Life on Earth: Chance or Deliberate

Thomas Paine, one of the American revolutionaries, wrote in ``The Age of Reason`` :

Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if He pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it cases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay t o every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication -- after this it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Based on arguments like this, Thomas Paine explicitly rejected the Bible and the Koran.

Paine then wrote :

But some, perhaps, will say : Are we to have no Word of God -- no revelation ? I answer, Yes; there is a Word of God; there is a revelation.

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

Human language is local and changeable, and therefore is incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information.

[Jesus could speak only one language and the world has several hundred]....human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God uses in manifesting himself universally to man.

[The Universe] is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged, it cannot be counterfeited, it cannot be lost, it cannot be altered, it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend on the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth tto the toher. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

-----

So the peculiarities of our universe as revealed by science may or may not be proof of God; and

the existence of a universally available revelation as per Thomas Paine may undermine our belief in any text in human language, be it Quran, Bible or Veda.

-arun gupta

PS : more Paine :

All national institutions of churches ...appear to me no other than human inventions... I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine...Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

Wow, my legs are long enough to reach the ground. Since that was not logically necessary, God must exist.

I`m sorry, but you are not going to prove the existence of God by this method of reasoning.

-arun gupta

BTW : the world is not symmetrical, it has a left-hand right-hand assymmetry. In the particle physics jargon, neither C, nor P, nor T but only CPT is a symmetry. The universe is predominantly matter, and not by 7:3; the matter/anti-matter asymmetry remains a mystery.

``The universe expanded at just the right rate for the strong, weak, EM, and gravitational forces`` etc. is a meaningless statement, as far as I know, in current experimentally-verifiable theory. (Don`t take the speculations of the superstring theorists seriously).

Anybody knows the wehreabouts of Wasiq Bokhari and Saad Shafquat?

Miss their input here.

t

narain:#48

Mullahs or anybody like those with Dr.titles,Congressmen,Lawyers,or intellectual-types are equally competent or incompetent.

These days scientists are herded by the gluttonous corporations,`secular`(read:atheist) satans,democracy demons,& freak femmos.

So you see these poor chaps(scientists) have to listen to someone in order to get paid.After all they are not above the frailities & temptations of the `common` folk.

The image of somebody with a suit & tie or a white coat,or some one in expensive car must never ever be confused with scholarship & advancement NO MATTER HOW UP-TO-DATE the bloke may be on contemporary developments.They are niether better nor worse than a mullah.They have as much to learn from & as much to teach to each other.

A science FUNDO is no different than a religious FUNDO.

Dr.Strangelove & Rasputin are the two sides of the same coin.

And so were Newton & Luther.

Anyone ignoring either is half a human in learning.



wassalaam

Re: Farangi_kush

``All I meant was that the scientists need to be shepherded,or reined by religious scholars.``

Hmmm..reined or shepherded.

Are you trying to imply that the mullahs already know the truth, and that therefore it is their divine responsibility to guide the poor sheep (scientists) on to the right path lest they get lost? Or are you scared that the scientists will discover some truth which is not too pleasant, and hence they must be ``gently`` reined and guided away from any such attempt?....Much like the greeks ``guided`` socrates, and the pope ``reined`` Galileo.

Scientists drawing inspiration from religion is fine. All science says is that it does not know about the existense of god. But if believing in the existense of so god makes you happy, go ahead. It does not ``rein or shepherd` its believers to believe in the non-existense of god. But the fear that the medievial church had, and which the mullahs still have of science, and their professed need to ``guide` science is certainly very revealing.

-narain

Krashid:#45

I have been misquoted & therefore misunderstood.I am myself, perhaps unintentionally, also responsible of giving such impression.

I never said to whip scientists in the literal sense. All I meant was that the scientists need to be shepherded,or reined by religious scholars.

This division of disciplines is the major cause of this `schizophrenia` in `learning`.If religious scholarship & scientific pursuit complement each other in the academia,we would not be discussing this here.

All the great scientists in muslim,christainity,& judaic traditions were mullahs,priests or rabbis.

who is not familiar with Mandel,Newton or Darwin!!

just to quote the biggest names of modern science.All got their inspiration from the scriptures...by their own admission.

krashid is absolutely right that when the mullahs abandoned `western` science AND today`s scientist is looking at `eastern` theology with contempt the result has to be the `Schezophrenia of Scholarship`.

wassalaam

Universe by design, by the design of GOD, or is it random. Some one asked a question, a monkey on a typewriter, randomly, hope so, moving around, could it have created bible (i dont want to ofend others). No definitely not, if the typewriter is english and man made. The very conditions of the experiment, the typewriter made to the human specification forbids the monkeys work being bible.

There is something called `antinomies` of reason, they are the limits to reason. The above question cannot be answered by reason, but intutively, yes.

OmarP #31

What I understand from your post is you basically agree with scientific methods and its pursuit. What you disagree is its use which you want to regulate accosrding to Islamic principles.

Regulation of use of science is also done in other countries. Like USA has done a ban on human cloning, or for other considerations CTBT etc. Also there are regulations on drugs by FDA etc.

If you are directing your teachings to scientific community, you are doing vainly. First of all you should direct it to Muslim scholars and may be Farangi-Kush where he is saying whip the scientists.

Not only in Christian world, but Islamic world throughout history, scientists have been looked down upon by Mullah`s and priest. Reason.

Priests and Mullahs have taken the job of ``GOD`` in their hand and know very well What GOD wants. So they have taken the authority of ``God`` also to implement that. Since in their understanding they know ``EVERYTHING``. Since science and scientific methods start, when some phenomenon come to light, and try to explain that or something unknown so far is being pursued. It is in direct contradiction with the ``AUTHORITY`` reread authority, of priests and Mullahs. Who not only refuse to accept it, but try their best to suppress any progress on that.

What I have understood so far is. Anything which hinders in the progress of humanity both materially and in thoughts is going to perish and this is God`s design as such.

Try to think of rise and fall of Muslims and try to find out the important factors for it.

First of all Muslim politics should wholeheartedly accept the validity of science according to Koran (to explore) and once that is done, then they can be given the task of regulation according to Islamic perspective.

What do you think about Television and pictures. What do you think about Music and songs. There is no consensus and this ``Behayai`` is going on under the nose of Muslims in all Muslim countries.

Belief in God is different matter, than what our Mullahs are telling us to believe in the name of God.

kumarc:#41

You have expressed your viewpoint very candidly.I tend to agree with you somewhat.but let me add this.

A scientist,when all is said and done,is nothing more than a tinkerer of matter (a mistry,a mechanic--even in biology or whatever).In order for them to pursue their vocation diligently & unencumbered by `morality` they must be harnessed by those who have the ability & experience as experts in the `science` of morals & ethics.Stephen Hawkings,genius that he is in a narrow field,cannot be entrusted with public policy.Only Ulemas or Thinkers be the ones.

Religion should always be the whip to keep the scientist in line(A Galileo never happened under Islamic Shariah!!)



wassalaam.

anarayan:#42

Thanks for quoting Khayyam.He was also the chemist(let us use the word `scientist`) who because of such knowledge was the strategist who devised the method to blow up Al-amut.

Hasan bin Sabah,Ibn-Sina and Khayyam were classmates at the same MADRESSAH..repeat madressah.All three had vowed to excel in their fields of interest.

In context of the present subject do you not think that the Quatrain about ``The Moving Finger`` more apt?

Needless to say in those days of glory Shariah was the Law & nobody even thought of an alternate.Khayyam was a great scholar of that too.

Present day scientists are becoming more & more dogmatic & blind in their newly founded `faith` of atheism....let us label them ``test-tube mullahs``.Ironically,it is the practising religous kind who are making all the strides....some of them are smart enough not to let this debate clutter their mind & they,skeptics as they are by their `instincts`,always keep their options open.What if the other side is....?



wassalaam

Dear Omar,

(khayyam - mathematician, astronomer and philosopher):

And that inverted Bowl we call the sky

Whereunder crawling coop`t we live and die

Lift not thy hands to it for help - for it

Rolls impotently on as Thou and I

(Creation Hymn - first hymn of rig veda)

The non-existent was not; the existent was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss?

There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat.

Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom.

Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above.

Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?

Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.

rgs,

AN

I do not see the point. Perfection and imperfection are irrelevent. So is invention of God. We undertake study of nature a) curiosity b)we need to understand works so that we can gainfully (or destructfully) exploit it.

Usually and practically unquestioned faith like in God or the ``perfection`` agencies is a hinderance to advancement of knowledge. In practice mixing these two is downright destructive as it brings (in my opinion fundamentally retrogressive) institution of religion into play in regions where it should have zero role.

Omar,

The `reasoning` that there is self-eveident

purpose for and directon to the Universe (a.ka.

Argument by Design) has been around ever since the

First Cause and Natural Law arguments were

disposed off.

While not wishing to get into philosphical

intricacies here for want of time, I am curious to

hear your responses to the following:

Even if one were to accept the argument by Design,

how does it follow that the Allah of the Qur`an,

Bible, Torah etc. is authentic in any sense? Put

another way, what has the ``God of Isaac, Ibrahim

and Jacob`` got to do with the God of the

philosopher?

In your posts, you seem to suggest (as I believe

does the Qur`an) that all creation had mankind as

its destiny. This seems a little odd when you

consider that, in the timeline of life on earth,

mankind has been around for but an infinitesmal

moment. Also, doesn`t the extinction of

potentially-human Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, Java

Man etc., (or in fact, the presence of nipples on

your male chest) strongly suggest that there is

very little `design` in the process of evolution?

Personally, I favour the design-and-purpose

theory, but only because it brings a sense of

comfort and security. But I`m loathe to deride

those who do not need this sense of security.

Frankly, I don`t think half the scientists in the

world would be so inimical to the idea of some

purposeful force driving evolution were it not

given the name God, or associated it as you have,

Omar, with the `Allah` they were taught to fear in

their childhood.

regards,

PM

====

Re: Omarphoenix #26

Dear Omarphoenix,

(1)

``I don`t know who told you that. There`s no such thing as perfection. Perfection only applies to God (although it can be taken in millions of ways and this is my opinion).``

Elementary my dear Omar. A perfect being can never produce imperfection.

(2)

``Line 6. Good question. I would have thought that the universe or the dimension we live in was created for us. If life as we know was to occur, then a universe with specific laws of physics etc. would have to be made (once again it can be taken in many ways).``

A similar line has been pursued by some people unwilling to let go and yet are confronted by the immovabitity of science. They say God created the universe and the specific laws and then laid back for a well deserved rest and let his creation carry on.



(3)

``Line 7. What are you talking about? If science doesn`t believe in a God, then how it can say that heaven and hell are not where they`re meant to be? What evidence did science come up to reach this conclusion? I would appreciate an answer to this one.``

Science, by which we generally mean the combination of observation, logic, hypothesis, and repeated confirmation does not `believe` in anything - neither positive nor negative beliefs. As I mentioned in my earlier mail, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to prove simple negatives. So to thoroughly disprove the existance of God (which by the way, we have not even defined so far) is way beyond its power and scope.

Another mail of yours describes your troubles and how you overcame them. Also you mention your feelings of gratitude to Allah. We all do the same. But when the troubles are over and we thank God, we never bother to ask why we got those troubles in the first place. Did you ?

I will send you a quatrain by your namesake (khayyam) and also a verse from the Rig Veda. Pressed for time now.

best regards,

AN

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.

-narain

``The universe is a bit weird. You see it`s got all these weird anomalous properties, which it shouldn`t have but because it has these uncanny strange features, life exists.``

There are two ways of looking at the situation: one is the way you have suggested. Of an agency (God) who plans and executes his wishes.

The other explanation (that science adopts currently) is to say that it is all a pure coincidence. The anomalies that you point out are anomalies only in hindsight. We see a chain of events leading to our existense, and read a plan in them, whereas they are actually pure coincidence.

For eg: Who knows, maybe a very different sort of life exists elsewhere which owes its existense to a totally different chain of events. So long as we do not know of that life form, from our view point the events would be random, uninteresting. But as soon as we become aware of the end product, we would start seeing a plan in it. The point being that the uniqueness we attribute to a chain of events is based (conditioned) on our knowledge of their final result. But from an ex ante point of view, the universe is large and diverse enough for pure coincidences to have a statistically significant probability of occuring.

Observationally the two ideas are equivalent. One cannot distinguish from the facts which of them is the correct explanation, without making additional assumptions. But if one is to argue the existense of God purely on logical grounds as you would like to do, one would need logical answers to the following:

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.

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.

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.

Now of course one can say that one does not know the mind of allah, in which case one should not use logical arguments like you have tried to do, and simply resort to faith. Or if one attempts logical explanation, then one should be able to carry it all the way through. Since scientists cannot logically explain god, their attitude is to ignore his existense till it becomes impossible to do so.

-narain