4 ms·

> 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

> 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 https://quran.com/20/114 [2] https://quran.com/17/85 https://quran.com/17/85

proc0 5y ago
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.
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  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.
  - proc0 5y ago
    > 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.

proc0 5y ago

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.

gher-shyu3i 5y ago
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.
- proc0 5y ago
  > 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.