This was written by my friend
At an educational institution
‘Let me explain the problem science has with God’
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. ‘You are a Muslim, aren’t you son?’
‘Yes sir.’
‘So you believe in God?’
‘Absolutely’
‘Is God good?’
‘Sure! God’s good’
‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’
‘Yes’
The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.
‘Here’s one for you, lets say there is a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it, would you help them? Would you try?’
‘Yes sir, I would’
‘So you’re good…!’
‘I wouldn’t say that.’
‘Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could…. in fact most of us would if we could..God doesn’t.’
[No answer]
‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is God good? Hmmmm? Can you answer that one?’
[No answer]
The elderly man is sympathetic.
‘No you can’t, can you?’ He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.
‘Lets start again fella, is God good?’
‘Err…Yes’
‘is Satan good?’
‘No’
‘Where does Satan come from?’
The student falters. ‘From…God’
‘That’s right, God made Satan didn’t he?’ The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking student audience.
‘I think we’re going to have fun this semester ladies and gentlemen’ He turns back to the Muslim.
‘Tell me son, is there evil in this world?’
‘Yes sir.’
‘Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?’
‘Yes’
‘Who created evil’
[No answer]
‘Is there sickness in this world? Immortality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things, do they exist in this world?’
The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes’
‘Who created them?’
‘No answer’
The professor suddenly shouts at his student.
‘WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!’
The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslims face. In a still small voice he says ‘God created all evil, didn’t he son?’
[No answer]
The student tries to hold the steady experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerised.
‘Tell me’ he continues, ‘How is it that this God is good if he created all evil throughout all time?’
The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.
‘All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering. Created by this good God is all over the world isn’t it young man?’
[No answer]
‘Don’t you see it everywhere? Huh?' Pause. ‘Don’t you?’ The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers ‘Is God good?’
[No answer]
‘Do you believe in God son?’
The students voice betrays him and cracks.
‘Yes professor, I do’
The old man shakes his head sadly. ‘Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen God?’
‘No sir’
‘Then tell us if you have ever heard your God’
‘No sir, I have not’
‘Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God? In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?
[No answer]
‘Answer me please’
‘No sir, I’m afraid I haven’t’
‘You’re AFRAID you haven’t?’
‘No sir’
‘Yet you still believe in him?’
‘…Yes…’
‘That takes faith!’ the professor smiles sagely at the underling. ‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that son?’
[No answer]
‘Sit down please.'
The Muslims sits defeated.......
Another Muslim raises his hand' Professor, may I address the class?'
The professor turns and smiles
‘Ah, another Muslim in the vanguard! Come, come young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering’
The Muslim looks around the room
‘Some interesting points you are making sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such a thing as heat?’
‘Yes’ The professor replies. ‘There is heat’
‘Is there such a thing as cold?’
‘Yes son there’s cold too’
‘No sir, there is not’
The professors grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Muslim continues.
‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super heat, mega heat, white heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we cant go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - - You see sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat sir, just the absence of it’
Silence, a pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
‘Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?
‘That’s a dumb question son, what is night if it isint darkness? What are you getting at?’
‘So you are saying there is such a thing as darkness?’
‘Yes’
‘You’re wrong again sir, darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called darkness, isint it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality darkness isint. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness professor?’
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester.
‘Would you mind telling me what your point is young man?’
‘Yes professor. My point is that your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error…..’
The professor goes toxic. ‘Flawed ? ? how dare you…!’
‘Sir may I explain what I mean?’
The class is all ears.
‘Explain, oh explain!’ The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself, he continues to wave his hand to silence the class for the student to continue.
‘You are working on the premise of duality’ The Muslim explains ‘that for example there is life and there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God a something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen or much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.’
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbour who has been reading it.
‘Here is one of our most disgusting tabloids this country hosts professor. Is there such a thing as immortality?’
‘Ofcourse there is, now look…’
‘Wrong again sir. You see immortality is merely the absence of mortality. Is there such a thing as injustice? No, injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil? The Muslim pauses. ‘isint evil merely the absence of good?’
The professors face has turned an alarming colour. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.
The Muslim continues. ‘If there is evil in the world professor, and we all agree there is, then God if he exists must be accomplishing work through the agency of evil. What is that work God accomplishing? Islam tells us to see if each one of us will choose good or evil’The professor bridles. ‘As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice, as a realist I absolutely do not recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world because God is not observable’
'I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going' The Muslim replies. 'Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
'Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is as an ongoing endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?'
'I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?’ The professor hisses.
'So you don’t accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?'
'I believe in what is -that’s science!'
'Ahh! SCIENCE!' the students face splits into a grin.
'Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed...'
'SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?' the professor splutters. The class is in uproar. The Muslim remains standing until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?'
The professor wisely keeps silent. The Muslim looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor brain?'
The class breaks out in laughter. The Muslim points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professors brain?'
No one appears to have done so. The Muslim shakes his head sadly.
'It appears that no one here has had any sensory perception of the professors brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain'
The professors face turned an alarming white and his legs seemed to give way as he slumped back in his seat...for he was beaten at his own game...the class is in awe at what just unfolded before their very eyes.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)







33 comments:
Interesting read, I must say. You laid it bright and clear. I do not get how a person doesn't question himself about surroundings, easiest thing to pick on leads there. Quranic story of prophet Abraham (pbuh), refused giving up on finding God.
"Quranic story of prophet Abraham (pbuh), refused giving up on finding God." True
Life can't be a mere coincidence or a fluke.Every single thing in this world is systematic, balanced & orchestrated.
There are also many things that we don't see yet acknowledge such as our emotions & heat(as mentioned in the story).Moreover, God can be felt especially during meditation or praying:D
LOL, very interesting, I was about to step in for the first guy but Thank God someone came to the forefront. Mashallah, very brilliant and extremely logical.
Salaam
Anonymous, thankx for your feedback:D
Interesting. However, many many people have seen brains, science shows us how the brain works. We can see the brain at work during brain surgeries. We know that every living person has to have a brain in order to be alive. The professor was obviously alive therefore he has a brain even though those students did not personally see it. It is possible, if they open his skull, to see his brain. Can we see God at will? All of us stand around and see and touch God as we could that professor's brain?
That is a wonderful read. . .it reminds me of the Iranian film "The Color of Paradise," when at the end, the little blind boy's hand turns toward the light, "feeling God." It's such a beautiful scene and great commentary on God and His presence on Earth.
I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), and have deep respect for Islam and the truths in the Koran. Thanks for your blog!
Hipster, you and the other Sudanese I linked to in my recent post are famous now. LOL. Go check out Sudan Watch and you'll know.
See, I told you blogging ain't that bad!
Umhaleema, yes you can see the outer layer of the brain but can you see the process of thinking,hand me dreams or extract memories???Can you touch gravity?Can you show me the nuclues of an atom or see the process of photosynthesis in plants???
Can we see God at will???
But what is the point of faith & life if we were to see God at will???.It is like showing your students the answers a day before the exam.
God created earth to see who will believe in him & deserve to go to heaven.It just escapes my logic that we have come into being for no reason & then die for no reason.Moreover, If God didn't create us & given the fact that we are the smartest of all creatures on Earth, then why are our physical & mental faculties limited????
Can a scientist or Genetic engineer whip up a perfectly-functioning human being?Can a scientist create a mosquito or better yet,the insect that lives on the mosquito?Can a human create a sky with no pillars or make the sun rise in the West??
I love science since it has largely contributed to clarifying a magnitude of inexplicable phenomena but sadly, science is limited because we are limited.
I recommend you read Bill Bryson's brilliant book entitled " A Short History of Nearly Everything".It is purely scientific .At many points in the book, the author states that science has failed to explain this or that.
A paragraph that captured my attention was: " I don't wish to interject a note of gloom just at this point, but the fact is that there is one other extremely pertinent quality about life on Earth: it goes extinct.Quite regularly.For all the trouble they take to assemble and preserve themselves, species crumple and die remarkably routinely.And the more complex they get, the more quickly they appear to go extinct.Which is perhaps one reason why so much of life isn't terribly ambitious." pg 410
Yes, because as God says in the Quran, this life is temporary & is inevitably going to end one day.
" We are so used to the notion of our own inevitability as life's dominant species that it is hard to grasp that we are here only because of timely extraterrestial bangs and other random flukes." pg 424
Umhaleema, God's presence is manifested everywhere around you;in the interrelated & coordinated functions & systems inside your body;in the perfect position of the earth in relation to the sun(not too close or we would have burned & not too far or we would have frozen);in the busy hive of bees(which know where to get nectar from &sense danger.They don't have brains???)& so on & so forth.
Just because we don't see him(like the other things we don't see but know they are there)doesn't mean he is not there.
Julianne Rose, thanks for dropping by & for your comment.
Drima,thankx for the encouragement.
Hibster! Excellent discussion. Was that a real debate or a made up one?
Hipster,
I'm not trying to say that God does not exist. I'm just stating that in that story, the student was wrong to use that "brain" theory of his when there was a more direct and personally determinable proof that the professor had a brain than there is that there is a "God". You don't need to rely on only faith to KNOW that he had a brain. That's all I meant. I guess I just didn't care for that story. I felt that it didn't end with that "GOTCHA" that you seemed to think it did. I guess my scientific mind just always wants to go ruining everyones fun! Carry on.
Um haleema
the write told me that the aim of the story was to show the class that the professor was very small minded and referring to his brain was just a way of shuting him up, but you just have to think about the other points he mentioned.
salaam, Liked reading your blog its a nice blog will come back for more,Thanks for sharing.
Wish you well
Sorry, he ruined any statement he was trying to make by ending it with such a blatently ovbious false declaration. This negates any wisdom he is trying to show thus there is no need to try to understand anything that he may have said before or after that last statement. In other words, he did more damage to his case rather than help it.
UmHaleema, I apologize for my slightly harsh reply.The student meant 2 things:
1-What anonymous stated(More of sarcasm)
2-That the professor's brain doesn't have to be visible for the others to believe that it exists.
Zingtrial, thankx for your comment.
Enthusiastic reader,thankx.The discussion was made up
The argument is, I am afraid, fundamentally flawed, in addition to being a sermon rather than an argument (a well-written one, though, if you're into this kind of thing).
Now to the point of the fundamental flaw: Religion is based, by definition, on faith and emotion. Science is based, by definition, on relative proof and logic. Relative proof because nothing can have absolute proof (if you want, I can elaborate).
God has no logical explanation or scientific proof. The notion of divinity is such that it cannot be proved or disproved - since divinity is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, the finite human mind cannot (in theory) comprehend the "divine plan" with the limited means at its disposal.
But science doesn't work this way. A theory is promoted; if it fits the paradigm and serves to explain the given phenomena, it is considered valid. If the theory is disproved (i.e. it is failing to explain what it should explain or a theory with a closer fit is found), it is no longer valid. Normally, the proof is repetitive and similar results to an experiment. For instance - if I throw a ball in the air it will fall down. If a million different people throw different objects and they all fall down, it would constitute a partial proof of the theory of gravity.
To conclude - both the professor and the second student in the tale appear to be lacking in understanding of scientific process. Moreover, most of the arguments of the professor and all the arguments of the second student can easily be (and have repeatedly been) defeated.
PS
Two theological conundrums:
If god is omnipresent, omnipowerful, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why is there so much suffering in the world?
Given the aforementioned statements about God, time for such an entity would be meaningless (given infinite computing power, Chaos Theory no longer applies; hence, everything can be predicted; and since God created everything, the universe is virtually static from such a being's point of view). Accordingly, there is no free will and everything is predetermined. Since good/evil and so on are choices according to most religious literature, the punishment/reward for such is meaningless. Moreover, existence is also meaningless.
Mind you that all of this and more has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam; there are millions of pages of written work dealing with these issues.
Hmmmm, I have a feeling that a Discordian Jewish Zionist such as myself might not be welcome here... if this is the case, Hipster, please do inform me and I will vanish.
Raccoon,my blog is not restricted to Muslims only.You are intelligent, intellectual & you put up persuasive arguments.You are welcome here anytime:D
Back to your reply:
"The argument is, I am afraid, fundamentally flawed..."
I beg to differ.The only slip-up is the mentioning of Satan by the professor.
"Religion is based, by definition, on faith and emotion. Science is based, by definition, on relative proof and logic. Relative proof because nothing can have absolute proof (if you want, I can elaborate)."
Agreed but, ironically, science further corroborates God's existence & meticulousness.
Isn't the precision, harmony and order with which everything on Earth has been created, from the systematic solar system and the complex human body to the infinitesimal microbes & particles within a an atom's nucleus serve as relative, if not, absolute proof?
Our universe's coordinated mechanism could not have been a result of mere coincidence or an accident beacuse it is rather too organized.It is apparently the work of a Supreme being.
Furthermore,haven't we been endowed with both emotions(heart) and logic(mind)?Can we survive without one of them? Can't you see that both science and religion are possibly complementary?
Religion(I shall be referring to the Quran)explains our existence & its purpose.It sets the moral codes whereby peace,righeousness,organization & prosperity are attained.It is a historical record and contains some scientific examples.It feeds our spirituality & emotions as well as our logic.Science primarily feeds our logic & further strengthens our religious beliefs by & demonstarting & elaborating on God's exceptional work.
"God has no logical explanation or scientific proof. The notion of divinity is such that it cannot be proved or disproved - since divinity is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, the finite human mind cannot (in theory) comprehend the "divine plan" with the limited means at its disposal."
My question(I asked Um Haleema too): If God didn't exist & given that we are the smartest of creatures, why,as you mentioned above, are our mental & physical faculties limited?Why aren't we the superpowers?Why can't I create a sun or a tiny fly?Why aren't we immortal?
"If god is omnipresent, omnipowerful, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why is there so much suffering in the world?
Given the aforementioned statements about God, time for such an entity would be meaningless (given infinite computing power, Chaos Theory no longer applies; hence, everything can be predicted; and since God created everything, the universe is virtually static from such a being's point of view). Accordingly, there is no free will and everything is predetermined. Since good/evil and so on are choices according to most religious literature, the punishment/reward for such is meaningless. Moreover, existence is also meaningless."
Our existence is not meaningless.God clearly stated that we have been brought into this world to worship him, to have our faith tested and then be rewarded or punished according to our deeds.
Yes, he knows our ins and outs,our past and future but you can't deny that we don't have free will or the freedom of choice.
The flow of blood in my body or the genetic factors that determine my appearance can not be controlled by me but I have the choice to commit sin or refrain.I have the choice to jump from a window or not.I have the choice to believe or not.Our lives are filled with choices-these are not predetermined.
To answer your question, I shall quote an excerpt from a poem
" Allah knows what's best for us so why should we complain.We want the sunshine but he knows there must be rain.We want the laughter and merriment of cheer but our hearts will lose their tenderness if we don't shed a tear."
Suffering exists for many reasons:
1- To remind us that this land of suffering is not ours and the land of perfection & goodness(heaven) is our real home.
2-To test our faith & to strengthen us.Do you know that if a Muslim is in pain because of a prick of a thorn, he/she will receive " hassanat"(good points) for his/her pain?
3-To curb our arrogance and to remind us that there will always be a more powerful being.
5-To teach us a lesson if we do wrong.
Do the above contradict his omnibenevolence?
On the contrary, if he wasn't merciful, he wouldn't have revealed all the above to us.He wouldn't have forewarned us of what is to come.Better yet, he even revealed to us how we can deal with suffering & asked us not to despair.He has clearly told us, through his books & messengers, that this life will be full of suffering & pain because this is not where we belong.; that we should always resort to him & be patient & strong through all tribulations and promised us salvation after each affliction.Why would he disclose all that to us if he wasn't omnibenevolent?He has simply told us what he is doing and what he is going to do & stated the reasons.
Raccoon, on a personal note,I have felt Gold-literally felt him during prayers & intense meditation and I want to tell you that it is surreal; terrifying yet exquisitely euphoric. You are denying yourself an unimaginable treasure.
Thankx for dropping by.
Hmmm. Let us begin a point-by-point refutal, then.
//
I beg to differ.The only slip-up is the mentioning of Satan by the professor.//
I disagree. The logical structure of the argument was sorely lacking; any decent debator could have smashed it with ease. The vast majority of the arguments are childish: for instance, the insistence that inability to empirically experience God is proof of the latter's nonexistence is childish and logically fallacious. I am not sure whether you have taken any courses in Logic... but claiming that God doesn't exist because one has not experienced it empirically is like claiming Mao Zedong never existed because one has not experienced him empirically.
I will not even get into the weak argumentation of "Second Student" - they are as pathetic or more so than the "Professor's". If you want, I can analyze the whole thing, but it'll take me a long, long while. I suggest reading up on debating and logic (it's an interesting read, usually ;) ).
I am afraid that all of the arguments you have brought forth in your reply have been repeatedly refuted over the ages.
Argument: The flawless order of the universe is so perfect that it must be of divine origin.
Refutal #1: The universe appears perfectly ordered to us because we are a product and part of this universe. Moreover, one of the main functions of our minds is recognizing patterns: since the universe is all we know, we have recognized patterns in it to the best of our mind's ability. Therefore, universe appears perfectly structured to us; our sense of order relies on the structure of the universe, and hence the latter appears perfectly ordered.
Refutal #2 (addendum): When you spill water into a glass, it miraculously takes the shape of the glass. This might appear absolutely, fantastically ordered if you think about it; but knowing the reasons for such ordering (various laws of physics) reveals there is no *intent* in shaping the water to fit the glass. Water merely reacts to the environment, and since the environment appears perfect to us (see refutal #1), we see the water in the glass as perfectly shaped.
Argument: "Furthermore,haven't we been endowed with both emotions(heart) and logic(mind)?"
Refutal: No. While we do have emotions and reasoning capability, we have not been endowed with them - they are merely functions of our structure. The way we, as a living system, have evolved, eventually led to the formation of our brain and glands system, beause it was the most appropriate for our survival (read up on evolution; while I find Darwin boring, there are many well-written books on the subject).
Argument: "If God didn't exist & given that we are the smartest of creatures, why,as you mentioned above, are our mental & physical faculties limited?Why aren't we the superpowers?Why can't I create a sun or a tiny fly?Why aren't we immortal?"
Refutal: Your question is a logical fallacy of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc kind. The fact that we are (apparently) the most intelligent species on Earth does not mean anything other than that we're intelligent. It does not mean we should be able to 'create' things (see First Law of Thermodynamics for more info), nor that we should have any other "powers" other than intelligence.
Argument: "Religion(I shall be referring to the Quran)explains our existence & its purpose.It sets the moral codes whereby peace,righeousness,organization & prosperity are attained"
Refutal: This is also a logical fallacy of plurium interrogationum type mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam and probably a few others. You say the Quran is true because it says it's true and that it's perfect because it says it's perfect. The Quran, in fact, offers a highly improrobable explanation for our existence and purpose; the moral codes offered by it are self-contradictory and have never been proven to create what you say they do. In fact, just the opposite - according to research, people in secular democracies are much happier than people under Sharia law.
Argumet:
'Our existence is not meaningless.God clearly stated that we have been brought into this world to worship him, to have our faith tested and then be rewarded or punished according to our deeds'.
Refutal: Another logical fallacy. You have not even tried to solve the proposed theological dilemma. Your answer is completely irrelevant to the question - the question, in this case, can be summarized as "Given the attributes of God, fatalism is absolutely true. If fatalism is true, how can our existence have meaning, since the universe is perfectly static?"
Arument: "Yes, he knows our ins and outs,our past and future but you can't deny that we don't have free will or the freedom of choice."
Refutal: Another logical fallacy. I have just proved to you that according to religion, free will is impossible since the universe is both static and predetermined. You ignored both the question and the proof.
Argument: God is omnibenevolent because he has been kind enough to tell us that we're going to suffer horribly, told us how to find solace.
Refutal: Another logical fallacy. This is not kindness - this is sadism. Moreover, you have not disproved my point - that God has, apparently, purposefully created a world full of pain and suffering and placed us in it when he could have easily done otherwise.
Argument: Humans suffer because "this is not where we belong"
Refutal: See refutal above.
Now, about your religious euphoria - yes, religious extasy exists. I can easily recreate it through simple mental techniques, but I seldom bother nowadays. This is not "divine influence" - this is kind of like mentally induced orgasm. Moreover, given the price you pay for occasionally experiencing religious extasy, I would say it's not worth it.
Thank you.
I would also like to know your stance on death & Satan.
Damnation. I just posted a long reply, and your blog had an error :(
So I'll make it short:
Death is the permanent cessation of your cognitive functions. Since "you" are the result of chemical and electric processes, when these processes stop, so do you.
Satan: a superstition arising from the spurious and ethnocentric notion of absolute evil. Moreover, the existence of Satan is by necessity preceded by the existence of God; since there is no God, there is no Satan.
Looking forward to your reply :)
*prods Hipster with his nose*
This story shows exactly why Islam will retard the growth of Muslim nations in the future: it shows a complete hostility to science, in favor of a boring puff-piece on religious values.
If such professors exist, they should be denied tenure, because the professor is not even using scientific empiricism in the structure of his logic. But that's because the character of this professor was created by a devout Muslim who had no interest in the accurate portrayal of scientists. Rather, it's a completely gratuitous feel-good propaganda piece, designed to insert religious thinking in areas of human endeavor where it is simply not needed.
But the piece does reassure my faith in the western world's ultimate dominance throughout the world, given the weakness of the opposition.
To Racoon : I’ve noticed most of your arguments on your replies are based on the philosophy of materialism .
when you say that the universe appears perfectly ordered to us because we are a product and a part of this universe .........
Well, we are a part of the universe but not a product of the universe .
To understand materialism we first have to understand the view of the ‘static universe model’. According to this view, famous in the early 20th century, the universe existed since eternity, it has infinite dimensions and has neither a beginning nor an end.
Modern physics has proven today that the universe had a beginning , that it expands, and that it was created out of nothing with a big explosion.
Given that the universe has a beginning it was brought into being out of nothing, meaning that it was created. If a created thing exists (which did not exist beforehand), then it should have a Creator .
In 1929,The American Astronomer Edwin Hubble while observing the stars found out that the light from them was shifted to the red end of the spectrum and that this shift was more noticed the further the star was from earth .
According to the rules of physics, the spectra of light beams traveling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of the light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. During Hubble’s observations, the light from stars was discovered to tend towards red. This meant that they were constantly moving away from the earth.
Hubble also discovered that the stars and the galaxies moved away from each other, and so the universe is constantly expanding .
A constantly expanding universe means that traveling backwards in time the universe would have originated from a single point. Calculations shows that this single point harboring all the matter of universe should have zero volume and infinite density and the universe came about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’.
Science define the concept of ‘nothingness’ by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’.
In the Qur’an revealed 14 centuries ago the following was stated :
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surat al-Anbiya, 30)
and about the expansion of the universe :
It is We who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat, 47)
For your other argument in your response that the Quran offers highly improbable explanations for our existence and purpose :
The Quran states that the sole purpose of our creation and placement on this earth is for the worship of God
I have only created jinns and men, that they may serve Me.( Az-Zariyat, 51:56 )
Worshipping God is through adhering to his commands and abstaining from evil doing.
The moral codes offered by the Quraan are not self-contradictory ... you have given no proof to back your argument .
when you argue that God has, apparently, purposefully created a word full of pain and suffering and placed us in when he could have easily done otherwise ....
God has created us knowing our capacity to do both good and evil, He also knows our weaknesses but because of his kindness He has given us a book of instructions helping us to go through life and showing us how to live it the best way we can .
To understand the concept of good and evil I’ll give you this simple example.
Let’s take a car..
now the manufacturer built the car for a specific reason, to transport people from place to place making their lives easier, A noble cause...now the manufacturer knows that to help keep the car in good shape for the longest period of time possible it should be taken care of and used in a certain way so he wrote a manual and gave it to the buyer.
If the owner of the car chooses to use the car to do evil, for example drive through people’s properties and kill innocent pedestrians ..this does not make the manufacturer the evil one ...in the end the fault is all on the driver.
In the previous example God is the manufacturer , the manual is the Quraan and was the Injeel (the Bible) before it and was the Torah before the Injeel. Life is the Car and we are the drivers .
Another point is that this is not our eternal life... that this life is just a phase ... we as Muslims believe that there will be an eternal life in the hereafter and where we will be spending this eternal life depends on how we do on this one.
God is not sadistic ... but some of us are .
Anonymous, thankx & bless you;)
In addition to the above:
The evolution theory has been refuted.Check out Harun Yahya's literature against evolution & Darwinism.
Concerning your last comment on the religious ecstasy, I am afraid you are talking about something else.What I feel automatically happens when I do my 5 prayers & when I read the Quran.I do not mentally induce it.Moreover, you probably wouldn't comprehend what I am talking about because you have never done our prayers.To support what I am saying,please check out this link:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/converts.htm#COTW
Read the accounts of the Muslim converts(be it Jewish,Christian or atheist)& note what happens to them when they read the Quran.
Anonymous - thank you for the interesting argument... and now to the refutal of your refutal of my refutal :)
1) "we are a part of the universe but not a product of the universe"
Do you mean to say that humans are from another universe? :) Say we accept the notion that a divinity "created" the universe; in doing so, it has creates humans and Raccoons. If you claim that we - and therefore everything else, as we all come from the same source - are not the products of the universe, then it is an artificial construct. But the universe is by definition all-that-there-is; to presume that there is something beyond the universe, then, - some sort of a framework in which this artificial universe can exist - is fallacious, I am afraid. Hence your claim is a logical fallacy... but it gives way for another fascinating discussion on the nature and definition of the universe :)
2) Big Bang Theory and accompanying presupposition that since universe was "created", it must have a "creator".
I am not sure how deep I should delve into physics as they relate to this issue... but a dynamic universe does not prove creationism. Our perceptions of the universe, as I have said before, are limited by our capacities; infinity is not something we can imagine. Nor can we imagine nothingness. Moreover, various conundrums of physics make comprehension even more difficult.
If you really feel like checking it out, read http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html
Sorry, I just don't feel like re-writing 20 pages of an essay here :)
3) "The Quran described the Big Bang."
The Quran is not universalist - it is geocentric. All this talk of rending heaven and earth asunder and creating living beings out of water... it refers to a primitive notion of what Earth is, since Universe as a concept did not exist at that time and place.
4)"The Quran states that the sole purpose of our creation and placement on this earth is for the worship of God "
This is not a reasonable purpose for existence. Sorry... you can accept it, but it seems utterly ridiculous to me, for reasons I have stated in previous answers.
5)"The moral codes offered by the Quraan are not self-contradictory ... you have given no proof to back your argument ." Just look at the differences between Meccan and Medinan periods of Muhammed's life (peace-for-all vs kill-'em-all). If you want, I can quote the relevant Suras as well as various Sirat... but I am sure you know them as well as I do. Just try reading them again with a critical mind.
6)Your argument about evil, good, and car manufacturers (while well-written) is irrelevant, as it ignores my points. Please ponder again the notion of fatalism as deriving from the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient deity.
Hipster - yes, I have read that... "refutal". It's simply pseudo-scientific rubbish - clutching at straws to save a failed world-view.
About your religious extasy - I am very happy that you have a Pavlovian reaction to prayer that brings you extasy, as do many others: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Shinto Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahaii... the fact that you do not TRY to induce religious extasy does not mean that it is not what you experience.
Sorry if I'm offending or something... as you know, it's not my intention :)
PS
The thorny theological problems I have presented are, as yet, unanswered.
But, Raccoon, doesn't every effect have a cause & doesn't every creation have a creator?
We all know that things can not conjure themselves up.They have to be stimulated.
Since the Big Bang or the Nebular theory has been proved,let's look at it this way(as proposed by an eminent scholar,can't remember his name).The Big Bang is supposedly an explosion.What follows an explosion? Naturally,chaos & destruction.However,this didn't apply to the nebula's explosion.What ensued was a well-coordinated universe, where the Earth was the perfect distance from the sun;where the gases on the earth were in the accurate percentages & where life was born.
Explosions do not spawn life.
"it(Quran) refers to a primitive notion of what Earth is, since Universe as a concept did not exist at that time and place."
Universe as a concept did not exist at that time & place.Precisely,which further proves that the Quran is God's words because only he couldve known about it back then?Why have you ignored all the other scientific info that was mentioned in the Quran before science was known in the Western world?Mere examples are the insect that lives on the mosquito & the development of an embryo to name but a few.How about the predictions that came true in the Quran like the Roman's victory over the Persians(Verses 30:2).
The Quran is renowned for its flawless consistencies & logic.
The Prophet(PBUH)never commanded that all to be killed.I don't know where you got this information from.Allah has always commanded us to never initiate an attack only in self-defense.
Chk out these 2 links about our Prophet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65OuZ945aM&mode=related&search=Inshallah
http://palforce.blogspot.com/2006/09/about-shooting-in-downtown-amman.html
You also mentioned previously that Islam is contradictory because of the situation in the Sharia ruled countries like Iran, Sudan & Saudi Arabia.I don't blame you or the others for thinking ill of our religion because of how Muslims, nowadays, are reflecting it-Either fanatical or indifferent.
Just like politics & the law can be abused & expolited, so can religion.Both parties are to be blamed(the govts for exploiting Islam & the citizens for being submissive & indifferent to things).The Islamic nation thrived in its first centuries where the proper Sharia law was implemented & where prominent scholars,philosophers, scientists & mathmatecians like Avicenna, Al Farabi..etc came out.Islam doesn't suppress science & critical thinking.Sadly & thereafter,many Muslim rulers became corrupted & dragged our religion down.
As for the religious ecstasy issue, I am sorry but you can't compare our prayer rituals to those of the rest(no offense to the other religions).None of them perform the same exact prayers.If you have read the stories of the converts(the link which I have provided you with), you will perceive that none of them found logical & religious satisfaction in some of the aforementioned religions.
As for the theological conundrum that you have presented, I don't have a precise answer for that because my mental faculties are limited & I can't put myself in his level.You and I have been created in such a way that we can't comprehend his divinty or infinity.That is why he simplified it for us in a book & via Messengers & has left signs of his existence everywhere.
Raccoon, if you want to know the true Islam, read the Quran(a reliable translated version).
For the record, I don't believe in Allah because I am a Muslim by birth or because I was spoon fed at school.I believe in him simply because I feel him deep within & I have witnessed the miracles of his presence & so have others.I have felt the difference when I sin& don't pray & when I pray-the uneasiness & chaos that happens to my life when I don't pray.Everything that I have asked for to this date, he has blessed me with.Truly uncanny.
In the end, to each his/her own beliefs.Maybe you need to open your heart a little bit & listen to that voice inside;)
It is inconceivable to know that Ive been created in this world for no reason.
Forgot to mention that I always include you in my prayers:)
& plz excuse my grammatical mistakes(was in a hurry).
Hipster - I have read the Quran a number of times, in different translations (unfortunately, I flunked Arabic in school - our Arabic teacher was horrible :) ). I have also read parts of various biogrpahies of Muhammad and some Sufi texts. Sorry, love - your holy book has been judged by me and found lacking :)
It's not an Islamic problem, though - I have read some of the Vedas (Upanishadas and Ramayana [if you can consider it part of the Vedas] in particular), parts of Triptaka (Dhammapada in particular), various Chen/Zen Buddhism texts, Tao Te-Ching, the Kojiki (also not completely), the New Testament, the Tana"ch, the Eddas (also not completely) and a whole bunch of various other religious texts.
All of these texts have been judged and found lacking (some more so, some less so). All are interesting from an anthropological point of view; all have interesting stories in them. But at the end of the day, the more traditionally religious they are, the more ridiculous (which is my favorite religious text is Tao Te-Ching - it's almost pure philosophy mixed with a manual for statehood).
For specific self-contraditions in Islam, compare Sura 9:29 to Sura 2:256, for instance. It is not about modern-day Islamic rulers and their horrible Sharia - Islam is inheritently violent, I am afraid (even though this violence is occasionally tempered). There are simply many more Suras calling for or threatening violence than peaceful ones. Muhammad lived in a violent world and in a very violent society - it shouldn't come as a surprise. The good part about Islam is that it gives the foundations for a society which can function in a sort of an order - which must have been very progressive for Muhammad's place and time - and makes the believers feel good about themselves if they follow all the rules.
About converts: I have read the stories of converts to and from Islam. Each is an individual thing.
Islam has been reinterpretated in such a way as show that it "predicts" and/or "explains" things. Same thing has been done with the Tana"ch and the New Testament, as well as that junkie Jew, Nostradamus. It simply doesn't :)
But, despite all the above - I am happy that you find peace and pleasure in your faith. If it makes you a better person, it's all good :)
My personal view, though, has been summarized well by Chuck Palahniuk:
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile."
Was a pleasure discussing this with you :)
PS
I am, BTW, not exactly an Atheist - I am a follower of Eris Discordia :)
People, do not believe this theist religious propaganda. Think critically. This is the way I turn the head of the snake on it's tail:
"Dialogue with a young theist." by Todangst.
A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did 'God' create everything that exists?" A student replied, "Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed, seeing as
civil disagreement is the very point of philosphy courses, no bravery is required for dissent. In fact, civil dissent is often rewarded in a philosophy class.)
"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is removed, as no student in the 21st century addresses a college professor in this fashion, and the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' from the theist mouthpiece who's actually feeling little more than contempt for the professor.'
The professor answered, "Well then, here's a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; since evil exists and, according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
The student became silently enraged over his worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project out his feelings of inadequecy as smugness coming from the professor.
The student then said: "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor. That's the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)
Student: Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies. There's heat.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."
Student: "No, sir, there isn't"
The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. (The desire to see the professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just another projection of the feelings of inadequecy found in theists who argue like this sort of pablum...)
The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero,
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458, You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it"
Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he's heard this bad logic by now). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies? By your "logic" we could also say there is no 'heat', only differing degrees of cold.
Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)
Professor: Your choice of 'heat' over 'cold' was arbitrary. In reality, both 'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... what the philosopher John Locke properly called "secondary qualities". The secondary qualities refer to a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic and sub atomic particles. We refer to their different rates of movement as 'temperature.' So what we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat' and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.
So your entire argument is specious at best. You have not 'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a subjective term. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.
Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.
Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. "Darkness exists as a secondary quality.
Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?
Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, what we call 'light' is actually a reference to photons. You've confused a secondary quality with an attribute again. "Light and dark' are subjective terms we use to describe a measure of photons. The photons actually exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just subjective, relative terms... Doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons.
Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)
Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue, perhaps you'll see it.
Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality", the christian explains.
Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.
Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.
Professor: And here, my class, we have a special plead fallacy. Be careful, my student. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left with nothing but a mystery. So if you use this special plead to solve the problem, you can't call your god moral either. You can't call him anything. You can't say anything else about something beyond reason. So your solution is akin to treating dandruf by decapitation.
Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.
Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?
Student: Yes sir.
Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?
Student: Yes!
Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color a sound is.
Asking someone to see magnetism commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: it assumes that empiricism relates to vision alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world. We can use other senses to detect these phenomena. And we can view their effects upon the world.
Furthermore, Again, you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the ridiculous implication that science knows 'nothing' about these phenomena... so you'll also want to review the section on 'arguing from ignorance.'
Do you have more to say?
Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) .... Um....... to view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot
exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it"
Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are subjective terms we use
to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.
Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there such a thing as immorality?"
Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk) Son... you're not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an attribute, are you? Please... what can I do to help you see this problem?
Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?
Student: Uh.....
Professor: You're beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's what your missing. You are confusing a secondary quality... a subjective term that we can use to describe a
phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descriptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe. So by saying that 'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not removing immorality from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the term.
And notice how dishonest your argument is... in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm.
By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?
Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview....) Sir, Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.
Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in your textbook.
Student: "Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now
not a scientist, but a priest?
Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must 'be there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we 'are there' when we observe artifacts.
Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe diferrent supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely observation, and 'real-time-observation' at that...This is a strawman of science. Science is both direct and indirect observation... it also allows for inference.
Student: "But sir! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.
Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is... Science is more than just real time observation, we also make inferences. But continue....
Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?"
Professor: Certainly.
Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"
Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking' at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenonema that we might not be able to directly see.
And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you've wasted the money you've spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading.
I thought the Article was amusing even though I am not Muslim.
But I would like to Point out that you can Prove that God Could exist Scientifically.
E=MC(squared) proves that God could have created the Universe. It states that Energy can be transferred into Matter using that Equation.
And If god is Pure energy then he can Transfer His Energy into Matter. that explains Creation.
About knowing the future, God is from a 7th Dimension with 3D Time ad 4D Space. 3D Time allows Time not to be relavent so He can "see" the Future just like you see around your Room.
And Seeing everything in the world Simultaneously think of it he is 4D space so he sees 3D space like we see a 2D Plane in Space.
It is a very Simple Explanation
this is a Statement by the Church of Sci-Christianity.
Statement Written by Ben Wilbur.
Myspace Group:
http://groups.myspace.com/scichristianity
Im sorry but that 'story' makes about as much sense as religion itself... No one has witnessed evolution? We can see through fossils ect that evolution is almost certainly 100% correct.
You see one of the ways science works is 'probability'. We have found Evolution to be very probable through rigorous testing.
I would like to point out one more thing while im here (as i wont bother coming back).
It is pretty much agreed by both sides by now that god cannot be proven to exsist and also cannot be proven to not exsist. But some people are under the delusion that just because something cannot be proven or disproven 100% that it automaticlly puts them on even ground.
It does not! In short - It is far more probable that ANY supernatural being such as god does not exsist. Therefore the two are not on an equal 50-50%.
If you want to get serious about religion then its about time you looked at both sides. We have.
Consider Antony Flew.
Post a Comment