The discourse of religion from a scientific perspective is still considered complex for modern humans. This is triggered by the confusion of human knowledge or modern society, which never ceases to dispute religion as a doctrine, while science is seen as an empirical scientific skill that does not enter the realm of metaphysics (nature). supernatural) in human life systems.
According to modern doctrine, the universe and humankind exist based on natural, mechanical processes. There is no one who created or controls them. Naturally, such thoughts and beliefs arise from an atheistic perspective, which is fundamentally unfounded and contradicts reason, logic, and the reality of a Muslim's faith.[1]
Beyond the aforementioned issues, religious discourse for modern humans becomes problematic again when linked to science, whose chaotic debate has reached a dead end. Science and religion are problematic for modern humans because they fundamentally clash over metaphysical beliefs.
Meanwhile, science is the result of scientific work. (scientific), (research) research, or (experience) physical or empirical experiences. Religion is not included or involved in scientific matters. Therefore, modern science denies the role of religion in the development and advancement of the science it practices.
From a different perspective, religion holds a supreme and primary place in the development of science. Its position is so central and important that science is even derived from religion, which is the source of all knowledge (science).
So the view that says science emerged from religion is those who believe that there is a creator of the Great Universe, those who believe that the Great Universe is a creation that is Almighty and has power over humans, nature and everything contained in it.
It can be concluded that people who believe in everything are Muslims, or those who embrace Islam as a religion. For Muslims, Islam is a perfect system of life. (kamîl) in which all concepts about everything are found.
Therefore, the position of religion from the perspective of modern science and religion from the perspective of Islam must be examined carefully and correctly. This is because the understanding of religion in the context of modern science and Islamic science differs.
4 (Four) Attractive Offers
In the introduction to the book Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian Graeme Barbour put forward four views on the relationship between science and religion. First as conflict. This means that most people interpret the scriptures literally and believe that the theory of evolution is contrary to religion.
According to Barbour, this group consistently asserts that science and religion are enemies. Enemies in the sense that science and religion will be in conflict, at odds, and always in conflict.
Second as independence. Barbour continued, stating that conflict can be avoided if science and religion exist in separate spheres of human life. Science and religion are interconnected, dealing with different domains and different aspects of reality. Science and religion both question each other and do not compete with each other. This perspective suggests that science and religion complement each other, not undermine each other.
Third, dialog. For Barbour, science and religion compare the methods of both. From this comparison, each can demonstrate their similarities and differences and acknowledge each other.
Fourth, integration. Adherents of this view seek a systematic integration between science and religion. Some proponents of this view see similarities between scientific discoveries and religion. Or, they see religion as offering much about beliefs that aligns with modern science.
However, this belief must and needs to be reformulated in special scientific theories. (scientific theory). These scientific theories are systematically explained with interrelated concepts from both a scientific and religious perspective.[2]
The four beliefs that Barbour illustrates are possibilities constructed according to modern scientific dogma. Jargon such as 'the warfare of science and religion' echoed because in the west everything is anti-religion, anti-God.
Every thing that is associated with God is a new problem that must be challenged and questioned. That is the rationality of modern scientists. God and religion are considered enemies who will always be at odds with science.
It's therefore natural that Barbour elaborates on the position and relationship between science and religion at length. This view will be more readily accepted by (modern) scientists who are unfamiliar with both science and religion. This familiarity is only found in the understanding of modern or contemporary scientists.
Western scientists had to struggle with blood and sweat to confront the dogmas of the Church's texts as the highest authority. The case of Galileo in 1633 AD was a case in point. post-contrast the serious conflict between scientists and Church authorities.
Conflict pre And post-It is this contrast between Augustine and Galileo that Barbour refers to in the introduction as the first 'conflict' between religion and science.[3]
And Allah knows best
[1] M. Kholid Muslih et.al. Worldview Islam: Discussion of Important Concepts in Islam (Ponorogo: UNIDA Gontor Press, 2018), 64.
[2] Ian G. Barbour, Nature, Human Nature, and God (Augsburge Fortress: Fortress Press, 2002), 32.
[3] Read more John William Drapper, History of The Conflict Between Religion and Science (America: Cambridge University Press, 1875).
1 comment