> The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will.
That completely depends on what you define "God" to be. If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran then scientific knowledge most definitely contradicts with that.
> So if we now know, for example, that the world was not created in 7 days, then what is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?
The problem is that the "What is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?" is a textbook begging the question fallacy. The same fallacy that underlies all of the pseudoscience done under the theology umbrella. It is the wrong question to ask. Critical thinkers (which is a superset of scientists) should instead ponder the question "is the creation myth trying to tell us something in the first place?". Unfortunately, pondering that question is dangerous and answering it with "no" implies apostasy under nearly all religions. And every school of Islam teaches apostasy means death. I think that really does make Islam particularly unfit for being a good reference frame from which to openly engage in critical thinking. Note that nearly all forms of religion have a tendency to oppose critical thinking, but Islam has the additional problem of the threat of death.
>If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran
First thing do you know arabic? Second have you read the Quran translation if you don't know arabic? Third, have you gone through all the verses personally in the Quran that "define" "God"?
If you haven't done any these, how can you come to that conclusion. Doesn't that go against the scientific method which you seem to quote so much. For someone who claims to quote facts.. don't you have a fraction of shame.
The Quran has a precise description of people like you - though subjective, very eerily objective. It still makes much more sense than you. Rough english translation in the literal sense and also metaphorically "Deaf, dumb, blind.."
> First thing do you know arabic? Second have you read the Quran translation if you don't know arabic? Third, have you gone through all the verses personally in the Quran that "define" "God"?
Why do you ask me those questions? Why do the answers to them matter? Do you really think anyone believes that the details of Arabic change the interpretation so much that the general meaning of the text changes? Why would I have to go through all the verses personally? It seems one verse of a reasonable translation describing a general contradiction with scientific knowledge would be enough. I mean, if this truly was the literal word of an all-knowing being, a single verse disagreeing with real-world knowledge would bring into question the claimed origin of such a text?
> If you haven't done these, how can you come to that conclusion. Doesn't that go against the scientific method which you seem to quote so much. Just an obvious comical observation.
I find it rather comical that you are using such shoddy reasoning to attack a position I don't have. I only mentioned scientific knowledge once, I did not mention the quite distinct "scientific method" at all.
> The Quran has a precise description of people like you - though subjective, very eerily objective. It still makes much more sense than you. Rough english translation in the literal sense and also metaphorically "Deaf, dumb, blind.."
Well, good thing it's not really a good source for wisdom then :)
> The Quran has a precise description of people like you - though subjective, very eerily objective. It still makes much more sense than you. Rough english translation in the literal sense and also metaphorically "Deaf, dumb, blind.."
> The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will.
That completely depends on what you define "God" to be. If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran then scientific knowledge most definitely contradicts with that.
Yes, I was referring to God as described in the Qur'an, but He's not described as a "being" and He's not really "defined" at all because He's beyond definition. The nearest thing you get to a definition is: "God is greater". The Qur'an is probably most explicit about this but the theme is current in all Abrahamic religions. The Holy Trinity, for example, is a deliberate paradox.
I think part of what makes these discussions hard is that the nature of God is misunderstood. If you think that current scientific knowledge contradicts the existence of God then I think you are one of those who misunderstand. What experiment can possibly be performed to determine the existence of a presence that has no measurable attributes?
I don't see how physics is going to get us there. Neuroscience might insomuch as we might determine the nature of our perception of God, but I doubt even this would resolve anything. For example, if we discovered that belief in God is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, atheists would say that it proves that belief is just a freak of evolution, whilst monotheists would claim that freaks of evolution, like everything else, are God's creation and a part of His purpose.
The problem is that the "What is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?" is a textbook begging the question fallacy. The same fallacy that underlies all of the pseudoscience done under the theology umbrella. It is the wrong question to ask.
Critical thinkers (which is a superset of scientists) should instead ponder the question "is the creation myth trying to tell us something in the first place?"
Why not ponder both? I personally have no issue with this.
Unfortunately, pondering that question is dangerous and answering it with "no" implies apostasy under nearly all religions...(and the threat of death from Islam)
I take your point here. Personally I think this is more about societal control than about Islamic teaching, mostly because the verse that provides justification for death for apostasy just makes no sense when read out of context (at least I don't get it).
It is important to realise that many of the Qur'anic texts are referring to specific groups of people in a particular time and place. If you try to interpret them without that context you'll find yourself at best mislead and at worst tied in a tangle of contradictions.
With all that said, it's pretty obvious that this is one of the first wildcards that is reached for whenever someone wants a good slaughter. Around the world currently, Moslems are using it as a way to justify killing other Moslems.
That said, you can find justification for genocide and oppression everywhere, and not just limited to the religious. You should read what Darwin had to say about Negros sometime. It makes uncomfortable reading, and it was all backed by science.
That completely depends on what you define "God" to be. If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran then scientific knowledge most definitely contradicts with that.
> So if we now know, for example, that the world was not created in 7 days, then what is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?
The problem is that the "What is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?" is a textbook begging the question fallacy. The same fallacy that underlies all of the pseudoscience done under the theology umbrella. It is the wrong question to ask. Critical thinkers (which is a superset of scientists) should instead ponder the question "is the creation myth trying to tell us something in the first place?". Unfortunately, pondering that question is dangerous and answering it with "no" implies apostasy under nearly all religions. And every school of Islam teaches apostasy means death. I think that really does make Islam particularly unfit for being a good reference frame from which to openly engage in critical thinking. Note that nearly all forms of religion have a tendency to oppose critical thinking, but Islam has the additional problem of the threat of death.