tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-740924465958245224.post8967728922769562799..comments2024-03-10T00:44:49.280-05:00Comments on This & That: Muslim Reformers vs. European AttitudesSusannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03115294023069458287noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-740924465958245224.post-67007409627892541582010-11-12T20:55:09.523-05:002010-11-12T20:55:09.523-05:00Sarah, I always appreciate your POV especially on ...Sarah, I always appreciate your POV especially on these posts that relate to both science and religion. You have very interesting things to share - thank you! :)Susannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03115294023069458287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-740924465958245224.post-46302924972078657842010-11-11T10:49:51.279-05:002010-11-11T10:49:51.279-05:00Interesting!
Islam *was* historically quite frien...Interesting!<br /><br />Islam *was* historically quite friendly to science, but I think religious certainty will always put a cap on how far science can go. (For example there are books of the "Prophet's Medicine" that some Muslims still refer to, even though we have modern medicine which is actually proven to work. Trusting the Prophet's authority on truth to this degree has to mean doubting or disregarding objective evidence! :S) <br /><br />Having said that, there are definitely rationalist believers who fully accept all the results of science. But presumably you can't be a rationalist and cling to faith as a dogmatic certainty, because to be rational you have to be open to changing your mind if new evidence shows up... even if it means concluding that some of the Prophet's "medicine" was just old wives' tales.<br /><br />I think it's dogmatic certainty (orthodoxy) that stands in the way of human progress, not religious thinking per se. And it can exist in science as well as in religion (although it shouldn't!).Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11320601087412404116noreply@blogger.com