Hi Travis. This is the response to your post above.

Hi Travez… here are some questions that I think will help prove that subjectivity in morality isn’t a feasible way of arriving at rights and wrongs.

You said: “So my only option is to allow my moral judgement to be flexible.”

If morality is flexible, then the first thing it would bend for is your selfishness. Say, you have some food barely enough to quell your hunger, and there is no guarantee about your next meal. And then you see a beggar who is equally hungry. Will you share this food with him? Will not your selfishness kick in very powerfully, and force your flexible morality scale to bend in your favor?

You said: “I'm aware you think this might be a weak stance to take, but I think in the long run it may be stronger.”

How long is long run? Do you think science will ever reach a stage where it would say that now we know everything and there ever is to be known and nothing remains to be added to human knowledge? Specially, in areas of human psychology, biology and sociology – which are the areas that are most closely related to morality – science has made very little progress, compared to physics and other hard sciences.

You said: “But let's say hypothetically, we have a Ms. Unfortunate who gets kidnapped. While I dislike violence, I also recognize personal freedoms of our victim are being broken by being kept. So I personally would not try to convict her of assault if she happened to bite her kidnapper's throat in two during an escape.”

In all such examples you give, I think you are confusing subjectivity with objective alternations you make according to changing details. Let me explain more clearly to show that your example is not subjective at all. Consider the following logical statements: A. Apples are good. B. Worms are bad. C. Therefore, Apples with worms are bad. You should not think that C contradicts A. C is giving extra information that changes reality, therefore your conclusion changes. All logically so. Now apply this to your example: A. Attacking is bad. B. Defending is good. C. therefore, attacking to defend is not bad.
Hope I have not confused you more :p

You said: “You think flexibility is weak. I think it allows a more sympathetic version of justice.”

It will be sympathetic to your cause first and only then to others.

You said: “On your explanation of the law regarding the law contained in the Q'uran, I still have to disagree with you. Marriage changes from culture to culture.”

But thankfully for me I don’t get into complicated subjectivity loops regarding marriage. Because what Quran says is final for me.

You said: “So why is an unmarried couple who does not believe in Islamic marriage, or marriage at all, at risk of being murdered if they are caught having sex?”

I think I had explained it in one of my earlier posts. This is the nature of all laws. Are you free to violate a law in the US if you don’t believe in the US constitution? Of course not. If you decide to trade in marijuana because it is legal in some countries of the world, and you say that you believe more in the laws of those countries than the US, will you be let off? Laws are always enforced.

You said: “This is what I see as the flaw of Islamic Law, it only recognizes Islamic adherents and doctrine. Everyone else is forced to be faux Islamists and embrace doctrine, or be at risk for persuing the exact same things everyone wants in life. Like a loving girl to have a family with.”

I can turn this same argument against any system of law in the world. Say I am a nudist. Can I go around naked in public in America? And if I get arrested for it, can I say that the US imposes its culture on me. In France, Muslim girls were banned from wearing headscarves. This, according to Islam, is an outrage of modesty. Can the girls say that France is imposing its culture on them? The problem here is that you see the Islamic laws as too outlandish, which is just a matter of subjectivity.

You said: “Earlier you implied that Islam is a personal choice to follow. However now, with this particular law, it seems that people who don't wish to practice the marriage system are actually putting themselves in harms way.”
Once again it’s similar to the laws in any country. In some countries prostitution is illegal. In some countries it is legal. Can I open a brothel in a country where it is illegal, and then complain there is no individual freedom in that country? Every country has its own laws, some of which are unacceptable to at least some people. But you’ve to make some compromises.
Similarly, an Islamic state considers certain things as violating decency, and you are supposed to abide by them. However, by and large, you are free to follow your faith, worship your god, and adhere to your own lifestyle in your personal life. Say if you want to brew wine (you won’t be able to buy them) in your house and drink, and you are not selling it, it’s legal in an Islamic country.

Hi Cyber

I am glad this thread has provided some food for thought for you. It has been equally fruitful for me as well. Thank you all for that.

Coming to your extremely important question. “How can you be sure that the moral code your god has provided you is the right code?”

Before I begin, let me make a small clarification. From all the posts in this thread, I was primarily trying to establish that it is not possible for us, humans, to reason out good and bad purely through rational understanding of the world. Therefore, it is not possible to prove through reason (exclusively) that the moral code of Islam is the right code.

Instead what I investigated was the following: Is the moral code prescribed by Islam coming from God, or is it coming from a man? If I can be convinced that it is coming from a divine source, then the logical conclusion is to accept all that it says unquestioningly.

I think I will explain to you my journey that led me to conclude that Islam is indeed from God. That’s the best I can do to help you out here. Because each person will have his own way of approaching truth, and you will have to chart out your journey.

First of all, after a considerable amount of investigation, I found it logical to accept the existence of a creator. (I know this is a topic of another debate, but let me explain my logic). The complexity of design in nature is too overwhelming for us to explain it away as a sequence of random accidents.

Just imagine. From an ameba to humans – look the growth in complexity, and at each level of evolution, a freak mutation occured that led not only to a selective advantage, but also increase in information. How many times if you dropped your cell phone will you get a cell phone with a new feature (however small it might be?)

I have read Richard Dawkin’s Blind Watchmaker. It is a beautifully written book, but it still fills up many gaps in evolution through pure imagination. The facts are lacking. The gaps in fossil evidence, is still a haunting question for evolutionists. And now they have come up with yet another fairy tale to explain away fossil gaps: it is called the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. To put it simply, it states that one fine day, due to a freak accident of genes, a rat give birth to a bat. Fully formed bat. How fantastic!

And think of it. Look at the highly complex systems in your body. The respiratory system, the digestive system, the circulatory system, the endocrine system, the nervous system and what have you. Each of these super-complex systems are functioning in mutually compatible ways. Their functions are useless if they are independent of each other. And yet you believe they came into existence through a series of accidents that were random, without ever knowing that there are other systems that are parallelly evolving towards a common purpose. And evolutionists put all the load of these chance events on natural selection.

In a book by Dr Lee Spetner, “Not by Chance’ he very convincingly shows that for nature to select a minor phenotypic change, the same kind of mutation must have occured in no less than 4 organisms at the same time. Which is way too improbable.

Also, look at the theory of convergence. Octopus and humans have the same kind of eyes. Though, crustaceans and primates parted ways far up the evolutionary tree, somehow, the mutations that led to the formation of the eyes in primates and crustaceans occured in similar ways to end up in the same design.

I don’t wish to go farther deep on this subject. Just giving you some examples of why I dismissed evolution.

I thought that if one were to have any amount of epistemological humility, it would be way to arrogant to dismiss the possibility of a creator for this universe based on this flimsy evolution theory.

I was convinced that there is God. My next quest was which God? There are many concepts of God put forth by many different religions. How come the creator gave different messages to different people of world, that too mutually contradictory.

When I studied the different faiths (including my own faith, because I was ignorant of it initially), I found that Islam had an explanation for this. Which I found very convincing.

Islam says this: God created a man and woman. He gave them guidance as to how to live life. If you analyze in nature, all animals are born with natural instincts to know how to live their lives. They eat, hunt, mate, raise their young ones, build nests etc. in ways that are naturally known to them. And that is the best way for them to live their lives. However, man does not have a naturally endowed guide to live his life. This is the reason we are today debating here. Aren’t we actually trying to figure out which is the best course of life to live.

This guidance came from God through his chosen messenger. The first man was the first messenger. He taught the message to his children. The population grew over time. Generations passed, the first messenger was long dead. But people who came later, changed the real guidance as shown by god for their selfish ends. They brought in corruption.

Therefore, another messenger came to bring them to the right path. The same thing happened with him, and generations later this message also gets corrupted. Gradually, there are different kinds of messages (because of different corruptions). Meanwhile, the generations were also making gods out these messengers. They said the messengers were themselves gods, and gradually you had different gods and different religions.

According to Islam, messengers came to all the nations and peoples of the world. This is why you have religions everywhere, and some concept of god in all human communities.

And finally, God sends his last messenger, which is Mohammed (PBUH). His message was the same as all the earlier prophets. He taught who God is and what God’s guidance for mankind is. This messenger being the final messenger, God gave a promise to him. That his message would be preserved from corruption, unlike the messages of the earlier prophets.

I have not studied all the religions of the world. But I have studied hinduism, buddhism, christianity, judaism and Islam.

The scriptures of these religions, indicate to this narrative of Islam. In all these books, you have a concept of God being One. That God is not a man or anything in the universe. That God is the creator of everything. That there is a life after death in which God will judge us, and punish or reward us accordingly. However, in the scriptures of other religions, I also found information that contradicted these fundamental tenets. This I found as proof of corruption to the original message.

What I am giving is just the tip of the iceberg. Each of these topics (scriptures etc) are huge topics in and of themselves.

I was more convinced about Islam.

Then I analyzed the Quran. It says a great deal of things about natural phenomena and these are things which a 7th century, illiterate desert dweller could have never said. Such as stages of a fetus in the embryo, the function of mountains, the origin of the universe, about water cycle etc.

While, these are not presented like in a scientific paper (as that is not the purpose of Quran), I thought it would be too foolhardy to dismiss these as mere coincidences.

And then I also studied the history of the preservation of the Quran. I studied them not only from Muslim scholars, but also oriental scholars. I was convinced that Quran is preserved in tact too. Another example of the truth of Quran. Because Quran says that this message will be preserved by God in tact.

I know , Cyber, you may have strong differences of opinion on each of the topics I have raised. And these are issues I have spent years researching and studying. What I am saying is with 100 percent earnestness. I am fully convinced that Islam is from God.

Lastly, look at the moral codes as put forth by Islam. If I am a good Muslim, I will not drink alcohol, i will not watch porn, will not prostitute, will not fornicate, will not deal in interest, will not gamble, will give a fixed part of my income as charity compulsorily, wwill not use bad words, will not backbite... and the list goes on.

This moral code will definitely make me a better human being.

Now, you may say, well even some atheists don’t do all these. However, let me ask you, what is force that drives you to be sincere to these principles, even you if think these are good codes to live by.

Why should you not watch porn, if you enjoy doing it?

For me, my answer is that I fear my creator. I will not do what he has told me is not permissible. I will do what he wants me to do. No matter whether it is beneficial to me or not.

Hope that was useful. I am expecting your comments, refutations. Please keep them coming, and I will be happy to give you my views.

Thanks Cyber for responding despite being busy.
You said: “Allow me to clarify. The biologists with whom I've spoken about this say quite the opposite...that although mutations are frequent, the ones that prove beneficial, making a living thing more fit for a given environment, are not as common.”

I agree. This is what evolutionists say. But what I meant was that “evolution” (not evolutionists) seem to suggest that it’s a very common occurrence. Why do I say so? Just consider this. Whenever a beneficial mutation takes place, nature doesn’t immediately select it, because nature is not an intelligent being with a plan for the future. Nature includes a variety of factors such as climate, the, the environment, predators and so on and so forth. And mutation makes very slight changes at each level (one mutation will not turn a blind bird into a sharp-sighted falcon overnight), mutations have to add up step by step. Therefore, say an organism develops some protrusion on its sides (which later develops into wings), but at the initial level it could be a big disadvantage for the organism as it would hinder its speed, while not functional enough for flight. So, the chance of natural selection of a positive trait is low. Therefore, let’s say it takes 1000 positive mutations for one to get selected (which is a very generous estimate), these positive mutations must have occurred pretty frequently. The age of life on Earth is roughly 3 billion years. Let’s say there have been 1 million (conservative estimate) positive mutations for a single cell organism to evolve into a man. This shows that every 3000 years, there was a positive mutation that got selected. And we know that it takes at least 1000 positive mutations for one of them to be selected. So, 1000 positive mutations must have occurred every 3000 years. In other words, one positive mutation every 3 years. Which doesn’t seem like a rare occurrence. I know the figures are not accurate, because I didn’t have the patience to go back to my books for accurate numbers. However, I hope you got the drift.

You said: “No one I know of claims that the fossil record is complete. I will iterate an earlier point by saying that much of the available data provides scientists to reasonably posture likelihoods.”

I had cited an example for God Delusions to show that Richard Dawkins had used his imagination. This point was actually part of that. You haven’t said anything about it. Doesn’t that sound like imagination to you?

You said: “Indeed, as not all the data are in. There are some I find more reasonable than others. This happens among theists as well else there would not be multiple religions and multiple versions of those religions.

IN fact, missing links aren’t something that can be brushed aside as easily as you claim. If you actually think, if there is anything by way of evidence for evolution, it is the fossils. (I know you may want to cite things like mutations you see in species today, which when you present I will disprove). And if that evidence is standing on such shaky grounds (full of holes) then it’s something that should make any thinking person disturbed.

You said: "Interesting, I did not know the Islamic god could make mistakes. Thanks, I know more now than I did yesterday :-) I capitulate that a creator cannot be ruled out. No one can. (Although I'm at 'five nines' sure one does not exist.) However, I do not agree that there is a design as I think you mean it.”

I take this as a joke. Because I had clearly said that I don’t agree that there are defects in nature. However, if I have to explain why, that will digress into other areas. So I leave it at that.

You said: “The evolution of penis and vagina did not happen in the majority of living things and a few living things do not use gender to reproduce. That being said, there is a definite biological advantage to procreation using two sets of DNA for it which is why gender based reproduction is so common.”

Even if the sex organs had evolved in just one species in the world, my question is how did the two organs (male and female) undergo changes in such a way as to be perfectly complementary to each other. Firstly, the right kind of gene accidents (mutation) should have taken place (eg. An error that enabled erection in penis, and an accident that caused lubrication in vagina) and these should occur at the right time, because if the ‘lubricating’ mutation had taken place before the ‘erection’ mutation, then it would not enjoy selective advantage. And add to it all the math I worked out above. It would seem like nature was some genius with a farsighted vision to have made the right choices at every stage.

You said: “Convergent evolution is the process by which unrelated or distantly related organisms evolve similar body forms, coloration, organs, and adaptations."

That’s precisely what I was saying. How can two organisms undergo the same kind of mutation? Read your definition carefully, ‘…unrelated or distantly related organisms evolve similar body forms…”

You said that the organ evolves in one organism and then they branch out into two different species. That’s not how it is. They are two different organisms, and the parts evolve separately.

So, imagine… octopus and man parted ways while we were still some kind of a blind primitive creature. And then the octopus undergoes a series of gene accidents (mutations) involving hundreds of thousands of steps. It resulted in camera eyes. And somehow, we humans also underwent the same kind of accidents involving as many steps. At each step, the accidents were similar. And each mutation (despite we being in totally different environments) gained the same selective advantage. How amazing?

What is the probability that you roll two dices a hundred times and all the hundred times the same number turned up on both dices. Well, the dice example is far, far, far less complex than gene mutations. You must be knowing all that. So I am stopping here.

Anyways, the debate seems to be getting interesting. Looking forward to your answers. And also, keep your comments about the rest of my answers on the truth of Islam coming.