The chicken or the egg?
-
Peace "neo",
And wait how do you believe in evolution but not ape-man? /
JK- I believe in an intelligent evoltion where man probably first appeared in embryoic form forming from the molecules around in a particular area which met ideal conditions for that to happen, without having to go through inferior ape like creature stages over long periods of time. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "neo",
The scientific method isn't really that old, maybe a few centuries? Civilisations existed for a long time prior to that (I think 10,000 BC is the favourite date at the moment.).
JK- Science means studying things through observation. It doesnt mean one has to have micro & nano technology, cars and aeroplanes in general. And this scientific method was very well applied by thinkers of all time even in the past who separated themselves from the false dogmas which were mostly made by the elite to control the common folk.
And of course I didn't mean evolution designed anything of will, I just didn't want to type all that out ^^.
JK- The phrase "evolution designed..." by itself doesnt make any sense. It should be "as a result of evolution". So you dont believe that the things resulting out of evolution have any ppurpose. Ok i know that many hink like that. As an exmple people in the past didnt understood the function of many organs, declaring them as vestigial while later it was proven that they did have one. For example the pelvis on the whale was declared to be vestigial. Now it is known those are anchor points with little muscles attached to them which allow them to reproduce. This is just one eg. So i believe everything is created for a purpose and it serves its purpose for a particular time including us. GOD Bless!
-
Peace All,
I believe we are born with an empty potential, in perfect peace. I think right/wrong is taught, either from family, friends, or life experiences. A client's son kicked me today. I told him that wasn't nice. But what if I didn't tell him that? He would continue kicking people. And what if no one ever told him it was wrong? He would continue kicking people. Not until he was either told it was wrong, or saw with his own eyes and understanding that kicking people is wrong or harmful, would he stop.
Peace,
Tay -
Johny K
When I say "scientific method" I'm talking in the strictest most modern sense, the proper definition if you will. I don't mean 'sensible thinking' when I say 'scientific method'.
With that in mind, let's continue on
The Qur'an and Scientific Methods
The qur'an is not testable within the scientific realm because its premise cannot be tested - that of the existence of a deity. Therefore the scientific method is inapplicable to the Qur'an. As for 19 - numerical patterns exist in all sorts of works (including phone books!) so that by itself does not lend any credence to the works discussed. Rashid Khalida's 'statistically significant' proof was nothing more than numerology.
Using the scientific method to establish ethical laws is very dangerous. Evolution values the survival of a species over all else. Individualism has no place in evolution, however individualism is the basis of our ethics and morality. If we followd the evolutionary ways, we'd be killing people in the masses - to eliminate the so-called weaknesses in order to better our gene-pool. Obviously we don't do this because it's inhumane.
About Morality
Morality cannot be 'relative'. Morality is first and foremost based on rational thought and rational thought by definition is objective. Saying morality is subjective is like saying "truth is subjective", whereupon you will fall into the nihilist's contradiction. So how does one qualify the various cultures and their various moral standards? I don't know, but I do know this the basis of morality is a simple sentence "do unto others what you want others to do unto you". That I believe is the cogito-ergo-sum of morality and ethics. Starting with that principle it is possible to derive all other moral values.
Other Stuff
As for your ape-man theory what scientific grounds do you have for believing this?
If the scientific method implied studying things through observation then some monkies and apes use the scientific method too, and it's far more than 10,000 years old.
P.s. lie detectors are based on pseudo-scientific principles and cannot be used in a court of law as evidence.
-
I dont need any religion to Believe........
-
peace Neo
The scientific method to me is thinking objectively and using first hand experience to verify something. The scientific method isn't to follow scientific theories inhumanely.
I agree with you about morality. There is only one universal moral code and it's present in every religion and society. -
-
Hi Enquirer,
Do you have any children sister? I believe we remind children what is right and wrong,as well as helping them apply their morals to different situations. Children know/learn how to lie because they have their own will too,or they misinterpret certain situations or copy others. Children know right from wrong relative to their own individual capacity,our job is to help expand this capacity for different and new scenarios...
No, I dont, but that doesnt mean I havent been/lived with them to know enough to have said what I did. Children learn right from the wrong as they grow up, from their own life, from people around them, from their environment, from knowledge/education gained, from their own self awakening etc. Thats why they ought to be supervised and guided well during their foundation years as they are very vital to who they become.
Yes, humans have a natural tendency to be/do good. I am not refuting that. But unfortunately, it is not that simple either. The ''good'' is highly subjective, depending on each person. And also, we(humans), have weaknessess which we can easily fall prey to, if we are not sensible enough. So, unless a person is mindful of his 'self' and his activities, he can easily succumb to those weaknessess, temptations and so on.....that arise from needs or desires etc.
So to be mindful, some use self -awakening, some use inspirations, some use scriptures, some use life experiences and some most of the above etc. Does it matter what they use, as long as they derive the 'righteous morals' ?By your logic if a person as an adult claims he didnt know it was wrong to steal etc..then he is excused from punishment,right?
Oops! I never said that. Right and wrong or for that matter anything under the sky, ought to be understood first to actually 'know' it. And children are actually too young to understand some complex details and thats why they need to be 'taught' and also supervised/guided.
I never implied adults can be excused from punishment if they ''claim'' they didnt know it was wrong. There is no way that such knowledege/learning can escape them unless they are mentally retarded and incapable of understanding the basic stuff, in which case they r'nt punished.You seem to agree that the quran can be used for evil,which is what i am saying...
Our hands can be used for honest labour as well as to steal. But what do u think they were intended for? And also, would u blame the hand?
Without natural morality the quran is useless,as evidenced by those that murder innocents in its name..
I do not know where u got the idea that Quran substitutes consciousness. Quran is meant to awaken the very same consciousness. Quran is only a guidance. Infact one of the guidances. There are so many factors that help us mould our consciousness in the right manner such as knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, guidance, faith etc. Without these, there is no 'natural morality'. Thats why people in the olden days(pre Quranic era) did all kind of mischief as they did not 'know' or 'understand' the wrong from the right. Quran informed them of what they did not know and reminded them of what they did know. No blind following is expected. Allah tells us to think and see reason in whatever we do. Thats awakening, isnt it?
There is a difference between a persons overall mind and their natural morality...that voice that tells you whats right and wrong...and this is our god to be followed...not unverified words,claimed to be all from god,which we think are better than our own verifiable,first hand morality.
That voice is influenced by knowledge, life, guidance, intelligence, wisdom etc
Peace!
-
I believe we are born with an empty potential, in perfect peace. I think right/wrong is taught, either from family, friends, or life experiences. A client's son kicked me today. I told him that wasn't nice. But what if I didn't tell him that? He would continue kicking people. And what if no one ever told him it was wrong? He would continue kicking people. Not until he was either told it was wrong, or saw with his own eyes and understanding that kicking people is wrong or harmful, would he stop.
peace Tay,
I kind of disagree. I think that although we can be taught morals, we are capable of knowing right from wrong without any kind of teaching.
The son of that client of yours would indeed have kept kicking people if you hadn't told him, but over time, throught experience, he would have found out that it isn't such a good idea to kick people. Maybe he would go further and know why it isn't good to kick people.
But that would be learning the hard way (through experience). The Quran, and some people (like our parents) do us a great favor by leading us toward the right path. -
Well it's fine that you have your own methodology of thinking and verification but that's not the Scientific Method.
Also, isn't experience the cornerstone of subjectivity?
ETA Science is impartial and has no regards for what is or is not 'humane'.
)
what is the scientific method then?
I think it is- develop hypothesis (quran)
- test it (if doens't work find new hypothesis, the bible not recommended)
- end up with law or theory
-
I do not know where u got the idea that Quran substitutes consciousness. Quran is meant to awaken the very same consciousness. Quran is only a guidance. Infact one of the guidances.
peace PM,
I agree with the above. The Quran helps us connect to our 'self.'
-
Peace Pheonix1,
You stated
I kind of disagree. I think that although we can be taught morals, we are capable of knowing right from wrong without any kind of teaching.
The son of that client of yours would indeed have kept kicking people if you hadn't told him, but over time, through experienceAre you sure you disagree??
Here's what I said
I think right/wrong is taught, either from family, friends, or life experiences.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace
No my mind is not absolutely perfect or complete...but its better,for me personally,than just a book...
That's completely fine.
With regard to the quran,maybe i have not clarified myself enough....The quran is a potentially fantastic book,and can help a lot in a persons journey to peaceful behaviour,if it is interpreted properly.It may well be a mixture of literal and metaphorical methods (whatever works individually for lasting peaceful,non-harmful behaviour.),
Yep
however above all it should not be taken as a substitute for ones conscience and reason,or be deemed the perfect answer to everything.In other words the book should not be idolised.
I don't understand, how is it be taken as a substitute for one's conscience and reason? We completely follow it. The Qur'an asks us to verify things for ourselves (1736). Surely, it is not a "substitute for our 'conscience' and reason"
If we believe it's the Word of God, how is it idolizing? We completely adhere to it, and there is nothing wrong in doing so - considering we believe it's the Word of God. Because we do, there is no distinction between God and the Qur'an for us. I think it's simply the name "Qur'an" that's confusing you. Replace "Qur'an" with "God's Words", since we believe that - and you will see that us completely adhering to it, is the same as adhering to God.
The book is a reminder in arabic for what we already instinctively know.(i dont need the quran to tell me its forbidden to marry my sister for example in surah 4,only to remind peole who have neglected their natural instincts.)
Oh really? We instinctively know everything the Qur'an has told us? Interesting...
The quran has general spiritual principles(if interpreted properly.) which are excellent,but which can be found in other books and languages,and more importantly in ones own life-experiences. Other ways/books are equally or even more valid.
You thinking that is completely fine. But, please, don't press it on us here over and over, when we believe Qur'an is the Word of God.
Also the quran is in no way totally complete for todays society,which differs greatly from muhammeds time and context.
Really? Can you bring forth any verses and evidence? Or are you just going to claim it and think it's true?
I hope this clarifies a few things.
Peace all;There is no war against any people from me my friends,What do you mean?
my struggle is against ignorance,illusion and harmful beliefs...If you show me some errors in my thinking,i will re-evaluate my opinions. )
From what I've seen on other parts of this forum - I highly doubt that.
Peace
-
Well it's fine that you have your own methodology of thinking and verification but that's not the Scientific Method.
Also, isn't experience the cornerstone of subjectivity?
ETA Science is impartial and has no regards for what is or is not 'humane'.
what is the scientific method then?
I think it is- develop hypothesis (quran)
- test it (if doens't work find new hypothesis, the bible not recommended)
- end up with law or theory
What are you testing it against? That is, what is the criterea for your test? What's your control group (which is the group that is to remain 'constant' and what are your variables? Is your hypothesis built upon established scientific principles?
As you can see one cannot apply the rigor of the scientific method to religious principles - religion and science are exact opposites and one cannot use the other to verify itself.
-
peace Neo,
We test it against the laws of the universe. This creation.
For example, if the quran says that if you throw something in the air it will come back down, we can do it ourselves and find out it is true.
If the quran says that if we do good things, good things will happen to us, we can again test it by doing good things and we'll find out that it is also true.
That's how we test it. It might not be exact science, but it is what science is based on.
Religion and science are one and the same. Science is the study of God's creation. When we study this creation we are studying God. -
Peace ,
If I may add. As I understand
Science is the that part of knowledge which investigates HOW THINGS HAPPENS! and tries to explain a mechanism.
Philosophy is that part of knowledge which investigates WHY THINGS HAPPENS AND TO WHAT PURPOSE AND END.Religion is that knowledge which gives answers to PURPOSE of THINGS AND WHY THEY HAPPEN AND TO WHAT END.
This part of religion lies in the area of philosophy and it does use some scientific evidence for it. But only to demonstrate th purpose. BOTH SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY ARE ACTIVITIES OF MIND.Another activity of religion is outside the area of MIND. It is Awakening of heart. It does not concern the logic. It is not about ratio. IT IS ABOUT BEING. Like tasting of strawberry. Like laughing. Like crying. Like loving.
It is the area of senses, emotions and awareness. It goes far beyond the formula of 2+2=4. It goes far beyond the formula of (everything has a cause). At its highest level one can experience Faith.
Love, Faith , .... can not be verified, but we feel and sense them. They exist. We can only verify them by their effect. AS it is for the existence of GOD. We also can verify him by HIS effect (the existence).
peace,
-
peace Neo,
We test it against the laws of the universe. This creation.
For example, if the quran says that if you throw something in the air it will come back down, we can do it ourselves and find out it is true.
If the quran says that if we do good things, good things will happen to us, we can again test it by doing good things and we'll find out that it is also true.
That's how we test it. It might not be exact science, but it is what science is based on.
Religion and science are one and the same. Science is the study of God's creation. When we study this creation we are studying God.I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree about religion and science being the same. Religion is based on the presumption on the existence of a deity, whereas science is based on nothing and works its way backwards through observation. These two are fundementally contradicting paradigms one must presuppose something to contain value (religion), the other must not presuppose anything by definition (science).