Sorry for not responding in such a long time, I was really busy.
Secularism, a way of conducting the affairs of society without reference to sacred texts and religions - that is to say, Ilmaniyat, in other words "knowledge" that does not necessarily seek a point of reference in religion.
Correct, but there is more to it:
"Secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence. In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma versus reason and scientific method."
This also means that there are few[if any?] 100% secular countries. But there are many 95% secularist countries in the west, few(if any?) in the middle east.
Now is it factual in the sense of "laws of physics" that religious Dogma must conflict with science??
No, it is not a natural law, but all three Abrahamic religions do that in a massive way, the more literal you interpret their holy texts the more they do.
So yes, a religion is imaginable that doesn't impede scientific progress, even accelerates it, but such a religion is theoretical at best. Since that religion would have to have skeptical inquiry and rational, empirical methodology as its core principles which means of course that this religion would not be a religion, but science.
I realize that in many circumstances it has and does and lets grant that "articles of faith" are just that, they are not ammenable to the kinds of enquiry, scientific propositions are open to - however; must or rather ought we then conclude that since religious propositions, by definition outside the scope of Science AKA knowledge that does not refer to religious propositions must be an impediment either way??
Well, that is a misconception, that I have come across many times. "Religions takes on where science leaves off". It is simply not true. Not only has Science many many times overturned religious propositions like that prayer has any effect etc. But see even the proposition:
"The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity who cares about and is actively involved in human affairs.(which would be the basis of all theism) is basically a scientific hypothesis. It has a definite answer Yes or No. Now the fact, that we may never accumulate the evidence needed to proof or disproof that statement doesn't change that. To make such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, which is not there but don't tell me that if be some form of time travel one would be able to verify Jesus resurrection or the Angel visiting Mohammed Rrigious people and institutions would say "meh that is science, it doesn't concern us".
Science and religion has in many areas different answers to the same questions and overlap on many ends. So no religious propositions are not outside the scope of Sciene (I could elaborate further if you like).
However if religion for you simply means the belief in the existence of a deity, without all the massive social and political elements of Islam for example, so if you take only the spiritual bits of course it doesn't HAVE to be an impediment. Especially if you take aways the irrational idea of a personal God. BUT the causality here is not religion MUST impede scientific progress but religion DOES impede scientific progress wherever we can observe it.
Judaism seems to be an exception but is not since 95% of the Jews ignore almost all of their religious dogma and are only deists if not agnostics.
Science is inquisitive by nature.
I think Muslims are taught to not question many things. I mean almost all religions teach this. But Muslims are the best followers.
What do you say?
Agreed, and Islam is by far the strictest concerning interpretation and reform, since it states that the book was "dictated" by God directly to Mohammed(is that the correct English spelling?) and therefore every sentence is revelation and can not be omitted as a "true" believer.
I would disagree with that. It is true that at the moment, the Muslims seem woefully behind, in terms of knowledge appreciation, scientific research, economic endeavour.
But it would be wrong to say that religion holds them back. There are various issues that help one reach an understanding of it, historical, colonial, cultural, environmental, aspirational, etc.
Muslim scientific advancement in the so called middle ages is a testament to the fact that being a Muslim is not a drawback to scientific enquiry. The destruction of the muslim centers of learning such as Cordoba, Seville, Granada, Baghdad, Rayy, Bukhara, and Qairo by the crusaders and mongols was a blow from which the muslim world has not yet recovered. It was a hard fall.
The Quraan in fact enourages questioning and enquiry, and orders us to ponder and study the machinations of oour surroundings, and contemplate on their nature.
The scientific advancement of the Muslim world in the middle ages is largely misconstrued, see my first post in this topic for that. And the progress that was made, happened
in spite of the restrictive religious dogma, the research was done by heretics or non-Muslims mostly.
Could you give me the quote where the Quraan does that? Not something vague, but just that. It may encourage
limited inquiry, but thats just the point. It tells you not to interfere in your thinking and inquiry with its "domain" which encompasses many topics and fields..
And more important keep in mind that a religion is defined by the practice of its followers, so do you really believe Islam is not a impediment to progress, not only scientific but in many areas?
Oh and that there might be other reasons that Muslim countries lag behind is very likely I agree, but be honest, religion has nothing to do with it, nothing at all?
Truth Seeker I will reply to after a response to this post.
