The Incoherence of the Man-made Man

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

I really enjoyed reading the article, not just for its style, but also for the issues that it addresses. The questions about human nature, capability and about our age-old curiosity about them are certainly among the most basic that every person has asked. While I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article, I could not help noticing a few things.

Whereas the question of a ``divine`` or a ``metaphysical`` origin of human faculties is certainly a valid philosophical issue, an attempt to ``prove`` the invalidity of a ``non-divine`` origin itself is incoherent. If I were to take the gist and the conclusion of the article to be a reductio ad absurdum ``proof`` of the invalidity of all ideas that do not require a divine source, then surely the article does not provide that.

Let me, for argument`s sake, point out the salient features of the argument:

(1) The central argument of the article is a teleological one, i.e. pertaining to the universe, and all of its constituent elements, having a reason or an end for their existence.

Now, whereas one may justifiably argue, that the human mind may require the presence of a reason or an end for its own satisfaction, one cannot in any honesty apply the same logic to anything non-human. Why should the universe have any reason at all? Why must it be laboring incessantly towards a pre-determined goal?

Although, stated forcefully, and in many guises throughout the article, this point is never substantiated. And I believe that it is very difficult to also.

(2) The second major point was to point out the definition of morality in the absence of a divinity. I think the flaw in that argument is pretty obvious. Even mutually conflicting ideas of divinity give rise to pretty much uniform standards of morality.

(3) The third major argument was a cosmological one i.e to point out the ``impossibility`` of the emergence of nature and its complexity given only chance. While it is counter-intuitive that such complexity should arise from simplicity by itself, it does not mean that it is impossible. I remember a math professor of mine who taught me probability theory, he used to often say, ``Intuition quickly adjusts to reality``. In matters relating to probabilities and chance, our minds are seldom able to keep track of the way things unfold. Especially when certain processes are cumulative over long periods of time. Consider the simple example of erosion of rock by air. And then consider the reverse example of the development of the modern airplane from its ancestors less than a hundred years ago. A little bit of reflection clearly shows the flaw in all popular arguments against explanations that include only chance as their main engine of change. Everyone who vehemently opposes or refuses to understand evolution, for example, clearly fails to understand the effect of tiny forces when they are applied for millions of years.

(4) Now let me reverse the argument, and say that I want to show the ``Incoherence of a God-made man``. Here`re a few questions that I would ask:

(a) Why should there be a Necessary being?
(b) Can God create a stone He cannot lift?
(c) Why is there evil?
(d) Does the ontological argument of the imperfection of any imaginary divine being necessarily imply the presence of an actual divine being?
(e) Aren`t God`s omniscience and immutability mutually contradictory?

Questions simply stated, complicated answers.

(5) Even if everything does boil down to a post-modernist ambiguity, does that prove anything about the presence of a divinity? I do not think so. An absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

You donot appear to make concessions for several concrete facts and scientific proofs. Even the most philosophical of writings concede some grounds to that.

However, the article, I must say, is well written.

Why do I have this feeling this is a re-visit to the timeless and inconclusive debate between Jabriyah & Qadriyah? Or did we resolve it in the third century A.H.?

regards

Mr. Manzoor there is absolutely no content to your article. Your self-indulgence should harness some actual understanding/grounding of the terms you so flippantly use...I suggest you read some Alberto-Perez Gomez and then re-write the article.

Don`t cast thy pearls before the swine.

Your actor ``man`` is situated at a level of abstraction which is not meaningfully related to any conception of the concrete. This enables you to get away with any generalisation that you might want to make.