I saw a question asked in another thread similar to this topic, and I felt that it would make a good discussion in and of itself. The question is as follows:
"I won't ask you to disprove the existence of God, but do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist?"
This is the question that I want to discuss as the topic for this thread. So I will start with the answer I originally provided. I took this from the other thread so I hope no one accuses me of being lazy =)
This is the wrong question, as there are countless possibilities for which particular "God" you are speaking of, and as such has no real answer. In order for anyone to sufficiently answer that question you must first provide specific factors related to your particular God. Of course a"god" might possibly exist, but this is one thing you or I cannot prove or disprove and is therefore a waste of time.
Now, although one cannot prove/disprove the existence a God, one can definitely disprove the existence of a specific God, I will just assume that you are Christian only for the sake of making a point, if you are not a Christian then please take no offense.
The God of Christianity makes numerous truth claims (something asserted as true, while not necessarily being true) about the structure and nature of reality based entirely on Gods own authority. This provides an excellent means of possibly vindicating those very truth claims in light of empirical evidence ABOUT the structure and nature of reality. If many claims are demonstrated to be true, and this knowledge existed outside the means of the scholars and scientists of that era, then this makes a good case for the vindication of more extravagant claims written in holy text, namly the will of God and his ultimate existence.
But, if the opposite is found, and the numerous truth claims written within the bible are false, then so is the more extravagant claims as well, as it rests entirely on THAT God's supposed authority. If the foundational claims of any religion are shown to be false then so is every claim that rests on that very foundation. If Moses never existed, then Jesus is a fraud and therefore Christianity refuted, and by extension the existence of the God of Abraham.
I would like feedback as to if this is a valid method or if I am missing something in my approach?
If anyone has a better method then I would love to hear it.
Thank you =)
AlphaLogica.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@alphalogica
I am a Muslim. The following is my logic to arriving at god.
I see specified complexity all around me. What I mean by specified complexity is "Many primitive parts put in a very specified arrangement to enable a particular function".
From my everyday experience, i know that specified complexity arises only from an intelligent agent.
I see specified complexity in nature and life. I inquire for the intelligence behind it. It takes me all the way back to the beginning of universe, and science has no knowledge of realities beyond that point.
This opens the possibility that maybe this intelligence exists outside the universe, in which case it wouldn't be amenable to the scrutiny of science.
I look for other forms of knowledge other than science. I turn to religion. And religion talks of one such intelligent cause behind reality.
However, form this point on wards, belief kicks in. But that's the only option that I have, because science can't explore outside of the universe, and doesn't even entertain such questions.
"However, form this point on wards, belief kicks in. But that's the only option that I have"
I disagree. You could just as well say: "Okay, we don't know". Why would accepting that something is unknown not be an option?
I also find it very confounding as to how the thoughts can go from:
"This opens the possibility that maybe this intelligence exists outside the universe"
To:
"Islam is the one true religion and Allah is the one true god"
@Pragmatic
You said: “I disagree. You could just as well say: "Okay, we don't know".
Yes, that’s a possibility also. But I want to arrive there after checking out religions, because they claim to know something about an intelligent agent behind the observable reality. Therefore, I am not writing off that position. But let’s first analyze the religions and if they fail to provide convincing explanations, then the only remaining option is “We don’t know.”
You said: “I also find it very confounding as to how the thoughts can go from:
"This opens the possibility that maybe this intelligence exists outside the universe"
To:
"Islam is the one true religion and Allah is the one true god"
The way I arrive at Islam is through a series of reasons each of which adds weight to the argument for Islam. Here is how it goes.
When I turn to study religions, I find that these religions have mutually exclusive (contradictory) messages. This throws up two possibilities. Either all of them are wrong. Or only one of them is right.
When I analyze Islam, I find that it has a worldview of religions that explains these contradictions between faiths.
Islam talks of one creator who sent messages to all the nations (people) of the world at different times. The messengers brought the same fundamental message. However, after these messengers were gone (dead) the followers who came later corrupted the messages for various reasons. Therefore, in essence all the messages are basically the same. There is just one religion. But it’s the corruptions that made them different faiths.
Based on this worldview, Islam puts forth two theories. 1. The other scriptures are not preserved historically. 2. The other scriptures are bound to have contradictions because they are a mixture of truth and falsehood.
This theory is borne out when you subject the other scriptures to test. I studied the books of judeo/Christianity and Hinduism, and to a lesser extent Buddhism too. However, for the sake of facility, I will just talk about the bible, as that’s a tradition you would be familiar with.
The concept of God according to jesus and according to paul are in conflict. Jesus never considered himself god, but Pauline theology makes Christ part of the godhead and worthy of worship. So is the case with the concept of salvation. Even the story of jesus gives conflicting accounts in the four gospels. These are contradictions at the very foundational levels of theology… I am not getting into all the other contradictions that are more peripheral to this core issue. I know this is not a subject that you can do justice to in a post. But my conclusions are based on listening to loads of debates and reading up books by respected academics including Bart Ehrman… Even manuscript evidence, which is more objective and points to the fact that the original texts of the bible have not been preserved. (If you want I can provide the evidence… but I don’t think you would greatly disagree with me on this.)
While christian evangelists at least make an attempt to claim that the bible is preserved, the scholars of other faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism do not even make such a claim. And I do not know of any other faith in the world which makes a strong case for the preservation of its texts. However, that should be an important aspect of religious theology. But there is only one exception to this:
The Quran. It makes the claim of preservation very emphatically. In fact it throws two challenges. One is that it says that unlike in the earlier scriptures, you will not find any contradictions in this book. Secondly, the preservation of the text of this book has been guaranteed.
If you consider the times of the prophet (PBUH), scribal traditions were very primitive. There were hardly any writing materials. The main source of transmission of the text was oral and memorization. WHat I am hinting at is, the preservation of a book revealed in such circumstances is extremely difficult. Yet the quran makes this assertion.
And 1400 years later, historians are confirming that assertion. The most recent one was in the news last week, when a British museum found manuscripts of Quran dated with 95% accuracy to be from the time of the prophet himself. You can check this link if you want: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/might-be-oldest-copy-quran-1809...
And there is more to this subject of preservation. I had a discussion on this subject with ‘Watchman’ whose argumentative skills I have great respect for, and he is quite well versed on the subject too. You can read it here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/preservation-quran
There is one more claim that quran is making. That this scripture will be preserved in the hearts of men, “because this has been made easy to memorize.”
This is also borne out by the fact that there are more than 1 million quran memorizers in the world, who can recite the whole book from cover to cover. A majority of them are non-arabs, and many among them are kids as young as 7. There is no book like this on earth.
Moving on, there is another factor that you will observe when you go through the other scriptural traditions. The theme of the message which Islam upholds can be seen to be reverberating through them. This lends further proof to the theory that all the scriptures are from the same source.
That fundamental message is that the universe has one creator, and worship/obedience is only due unto Him. Even a religion like Hinduism that in practice worships multitudes of gods, ultimately believes in one creator.
Further, the concept of God put forward by Islam is coherent with the axioms that we started out from … namely that of an intelligent agent behind creation. For example, islam doesn’t put forward the idea of god that took birth, or who was himself part of the creation. That would be a logical contradiction of how the creator can himself be created.
Add to it the history of the prophet (PBUH) which is another huge subject. The way his history has been preserved, which even reputed orientalists have attested as highly reliable. And the question of why would a man (certified by contemporaries as truthful) one fine day come up with a blatant lie of prophethood… and end up losing everything he had including his motherland, and yet sincerely adhere to his claim.
By all accounts, the prophet was unlettered. Even if he was lettered, back in those days you hardly had access to any manuscript traditions of other faiths, and for him to make claims about other scriptures, which are today borne out by modern day historians is highly unlikely.
This man comes along and reforms a hopelessly backward society into torchbearers of reason and science, bringing a great change that many historians say laid the ground for European renaissance.
I can go on. It’s not any one reason that makes me pin my hopes on Islam. It’s a swelter of reasons, each one adding strength to the claim.
I could still be skeptical and try to explain away these reasons. But this in an intellectual edifice that I am quite convinced about, because the truth of Islam is not just internal reasoning, but actually spills out into a study of other traditions and you find it corroborated.
This concept is also an very egalitarian concept which sees all of mankind as equal and one, living under One supreme creator.
Lastly, let’s examine what this belief has given me. Would I be better off taking the other position of “We don’t know.”
I have nothing to lose with my belief in Islam. Because Islam makes a distinction between knowledge of physical realities and ethical/moral code.
Quran exhorts us to study the real world and ponder about it. Because it says the more you understand the real world, the more you will appreciate the creator. This actually inspired the early arabs in science and philosophy and they gleaned knowledge with thirst and made significant contributions to it.
However, in the case of ethical/moral code, they submitted their intellect and reasoning wholly to God’s commandments.
The only area where I have to submit my reasoning is ethics and morals. And that’s an area that reasoning or empiricism is of little help, as I was trying to show to Cyber. Therefore, the trade off is only between an ethical system that is subjective and weak (‘We don’t know’ premise) and an ethical system that is stable and solid (islam).
Secondly, the belief in the hereafter is also tied to my ethics and morals. It is a great motivating factor to live by my ethical standards. While the premise of “We don’t know” would not only create a subjective moral code, but will also fail to motivate me to live by it. That would be a sort of hypocritical existence.
Thus in Islam, I can live a strong moral life while, in all other areas of human endeavor, I can make intellectual pursuits and advance in life.
Taking all this into consideration, I think Islam is the best bet I have.
@Valiya
Thanks for the thorough response.
---
"But let’s first analyze the religions and if they fail to provide convincing explanations, then the only remaining option is “We don’t know.”"
I understand that this is your way of thinking.
But, religions have answers for just about everything, and if you believe those answers how can you ever arrive at the conclusion "I don't know"?
"Therefore, in essence all the messages are basically the same. There is just one religion. But it’s the corruptions that made them different faiths."
What?!
Are you saying that Islam was the first religion, and all other religions have sprung out of corruptions of Islam?
It's the first time I heard this claim. A source to that information would be appreciated.
I also find it strange that you first claim that other religions are corrupted versions of Islam, then that the foundation of Islam, the Quran is the least corrupted scripture in the world.
"I can go on. It’s not any one reason that makes me pin my hopes on Islam. It’s a swelter of reasons, each one adding strength to the claim."
This is the main question I have...
Referring to how the Quran is not supposed to have been corrupted is fine.
Quoting scripture is fine.
But for you to believe the scripture you're reading is something completely different.
For starters, you have to believe in angles to believe in the Quran.
Had you seen an angel prior to coming in contact with Islam?
What made you believe in angels?
What is the internal reasoning for angels?
How do they fit into your axioms?
"Lastly, let’s examine what this belief has given me. Would I be better off taking the other position of “We don’t know.”
I have nothing to lose with my belief in Islam."
I thought you were looking for the truth, not just what makes you feel good?
To say, this makes me feel good, so I'll believe in it, seems very much like the foundation of self delusion.
As you said:
"if they [religions] fail to provide convincing explanations, then the only remaining option is “We don’t know.”"
If you are satisfied with believing in something because it makes you feel good, how could you ever get past that and honestly reach the conclusion "We don't know"?
"While the premise of “We don’t know” would not only create a subjective moral code, but will also fail to motivate me to live by it. That would be a sort of hypocritical existence."
THAT would be a sort of hypocritical existence?!
But believing in what makes you feel good, does not?!
Sorry, but that simply does not make sense.
Phrases you use, like "pin my hopes on Islam", and "I think Islam is the best bet I have" make me think that you seem to at least recognize that you are not 100% sure that Islam is true?
@Pragmatic
Good points. Here is how I see them.
“But, religions have answers for just about everything, and if you believe those answers how can you ever arrive at the conclusion "I don't know"?
It is not in some loose sense that I am looking for answers. For example, you too have answers for all my questions. Never have you said “well, I don’t know the answer for that”. But that doesn’t mean I agree with all that you say. In a similar vein, just because a religion gives answers, I don’t accept them all. I analyze them to see if it is reasonable enough. Moreover, not all religions claim to have answers for all questions. The trinity for example is commonly referred to as the divine mystery, meaning it can’t be explained.
" What?!
Are you saying that Islam was the first religion, and all other religions have sprung out of corruptions of Islam?
It's the first time I heard this claim. A source to that information would be appreciated.”
Yes. You heard/read me right :)
Islam says that it’s the first and only religion, and all other faiths are deviations from it. However, there are some things to understand. The one God who created the universe, sent messengers to different nations of the world who spoke their tongues. Therefore, the religion of those people wouldn’t have used Arabic terminologies such as “islam” or “Allah”. For example, a prophet who came to India would have addressed God as ‘Brahma’ or something like that.
However, all these prophets would have preached the same fundamental message, which is that there is only One Creator for this universe and He alone should be worshipped. Worship essentially means following the commandments (ethical/moral code) of that divine creator.
Now, this is a huge claim to make. However, when you analyze the scriptures of other faiths, you will realize that this claim has a lot of purchase.
For example, look at the famous ‘Shama Israelu’ verse from the bible. When Jesus was asked by his disciples about the most important commandment, he replied “Hear Oh Children of Israel, Our Lord the God is One God.”
The same commandment can be seen in the old testament, uttered by Moses. All the prophets of God brought the same message. In the Hindu Vedas you will see a verse that can be roughly translated as “God is one, and there NO second, no, never, not even a little.”
What did Jesus say about the law. “Not a jot or a tittle must change from the law.”
In my perspective, this proposition of Islam that originally all faiths carried the same message comes through very strongly when you analyze other books. And I look at it as a strong evidence for the veracity of Islam, because it makes a theoretical postulate and evidence proves it.
“I also find it strange that you first claim that other religions are corrupted versions of Islam, then that the foundation of Islam, the Quran is the least corrupted scripture in the world.”
It goes like this. God sends the first man with a message, he preaches it to his people, and later on the people corrupt it. And God sends another man with the same message, and this too gets corrupted. This goes on until the advent of Muhammed (PBUH), who is also sent with the same message. As he is the final messenger, his message is preserved from corruption. It’s simple.
" This is the main question I have...
Referring to how the Quran is not supposed to have been corrupted is fine.
Quoting scripture is fine.
But for you to believe the scripture you're reading is something completely different.”
I am believing in my scripture as a result of all the analysis I make as explained. There is a reasoned argument for my belief. It’s not a leap of faith.
“For starters, you have to believe in angles to believe in the Quran.
Had you seen an angel prior to coming in contact with Islam?
What made you believe in angels?
What is the internal reasoning for angels?
How do they fit into your axioms?”
Interesting question. The logic works like this. I start out with my axiom (intelligent agent). I reach religions. I start analyzing the scriptures. I find the theories and the evidences as I explained earlier, which I can verify objectively. This convinces me of Islam’s veracity. But further, I read about angels and other supernatural things like miracles, which are outside the scope of my analysis. Therefore I reason that when those things which can be studied objectively turn out to be true, even those areas which are outside the objective study should be true. Yes, that is mere faith, but not wholly baseless. There is a sort of tangential logic to it.
"I thought you were looking for the truth, not just what makes you feel good?
To say, this makes me feel good, so I'll believe in it, seems very much like the foundation of self delusion.”
No, it’s not just about feeling good. You and I agree that we need a moral/ethical code to live by. The two options we have in front of us are (at least according to this discussion) subjective morality (I don’t know premise) and faith.
We have to make a choice between the two. In that situation, my argument is that faith-based morality is superior to subjective morality. Only if morality was not an option at all, can you accuse me of pandering to my emotional comfort zone of believing in a moral code. But in a situation where moral code is a must, and we have two options in front of us, and we are hard pressed to make a choice – then we better have some valid excuse for choosing either.
Imagine two companies – one has a properly defined set of rules, and employees are given clearly defined incentives for following those rules. The other one has a very loose set of rules, which keep changing frequently, and the employees get no specific benefit for following them. Which of these two companies would you think would function well. But of course the first one.
That’s the same reason, why faith-based morality would be a better option than the subjective morality. This in short is my argument. I am not subscribing to faith simply because it makes me feel good.
“Phrases you use, like "pin my hopes on Islam", and "I think Islam is the best bet I have" make me think that you seem to at least recognize that you are not 100% sure that Islam is true?”
I am using those kinds of phrases because I felt I have not even exhausted 10% of the reasons for why I believe in islam. It would require volumes to explain all of that. If the points I have stated are the only ones I have got, even then ‘Islam would be the best bet I have’. That’s what I mean.
@Valiya
I don't want to belittle the rest of your post by ignoring it. But I would like to focus on the part that interests me most:
"But further, I read about angels and other supernatural things like miracles, which are outside the scope of my analysis. Therefore I reason that when those things which can be studied objectively turn out to be true, even those areas which are outside the objective study should be true. Yes, that is mere faith, but not wholly baseless. There is a sort of tangential logic to it. "
Herein lies the answers to the interesting questions.
You write a lot about how you inquire for your answers, you talk about empirical evidence, objective analysis and your "logic to arriving at Islam". These are the words of someone who looks for answers and is prepared to change his mind in light of new evidence. That is why I asked about your use of words, like "my best bet" and "pin my hopes on".
I'm very convinced that there is no god. But I cannot be sure. There is a small percentage of uncertainty. Thus, if a god suddenly would prove to me that it does in fact exist, I would believe in it. I don't believe that aliens are abducting and probing humans, but if it were to be proven, I am prepared to change my mind in light of new evidence.
So here are my questions:
To try to make an estimate of my certainty that the god of the Abrahamic faiths (Yahweh/Allah) does not exists, I would say it's about 99.98%, since I am very very certain.
What percentage would you estimate for your certainty that the god Allah exists?
You wrote that angels and other supernatural things are outside the scope of your analysis and that you reason that they are justifiably considered true, when the things which can be studied objectively turn out to be true.
How can that possibly be known?
To me this sounds like if one were to analyze the myth of werewolfs, and find that wolfs exists, the full moon exists, so that should also mean that werewolfs are true.
If the faith in angels and other supernatural parts of Islam is not wholly baseless, what exactly do you mean? What is that basis?
What do you mean by "sort of tangential logic to it"?
You said: “I don't believe that aliens are abducting and probing humans, but if it were to be proven, I am prepared to change my mind in light of new evidence.”
Okay let me take off from this example. I would do exactly as you do in the case of aliens. Not accept it until there is credible evidence. But imagine if the case were as follows:
1. We know for a surety that people are going missing from earth.
2. The way they are going missing strongly points to the involvement of an agency.
3. We also know for a certainty that this agency is not from our Earth.
4. If all these criteria can be ascertained… then I would believe in the existence of an extra terrestrial life form. But, I would still own up that I am totally ignorant about who that alien is or what its characteristics are?
But in the case of aliens no such certitude exists. Firstly, even if people go missing there can be a thousand different explanations (more rationale than alien abduction) for their missing. The criteria fall on its face at the very beginning. Therefore, the proofs for aliens are still wanting.
You said: “To try to make an estimate of my certainty that the god of the Abrahamic faiths (Yahweh/Allah) does not exists, I would say it's about 99.98%, since I am very very certain.
What percentage would you estimate for your certainty that the god Allah exists?”
You say 99.98% certain. The fact that there are many scientists (including astrophysicists) who believe in God (not necessarily Abrahamic)… to me shows that just by using science it’s hard to reach such levels of certainty. If it was some kind of a scientific logic/empiricism to deny God, then all the scientists would be in that camp.
Coming to your more important question… I am 100% certain about God.
Why?
The most important factor that allows me to reach that level of certainty is the paradigm shift in my epistemology. Going by empiricism/science… there is no way one can attain absolute certainty on any issue. Leave alone God, even the most experimentally attested theorems can NOT attain 100% certainty in science. Such is the construct of that epistemology.
If I were strictly going by science/empiricism I would be an agnost, meaning I will say that I have 0% confidence in God’s existence, and 0% confidence in God’s non-existence. I don’t know how you reached 98.8% certainty that God does not exist. But I think there is NOT a big difference being an agnost and an atheist… therefore, I don’t take much issue over your certainty.
The difference between you and I is that I made the move from one epistemological system to another. That’s a paradigm shift, and rests on some huge questions on whether empirical epistemology has any limits beyond which it cannot go. I am convinced that science has its epistemological limits (once again, this is not some kind of a temporary glitch in technology such that things will clear up in future). It’s at the fundamentals of science. The uncertainty principle and the point of singularity are examples of it.
But yes, I agree that if I had not made that move to an alternate epistemology (for which I have good enough reasons as I had explained many times) I would be in more or less in your position of not being sure about God… then again I would have never reached the high level certainty as you do.
“How can that possibly be known?
To me this sounds like if one were to analyze the myth of werewolfs, and find that wolfs exists, the full moon exists, so that should also mean that werewolfs are true.”
No. The comparison between angels and warewolves is misplaced. One has no basis whatsoever and the other has a basis. What is that… read the answer below.
You said: “If the faith in angels and other supernatural parts of Islam is not wholly baseless, what exactly do you mean? What is that basis?”
The basis is this, and I am summing up here, as most of the arguments have already been laid out in detail in the earlier posts.
1. I reach the limits of one epistemological system (science)
2. I search for another epistemology.
3. I analyze the new epistemological system and gather enough evidence to be convinced that it can provide information about realms the other systems can’t reach.
4. This system has a strong basis… I conclude and attain the confidence to accept its claim in areas where my intellect can’t reach.
5. It talks of angels… and I submit.
You said: “What do you mean by "sort of tangential logic to it"?”
I have never been to China in my life. But I believe such a country exists. Why? Because I reason that there are multitudes of sources that speak of this place… the possibility that all of them are colluding in a huge conspiracy to pull over my eyes is extremely unlikely. Thus I believe it. This is a simple example of a tangential logic… (I hope you will not nitpick the phrase too much if it doesn’t fully convey the intended meaning). What I mean is that a logical reasoning that is elliptical, and not based on direct evidence.
If the alternate epistemology is true, then what it says about things I can’t analyze must also be true. That kind of logic.
@Valiya
--- The imagined alien scenario ---
"even if people go missing there can be a thousand different explanations (more rationale than alien abduction) for their missing."
I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact that you added "from earth" to points 1 and 3. If there were actual proof to a high degree of certainty that "people are going missing from earth" and that "this agency is not from our Earth", I find it unlikely that there would be a thousand of different explanations that are more rational than alien abduction. Still, without direct proof of the existence of those aliens, the most likely theory might still be that it's just a big hoax.
--- Estimated certainty ---
"You say 99.98% certain. The fact that there are many scientists (including astrophysicists) who believe in God (not necessarily Abrahamic)… to me shows that just by using science it’s hard to reach such levels of certainty."
Well, what I mean is that it's a personal estimate. Not in any way a scientific procedure.
If I sum up everything I have learned about the Abrahamic religions and my understanding of everything that supports the position that these religions are not true, I get to that estimate.
I may have forgotten to take some things into account or I could have many things yet to learn that could change the estimate.
It also depends on how the scriptures are allowed to be interpreted. If they can be interpreted loosely as fallible texts by fallible people the certainty would change.
If the question is: "Does a purely Deistic god exist?"
My answer would be perhaps that I'm somewhere around 45-75% sure it does not exists.
Again, these are not scientific values at all, but a subjective measurement of how confident one is in one's own beliefs.
"I am 100% certain about God."
Not at all an unexpected answer since you are a convinced religious believer.
But please reflect on what this means, this is as high as it is ever possible to get. It would also mean that there is not room left to make an improvement in this area.
Certainty (Wikipedia):
"Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.
Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision."
After reading this definition, it makes me want to lower my estimated certainty. 100% is "perfect knowledge" and "to the highest degree of precision".
--- Switching epistemology ---
"The difference between you and I is that I made the move from one epistemological system to another."
Yes, I understand that.
To be clear, you are talking about "Faith" as an epistemology, right?
"The basis is this, and I am summing up here, as most of the arguments have already been laid out in detail in the earlier posts.
1. I reach the limits of one epistemological system (science)
2. I search for another epistemology.
3. I analyze the new epistemological system and gather enough evidence to be convinced that it can provide information about realms the other systems can’t reach.
4. This system has a strong basis… I conclude and attain the confidence to accept its claim in areas where my intellect can’t reach.
5. It talks of angels… and I submit. "
Number 5 is the key: "It talks of angels… and I submit."
I know it's not something one would easily want to admit to, but this is what is called "a leap of faith".
No matter how much a thorough believer wants to feel that their beliefs are founded on rigorous analysis, this is the invisible pillar supporting "Faith" as an epistemology.
"If the alternate epistemology is true, then what it says about things I can’t analyze must also be true."
But how could you reach the conclusion that "Faith" as an epistemology is true, when it requires that the chain of analysis always is missing a link and requiring that leap of faith?
@Pragmatic
I will answer what I think is the most profound question in your post. If there’s anything you feel I have overlooked, please let me know.
--- Switching epistemology ---
You said: “But how could you reach the conclusion that "Faith" as an epistemology is true, when it requires that the chain of analysis always is missing a link and requiring that leap of faith?”
This is a very important question. If I say that science doesn’t yield absolute certainty, then by using what standards can I measure the reliability of the alternate epistemology? You would be justified in assuming that this will lead to circular logic. I appreciate your question fully.
This is how I resolve that issue. Let me go over the whole thing once more to clarify my position, please bear with me.
There are two crises that I am faced with in the science epistemology. One is that the deeper ontological questions about the intelligent agent are not answered by it. As I had explained before, this is due to a limitation wired into that system. The second crisis is the question pertaining to morality. This too does not fall under purview of science.
The second crisis is quite serious, because people might say that we can live without god, but NO one says that we can live without a moral code. Therefore it entails a practical difficulty that needs to be overcome.
I am thus led to search for other epistemological systems. I find religion. But I do not jump into it right away. I am skeptical. I want to subject this epistemology to a scrutiny. I analyze it. Thus I gather as much confidence in the system as possible… however, this will never reach 100% certainty. Because the tools I have with me to analyze this system are reasoning and logic, which can never give you 100% certainty. Say, it gives me 80% certainty.
Now, what am I supposed to do?
Allow me to digress a bit here, to cite an example.
Imagine a patient suffering from an unknown disease. There is no cure to it. Then you have a group of scientists who claim they have found a cure. The patient does his homework on the credentials of these scientists… and is convinced that these guys have a good track record. He studies to the best of his ability the chemical formula of the medicine and all the other details, and gains confidence in the cure. But he is still only 80% confident.
What is he supposed to do at this point?
If I were the patient, I would go ahead with the cure. In fact we deal with most of the things in life in this fashion, by gaining a certain level of confidence WITHOUT 100% CERTAINTY.
Back to the explanation.
Having gained 80% confidence in the alternate epistemology ‘Faith’… I decide to take the next step of moving into it. (Just as how the patient would decide to take the medicine)
But once I enter it, I have to play by its rules. I can’t impose my rules on the system. Either I stay out of the system, or enter it following its rules.
Faith starts from certainty – Belief. By belief you mean 100% certainty. Even if I say I am only 95% sure about God, then it means I am still outside that epistemology, because it doesn’t work with skepticism.
Science is the epistemology that starts from skepticism, but faith starts from certainty. Both have their own goals to meet, and are efficient in meeting those goals.
When I play by the rules of faith – I have a clearly set out moral code to live by. Moreover, I also have the motivation to stick to the code, even if it appears to compromise my benefits in life. This system is very effective in resolving the crisis of morality.
Lastly, I don’t see there being any conflict between these two systems of epistemology. They serve entirely different purposes, and one doesn’t encroach into the other’s territory. NOTE: I am not talking for all the faiths here… there are faiths that come into conflict with science. That’s the reason, you need to gather enough evidence to gain the confidence to enter one of these epistemologies (Faiths), before entering it… believing. Because once you enter, then reason and logic has little function there.
These tools (reason and logic) should be applied rigorously in choosing the right faith. But once faith begins… then there is not much use for these tools.
Does that mean that this epistemology is a one-way entry… you enter it and there is no getting out of it? Not at all.
While the ‘beliefs’ in the epistemology cannot be questioned or subjected to any rational scrutiny – such as the belief in god, angels, heaven and hell etc… the structure of the epistemology itself can be scrutinized rigorously.
If you had read my exchanges with Rawan in this thread – you would have noticed how she was trying to prove to me that there are contradictions in quran and that quran has historical inconsistencies and so forth. Why was I having a reasoned discussion with her? Because at its root, it was an attempt by Rawan to undermine the structure of my epistemology. We were discussing it from outside of the realms of belief. I was not simply dismissing her claims saying “oh, but that’s what I believe, and that’s it.” Rather I was responding with reason and logic.
My epistemology of faith, from all the studies (reasoning and logic) I have conducted, stands on solid pillars. So, it will take a lot of effort for its foundations to be shaken. However, if all or a good number of those pillars can be destroyed through logical arguments – then I will come out of that epistemological system. Which means, I will quit even belief in god.
But then I will still have the ontological questions staring at me!!! Then I guess I would simply have to relent and say: “I don’t know.”
@Valiya
"I will answer what I think is the most profound question in your post. If there’s anything you feel I have overlooked, please let me know."
No problem. I overlooked some of your questions as well, both to get to the core questions and for the sake of brevity. I wasn't considerate enough to spell it out though.
I want to begin by saying that my intention in this post is not to be insulting or antagonizing in any way. We are however closing in on parts of the discussion where it's hard to not sound very judgemental, but I will do my best to avoid it and at the very least be polite. I also realize that it might get to personal and one might eventually feel reluctant to respond to everything, especially in a public forum.
"There are two crises that I am faced with in the science epistemology. One is that the deeper ontological questions about the intelligent agent are not answered by it. As I had explained before, this is due to a limitation wired into that system. The second crisis is the question pertaining to morality. This too does not fall under purview of science."
I am focusing on the validity of your faith in your religion and how you came to that conclusion. And the question of morality has no actual bearing on the validity of that. (Unless you are saying that you were some sort of lunatic who arbitrarily lied, stole, cheated, started fights and killed people, before you switched epistemology to Faith and before you became a believer in Islam?)
The topic of morality is also in itself a whole other discussion, so I'm going to skip over it here (I'm willing to debate that, perhaps in another thread).
On to the main question: Switching to the epistemology of Faith due to limitations in science...
That the scientific method cannot answer everything and does not reach a level of 100% certainty, only means that it is honest. Using that method, people do not claim to know things that they simply can not know. The methods for reaching different conclusions are sound, the chain of reasoning is unbroken. It is the most reliable method of accumulating knowledge.
"These tools (reason and logic) should be applied rigorously in choosing the right faith."
You say that you switched from the epistemology of science because science has limitations, e.g. it cant tell you about what caused the Big Bang or what happened before it. But have you considered that Faith is an epistemology that instead has internal limitations?
To switch from an epistemology of Science to Faith, also means leaving behind the rational argumentation that makes use of chains of reason and rules of logic, thus the phrase "Take a leap of faith".
Faith as an epistemology fails to explain what you are seeking the answers to: the axiom of an intelligent agent, the creator.
Sure, there are numerous claims made about this, but these claims continuously require a leap of faith somewhere along the line of reasoning. Faith provides the final answer, but the explanations are always like broken chains: there is always at least one link missing. This internal limitation coupled with the fact that every claim is subject to interpretation, is the reason why Faith as an epistemology is unreliable.
"Having gained 80% confidence in the alternate epistemology ‘Faith’… I decide to take the next step of moving into it. (Just as how the patient would decide to take the medicine)"
The example of the patient with a terminal decease it isn't quite analogous. The patient is dying and at that point, an 80% chance to survive sounds like a really good gamble. I doubt your desire to know about the 'intelligent agent' was imminently terminal? :)
And from my point of view, it's hard to believe that you actually reached such a high number as 80% confidence in Faith as an epistemology.
There is a major inconsistency in your claims regarding the switch of epistemology that I find hard to ignore:
"I am believing in my scripture as a result of all the analysis I make as explained. There is a reasoned argument for my belief. It’s not a leap of faith."
That claim is that you do not make a leap of faith, but instead refer to the use of analysis, logic and reason.
But as you explained, you assume that since your analysis of Islam checks out as far as objective analysis can be done, the supernatural claims of angels and miracles are also true, this is by all accounts a leap of faith.
To me this is the key point.
You are essentially gambling that such supernatural entities and events are true, because you find the verifiable parts true. This is where my main question continue to reside.
How can that gamble be made for a person who otherwise seems so rational, methodical and analytic?
"Lastly, I don’t see there being any conflict between these two systems of epistemology."
This depends entirely on the interpretation of the individuals. If you don't see the conflict, I'd say that's probably because you have a very benign interpretation of Islam.
But if the interpretation of the religion:
- Gets in the way of scientific progress.
- Distorts education or deny education.
- Corrupts political decisions.
- Corrupts the justice system.
There will be conflict more or less all the time.
"Does that mean that this epistemology is a one-way entry… you enter it and there is no getting out of it? Not at all."
I'm actually quite pleased to hear you say that, as it is a sign of a mind that is not closed.
I have no wish to make you, as you put it, have the ontological questions stare at you. Although I don't see the problem with that. Millions of people can live just fine without feeling that they know the definitive answers to such questions.
@Pragmatic
“We are however closing in on parts of the discussion where it's hard to not sound very judgemental, but I will do my best to avoid it and at the very least be polite.”
There is nothing offensive or personal in your post. It is all well within the bounds of a civilized discussion. Yes, I guess we are reaching the concluding parts, and it would skirt on being judgmental. But I will be careful also not to overstep my boundaries.
You said: “And the question of morality has no actual bearing on the validity of that. (Unless you are saying that you were some sort of lunatic who arbitrarily lied, stole, cheated, started fights and killed people, before you switched epistemology to Faith and before you became a believer in Islam?)”
Let me explain why I think this question is a little misplaced. While you ask me these things about lying, cheating, killing etc. you have already assumed that these things are immoral. My question is even more fundamental. How did you arrive at the conclusion that these things are immoral? What methodology did you use?
Please understand that I am not trying to be difficult by dwelling on what is obvious. At the outset these things may appear to be very obviously immoral, but when you get down to the nitty gritties, they are not so obvious.
For example: yes, we all know killing is wrong. But what about killing animals for food? This really depends on who you ask? There are animal rights activists in India who say that killing animals is equal to murder, and that as civilized people we should stop doing so. You can’t entirely fault them, because a life is a life. We think that human life is most precious because of our human-centric world view… but who said so?
I don’t know about your food habits… but people who are okay about eating animals feel so only because of the way they have been brought up. It’s cultural and social conventions that make them think so.
A cannibal in an African jungle who has been brought up on a diet of human flesh from alien tribes will have no moral compunction in eating humans, just as we have no qualms about eating animals. In both cases (cannibalism and non-vegetarianism) it’s conventions that’s dictating our moral standards.
Well, you may say that you don’t run into such conflicts, despite being an atheist. The answer to that is you have taken refuge behind conventions (not empirical justification) to do what you are doing in a majority of cases. If we were cannibals, we would be just as happy chomping on human-flesh as eating beef or chicken.
You said: “That the scientific method cannot answer everything and does not reach a level of 100% certainty, only means that it is honest. Using that method, people do not claim to know things that they simply can not know. The methods for reaching different conclusions are sound, the chain of reasoning is unbroken. It is the most reliable method of accumulating knowledge.”
My argument is never against science or empirical methods. I know that it’s honest. I am only trying to show that it has limits… as you agree. And these limits are wired into the very essence of that epistemology.
I also agree that it is the most reliable method to accumulate knowledge. But it is restricted to knowledge of physical realties. Science DOES NOT EVEN MAKE AN EFFORT to know ontological or moral questions. Those are off limits to science.
You said: "To switch from an epistemology of Science to Faith, also means leaving behind the rational argumentation that makes use of chains of reason and rules of logic, thus the phrase "Take a leap of faith".’
I guess you can call the transition from one epistemology to the next as “leap of faith”. But it’s not be construed as a blind and totally irrational move, if that’s what the phrase means.
When I say that ontological/moral questions are off limits to science, what I mean is that these are areas where rational argumentation and chains of reason don’t work. But does that mean there is no need for knowledge in these areas? Of course, not. As I demonstrated above, moral questions impinge on our lives in very big ways. We are in need of knowledge in this area. But science does not deal with this type of knowledge. That entails the need to look for an alternate epistemology… if you want to call it ‘leap of faith’ I am okay with it, but let’s not dress it up with the idea of “ignorance”. There is a sound logic to why we make that leap.
You said: “Faith provides the final answer, but the explanations are always like broken chains: there is always at least one link missing. This internal limitation coupled with the fact that every claim is subject to interpretation, is the reason why Faith as an epistemology is unreliable.”
You are talking about ‘broken chains’ because you are trying to apply the methods of one epistemology on the other. Faith doesn’t work on reasoning… if that were the case, then there would have been no need for a paradigm shift in epistemology. We could have continued with science. Therefore it’s not an internal limitation. It’s a limitation only if you come into this system with the rules of the other system.
Regarding your point on interpretation of faith claims… that’s a very important topic, and a huge one too. But that’s outside the scope of this discussion. I can’t talk for all faiths here, but in Islam, the sciences of interpretation are extremely rich and interesting. That rests not on the realms of belief, rather outside it… and hence subject to reasoning and scrutiny. I know, these things might raise a lot of questions in you… if you wish, we will take it up as a separate topic. In fact, this is one of the many reasons that add strength to the foundations of this epistemology.
You said: “The example of the patient with a terminal decease it isn't quite analogous. The patient is dying and at that point, an 80% chance to survive sounds like a really good gamble.”
The patient example is just one of the many real-life instances where we make decisions based on 80% confidence, or much less. Take for example an investor. He invests millions of dollars in a business venture WIHTOUT 100% confidence on the returns. Even 80% confidence would be an excessively optimistic estimation. In fact businessmen invest with much lesser confidence. That’s not a life-or-death situation.
You said: “I doubt your desire to know about the 'intelligent agent' was imminently terminal? :)”
You are right, it’s not imminently terminal. But it’s a very important question for reasons of ‘morality’ which as I demonstrated above has far-reaching consequences on one’s life. The moral decisions, the way one conducts his life, the way one views the world and affects the lives of others… all these will vary in a big way depending on the epistemology from where you derive your morals. That underlines the importance of the moral questions in life. It’s very important, and can’t be brushed aside so easily.
You said: “And from my point of view, it's hard to believe that you actually reached such a high number as 80% confidence in Faith as an epistemology.”
80% was quoted in the vein of an example… what I mean is that it’s sufficiently high for me to seriously consider the shift in epistemology. It’s difficult to be accurate on these figures ;)
You said: “But as you explained, you assume that since your analysis of Islam checks out as far as objective analysis can be done, the supernatural claims of angels and miracles are also true, this is by all accounts a leap of faith.”
It’s not exactly like that. My objective analysis is only trying to measure if the epistemology (Islam) is a reliable means to acquire knowledge on these ontological questions. That analysis deals with areas outside of beliefs. Once I have gathered confidence in the epistemology, then I move into it… that’s where the belief begins.
You said: “You are essentially gambling that such supernatural entities and events are true, because you find the verifiable parts true. This is where my main question continue to reside.
How can that gamble be made for a person who otherwise seems so rational, methodical and analytic?”
I am not sure if ‘gambling’ is the right word to use here. A person investing in lottery is gambling, because his returns on it is entirely dependent on chance. Whereas a person investing in stocks after making a thorough research about the company so on… is not gambling. He is making an informed decision.
Now, let’s analyze if I am gambling. I am aware that I am in need of some knowledge for a very practical purpose. I realize that epistemology X cannot provide me with that knowledge. There is epistemology Y that claims to have the answers. I study it using all the tools at hand. I gain a high level of confidence in that system. Therefore, I decide to go with Y. I think this is a rational, methodical and analytic move… I have not chosen to go with a belief system by abandoning a rational system. I turned to Y only because X declared that answers to my questions are off limits. This is the most rational thing to do in the given circumstances.
You said: "This depends entirely on the interpretation of the individuals. If you don't see the conflict, I'd say that's probably because you have a very benign interpretation of Islam.”
As I said, I will have to explain to you how the interpretive science works in Islam, for you to be able to appreciate it. But that’s another topic. To give you a peek into it… it’s more or less like how I sifted out one faith from all the other faiths. There is a reasoned and methodical approach to it… that’s intellectually satisfying. It’s not arbitrary at all.
You said: "I have no wish to make you, as you put it, have the ontological questions stare at you. Although I don't see the problem with that. Millions of people can live just fine without feeling that they know the definitive answers to such questions.”
On the contrary, I think at the root of all the problems in the world are these ontological questions. Soviet Russia killed 2 million people because they would not yield to communism. The soviet leaders, in their perspective, were doing what was morally right, because they were only eliminating people who were a stumbling block to the creation of a free and fair state. At the very fundamental level, all wars in the world have an ontological /moral significance. Materialism, religion, ideology, race etc… are the principal drivers of wars. And all these are related to ontological/moral questions. They affect humanity in a big way. This is just one example… in fact most human activities from the most personal to international relations, everything has a moral/ontological underpinning. That’s why this is such a huge question. We often overlook its significance, because we are conditioned to many things that we do and just accept them as normal or acceptable. However, there is no guarantee (if you go by conventions) that you are doing the right thing… and these could have very huge consequences on the world we live.
@Valiya
Sorry for the delay. I've been a bit preoccupied.
"While you ask me these things about lying, cheating, killing etc. you have already assumed that these things are immoral. My question is even more fundamental. How did you arrive at the conclusion that these things are immoral? What methodology did you use?"
No, I didn't assume that.
The example I gave was a behavior that, irrelevant to any definition of morality, would make it very hard to live in any form of organized society of intelligent beings. What I assumed was that you lived in a society that does not allow arbitrary murder.
My point was, that there is no grounds to include morality to support the validity of your faith. Because, if there was no moral crisis before you went looking for religion, then morality is hardly a specific reason for you to seek it out.
"My argument is never against science or empirical methods."
I understand. I was simply summing up the scientific method to compare it against Faith as an epistemology.
"Science DOES NOT EVEN MAKE AN EFFORT to know ontological or moral questions. Those are off limits to science."
"When I say that ontological/moral questions are off limits to science, what I mean is that these are areas where rational argumentation and chains of reason don’t work."
I disagree. Such questions are not 'off limits' to science at all.
However, questions and answers of such nature are often harder to quantify and to test and verify. This doesn't mean it's off limits, it only means that progress is slower than in areas where questions and answers are easier to quantify, test and verify. Spend some time looking into it, you will find a lot of material.
"You are talking about ‘broken chains’ because you are trying to apply the methods of one epistemology on the other."
Yes, of course I am using the scientific method to analyze faith. So do you, when it is in favor of your Faith.
And now we are getting to a major problem:
Notice how you are jumping back and forth between the scientific method and faith as your preferred epistemology?
Here you are using the scientific method to analyze your Faith:
"I find religion. But I do not jump into it right away. I am skeptical. I want to subject this epistemology to a scrutiny. I analyze it."
"I am thus led to search for other epistemological systems. I find religion. But I do not jump into it right away. I am skeptical. I want to subject this epistemology to a scrutiny. I analyze it. Thus I gather as much confidence in the system as possible… however, this will never reach 100% certainty. Because the tools I have with me to analyze this system are reasoning and logic, which can never give you 100% certainty. Say, it gives me 80% certainty."
Here you have switched to use Faith as your analytic tool to defend your Faith:
"Therefore it’s not an internal limitation. It’s a limitation only if you come into this system with the rules of the other system."
"You are talking about ‘broken chains’ because you are trying to apply the methods of one epistemology on the other."
It's probably common for people to switch between different epistemologies when dealing with different subjects and situations. But I think many believers use this this as a subconscious defense mechanism:
As soon as anyone puts the believers faith in a 'bad light' that can't be defended with anything else then their own Faith, they switch back to their Faith as the analytic tool. But as long as their Faith itself isn't threatened, it's just fine to use the scientific method as the analytic tool, even on their own faith.
You have been saying that you do not take 'a leap of faith'. Reluctantly you agreed that it can be seen as 'a leap of faith', but you still want to call it 'Making an informed decision' since you have been researching, analyzing and reasoning.
If you really have accepted Faith as your epistemology, why is it so important for you to prove a logical and reasoned basis of your belief?
@Pragmatic
I was waiting for your post. Nice to catch up again. Hope everything is fine at your end.
“My point was, that there is no grounds to include morality to support the validity of your faith. Because, if there was no moral crisis before you went looking for religion, then morality is hardly a specific reason for you to seek it out.”
There are two things to note here. Firstly, it’s not that there is no moral crisis just because we have social contract in place. There is a huge moral crisis… it’s just that we pretend it does not exist.
If I am a wealthy individual, and suddenly let’s say my half-brother comes with a claim on my property with strong documental proof… then I find that abiding by the social contract/moral standard (of letting him take to legal recourse and risk my wealth) does not serve my interest. Rather I would be better off getting rid of him. Purely from the social contract argument there is no way we can say what the rich fellow did is wrong. Because if the argument is that by abiding by social contract, individual wellbeing is ensured… then if my individual interest is at stake, then why should I care for the social contract. Hope that was clear.
This is the reason that we find there are so many crimes happening in the society. There clearly is a moral crisis here. Because there is no logical/objective way we can tell someone to preserve the social contract/morality at the expense of personal interests.
This moral crisis is everywhere… be it politics, business etc.
Secondly, when you move on to more complex social issues, the question of what is morally right/wrong becomes unclear. Take for example abortion. Here you have the right of the mother versus the right of the baby. Is it legal or illegal… the issue becomes complex, and there is really no one answer to it. I can cite many more such examples. This is the easiest one that readily comes to mind.
Social contracts are not of much help in such situations. At least in the case of my half-brother, my problem was that my self interest conflicted with an accepted moral standard. However, in the case of ‘abortion’ I don’t even know what the moral standard is.
"I disagree. Such questions are not 'off limits' to science at all.
However, questions and answers of such nature are often harder to quantify and to test and verify. This doesn't mean it's off limits, it only means that progress is slower than in areas where questions and answers are easier to quantify, test and verify. Spend some time looking into it, you will find a lot of material.”
The statement that science can’t answer questions of morality is not my invention. This is what science itself says. Here are two links.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm
"Yes, of course I am using the scientific method to analyze faith. So do you, when it is in favor of your Faith.
And now we are getting to a major problem:
Notice how you are jumping back and forth between the scientific method and faith as your preferred epistemology?”
I thought I had explained this already. Let me have another try.
I agree that science has limits, but there are a lot of things that it can understand within the pale of those limitations. One of the limitations of science is moral questions. Now faith deals with moral questions. Therefore, the aspect of faith that deals with moral questions cannot be scrutinized using science.
However, there are other things about faith that I can analyze using scientific methods. For example, I can verify quran’s claim that it is a historically preserved document. I can conduct textual criticisms using HCM methodologies. This is a very logical method by checking for anachronisms and so forth.
When I say I study the faith using science, it is these aspects of faith that I study. But then where the faith issues moral teachings… I just have to accept them as they are… because science can’t handle those subjects.
Therefore, I am not switching epistemologies as it suits me… I am using science where it is applicable, and not using it where it is not applicable.
"It's probably common for people to switch between different epistemologies when dealing with different subjects and situations. But I think many believers use this this as a subconscious defense mechanism:”
Explained above.
“You have been saying that you do not take 'a leap of faith'. Reluctantly you agreed that it can be seen as 'a leap of faith', but you still want to call it 'Making an informed decision' since you have been researching, analyzing and reasoning.
If you really have accepted Faith as your epistemology, why is it so important for you to prove a logical and reasoned basis of your belief?”
Once again… the explanation is the same. I am not averse to using scientific methods to analyze faith. In fact, I think we have to use it… otherwise, there is really no way we can sift one faith from the other.
I reluctantly agreed to the term ‘leap of faith’ because there are some things in faith (moral questions) that have to be accepted without scientific analysis. But it is still an ‘informed choice’ because, I arrived there after carefully analyzing all aspects of faith that are amenable to science.
Hope the difference is clear.
@Valiya
Hi again.
"Hope the difference is clear."
Sorry, but no. It isn't. :)
As I said before, I am focusing on the validity of your faith in your religion and how you came to that conclusion.
You are including morality in how you came to the conclusion of the validity in Faith as an epistemology (specifically meaning Islam):
"This moral crisis is everywhere… be it politics, business etc."
"Social contracts are not of much help in such situations. At least in the case of my half-brother, my problem was that my self interest conflicted with an accepted moral standard. However, in the case of ‘abortion’ I don’t even know what the moral standard is."
This is, as far as I can see, an attempt to rationalize your choice after you have made it. Not what led you to the conclusion that Islam as a epistemology is valid.
Rationalization afterwards, in the same way as when I asked how a person can go from "This opens the possibility that maybe this intelligence exists outside the universe" to "Islam is the one true religion and Allah is the one true god". Part of your answer was rationalization after the fact:
"Lastly, let’s examine what this belief has given me. Would I be better off taking the other position of “We don’t know.”
I have nothing to lose with my belief in Islam."
This is by no means how you got to the conclusion, but a way to defend it afterwards. The same goes for morality argument.
"The statement that science can’t answer questions of morality is not my invention. This is what science itself says. Here are two links."
That may very well be.
That doesn't mean that that is the whole truth or that it is the end of that discussion. As I said, take your time to look into it...
Here is a Ted Talk by Sam Harris on the subject, based on his book "The Moral Landscape":
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right
"When I say I study the faith using science, it is these aspects of faith that I study. But then where the faith issues moral teachings… I just have to accept them as they are… because science can’t handle those subjects."
Yes, so you said. You also said that you got to a level of certainty to about 80%. In other words, that estimation of 80% only applies to the parts that could be somehow verified, leaving out all parts concerning any supernatural claims. Considering that the entire Quran was recited by an Angel, it should fall outside of what could be verified. It pretty much falls flat on it's face.
The only way to defend the action of accepting a particular religion as the Faith to use as your epistemology, is to first accept it and as you say "move in to it", then use it to claim that it is automatically infallible or untouchable.
For example:
- "God works in mysterious ways" (common theist phrase)
- "You have to believe to understand" (common theist phrase)
- "You are talking about ‘broken chains’ because you are trying to apply the methods of one epistemology on the other."
Only your epistemology of Faith is allowed to be applied on your epistemology of Faith, at least in the areas of the supernatural, effectively making it untouchable. A little too convenient if you ask me.
"Therefore, I am not switching epistemologies as it suits me… I am using science where it is applicable, and not using it where it is not applicable."
You say that, but you are the one who gets to decide when it's applicable or not.
As an example:
In the above case of talking about morality, you categorically deny that science can have anything to say about morality and claim it's "off limits" to science. So you justify to yourself that you are allowed to switch to Faith, and deny access to all other epistemologies.
That is also the case when it comes to Angels, miracles and other supernatural claims of your religion. You decide for yourself the boundaries for science in regards to such events, and justify to yourself that it's allowed to switch to Faith:
"This convinces me of Islam’s veracity. But further, I read about angels and other supernatural things like miracles, which are outside the scope of my analysis. Therefore I reason that when those things which can be studied objectively turn out to be true, even those areas which are outside the objective study should be true."
"It talks of angels… and I submit."
If I get to set the boundaries for when science is applicable to investigate the truth about angels and miracles, I would move the boundaries way, way closer to science than you seem to do.
"Once again… the explanation is the same. I am not averse to using scientific methods to analyse faith. In fact, I think we have to use it…"
So why then, do you stop at angels and miracles? There is no scientific proof of such things, but instead there is a ton of evidence of hoaxes, charlatans, misinterpretation, self deception, etc. The conclusion should be, angels and miracles do not exists, or there would be some form of proof to support it. Why do you succumb to superstition and say "well that's beyond science, and because many others believe in it, it must still be true."
I cannot understand how the conclusion could be made: "well this is all the proof I could find, the rest must be solved by invisible magical powers."
I know I'm simplifying. Again, my apologies if I sound insulting or patronizing.
@Pragmatic
“I know I'm simplifying. Again, my apologies if I sound insulting or patronizing.”
Not at all. I find your arguments very interesting, though I disagree. It’s a pleasure to engage you.
“This is, as far as I can see, an attempt to rationalize your choice after you have made it. Not what led you to the conclusion that Islam as a epistemology is valid.”
Your assumption is wrong. Here is how I see it. Whether we like it or not, we are always born into a value system, where certain values get instilled in us as we grow up. And at some point in life we realize that there are other values in the world that conflict with our own values. This leads you to question the veracity of your own values against those of others. This is a natural process. Every person in the world undergoes this experience… but most people don’t find the time or interest to pursue these questions to their logical conclusions. And so they just continue in their own value systems.
Fortunately, for me, I had the time and interest to pursue these questions. And that’s the reason I made inquiries into ontological questions – checking out atheism, communism, and as many faiths as I could. And I am sure, this must also be your experience. I can see clearly from your discussions that you are well read. If you search deep within you the reasons you made your inquiries and reached your conclusions is because you too had at some point of time questioned the value system that you were born into.
And at the heart of a value system are questions of right and wrong. In other words morality. Therefore, I am not trying to rationalize my choice after I made it. My choice is the result of my rational inquiry. Just as yours is.
"That may very well be.
That doesn't mean that that is the whole truth or that it is the end of that discussion. As I said, take your time to look into it...
Here is a Ted Talk by Sam Harris on the subject, based on his book "The Moral Landscape":
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right”
Thanks for the link. I heard it and found it interesting. The main argument is not any different from what you or AlphaLogica have been trying to make. That even values are facts, and hence measurable by scientific investigation. But I didn’t hear him explain the scientific methodology for measuring values. If you can explain to me the methodology… I can show how facts and values are different.
"Yes, so you said. You also said that you got to a level of certainty to about 80%. In other words, that estimation of 80% only applies to the parts that could be somehow verified, leaving out all parts concerning any supernatural claims. Considering that the entire Quran was recited by an Angel, it should fall outside of what could be verified. It pretty much falls flat on it's face.”
There is a document called Quran. It is making some claims about history and its integrity. These are verifiable logically. When I apply critical examination I find these claims corroborated. That’s the scientific part. But then the book also makes supernatural claims about its origins (angel). This is outside of scientific inquiry. Hence, I leave that out. The two are separate. It stands on strong legs.
“The only way to defend the action of accepting a particular religion as the Faith to use as your epistemology, is to first accept it and as you say "move in to it", then use it to claim that it is automatically infallible or untouchable.”
I had explained it already. It doesn’t start from accepting the faith. It starts from extremely critical analysis of the epistemology itself (as explained earlier). Once a certain level of confidence is gained about the epistemology, then I move into it. Even after entering the faith… it’s only those things that are beyond the scope of science that comes under belief… those things which can be analyzed are continuously studied. So, for example, let’s say a historical proof that shows that Quran has not been preserved comes up, that will upset the epistemology making it hard to stay in it. Therefore, it’s not blind faith… there’s a strong logical basis to it that can be checked and verified constantly.
"You say that, but you are the one who gets to decide when it's applicable or not.
As an example:
In the above case of talking about morality, you categorically deny that science can have anything to say about morality and claim it's "off limits" to science. So you justify to yourself that you are allowed to switch to Faith, and deny access to all other epistemologies.”
Am I just making an assertion and not providing any proof about the limits of science in morality? No. I have presented several examples to demonstrate how our moral values are not objective at all. I gave you several situations and asked you to show me objectively what the morally right position would be. I showed you links (not by theists) supporting my claim. You know what… you can easily destroy my argument if you can show me an objective methodology by which you can assess the rightness or wrongness of a moral value.
“That is also the case when it comes to Angels, miracles and other supernatural claims of your religion. You decide for yourself the boundaries for science in regards to such events, and justify to yourself that it's allowed to switch to Faith:”
Angels miracles etc by definition are entities outside of nature or the physical realities. Therefore by definition they can’t come under the scrutiny of science. And if you say, science has a means to measure things outside this realm… please show me how?
“So why then, do you stop at angels and miracles? There is no scientific proof of such things, but instead there is a ton of evidence of hoaxes, charlatans, misinterpretation, self deception, etc. The conclusion should be, angels and miracles do not exists, or there would be some form of proof to support it. Why do you succumb to superstition and say "well that's beyond science, and because many others believe in it, it must still be true."
The reason I don’t believe in say ‘fairies’ or something like that is not because they are not subject to scientific scrutiny. It’s because they are baseless. What do I mean? They do not have the epistemological basis for me arrive at a certain level of confidence to even consider them. It’s for that same reason I dismiss those charlatans and others.
“I cannot understand how the conclusion could be made: "well this is all the proof I could find, the rest must be solved by invisible magical powers."
Rather, what I am saying is “Well, I have got so much proof for the validity of the epistemology, and I don’t want to stay away from it just because it has some elements which science can neither prove nor disprove. The most rationale option in that circumstance is to go for it.
@Valiya
"This leads you to question the veracity of your own values against those of others."
What do you mean with values and value systems?
Perhaps your right, and perhaps you sought out religion because you thought the moral code where you grew up with didn't make sense. But I have never heard anyone else say that morality is the reason why they sought out religion. You must at the very least have been an adult to have made such analysis and contemplation before becoming a believer?
If I may ask, where you an atheist before? Christian? Hindu?
"I heard it and found it interesting. The main argument is not any different from what you or AlphaLogica have been trying to make. That even values are facts, and hence measurable by scientific investigation. But I didn’t hear him explain the scientific methodology for measuring values. If you can explain to me the methodology…"
The morality debate haven't been interesting enough for me to look into it further, so I haven't read the book. Not yet anyway. I might have to though...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
"Am I just making an assertion and not providing any proof about the limits of science in morality? No."
I'm not saying you are. The links you provided say what you claimed.
What I'm saying is that you are making a selective choice. You found people saying what you want to hear and choose to accept it. Some people think that morality is a boundary for science, some people just think that science shouldn't enter such areas. But at the same time multiple psychological studies are conducted and data is constantly gathered. Sam Harris is trying to point people in the right direction by saying that it is not at all impossible to utilize science for morality. It's just a matter of figuring out how and gathering data to draw conclusions from.
The boundary of science keeps moving further and further out all the time, for example:
- It was thought that science would never be able to analyze the stars.
- It was thought that heavier-than-air flying machines was completely impossible.
- It was thought that to send any object into space, let alone put men into orbit, was preposterous.
Other things that have been thought to be supernatural have been conquered by science, like the cause of diseases, and various natural phenomena.
Just because you state that "Angels and miracles are supernatural and beyond science" doesn't make it so. If angels exists, it could very well be that they are at least partially within the boundaries of science already. If not, the boundary is constantly getting pushed further including more and more, and there is no telling where we will be in 50 years.
"There is a document called Quran. It is making some claims about history and its integrity. These are verifiable logically. When I apply critical examination I find these claims corroborated. That’s the scientific part. But then the book also makes supernatural claims about its origins (angel). This is outside of scientific inquiry. Hence, I leave that out. The two are separate. It stands on strong legs."
This is the part that is just completely beyond me. I know you have tried to explain it, but to me it's incomprehensible. Just because some of the things this supposed angel recited, are facts that can be checked out, doesn't mean that the angel itself is true. To make the most effective lies, mix it with truth.
"Rather, what I am saying is “Well, I have got so much proof for the validity of the epistemology, and I don’t want to stay away from it just because it has some elements which science can neither prove nor disprove. The most rationale option in that circumstance is to go for it."
But... isn't that just hypocrisy, instead of actual faith!?!
That's the well known problem with Pascals Wager: "My best bet is to believe, so I believe"
But Allah would know that such belief is not real, would he not?
Someone as well read as you must be aware of the incredible amount of superstitious beliefs among humanity:
A myriad of different religions and myths over the world and throughout history.
And various beliefs in witches, shamans, druids, spirits, ghosts, black magic, healing, demons, numerology, possessions, mystics, psychic readings, artefacts, reincarnation, chakras, auras, mediums, shape shifting, clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, mind control, astral projection, and on and on.
And just plain everyday superstitions, like good luck charms, horoscopes, omens.
Just because some facts are true in various scriptures, doesn't make the parts that completely lacks corroboration or proof, true in any way. Informed decision or not, it's still betting on that a group of claims (of supernatural nature) are true, just because they are bundled together with some claims (not of a supernatural nature) that are true.
I can understand those who have had hallucinations or something similar, and has interpreted that as being visited by god or an angel, to submit to such implausible claims because they think they have actually seen some part of it.
Although, even then I don't get why they don't first just doubt their own mind.
Why on Earth would you just accept that "these particular supernatural claims are true", among a myriad of claims?
I now "you have explained it already" but to me you haven't explained it, merely stated it. Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but accepting the supernatural parts because of the non-supernatural parts, is beyond understanding.
@Pragmatic
"What do you mean with values and value systems?
Perhaps your right, and perhaps you sought out religion because you thought the moral code where you grew up with didn't make sense. But I have never heard anyone else say that morality is the reason why they sought out religion. You must at the very least have been an adult to have made such analysis and contemplation before becoming a believer?
If I may ask, where you an atheist before? Christian? Hindu?”
Value system is any sort of an institution or an ideology which upholds certain ideals that helps you in conducting your life. The ideals of a value system are values. Nation, religion, culture, isms like communism are all value systems. Ideals like: it’s honorable to die for your country, it’s despicable for a woman to have multiple sexual partners, killing your enemy in war is bravery, not respecting your parents is bad, …etc. are values.
What I am saying is that we are all born into a value system with a set of ready-made values. And the main reason why we accept those values is not because we have verified them objectively, but because we are raised on them.
In a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious country we have many value systems overlapping with one another. It is in such societies that we are more driven to question value systems than otherwise. You may have been born into a believing family. But then why are you an atheist today? It’s because atheism is also a value system and that conflicted with the system you were born into. You studied both systems, and for some reasons, you decided to abandon one system for the other.
“What I'm saying is that you are making a selective choice. You found people saying what you want to hear and choose to accept it. Some people think that morality is a boundary for science, some people just think that science shouldn't enter such areas. But at the same time multiple psychological studies are conducted and data is constantly gathered. Sam Harris is trying to point people in the right direction by saying that it is not at all impossible to utilize science for morality. It's just a matter of figuring out how and gathering data to draw conclusions from.”
I am not making a selective choice between two equal claims. The claim that ‘science can decide on morality’ and ‘science can’t’ are not equal claims for the following reasons.
Science only deals with facts… not values. Sam Harris is trying to show that values are also facts. But if you listen carefully to him… you will realize that he is passing off as facts metaphysical claims.
For example, to say that something is good because it improves the living standards of humans is a metaphysical claim. Why should it be so? Why shouldn’t something that allows bacteria to thrive be considered ‘good’? Science can tell you how you can improve the ability of humans or bacteria to survive better. But science can NOT tell you why one should be valued over the other. That rests in the realm of metaphysics.
In a similar discussion with Travis, he told me that that killing animals is okay because they are non-sentient. People often confuse such statements to be statements of ‘fact’. But no. They are merely a philosophical or a metaphysical claim. Why should killing non-sentient creatures be okay? Who said so? Science can tell us how to kill animals. But it can never tell us the ‘values’ behind that action.
I think the reason you want to accept these claims of metaphysics as facts is because of your ‘selective’ disposition to it.
“The boundary of science keeps moving further and further out all the time, for example:
- It was thought that science would never be able to analyze the stars.
- It was thought that heavier-than-air flying machines was completely impossible.
- It was thought that to send any object into space, let alone put men into orbit, was preposterous.”
Once again… in the examples you cited, we are talking of facts… not values behind those facts. Science gave us the flying machine. But it cannot tell you why it is better to use that flying machine to send aid than to bomb people. That is purely an opinion of metaphysics and not science.
“Other things that have been thought to be supernatural have been conquered by science, like the cause of diseases, and various natural phenomena.”
There is a mild confusion here on your part. Diseases were believed to have supernatural causes like, say for example, evil spirits. What science proved was that diseases had natural causes like germs. Therefore, the supernatural claim was disproven. It did not prove that ‘evil spirits’ are natural. If evil spirits are there, then they are still outside the reach of science. Therefore, the supernatural has not been conquered by science. You can say so only if the evil spirit has been objectively discovered.
“Just because you state that "Angels and miracles are supernatural and beyond science" doesn't make it so. If angels exists, it could very well be that they are at least partially within the boundaries of science already. If not, the boundary is constantly getting pushed further including more and more, and there is no telling where we will be in 50 years.”
There is an internal contradiction here. Supernatural by definition is something that it outside of the laws of physical reality. And science can only study things that fall within this limit. Remember why the point of singularity at big bang can never be studied. Because that’s the point where all physical laws crumble. Therefore, no matter how far the boundaries of science expands… it cannot by principle study the supernatural. If at some point in time, science gets to study the angels, then all that it can prove is that angels are not ‘supernatural’… not that science has conquered the supernatural.
Religion says that angels are supernatural. Until science can study them and show them to be part of nature… this claim holds.
“This is the part that is just completely beyond me. I know you have tried to explain it, but to me it's incomprehensible. Just because some of the things this supposed angel recited, are facts that can be checked out, doesn't mean that the angel itself is true. To make the most effective lies, mix it with truth.”
If you remember, this is the tangential logic that I was talking about. Making some observations that can be verified logically… and then based on them you believe in some other things. This is nothing unusual. I am sure you are doing this too. You may be believing in the electrons… not because you have been able to repeat all the experiments that scientists did or you understood the full math behind it. You think logically that all the scientists in the world concur on this… and many practical inventions have been made that are claimed to be based on this discovery, plus other reasons... and you arrive at the conclusion that it makes logical sense to believe in electrons than reject them. That’s the same logic I apply to believing in the supernatural.
"But... isn't that just hypocrisy, instead of actual faith!?!
That's the well known problem with Pascals Wager: "My best bet is to believe, so I believe"
But Allah would know that such belief is not real, would he not?”
No it is not hypocrisy. Quran is NOT inviting you to believe blindly. It says think, analyze and believe. When I think and analyze… I find that believing is the best bet… and therefore I believe. There is nothing hypocritical in it. I am only doing what Quran is asking me to do.
“Why on Earth would you just accept that "these particular supernatural claims are true", among a myriad of claims?
I now "you have explained it already" but to me you haven't explained it, merely stated it. Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but accepting the supernatural parts because of the non-supernatural parts, is beyond understanding.”
I am sorry to repeat what you have already preempted. Yes, I have explained it before. Now, if you think the explanation is not enough to convince you, then there is nothing I can do about it. That’s your position and this is my position. I can only invite people to consider the reasons that I find compelling enough to move into my epistemology… you can think them over… if you are convinced you can accept… and if you are not, you don’t have to accept it.
The only way I can see this discussion progressing is if you want to pick out some of the explanations I gave and tried to show me why they don’t make sense to you. Otherwise, we can call it a day, and perhaps think of the next topic for us to cross swords over. It’s always a pleasure to engage a logical, reasonable and knowledgeable person like you in a discussion.
@Valiya
Hi again.
I had already written almost everything below when I read your final paragraph. However, I would probably have written a just as extensive reply anyway...
"What I am saying is that we are all born into a value system with a set of ready-made values. And the main reason why we accept those values is not because we have verified them objectively, but because we are raised on them."
I understand you comment on values now.
And for the record, this is exactly how I think religions have survived at all: Pushing it on kids before they have developed the tools to think critically.
"...atheism is also a value system and that conflicted with the system you were born into. You studied both systems, and for some reasons, you decided to abandon one system for the other."
Actually no, I studied the religion of the society I grew up in. Neither my parents or society in general were very religious, but it's embedded in culture, traditions, language, etc, so I was subjected to it in a broad but diffuse manner.
Once I had contemplated about Christianity enough, it just fell to pieces. What is left is pure secularity, pure reason, pure reality.
"But science can NOT tell you why one should be valued over the other. That rests in the realm of metaphysics. "
I understand what you mean that it's a metaphysical claim, although I wouldn't put it like that. Instead I would say it is a subjective opinion. I don't, as you put it, "accept these claims of metaphysics as facts is because of your ‘selective’ disposition to it."
But I think it's a very interesting and positive initiative by Sam Harris.
There is nothing that stops the secular human from developing a common morality. Read the "Human Rights" written by the U.N. It's a good starting point. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
For me it is unfathomable that a person who has the level of knowledge and comprehension that you seem to have, to accept the alleged commands of morality from a being that you have to make a "leap of faith" to believe in. It does not make any sense to me.
And it seems like the key to all of this is only that you have a deep need to have answers to "How was the universe created?" and "How did life originate?".
"There is a mild confusion here on your part. Diseases were believed to have supernatural causes like, say for example, evil spirits. What science proved was that diseases had natural causes like germs. Therefore, the supernatural claim was disproven. It did not prove that ‘evil spirits’ are natural. If evil spirits are there, then they are still outside the reach of science. Therefore, the supernatural has not been conquered by science. You can say so only if the evil spirit has been objectively discovered."
"There is an internal contradiction here. Supernatural by definition is something that it outside of the laws of physical reality. And science can only study things that fall within this limit."
"Religion says that angels are supernatural. Until science can study them and show them to be part of nature… this claim holds."
Well, I understand that you want to keep "the supernatural" intact. But this argumentation is in my opinion quite watered down. Anyone can add any metaphysical claims to anything, and you can't disprove it. Requiring that such claims must be "objectively discovered" to be refuted is outright ridiculous, and in itself paradoxical. It essentially means: To disprove a claim, you must first prove that claim.
To continue, I want to make clear that I did not intend to claim that "the supernatural" has been conquered in any generic way. I'm talking about specific areas where there was no science to say otherwise, that have been conquered by science and the superstitious beliefs have been dismissed, with the exception of places where education about such discoveries has not yet reached (remote/secluded villages, tribes, the US Republican Party, etc).
The point is, that as long as people and the society they live in has a reasonable level of education, they don't believe that diseases are caused by evil spirits any longer. There are of course always a few exceptions, but people who claim such things are simply not taken seriously any more.
As another example, the same can be said about solar and lunar eclipses. Nobody today in the educated parts of the world, would claim that an eclipse is supernatural or controlled by evil forces.
Depending on the definition of an angel, it is supernatural or not.
Angels could just as well be defined as "aliens trying to send holographic interstellar phone calls". It's just as believable, but not supernatural even though it may still be outside of the boundaries of science, as it looks today.
You choose to use the religious stamp of "supernatural" on angels, thereby making it inaccessible for science. But, assuming Muhammed actually existed, as far as I'm concerned the angel that recited the Quran to him, was either a psychological delusion, schizophrenia or just plain old simple lies. All well within the boundaries of science and far more plausible than the supernatural explanations.
"You think logically that all the scientists in the world concur on this… and many practical inventions have been made that are claimed to be based on this discovery, plus other reasons... and you arrive at the conclusion that it makes logical sense to believe in electrons than reject them. That’s the same logic I apply to believing in the supernatural."
No, no, no, absolutely not! Stop it, your hurting my cerebral cortex!
I don't have to tell you that the scientific method is based on making accurate predictions, acquiring the evidence and having repeatability; and that scientific discoveries requires scrutiny and review. Add to that the level of corroboration, that you yourself mention, in multitudes of inventions based on that discovery.
To compare that with accepting unproven, uncorroborated and highly implausible claims, from a single ancient source, just because it's mixed together with some facts, is astonishingly faulty logic. It is no where near comparable.
"The only way I can see this discussion progressing is if you want to pick out some of the explanations I gave and tried to show me why they don’t make sense to you. Otherwise, we can call it a day, and perhaps think of the next topic for us to cross swords over. It’s always a pleasure to engage a logical, reasonable and knowledgeable person like you in a discussion."
Thank you, and the same to you. I agree, it's a pleasure to discuss in such a logical and especially polite manner.
I apologize for my initial bitter comments. I have been working hard lately on not letting my emotions get in the way of calm and rational thinking and debating, but unfortunately I stumbled a little.
As you pointed out we don't seem to be getting much further, so there is no need for a reply (extensive or otherwise). But you are of course welcome to reply as and if you wish.
Thank you.
@Pragmatic
I had free time, and I thought I will use it constructively by pondering over your last post. Forgive me for expanding the already constricted thread. I just wanted to explain some crucial points which I feel you have misunderstood.
You said: “And for the record, this is exactly how I think religions have survived at all: Pushing it on kids before they have developed the tools to think critically.”
Agree 100%. Just that I wanted to add that it’s not just religions… all value systems do this. If you want to be absolutely fair to a child… then you would have to bring him up in total isolation from humanity – including the parents. Otherwise, you cannot NOT color his mind with some bias to a value system. Whether we like it or not… there is no way we can bring up a child totally and absolutely free from any value system.
"Actually no, I studied the religion of the society I grew up in. Neither my parents or society in general were very religious, but it's embedded in culture, traditions, language, etc, so I was subjected to it in a broad but diffuse manner.
Once I had contemplated about Christianity enough, it just fell to pieces. What is left is pure secularity, pure reason, pure reality.”
Pure secularity, pure reason, pure reality… are all the components of a value system too. Of course, you may have very strong arguments in favor of these values that you uphold… similarly, I too have my reasons for the values that I uphold. Just as there are religionists who convert into atheism… there are atheists converting into religion. They all have their own reasons for doing so. This happens because people compare value systems. The reason that you opted to leave your diffused faith in favor of atheism is the same that I left my diffused disbelief in favor of faith. Just that we arrived at very different conclusions from our inquiries.
"Well, I understand that you want to keep "the supernatural" intact. But this argumentation is in my opinion quite watered down. Anyone can add any metaphysical claims to anything, and you can't disprove it. Requiring that such claims must be "objectively discovered" to be refuted is outright ridiculous, and in itself paradoxical. It essentially means: To disprove a claim, you must first prove that claim.”
I am NOT trying to prove or disprove the supernatural. I am only trying to prove the epistemology (which is objective). And once the epistemology can be proven to have objective credibility (I know you beg to differ there, but that can only be dealt with if you wish to explore the reasons I have furnished)… then I take the whole of it as a package, including the supernatural.
“To continue, I want to make clear that I did not intend to claim that "the supernatural" has been conquered in any generic way. I'm talking about specific areas where there was no science to say otherwise, that have been conquered by science and the superstitious beliefs have been dismissed, with the exception of places where education about such discoveries has not yet reached (remote/secluded villages, tribes, the US Republican Party, etc).”
US republican party (((()))).
If you agree that the ‘supernatural’ whatever that may be, can never be scrutinized by science… and that science has disabused some myths surrounding natural causes and effects… then I agree with you 100%. No disagreements there. But if you are saying that there is such a thing as supernatural – things that don’t fall under the laws of the physical universe – and that science will one day get there… I DO NOT agree with you. Because that goes against the fundamental principles of physics.
“Depending on the definition of an angel, it is supernatural or not.
Angels could just as well be defined as "aliens trying to send holographic interstellar phone calls". It's just as believable, but not supernatural even though it may still be outside of the boundaries of science, as it looks today.”
Once again, you are assuming that things that have not been discovered by science yet belong to the realm of supernatural. That’s not so. When science was searching for Higgs Boson, it was not looking for an entity that was outside of the physical laws. In fact, it was the equations of physical laws that told science that there has to be one such element in the universe. It’s more like detectives looking for a criminal because he left his fingerprint at the scene of crime. The reason they are looking for the criminal is because the ‘fingerprint’ evidence follows the laws of the physical world, and not otherwise.
“You choose to use the religious stamp of "supernatural" on angels, thereby making it inaccessible for science. But, assuming Muhammed actually existed, as far as I'm concerned the angel that recited the Quran to him, was either a psychological delusion, schizophrenia or just plain old simple lies. All well within the boundaries of science and far more plausible than the supernatural explanations.”
Absolutely… it is possible that mohammed (PBUH) was schizophrenic. Put it to the test. Can a schizophrenic man be such an abled political leader to lead the world’s most backward community to become not just world rulers, but also torch bearers of science and reason? That fact of history doesn’t sit quite well with the theory of ‘schizophrenia’.
What I am trying to show is that I don’t believe in mohammed because he told the ‘angel’ story. It’s the other way round. I believe the angel story because I studied this man and his message objectively.
"No, no, no, absolutely not! Stop it, your hurting my cerebral cortex!
I don't have to tell you that the scientific method is based on making accurate predictions, acquiring the evidence and having repeatability; and that scientific discoveries requires scrutiny and review. Add to that the level of corroboration, that you yourself mention, in multitudes of inventions based on that discovery.
To compare that with accepting unproven, uncorroborated and highly implausible claims, from a single ancient source, just because it's mixed together with some facts, is astonishingly faulty logic. It is no where near comparable.”
I want you to ask yourself a few questions. Did you personally counter check all the scientific experiments… before accepting them? If you did not, then on what basis did you accept the statements of the scientists and your school teachers?
This is what I mean by tangential logic. You accepted them based on a logical analysis, not scientific analysis. You believe in them because you rationalize that when all the scientists in the world agree on them, it is highly unlikely that they are all colluding at a global level to pull wool over your eyes.
For example, when I tried to understand the theory of relativity… I came to learn that it’s based on the idea that the speed of light is a constant. Frankly, I don’t understand how the speed of light can be measured with such great accuracy. Yes, there are all those Foucault’s experiment and so on. But I don’t understand them. However, I just trust the word of the scientists there, because there is no argument (that I know of) between the world’s most reputed scientists on this matter. Therefore, I assume the measure of the speed of light must be reliable. It’s just tangential logic that leads me to believe in the speed of light.
It is the same logical analysis I use to believe in the supernatural.
I intend to reply, but it might take some time. Lack of time and trying to keep up with the forum is delaying me.
@ pragmatic
Ok. No problem. Take your time.
@Valiya
I finally got the time to answer you. :)
---
"If you want to be absolutely fair to a child… then you would have to bring him up in total isolation from humanity – including the parents. Otherwise, you cannot NOT color his mind with some bias to a value system."
Yes, I basically agree. Although, avoiding all value systems is hardly a good idea. But at least for now, I want to avoid getting caught up in what I foresee becoming an endless debate on that topic.
---
"The reason that you opted to leave your diffused faith in favor of atheism is the same that I left my diffused disbelief in favor of faith. Just that we arrived at very different conclusions from our inquiries."
Well, I didn't "opt to leave". Way too much of Christianity (and other religions) didn't seem to add up and the more I thought about it, the more it fell apart.
And no matter how many attempts you have made to explain your switch to faith, in my view you have gone from a rational epistemology to an unreliable epistemology, intentionally overlooking the lack of supporting evidence for all of the supernatural parts.
And why? Because you have a need to have an answer for ontological questions, like how the universe came to be and what happens after death (this is how I understand you, correct me if I'm wrong).
Since your epistemology of faith has these answers, but only within these unverifiable gaping holes of supernatural claims, you still only have those answers in the sense of hollow, empty phrases on paper.
This is still my key question, but also the point where we don't seem to get any further.
"I am NOT trying to prove or disprove the supernatural."
I didn't intend to say that you were. By this:
Me: "Anyone can add any metaphysical claims to anything, and you can't disprove it."
I meant, that anyone can add any metaphysical claims to anything, and no one can disprove it (not you in particular). My real point, however, was the two sentences after that:
Me: "Requiring that such claims must be "objectively discovered" to be refuted is outright ridiculous, and in itself paradoxical. It essentially means: To disprove a claim, you must first prove that claim.”"
---
"But if you are saying that there is such a thing as supernatural – things that don’t fall under the laws of the physical universe – and that science will one day get there… I DO NOT agree with you. Because that goes against the fundamental principles of physics."
We still seem to be talking past each other on this point.
"Supernatural" is a label that we put on that which is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Before we had science, there was supernatural all around us. That is why something as easy to explain as rain was considered supernatural at some point, but today we know better.
You seem to have a definition of the supernatural which is absolute, something that science can never reach under any circumstances. This seems like both naive and whishful thinking. If that is so, how could that which previously have been considered supernatural, today have lost that label?
Supernatural is related to the boundary of scientific understanding, and when that understanding is changing and expanding, so is what is considered supernatural.
If you were to describe the world as it works today with technology and infrastructure built with our technology, to a person from 2000 years ago, they wouldn't believe something like that would ever be possible for people to accomplish, at least not whithout some form of magic or supernatural powers.
Your "Higgs Boson" example is irrelevant to what I am saying. Of course science have discovered many things that was not considered supernatural, but that doesn't negate my point in any way. Put simply:
Things that were labeled supernatural, but no longer are labeled as such, is because science have moved the boundaries of what we understand.
When people don't understand something, they have a tendency to insert anything to give an explanation, and that is where the supernatural comes in. When in doubt - insert supernatural, or the more narrow version: When in doubt - insert god.
---
"Put it to the test. Can a schizophrenic man be such an abled political leader to lead the world’s most backward community to become not just world rulers, but also torch bearers of science and reason?"
I agree that it seems unlikely. But still less unlikely than that an angel recited the Quran to Muhammed. A lot more likely however, would be that Muhammed was a person who understood the power of beliefs in the supernatural and used it to empower himself and create his own religion.
---
"I want you to ask yourself a few questions. Did you personally counter check all the scientific experiments… before accepting them? If you did not, then on what basis did you accept the statements of the scientists and your school teachers?"
No, of course not and you know that. Nobody could do that. Frankly, I think this kind of question is insulting to your own intelligence!
You know that what is taught in schools and is accepted by the scientific community have multiple different sources, is corroborated, is repeatable and can be researched in depth and verified if one so wishes. Why do you think experiments are conducted in schools? If the teachings in schools were based on false assumptions the lab experiments in physics, chemistry, electronics, etc, wouldn't work.
"This is what I mean by tangential logic. You accepted them based on a logical analysis, not scientific analysis. You believe in them because you rationalize that when all the scientists in the world agree on them, it is highly unlikely that they are all colluding at a global level to pull wool over your eyes."
Every day people become scientists within specialized areas, and as you well know, they are not all atheists but also theists. If the information that is taught in schools wasn't true, these new scientists would scream their head off each and every day. Even more importantly, as you yourself pointed out, scientific discoveries and technology build on previous discoveries, which wouldn't work if the basis was false.
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of this? Now and then you mention these things yourself. Is this self deception so important that you pretend to not notice how you refute your own assumptions?
"Therefore, I assume the measure of the speed of light must be reliable. It’s just tangential logic that leads me to believe in the speed of light.
It is the same logical analysis I use to believe in the supernatural."
No, it absolutely is not the same logical analysis. No, no and no!
Einstein reached these conclusions through calculations and observations, much like you yourself (again) described the process of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For most people this includes concepts that is beyond our own understanding. But we can still understand parts of the theory and verify it through calculations and experiments.
The theory could easily be disproved, if any of a number of experimental tests would fail. But instead experiment after experiment have verified it. Like for example:
- Deflection of light by the Sun.
- Gravitational lensing.
- Light travel time delay testing.
- Perihelion precession of planets.
And many other tests. And again, new observations and experiments build on the the existing ones, further proving their validity.
If you can show repeatable experiments or produce mathematical formulas to verify it, I would consider your argument of logical analysis for belief in the supernatural.
I don't mean to insult here but in my view, your argumentation only holds up if you choose to be wilfully ignorant, in an attempt to ignore those unverifiable gaping holes of supernatural claims in the epistemology of faith.
Sorry if my "tone" is a bit combative. No ill will is intended.
Hello Valiya,
From what I've understood, you are saying that science doesn't give you the answers you're looking for, but religion and Islam in particular seem like a good starting point to find those answers.
If you honestly got to this conclusion via logic and critical thinking (and not only because you were born into a muslim family and /or lived for a long time in a muslim country), then you must at least try to reconsider certain common misconceptions about Islam and islamic history that have unfortunately become a staple of the islamic culture.
"The messengers brought the same fundamental message. However, after these messengers were gone (dead) the followers who came later corrupted the messages for various reasons."
So God sent messengers in the past, but the original universal message was later corrupted.
Therefore,God was unable to preserve the massage before and let humans mess it up.
Except when Muhammed came with the Quran 1400 years ago, from then on, God made sure his message was well preserved.
Don't you find this a little absurd?
There is a saying in Islam that " The Quran is Muhammed's miracle", because he didn't bring the dead back to life or part the red sea. He lived and died like any man of his time and all he had was this book he claimed was a divine message.
The one miraculous/ supernatural happening in his story ( Al-Israa) was only mentioned in the Quran and wasn't witnessed by any other human being but him.
The misconceptions you have about the Quran are the same I've been thaught as a child in school :
- The Quran is the preserved word of God.
- The Quran doesn't have any contradictions, unlike the bible and other religious scripture.
- The Quran is loaded with scientific information that was only discovered recently, thus proving it was sent by the creator of the universe.
I'll try to get to these points one by one.
1- The Quran is the preserved, final word of god:
First of all, it is highly unlikely that the Quran was assembled and written during Muhammad's lifetime. All Islamic books say that it begun during Abu Bakr's reign and was completed by Uthman.
During Muhammed's life, some parts from the Quran were written down by different people who kept the scripts separately but the largest part was just memorized by the companions.
The recent discovery you referred to goes more into proving the Quran was written in the 7th century, but not necessarily during Muhammad's lifetime.
In fact, many historians are skeptical because the carbon dating has led to time periods too early on many old scriptures ( including copies of the Quran from the Umayyad era) mainly because this technique determines the age of the medium ( animal skin for exapmle) rather than the writing itself.
If we were to put aside all theses issues about carbon dating, the best estimation given by the study of this copy is between 568 CE and 645 CE, which doesn't exclude the possibility that the Quran was written under Abu Bakr and Uthman's respective reings ( 632- 656 CE)
By the time of Uthman's election (644 CE), there were multiple versions of the Quran according to a number of companions and every one of them insisted his version was the right one. What Uthman did was taking all these versions of Quran, keeping the parts that were reported the same way by all the companions who memorized the Quran and disregarding the rest of the verses, thus giving all the muslims one book to follow.
Sources:
Al- Baghawi - Ma'alim at-Tanzeel 4/ 525-526
Az Zarqani- Manahil Al 'Irfan Fi 'Ulum Al Quran 397- 396
So right from the start, there were many verses of the Quran arbitrarily abandoned and the copies containing them were burned. In Uthman's Quran, many verses got chifted from one surat to another, the order of the verses within one given surat was changed, the surat in the Quran are not in chronological order.
Another famous example of why the Quran is in no way as well preserved as muslims think it is, is the verse speaking of the stoning of the adulterer ( آية الرّجم). According to Aisha, the verse was written in piece of paper she kept under a bed in her house but some animal (some say it was a goat) ate the paper.
Sources:
Sahih Muslim 1452
Al Imam Ahmad - Al-Musnad 43/343
What I'm trying to say is, the Uthman Quran might be very similair to the Quran we have today but the transition between the Quran Muhammad recited to his followers and companions and what got approved into the Uthman Quran is quite problematic. Many verses were lost or forgotten, some might've been invented after Muhammad's death.
2- The Quran doesn't have any contradictions, unlike the bible and other religious scriptures:
On the contrary, the Quran is full of contradictions and historical incoherencies . In fact, God ( or the writer of the Quran) seems to change his mind over time on several issues.
I'll mention a few examples here, but there are tens more (maybe we'll get to them on a different thread):
In Surat 10: 3 , it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
In Surat 41: 9 -12 , it says that God created the heavens and the earth in eight days, starting with the earth then creating the heavens.
In Surat 79: 27- 32, it says God created the heaven first then moved on to creating the earth.
In Surat 7: 1, God is relaying that Moses said to his people " Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel"
How did Moses know about the Gospel when it was written more than a 1000 years after his time?
In Surat 20: 85-87, we have a narration of the story of Moses being "angry and grieved" after his people broke their promise to him to worship only God and were led astray by "The Samiri" (into worshipping some golden statue of a calf).
According to historical sources, the Samiri originated from an Israeli town founded in 880 BCE while Moses lived between 1400 and 1500 BCE.
In Surat 21: 30, the earth and the heavens were a "joined entity", then God separated them.
In Surat 41:11, the earth and the heavens were apart and God ordered them to come together.
In Surat 19:15, God says of Jesus "And peace be upon him the day he was born and the day he dies and the day he is raised alive"
Therefore, Jesus dies.
But in Surat 4:157 - 158 God says: "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself."
So, Jesus does not die but he's rather raised to heaven.
3- The Quran is loaded with scientific information that was only discovered recently, thus proving it was sent by the creator of the universe.
The Quran doesn't present any scientific facts that were unknown during the era. It is full of false information, like:
- The sun orbits the earth, and it sets "in a spring of dark mud":
Surat 18: 85- 86
-The thoughts and intentions of Man originate from the heart ( unstead of the brain):
Surat 3:119
Surat 11: 5
- Allah "restrains the sky from falling upon the earth"
Surat 22:65
"Allah who erected the heavens without pillars that you [can] see"
Surat 13:2
Do you know how absurd that is?
- The earth is flat, and the mountains are like tent pegs keeping it from shifting:
Surat 51: 48 "And the earth We have spread out"
Surat 79:30 "And after that He spread the earth"
Surat 21:31 "And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with them"
Surat 27:61: "He who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains"
Whoever wrote the Quran clearly knows nothing of basic physics, astronomy and plate tectonics. How can he be "the agent" behind the creation of the universe?
Hello Rawan,
Nice to hear from you again. I was waiting for your response to our last debate. Even sent you a PM. Hope everything is okay on your side.
Here are my responses to the points you have raised.
You said: "So God sent messengers in the past, but the original universal message was later corrupted.
Therefore, God was unable to preserve the massage before and let humans mess it up.”
If you are saying that God not preserving his books shows he is incapable, then you could also argue that God sends messengers to guide humanity, but most of them are not guided, therefore he is even more incapable. Because guiding humans is the main aim of his messages.
But you wouldn’t say that about the second example, right… because man has been given free will to accept or reject God’s message. In fact, that’s the whole idea about human creation. Man uses his free will to act on Earth, and accordingly he gets rewarded in the hereafter.
The corruption of books is not any different from that. God’s messengers come with the message. The people to whom it was given use their free will to change the text to make it suit their purposes. They are simply using the freedom god gave them to do evil… just as they have been given the power to do other evil things on earth.
Many of God’s messengers have been killed by their own people. Does that mean God was powerless to protect them? No… that’s the freedom God has given mankind to act the way they want on Earth.
Then why the special consideration for Quran? Because that’s the last revelation, and if this is allowed to be corrupted, then mankind will have no guidance. Yet, people have the freedom to interpret it the way they want for selfish ends and misguide themselves.
You said: “There is a saying in Islam that " The Quran is Muhammed's miracle", because he didn't bring the dead back to life or part the red sea. He lived and died like any man of his time and all he had was this book he claimed was a divine message.
There are many miracles that are attributed to the prophet (PBUH). In Quran it’s not just the night journey, there is also the splitting of the moon. Sura 54, verse 1 and 2. Witnessed by many. The hadith talk of more miracles. But I don’t wish to go into all that. If you insist, I will present the proof.
But then why is the Quran often presented as the main miracle of the prophet (PBUH). Let’s say the quran speaks of a hundred miracles that the prophet did during his lifetime. Would you accept them? No. Obviously, you would dismiss it as the cooked up stories of his companions or people who came even later. Are you not arguing in this very thread that many things were added to the quran after the time of the prophet? So, what good is it if the quran had mentioned more miracles?
Whereas, if the quran is presented as the miracle, it is there in front of your own eyes to check it out. The reason you are critiquing the quran now is because it is there for you to test it. Whereas, there is no way you can check out the miracles of the earlier prophets, because there are only reports about them.
The miraculous nature of the Quran will be evident when I answer some of your criticisms. When I was soul searching in my college days, I was amazed when I realized how some of the criticisms are actually working in favor of the Quran when probed deeper. I shall explain all of that.
I must thank you for it because, I was just explaining to Pragmatic that I have not explained all of the reasons for the truth of Quran… and through your criticisms I will be able to demonstrate a few more facts.
However, since you have a lot of criticisms, let me divide it into two: Preservation and Contradictions. I will answer the ‘preservation’ part first, and then deal with the ‘contradictions’ in the second post… so that this post will not get too long.
You said: “First of all, it is highly unlikely that the Quran was assembled and written during Muhammad's lifetime.”
In fact the easier way to answer all your questions about the preservations of quran is simply to direct you to the following link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/preservation-quran
It’s a debate I had with Watchman and most of the points you have raised have been answered there. But I will quickly answer your points. I may not be too elaborate, but if you think there is anything important that I am overlooking, let me know.
The first thing you have to understand is that quran was a democratic text, right from its first day. It was being written down, learnt and memorized by a large section of the society. It was not the exclusive preserve of any one or two companions. It was being freely spread all through the society. The companions were hearing it being recited by the prophet every day in the prayers. A large number of people committed the whole of it by heart.
One year after the death of the prophet, abu bakr decided to make an official copy of the quran. He entrusted the job to a committee of experts, the best students of the prophet, who were all hafiz (people who knew the whole quran by heart). They were also the people who wrote down the quran as the inspiration came to the prophet. They were known as ‘Katibun wahi’ If you had such a committee of stalwarts, it would have been more than enough for these people to simply write from their memories and make an official copy. What can be more trust worthy than their testimony.
But Umar (RA) wanted to apply a harsh standard. He said, every verse they write down should have a manuscript evidence, with two witnesses. That’s a tall ask actually. And so Bilal (RA) would stand at the mosque on Fridays and announce loudly to the people to provide the manuscripts in their hands to the committee. Every verse in quran thus got recorded with the full consensus of the society, written down by the experts of quran, who had no difference of opinion among them as to what is quran.
I am not providing proof for all this, because I think you must be knowing all this. But if you want, I will provide the exact hadith numbers for each of the points I mention.
You said: “The recent discovery you referred to goes more into proving the Quran was written in the 7th century, but not necessarily during Muhammad's lifetime.”
The experts on this say that it’s a copy that has been written down not later than 20 years after the prophet (PBUH). This only corroborates the history I mentioned above. Some people were saying that quran evolved over a period of hundreds of years. But all that has been put to the lie.
You said: “By the time of Uthman's election (644 CE), there were multiple versions of the Quran according to a number of companions and every one of them insisted his version was the right one. What Uthman did was taking all these versions of Quran, keeping the parts that were reported the same way by all the companions who memorized the Quran and disregarding the rest of the verses, thus giving all the muslims one book to follow.”
You have misunderstood this thing. The quran was revealed in 7 harfs. The most common translation for harf is dialect. The prophet granted permission to the companions to recite it any harf that they were comfortable in.
These variations (not in meaning) were allowed by prophet so that the recitation and memorization would become easy. You said that the companions disagreed over the versions as each one had a different one. No, no, no. In a distant part of the empire, some new converts were heard arguing over the difference in harf, saying the one they were reciting was more correct than the others. THESE WERE NOT COMPANIONS. When Usman came to know about this, he sensed the danger in it, because the ignorant people would dispute over it – although the prophet had legitimized each reading.
And so, he decides to standardize one harf – which is not any different from any other harf, except in the facilitation of reading it. Moreover, with growing literacy and greater commitment in the society to learn the religion, difficulties in pronouncing a dialect by a member of another tribe was easy to overcome.
(Once again, I will provide the proofs if you want them).
You said: “So right from the start, there were many verses of the Quran arbitrarily abandoned and the copies containing them were burned. In Uthman's Quran, many verses got chifted from one surat to another, the order of the verses within one given surat was changed, the surat in the Quran are not in chronological order.”
I think you are talking about abrogation. But unless you make clear what exactly you mean by arbitrarily abandoned, I can’t respond to that. Give proofs also if possible. And chronology, yes… it’s not in chronological order. Because the chapters and verses were revealed in different circumstances. However, the ordering was based on the instructions of the prophet. That’s the most important part.
You said: “… the verse speaking of the stoning of the adulterer ( آية الرّجم). According to Aisha, the verse was written in piece of paper she kept under a bed in her house but some animal (some say it was a goat) ate the paper.”
Before I answer that… just think logically. If Aisha could say that there was a verse of stoning… why couldn’t she simply inform Abu Bakr, her father, to include it in the quran. The goat only ate the paper, not her memory… did it?
As I said, quran was a democratic document. If one person loses a parchment, it’s not that the whole community would lose it. It was there in the memories of people, and as personal manuscripts in the hands of a lot of companions. But the question remains… why is such a verse not found in the quran?
That verse was abrogated, like a couple of other verses, as per the instruction of the prophet. (As I don’t want to make the answer too long, I will not get into it right now. If you want to take it up, we will discuss it at length.)
While you go over these answers, I will work on the second part of the criticism – contradictions. It is while finding answers to some of these criticisms that I was further convinced of Quran’s truthfulness. How, I will explain in the next post.
@Rawan,
Continuing on from my previous post…
You said: “In Surat 10: 3 , it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
In Surat 41: 9 -12 , it says that God created the heavens and the earth in eight days, starting with the earth then creating the heavens.
If you read Sura 41: 9-12. carefully, you will notice that it’s not saying the creation took place in 8 days. That number is not spelt out. Rather, it’s talking about the time duration for various aspects of the creation, all of which if you add up you will get 8 days. But you can’t add things up like that.
For example, let’s say student A took 2 hours write an exam. Student B took 1.30 hours to finish his exam. And student C took 2 hours. Now, you can’t add up the time each one took to finish the exam and come to the conclusion that therefore, the total length of the examination was 5.30 hours. No. It could have been just 3 hours and all of them finished it within that time limit.
You said: “In Surat 7: 1, God is relaying that Moses said to his people "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel"
I think you got the sura number wrong. Please give the proper reference, and then I will look into it.
You said: “In Surat 20: 85-87, we have a narration of the story of Moses being "angry and grieved" ….. According to historical sources, the Samiri originated from an Israeli town founded in 880 BCE while Moses lived between 1400 and 1500 BCE.”
This is basically a deduction you have made from biblical sources. The historical accuracy of these biblical accounts have been sharply called into question by historians and bible scholars.
There are tomes of literature on this subject. But let me just quote “Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") and look what it has to say about Samaritans’ origins. It says:
“The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials. According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh.”
These tribes were there before the time of Moses. There is a lot of discussion going on among historians and bible scholars… and most concur that the account in bible is not reliable.
You can read The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans by Anderson and Giles, A Companion To Samaritan Studies, also look up the Encylopedia Judaica under Samaritans… and this will become clear to you.
Now, why do I find this quite amazing. Here is an illiterate man in 7th century Arabia, who is saying some things from history, and accused for plagiarizing from the Bible, because, that’s the only source (if at all) that could have given him some light on these matters. Yet, he makes changes in the details, which are corroborated by modern scholarship. I find that amazing.
And this is not the only such case. You may have also heard of the famous “Hamaan’ anachronism. Quran refers to a person called Hamaan who was a builder in the court of Pharaoh, while the same person comes in a totally different historical setting in the bible. This was ridiculed too, until the latest studies in Egyptology proved this.
What we are seeing is that criticisms against Quran are actually blowing in the face of those making it. Had they not made a big issue out of it, this historical accuracy of Quran might have gone unnoticed… but thanks to criticisms, these things are now being proven in favor of Quran.
Just to add another point… the ruler of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (Joseph) is addressed as Pharaoh in the bible. While Quran just calls him ‘king’. The latest studies reveal that the rulers of Egypt had not adopted the title of Pharaoh during the time of Joseph.
I am not being academic here, as this is not a point you raised. If you want, I can provide proofs from Egyptology.
You said: “In Surat 21: 30, the earth and the heavens were a "joined entity", then God separated them. In Surat 41:11, the earth and the heavens were apart and God ordered them to come together.”
You know Arabic. The Verse 41:11 does not imply come together. The word together simply isn't there and isn't implied by the Arabic. The phrase is ‘come into being’. Of the 7 english translations, only Yusuf Ali uses the word ‘together’ nobody else does. More generally there are several stages to creation, the big bang and the formation of galaxies and planets are two processes. First there is the ripping apart and then there is the coming together.
.
You said: “In Surat 19:15, God says of Jesus "And peace be upon him the day he was born and the day he dies and the day he is raised alive"
Therefore, Jesus dies.”
This one is really easy. I don’t know how you missed it. It is the Muslim belief that Jesus will return to the earth and then die like all humans. The verse says, the day he was born (past tense), and the day he dies (not past) and the day he is raised alive (not past).
You said: “3- The Quran is loaded with scientific information that was only discovered recently, thus proving it was sent by the creator of the universe.”
I don’t remember making such a statement at all. I don’t know where you got it from. or are you quoting some Muslim apologetic from elsewhere?
In my evidences for Quran, I deliberately side stepped the issue of scientific facts in Quran, although it is embraced by many apologetics. There is a reason for my position. Science is an ever-changing system of knowledge. Many times in the past, science had been in conflict with Quran, and the apologetics go silent. And later, science would change its position agreeing with Quran, and the apologetics would celebrate. I find this kind of shifting disingenuous.
Here is an example: Until a few decades ago, science said that the sun was stationary and that all the planets orbited around it. The quran mentioned that the sun was going around in its own orbit. But now the scientific position is that the sun is going around in a grand orbit that takes millions of years to complete one round.
What I am trying to say is that arguments of “conflict with science” rest on shaky grounds. However, I am not going to dismiss all your criticisms under this with one sweeping brush of ‘shaky grounds.’ Let’s have a closer look at each of you criticisms.
You said “- The sun orbits the earth, and it sets "in a spring of dark mud":
Surat 18: 85- 86”
The Quran never states anywhere that the sun orbits the earth. It only says that the sun is in its own orbit. Sura 18:85-86, is talking about the visual experience of Zul Qarnain. It says, “He SAW the sun set in Murky water’. If you look up the meaning of horizon in the dictionary it says “The line at which the earth’s surface appears to meet the sky” would you call it unscientific. No, because it’s explaining a visual experience.
-The thoughts and intentions of Man originate from the heart ( unstead of the brain):
Surat 3:119
First of all, you have to appreciate the fact that Quran speaks in poetic flourish. Even today, we use ‘heart’ to indicate that we love someone. Does love emanate from heart or brain? That kind of criticism is frankly quite disingenuous.
However, if you still insist that you want to take things literally – and that you can’t excuse the omniscient God for he is all knowing and has to be more perfect even in his linguistic rhetoric… then here is what the latest discoveries are saying.
Just google ‘Heart Brain’ and check out the links. Here is a link http://in5d.com/the-heart-has-its-own-brain-and-consciousness/
It says: “Many believe that conscious awareness originates in the brain alone. Recent scientific research suggests that consciousness actually emerges from the brain and body acting together. A growing body of evidence suggests that the heart plays a particularly significant role in this process.”
I think, these findings are further corroborating my view that it’s foolhardy to criticize a book – that doesn’t claim to have come to teach us science - in the light of scientific knowledge, which is fluid and changing. Especially, in the areas of psychology and brain, in which we have hardly made much progress. We are still in the infancy in these areas, when compared to harder science like physics.
You said : “- Allah "restrains the sky from falling upon the earth" Surat 22:65”
You are coming at it from the assumption that this book was written by an ignorant man. That’s the reason you are trying to read literally into even the most evidently ‘allegorical’ verses, which honestly is unfair.
There are many verses in the quran that actually ignite your thinking process, prodding you to think about the natural phenomenon. Verses like these will actually make you wonder about the nature of the sky and related phenomenon. It’s not for nothing the early generations of muslims became torchbearers of science and reason.
Moreover, if you actually pondered on this verse, there are many ways you can interpret it. Have you thought why the moon does not collide into the earth or the earth doesn’t get sucked into the sun, although the force of gravity between these objects is pretty significant.
It’s because of the forces of gravity and the centrifugal force of the motion of these bodies cancel out each other, maintaining a balance. And how would it appear to a man standing on the earth if the moon were to collide with the earth… it would look like the moon is falling down. Quran is talking about how God restrains (hints very much at forces in play) from these things occurring.
Please Note: I am NOT arguing at all that Quran is talking pure science here. I am only saying that the allegorical verse is only meant to prod man into thinking about creation… and even if you apply the strictest scrutiny of science, there are ways to interpret this verse without contradicting science.
I think the rest of your criticisms all fall under the same category. So, I don’t need to go over them separately. If you want, we can discuss them individually. I have no problem.
Once again thanks for the very detailed criticisms. I hope my answers were useful at least in allowing you see things from a different perspective, even if not wholly acceptable.
Hello Valiya,
I tried to send you a congratulations message the day of Eid Al-Fitr but it wouldn't work. Also, I didn't recieve any PM from you. It's clearly caused by a bug in the PM functionality.
Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss each and every argument. Surely, our interpretation of the Kuran might be quite different and I'll get back to you on some of these points.
I'm in a hurry now but I'll try to reply soon and maybe we could discuss abrogation and the "linguistic miracle" of the Kuran further.
Hi Rawan
Sure... I am waiting. And thanks for the Eid Greetings (though it didn't reach me, thanks to the bug).
Sometimes the answer is "I don't know" Theists use god to explain stuff they don't understand. We call this the ignorance fallacy; I don't know therefore god....... You can't use a mystery to solve a mystery.
@Valiya:
Hello, and thank you for your response. I appreciate you sharing with me your understanding of the logic that brings you to the conclusion that their is a God. That being said there are some issues I have WITH the logic you present.
"from my everyday experience, i know that specified complexity arises only from an intelligent agent."
The first problem here is the assumption that your understanding of 'complexity' vindicates the existence of some form of agency, is at its face illogical, because you start from a conclusion (that agency exists) and then move onto the 'evidence' of a complex universe as justification FOR your original conclusion. Yet the very meaning of complexity, restricts one from drawing definite conclusions, as certainty cannot arise from complexity. This can be demonstrated in science, the goal of science is to break down the universe in a way that a simple explanation can lead to conclusions of which we are so certain of that it can be repeatedly shown, in any culture, country etc to be true.
Religious claims can never achieve this level of certainty, as not even the very adherents of the same religion can agree on what to be certain on. This can be shown in the conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims, both on issues of doctrine, and their own history, I can still hear all the squabbling about which Hadith is legit or not.
"I see specified complexity in nature and life. I inquire for the intelligence behind it. It takes me all the way back to the beginning of universe,"
Here again there is a problem, in your 'search' for this 'intelligence' you are required to, again, start with a conclusion, that Allah is the creator of the universe, and that Muhammed accurately revealed the truth of Allah's message concerning the creation of the universe.
"and science has no knowledge of realities beyond that point. ""
For the sake of the discussion lets just take that as true, but it is not only limited to science, but to every being within the 'natural' realm, the ultimate downfall of your approach is that you assume that science( a method for understanding and measuring natural phenomena) can lead one to Supernatural( existing beyond the natural realm) conclusions.
If no one knows, then NO ONE knows, not prophets pushing a theological claim, or scientists systematically studying the nature of reality. You cannot then make special exceptions because you hold certain conclusions on faith. It is a matter of faith that Allah is the creator of the universe, it is a matter of faith that Muhammad was the last of a long line of prophets, it is a matter of faith that the Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah, delivered through the angel Gabriel. See my point?
"This opens the possibility that maybe this intelligence exists outside the universe, in which case it wouldn't be amenable to the scrutiny of science."
Here you are trying to have it both ways.
1. Only from a series of assumptions about the natural realm, Allah etc that have to be excepted on faith, do you then get to this 'possibility' of some divine intelligence. Pretty much your conclusion has no foundation, and as such any arguments built ON that foundation fall down before they even start to stand.
2. That this conclusion, based on a series of assumptions, only supported by faith and faith alone, derived from your understanding of the natural realm, can then lead you to supernatural conclusions that are out of bounds for scientific scrutiny, yet you forget that you are basing some of your understanding ON the natural realm, and therefore IS definitely within the boundaries of scientific criticism.
"I look for other forms of knowledge other than science. I turn to religion. And religion talks of one such intelligent cause behind reality."
Yes, but so do countless other religions, all claim the same level of 'authority' ( God) but make completely incompatible claims based ON that authority. Since they all cannot be correct, yet each claim the same 'authority' then they simply cancel each other out. Only by making special exceptions for your own religion can hold onto your 'god' and forsake all others. But that is conformation bias and gets us no closer to the truth.
"However, form this point on wards, belief kicks in. But that's the only option that I have, because science can't explore outside of the universe, and doesn't even entertain such questions."
You are, of course, free to hold any belief/opinion you choose, but when you fall back onto faith as justification for holding a belief or opinion then all you have really done is show that you do not have a good enough reason to hold that belief/opinion in the first place.
I look forward to your response =)
Hi AlphaLogica
Thanks for the response. Let me share my views on your very points.
You said: “… you start from a conclusion (that agency exists) and then move onto the 'evidence' of a complex universe.”
Rather, I started the other way round. I see a complex universe evident in front of me, and arrive at the conclusion of an agency.
You said: “Yet the very meaning of complexity, restricts one from drawing definite conclusions, as certainty cannot arise from complexity.”
I explained what I mean my complexity. In fact its specified complexity. It’s the formation of many primitive parts in a specific arrangement for a function. When I see a cycle, I can see that it has a handlebar, a chain, wheels, seat, breaks and so on. All of it put together in a specific arrangement for it to function like a vehicle. This can come about only through an intelligent agency. That’s my conclusion.
You said: “This can be demonstrated in science, the goal of science is to break down the universe in a way that a simple explanation can lead to conclusions of which we are so certain of that it can be repeatedly shown, in any culture, country etc to be true.”
The question staring at science is how this specified complexity in nature came about. If science can break it down and provide me a simple explanation, I am game. But it has not done so. Meanwhile, my everyday experience tells me that this can come about only through an intelligent agency, because it requires planning and direction (features of intelligence).
“Religious claims can never achieve this level of certainty, as not even the very adherents of the same religion can agree on what to be certain on.”
In my argument, I had specified that ‘belief’ begins with religions. I was only explaining the logical steps that led me to religion.
“This can be shown in the conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims, both on issues of doctrine, and their own history, I can still hear all the squabbling about which Hadith is legit or not.”
These issues begin once you enter religion. But science has not provided me an answer for my quest of the intelligent agent… and that’s what’s pushing me into religion. How I sort out these problems of divisions and interpretations are another matter. We can discuss it probably later in this thread.
“Here again there is a problem, in your 'search' for this 'intelligence' you are required to, again, start with a conclusion, that Allah is the creator of the universe, and that Muhammed accurately revealed the truth of Allah's message concerning the creation of the universe.”
Not at all. The first leg of my search only leads to the point of turning to religions in search of answers. From thereon, I have to start another search to decide between the various faiths. I have my reasons for that too. I have explained it in a very simplistic way to ‘Pragmatic’ in this thread.
“For the sake of the discussion lets just take that as true, but it is not only limited to science, but to every being within the 'natural' realm, the ultimate downfall of your approach is that you assume that science( a method for understanding and measuring natural phenomena) can lead one to Supernatural( existing beyond the natural realm) conclusions.”
I am starting from ignorance. I have not made any assumptions of supernatural yet. I only go by the strong commonsensical view that specified complexity (what appears to be designed) arises only from intelligence. I see specified complexity in nature. Therefore, I conclude there is an intelligence behind this. I search for it, and science can’t help me, and in fact gives up from the point where our universe ends. It has nothing to say about realities outside of it. Therefore, I look for other sources of knowledge. That’s where religion begins. So, I don’t start from assumptions of supernatural. I end up there, going all the way with science up to the point where science can’t tread anymore.
“If no one knows, then NO ONE knows, not prophets pushing a theological claim, or scientists systematically studying the nature of reality.”
When I say no one knows, I mean according to a particular epistemological tradition. Using reason and empiricism – no one knows. But what if there are other epistemological systems – faith.
"Here you are trying to have it both ways.”
All your points under this are based on the premise that I start out from assumptions. But as I explained above, I start out from doubts only.
“Yes, but so do countless other religions, all claim the same level of 'authority' ( God) but make completely incompatible claims based ON that authority….”
There is a reason why I chose the faith I am in. That’s more broadly discussed in my post to ‘Pragmatic’
Pages