Re: Creation in 2 days, 6 days or 8 days?


"Jews are good folks too" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
The Quran is not a book on Science.

The Scientific view is no less an interpretation of events than is the
Religious.

But even if observations are subjet to "interpretations", scientists make
hypothesis about what they can observe. They can test their hypothesis and
prove them right or wrong. It's completely different from religion.


Comment:-
The ability to create a hypothesis and prove it right or wrong is not a
material observation.

And I have indicate to you that the fundamentals on which science rests
cannot be proved
or disproved - they are not falsifiable as science demands,
but on the contrary proof depends on accepting them.

We find that the evidence for the existence of God is
(1) That the Universe exists (2) That Messengers and Prophets have existed
(3) That we posses a spirit, namely consciousness, conscience and will.

Your idea of what constitutes evidence is as naive as that of Prof. Dawkins.
(a) He supposes that religious people believe something merely
because it is written in their scriptures. The fact is that many
people believe scientific statements merely because a scientist says
so or believe someone because he is an expert. But there is a reason
why they believe them and it is similar to the reason why they believe
the scriptures. It comes through experts, is corroborated by many
others and makes sense to them.
(b) Scientific theories are based on evidence but nevertheless keep
changing.
This is because each one is based on partial knowledge and knowledge keeps
expanding.
You can prove anything if you select appropriate data as evidence and ignore
others.
(c) Evidence is not sufficient to establish truth, understanding and
perception are
needed and this varies between people. Evidence also has validity only
within a particular Framework of Reference. Different kinds of
evidence are required in other Frameworks of Reference. As a Biologist
he ought also to have known that organisms, as all entities, also have
inbuilt, inherent or Existential information. People may have
different degrees of conscious access to this. The fact is the
Religion is a Universal aspect of man. There is some recognition that
they are part of the rest of the Reality, which is much more than what
is known to them, with which they interact and with respect to which
they have a function.

It cannot prove that matter exists as that is a metaphysical notion.

Yet we take for granted the existence of matter as a part of our everyday
experience.

Comment:-
We take it for granted that there is a cause for everything including the
Big Band from which matter, energy, life, order, mind, consciousness
all arose - these things were potentialities in the Cause..

It cannot prove that reason is valid.

Yet science uses reason everyday and it's fundamental in science and in
philosophy also.

Comment:-
Exactly. It assumes it is valid, but does not know why.

Nor can it prove that "rigorous" is essential for something to exist.

Rigor is essential in science.

Comment:-
Life with which religion deals is much more than just knowledge and
knowledge is more than science.

Reason is often false.
Reason can be true sometimes, that's why there is science. Humans make
errors, but they can correct themselves.

Comment:-
If reason is true sometimes and false at others, how will you make this
judgement?
What criteria will you employ?
It depends on data, on perception and on motives, none of which are part of
reason.
Reason goes where motives lead it. It is motives that determine
the search, selection, interpretation and organisation of data and the
direction of an argument.
Scientific progress depends also on the actions and interactions of the
scientists
and it depends on their intelligence and insight and
it depends on inspiration.

All delusions are based on reason.
Which use false premises.

Comment:-
What are false premisses?
Inadequate data not false premises. Scientists are just as prone to this
as anyone else.

But even here we have illusions (based on inadequate perception)
and hallucinations (based on mistaking an image in the mind for an
external reality)
But even illusions and hallucinations exist.

But scientists know how to avoid these.

Comment:-
Not necessarily. This requires insight, self-observation and self-control.
What generally happens is that mutual discussion and consultation between
a number of different scientists leads to criticisms which tend to destroy
those hypothesis where no common agreement can be found.
This does not dispell any commonly held prejudices.
This also why every new advance in science is opposed by the
established authorities. Einstein was opposed by Scientists but even he
could
not accept Quantum Theory.

Comment
So we require (a) that an experience should be repeated (b) that it
should
be corroborated
and (c) that it should be consistent with other linked experiences.
But even these requirements are not provable.

But are more likely to dispell false conclusions.

Comment:-
You are trapped in a prison created by a vicious circle!
How do you prove that they are false conclusions?
Or that they have been dispelled?
You do not do so by "Reason" but by perception.

Science cannot prove the mind or consciousness exists
Yet it's also part of our everyday experience. "I think therefore I am".

Comment:-
So you see that the experience is prior to reason.
But experience can also be wrong as already stated, owing to illusion and
hallucination.

But "I think, therefore, I am" is nonsense. It is not a rational argument.
The fact is that consciousness is prior to perception and
your thinking is an experience within your consciousness.
You are yourself an object within consciousness.
Do not tell me that it is your consciousness as there are innumerable
people and creatures who have it.

You are speculating.
Yes, what's wrong with that?

Comment:-
That provides no proof - It is based on fantasy.

What does "plausible" mean?
Take any good dictionary. While divine origin of sacred books rely on its
claimed absolute and unprovable truths, it has less chance to be true than
the human origins of sacred books. On one side you have the absolute truths
mentioned without any proof and contradicting themselves between and within
religions. On the other side, findings of science that were confirmed by so
many scientists from many different branches all converge in favor of the
theory of evolution.

Comment:-
You are going round in circles again.
I have just shown you that science and every thing is based on unprovable
truths.
We think that revelations which depend on enhanced consciousness
of reality are much more likely to be true than theories based on partial
knowledge.
However, ordinary human beings with ordinary consciousness
may not understand these revelations fully.
But people with such enhanced consciousness do corroborate each other
even if the descriptions vary.

Science depends on a set of scientists who are trained in the same way
and do the same things in the same environment in the field or laboratory
with the same motives and using the same conceptual system
it is, therefore, not surprising that they should reach the same
conclusions.

On the other hand the same considerations also apply to those
within a spiritual system.

In the past civilisations, they didn't have the knowledge we have
today.
They tried their best to explain it with what they had: stories passed on
from generation to generation.

In the future, the present explanations will no doubt also be regarded as
primitive.

Present explanations don't use gods, angels or other mythical creatures.
Archaeology, paleontology don't rely on hearsays from previous generations.
Between science and religions, which explanation will they consider less
primitive?

Comment:-
So what? Conceptual systems do change as knowledge grows
and they depend also on purposes..

What does "evolution" mean?

I refered to evolution as the theory of evolution.

Comment:-
A "Theory of Evolution" is not Evolution.
It is just a particular view about it.
There can be many different kinds of theories and the accepted
theory can change as knowledge grows
and it is changing.

I do not accept the idea that evolution depends on "blind chance".
It makes no sense to me and to many other people.
We see a definite direction to evolution and even if small changes can
be explained by chance events, the whole series cannot.
Chance is simply another name for ignorance about causes or the inability
to calculate.
If one were to rely on "chance" then one might as well give up science.

Hamid S. Aziz


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Texas lawmaker: Colleges shouldnt discriminate against
    ... evolution negates the need for salvation. ... to be posh) In the terminology of business speak, religion simply has ... There will be conflict between science ... If scientists can legitimately refer to 'the laws of nature,' then you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Texas lawmaker: Colleges shouldnt discriminate against
    ... to be posh) In the terminology of business speak, religion simply has ... There will be conflict between science ... metaphors and heuristics here, no problem with it. ... If scientists can legitimately refer to 'the laws of nature,' then you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)