Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

Referring to the letter entitled Islam not hostile to science by Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar, I think a straightforward argument to decide if science and religion are compatible (because essentially that's what it all boils down to) is to ask every individual if their worldview and acceptance of reality is dictated by science or religion.

To push the boundary further, what happens if the conclusion of either one contradicts the other on critical issues? A good example that has been touched upon in this forum is the theory of evolution.

Compared to the amount of research that has been marshaled by scientists to prove the evolution theory (flaws and all), all one has from the religious camp is some verses from an ancient source. But religionists will insist dogmatically that the religion's perception of reality cannot be wrong; not because of sufficient facts backing the belief but because of pure faith.

This is especially so in the case of Islam where the clergy class has made it quite clear on what its adherents can and cannot believe in (itjihad is, after all, only applicable to the grey areas - not on fundamentals that have been cast on stone by the clergies).

As such, the question is not whether Islam is hostile to science per se, but whether Islam is hostile to scientific thinking as a whole.

The truth of the matter is (assuming that is what we are all concerned with in the first place), that science and religion are inimical to one another. The earlier we come to terms that, the better for mankind as we seek ways to match the best of both worlds and achieve a less dogmatic world where truth is nurtured and not neutered on the altar of progress.

ADS