So science and religion are pretty huge topics to tackle, but I've been thinking a lot about both lately. I think of myself to be very much pro-science, so yes I do believe in evolution, climate change, vaccines and GMOs. On the other hand I also identify as an Agnostic-Muslim ( Is that a thing?). Both groups tend to be very unpopular in mainstream media and white mom blogs (I'm looking at you Jenny McCarthy).
Now, I'm not going to dive into all topics pertaining to science and religion, because I am hardly qualified to do so and it would take a long ass time. However, one thing I did realize was how many of my pro-science friends are anti-religion. Which is totally fine I'm not super a big proponent of religion either. The argument I had a major issue with was when these folks specifically singled out Islam over other religions, I'm just saying it's more fair to be critical of them all equally. The debate I heard over and over again by anti-religion folks was that they hated when Muslims blamed fundamentalists as the problem, when in fact the fundamentalists are the ones who understand religion the best in it's most violent form. Hold up. The reason that most Muslims have a problem with extremists is that they take religious text out of context and misinterpret it to fit their agendas and to promote blood shed. Anti-religion people tend to blame religion for much of this kind of violence, but science has never been immune from this phenomenon. I am a huge fan of Charles Darwin, but I also know that Social Darwinism was a perverted and purposeful misinterpretation of his theory. Social darwinism was used in racial "science" such as Eugenics and was also behind much of the Nazi ideology. So the potential for hate, bigotry and cruelty can be present due to both science and religion, because people are flawed even if the theories or ideologies aren't.
What is also disconcerting for many Muslims is when those who are not scholars of Islam, make generalizations about the religion or Muslims as a people. Do not get me wrong critiquing an ideology or theory is important, where would science be if scientific journals were not peer-reviewed? Yet what I have noticed is that the likes of Bill Maher hardly invite those who are scholars of the religion or have studied Muslims on his show. This is problematic, because Islam and Muslims are a big topic to cover without knowledge on the subject. When those who are not well versed on the science behind GMOs, vaccines and climate change discussing those topics on a mainstream outlet, can be problematic. Especially if said person acts if they are the final authority on the topic, not allowing professionals to weigh in. There are people who dedicate their lives to studying Quranic text and Sharia law. I think it is fair to ask these people to participate in dialogue regarding the religion that they study, especially since they have experience of looking at the religion through a critical eye.
I think another thing to keep in mind is that when Europe was in the Dark Ages ,those who were considered the "keepers of knowledge" were those in the Muslim Empires. These empires preserved science and mathematics, which would have otherwise been lost to the world. Through the silk-trade these ideas were introduced to the Europeans, thrusting them into the Italian renaissance. This period of learning and preservation of knowledge took place during the Abbasid Empire (my distant ancestors, hollah). Yes the Abbasids were an Islamic Empire but they greatly emphasized the Muslim hadith ,"the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr," which placed learning and knowledge above religious aggression. The point is that science and religion do not have to be two opposing spheres, and have always been intertwined. Blaming one side for the promotion of destruction is to ignore the historical context of both.
Now, I'm not going to dive into all topics pertaining to science and religion, because I am hardly qualified to do so and it would take a long ass time. However, one thing I did realize was how many of my pro-science friends are anti-religion. Which is totally fine I'm not super a big proponent of religion either. The argument I had a major issue with was when these folks specifically singled out Islam over other religions, I'm just saying it's more fair to be critical of them all equally. The debate I heard over and over again by anti-religion folks was that they hated when Muslims blamed fundamentalists as the problem, when in fact the fundamentalists are the ones who understand religion the best in it's most violent form. Hold up. The reason that most Muslims have a problem with extremists is that they take religious text out of context and misinterpret it to fit their agendas and to promote blood shed. Anti-religion people tend to blame religion for much of this kind of violence, but science has never been immune from this phenomenon. I am a huge fan of Charles Darwin, but I also know that Social Darwinism was a perverted and purposeful misinterpretation of his theory. Social darwinism was used in racial "science" such as Eugenics and was also behind much of the Nazi ideology. So the potential for hate, bigotry and cruelty can be present due to both science and religion, because people are flawed even if the theories or ideologies aren't.
What is also disconcerting for many Muslims is when those who are not scholars of Islam, make generalizations about the religion or Muslims as a people. Do not get me wrong critiquing an ideology or theory is important, where would science be if scientific journals were not peer-reviewed? Yet what I have noticed is that the likes of Bill Maher hardly invite those who are scholars of the religion or have studied Muslims on his show. This is problematic, because Islam and Muslims are a big topic to cover without knowledge on the subject. When those who are not well versed on the science behind GMOs, vaccines and climate change discussing those topics on a mainstream outlet, can be problematic. Especially if said person acts if they are the final authority on the topic, not allowing professionals to weigh in. There are people who dedicate their lives to studying Quranic text and Sharia law. I think it is fair to ask these people to participate in dialogue regarding the religion that they study, especially since they have experience of looking at the religion through a critical eye.
I think another thing to keep in mind is that when Europe was in the Dark Ages ,those who were considered the "keepers of knowledge" were those in the Muslim Empires. These empires preserved science and mathematics, which would have otherwise been lost to the world. Through the silk-trade these ideas were introduced to the Europeans, thrusting them into the Italian renaissance. This period of learning and preservation of knowledge took place during the Abbasid Empire (my distant ancestors, hollah). Yes the Abbasids were an Islamic Empire but they greatly emphasized the Muslim hadith ,"the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr," which placed learning and knowledge above religious aggression. The point is that science and religion do not have to be two opposing spheres, and have always been intertwined. Blaming one side for the promotion of destruction is to ignore the historical context of both.