Dawoodi Bohra Forum

Mustansir,

I like the way you debate. Sounds quite logical..

Honestly I do not beleive that man should assume God as the answer for all the unanswered questions. If you will think for a moment even God does not want you to do that. Actually he wants you to think and learn about the world in which you exist. And that is precisely the reason why he has given humans the power to think. The basic difference between human beings and animals is this capability of converting thoughts into actions capable of changing human lives which in one word can be called human evolution. The human specie has evolved more than any other specie in the world, yet, we have not changed much, have we??? E.g. I saw a naked deer running around in woods on a extremely cold day. This made me think that obviously nature has given this animal all it needs to survive in this harsh weather in its natural form. In other words the deer specie has evolved over the period of time to accomodate harsh weather changes. Now on similar lines if I consider the example of human natives living in cold countries since thousands of years still need warm clothing to survive in winter. Why we have not changed with the environment? Why our natural form cannot resist weather changes? Why a human needs warm cloths to resist cold? My simple logic tells me that nature makes sure that you are able to survive one way or the other. In case of human beings, nature has given us the intellect to think and change ourselves or our environment based on our needs. Thus animals adopt to the environment but humans change the environment around them to ensure their survival. My point is science is that part of human thinking which helps them to change the environment around them based on their needs. In the process of doing so men have learnt a lot about their immediate surrounding which, I would call earth and much more beyond that i.e. rest of the universe. We can wait for another 1000 years and maybe science will be advanced enough to answer all the questions that a human mind can think of related to their environment. Even if all the questions are answered it will only help you to trace what happened? No one can tell with surety why it happened? It agian brings you to a two way street where your mind is not ready to accept but your heart starts beleiving in something supernatural responsible for this entire universe. Now this is the real case. Even the greates of scientists are highly relegious. This is because inspite of finding answers to all the questions they cannot convince themselves of non-existence of god.

I beleive that the beauty of relegion is it tells you the difference between good and bad and it is so easily verifyable. You mentioned in your post that killing of an innocent child is bad. How did we decide that? Just because the religion told us so? My answer is YES. Now you would say that any sensible person even if he does not beleive in religion knows that killing an innocent child is bad. My answer to that is that we as humans are extremely selfish and self-centered. If there was no religion to control us by saying that you will pay for your sins (assuming that killing a child is sin according to relegion), inspite of knowing the consequences, we would have killed the child if it would have in any way served our selfish motives. I feel that people who do not beleive in relegion are more vulnerable to committing such mistakes than those who beleive in relegion. Relegion is good because it keeps you under control by inducing the fear of God. Its like the concience police that stops you from doing things that you are not suppose to do. Now you will talk about people manupulating other people in the name of relegion and its fear. I would say that those are the disadvantages of not using your capability to think (which is provided by god). E.g. Bohras are exploited because they have stopped thinking. If you read Islam it says that human worship is wrong. But bohras worship syedna. Now will you blame Islam for that? Will you blame god for that? Absolutely not. Will you blame bohras for that? YES. They are the ones to be blamed. Islam has told them what not to do. God has given them the capability to understand Islam. But they are not using it. Hence, I would blame them instead of relegion. Relegion provides you with a distinction between good and bad. Your mind is like a filter that needs to filter out the bad and imbibe the good. As long as you can do that the purpose of relegion is served.

Aarif,

I understand where you're coming from and I guess it's just a different way of looking at life. However, there are few things where I would disagree with you. When it comes to forming an opinion about something or trying to come to a provisional conclusion about anything or anyone based on limited information available, we general use a combination of emotional reasoning and rational reasoning. When an idea or a thought is a product of emotional reasoning only, it is easy for us to be mistaken as the checks and balances of rational reasoning, which is capable of better separating between sense and nonsense is totally bypassed. And this can very well lead to blurring the line between what you want to be true and what is really true.

Your argument that some of the greatest scientists are religious doesn't show the complete picture. According to a survey done in 1998, a whopping 93% of members (Top US scientists) of the highly prestigious National Academy of Sciences expressed either personal disbelief or agnosticism when it came to belief in a personal God (Larson, E. J. and Witham, L. 1998. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature. 394(6691):313). This is in a country which is known as the most religious western democracy in the world. And this was 11 years ago, never mind what the current figures would be if we do a follow-up survey. So in essence, even if some of the great scientists might be religious, most of them are not.

When it comes to human nature, it isn’t all bad and no good. There is a whole gradient of things the human species is capable of… all the way from killing innocent infants at birth just because of their gender to sacrificing one’s own life in order to save lives of total strangers. If you claim that the only reason keeping you from going out & committing rape or murder is the fear of a celestial being, that is indeed a very telling statement in itself. If the only reason you help someone else is because you expect to be rewarded in some afterlife - is that moral in anyway or just another selfish act? I don’t need or require fear of a supernatural deity to control whatever inner animal instincts I have to cause unnecessary harm to anyone else. I have the cognitive capacity and empathy to realize the consequences of my action within this world. The reason I treat my wife with utmost respect is not because a god tells me to do so, but because I love her & care about her and can understand what she would feel if I did not. It is for the same reason that despite of what many religions dictate, I treat my wife as an equal and not some inferior being who should be condemned to live in my shadows for her whole life.

The notion that without having belief in a supernatural deity, a society or community will simply collapse is also not based on facts. We can clearly see this when we compare the differences between highly religious nation such as United States vs. highly secular countries, such as Denmark and Sweden. If religion helps in controlling the selfish & destructive nature, then one would expect to see a dramatic difference between the crime rates between these two types of countries. Well, there is a difference…but the other way round. Not only the overall rates of violent crimes in Denmark and Sweden is lower compared to the U.S, they are amongst the lowest on earth. Plus when it comes to the worldwide level of happiness, the country which came #1 on the international happiness scale based on various sociological factors amongst 91 nations was none other than... yup, the godless Denmark (study by Dr. Veenhoven – Erasmus University). African countries such as Somalia, Sierra Leone & Sudan have highly religious population, and still have some of the highest rates of violent crimes in the world.

Now one cannot take these relationships as causal as many other factors are involved too, such as lack of education, poverty etc. But there is a correlation. The least you can say from this is that lack of religion or belief in a supernatural deity is definitely not a hindrance in order to have a healthy, happy, successful, ethical and a moral society.

Belief in God is not a product of only emotional reasoning as you suggest. It is a product of emotional as well as rational reasoning. If 95% of the humans on earth are irrational, then nature messed up didn't it? And so did evolution!! Besides, statistics can be manipulated to suit ones reasoning. Is there a reason why people aren't dying to go and settle down in Denmark?

One other thing I would like to point out is why evolution/nature decided to instill morality (or whatever "scientists" consider as morality) into humans only? Is there any other species out there which is capable of treating their spouses as equals? What about the black spider? Why do humans consider treating their wives equally as morally correct? Why choose these set of values as morally correct? Why not a different set of values like allowing wives to beat their husbands on Sundays and every other week day as morally correct? Why even get married? Are there any marriages in any other species on earth? If you aren't married, then you won't have to worry about treating anyone equally. Each one would be on his or her own. If marriage was invented by religionists, then shouldn't scientists get divorced?

Why is it that humans consider stealing to be morally wrong? Do any other animals do the same? If everything belonged to everyone, like in the animal world, then no one would need to steal. Has any "scientist" ever thought about that? Do you know what Plato has said about these things?

Mustansir,

When I said great scientists, I was referring to Newton, Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, CV Raman, Sir Francis Bacon, Einstein and their likes who strongly beleived in god inspite of making great inventions and discoveries. Your example of Denmark vis-a-vis other religious countries is not good. Beacause honestly you are comparing apples with oranges and that also, golden apples with oranges. Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world. There is absolutely no poverty and hence, very less crime. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Most of these poor religious countries are at level one i.e. basic needs of food and shelter. Do you know that during great depression crime rates in various parts of US doubled? If a human does not have food to eat and clothes to wear and he cannot obtain these through proper channels he will go ahead and steal. poverty is one of the most important reasons of high crime rates in poor countries. For logical comparisons you need similar environments. Just so that you know Denmark is one of the countries with a highest percentage of suicide rate. Is there any explaination for that?? Why would people commit suicide inspite of all the luxuries of life?? Also, if a country like Denmark would have been as poor as Ethopia, than maybe the crime rate would have been much higher in Denmark due to NO fear of god.

Also, when I mentioned about religious fear, you need not assume that people will only help others or do something good to improve their after lives. Nor it means that people will not kill others only because of fear of religion. My only point is the fear element helps when greed and temptation takes over your good senses. As human beings we are selfish and greedy in general. It is our basic nature that we cannot change. However, it does not mean that people will only help others to improve their afterlife. Genuine human feelings for others are also considered as a part of god that every human being has within (afcourse for those who beleive in god). But, the biggest challenge is to discover those feelings and use them for greater good.

As Einstein has said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Hence, I feel that a proper combination of religion and science is extremely important for a balanced human life. A brain without a heart is useless and a heart without a brain is useless. And honestly, you need both to survive.

Aarif wrote: When I said great scientists, I was referring to Newton, Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, CV Raman, Sir Francis Bacon, Einstein and their likes who strongly beleived in god inspite of making great inventions and discoveries.

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion':

"Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish
what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion.
Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the
only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by
supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a
thinker as their own. The dramatic (or was it mischievous?) ending
of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, 'For then we should
know the mind of God', is notoriously misconstrued. It has led
people to believe, mistakenly of course, that Hawking is a religious
man. The cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, in The Sacred Depths
of Nature, sounds more religious than Hawking or Einstein. She
loves churches, mosques and temples, and numerous passages in
her book fairly beg to be taken out of context and used as
ammunition for supernatural religion. She goes so far as to call herself
a 'Religious Naturalist'. Yet a careful reading of her book
shows that she is really as staunch an atheist as I am."

Another view of where morality came from is that it is an evolutionary imperative.

Morality was already well established long before the idea of God or religion came along. In this view morality has survival value and works on pleasure-pain principle. Having a mate and raising children is pleasurable and losing them is very painful. Thus the basis of morality is in pleasure/pain in the here and now.

This pleasure-pain principle is extended to others in groups where sharing of tasks such as hunting also has survival value. Along with the development of memory there is a natural progression towards development of conscience.

The idea of God arose naturally in order to make sense of life’s imponderables like death and other natural calamities as well as abundance. This was an extension of pain-pleasure principle into punishment-reward principle in the now and the future. Abstraction of these ideas led to religion and the idea of life continuing after death. Hence there arose the need to prepare for afterlife to earn reward and avoid punishment.

Thus, far from morality coming down from God, it actually predates religion and the idea of God altogether.

Aarif,

What you wrote before was – “Even the greatest of scientists are highly religious”. And that’s why I thought you were talking about Scientists who are still alive. But if you go way back in history to Newton, yes, he was religious, as most of the other scientist in his time. Newton also believed in alchemy - should we take that into consideration and discredit the current body of chemistry? The argument - that because many intelligent and well educated people are believers, then the existence of god must be real - is not a good reason to believe. The human brain is capable of compartmentalizing irrational beliefs in ways that shield them from the kind of challenge and scrutiny that is used vigorously with other matters. This is clearly evident when considering – a religious Muslim, who is very sceptical & rational when it comes to rejecting Christianity and Jesus Christ as the Lord and saviour. However, when it comes to prophet Muhammad or the Quran, he believes the most feeble claims without asking for any proof.

The question here is not what one believes or does not believe – the question here is how one reaches to a particular belief system. That is why I never used the statistic I mentioned earlier before. Because, even if 100% of all the world’s scientist become non-believers, that itself doesn’t prove the argument to be true.

If you provided names of 6 great scientists who were religious to claim that religion is necessary, will you change your beliefs if I provide you with 7 names of great scientists who were atheist or agnostic?...Most likely not. In addition, Newton’s belief in god was dramatically different from Einstein’s ‘Spinoza’s god’…which is most likely different from the god you believe in. Which one is real? Which one is nothing but a figment of human imagination? You use the name of these scientists to add merit to the argument that religion is necessary, but why didn’t you go all the way in changing your god to the type of god they believed in? This is something we usually see with the human mind – accept any proof or evidence that is in agreement with our preconceived notions and rejects those that are in contradiction.

With respect to apples and oranges, what I was trying to show is that your argument that religion is ultimately required to have stable society is totally erroneous. You completely ignored what I wrote in conclusion. Obviously there are multiple factors involved with rates of violent crime or any other societal health determining factor. But absence of religion or lack of belief is not a hindrance to have a healthy and ethical society. You say my comparison of United States with Denmark is not a fair one because the former has a lot of economic problems where as the latter is “one of the richest countries in the world”. Well, according to the IMF, when it comes to highest Gross Domestic Product (PPP) per capita for the year 2008, United States came in 6th, where as Denmark came in 16th. Yes, they are not exactly the same environment. But the notion that a religion is ultimately required to keep a country and its citizen in line is bogus. It is our own human ethics and morals that help to build and keep a community together. And as Porus correctly pointed out, human ethics and morals predates any religion. That is how a significant population of human ancestor survived in the first place to come up with the idea of celestial being to explain the unknowns they once had.

No one is claiming here that secular countries like Denmark and Sweden don’t have their fair share of problems. But when you consider most of the validated factors related to overall societal health, as opposed to picking just one or two, these countries are in a better state if not equal compared to other rich religious countries. Yes, suicide rate is high in Scandinavia. But should we try to fit the cause of suicide in a pigeon hole and have one simple explanation? There are again numerous factors involved, psychiatric disorders being the dominant one. An absence of belief does not make someone immune to mental illness, just like it does not immune someone from getting infection, or a disease or some terminal sickness.

Now I don’t know what God you believe in, but if you accept Allah as the true God and the Qu’ran as his book for humanity – Do you follow ever command that this Allah makes in the book? Do you agree with beating a wife when she disobeys her husband (Quran 4:34)? Do you agree to go out and kill all the apostates you can find (Quran 2:191-2)? I am totally confident you don’t and you find these things as abhorrent as any thinking person. A person chooses his/her own behaviour and can find justifications to do both, good and bad things in the name of religion from the same exact book. It all boils down to picking and choosing the things you like and ignoring the things you don’t. Hence, I personally don’t need a combination of natural and the supernatural to live a happy and peaceful life.

Mustansir,

What started as a good debate is now getting reduced to nit-picking. I just quoted few names of scientists who were believers of god. There are many more but these were just examples. I am sure there are some great
scientists who even today beleive in god. Also, because these scientists beleive in god does not prove that god exist as you mentioned and I agree with you on that. Actually, I was just answering your question that majority of the scientists are non-beleivers. Honestly I never compared Denmark with USA. They are both extremenly rich countries. I was comparing Denmark with poor religious countries that you had mentioned in your post like Ethopia etc.

Also, by giving example of high suicide rate I was trying to point out a fallacy in your argument that these countries are doing extremely good inspite of having no faith in god. Just so that you know more than 50% of people in Denmark do beleive in god. However, they also have a high proportion of atheists as compared to other countries.

As far as I am concerned, I do beleive in Allah. And I do beleive in Quran.

Again when it comes to beleiving in something one does have to apply his brains which I have already mentioned in my earlier post. I would not beat my wife just because Quran allows me to do so. Also, unless we really understand the reasons why Quran mentions wife battering atleast I would not comment on it. Also, my belief in god stems from a simple fact that it is impossible to create a universe of this magnitude for anyone else accept some great supernatural power that we all refer to as god.

Aarif,

I am sorry if it came across that I was nit-picking but I didn't want any muddling of information or the derived conclusions. As for the creation of the Universe, well the workings of the Universe is not limited to yours or anybody else's imagination. A lot of things were beyond human imagination at some point but have been achieved later on. All we can do is to make provisional conclusions on the information and evidence available. Anything more is just pure speculation and nothing else.

Having a mate and raising children is pleasurable and losing them is very painful. Thus the basis of morality is in pleasure/pain in the here and now.

I don't think I can agree with that. If that were the case then animals would be considered as having moral values. Animals can feel pain and pleasure as well. So can trees. Taking this a step further, if you look at the ten commandments, none of them are a directive to feel pain or pleasure for things stated above. So obviously, morality as being understood in the current topic deals with something bigger. Pain and pleasure is just an integral part of every living thing. It isn't something that can be taught. It is just something that you are created with.

The idea of God arose naturally

Correct. If there were no interference by "science", every human would be a believer in God. That is the nature of the human being. Nature intended for humans to believe in God. Religion came later to restore order and unify.

The argument - that because many intelligent and well educated people are believers, then the existence of god must be real - is not a good reason to believe.

I agree with that. However, that comes from scientific reasoning which is baloney. Similarly, If all scientists believe that God doesn't exist and none of them can provide any proof, then they are all fake. Lectures about reasoning and rationality are just a facade. - I actually posted this before I read Mustansir's complete post which agrees with what I have said.

Do you agree with beating a wife when she disobeys her husband (Quran 4:34)? Do you agree to go out and kill all the apostates you can find (Quran 2:191-2)?

As I have said before, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Quoting ayahs out of context is a pretty common occurance, just didn't expect well reasoning and rational scientists to stoop to this level.

Mustansir wrote:
All we can do is to make provisional conclusions on the information and evidence available. Anything more is just pure speculation and nothing else.

Absolutely!! And it goes both ways.. As the saying goes no one knows what happens after dying. For a beleiver it means another journey. For a non-beleiver its end of the story. Unfortunately no one came back after dying to describe the reality. Same applies to everything else. We can just use our mind and feelings to decide upon our stance. If you feel that the purpose of your life is better served by not beleiving in god and religion you are welcome to do so. According to me religion and god are extremely personal and individual beliefs. As the saying goes to each his own. As long as we don't force our beliefs on others we are doing good...

Aarif, I couldn't agree more with what you wrote above. In few lines you hit the nail right on the head. There is no sure way to know what happens after death, irrelevant of whether you are a believer or a non-believer. Plus, one can believe in anything they want to as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. Thanks for your comments...enjoyed understanding your point of view.

In 2006 God helped more than 550 million people reach their destinations alive without crashing.

This is really funny. Anajmi this is magical and child-like thinking. I understand that many need to cling to the idea of some omniscient being that has control over our lives, but c'mon!!!
The whole idea of supreme beings was invented by MAN, not by a God. Prehistoric man attributed the workings of nature to some powerful diety, or dieties. They couldn't understand the way their world worked. So it must have been some god.
Over the years a pantheon of gods have been created (all by man). Each god served some purpose; increasing harvests, giving children, blessing a household, healing the sick, etc. Pharoah Akhenaten tried to institute monotheism in Eypt and failed miserably, because the powerful priests of Amun didn't want to lose their wealth and status. The gods they worshipped had also been invented by them. Today we have the idea of one god over all - one all powerful creator. How people can believe this in the face of clear evidence that disputes it- is a bit appalling.

No intent to offend anyone here. Mustansir thank you for writing your thoughts. I tend not to agree with you when you state that the progressives are replacing one thing with another. . .the progressive agenda is about accountability, fairness, justice, and transparency in the administration of the religion. Religions, by the way, are also man-created. funny how the heads of religions always become rich.

Safiuddin,

If you had read all the posts you might've understood the sarcasm and context behind what I had posted but I won't waste my time explaining it to you as I know you will run and not show your face again. As do all "scientists" when real questions have to be answered.

For eg.

How people can believe this in the face of clear evidence that disputes it- is a bit appalling.

Can you point out a shred of evidence, that I cannot shred to bits?

Your "scientist" brother above said there is no clear way of knowing and in the next post we have you with clear evidence!!

i have been following this debate with considerable interest. some very good points have been made on all sides, but what amuses me is the somewhat rigid and polarised stand taken by 'religionists' or the ‘divinists’ against science and scientists.

by its very nature, science or the scientific approach entails a cold-blooded, impartial and purely technical examination and analysis of the facts which confront the scientist. there is no room for emotion, partisanship or religiosity in this exercise. if it did, then it wouldn’t be scientific or impartial. if you are sick and the doctor orders some routine tests - blood, sputum, stool etc, you do not and would not expect the pathologist to present his findings any other way except as hard figures and facts, from which hitherto tried and tested conclusions are derived as to the state of your health, not infused with the pathologists’ religious beliefs or colored by notions of some divine picture he sees in the arrangement of your wbc's.

to paint science as some sort of antagonist of religion or faith in a divine order or being is an irrelevant argument, esp. when it dispels the false claims of charlatans and miracle workers. science did its job and thats where it ends. it is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. in fact, religion has often, and in a rather self-serving manner, taken the help and reliance of science to prove certain aspects concerning nature or events from history as mentioned in scriptures centuries ago. eg. the fertilisation of female date palms as mentioned in the quran or the mention of the death by drowning of the last pharaoh while he chased moses and his followers into the red sea.

when such proofs are obtained then science and the scientists are gleefully acknowledged but also somehow portrayed as fools, with that - 'see, we told you so' - attitude. to compare and contrast these 2 methodologies of science and religion is to a great extent futile and an ignoble pursuit. while one is to a great extent purely faith based, the other has to be necessarily unemotional and objective, empirical and hard-nosed in its pursuit of facts. This cold blooded analytical approach is often labeled as ungodly or heartless, it seems to rub wrongly those who would not like any rational light to be thrown upon their often mistaken faith.

Having said this, no physicist or chemist or astronomer would ever take the risk of claiming that the universe was never created by some ‘divine’ entity or that it is not ordained by one. It would not only be a most unscientific observation as this observation has no proof, but it would be also beyond the scope of scientific knowledge as it exists today.

Perhaps a time will come when our science, technology and understanding of the universe progresses to the point when we can confidently assert either way. Meanwhile for the present, religion seems to begin where scientific knowledge ends, in terms of providing spiritual explanations for the hitherto unexplained, thus it provides solace, it fosters hope and attempts to help the curious human mind come to terms with the complexity of life and the universe around us. For an educated, inquiring and fairly well-balanced intelligent mind, both science and religion seem to be useful tools in coming to grips with reality and the illusory. I personally take the view that the essential principles of most religions are not exclusive to science but actually inclusive, even if their language is often obfuscatory or metaphorical and lacking in detail.

The Indian govt has undertaken a massive, but secret military project to develop weaponry and technology based on minute analysis and study of the Mahabharata, its wars, its weapons described in details, eg. the vajra astra, which is being compared to a highly advanced nuclear device with multiple warheads which can be each precisely directed to wipe out an entire opposing force in an instant, devices which can wreak havoc with light, sound, and magnetic rays. etc. if latter day narrow minded clergy with vested interests are refusing the science in their scriptures or have no formal education at all, and have taken to denouncing any logical, rational and scientific enquiry into anything they propagate as religion, then it’s the loss of science and a furtherance of blind faith.

The prophet muhammed took a very wise, pragmatic and inclusive approach to science and men of science. He held them in very high esteem in keeping with his call to acquire knowledge whichever and however ways you can. Perhaps all the more poignant when you realize that he was unlettered and unschooled himself. Maybe that is why the rise of islam also gave rise to one of the greatest renaissances in the history of mankind. Whether it was chemistry, physics, medicine, biology, astronomy, navigation, arts, literature or philosophy, mathematics, geometry and engineering, islam led a resurgence. Science and religion sat very well together, they were not mutually exclusive and in fact islam was so confident and comfortable with science as it knew that it was beyond its scrutiny. Unfortunately that spirit of enquiry and that willingness to accept and change, modify and incorporate the principles of science have vanished from the majority of our muslims’ psyche’ and replaced by dogmatic bitterness and suspicion of science as the tool of the western devils out to destroy us.

There is a hadees from the prophet that says (perhaps the scholars on this board can provide the appropriate references) that a man of science who through his incessant endeavours has served humanity and comes closer to realizing the divine nature of all creation, is better than a pious man who has prayed 5 times a day for 70 years, has led a pure and devout life, has never spoken a lie, has given alms, and fasted every Ramadan; even if this man of science has never bowed in prayer or outwardly spared any time for Allah. Such was his respect for science.

For those who circumvent the theory that the universe was created from nothing by claiming that maybe it always existed, it would follow that such a permanent universe would have to be an immutable one, one that has stood still in time and never undergoing evolution. But of course the very fact that the universe is constantly changing, mutating and expanding, puts the lie to such an argument. Stars are being created as others die and collapse on themselves, new galaxies are born and distances between them are increasing. All our conventional knowledge on physics, chemistry and the composition of matter is being challenged and has to be constantly updated when faced with the amazing and mind-boggling facts of the universe. The universe is a living, changing, continuously evolving entity and must have had a beginning somewhere at some point. Religions call it God, science has no name for it. All our space explorations are an attempt to probe and understand the beginnings of life and our universe.

Perhaps time will show that where we feel today that science and religion diverge, they may actually merge in the future in ways unfathomable to our puny human minds today.

What mustansir struggles with, most thinking humans too have engaged in at one time or another. Wrestling with concepts of a benevolent god who directs each and every facet of this vast universe is hard to digest for an analytical mind, esp. with so many injustices, cruelty and violence around us. I too have struggled and continue to do so, I am human after all. Intellectual giants like Sir Bertrand Russell and others challenged their own beliefs and deep seated dearly held traditions, but never reached a logically satisfying conclusion, one that would fulfill the religious, philosophical, and spiritual needs alongwith the scientific and analytical.

As if 5 weren't enough, I have one more to deal with now. It's a good thing the "scientists" run, otherwise I'd be dead.

Actually, there is no division between science and religion. It is simply "scientists" and "divinists" that cause divisions. "Scientists" expect religionists to answer rationally but when they are asked to answer, they run. End of debate.

to paint science as some sort of

You have chosen a straw man to beat up. No one argues with science. It is the "scientists" that are the problem. Just like we have interpretations of religion, we have interpretations of science and none are bigger culprits of misinterpretations than "scientists" hiding behind the garb of "cold-blooded, impartial and purely technical examination and analysis of the facts". Much of science started out as theories and experiments. No one had any "fact". It was a belief that led to scientific facts. "Scientists" who cannot accept that are a bunch of cowards.

My conclusion is simply this, until scientists can prove something about anything, they are supposed to keep their mouths shut, and they don't have squid against religion, ergo, they should keep their mouths shut.

Great post, al Z

There is a tendency amongst religious people to seek religious support for their views in science. I can't help thinking that by seeking such support they unwittingly grant higher status to science than their own scriptures. May be they should abandon that and seek support for scientific theories in scriptures. They would then start with scriptures and validate science, not use science to validate scripture. (Like 'you see, now science tells us what scriptures told us before. So scripture is correct!')

Regarding morality, as far as is known, only humans intentionally pursue pleasure and plan to avoid pain. They also know that they can give pleasure and cause pain to others. Morality is the basis which empowers men to intentionally please others and to intentionally avoid harming them.

May be they should abandon that and seek support for scientific theories in scriptures.

Not sure which religionists you are referring to but I've had a debate about science in scripture with none other than you. Scientists seem to develop selective amnesia too. I have mentioned example of science in scripture on this very thread too. This is what I mentioned.

Actually the quran talks about the earth being spherical (egg shaped) and that it revolves around the sun, almost a thousand years before Galileo.

But no scientist worth his salt commented.

I do not need an angle to handle a bunch of "scientists" who run as soon as I show up.

As far as morality, pain and pleasure is concerned, you are splitting hairs, probably because you have nothing better to add.

Regarding morality, as far as is known, only humans intentionally pursue pleasure and plan to avoid pain. They also know that they can give pleasure and cause pain to others. Morality is the basis which empowers men to intentionally please others and to intentionally avoid harming them.

Again, you demonstrate lack of knowledge. Did you know that there is at least one other known species on earth that has sex for the sake of pleasure?

anajmi wrote: Actually the quran talks about the earth being spherical (egg shaped) and that it revolves around the sun, almost a thousand years before Galileo.

It does not.

anajmi wrote: Did you know that there is at least one other known species on earth that has sex for the sake of pleasure?

I imagine animals of all species find pleasure in sex, that is why they engage in it. However, in my fancy, I see anajmi going with microphone to each species other than humans and recording their responses to his question, "Do you find sex pleasurable?"

It does not.

Yes it does.

I imagine animals of all species find pleasure in sex, that is why they engage in it.

Now you are being extremely stupid. You have just shown that you know nothing about either science or religion.

However, in my fancy, I see anajmi going with microphone to each species other than humans and recording their responses to his question, "Do you find sex pleasurable?"

It's falttering and terrifying that you see anajmi in your fancy. Terrifying because your fancies are pretty darn lame. But seriously, are you really that stupid or just pretending to be? What happened to all that knowledge of science? Why don't you give wikipedia a shot?

And even though I may be worth it, please do not ruin your reputation amongst others by these idiotic posts trying to match wits against me. You are becoming an irritant more than a worthy opponent.

Here is another porus contradiction. These are coming too often now.

This is what he says in one post

only humans intentionally pursue pleasure and plan to avoid pain.

and then this is what he says in the next.

I imagine animals of all species find pleasure in sex, that is why they engage in it.

anajmi wrote: Did you know that there is at least one other known species on earth that has sex for the sake of pleasure?

Hey anajmi,

Since we are discussing the origin of morality, in your research about the non-human species that 'has sex for pleasure', have you also discovered if it has developed adultery, fornication and divorce laws as well?

That is a job for the scientists. They are the ones who made these discoveries. And you seem to be ignorant of the science you are defending.

Safiuddin, thank you for your comments. I have been corrected on that particular mistake of mine that this website is more about the social reform in the current top-down monarchy we have in the Dawoodi Bohra community. And of course, I am on the same page as you are when it comes to the existence of supernatural celestial beings. And just wanted to give you heads up... there are some on this forum who are not here to have a genuine debate & lack basic level of comprehension & reading skills so no point wasting time on them. To such individuals, intellectual honesty, logical consistency, reasonably coherent - all are words so alien and scary, they stay light years away from it. It is so bad that this one "bright" individual doesn't even understand the usage of quotation marks and keeps throwing them around at random, and claims to ask "questions". This type of blatant ignorance is seen when one is intellectually bankrupt and has nothing substantial to offer. These are our Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck equivalents. It just entertaining & nothing more, to see such comments.

Al Zulfiqar, great and very interesting post:)

Not answering a single question that I raised, not responding to any of my posts demonstrates your intellectual honesty and logical consistency. And it demonstrates how much you pretenders actually know. Infact you "scientists" are such cowards that you cannot even curse me directly and you have to go via other people. Was science responsible for cutting off the pair that nature provided?

This type of blatant ignorance

I am the one asking and you are the one ignoring. So. scientifically speaking, who is the ignorant one?

I am waiting to see what Safiuddin will bring as "clear evidence" or is he going to demonstrate my lack of "intellectual honesty, logical consistency" and my "blatant ignorance" by keeping quiet and staying away. I will bet on the later. More quotation marks to drive you crazy.

As long as I am around, I am not going to let you guys get away with cheating people by using big words. I am going to bring everything you say under microscopic scrutiny such that the only thing left for you to do is either run away or get personal with me. I am going to demonstrate your intellectual honesty to people.

This discussion seems to have lost it's focus, but that's Okay as long it has given anajmi a mission in life. Go anajmi go, give it to them, them damn intellectuals!!! And don't forget to puff up your chest and do a little jig.

Humsafar,

What I am trying to show is that these aren't intellectuals in the first place. Whoever said that these are intellectuals is a bigger moron than these people are. They have no rational intelligence or logical coherency and are blatantly inconsistent. On top of that they are moralistically stagnant and scientifically challenged. Had to throw a few of those out there to demonstrate my belonging to the clan of intellectuals.

anajmi, I said that with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek!

Sure you did. So we both agree that these aren't intellectuals correct?