Islam and evolution

[robrecht]

. . . and I agreed. The problem is it is not a matter of agreeing with the definition above. I believe that Jacques Maritan and Emmanuel Levins agreed with the definition I gave for philosophical humanism as applied. It is a matter that there are more then one definition and use of the word humanism. Based on what you have posted so far, you either do not agree or you misunderstand the different standard uses of 'humanism' in philosophy and theology.

Still not taking responsibility for your unfounded ad hominem. Obviously, I have already said that philosophers define humanist philosophies differently. I have already said this a couple of times at least. There is not only one form of philosophical humanism. If you are agreeing with me on that now, great.

[Adrift]

Maybe shunya is mixing up "philosophical humanism" with "philosophical naturalism", and thinking they're the same thing.

[shunyadragon]

Apart from theological presuppositions, are there other ways, in your opinion, that the Quran may constrain science?

It is the theological presuppositions only as far as I know

I am not sure theological presuppositions constrain science---

what other reason could there be??

If we assume that all knowledge is from God and God is purposeful, then, to pursue knowledge without a supposition of God makes it incomplete and including God makes it complete. A more complete/wholistic knowledge is better than an incomplete knowledge---not that there is anything wrong with incomplete knowledge---only that, of the two options, a more complete understanding is more beneficial than a less complete understanding....

That is one of the reason why I am a Baha'i. There are no theological presuppositions, and It believes science is a Revelation of knowledge from God.

At some point or another intelligent Scientists will have to acknowledge the Force/Divine or however they want to put it because if God is The Reality---then The Reality cannot be ignored forever....When science as knowledge limits itself only to the "seen" does it not limit human knowledge of the "unseen"?

I believe it is important that ALL humans recognize the higher power, but science should remain free of theological presuppositions.

It is best scientific knowledge is limited to our physical existence as to what can be falsified by scientific methods. The most important role of religion is the guidance for the application of science and technology to the benefit of humanity.

. . . could one say that science constrains itself when it rejects theological presuppositions?

No, Methodological naturalism makes no theological assumptions nor presuppositions, and it works best that way. By the evidence it is Theological presuppositions that constrain science in history.

Theocracy/Theonomy and Sharia---I disagree---I think there is much more nuance and pragmatism in Islam than you give credit.......

In the real world it is not nuanced.

[shunyadragon]

Maybe shunya is mixing up "philosophical humanism" with "philosophical naturalism", and thinking they're the same thing.

They are the same thing as I defined!!!!

Some may define it differently and divide it into categories of humanism. For this thread I defined it specifically and completely.

I clarified my use of the term with a definition and acknowledged other forms of humanism such as Christian humanism, and there are more applications of the use of humanism than that

[shunyadragon]

Still not taking responsibility for your unfounded ad hominem. Obviously, I have already said that philosophers define humanist philosophies differently. I have already said this a couple of times at least. There is not only one form of philosophical humanism. If you are agreeing with me on that now, great.

As I defined it there is one type of humanism and defined, and yes I acknowledged different forms and acknowledged your use. Enough said. If it suits you can substitute secular humanism or modern human is or philosophical Naturalism, but the definition remains the same.

Do you have anything intelligent to offer the thread?

[robrecht]

As I defined it there is one type of humanism and defined, and yes I acknowledged different forms and acknowledged your use. Enough said. If it suits you can substitute secular humanism or modern human is or philosophical Naturalism, but the definition remains the same.

Do you have anything intelligent to offer the thread?

Another attempt to insult and still no retraction of your unfounded ad hominem. You are better than that, Shuny. Baha'i are better than that. You should try to live up to the ideals of your faith. Be a good example.

[pancreasman]

I wish I was a Baha'i. Then I could have no theological presuppositions. Those things are heavy to carry around. Alas I am not cool enough so I shall be forced to be an invalid humanist who has be redefined out of existence.

[shunyadragon]

I wish I was a Baha'i. Then I could have no theological presuppositions. Those things are heavy to carry around. Alas I am not cool enough so I shall be forced to be an invalid humanist who has be redefined out of existence.

The theological presuppositions I am specifically referring are those that cause believers to reject science or constrain science. There is nothing invalid nor illogical about the humanism of Metaphysical Naturalism. I do not believe in this view, but it is not invalid. In fact, the believers get the science right consistently

[shunyadragon]

Please clarify. How does 'no attempt to guide science' square with 'guidance ... is spiritual guidance that science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'? Is it just a hollow platitude of scriptures with which no one would disagree? How do Baha'i exert this spiritual guidance?

As stated before the Baha'i Faith does not nor is there any need to 'exert' its spiritual guidance, because there is no need.

As per the topic of this thread. I thought I would respond to this again, even though I have described the Baha'i Faith's position of Science this in various ways before. There are two foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith that are involved here: (1) Harmony of Science and Religion. (2) The independent Investigation of Truth. The guidance is that science is independent of Theological presuppositions. Actually the first set of principles that develop Methodological Naturalism, which recognizing that science itself is an independent Revelation of the progressive knowledge that ALL scripture must be understood in the light of this knowledge.

I believe it is easy to assume that more then 90%+ scientists of the world support the independence of the basic sciences from Theological presuppositions advocated by the Baha'i Faith.

[robrecht]

As stated before the Baha'i Faith does not nor is there any need to 'exert' its spiritual guidance, because there is no need.

As per the topic of this thread. I thought I would respond to this again, even though I have described the Baha'i Faith's position of Science this in various ways before. There are two foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith that are involved here: (1) Harmony of Science and Religion. (2) The independent Investigation of Truth. The guidance is that science is independent of Theological presuppositions. Actually the first set of principles that develop Methodological Naturalism, which recognizing that science itself is an independent Revelation of the progressive knowledge that ALL scripture must be understood in the light of this knowledge.

I believe it is easy to assume that more then 90%+ scientists of the world support the independence of the basic sciences from Theological presuppositions advocated by the Baha'i Faith.

You have not described 'spiritual guidance that science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'. Is that just a platitude that everyone, Baha'i and non-Baha'i, agrees with or is there any actual and specific Baha'i guidance that effectively ensures that science benefits humanity rather than harming humanity? I suspect the former but am still open to hearing an actual response.

[shunyadragon]

You have not described 'spiritual guidance that science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'. Is that just a platitude that everyone, Baha'i and non-Baha'i, agrees with or is there any actual and specific Baha'i guidance that effectively ensures that science benefits humanity rather than harming humanity? I suspect the former but am still open to hearing an actual response.

Guidance by definition is not enforcement. The purpose of Baha'i spiritual principles, teachings comes through teaching and secular institutions and governments primarily, as when the United Nations Charter adopted Baha'i principles. The Baha'i submitted proposals to the UN during the process of their formation. The Nobel Peace prizes were developed on these principles. Like other Baha'i principles and teachings such as universal education, they are progressively being adopted governments and secular institutions. A number of countries in the world are entering into treaties and policies with in the countries supporting the peaceful use of technology such as nuclear energy. Examples: United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS).

some countries like Sweden have discontinued development of nuclear weapons, and now have declared that they will only use nuclear science.

The Baha'i Faith teaches the human conscience through principles and teachings, enforcement involves the progressive adaption of Baha'i Principles and teachings by people, institutions, and governments.

[pancreasman]

Guidance by definition is not enforcement. The purpose of Baha'i spiritual principles, teachings comes through teaching and secular institutions primarily, as when the United Nations Charter adopted Baha'i principles. Like other Baha'i principles and teachings such as universal education, they are progressively being adopted governments and secular institutions. A number of countries in the world are entering into treaties and policies with in the countries supporting the peaceful use of technology such as nuclear energy.

OK. You're making it sound like the Baha'i faith was the first one to come up with these principles and is entirely responsible for them. This is simply not true. To be sure as a religion founded in the modern era, the Baha'i faith has taken advantage of progressive modern thinking by incorporating modern ideas into its belief system. But to say that 90% of scientists follow a Baha'i principle that science should be independent of theological constraints is to lay claim to a general principle and attribute it to your favourite religious persuasion.

Forgive me, but many of your posts are filled with a kind of naive Baha'i boosterism that you would quickly condemn in any other poster of any other faith.

[shunyadragon]

OK. You're making it sound like the Baha'i faith was the first one to come up with these principles and is entirely responsible for them. This is simply not true. To be sure as a religion founded in the modern era, the Baha'i faith has taken advantage of progressive modern thinking by incorporating modern ideas into its belief system. But to say that 90% of scientists follow a Baha'i principle that science should be independent of theological constraints is to lay claim to a general principle and attribute it to your favourite religious persuasion.

Forgive me, but many of your posts are filled with a kind of naive Baha'i boosterism that you would quickly condemn in any other poster of any other faith.

Provide a reference of the teaching prior to the Revelation of the Baha'i scripture that teaches this. The teaching that ALL scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving scientific knowledge, and that the independent investigation of truth that science be free of theological presuppositions.The above is mindless ranting hot air without references.

Another example: the teaching of mandatory universal education for both ALL men (boys) and women (girls). Reference please of this prior to the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith.

With good references you may be forgiven, but . . .

[Adrift]

With good references you may be forgiven, but . . .

[siam]

I believe it is important that ALL humans recognize the higher power, but science should remain free of theological presuppositions.

It is best scientific knowledge is limited to our physical existence as to what can be falsified by scientific methods....

... By the evidence it is Theological presuppositions that constrain science in history.

In the real world it is not nuanced.

---If all human should recognize a higher power---what other theological presuppositions are there?

---I agree that scientific methodology itself should remain as it is---nevertheless, when these methodology yields evidence, conclusions are made---in this area, philosophy is useful and among philosophical considerations, theology can be one of many useful ways of understanding knowledge.

---You are right that historical trajectories of Christianity and Islam may be different in terms of constraints....But there are many ways to look at history. One might say the difference in historical trajectories between the two religions may be because Christianity divorced knowledge into two realms--those that were "God-given"(revelation) and those that were generated through human endeavor (man-made). By rejecting the premise that ALL knowledge is "God-given" and supposing that human beings can "generate" knowledge, they erred. Human beings only discover knowledge as God wills. This could be one example of how not understanding the fullness of the attributes of God Most Powerful, Most Knowing, that such errors can happen....?.....It is one thing to acknowledge human agency---but another to attribute to human agency something that is based on an incorrect/incomplete premise.

---Some people prefer to see the world in black and white. I think such a view is unnecessary limiting...what is your opinion?