Porus and Humsafar,
Sadly, I must partly disagree with you both. What you essentially claim is that all ideas are equally valid and all must hence be respected. Unfortunately, such moral relativism leads to ethical paralysis. We can not then judge any action and can not call any action good or bad. Also, even if you think god/gods were a creation of the human mind, the "true believers" do not think so. They are ready to split hairs on the most irrelevant and ridiculous things. Witness the fools on this forum who spend all their time fighting over their particular views on fairy tales. Sadly, as we see from various comments here, their knowledge of science is just a caricature, just as is their knowledge of religion. Essentially, to you, religion is just another set of arbitrary beliefs and there is no consequences of belief or disbelief.
I do agree that one need not try and "prove" that god does or does not exists. It is an ultimately futile question. However, one needs to vigorously push aside religious beliefs from the public domain. I do not care what foolish and bizarre things someone believes as long as it does not affect others and it is not forced on me. Unfortunately, we see that for certain believers, spreading their beliefs, through propaganda or violence if needed, is an integral part of their religion. Such beliefs must be stopped and severely criticized. If we adopt a moral relativism, saying "all beliefs are fine", we can not do so anymore. There is an objective standard for judging actions based on the fact that we are all humans and that we all desire the same liberty and happiness as do others.
Mustansir,
As far as science goes, I think one need not get too arrogant about it either. Science is a very valuable, and perhaps the only, tool to understand nature and the universe. However, in our imagination we can create worlds which are not governed by physical laws. The scientific method can not explain the inner life of the human mind as it is inherently non-reproducible and non-observable. Hence, irrationality is a feature of our inner human life. It is true that one needs to be careful that one does not project such irrationality onto the physical world. However, we need to accept that there are certain things we do not presently know and perhaps will never know, no matter how accurate and precise our science gets. It is also obvious, that most of our actions are essentially irrational. We do not conduct careful experiments before making every move. Of course, that does not mean that we accept religious nonsense, but we should not simply dismiss it out of hand either.
The vexing question is: what will humans consider as shared values and when will we learn to build our lives around them? Obviously, no religion has proved to be unifying. Quite the contrary: religions lead to nothing but strife. Science in itself can not be a shared value, as its propositions are in themselves without moral or ethical content. Science may inform ethics and morals, but can not replace it. We must always hence go beyond science to find our values. Rationality is only one aspect, and not evolutionarily favored one at that, of the human condition. It is not clear on what else we can do as a species to avoid self-destructing. Sad and sometimes frightening.
OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Biradar,
I thoroughly agree with the points you made to Porus and especially Humsafar. We cannot simply raise our hands in the air and say that all ideas deserve equal respect and they all hold equally validity. I also agree with most of the points you made to me. Yes, there are clear limitations to the scientific method and there are few questions that may never be answered by the human race. However, as you said, Science is, for now, the only and the best tool we have to differentiate between what is closer to the truth (not in an absolute but technical & objective sense) and what is false. The more we understand the human behaviour and the working of the human brain, the more we can expose the shortcomings of our mind and then, take steps to avoid those pitfalls.
It is precisely for the fact that part of the older, more primitive component of the human brain is capable of limitless irrationality that we need to use our more recently developed rational part of the brain when it is necessary to do so. I am not saying that one should use scientific method & experimentation in every aspect of our lives...of course not. It is a goal which is neither desired nor useful. However, one can use critical thinking before making important choices in their lives. Ethics and morality are moving targets since the beginning of civilization and most of the common ethical behaviours were there before any proper organized religion came into existence. What the initial religions did was only to codify the shared societal ethics and morals. I am not going to start a whole discussion on how human ethics and morality came into place because from what you have written, I am sure you have most likely read extensively on the subject anyway. All I want to say is that no matter where an individual’s sense of morality, principles and ethics come from, the origin and the continuous development of it has nothing to do with alleged supernatural world and everything that it encapsulates.
I thoroughly agree with the points you made to Porus and especially Humsafar. We cannot simply raise our hands in the air and say that all ideas deserve equal respect and they all hold equally validity. I also agree with most of the points you made to me. Yes, there are clear limitations to the scientific method and there are few questions that may never be answered by the human race. However, as you said, Science is, for now, the only and the best tool we have to differentiate between what is closer to the truth (not in an absolute but technical & objective sense) and what is false. The more we understand the human behaviour and the working of the human brain, the more we can expose the shortcomings of our mind and then, take steps to avoid those pitfalls.
It is precisely for the fact that part of the older, more primitive component of the human brain is capable of limitless irrationality that we need to use our more recently developed rational part of the brain when it is necessary to do so. I am not saying that one should use scientific method & experimentation in every aspect of our lives...of course not. It is a goal which is neither desired nor useful. However, one can use critical thinking before making important choices in their lives. Ethics and morality are moving targets since the beginning of civilization and most of the common ethical behaviours were there before any proper organized religion came into existence. What the initial religions did was only to codify the shared societal ethics and morals. I am not going to start a whole discussion on how human ethics and morality came into place because from what you have written, I am sure you have most likely read extensively on the subject anyway. All I want to say is that no matter where an individual’s sense of morality, principles and ethics come from, the origin and the continuous development of it has nothing to do with alleged supernatural world and everything that it encapsulates.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Biradar / Mustansir, great posts. It's so heartening to know that suddenly the level debate here has gone so many notches up. I'm enjoying it, and learning from it.
Regarding your point about treating all ideas as equally valid, I think there is a misunderstanding. I can't speak for Porus, but let me explain how I understand it. In the context of the functional world, you can't say that all ideas are equally valid. That would lead to chaos. That's why we have a rule of law. We've arrived at this stage of relative order and peace through a long journey of evolution. Like our anatomy and brain and all the rest human consciousness is also subject to evolution. Human progress can also be measured by the way our consciousness has developed, say from animist to primitive to modern etc. Each developmental stage produces its own ethos and ideas - and they are valid for that particular stage. For example, eating of the dead or slavery were acceptable norms for primitive or medieval stages of human development. But from the perspective of modern consciousness you will find those values abhorrent, and your position would be valid in this context.
Now the thing is that human consciousness does not evolve evenly. In today's world we have people whose consciousness are at different stages of development - from magical, to primitive to modern to post-modern. The ideas of people who believe in the supernatural or miracles are valid for that level of consciousness. Equally the ideas of rationality and empirical truths are valid within modern/liberal stage of consciousness. At the post-modern level of consciousness, rationality and science are not considered sufficient tools to understand the universe - and people at this level take a more integral approach to reality. And this position is valid too at this level. It is also important to note that each level of consciousness includes and transcends the previous level. In this sense, no particular idea or stage of development is wrong - they all contribute to the evolution of consciousness. (Ken Wilber has written extensively on developmental consciousness and integral reality.) In this sense, all ideas are valid but within the context of the specific level of consciousness that produces them. And since we have all kinds of people with differing levels of consciousness, we could say that all ideas are valid. But are they all acceptable? That is moot question. It all depends on the dominant stage of consciousness of a particular society or a group of people. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife and conflict in the marketplace ideas - leading to violence and wars.
The over-emphasis on rationality and empiricism is nothing but a remnant of 18th/19th century positivism. This is not to say these truths are not important, they are but it would be wrong to define them as final truths. Scientific and rationalistic worldview is not the end of history, and those who insist that it is are stuck in that particular level of consciousness. By the sheer of force of evolution our consciousness will have to evolve to the next stage. An integral approach to knowing and becoming is bound to become a more dominant level of consciousness. The road ahead is not easy. Human species are fundamentally flawed, and if history is any guide they will continue to stumble along.
Regarding your point about treating all ideas as equally valid, I think there is a misunderstanding. I can't speak for Porus, but let me explain how I understand it. In the context of the functional world, you can't say that all ideas are equally valid. That would lead to chaos. That's why we have a rule of law. We've arrived at this stage of relative order and peace through a long journey of evolution. Like our anatomy and brain and all the rest human consciousness is also subject to evolution. Human progress can also be measured by the way our consciousness has developed, say from animist to primitive to modern etc. Each developmental stage produces its own ethos and ideas - and they are valid for that particular stage. For example, eating of the dead or slavery were acceptable norms for primitive or medieval stages of human development. But from the perspective of modern consciousness you will find those values abhorrent, and your position would be valid in this context.
Now the thing is that human consciousness does not evolve evenly. In today's world we have people whose consciousness are at different stages of development - from magical, to primitive to modern to post-modern. The ideas of people who believe in the supernatural or miracles are valid for that level of consciousness. Equally the ideas of rationality and empirical truths are valid within modern/liberal stage of consciousness. At the post-modern level of consciousness, rationality and science are not considered sufficient tools to understand the universe - and people at this level take a more integral approach to reality. And this position is valid too at this level. It is also important to note that each level of consciousness includes and transcends the previous level. In this sense, no particular idea or stage of development is wrong - they all contribute to the evolution of consciousness. (Ken Wilber has written extensively on developmental consciousness and integral reality.) In this sense, all ideas are valid but within the context of the specific level of consciousness that produces them. And since we have all kinds of people with differing levels of consciousness, we could say that all ideas are valid. But are they all acceptable? That is moot question. It all depends on the dominant stage of consciousness of a particular society or a group of people. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife and conflict in the marketplace ideas - leading to violence and wars.
The over-emphasis on rationality and empiricism is nothing but a remnant of 18th/19th century positivism. This is not to say these truths are not important, they are but it would be wrong to define them as final truths. Scientific and rationalistic worldview is not the end of history, and those who insist that it is are stuck in that particular level of consciousness. By the sheer of force of evolution our consciousness will have to evolve to the next stage. An integral approach to knowing and becoming is bound to become a more dominant level of consciousness. The road ahead is not easy. Human species are fundamentally flawed, and if history is any guide they will continue to stumble along.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Humsafar, Mustansir and Biradar,
Thank you all for your excellent observations. They are, as always, very welcome.
Mustansir,
In criticizing NOMA, you appear to be echoing what Richard Dawkins expounded at great length in his brilliant book ‘The God Delusion’. I agree with you that there is an overlap between the two universes of discourse. But the overlap is deceptive. Both may talk about disease, one as a result of germs and the other as divine punishment. They are then not talking about human body at all. (I mean that a religionist may agree with the germ theory but how are you going to convince him that the germs were not in a specific body by a divine command?)
I view NOMA as a prescription to divide these two. This division is arbitrary and the responsibility for this division rests entirely on individuals. It is not a fact.
If you insist that the religionists are talking about the same issues then you fall into the same trap in which religionists are wallowing. For example, take the Shia/Sunni divide concerning Ali. Ali has a different status in each religion. But if the two argue about it rather than accepting the variations as legitimate then you have a problem. They are not making statements about a human being that existed at a certain time and place in history but about their own views.
Take the issue of the moronic creation/evolution debate where enormous energy is spent, especially in the USA. It is to the credit of the US courts that they rejected Creationism/Intelligent Design not on the basis of false science but on the basis of constitutional requirement prohibiting the support of religion in public schools. In this, the courts rightly concluded that Creationism is religion and not science and it has its proper place in churches only. The fact that religionists are raising their children to be morons is their choice. And they are welcome to that.
Biradar,
Humsafar’s last post is an apposite response to you and he encapsulates my position too. Tolerance of multiple value systems arises from the recognition that all, especially minorities, have a right to their views as long as they do not disrupt functioning of the society. Conversely, the majority have no right to disrupt functioning of a minority as often happens in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and other similar countries. Moral relativism means that there is no absolute truth to any moral code and that is the position I support. That does not mean that they are all valid. Valid for whom?
For all of us who live in pluralistic society like the UK or the USA, there is a tacit agreement to abide by the rules and laws of the country. This is the basis of our shared values. Fortunately, any citizen of these countries can propose a new law and seek to persuade others about its desirability. He may derive the need for such a law through his own social/religious prism, but it will be subject to debate among community of differing interests and will become law through consensus on values all hold dear.
Humsafar,
Your description of the evolution of moral and ethical vales was one of your best contributions. I have collected a number of Ken Wilbur’s books on Integral Psychology/Philosophy but have not yet completely read them. I have found them tough going. I intend to pursue reading them again soon.
Thank you all for your excellent observations. They are, as always, very welcome.
Mustansir,
In criticizing NOMA, you appear to be echoing what Richard Dawkins expounded at great length in his brilliant book ‘The God Delusion’. I agree with you that there is an overlap between the two universes of discourse. But the overlap is deceptive. Both may talk about disease, one as a result of germs and the other as divine punishment. They are then not talking about human body at all. (I mean that a religionist may agree with the germ theory but how are you going to convince him that the germs were not in a specific body by a divine command?)
I view NOMA as a prescription to divide these two. This division is arbitrary and the responsibility for this division rests entirely on individuals. It is not a fact.
If you insist that the religionists are talking about the same issues then you fall into the same trap in which religionists are wallowing. For example, take the Shia/Sunni divide concerning Ali. Ali has a different status in each religion. But if the two argue about it rather than accepting the variations as legitimate then you have a problem. They are not making statements about a human being that existed at a certain time and place in history but about their own views.
Take the issue of the moronic creation/evolution debate where enormous energy is spent, especially in the USA. It is to the credit of the US courts that they rejected Creationism/Intelligent Design not on the basis of false science but on the basis of constitutional requirement prohibiting the support of religion in public schools. In this, the courts rightly concluded that Creationism is religion and not science and it has its proper place in churches only. The fact that religionists are raising their children to be morons is their choice. And they are welcome to that.
Biradar,
Humsafar’s last post is an apposite response to you and he encapsulates my position too. Tolerance of multiple value systems arises from the recognition that all, especially minorities, have a right to their views as long as they do not disrupt functioning of the society. Conversely, the majority have no right to disrupt functioning of a minority as often happens in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and other similar countries. Moral relativism means that there is no absolute truth to any moral code and that is the position I support. That does not mean that they are all valid. Valid for whom?
For all of us who live in pluralistic society like the UK or the USA, there is a tacit agreement to abide by the rules and laws of the country. This is the basis of our shared values. Fortunately, any citizen of these countries can propose a new law and seek to persuade others about its desirability. He may derive the need for such a law through his own social/religious prism, but it will be subject to debate among community of differing interests and will become law through consensus on values all hold dear.
Humsafar,
Your description of the evolution of moral and ethical vales was one of your best contributions. I have collected a number of Ken Wilbur’s books on Integral Psychology/Philosophy but have not yet completely read them. I have found them tough going. I intend to pursue reading them again soon.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Actually, I completely reject moral relativism. Yes, the majority should not be allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. I do not contest that. But, as Porous says, the law of the land must be obeyed. The question then is: how do we decide the law of the land? In determining the law of the land have we not, by definition, made a certain moral choice for everyone, and hence rejected moral relativism? This is what I support. I do not mind if people believe anything they want as long as they do not impose it on everyone and do not interfere on the right of others to hold their own beliefs.
Also, all this talk about post-modernism is nonsense. I do not mean that it does not have any value, but one can not, if pressed, defend what exactly one means by post-modernism. I do not agree with the basic philosophical basis of post-modernism. Anyway, that is another topic and maybe good for discussion later.
Again, I am not saying that we only need rational thought and scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary: we need to study philosophy, literature and art. In fact, only in the latter one can presently express the human condition much better than one can do using science. I think reading Proust is a much better way of learning about human nature than trying to understand how a single neuron works. However, we must acknowledge that the knowledge thus gained is not "scientific" for we can not verify it. Further, we must keep working on improving our science so that we can come to more precise understanding.
I have found, in my personal experience as a working scientist, that many ideas in science are highly poetic. It is not all dry and rational all the time. The concept of evolution, for example, is extremely beautiful and I do not believe that any artistic visions can compare to the one Darwin had. Some of the ideas in the foundation of mathematics, for example, are also of great beauty. I think saying that this is of any less value or of a "lower level of consciousness" than post-modern "philosophy" smacks of anti-intellectualism. Those who do not understand science are the first to discount its value.
Anyway, I think we are in greater agreement than disagreement. It is good to see someone of sense participate in these discussions. It is really boring to always talk about the same old 1400+ year old disputes and talk about other ridiculous things.
Also, all this talk about post-modernism is nonsense. I do not mean that it does not have any value, but one can not, if pressed, defend what exactly one means by post-modernism. I do not agree with the basic philosophical basis of post-modernism. Anyway, that is another topic and maybe good for discussion later.
Again, I am not saying that we only need rational thought and scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary: we need to study philosophy, literature and art. In fact, only in the latter one can presently express the human condition much better than one can do using science. I think reading Proust is a much better way of learning about human nature than trying to understand how a single neuron works. However, we must acknowledge that the knowledge thus gained is not "scientific" for we can not verify it. Further, we must keep working on improving our science so that we can come to more precise understanding.
I have found, in my personal experience as a working scientist, that many ideas in science are highly poetic. It is not all dry and rational all the time. The concept of evolution, for example, is extremely beautiful and I do not believe that any artistic visions can compare to the one Darwin had. Some of the ideas in the foundation of mathematics, for example, are also of great beauty. I think saying that this is of any less value or of a "lower level of consciousness" than post-modern "philosophy" smacks of anti-intellectualism. Those who do not understand science are the first to discount its value.
Anyway, I think we are in greater agreement than disagreement. It is good to see someone of sense participate in these discussions. It is really boring to always talk about the same old 1400+ year old disputes and talk about other ridiculous things.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Excellent and beautiful posts by each and everyone of you. Brilliant. Although I have to confess, I have no idea about much of what was said. Not a single question was answered in a language that an average person could understand. It is amazing how a bunch of well educated scientists can talk in such a beautiful tongue, use such a broad vocabulary and still make absolutely no sense. I guess becoming a scientist has its drawbacks.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Now I will try to explain something in a very simple language. I am going up against highly educated scientists. Either I am extremely stupid, as the scientists might have you believe or just a little bit better than them, as I will have you believe.
95% of the people on earth believe in God in one form or another. Out of the 5% there are some who hate God and some who do not believe in God. A very small percentage is scientists who do not believe in God because they believe (mind you, this is just their belief) that science gives them sufficient proof or IQ to not believe in God.
I want to insist on the fact, yes...fact, that it is just their belief. 95% of the people on earth believe in God because God and religion give them something that science cannot. It gives them hope. Hope of a better future either here or in the hereafter. Science gives people no such hope. That is the reason why you won't find a single scientist who is ready to die for his science, but you will find millions who are ready to die for their God and religion.
Every human being wants a better future. That is the difference between the humans and every other species on earth. Every other species simply thinks about survival only when they are threatened, either by hunger or by a prey or by nature. The concept of securing their future doesn't enter the consenssee...conscientious...sorry...consciousness of any other species.
Science deals mostly with what was. It has no idea about what will be, beyond certain known parameters. For eg. science can tell you the weather for the next week. Science is important because without science we wouldn't have much of what we have today and we wouldn't have the lifestyles that we have today. But saying that is like saying that without a lawn mower I wouldn'tve been able to mow my lawn. If there is a lawn to be mowed, then creation of the lawn mower is quite obviously the next step in the evolution of the human species.
Now the scientists on this board will tell you that just because a lawn mower was created, there is no God and all religionists are idiots. Well, that tells you about the intelligence level of these scientists.
Now I know that this post will offend these scientists and they will dismiss me as a fool, but as Humsafar said, it is a different level of consciousness which these scientists have still to attain.
95% of the people on earth believe in God in one form or another. Out of the 5% there are some who hate God and some who do not believe in God. A very small percentage is scientists who do not believe in God because they believe (mind you, this is just their belief) that science gives them sufficient proof or IQ to not believe in God.
I want to insist on the fact, yes...fact, that it is just their belief. 95% of the people on earth believe in God because God and religion give them something that science cannot. It gives them hope. Hope of a better future either here or in the hereafter. Science gives people no such hope. That is the reason why you won't find a single scientist who is ready to die for his science, but you will find millions who are ready to die for their God and religion.
Every human being wants a better future. That is the difference between the humans and every other species on earth. Every other species simply thinks about survival only when they are threatened, either by hunger or by a prey or by nature. The concept of securing their future doesn't enter the consenssee...conscientious...sorry...consciousness of any other species.
Science deals mostly with what was. It has no idea about what will be, beyond certain known parameters. For eg. science can tell you the weather for the next week. Science is important because without science we wouldn't have much of what we have today and we wouldn't have the lifestyles that we have today. But saying that is like saying that without a lawn mower I wouldn'tve been able to mow my lawn. If there is a lawn to be mowed, then creation of the lawn mower is quite obviously the next step in the evolution of the human species.
Now the scientists on this board will tell you that just because a lawn mower was created, there is no God and all religionists are idiots. Well, that tells you about the intelligence level of these scientists.
Now I know that this post will offend these scientists and they will dismiss me as a fool, but as Humsafar said, it is a different level of consciousness which these scientists have still to attain.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Leaving aside the breath-taking banality of anajmi's contribution, I will point out that science deals with the past, the present and the future in equal measure.anajmi wrote:
Science deals mostly with what was. It has no idea about what will be, beyond certain known parameters.
Past: Study of fossils, geological layers, tree rings are some examples. Also, because of limitations of the speed of light, all that is known about galaxies x million light-years away is what happened to them in the far distant past.
Present: Study of diseases, climate change, and materials science are some examples.
Future: A scientific theory is a crowning achievement at the end of an elaborate process of gathering facts and evidence, proposing laws, creating hypotheses to explain the laws, and finally the creation and acceptance of theory which explains all that went before. A fundamental requirement for a theory to be successful is that it must predict events on the basis of the theory which have not been previously observed. This confirms or falsifies the theory.
Theory of Evolution has passed all these tests and is now considered 'truth' because of it.
When a scientist meets a religionist like anajmi, who lacks even an elementary education in science, he should indulge the religionist and accept that there is God who will grant him success for praying to him. When a religionist comes to a laboratory, the scientist should restrain the impulse to chuckle at the moron.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Now now porus, you are getting carried away. The only thing the scientists on this board have discovered in the past present and future is to figure out ways to insult anajmi. But don't worry, better scientists than you have taken a shot for years but I am still here ( 
). Couldn't resist a chuckle.
As a man of science, you probably know a little bit about the theory of quantum mechanics which says that there is no way to predict the position and momentum of any particle at any particular time. I am sure you must've read Schrodinger's Cat. Check it out. That will lay to rest your theory about past, present and future. I have to mention though, that without quantum mechanics, creation of the ubiquitous pc might not have been possible.
). Couldn't resist a chuckle.As a man of science, you probably know a little bit about the theory of quantum mechanics which says that there is no way to predict the position and momentum of any particle at any particular time. I am sure you must've read Schrodinger's Cat. Check it out. That will lay to rest your theory about past, present and future. I have to mention though, that without quantum mechanics, creation of the ubiquitous pc might not have been possible.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Now anajmi,
Little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, or so you keep saying.
You mentioned Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Scrodinger's cat in one breath and they have nothing to do with each other.
Heisenberg stated that the product of a change in a quantum particle's momentum and position is constant (some ratio of plank's constant). It means that if you wish to increase the accuracy of measurement of one than the accuracy of the other measurement will need to be decreased. You see, this has nothing to do with past, present or future.
Schrodinger's cat is not a principle but a thought experiment connected with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Back to wikipedia for you.
Little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, or so you keep saying.
You mentioned Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Scrodinger's cat in one breath and they have nothing to do with each other.
Heisenberg stated that the product of a change in a quantum particle's momentum and position is constant (some ratio of plank's constant). It means that if you wish to increase the accuracy of measurement of one than the accuracy of the other measurement will need to be decreased. You see, this has nothing to do with past, present or future.
Schrodinger's cat is not a principle but a thought experiment connected with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Back to wikipedia for you.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
By the way, I have never disagreed with the theory of evolution as many of my posts will reveal. I also agree that some scientists have come from apes. Their great great grand parents were apes. They had sex, got pregnant and out popped a human scientist.
Jokes aside, evolution very much exists. Just not as much as scientists will have you believe.
And wikipedia is a creation by scientists like yourself. I guess it was a waste of time.
Can the theory of evolution predict what a human will evolve into in a thousand years? or if that span is too small, how about a million years?
Jokes aside, evolution very much exists. Just not as much as scientists will have you believe.
And wikipedia is a creation by scientists like yourself. I guess it was a waste of time.
Can the theory of evolution predict what a human will evolve into in a thousand years? or if that span is too small, how about a million years?
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
A thousand years is a like a microsecond on the timescale that evolution operates on humans. Predictive power of the theory of evolution comes into its own in microbiology and genetics.anajmi wrote: Can the theory of evolution predict what a human will evolve into in a thousand years? or if that span is too small, how about a million years?
Evolution by Natural Selection is characterized by mutations in genetic material in successive generations of species. If you choose to study a species with a very short generation time scales (measured in hours) like some bacteria, then you can test the predictive power of the theory.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
So in short the power of prediction of a scientific theory is limited to the knowledge one already has. That is very convenient. I think I have proven my point. However, I will say this much, science has made things difficult for an average person. For eg. as porus suggested, a little knowledge of science is of no use to anyone. Science demands that you become a scientist to make any sense of science. Religion on the other hand makes no such demand. You do not need to learn or understand Arabic to follow the commandments of Allah. Any layman can become a religionist and lead a good and successful life within the boundaries of religion. Science, however, will confuse the crap out of you. Scientists still haven't figured out how the next flu virus is going to mutate. They have to wait till it actually mutates and then come up with a vaccine. So I say, who cares, let the scientist worry about the next microwave, that is what God created scientists for, I will just worry about how much Walmart will sell it for.
And for those scientists who have just studied and haven't created anything, the saying - dhobi ka ...... na ghar ka na ghat ka, applies.
And for those scientists who have just studied and haven't created anything, the saying - dhobi ka ...... na ghar ka na ghat ka, applies.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
That is like saying " gravity very much exists. Just not as much as scientists have you believe".anajmi wrote: evolution very much exists. Just not as much as scientists will have you believe.
So, when anajmi decides to jump off the ledge of a tall building he may not fall at all. He may actually float up.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
I have been loosing a few pounds over the last few months and besides, we already know the reputation of scientists as far as theories go, so you never know what might happen.
So, let me explain. porus said
There are some scientists who deal with science only. That is what they should do. Do not try to step into the realm of religion. It is beyond you. Especially, some of the scientists on this board who pretend as if they have already come up with the unified theory when they cannot answer pointed questions from a moron like anajmi. That is when they should do what porus suggests, hold hands and sing kumbaya.
So, let me explain. porus said
Now, there is no talking about the theory of evolution without talking about the evolution of humans (or as I say, some scientists only) from apes or monkeys. So, based upon what porus told us, if the theory tells me how the humans evolved over the last million years, it should tell me how the humans will evolve over the next million years. After all, it is considered the 'truth' (!!!) isn't it? But wait, porus now tells you that the theory of evolution can do no such thing. It can only tell you about some bacteria over the span of only a few hours. What an anti climax. So my statement thatA fundamental requirement for a theory to be successful is that it must predict events on the basis of the theory which have not been previously observed. This confirms or falsifies the theory.
Theory of Evolution has passed all these tests and is now considered 'truth' because of it.
can now be considered as 'truth' because of it.evolution very much exists. Just not as much as scientists will have you believe.
There are some scientists who deal with science only. That is what they should do. Do not try to step into the realm of religion. It is beyond you. Especially, some of the scientists on this board who pretend as if they have already come up with the unified theory when they cannot answer pointed questions from a moron like anajmi. That is when they should do what porus suggests, hold hands and sing kumbaya.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Based entirely on the The Theory of Evolution as understood by anajmi, I can make a scientific prediction how a human brain like anajmi's will evolve in 1000 years. No chance. It will actually de-evolve to dumb down an intelligent conversation on any discussion forum.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait for future generations (in a thousand years) to verify the prediction.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait for future generations (in a thousand years) to verify the prediction.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Actually, the conversation became intelligible only after I dumbed it down. Before that it was like a bunch of monkeys on a type writer trying to come up with The merchant of Venice. It was only after I joined that they realized that the only thing they can come up with is the theory of evolution.
If I haven't understood the theory of evolution it is simply because there isn't a scientist worth his salt out there that can actually explain what the theory means.
If I haven't understood the theory of evolution it is simply because there isn't a scientist worth his salt out there that can actually explain what the theory means.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
This dialogue among porus, humsafar, biradar, mustansir, et al was becoming very interesting and every one was arguing/discussing without any rancour; but then anajmi started his one-up-manship and now there is just mud slinging. O God, when shall we learn to have constructive discussions?
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
I am representing the dumb ones. The scientists will have to either answer my questions or shut up. They shouldn't participate in mud slinging if they do not have the answers.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Biradar, you're right we are generally in agreement. Just want to clarify a few points you raised. Moral relativism has always existed and always will. That's the way it is whether we like it or not. Yes, for sanity and survival we will have to agree on certain moral codes to govern our lives, and you can look at the UN charter of rights as a testament to our shared values. On the other hand, moral absolutism is not a desirable value either - it inevitably leads to orthodoxy and fascism. Obviously we need to find a balance, and that is an endless pursuit. That is life.
I agree that scientific rigour is necessary to expand the frontiers of knowledge, but it does not mean that all knowledge has to be "scientific" and should hold up to empirical principles. As you rightly mentioned in one of your earlier posts, the inner life of the mind is eminently unverifiable. There is a realm of reality that can be reached only through insight and transformation of consciousness. Call this knowledge transcendental if you will, and its validity is only true for the individual who has achieved that transcendental state. The universal truth - unity of being - can be experienced/verified only at an individual level. The mistake major religions make is that they turn the insights of mystics and prophets into divine truths and impose them on unsuspecting people as eternal laws. It's ultimately a fraudulent setup asking believers to accept these truths on face value, on someone's say-so, with the childish system of reward and punishment. Mystical traditions within organised religions have a better handle on accessing the divine, while their orthodox counterparts are mired in blind faith and are forever quarreling over whose god is true and whose religion is pure.
Regarding post-modernism, it's just a label you can call it what you want. It encapsulates the realisation that science and rationality are not enough to understand the mysteries of the universe or of life. This does not mean that "post-modernism" is superior to modernism or any other stage of development. There is no value judgement attached to it. Agreed, anti-intellectualism is not a good thing, but by the same token reliance on intellect alone will only take us so far. The mind will not take us beyond the mind. I share your insight about finding beauty in scientific truths - what is true is naturally beautiful and good. Satyam shivam sundaram.
Anajmi, consider evolution as God's work and you may yet find beauty in it. If it is true it will continue its work. Neither my approval hasten it nor your disapproval stop it. If it is not true, then why worry.
I agree that scientific rigour is necessary to expand the frontiers of knowledge, but it does not mean that all knowledge has to be "scientific" and should hold up to empirical principles. As you rightly mentioned in one of your earlier posts, the inner life of the mind is eminently unverifiable. There is a realm of reality that can be reached only through insight and transformation of consciousness. Call this knowledge transcendental if you will, and its validity is only true for the individual who has achieved that transcendental state. The universal truth - unity of being - can be experienced/verified only at an individual level. The mistake major religions make is that they turn the insights of mystics and prophets into divine truths and impose them on unsuspecting people as eternal laws. It's ultimately a fraudulent setup asking believers to accept these truths on face value, on someone's say-so, with the childish system of reward and punishment. Mystical traditions within organised religions have a better handle on accessing the divine, while their orthodox counterparts are mired in blind faith and are forever quarreling over whose god is true and whose religion is pure.
Regarding post-modernism, it's just a label you can call it what you want. It encapsulates the realisation that science and rationality are not enough to understand the mysteries of the universe or of life. This does not mean that "post-modernism" is superior to modernism or any other stage of development. There is no value judgement attached to it. Agreed, anti-intellectualism is not a good thing, but by the same token reliance on intellect alone will only take us so far. The mind will not take us beyond the mind. I share your insight about finding beauty in scientific truths - what is true is naturally beautiful and good. Satyam shivam sundaram.
Anajmi, consider evolution as God's work and you may yet find beauty in it. If it is true it will continue its work. Neither my approval hasten it nor your disapproval stop it. If it is not true, then why worry.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Great posts by Porus, Humasafar & Biradar.
Humsafar – I really liked what you wrote on the evolution of human consciousness and you are on the ball with that. However, I personally don’t think there is any merit to the whole movement of Post-modernism and am on the same page as Biradar. The ethical and moral system that has been constructed by our evolutionary history and cultural heritage generates morality that is neither irrationally relative nor dogmatically absolute. As with many other philosophical issues, there exists a whole gradient of morality and not just its polar ends.
Porus – Yes, I am very familiar with Dawkins’s work and my primary interest in him is not because of religion, but because of his writing on evolutionary biology. I concur that when you wrote about NOMA, you did not mean that there is absolutely no overlapping and I was not suggesting that these two individual magesteria completely superimpose each other. But whatever overlapping does occur, those parts are very significant and I guess that is where it rubs me in the wrong way. Again, I am on the same page with Biradar on this subject when it comes to personal beliefs. Everyone has the choice and the right to believe in whatever they want to, as long as it is not causing harm to anybody else’s life. But when religion or personal beliefs are used to discriminate, reduce the rights, cause harm to an individual or group of people or interfere with public policies, this I definitely have a problem with.
Biradar – For most parts, I am on the same page as you are. Whatever I have posted on this thread until now, it does seem that I was implying that rational and scientific thinking or methods are the only valid ways to learn and understand the world around us. But when it comes to what I actually think, this idea couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t agree with you more about the importance of Philosophy, Art & Literature, which are of course equally important…hands down! No debate there. The questions I was getting were primarily geared towards different aspects of science and so I ended up focusing only on that. However, I should have made the distinction clear that Science is not the only process but one significant part of a bigger process in trying to learn and understand the Universe. So thank you for correcting me on that.
I hope that people reading this thread can clearly see the difference between the behaviour and mind set of people who admit to their own ignorance, don’t do any name calling but are genuinely interested in having honest debate and open to learning versus people who are willfully ignorant, boast about their inability to learn new things, get agitated as soon as anyone challenges their fragile beliefs and desperately try to hold on to preconceived notions in the face of contradictory proof and arguments. Not once in this forum I claimed that I was a Scientist, which I am not. However, I did take out time to get an education and worked very hard in understanding things which at one point I did not. The notion that this type of behaviour is only limited to Scientist as one bright individual suggested – is just jarringly shocking. It clearly indicates where his standards of learning are.
There is a very common saying when it comes to education – the more you get educated, the more you realize how much you still don’t know. It is precisely when you acknowledge this concept that makes you open to continuous learning and rectify any incorrect or distorted opinions you had previously. The stronger a personal belief, the stronger one should challenge it to make sure that you are indeed closer to reality. It is indeed very telling when a person blames all his/her failures and willful ignorance on to somebody else instead of taking personal responsibility. Take any flaw or problem in their lives and they will always have someone else to blame but never themselves. To take pride in one’s own sheer lack of knowledge and reducing to name calling is a clear sign that their argument doesn’t have any merit & a clear reflection of anti-intellectualism.
When it comes to evolution, the most trivial fact is that humans and the other great apes shared a common ancestor around 6 million years ago, which was neither a proper ape nor a human. But then you have people who first claim they have ‘read’ about the subject but then say a moronic thing like humans came from monkeys. This is the problem with anti-intellectualism – not only that you lack relevant knowledge of the subject you are talking about, but you are also proud of it. This happens when the person was never serious of learning anything to begin with and was just focused on how to save the last threads of his/her personal cherished beliefs. The end result is irrelevant & illegitimate questions which are no more ridiculous than asking “what smell does the colour blue have?’’. The anthropocentric view of the world, in one way, is an escape for such people to provide a false sense of importance and self-worth & to keep their head buried in the sand for as long as they can. People who read this should make up there own minds about which way of thinking is a more humble, courageous and intellectual honest & which one will lead them to better understand the world around them.
Humsafar – I really liked what you wrote on the evolution of human consciousness and you are on the ball with that. However, I personally don’t think there is any merit to the whole movement of Post-modernism and am on the same page as Biradar. The ethical and moral system that has been constructed by our evolutionary history and cultural heritage generates morality that is neither irrationally relative nor dogmatically absolute. As with many other philosophical issues, there exists a whole gradient of morality and not just its polar ends.
Porus – Yes, I am very familiar with Dawkins’s work and my primary interest in him is not because of religion, but because of his writing on evolutionary biology. I concur that when you wrote about NOMA, you did not mean that there is absolutely no overlapping and I was not suggesting that these two individual magesteria completely superimpose each other. But whatever overlapping does occur, those parts are very significant and I guess that is where it rubs me in the wrong way. Again, I am on the same page with Biradar on this subject when it comes to personal beliefs. Everyone has the choice and the right to believe in whatever they want to, as long as it is not causing harm to anybody else’s life. But when religion or personal beliefs are used to discriminate, reduce the rights, cause harm to an individual or group of people or interfere with public policies, this I definitely have a problem with.
Biradar – For most parts, I am on the same page as you are. Whatever I have posted on this thread until now, it does seem that I was implying that rational and scientific thinking or methods are the only valid ways to learn and understand the world around us. But when it comes to what I actually think, this idea couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t agree with you more about the importance of Philosophy, Art & Literature, which are of course equally important…hands down! No debate there. The questions I was getting were primarily geared towards different aspects of science and so I ended up focusing only on that. However, I should have made the distinction clear that Science is not the only process but one significant part of a bigger process in trying to learn and understand the Universe. So thank you for correcting me on that.
I hope that people reading this thread can clearly see the difference between the behaviour and mind set of people who admit to their own ignorance, don’t do any name calling but are genuinely interested in having honest debate and open to learning versus people who are willfully ignorant, boast about their inability to learn new things, get agitated as soon as anyone challenges their fragile beliefs and desperately try to hold on to preconceived notions in the face of contradictory proof and arguments. Not once in this forum I claimed that I was a Scientist, which I am not. However, I did take out time to get an education and worked very hard in understanding things which at one point I did not. The notion that this type of behaviour is only limited to Scientist as one bright individual suggested – is just jarringly shocking. It clearly indicates where his standards of learning are.
There is a very common saying when it comes to education – the more you get educated, the more you realize how much you still don’t know. It is precisely when you acknowledge this concept that makes you open to continuous learning and rectify any incorrect or distorted opinions you had previously. The stronger a personal belief, the stronger one should challenge it to make sure that you are indeed closer to reality. It is indeed very telling when a person blames all his/her failures and willful ignorance on to somebody else instead of taking personal responsibility. Take any flaw or problem in their lives and they will always have someone else to blame but never themselves. To take pride in one’s own sheer lack of knowledge and reducing to name calling is a clear sign that their argument doesn’t have any merit & a clear reflection of anti-intellectualism.
When it comes to evolution, the most trivial fact is that humans and the other great apes shared a common ancestor around 6 million years ago, which was neither a proper ape nor a human. But then you have people who first claim they have ‘read’ about the subject but then say a moronic thing like humans came from monkeys. This is the problem with anti-intellectualism – not only that you lack relevant knowledge of the subject you are talking about, but you are also proud of it. This happens when the person was never serious of learning anything to begin with and was just focused on how to save the last threads of his/her personal cherished beliefs. The end result is irrelevant & illegitimate questions which are no more ridiculous than asking “what smell does the colour blue have?’’. The anthropocentric view of the world, in one way, is an escape for such people to provide a false sense of importance and self-worth & to keep their head buried in the sand for as long as they can. People who read this should make up there own minds about which way of thinking is a more humble, courageous and intellectual honest & which one will lead them to better understand the world around them.
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
I am thoroughly enjoying this debate and also learning a lot from it. some great posts from mustansir, porus, biradar and humsafar. i have a lot to say, but since i have been quite tied up with business trips and a few urgent matters, will respond later in detail with my comments, although i am in broad agreement with most points regarding religion, science and the philosophy or belief in the divine.
meanwhile, wish you all a happy new year with the prayer that may the year ahead be filled with peace, health and prosperity for you all.
meanwhile, wish you all a happy new year with the prayer that may the year ahead be filled with peace, health and prosperity for you all.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
So we Now agree that humans did not come from monkeys but both humans and monkeys come from the same source. That is good, we finally seem to be learning. If you read my earlier posts on this thread, I mentioned that I absolutely agree with the concept that both monkeys and the humans have the same origins. The same materials were
used in he creation of both.
used in he creation of both.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
anajmi,
Now that you have finally got the scientists to agree with you that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, I ought to question you if you will agree to the scientists saying that this ancestry extends even further to the past. For instance, both a lowly carrot and a human also share common ancestry.
On second thoughts, please do not bother replying......although, I am sure, it is impossible to keep a 'good' man from doing just that!
Now that you have finally got the scientists to agree with you that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, I ought to question you if you will agree to the scientists saying that this ancestry extends even further to the past. For instance, both a lowly carrot and a human also share common ancestry.
On second thoughts, please do not bother replying......although, I am sure, it is impossible to keep a 'good' man from doing just that!
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
porus,
you seem to be scared of anajmi. Don't worry, I do that to the best ones out there and you aren't even that good. A carrot is 67% water, so yes humans and carrots and pretty much every living thing has originated from the same source.
you seem to be scared of anajmi. Don't worry, I do that to the best ones out there and you aren't even that good. A carrot is 67% water, so yes humans and carrots and pretty much every living thing has originated from the same source.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Very good debate.. Thoroughly enlightening...
I feel that the main source of divide between science and relegion lies in two ways thinking of mankind. A human either uses his heart or his brain to think. Either of them can take a precedence depending upon the situation. Rather than comparing Science and Religion one should look at the positive aspects of both. Science has made tremendous progress, and is the main source of materialistic comfort for mankind accross the globe. Science, plays a significant role when it comes to improving quality of human life E.g. one can develop a most sophisticated car using technology. But one cannot decide between ethical and unethical or moral and immoral using science. Science can tell you with great precision that removing such and such a quantity of blood from a human body would kill him. However, it does not advice you on whether doing so is morally right or wrong. This is where religion comes into picture. E.g. most countries develop their legal framework based on the basic principles of truth, equality and justice thought by religion. Science, provides the means to lead a comfortable and more informed life. Religion provides the means to protect that life. Great scientific brains have developed destructive nuclear weapons. The existence of these weapons prove that even the most intelligent brains in the world are incomplete and incapable without moral guidance. The problem starts when humans stop beleiving in god assuming that science is capable of providing all answers. There is no sceintific explanation for why stealing is considered bad by all human beings? Some scientist beleive that as of now science is not advanced enough to figure out certain supernatural phenomena occuring in this universe. They beleive that one day they will be able to find out all the answers. It is these kind of beliefs that make humans vulnerable. The moment we assume that there is no reality beyond science and everything can be proved on the basis of science, we are in trouble. Science cannot replace religion but can only run parallel to it like two railway tracks...
I feel that the main source of divide between science and relegion lies in two ways thinking of mankind. A human either uses his heart or his brain to think. Either of them can take a precedence depending upon the situation. Rather than comparing Science and Religion one should look at the positive aspects of both. Science has made tremendous progress, and is the main source of materialistic comfort for mankind accross the globe. Science, plays a significant role when it comes to improving quality of human life E.g. one can develop a most sophisticated car using technology. But one cannot decide between ethical and unethical or moral and immoral using science. Science can tell you with great precision that removing such and such a quantity of blood from a human body would kill him. However, it does not advice you on whether doing so is morally right or wrong. This is where religion comes into picture. E.g. most countries develop their legal framework based on the basic principles of truth, equality and justice thought by religion. Science, provides the means to lead a comfortable and more informed life. Religion provides the means to protect that life. Great scientific brains have developed destructive nuclear weapons. The existence of these weapons prove that even the most intelligent brains in the world are incomplete and incapable without moral guidance. The problem starts when humans stop beleiving in god assuming that science is capable of providing all answers. There is no sceintific explanation for why stealing is considered bad by all human beings? Some scientist beleive that as of now science is not advanced enough to figure out certain supernatural phenomena occuring in this universe. They beleive that one day they will be able to find out all the answers. It is these kind of beliefs that make humans vulnerable. The moment we assume that there is no reality beyond science and everything can be proved on the basis of science, we are in trouble. Science cannot replace religion but can only run parallel to it like two railway tracks...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Aarif,
The issue of the origin of ethics and morality you raise is very important and is disappointingly one of the primary reasons many people hold on to their religious views. As soon as someone raises the possibility that there might be no God or Gods at all, the question that usually follows is – then where do we get our foundation for ethics from? Well, one argument made by extremely religious people is that one cannot live a moral life without having a belief in some sort of supreme deity. Obviously, this is totally false and based on ignorance as there are millions of non-believers worldwide living happy, ethical and respectable lives. I am one of them and I don’t go around murdering or raping anybody and I too believe that stealing or cheating is bad.
Now, what you most likely are suggesting is that even if we can have a proper ethical system in place, which can now be independent of any religion, the foundation of such a system was completely based on religion and was the source of it. Unfortunately, when you reflect on the history of human civilization, it is exactly the opposite. I have already previously listed the horrible things which could only be done in the name of religion. Also, I have written before how it is totally plausible for the human species to come with our own standards of ethics based on our evolutionary history, otherwise we would simply not have survived by now. It is similar (but cognitively on a much lower scale) in many other animal species especially the Bonobo chimps. You don’t usually see animals from the same species killing each other nilly willy. Instead, they have learned how to increase their chances of survival by cooperating & working together against any other predatorial species. Should we assume they have some kind of a god too? It is true that science cannot provide us with proper moral principles. But neither can religion. To comprehend our morality, one needs secular moral reasoning based on fundamental facts about the human condition, and not the dictates of a supernatural celestial being.
That many people do take the association between morality and religion seriously these days is indeed very surprising. To see how bogus this connection is, we can do a simple thought experiment. If moral values come from God or any supernatural deity, one can simply ask - why did God choose those particular values as opposed to something completely different? To this there can be two possible answers – one is that the supernatural deity chose these values arbitrarily without any reason. If that is the case, then why should we follow these values? The other answer is that the celestial being had good reasons to choose these values. Well, if that is the case then why shouldn’t we appeal to those reasons directly? What is added to the ethical and moral values if a God puts his/her stamp of approval on it?
If you flip the argument – what would you do if your God or a supernatural being you believe in, commands you to do a universally accepted evil act, such as…lets say tying up a child and stabbing it to death? If you think that the source of ethics and morality comes from religion, then you should, without hesitation, go ahead and do this. On the other hand, if you’ve valid reasons not to do it, then you simply don’t do it. And if you are going to claim that your God would never ask you to do such a thing in the first place – well you would be mistaken as the God of Abraham/Ibrahim already did so. Instead of pointing out to the credulity & immorality of Ibrahim for trying to act on this command, his behaviour is taken as a virtue by most religious people. By trying to explain the current lack of knowledge or understanding in any subject with a supernatural deity, one is simply appealing to the God of the gaps – and in doing so, simply replacing one unknown with another, ergo explaining nothing.
Religion is capable of providing so-called ‘explanations’ for every human concern because its only limitation is human imagination. Whatever one can imagine can be propped up as an ‘explanation’ with no credibility attached to it. Can anyone really know or understand anything with such a bogus process? I personally prefer to wait for more credible & intellectually respectable explanations for the things we don’t know yet, as opposed to giving up and trying to hide my ignorance under the shadow of a supernatural celestial being.
The issue of the origin of ethics and morality you raise is very important and is disappointingly one of the primary reasons many people hold on to their religious views. As soon as someone raises the possibility that there might be no God or Gods at all, the question that usually follows is – then where do we get our foundation for ethics from? Well, one argument made by extremely religious people is that one cannot live a moral life without having a belief in some sort of supreme deity. Obviously, this is totally false and based on ignorance as there are millions of non-believers worldwide living happy, ethical and respectable lives. I am one of them and I don’t go around murdering or raping anybody and I too believe that stealing or cheating is bad.
Now, what you most likely are suggesting is that even if we can have a proper ethical system in place, which can now be independent of any religion, the foundation of such a system was completely based on religion and was the source of it. Unfortunately, when you reflect on the history of human civilization, it is exactly the opposite. I have already previously listed the horrible things which could only be done in the name of religion. Also, I have written before how it is totally plausible for the human species to come with our own standards of ethics based on our evolutionary history, otherwise we would simply not have survived by now. It is similar (but cognitively on a much lower scale) in many other animal species especially the Bonobo chimps. You don’t usually see animals from the same species killing each other nilly willy. Instead, they have learned how to increase their chances of survival by cooperating & working together against any other predatorial species. Should we assume they have some kind of a god too? It is true that science cannot provide us with proper moral principles. But neither can religion. To comprehend our morality, one needs secular moral reasoning based on fundamental facts about the human condition, and not the dictates of a supernatural celestial being.
That many people do take the association between morality and religion seriously these days is indeed very surprising. To see how bogus this connection is, we can do a simple thought experiment. If moral values come from God or any supernatural deity, one can simply ask - why did God choose those particular values as opposed to something completely different? To this there can be two possible answers – one is that the supernatural deity chose these values arbitrarily without any reason. If that is the case, then why should we follow these values? The other answer is that the celestial being had good reasons to choose these values. Well, if that is the case then why shouldn’t we appeal to those reasons directly? What is added to the ethical and moral values if a God puts his/her stamp of approval on it?
If you flip the argument – what would you do if your God or a supernatural being you believe in, commands you to do a universally accepted evil act, such as…lets say tying up a child and stabbing it to death? If you think that the source of ethics and morality comes from religion, then you should, without hesitation, go ahead and do this. On the other hand, if you’ve valid reasons not to do it, then you simply don’t do it. And if you are going to claim that your God would never ask you to do such a thing in the first place – well you would be mistaken as the God of Abraham/Ibrahim already did so. Instead of pointing out to the credulity & immorality of Ibrahim for trying to act on this command, his behaviour is taken as a virtue by most religious people. By trying to explain the current lack of knowledge or understanding in any subject with a supernatural deity, one is simply appealing to the God of the gaps – and in doing so, simply replacing one unknown with another, ergo explaining nothing.
Religion is capable of providing so-called ‘explanations’ for every human concern because its only limitation is human imagination. Whatever one can imagine can be propped up as an ‘explanation’ with no credibility attached to it. Can anyone really know or understand anything with such a bogus process? I personally prefer to wait for more credible & intellectually respectable explanations for the things we don’t know yet, as opposed to giving up and trying to hide my ignorance under the shadow of a supernatural celestial being.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
This is how "scientists" confuse people. Even if God had chosen a completely different set of values, this question that is being asked, would still be asked and the same set of reasons given for asking this question. It is not that a different set of values would've satisfied them.If moral values come from God or any supernatural deity, one can simply ask - why did God choose those particular values as opposed to something completely different?
The reason animals live happily together and do not go about killing each other is because they are stupid and not as intelligent as humans. Humans want to make life better even if it is at the expense of other humans. That is the price of intelligence. Hence a set of laws for governing human lives was inevitable. If you look at the history of any religion, it has come into being only to restore order in a degenerating society. Societies were degenerating because human ambition was snubbing the life out of animal values.
As "scientists" have earlier said, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. This was a test from God. Abraham never actually sacrificed his son. Besides, he was a prophet of God, he knew that this life is temporary. Even today, there are many people who will sacrifice themselves for their loved ones. You won't find this in animals.well you would be mistaken as the God of Abraham/Ibrahim already did so.
By trying to explain the current lack of knowledge or understanding in any subject with a supernatural deity, one is simply appealing to the God of the gaps – and in doing so, simply replacing one unknown with another, ergo explaining nothing.
That is very well put. It applies as it is to people like yourself.
The quran has a lot of science in it as well. Scientists would do themselves a favor if they were to study before commenting. Ignorance can sometimes lead to arrogance which always comes with a price tag. It may cost some the hereafter.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
That is not true, because as you said, a lot of people commit a lot of crime in the name of religion. So it isn't ethics and morality only that binds people to religion. Hindus in the name of religion have raped and murdered during the riots in India and Muslims have been killing innocents in the name of religion. What binds people to religion is hope for a better future either here or in the hereafter. This is something only religion promises. Science makes no such promise. Scientists may consider this to be a false promise but since they will never be able to convince an overwhelming majority of people, maybe they are lacking.The issue of the origin of ethics and morality you raise is very important and is disappointingly one of the primary reasons many people hold on to their religious views.
That is because that is the one thing that disbelievers can identify it. They will not understand the deeper meaning about hope. If you do not believe in a higher authority, you cannot believe in hope. You cannot hope for a different outcome that the one most expected if you do not like it. Only religion can give you that hope. For eg. if a family member were on a death bed with a terminal illness, a disbeliever cannot hope for the person to be cured. A believer can. What eventually happens might be what was expected, but one had hope and one didn't... or couldn't.As soon as someone raises the possibility that there might be no God or Gods at all, the question that usually follows is – then where do we get our foundation for ethics from?
For some reason the Post Reply window causes problems with bigger posts so I will continue in the next post.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
And you are right, you do not need to be a believer to know that murder and rape is wrong, but then you also need intelligence to know that murder and rape is wrong. You won't find animals murdering or raping or stealing either. Is it because they think murder, rape and theft are wrong? Or is it because their intelligence level is such that they cannot comprehend these acts and hence are incapable of commiting them? If nature had kept humans at the same level of intelligence as these chimps you talk about, then we wouldn'tve had to worry about murder and rape. But then at the same time we wouldn'tve had scientists or religionists either.