Re: Quaran: And The Theory of Everything

From: Alphonse (mucha.alphonse_at_gmail.com)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: 20 Jan 2005 06:03:29 -0800

Mark L. Fergerson wrote:

>apparently to justify attempts to extract "scientific" data from the
>Quran (or others' attempts with other religious tomes). This was a
>lead-in to your assertions about civilization and "bettering" people.
>Now you refuse to defend your position?

Well, friend it was not basically an attempt to justify Quran by
extracting scientific data from Quran, neither was it an attempt to
justify science by comparing it with Quran. And this really had nothing
to do with "bettering" people. (To be honest I was surprised when I
came accross that link myself. So you can understand how trifling is my
own knowledge regarding both Quran and SR to have posted it in the way
I did.) But then why at all did I post the message here in this group
may be a question which I really cannot provide you with any
satisfactory answer. I wanted to know everyone's opinion on this fact
that long before Einstein, Quran did provide some hints towards SR and
GR. The way I presented it vexed many. I would like to apologise if I
have hurt anyone's feelings. But I cannot accept the way these great
fellows, these great men of learning reacted to that. I didn't intend
to hurt anyone. I wanted to stop the topic due to two reasons 1. I do
not have sufficient knowledge of Quran 2. I was disappointed by the way
these great physicists reacted (I am not using the word "great"
mockingly, they indeed are great). the march of science is now no
longer crossed by the accidental fact that men live for about 110
years, as was for all too long the case. Formerly, a man wanted to
reach the far end of knowledge during this period of time and the
methods of acquiring knowledge were evaluated in accordance with this
universal longing. We say it is "explanation "; but it is only in
"description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge
and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our
predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive
man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and
"effect,"as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming,
but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the
conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete
in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in
order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything
thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems
a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has
"explained" impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with
things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms,
divisible times, divisible spaces - how can explanation ever be
possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It
is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things
that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately
by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is
probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before
us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a
motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but
infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us
into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an
infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us.
An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which
could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception,
as things arbitrarily separated and broken - would throw aside the
conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quaran: And The Theory of Everything
    ... >>Quran. ... > justify science by comparing it with Quran. ... a position to defend vis a vis specific religions. ... itself a conception, one that underlies most of organized religion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Anti - Muslim ignorance
    ... >> demonstrating that Islam and science can be in harmony. ... If Quran is consistent with modern science AND its ... claiming that the embryology polemic is evidence of the Qur'an having a ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: What the Scientists said about Quran.
    ... I would say this is a comprehensive post about the Quran and science. ... Associate Professor of Medical Embryology at Georgetown University) ... scientists and professors who are still puzzle like you but until we ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Re: Anti - Muslim ignorance
    ... If Quran is consistent with modern science AND its ... > First, in Soorat al-Moominoon, the Qur'an states bones form first, then ... What an accurate description Quran has given! ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Anti - Muslim ignorance
    ... >> I am familiar with these web sites and their objections essentially ... Quran should be interpreted in the way that it was originally ... If a word in Quran has dual meanings and one meaning supports modern ... >> was never God's intention to teach science through religion; ...
    (alt.religion.islam)