Can science be compared with religion?

Published: May 24, 2012

In reality, all scientific laws or theories are not equally strong and conclusive as is normally perceived. PHOTO: REUTERS

If one doesn’t know how to evaluate evidence or determine if a conclusion lies beyond the scope of any given evidence and if one cannot judge the strength of a theory, he is like a young child who should not play with fire. If he does, he may burn his hands – in this metaphor, his beliefs.

So religious scholars are right when they prevent us from playing with science which questions beliefs.

Some people say that science and religion can never be compared. Religion would boast to “know everything” even if it is wrong and would undermine the understanding of science, while science will strike down religious scriptures with a theory that will be refuted by science itself a decade later. It is apparently paradoxical to find a relationship between the two.

But it is more paradoxical if we keep two contrasting claimants of truth together without letting one challenge the other.
The three constraints of the problem are:

If we underestimate scientific theories, we may end up verifying a false religion

If we use weak theories as conclusive evidence we will strike down true scripture

If we don’t compare them we may never come to know the truth

Is there a way by which we can take scientific theories for face value, as determined by mainstream scientists (rather than tweaking and undermining established scientific theories) without creating a logical paradox?

In this article I will try to introduce the rational analysis I have designed to explore the spiritual world, to find a conjecture between science and the religion and yet remain unbiased. The analysis is based on a key idea as explained below:

If you think science is conclusive or deductive (like 2 + 2 = 4), then allow me to take you into a different universe.

The idea of mechanical universe shattered when quantum mechanics unfolded its interpretations. Theories presented by Einstein have been modified and corrected. The Universality of Causality, which could be the premise of scientific thinking, has crumbled. Thoughts about phases of embryology have been proven wrong. And this keeps happening – and will always happen – as scientists discover more facts.

The purpose of the above description is not meant to undermine science; it is to explain that in reality, all scientific laws or theories are not equally strong and conclusive as is normally perceived. Scientific method includes systematic observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

But many scientific theories skip one or more of the above perquisites. The lesser the room or resources for evidence or experimentation, the lesser scientific the less scientific the theory. Sometimes theories are hardly scientific and are mere speculation. (Not referring to the Theory of Evolution which is strong).

As scientific theories are not “conclusive”, they are “probabilistic”. This means scientific theories have a chance/probability of being right and a chance/probability of being wrong.The higher the strength of the theory, the more probability/ chances that the theory is a correct depiction of reality. The lesser the strength of the theory, the higher the probability/chances that the theory is incorrect.

This probabilistic view of scientific theories paves the way for a wonderful means of analysis which I would call “comparative likelihood analysis”. If you see the strength of scientific theories as their likelihood (of being representative of reality) you can actually add them together. You can compare the likelihood of all theories supporting a religious scripture with those opposing the religious scripture.

There are several strengths of this analysis:

1) This way you do not discard religious scripture because of a weak scientific theory (which may be discarded by science itself in a few decades!)

2) On the other hand, you do not discard scientific theories only because they do not agree with scripture (some Muslim scholars have used the probability method to determine the probability that scientific facts in the Quran are a coincidence. But these methods do not incorporate the effect (of scientific theories which appear to contradict) on the eventual conclusion)

3) You do not tweak scientific theories – you take them as presented by mainstream scientists.

4) The most interesting thing is that this analysis is a means of logical deduction.

If one set of theories has an 80% chance of being reality, the other set of theories has a 20% chance of being reality and both are contradictory, when one set materialises the other logically ceases to be true!

This does not mean, however, that we are judging the validity of scientific theories by religious scripture. For example, if one part of a theory, due to misinterpretation, seems to contradict religious scripture, we cannot invalidate the whole theory; rather we judge the validity of that spiritual assertion in favour of or against the religious scripture, which means that in case of the above example, the likelihood of that part being misinterpreted.

But there are limitations of this analysis:

1) The face value or strength of scientific theories is decided by humans (mainstream scientists) and is open to human bias.

2) The religious scripture must claim to be the pure words of God, that is not paraphrased.

3) The analysis relies heavily on science. What if something terribly wrong is going on in the scientific world?(Although it is least likely).

We are now in a safer position to evaluate a relationship between religion and science.  But beware! If you underestimated a strong scientific theory, you may end up verifying a false religion, and if you overestimated weak scientific theories you may even reject the words of God. Moreover, if you misinterpreted a theory, or perceived the plausibility (or convincing power) of the theory rather than the strength of scientific support to the theory, you may end up ruining the analysis.

This analysis is expected to work as Prophet Moses’ stick which converted into a giant serpent and ate up all the magicians’ sticks that posed as snakes . The weak scientific theories are the same snakes, as scientists themselves admit, many theories are based on speculation and invented reality.

Note: This article deals with comparing science with religious scripture, rather than proving the existence of God. The author believes God does (almost) everything through factors and will not show directly to science, but through a keyhole – religious scripture.

Imad Uddin

Imad Uddin

The writer is pursuing Chartered Accountancy.He enjoys writing and painting.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Parvez

    I don’t know about others but I have developed religion / science fatigue. Will need a month or two to recharge my batteries.Recommend

  • Alia

    Interesting!… at least u dint try to prove and jump to any one side.but I would like to know more about the mathematical method used in the analysis…Great pieceRecommend

  • faraz

    Until the great scientific discovery by Copernicus, all Christian and Islamic theologies quoted verses from the holy text to prove that earth lies at the center of universe. Science demolished the uniqueness of mankind in a single stroke and categorically refuted the holy scripture. After persecuting the scientists, the religious scholars finally realized that their position is untenable, so they out rightly removed those interpretations of holy text from the mainstream. Same goes for flat earth, moonlight, night and day, female intelligence, mountains etc.

    All major religions appeared in an era where science was rudimentary, and followers didn’t adopt religion after scientific inquiry. And if science evolves over time, then only the future generations would be able to identify the true religion. And an uneducated person or person of low intelligence should be forgiven for following the false religion. If logic can itself reveal the truth, then religion will be superseded by logic. Religion by definition is devoid of logic and rationality. It demands blind obedience without inquiry. What religious scholars declare ‘doubt created by Satan’ is actually the logic of mind. Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    “I have developed religion / science fatigue. Will need a month or two to recharge my batteries.” Parvez

    See, a true believer in a true religion never develops fatigue. That in itself proves the superiority of true religion that claims to present pure words of God (not paraphrases).

    Imad Uddin

    The out-of-box thinking here is brilliant. Your Comparative Likelihood Method can revolutionize the entire study of science and religion. Do consider sending it to premier scientific journals like Journal of Applied Sciences, PJSIR, etc. Recommend

  • Domlurian

    Excellent analysis! With such smart and intelligent Muslims, I’m sure Islam and Islamic science is going to be the thing of the future. I wish more Muslims could be like you, the Islamic world would progress in leaps and bounds and leave everyone light years behind. Though I wonder why the West invented Penicillin and the A-Bomb first .Recommend

  • Gullible Nomore

    Author wrote: “while science will strike down religious scriptures with a theory that will be refuted by science itself a decade later.”
    This a gross misrepresentation. Can you name a theory that struck down religion and got refuted a few decades later? Do theories get refuted, yes. But has a theory which questioned religion and the concept of a creator been thwarted down? I would like to know if there is which I’m not aware of.

    Besides, how can you possibly compare science and religion? In science you assume a point of not knowing anything at the start and then figure out stuff as you go along. Whereas in religion your starting point is “and God created everything” or “there is a God”. Science just cannot assume that starting point, if scientific discoveries and studies indeed takes us to a “supreme being” then so be it. Why do we have to assume that there is a creator(s) before hand, that too without a shred of evidence. Why does God has to work in “mysterious” ways? Also, for the all powerful, all knowing, a text book was the best way to convey the “truth”? Doesn’t sound to convincing…Recommend

  • Ahmed HM

    Good article bro. I would like to state my belief that the Holy Scriptures were not books of science. They may have some things which might be related to scientific findings but the their purpose is guidance, not to prove scientific equations.
    Till now, I haven’t seen thing that the Holy Quran states which contradicts science.Recommend

  • H3

    Many over-reactors to science do not know that evolution is irrelevant to religion and creationism. They should see talkorigins view; which is a mainstream science website. See Q3:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.htmlRecommend

  • http://birmingham elementary

    Fairly weak arguments.
    Science has done a great deal in destroying religious dogmas and will continue to do so.

    Inflated sense of self importance lead ancient men to believe that earth was centre of the universe this was refuted with progress of science then it was sun which revolved around the earth untill coopernicus and galileo came along,they were pesecuted but fact remained and science carried on.

    Now we know that universe is a self acting, self perpetuating world which conforms to laws of physics and earth is not it’s centre.

    In scientific method of thinking you start with an observation or a fact and let your observation and experiments take you to a conclusion.Fact that science continues to refine and correct itself is it’s unshakeable strength,but what it has already proven can not be undone e.g Earth will never be the centre of universe.

    In religious way of thinking you put cart before the horse:You already have a conclusion(from your divine scripture) , look around and only accept the evidence that supports your conclusion otherwise reject it. This is a disastrous way of thinking. Recommend

  • http://lonepkliberal.wordpress.com Loneliberal PK

    We’ve heard the banal “science is always changing” argument so many times, it must now be permanently retired to the museum of antiquities.

    Science doesn’t change, it refines itself. It doesn’t spring randomly from one theory to next. It becomes progressively more accurate. Either way, science represents the forefront of human knowledge, and the probability of the scientists being correct is far greater than one’s unsubstantiated religious beliefs being true.

    Also, your concept of “weak” and “strong” scientific theories is ludicrous. It is not always possible to determine the accuracy of a theory as 20% or 80%. A theory is always strong, as it doesn’t become one without first going through extensive peer reviewing and falsification…not just by “mainstream scientists” (whatever the heck that is), but by pertinent scientists around the globe who may even work independently to confirm or reject the notion.

    Of course, some theories are stronger than others, but none of them are published willy nilly by random guys in white coats. The ones that are weak, remain as ‘hypotheses’.Recommend

  • Salman Arshad

    Very refreshing to find someone talking about logic.

    But you missed the core issue of the scientific method being contradictory to the religious method (the method of “imaan le ana”), which you mentioned in the beginning, but apparently failed to address.Recommend

  • Cdan

    Religious scriptures have a lot of mythology which has nothing to do with science and logic. Using science and logic to prove those myths as authentic would be as absurd as trying to scientifically define ‘genie’ to prove that Aladdin did possess a genie.
    Unfortunately, the reason people try to evaluate religions on the basis of science and logic is to mark all other religions as ‘false’ and their own religion as ‘true’. These attempts show how messed up our world is and why people are still killing eachother in the name of religion. (I am not referring to science and God/gods debate but science and religion debate)Recommend

  • Vikram

    “But beware! If you underestimated a strong scientific theory, you may end up verifying a false religion, and if you overestimated weak scientific theories you may even reject the words of God.”

    Can you give some example(s) of the above statement using your own religion?

    So religious scholars are right when they prevent us from playing with science which questions beliefs.

    Why are you playing with scientific theories if your religious scholars told you not to play with something that can question a religion?Recommend

  • NinjaMullah

    You do realize that what you have just presented is a theory in itself; and will be summarily disproven as soon as someone takes the time and effort out to do so? You are only human, after all. :)Recommend

  • Ayesha Pervez

    Science keeps evolving. The word of ALLAH remains the same. Recommend

  • BaloneyDetector
  • BlackJack

    Somewhere along the continuum from absurd to downright painful.Recommend

  • nabeel

    Yaar lovely article Jazak Allah for that, but i believe this comparison is unfair…

    You see Religion (by religion im ONLY talking about Islam because “as muslims” we genuinely believe that even holy books have been altered in some religions whereas Quran “IS AS IT WAS” since the first day of revelation, plus its protection has been guaranteed by the Owner of the universe and the Creator of life and death & no other religion would be accepted on the great day of resurrection) is from Allah & Science is from Humans, one is from The Creator and the other is from The Created, there will always be scope for improvement/alteration/mistake/error in the knowledge of the created. There shouldn’t be any comparison between the two. Plus the “brain” and “knowledge” for scientific advances itself has been given to humans by Allah ! Look at the technology nowadays and the apparent scope for improvement in the future….If this is the “shahkaar” of the brain “created” by Allah , can you even begin to imagine the knowledge of the One who created that brain ??Recommend

  • Nandita.

    @Parvez:

    Haha. You stole the words from my mouth !

    To the world in general –

    I haven’t read the article just like i haven’t read any of the religion / science articles.
    Why even compare the two? Science is based on FACTS. And religion is so inconsequential.

    People who keep harping about religion need to grow up and gain some maturity.
    It’s foolish to depend on religion to guide you through life.They need to start using their brain cells to help them distinguish between the right and the wrong. Your own wisdom should be able to guide you.
    How can you let religious texts, written thousands or hundreds years ago, be your guiding light ?

    If scriptures do not agree with science, too bad ! The truth is science has a cure for your ailments, religion doesn’t.

    I’m sure i am gonna get lambasted now ! Bring it on !Recommend

  • John B

    No:

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Scientific theories are just that. -theories.. So, by definition, they need proof, or collateral support and until then the theory is subjected to rejection, scrutiny and analysis. Human mind forms a theory of an issue it ponders and seeks to prove or disprove. In either case no harm done to science. Just because a theory is proposed in scientific circles today, it does not become an automatic fact. However, if a theory is on the logical path to reasonable minds, then it is worth pursuing to see if it is true or not.

    Today’s example: global warming due to human activity. Global warming is true, measurable and demonstrable with facts but whether it is due to human activity is a question in this scientific debate. Hence at present it is a theory.

    Evolution was a theory two hundred years ago, but reasonable minds concluded that it is worth finding out and it took a while to conclude that it is indeed a correct theory. Is the earth flat or round and so on.

    Religion is a theory and never provides proof of existence of god. In the quest to seek the evidence, some claim they understand god but they cannot provide proof for others so that others can replicate the experience. Hence, religion becomes a personal journey.

    Religion is the first curiosity of scientific mind of a brilliant human ancestors who began asking the questions, “who are we, why are we different from animals, and where did we come from, and what happens when we die, and will we ever come back again, and is there anything in the above vast darkness of the sky, does the sky end, if the sky ends where does it begin, how can there be something without an end or beginning and so on.

    In many respects, religious quest for god laid the foundation for science and the very science asks the basic proof of god which the religion cannot provide.

    Science is easy to understand in our life time. God is a life long journey. I see no contradiction between these two. It is a matter of whether you want to take that life long journey, which one may never complete.

    Buddha asked this question in a different way many years ago, also.

    Now, here comes the hard part: Does the religious scripture say the facts and do they contain errors. Does the embellishment of facts and errors in religious scriptures diminish the overall message that the scriptures of variously defined religion trying to convey?

    A reasonable mind will conclude that the strength of the message is not diminished, despite errors in various scriptures. Recommend

  • SJ

    @Parvez:
    Totally agree. I got lost somewhere in the middle and didn’t wake up till I read your comment. It was definitely due to fatigue. Recommend

  • antony

    @BlackJack, I really appreciate your comment which is very much the same feeling for me . From a promising intellectual blog it straight went to fables like moses’s stick as snake and quitely affirming that these fables are facts .. I think older religions like hinduism, buddisim and later christianity had a long period where people had time to question the fables and take the core concepts as faith and by time accomodated some reforms and progress their way of life.
    New religion like ISLAM needed that time and the period is now where lot of introspection is happening. Faith actually gives most human being some solace and some surity after death and seems essential for most. If we start analysing whether my faith is meeting the basic scientific laws established then we get into confusion and write blogs like this.Recommend

  • Al-kuffar

    Science develops through evidence and the scientists is always trying to disprove a scientific theory. No one is sacred in science not even Einstein. Therefore science is universal. The scientific facts dont change in europe or Iran or africa.
    Religion is based on myths and unverified claims. There are 1000s of religions in the world each with their own fairytales. If religion and God were true there should have been just ONE religion, not 1000s.Recommend

  • SJ

    @nabeel: wrote
    “there will always be scope for improvement/alteration/mistake/error in the knowledge of the created”

    Totally agree with you brother, I can see plenty of scope for improvement there. You need to gain knowledge from different sources rather than just one you already believe in. Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    “With such smart and intelligent Muslims, I’m sure Islam and Islamic science is going to be the thing of the future”

    Domlurian, I hope and pray you seriously mean what you wrote. The time to leapfrog Western Sciences seems to be nearing!Recommend

  • Noble Tufail

    absolute reality is nothing more than a wishful thinking given the fact that we know very little about what surrounds us. sciencitific method however is the only way forward .. although so much turns out to be wrong after some time but still… we fly by manoeuvring physcis laws, we treat variety of diseases and so on … on the other side ..knowing absolute reeality saves you the trouble of exploring more thus providing a cozy comfort zone which exactly is the case in religions … you call it looking through the keyhole … i call it mirage. Recommend

  • Uzair

    I invite the author to jump out of the nearest window (the higher the better) to test whether the theory of gravity is still a valid theory or not, since he seems to share the delusion of those whose personal beliefs are threatened by facts (errr “theories”) such as evolution, and is quick to misrepresent the real meaning of scientific theories, so why not be a man and walk your talk?

    Oh, and also, please stop using modern medicine and transport and communication and entertainment means, they are ALL based PURELY on scientific “theories” :)Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    Uzair

    Gravity is true because Allah wishes it to be so. Recommend

  • SJ

    @kaalchakra:
    you obviously didn’t get it. Read the last sentence again.Recommend

  • Ahmed HM

    @Uzair:
    I am totally surprised at your comments, seems to reflect your grievances with religion or the Holy scriptures. What has gravity got to do with this article or the Holy scriptures? And why should one stop using scientific inventions, is religion telling us not to do? What kind of a connection you were trying to make?Recommend

  • Parvez

    @Nandita.: Decidedly a strong statement especially the bit about …science has a cure for your ailments and religion doesn’t. Reminded me of the classic Beatles number :
    When I find myself in times of trouble
    Mother Mary (God) comes to me
    speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
    There is much truth in this and should not be dismissed lightly. This of course brings up the debate of belief in God and the religious construct……….brings me back to fatigue.Recommend

  • Malik

    I really like the post… you are very right that scientific theories are not facts… they are based on human perception… but there is a science called Mathematics that is the absolute truth. But you are very right, scientific theories have changed… To name a few:

    1) Gravity: Newton’s theory of gravity was the two point masses exert an attraction force towards each other. IT IS WRONG! Gravity is caused by the spatial geometry of space as explained by Einstein’s General Relativity

    2) Darwin’s original theory of evolution predicted that physiological changes drives evolution only to be corrected later that changes in the informational hierarchy drives evolution

    3) Light travels through a medium called ether has been dismissed by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    However, to judge the absoluteness of the truth Mathematics is the only science that gives us absolutely true answers. And the argument of probability that Muslim Scholars use is based in information theory, a branch of mathematics… Recommend

  • BlackJack

    @Nandita.:
    Why even compare the two? Science is based on FACTS. And religion is so inconsequential. .
    Science is based on facts – no doubt; this has no bearing on religion in terms of helping people lead meaningful, possibly more virtuous lives. I do not agree that religion is inconsequential – it has its role to play in a tapestry that contains other threads such as identity, culture, history and language. The problem only arises when insecurity prompts the faithful to reject any concept (scientific/ philosophical etc) that does not fit in exactly with their rigid understanding of the world as defined by their religion, and to lay claim to any theory that is imaginatively interpreted to have been foretold by some line in the holy book.Recommend

  • Mj

    @Ayesha Pervez:
    Well, there have been multiple iterations of the ‘message’, all conceived in the same superstitious and intellectually stunted barren lands. Even an unchanged ‘message’ is not proof of its veracity. Iliad, a nearly 3,000 year old Greek epic, has also remained relatively unchanged through all these years. Can we assume that it is of divine origins? Of course not!Recommend

  • Acorn guts

    Right from the go you have gone on a tangent. Before going into the depths of Science/Religion compatibility study please enlighten yourself with the difference between scientific theory, axiom and law. Theories are by definition non-accurate and probabilistic to some extent holding them accountable for integral failure at some point down the line is your own folly. Scientific laws however are considered infallible and discrepancy within those as predicted by Religion can be considered an advantage, but then again, the laws are hardly scientific and are more of a product of our own voyage of discovery and reasoning. Chasing tails here.Recommend

  • Dr.A.K.Tewari

    Comparision in science and religion is a must to know the truth and to bring about suitable change in our ability to interpret the religious scriptures accordingly . But then what will be for those who say Is as it was and are not ready to accept monkey as their ancester . Hinduism is the only religion in which we find evolution of species , earth moves around the sun, having nine grah, gravity trishanku etc .Recommend

  • Uzair

    @kaalchakra and @Ahmed HM:

    I should explain why I wrote my prior comment: Too often we see people saying that scientific theories are just that, “theories” which may be changed at a later stage, simply because they do not WANT to accept that evolution is true. They of course do not deny the theory of gravity or other laws of physics we experience mundanely, but instead of taking the trouble to find out WHY the theory of evolution is irrefutable fact in its major hypotheses, they jump to saying that we won’t believe in it because scientific theories keep changing. This is beyond stupid since it means they purposefully want to remain ignorant. The correlation with the theory of gravity is this: gravity is a fact, but there has a refinement of our understanding of how it works and what causes it (Newton->Einstein->…. Similarly evolution is a fact (demonstrated through evidence), there may be tweaks and refinements to it, but the major details are now beyond debate. I invite you to read books on the subject written by scientists (not bogus pseudo intellectuals like Adnan Oktar) and discover for yourself how the explanation for life and its evolution has arisen and how fascinating it is.

    And the reason I bring modern inventions in the argument is because if a person is fond of repudiating science, they should not be hypocrites and utilize the fruits of science while dishonoring what science is and what it stands for.Recommend

  • Gullible Nomore

    @Ayesha Pervez:
    Since Evolution enables one to survive the hostile evironment. Therefore, by your argument, it seems like the ‘word of God’ is destined for extinction.Recommend

  • Raja

    @ Kaalchakra, I too hope and pray that ‘Western Sciences are leapfrogged over’ in the shortest possible time. But that would occur only through scientific minds and scientific approaches, not through somebody unexpectedly discovering an hereto-unknown addendum to religious scriptures that reveals new facts and truths and possibly their applications. But then, we also know that what has been revealed to us is the complete and sole truth. Hence such serendipitous discovery of the addendum is going to be unlikely. Schucks, we are back to square one.Recommend

  • hassan

    Science is Theory + Facts, whereas Religion is just Theory.

    If you meet someone with shared scientific belief, you don’t hail him as a brother. But, if you meet someone who shares your religious theories, you hail him as your brother. Both of you gang up against those who don’t subscribe to your view.

    If you challenge a person’s scientific theories, he won’t try to attack you physically or invoke a blasphemy law. Instead, he will research further and come up with more evidence to buttress his arguments. Or else, he will simply admit defeat and will say he is going to research further. But, he won’t kill you.

    Also, in Science, from one theory, another theory emerges and from there another one, each branching into a newer field, all enriching human knowledge and welfare.

    In religion, you just enunciate your position or theory, and attack anyone who disagrees with you. You are always right and the other is always wrong. You are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. Poor mortals have to believe whatever you say.

    Science says, when you die, your life is over and your body just rots. But, religion says, when you die, you go to heaven and enjoy with beautiful girls. You can prove one statement, but not the other.

    So, we say, the one that can’t be proved is the best philosophy and we are willing to kill others for it !Recommend

  • Hashmi

    Allama Iqbal discussed this in detail and provides concrete solution in his lectures Reconstruction of Religious thought.. if only we go back to what he taught and then continue from there..Recommend

  • mrk

    Mankind has been debating with trying to prove, or disprove, the existence of god and the validity of religious vs. science. What is now practiced in the west, in all likelihood, is the best way to tackle this. Keep the 2 separate. Use the science in our daily lives – based on evidence. When there’s evidence later on, altering the original finding, and the majority of scientific community aggrees with it, then adjust the practice accordingly. Leave the faith as people’s personal matter. Having said that, most western nations are still quite religious in their personal following, despite what we believe.

    Whereas we have accomplished a lot over the centuries, the more mature we get, the better we realize that we know so little and there are more questions than answers. Just to illustrate, there have been tremendous advancements made in medicine, but even with stopping infections of all kinds and repairing organs such as heart etc, we haven’t been able to extend human life by a single bit. For example, an otherwise healthy individual, who escaped for the little bugs, could have lived a max of approx 115 years a thousand years ago and he/she can live the same maximum age no matter surrounded by the best doctors in the best facilities in the world. Similarly, there are lot of questions, such as the first law of thermadynamics, according to which energy/matter have to be constant in a closed system. The existence question will always continue to pesk our generation, and just few years down the road, the next generation, because no one has figured a way for us to stay here beyond a max of predetermined years.Recommend

  • http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/author/430/faraz-talat/ Faraz Talat

    The author has some serious misconceptions about how science works.

    There’s no real way for us to measure whether a theory is 27% or 68% accurate. A scientific theory, by definition, implies high probability of being true.

    Some are substantiated by greater evidence than others, true. But none of them are dismissible brain-farts. An idea has to attain a certain high degree of “strength”, if I am to speak in your terms, in order to attain the status of a theory in the first place!

    Besides, how do you identify which theories are weak? Is the Big Bang theory a weak theory? String theory? Multiverse theory?

    Well, you can’t. All theories are fundamentally probable, some are just more than others. Scientific ideas that are “weak” are the ones you likely haven’t even heard of, as they rarely ever leak out of the scientific sphere to begin with. That leakage only takes place when a sizable majority of the scientists speak out in unison in favor of that theory.Recommend

  • http://Birmingham. elementary

    @BlackJack:
    There are other ways in which Religion harms civilizations.

    It promotes belief in dogmas( sticks turning to snakes,world resting on Bull’s horns or the moon splitting)’wihtout questioning of course and therefore encourages and leads to irrational thinking.

    It invokes fear as a means to make its followers adhere to it’s given code of morality;Fear obviously is a treacherous basis to build your personality on.

    It glorifies sentimentalism and emotional response to facts ,which needless to say causes intellect to gradually wither. Recommend

  • mrk

    Science and religion both have their own realms and we should keep them separate from each other. Do not forget that majority of west follows religion in their personal lives also. Where we have achieved a lot, we still know very little. We still, having made great strides in medicine, are unable to extend human lifespan. The maximum human age of 120 years or so has not changed in maliniums. The existence question of something coming out of absolutely nothing will always continue to haunt humanity. Therefore, both religions and science are here to stay and should compliment each other, rather than try to counter.Recommend

  • Cynical

    No. You can’t compare a mere ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ (i.e. religion) with a ‘fact’(establishing a cause and effect relationship) that science is. Recommend

  • mrk

    @Faraz Talat: Theories are ideas, or a set of proposed principles. Saying that theories are probably true is nonsense. Theories that survive through crotique gain greater credence. Ultimately, the strength of a theory is derived through its adherence to the widely accepted laws of nature and whenever possible, through verification by observations or practical studies.Recommend

  • ashar

    (Not referring to the Theory of Evolution which is strong).
    I dont understand your view on the most bogus theory of the world.

    As for the title for this article you have chosen I would say that Science can never be compared with religion if the religion is Islam. And if you talk about all others then science can beat them all hands up.

    Given the true revelation of God, science can only follow it. since it has explained what no body could contemplate at the time it was revealed. Still there are so many things that are required to be explored by science and after that the clue in the Quran will be there for the scientist to confirm their discovery.Recommend

  • http://Birmingham. elementary

    @mrk:
    Although I agree with most of what you have said,I just want to clarify one point.
    Object of medicine as a science is not to prolong the human life span it is rather to improve the quality of life and prevent untimely deaths.Towards the end of its life span ,even without any specific disease ,human body just gradually degenerates and fades away.Recommend

  • Nandita.

    @BlackJack:

    this has no bearing on religion in terms of helping people lead meaningful, possibly more virtuous lives.

    Religion helps people lead virtuous lives ? I see politicians visiting temples all the time- from vaishno devi to tirupathi. They’re as religious as one can get. But they don’t lead virtuous lives, do they ? Far from it ! And this is true for the common man as well. The most unscrupulous of businessmen perform all kinds of rites and poojas. Hence,your statement just doesn’t ring true to my ears.

    Besides, why do we need religion to teach us virtues ? Why do we need religion to tell us that raping a woman is bad, why do we need religion to tell us that honesty is the best policy ? Surely evolved,intelligent beings such as ourselves should be able to figure that out without help from scriptures.

    @Parvez:

    When I find myself in times of trouble
    Mother Mary (God) comes to me
    speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

    It wasn’t Mother Mary, it was his own conscience or inner voice.

    I’m not an atheist. I’m a believer;hinduism is an important part of my life and yet there are times when I think that religion is inconsequential. Do I seem confused ? I’m not, lemme explain. I find religion inconsequential when I see people committing atrocities in the name of religion.I find religion inconsequential when I find religious bigots negating / rejecting scientific theories and concepts.I find religion inconsequential when people let religious books do their thinking for them, I find religion inconsequential when humanity takes a back seat and religious fanaticism comes to the forefront. Religion is a part of my being but not the complete whole.I am not eloquent enough to express myself clearly but I hope you’ve got the gist of what i’m trying to convey. Recommend

  • 1984

    @elementary:
    The problem is that people take the religious scriptures literally instead of taking it metaphorically
    For eg,in Hinduism,they say Solar and Lunar Eclipse are caused when “Rahu” tries to eat Sun and Moon respectively and later spits it out .One must pray inside a temple without having any food that day and place “Dūrvā Grass”(Cynodon dactylon) inside any cooked food thy had previously prepared…..
    It is also said that Pregnant ladies shouldnt venture out during eclipse….

    But the truth is that Rahu and Ketu are two lunar nodes according to ancient Hindu astronomy and when Sun or Moon passes that point,it causes eclipse….
    Eclipse occurs on a full moon or a new moon day,when the force of moon on earth is strong and causes tides….
    This has an effect on humans and they tend to be more aggressive during that time(medically proven fact). So when they’re inside a temple,a structure which is built to target the energy..They tend to be more calm ..
    Also ‘Cynodon dactylon’ has been proven to have medicinal properties and neutralize any effects caused by the sudden change of light due to solar and lunar eclipse..Also cooked food can react to the sudden change and could cause indigestion and other problems.Therefore,they were advised to have an empty stomach

    Also,UV rays are more powerful during Eclipse and could cause mutation in the fetus…

    *The reason why Hindus never had any problems with Science is that they interpreted the religious books metaphorically,not literally….Also,they never believed that it was a word of God and is free of errors…Also they knew that Science was never a threat to their belief. Nor will he be called a threat to Hinduism if he tries to disprove the “science” in his religious books*Recommend

  • Abdul Ahad Ayub

    Religion is MORE RATIONAL than science in a few regards, the latter containing a lot more irrational, illogical and subjective elements than commonly believed.

    A lot of scientists, including the likes of G.H Hardy and Max Weber, have identified subjective elements like intuition and passion to be pre-requisites for scientific practice and practically scientists do believe to find meaning in their work. However, on a cosmic scale, granted that the universe will end, there seems to be no meaning of indulging in scientific activity. This, called the crisis of meaning, is an inherent inconsistency in science. If the universe is entirely dependent upon the laws of nature, it can have no meaning. According to scientific rationale then, what is the significance of scientific activity? None. Therefore, it is ‘irrational’ to indulge in scientific practice.

    The similar question can be asked of religion. Why practice religion. Simple. They’ll be consequences for your action in the next life. In the major monotheistic religions, for example, you shall have to answer for your questions in eternal life. That is the meaning of practicing religion.

    Now I’m not saying that religion is true. The presupposition of life after death can be totally wrong but a presupposition doesn’t make a knowledge claim irrational. Science also has a lot of presuppositions as no science can exist without faith in its metaphysics but that doesn’t mean its irrational. Internal consistency in a knowledge sphere is what determines rationality.

    Of course, there is a lot more to both fields and religion does go against internal logic in some regards but that doesn’t mean that it can be termed irrational and illogical as a whole. Recommend

  • Musthaq Ahmed

    @faraz:
    “so they out rightly removed those interpretations of holy text from the mainstream.” Who ? Islamic scholars ? You are a mulla-apologist hiding behind church fathers frock. Christianity rent itself apart and scattered ashes on its head as science hastened the triumphal march of capitalism. Merchants compelled the church to content itself with a low hypocritical position. Christianity could not but reinvent it self as a modern religion. Jews threw off the burden of a desert religion to rise as modern people of Europe. Buddhists and Hindus embraced industrial civilization making a short work of their old beliefs. African tribals too turned modern in their social and cultural practices. But what about the last doctrine of darkness that is tearing its followers to pieces and blowing nations apart , reducing the intelligent Arab to a vassal of the west and slave to religious prejudice? Recommend

  • Abdul Ahad Ayub

    @ Gullibe Nomore

    “Besides, how can you possibly compare science and religion? In science you assume a point of not knowing anything at the start and then figure out stuff as you go along. Whereas in religion your starting point is “and God created everything” or “there is a God”. Why do we have to assume that there is a creator(s) before hand, that too without a shred of evidence?”

    Really? Can science exist without metaphysics and assumptions? EVERY SCIENTIFIC THEORY RESTS ON SOME SORT OF ASSUMPTION OR PRESUPPOSITION WHICH CAN NIETHER BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED.

    I’m quoting Nietzsche here directly,

    “But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests – that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.” (The Gay Science) (Ironically, the same place where he proclaimed ‘God is dead’ and if read without context, would seem that way too)

    I’ll throw in Einstein for good measure too. “Scientific concepts have two sources for their meanings: The one source is empirical. It gives concepts which are particulars, nominalistic in character. The other source is formal, mathematical and theoretical. It gives concepts which are universals, since they derive their meaning by postulation from postulates which are universal propositions.’

    There you go. Einstein says postulates are necessary for science. Go ahead, now I’m waiting for your ‘why do we have to entertain claims without evidence in science’. You can not thwart religion on the basis of an argument when you don’t want to apply the same thing towards scienceRecommend

  • Vikram

    @Malik:
    “I really like the post… you are very right that scientific theories are not facts”

    Well one some thing is called a fact, it can’t be a theory.Recommend

  • Vikram

    @John B:
    Religion is the first curiosity of scientific mind of a brilliant human ancestors who began asking the questions, “who are we, why are we different from animals, and where did we come from, and what happens when we die, and will we ever come back again, and is there anything in the above vast darkness of the sky, does the sky end, if the sky ends where does it begin, how can there be something without an end or beginning and so on.

    These questions have nothing to do with religion. Recommend

  • Ayesha Pervez

    I believe there is a God, and that God is ALLAH, nothing and no amount of education will ever change that.Recommend

  • Vikram

    @mrk:
    Therefore, both religions and science are here to stay and should compliment each other, rather than try to counter.

    Religion can have a placebo effect in medical treatment.Recommend

  • Vikram

    @kaalchakra:
    What is Islamic science?Recommend

  • Saqib Syed

    @Uzair:
    I think there is no substantial clash between Religion and science. Both can coexist and can keep up in their own spheres. Rejecting religion and God is an easy answer to all the queries human mind raised about these unsolved mystery. If it is not easy to prove the presence of God, its equally difficult to disprove it. On the other hand religion has immense utility in social spheres so better is to let both the science and religion work in their own domains.Recommend

  • `India Peaks

    Nuttiest article/blog ever. Never mix up religion and science – u will end up nowhere. Religion is belief and just that. A person of any other religion could have written this same article…. and thought his religion is true thru force fitting assumptions like u have. Then all these people and their relegions would be true.. so where does that leave ur religion??and which one is the “truest”

    People of all religions agree on the basics of science …none of them agree on the others religion. Where does that leave you my philosopher friend????Recommend

  • BlackJack

    @elementary:
    That is not true. The harm that a religion (esp at civilization level) can do depends on who makes the rules and how adherence is enforced. For example, in some religions, questioning just about anything is grounds for punishment – people are given free license to commit any act of violence based on some guy in some country drawing a cartoon/ writing a book (see article on pastor quoting from the Quran in today’s ET); the assumption apparently is that this mob mentality on a hair trigger keeps everyone in line; we shall see in the long run. Christianity has become a much more liberal religion once the power of the church to dictate terms has waned. As you know from our previous discussions, there is no organization, group, person, single book, single set of beliefs that Hindus can employ to harass one another, so we don’t really have these hassles; you don’t even have to believe in God to be a Hindu – and absolutely no one quotes scripture to justify any evil deeds. Any ills we see today face Indian society as a whole – casteism, female infanticide etc – these will be automatically eliminated when education becomes more widespread. Recommend

  • Gul Khan

    The whole article is just a rehashed version of what creationists and pr-religion fanatics have to offer, and have been offering for a long, long time. Nothing groundbreaking over here. Bleh.Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    Vikram

    All true science is Islamic science, and all Islamic science is true science.

    Ayesha Parvez

    Way to go. Recommend

  • Gullible Nomore

    @Ayesha Pervez:
    No ones’s asking you to change that, but just because you ‘believe’ that, you should not discard scientific studies/discoveries. Recommend

  • Doosam

    Lame….seems like any tom, dick or harry can write up a unintelligent blog and have it published on ET these days.Recommend

  • Vikram

    @elementary: “It invokes fear as a means to make its followers adhere to it’s given code of morality;Fear obviously is a treacherous basis to build your personality on.”

    I don’t think religions are effective in controlling “code of morality”. Some religions do have intense fear of hell fire which keeps people from leaving the religion or marrying people of other religion.Recommend

  • http://struggle.com.pk/ Imran Kamyana

    What an apologetic piece of writing. The author probably doesn’t know how science works at first place. Same old argument “science changes hence it is false”. What a pathetic piece of logic is it? Science doesn’t change it improves itself.

    While comparing your cell phone belonging to latest generation can you say “My cell phone is ultimate and ‘right’ while Marconi’s was ‘wrong’ and ugly”? Will you? Well anything can be expected from a religious infected behavior.

    Its actually a dialectical process called “negation of negation”. Things improve, negate themselves, move to higher form but in this improvement and negation it preserves the best elements of previous versions while resolving the contradictions (in common language you can say ‘correcting mistakes’).

    Everything changes. As Marx said “Change is the only rule that doesn’t change”.

    Stop confusing science with dogma. Dogma can’t change. Now I am a religious ‘peer’ having a following of 100000. It was revealed to me in dream that an angel dressed in red flies along each of my follower, 2 feet and 3 inches above his/her head. I would wait for your pseudo religious-scientific on this “scientific statement” of mine.Recommend

  • raw is war

    its already done in PakistanRecommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/ Anoop

    @kaalchakra:

    Gravity is true because Allah wishes it to be true? lol..

    So, the Earth’s core, the composition of it has nothing to do with it?

    Since, you believe Evolution is untrue, then you should also maybe stop taking modern medicines, as they are tested on Animals(assumption being all species are closely related and as a result some animals react similar to Humans). So, tomorrow if you find yourself terribly sick, you should run away from modern medicine as it is based on Darwinian principles, the medicines are tested based on the theory of evolution.

    If you don’t you are just a hypocrite, who selectively uses medicines while opposing the principles it was manufactured on, since it invalidates the Religion you believe in.

    Are you a hyprocite, @kaalchakra?

    P.S. If we didn’t evolve how come our genes are similar to Chimpanzees, as proved by DNA testing? Surely, Darwin didn’t have the luxury of DNA testing, which only would have proved his “theory” right. So, with the help of DNA testing, a theory is now an incontrovertible fact.Recommend

  • Javed

    @Ayesha Pervez:

    I believe there is a God, and that God is ALLAH, nothing and no amount of education will ever change that.

    Extremism at it’s peak. This is a general attitude of believers.Recommend

  • SJ

    @Musthaq Ahmed:
    Wah Wah Mushtaq Bhai, mukarrar, mukarrar. No kidding, eloquence at its peak.Recommend

  • malik

    @Anoop:
    Can’t you understand humor ? kaalchakra’s comments are pure satire…sad you guys just are not getting it !!!Recommend

  • Parvez

    @Nandita.: Did not for one moment think you were an atheist, nothing you say points there.
    You are both eloquent and opinionated with very down to earth views. Your take on religion is simple common sense and if you notice I have used the term ‘religious construct’ in my comment to signify that man had / has, a big hand to play in this, I have a habit of being cryptic when I comment.
    Now to the Beatles – Mother Mary,God, his inner conscience or inner voice, don’t they all boil down to the same thing ?Recommend

  • BlackJack

    @Nandita.:
    Pls read the entire post and respond rather than picking up on one word (which was preceded by “possibly” to make allowance for your argument in advance) and basing your entire comment on it. Religion (I can at least speak for Hinduism) offers a philosophical perspective that can impact people’s lives in meaningful ways; you may arrive at the same or a different set of conclusions independently, but it has no bearing on the relevance/ importance of religion to another person – to each his own. Thus for many people, religion does play a role in adding value to their lives. On the other hand, it shouldn’t define your entire value system (including the way that you see and interact with fellow human beings) either – the other threads in the tapestry that I mentioned play a role there too. So it may have made better sense if your original comment had said that religion is inconsequential to you.Recommend

  • Gullible Nomore

    @Abdul Ahad Ayub:
    Sure scientific discoveries start with a “hypothesis” which later gain credence by stronger plausibility, evidence, calculations etc. If it fails any of that, the hypothesis is discarded. This cannot and should not be confused with the ‘metaphysics’ of religion. Where a concept of anything really, can never be challenged or revoked. Besides, I hate when people use Einstein’s quotes out of context. Einstien was a spiritual person but absolutely non religious, yet the religious love to claim his sayings as somehow religious. But hey, if that makes you sleep at night, then be my guest, believe in you imaginary friend and an afterlife…Recommend

  • H3

    Interesting, some of us are unaware of the strength of evidence! The author have not favored or disfavored any religion and people are accusing him to be apologetic! If you read the analysis he warned twice, who undermines the scientific theory is apologetic, and who overestimate them are those who dont kno science and have blind faith in science-they too are equally dogmatic. Funny people!Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    H3 Bhai

    You might need to read this utterly brilliant piece the third or fourth time. Imaad Uddin Sahib carefully makes his case only for the entirely true religion (which presents Allah’s own words – Pure Words of God) and cautions against anything that may lead to support for false religions (which paraphrase words.) This is methodological masterstroke since there are not too many entirely true religions and of those, fewer present PWG (Pure Words of God).Recommend

  • observer

    So can we test the Strong Theory which says Mecca is at the centre of the Universe?

    Any takers?Recommend

  • http://Birmingham elementary

    @1984:
    You have done ,what every devout religious person is supposed to do. look for the evidence may be even stretch or distort them a bit to fit in with religious belief.This method of thinking is one of the mechanisms how religion causes damage. Recommend

  • http://lonepkliberal.wordpress.com Loneliberal PK

    Ayesha Pervez,

    “I believe there is a God…and no amount of education will ever change that.”

    So basically, you’re confessing that education and the strength of religious faith are inversely related? The more educated one becomes, the more he/she tends to draw away from religion?

    It’s a miracle: you and I have finally agreed upon something.Recommend

  • http://Birmingham elementary

    @BlackJack:
    It damges( irreperably in many cases) the intellect,distorts morality,gives you a fearful personality and inflated ego,creates divide and leads to bloodshed.
    It may not have had this effect on you,but that’s what it does to majority of it’s devout followers.Recommend

  • http://Birmingham elementary

    @Gullible Nomore:
    Einstien was a spiritual person but absolutely non religious.
    Well said.Good point.
    If you have your intellec grown to a sufficient degree, it’s very difficult to be religious but you can be spritual however. Recommend

  • Matter or human first?

    So all are PHDs in science & religion. Recommend

  • http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/author/430/faraz-talat/ Faraz Talat

    mrk,

    I’ve had this discussion so many times that it has become thoroughly annoying.

    A scientific theory is different from theory as an English word. A scientific theory is not just a proposition, it’s a substantiated proposition. It’s hypothesis which is proposed set of principles whose validity cannot be, or has not been, verified.

    No theory is objectively “weak”, only relatively so. That is, some are more widely accepted by the scientific community than others.

    Besides, that’s not something you need to worry about. The general public isn’t required believe in controversial theories. Those are strictly for the scientists to work with – to debate, falsify or debug. A theory won’t pop up in your science book until there’s good consensus among the scientific experts about its validity (if it does, the controversial nature is clearly specified).Recommend

  • H3

    is that bad to make an analysis for islam?Recommend

  • H3

    it is not bad if smoeone makes an analysis for hinduism, christianity.e,t.c….we are all humans, and should be friends.everyone must be given chance to prove his point. -my Hindu classfellow friend would not have any problem if I try to say my logic, nor would I have if he does. Why so angry!?Recommend

  • Vikram

    @Faraz Talat: “For example, an otherwise healthy individual, who escaped for the little bugs, could have lived a max of approx 115 years a thousand years ago and he/she can live the same maximum age no matter surrounded by the best doctors in the best facilities in the world.”

    How do you know a thousand years ago one could live ma to 115 years? It is important how much average life span is now and how much average life span was a thousand years . Is it increasing or decreasing. .Who knows Stem cells could be used to stop degenration or start regeneration of body systems in the future. Best doctors can clone animals and humans which no prophet was able to do.. Most medicinal research is focussed on prolonging lives of people who get sick and not on extending life span.
    Genetic code may be playing a part in life span. In the future genes could be altered to in crease life span. Recommend

  • Vikram

    @ashar: “Still there are so many things that are required to be explored by science and after that the clue in the Quran will be there for the scientist to confirm their discovery ”

    Have Muslims found any clues in Quran which has lead to a manjor drug discovery? If there are many clues inQuran why Muslim scientists don’t find them and help the mankind.
    Most of so called scientific discoveries have been found by non-Muslims or converts to Islam. Why Muslims have not found anything substantial in Quran in the last 1500 yearsRecommend

  • John B

    @Vikram:
    Gentleman, these questions are science 101. From here on man formed the concept of heaven, feared nature , worshiped nature, learnt to understand nature, questioned nature and formulated a concept of science as we know it. Without the first quest on god, perhaps there would not have been a radical discipline as science so soon in human history. Recommend

  • Ayesha Pervez

    @ Javed My name is Ayesha and I am not an extremist ;)Recommend

  • Iqbal73

    Scientific theories are just that–theories.

    Yes, just theories:

    Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is “only a theory”, giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the “Roquefort-cheese theory”.

    A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe’s workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally. For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the “cell theory”); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the “theory of gravitation”); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the “quantum theory”); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the “theory of relativity”), and so on.

    All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is “only” a theory, that is all it has to be.

    Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as “only a myth”.Recommend

  • observer

    @Imad Uddin

    Can we put the ‘Mecca is the Centre of Universe’ theory to test to see how strong it is?Recommend

  • http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/author/430/faraz-talat/ Faraz Talat

    Vikram,

    Lol. That was mrk’s comment, not mine.Recommend

  • http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/author/430/faraz-talat/ Faraz Talat

    mrk

    “an otherwise healthy individual, who escaped for the little bugs, could have lived a max of approx 115 years a thousand years ago and he/she can live the same maximum age no matter surrounded by the best doctors in the best facilities in the world”

    A thousand years ago, “an otherwise healthy individual” was non-existent.

    An average person had a significantly higher chance of dying from tooth infections than by old age. If not that, then there was malaria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, the black plague…all of which are now treatable, preventable, and some even curable.

    People rarely ever escaped these bugs, and even when they did, your notion that they lived up to 115 is baseless. As far as we know, the average lifespan of people a thousand years ago was approximately 24.

    Don’t you dare dismiss the value of medical science. It has, without a doubt, extended the average lifespan of humans by many years.Recommend

  • MAS

    Excellent analysisRecommend

  • Vikram

    @Loneliberal PK:

    “I believe there is a God…and no amount of education will ever change that.”

    So basically, you’re confessing that education and the strength of religious faith are inversely related? The more educated one becomes, the more he/she tends to draw away from religion?

    It’s a miracle: you and I have finally agreed upon something.

    I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT SHE AGREES WITH YOU.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    @elementary:
    I don’t think so. You need the concept of ‘the other’ for those factors to come into play – and religions like Hinduism/ Buddhism/ Jainism (which came before others did) do not have such an approach. Further, there is no assumption that piety equals morality. The reason that minorities have flourished in India (and while you can point to a Gujarat 10 years back or a Babri Masjid 20 years back, these events are few are far between – Indian Christians and Sikhs have economic indicators that are at the same level or better than Hindus) is that no one sees them as ‘Muslims’ or ‘Christians’ unless they choose to define themselves that way. There is NO violence committed in the name of hinduism in India – nothing that people can quote from scripture to justify their hatred for other faiths. The people who are in jail for the Gujarat riots may justify their acts based on some provocation (imagined or not) but cannot say that their religion allows it, and that they are holy warriors on their way to heaven. Anti-conversion violence among tribals is precisely motivated by this fear – that once converted, earlier members of the same group suddenly start seeing themselves as different and superior, fuelling social tensions; it has nothing to do with religion – for example, I have never heard of an athiest being attacked in India.Recommend

  • http://birmingham elementary

    @BlackJack:
    It has deletrious effect on the personality of individual(mind stunted and heart corrupted) but you I think are talking more about political impact.
    So no Hindu extremist group exist( I dont want to name any) or existed? Only as mere irritant or not even that ;you would argue. what if a super power suddenly found it in her national interest for whatever reason to feed ,fatten and fuel them?.
    Hindus are living in peaceful co-existence with muslims in india: turned around it can be said muslims are also livng in peaceful existence with Hindus,so nothing wrong with Islamic ideaology.
    Ground prepared with dwarfed brains and skewed heart desires all they need is fuel and bit of fire. Recommend

  • Vikram

    @Acorn guts:
    If the message can be interpreted in many ways, some of interpretations even contradictory to each other……that sounds like an evolving message too.Recommend