triplew00t

AFAICT, Emotional does not really despise science in that sense. He simply refuses to stop believing in an afterlife or a deist god because science has found no evidence for them. He knows science is reliable and logical, but he will not give up his faith for this lack of proof. If he simply did this, he would be no better than millions upon millions of Christians and Muslims worldwide. But he ADMITS he does this, and faces his own beleifs here on this board where he knows they will be questioned. For this, though, I actually applaud him. He is honest with himself enough to admit that he is going against the evidence (or against the lack of evidence, at the least, but thats neither here nor there).

Nero

SignOfTheCross

Uh no.

You may choose to believe it "explicitly" states it because it makes you feel comfortable, but sorry dude, evolution and the big bang theories are NOT Islamic doctrines, nor have they EVER had any historical basis in Islam.

In fact, the big bang concept was discovered by a Belgian priest, and evolution by an atheist/agnostic.

Many Muslims don't even believe in evolution and in fact think it can't be rationalised to fit in with the Koran.

Peace,
SOTC

emotional

No, operational science doesn't bother me. In fact, most of science doesn't bother me. I happily accept a round earth, heliocentrism, abiogenesis and biological evolution. The only part of science that disturbs me is the part that says the mind is the product of the material brain - neuroscience. This part of science means there is no life after death, and I just plainly can't accept that. That's where I choose faith over science.

Gregg

Science can't say whether or not there's life after death. If you live on as something that's not matter or energy, something that science can't even detect, much less measure or quantify, well then, you'll find out, won't you? In the meantime, there's nothing in science preventing you from believing this. If you need scientific evidence for life after death, you don't have enough faith. : )

Gregg

emotional

Not conclusively, but the materialists here would say science has made life after death improbable.



The materialists here would differ with you: the neuroscientific mapping of cognitive functions to brain areas, and the various split-brain researches (what happens when you cut off the corpus callosum joining the two halves of the brain), they would say, means the mind is the product of the brain, without brain there cannot be mind, and therefore there is no possibility of life after death. For materialists, mind-brain dualism is as much a foregone conclusion as geocentrism.

I have enough faith, but the scientific evidence causes me doubt all the time. For there to be faith without doubt, there needs to be evidence. Faith without evidence can be strong, but it is by nature more tenuous than evidenced faith, more susceptible to doubt.

I take a fideistic (faith-only) approach to the question of life after death, not because I like fideism, but because I have no choice. I would love there to be evidence for life after death, but there simply isn't anything conclusive. Science isn't on my side, at least not yet. For now I take it on faith that there is a duplicate body, brain and all, that takes over once the material body dies. Maybe future science will support this (in quantum research, perhaps), but I'm not living in the future, so my approach has to be fideistic. In a way, I feel like those atheists who lived before 1859 - they had reason to be atheists, but Darwin's theory hadn't yet arrived, so they weren't "intellectually fulfilled". I feel the same about my beliefs.

River

I have no problem with evolution. It is not a theory that can ever contradict the Qur'an.

meritocrat

This is just a few questions to the Muslims here:

1) Is there any basis in the Koran for the subjugation of women in Islamic societies? Do you dismiss this as 'just the way it is'?

2) How scientifically accurate exactly is the Koran? I know that it attempts to detail the human circulatory system for one.

3) How widespread are the views of groups like (say) the Taliban within Islam in general?

I'm not attempting to rebuke Islam but simply understand it better.

thebeave

So should we assume that in your protest against science that you will refuse any life saving medical procedure/medicine that science developed, and instead rely on faith to be healed? And that you will do the same for your children (present or future), if they become ill?

emotional

thebeave,

Please read my posts in this page.

River

1)No , the subjugation of women has no origins in Islam. In fact, The Qu'ran doesnt even blame eve as the "evildoer". The Hijab/veil has been adopted by previous societies including Jewish societies. The Virgin Mary also wears the hijab. Many Islamic scholars say that the wearing the veil is not mandatory but instead preferred . Most Islamic societies have been hijacked by primitive ideals of foreign patriarchal systems.

2) My belief that the Qur'an is accurate , scientifically speaking. There is some Islamic websites that speaks on it...i.e
http://www.it-is-truth.org/it-is-tru...dScience.shtml

3) The Taliban belief system is not prevalent in the Islamic world. Its impact however is spreading, unfortunately from Afghanistan to areas in Pakistan. The leader of the Taliban , Mulla Umar, has many similarities with the description of the AntiChrist ( Dark Messiah). The Prophet said that the Dajjal ( Antichrist) will have One-eye and will come from Khurasan ( Afghanistan/Iran). The Taliban Deobandh ideology is diametrically opposed to Islamic Ideals.