Bubble of a Believer

Re: "Complacency is a comfort zone for feeble minds only." reminds me of Ghalib "dair-o-haram aaeena-e-takraar-e-tamanna....vamandagiy-e-shauq tarashay hai panahen.
The arguments of OMLK do not hold water, because the author has already explained why an external moral standard is NOT needed and therefore search for God cannot be for cementing the culturally accepted morality. Indeed morality has not been the driving force for all religions.
One thing to note is that existence of God as professed by diests, begs the question WHICH God? for God and His Morality comes in several flavors quite opposite to each other. Personally I don't think Abrahamic religions (which are supposedly based on arbitrary morality,) are moral. Even my ten year old could see that, when he asked "It is sexist to think that a man cannot steal a neighbor's wife, but there is nothing against women stealing their neighbor's husbands!"

With reference to the post by Mr. Javed Chaudry and Dr. Tahir Qazi I would like to make the following comments:

To begin with it must be made clear that evolution is now supported by genetic science and is accepted as a fact and not just theory. However, the mechanism of evolution (to which I think mostly Mr. Javed has referred to) is still in the realm of theory. But it cannot be denied (scientifically speaking) that all living beings today certainly evolved from a common origin. Personally I think the Quran supports evolution, but that is another discussion. In any case, evolution or the lack thereof in itself is not a definitive criterion to argue about the existence of God. How God created man is a different discussion from was man created by God. As per popular definitions of God, God himself (use of masculine is arbitrary) could have used any means for creation of man, including evolution. What is more pertinent is the creation of matter, space and time; and that is where Science has no answer. We know Universe was created x billion years ago from a singularity and that it is expanding (into what Science does not know) and probably has a finite existence. Science has measured the laws of the universe (which by their uniformity and consistency point out to a single creator, if there is a creator that is), but we do not really know why the laws and the universal constants are what they are (we do know that life probably would not have existed if they were any different).

Science also has no satisfactory explanation to describe the fundamental existence of our reality. Fact is the deeper you go into matter (quantum mechanics, string theory etc), or the “outer” you go (what is the universe expanding into) scientific understanding dissolves into probabilities. This is at par with philosophical arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc etc) about the existence of God, because the outcome of such arguments is “there is probably a God”, or that there is “probably no God”; two statements which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A crude parallel would be the proverbial half empty and half full glass. What we end up with is that both science and philosophy deal in probabilities when it comes to answering the most profound questions.

Religion appears to bridge this gap by the concept of a personal and living God that is itself the absolute reality, the uncaused cause that breaks the cycle of infinite regression implied by atheists. Consider: as we are bound by the physicality of our existence it is impossible to prove the existence of any entity existing outside the same physicality using the methods and knowledge of that said physicality. All description of the absolute reality then is merely metaphorical and there can never be any undisputed proof. At the same time religion does claim to establish the presence of God by human experiences. However, as human experiences are subjective, and will always remain so, what it boils down to is that in the end the absolute reality makes itself known to the created as a personal God. Those seeking God then find him, and those who do not consider the same a worthy pursuit do not.

On a personal level, seeking of God is critical for the following reasons:

1 – The innate sense of right and wrong within humans implies an external standard of the same. Appears to be a contradictory statement but is not. This is again another discussion altogether.

2 – The Quran implores the readers to use their faculties of reasoning and reflect on the creation of universe and other signs (a sign could be the Quranic assertion that mankind descended from a single man and a single woman and modern genetic theory suggesting the same). This at least warrants an effort by the humble human! In my opinion science is anything but humble. It is correct Science admits what it cannot explain but has a clear arrogant attitude as being the ultimate truth; which is why many scientists do not consider it worthwhile to seriously make an effort to seek any alternate mode of truth. Probably the reasonable and humble attitude would be to accept science as the fundamental tool for understanding and using the laws of this universe and keep an open and tolerant mind to alternate routes to truth when it comes to seeking answers to more profound questions which are basic to the human psyche and to seek an answer to which there appears to be an inbuilt and strong desire in humanity.

Dear Javed Sahib - Re. #318:

I owe you thank for reading my long article, “Bubble of a Believer” Thank you!

With due respect at the outset, I disagree with your arguments on several counts.

My understanding is that you are interested in “Evolution” but you look at it through a religious prism. I do not discount that there are several prominent scientist who have spoken against evolution but their views on science of evolution are tainted with religious-ideological fervor. Some of them weave a web of rationalization to discard science that does not befit their religious model. It hardly bears any weight in scientific discourse.

Allow me to admit that science does not offer answers to every question that is posed. However, it assures to follow a logical and rational approach (not rationalization) towards solving a problem. That’s what is missing in a religious approach … Humility to accept, “I do not know”.

Specifically, when you write, “The science has not supported the theory of evolution ….” Honestly, I do not understand what does it mean? Please tell me if you have found a fossil of horse or human that is 4 billions years old. I could have been more specific in time-line but I am pulling this number4 billions because science tells us that the planet earth is about 4 billion years old.

The theory of life in religious scriptures like Bible and Koran is, “Creation” not natural selection over time. This would turn the table … Now you have to provide physical proof for creation of life, a human, a horse or any others creatures in current morphology dated 4 billions years old.

Dear Javed Sahib: In your article “Busting the Bubble of Non-Believers” you tried to make several arguments but virtually every argument remains in the sphere of ‘creation & creator’ – The cosmological argument. This is an ancient argument that morphs into many various forms and, somehow, fails to go away.

The reason why the idea of a creator refuses to fade away is common human experience: since everything is made by something. We have life … therefore, there has to be a creator and natural selection simple does not point in that direction.

“Theory of Natural Selection” is not a theory for everything. It does not speak to the origin of life or the ultimate end (whatever it may mean).

On a different but parallel note, as you know, we do not expect gravity to provide for the laws of motion. I wonder why do you expect “Theory of Natural Selection” to provide you answer to the origin of life question. This question is simply beyond the purview of this theory. May I respectfully remind, science is a brick work … one by one. Does religious approach provide us answers … brick by brick, one by one?

Thanks and kind regards … like always,

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

i do not keep roza or follow halal eating..
http://www.cricket-chat.com/view_messages.php?did=7704

Answering Dr. Tahir Qazi

Busting the Bubble of Non-Believers

By: Javed I. Chaudry

Humanity has always wondered about the supernatural, the existence or non-existence of God and the creator of the universe. From the minds of the ancients to the mind of the modern man, an image of the creator has been evolving which has assumed many forms and shapes according to the times and the limits of man’s own knowledge and perception. Over time, the evolution of man’s intelligence, the flight of thought and psyche has largely abandoned the ancient mythologies and most of the humanity have adopted Biblical and Quranic principles.

It is true, the burden of proof of God’s existence would lie on the shoulders of the believers, but it must not be ignored that absence of proof is not a proof of absence (of God). Through the experience of thousands of years, we have learned that knowledge is acquired through struggle and keen observation; and it takes time to accumulate and assemble pieces of the puzzle. The life is full of challenges, the Quran confirms it.

During the last couple of centuries, reference to science is often cited by the non-believers. Looking closely, it is not too hard to realize that slogans of science and rationality used by the atheists are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Darwin’s theory of evolution was thought to be a ground breaking scientific attempt to support the religion of atheism by associating it with science. The science has not supported the theory of evolution especially when it comes to the creation of man. If any thing, the modern science has, in many ways, enhanced the acceptance of the premise of the creationists in favor of a supreme creator of the universe.

Historically, the philosophers have frequently used three arguments to support the existence of God, which are: Ontological, Teleological and Cosmological argument. Although none of these arguments directly prove the existence of God, but the Cosmological argument is the most robust of the three and has interesting implications which are worth pursuing. It would be instructive to mention here that it is highly unlikely that the existence of the creator will ever be proved in a conventional scientific laboratory environment. In stead, the existence of God will have to be reduced or deduced by drawing inferences from the observations in the light of a combined study of science (cosmology, physics, chemistry and biochemistry) and philosophy. This inquiry and related investigation must go beyond a simple psychological ecstasy through ‘feeling good’ agents.

An excellent treatment of Cosmological argument can be found at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It is a 25 page article. I will only discuss its weakness, which is described as:
Since all things need a cause to exist (Causation), hence, God must also need a cause to exist.
In his book: ‘There is a God’, Antony Flew has answered this objection the following way:
‘[Dawkins and others ask, “ Who created God?” Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Some thing always existed.]’

An interesting corollary that emerges from this is that the Big Bang theory has already proved that the universe did not always exist. It is further supported by clear verses in the Quran as well as Cosmological arguments. So, what are we left with in the final analysis? Obviously, the existence of God!

The Teleological argument was advanced by William Paley; who launched the famous question of finding a watch in the sand. The question itself may not prove a lot, but certainly arouses further thought provoking questions which cannot be ignored. Can a large system of heavenly bodies run smoothly like a clockwork without a design? Have we experienced any system that runs with precision all by itself without a plan or a design? This is a good question for those who keep invoking science but never provide scientific evidence in order to support their assertions. The students of life sciences often fall short in understanding and the essential need for the appreciation of design or lack of it and the ensuing implications. During the last 150 years, the biologists have been preoccupied with Darwin’s theory of evolution. They have put all their eggs in one basket – the basket has not been able to fly as yet. The theory of evolution is in crisis. Thousands of fossils which have been unearthed during the last century or so, have failed to provide the evidence sought to support this theory.

Dr. Qazi writes, “If somebody is bent upon calling solar and lunar orbits as prefect design then the religious genius would have to explain why elliptical orbit of our glorious planet is more perfect than, shall we say, if it were a circle”.

To start with, it is not for any of us to pass the judgment on the notion of ‘perfection’. It is a subjective term, it may carry different meanings for different people without having a pre-determined specifications of what is meant by “perfect”. Secondly, if earth’s orbit was a perfect circle, then the length of day and night would be equal during the year at all places on earth. Now as it stands, we have a change of length of day and night and yet, if some one wants to have equal length day/night, can move to equatorial regions. So, a choice is built into it which we will not have with a perfectly circular orbit.

There is no end to the objections one can raise against God’s works. We can demand, for example: why two eyes in the front only, why not additional one or two in the back of the head as well. Why not four hands, instead of two? Since we do not know what the word ‘perfection’ means, we can unload a barrage of meaningless objections to no end. Such subjective statements serve no purpose of any significance to meaningfully discuss the matter at hand. The tilt of the earth’s axis in reference to the Sun’s equatorial disc gives us four seasons. One can always argue, why do we need four seasons, why not just one? There may be no end to the subjective and self serving objections.

The birth and destruction of stars and all heavenly bodies is part of the design that goes on all the time. So much so, our own solar system has the same destiny as has been predicted by the cosmologists and described in the Quran. The cosmologists have pictorial evidence of stars at different stages of their life span clearly showing their evolution and death – some thing that the biologists have failed miserably to show in order to support Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I agree with Dr. Qazi, the Cosmological argument is not the end in itself – but that is where my agreement ends. It is, in fact, the starting point to establish and recognize the existence of God. The claim that the humans often tend to transform God into an anthropomorphic entity is merely a reflection on the human weakness and ignorance. It has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God. The human ignorance cannot be used as a proof against the premise under discussion. The word ‘Allah’ used in Quran to refer to God has an important attribute of being genderless, an important consideration to set God apart from (male or female) humans.

The Cosmological argument describes only the beginning of the universe, not life (as erroneously suggested by Dr. Qazi). Several centuries ago, the Cosmological argument was put forward by the philosophers and the scholars of the three main religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) accepted it. There was no physical science such as physics/astrophysics developed to a level that could possibly explain the birth of the universe. The Big bang theory was proposed by the cosmologists only about 60 years ago. It explains most of the phenomenon after the moment of singularity but not prior to it - it cannot, as the physical laws, time and space did not exist. The birth of the universe is supported by the Quran which was revealed over 1400 years ago.

The scientists have now ironed out the earlier incongruity that they had among themselves about the creation of universe (Big Bang) vs. steady state universe. Now they are faced with the detailed description of the first 100 seconds after the singularity erupted into what we see as our universe. The Quran, the Cosmological argument and the modern astrophysics are lined up in complimenting and supporting each other.

In view of the evidence available so far, the notion of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are nothing but modern mythologies put forward by the biologists. These notions have little to offer in terms of objective science but they are big on subjective speculations and fairy tales some times constructed on the evidence of one bone that they have dug up from some where.

I have no objection to people calling themselves an atheist, but I do have objection, when they try to advance their subjective beliefs based on pseudo-science as science without providing the supporting scientific evidence.

The phenomenon of externalism is not limited to a Deity or religious beliefs. Externalism is referred to the life experiences that conscious beings acquire voluntarily or involuntarily from their social environment. Depending upon the level of intelligence attained and the external influences experienced, each and every individual creates their own bubble around them in which they feel secure, safe and comfortable. The psychological bubble is created by the non-believers as well depending on their own socio-cultural circumstance and life experiences. There is no unique (psychological) bubble that can be associated with the believers only. It applies to all conscious beings.

Morality may be a social consideration but looking at the history of mankind’s behavioral evolutionary track record, it is not hard to see why the divinity had to set rules for right and wrong when defining morality at various levels – individual and collective. We can easily detect when a rule of morality is broken, as long as the rule has been defined. Individuals and nations have developed morality standards at their own pace and in accordance with their own cultural values; the criteria for right and wrong vastly differs from each other. How would we judge the American (national) behavior by any moral standards whatsoever in view of 2003 invasion of Iraq in the interest to control the Iraqi oil? Clearly, the issue of morality cannot be left to the humans, they have not yet (socially) evolved to a level that they can take responsibility of such matters. They constantly and repetitively need reminding about the divine rules.

High moral values and altruism is an important requirement of all religious codes of ethics. In practice, what we observe is that socio-economic conditions have a pervasive impact on such values in almost all societies around the globe irrespective of their religious faith or lack of it.

#316 Tehsin: That point about Gibbons, as I mentioned, was a sidetrack. But thanks for pointing this out - I googled and checked and you are right, christianity is one of the reasons he provides. (I had read his book 40 years ago in Pakistan, and for some reason all that I recalled was talk about barbarians - this was a little before the days we had wikipedia).

Anyway, the Greeks I think themselves borrowed their gods from the ancient Egyptians (the older civilization), so one could trace the "soul train" back to the ancient egyptians in that case. So what are you going to teach the renaissance-ed kids on Pakistan as you propose - Greek classics or Egyptian hieroglyphics??

Much better I think to keep things simple - emphasize character building in Pakistan (e.g. everything constructive they can learn from religion can be summarized in the back of a card, namely: dont lie. keep your word. share your toys. play nice. use your head. be responsible.

And if your interests are in finding the answer to Life's Big Questions - keep up to date with scientific advances. The latest edition of the Scientific American is dedicated to updating readers on where science stands today on the Big Questions (Creation; What distinguishes the human brain from that of animals; What is life, and how it got started; etc.). You will find that a much more fruitful endeavor, trust me.

E.g. not only have the found how the building blocks of life, the amino acids would have formed 3.7 billion or so years ago from basic chemicals, but also traced their way to the formation of the the RNA - which preceded the DNA it now seems. All done "untouched by superhuman hands", and purely through interactions of chemicals and replication of conditions as they existed back then.

So - the idea of a soul that you can understand (e.g. in the ancient greek of egyptian style) is simply way too simplistic. And we come back to what I said earlier - dont try to figure out what "God" is. the more you know, the further he recedes. And that in fact is what Islam (the Quran, not the Maulvi version) keeps saying - as do in fact other religions as I understand. "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao."

#313 Posted by tahmed32

“(a point that has evaded western scholars from Gibbons on down who found every reason under the sun for the collapse of the Roman emperor - except the one staring at them in the face, since that would have meant condemning Christianity).”

You are patently wrong on this one; Gibbons believed Christianity was an important contributing factor in the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact I think he identified it as one of the 3 main factors for the fall, others being Barbarian invasions and decadence.

“You need emphasis on character building and basic values in Pakistan”

Arey Bhai! Western values all come from Plato and Aristotle, soul theory which we have talked about is only a tiny portion of the corpus of this luminary.

Regards Sahib:

I thought I did addressed it in my #248 but looking at it again I really didn’t in a point by point manner that we have done in the past. So, I will be working on it and may be not on this board but I will post it on an appropriate board in the future. I hope that is acceptable to you because I really enjoyed our interaction.

#313 tahmed32

In Europe, philosophy is a compulsory subject. In the final year of high school, language classes give way to philosophy. Exams subjects are also highly sophisticated. No rote reading can succeed. Try writing for 3 hours on a highly abstract subject requires having developped industive and deductive capacity.

This one thing I believe prepares european youngsters to analyse life, stay open to arguments and never to be adverse or hostile to a good discussion.

I also believe it is one very important factor in character building. I'm pushiing for introduction of such a course in the first year of IIt's - engineering schools in India as IITians come with very high expectations and even minor failure in exams leads to desperation and often suicide. Some day I hope secondary school students will be also doing so. Please do not forget almost all philosophers of today are atheists.

I'm born in a family where many exercise functions of priest. I was given to read all classics- mahabharat, ramayana but also more exotic ones. I think at that age of 15, I must have been honest towards what I was trying to understand and necessarily it led me to atheism. By the age of 20, I found Schopenhauer and later Russel and Sartre to be more suitable than most of other modern philosophers. In India, probably due to nationalism, all things including 200 years old philosophical thought passes as if it is current.

Introduction to philosophy gives a more balanced attitude towards life.

Tehsin: I really regret that I never got your answers to the questions I had posed though you invited me to discuss. Pls permit me not to engage in any further discussion in futur with you in such conditions.

Tehsin #312 Classics are fine, and Greek politics and Roman law continue to provide the inspiration not just for western civilization - but the basic concepts (democracy from Greece and the Rule of Law from Rome) have by now been accepted the world over. But these did not prevent Rome from falling - a victim of mixing religion with politics, thanks to the conversion of Constantine (a point that has evaded western scholars from Gibbons on down who found every reason under the sun for the collapse of the Roman emperor - except the one staring at them in the face, since that would have meant condemning Christianity).

Anyway - I stray from the point i was going to make - namely, while the study of the classics is admirable as is the study of philosophy, if you wish to see Pakistan progress, studying Plato isnt going to cut it. You need emphasis on character building and basic values in Pakistan. Today, the biggest block to character building and basic values is religion as practiced in Pakistan (what I call "short-cut Islam", where the emphasis is not on doing the right thing in the first place, but on doing rituals (roza, namaz, hajj) to wash away your sins.

#308 Posted by Regards

“Please Pakistanis, Is it possible to make it philosophy in place of islamiat only? Or philosophy also?”

The rape of education that has taken place in Pakistan is unparalleled. At the time of partition nearly all major colleges and universities offered philosophy as a subject in college. During my time in college philosophy was no longer offered either at the intermediate or at the bachelor’s degree level at my college. At the university (mind you Punjab University) there was a small philosophy department which was inundated with students who couldn’t find admission in any other department or those whose main purpose for coming to the university was to be in student politics. In other words no worthwhile teaching was going on there.

Another equally important casualty was Islamic History. This was an important and popular field of study during the early years of Pakistan but because it did not serve the myth that our leaders wished to create about Islam it was gradually transformed into Islamic studies. Now Islamic history is not even taught in a Masters Degree program.

The foundations of modern education in the west are still based in the Classics – study of Latin and Greek literature and thought and Philosophy. May be we should also try to use this Western recipe to get rid of our malaise.

#309 Posted by Regards

As far as Pakistan is concerned we have too many demons, unresolved matters, twisted and convoluted thinking from which the only way out is facing the truth. You should never expect or accuse politicians of truth. We only have a spark of hope because media in the last few years has actually started to tell things the way they are. Is this enough to save Pakistan? I don’t think so (my rational self tells me that) but as you know I have hope.

#305 Posted by ajeya

I agree with Maugham and what you wrote about the various interactors on Chowk. I think curiosity is inversely proportional to the level of your belief. Atheists are usually obsessed with the subject whereas believers couldn’t care less.

If you have not seen the news. Here it is:

Islamiat made compulsory from grade 1 to graduation
Updated at: 1515 PST, Saturday, September 05, 2009
LAHORE: Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif Saturday said Islamiat subject has been made compulsory from first grade to the graduation in National Educational policy 2009 for the religious awareness.

He said this during a meeting held regarding National Educational Policy 2009 at Chief Minister House.

Shahbaz Sharif said the meeting decided to include history and geography in Pakistan Studies from primary to secondary level and exclude from the syllabus the material that stand in conflict with Islamic teachings and values.

He said it has been decided that science and mathematics would be taught in English language in a bid to boost the modern education, adding a regulatory authority is being established to establish and co-ordinate the private educational institutions.

Sharif said he is thankful to Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani to incorporate the recommendations of Punjab government in National Educational Policy.

The girls are being offered vast opportunities of education in this policy, he added.

Please Pakistanis, Is it possible to make it philosophy in place of islamiat only? Or philosophy also?

It will educate all fasadi mullahs.