Anis

You're asking me? Read a science text book, then read a tablet. You might find a subtle difference

Science and religion are two sides to the same coin, in essence they are one in the same, "personal investigation of truth". One merely emphasis philosophical experimentation, while the other seeks the principle of oneness. The positive interaction of these two schools of thoughts is that the scientist may teach and demonstrate to the masses - not that everyone become scientists themselves, likewise the religious philosopher may teach and demonstrate to the masses - not that everyone become philosophers themselves.

Together it becomes a constructive force for intellects, a point of moral balance, distinguished by the very word "faith". Religious text may use scientific references, but in no-wise, does this mean that religion assimilate science, nor does this violate the mutual relationship between these two distinct disciplines. Evidently there are no such quantitative scientific material in the writings.

I merely humbly recommend that one does not simply supply a negative connotation to Muslim context on an intellectual forum

Fadl

Maybe, but 'Abdu'l-Baha is not a manifestation and, even so, I'm not aware of any Manifestations of God referencing the Qur'an for its scientific knowledge, are you? I know many Muslims like to do this, but they twist the scripture brutally to accomplish it. There is nothing in the Qur'an that should be seriously considered scientific at all, in my opinion, and yes, it is the word of God.

LordOfGoblins

are you sure about this?
I came across this some time back. I havnt read the Quran but this definately seems scientific to me.

LordOfGoblins

to be honest with you im not much of a fan of these sorts of approaches. I mean if Abdul'Baha is infallbile but he cant see science as it is then what use is religion? Would you consider Baha'u'llahs statement that every fixed star has planets with creatures that no man can compute a quantative statment? I would...
Philosophy is abstract and has its place but surely religion is far more than just philosophy.
It is universal truth. And universal truth is concrete and not abstract..

Anis

Abdu'l-baha explicitly states, 'Put all your beliefs into harmony with science, there can be no opposition, for truth is one'. Prior to that he also wrote 'All must be free to seek out truth in their own way'. Given that science and religion are schools of thought that are aimed towards discerning the truth in all things, we can safely deduce that science and religion are, in their essential forms, the 'investigation of the truth'.

What harm is there in such approach?

It is not quantitative merely because it does not illustrate concrete evidence or data that we can readily assess through philosophical experimentation or logical deduction.

I know I wrote, 'investigation of truth', that is religion. Again I know I wrote, 'investigation of truth', that too is also science. It doesn't get any more concrete than this. It all begins from abstract conceptualisation and reflective observation; the conduits of logical reasoning to see the future, understand the present, and will to faith. Philosophy is merely the application of logical reasoning, while oneness is a universal principle that can be realised in all things. 'Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator'.

Indeed, it is a scientific reference but not quantitative. That is why it is written that 'He has set a barrier and a complete partition between them', and not written as 'by the nature of density mediums decreed by Him who determined the law of refractive index that complete a mirror between them'. Otherwise not only will it lose all its semantic relevance to religious context, but it will focus on a small isolated system that does not adequately demonstrate the universal principle of oneness.

The writings accommodate for all, the audience of the Divine Guidance is the school of humanity, and therefore the language is presented in multiple valid parallel meanings. But it can only be seen by those veil-less eyes.

I talk a lot, thanks for reading.

LordOfGoblins

of course its not going to be written like that. Its a 1400 old book written to barbaric tribes of arabia...
people probably wouldnt even know about density let alone 'refractive index'..

Fadl

I wonder if you haven't misunderstood what 'infallible' means? He was certainly infallible within that which he was charged, but it doesn't mean that he knows everything, or is perfect. In fact, his own ability to know quite well the limits of his own power and knowledge and then not over step it, is part and parcel to his infallibility, if you think about it. Naturally, the infallibility of the Master, being conferred, has a different quality, than say, the infallibility of a manifestation of God, which is not conferred, but innate.

Fadl

I'm sure if it, but welcome you to draw your own conclusions. It is not that the Qur'an is always at odds with current scientific understanding, and not that there aren't any verses that one might feel match something in one scientific theory or another. The point is that the Qur'an is a book of revelation and universal truth. It is written in a such a way as to contain many layers of deep truths of a grand scale, rather than truths that are more limited and specific such as those you will find in science. In the revelation of God, it is possible for each word, or each verse to be pregnant with meaning after meaning after meaning. You will find this is not so much the case with the words of scientists.

I would also add that the approach to knowledge employed by science and revelation are fundamentally different. Specifically, science seeks to discover truth by creating and the proving disproving limited hypotheses. Revelation doesn't seek to discover anything. It makes truth statements, and does not seek to falsify them. Additionally, revelation does not seek to discover truth, it merely states truth. Revelation also has the capacity to create truth. It is the word of God, and has to the power to bring into existence or reality something that did not exist before because it has creative power.

Yeshua

In Catholicism the Magisterium and the Pope are only infallible- when they choose to exercise that power which for popes is very rare- in the very restrictive matters pertaining to 'faith and morals' not science. Perhaps Abdu'l-Baha's infallibility should be understood in a similsr fashion.

Zhang

Sorry! I thought by Master he was referring to God himself, my bad.

Fadl have you read the Qur'an? Have you compared it to the original Arabic? If not please refrain from commenting on it, thanks.

If so please juxtapose your arguments side by side with the original Arabic and we will address them.

LordOfGoblins

he had divine knowledge..

LordOfGoblins

sorry that statement to me contradicts your earlier statement here..

those two statements dont seem compatible to me.. But fair enough. i thought that one about the fresh and salt water particion was a scientific sortof statement to the arabs..
like the youtube showed..

Fadl

I think they may seem contradictory, but maybe we are just seeing from a different angle. Science exists to discover the truth about the material universe. Revelation exists to tell us truths about the spiritual universe. If at times they appear to coincide or to contradict it shouldn't be so alarming. They each have different goals, but the different goals help us form a picture of reality which is both spiritual and material.

I like what Anis said earlier. Go read a tablet, then go read a science text. They read differently, they are not the same thing. Obviously each sets its own course and seeks different sides of the coin that is reality.

Noexalt

I agree, this is an excellent work, it even goes into why Abdu'l-Baha uses certain words like "essence" and "present perfection" when he discusses science. I had many "aha" moments while reading this.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins Would you consider Baha'u'llahs statement that every fixed star has planets with creatures that no man can compute a quantative statment?

Provided you bear in mind that "creatures" just means "created things" and in many cases can therefore simply refer to minerals.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

An article you guys might be interested in reading, from today's BBC news:

BBC News - Big Bang: Is there room for God?

tonyfish58

A link to writings re this concept - Tablet of the Holy Mariner (Lawh-i-Malláhu'l-Quds)

Given that the Master is the Mystry of God and has the backing of the Covernant of Baha'u'llah, I do not think that anything the Master said is wrong. This is for all the talks He gave.

It would be that we have not got the right science as yet to confirm the accuracy of the statement, or we have not got the religious insight to understand. IMHO.

Regards Tomy

Fadl

Tony,

I've not found any error either. Probably that's not because he knew everything, but because he was infallible, and as such, only spoke about the things God gave him to know and not about the things he wasn't.

LordOfGoblins

and where is your evidence of this?
you cant be infallible in any given topic of knowledge and yet not know the topic. That doesnt make sense..
please stop saying things that contradict themselves..

LordOfGoblins

if what your saying is true the translator should be fired..

Fadl

LOG,

Who has said that the Master is infallible in "any given topic?" Has the Master or even the Guardian suggested such things about the master?

Here is a given topic: hydraulics. Do you think the master must know something about it to be infallible? I'm sure the Master would not talk about something which had no knowledge of, and this is part of the wisdom of the master which is also part of the nature of his infallibility.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins if what your saying is true the translator should be fired.

Why?!

Like it or not, the statment remains accurate.


Bruce

LordOfGoblins

Ok ive never seen that definition of 'creature' being used like that. But ok.. still i think it has decieved everyone i know (if its true)..

Zhang

Yeah LOG, I also say it referenced somewhere that Abdul used creatures to refer to minerals or something like that...can't remember where.

It is worth mentioning that in Chemistry the term "species" is often used to refer to atoms, ions, and similar molecular compounds. Not really what we would think of when he hear that word in everyday speech.

LordOfGoblins

yes i do. Perhaps you would like to define infallibility?

1. not fallible; not liable to error
2. not liable to failure; certain; sure: an infallible cure
3. completely dependable or trustworthy

— n
4. a person or thing that is incapable of error or failure

--------
fal·li·ble   /ˈfæləbəl/ Show Spelled[fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. (of persons) liable to err, especially in being deceived or mistaken.
2. liable to be erroneous or false; not accurate: fallible information.
----------
Abdul'Baha cannot sin and has no ignorance on any aquired knowledge (topic).
Do you recall anyone ever asking abdul'Baha something and he admitted he didnt know and had to go research it?

Fadl

One sort of error, is when a person talks about things that they don't know about. The master would not commit this error, because he was wiser than that. He knows what he knows and does not know.

Knowing that you don't know, and then saying nothing, is not in anyway fallible. Do you think that 'Abdu'l-Baha knows more than the Prophet Muhammad (a manifestation of God)? Because in the Qur'an it is revealed that Muhammad only knows the things revealed to him and not more. That would make him infallible but only in the range set by God.

As a suggestion, when you have some time, search out 'infallible' in the Baha'i writings using Ocean or some other search program. There is a lot said about it, and you may come to a different understanding.

Iconodule

I would say the scienistim which Bahai have embraced from the popular atheists is inherently contradictory to their faith. Not neccesarily science in of itself. Science is fine.

Magi728

When nothing is for sure we remain

alert, perennially on our toes. It is more

exciting not to know which bush the rabbit

is hiding behind than to behave as though we knew everything.





Juan Matus.......

Napkin

wow this thread is popular

I wasn't trying to start a big discussion, I was just reminding you guys that Abdulbaha openly denies evolution. There is no need for research or word twisting. It's a simple quote and there is no way you can twist it around to mean the opposite

This is by Abdulbaha:
We have now come to the question of the modification of species ... inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.
This theory[evolution] has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers[Darwin] will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error.

Fadl

It is only easy to accept this quote as a "denial" of evolution when read out of context, without reflection, and without knowledge of the many other things the Master has said on the matter. The denial only exists in that the Master rejects the idea of man as being an animal in the first place, and considers man a spiritual reality and a creation of God. Incidentally, the Master said a great many more things on the subject than what you have quoted and when taking all his statements together it is very clear that your conclusion is an over simplification and false.

Anis

As Fadl mentioned, this has been clarified long ago in this discussion (which you have so wonderfully ignored). What you are supposing now is not something new either. A scientific or latin word for this is present, 'argumentum ad ignorantium' - a false dichotomy.

Unless you have something new to share, tell me, what is evolution; is it transition, or creation? Then after answering this question, tell me which evolution was Abdu'l-baha referring to?

Regards.

Zhang

Funny thing is, the Muslim scholar Al-Jahiz theorized about evolution and natural selection 1,000 years before Darwin ever did. Some even considered the possibility that we had evolved from apes, and this was taught in mosques up until 100 years ago.

I think the fact that Darwin was an atheist is why he is credited so much, when many theists theorized about this notion for a millennial.

Just a fun fact.

tonyfish158

interesting....

Fadl

Yes and yes.

Lunitik

The whole problem is that science and religion have divided in the first place... Pythagoras warned against it, but now the two are utterly antagonistic. People have managed to simply separate the two in their head, pretending they are talking about utterly unrelated topics...

Science and religion are particular approaches to truth.

If science proves a statement of religion wrong, the statement is wrong. If you are interested in truth, it should not change anything for you. Baha'u'llah even said as much, he said explicitly that if religion disagrees with science, then the religious statement is wrong - he effectively states his son is wrong. This creates a problem for Baha'is though, they want to make Abdu'l Baha infallible.

Dive into your own inner being, there is where you will find truth, you will never find truth in a book - a book can at best be an attempt to talk about it, but no "about" can be the real thing.

jupitermadcat

Napkin

Because he was an islamic imam before he started hes own version of islam

Lunitik

This is false, he was around the Sufi's so it would be Pir or Murshid.

It is quite interesting that absolutely nothing he says is original, everything comes from the Sufi line.

Baha'is don't like when you say this though, but honestly I like that it is a way to approach Sufism without the exoteric nonsense of any Abrahamic line... of course people still bring that in though.

Iconodule

Why have the bahai embraced total naturalism except in one case on earth? I mean the bahai are totally fine with Jesus being born of a virgin but he could not heal the blind man?

Zhang

I'm not a Baha'i and even I reject your line about Sūfī Islam. Really, stop making this comment because it's clear you understand nothing about Sūfīsm or it's history and claims to fame.

Are you aware the the Sūfī have their own set of Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad)? Muhammad is claimed to be a descendant of Abraham through his son Ismail, and therefore of the Abrahamic line.

Are you also aware that the Sūfī have an extensive line of saints, all dedicated to the understanding and practice of Islam? They even pray to the saints and ask them to work on their behalf. Sort of like Catholicism. Still not understanding your claims that Sūfī Islam is some sort of pure non-Abrahamic branch of religion.

Sūfīs believe that they are practicing a form of Islam taught to the prophet Muhammad via the angel Gabriel. You still say that isn't Abrahamic?

Furthermore, Baha'u'llah was not in any way a Sūfī. Countless times he refers to the twelve Imams, and the coming of the final Imam (himself). This is a school of Shi'a thought known as twelverism, a branch of theology that is non-existant in the Sūfī schools of thought. And while a few orders identify with Alī, and others with Abu Bakr, most don't associate with either and continue to affirm the belief that they are practicing Islam as taught directly by the prophet Muhammad.

Please don't make this claim again. The Sūfī all value the Qur'an (as the final book), the narrations of the prophet Muhammad, and the angel Gabriel who is said to have delivered this message, later preserved by the Sūfī masters. (Need I remind you that Gabriel played a role in Abraham's story?) And to top it off their primary form of contempletaive meditation practices and ritual dances are forms of Dhkir, which are remembrances spoken of by the Prophet and the Qur'an.

Sūfī Islam and Baha'ism are similar only in their general acceptance of other faiths. It's like comparing Catholics and Hindus.

Sheesh! That's a lot of text.

-张