You can always judge a belief system by the way its followers behave toward rival and incompatible belief systems. What Hamza Yusuf is doing here is a cheap misrepresentation of science -- exactly what he dislikes being done against Islam.
He is not saying that Science in general is an ideology, he is saying that those specific examples he gave were ideologies that came from scientific studies or theories.
Other people: 'X should be used like this. It fits in with our ideology of progress/communism/fascism/capitalism.'
Eugenics was a result of progressive ideologies in N America. In nazi germany, it was used to enforce nationalist/racist ideologies.
Applying principles of animal husbandry to humans came out of many different ideologies - science was used instead of (or with) religion to reassure people that conclussions they'd...
...already reached were correct. look at all the crazy people on the internet - they either use their preferred holy text, or 'scientific evidence', or both to back up any claim they make. It adds legitimacy.
When people decide to do something, they act on what they value - human rights, profit, the environment, etc. They often inform their decisions using science, but all science can do is tell you 'Action X will result in Y.' It cannot tell you if Y is desirable.
...from very deep-buried and irrational places. There's something on TED(dot)com about the difference between liberals and conservatives, for instance.
The idea of eugenics probably arose as one of the results of people choosing to apply science - all that means is that science should be applied wisely. The practice of eugenics certainly doesn't change anything about Mendelian inheritance.
To sum up: Choosing how to apply science requires philosophy. All eugenics tells us is that we need...
I agree with you. What I feel Hamza was trying to get across is that, too often its a "Science OR Religion" debate, or that one is better, when the question really should be what implications can be made by using Science. My problem with Dawkins, and those with the same mindset, is that they do try to make Science out to be this huge opponent or alternative with Religion, when really, throughout history they have worked very much hand in hand, for better and for worse. But I agree with the above
I agree. Why is there a dicotamy set between science and religion? I am an atheist, however I never make the mistake most atheists make in debates and say "Its either one or the other!" science and religion so work together when applied in the right sence.
@Telamnar it only works better if you dont except religion. the quran and science is one with each other. ALLAH does not say anything against science. HE actually tells us to go and observe and then go and observe again, so that we can come to a certain conclusion within ourselves that HE-ALLAH is the creator of everything, including science. science is a gift by ALLAH that HE gave us. and it wasnt to prove that HE doesn't exist,but that HE does. ??? what is the main purpose of science???
To say 'the quran and science are one with each other' is not very helpful.
Muslims today like to claim the quran describes the big bang...but I have yet to see anyone showing a muslim describing the big bang from their holy book before scientists came up with the idea.
If the quran and science are one with each other, how do you feel about the theory of evolution?
You can always judge a belief system by the way its followers behave toward rival and incompatible belief systems. What Hamza Yusuf is doing here is a cheap misrepresentation of science -- exactly what he dislikes being done against Islam.
jacksonhansonjackson 1 month ago
@jacksonhansonjackson In what way is he misrepresenting?
TrowaStrife1 1 month ago
@TrowaStrife1 Blaming science for environmental destruction is like blaming the Qur'an for terrorism. It's a false representation.
jacksonhansonjackson 1 month ago
So, I take it this guy didn't read Dawkins' book.
Science is not an ideology. It is a method for deducing facts about reality. In this respect, it works much better than religion.
That's it.
Telamnar 1 year ago
He is not saying that Science in general is an ideology, he is saying that those specific examples he gave were ideologies that came from scientific studies or theories.
TrowaStrife1 1 year ago
I'd say it works like this:
Scientists: 'We have discovered X.'
Other people: 'X should be used like this. It fits in with our ideology of progress/communism/fascism/capitalism.'
Eugenics was a result of progressive ideologies in N America. In nazi germany, it was used to enforce nationalist/racist ideologies.
Applying principles of animal husbandry to humans came out of many different ideologies - science was used instead of (or with) religion to reassure people that conclussions they'd...
Telamnar 1 year ago
...already reached were correct. look at all the crazy people on the internet - they either use their preferred holy text, or 'scientific evidence', or both to back up any claim they make. It adds legitimacy.
When people decide to do something, they act on what they value - human rights, profit, the environment, etc. They often inform their decisions using science, but all science can do is tell you 'Action X will result in Y.' It cannot tell you if Y is desirable.
People get their values...
Telamnar 1 year ago
...from very deep-buried and irrational places. There's something on TED(dot)com about the difference between liberals and conservatives, for instance.
The idea of eugenics probably arose as one of the results of people choosing to apply science - all that means is that science should be applied wisely. The practice of eugenics certainly doesn't change anything about Mendelian inheritance.
To sum up: Choosing how to apply science requires philosophy. All eugenics tells us is that we need...
Telamnar 1 year ago
...better philosophy.
Telamnar 1 year ago
I agree with you. What I feel Hamza was trying to get across is that, too often its a "Science OR Religion" debate, or that one is better, when the question really should be what implications can be made by using Science. My problem with Dawkins, and those with the same mindset, is that they do try to make Science out to be this huge opponent or alternative with Religion, when really, throughout history they have worked very much hand in hand, for better and for worse. But I agree with the above
TrowaStrife1 1 year ago
I agree. Why is there a dicotamy set between science and religion? I am an atheist, however I never make the mistake most atheists make in debates and say "Its either one or the other!" science and religion so work together when applied in the right sence.
riverofdeceit234 1 year ago
@Telamnar it only works better if you dont except religion. the quran and science is one with each other. ALLAH does not say anything against science. HE actually tells us to go and observe and then go and observe again, so that we can come to a certain conclusion within ourselves that HE-ALLAH is the creator of everything, including science. science is a gift by ALLAH that HE gave us. and it wasnt to prove that HE doesn't exist,but that HE does. ??? what is the main purpose of science???
imreadyyo26 1 year ago
@imreadyyo26 To understand the universe.
To say 'the quran and science are one with each other' is not very helpful.
Muslims today like to claim the quran describes the big bang...but I have yet to see anyone showing a muslim describing the big bang from their holy book before scientists came up with the idea.
If the quran and science are one with each other, how do you feel about the theory of evolution?
Telamnar 1 year ago