1 Komentar

PARADIGM SHIFT IN SCIENCES TO HOLISTICS AND INTEGRALISTICS PARADIGM

PARADIGM SHIFT IN SCIENCES TO HOLISTICS AND INTEGRALISTICS PARADIGM

(An Epistemological Studies)

By:

Ahmad Y. Samantho

AND ALLAH HAS BROUGHT YOU FORT FROM THE WOMBS OF YOUR MOTHER – YOU DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING – AND HE GAVE YOU HEARING AND SIGHT AND HEARTS THAT YOU MAY GIVE THANKS.”

( QS AN-NAHL, 16: 78 )

Multi Dimensional Crisis

Caused by Modern-Western Secular Paradigm in Sciences

Paradigm is a philosophical assumptions that become basics or fundamental principles for any field of civilization such as science and technology.  The dominant paradigm in the beginning of the last century is materialistic-mechanistic & positivism paradigm which known as Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm.

The success of Newton theory of gravitation and mechanics, had strengthened by  another theory such as hypothetic-deductive method which rational-speculative that develop by Rene Descartes, with ‘over emphasised’on experimental-inductive and objective-empiric method, develop by Roger Bacon and positivism of science by August Comte.

Descartes tried to found an unshakable philosophy in order to combat skepticism, he use the indubitability of doubt it self as the  cornerstone of his philosophy. Furthermore, the existence of the ego of the doubter and thinker is a corollary based on that foundation. He introduced clarity and distinctness as the criterion of indubitability, which he made a standard for distinguishing correct from incorrect ideas. He also attempted to employ a mathematical approach to philosophy, and in fact sought to introduced a new logic.

Hence, to begin with doubt as a starting point for arguing with the skeptics is reasonable. However, if some one to imagine that nothing is quite so clear and certain, and that even the existence of the doubter must be inferred from the doubt, this would not be valid. Rather the existence of the aware and thinking ego is at least as clear and indubitable as the existence of the doubt it self which is one of its states.

Descartes’ thought is very proper to be appreciated in combating skepticism, but we can’t accept his principal idea about cogito ergo sum (“I thing therefore I am”), because, Descartes’ principal idea (with Newtonians’ idea on mechanical principles) were the basics that had develop and founded the materialistic and mechanistic paradigm on western philosophy and sciences. This materialistic-mechanistic paradigm and secularism are opposed with the Islamic philosophy on spiritual existence and reality.

Materialistics-mechanistics paradigm, that based on Cartersian and Newtonian method on “hipotetiko(deductive)—experimental(inductive)”, had brought reductionistic-materialistics inclination. Therefore, live, even consciousness had reduction to be just a mechanistic-material movement. This secular idea mainstream were spread and influce many fields on philosophy-ideology, cultures and sciences of modern humans’ live.  For instance, Adam Smith on economics talk on “market mechanism”, Charles Darwin on biology talk on “evolution mechanism’ and Sigmund Freud psychologist, talk on “psychist defence mechanism”.

This reductionistic-mechanism ended at atomistics and mechanistics ontology (secularism),  so reject and neglect  divine roles on nature and even negate the existence of God.  This is opposed to Islamic principal belief and reality, an may be also oppose to Christian faith of God.

This crisis are both internal and external crisis and external criticism. Internal crisis of this paradigm shown by Einstein Principles of Relativity, Heisenberg principle of Indeterminacy, and Godel Theorem of Incompleteness, and in social sciences, we can see this crisis on criticism on the lack or the incorret idea  of positivism (scienticism), by Jurgen Habermas,  Horkheimer, Adoro and Marcuse[1]

According to Fritjof Capra[2] external crisis of modern sciences (Cartesian-Newtonian/materialistic-mechanistic Paradigm) causing several problematic crisis such as: military mass destruction with nuclear, chemical, and biological mass destructive weapon; environmental degradation caused by depletion, pollutions, degradation, and destruction; social fragmentation caused by industrialization, urbanization & fragmentation; human psychological alienation  with natural, social, and technical.

External criticism of modern science occurs in at least three critisism: (1) Theological  (science is partial by rejecting the Supernatural Reality), (2) Philosophycal: a) phenomenologist philosophical critisism (science is only the thematization of human experience); b). post-structuralist philosophical critisism (science is just another story); (3) ideological critisism held by: a) Neo-Marxism (science is in the intereset of the capital), b) Neo-Feminism (science is in the intereset of male), c) Radical Ecologist (science is in the interests of  human) & d) Religious Ethicist (science is in the interests of white man).

As the hipotetic conclusion, in the reality we can say that modern science (Scienticism) is not realy complete, not comphresenvise, not realy rational, not realy objective, and not realy neutral.  Why it can occurs in modern sciences or Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm? First, it may be caused by epistemology of modern science with over emphasised rationalism, over empahsised empiricism & positivism, over emphasized reductionism. This kind of epistemology further influence ontological paradigm of: materialism-secularism, mechanism, atomism; and brought axiological paradigm on netralism, positivism, humanism and individualism.

As Dr. Armahedi Mahzar said in his Introduction for Hussain Heriyanto Book of “Paradigma Holistik” that in second medieval of the late century, there had been occur paradigm shift or inclination to changes into more new paradigm in sciences. Furthermore, as stated by Mr. Armahedi Mahzar in  his lectures on Islamic Philosophy of Sciences in ICAS:  Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm domination on modern sciences had led human civilization to the multi dimensional crisis for human live. So there is a need to build new paradigm on the research and development of science for now and the future. So we must review and reconstruct our paradigm into holistics and integralistics paradigm according to Islamic direction of  Tauhid on divinity, nature dan human being. The first of all, we must start from epistemological reconstruction. Hence, here in this paper we want to discuss and doing reconstruction in our mind to solve the main problems and crisis of human live and civilization.

  1. Epistemological Reconstruction

The term of epistemology was used firstly in 1854 by J.F. Feriere. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which tries to answer basic questions as Kant says:  “Was  kann ich  wissen?” (“What can I know?”)[3] Because the answer is about  the  central problem of human thinking, so epistemology has a central position, as Ayn Rand mentions, epistemology is the basic of philosophical sciences. Epistemology is one of the core areas of Philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limit of knowledge.[4]

The term epistemology was derived from the Greek word: ‘Episteme’ and ‘Logos’. Episteme mean ‘knowledge’ or ‘the truth’ and ‘logos’ means ‘think’ ‘word’, or ‘theory’. Runes says that ‘epistemology is the branch of Philosophy that explains sources, structure, method and knowledge validity.[5]

Epistemology also can be defined as ‘The Theory of Knowledge’. Epistemology in it’s explanation consists of two parts: ‘a general epistemology’ and ‘a special epistemology’ or ‘theory of specific knowledge’, especially for scientific knowledge; so it can mention as “Philosophy of Science”.[6] The Philosophy of Science (Knowledge) and Epistemology cannot be separated one from another. Philosophy of Science based on epistemology, especially on problem of scientific validity.[7] Validity of Sciences (according Modern Western Philosophy of Science) is just only consists of three concepts of the truth theory: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic. Correspondence needs harmony between idea and external fact (universe), its truth is empiric-deductive; coherence requires harmony among logical statements, this truth is formal-deductive; while Pragmatic requires instrumental criterion or necessity, this truth is functional.

Correspondence product are empirical sciences like: physics, chemistry, biology, sociology; coherence products are abstract sciences like: mathematics and logic, while pragmatic products are applied sciences like: medicine. So epistemology is the fundamental base of philosophy of sciences, especially to make identification to scientific knowledge, or daily knowledge, and how to use the right methodology and procedure to get scientific knowledge.[8]

The Importance of Holistics & Integralistics Epistemology

Why epistemology is so important for human live? According to Murthadha Muthahhari: In the recent era, many social philosophy, schools of thought (Mazhab), ism, ideology, was has been important things, because every one needs to have a certain form of thinking that his live activities would relies upon and based on it. At the contemporary there are often conflicts happened among various ideology and schools of thought[9] of many groups, communities, nations, states.

Even according to Samuel J. Huntington, he says there is a ‘class of civilizations’ in third millennium in the world.  Nowadays, we see American and Britain Military to conquer the large natural sources like oil and gas and to protect Israel-Zionism ambitions had under attack and invasion made Iraq and Afghanistan, had lead by imperialism of materalism-kapitalism ideology.

Everything’s doing by human being was based on his thinking and his ideology.  And a certain ‘ideology’ is depending on a certain ‘worldview’.   While ‘world view’ was based on its epistemology in his philosophy.[10] That is why epistemology was so important to study and research.

According to Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi in Philosophical Instruction, An Introduction to Contemporary Islamic Philosophy:[11] ‘There is a series of fundamental problems that confront man as a conscious being whose activities spring from his consciousness; and if man becomes negligent and remiss in his efforts to find correct answers to these problems, he will find instead that he has crossed the boundary between humanity and bestiality. Remaining in doubt and hesitation, in addition to the inability to satisfy his truth-seeking conscience, will not enable man to dispel anxieties about his likely responsibilities. He will be left to languish or, as occasionally happens, turn into a dangerous creature. Since mistaken and deviant solutions, such as materialism and nihilism, cannot provide psychological comfort or social well being one should look for the fundamental cause of individual and social corruption in aberrant views and thoughts. Hence there is no alternative but to seek answers to these problems with firm and unflagging resolution. We may spare no effort until we establish a basis for our own human lives and in this way assist others as well, and arrest the influence in society of incorrect thoughts and the deviant teachings, which are current.

Now that the necessity of an intellectual and philosophical endeavor has become clear and no room has been left for doubt or uncertainty or hesitancy, it remains for us to take the first step in mandatory and unavoidable journey upon which we have resolved by facing up to the following question: Is the human intellect able to solve these problems?

This query forms the nucleus about which the problems of epistemology are centered. Until we solve the problems of this branch of philosophy, we will neither be able to arrive at solutions to the problems of ontology nor to those of the other branches of philosophy. Until the value of intellectual knowledge is determined, claims presented as actual solutions to such problem will be pointless and unacceptable. There will always remain such questions concerning how to the intellect can provide a correct solution to these problems.

It is here that many of the well-known figures of western philosophy, such as Hume, Kant, August Comte, and all of the positivists have blundered. With their incorrect views they have mislaid the cultural foundations of modern western societies, and even the scholars of other sciences, they have misled especially the behaviorists among psychologists. Unfortunately, the battering and ruinous waves of such teachings also have spread to other part of the world, and apart from the lofty summits and unimpregnable cliffs that rest on the stable and firm grounds of divine philosophy, all else more or less has come under their influence.

Therefore, we must endeavor to take the firs steady step by laying the foundations of our house of philosophical ideas solidly and sturdily until, with the help of Almighty God, we are worthy to tread trough other stages and arrive at our desired goal.

Religion and Science

Philosophical discussion of the relation between modern science and religion has tended to focus on Christianity, because of its dominance in the West. [12]

The relations between science and Christianity have been too complex to be described by the  ‘warfare’ model popularized by A.D. White (1896) and J.W. Draper (1874). An adequate account of the past two centuries requires a distinction between conservative and liberal positions. Conservative Christians tend to see theology and science as partially intersecting bodies of knowledge. God is revealed in ‘two books’: the Bible and nature. Ideally, science and theology ought to present a single, consistent account of reality; but in fact there have been instances where the results of science have apparently) contradicted Scripture, in particular with regard to the age of the universe and the origin of the human species.

Liberals tend to see science and religion as complementary but non-interacting, as having concerns so different as to make conflict impossible. This approach can be traced to Immanuel Kant, who distinguished sharply between pure reason (science) and practical reason (morality). More recent versions contrast science, which deals with the what and how of the natural world, and religion, which deals with meaning, or contrast science and religion as employing distinct languages. However, since the 1960s a growing number of scholars with liberal theological leanings have taken an interest in science and have denied that the two disciplines can be isolated from one another.Topics within science that offer fruitful points for dialogue with theology include Big-Bang cosmology and its possible implications for the doctrine of creation, the ‘fine-tuning’ of the cosmological constants and the possible implications of this for design arguments, and evolution and genetics, with their implications for a new understanding of the human individual.

Perhaps of greater import are the indirect relations between science and theology. Newtonian physics fostered an understanding of the natural world as strictly determined by natural laws; this in turn had serious consequences for understanding divine action and human freedom. Twentieth-century developments such as quantum physics and chaos theory call for a revised view of causation. Advances in the philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century provide a much more sophisticated account of knowledge than was available earlier, and this has important implications for methods of argument in theology.

Religion and Western Predecessors of Science

Western interest in a systematic account of the natural world is an inheritance from the ancient Greeks rather than from the Hebrew tradition, which tended to focus on the human world. The Greek concept of nature was not set over against a concept of supernature, as it has been in more recent centuries, so it is possible to say that Greek philosophy of nature was inherently theological. Early Christian scholars were divided in their approach to Greek natural philosophy, some making great use of it for apologetic purposes (see Origen; Augustine), others rejecting it (see Tertullian).

After the fall of Rome, the centre of scholarship shifted eastward. Islamic scholars and its cilivizations in the Middle Ages were largely responsible for preserving the learning of the Greeks, as well as for significant scientific developments of their own in the fields of optics, medicine, astronomy and mathematics. It was through Muslims in Spain that important scientific works by Aristotle were introduced to western Europe in the twelfth century. The influence of these works on Christian thought culminated in Thomas Aquinas’ two Summas (Aquinas, T. ; Aristotelianism,).

Revival attempts

At the end of the twentieth century, scholars, scientists and philosophers throughout the Muslim world are trying to formulate a contemporary version of the Islamic philosophy of science. Two dominant movements have emerged. The first draws its inspiration from Sufi mysticism (see Mystical philosophy in Islam) and argues that the notions of ‘tradition’ and the ‘sacred’ should constitute the core of Islamic approach to science. The second argues that issues of science and values in Islam must be treated within a framework of concepts that shape the goals of a Muslim society. Ten fundamental Islamic concepts are identified as constituting the framework within which scientific inquiry should be carried out, four standing alone and three opposing pairs: tawhid (unity), khilafa (trusteeship), ‘ibada (worship), ‘ilm (knowledge), halal (praiseworthy) and haram (blameworthy), ‘adl (justice) and zulm (tyranny), and istisla (public interest) and dhiya (waste). It is argued that, when translated into values, this system of Islamic concepts embraces the nature of scientific inquiry in its totality; it integrates facts and values and institutionalizes a system of knowing that is based on accountability and social responsibility. It is too early to say whether either of these movements will bear any real fruit.

Holistics-Integralistics Paradigm & Methodology in Mulla Sadras’ Thought.

The very advanced attempt to searching and  exploring the truth and reality was made by Mulla Sadra (1236-1311 AD ).  He is the prominent Islamic scholar who sintetized and combine several approach and methodology had ever build in Islamic History and  human civilizations in the harmonious & proportional way, such as peripateticism (rationalty & empiricism / masyaiyah from Palto & Aristoles  from Greek era,  Al Kindi [801-873 AD],   Al Farabi [ 865-925 AD], Ibnu Sina [980-1037 AD], and Ibn Rusyd [1126-1198 AD] ), al-Razy [1149-1209] and iluminationism (isyraqiyah, by Sukhrawardi [1153-1191]  and Theosophy and Mysticism (Gnostics / Irfan) from Ibn Arabi [1165-1240 AD], Nasirudin Al Thusi [1201-1274] and Al Qunawi [12090-1240 AD] and Trancendent Theosophy of Mulla Sadra (al Hikmah al Muta’aliyah).

Mulla Sadras principle theory and ontological paradigm are: The Four Jouorney (al asfar al Arba’ah), Transubtantial Movement (al Harakat al Jauhariyah),  as-Shalat al-Wujud , Tasykik al-Wujud. In Epistemolgy, Mulla Sadra, and of course another several Islamic Scholars, had been following the Islamic Epistemology on Philosophy and ‘Islamicate‘ Science (vis a vis modern western-secular science) as we mention before.

D. Conclusion

To summarize this epistemological discussion, let us quote the comparation schema from Dr. Haidar Bagir lectures & his paper: Contemporary Critisism of Methodology in Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy,  as follow:

ASPECT OF EPISTEMOLOGY WESTERN EPISTEMOLOGY EPISTEMOLOGY IN ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE
1. Sources of Knowledge :
  1. Empirical-observable
  2. Rational
1. Empirical-observable world

2. Rational (Analitical; Reason)

3. Imaginal Realm (khayal/barzakh)

4. Intuition (hight Intelect, Qalb, Fuad)

5. Historical fact

6. Sacred Text (revelation/wahyu)

2. Limit of Knowledge Rational science (ratiocination) No limit expect to know Dzat al Wujud (God)
3.Structure of Knowledge In the modern era there is separable view between Subject & Object (Objectivity) 1.  Ilm al Husuli (Aquired Knowledge)

2.  ilm al Hudhuri (Presential knowledge) & Ilmu Laduni

3.  Subject & Object are unity

4. Validity of Knowledge
  1. Logical Coherence
  2. Correspondence
  3. Pragmatic Funtion
1. Logical Coherence (Rational-Bayani)

2. Correspondence with Fact & History (Demonstartive/Burhani)

3. Pragmatic Function

4.  Harmoni with Divine Guidelines

5.  Irfani (iluminationist)

6.  ect.

5. Main Division & Relation
  1. Theoritical Philosophy
  2. Practical Philosophy
    1. Theoritical Philosophy (al Hikmah Nazhariyah)
    2. Practical Philosophy (al hikmah Amaliyah)
Principle:

Practical Phylosophy (Science-technology)  must relies on, or based on Theoritical Phylosophy.

Hence, Islamic Holistic and Integralistic Paradigm on epistemology, on ontology and on axiology are the prime principles that we are need to reviewing and reconstructing our philosophy, our sciences, our ideology and our civilization.

According to Mr. Armahedi Mahzar in Integralist Reflection there are Evolutionary Cycle of existential stages and Dynamic Integrality between Ultimate Reality (God, Allah SWT) and Human Actuality with evolution and devolution. This is the principle of : Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rojiun.  Wallahu ‘alam. ***


Ó It is one topic written to fulfill requirement of The Second Semester Final Examination of Modern Western Philosophy Lectrures, Held By. Mr. Dr. F. Budi Hardiman, at  ICAS – Jakarta, June 2004.

Ò Master Programme at Islamic College for Advanced Studies Jakarta Students.

[1] F. Budi Hardiman, Melampaui Positivisme dan Moderenitas,  Penerbit Kanisius, Jakarta,  2003, p.24.

[2] Fritjoh Capra, The Turning Point, Scinece, Society and The Rising Culture, A Bantam Books, United States of America,  1982,

[3] Koento Wibisono, Dasar-Dasar Filsafat, (Jakarta: Penerbit Karunika Universitas T erbuka, 1989), p. 517.

[4] Peter D. Klein, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Routledge: London and New York, 1998), version 1.0.

[5] Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, (Totowa New Jersey: Adams & Co., 1971), p. 94.

6   Doni Gahral Adian, Menyoal Objektifisme Ilmu Pengetahuan, (Jakarta: Teraju, 2002), p. 17.

7 Ibid., p. 19.

8 Murthadha Muthahhari, Mengenal Epistemology, translated from Iranian book: Mas’ale Syenokh, (Teheran:  Intisyaarate Shadra, 1989), p. 180.

9 Ibid.

10 Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, Philosophical Instruction, An Introduction to Contemporary Islamic Philosophy, (New York: Binghamton, University Global Publications, 1999), p. 85-6.

[12] Nancey Murphy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1, London.

epistemology 21 meil 2010

Epistemology II-March 2010

Epistemology III

Epistemology IV-March 2010

The Syllabus of Islamic Epistemology

The Islamic Concept of Knowledge

One comment on “PARADIGM SHIFT IN SCIENCES TO HOLISTICS AND INTEGRALISTICS PARADIGM

  1. Hubungan agama dengan ilmu

    Sebelum kita berbicara secara panjang lebar seputar hubungan antara agama dengan ilmu dengan segala problematika yang bersifat kompleks yang ada didalamnya maka untuk mempermudah mengurai benang kusut yang terjadi seputar problematika hubungan antara agama dengan ilmu maka kita harus mengenal terlebih dahulu dua definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ yang jauh berbeda satu sama lain,yaitu definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ versi sudut pandang Tuhan dan versi sudut pandang manusia yang lahir melalui kacamata sudut pandang materialist.
    Pertama adalah definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ versi sudut pandang materialistik yang kita kenal sebagai ‘saintisme’ yang membuat definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ sebagai berikut : ‘ilmu adalah segala suatu yang sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia indera’,(sehingga bila mengikuti definisi saintisme maka otomatis segala suatu yang berada diluar wilayah pengalaman dunia indera menjadi tidak bisa didefinisikan sebagai wilayah ilmu).faham ini berpandangan atau beranggapan bahwa ilmu adalah ‘ciptaan’ manusia sehingga batas dan wilayah jelajahnya harus dibingkai atau ditentukan oleh manusia.
    Kedua adalah definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ versi sudut pandang Tuhan yang mendeskripsikan ‘ilmu’ sebagai suatu yang harus bisa mendeskripsikan keseluruhan realitas baik yang abstrak maupun yang konkrit sehingga dua dimensi yang berbeda itu bisa difahami secara menyatu padu sebagai sebuah kesatuan system.pandangan Ilahiah ini menyatakan bahwa ilmu adalah suatu yang berasal dari Tuhan sehingga batas dan wilayah jelajahnya ditentukan oleh Tuhan dan tidak bisa dibatasi oleh manusia artinya dalam persoalan ilmu manusia harus mengikuti pandangan Tuhan.
    Bila kita merunut asal muasal perbedaan yang tajam antara konsep ilmu versi saintisme dengan konsep ilmu versi Tuhan sebenarnya mudah : kekeliruan konsep ‘ilmu’ versi saintisme sebenarnya berawal dari pemahaman yang salah atau yang ‘bermata satu’ terhadap realitas,menurut sudut pandang materialist ‘realitas’ adalah segala suatu yang bisa ditangkap oleh pengalaman dunia indera,sedang versi Tuhan : ‘realitas’ adalah segala suatu yang diciptakan oleh Tuhan untuk menjadi ‘ada’,dimana seluruh realitas yang tercipta itu terdiri dari dua dimensi : yang abstrak dan yang konkrit,analoginya sama dengan realitas manusia yang terdiri dari jiwa dan raga atau realitas komputer yang terdiri dari software dan hard ware.
    Berangkat dari pemahaman terhadap realitas yang bersifat materialistik seperti itulah kaum materialist membuat definisi konsep ilmu sebagai berikut : ‘ilmu adalah segala suatu yang sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia indera’ dan metodologi ilmu dibatasi sebatas sesuatu yang bisa dibuktikan secara empirik.ini bertentangan dengan konsep dan metodologi ilmu versi Tuhan,karena realitas terdiri dari dua dimensi antara yang konkrit dan yang abstrak maka dalam pandangan Tuhan (yang menjadi konsep agama) konsep ilmu tidak bisa dibatasi sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia indera dan metodologinya pun tidak bisa dibatasi oleh keharusan untuk selalu terbukti secara empirik,sebab ada realitas abstrak yang metodologi untuk memahaminya berbeda dengan metodologi untuk memahami ilmu material (sains),dan kedua : manusia bukan saja diberi indera untuk menangkap realitas yang bersifat empirik tapi juga diberi akal dan hati yang memiliki ‘mata’ dan pengertian untuk memahami realitas yang bersifat abstrak.

    Mengapa bisa terjadi sesuatu yang dianggap sebagian manusia sebagai ‘benturan antara agama dengan ilmu’ (?) bila dilihat dengan kacamata Ilahi sebenarnya bukan terjadi benturan antara agama dengan ilmu sebab baik agama maupun ilmu keduanya berasal dari Tuhan yang mustahil berbenturan.benturan itu terjadi karena kesalah fahaman manusia termasuk karena kesalahan manusia dalam membuat definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ sebagaimana yang dibuat oleh saintisme itu,
    Bila kita runut fitnah benturan antara agama dengan ilmu itu terjadi karena berbagai sebab,pertama : manusia membatasi definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ diseputar wilayah dunia indera,sebaliknya agama tidak membatasi wilayah ilmu sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia indera (karena ilmu harus mendeskripsikan keseluruhan realitas baik yang abstrak maupun yang lahiriah-konkrit) sehingga otomatis ilmu yang di persempit wilayah jelajahnya (sehingga tak boleh menjelajah dunia abstrak) itu kelak akan menimbulkan banyak benturan dengan agama.jadi yang berbenturan itu bukan agama vs ilmu tapi agama versus definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ yang telah dipersempit wilayah jelajahnya.
    Dan kedua : fitnah benturan ‘agama vs ilmu’ terjadi karena ada banyak ‘benalu’ didunia sains yang mengatasnamakan sains padahal ia cuma teori belaka yang bersifat spekulatif kemudian teori itu dibenturkan dengan agama sehingga orang awam melihatnya seperti ‘benturan agama dengan ilmu’ (padahal itu hanya fitnah).untuk dihadapkan dengan agama sains harus bersih dari teori khayali artinya sains tak boleh diwakili oleh teori yang tidak berdasar kepada fakta seperti teori Darwin,sebab bila saintis membuat teori yang tak sesuai dengan kenyataan otomatis pasti akan berbenturan dengan agama sebab konsep agama berlandaskan kepada realitas yang sesungguhnya (yang telah Tuhan ciptakan sebagaimana adanya).
    Dalam konsep Tuhan ilmu adalah suatu yang memiliki dua kaki yang satu berpijak didunia abstrak dan yang satu berpijak didunia konkrit,dan konsep ilmu seperti itu akan bisa menafsirkan agama.sebaliknya konsep ilmu versi kaum materialistik hanya memiliki satu kaki yang hanya berpijak didunia konkrit yang bisa dialami oleh pengalaman dunia indera sehingga dengan konsep seperti itu otomatis ilmu akan menjadi seperti sulit atau tidak bisa menafsirkan agama.
    Jadi bila ada fihak yang memprovokasi seolah ada ‘benturan antara agama versus ilmu’ maka kita harus analisis terlebih dahulu secara ilmiah jangan menelannya secara membabi buta,apalagi dengan bersikap a priori terhadap agama.kasus Darwin sama sekali bukan benturan antara agama vs ilmu tapi antara teori ‘ilmiah’ yang tidak berdasar fakta vs deskripsi kitab suci,begitu pula kasus Galileo itu bukan benturan agama vs ilmu tapi antara temuan ilmuwan vs penafsiran pendeta terhadap kitab sucinya yang belum tentu tepat,(tak ada ayat kitab suci dari Taurat sampai Al qur’an yang secara astronomis menyatakan bumi sebagai pusat galaksi tata surya/saat itu pendeta melihatnya dari prinsip ‘filosofis’).
    ‘ilmu’ dalam saintisme ibarat kambing yang dikekang oleh tali pada sebuah pohon ia tak bisa jauh melangkah karena dibatasi wilayah jelajahnya harus sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia indera sehingga ‘yang benar’ menurut saintisme adalah segala sesuatu yang harus terbukti secara empirik (tertangkap mata secara langsung),dengan prinsip inilah kacamata saintisme menghakimi agama sebagai sesuatu yang ‘tidak berdasar ilmu’.
    Bandingkan ; dalam agama wilayah jelajah ilmu itu luas tidak dibatasi sebatas wilayah pengalaman dunia inderawi sebab itu ‘ilmu’ dalam agama bisa merekonstruksikan realitas secara keseluruhan baik yang berasal dari realitas yang abstrak (yang tidak bisa tertangkap mata secara langsung) maupun realitas konkrit (yang bisa tertangkap oleh mata secara langsung),jadi ilmu dalam agama tidak seperti kambing yang dikekang.
    Kemudian bila yang dimaksud ‘ilmu’ oleh kacamata sudut pandang saintisme adalah apa yang mereka sebut sebagai ‘sains’ maka itu adalah pandangan yang keliru,sebab untuk mendefinisikan apa itu ‘sains’ kita harus berangkat dari dasar metodologinya,bila metodologi sains adalah metode empirisme dimana parameter kebenaran ilmiah nya adalah bukti empirik maka kita harus mendefinisikan ‘sains’ sebagai ‘ilmu seputar dunia fisik-materi’ sebab hanya dunia fisik-materi itulah yang bisa dibuktikan secara empirik,sedang definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ menurut versi Tuhan adalah alat atau jalan atau cara untuk mengelola dan memahami keseluruhan realitas baik yang abstrak maupun yang konkrit (sehingga kedua alam itu bisa difahami sebagai sebuah kesatuan unit-sistem),dan metodologi ilmu versi Tuhan itu tidak dibatasi oleh keharusan bukti empirik sebab manusia diberi akal dan hati yang memiliki ‘mata’ untuk menangkap dan memahami realitas atau hal hal yang bersifat abstrak.
    Jadi kesimpulannya bila dilihat dari kacamata Ilahi maka apa yang dimaksud ‘sains’ sebenarnya adalah salah satu cabang ilmu dan bukan ilmu dalam pengertian yang bersifat menyeluruh,tapi kacamata sudut pandang saintisme mengklaim bahwa (satu satunya) definisi pengertian ‘ilmu’ adalah sebagaimana konsep yang telah mereka buat dengan metodologi yang telah mereka tetapkan sebagaimana telah tertera dalam buku buku filsafat ilmu.kaum materialist tidak mau menerima bila konsep ‘ilmu’ dikaitkan dengan realitas dunia abstrak sebab saintisme berangkat dari kacamata sudut pandang materialistik ‘bermata satu’.yang pasti bila kita menerima definisi konsep ‘ilmu’ versi barat (dengan metodologi yang harus terbukti secara empirik) maka agama seperti ‘terpaksa’ harus difahami sebagai ‘ajaran moral’ bukan kebenaran berasas ilmu (sebagaimana pemahaman filsafat materialist terhadap agama).padahal menurut konsep Tuhan agama adalah kebenaran berdasar ilmu,(hanya ‘ilmu’ yang dimaksud adalah konsep ilmu yang bersifat universalistik yang hanya bisa difahami oleh manusia yang ‘bermata dua’/bisa melihat kepada realitas dunia abstrak dan dunia konkrit secara berimbang).

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google

You are commenting using your Google account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )

Connecting to %s

Atlantis in the Java Sea

A scientific effort to match Plato’s narrative location for Atlantis

Sembrani

Membahas ISU-ISU Penting bagi Anak Bangsa, Berbagi Ide, dan Saling Cinta

Wirdanova

+62811-813-1917

aawanto

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

Covert Geopolitics

Beyond the Smoke & Mirrors

Catatan Harta Amanah Soekarno

as good as possible for as many as possible

Modesty - Women Terrace

My Mind in Words and Pictures

Kanzunqalam's Blog

AKAL tanpa WAHYU, akan berbuah, IMAN tanpa ILMU

Cahayapelangi

Cakrawala, menapaki kehidupan nusantara & dunia

religiku

hacking the religion

SANGKAN PARANING DUMADI

Just another WordPress.com site

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d blogger menyukai ini: