• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The contributions of Religion to sciences

StopS

Member
"The contributions of Religion to sciences" = a big, fat zero

Religions have hindered progress wherever possible and humans have succeeded in spite of religions and only because they were better than their gods.
That people were religious and believed gods existed did not drive them to make scientific discoveries. Human curiosity and creativity did.

Over 50% of Muslims are illiterate today. Not 500 years ago, but today. Because their doctrine commands to read the Koran, to reflect and ponder what their god has told them - in the Koran. They are told not to worry about things which would make them doubt (5:101) and that men will care for women, who are a degree beneath them. This has resulted in some female population percentages being over 90% when it comes to female illiteracy.

Many Islamogists lie and claim that 1000 years ago Muslims were the greatest scientists, but that's primitive propaganda. That's also why Islam in its present form and conservative interpretation is dying.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
How so? How is it religion contributing?

Religion is just a placeholder and as such it cannot contribute. But knowledge content of religions can directly and indirectly contribute and/or guide scientists positively.

For instance, if you read Neil Bohr's talk at Solvay conference of 1927 you will find him speaking about unreality of subject-object division. And you can also find Bohr's other quotes that he read scripture to raise proper questions.

Sensually one can hardly declare that subject-object division that seems brick real is only an apparition.

I can cite case after case of highest scientists who have found great value in scripture and also have been guided by the same.
 
Last edited:

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Religion is just a placeholder and as such it cannot contribute. But knowledge content of religions can directly and indirectly contribute and/or guide scientists positively.

For instance, if you read Neil's Bohr's talk at Solvay conference of 1927 you find him speaking about unreality of subject-object division. And you can also find Bohr's other quotes that he read scripture to raise proper questions.

Sensually one can hardly declare that subject-object division that seems brick real is only an apparition.

I can cite case after case of highest scientists who have found great value in scripture and also have been guided by the same.
I still don't see this as religion contributing to scientific discoveries. This seems to be religion helping scientists with their lives, but not so much directly influencing scientific progress.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
"The contributions of Religion to sciences" = a big, fat zero

Religions have hindered progress wherever possible and humans have succeeded in spite of religions and only because they were better than their gods.
That people were religious and believed gods existed did not drive them to make scientific discoveries. Human curiosity and creativity did.

Over 50% of Muslims are illiterate today. Not 500 years ago, but today. Because their doctrine commands to read the Koran, to reflect and ponder what their god has told them - in the Koran. They are told not to worry about things which would make them doubt (5:101) and that men will care for women, who are a degree beneath them. This has resulted in some female population percentages being over 90% when it comes to female illiteracy.

Many Islamogists lie and claim that 1000 years ago Muslims were the greatest scientists, but that's primitive propaganda. That's also why Islam in its present form and conservative interpretation is dying.

I have to ask. You might be right, but how can Islam promote illiteracy if it commands to read the Koran?

Ciao

- viole
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Isn't that just scientists who happen to be religious rather than religion itself actually contributing to science?
That's true.

Religion, their traditions and their scriptures...if they have any such texts...have don't contribute to science in any shape or form. It is people, who choose the path of science, for their education or career.
 

StopS

Member
how can Islam promote illiteracy if it commands to read the Koran?

Excellent question. The Koran itself, the word as such, means "recitation". It is an oral transmission, which was forced to be written down as the people who memorised it were killed in the various battles.
The Koran does not command anyone to read the Koran. Muhammad was illiterate and was allegedly asked to read by the angel used to transmit the Koran. The book only tells people to reflect, ponder and gain knowledge on the contents of the Koran.
Even today, the hafeez, the one who memorises the Koran is guaranteed a place in heaven. The effect is that the village elders today sit with a Koran and a pointing stick and follow the lines, reciting parts of the Koran. This is considered beneficial, even if nobody in this village can read or write. Only a fraction (~0.001%) of Muslims have studied ancient Arabic, so only very few can actually read the Koran in it's original form.
So, if you can recite some of it and you know the contents you are eligible to go to heaven, no other education required.
I hope this clarifies it.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Excellent question. The Koran itself, the word as such, means "recitation". It is an oral transmission, which was forced to be written down as the people who memorised it were killed in the various battles.
The Koran does not command anyone to read the Koran. Muhammad was illiterate and was allegedly asked to read by the angel used to transmit the Koran. The book only tells people to reflect, ponder and gain knowledge on the contents of the Koran.
Even today, the hafeez, the one who memorises the Koran is guaranteed a place in heaven. The effect is that the village elders today sit with a Koran and a pointing stick and follow the lines, reciting parts of the Koran. This is considered beneficial, even if nobody in this village can read or write. Only a fraction (~0.001%) of Muslims have studied ancient Arabic, so only very few can actually read the Koran in it's original form.
So, if you can recite some of it and you know the contents you are eligible to go to heaven, no other education required.
I hope this clarifies it.
[16:99]And when thou recitest the Qur’an, seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=16&verse=98
Regards
 

cambridge79

Active Member
i think religions had a big purpose in the past but if we stick to current times i think they're only a rock to our neck slowing us down in our scientific and moral advance.

i see religions like Santa Claus. when you're a kid you're told about santa claus, bringing you presents at christmas and you actually believe in him.
When you grow up they tell you he doesn't exist. at that point you start to act like an adult, and at christmas you start to give gifts to other like they give gifts to you.
a grown up man who still believe in santa claus would look odd, he also would pretend to recieve gifts but would not give none.

same with religions and societies. Newborn societies need religions. Than they need to grow up and leave them behind in order to become mature societies.

religions in the past gave great contributions to science, they were the custody of the knowledge, in middle age times for example without abbots copying books before printing was introduced we would have lost a lot of knowledge. Religious class was always the most educated, among the few who can actively read, so they had a role even in scientific life.
In todays time i don't see any possible field where a scientist could end up needing the help of a priest on a scientific problem.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
viole said:
how can Islam promote illiteracy if it commands to read the Koran?
StopS said:
Excellent question. The Koran itself, the word as such, means "recitation". It is an oral transmission, which was forced to be written down as the people who memorised it were killed in the various battles.
The Koran does not command anyone to read the Koran. Muhammad was illiterate and was allegedly asked to read by the angel used to transmit the Koran. The book only tells people to reflect, ponder and gain knowledge on the contents of the Koran.
Even today, the hafeez, the one who memorises the Koran is guaranteed a place in heaven. The effect is that the village elders today sit with a Koran and a pointing stick and follow the lines, reciting parts of the Koran. This is considered beneficial, even if nobody in this village can read or write. Only a fraction (~0.001%) of Muslims have studied ancient Arabic, so only very few can actually read the Koran in it's original form.
So, if you can recite some of it and you know the contents you are eligible to go to heaven, no other education required.
I hope this clarifies it.
paarsurrey said:
[16:99]And when thou recitest the Qur’an, seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=16&verse=98
Regards
Exactly, thanks. That's why I used the word "read" and not "recite", which was the point of my explanation.

The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs 88 times in the Quran, in four derived forms:

  • 16 times as the form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ)
  • once as the form IV verb nuq'ri-u (نُقْرِئُ)
  • once as the noun qurū (قُرُوٓء)
  • 70 times as the nominal qur'ān (قُرْءَان)
The translations below are brief glosses intended as a guide to meaning. An Arabic word may have arange of meanings depending on context. Click on a word for more linguistic information, or to suggestion a correction.

Verb (form I) - to read, to recite
(7:204:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
(10:94:10) yaqraūna (have been) reading فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ
(16:98:2) qarata you recite فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ
(17:14:1) iq'ra Read اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا
(17:45:2) qarata you recite وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَسْتُورًا
(17:71:11) yaqraūna will read فَمَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَابَهُمْ
(17:93:18) naqra-uhu we could read it وَلَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَابًا نَقْرَؤُهُ
(17:106:3) litaqra-ahu that you might recite it وَقُرْآنًا فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى النَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكْثٍ
(26:199:1) faqara-ahu And he (had) recited it فَقَرَأَهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ مُؤْمِنِينَ
(69:19:8) iq'raū read فَأَمَّا مَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَيَقُولُ هَاؤُمُ اقْرَءُوا كِتَابِيَهْ
(73:20:26) fa-iq'raū so recite عَلِمَ أَنْ لَنْ تُحْصُوهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ
(73:20:49) fa-iq'raū So recite وَآخَرُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنْهُ
(75:18:2) qaranāhu We have recited it فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ
(84:21:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقُرْآنُ لَا يَسْجُدُونَ
(96:1:1) iq'ra Read اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
(96:3:1) iq'ra Read اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qrA
The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) has both the meaning to recite and to read.
Regards
 
Last edited:

StopS

Member
The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs 88 times in the Quran, in four derived forms:

Oh boy!
So you choose to write down the usual nonsense I read every day.
The usual whining that you can't really translate it and that every word in ancient Arabic has several meanings and I want this to mean something here and something else over there and everything must say what I want it to say.
At any given moment.
Sorry, this whining apologetic does not work with me.
All you are doing is the usual counting and deceiving.
700-800 million Muslims are illiterate today. Fact!
Muslims hardly contribute to patents or scientific papers. Fact!
The Koran does not tell people to read the Koran. Fact!
If the Koran is written in ancient Arabic and it's ambiguous it is not my fault. Fact!
Early Islam was an oral tradition. Fact!
The Koran nowhere commands followers to gain knowledge outside of the Koran and rewards those who commit the Koran to memory. If you want to make an impression here, quote the sentence in the Koran which tells people to learn reading and reading the Koran. Easy.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Oh boy!
So you choose to write down the usual nonsense I read every day.
The usual whining that you can't really translate it and that every word in ancient Arabic has several meanings and I want this to mean something here and something else over there and everything must say what I want it to say.
At any given moment.
Sorry, this whining apologetic does not work with me.
All you are doing is the usual counting and deceiving.
700-800 million Muslims are illiterate today. Fact!
Muslims hardly contribute to patents or scientific papers. Fact!
The Koran does not tell people to read the Koran. Fact!
If the Koran is written in ancient Arabic and it's ambiguous it is not my fault. Fact!
Early Islam was an oral tradition. Fact!
The Koran nowhere commands followers to gain knowledge outside of the Koran and rewards those who commit the Koran to memory. If you want to make an impression here, quote the sentence in the Koran which tells people to learn reading and reading the Koran. Easy.
Kindly provide 100% correct evidence in support of your claim, as you pronounce it is a fact. Please
Regards
 

StopS

Member
provide 100% correct evidence

What is that? Is there 90% correct evidence? Or 30% correct evidence?
I don't understand why you are unable to verify a simple statement.
http://bfy.tw/30Oc

This thread is about the contribution of religions to science. Has Islam contributed? No!
So what is your problem in accepting this? Do you have a personal issue with this? If you disagree, why not bring up a specific point or claim and let's examine it?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This thread is about the contribution of religions to science. Has Islam contributed? No!

As a Jew, I have to disagree with you on this. During what's often called the "Golden Age of Islam", the religion did contribute much to mathematics especially, but also to some other matters as well. Unfortunately, that "golden age" has since passed, and modern Islam has more slipped into "political correctness" that is holding back innovative thought and subsequent actions.
 

StopS

Member
what's often called the "Golden Age of Islam"

A common misconception. It's a big misnomer and holds no truth. It's just bad propaganda. There's a company in the UK called "1001 INVENTIONS" which is peddling these lies and deceptions all over the planet, trying to indoctrinate kids with this.

religion did contribute

Sadly, it did not. Islam is the opposite, telling people to learn and ponder or reflect and engage the intellect with what the Koran supplies. It says that people should not ask questions which would make them feel uncomfortable and doubt (like 5:101)
1000 years ago, after the Ummayad conquests, mostly Persian polymaths, brilliant people, found knowledge in the conquered regions and managed to do 3 things and do them brilliantly:
1. Record what was known and translate it into Arabic
2. Gather the knowledge from different regions and combine it
3. Advance and further this knowledge.

What they did NOT do is invent or discover anything significant. Not all were Muslims. Some were Zoroastrian and some were atheists. Today, companies like "1001 INVENTIONS" lie and pretend these were all Muslims, when it is quite obvious this is wrong. Al-Razi, for example mocked Muhammad and made fun of the Koran.

So, no, religion did not play a role here, people did. Which is why there is no Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Jewish science, but just science. The only exception is Islamic Science, where an inferiority complex seems to be at play here. After all, only one (1) Muslim ever, in the history of the Nobel Prize, has ever received a scientific Nobel Prize. Hardly any patents or papers are registered out of Muslim majority countries, because while we are currently discussing the responsibilities of stem cell research, Muslims are discussing whether the wife can lie naked next to her husband or how to fast in the ISS. Quite sad.

Many Muslims today are different and don't care what Islam says and simply study and learn, building a career in science in spite of Islam.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A common misconception. It's a big misnomer and holds no truth. It's just bad propaganda. There's a company in the UK called "1001 INVENTIONS" which is peddling these lies and deceptions all over the planet, trying to indoctrinate kids with this.



Sadly, it did not. Islam is the opposite, telling people to learn and ponder or reflect and engage the intellect with what the Koran supplies. It says that people should not ask questions which would make them feel uncomfortable and doubt (like 5:101)
1000 years ago, after the Ummayad conquests, mostly Persian polymaths, brilliant people, found knowledge in the conquered regions and managed to do 3 things and do them brilliantly:
1. Record what was known and translate it into Arabic
2. Gather the knowledge from different regions and combine it
3. Advance and further this knowledge.

What they did NOT do is invent or discover anything significant. Not all were Muslims. Some were Zoroastrian and some were atheists. Today, companies like "1001 INVENTIONS" lie and pretend these were all Muslims, when it is quite obvious this is wrong. Al-Razi, for example mocked Muhammad and made fun of the Koran.

So, no, religion did not play a role here, people did. Which is why there is no Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Jewish science, but just science. The only exception is Islamic Science, where an inferiority complex seems to be at play here. After all, only one (1) Muslim ever, in the history of the Nobel Prize, has ever received a scientific Nobel Prize. Hardly any patents or papers are registered out of Muslim majority countries, because while we are currently discussing the responsibilities of stem cell research, Muslims are discussing whether the wife can lie naked next to her husband or how to fast in the ISS. Quite sad.

Many Muslims today are different and don't care what Islam says and simply study and learn, building a career in science in spite of Islam.
There's always an interconnection between a society and its religious base(s).
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Evolution is not a "final explanation," it is s framework on which gene propogation and gene failure can be most efficiently displayed.
You are attempting to have a college level discussion with someone who refuses to learn about the subject past a second grade education...
And I suspect I am being quite generous with the "second grade" part..
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
A common misconception. It's a big misnomer and holds no truth. It's just bad propaganda. There's a company in the UK called "1001 INVENTIONS" which is peddling these lies and deceptions all over the planet, trying to indoctrinate kids with this.

Sadly, it did not. Islam is the opposite, telling people to learn and ponder or reflect and engage the intellect with what the Koran supplies. It says that people should not ask questions which would make them feel uncomfortable and doubt (like 5:101)
1000 years ago, after the Ummayad conquests, mostly Persian polymaths, brilliant people, found knowledge in the conquered regions and managed to do 3 things and do them brilliantly:
1. Record what was known and translate it into Arabic
2. Gather the knowledge from different regions and combine it
3. Advance and further this knowledge.

What they did NOT do is invent or discover anything significant. Not all were Muslims. Some were Zoroastrian and some were atheists. Today, companies like "1001 INVENTIONS" lie and pretend these were all Muslims, when it is quite obvious this is wrong. Al-Razi, for example mocked Muhammad and made fun of the Koran.

So, no, religion did not play a role here, people did. Which is why there is no Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Jewish science, but just science. The only exception is Islamic Science, where an inferiority complex seems to be at play here. After all, only one (1) Muslim ever, in the history of the Nobel Prize, has ever received a scientific Nobel Prize. Hardly any patents or papers are registered out of Muslim majority countries, because while we are currently discussing the responsibilities of stem cell research, Muslims are discussing whether the wife can lie naked next to her husband or how to fast in the ISS. Quite sad.

Many Muslims today are different and don't care what Islam says and simply study and learn, building a career in science in spite of Islam.

In other words one testifies that the Muslim rule was very liberal towards the Zoroastrians and exhorted them to use their faculties to their optimum level.
Regards
 
Top