The relationship between religion and science
There is a dialectical relationship exists between science and religion, and this dialectic between them is not something new, but the emergency is a list of long ago. For as long as the relationship of science to religion the subject of debate and dispute among scientists, philosophers, and clergy. However, the question that imposes itself here, is the relationship between science and religion is in its ******* and essence paradoxical relationship exclusionary? Do you sense that science can eliminate debt and replace it? Or two Antzman within two approaches are not necessarily distinct to be contradictory. To answer these questions, we must first draw on the concept of science and its properties, research Erkolojia in the nature of the relationship with religion according to the historical process of its development
Means the science in this research what was termed the newly English word science is the term a broad and comprehensive fall under its banner across natural science and physical and social, is this appropriate human activity meaningful and structured, based on the method of thinking systematically disciplined, warned, combines precise observation and assumptions logical and potential pilot. And Unlike science, looks at religion as something ****physical, based on absolute faith does not question it, therefore, not subject texts are deterministic and fixed to the rules of scientific research, in the sense that it is not subject to testing, knowledge of religious resulting from it do not touch Tools sense and experience, as is the case of scientific knowledge that are subject again and again to test experimental and Tkvebah order to verify the truthfulness prior to their adoption Kmaref reliable.
Within this vision has emerged from three different positions on the part of scientists with regard to the nature of the relationship between science and religion. Position the first and adopted by the materialist philosophy, relationship to religion with science and its view is the relationship between paradoxical exclusionary, where the alleged owners who adopt the approach rational fundamentalist that does not exist for the world other than the physical world of material, article is the truth existential and absolute science only Bmenhjh firm can uncover the secrets of this world and the fathom, and the belief that there is another world, my perception and perspective are just hallucinations of mind are worthless, as I see Freud, "that the religions of mankind must be classified as two of the illusions of the masses. "is also the materialist philosophy that any attempt to bridge the gap between what is physical is not physical in the fall traveled dogmatism.
There is another position is that both science and religion Antzman within two approaches distinct do not compare or estimate each other Each of them has his field private, if the science is the nature and purpose of the understanding and explanation of phenomena, as well as analysis frameworks through sense and mind, the field of religion is God and his goal closer it through the sacred texts which it was revealed revelation. in the context of this perception, science and religion Eetmzaran in two independent forms of life, the life of physical strength of the human mind and the other psychological expands its presence physicist is the life of feelings and spiritual meditation and supplication to God. as long as that science and religion in this Contrast systematic both in terms of ******** or the goals and methods, then it is not there any contradiction between them, although it is a paradox surface due to the difference in the nature of each, if the "religious beliefs are attempts to develop a religious experience of human in the form of specific" 1 ", the doctrines of scientific are attempts to put the facts discovered by the senses in the laws of acceptable. "but keep religion for science in this context is unable to promote Bmqtadhaath and Mujbath, it is not a means systematic and logical for the production of scientific knowledge nor is it a book containing the theses and scientific theories, but a means to feed the spirit of things is not defined subject to the Sultan of theological superstition and not to the Sultan of reason and human experience, therefore no way to subject any of them to rule the other. As David Hume believes that "each religion is not a mutually exclusive way to find out it is a complex type of feelings believers they can not provide evidence of physical and logical arguments to prove that religious faith"
But in contrast to science workers face a number of existential questions, which all the potential inability of science to answer them, they are mostly spontaneous and simple questions often hesitate on the tooth before the young adults, such as what is the origin of the universe? And how it began? It is created? What are the limits? What will happen? What is the justification of our existence in it? What we will be? And where we will reach? .... Etc.. As you see Tolstoy, "The flag has no value, because it does not answer all our questions, the question is important we have what we will make? And what we will become?. That such questions can not be for science to answer unless you enter the God in the heart of the answers. Which led some to adoption of a consensus view of science and religion, both complement each other. science theme among the facts and knowledge that fall under the futile sense and observation, as well as the experience Eetmters left the question of how salt? and building on the answer to a question quality can formulate the law or theory which is the requirement for a fundamental and necessary to explain how the work of natural phenomena and cosmic. But these laws and theories do not justify, in fact, a cosmic phenomena, because that falls under the question of why? who answers his religion. "The physical law on gravity for example, can not be alone the cause of a phenomenon of attraction and in some other way we can ask the following question: who are forced celestial bodies to act in accordance with the law of gravity? It's definitely not the same law as the law describes the relationship is not caused by "" Keith ward
So not surprisingly, we find senior scientists such as Galileo, Michael Faraday and Einstein to be Amiqi religiosity, P Newton, for example, he considered himself a prophet and spent hours longitudinal to understand the secrets of nature from within the Bible, and sees Einstein that the need for people to religion similar to their need for science, and consider to the man religious as a "pious and devout in the sense that he does not doubt the significance of power over nature and that there can be no contradiction between religion and science, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The relationship of science with religion is a relation of reciprocity directs the religion of science to ethics and Beauty The science of religion prevents the tendency towards a world of fads and myths and pagan.
In the experiment Islamic religious in itself there is no contradiction between science and religion, but on the contrary is a science is a kind of worship and the duty of a legitimate religious deserves praise and reward, relationship to the flag with the Islamic religion is a relation of membership does not escape her, and is based on Muslims to many of the references in the Koran and that invited them to embrace science in the identification of the universe and nature and thus to God, but to understand the universe and the nature and explanation of phenomena and analyze their frames does not come through spiritual meditation isolated from the logic of research, experimentation and scientific thinking, sober, and here lies the problem, some go too far in his views to some extent consider the Koran the only source of knowledge and that everything produced by humans of the theories, laws and scientific principles through the process of their existence the historical Mtatrh in the context of the verses of the Qur'an in the form of symbols and signs, and to which is given wise to only decode the code and get through on the "groups aware of the first two and the others" have criticized the Ibn Rushd old this view and called for the independence of science from the Islamic faith, also refused to engage in dialogues scientific about the miracles on the grounds that it matters beyond the limits of consciousness and human experience. and recently met with the theory of the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran criticized many of the scholars and Muslim intellectuals, including Sayyid Qutb who believed in his book "In the shadows of the Koran" that it is naive to download the Quran that is not part and is not intended to, the Quran is not a book in chemistry, physics and spherical geometry as it is a book of guidance and education and guidance of the slaves, even if God wanted to be a book scientifically carried out the sea before implement the words of God. and goes thinker Khalil Hamsham far in its criticism to some extent regarded as "the doctrine of nondestructive" would be inherited generations usually revolve around self-and narrow-mindedness and intellectual failure to keep up with the process of scientific development. also involve the Koran the word of God which is not his death wrong in the hands of the interpretation of scientific issues are in fact discharge the age of modernism and Baddh, would put the Koran in the position of crippling, not miraculous. Qur'an does not impose itself a substitute for science in the interpretation of its outputs, and the significance of the presence of signs of indications of scientific is, in essence, calls for the pursuit in walks the earth in search and Astqsaoua, and is not intended that we are able to elucidate the facts and scientific knowledge of the structure of the Quranic text. He says "" "Say: Travel through the earth and see how He originated creation" spider.
( تقرير عن مشاركة سيئة )، و الموجودة أسفل كل مشاركة .
2012-03-19, 20:03
my dears i hate help me please
أفضل جواب - كتبه fadoula fcb
العرض العادي
