obviously, our faith and knowledge of islam will decide what is good in science

Your joking right? You think Hamza Tzortzis and Adam Deen make the secular and atheist thinkers fall apart?
You didn’t do your fair share of doubting, like you claim.

1. Don’t talk about the science of theoretical physicists until you actually know the physics.

2. The basis of the problem is (1) religion’s knowledge claims and (2) how religion came about. The way science claims knowledge and the way religion claims “knowledge” are extremely different. And the way science came about and the way religions come about are extremely different.

” If many of the youth had a firm Islamic educational background then whatever they studied, they would always know that Qur’an and Sunnah is the truth no matter what their biology, sociology, or philosophy professors preach.”

How it is that a statement like that could get past the skepticism of philosophy… I don’t know. Getting an Islamic education means “knowing” that Islam is “the truth”? How much have you actually studied philosophy?

Just wanted to make the point, Abubakr, that your criticism of scientists as being hypocrites, when they take the Laws of Thermodynamics to be true without proof because they work, and then move on, is inherently flawed. While you are correct in that most scientists would tell you that these Laws are true because they hold up empirically, they would also tell you that there are going to be exceptions to these laws in certain states (physical states) that can’t be explained yet. Furthermore, if in a few hundred years, scientific thought advances to the point where it realizes that the laws of thermodynamics are indeed inaccurate, the scientific community will change those laws (after much discourse and debate). I don’t think any scientist takes the laws of nature to be true in the same way that religious people take the existence of God to be true. For the believer, the existence of God is undeniable, irrefutable fact. For a scientist, the laws of nature as they interpret them are at best, the human attempt to understand the mechanisms and causality behind physical and universal processes. It doesn’t mean they take them to be irrefutably true. I just wanted to point out the error in your assumption that scientists take Laws and theories to be true without contending that they might also not be true (however unlikely that might be). A believer by definition cannot even entertain the possibility that God does not exist.

Salaam Alaykum, akhi.

Of course there is no reason to reject science/philosophy/mathematics. While Imam al-Ghazali was justified in being cautious, I prefer Ibn Rushd’s approach: science/philosophy/mathematics can’t explain everything. Believing that they can is like looking through a red colored lens and then concluding that the entire world is red. For example, science can’t explain beauty, as it is something subjective, and not objective. An Islamic revivalist blogger named Asadullah Ali, who is taking a philosophy course at his university, elaborates on this in a post “Against Atheist Aesthetics”. Similarly, it is important to draw a line between learning about the natural world and learning about higher concepts such as Allah. The Mutazilah of Imam al-Ghazali’s time failed to do so, and in their attempt to use Greek philsophy and logic to explain and reason everything, arrived at some very confusing, contradictory conclusions.