Paths taken by humans to resolve religion vs. science conflict
-
Salamun Alaikum.
After spending a considerable time with this forum ? I was taking a stock of what I am gaining from my participation here and what I am giving. It seemed to me that the greatest lesson that I took from interacting with various members in the forum is some insight into how human beings resolve religion vs. science conflict. I humbly share my observations with you below.
A blue-print of various paths taken by humans to resolve religion vs. science conflict
Child is born into the world ? with a clean slate ? no memory, no intelligence.
Child uses its inherent ?intellect? to learn from experience ? it starts to gather information and knowledge.
Child uses its inherent ?conscience? to judge right and wrong. It understands everyone deserves to be treated ?fairly? and it has no right to inflict pain on others. It continues to refine its ?judgement? with knowledge.Child grows into a young human with rudimantary experience (knowledge) and grossly shaped Judgement. It starts to receive more sophisticated information on religions (holy books) and science.
Young human observes the parity between his inherent ?intellect? with science, he/she feels inclined to embrace it.
Young human observes the parity between his inherent ?conscience? with religions (holy books), he/she feels inclined to embrace it.===
Young human continues to receive greater insights into both religious and scientific knowledge as he/she grows.
Human is faced with a dilemma when he/she observes
Intellectual interpretation of religions (holy books) seem to contradict science.
Science alone seems inadequate to address moral dilemmas.===
Path 1 Religious Orthodoxy
Stage 1 ? Human concludes that the religion (holy books) and interpretation thereof must be accepted unquestioned (i.e. blindly). He/she starts to repress his/her inherent intellect.
Stage 2 ? Once repressing intellect becomes a no-brainer, any contradiction of the religion (holy books) and interpretation thereof with inherent morality also starts to appear to be a no-brainer.
Stage 3 ? Human becomes full scale religious fanatic ? ready to perform every act of non-sense and immorality in the name of religion.===
Path 2 Scientific Orthodoxy
Stage 1 ? Human concludes that the religion (holy books) and interpretation thereof are non-sense. He becomes inclined to repress his inherent ?conscience?.
Stage 2 ? Once repressing conscience becomes a no-brainer, pursuit of selfish materialistic goals seem to be the end game.
Stage 3 ? Human becomes full scale atheist and moral nihilist? ready to perform every act of non-sense and immorality in the pursuit of selfish materialistic goals.===
Path 3 Uninformed balancing
Stage 1 ? Human concludes that the religion (holy books) and interpretation thereof must be kept separate form science. He starts to live in two ?worlds? conveniently interchanging between the two depending on circumstances.
Stage 2 ? When religion is kept out of scientific discussion, he always has a ?caveat? in the back of his mind when studying science/economics/philosophy ? perhaps all this is wrong after-all. He learns to provide only lip service to his academics, to his job, to his community. He looses faith in the system he lives in ? he feels he lives in a materialistic world which only needs to be ?milked?. He stops himself from getting too carried away with secular values and laws lest he becomes an atheist. He concludes that his environment does not give him the opportunity to live a moral life (which he convenienty confuses with his religion) and hence there is no point of living a moral life.
Stage 3 ? When intellect is kept out of religious discussion, he starts to see religion only as a collection of rituals that must be practiced without questioning. He shys away from questioning and free thinking (which he convenienty confuses with immorality). But, he also stops himself from getting too carried away with religion lest he becomes a religious fanatic. Providing lip service and adhereing to blind rituals becomes the essence of his religious life.
Stage 4 ? Human uses his religious rituals to justify / ?balance? his immorality in material life. The human becomes a Hypocrite.===
Path 4 Enlightened balancing
Stage 1 ? Human concludes that his inherent intellect and conscience is his inviolable obligation to his ?Source? of human life. He understands all piety and all enlightenment is rooted in upholding his/her God gifted faculties.
Stage 2 ? Human approaches religion (holy books) with his full intellect and conscience and only accepts interpretations that conform to both.
Stage 3 ? Human approaches science with his full intellect and conscience and only accepts scientific explanations to undersand material aspects of the world ? never allowing it to undermine his spiritual and moral pursuits.
Stage 4 ? Human uses his religious awareness to get inspiration to live a righteous life of highest and most refined moral values. Human uses his scientific awareness to live a life of intellectual enlightenment. Thus, human learns to live a ?conscious? life.===
Do you agree with the above blue-print? If no, how would you like to change it? If yes, in which stage of which path do you see yourself?
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
That was interesting Arman, thanks. I would adjust path 4 and stage 4 as spiritual awareness rather than religious, but that's just my opinion.
-
Salaam,
I would argue that there are only two different paths. A spiritual (naas) path and a faithless/materialistic (jinn) path.
Mostly path 1 (spiritual) can contain hypocrisy about faith because the jinns at least do not hide they indulge in worldliness (jinn).
None of the two are guaranteed any place in the realm of God, but it all comes down to their individual ventures although it seems more difficult obviously for a faithless/worldly person to enter, but that is not all.
And it is misleading to refer one as a faithful person only if they follow a certain religion but one should follow a concept and not really a physical book regarded as holy, even if the book can provide knowledge if authentic and interpreted properly. But the work towards spiritual ascension the person has to work with themselves and the book nor God can help them with the personal bit and they do thus not enjoy some kind of free ride. The Rabb (the Foundation) comes into the picture when one has a spiritual assimilation and affinity and lives in the image of Allah. The "Commandments" or Guidelines as I call them are a good guidance for help on how to reach the ascension. Jesus elaborated on them well to help further as according to Biblical Gospel testimonies. And I have also here and there on the forum given my input.
Salaam
-
Greetings Armanaziz. While I enjoyed reading your discussion, I am not sure many of us imperfect humans fit perfectly within such rigid outlines but perhaps vacillate between them in various periods of their lifetimes.
My understanding of knowledge (Ilm) is
- It is obligatory (fard) to gain knowledge of the Quran (religion.)
- It is recommended (mustahabb) to gain knowledge of worldly subjects if this helps benefit the ummah. Therefore some believers will specialize in medicine, business, etc., and this relieves the duty of other believers.
- It is acceptable (mubah) to spend time increasing one's knowledge of any branch of science if it helps bring the believer closer to God.
- It is forbidden (haram) to get involved in any learning that does not benefit the ummah and brings one further from remembrance of God.
I personally do not believe there is any inherent clash between religion and science. They are two sides of the same coin and exist in perfect harmony, each one proving the other. I think the following verses show that contemplating the world around us is an important part of faith
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.
Those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, , "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You ; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. (3190-191)My humble opinion is those who are hypocrites suffer manly from a lack of faith but have enough sense to know they should at least act like believers. As imperfect humans, we ALL suffer hypocrisy/lack of faith, in varying degrees. It is part of the human condition and the very crux of the purpose of life. We should always endeavor to deny that lack of faith and face back toward the straight path.
Salaam
-
Salamun Alaikum.
After spending a considerable time with this forum ? I was taking a stock of what I am gaining from my participation here and what I am giving. It seemed to me that the greatest lesson that I took from interacting with various members in the forum is some insight into how human beings resolve religion vs. science conflict.
It's not "religion vs science" conflict per se but more of "belief / assumption vs reality" conflict.
It's as if you were told by your mom that you're the smartest boy in the world, as thus you have such 'belief' within you.
As you progress through life you face the reality that there are so many people who are more smarter than you thus you need to face the reality and adjust your belief or cling on to your false belief as told by your mom.The religious always think that they're the "most enlightened" people in the world and "others" are unenlightened or "less enlightened" than they are. They put forward series of argumentation to support that; ranging from "holy book", "last revelation", "greatest prophet" up to merely "hereditary" reason.
Thus the label of "Chosen People" "God's People" are being put by themselves towards themselves..As they progress through life, they found out that the reality doesn't match their belief / assumption.
Thus the option of either "Adjusting their belief to match reality" or "Clinging on to the false belief/assumption" become an internal conflict within themselves..Furthermore.. their religion / tradition teaches them a series of 'dogma' (read unquestionable statement) that they must belief in.
And as they progress through life, they found out that many of such dogma doesn't match with reality..
Thus the "conflict" of "Adjusting Belief" or "Rejecting Reality" continues within themselves..Many of the religious resorted to "Force" to induce "Fear" and suppress 'fact' which not inline with their own belief/dogma/assumption.
Such attitude doesn't exist within "Scientific Method".. science is a methodology and not a religion / cult / sect.
There are no dogma within "Culture / Tradition of Science" everything is questionable... and people are free to express their assumption / belief (a.k.a Hypothesis) -
Salaam,
Bravo OP, beautifully stated!
Here's my take -
Mathematics is the organization of sensory impressions and forms (think Al Mussawir) . Physics is the act of relating mathematical conceptions to observed phenomena. The more phenomena that can be united under one elegant explanation - the more successful the theory. As new observations are made they are placed within existing theories. However, the theory itself does not contain absolute truth - it's more a noble attempt to capture the truly indescribable. Only when observations seem to conflict with our existing interpretation do we have to begin revising. i.e. scientific revolution. From physics we travel upwards to chemistry. All of chemistry is the elaboration of the basic fundamental properties that we currently understand about fundamental constituents of the world. BUT - it's very possible that our models of the fundamentals change before the knowledge built on old models does. This fact makes the sciences pragmatic (we know "enough" to make use of the knowledge, EVEN if its not an accurate reflection of reality) We then unite the biological sciences to the chemical sciences on the molecular level. Each new layer of reality has it's own "emergent" phenomena that while ultimately made up of more fundamental aspects CAN'T be entirely reduced to the fundamentals. There's interaction between all the layers. It's almost a continuous, smooth gradient.
Thus, all the empirical data collected by experimentalists is devoid of any metaphysical interpretation. It's only when a theorist begins trying to find coherence in the myriad forms and patterns and shapes that metaphysical world views are brought in. BUT - not every theorist has a strong metaphysical world view. AND the empirical data has an influential role on the metaphysics one ascribes to.
Metaphysics and Physics are still separate. The doors of philosophy never shut. We just stopped giving a shit about truth and replaced it with who can have the best military and shiniest toys.
"And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds? hail
-
A German psychologist named Sigmund Freud has done a research on this issue..
Defence mechanisms (German Abwehrmechanismen) are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses to maintain one's self schema.
These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following
- Repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one's awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form
- Identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself
- Rationalization, the justification of one's behavior and motivations by substituting "good" acceptable reasons for the motivations.
Generally, repression is considered the basis for other defence mechanisms.
Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.
More here
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms