Islam and Science: Compatible or Contradictory?
Keywords:
Science–religion relationship; Islam and science; conflict thesis; integration model; dialogue model; philosophy of science; Islamic epistemology; interdisciplinary studies; religion and modern scienceAbstract
Abstract
The debate between science and religion has been there for several years resulting in development of a variety of theories and models. Amongst these are the frameworks proposed by Ian Barbour, John
Haught, Freeman Dyson, Stephen J.Gould and Staver. Radical Scientists like Jacques Monod, Carl Sagan
and O Wilson say Religion and Science are completely irreconcilable and hence at war with each other.
Others like Haught and Micheal Ruse propose metaphysical (Religious) roots for science and hence
create a relationship of conformity and integration between Science and Religion. To summarize, the
interface of science and religion has been explained in terms of conflict, integration, complementarity,
independence and dialogue up till now. Our article characteristically focuses on the three divisions of
conflict, integration and independence for analysis of the literature and addressing the gaps. In addition, though may be true for other religions, none of these models has been able to explain the true nature of relationship between science and Islam. Our domain on religion remains confined to Islam exclusively and we propose a new model which can elaborate the relationship between science and Islam in the best possible manner.
References
1- Science Council.Retrieved from www.sciencecouncil.org.
2- Plantinga, Alvin, “Religion and Science”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/religion-science/. [This was the previous entry on religion and science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
3- Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de, 1724 [1824], “De l’Origine des Fables”, reprinted in Oeuvres de Fontenelle, Paris: J. Pinard, 1824, pp. 294–310.
4- Hume, David, 1748, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding, London: A. Millar.
5- Freud, Sigmund, 1927, Die Zukunft einer Illusion, Leipzig, Wien & Zürich: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
6- Barbour, I.G. (1990). Religion in an age of science. Harper San Francisco.
7- Guessoum, Nidhal, 2011, Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern
Science, London and New York: Tauris.
8- Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4. See also Thomas W. Ross, The Implicit Theology of Carl Sagan," Pacific Theological Review 18 (Spring 1985):24-32.
9- Jacques Mound, Chance and Necessity (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), p. 180.
10- Envangelist, J. (2018). os mortos nao morrem [the dead do not die].
11- Darwin, Charles, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray.
12- Einstein E. Quoted in: Jammer M.Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press; 1999: 155
13- Dossey, L. (2019). Consilience: Are Science and Religion Compatible? EXPLORE July/August 2019, Vol. 15, No. 4.
14- Paley, William, 1802 [2006], Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, London: R. Faulder. Reprinted as Natural Theology, Matthew D. Eddy and David Knight (eds.), (Oxford World’s Classics), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
15- Swinburne, Richard G., 1968, “Miracles”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 18(73): 320–328. Doi:10.2307/2217793
Moore, K.L. (1982). Highlights of human embryology in the Koran and Hadith. Arabization and Medical Education.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tahira Rauf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
