Science As a Life's Guidelines

If we are sick, we seek treatment through the mechanism of modern medicine. Of course this mechanism was developed through science. We no longer think that the disease we suffer is the curse of God, then try to heal it through certain rituals.

Most of us make such choices, though of course there are a number of people who still choose the 7th century treatment method, because it is recommended by the prophet.

When we see rain, we know the process of occurrence. Because it reaches a certain level we can predict when and where the rain will fall, along with how much the bulk will be. Likewise, we know that lightning is a symptom of electricity, not a whip of the regulator of the clouds. Several attempts have been made to harvest electricity from lightning and succeed, although it still requires a lot of repairs.

In short, very many things in our lives are solved by science. Like it or not, realize it or not, we actually live following science. The conscious makes it a guideline. Those who are not aware are forced to live by the rules of science, but are reluctant to admit it. That's the only difference.

There are still very many things unknown. But rather than remembering it, I think it's better to remember how much humanity knows, and how much it benefits. The average life expectancy of the world's population in the 50s was around 47 years. Now the number has risen to almost 70 years.

This means that the average age of the earth's population has increased by more than 20 years during this half century. This happened because of advances in life support technology, especially medical technology. From this data we can see that science even influences the most fundamental thing, namely the matter of life and death, which is usually regarded as the absolute right of God.

Those of us who understand science will never make science God. We don't position science as knowing everything. On the contrary, we know where we don't know. That awareness gives us 2 types of guides. First, guide us towards the direction in which the investigation must be developed. Secondly, it gives us guidance to behave towards things that we have not yet mastered.

For example, about an earthquake. We know how the earthquake happened. But we don't know how to prevent it. So what we do is not pray that the earthquake will not occur, but prepare to face the earthquake. The interesting thing about earthquakes, or other natural symptoms, is that they are basically not called disasters so they have an adverse effect on humans.

An earthquake of any scale is not a disaster if it does not cause damage to humans. So, what we do is the process of preventing the occurrence of losses due to a natural phenomenon, which we call mitigation. This mitigation is also done by referring to science.

Is science against religion? The answer: yes and no. It depends on how we define religion, or how we treat religion. There are people who think religion teaches them everything. The contents of the scriptures must be absolutely true.

These people usually tend to reject the truth of science. There are people who still reject the fact that the earth is round, and that day and night occurs because of the rotation of the earth. They refused because the scriptures, or their interpretations of the scriptures say otherwise.

In this context we can see religion in conflict with science. But as I wrote above, these people when traveling still use airplanes, using communication devices, all of which are developed based on the knowledge that the earth is round and rotating.

On the other hand we can view that religion or scripture does not provide technical guidance about nature. Knowledge is not given by God in the form of scripture, but we must learn it ourselves from nature. If there is one or two stories about nature in the scriptures, it is only the first guide, and may only be suitable for humans who lived a dozen centuries ago.

If it no longer fits modern science, we don't need to be acrobatic to justify it. If what is written in the scriptures is no longer suitable, then we can leave it. Because the purpose of the scriptures is indeed not to teach science

I am in the second group. I make science one of life's guidelines, making it a basis for attitude. We need not be afraid to emphasize that science is the guide of our lives. We also do not need to be ambiguous, rejecting science as a guideline, but our bodies actually live controlled by science-based tools.

Hasanudin Abdurakhman

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel