Islam and evolution

[pancreasman]

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 . . .

Well, I'm not ranting, just stating an opinion, and I'm not mindless. That is uncalled for. What you mean is you disagree with me.

As for EVIDENCE, how about much of the enlightenment? Voltaire might be a good example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

[robrecht]

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.

Other than those who accept Baha'i Revelation, do you happen to know of any other people, religious or otherwise, who might also believe that 'science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'?

[shunyadragon]

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

Recognition of the higher power God is not a theological presupposition as such that would constrain science. When interpreted literally the description of Creation in Genesis, religious traditions, and in the Quran, these represent theological presuppositions where believers reject and constrain science. Among Muslims the primary objection to evolution appears to be the evolution of humanity from primates and related to the animal kingdom as a whole. They believe humans were created separately, ie as in Genesis.


---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. [/quote]

Yes, I believe the evolving knowledge of science is Revelation (God Given), but simply acknowledging God as the source does not correct the errors caused by theological presuppositions based on ancient literature. I believe Revelation is progressive and continuing providing knowledge for the ever advancing spiritual civilization. Revelations of the past, like in the Tanakh, NT and the Quran are no longer adequate for the modern world.

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

This is more of a problem with the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[shunyadragon]

Well, I'm not ranting, just stating an opinion, and I'm not mindless. That is uncalled for. What you mean is you disagree with me.

What you stated was not 'simply an opinion,' it was rough to put it mildly. IT WAS A RANT, nothing in that post presented a rational position.

As for EVIDENCE, how about much of the enlightenment? Voltaire might be a good example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

Yes, enlightenment is great, and it represents part of the evolution from the old world to the new, but nothing here defines science free from theological presuppositions, which even Charles Darwin personally had considerable conflicts to deal with concerning the religious presuppositions he had to face concerning evolution, despite being very much a part of the movement toward enlightenment.

Nor is their anything here mandating compulsory education for all including men and women.

Voltaire still carried a lot of old world problems:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Race_and_slavery

Voltaire rejected the Christian Adam and Eve story and was a polygenist who speculated that each race had separate origins.[115] Like other philosophes, such as Buffon, he divided humanity into varieties or races and attempted to explain the differences between these races. He wondered if blacks fully shared in the common humanity or intelligence of whites because of their participation in the slave trade.[116][117]


Their round eyes, squat noses, and invariable thick lips, the different configuration of their ears, their woolly heads and the measure of their intellects, make a prodigious difference between them and other species of men; and what demonstrates, that they are not indebted for this difference to their climates, is that Negro men and women, being transported into the coldest countries, constantly produce animals of their own species; and that mulattoes are a only bastard race of black men and white women, or white men and black women, an asses, specifically different from horses, produce mules by copulating with mares.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Other than those who accept Baha'i Revelation, do you happen to know of any other people, religious or otherwise, who might also believe that 'science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'?

All those that support the UN Charter, the Nobel Peace program. Unitarian Universalists and other programs all over the world that promote the peaceful application of science for the benefit of humanity. I may present more references.

[robrecht]

All those that support the UN Charter, the Nobel Peace program. Unitarian Universalists and other programs all over the world that promote the peaceful application of science for the benefit of humanity. I may present more references.

Can you think of anyone, religious or otherwise, who does not believe that 'science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'? Other than Dr. Evil, of course.

[robrecht]

Well, I'm not ranting, just stating an opinion, and I'm not mindless. That is uncalled for.

Well, despite the false insult to you, I am at least glad to be in good company as the object of Shuny's ad hominem arguments. Falsely portraying you as irrational seems to afford him some measure of relief in therefore not feeling himself obligated to respond to you in a rational manner. He will sometimes recognize and retract his ad hominem arguments (eg, here), but he has yet to retract his ad hominem argument against me in this thread and now he is making them against you as well. It is sad that he doesn't seem to realize how he harms his own credibility by engaging in this childish tactic. Happily, and as I previously suspected, I have met other Baha'i so I know that his own use of this tactic need not reflect poorly on the Baha'i philosophy.

[Pentecost]

Can you think of anyone, religious or otherwise, who does not believe that 'science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'? Other than Dr. Evil, of course.

Well, it certainly depends on the definition of humanity, if by humanity you mean "my nation" you catch many, if by humanity you mean "my 'race'" you catch others. If by humanity you mean humanity, you have to ask do you mean making life easier for most people, or for every person, or just the elite? Or even the idea:

"Strange!" said Oyarsa. "You do not love any one of your race - you would have let me kill Ransom. You do not love the mind of your race, nor the body. Any kind of creature will please you if only it is begotten by your kin as they now are. It seems to me, Thick One, that what you really love is no completed creature but the very seed itself: for that is all that is left." -Out of the Silent Planet C.S. Lewis

But then, I haven't been keeping up with this post. Everyday I check on my and siam's thread and every day I see this one get larger and larger with hardly any Muslim input in the Islam subforum.

[robrecht]

Well, it certainly depends on the definition of humanity, if by humanity you mean "my nation" you catch many, if by humanity you mean "my 'race'" you catch others. If by humanity you mean humanity, you have to ask do you mean making life easier for most people, or for every person, or just the elite? Or even the idea:

"Strange!" said Oyarsa. "You do not love any one of your race - you would have let me kill Ransom. You do not love the mind of your race, nor the body. Any kind of creature will please you if only it is begotten by your kin as they now are. It seems to me, Thick One, that what you really love is no completed creature but the very seed itself: for that is all that is left." -Out of the Silent Planet C.S. Lewis

But then, I haven't been keeping up with this post. Everyday I check on my and siam's thread and every day I see this one get larger and larger with hardly any Muslim input in the Islam subforum.

Well, let me just ask you, do you believe that science should be for the benefit of humanity? And by humanity, I mean merely humanity, not your nation or your race. With respect to any further restrictions upon the meaning of humanity, you would have to ask Shuny.

[pancreasman]

In as clear and unemotional a tone as I can adopt, here is my position:

1. The Baha'i faith certainly has some fine principles.

2. These principles are however not unique to Baha'i.

3. Since the Baha'i faith was founded in modernity, its principles reflect more progressive principles of modernity. That is, the Baha'i faith isn't the origin of these principles, but rather a reflection (like all religions) of the thought forms of the age in which it was founded. This is not to insult Baha'i, but merely a recognition of historical context.

4. Since the historical period of the enlightenment, science has progressively become disentangled from theology. It should be expected then that religions founded since that time should reflect this.

Thus, Baha'i should not get 'extra credit' for being in tune with modernity simply by having the good fortune of being founded within modernity.

[robrecht]

In as clear and unemotional a tone as I can adopt, here is my position:

1. The Baha'i faith certainly has some fine principles.

2. These principles are however not unique to Baha'i.

3. Since the Baha'i faith was founded in modernity, its principles reflect more progressive principles of modernity. That is, the Baha'i faith isn't the origin of these principles, but rather a reflection (like all religions) of the thought forms of the age in which it was founded. This is not to insult Baha'i, but merely a recognition of historical context.

4. Since the historical period of the enlightenment, science has progressively become disentangled from theology. It should be expected then that religions founded since that time should reflect this.

Thus, Baha'i should not get 'extra credit' for being in tune with modernity simply by having the good fortune of being founded within modernity.

I agree. Shuny seems to actually attribute elements of modernity to the Baha'i Revelation, even if people bringing about modernity were not themselves aware of Baha'i Revelation. He does not use the language of the supernatural, but it appears nonetheless to be some kind of 'magical thinking':

• robrecht: Are you attributing the evolution of most or large parts of human societies toward a rejection of slavery to Baha'i Revelation? I suspect the growing opposition to slavery was largely independent of any knowledge of the Baha'i faith.
  
  
• Shuny: There is a transformation of humanity and release of knowledge with the advent of a Revelation that influences all humanity without necessarily direct knowledge. I believe there is a strong evidence of such a transformation. The world essentially changed in 1844 with the advent of the Bab/Baha'i Revelation. The scriptures and letters to the rulers of the world are the outward signs of a world transformation that began in 1844. The day after the Bab declared the New Age on Samuel F.B. Morse on May 24, 1844, "What hath God wrought?"
  
  There is much more that took place that year and after that changed the world where the principles and standards established by the Baha'i have become the standards of the world. More to follow in the next post.
  
  
• robrecht: So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?
  
  
• Shuny: I do not try to definitively explain it.
  
  We are drifting way off topic here and I may start another thread on the topic. I do not like the word 'supernatural,' because I believe the spiritual realms and our physical realms do not function separately as one natural and the other supernatural. There is an intimate interwoven matrix between the physical and spiritual.
  
  A few comments about the changes that took place in the world beginning around the period centering on 1844.
  
  (1) The independent belief that prophesy was fulfilled from different religious perspectives in many places in the world that the advent of the Promised One will return and a New Dispensation would begin. (2) The radical changes in science began in the period including the Theory of Evolution. (3) the advent of modern physics and cosmology in scripture. Seven Valleys and Four Valleys "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun." I doubt that Einstein and other scientists were directly aware of this quotation. At the time it was not accepted by science that the atom was considered the basic unit of matter as described by the Greeks, and the fact that the heart of the atom (nucleus) could be divided with the above consequences. E=mc2
  
  The old worlds are passing away far more painfully and tragically then a 'crisis of faith,' and a new world is unfolding unlike any in the history of humanity.
  
  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...of-Faith/page2

[shunyadragon]

In as clear and unemotional a tone as I can adopt, here is my position:

1. The Baha'i faith certainly has some fine principles.

2. These principles are however not unique to Baha'i.

3. Since the Baha'i faith was founded in modernity, its principles reflect more progressive principles of modernity. That is, the Baha'i faith isn't the origin of these principles, but rather a reflection (like all religions) of the thought forms of the age in which it was founded. This is not to insult Baha'i, but merely a recognition of historical context.

4. Since the historical period of the enlightenment, science has progressively become disentangled from theology. It should be expected then that religions founded since that time should reflect this.

Thus, Baha'i should not get 'extra credit' for being in tune with modernity simply by having the good fortune of being founded within modernity.

Not unique to the modern world of today, yes, but as a body of principles they were unique at the time. The world of 1844 to 1862 these principles were indeed unique. Baha'u'llah was not part of the modern world even at the time he wrote, and he did not have a modern education available at the time he wrote. Science at the time was Newtonian and not modern. The modern science of evolution and a universe billions of years old was not realized. I still see no sources provided that these principles I cited were proposed prior to the Baha'i Revelation.

'Split the hear to the atom, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.'

Baha'u'llah

The problem with Voltaire is he did not propose the harmony of Science and Religion, he attacked Christianity and Judaism. He did not propose that the believers in God should accept the primacy of scientific knowledge and that ALL scripture must be understood in the light of science.

[robrecht]

Not unique to the modern world at this time, but as a body of principles they were unique at the time. The world of 1844 to 1862 these principles were indeed unique. Science at the time was Newtonian and not modern. The modern science of evolution and a universe billions of years old was not realized. I still see no sources provided that these principles I cited were proposed prior to the Baha'i Revelation.

The problem with Voltaire is he did not propose the harmony of Science and Religion, he attacked Christianity and Judaism.

But Baha'i also opposed elements of modern science only to later accept them, just as members of other religions have also done. When OingoBoingo brought this up to you, you refused to discuss it and claimed that his view was "no intellible response nor meaningful dialogue" and that he had a history of being hostile to the Baha'i faith. Do you see the pattern of ad hominem argumentation?

[pancreasman]

Not unique to the modern world of today, yes, but as a body of principles they were unique at the time. The world of 1844 to 1862 these principles were indeed unique. Science at the time was Newtonian and not modern. The modern science of evolution and a universe billions of years old was not realized. I still see no sources provided that these principles I cited were proposed prior to the Baha'i Revelation.

The problem with Voltaire is he did not propose the harmony of Science and Religion, he attacked Christianity and Judaism. He did not propose that the believers in God should accept the primacy of scientific knowledge and that ALL scripture must be understood in the light of science.

Sigh.

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.” Kant

If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.” David Hume

If we take in our hand any Volume; of Divinity or School Metaphysics, for Instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract Reasoning concerning Quantity or Number? No. Does it contain any experimental Reasoning concerning Matter of Fact and Existence? No. Commit it then to the Flames: For it can contain nothing but Sophistry and Illusion. David Hume

"He who has Art and Science also has religion,
But those who do not have them better have religion." Goethe

"As a blind man has no idea of colors, so we have no idea of the manner by which
the all-wise God perceives and understands all things." Newton

Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas[58] held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[61] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[62] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[63] and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[64] Some of today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[65]

as above

Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science who adhered to Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[76][77]

as above

As we can see by this quick sampling the Baha'i faith is neither unique or historically first to make the claim that science must be independent and that science and religion should be in harmony.

Further you are mixing up two distinct uses of the word 'modern'. Modern history is counted from quite early:

In contrast to the pre-modern era, Western civilization made a gradual transition from premodernity to modernity when scientific methods were developed which led many to believe that the use of science would lead to all knowledge, thus throwing back the shroud of myth under which pre-modern peoples lived. New information about the world was discovered via empirical observation,[13] versus the historic use of reason and innate knowledge.

The term "modern" was coined shortly before 1585 to describe the beginning of a new era.[4] The European Renaissance (about 1420–1630) is an important transition period beginning between the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, which started in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

While 'modern ' physics means post Newtonian views usually said to begin around the beginning of the 20th century.

[Pentecost]

Well, let me just ask you, do you believe that science should be for the benefit of humanity? And by humanity, I mean merely humanity, not your nation or your race. With respect to any further restrictions upon the meaning of humanity, you would have to ask Shuny.

I do believe science should be for the benefit of humanity, meaning all humans everywhere, not just those who can afford it, or those that discover it.