? theory put forward by a homosexual.

Not really, as I understand it the extent to which something as complex as human sexuality is genetically determined is still open to much debate in the scientific community (never mind the wider political community). There is however no room for honest scientific debate about whether or not species other than our own engage in homosexual behaviour. It is a simple scientific fact that they do and that the Koran is incorrect, wrong, mistaken, erroneous… and that “the Qu'ran DOES conflict with ESTABLISHED modern science” when it claims otherwise.

[downtroad]

You are trying to confuse three things here, fact, theory, and fantasy.

The things we have around us are fact. Things such as string, quantum and the others are theories. Religion is a fantasy. It has no basis in fact whatsoever, it is totally abstract.

I can understand people basing their lives on the teachings and tenets of self respect and respect others, but to actually believe verbatim the writings are so beyond my frame of reference that they are incredible.

 

No i am not trying to confuse anything. The confusion may stem from my not arguing for or against the title of this thread. Just one part of the debate, the deity issue.

 

Relativity, Gravity, String and M are all theories. They are all backed up by eperical evidence (except String).

 

I am not arguing for Religion here. I am just saying there is no conflict between science and those who beleive in a deity.

 

I don't think you will find anybody in this thread is arguing against this statment and i certainly am not..

 

"but to actually believe verbatim the writings are so beyond my frame of reference that they are incredible".

 

I think that a fair statment, but a very tiny percent of any religion "believe verbatim". In America you have the Evangelicals who beleive in the rapture. They are a tiny percent of Christians, but even they drop the parts that do not enfoce their world view. Bin Ladens group again say they beleive verbitim, but again they do not. I challenge anybody to give me a group who actually do follow the bible text verbatim. Because that would mean keeping slaves, not eating shell fish and selling your kids in to slavery.

 

From what I have read on here today, is that there are people at large in society, capable of using IT equipment who actually believe that god physically created mankind, and that Adam was a real man.

Surely this is a joke?

 

There is no copnflict between using computers and beleiving in God.

 

 

The writings of Clarke and Baxter are far more credible than any of this.

Until I started to read about these so called holy books I had an open mind regarding them.

How can anyone seriously believe that an entity capable of creating the Universe can be bothered to think about them is vanity in the extreme, coupled with arrogance.

Both of which are sins against mankind, sufficient to condemn any one to hell, I would have thought.

 

Arrogance is also a person who thinks he knows all the answers, when Einstein, Hawking, Darwin et al were humble enough not to.

 

This scientific extreamism is being carried out by people who trust science, not the men who create science.

 

I trust science, i have made thse arguments, but truely unless you are deeply involved in the field then you are just trusting other opinions on the extreams of human knowlege.

[plekhanov]

Interested in us? God created us, surly that helps in answering that question.

It would if there was some evidence to back up that baseless opinion.

 

There have been many messengers with revelations from god by name 25 are mentioned in the Quran including Adam who all preached monotheism.

And there have been many others who preached pantheism, ancestor worship, polytheism that they were god and so on and so forth what of it?

 

The Quran is the final Revelation and applies from when it was revealed till the end if time (in this life).

And we should believe the Koran as opposed to the multitude of rival religious texts which claim pretty much the same thing why exactly?

 

Research the creation of the earth as described in the Quran, the minor and major signs of the end, and about Adam in the Quran.

Again we should believe the Koran as opposed to the multitude of rival religious texts which make similarly absurd claims about the creation of the world and vaguely worded prophecies about its end why exactly?

[Rzaa]

plekhanov - judging by the posts made by you (particularly relating to your interpretations of the Quran) it is easy to see why you have difficulty understanding things. So I guess I’m wasting my time trying to explain any of it to you. You could easily do some research and find answers yourself if you were actually interested in the truth, but I don’t think you are. And also why do you have a problem with some of my posts “cut & past”? Its not like I didn’t say were the info was from. I believe I’ve already answered many of your "new" questions in previous posts (or at least they have been answered by others) if not then you could easily find info on then (if you were actually interested).

[artisan]

 

There is no copnflict between using computers and beleiving in God.

 

.

 

Of course there isnt, I believe in god also. What I do not believe is that god directly purposely created man, or any thing else for that matter.

God created the conditions and the rules by which matter behaves, and from all that everthing else stems.

And as for believing that Adam was a real person, that is beyong belief.

Moses Jesus and Mohammed were real people, just as the Pharoahs, Caesars and saxons were. But why should they be talking to god?

For what reason, at all three times there was great stress between the Rulers and the Workers, each time someone came along with the 'word of god' to put people in their place, very convenient would you not agree.

 

It is the same now. The poverty stricken masses of the third world, instead of rising against the capitalist exploiters are being misled by this backward religion, and are turning on each other.

They imagine smashing a few windows in the UN building is going to relieve their poverty, they go then and listen about what a great blow they have struck for allah.

 

I think it was Karl Marx who called religion the 'opiate of the masses' how true those words are, whilst ever they are looking through the brain numbing fugg of religion they will never see their true enemy.

[downtroad]

Of course there isnt, I believe in god also. What I do not believe is that god directly purposely created man, or any thing else for that matter.

God created the conditions and the rules by which matter behaves, and from all that everthing else stems.

And as for believing that Adam was a real person, that is beyong belief.

Moses Jesus and Mohammed were real people, just as the Pharoahs, Caesars and saxons were. But why should they be talking to god?

For what reason, at all three times there was great stress between the Rulers and the Workers, each time someone came along with the 'word of god' to put people in their place, very convenient would you not agree.

 

It is the same now. The poverty stricken masses of the third world, instead of rising against the capitalist exploiters are being misled by this backward religion, and are turning on each other.

They imagine smashing a few windows in the UN building is going to relieve their poverty, they go then and listen about what a great blow they have struck for allah.

 

I think it was Karl Marx who called religion the 'opiate of the masses' how true those words are, whilst ever they are looking through the brain numbing fugg of religion they will never see their true enemy.

 

I almost completely agree with you artisan The bible and all religious texts are very convinient, and while i am not a great Marx fan "opiate of the masses" may be one reason for these texts, mind you consumerism also may be given the same name as well But yeah i think the texts themselves are pretty silly and most religions have changed their understanding of those texts thosdands of times through history to keep them consistant with modern science and even modern morality (as in slavery).

 

I just have come to the conclusion that the answer about deitys will not be answered in my life time. It was reading about String Theory that brought me to that conclusion. String theory asks some different questions, and it looks like it will change the debate.

[plekhanov]

plekhanov - judging by the posts made by you (particularly relating to your interpretations of the Quran) it is easy to see why you have difficulty understanding things. So I guess I’m wasting my time trying to explain any of it to you. You could easily do some research and find answers yourself if you were actually interested in the truth, but I don’t think you are. And also why do you have a problem with some of my posts “cut & past”? Its not like I didn’t say were the info was from. I believe I’ve already answered many of your "new" questions in previous posts (or at least they have been answered by others) if not then you could easily find info on then (if you were actually interested).

Please do point out where you answered my query as to how:

 

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

 

Is compatible with modern scientific knowledge, given that homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species.

[adambaz]

Was it just me that read the title as:

 

"Quorn and Modern Science"