So I’m going to start this script with the worst combination of two best words any language can have.
“People say”, or “People believe”, or maybe “People think”, that the correct way of reaching a conclusion is to accept what is in front of you, and “appears” to be true, and deny anything that you haven’t experienced. The problem with this approach is, that different people have different perspectives, different levels of thoughts, different experiences, and different minds, and therefore, their ability to sense the “appearance” of “to be true” is also different, hence leading everyone to such a place in their mind, where “philosophical contradictions” are born. As a result, (I’ll not mention the result. You already have experienced it at some point in your life).
There’s a little story that follows as “A group of blind people was taken to a zoo trip. Everyone in that group was assigned a task to describe that how does an elephant look like. They were brought near the elephant, and everyone started to touch its skin with hands, sensing the fabric of it, some got hands on the tusks, some got to touch the tail, legs, trunk etc. At the end, everyone was asked to explain their experience. Some of them who got their hands on its turks told that it was a rigid object, too dangerous, it had pointy ends, and it could kill anyone in its path. The ones who got the tail told a completely different story. The ones who got the legs opposed the fact that it had a pointy edge, but it still was dangerous….and the story goes on”.
This is exactly what happens when you try to explain something about which you had an incomplete information. In other words, you are supposed to confirm all the aspects in depth, in order to accept it, deny it, and make a conclusion about it. Just because you haven’t been to the United States doesn’t mean that you start denying its existence.
Lets consider another approach, where you accept everything, and then keep on considering it, unless you prove it to be wrong. Mathematicians and Logicians use this approach to reach their conclusions, and probably that’s a reason behind their high accuracy in deriving their conclusions.
Now coming towards the intellectuals, both “left wing” and “right wing”. They either try to explain everything on the basis of Scientific proofs, or completely rely on religion, or theology.
“Why the f**k they can’t join hands, and develop a habit of combined studies?”
I mean, a scientist who spent 5 decades of his life questioning God’s existence, and when he couldn’t find a prove, he ended up as a sworn atheist. On a parallel side, a mufti, who devoted his whole life studying religion, and has no idea what Qur’an’s verses mean on a scientific scale, always misinterprets them, and leads a whole community to a dead end of misery.
I can imagine a picture, where someone is holding a complete reference of Qur’an, Bible, Mahabhaarat, Wikipedia, Standard Model, and some modern research papers. Consider the maths, and philosophy behind it, and simply try to note the points which came out as an overlapping of these references, and then discuss it like some grown-ups.
Qur’an will tell you that everything is in the form of pairs. A biologist may think of it as the property of having distinct genders in every species. A physicist may think of it in terms of antimatter, or maybe quantum entanglement theory. A mathematician may think of it in terms of positivity/negativity, or corresponding imaginary numbers.
All of us are debating over “Creationism” and “Evolution”. Can’t creations evolve? *facepalm*
“Heavens and earth used to be one solid mass, and it exploded into existence” is the context from a verse from Qur’an. It exactly resembles the Big Bang Theory.”Heavens are expanding” (context from Qur’an), and so is the Universe (Science).”Even the fingerprint of a human can be recreated after his body gets eaten-up by the Earth” (context from Qur’an), the same thing is explained by “Genetic Preservation”.I haven’t read any religious script other than Qur’an, so I just can’t quote them, but I know that those scripts will also contain something similar. There’s no way a whole community of more than 1 Billion people can follow an absolute lie.There can be countless other examples, much clearer than the ones I’ve given. The thing is, that a typical atheist scientist will agree with all of the scientific facts, but will deny everything written in any religious script. On the other hand, a rigid extremist mufti/monk/priest will say that everything written in his religious scrips in 100% truth, but will deny all of the scientific fact, and in some cases, will oppose the study of science and nature.I personally believe that if you start reading your religious script, and start visualizing it in terms of society as well as science, *end of ideas/words/thoughts*