Hazrate’ Insaan and the Image of God

by far the stupidest of articles i have read on

chowk.

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

RA Janjua #30

I agree with you.

Neither it is a validation, nor it needs to be validated.

And as I said science and religion are two different domains or science can be thought of as one part of religion.

But isn`t it remarkable that God is inviting people of understanding to believe in him through these Ayahs which came to us 1400 years ago.

Regards.

Hey Pat,

Is`nt the root of epistimology, the word pistis? :-). But seriously, such a philosophical discussion is beyond me. I am just a sucker for good poetry, and some of these guys (sufis) are darned good. I tried to find this poem for you by Metchild (sp?). Seem to have misplaced the book. Maybe later.

Regards.

sac and Farzana:

[Human knowledge will always be imperfect with or without the Book. ]

I think this is not the correct statement. Human knowledge has always been evolving and will continue to evolve with or without Book. All human knowledge has been perfect within the bounds of that particular time and space. The knowledge of earth being the center of universe or God created universe in 6 days or Adam and Eve story were perfect knowledge (for the lack of any other better explanation) then but not now because time variable has changed and better explanations are at hand. Perfect knowledge is though different than absolute reality. For instance 2+2 have been always four. Am I right?

The knowledge of God is considered, by New Agers, as independent of time and space. Therefore His existance can`t be proven with the analytical tool based on physical principles. That is why it is called transcedental knowlege. if you feel He is, then He exists. Those who do not feel that He exists, do not believe in His existance. Normally, people born and raised in believing will continue to do so and vice versa.

I think there are apparent contradictions between science and religion. Because our knowledge of

science and religion is incomplete. No wonder some southern states tried (and succeeded) to ban Darwin`s theory from text books. When I read Quran and Hidiths, Islam encourages us to learn. Muslims have been pioneers in many studies that were then picked up by West. Unfortunately during middle ages some muslim scholars devoted totally to Islamic knowledge. And apprehension to modern knowledge is still prevelant in Islamic countries. Sure modern science does not have complete answers, but neither do the interpretation from religious books do we find answer to many questions.

You cannot ignore findings of archeology and traces of difference species from homo sapiens. Recent research in human genome will be critical in finding lots of these answers. It has already identified that humans are almost identical and have same mother. It also asserted teaching of prophet Mohammad (PBUH) that no color or race is superior. In all religions you have to have a faith, but we can have blind faith or beyond any doubt faith. With only with advances

of science we will be able to better understand

Quran and have stronger faith.

``Heavens and Earth were once One and WE asunder them apart and created all living thing out of water``

Nice verses. Here`s another one: ``The Lord said Be! and it became.`` I always thought that this was a much nicer creation story compared to the six day toil after which the Omnipotent, Almighty, All-Knowing, The Big Kahuna had to take a nap, because he was tired. They are both stories nontheless and should not be extrapolated to form a scientific theory or construed as a validation of some hypothesis. One should`nt look for confirmation of science in Koran or try to validate religion by science. Its not only a futile exercise but also a dangerous practice-in the past it has inspired momineen to solve the energy crisis by harnessing jinn-power, and planning space exploration by trying to understand the nature of angels.

Moyuddeen:

You end the article with:

``“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and a diversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.” (Quran 2.177)``

If you take away the clause with the word ``believe``, the rest of the ayat encapsulates the highest priciples of all religions. That is beautiful-- not just the `active` prescriptives on charity, and how one should behave in times of adverstiy and periods of panic. This is the kind of stuff found in the Old and New Testaments and the Quran that have convinced me that there is indeed something to be learnt from the experiences and writings of those far removed from our own time. (socut, you lissenin`? :))

Uplifting as all that was, what struck me most was the last sentence, ``Such are the people of the Truth, the God-fearing``. With a little bit of liberty, I take it to mean that a `believer`, or `God-fearer`, is one who inner convictions lead him to live a life which exhibits the virtues listed (and more). At least if I was trying to `sell` Islam, that`s how I would present it-- and it`s really not a far reach at all.

The part of the belief in the God, His Messenger and the book I take to be exigencies of time-and-place... perhaps the original presenters felt that living the ``God-fearing`` life could only be accomplished throught the book and those beliefs. Could they have had it wrong on that one little matter?

Lets keep Science and Religion Seperate.

Faith implies belief. If one has faith, then he/she should not be looking for science to validate it. If science does prove the existence of God, then that would deprive people of their faith...belief in Her would then be a fact.

From the Science`s perspective: Science cannot disprove the existence of God. In science, you cannot prove a negative. For example, science can never prove that UFOs don`t exists...that spirits don`t exist.

Can science prove the existence of God? It can, provided if it has a testable hypothesis. For example, a complex brain is not the evidence for God, because we can understand its origins from physical processes. One can argue that God was guiding these processes...but then that it is not an independent testable hypothesis. In fact most arguments for God are untestable, and hence unscientific.

Testable hypothesis can be provided. But first we have to establish, if the things mentioned in the Koran are a metaphor or are represented physically. For example, the creation of Adam. If this story is physical, then we should see the first hominid species as advanced as are we. There should also be a physical place, Heaven, from where he was kicked out for eating (ironically) the fruit of knowledge. Unfortunately, we see evolution of species leading up to (and continuing) the first Homo Sapiens. The same simple mechanism that explains the transition of fish to first amphibians, can also explain the evolution of mammals into bipedal hominid species.

However, there are other tests. For example, if there was a worldwide flood (of Noah), then there should be some evidence for that. Or if parting of the Red Sea did occur, then we should abe able to see its impact.

Unfortunately, almost all of the testable hypotheses result in a negative. And its not because for tha lack of technology. We do see signs of ancient (hundreds of thousand years ago) floods (e.g. in the Washington, Scablands area), but even those floods were not remotely worldwide. Does does this mean that God does not exist? No, because we cannot prove a negative. All it means is that these particular stories in Holy Books are perhaps, a metaphor. If these are metaphors, then why not other things that may or may not clash with science.

Religion and science are two seperate spheres of life, just like science and art. Instead of maligning science, when it doesn`t support religious claims, we should listen to the part of the Koran which encourages learning.

re. rajanjua #23

Janjua sahib, in response to Umer`s comment (``...This does not achieve anything, `Allah is the supreme`… but we know that anyway.``), you reply:

``We don’t “know” that. We “believe” that. There’s a difference. ``

I can see the strong sufic/mystical element in that distinction. Cool! --or warm! :)

But -- and just because I`m a sucker for epistimology -- isn`t it true that we automatically believe that which we know (although the reverse is not necessarily the case)?

rgds,

PM

Mohyuddeen:

You`re quite right, there are scientific ideologists just as devout and dogmatic as religious ones. But they are the exception; hardly the rule, and really canot find any basis in Science for their ideological position vis-a-viz relligoin or God.

An Athetistic Scientist is an oxymoron insofar as there is no proof of the non-existence of (a) God.

Which is not to say that Science and scientists will often not be odds with Religion. If Religion dogmatically states that Adam was the first man and made his appearance about 6,000 years ago, you naturally have to call into question the existence of the infallible God that supposedly said so.

What I`m getting at is... Is it possible for a scientist to reject the God of a certain religion but still claim a belief in God, a la Einstien. If God is indeed unknowable, then why should you have difficulty accepting that someone does not accept a percetion/conception of God that you have.

I think the principle that God is unknowable, impenetrable, inscrutable etc. gets thrown out the window the moment you claim you know something -- anything -- about Him/Her/It, such as how and when he went about creating the world, what He expects of us etc.

So there`s a contradiction when you say we know NOTHING, and then claim that the knowledge derived from any Book is perfect. How do you KNOW that? How do you know THAT?

Anyways... on te question of athiestic scientists, yes, I`m sure that there are scientists who are also athiests, but that is out of personal convicton, the same kind of conviction that another scientist might have `in` the existience of a higher `Something`-- whatever (most are reluctant to call it God, because that name is associated with something quite different from what they experience.

My point (and I know, I`ve belabored it enough)...Don`t be too quick to judge those who may not subscribe to a God-image that you hold.

To each his own.

rgds,

PM

God, as we define h(H)im, is limitless and transcendent, hence my question is why does h(H)e bother with what happens to humans... if h(H)e is above everything, why does h(H)e care ? That is an illogical statement. If you are above something, then the first thing that comes to mind is complete detachment. If you start thinking about the things that you are above, clearly you are not above it, or you have defined the word ``transcend`` incorrectly.

I am not saying that there is no God, but maybe our expectations of Him, the ones that want us to ``commit`` good deeds, are wrong according to HIS definition. So my suggestion is either change HIS definition, or change our expectations.

God, as we define h(H)im, is limitless and transcendent, hence my question is why does h(H)e bother with what happens to humans... if h(H)e is above everything, why does h(H)e care ? That is an illogical statement. If you are above something, then the first thing that comes to mind is complete detachment. If you start thinking about the things that you are above, clearly you are not above it, or you have defined the word ``transcend`` incorrectly.

I am not saying that there is no God, but maybe our expectations of Him, the ones that want us to ``commit`` good deeds, are wrong according to HIS definition. So my suggestion is either change HIS definition, are change our expectations.

Farzana,

I liked your entire response. The following in particular:

``I think the only way to achieve any semblance of understanding of others is to first understand oneself. God can take care of himself/herself.``

Dear Rajanjua,

sorry dad;-) Of course Rajanjua, you are right, a slip on my part, though I think you can `belive` in God; after that its common sense on part of your core belief.

Take care.

Mohyuddeen:

Pardon my wisdom and lack of courage!

To your question, “Can we be insaan without god?” my humble answer is a counter-query: can there be lust without sex? Sure. Sometimes, it is even better, more imaginative, less cumbersome etc…you get the drift.

Sac (#13):

Human knowledge will always be imperfect with or without the Book. I assume religion gives people more reason to believe in illusions; some of us are fortunate that we come with an inbuilt arsenal of hallucinations! The beginning of the end…the end of the beginning?

later….you always say that…nice escape route :)

Eklavya (#14):

I don’t have ‘answers’, but I would like to discuss the questions you have raised:

[“Why the heck do we believe what we believe in?”]

Regarding religion, most have little choice. Starts with being born into a faith and following it blindly, At some point we call this belief, like love of one’s immediate family. There is a possibility to outgrow it, and one does; however, the stamp of ‘belonging’ does not leave you. Just as you will always be known as the son/daughter of so-and-so. In other areas, beliefs are born out of conviction, pressure or just as a fad. We take our pick or are picked up for it.

[“What beliefs are destructive and which ones are constructive of human welfare?”]

After the basic necessities are fulfilled, human welfare becomes an abstract concept. So what is meat for one is poison for the other. Not always, but often. In some instances maintaining the status quo constitutes welfare, in another rebelling against it would bring about a better societal shift.

[“Will we ever be able to move, not individually but societally, from destructive beliefs to constructive ones? How do we achieve that miracle other than simply praying for it?”]

Again, what I said earlier would apply – differing concepts make it difficult; even the prayers are different, not only in their tenor but also in their ‘demands’.

I think the only way to achieve any semblance of understanding of others is to first understand oneself. God can take care of himself/herself.