Faith in a Fruitful Conversation

Sir: All sciences, of whatever discipline, have a subject matter they explore. That focus determines all that which it studies. Thus, chemistry, physics, medicine and economics, etc., etc., all have a distinct and specific body of knowledge based upon observation, recordation, assumption models and hypothesis. The cumulative results for each are "science"---a systematic, organized and collected body of proferred knowledge. Each "science" is dominate in its own domain, even if its conclusions collide with other "sciences" whose subject matter is different. What sets religion apart from verifiable science is that the believer must in fact "believe", and in so doing reject observable and logical conclusions to the contrary of its position. It is when blind belief supplants verifiable and rational/logical truisms that science and religion collide. Religion is personal; science is universal.

Mr. Sulayman Nyang

As per what E.O. Wilson stated: "An alliance between science and religion, forged in an atmosphere of mutual respect, may be the only way to protect life on earth."

I never knew there need to be an alliance. But perhaps what Wilson said, if taken in the context of antagonism between not science and religion but what some scientists held about religion, then perhaps we should look at how some scientists perceive religion and instead, to focus on religion as a positive force in encouraging ethical scientific inquiry and ethical development of applied science and technology.

As proven by the development and application of the atomic and nuclear bombs, scientists can be seemingly amoral on the impact and consequence of those upon man and his environment. The scientists who did so don't have to, but they did.

Our seemingly minute DNA differences or closeness to apes are both irrelevant and relevant if we are to merely note that but not to look at it from the perspective of how linked we are with all life on earth and the universe, as as part of the larger creation. After all, we are reminded in the Qur'an that man is not as important as the creation of the universe, rather part of it and one of the creations. :)

As for religion and science being of two systems of thought, different in their understanding and interpretation of the universe, frankly, I don't see any at all. Science has many theories waiting to be proven. Looking at it that way, perversely, religion has theories too on creation waiting to be proven - specifically on the ultimate cause of the effect or consequence that is the universe and life.

If you're talking about stem-cell research, well, that is not quite a problem in the wider Muslim world. If you are talking about creationism vs evolution, not quite as yet either a conflict between the scientists and ulema in the Muslim world. We'll see in the near future.

Here's an seeming oddity on religion and science. Malaysia wanted to send its first astronaut to the International Space Station. What interested Malaysian Muslims are not science per se (not a problem that) but as to how do one pray in space, or to fast up there. So, the ulema and scientists got together to address this even though a Muslim traveller don't have to fast and prayers are simplified. They did to the satisfaction of Muslims - not so much that it will be done by them, but that if they want to do it, there's a correct way to do it. If we can practice our faith as we want to, we'll go anywhere and pursue anything then:)

I have friends who are devout Muslims who think of nothing nor see any conflict with Islam in pursuing gene-splicing, stem cell research etc. In Malaysia, Muslims in the fields of science and technology are seemingly the most devout and traditional Muslims when it comes to social issues and the Shariah.

Seemingly because for example - The controversial Islamic Family Law of Malaysia some two years ago.

A clause in the law allows for a man to have access to his wife's monies and assets upon being divorced by asking the Shariah court to do so.

A coalition, full of passionte human rights activists led by Sisters in Islam objected to that clause as being unfair to Muslim women and made a federal and national issue out of it.

The Professional Muslim Women's Association, full of female doctors, scientists
and technologists have a different view and cooly went head to head with the coalition led by Sisters in Islam.

The Pro Muslim Women brought out facts and figures that it would not be detrimental to women but benefits them - e.g. more men initiated divorces than women, men have generally higher incomes than their wives etc. and that women can equally have the same rights to ask the Shariah court to freeze the assets and monies of the men.

Give me the cold hard headeness of female Muslim scientists on social issues over emotive Muslim human rights activists anytime. Who can dispute with their research that is for the community well being and is just and fair at the same time? Those are the kinds of socially responsible and publicly engaged scientists one loves.

Ironically, if it were not for those scientifically inclined ladies into facts and figures to come up with a considered decision on that clause, the ulema would not have the grist to stand up for what they put in the Islamic Family Law.

Yes, we need scientists and theologians, cleric and religious scholars to sit down together re ethical, moral and religious questions on issues affecting us all (from the environment to divorces) for a considered and agreed upon way forward.

It should be a complementary, not a competiting relationship, between religion and science. After all science is not a religion, even if one has blind faith in science as the panacea of all human problems.

Thank you and best regards
"J"

Sulayman F. Nyang,

You wrote:

"Men and women of our age have come to understand and appreciate the animal world and the linkages and subtle distinctions between Man and the rest of the animal world. Even though science now tells us that the chimpanzee matches 97% of our DNA, this new revelation has affirmatively underscored what we have learned many Millenia ago about human origins. This convergence between science and religion with respect to the common origins of human beings on this planet deserves some careful consideration."

You also said:

"Religion deals with people occupying this material world but they also embrace the worldview that there is a Higher Being in the universe and they have a right to live in this world and to worship and serve Him."

Depending upon your definition, Buddhism either is or is not a religion.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions, which see animals as merely soulless chattels subject to the unrestricted dominion of human beings, Buddhism believes that animals and humans have the same "Buddha nature" at the core of their being, and are on an equal footing on the path to enlightenment.

If, as you write, chimpanzees match 97% of our DNA, why are they merely chattels, soulless, with no status other than property in the monotheistic religions, and humans are ensouled beings headed for paradise or hell?

It seems to me that Buddhism, with no belief in a God (and not considered a religion by many) has a more spiritual view of animals, and of the universe generally, than does monotheistic religion, which holds that animals are meant to serve Man, and Man to serve God.

I'll take Buddhism.

Science and Religion are different appreoches to learning, knowing and understanding the universe. It is possible to obtain a very advanced scientific knowledge of the universe without attaining wisdom. It is equally possible for ane an exhalted religious figure to lack holiness. Nonetheless, if god exists, she is at the place where Beauty is Truth, and knowledge and faith are one and the same. Science and Religion tred paths to that same place.

When a religious person attacks science, or a scientist proclaims there is no god, each one is off their path, dabbling in the matter of the other, and probably out of his depth. But that should not generate a great deal of emotion among the rest of us.

Religious organizations are human instutions, and to that extent human and subject to human error, which should hardly need pointing out, episcopal protection of serial pederasts to the contrary notwithstanding.

Scientists are subject to human frailty, as James Watson has so recently demonstrated. Do not, therefore, deny the knowledge DNA opens to us.

Religion and Science are flashlights we take out into the darkness; those who see them as lightsabers to cut each other up misunderstand their tools and our mission. They will have a hard time finding the path, or showing anyone else the way.