Caution against mixing philosophy and scientific theories with religion

[trotsky]

https://nation.com.pk/18-Apr-2018/caution-against-mixing-philosophy-and-scientific-theories-with-religion

LAHORE - Eminent scholar and theologian Prof Dr Abdul Hafeez Fazli has cautioned against mixing philosophy and scientific theories with religion, saying that “science is tentative information which changes with the passage of time while Quran is truth and the truth never changes and remains the same.”

Prof Fazli, who is the former Chairperson, Department of Philosophy Punjab University Lahore, was delivering a lecture on “Quranic dimensions of Muslim thought” organized by Brett Philosophical Society of Government College University, Lahore on Tuesday. He highlighted the fallacies which arose in Muslims thought by mixing it with foreign elements and Greek philosophy.

Prof. Abdul Hafeez Fazli explained in detail how to reconcile the Quranic concepts of cosmology and ontology with the modern scientific thoughts. He paid tribute to all those scholars and thinkers who have paid valuable work in the field.

The eminent theologian said “the fact is this that sciences and philosophy are man-made knowledge having a worth of their own. On the contrary, Quranic knowledge is divine and eternal. There is no match between the two.”

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

[guillaumeb]

1. NOMA.

A solution that is used by many people who recognize how to integrate the 2, but a solution that is rejected by those on both sides who insist on the simple solution of a single method.

[trotsky]

2. You just contradicted yourself in the same post.

Amazing.

FYI, you can't "integrate" two things that you claim are "non-overlapping."

[Lordquinton]

4. It is a contradiction

If they are non-overlapping, then why do they clash so much?

[guillaumeb]

5. You just demonstrated your misunderstanding.

[trotsky]

6. So explain then.

Unless you think I'm too stupid to understand. Do you think that?

[guillaumeb]

7. Think about it.

[Major Nikon]

9. A good indicator of a successful bullshit call...

is a non-answer.

[guillaumeb]

11. Harmony is a wonderful thing.

At times.

[trotsky]

10. I've thought about it.

in·te·grate
ˈin(t)əˌɡrāt/
verb
verb: integrate; 3rd person present: integrates; past tense: integrated; past participle: integrated; gerund or present participle: integrating

1.
combine (one thing) with another so that they become a whole.
"transportation planning should be integrated with energy policy"
synonyms: combine, amalgamate, merge, unite, fuse, blend, mingle, coalesce, consolidate, meld, intermingle, mix; More
incorporate, unify, assimilate, homogenize;
desegregate
"reserve forces will be more closely integrated with the regular forces"
antonyms: separate
combine (two things) so that they become a whole.
"the problem of integrating the two approaches"
(of a thing) combine with another to form a whole.
"the stone will blend with the environment and integrate into the landscape"

Definition of nonoverlapping
: not overlapping: such as
a : not occupying the same area in part
The long, cylindrical body of a gar is covered with hard, diamond-shaped, nonoverlapping scales. —Steve Pollick
b : entirely separate or distinct
nonoverlapping interests
… two separate and nonoverlapping domains of human thought … —Marc Gellman

Unless you choose to explain further, I'm at a loss to come to any conclusion other than you contradicted yourself.

[guillaumeb]

12. Combine 2 beliefs in your mind so they become part of one whole world view.

[trotsky]

13. You said INTEGRATE.

Are you changing your claim now?

[guillaumeb]

14. Think about it.

[trotsky]

15. I've thought about it again.

You still contradicted yourself.

[guillaumeb]

16. Think more.

There are 50 state in this country, integrated into one country.

[trotsky]

20. The 50 states overlap in many ways.

Culture, language, commerce, etc.

NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA.

Time for you to think more, gil.

"Science and religion are incompatible. Simply completely irreconcilably incompatible. And I can give you the bottom line message in case anyone needs to leave, and that is that; science and religion are incompatible in the same sense that the serious pursuit of knowledge about reality is incompatible with bullshit." -- PZ Myers

[guillaumeb]

24. 50 states, diverse, and separate.

And functioning inside of one overarching entity.

You lost, but now you have a better understanding. Consider that a win.

[marylandblue]

32. They are not non-overlapping and often conflict

We have red and blue states and they have very different views that create dysfunction. They want to force each other to do things. They even went to war over it at one time. Hardly a model for a truly harmonious whole.

Non overlapping magisteria means the two have nothing to do with each other. The Bible does not and cannot have any scientific information that was not generally available at the time. The Big Bang has no religious implications. That's non-overlapping. But we don't have those kinds of discussions in this group.

[trotsky]

33. 50 states sharing so many things.

Overlapping in so many ways.

I'm sorry your "argument" ended in shambles as it always does, with you picking up the scraps and claiming everyone who had a hand in destroying it is just ignorant and part of a choir (without a mind of their own, I guess).

Try supporting an argument for once. Stop attacking people as being part of a "choir" when multiple individuals have a problem with that you say.

A famous sailor around these parts used to love to say "If a bunch of people are telling you that you have a tail, you should probably turn around and look."

Turn around and have a look, gil.

[MineralMan]

18. No, he just demonstrated YOUR misunderstanding.

Actually.

[guillaumeb]

22. And thus, it is decided.

With no appeal possible.

[Major Nikon]

29. I just spoke to the almighty on my red phone and he doesn't know what you're talking about either

So yes, no appeal is possible.

[guillaumeb]

34. The red phone is for another supernatural entity.

[Major Nikon]

36. He says youre wrong about that too

[guillaumeb]

37. The deceiver always deceives.

[Major Nikon]

38. You cant prove that

[guillaumeb]

39. The deceiver might have put that thought into your mind.

[Major Nikon]

40. You might be the deceiver

[guillaumeb]

41. What gave me away?

[Major Nikon]

43. No proof that you arent

So I must assume you are.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Fascinating.

Seeing as at every mention of NOMA you demonstrate conclusively you do not understand it.

[guillaumeb]

19. You demonstrate harmony.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. You demonstrate butthurt.

QQ moar.

[Lordquinton]

25. As you demonstrate ignorance

[guillaumeb]

27. Exhale.

I understand the rigid requirements of the 11th Commandment.

[Lordquinton]

42. the one you made up to stifle discussion?

that 11th commandment?

[guillaumeb]

44. It has occasioned much discussion.

Such was my intent.

[Lordquinton]

45. Interesting that you respond to these meaningless things

And never to real questions, like the one I asked here

[guillaumeb]

47. Are you the definer of what is meaningless?

Or was this merely your personal opinion?

[marylandblue]

48. Since you seem to believe everything is a matter of personal opinion

He must be both.

[Lordquinton]

50. Oh, I forgot, you define what is meaningless

And what words mean. And what is stifling discussion and what doesn't.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218279178

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. Thanks, Bill!

How could we possibly keep track of what is and what is not opinion were you not here to tell us? I award you 1/3 an internet for services rendered.

[OneBro]

3. Hmm. What's it take to be an "eminent scholar and theologian" these days?

[MineralMan]

26. Various letter abbreviations following your name.

That's what it takes, apparently.

[safeinOhio]

8. Which meaning of the Quran?

5 Schools of Islamic theology
5.1 Kalām
5.1.1 Ash'ari
5.1.2 Maturidi
5.2 Traditionalist theology
5.3 Murji'ah
5.4 Qadariyyah
5.5 Mu'tazili
5.6 Jahmiyyah
5.7 Bāṭeniyyah
6 Later branches
6.1 African-American movements
6.2 Ahmadiyya movement
6.3 Gülen / Hizmet movement
6.4 Islamism
6.4.1 Muslim Brotherhood
6.4.2 Jamaat-e-Islami
6.5 Liberal Muslims
6.6 Mahdavia
6.7 Non-denominational Islam
6.7.1 Tolu-e-Islam
6.8 Quranism
6.9 Salafism and Wahhabism
6.9.1 Ahl-i Hadith
6.9.2 Salafi movement
6.9.2.1 Islamic Modernism
6.9.3 Wahhabism
7 Population of the branch

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Oh, that's an easy question.

Whichever one he happens to believe in.

[safeinOhio]

28. What, and start

sectarian wars?

[DetlefK]

30. Of course. Science and religion are incompatible on a basic philosophical level.

Science was created with radically different premises than religion. If you mix religion and science, you run into logical contradictions in no time.

[Cartoonist]

31. He reminds me of Joe the plumber

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/how-joe-the-plumber-became-joe-the-bible-believing-christian/

Back in April, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, told Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody that he knows “God’s on my side” in his fight against Obama’s “socialist” and “anti-American” presidency. The GOP nominee for Ohio’s 9th congressional district, who is focusing his campaign on the supposed connection between gun control policies and the Holocaust, sat down with Brody for a second time today on the 700 Club and shared the story of his conversion to Christianity at a Frisch’s Big Boy.

Wurzelbacher explained how his pastor, who seems to believe that faith and science are incompatible, noted that while science textbooks have several new editions, the Bible has never been revised. “‘Revision Seven.’ He said, ‘now look at the Bible, what does it say’? I said, ‘Holy Bible.’ He said, ‘see any revisions on it Joe’? I said, ‘no.’ He said, ‘the reason why is because this is God’s word…man’s always looking for an answer, that’s why it’s revised.’”

Good thing the pastor didn’t show him a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

[c-rational]

35. Interesting post. I agree that Truth is that which does not change, but all words, from the Quran,

or the Bible, etc. are man's words attempting to describe the indescribable,and therein the arguments begin. How do you even attempt to put in words (whatever language) that which is ineffable.

[Mariana]

46. One would think an omnipotent deity

if it existed and it wanted everyone to understand its rules, regulations, preferences, and desires, would be able to figure out a way to communicate said rules, regulations, preferences, and desires to everyone.

[edhopper]

49. I think it is very appropriate here

to post this

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280284

Now, it might be enlightening to look at the second reply of my post.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280367

Interesting, no?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

51. Wow. Prof Dr Abdul Hafeez Fazil completely misunderstands science.

It is NOT tentative information. It is a way of viewing reality which takes into account changing understanding.

The Quran (and all other religious texts) are locked into a supposed "truth" that is never subject to revisiting, let alone revision.

Science works on postulates and examining reality. Religion assumes that its reality is unchanging.

The two exist in very different realities.

A side note. A couple of decades ago I read something by a young man who'd been raised Moslem, and he expressed a strong sadness that he couldn't communicate with his mother because she sincerely believed that everything of value had already been discovered, and therefore nothing new, be it in art or music or literature, could possibly matter.

A religion that believes that all of value is already established is locked in a death spiral. Which is why in the end science will prevail. Because science is willing to change its understanding as new truths are uncovered.

[PJMcK]

52. But I thought it was the other book that told the truth

What's it called again? I think it starts with a "B" but there are lots and lots of variations so I get confused as to which one is correct.

Science, on the other hand, is self-correcting as new knowledge is learned. Religions, by definition, cannot "learn."