"Islamic Science" -- I often encounter this expression when I meet fellow Muslims at social events and I state that I am a scientist during the perfunctory revealing of professions. Not infrequently, my discussion partners start talking about "Islamic Science" with a certain degree of nostalgia and pride, because for them it conjures up the names and works of Muslim scientists such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Biruni (Alberonius) who lived in the 10th and 11th centuries C.E. It is important to realize that they are just two of the most famous representatives of the large scientific enterprise that has flourished in Muslim history.
As shown by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the world's foremost contemporary Muslim philosophers, Muslim scientists have pursued scientific research since the 8th century C.E., covering a vast range of disciplines ranging from astronomy and mineralogy to zoology and the medical sciences. However, the expression "Islamic Science" does not necessarily only refer to the fact that these scientists were Muslims. Instead, as suggested by another leading contemporary Muslim philosopher of science, Osman Bakar, the expression "Islamic Science" characterizes sciences "that were directly based upon and conceptually in harmony with the belief system of Islam."
Nasr and Bakar contrast such "Islamic Science" with the modern science which emanated from Europe in the 17th century C.E. and has since become the dominant force of scientific inquiry in the world. In their view, modern science is nearly exclusively based on a rationalist and materialist view of the world, and therefore does not require that the scientific methodology and interpretation are integrated with any faith-based system. The dominance of modern science resulted in the decline of the more traditional "Islamic Science", because even though numerous Muslims have continued to work as scientists, they no longer try to harmonize their scientific findings with the sacred concepts in traditional Islamic thought. Bakar and Nasr emphasize that modern science is not a value-free approach to knowledge, and that it carries within itself a rejection of the sacred dimension of knowledge. In Nasr's view, modern science has monopolized the concept of science itself, whereas traditionally, science was a much more generalized term (derived from the Latin scientia = knowledge) that permitted the integration of the sacred with scientific concepts. He calls for a restoration of a more comprehensive "sacred science", which would unify the wisdom and knowledge of all faiths with that of scientific inquiry.
I first encountered Nasr's ideas as a university student and became enamored with the possibility of unifying the process of scientific inquiry with faith and spirituality. This was probably a reflection of a basic human desire to integrate and unify knowledge. I had already experienced a similar excitement in the late 80s when fractals and chaos theory were becoming fashionable in popular culture. I still remember that in my German high school, those of us who were science geeks would sit down during recess and talk about the beauty of a Grand Unified Theory of particle physics or how chaos theory would allow us to unite biology, chemistry and physics. We did not have any clue as to what "chaos theory" or the Grand Unified Theory actually entailed, but we were simply enthralled by the idea of unifying and integrating the various sciences with a few basic mathematical equations. So when I read Nasr's books in the 90s, I felt that the "scientia sacra" (sacred science) would allow for an even more comprehensive integration of knowledge.
I grew up as a Muslim with an interest in Islamic thought and philosophy, and I also had a passion for the natural sciences. But I had not really given much thought to the possibility that these two domains of knowledge could be integrated. In many ways, Nasr's ideas were quite inspiring, because he emphasized that Islam was not only compatible with science, but actually encouraged scientific inquiry.
It was only when I became a scientist that I realized the challenge of actually unifying two bodies of knowledge that at their very core are completely distinct. Modern scientific knowledge consists of theories and models that are based on results of experiments which empirically test specific hypotheses. Spiritual knowledge is based on the study of sacred scriptures and metaphysical experiences. This fundamental disparity between modern science and spirituality results in a very different view of reality, as has been eloquently shown in Taner Edis' excellent book An Illusion of Harmony, and unifying modern science and spirituality seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Nasr's approach of transforming the modern concept of "science" to a more traditional, pre-modern and expansive view of science would indeed allow for a resolution of the disparity.
A "sacred science" would indeed permit the integration of spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge, but in practice, such a re-interpretation of the nature of "science" is not practical. During the last centuries, modern science has developed its own methodologies of how experiments are conducted and interpreted and these processes are constantly undergoing change. Globally speaking, modern scientists hail from very different cultures and speak different native languages, but share common conceptions of the nature of science and scientific experiments so that they can communicate results to each other. It is not uncommon at a scientific conference to have speakers from Japan, Germany and the USA give presentations in the same session and have some degree of consensus as to the nature and interpretations of their results.
If a group of scientists began to redefine their basic conception of science, so that it would allow for the integration of sacred knowledge, would they still be able to communicate scientific knowledge with colleagues who maintained the current modern day definition of science? Since "sacred knowledge" is defined so differently even by individuals within a single faith, how would scientists who incorporate "sacred knowledge" into their scientific inquiry share their results with colleagues who have a very different concept of "sacred knowledge" or perhaps even reject it completely?
These practical considerations have not deterred many contemporary Muslim scientists and philosophers and they are still actively trying to develop practical approaches to a modern day "Islamic Science". However, there are also other voices that see modern science and religion as two distinct bodies of knowledge that allow us to view different but complementary aspects of reality. We do not advocate a unification of knowledge, but a form of mutual respect and dialogue so that each body of knowledge can draw from their partner's strengths and wisdom.
Follow Jalees Rehman, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jalees_rehman
Marilyn Schlitz: A Path Forward: Embracing Our Creative Imagination
Peter Ochs, Ph.D.: Scripture, Science and Self in Islam
Alan I. Leshner: Exploring the Middle Ground Between Science and Religion
Marshall P. Duke: Cognitive and Behavioral Nutrition: Reading the Labels
http://quranandscience.com/human/205-the-sensation-of-skin-pain.html
Of course, you are correct here as well. Religion is not science.
"And whomsoever Allâh wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islâm, and whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky." (6:125)
The first question we should ask ourselves is whether or not it is true that a person's chest becomes constricted when "climbing up to the sky". Does it become harder to breathe when a person is at high altitudes or does a person's breathing remain the same? If based on present scientific knowledge, you believe that it is true that a person has more difficulty breathing at higher altitudes, let us then go to the second question. How would an illiterate shepherd from the flat-lands of the desert, whose highest peak is a small mountain that takes 10 minutes to drive to the top, know that at high altitudes, the chest becomes constricted? 1400 years ago, there were no airplanes or hot air balloons in Makkah. This analogy was not even understood by the companions of Prophet Muhammad (saws), but it was something they accepted as truth, because they had trusted the source.
Now with modern science catching up to the Qur'an, the scientific marvels listed in the Qur'an can be verified and even debated.
By the way, so do you mean that followers of islam are forbidden from taking professions as astronauts and cosmonauts as they are the ones, 'he wills to send astray'? - by the way - how are you so sure that it is He- when God in islam doesn't have a shape and image? - and why is that the verse from Qur'an mentions in only males?? - what will happen to females - does this mean they are already 'sent astray'?
Even prophet (pbuh) himself states, 'search for knowledge where ever you can, even if it means going to china' - Islam has survived by allowing free flow of thought rather than stuffing jagron from a particular source. It has remained a collective port of different knowledge sources, continuously inspiring science and pushing the caliphate into the golden age of scientific understanding - so, instead of focusing on religion - islam will do more good to mankind by being more accommodating of new thoughts from all directions. The uniqueness of islam lies in its emphasis on the understanding of greatness of creation of this universe.
I am saddened by the rather oppressive form of thrusting a single source and making scientological claims.
Islam can far do better without both the above. the pen ( or knowledge ) is more mightier than the sword.
so are these really the types of questions you were able to synthesized from what you've understood from reading the verse? you wonder whether Muslims can be astronauts? do you honestly think Muslims are "sure" that God is a "He"? or that the verse's use of the single third person masculine pronoun is because "females are already sent astray"? ...
the closest you came to a real question to the verse's validity is by attempting a hypothesis that you've just barely thought up along the way i.e "Mecca was a primary trading center and there were people from different regions of known world coming there for trade and commerce" and so by this piece of information you insinuated that the Prophet Muhammad could've gotten the ideas from Asians that came to Mecca to trade. but you'd still need an actually credible theory to support your insinuation, because one shouldn't debate upon the value of creative imagination.
A Few Impertinent Thoughts about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Go back to Bio 101, do not pass go, do not collect $200
Science and religion are not two sides of the same coin - they are anti-thetical to each other, since religion is based on "revealed truths" (i.e. garbage) while science attempts to find evidence and use logic and reason to explain the world we live in so as to not fool ourselves with nonsense.
Religion has little to nothing to offer science other than obstruction - science will destroy religion with the truth, as it has been doing since science's inception many centuries ago.
I look forward to the day that the human race throws off its religious boat-anchor and goes to scientifically-derived knowledge rather than superstition for answers.
We are?! Because we cannot prove the non-existence of non-existent beings we're at an impasse?
No, we're not.
It is those who desperately cling to religiously inspired fairy tales and myths that are in conflict with science.and reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfRlhqVeIM&feature=fvst
And I'm not referring to "ghosting" which is when a person records over existing video and you can see the outline of a person who was walking there previously. I'm talking about watching live video on a security camera and watching movement of apparitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_C1FXRo20
www.3srb.org
try sitting in a quiet room, eyes closed , no sounds, 24 hours. see what you experience. interesting?
okay, try 3 years, 8 hours a day. interesting ? the methodology of mysticism is as rigorous as modern science, it is simply the interpretation of data that has always been a problem to explain to the masses.
some people feel there is zero conflict between science and spirituality. but, between science and religion- that's a different subject. trying to accommodate dogma over 1000 years old with modern scientific theory is bound to confuse the small-minded...
Spirituality-- at its best--- is an attempt to understand the universe and oneself( same thing) through contemplation and introspection. Taoists achieved rather profound levels of understanding of the world, for instance ( Wu Wei, Wu Li)
The record of Hinduism is a little more mixed due to considerable amount of religious and dogmatic chaff accumulated over the centuries,. But still some rather profound concepts congruent with modern scientific understanding * minus the mythology) have been achieved.
The record of Islam is rather negligible in this respect. And Koran lore, because of its rigid adherence to Neo-Platonism, Creationism and geo-centrism etc, long discarded in the West, stands in direct opposition to modern scientific knowledge.
Whether contemplation or meditation reveals any thing more that how you feel when you meditate is unknown. It may well reveal "truths" about what consciousness means to a sentient animal but it is a stretch to claim that it tells us anything about the world beyond our own body.
try reading 'opening the dragon gate' , a story of the training of a taoist mystic. the eastern spiritual groups actuallly are all in accord with each other, with minor variations concerning the concept of God as a personal or impersonal force / being. the vedic vs buddhist arguments are minor in comparison to the east vs west arguments.
There's a good reason for this....modern science, with all its flaws (human failings) is vastly superior to Islamic "science."
Can anyone here, including the author, demonstrates how the methods of Islamic science are superior to the real science? Seriously. And what is this "sacred knowledge" the author writes of?
Why all of this talk about merging mumbo jumbo with reason? When reason and evidence fail us it is often temporary until new data appears or new hypothesis are formulated and tested. In the mean time the ethical thing to do is claim we don't know, not perpetuate myths to fill the void...
As for insult, I disagree. I did not call him names or question his intregrity.....his ideas are another matter though......practitioners of religion have for too long asked for a free ride when it comes to criticism, conflating criticism and lack of respect for their ideas as personal attacks....the free ride is over....if you incorrectly take it personal, so be it. But i can guarrantee you that most muslims and christians have zero respect for my non-belief and also often make it personal......
I think this is the difference between those that follow science and those that follow the “sacred.” Those that follow the “Sacred” would never do experiments that might prove their basic beliefs untrue.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are any great efforts being taken on the part of most large organized “sacred” community to challenge their own basic paradigms. If I am wrong, could someone point it out to me?
So, doesn't the absence of these suprnatural events in scholarly accounts of history mean something? yes it does - not one religion has made it's case.
But I have to disagree with you. Religion makes it case every day by providing standards of behavior and penalties for violating those standards. People over the years agree that religion is a good thing.
The problem I have is when people of faith try to make public policy. I have no problem with people of faith making policy for their own community, but they should not to hard to force that public policy on everyone else. Does that make sense?
it was called "islamic science" because it is a term used to refer to the science developed in the Islamic world, not because it has religious imaginations integrated in them or sacred-science as it mentioned...
ALOT of discoveries that happened in islamic history have ALOT of impact on modern science, you can search for it. an example:
"The ancient Greeks thought our eyes emitted rays, like a laser, which enabled us to see. The first person to realise that light enters the eye, rather than leaving it, was the 10th-century Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist Ibn al-Haitham. He invented the first pin-hole camera after noticing the way light came through a hole in window shutters. The smaller the hole, the better the picture, he worked out, and set up the first Camera Obscura (from the Arab word qamara for a dark or private room). He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one. "
do some people really think all religions applied to same rule?
Muslim/islamic/arab scientists are scientists. as simple as that.
this article is simply missleading the whole thing.
Quran wouldn't be a miracle in first place without science to prove it!
how Muslims will possibly know if this is the truth or not without real science to prove it?
you need science to verify it!
author meant to put "Islamic science" along side "philosophers" as one group, as they are only getting their knowledge/theories from different source than science it self!
which is i disagree..
There is no such thing as German, Jewish, American, Swedish, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Shinto, Native American, Black, White or Brown science; there is just objective science. There is no "parallel" science; there is just science. The "science" in the Quran, on the rare occasions that it could be said to coincide with contemporary science, is coincidental.