Islam is knowledge itself

[Qingu]

By what standard has technology and science made human species better? For example from a darwinist view advances in medical technology have disturbed the natural order by allowing unhealthy specimens to survive past infancy, this has also caused the population explosion which is fast stripping the land of its forest cover.

First of all, I hope you realize that atheists and secularists do not derive their morals from "Darwinism." We can use evolution (both biological and social) to explain where our morals come from, to some extent at least, but I don't think anyone would argue that the tenets of the theory of evolution somehow form a moral basis.

Secondly, I agree with your basic point. I think in many ways science and technology have had devastating consequences on the natural environment. The power of science has allowed us to destroy swaths of ecosystems and pollute our air. It has also allowed us to poison the soil to maintain our grain food supply with pesticides and artificial fertilizers. Most troubling for me, science has led to the industrialized treatment of food animals—there is no word to describe our treatment of cows, pigs, and chickens except "torture." We treat them as protein machines. And, of course, science has also helped us create unimaginably terrifying weapons of war.

But on the other hand, I think science and technology have underpinned most of the moral advances throughout history. You could not have laws or religion without the technology of writing. Islam, in particular, could not exist without the technology of the codex. Slavery would still be common were it not for the industrial revolution. And it would be impossible for you and I to be having this conversation were it not for the vastly increased powers of communication that the internet has brought us.

I don't think science is good or bad. It is a method of gaining knowledge about the natural world, just like mathematics is a method of gaining knowledge about abstractions, and it can be used for both "good" and "evil." But at the same time, I don't think you can separate science from morality, because science leads to technology, and all throughout history our societies have been shaped by technology. And we derive our morals from society.

This is, I think, why Westerners are often called "progressive"—because we see morality as changing as society changes, as we learn more about the world and about each other. People used to believe that blacks were racially inferior to whites, and that women were intellectually inferior to men. We know better now, and so we've changed the way we treat blacks and women accordingly. Part of the moral experience of Western culture is to challenge the moral assumptions past generations have made and correct them if we've discovered that they no longer conform to reality or our experience. Even with all of our mistakes and moral atrocities, I do believe that things are getting better in Western society; I would certainly rather live now than in any other era, and I'm eagerly looking forward to what the future brings.

Religious people, on the other hand, believe that morality is permanantly rooted in a certain point in history, when a god supposedly handed down his revelation onto mankind.

The problem with the religious position, as I see it, is that you can't separate morality from society and you can't separate society from technology. Morality, society, technology, and science, are all ultimately part of the same fabric. So if you want your culture to keep its morality rooted in a certain era, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the rest of your culture—its scientific and social advancements—also remain rooted to that era as well.

[Qingu]

Qingu,

what happened man?

I told you. I won't respond to posts that you lift from other websites. Doing so is inconsiderate of my time and everyone else's who has taken the time to actually write their own arguments on here, and I also believe it is against the forum rules.

1. The Qur'an claimed over 1400 years ago that Sun has its own orbit
2. No human knew that fact 1400 years ago, it was recently discovered if I'm not mistaken

What utter nonsense. Every single ancient mythology I've studied says the sun swims in orbit around the earth, from the ancient Babylonian myths to the pseudo-science of Aristotle and Ptolemy. You are completely ignorant of history, philosophy, and mythology to make such a foolish claim.

3. Modern science confirmed Sun's orbit

So what? How does the Quran differ from the Enuma Elish, which also says the sun goes around and around? Or the Rg Veda? Or the Hebrew Bible? Or Aristotle's cosmology?

Every culture believed the sun travelled in an orbit—around the earth. The Quran certainly doesn't say otherwise, so I fail to see what point you are possibly trying to make. If anything, the fact that the Quran says the exact same thing about the sun as all these other mythologies and completely fails to mention that the earth revolves around the sun makes it even more obviously the product of primitive men.

[Qingu]

I really am not able to make that judment. I know that the Qur`an is a revelation from Allah, the Creator and Sustainer of all, the Absolutely Independent, and as such is absolutely true. How this is then interpreted and understood in relation to the present state of science is beyond by possible knowledge, or concern. What I will allow myself to say is that certain recent scientific discoveries (e.g., quantum physics, red-shift, etc) are in accord with the Qur'anic world view.

QM and redshift have nothing to do with the Quranic worldview.

Can you please explain how quantum indeterminancy supports the belief that Allah created the world? And how the fact that space is expanding at an accelerating pace supports the belief that Allah created the world?

Perhaps you should read Heideggers, "Being and Time", to better understand where I am coming from. I think you will find it very interesting and enlightening.

I'll put it on my rather long reading list.

Heidegger was actually a member of the Nazi party.

Ah, you're right. I was thinking of Hegel.

The others have been label with the emotive epithet because, I believe, their ideas were perceived as a threat to the secular status quo. The term Nazi has much the same effect as conspiracy and terrorism do in our time, that is, to stop one delving to far and asking the "wrong" questions. There is also the case that Hitler adopted certain ideas from the likes of Nietsche, Holdelein and Gothe in his thinking, and to garner popular support.

Agreed on all counts. Out of curiosity, why exactly are you telling me this? And what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Ezra Pound was an American who was against the banking establishment and their efforts to establish a global hegemony.

Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

The point I am trying to make, as the aforementioned also made in a far more succinct way than I can ever hope, is, "what is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul."

You'll have to prove that souls exist before I see that as a credible threat.

I dont understand what you mean when you say these philosophers were materialist. I do know that they understood that there was a whole lot more to reality and existence than sensory/material experience would suggest.

Basically, when I say "materialist," I mean someone who is not a dualists. Most religions are dualist. They say that there are two kinds of stuff in the world—physical matter (bodies, earth) and "spirit" (your immortal soul, God, possibly angels and jinn).

Materialists reject that and believe there's only one kind of thing in the world—physical matter. Neitzsche talks about will and other abstract concepts, and many modern materialist phiosophers even talk about souls, but materialists think souls are expressions of physical matter, not a separate "spiritual" substance.

As I say, if you really want your views to count you need to read Heidegger, for he has destroyed the fascade of western materialism, on its own terms.

I just skimmed the Wiki article about it and I fail to see how it managed to do that. Can you spell this out for me?

I dont see that making use of some of the products of science precludes me from having a negative view of such. In fact it should strengthen my position, because I see, and make use of, all these ostensibly tangiable benefits yet I can still say that the whole modernist project is anti-human.

So stop using the fruits of the anti-human project.

Only in your ignorance.

Are you disagreeing that the Muslim world has had to import its science from the West for the past 500 years?

Would you care to give an example of a Muslim scientific innovation in the past 500 years?

Having a materialist outlook on existence kinf of precludes you from making value judgements, does it not? And being that you whole world view is materialist you can only consider things within that dialectic framework. Thus, for you, its either modernity/postmodernity and freedom (or whatever) or medieval stone-age tyranny and feudalism.

Um. No? Where on earth did you get that idea?

Now, for me, my view of existence is not constrained by materialism, thus any number of possible futures are possible.

Don't you believe only one future is possible—whatever Allah wills?

[Muawiyah]

First of all, I hope you realize that atheists and secularists do not derive their morals from "Darwinism." We can use evolution (both biological and social) to explain where our morals come from, to some extent at least, but I don't think anyone would argue that the tenets of the theory of evolution somehow form a moral basis.

What's the basis of your moral code - I think belief in darwinism contradicts the very basis of morality. If we're all animals, and our purpose in life is to leave behind as many descendants as we can, and the most successful one is the one who leaves behind the greatest number of offspring regardless of his methods, how can there ever be any morality.

Also i'm not much into the "science in the Quran" thing, so, just tell me do you ever use the words "sunrise" and "sunset"? Do you say, "The rotation of the earth has caused the sun to disappear" or do you say, "The sun has set"?

Even if you take the apparent visual meaning, there is nothing wrong with what the Quran says,

[ahmedqman]

What's the basis of your moral code

Probably secular humanism.

Or probably his interactions with his past experiences and whatnot and cultural upbringing...

For naturalists, morality doesn't come from darwinism, it is an explanation of why or where morality came from (although heavily critiqued in the philosophical sphere). Morality comes from current influences, so in a sense, it's an entirely subjective thing.

[laughinglion]

QM and redshift have nothing to do with the Quranic worldview.

Ah, but they do, my dear Qingu! QM has proved the falsity of Newtons claims that matter is solid, real, existent. And confirms the Qur'anic world view that it is Allah alone that sustains the world ceaslessly, in each and every moment. And it is Him alone that creates and recreates. Red shift shows that the universe is in expansion (against the laws of gravity) confirming a verse of the Qur'an.

I dont doubt the you will want to rubbish such claims, but please dont waste your time on my behalf since my belief is not dependent on confirmation by science.

Can you please explain how quantum indeterminancy supports the belief that Allah created the world? And how the fact that space is expanding at an accelerating pace supports the belief that Allah created the world?

In the most simple terms, so that it is comprehensible to simple people, Allah is He Who creates and re-creates, He brings into existence and He takes out of existence, continually. It is a very simple matter. Non-sentient, non-existent matter can have no will or ability to bring itself into existence. Therefore it needs a cause to bring it into existence at a particular place and time. That cause must be knowledgable, powerful, independent....That cause is Allah .

I think I answered the red-shift thingy above...

I'll put it on my rather long reading list.

I suggest you put it near to the front of your "rather long reading list." And try not to waste to much time on commentaries and studies of his works. Access the real thing. "Question Regarding Technology" is also a useful read.

Agreed on all counts. Out of curiosity, why exactly are you telling me this? And what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

They are all people who ahve not had the impact on modern thought that their work deserves because they had something relevant and important to say.

You'll have to prove that souls exist before I see that as a credible threat.

If you do not believe in your "self" for your self how can I prove "you" to you?

Basically, when I say "materialist," I mean someone who is not a dualists. Most religions are dualist. They say that there are two kinds of stuff in the world—physical matter (bodies, earth) and "spirit" (your immortal soul, God, possibly angels and jinn).

Materialists reject that and believe there's only one kind of thing in the world—physical matter. Neitzsche talks about will and other abstract concepts, and many modern materialist phiosophers even talk about souls, but materialists think souls are expressions of physical matter, not a separate "spiritual" substance.

I think we must be at cross-purposes here. First and foremost, Muslims are not dualist. They are unitarians, in the strictest possible definition of the term.

It seems to me that you are over-reliant on commentaries and classification of these philosophers rather than approaching their works in and of themselves.

I just skimmed the Wiki article about it and I fail to see how it managed to do that. Can you spell this out for me?

Thats some challenge...And I would like that you read the book...How about if I were to say, "existence is (can be) a veil." Yes! I think that sums up the matter rather concisely.

So stop using the fruits of the anti-human project.

I have considered this as an option. And for the present have decided that its use entails more benefit than its non-use. And I seek refuge with Allah from its harm.

Are you disagreeing that the Muslim world has had to import its science from the West for the past 500 years?

No!

Would you care to give an example of a Muslim scientific innovation in the past 500 years?

No! Being that the Muslims have adopted, wholesale, the Western scientific pardigm it would be unfair to claim that any contribution in scientific innovation by a person of Muslim 'descent', in the last '500' years, was a 'Muslim' scientific innovation

Um. No? Where on earth did you get that idea?

As I understand values, they are immutable and universal. You being a materialist who believes in the transient and ephemeral, can thus have no values, according to my definition

Don't you believe only one future is possible—whatever Allah wills?

That is the future, but what that is I cannot be certain of. But because of my high opinion of my Lord, `Azza wa Jall, I am very optimistic.

peace