The Real Origin of The Scientific Method Is Religious

[Dbaiba]

Now apply that same thinking to your own beliefs.

....To yours mainly in the first place to begin with , i must say .

As there are fairy tales , false beliefs ,there are true ones also, you seem to ignore

 

You seem to say that as there are false beliefs , there are no true ones ; a bit illogic thinking

[Moontanman]

....To yours mainly in the first place to begin with , i must say .

As there are fairy tales , false beliefs ,there are true ones also, you seem to ignore

 

You seem to say that as there are false beliefs , there are no true ones ; a bit illogic thinking

 

 

How do you know the difference?

[pwagen]

....To yours mainly in the first place to begin with , i must say .

As there are fairy tales , false beliefs ,there are true ones also, you seem to ignore

 

You seem to say that as there are false beliefs , there are no true ones ; a bit illogic thinking

How can you dismiss Santa but believe in your god, when there are actually way more evidence for Santa? After all, more kids get the presents they wish for than people have their prayers answered.

 

As Moontanman said, how do you distinguish between false and true beliefs without any evidence for either?

[John Cuthber]

You seem to say that as there are false beliefs , there are no true ones ; a bit illogic thinking

Nice try, but he didn't say anything like that.

It's just like the guy in the debate. You are using a straw man argument.

Is it a deliberate lie or are you just unable to understand what you are doing?

This

"Just know yourself and you would "know " God as a result" is also a logical fallacy called special pleading.

Please don't do it again.

 

And, incidentally, it is you who believes in the Tiger, not me.

You say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Dbaiba]

How do you know the difference?

Now we're getting somewhere at least haha

You seem to acknowledge the logical assumption that there are true beliefs after all

Good

Well, the islamic revelation is my first source of knowledge in that regard , i must admit : my epistemology number one , then follows the rest .

Science for example is a very important tool to help me find some sort of answers regarding the revelation, to some extent at least .: i will try to find a very important article for you explaining these words of mine later on , under the title :

 

Stephen Hawking , science and islam .

 

Then, comes common sense , reason , logic , personal experiences , personal religious experiences , religious experiences of others , the wisdom of others ...into play

You should read William James' " The varieties of religious experience " in that regard by the way , James as the father or the founder of modern psychology ...

 

P.S.: Reason as well as common sense do have some cultural elements as well as universal by the way .

Common sense is as less infaillible as reason ,;logic ....are ,as David Hume said, i presume .

 

Nice try, but he didn't say anything like that.

It's just like the guy in the debate. You are using a straw man argument.

Is it a deliberate lie or are you just unable to understand what you are doing?

This

"Just know yourself and you would "know " God as a result" is also a logical fallacy called special pleading.

Please don't do it again.

 

And, incidentally, it is you who believes in the Tiger, not me.

You say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well, you seemed , i said ,you seemed to dismiss the existence of true beliefs by confusing them with the false ones ,or by throwing them all in the same basket .

That;s what i did understand from your words at least : my own interpretation then . nothingelse. i assure you .

 

Besides : "Know yourself and then , you would know God " has a much deeper meaning than meets the eye .

Anyway : i am not the only one who believes in the tiger , as you put it , but the majority of people on earth, i presume : i do not believe in the tiger only because most people do, mind you by the way

So, we either are all delusional , us believers , or there is the possibility also that we might be right in believing in the tiger

And yes, i think that the abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence .

Oh, yes, i must correct it by saying : the abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence in fact .

Example ? : science can neither prove the existence of the human consciousness nor the existence of our subjective human inner lives , to mention just those .

is the abscence of evidence regarding their existence synonymous of the evidence of the abscence of their existence or of their non-existence ?

[pwagen]

Well, the islamic revelation is my first source of knowledge in that regard , i must admit : my epistemology number one , then follows the rest .

Science for example is a very important tool to help me find some sort of answers regarding the revelation, to some extent at least

What do you do when experimental results show your scriptures are wrong?

[John Cuthber]

Well, the islamic revelation is my first source of knowledge in that regard

But religion is not a valid source of knowledge.

Why do you have to keep using illogical assertions in an attempt to back up your point of view.

And why did Dr Lennox have to do the same.

And why are you refusing to answer my questions.

Is it because you are unable to?

[Dbaiba]

How can you dismiss Santa but believe in your god, when there are actually way more evidence for Santa? After all, more kids get the presents they wish for than people have their prayers answered.

 

As Moontanman said, how do you distinguish between false and true beliefs without any evidence for either?

See my answer to Mountainman here above , please .

 

What do you do when experimental results show your scriptures are wrong?

In which sense then ? can you be more specific ?

[pwagen]

In which sense then ? can you be more specific ?

Okay, let's use a known example then, for the third time today. The Quran says salt water and fresh water does not mix. Experimentally, we know this is false, and it's easy to test on your own. Do you still take the Quran's word for it?

[John Cuthber]

But religion is not a valid source of knowledge.

Why do you have to keep using illogical assertions in an attempt to back up your point of view.

And why did Dr Lennox have to do the same.

And why are you refusing to answer my questions.

Is it because you are unable to?

[Moontanman]

Persians got their start on science from the Greeks, Indians and Chinese. They did make significant contributions.

 

 

Yes but religion, Islam or any other had nothing to do with those contributions...

[Moontanman]

See my answer to Mountainman here above , please .

 

 

Do not use me as an example, your answer to me was nothing but special pleading, I can, or others to be precise, use that to justify believing in the moon goddess Adriana, at least that religion has naked women dancing under the full moon....

 

See my answer to Mountainman here above , please .

 

 

Dbaiba, first I want to say you have the right to believe anything you want as long as you don't feel the need to force anyone else to believe that way but I want you to think about this. This little story is a loose quote from one of my favorite youtubers AronRa.

 

Lets say you are woken up in the middle of the night by noise outside your home. You go out to investigate and see a sauropod dinosaur walking down your street. You run up to it and you can feel it's rough hide, smell it, hear it breath and maybe even ride it if you wanted to.

 

You regain your senses and run inside to get your camcorder but when you come back out it's gone, no trace, you know what you saw but in the coming days no trace of the creature turns up, no excrement. no destruction, no foot prints, nothing....

 

You hear about some other guy who saw a dinosaur too but his couldn't have been the same one you saw because his was a theropod and after weeks go by and no trace of either beast shows up you would have to admit that just maybe you didn't see it after all.

 

Personal experience is not proof of anything, if you can't show it then you don't know it...

[Dbaiba]

Yes but religion, Islam or any other had nothing to do with those contributions...

Wrong : islam had everything to do with the invention of the scientific method, the discovery of evolution and much much more .

Or as Briffault said in his " The making of humanity " : Science owes its existence to Arabs.

Thanks to the Qur'an , muslims were able to discover induction , the scientific method, evolution ...

 

The Qur'an that urges muslims to seek knowledge as a religious duty , as a form of worship of God ...to use their reason, experience , common sense ...to find out about how they are made , how the outside world functions and what it is made of ...to find out about the universe , nature ....

 

Long story i had to shorten ,because i have to answer some posts in another topic concerning Dawkins God delusion ...

My removed link has all the evidence you might be looking for regarding the islamic origin of the scientific method, the discovery of evolution by muslims , 7 centuries before Darwin was even born and much much more ,so

 

I will try to quote my removed link

 

Gut feeling tells me it will be, either way.

 

Disregarding the ancient philosophers, Islam scientists were indeed the first to make use of an experimental scientific method. So one has to wonder why, to reiterate, the Quran states fresh and salt water don't mix. After all, using the scientific method, it takes around at most a minute to disprove. Maybe a few minutes more to see if the two separates.

Now , you rely simply on your gut feeling ? Way to go , man : very "scientific" approach indeed

Science and religion are 2 different things indeed : their natures are different , but they are the both sides of the same coin , the one explaining the other , completing the other , to some extent at least .

See my post here above .

 

The Real Origin of The Scientific Method

The Islamic Origin of The Scientific Method :

 

 

Source: Briffault's "Making of Humanity " you can download for free from here below :

 

 

The making of humanity : Briffault, Robert, 1876-1948 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

 

Here you go :

 

 

Note that the author mentions the "Arabic civilization or Arabic science " instead of saying the islamic ones : Arabs were in the minority concerning the latters

 

 

 

 

Excerpt from "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought In Islam " by Sir Dr.Muhammad Iqbal you can download for free from here below :

 

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam - Sir. Muhammad Iqbal | Feedbooks

 

 

 

Iqbal was quoting Briffault : chapter 5 : The spirit of muslim culture :

 

 

(....Europe has been rather slow to recognise the islamic origin of her scientific method .But full recognition of the fact has at last come .Let me quote one or two passages from Briffault's making of Humanity :

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote :

 

 

"....It was under their succesors at that Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic & Arabic science .Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method.Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of muslim science & method to christian Europe, and he never wearied of declaring that a knowledge of Arabic & Arabian science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge.Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of the Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread & eagerly cultivated throughout Europe . -pp.200-01-

 

 

Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world ,but its fruits were slow in ripening .Not until after long Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant to which it had given birth rise in his might .It was not science which brought Europe back to life .

 

 

Other and manifold influences from the civilization of islam communicated its first glow to European life.

 

 

For although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of the islamic culture is not traceable,nowhere is it so clear& momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme force of its victory -natural science & the scientific spirit.

 

 

The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture , it owes its existence .

 

 

The ancient world was , as we saw , pre-scientific .

 

 

The astronomy & mathematics of the Greek were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture .The Greeks systematized, generalized & theorized , but the patient ways of investigation , the accumulation of positive knowledge ,the minute methods of science,detailed & prolonged observation, experimental inquiry ,were altogether alien to the Greek temperament .

 

 

Only in Hellinistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world, what we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry , of new methods of investigation ,of the method of experiment ,observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks .

 

 

That spirit & those methods were introduced to the European world by the Arabs -p.191-" end quote

 

 

The first important point to note about the spirit of muslim culture then is that ,for purposes of knowledge,it fixes its gaze on the concrete, the finite .

 

 

It is further clear that the birth of the method of observation and experiment in islam was due not to a compromise with Greek thought but to a prolonged intellectual warfare with it .In fact ,the influence of the Greeks who,as Briffault says ,were interested chiefly in theory ,not in fact ,tended rather to obscure the muslims ' vision of the Qur'an ,and for at least two centuries kept the practical Arab temperament from asserting itself & coming to its own .I want therefore to definitely eradicate the misunderstanding that Greek thought , in any way, determined the character of muslim culture.....)

 

 

 

 

Source : The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam by Sir Dr. Muhammad Iqbal , chapter 5 : the spirit of muslim culture :

[pwagen]

Now , you rely simply on your gut feeling ? Way to go , man : very "scientific" approach indeed

If arguing semantics with snide remarks is all you can do, I don't see how your presence is in any way beneficial.

 

Science and religion are 2 different things indeed : their natures are different , but they are the both sides of the same coin ,

Which is it? Two different things or the same thing?

 

the one explaining the other , completing the other

Horribly wrong. Science, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural. Edited June 15, 2013 by pwagen

[EdEarl]

Dbaiba, I think most of us acknowledge contributions made by the Persians; they are well documented as shown below, briefly. The moderator who removed your link was not discriminating against Islam, merely enforcing the style of posting on this forum.

There are hints of experimental methods from the Classical world (e.g., those reported by Archimedes in a report recovered early in the 20th century from an overwritten manuscript), but the first clear instances of an experimental scientific method seem to have been developed by Islamic scientists who introduced the use of experimentation and quantification within a generally empirical orientation. For example, Alhazen performed optical and physiological experiments, reported in his manifold works, the most famous being Book of Optics (1021).[103]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

Note: Emphasis on Islamic scientists is mine.

[Dbaiba]

The Real Origin of The Scientific Method

The Islamic Origin of The Scientific Method :


Source: Briffault's "Making of Humanity " you can download for free from here below :


The making of humanity : Briffault, Robert, 1876-1948 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


Here you go :


Note that the author mentions the "Arabic civilization or Arabic science " instead of saying the islamic ones : Arabs were in the minority concerning the latters




Excerpt from "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought In Islam " by Sir Dr.Muhammad Iqbal you can download for free from here below :

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam - Sir. Muhammad Iqbal | Feedbooks



Iqbal was quoting Briffault : chapter 5 : The spirit of muslim culture :


(....Europe has been rather slow to recognise the islamic origin of her scientific method .But full recognition of the fact has at last come .Let me quote one or two passages from Briffault's making of Humanity :






Quote :


"....It was under their succesors at that Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic & Arabic science .Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method.Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of muslim science & method to christian Europe, and he never wearied of declaring that a knowledge of Arabic & Arabian science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge.Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of the Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread & eagerly cultivated throughout Europe . -pp.200-01-


Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world ,but its fruits were slow in ripening .Not until after long Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant to which it had given birth rise in his might .It was not science which brought Europe back to life .


Other and manifold influences from the civilization of islam communicated its first glow to European life.


For although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of the islamic culture is not traceable,nowhere is it so clear& momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme force of its victory -natural science & the scientific spirit.


The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture , it owes its existence .


The ancient world was , as we saw , pre-scientific .


The astronomy & mathematics of the Greek were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture .The Greeks systematized, generalized & theorized , but the patient ways of investigation , the accumulation of positive knowledge ,the minute methods of science,detailed & prolonged observation, experimental inquiry ,were altogether alien to the Greek temperament .


Only in Hellinistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world, what we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry , of new methods of investigation ,of the method of experiment ,observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks .


That spirit & those methods were introduced to the European world by the Arabs -p.191-" end quote


The first important point to note about the spirit of muslim culture then is that ,for purposes of knowledge,it fixes its gaze on the concrete, the finite .


It is further clear that the birth of the method of observation and experiment in islam was due not to a compromise with Greek thought but to a prolonged intellectual warfare with it .In fact ,the influence of the Greeks who,as Briffault says ,were interested chiefly in theory ,not in fact ,tended rather to obscure the muslims ' vision of the Qur'an ,and for at least two centuries kept the practical Arab temperament from asserting itself & coming to its own .I want therefore to definitely eradicate the misunderstanding that Greek thought , in any way, determined the character of muslim culture.....)




Source : The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam by Sir Dr. Muhammad Iqbal , chapter 5 : the spirit of muslim culture :

Do not use me as an example, your answer to me was nothing but special pleading, I can, or others to be precise, use that to justify believing in the moon goddess Adriana, at least that religion has naked women dancing under the full moon....

 

 

Dbaiba, first I want to say you have the right to believe anything you want as long as you don't feel the need to force anyone else to believe that way but I want you to think about this. This little story is a loose quote from one of my favorite youtubers AronRa.

 

Lets say you are woken up in the middle of the night by noise outside your home. You go out to investigate and see a sauropod dinosaur walking down your street. You run up to it and you can feel it's rough hide, smell it, hear it breath and maybe even ride it if you wanted to.

 

You regain your senses and run inside to get your camcorder but when you come back out it's gone, no trace, you know what you saw but in the coming days no trace of the creature turns up, no excrement. no destruction, no foot prints, nothing....

 

You hear about some other guy who saw a dinosaur too but his couldn't have been the same one you saw because his was a theropod and after weeks go by and no trace of either beast shows up you would have to admit that just maybe you didn't see it after all.

 

Personal experience is not proof of anything, if you can't show it then you don't know it...

Well, if personal experience is backed up by other convincing data , then it is a valid one , don't you think ?

P.S.: I am not trying to convert anyone, let alone force my belief on anyone .

Islam can simply not be imposed to people = an islamic basic teaching .

The freedom of belief of non-muslims was guaranteed , even under dominant islam : in the glory time of islam at least .

What some current muslims do or say about it , in total contrast with those islamic basic tolerant teachings is simply irrelevent and unislamic

This is the time of muslims ' decline, not islam's .

This decline has been going on for at least 5 centuries now , so .

Let's hope for a better future then .

[Dbaiba]

Okay, let's use a known example then, for the third time today. The Quran says salt water and fresh water does not mix. Experimentally, we know this is false, and it's easy to test on your own. Do you still take the Quran's word for it?

That's a ridiculous hilarious misinterpretation of a Qur'anic verse that alluded to something else totally different :

Deep under the ocean there is a sort of a "lake " of fresh unsalty water not mixing with salty water : the famous oceanologue French captain Cousteau had discovered that some time ago , a long time before he died .

[Dbaiba]

Then why does the Quran tell you to kill non-believers? This isn't a few crazies who happen to be muslim. This is a core issue in Islam itself.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

No, you gotta be honest enough not to take it out of context : only ignorant or mallicious people would do such a thing .no offense .

 

That vers alluded to the times of war imposed to muslims and the latter had to defend themselves .

War is something repulsive for human nature ,according to islam, true also , so it is waged only when absolutely necessary : the islamic version of the christian church father Augustine's just or noble war ...

 

Note that Jihad for example is only allowed as self-defence .

And there are many other kinds of Jihad : peaceful ones namely , the greatest of them all is the Jihad against the negative tendencies of the self, against the potential evil of the self : self-directed jihad thus .

 

All human life is holy according to islam ,including those of non-muslims of course : elementary obvious fact . so if one kills one single human , believer or unbeliever , unjustly , it is like killing all humanity , as the Qur'an states.

Hell is the destiny for every muslim who takes another human's life unjustly .

 

Why do you think that non-muslims , jews ,christians and others did enjoy their human dignity and freedom, freedom of belief .....as human beings , even under dominant islam , during the glory time of islam at least ?

 

As the greatest poet of the last century and philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal once said, or in words to that same effect at least : i despair of my companions

They don't understand my deep meaning

 

I am the poet of tomorrow

 

I have no ear for

 

I will get the right poem he uttered literally for you, just wait

 

The current muslims , or most of them at least , are way far below the tolerant spirit of islam

 

Try to read the greatest mystic poet ever : Rumi , Iqbal used to consider as his spiritual father

 

I'm not sure how you can misinterpret "he has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction", especially when dealing with what comes just before that.

 

First of all, Cousteau didn't write the Quran. Secondly, it's clear the Quran speaks of "two seas, flowing freely", not "a sort of a lake of fresh unsalty water". Third, even if you find springs of fresh water in the salty ocean, all of the water emerging from such a spring would mix with the salt water around it. Just because there's a constant flow of fresh water doesn't mean water doesn't mix. There is no mechanism for such an event to occur.

Wrong , i am sure of what i am saying , those salty and unsalty water do not mix because there is a barriere between them : Barzagh in Arabic Qur'anic language .

 

Second, the Qur'an should not be interpreted literally , there are some solid "religious sciences " in islam that deal with the interpretation of the Qur'am, so

 

Third , Cousteau did discover what i told you he did .

 

Enough about islam now, please , because , if we keep talking about islam, we will not be finished talking about it next century .

 

What do you think about my above mentioned post concerning the islamic origin of the scientific method ,for example ?

 

We will have to talk about islam only in that regard then .

 

Deal ?

 

Thanks

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have just moved 32 posts from another thread into this one. Apologies if it makes things a little incoherent.

 

Dbaiba, I once again remind you that personal insults are not accepted here and please also be aware of the additional set of rules for the Religion forum.

[Moontanman]

No Dbaiba, what you assert about freshwater lying under the ocean was not confirmed by Cousteau, in fact it is a physical impossibility, freshwater is less dense that salt water and could not lay under a layer of salt water, salt water and freshwater come into contact in estuaries where they mix. There is no doubt that freshwater and salt water mix in nature.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary

 

I live near the ocean i see salt water and fresh water every day, there is not doubt they mix every day.

[D H]

Dbaiba, I think most of us acknowledge contributions made by the Persians; they are well documented as shown below, briefly. The moderator who removed your link was not discriminating against Islam, merely enforcing the style of posting on this forum.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

Note: Emphasis on Islamic scientists is mine.

You have to watch out for historical revisionism in wikipedia. It's quite rampant. There's no mention of pre-science in India, China, Greece, Babylonia, Mesoamerica, or Inca civilization.

 

Pre-science, to me, is a better name for anything prior to Galileo, and that includes Copernicus. The scientific method started when pre-science started to detach itself from religion. The real origin of the scientific method is rejection of religious and mystical nonsense. That is why the scientific method didn't arise in Persia, India, Babylonia, Mesoamerica, or the Inca civilization.

 

The Islamic Golden Age ended well before the Renaissance started. They had a two or three century head start, and they blew it. Science did not mix well with extreme Islam. The Islamic Golden Age occurred precisely when Islam was more tolerant of new ideas than it is now. It ended with the rise of Islamic mysticism, intolerance, and extremism. It's really hard to say that the scientific method arose because of Islam when it was the religion that killed those early efforts at science.

[EdEarl]

The scientific method started when pre-science started to detach itself from religion.

I agree, and religious people, especially in the US, are trying to torpedo scientific education. In so doing they harm themselves and others. It is a tragedy that makes me both angry and sad.

 

Wikipedia is not the only source that gives credit to Persia and Islam for advancing science/pre-science during the dark ages.

[D H]

Of course they had an influence. So did India and China, ancient Greece and Rome, even Babylonia and Egypt. A true history of mathematics and science goes back a long ways. It's a story of stuff learned and forgotten but then relearned or found.

 

The scientific revolution, however, happened but once, and it started in western Europe. Not anywhere else. By the way, it's still an act in progress. Just look at the number of people who still reject key tenets of biology, geology, and astronomy.

[pwagen]

No, you gotta be honest enough not to take it out of context

This video is about the Bible, but it seems it's equally applicable to the Quran.

 

That vers alluded to the times of war imposed to muslims and the latter had to defend themselves .

"That verse"? Which one? There were quite a few of them in the link I gave you. And looking at, oh I don't know, the first and third verse, with the adjoining explanations, you'll see that not only were Muhammed et al under attack at the time, he actually tried to inspire them to raid trade caravans. One thing you seem to have missed is that Muhammed was primarily a warlord, not a prophet. Whatever delusional hallucinations he might have had were made even worse by his inclination to violence.

Note that Jihad for example is only allowed as self-defence

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Explain to me, the self-defensive act of decapitating someone, and cutting off their fingers. Explain to me how that is a peaceful act.

All human life is holy according to islam ,including those of non-muslims of course : elementary obvious fact . so if one kills one single human , believer or unbeliever , unjustly , it is like killing all humanity , as the Qur'an states.

Unless, of course, the act is done "for murder or for spreading mischief in the land". Then it's apparently okay.

 

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

- 5:32

Wrong , i am sure of what i am saying , those salty and unsalty water do not mix because there is a barriere between them : Barzagh in Arabic Qur'anic language .

What is the mechanic which separates salt and fresh water? What is the scientific explanation?

Second, the Qur'an should not be interpreted literally , there are some solid "religious sciences " in islam that deal with the interpretation of the Qur'am, so

Do the "lakes" exist? If so, we should take the Quran literally? If not, we shouldn't take the Quran literally, but then you can stop making up excuses for them existing.

What do you think about my above mentioned post concerning the islamic origin of the scientific method ,for example ?

I think I've already answered that, but it might have been lost in the reshuffling. Again, the first experimental use of the scientific method was done by Islam scientists. However, it's arguable whether it was thanks to Islam, or despite it. And doubtlessly, they had ancient philosophy to build upon, so not an original thought. But, as I think I said last time, so what? Islam has obviously sunk far below common decency now, and fight everything that threatens their world view. The scientific method was preserved despite Islam.

 

So what if Islam came up with the scientific method? The Nazi regime came up with Volkswagen. Two good ideas stemming from two really bad ones. So unless you think we should all praise the Nazis on the grounds that they made the Beetle, giving praise to Islam for coming up with the scientific method would be hypocritical.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

Edited June 16, 2013 by pwagen

[John Cuthber]

Wrong : islam had everything to do with the invention of the scientific method, the discovery of evolution and much much more .

Or as Briffault said in his " The making of humanity " : Science owes its existence to Arabs.

Thanks to the Qur'an , muslims were able to discover induction , the scientific method, evolution ...

 

The Qur'an that urges muslims to seek knowledge as a religious duty , as a form of worship of God ...to use their reason, experience , common sense ...to find out about how they are made , how the outside world functions and what it is made of ...to find out about the universe , nature ....

Well, why don't they?

It's true that a thousand years ago, the Islamic world was a long way a head in maths and medicine among other things.

But now, they are not.

Here's some evidence to support that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

 

So, why is it that the West (broadly Christian) has a flourishing science base and the Islamic world doesn't?

 

Even if you accept the questionable assertion that Islam invented science- it also forgot it.

Could it be that part of the reason that science is undervalued in Islam is that their Holy book says daft things like salt water doesn't mix with fresh and that people who question that book are labelled as unbelievers or apostates and killed for it?

 

Could it be that a theocracy couldn't permit science to develop because it feared that, if people actually questioned the book, they would find it wrong and that would undermine the state's power.

 

Is it possible that the decision not to educate half the population held back progress.

 

To be fair, early Christianity was no better but we have addressed that by separation of religion and state.

As far as I can tell Islam would not permit that- no other authority is permitted.

 

It seems to me that any theocracy prevents progress and that idea is anathema to science.