Whence Then is Evil?

In #146 read, << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

as << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can`t answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

Re, #147

Let me quote the answer for you from my paper, God: The New Scientific Evidence:

(quote)According to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems (based upon which the singularity of the Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, because Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level), objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states (Ferris, Timothy 1997:255). The ``wave function`` of the universe could never have collapsed without the ``observation`` of an observer, i.e. God. The Koran states:

To God is due the starting point (primal origin, Badeeh in Arabic) of the skies and the earth. And Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says to it, ``Be`` and it is.``(Koran 2:117).

(end quote)

re. Zeemax 136:
God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ...

Right... And what, pray tell, do or can we possibly know, which is NOT a direct result of human perception?

re. masadi:
``Actually [Mr Gill] is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.``

Indeed it would seem that probabilistic causation and determnism are being incorrectly seen as opposites ( A commoon misunderstanding, I might add); but pray tell, masadi sahib, how is God necessitated by Bohr or Heisenberg being right?

Re: 145

That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits, you need not become a table to understand a table, similarly the limits of perception are filled through reason which expands human understanding way beyond the limits of perception. Saying that logic has its limits so we cannot understand God, and have to rely on faith is a lame argument, such arguments, supporting whatever status quo might exist at the time are mere excuses that try to take perfectly reason bound phenomenon to the realm of the forbidden.

143, Kal Saheb and Philosopher,

Humans have been given limited capacity of perception. They can`t see beyond speed of light, they can`t smell many things, they can`t express/understand/decipher many things. They have evolved the concept of infinity which they can`t visualize. So, they can`t know God. They can not say whether God exists or not. Similarly nothing is evil/good because many things which are good for humans are bad for other species of living beings and vice-versa. God/Nature or call it/Him anything has to look after everyone including non-living things so we, humans can`t decide which is good and which is evil. Universe is carrying on in its own way.

Samar

Gill writes <<< The research conducted to date has verified Bohr’s point of view. Certain aspects of quantum physics are not very clear in the classical sense and our understanding will probably change when (or if) a unified theory (Theory of Everything) is discovered... >>>

Actually this hypocrite is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.

That said, can you remove your damn photo from the front page of this site, it has been there for weeks, advertising a long gone article. Just because you happen to be the damn editor of Chowk does not mean you can advertise yourself and censor other much better written articles....

Philosopher

I have a request for you, my friend.

Before the question of whence evil? must come the question of what is evil? Gill sahib won`t even get into that other than portraying evil as the opposite of good. :(

You have a gift for putting across basic islamic insights in most logical fashion. And Islam probably has the best and clearest understanding of evil.

Could you take out a little of your time to write a note on what evil is from Islamic point of view. It will be very helpful.

Thanks in anticipation.

khurram: #141
Thanks for sending the article to me. We all learn from our objective and open-minded analyses of propositions that we come across now and then. I didn`t spend much time in analysing the problem step by step. I noticed the serious defect in assumption #2 and that was it. Be well,
Mohammad Gill

Re: freethinker #140,
I guess that is one way around it. To deny causality altogether.

I just saw this `proof` today for the first time and posted it because it was relevant to your earlier post. After I thought about it a little more I realized it has an obvious problem even if we accept causality. The proof says that God(G) must be an uncaused non-composite cause of the Universe(U) because the Universe being a composite system cannot be self-caused.
But if G does indeed exist as a cause of U then G+U make another composite system and we need to look for another cause. So we are back to the problem of infinite regression.

I was glad to realize this because I don`t believe in reducing God to `existence`.

khurram: #137

Although I had said in my last post that that was my last post, khurram has sent something else in my direction, which is the so-called (a new) proof of “The Existence of God?” The article (hyperlinked) itself recognizes that the proof is not entirely new because its essentials had already been formulated by Ibn-i-Sina in the eleventh century. Nonetheless, it is cast in a new logical frame (is it really new?) although it is the old cause-effect formulation. The accuracy of the proof rests on three assumptions which are described simply in the hyperlinked “A New Proof of God’s Existence?” If any of these assumptions is incorrect, the logical structure will collapse.

The number 2 assumption says, “For every system or composite phenomenon, any cause for the system is also a cause for every part of the system. (Every material thing, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum physics, is composite.)”

There was a 30-year long discussion (controversy) on determinism (cause-effect hypothesis) between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein believed in determinism while Bohr said the events taking place in the subatomic world are probabilistic; they are not deterministic. You can only calculate the probability of an event in the subatomic world but cannot say for sure that a certain event will actually occur as an effect of a prior cause.

The research conducted to date has verified Bohr’s point of view. Certain aspects of quantum physics are not very clear in the classical sense and our understanding will probably change when (or if) a unified theory (Theory of Everything) is discovered... Therefore the so-called proof is suspect due to questionability of assumption number 2.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: freethinker,
``When I see a convincing argument in support of the existence of theistic God, I`ll accept it and share it with other agnostics and atheists.``

Mr Gill,
What do you think of this?

http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214as.htm
(Don`t forget to click on the link at the end of the article)

Re: # 132

well Gill sahib

We both have presented our case. Now its up to the readers`s choice what they find more meaningfull.

Lets agree to disagree.it has been a pleasure to have debate with you. I am really thankful to you for kind response.

I haven`t found that mail...can you please send it on

philo_chowk@yahoo.com

Thank you very much for that.I find words so poor to express how much i am grateful to you for that.

Re:#134 by zeemax on July 9, 2007 12:45pm PT

Thanx mate.....lol to the last line.

Zee, Philo

Some people might suspect that you two are creating a new Islam. Or that your understanding of Islam is not any better than theirs or other Chowkies, say, Gill Sahib`s.

That can be easily put to test through # 133.

Actual scholars of Islam (again, not self proclaimed sufis) are unlikely to spend too much time proving God is good. Rather they would see Islam as the ``best`` way to reach God/ find His grace.

With Christians and Sufis, of course proclaiming the so-called goodness of God might be a big issue.


If anybody knows otherwise, it will be great to hear from them.

#132 by freethinker,

I think scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah.

Bhai ... God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ... Sir read Surah Ikhlaas.

Re: # 128
Re: # 128

kaal ji


((((how can one distinguish between the following two sets of statements?:

[God is omnipotent.
God is good.]

and

[Good is omnipotent.
God is evil.]

Can these be used interchangeably? Just because good exists, it does not prove that God is not evil)))))

well..kaal.. Religion or for that matter Quran has never said that God is ``good`` or evil. As i mentioned earlier that, these are the modes of substance which, we derive from attributes of substance and are infinite in numbers. For example; Omnipotence can accommodate both good and evil at the same time. But before that we have to define `good` and evil’. Both these terms are used in an emotional way which are further responsible for an ethical interpretation of religion, the fallacy that i was once discussing with you.(#282 daughter of hajar). This argument goes like that;

God is good....some part of religion is bad (even if it is one of core principles).
God is greater than the religion so come on guys lets change the religion...God would love it...because God is love....couple of songs in the church with a few candles and that is it.

This thinking was responsible for the decline of Christianity as a religion (both socially and theologically). Now you can understand why Islam is surviving even in the most intense materialism world has ever witnessed.

We label attributes of God as good or bad according to their ((those so called attributes .e.g. mercifull.raheem...compeller..etc)) consequences on our life. in that sense good and evil are not even MODES in the strict sense. These qualities are given by us to certain Actions depending on their implications, which again have relative value.

For example; in human life good means ``following moral laws`` Whereas in God`s case...its God who is the source of all moralities...So any concept of Goodness of God can be understood in the context of God`s primary attributes i.e. ominieverything...etc( if at all you think that logic is relevant there).At the end of the day the problem we will face is, the concept of infinity. So here we go.....even in that case we have insufficient methodology in the form of logic to analyze religious assertion....at the end of the day problem remains there from where it started. .First of all we have to have ABSOLUTLY certain and objective LOGIC if we insist on applying it on religion....And every student of philosophy knows there is NO such logic....but the problem with philosophy is that everybody considers himself a philosopher....If a person is not a doctor he will never say he is a doctor but if a student of philosophy tells someone even a fundamental concept of philosophy ``MR someone`` would never accept that....this is the problem. Applying this logic on religion is just like checking an out of order bus with a medical instrument and that too a broken one.


The question of evil and good (including the one you have raised) and their internal consistency are the result of a misunderstood concept of monotheism (as I have mentioned in my reply to PM in 71) and that is, taking oneness of God, as mathematical oneness. In Mathematics one is the half of two and double of half. We don’t know what kind of oneness of God has…Quran has always mentioned it as the denial ‘’shirk’’(associating partner with Allah).Analogical thinking is not relevant here. So deriving any ‘’abstract’’ conclusion from that ‘’oneness’’ is meaningless and shows the ignorance of the relevance of different epistemological dimension suited to the universe of discourse it is dealing with. Religion itself is an independent epistemology and cannot be understood by only one methodology.

It is simply impossible to understand religion without living in its climate of opinion and looking the entire reality with its perspective. Unless you come at level of ‘I’ to ‘I’ encounter with religious truths ,you will never be able to comprehend them. Religion gives you the methodology to follow and find the truth.

Regards

#127 by philosopher,

Excellent post. Guess you missed the pub today :)