Hacker News Reader

Comment by proc0 | Hacker News Reader

You can see what I mean by the word "doubt" in my other comment above. I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition.

You are proving my point with this statement: > "The Quran is the literal word of God"

Science cannot make such statements of certainty, but religion can and does. To the extent that religion has doubt, as you say, it just means you're still learning or something like that. Science allows restructuring its own foundation and has done so again and again.

View on HN

> I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition.

I alluded to that toward the end of my reply. A non-Muslim may start off with that presumption until he is convinced that Islam is the truth, at which point he accepts it. Once the foundation is set, it does not make sense to keep that doubt or skepticism around any longer. Why accept the religion otherwise?

> Science cannot make such statements of certainty

God is outside the realms of time and space, which are the domains of science. It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science.

Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about?

> Science allows restructuring its own foundation

I don't see how that has anything to do with the subject matter, or that it is indicative that science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it.

The foundations of Islam are the Quran and Hadith. Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles (e.g. God is one, Muslims have to pray 5 times a day, the Hijri year is 12 months and follows a lunar system, etc.), some other aspects are open to interpretation (contingent on having a proper scholarly background of course - a layperson cannot interpret as he/she wishes), while other aspects are left open for society to decide as per its needs and evolution of time. I read that Muslim scholars hundreds of years ago derived rulings for how to pray if we were to fly one day - they were that forward thinking, and today we have airplanes.

> It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science.

Yes, I agree.

> Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about?

I'm not attempting to "break up the whole world". I'm simply taking science and comparing it with religion. Which religion? Well I can't go through every single one in a comment section like this. I'm attempting to use examples like Islam, Christianity, etc., etc. is that not clear enough? Are you saying you can't group religions based on the fact that they require faith?

> Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles

Alright... there you go. Can you doubt those principles? That is my main point!

> science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it

I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying many religions like Islam and Christianity (sure I'm qualifying it now, but please consider I have to contrive my arguments for brevity) do claim to have the absolute truth in their immutable principles. Again, that is my point, science does not claim absolute truth!!

> I'm attempting to use examples like Islam, Christianity, etc., etc. is that not clear enough?

You just grouped Islam with Christianity with "etc." :) That's still a continuation of the fallacy. You admitted earlier that you have not looked at the Quran, and that you mixed it up with Hadiths that I quoted. Do you agree that you do not have the necessary or even sufficient background to make claims about Islam in that case? I don't mean it in a disparaging way, and I absolutely encourage you to learn more about both, and about Islam.

> Alright... there you go. Can you doubt those principles? That is my main point!

I explained in my post, that a non-Muslim can look at those principles with an interrogative or even doubtful manner. Once he accepts them (and subsequently accepts Islam), it doesn't make sense to doubt them once more does it? Islam does not prohibit asking questions, it tells us to consult with people of knowledge when we do have questions about things we don't understand.

> Again, that is my point, science does not claim absolute truth!!

We don't claim that we know everything in Islam, the Quran states[1][2]

> and say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge."

> and you ˹O humanity˺ have been given but little knowledge.”

Absolute and full knowledge is an attribute of God. Only He has it, and not anyone or anything else in this world. Islam tells us that our knowledge is limited, yet it pushes us to acquire more. The Islam Golden Age was a direct result of this understanding of Islam. The Islamic empire at the time became a central hub of science and knowledge, at the forefront of scientific endeavor. My point is that the false dichotomy that some people try to claim between "science and religion" totally depends on which religion is being discussed.

[1] https://quran.com/20/114

[2] https://quran.com/17/85

You're ignoring my point. I can group religions together, it's not fallacy. You obviously don't understand what a fallacy is. I'm just grouping based on a common trait, to make an over-arching point.

> We don't claim that we know everything in Islam

Did I say this? Who said religions claim to know everything? Not me.

> Once he accepts them (and subsequently accepts Islam), it doesn't make sense to doubt them once more does it?

You are dancing around my point. "Once he accepts them" = not doubting.

Please read my arguments carefully. They are subtle, and it seems you think I am attacking religion, when I'm not.

> My point is that the false dichotomy that some people try to claim between "science and religion" totally depends on which religion is being discussed.

My argument does not depend on a specific religion, they all share things in common. If you deny that they all share SOME things in common, then I don't know what to tell you. Why are they called "religions" if they are so different? Why do they share the same label since before both of us were born.

Everything requires faith at some point, even science. You have to accept certain axioms that you are then able to build science and math on top of, there is no way around it. Are you going to call science a form of religion then? We know that scientism definitely is, and it's emerging these days.

> We know that scientism definitely is, and it's emerging these days.

I agree, and I tried to make the distinction between that and the science that produces results. Whether science also requires faith, would be a lengthy tangent. I don't necessarily disagree with that, it would depend on pinning down what exactly we mean by faith, which I think was beyond this thread. Good discussion though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com