DEBAT VS USTD FELIX SIAUW : APAKAH TUHAN ITU ILMIAH?

Summary

The speaker discusses the scientific and rational approaches to understanding religious concepts, particularly the concept of Tauhid (Oneness of God). They critique the methods used by some religious figures, advocating for empirical methods that allow for testing and replication. The speaker also addresses being labeled as 'liberal' for not attempting to scientifically prove divine concepts, emphasizing the importance of respecting differing views and engaging in dialogue to test and refine one's beliefs.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker has a respectful view of some actions by Ustadz Gembul in Robit Alawiyah, despite having some criticisms.
• 🔍 The speaker emphasizes the importance of the scientific method being both rational and empirical, involving testing and replication for consistency.
• 📚 There's a critique of how Ustadz Gembul and his followers understand science, which seems to differ from the speaker's empirical approach.
• 🤔 The speaker is open to discussing and debating the scientific method but finds the scheduling of such debates to be often inconvenient.
• 🚫 The speaker firmly rejects attempts to approach the concept of God through scientific methods, considering it impossible and against religious methodology.
• 📈 The speaker discusses the impossibility of proving the existence or non-existence of God scientifically, suggesting it's beyond the scope of scientific methodology.
• 🗣️ There's a mention of being labeled as 'liberal' for not attempting to scientifically prove the concept of Tauhid (Oneness of God), which the speaker finds unreasonable.
• 👥 The speaker clarifies they do not side with any particular religious group or ideology, focusing on actions and policies rather than personal beliefs.
• 🌐 The speaker mentions the importance of not getting involved in personal issues of public figures and focusing on their public actions and decisions.
• 📢 There's a call for respectful dialogue and understanding between different religious groups and ideologies, emphasizing the importance of communication.

Q & A

What is the main theme discussed in the transcript?

The main theme discussed in the transcript revolves around the differences in understanding and approaches to scientific and rational methodologies in religious contexts, particularly in Islamic studies.

What does the speaker think about the methodology used by 'Guru Gembul'?

The speaker believes that 'Guru Gembul' tends to discuss scientific matters in an empirical method, but they understand it more in terms of books rather than empirical evidence. The speaker, who follows an empirical method, also understands why 'Guru Gembul' uses a different understanding of science, which includes rational methodology.

What is the speaker's view on the term 'scientific' as used by 'Guru Gembul'?

The speaker thinks that 'Guru Gembul' might use the term 'scientific' in a rational sense rather than an empirical one. They argue that a scientific method should be both rational and empirical, allowing for testing and repetition with consistent results.

Why does the speaker refuse to use scientific methods to approach the concept of God?

The speaker refuses to use scientific methods to approach the concept of God because they believe it is impossible to make God an object of scientific research. They argue that God and the concept of tauhid (the oneness of God) cannot be reached through scientific methods.

What does the speaker mean when they say they are labeled as 'liberal'?

The speaker is labeled as 'liberal' because they stated that the concept of God cannot be scientifically proven. However, they clarify that they do not reject the concept of God but rather reject the idea of proving it using scientific methods.

What is the speaker's stance on the existence of God and its provability?

The speaker believes that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. They argue that it is impossible to reach a conclusion about God's existence using scientific methods, and it should be approached rationally instead.

What does the speaker suggest as an alternative to the term 'scientific' in religious discussions?

The speaker suggests changing the terminology to avoid confusion, as the term 'scientific' is understood differently by 'Guru Gembul' and others. They propose using terms that are more aligned with the rational approach to religion.

Why does the speaker emphasize the importance of dialogue with those who have different views?

The speaker emphasizes dialogue because they believe it is essential for testing ideas and understanding different perspectives. They argue that interaction can lead to a better understanding and clarification of concepts.

What is the speaker's opinion on the use of rationalism in religious discussions?

The speaker acknowledges that rationalism is part of religious discussions but points out that it does not fulfill the scientific method. They differentiate between rational and empirical approaches, suggesting that while rationalism is close to deduction, empirical science is closer to induction.

How does the speaker view the role of criticism in religious and scientific discussions?

The speaker views criticism as a healthy part of discussions, as long as it is constructive and aims to clarify understanding. They differentiate between personal attacks and intellectual critique, focusing on the latter.

What does the speaker mean when they say they do not 'belong to any sect'?

The speaker means that they do not align themselves with any specific religious sect or group. They emphasize that their respect and criticism are based on individuals' actions and ideas rather than their affiliations.