Are Religions & Science in Conflict?

space

Recently I came across an essay written by a physicist—Lawrence M. Krauss in New Yorker:-Sept 8th 2015— and thought it necessary to set the record straight. I shall, therefore present the rebuttal/correction and justifications thereof, point by point, for the broader understanding of the people.

Science is presented by Krauss as a cultural heritage. That may very well be true for his targeted audience (westerners), but for other this notion would not necessarily augur much acceptance. For Muslims, for example, it is not as much of cultural heritage as it is religious assist. In Qura’an, there are references in several verses; either to the events of creation or to the   processes thereof. Science, back then not being at the advanced level of today, therefore provides processual details for enhanced clarity in understanding of those verses. The point being that Science is not in conflict with religion (Islam) at all.

He callously drew a comparison between kim Davis (lady who refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple) and a hypothetical jihadi; who wants to behead infidel and apostate, and a Muslim Clerk who might refuse to let unmarried couple enter the court house or refuse to give a marriage license to unveiled woman.

The choice of term “Callous behavior” is of significance here because his premise of science being in conflict with religions (without distinction) is flawed, so are his hypothetical comparisons drawn.

It is of utmost importance to know the circumstances and injunctions—requisite— under which such actions could be carried out. A jihadi for example has never beheaded anyone in any country regardless. He could be an ordinary killer— should he happen to be a Muslim would sure habitually be labeled Jihadi orTerrorist.

Beheading is carried out only by states for State awarded sentences—like in Saudi Arabia or under Islamic State. Similarly a Muslim court-clerk cannot refuse an unmarried couple entry into the court or refuse a marriage license to an unveiled woman. Because, Islamic laws would not, by default or automatically, become applicable in a foreign non Islamic state. That is why one would never hear or see such ridiculous actions by a Muslims in USA.

All states, whether modern secular or theological states such as Saudi Arabia or even Afghanistan do, legislate and enact laws against certain unsavory, detestable, corrupt actions and not ideas, for simple reason; that Ideas could be concealed for indefinite period of time while actions may not.

“No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal” Mr. Krauss in this sentence most probably, obliquely and discreetly, is trying to disregard or discard the religious sacrilege while protecting the controversial idea of LGBT. Surprisingly at one hand he is championing for the militated talks about the (incorrectly perceived) conflicting postures of, religions and science, While on the other, he is being ambiguous and discreet about (correctly perceived) conflicting postures of religions and LGBT. Is he not sacralizing the Atheistic Militancy here?

Per his assertion—In science the word “sacred” may be classed as “profane” for making a certain point but knowledge, when looked at in totality, is sacred any way.

“No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion: that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise”

“Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion” (Here he is pasting his opinion to science’s face, without any substantiation or logical reasoning)

According to Mr. Krauss, Rand Paul is standing by Kim Davis’s belief.  would it, therefore be wrong to infer that Mr. Krauss, per his assertion above, is standing with LGBTs and hence sexual relations, may be established on the same footing, disregarding the religiously established sanctimonious relationships, such as mother, sister and daughter etc ?

“The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems”

Would it not be, to anyone’s amazement that, if gaining more knowledge of the working of the universe is mere delving into more purposelessness then, why the heck world is still wasting its time and resources on such an absurdity?  Should not Mr. Krauss then, probably be working on a barber shop or flipping Burgers?

“Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preëxisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst”

“Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy”

“Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend”

“If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label”

These passages simply reflect on Mr. Krauss’s cursory knowledge of the scriptures. That is exactly the hallmark of “Religiophobe Avowed Atheist”

Mr. Krauss has condemned tolerance of religious sensibilities while suggesting  all laws and ideas should be treated at par. Is it not Hypocricy? He also took the controversial cases of Abortion and LGBTs out of the religious ambit, declaring them to be purely social issues. Mr. Krauss here is victim of same fallacy which a religious scholar often also is. He thinks that being religious scholar has given him the control of the entire universe and can do and decide on any and all matters with impunity.

Islam does allow intellectual and meaningful debate and discussion on almost all matters but without an element of denigration and disrespect.

Mr. Krauss, it is understood that science is a creation and evolutionary whereas religious scriptures represent finality (regardless of acceptance or rejection by some) Observation in quantum physics causes fixity of location, and even change of course, which not only assigns such observed particles a distinction of status as compared to others but also alludes to the existence of an intelligent being Hence science is Divine and not Secular/Atheistic. So is the case with religious scriptural words (laws), evoking acceptance and reverence due to their fixity/finality. The moment concept of creation is accepted everything becomes (Ordained/Divine) non secular. Hence, the universe in its nature, including science, contrary to your characterization is Divine.

1) Science without religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind…. Einstein

2) The one who combines Sufism and Science will indeed acquire the truth….Imam Malik

3) I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of Glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of……James Clerk Maxwell

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: