I think its likely that most, if not all, religions will trumpet a scientific fact that confirms or even appears to confirm a central dogma of that faith. Catholicism is interesting today as it actually confirms what some would think of as controversial science, Darwinian evolution, by affirming it without spin, but then spinning the religion to be in line with science. This is however, much preferential to spinning the science to validate the religion.
I know that Buddhism and Hinduism both refer to central components and concepts within their religions as matching perfectly some arcane aspect of science such as relating Planck’s constant with some measurement in one of Buddhas lectures or Indra’s net with various concepts ranging from string theory to the Higgs field or whatever seems to fit.
One could debate this of course in terms of whether or not science should be used in this way, although science quite specifically is the study of the demonstrably true and the natural and the supernatural is outside of its jurisdiction by its very definition. The supernatural cannot be demonstrated to be true or false. So it cannot be quantified.
But Islam takes a singularly different approach. Islam has no interest in the truth or falsity of a claim whatsoever. Only in how that claim advances islam or makes it look in the eyes of the listener.
For example true believers can revel in the fact that mohamed was a child molester, serial rapist, mass murder and pirate but if a non believer says this he may well be killed and if he says it to other non-believers by way of warning then he will be marked for being killed almost certainly.
One of the reasons that Westerners and other non-believers have so much difficulty in believing in the threat that Islam presents, is the very alienness of its process. I think at this stage most people have heard of the concepts of kitman and Taqyyia etc. The various forms of islamically sanctioned lying and misdirection that is routinely employed by muslims to sell themselves and their faith into positions where it can do real damage. But the extent to which the truth is irrelevant is difficult to grasp for the average person raised in a culture of reason.
When Islam quotes science as confirming its dogma it is so fantastically twisted or taken out of any related context that it approaches the risible.
Here is an example that was just sent in:
First of all, there can be no ‘Islamic science’. Science starts with a question and tries to disprove every answer given in order to model reality as closely as possible, no matter what the consequences to our intuitive understanding.
If you read the quotes attributed to Sheikh Qaradawi where he quotes an unfindable German scientist, it is utter fiction meant to use science to confirm one of mohamed’s own personal hatreds. The honest religion would simply reference its own scripture in the kind of tautological reasoning we expect and forgive in advance. In the case of dogs, mohamed is reputed to have said that an angel will not visit a house that has a dog or a picture of a living creature in it. That should be good enough. But this isn’t meant for a believing audience.
Besides, given what angels do in the various holy books, this seems to be an excellent reason to keep dogs and draw animals about once a week.
Then there is this one:
Mohamed is alleged to have said that if a fly falls into your drink then dip the other wing into the drink because one wing has disease and the other has the cure. Here is a link to a desperate attempt to justify that by objective science.
The science offered in the article linked above is also desperately spun to make what was likely a throw-away remark of mohamed’s while drunk on his own power and megalomania, or else the context is absurdly unrelated to the idea of dipping a fly in your drink. For example, if a person had a serious bacterial infection I would not advise eating moldy potatoes even if antibiotics initially had been fabricated from fungus.
Like the islamic notion of slander or liable, truth plays no part of the equation. All that is needed to be known is how a given thing makes Islam look to those not yet converted. This takes some time to wrap your head around, as a nation which technically advances must be willing to accept the scientific method and ideally all of the possible consequences to the orthodoxy of the day. And while it may be somewhat objectionable for some religious groups to bring the fruits of science to primitive societies in order to try and wow them into joining their faith, at least they are bringing the fruits of science, Medicine, agriculture and general reduction of suffering. Islam on the other hand steals weapons, methods for making WMDs, the perversion of science to advance the supremacy of Islam and/or to destroy its enemies however it chooses to define them that day.
Ultimately we in the West suffer from a weakness that we are unable to comprehend. The systematic use of deception in Islam. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as just one example, but a seminal and foundational one for islamic thought and strategy. The fact that the muslims made a peace treaty with its first large scale enemy agreeing to cease hostilities for ten years and then two years later attacked and took the city by surprise is a point of pride to muslims, but must always be sold to the infidel as if somehow, the muslims are the victim in all this.
So again, like 911, we see that a large part of our failures in dealing with islam, is in our own imaginations and unwillingness to empathize with the enemy to the extent required to understand their ambitions, motives and methods.
Eeyore for Vlad.