هل يصح ربط الدين بالعلم؟ | السيد علي أبو الحسن

15 المشاهدات· 23/04/14

الباحث - AlBaheth
1 مشتركين

في عقائد

#أسئلة_الباحث: مجموعة أسئلة يجيب عليها السيد علي أبوالحسن

🌍 للتواصل مع حسابات مجموعة الباحث على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي:

‏‎🔹الموقع الرسمي: https://bahith.net/

‏🔸‎واتساب: https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=96599653356

🔹تويتر: https://twitter.com/Al_baheth

‏🔸‎فيس بوك: https://www.facebook.com/albaheth.radshobohat.3

🔹انستاقرام: https://www.instagram.com/al_baheth/

‏🔸‎تلقرام: https://t.me/Al_baheth

أظهر المزيد

Transcript

[0:04]The Questioner says: “Is linking scientific events with Religion a correct thing

[0:10]to do?

[0:10]Is the purpose of religion worship or science or both?

[0:15]Some have started to explain every new scientific discovery with the Religion.

[0:21]Before I answer this question, I need to make a general remark.

[0:26]I want to say that first of all we need to have

[0:31]a correct definition on what we call science When we say science,

[0:37]or the relationship between science and religion, what is meant by science?

[0:42]And how does a theory become scientific?

[0:45]This is a topic that is raised in what is called as

[0:48]Philosophy of science I'm not specialized in Philosophy of science But it

[0:53]is intertwined with the Howza studies from the logical side.

[0:59]Such that Howza sciences look into the Logic of Inference and the

[1:05]Logic of Proofs, therefore, it also looks at the recent sciences and

[1:11]their standards and etc ...

[1:14]One must pay attention that there are two methodologies to Human reasoning

[1:23]Induction and Deduction methodologies Deduction methodology is that through specific premises you

[1:34]reach a conclusion which is included within these premises.

[1:42]For example, when I want to deduce that, let’s use this example

[1:52]which is commonly used P1: Everything that changes is created P2: The

[2:03]universe changes C: The universe is created the “Universe is created” statement

[2:11]can be found in the previous two premises which are "Universe is

[2:15]changing" and "everything that changes is created" And this is called deduction,

[2:20]where I deduce a conclusion from specific premises.

[2:24]It is also called Qiyas (Analogy) in Aristotle’s Logic.

[2:32]This is the methodology of deduction.

[2:35]And on the other hand, we have Induction.

[2:39]Almost all of Mathematics is through deduction The general branches of mathematics

[2:45]And we have induction as opposed to deduction As for induction, you

[2:52]move from the premises which are individual cases to reach a general

[2:57]conclusion.

[2:58]The Conclusion is general while the premises are specific.

[3:05]For example, I have a metal that expands with heat, I keep

[3:09]trying several other metals and then I reach the general conclusion that

[3:14]“metal expands with heat”.

[3:16]When we take a look at the inductive reasoning, we find several

[3:20]issues have been raised against it What is the justification for reaching

[3:25]a general conclusion when the premises are individual specific case?

[3:29]We tried only a few metals from all the available metals The

[3:35]cases that you tried on are way lower than the general conclusion

[3:41]you want to deduce.

[3:43]This is a problem From the problem also is that did we

[3:49]put in mind all the conditions of the experiment?

[3:53]For example, when we tried heating the metal we tried it on

[3:59]the Surface of Earth.

[4:00]Couldn’t it be that on the surface of Moon this doesn’t apply

[4:05]for example?

[4:06]But the conclusion that we want to deduce says all metals expand

[4:10]with heat while we know accounting for all the conditions is not

[4:14]possible Thus an objection was raised against the induction methodology.

[4:20]This issue is an indecipherable (difficult) issue in the recent sciences and

[4:24]there are attempts at trying to solve it and present solutions When

[4:31]we talk about recent sciences – what we mean when we say

[4:39]recent sciences- is the science that builds its theories through experiments, and

[4:46]induction.

[4:48]This is modern science, it needs experimental proof, and theoretical deduction isn’t

[4:56]enough.

[4:56]This science if we wanted to look at the issues in it,

[5:01]as if we wanted to look at the issues in the inductive

[5:07]reasoning We will see that - of course the Scholars have taken

[5:12]different stances towards Induction.

[5:14]- One old approach is to refer the inductive conclusion to a

[5:20]deductive one such that it becomes definitive, which is known to be

[5:26]used by Muslim Logicians.

[5:28]Others have said that we can reach conclusions that are close to

[5:39]being definitive, but that we can't reach definitive conclusions.

[5:47]One of the recent positions on Induction is by Karl Popper where

[5:53]he says that inductive reasoning is unhelpful and does not help you

[5:59]reach any conclusion.

[6:01]What is science?

[6:03]Any theory we impose that aligns with the evidence we currently have

[6:08]and which accepts that it could be disproved in the future if

[6:14]new evidence is found, this is considered a scientific theory.

[6:19]And as long as this theory hasn’t been disproven then it remains

[6:23]correct.

[6:23]This methodology is present and is considered strong.

[6:27]This methodology accepts that the issues raised on Induction cannot be solved,

[6:32]and that modern sciences (Experimental) are built upon hypotheses that aligns with

[6:38]the evidence we currently have but can be disproven And as long

[6:43]as it can be disproved, then it is a scientific theory considered

[6:46]as part of modern science, where you can say that since it

[6:48]hasn’t been disproved yet, then it is correct.

[6:51]This is the meaning of “correct", a correct scientific theory doesn't necessarily

[6:55]reflect reality.

[6:56]When it is said that something has been scientifically proven, it means

[7:00]up to the present time the current evidence aligns with the hypothesis.

[7:04]What do we want to get out of all this?

[7:09]We want to say that modern science is built on Induction Methodology

[7:16]This Methodology faces certain Logical issues, and the stances taken on these

[7:25]issues are multiple.

[7:27]When we want to talk about science and relate it with Religion

[7:32]or give it value, we need to 1) have a correct visualization

[7:37]regarding the value of the scientific theory 2) Have a correct understanding

[7:43]regarding the methodology of assessing the sciences.

[7:48]For example, it is said that it has been proven in medicine

[7:51]that Tea strengthens a specific something, no not proven in medicine rather

[7:54]let’s say scientific studies have proven.

[7:55]Or scientific studies have proven that Corona can spread through surfaces, then

[7:59]through air, then through speech, I don’t know if they said through

[8:03]speech but I read something similar and that it stays in the

[8:07]air for 14 minutes You find such studies, what is the level

[8:14]of evidence in this study?

[8:16]How many subjects are studied?

[8:18]What is the level of randomness, what system did they follow in

[8:22]collecting it?

[8:23]All of this we must look at Then after we know what

[8:28]happened in the process, we must then present on the methodology we

[8:34]use in assessing scientific theories After we do all this, we can

[8:40]then say this is what it means that science has proven.

[8:46]That science says so.

[8:48]Some would say science has proven the evolution theory, what does this

[8:53]mean?

[8:54]What is meant by this statement?

[8:57]Does it mean that it hasn’t been disproved yet, that there isn’t

[9:00]any evidence that can disprove it yet Or does it mean that

[9:04]there is plenty of evidence that aligns with the evolution theory, while

[9:07]there is plenty of evidence that doesn’t align with the evolution theory

[9:10]but we haven’t yet reached a conclusion in these.

[9:12]Or does it mean that all the evidence we have aligns with

[9:16]the evolution theory?

[9:17]You need to state what you mean by “scientifically proven” and then

[9:23]I, according to my logical reasoning methodology, will assess it.

[9:28]Depending on whose methodology do I follow, Karl popper, or Sayyid Al

[9:34]Shahid and his probability theory, or the Muslim Philosophers like Ibn Sina

[9:39]and others who refer the Induction back to Deduction, to the realistic

[9:44]reason.

[9:45]Depending on my methodology I will assess.

[9:47]Then after all of that we can say that the Quran has

[9:52]proved or negated or any of the sort, or that we link

[9:56]it with the Quran or we don’t.

[9:59]That’s why we say the Metaphysical narrations we have in the Quran

[10:06]and Sunnah cannot be disproved by the modern scientific evidence Unless if

[10:13]the narration was linked to something perceptible, and the scientific evidence is

[10:20]linked to something perceptible directly.

[10:22]It is not enough to say that the age of the universe

[10:26]was proven to be 13 billion years, that it was created 13

[10:30]billion years ago.

[10:31]I need to see your complete inference, then assess it according to

[10:35]my methodology, and then I can deal with the scientific theory.

[10:38]And then I can say if it is compatible with the Quran

[10:41]and Sunnah or not, and if I find something that is against

[10:44]what is in the Quran and Sunnah then I will take the

[10:47]Quran and Sunnah with all due respect.

[10:48]Why?

[10:49]Because your Induction methodology isn’t enough to reach a definitive conclusion so

[10:55]why should I leave my definitive methodology and take yours.

[11:00]One might say are you serious?

[11:03]Look at where science has reached and all that.

[11:06]It is true, but all of this is not definitive and didn’t

[11:11]account for every single detail.

[11:14]All you can prove scientifically is that if we heat metal, it

[11:21]will expand.

[11:22]What if there is an Angel doing it, how do you know?

[11:26]Science can’t prove or negate it.

[11:29]For real, it cannot, it cannot prove or negate it.

[11:32]Or the Jinn and where they come from, science can’t prove or

[11:38]negate these details.

[11:39]It could be that the Jinn affects a certain thing in the

[11:43]brain.

[11:43]It’s possible that certain reasons can lead to a Jinn affecting the

[11:46]brain in a certain way and it’s called Mas.

[11:51]And science has proven that Mas is an issue in the brain

[11:53]due to a certain substance, all of this could be due to

[11:56]a Jinni, how do you know if its not?

[11:59]What we’re trying to say is that we can’t create a definite

[12:05]relationship between science, and the Quran and Sunnah, whether to prove or

[12:12]negate Except if 1) We have a clear view on what has

[12:17]been definitively proven from this scientific issue 2) that we have a

[12:21]clear methodology on how to assess the logical reasoning used to present

[12:24]these scientific conclusions.

[12:25]Without those two that it’ll be just newspaper talk, twitter talk give

[12:27]and take Without those two that it’ll be just newspaper talk or

[12:32]twitter talk (meaning non-scientific talk) We must to meet the two conditions.

[12:37]Of course, we don’t have an issue to reject a narration, even

[12:43]if Sahih, if it was opposing a definitive scientific conclusion.

[12:48]Because the Sahih Narration is not definitive on its own.

[12:51]But in the end, we say that it is not possible for

[12:54]science to oppose something definitive in the Quran And what appears to

[12:57]be so (that it is opposing the Qur'an), must be looked into

[13:00]further.

[13:00]That’s why we warn that you shouldn’t link a religious text (Quran

[13:05]or Sunnah) to a scientific proof Yes, it is fine to say

[13:10]that it goes along with, that this religious text goes along with

[13:14]this certain scientific study.

[13:15]Both in the case of proving and negating there must be caution

[13:19]in dealing with it, and observing the scientific methodology.

[13:22]At the end I’d like to present a point, there is an

[13:26]important matter in the scientific methodologies.

[13:28]In a lot of the cases the Induction is based on the

[13:34]assumption that there is no godly metaphysical intervention.

[13:39]For example, the theory relating to the age of the universe.

[13:47]They say if we take the speed of the expansion of the

[13:53]universe, The universe is expanding according to a certain mathematical pattern (2,4,8,16,

[14:05]etc.).

[14:07]So, if we reverse the direction, we can know the age of

[14:12]the universe.

[14:13]How do you know that the Universe started from point zero?

[14:18]What if the universe started with the planets and stars already existing,

[14:24]and then it started to expand as per the mathematical formula?

[14:30]And how do you know if the expansion rate followed the same

[14:33]rate of change a billion year ago?

[14:35]All of these are hypotheses that you cannot prove.

[14:38]Many scientific theory are based on the hypothesis that there is no

[14:42]Godly metaphysical intervention.

[14:43]And if it was proven that there is metaphysical intervention, then the

[14:49]scientific theory fails, It doesn't provide proof.

[14:52]We don’t want to say that you shouldn’t speak in science, but

[14:55]that you state based on no intervention, then the age of the

[14:58]universe is 13 million years.

[15:00]But you can’t say it definitively that is is the real age

[15:02]of the universe, because your hypothesis assumes no intervention and you cannot

[15:04]prove it.

[15:05]I’m speaking logically and not as I’m speaking logically and not as

[15:08]someone wearing a Turban, I’m speaking from a logical point of view.

[15:13]We must discuss these scientific theories with accuracy then we can talk

[15:18]about the conclusions.

[15:19]Scientifically proven and so on.

[15:22]Sometimes they say that the percentage of gays in such and such

[15:26]place is 10% , how did they count them, what are the

[15:30]parameters of the study?

[15:31]Of course, they do put this information, don't understand from my words

[15:35]that they don't.

[15:37]But when these studies are presented, they do not show these parameters

[15:41]to the public.

[15:42]If we dissect these parameters then we may disagree with the conclusions

[15:44]of the study if we present it on our logical methodology.

[15:46]The conclusion of what I want to say is: Modern sciences are

[15:52]based on Induction methodology, this methodology faces a number of logical issues.

[15:58]There are multiple theories on how to deal with these issues, Since

[16:10]this is the case, then we cannot prove or negate between the

[16:22]Islamic sciences and modern sciences except if: 1) We know the exact

[16:32]amount of what has been definitely proven 2) We have a correct

[16:35]understanding of the scientific methodology.

[16:37]Without the previous two conditions, we shouldn’t speak about this topic and

[16:41]it should be left until these two conditions are fulfilled.

[16:45]This is what I wanted to present on this topic.

0 تعليقات

التالي

هل يصح ربط الدين بالعلم؟ | السيد علي أبو الحسن

Transcript

التالي

استكشاف المزيد

يرجى ملاحظة أنه إذا كان عمرك أقل من 18 عامًا ، فلن تتمكن من الوصول إلى هذا الموقع.

التالي

هل يصح ربط الدين بالعلم؟ | السيد علي أبو الحسن

Transcript

التالي

استكشاف المزيد

اختيار طريقة الدفع

لغة