Life on Earth: Chance or Deliberate

Re:krashid Reply #: 64

Dear krashid,

``I can tell you from my personal experience that when I was in deepest trouble, none but God (my belief) gave me strength, to overcome the trouble.``

However deep we are in trouble, there`s no man who gives up hope. Are you confusing this natural psychological phenomenon with belief in God ? If you really (I mean really) believed in God you would`nt make a single move to extricate yourself from your troubles nor would you be worried.

When we are in trouble most of us have God on our mind. We perceive 3 distinct independent entities - oneself, the troubles and hope (which we confuse with God). The expectation is that (with sufficient supplication) God will make the troubles go away. This in my opinion is a logical error. God by definition cannot be independent of our troubles.

No offense intended, but I found the following combination of sentenses amusing:

``...plight and impotence of their actions lead them to believe not only in God or other deity, but also tombs, asking Wali to make dua.`` ``But ask a person who is in grave problem, it may be the only solace and only hope.`` !!!

regards,

AN

Those who believe in Divine creation must read a recently published book, ``Non Zero`` by Robert Wright. A summary of the book and excerpts from each chapter are available at:

www.nonzero.org/

The Author makes a case for creation through a pre planned scheme by God, using game theory.

ilovemoney: [Ofcourse, you can still believe in god because of Pascal`s gamble... if you believe and you turn out to be wrong, all you lose is something like -4(hours spent praying and so on). If God does exist, however, you win infinity... so even if the probability of God`s existence is small, the rational thing to do is to believe.... Of course, this doesn`t tell you which religon to believe in...]

This is very interesting statement. What about other small probabilities. For instance, you can spend four hours working out a possible jackpot winning combination for lotteries because you might win infinitely.....

Do not cross the road, you might get hit by a vehicle and so many other risks one takes everyday.

Dear Rajanjua, reply 66

Let`s have a few examples and please tell me why you think my examples are irrelevant.

Best Wishes

Omar Phoenix

You`re trying to mix science and religion-What is irritating are the irrelevant examples from Physics.

Naqshbandi as usual thinks that all the Arab scientists were strict followers of the Shariah as defined by his Beralvi/Naqshbandi ``tareeqah``. He forgets that almost all the great Arab scientists were persecuted by his types for their beliefs.

Gymnosophist: try pi = 4.0d0 *atan(1.0d0), works fine for most calculations.

Sameer, you need to keep writing, my friend.

Amir Janjua

macgupta:#60

But Eulidean geometry(Aqleedus in arabic) is old hat now.It has been changed by new mathematical concepts.The discovery & understanding of new dimensions and time/distance phenomenon is going to make it relevant but only in the classical sense.

But the statement``Seek knowledge,explore to understand God through its manifestations and Man`s helplessness in getting his plans thwarted``

This kind of statement would be eternally & universally true---and it does not matter who & who`s follower said it.

A human`s desire to ask questions which go beyond his temporal needs is ample evidence that the Darwinian concept of only material & organic sustainance is simply not the end.

DullaBhatti`s points are valid and our quest should never be to `prove` the other wrong or to `coerce` someone to do it our way.But the ability to avoid Evil itself part of the quest.

That is why Allah has called life in this world a ``test`` or a ``tribulation``.

Religion can prove itself to be a sham & thus exposed if it interferes in the pursuit of truth ---scientific or otherwise;the pope`s apology to galileo is ample proof right now.I hope even now they should not act like monarchy with all its attendant trappings & rid itself of the secular temptations.



wassalaam

McGupta #60.

I totally agree with the point you are making.

Not only in science, but in religion, we are bound by our time and space to interpret.

I will point out our brought up, our culture and assertiveness or as a defense mechanism of our interpretation of religion.

Like in poor people or lower middle class people, the plight and impotence of their actions lead them to believe not only in God or other deity, but also tombs, asking Wali to make dua. In one form according to Pure this is useless and not religion.

But ask a person who is in grave problem, it may be the only solace and only hope. In our (yours as well as mine) poor areas, there is a big business out of this targetting mainly the oppressed.

I can tell you from my personal experience that when I was in deepest trouble, none but God (my belief) gave me strength, to overcome the trouble.

(My belief does not stop me from from accepting the point you are making)

Most of the arguments in the original article and majority of the replies revolve around two things God and Religion. Most of us in one way or the other, to a lesser or more extent believe in some kind of God. I think that is not a matter of conflict and thrust of the original article. The point of conflict is that ``My religion`` is the ``absolute one``, ``my God`` is the ``only`` and the ``real One``, ``God spoke to my prophets``, ``scriptures of my religon are the only ones God dictated dirtectly`` hence ``your belief`` is wrong,``your religion is not valid one``, ``you are going to go to hell``.

Thats where, in my opinion, the problem is. Otherwise we all believe in God my friends.

Re: macgupta #57

You wrote:

``One could believe that a Prophet received a divine revelation, and yet argue, like Thomas Paine, that as far as one is concerned, it is only hearsay.``

How can one believe a revelation to be divine, and still consider it hearsay? If God chooses a person to be a messenger, and this person spreads the message to others, then how is it hearsay? Please feel free to elaborate.

If one believes the originator of the divine revelation to be the True God, then it would imply the revelation to be a true message. On the other hand, if one argues that Ram, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, Zaratushtra etc. were actually hallucinating, then that is an entirely different matter, and would need to be addressed from a different standpoint altogether.

The question once again is ``Is the revelation originating from the True God, or not?`` Answer to this question may be the litmus test that may move this discussion forward, otherwise we may be stuck in ``circular reasoning`` for a while.

You further wrote:

``Scriptures, at best, are a road-map. Second-hand accounts of God may serve to inspire, but direct knowledge is goal of human life.``

Yes indeed, scriptures are road-maps. Achieving nearness to the Creator is indeed the goal of human life. Almost all the divine laws address these issues for the people, and not only for the Prophet they are revealed to. They provide

guidance for others on establishing close relationship with their Creator. If one believes the message to be true and follows it eagerly and sincerely, then he will no doubt experience a close relationship with the Almighty Creator of

all the worlds.

On the other hand, a person who ignores the revealed message and still tries to ``experience God in his own way`` suffers from ``spiritual arrogance``. After all, it is the Creator himself who has provided believers with the road-map to achieve nearness to Him.

It remains unclear if you are testing Paine`s theory, or expressing your own opinion using Paine as a springboard. But I guess, at this stage in discussion it is not important anyway.

Regards, Asad

Everyone:

Let us consider this just a fire-place chat.Nobody but nobody has the ultimate answer and even if he/she has(deep within heart & guts) is unable to comminicate it exactly because of the inherent flaws of all kinds of media of thought-conveyance.

All we gain from such discussions is to know the limits of our ability to communicate.Now that itself is potent knowledge.The more abstract the subject the greater the need for clarity of expression.

Ultimate knowledge & learning is the one that has no apparent `use`,the moment its utility is discovered it becomes technology & ceases to be a gnostic experience....e.g quest for the next prime number.

Any comments??

``````````````````````````````````````````````````

wassalaam.

In reply to Farangi_kush :

Obviously, I find a resonance with the views of Thomas Paine, and that is why I quote them. I will quote just a little more, and then say what I believe.

Paine : ``I know but of one ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid`s ``Elements of Geometry`` and the reason is because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of everything relating to time, place and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the same authority they now have, had they been written by any other person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the authoer never been known; for the identical certainty of who was the author makes no part of our belief of the matters contained in the book``.

[On the other hand, the books ascribed to Moses, etc, are books of testimony....]

I believe that knowledge of God is like that of geometry. Would I personally have discovered Euclid`s geometry on my own ? I don`t think so. So that is the value of Euclid to me. But I do not have to put any faith in Euclid himself. I do not have to accept his authority as infallible. The same holds for teachers of religion : they are Euclids in a different sphere. Certainly geometry was more accessible after Euclid than before; but strictly, Euclid was not necessary and is as much dispensable as any teacher of religion. It is the weakness of my intellect and the shortness of my sight that makes the teacher necessary for me.

Hope that is clear enough.

-arun gupta

The problem with the ``someone must have created it`` theory is that it doesn`t prove that the creator was infinite or eternal or all-wise or anything. And it doesn`t show that we were what he wanted to create, maybe this universe is just a beta-version and God has now thrashed us in favor of the new, improved cosmos with automatic spell-check.

Ofcourse, you can still believe in god because of Pascal`s gamble... if you believe and you turn out to be wrong, all you lose is something like -4(hours spent praying and so on). If God does exist, however, you win infinity... so even if the probability of God`s existence is small, the rational thing to do is to believe.... Ofcourse, this doesn`t tell you which religon to believe in...

macgupta:#57

In all your answers you are still repeating what Payne said.Please enlighten us what are your own views and why.

Quran,we all know is a guide-book,asks us,nay,exhorts us to explore,study and verify the universe & His creation on our own.I just do not want to burden tis space by quotations from it.

It is nice to see(hear?) Mr.Payne saying the same things without having read the Quran.Maybe it was a revelation to him too!!! Maybe THE WORD reached him too late(1300 years!!).

All I can say is this one should,if only for selfish & pragmatic REASONS,look around and see that life(& death) is pretty painful without belief in a Creator by any Name.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````

wassalaam.

In reply to Sattar2 (#56) :

One could believe that a Prophet received a divine revelation, and yet argue, like Thomas Paine, that as far as one is concerned, it is only hearsay.

Scriptures, at best, are a road-map. Second-hand accounts of God may serve to inspire, but direct knowledge is goal of human life.

In reply to Farangi_kush (#55) :

Again, Paine`s argument would only be a guide -- to seek God in the creation and not via the holy books. Paine would say, you have to erect your first principles, and you have to reason from there, and arrive at the truth yourself.

In reply to Omarphoenix (#54) :

Regarding the Quran having scientific info. that was discovered later -- I have covered this ground with many other folks 1990-92 on soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.bangladesh, etc., in excruciating detail. (Unfortunately dejanews does not archive that period.) One really needs to torture the texts to make this so -- that is all that I will say; I have no desire to argue this poi

In reply to Ruchi (#53) :

I agree with you, your description of God is something too anthropomorphic to exist, and you are right not to believe in such a God.

-arun gupta

Re macgupta, #52:

I see Paine’s line of thinking as an attempt to explain divine revelations, while side-stepping a more acute issue of the source of these revelations, i.e. belief in God. Before analyzing or philosophizing too much about divine revelations and their intended audience, one has to first come to terms with concept of One God, the very source of these revelations.

It is correct that, divine revelations of highest forms, i.e. divine Laws and scriptures (those revealed to Prophets like Mohammad, Moses, Ibrahim, Buddha, Confucius, Krishna, Ram, Zaratushtra etc.) were revealed to only a few. But these prophets indeed were commanded (by none other than the Almighty God) to spread this message to others. In this message, the believers are commanded to follow the revealed commandments. These laws/revelations are not the works of a lunatic who arbitrarily came up with these “shakespearean lines”, but are the works of the Almighty God, and are intended to bring about reformation of the believers.

If one believes in One God, The Almighty, Who has raised prophets, revealed divine laws to prophets, and showed divine signs in support of these prophets, then one should have no problem following these laws. However, if one does not believe in the divine source, then he may view revelations as arbitrary laws that a few nut-cases came up with. All bets are off when it comes to the “disbeliever’s“ interpretation of scope and nature of divine revelations.

So my dear, the million-dollar question is whether Paine believed these revelations to be the work of God, or mere “yammerings” of a free-wheeling nut-case?

Re narain, #38

“BTW let me clarify: I do believe in God: Bramha, Jevoha, Allah whatever. I just think that logic is not the best means to try and prove his existense. I believe in God becoz I want to believe, not becoz logic tells me that he must exist. Logic and faith exist in very different realms, and when you try and mix the two the result is an explosive mixture which is neither logic nor faith, but an opium which leads to a false belief in the efficacy of both.That is my only contention with this article.”

I have to disagree with you on this one. You seem to believe in God, “because you want to”. This does not seem to be a very clear, rational way of approaching this issue. Wouldn’t you agree? Today you may think alcohol is good for you, tomorrow you may change your mind. One’s reasoning should be grounded in more concrete thoughts than “just wanting to believe” in something.

The way you describe faith, yes, it seems fair that faith and science should belong in two different spheres, and should not be mixed. The short-coming lies not with the matter of faith, but rather with your version of faith. As an Ahmadi-muslim, I believe in One God, the Creator of this grand universe, where humans and other species have evolved from pre-biotic organisms to their current state. God Almighty in Quran asks us to contemplate the mysteries of the universe, and it will serve to strengthen one’s faith. God would not create contradictions in the universe, which will force an inquiring mind to choose between faith and reason. That would be refutation of God’s own words.

If you do believe in God (since you “want to believe”), then what role do you think God plays in sustaining this universe? Is He a malicious God? Or does He have “good will” for His creations? Did He simply create this universe, and now sits back without playing an active role, or is He a Living God, who continues to provide guidance for mankind? Is He the divine source of scriptures like Quran, Veda, Torah etc., or are these scriptures man-made. If these scriptures originate from the One God, then would there be contradiction in God’s word (i.e. scriptures) and God actions (i.e. the human psyche and nature of the physical world we live in)? If you believe simply because you “want to believe”, then you have a whole lot of other issues that remain unanswered.

In reply #37 you mentioned,

“a. If the aim of God was to create humans, then why did he experiment for so long? We know that humans evolved relatively late in the earth`s history”. Either his aim was not to create humans, in which case what are we doing here? Alternatively he was not sure of what he was doing, in which case how perfect is he? The long time period involved in evolution is more indicative of coincidence playing its hand, rather than a plan with humans as its end.”

My response to this is somewhat rhetorical. “So long” from what standpoint? How long, in your “infinite wisdom”, is the appropriate time-span for this grand scheme to reach completion? You seem to argue that a few billions years (time elapsed beteen creation of universe and appearance of human beings) is too long. Would you like this to have occurred within a few million years? Would it still be too long, or is it all of a sudden, god forbid, “too short”?

You also mentioned,

“b. If gods aim was to create life, then why would god create a universe where life would exist only in one remote corner? Why not create a universe which could accomodate more worlds capable of life? The only rational explanation could be that life was not the aim of all creation, in which case we are celebrating him for all the wrong reasons.”

I think it is misinterpretation of scriptures that leads one to such conclusion. I do not have the exact reference at hand (I will try to post it later), but Quran does hint at existence of other life-forms in “heavens”. The word Quran uses for these life-forms is not that used to describe a “bird” (i.e. a creature that flies), but rather the word that describes life-form that crawls on the ground. “Creatures crawling on land in heavens” alludes to life in outer space. It is further stated that a link will be established between this life-form and humans when “Allah wills”. Apparently it is not stated if this “link” will be in the form of an actual meeting, or a message sent/received between the two groups etc.



Discovery of life in outer space (or advances in science, for that matter) are not meant to jeopardize one’s faith in God, but rather help one gain deeper understanding of the universe and appreciate the grandness of this grand design.

You further state that,

“c. If humans are the beings towards which all creation is geared, then why are humans still evolving and changing? Is god trying to achieve something better, in which case why produce us? Back to argument (a) above.”

I see no contradiction in “other creation being geared towards humans” and “evolution and change in humans”. We cannot say with certainty that humans have reached their ultimate form. Rather, we humans are still “work in progress” with plenty more room to evolve. With evolution we may acquire a 6th, or 7th, or even 8th sense (and more). Braking various barriers of speed, discovering a “whole universe” within each sub-atomic particle, evolving into “beings with really big heads and small limbs” or into other beings beyond our wildest imagination, are all up for grabs, and cannot be ruled out. All along having other creatures geared to serving humans has helped. They have helped maintain the much-needed ecosystem required for this evolution and served humans in various capacities.

These were my comments to a few postings. Thoughtful replies from anyone would be much appreciated.

Asad

macgupta:#52

It is nice to see the discussion becoming a little more interesting.

I have never had the opportunity to read Thomas Paine although I am sort of familiar with his work.Hence,I will resrtict myself to comment on your `hearsay`(or would it be now be called `writeread`) from his essay.

So you see even if one accepts Paine`s mode of reasoning it would still mean that what he said can never be comprehended by the `listener` or `reader` for the exact reason Paine is propounding i.e

1)Distance of time & place

2)Addressees own background

3)The very act of tuning-in either by someone recommending or paraphrasing(again decision deferred or imposed)

.

The power of music,chants ,rythms has not only a tremendous effect on the human psyche but it also tries to block out `reason`(in my opinion happily so).Even a `speech` can move mountains & nobody has be `reasoned` into it.

Is it any wonder that all religions have this aspect running like a refrain throughout their symphonies.

Just observe the influence of all kinds of music & pop-poetry on the adolescents & well into their ealiy 20s.This we disparagingly brush aside as teen-culture without realising that these are nothing but search for `values`.I sincerely believe that like the other instincts there is,among humans,another instinct to `seek the right path` even to the extent that one may go off the beaten track in the process.Quran calls is `siratul mustaqueem`(the right path).This innate desire to seek is always looking for a prophet.The listeners gravitate to this haunting tune rather than the `messenger`(singer) holding them by any royal decree.No wonder no king has ever been a prophet but yes prophets have been `crowned` as kings.

Dr.Faustus(a representative of SCIENCE) and his `reasoning` with the devil(Mephisto) provides us a very good insight into this matter.

As far as the philosophy of communication is concerned I am sure you must have enjoyed reading Marshall McLuhan.He is really the giant of the present age(Died a few years back).



Donne often called the Ghalib of english poetry said:

(The relevance to the subject is in the line `and therefore---`)

.....

Each Man`s death diminishes me

Because I am involved in Mankind

And therefore never send to know

For whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee.

.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

wassalaam

``````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Macgupta Reply 52

Wow, the replies to this article were like Chinese Whispers. You mention a good point about there being a 1001 languages residing within the human vocal cord. That`s precisely the reason why the Quran`s been written in one language, Arabic and Arabic only. Every other Holy Book, whether it be the Bible, the Torah and so forth have been written in every other language. Meanings are lost when you transfer and translate scripts. Also, two bibles of the same type will have discrepancies. One will give a number 10, the other will give 1000 (I have seen it for myself). No such thing exists in Quran, partly because it`s always written in Arabic and mainly because it`s the word of Allah. Now I know you will try to bring in your own logic to prove me wrong. You have every right. In fact this is what the Quran tells everybody else to do, prove it wrong. This kind of confidence only comes when you are 100% sure of yourself. So please go out, fork out a Quran from Australia, another from England, another from Pakistan and one dating 3 centuries back, they`ll all be the same.

Also why should I believe that the Quran is a divine revelation? Being a scientist (wannabe) I know of things being discovered today which were written in the Quran 1400 years ago. In the days when females were blamed for giving birth to daughters as opposed to sons, it was Quran which said that it was in fact the male who was responsible for sex determination of the child. It`s only in this century that the XX XY chromosome phenomenon has been discovered. X-ray crystallography and electron microscopes weren`t there 1400 years back. How about the examples of child development within the mother`s womb, the precision of foetal development, it`s timing etc. In the good old days, once again microscopes weren`t there, or are you trying to say that the Arabs ate lots of carrots? How about Iron being an extraterrestrial metal, i.e. from outside of solar system? These examples are just the tip of the ice burg. Does that make Quran a science book? Should I consult the book when I`m trying to construct an equation of everything? No. But is it a divine Revelation. Absolutely! Because no man could have written this book 1400 years ago, and these sound bites of scientific bits and bobs are there to command its authenticity as a divine revelation. That`s not to say that you listen to me. I wasn`t telling that to anyone either. We all arrive to this conclusion sometime in our life. Perhaps we could have spoken about the seaman in Canada who converted to Islam when he read up on a description of a sea storm in Quran. When told that Muhammed (PBUH) had never been out to the sea, he arrived to his separate independent conclusion that this was a divine revelation. Perhaps I could have written an article on how I`m a professional painter (not walls but pictures. etc.) and when I sit in front of a beautiful landscape and compare it to my cheap imitation, I just can`t deny that there`s an extraterrestrial artist out there. But how many replies do you think I was going to get out of that that.

Take care and best wishes

Omar Phoenix