Hazrate’ Insaan and the Image of God

Godot #118: Psychological needs of people grown up believing in God do not have to oppose evolution or science. It is not the problem with belief in God, it is a problem beleiving a whole plethora of things in the name of God. It is the belief that God communicated through prophets about moral, ethical, scientific and historical matters (religions) until He decided not to communicate any more and rely exclusively what He has already said. It is the problem with people who are ardently fixated with the infallabilty of religious literature.

krashid & Qadeer

I am only going comment on the scientific aspect of the question. The issue of ``Akhira`` is just like debating how many angels can be balanced on the edge of the sword, or more recent examples of theories to harnass Jinn`s energy to make rocket propulsion system (all of these, along with creationism, belong to Science and Religion Hall of Shame).

Regarding Expansion of the universe:

Universe is not expanding into any thing. Space is the property of our universe. Thus, as it expands, it creates space. Is our universe going to expand forever?

Scientists don`t know the answer to it yet. Originally, it was thought that the future of the universe will only depend on how much mass (therefore gravity) there is in the universe. If we have too mass, then one day its going to stop expanding, and will start contracting, eventually to the Big Crunch. (Think of a stone throwing up in the sky. It goes up, then stops, and comes back. Howver, rockets with more speed can escape the gravity forever. In this analogy we know the speed of the rocket or stone, but don`t know the mass). So the big test was if the universe is slowing down or not, and if it is, then does it have enough mass to pull it back in.

However, in the past 3 years, astronomers have discovered that instead of slowing down, universe is actually accelerating. This is a very counter-intuitive result. However, it can be explained by vacuum-energy, which sort of acts like anti-gravity. This energy is called by different names: ``Dark Energy``, ``Cosmological Constant``, or ``Quintessence``. So it appears that our universe is going to expand forever.

Regarding the arrow of time:

This is a very difficult question, and any information on it is very very speculative. Scientists don`t know the reason for time`s arrow (before people on chowk see it as a failure of science, I should point out that just because science does not know ot today does not mean we won`t know it tomorrow; eg. the nature of light was unknown at the turn of the century).

In any case, some scientists think that arrow of time is linked to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which in one form states that in a closed system entropy of the system always increases..hence it gives directionality. Our universe is a closed system and hence its entropy is indeed increasing. But other scientists disagree with that and look for other symmetries. In short, we have no idea why time is one-directional.

What would happen if the universe starts contracting? Well, most likely its not going to happen...but even if it does, I don`t any thing will happen. Mathematician Roger Penrose thinks that everything would reverse, including processes in our brain, this we will not notice anything unusual. Except perhaps galaxies will be moving towards us.

I find those ideas funny that speculate that a broken cup would be fixed and would be put back on the shelf, or if we would get younger. I am surprised they stop at that. For example, why would we stop at just being younger. According to this, we should keep on getting younger, until we are in womb, and being concieved, and before that not exist, and our parents getting younger, and then not existing, and so on...So eventually everything should be left as primordial particlles, where there won`t be any difference between us the broken cup, as ultimately we are made up of electrons and quarks.

But the key thing to keep in mind is that ideas regarding Time are very very speculative. They are where cosmology was 100 years back, mostly in the domain of philosophy, not science. We still need a Hubble of time to change that.

-Salman

Re: Sameer, #113

You`re overlooking the psychological aspects of human belief in God.

Oh GOD

Once up on a time people believed that science dealt with the `How` of things and Gods domain was the `Why` of things.

Why a person has cancer is the speciality of god, may be bad karma, the details and evolving mechanisms and genetic basis etc is dealt with by science.

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

krashid reply#114

Hameed may be able to add more light on it better then I can.

This is what my take on the matter as I have understood.It is speculative(Imight have understood it wrong).The universe is expanding in a space which probably is not occupied by any thing i.e does the space or the vaccum itself have any boundary at which the universe cannot expand beyond,or it has no boundry i.e it is infinite which means that the expansion will never stop.If there is a boundary or halt of expasion then comes the Big Crunch (with time moving backwards)or if no boundary then baby universes and so on.(hameed may be able to correct me).

But the concept of ``Akhirah`` is very interesting to me.You know the time which has past before my birth is meaningless for me but the time which is going to come as long as I live and after my death is suddenly very important to me.Why does that time becomes important after you are dead.Why wasn`t it important when you were not here.Is this the outcome of that fear and uncertainity of death? or is this an attempt to make the reality of your end more palatable?Now if you had no control over the events which follow after your birth when the time is moving forwards how can you correct for it in reverse time if the Big Crunch does come, by doing good deeds in a forward moving time?If the big crunch does come would you think that the time will run in our favour or will be under our control and no evil will be part of reverse time,and hence a paradise will be created/Akhirah.

I could not fit Akhira and big crunch together.May be it will be magical I am not sure.

Interestingly to me from where I see it science does support some of the creationist views but may not be aware of it,I would like to mention one of it.

Creation out of nothing,first made famous by saint augustine some 1800 yrs ago,but actually is also a sumarian in origin.I just want to know whether they knew what we know or was that a fluke.The basic unit of the universe is the smallest particle (atom or electron or deutrino)

now if the smallest is deutrino then in order to confirm it we have to store hard water 500ft or more under the ground and if it emits light we take our hypothesis correct that the deutrino does exist because when the deutrino pass hard water it will emit light.What I am trying to get at is that we cannot see the basic unit of the universe,so does it really exists,only our experiments tell us that it does,our eyes or our senses say that it does not,so the ancient name of the basic unit of the universe is nothing as they could not see it or perceive it.If it were not for science I would have not been aware of the smallest unit of the universe and only aware of nothingness.(Holy Quran sounds very interesting on the subject).

May be this all may not make any sense to you at all or may be I did not do a good job explaining myself.

I want to see what hameed says on the matter.

salman

Hameed, Salman Qadeer.

I have recently read an interesting theory. (I am not well versed in these concepts)

Passing of time forward by a certain speed is related to a certain rate of expansion of Universe. So time moves in a forward direction.

Once Universe stops expanding and starts to regress, the time will go in negative direction and everything will relive in a negative time direction.

This somehow means that we will also be resurrected and relive another life (or in the words of author will transmigrate at that time to another dimension called ``Akhirah``.

Is it speculative, has some substance or absurd or just :-).

Regards.

Thanks hameed, qadeer, PM and Pankaj for vary valuable posts. I would like to add couple of points.

1) Those who oppose evolution and creating doubts about missing links and other areas have made up their mind to oppose it. Their strong belief systems demand involvement of God, according to old traditions, in such an important arena of human history and history of the universe. They are doing what is necessary for them to do. Accepting the scientific models that do not involve God and drastically different from traditional explanation of natural phenomena will undoubtedly create doubts about what else has been said and believed in the name of God. Accepting a God-free explanation using logic and science is rightly the begining of the collapse of whole theology based interpretations. They will keep pointing to missing links and neanderthals without trying to understand the organic nature of life. Organic material oxidizes in air and moisture also helps in the decay process with carbon dioxide, ammonia, water and few other sulfur containing compounds as the final outcome of organic oxidation. Since you can not separate those carbon dioxide molecule originating from one oxidation from another, the information that once existed is lost for good. Sometimes, fortunately calcification or organic salt formation occurs under specific conditions preserving great deal of information in the fossil forms. But how can one ignore the natural properties of organic matter and use it against evolution or existence of God? The unavailabilty of enough fossilized human or primates remains to completely layout the evolution is proof for nothing but the nature of organic matter.

2) To understand and appreciate science one needs some background in sciences. It is not easy to understand many of the scientific discussions for non-scientists whereas belief in God does not require any time spending on learning. You read kalima or baptise to believe in God. Religion provides an easy way out without having to go through the feeling of not knowing or wrong. But easy way out does not help in sending spacecrafts to outer space and countless other human achievements. East way out is good enough for marginal survival and pretty good when everything else was marginal with respect to current. It is unwise to consider marginal knowledge superior to advanced knowledge that has been useful and proven in so many different ways. Science is to be learned before believing in it; God is to be believed and better not learn anything that might contradict belief, or learn it, use it for your benefit and keep denying or doubting about it. Else believe in it but keep it subordinate to belief.

Author of this article has not denied the scientific knowledge but he sees hand of God in every success. He carefully avoids discrediting God in the cases of failures. Then, as they say it here, Devil in me did it. Why is God interested, knowledgeable and playing dominating role in semiconductors and not helping in AIDS vaccine, Lung cancer. Maybe He likes to deliver knowledge in quanta or pulse.

ayeshaA reply#105

To tell you the truth its not all of my life yet,may be yours is,I am still in my prime age.And I am handsome to,unlike you,may be you are a grandmother?

This was not to impress you,feeble heads are mistaken very often in their lives.

And if you have any grip of the time than you would have realized that the elite or the kings of the nations are jack of all and only their stone masons are master of their trade.May be thats what your approach to the matter is.

And to clarify my stance,all the positions I had mentioned were at the consultant levels.

And what I do is my own problem,and I am not looking for a wife,not interested.Only my mother and my wife can know as to what is going on with my life.

Again, PAKISTAN ZINDABAD,AULAD OF M.A.JINNAH ZINDABAD.

DO YOU HAVE AN IDENTITY? AS WE DO.NO.HOW PITTYFUL.

And actually I dont have any argument against creationist view on the Female mind.You just can`t help it can`t you.

salman(I can get uglier than this inspite of being a hunk)

PM reply#104

I already agree that we dont know the answer yet.

The problem with the practice of sticking to the so called most plausible of the time is a very ancient practice,and we have learned a great deal from this practice.The agreement on the most plausible of the time has thrown the humanity off the course many times in the history.This practice of accepting radical ideas as a new begining is a recent practice.

So I am just throwing in that new practice as a reminder as to what we should be doing.

There are other theories to the origin of life than the primordial soup.``Theory Cosmosa`` is one of them.``The Extraterrestrial Origin of Man`` etc. Creationist spoke about it rhetorically centuries ago and you will find similarities between them,its is a very interesting idea/theory.

The scientific theories are being regected,discarded,approved etc faster than the time flows,and time is what we all dont have.

So infact what I am trying to say is that being a scientist myself I am not ready to stick to the plausible yet because I have personally seen the most plausible being discarded as junk.

So I would like to be in the gray zone of the spectrum at this time.But I am not disputing what you have said.This is my take on the subject and I certainly respect your take also.

salman

Qadeer#102

You say,``Apparently Einstein had to accept it because that was what his ``Quantum mechanics``/``Quantum physics`` theory was predicting,the concept which was introduced with relativity. But I can understand that he had to accept it with a broken heart because ``The God`` or the concept of ``God`` requires Him to be all logical and Static, never changing, and when you find out that the element of ``chance`` is inherent to the game of Dice,it makes your vision of ``God`` blurry to the extent of no sight.

``

First of all, Einstein laid the foundation of relativistic mechanics which is different from quantum mechanics. Relativistic mechanics was still a vestige of classical mechanics in the sense that it predicts a ``definite/certain`` outcome of an event if cause is known. Heisenberg`s uncertainity principle, and Erwin Schrodinger`s wave equation laid the foundation of quantum mechanics in its true sense. Secondly Einstein once said that he believed in an extremely abstract definition of ``God`` which reveals itself in the harmony of natural forces and definitely not in a God who is bothered about whether puny creatures(humans) living in a remote corner of universe worship him or not. Einstein was one of the greatest proponents of a deterministic world view. According to this view, if the natural laws are well established and we know the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe to infinite precision, we can trace out ``exactly`` how the universe evolved with time. Thus according to this view, the events of the universe are completely determined by the natural laws and initial conditions. Let me explain the implications of this world view. This is like saying that if I know the initial conditions at your birth ie initial condition for all of the 6 *10

PM#104

You have made excellent points! You are absolutely right, that evolution should be seen as a branching tree, rather than ladder. There are numerous species on Earth that have a history as rich as ours (humans) or even richer. We are certainly not the culmination of evolution either.

Regarding Missing Link:

There will always be some missing link, because you can never find the full spectrum of species. Darwin was fully aware of that, and he mentioned that in ``Origin of Species``. There are two problems: First, just by population, you won`t have many transitionary animals, because if they would be successful, they won`t be transitionary. Thus, when looking at fossils, you will find lot more fossils for those species that were successful (success is purely defined as leaving more offsprings) compared to the transition spacies. Second, we breed dogs artificially. Yet we don`t see the full spectrum between say a wild dog and a dalmatian.

However, the amazing thing is that transitional fossils have been found. The most famous one is Archeoopteryx...a mix of bird and reptile. Even humans have transitional fossils: A. afrensis, A. robustus, homo-habilis are all part of the ``missing link``. And of course we have the Neanderthals (there is still a debate if they were a different species than us or were they our sub-species).

And then we have ``Vestigal Organs``...organs that serve no purpose today. In humans, we have our appendix and the tail bone. Other examples include penguin wings, whales with internal legs, snakes with internal legs etc. One of my favorite examples is blind cave snakes with eye-sockets and no eyes. If species were ``created``, it was not a very perfect creation. It seems more like a trial and error process. Furthermore, there are more species that are extinct, then those that are present on Earth today.

Further, our DNA is 98.4% similar to the chimps. If we were created seperately, then we should not be so similar to other species in Earth. From Human Genome project, we have 30,000-40,000 genes, and a fruitfly has about 20,000-25,000. Not much different.

Plus we can see evolution happening even today. for example, anti-biotic resistant viruses, pesticide resistant bugs, etc. A great recent example is the population of pepper-moths in England. Most pepper moths were white before the industrial revolution. They could camouflage on tree branches etc. However, trees became darker due to the smoke and sute. Within a few years, the population of white moths declined (preyed more easily) and black moths increased. However, in the last few decades, new laws were passed to regulate smoke and pollution, and to use filters, that resulted in cleaner trees again, and the increase of white moth population again at the expense of black moth.

Yes, scientists are still discussing evolution. But not if evolution is right or wrong. But to discuss the specifics of evolutionary processes. For example if evolutionary changes were constant through time, were they periodis. Exactly what paths did evolution take. Read very well written ``Origin of Species`` and you will see why its such a powerful concept. Darwin did not know the DNA, the driving force behind evolution, did not have any transitional fossils, and yet was able to come up an elaborate theory that have withstood vigorous scientific inquiry. Kudos to Darwin.

``Origin of Species`` is on-line at:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

qadeer#102

``The question put forward by the leading microbiologist and geneticists is that mutation is a natures way of getting ride of the unacceptible, so it should cause extinction and not propogation.``

I think the ``leading microbiolist and geneticists`` is missing a fundamental point about evolution. Evolution does NOT proceed simply with mutations. Mutations are random, and most mutations are indeed harmful. However, according to the theory of evolution, only those mutations are kept that give that species an advantage. Thus evolution proceeds with a combination of Randon + Non-Random Processes.

Most of the comments I have seen in this discussion have answers at this web-site:

``Five Major Misconceptions Regarding Evolution``

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

-Salman.

Qadeer #101

``But when you read the books of the authors who support the theory you will find evidence which according to them is convincing and when you read authors who are against take the same evidence as

very weak or not convincing.``

A suggestion regarding reading science books. If you are just trying to learn about the subject,then its always better to read those books that present ideas that are generally accepted by the scientific community. We all like scientific revolutions, and we always like to cheer for the underdog. But revolutions in science do not happen that often. Even when they do (and then its significant) only 1 out of 1000 ideas would turn out to be true. The chances of stumbling onto that ideas are negligibly small. People who are throroughly immersed in research in that field should read out of mainstream books.

Second, if there is an idea that is accepted by the majority of scientists in that field, then most likely there is a very good reason why they have accepted that...and we should at least give these 99% of the scientists the benefit of doubt that they know what they are talking about.

In any case, in May 2001 issue of Scientific American, there is a discussion of oldest stars in our galaxy, and how age of the universe does not conflict with them (``Rip Van Twinkle`` Page 44).

And here three articles about the evolution of universe from Scientific American from leading cosmologists:

``expansion of the universe``

http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398freedman.html

and

``the evolution of the universe``

http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398peebles.html

and from Jan 2001:

``Making sense of modern cosmology``

http://www.sciam.com/2001/0101issue/0101peebles.html

re qadeer

``You actually have to be a microbiologist to understand the complexity of the complex life forms,and when you began to see the complexity then these cannot be explained on the basis of timely mutations,i.e that the mutations and out come of these mutations happening many times in a step ladder fasion over the course of millions of yrs and then to arrive at an ultimate certain species.``

I`m no micro-biologist, but isn`t the step-ladder concept of evolution rather inaacurate? Isn`t the Bush anology (with it`s many, `randomly` disturbuted subbranches) more appropriate? I am hoping here that, as a scientist at least, you are not labouring under the misconception that man is the ``ultimate species``... *That * seems to be a dangerous mixing of religion and science. Not even all religions place man on that kind of pedastal.

Incidentally, I think sac did allude to the fact that evolution theory allows for the occurences of ``miracles of chance`` early on. I remember reading somehwhere (reliable) that the chances of the right protiens getiing together to create the primordial soup were somewhere in the order of 1:10e40.

What can we reliably say then about the origin of life but that we don`t know. Still, isn`t that a much more reasonable answer than ``God created it``, since that would automatically raise another, obvious, question question (so long as we`re attempting a rational understanding)

As for the ``unlikely`` evolution of lifeforms from the simple to the complex, shouldn`t the best answer be that you don`t know what other processes might have been involved? Is it more plausible, taking a rational approach, to assume that the mutation of some protein somehow accelerated the compexity-creating process? The intorduction of a God (dice rolling or otherwise) into the scenario really does nothing toward providing a solution, since it raises the very same questions of origin, as does my four year old nephew, my three year old, w.r.t God.

Finally, as for the `creation` of man, why not stick with the most plausible theory anyway, while leaving the door ever so slightly ajar for revision. If you`re looking for rational and plausible explanations, no other can hold a candle to Darwin`s, evevn with it`s missing links and all.

rgds,

PM

re. Pankaj #97

Pankaj, you write: ``The capability to doubt is the most beautiful gift of nature to mankind and it should be cherished. True we dont know the answer to grand questions like origin of universe, the purpose of human existence, is there anything like God or soul etc. but it is better to acknowledge that we dont know these answers and live with it.``

My friend, I would hasten to add that, while I am all for `enlightened` doubt, as I grow in experience, I am also convinced of value of ...err.... faith!

Now, before my agnostic friends start maoning the loss of the `finest` among them, I hasten to add that there are provinces in which doubt is completely legitimate and desireable. I am of course simply advocating the scientific mindest here.

However, there are questions that by their very nature will not be answered by science, such as ``the purpose of human existence, is there anything like God or soul etc ``... and it is on these issues, IMHO, that our lives would be much the better for rock solid faith.

Will we ever know what our purpose here on earth is?? The question I believe, is out of the scope of science, as there wil always be an antecedant `Why`?

Will we ever know if there is a God or not? Well, maybe, but in the meanwhile we`d be far the richer concentrating on the EXPERIENCE of what concept points to, would we not? (Logic and the scientific approach are at a loss to answer that one:) )

The problem of wrong questions being asked and wrong approaches being taken results from brnging matters unscientific in to the realm of Science. Often enough this happens when a myth, over centuries, comes to be viewed as historically authentic. What a pity! For not only do we then distort history and damage that gift of legitmate doubt (a.k.a curiosity), but we also miss the often profound message in the myth.

btw, while I am happyto quote Russell (a big influence in my formative years), I would hasten to add that the religiously-formed mind was something evident more in Christains and Christainty than anywhere else in his time. Times are a changing though, and the scientific is gradually being separated from the mystical, without which, IMO, life ceases to have true meaning.

Islam has, at least as the books goes, been much more supportive of what we might call free-thinking (as pointed out by qadeer in #100). There are only a few things that one must not question in Islam. Tragically, it is just that `limited certainty` that tends `spread` and characterize the approach most followers take to all of life`s questions.

Hinduism has, as far as I know, never been about cast-iron divine laws and dogma. And so it has been amenable to change, while retaining a rich body of myth and a mystic tradition that the West is now discovering.

The paradigm is shifting, and East and West, and rationality and mysticism, are meeting. Even with the Big Business, Global Trade and Brittney Spears these are great times to be living in, are they not?

rgds,

PM