Can Science Survive?

#30 AnOrdinaryhindu


If my writing appears as malicious to your faith, then sorry. Intention was not that. I do not claim to know or pass summary judgment of any other religion.

Otherwise; I was expressing (not out of silliness) of how some of our four generations expressed their reason of converting to another social system. Often I asked them, as Hindus claim that when Islam was imposed to them with brutality, some were coward to cow in and betrayed Hinduism and thus betrayed their fellow brothers. Answer was, what they heard of early preachers of Islam and Quran, found a balance in logic and reason of humanity and God together, that also fulfilled their hunger to feel equal with power, prestige and claim of being significant. Some people of all facet of life, and some of shudro, khatrio….dome, who simply got lost with logic, reasoning, smart, strength and wealth, found peace in Islam and loved it and practiced it. Those some are found in many other parts of world too. They are minority, but they love it with their fullest regardless of how silly they are called.

These writings are not to ‘attack’ an ‘ordinaryhindu’. I rather try presenting an alternate view of what I heard of various issues that mingles our daily psyche.

jay #41 so the voices are telling you now that muslims are bad people is it? take two lithium and call me in the morning. and keep wiping that foam from the mouth in the meantime.

Debating God as to whether it exists or not and that science is a solution to all ills that inflict humanity is a realm of the ignorant and the unenlightened.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Islam is good, muslims are bad.

Here we go again, yet another so called attempt to salvage islam. Take kashmir, palestine, chechniya, philippines, indonesia, every where where muslims are sharing a border with people of another religion, hindu, chrisitan, jewish, killing is the outcome.
It is time that you stop blaming the muslims of various cultural, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds, and distill the essntila commonality across all this, and you will have to accept that they all follow the book. I recognise that it would be scietific to find the cause as the book, but then again the book contaiuns its own science, that rejects the science of causation which points to the book.

Stop blaming the people, blame the education, the book that alters the perception of its followers. There is no way to salvage it, there is only salvation, by rejecting the book.

re: tahmed32 # 32

Thank you.

These unfounded comparative assertions must be avoided. If such statements are not challenged, they acquire validity in the minds of the ignorant and impressionable. On the other hand, if we decide to show the absurdity of such statements, we will be forced to be less than fully respectful to other religions. Neither is a pleasant choice.

If I am not reading too much into what our resident GNOSTIC said- I

think there was a VERY DANGEROUS Thesis propounded by Naqshabandi which

a lot of people missed. It is propounded in this seemingly innocent and

religious discourse, supposedly providing great insignt into (human)

causality-

``....evolution as a knowledge claim about a causal relation does not

seem to me intrinsically different from other similar knowledge claims,

such as the statement ``The president died from an assassin`s bullet.``

Here, though in reality Allah alone gives life or makes to die, we find

a dispensation in Sacred Law to speak in this way, provided that we

know and believe that Allah alone brought about this effect. As for

someone who literally believes that the bullet gave the president

death, such a person is a kafir. In reality he knows no more about the

world than a man taking a bath who, when the water is cut off from the

municipality, gets angry at the tap.....``

That is, in the final analyses any person who gets killed by the

killer`s bullet gets killed because the FIRST CAUSAL link can be traced

to Allah`s WILL- This is his thesis of STRICT DETERMINISM- Rest of the

common language stuff about the killer as the immediate cause leading

to the death of the victim is a ``dispensation in the sacred law``.
This is the most dangerous excuse for all the Jehadi killers who would

massacare people and their ascribe the results of their action to

Allah`s will. CAn`t you see the Al-Qaeda speaking through NAqshabandi-

that 9/11 was an act of the GOd`s will.


I am sure those who mock at others` journey in the life make the most

dangerous mistake of forgeting that that they are walking on the edge

of the sword- it is they who would be surprised to find what is in

store for them in the next world.

sameerjb #33 i am afraid what you write reflects the same superficial and irrational mindset that leads the mullah to the opposite extreme:

1. your first point, about ``just say no`` to religion: go ahead and be my guest. say no. will that make you a better person? jails are full of criminals who have always said no to religion. on the other hand, some of the finest among men - einstein among them, who was at least as smart as you are - have always talked with awe about God (and please dont start denying that).


2. your second point is more reasonable - metaphysics is ultimately speculation that does not even try to seek proof, whereas mathematical models and physics rest on sound foundations and lend themselves to that acid test of rationality - they accept the fact that a theory has to be testable if it is to be taken seriously. neverthelss, rumi was much more than metaphysics - he wrote some beautifully insightful verses and you go too far in belittling him. the one man i would say was an unmitigated disaster was maudoodi. he was a rascal and a hypocrite with no redeeming feature. his followers are the cause of nothing but trouble as they seek to gain power by abusing religion.

Freethinker:

Your post 29 apparently points to a solution...

``...The Muslim world needs ibn-Sinas, ibn-Rushds, al-Ghazalis, Khayyams, Abdus Salams, Qadeer Khans, Iqbals, Ghalibs, Rumis, Hafizs, Mantos, Chughtais, Maudoodis, Parvezs, together with the agnostics and atheists. All of them need to live in a peaceful symbiosis and learn to respect individual beliefs and accomplishments. ``

whereas your article coming from the perspective of a scientist is quite predictable and so are in-fact many of the responses to your article (for and against).

You have couched the issue (the seemingly ``unenlightened`` state of religion or the religious) from an incorrect and rather irrelevant vantage point. The business of religion and specifically the abrahamic revealed religions is roughly a) conceptualizing God and b) morality, yet you seem to have chosen the perspective of science (sense perception / empiriciscm and material progress).

It would have made much more sense then to have prepared a critique of the contemporary muslim expression of religion as largely lacking in providing a contemporary framework of morality (lets leave alone conceptualizing God for the moment) and comparing it with at-least 2 sources of morality emanating from the west (i) secualr humanism and (ii) religion where both sources are ``alive and well``, dynamic and meaningful to westerners (though religion finds it-self in an hostile environment).

Your article then suffers from taking into account and appreciating the point of religion on the one hand, and on the other, presenting the conflict between the traditionalists (al-ghazali) and the rationalists or philosophers (Ibn Sina, alFarabi) in terms of your misdirected perspective - material progress.

I would leave such discussions as you attempt to undertake to people with a background in the social sciences, religious studies and philosophy - however I loved your post 29.

Asif.

Can science and religion merge?

Science is rational...based on discovering cause-effect pairs...based on forming hypotheses and discarding ones which are proven false. Religion is man`s quest for discovering himself (in other words...who am I).

Can this religious quest not become a scientific endeavor. Why not?

gill sahib,

re: your last post--yes I agree that all of us on Chowk myself included are to a large extent Westernised; that is inevitable especially for those who live and grew up in the West. It is probably a good thing as we Western Muslims are developing a European-Muslim culture which is not Indian or Pakistani but Islamic and European at the same time. That is the greatness of orthodoxy as personified by al Ghazzali--it allows us to develop an Islamic culture which is totally orthodox yet totally European too. At the heart of this new Islamic renaissance if you will is al Ghazzali`s Ash`arite orthodoxy linked hand in hand with Sufism. This is the antithesis of the Wahabist intepretation of Islam (Ibn Taymiyyan).
See Abd al Hakim Murad`s articles at www.masud.co.uk


The problem is when everything Western is considered right and everything Islamic is considered wrong (eg hamidm). In matters of aqidah (doctrine/scholastic theology) it is imperative to follow Orthodoxy.

On a practical level how does believing in Allah as the Only Cause stop Muslims from doing science or developing technology?That is simplistic and due to a misunderstanding of Kalam. Our malaise as an Ummah is not due to our following Imam Ghazzali but rather due to our NOT following him...

Almost all modern (Western) scholars of Ghazzali acknowledge him for being a genius far ahead of his time. He was a complete Muslim who combined the intellectual and spiritual, the Shariah and the Tariqah, the Law and the Spirit, the Worldy and the Otherwordly in a synthesis of moderation which became so successful that it has had no match to this day and is the very definition of Muslim Orthodoxy.

To quote Iqbal:

Falsafa reh gya baaqi, talqeen e Ghazzali na rahi...

Fuzair

By itself, religion may be meaningless. But it will survive because it has a ``survival value`` in a neo-Darwinist sense. By forging bonds of trust amongst a group of people and fostering intra-group morality, religion may act as a catalyst in providing the stimulus to the growth of ``civilization``. The social capital of trust that a religion builds among its adherents may sometime play a very important role in promoting economic activities and generating wealth. Take for instance the role of Calvinist ethos, a by-product of Protestantism, in promoting work ethic and generating overall prosperity in medieval Europe (details can be found in ``Trust`` by Francis Fukuyama). Besides, it also gives an individual an identity and sense of belongingness to a community. And all this apart from comforting him and alleviating his anxieties about bewildering uncertainities of life. Religion, when followed in spiritual sense, may be an agent for betterment of the human society; in overdose, it is an extremely destructive force. My own guess is that religion will continue to have an important role in society irrespective of all the scientific developments because it confers certain ``survival`` advantage to its adherents.

shobuz #28 You make a number of points, and i agree on some, disagree on others. as follows:

1. i agree that the advent of islam was beneficial to arab society at the time. the Quran itself says that it is the ``Arabic Quran, meant for a people (i.e. the arabs of the saudi peninsula) who do not understand the languages in which earlier books have been written``.

I will note though that i agree with Ordinary Hindu #30 that it is wrong on your part to drag in other religions, hinduism in this case. Since the Quran does not say that it is meant to replace existing religions - rather, it says it is simply the last in a long line of messages that have been sent to all people. the Quran also tells us to respect rituals of all religions, so even from within the context of islam it is wrong to say anything disparaging about other religions. i only wish our religious extremists would start complying with the Quran on this matter - the very Quran they quote at every step, but violate with impunity.

2. that ilsam teaches “All men are created equal”, muslim and nonmuslim alike: agreed. i just had a dull discussion on this with someone on another board who started arguing that this is not the case, but there is general agreement that there is a strong undercurrent of egalitarianism in islam. of course it is also true that many muslims treat nonmuslims as being lower - but such chauvinists are to be found in every culture.

3. i disagree with your concerns (if that is what they are - your post wasnt too clear) about giving credit to the west for rationality and scientific advances. first, the issues are too important for us to get hung up on who gets credit for it. second, lets have the courage to be realistic - of course the west has been the standard bearer for all humanity in this matter. we all benefit from western science and inventions - even as we write on chowk e.g. - so lets not be petty and hypocritical (as many muslims are) and give credit where credit is due.

4. finally, you write: but when Islam and God is mentioned in plain term, it is not ‘cool’ anymore, or some what backdated or inviting to a self portray of hate mongering stupid Muslim. agreed. this is the approach taken by a lot of superficial south asians, and i find it as empty headed as that of naqshbandi who is on the other extreme. given the mess that has been made of religion lately, i can certainly understand this allergy to any favorable mention of religion that many muslims have. i know of course that like any allergy, this reaction is not based on anything substantive. what i cant understand is the superstitious nonsense that passes for religion among millions of pakistanis, with naqshbandi exemplifying the extreme case.

#29 by freethinker on December 3, 2003 6:03pm PT

Gill:

I would like tp point out two items which you seem to be avoiding throughout your papers and in this otherwise great post also. They are:

1) You are saying - in between lines - need for reforming the infatualtion with the old thoughts and teachings in Islam. This has been discussed many times here and I have always taken the stand that the shortest and easiest path to reform Islam at individual level is to degrade its importance to the extent of becoming nominal or even totally abandoning it. All other avenues are ``via Bhatinda`` routes - the ijtehad, ijma etc. Why do you or Msulims have such a hard time accepting the simplest way out of this trap is by not getting into or near this trap (some may chose to call it crap instead of trap)

2) You have always compared various disciplines (previously about the existence of god) without arrahgind disiplines in order of importnce. Sir, metaphysics is nowhere equal as physics, neither in discussion (except here or in seminaries) nor in practice. It pains me to read comparison between an ant and an elephant in size without making clear that elephant is many order of magnitude larger than the ant. In fact in most of your writings, borderline disciplines are treated as important as established ones. Even in this post (#29), you raised the importance of Rumi, Iqbal and Hafiz for no reason related to the topic. They are good poets but why compare then with scientists. Do products of Rumi or Iqbal cure headache, blood pressure, save life, improve quality of life? They served language and other than than it is entertaining to read (belong to entertainment industry). The likes of Jonas Salk, Alexander Graham Bell, von Neumann etc belong to applied categories directly related to saving and serving life, creating medicines, jobs, comfort, progress and prosperity. In a hypothetical scenario of life threatening situation, I would rush towards the contributions of different class of people than Rumi, Iqbal or Hafiz. Similarly in real world, a pharmacist in local supermarket is more important than Taimiyyah or Ghazali. The importance of research and scientific disciplines can not be achieved by keep refering to Ghazali and Ibn Rushd`s rebuttal. These people belong in the past and they should be placed in the history but not in current affairs or sciences. Whether they did someting meaningful in their times is again irrelevent since we do not celebrate the life of many more important individuals such as the first person who made fire or who invented wheel.

Dear Inter-actors:

I acknowledge and appreciate your interest in the paper. Human beings are diverse in their culture, religion, race, knowledge, etc. In stead of pointing fingers at those who do not think like me or hold similar views, I wholeheartedly accept diversity. One of the inter-actors posed a question: Can Islam survive? Or: Should Islam survive? As far as I can see, there is no imminent danger to Islam or any other religion for that matter. However, the misfortune is and had been that the Muslims have always been defensive about Islam. Islam is in no more danger of extinction than any other religion. And that was not the point of my paper.

The world in which we live has changed a lot during the last fifty years or so. I am not accusing al-Ghazali and ibn-Taimiyyah for our shortcomings because I believe they were great thinkers of their own times and in their own ways. If we have not been able to breakaway from them and their now outdated views, it’s our fault. Their time is long gone. Their ideologies and the views are not valid in the modern times. They need to be changed. We need to un-tether ourselves from them to develop a way of life that suits our times and daily needs.

There was a poignant remark made by V.S. Naipaul about Maulana Maudoodi. I cannot quote it verbatim because I don’t have his book readily available with me. He said that Maudoodi degraded the West and the western culture all his life but when he needed medical care in his last days, he came to America and died in an American hospital. So there was conflict in the way he viewed the west and the way he implicitly trusted the western medical science and facilities. Most of our ulema are against the west because of their traditional education and upbringing. Due to globalization, lines of demarcation are fading out. If you care to think closely, we, including our friend Mr. Naqshbandi (whom I greatly respect for his personal faith and belief although I do not embrace all of them myself), are part of the west. We are westerners.

Having said that let me suggest that the material knowledge is not in vain. Even if this universe is illusory as many metaphysicians and Sufis believe, so be it. This illusory universe in which we live operates according to laws of material knowledge which we call laws of nature. It is futile to denigrate this knowledge because it is useful for human life in this world (of illusion). It is pointless to try to run this universe by some conjectural and otherworldly views because they don’t apply here. Hold them for the next world.

I want to emphasize that the knowledge of theories of quantum mechanics, relativity, mathematics, and other physical sciences is not ‘nothing’ nor illusion; it is real. This knowledge is crucially important for us. Metaphysics is also important in as much as it has helped produce beautiful poetry of Rumi, Hafiz, and Iqbal among numerous other poets.

Let me quote Iqbal (in spite of what I said about him in my paper which I believe is true, I love his poetry):

Firdos jo tera haiy kissi ney naheen dekha
Afrang ka har qariya haiy Firdos ki maanand

(The Heaven that is Yours, no body has seen it
Every hamlet of the west is like Heaven)

We need the material knowledge to make our worldly life as comfortable as the mythical life after death, if there is any. Why should any one degrade and denigrate the material knowledge? The Muslim world needs ibn-Sinas, ibn-Rushds, al-Ghazalis, Khayyams, Abdus Salams, Qadeer Khans, Iqbals, Ghalibs, Rumis, Hafizs, Mantos, Chughtais, Maudoodis, Parvezs, together with the agnostics and atheists. All of them need to live in a peaceful symbiosis and learn to respect individual beliefs and accomplishments.

Another motive for writing the paper was to suggest that we need to study critically and with comprehension the works of the people whom we hold in great veneration. It is alright to criticize their works and thought, not for the sake of malice and spite, but to learn new lessons from the critical scrutiny. Knowledge needs to be renewed like every thing else. No body has said the final word on any thing.

Mohammad Gill

re: Shobuz # 28

``people in Indian subcontinent and other parts of the world learned about a new social system that does not divide people into sects and makes clay god.``

I am in two minds: should I ignore this silliness on your part, as we Hindus prefer to do when we are confronted with others` ignorance about our - and in many cases, these people`s own parents` - religion, or should I call your bluff?

Since I am a Hindu, my first instinct is to avoid attacking any one else`s religion. Please don`t insist on being reminded of some uncomfortable truths.