The Amazing Accomplishments of Muslim Scientists

Airmano: ...Having said so, as soon as science clashes with Islam (the same applies to other religions) the defense mechanism get quickly put in place (keywords: Evolution theory, Embryology etc.) Ahmad: By this, you mean there are no practicing Muslim Biologists or Physicians or what?

No, I never said so, and I even posted examples of Muslims who realize that there is a problem, like this one.. There was however no comment from your side.
In addition I (and Ron) already mentioned a second "effect", that is that Muslims don't seem to criticize other Muslims [openly] even if they tell the biggest nonsense (Remember Abu Loren and the flat earth or "The Saint" and his 'two hearts' ?).
In essence I think there are many (educated) Muslims that do see the dilemma between the Quran when taken literally and the many errors this implies, but for unclear reasons (fear ?) they don't stand up against it.
-----------------------------------------------------

I did see same �defense mechanism� invoked by you sooner we talked about the Quantum Mechanics that initially confused Einstein as well. Isn�t it?

I'm more than willing to clarify, but to do so I first have to understand what the problem is. Could you rephrase it please ?

----------------------------------------------------------

As I said, science is not about finding God, thus your theory is not very compelling here. However, I do see how you appear to again falter on the same notion of separation of �church and state� or to stumble upon picking only one out of two ie. either �faith� or �science� and not both. But that is not what the Muslims have to be worried about at all.

Again, I really don't understand what your point is. Where did I mention [separation of] "church and state" ? Could you elucidate ?
-------------------------------------------------------

Although, I don�t know which links are you referring here, but I do see working of the same fallacy of assumption that if no one responded to your question, you assumed you are right!! What a delusion indeed!!

My sentence was: Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. .
Does this sentence really sound like somebody that claims to be right 'at any cost' to you ? What I meant by the second sentence was not that this theory [see link below] is necessarily right, but that things that are in conflict with [your] religious doctrines get simply ignored.

Although I send the link already several times, here we go again.

It would be nice if yould you comment beyond "it's just a theory".


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 06 March 2016 at 1:36pm

Airmano: ...Having said so, as soon as science clashes with Islam (the same applies to other religions) the defense mechanism get quickly put in place (keywords: Evolution theory, Embryology etc.) Ahmad: By this, you mean there are no practicing Muslim Biologists or Physicians or what? Airmano: No, I never said so, and I even posted examples of Muslims who realize that there is a problem, like this one.. There was however no comment from your side. Ahmad: I am sorry where is the question about this Muslim�s views about Science & Islam?

Apparently we are talking past each other. The way I understood your sentence ("Muslim doctors & biologist") was as if you had said: "Do you really think that [well educated Muslims] like doctors and biologists would not see the errors in the Quran [if there were any] ?"

I thought my answer was adequate.
------------------------------------------------------

Ahmad: Also, how his views different than mine, though I don�t agree with him about Muslims� rejection of Aliens. This is because, �Jinns� are just one possibility of such creatures whose existence not only on earth but on some other planets, can�t be ruled out.

Your point of view about this is so spaced out in my opinion, that I'm not even willing to discuss it.
----------------------------------------------------

Airmano In addition I (and Ron) already mentioned a second "effect", that is that Muslims don't seem to criticize other Muslims [openly] even if they tell the biggest nonsense (Remember Abu Loren and the flat earth or "The Saint" and his 'two hearts' ?). Ahmad: You did put these remarks elsewhere as well during our discussions and if you go back to those pages, you should find that I did correct my brothers openly, wherever I thought they needed it...

Not that I remember, but I leave you the benefit of the doubt. It has certainly not happened very often, though.

-------------------------------------------------------

Amad: Only a logical argument can settle one�s satisfaction over the understanding of Quran, but there are very few Muslims who wants to go through this route. If by �stand up against� implies enforcing one�s views over others, I don�t think that�s a correct approach. Isn�t it exactly the opposite that we are professing against extremists� way of working?

No that's not what I wanted to say. May be "Expresses his disagreement" would have been a better formula than "standing up against..."

-----------------------------------------------------

Ahmad: Its nothing serious but only surprising to see that even when it was shown to you that how Einstein got wrong in rejection of the Quantum Mechanics theory by saying �God doesn�t play dices�. This implied two things: (1) His own fixated view about his then understanding about the nature (2) Your own fixated view by rejecting Quantum theory and in favour of Einstein�s. Hence my point is that there is certain �Inertia� among people about their �faith� (whatever you call it scientific theory etc or religion) in rejecting the old thoughts and adopting the new ones. Thus, there is a natural �defensive mechanism� or the �inertia� that inhibits one to change for the new. Therefore, Muslim Scientists are not an exception here, if their �Defensive� mechanism kicks in.

I still don't understand why you keep on repeating that I reject QM (because I never said so), but I can agree on your point about inertia.
---------------------------------------------------

Ahmad: Thanks for sharing your evidence for concluding that : Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. . How can you logically conclude that the mathematical proof of Big Bang supports your understanding that it happened without the Creator. Amusingly, the author says The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? �We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,� say Dongshan and co. . The highlighted and specifically the red colour text is mine just to highlight that all this proof shows that creation is mathematically possible, same as it is mathematically possible to show the existence of other natural phenomena. I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us?

Good point! First of all, you may have understood by now that I'm not an atheist but agnostic. So I do not rule out the possibility of a(!) creator.
Having said so I do rule out the attributes you associate with 'him', because of the logical inconsistencies this leads to.
Furthermore having read [parts of] the Quran: your messenger/Quran logic looks so implausible to me, that I'm not even considering investing much time into it either.

To the point: The possibility of the creation of a "small true vacuum bubble" is a direct consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and can thus be explained by the known laws of physics.

The uncertainty relation reads: Δx*Δp ≥ ℏ/2 and can be relatively easily reformulated into Δt*ΔE ≥ ℏ/2
(Time times energy must be bigger than zero or at least equal to ℏ/2).

The ΔE in the second equation implies the creation of so called "virtual particles" popping in and out of existence (since E=mc2, thus ΔE=Δm*c2, Δm stands for [the mass of] these particles), but they generally only exist for a small amount of time (Δt). Now I don't want to go into heavy QM but a direct consequence of the latter is that there is no "true vacuum" (see the larger "≥" sign in the equation), the word for it is "Quantum fluctuations".
This is not purely academic, since effects caused by these 'virtual particles' can be measured (Casimir effect).
Now you can have a very small but real chance that ΔE (and thus Δm) exceeds "a critical mass" and a "small true vacuum bubble" - and thus ultimately a new universe is born in a purely probabilistic way.

BTW, it was exactly this (probabilistic) implication of QM (and the following unpredictability) that made Einstein say "God doesn't play dice" to Bohr at the time.   Bohr answered something like: Don't tell God how he should run the Universe ! May be you should do the same and stop thinking in (too) simple terms of "holy books".

Once I have more time I may give you more details if you wish.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 09 March 2016 at 1:12pm

@Ahmad:

Although I think I did answer this question, I wil make a second attempt and go more into details - once I find the time, may be this WE.


Airmano

Airmano, Tim:

Yes, the universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing. But this insight does not explain the mechanism behind it. The ultimate explaination of the explanation of the explanation of the natural laws will remain a mystery. Unless you resort to circular reasoning.

I disagree with the notion that God actively fools around with radioactive decay and other daily processes. What sense does it make, when the natural laws for which he might be the ultimate explanation do the job quite nicely?



Edited by Matt Browne - 28 March 2016 at 2:30am