Is What is Taught in Religious Seminaries Considered 'Science'?

What is happening in the religious seminaries of Iran? What is taught and studied in these seminaries, the various jurisprudential and legal lessons that are held, and the seminarians who attend these classes while receiving stipends ultimately aim for what goal and what purpose? Can what is studied in religious seminaries with significant budget allocations be considered science? What is the relationship between science in the sense of knowledge and what occurs in religious seminaries? Scholars view science and scientific findings as responsive to many of humanity's needs and questions throughout the relatively short lifespan of science. They argue that science has attempted to explain the complexities of existence more and more for humanity, while religion, according to them, has added to these complexities. Defenders of religion, however, consider religious teachings, including those in religious seminaries, as science and defend the achievements of these institutions as scientific accomplishments. In this week's taboo, Dr. Taghi Kimiayi Asadi, a subspecialist in electronic diagnostic medicine, and Hojjatoleslam Abdolmajid Mohajerani Fatehmi, a researcher in philosophy and Islamic sciences, stand on two sides of the debate. We begin this week's discussion with Hojjatoleslam Abdolmajid Mohajerani Fatehmi, the guest of this week's program. Mr. Mohajerani, it would be good to start this discussion by looking at what you believe is scientific about what occurs in religious seminaries and to what extent we can define what is taught and learned in religious seminaries as science? Hojjatoleslam Abdolmajid Mohajerani Fatehmi: The word 'science' in Persian means knowing and absolute awareness. This word has been mixed up here because its usage differs from English. We must first see what we mean by science. Where science is used in the sense of absolute awareness and knowledge, not only religious seminaries but also what these seminaries pride themselves on drawing from, namely divine revelation, are the flag bearers of science. In many verses of the Quran, as well as historical narratives, the first chapter revealed in the Quran, Surah Al-Alaq, begins with the word 'Iqra' (read). Here, the word 'science' is mentioned several times. God has taught with knowledge. Again, in one of the very important verses of the Quran regarding the greatest truth of existence, which is the oneness of God, it states that God has testified that there is no deity but Allah, and angels and those possessing knowledge. In another place, the Quran states that God elevates those who have believed and gained knowledge. As a prayer in the Quran, we are commanded to say, 'Rab zidni ilma' (O God, increase my knowledge), and the struggle of prophets and divine men has been against the ignorance of society. There is no poverty worse than ignorance, and no worship like reflection. Therefore, in the general concept of science, which is knowing, religious seminaries are proud to be the flag bearers of this science. Until a certain point, science was generally referred to as philosophy, and philosophy included other sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, and astrology, and among Islamic scholars, there have been scholars like Sheikh Baha'i and Ibn Sina who encompassed these matters. After the seventeenth century in Europe, this part of philosophy was completely separated and referred to as natural science, and it is here that we encounter this branching of science, which in English has a simpler expression as empirical science. This does not mean that other branches of science are not science. Science itself does not claim to have an advantage over law or sociology, for instance. All empirical sciences at the super-specialized level, exemplified by figures like Max Planck and Einstein, are at this stage where the distinction between philosophy and science disappears altogether. Taghi Kimiayi Asadi: The place of the process of religious beliefs in the limbic system of the right hemisphere of the brain is where raw emotions such as fear of death, the afterlife, existential threats to human existence, and unsolvable emotional issues reside. Therefore, religion and science are the farthest realms of human thought and justifications for matters. Mr. Kimiayi, Mr. Mohajerani mentioned that the term science in Persian differs from what is meant in English. You heard his argument. I think it would be good for you to also provide a definition of science and, given your expertise, explain to our listeners whether we can say that science and religion are fundamentally different in terms of our brain's understanding of these two phenomena? Taghi Kimiayi Asadi: You see, the word science, as is clear, is actually a tool for determining the unknown. Now, science, using systematically collected physical information - I insist on physical - present on the corners of the Earth and the observable universe, studies them in laboratories without considering the personal opinions or beliefs of the scientist or geographical boundaries. Science is a tool for determining the unknowns of natural phenomena that are somehow sensed by humans. Scientists do not insist on convincing others of their findings. Science and scientific methods are products of processes in the frontal cortex of the left hemisphere of the brain, the hemisphere that is involved in the sequential timing of affairs. Despite its youth, science has clarified countless unknowns and has rejected the involvement of the non-physical world in them. Now, let’s return to religion. What is religion? Religion is a collection of beliefs about the unknowns constructed by human minds that have been passed down from their ignorance and lack of knowledge about the natural world to subsequent generations. The tool of religion is belief, and belief is a mindset in which the believer accepts a subject of belief as truth or reality without any rational, logical, or scientific reason and does not allow himself to doubt its validity. Religious authorities also consider skeptics or rejecters of beliefs deserving of worldly and otherworldly punishments and do not allow questioning any of the beliefs. The subjects of the principles of religion, such as the existence or necessity of the existence of God, prophecy, revelation, resurrection, and in Shia Islam, justice and leadership, are not only unprovable but have been made so complex and layered throughout history by religious authorities that the public has accepted that there is no direct way to understand them and must resort to these authorities. The process of religious beliefs occurs in the limbic system of the right hemisphere of the brain, which is the place of raw emotions such as fear of death, the afterlife, existential threats to human existence, and unsolvable emotional issues. Therefore, religion and science are the farthest realms of human thought and justifications for matters, and philosophy lies in between. This is why religion lacks rationality, and science also lacks any religion. Very well, we return to Mr. Mohajerani. Mr. Mohajerani, Dr. Kimiayi Asadi does not see a common ground between science and religion and has raised several issues that I think we should address now. One is the issue of doubt and skepticism in beliefs, and the other is the provability of scientific propositions and theories. Furthermore, as he stated, scientists do not insist that their science be accepted, but what happens in religious seminaries - presumably his view is based on the explanations he provided - there is insistence on their acceptance among the people. What possible response could you give him? Mohajerani Fatehmi: Yes. Here, the issue of rationality has been mixed up. What religions and Islam invite to is rationality, and in fact, the greatest superstition is that a person limits his view to the material level. Great scientists have never claimed that science rejects metaphysics. In fact, metaphysics is outside the realm of science, so religion can never be disproven by science. Rather, scientific data have always supported religion. What does this mean? It means that religion says the world has an order, and this order did not come into being by accident. The entire discipline of science revolves around the issue of causality. Mr. Mohajerani, I apologize. I understand your point, but you did not answer my question. The point that Mr. Kimiayi raised was that scientists do not insist that their science be accepted or that science, in any case, consists of propositions that can be proven or disproven. In the sciences taught in religious seminaries, does this exist? Mohajerani Fatehmi: This is a very misleading question that they do not insist... First of all, many scientists insisted. For example, Galileo insisted to the point that he was even willing to accept torture in the church. Therefore, scientists also insist that their words be accepted. However, a human is not just a material collection. For example, what is written in scientific books is that science does not make value judgments. Science does not tell you what you should do and what you should not do. But this does not mean that the one who tells you what you should do and what you should not do is not science. If this were the case, all law departments at Harvard, UCLA, Cambridge, Oxford, and Qom should be shut down because they say what should and should not be done. A human is not just molecular motion. There is something that an image cannot show. Therefore, that perception is a mechanical perception and one of the dogmas of science that thinks everything is mechanical, and this has not been proven. Yes. Mr. Kimiayi, please especially explain the issue of shoulds and should nots that Mr. Mohajerani referred to because it is actually an important topic. He says that science may also have shoulds and should nots in some cases. If you could explain this, I would appreciate it. Kimiayi Asadi: Several points were made that I will respond to. Science does not use the incomplete reason of humans at all. Reason and logic have been tools of philosophy. You cannot answer any of the religious beliefs with reason and logic. None of them. Not the existence of God, not revelation, nor resurrection, nor the Day of Judgment. The second point is that Galileo did not insist at all and was even willing to turn back from his words to avoid being tortured by the religious authorities. He had no market to defend. Another point is that every scientific finding has diminished the existence of God or His intervention on Earth. Let me give you an example. Consider the plague. For centuries, it has been in religious texts that it is a calamity that God sends to humanity. Until it became clear that it is a bacterium that is shared between rats and rat fleas, and whenever this bacterium mutates and kills the rats, the fleas come to humans for blood and spread the plague, without any intervention from God. The idea that those who do not believe in God lack reason is actually a return to the religious believers who lack reason. However, regarding the shoulds and should nots, it is evident from his statements that he assumed I do not believe in God and condemned me to lack reason. Now, if I were in Iran and said the same thing, I would certainly be executed as an apostate. Mr. Mohajerani, I want to pose this question to you. One of the important issues considered in science is the capability of both provability and falsifiability of scientific theories. That is, scientific theories may be considered open in this regard, as they can be disproven and are ready to be challenged, and new theories can emerge. To what extent is this feature recognized and allowed to emerge and flourish in the sciences that are specifically taught in religious seminaries? Mohajerani Fatehmi: It was mentioned here that scientists do not use reason and logic and philosophy. I really cannot imagine that anyone who steps into a scientific field could say this. I would not believe it if I read this in a newspaper. Abdolmajid Mohajerani Fatehmi: The struggle of prophets and divine men has been against the ignorance of society. There is no poverty worse than ignorance, and no worship like reflection. Therefore, in the general concept of science, which is knowing, religious seminaries are proud to be the flag bearers of this science. Regarding the point you mentioned about falsifiability, which Karl Popper raised in contrast to provability, it is a criterion and theory that has been proposed. Some support it, and some reject it. Regarding other issues, I am very surprised that these things are raised in a scientific discussion. Mr. Mohajerani, may I ask you to pay attention to this part of my question regarding how much opportunity there is for different scientific and intellectual orientations? How much in the science that you believe is science in religious seminaries recognizes different and varied intellectual approaches? Very well. Our interpretations of Islam may be wrong. You want to see how many times the word reason is used in the Quran. Is it not the case that in the West, limits are established? Mr. Doctor, if they go to the university and take one of their laboratory tools outside, are they not punished? Why are they punished? Therefore, these are issues that exist in both religious and non-religious aspects. Many of the miseries that have befallen religious people are due to a misunderstanding of religion, and the prophets came to correct the wrong religious outlook. Mr. Kimiayi, now Mr. Mohajerani is talking about the dogmas of science...