Why Am I An Agnostic Muslim?

Freddy (#147) … longish post … sorry …

In my view terms like natural selection and survival of the fittest are obscure clichés, often misquoted in attempts to explain what remains inexplicable on basis of reason. When scientists run into brick walls, they toss around these vague terms, which only obfuscates the issue, without providing a plausible explanation.

Before treating DNA as a starting point, one needs review some of the most complex issues related to formation of DNA itself. This highly improbable process cannot be discussed without discussing the equally improbable formation of amino acids that preceded it. Formation of amino acids (organic compounds) from methane, hydrogen, and water itself is a phenomenon difficult to conceive on basis of the existing environment and statistics alone.

We can trace this sequence back to pre-biotic organisms that lacked an internal mechanism to generate energy. They probably drew energy directly from sunlight, which reached earth unhindered due to an oxygen-free atmosphere. Transition from this oxygen-free environment, to one that is oxygen rich, was critical for the pre-biotic organisms to progress to energy-producing organisms. In other words, oxygen-free ambient that is critical for development of one stage, will make it impossible for the species to evolve to the next stage. And this is one for the many paradoxes of “blind” evolution.

Stanley Miller’s experiments

In 1950s Stanley Miller conducted experiments by placing methane, hydrogen, and water in a jar, and using an electrical discharge to simulate lightening, This led to formation of several amino acids in the jar. Good going, he thought. Much enthusiasm was generated in the scientific community … that the puzzle of life is almost solved. There was much disappointment to follow. Details of his experiment did him in.

One of the flaws was that he had kept the water at boiling temperature over extended time periods, which adds to the improbability in real world. More objections were raised by Dickerson, another scholar, who noted that … while Miller’s experiment resulted in many amino acids present in proteins, it also resulted in many more molecules that are not present. As Miller’s experiment tried to explain one issue, it raised several others that added to the puzzle. He himself admitted this by stating .. the problem of origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.

Paradox with proteins and DNA

Living cells must be able to reproduce. However, nucleic acid cannot replicate without enzymes, and these enzymes cannot be replicated without nucleic acid. Researchers Watson and Clark accepted that DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without catalytic proteins, and these proteins cannot be formed without DNA. Another paradox.

RNA molecules are understood to work as messengers for transfer of information and instructions from DNA to specific sites. A charging enzyme is required to attach a specific amino acid to the RNA molecule for this to happen. However, the charging enzyme critical to this translation mechanism it itself a product of the very mechanism it produces. Another chicken or egg paradox.

Dickerson’s response

To work around this paradox, Dickerson proposed two parallel mechanisms for development of DNA and RNA. He argued that DNA and RNA developed simultaneously and independently, and later became dependent on one another. This is like suggesting … that chicken developed separately from the egg, giving birth to chickens only. And eggs developed separately from chicken, giving birth to eggs only. Later on, chicken and eggs became co-dependent, with chicken giving birth to an egg, and an egg giving birth to a chicken.

On a similar note … Frank Allen (professor of biophysics in University of Manitoba, Canada) while acknowledging the critical role of protein in building, supporting, and advancing life, ruled out the possibility of its formation by chance. According to him, if left on chance, single protein molecule would 10 ^ 248 years (that’s 10 to the power 248) to form.

Life from outer space?

Unable to explain the formation of life on earth on chance alone, some scientists have gazed at the heavens for an answer. They have hypothesized that life was formed on some other planet, and was transported to earth with the aid of some meteorite. Another problem scientists face is that phosphorus and molybdenum are needed for progress of life, which are not readily available on earth, but are more readily available on other planets.

This viewpoint also runs into several roadblocks. The heat generated as a meteorite enters the atmosphere would surely destroy any organic material on it. A possible explanation around this is that organic material was enwrapped in small particles, protected by icy layers, like the ones seen in the tail of meteorites. These packets, carrying source of life, would gently descend on earth like drops of dew. While highly speculative, the issue still remains unanswered that … phosphorus and molybdenum remains largely unavailable no earth and life would not have evolved in such an environment.

General comments

If left purely on chance, there is no prefixed direction for life to progress. The concept of a step forward becomes meaningless. Forward? In which direction and to what end? Steps taken could be in any direction … which would result in chaos … and not in the organized and structured complex life forms we see today.

My views

My logic is quite a bit at odds with that of the clergy. Whereas clergy totally rejects it, I accept evolution as an established fact. However, I do reject blind chance as the sole driver of the engine of evolution. In my view a slight bias, in the very design of the universe, in favor of creation and life, explains the world around us. It accounts for the gap between life as we see it, and what an unbiased game of chance would yield.

Your view

In some ways, I think your views match those of clergy. Sheer insistence … that chance adequately explains life as we see it … is the flip side of the arguments presented by the clergy. Clergy as we know, totally ignores mounting evidence that contradicts it views.

When faced with inexplicable dead-ends, you resorted to abstract terms like chaos theory, in attempts to work around it. Such terms actually hide the chaos of your own theory. While butterfly affect (a butterfly flapping its wings in China, causing a storm in Chicago) is mathematically known to exist, people who drop such abstract notions do so more in efforts to somehow explain what they are unable to explain on basis of reason. It is like waving a magic wand, hoping that a fairy will make all the problems disappear.

If Dawkins insisted that evolution is the only game in town, then I must add that the game has been called off due to bad weather.

Furthermore …

Your point about great ideas not needing promotion… seems speculative and somewhat tangential. Try telling it to the guy who first tried to market the Wal-Mart brand. Note that Galileo got badly roughed up for stating facts. We in the USA are turning into a nation of fat, ugly idiots … despite ample evidence that fatty and junk food are doing us in. It will probably take a few million deaths to bring this basic point home. In short, even basic facts can take awhile before they gain acceptance.

Finally …

I am open to better understanding more about formation of life … but it must come from people who are able to admit when they run into a problem. Scientific explanations are welcome … but they have to offer more than the abstract notion of a butterfly in Beijing dancing on the edge of a cloud.

As for listening to the majority of the scientific community, feel free to rub this in on Romair. I am quite comfortable siding with minority on an issue if it makes sense. This wouldn’t be the first time … you know … -:)

- Asad

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

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

hamidm #258 I am sorry that your posts get so quickly buried under PhD theses written by Professor Romair and others. But that was a great observation you made about this mythical ``Muslim world`` consisting of three types of losers.

When you meet someone, it is only human to draw connections. Fellow pakistanis soon find they may have gone to the same school, had common friends, and so forth. Indian and Pakistani panjabis happily start chatting in panjabi (their common link) when they meet. Muslims from different countries have of course common religious traditions - thus I remember how pleased the indonesians were (and how good I myself felt in being among fellow muslims) when I went their on business and joined them in friday prayers at the mosque in a remote town in southern sumatera. But then - i was just as pleased when I got the chance to visit a hindu temple in bangladesh (which doubled as a community shelter for the hindu community I was visiting). So, kinship towards other people can be very positive and healthy as long as it does not slide into religious or any other kind of chauvinism.

Going beyond this human and cultural level - at the political level of course talk of a ``Muslim World`` as a political concept is a lot of hot air. Always has been. For centuries.

re:#268 by tahmed32
Thomas Friedman, the NY Times foreign correspondent who was on an assignment to Bangalore, said that one reason why India is improving is because Indians realize that they are in a SH!T and need to improve.
Indians have been very self-critical. One can see that in their newspapers, TV programs etc. I posted that article written by a Pakistani just to make people like Romair pause and think. People like Romair keep coming up with one fantastic theory after another to make Pak look good. Are they being fair?
In the same vein, is India better than China? It is not and i am sure Indians would do well to remember that. India still has a long way to go.
Sridhar

rsridhar: Greetings. The fact that it is a pakistani in a pakistani newspaper who is criticizing our education system is a good thing. Self-criticism is necessary for any progressive people. It is people who gloat about their ``superior`` culture or economy (as too many of your countrymen do all the time on chowk, and as a much smaller number of pakistanis - like echosqueek - also do with respect to their mythical ``muslim world``) who are the true primitives in any society.

Re: # 54

4. He (Raja Ram Mohun Roy) was charged with theft by his own. His son did not send money to England.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am stupendously amazed at the turn the discussion has taken. In spite of that, let me draw people`s attention to a beautiful Sanskrit hymn by Adi Sankaracharya (~700 AD) which addresses the above point and also illustrates negation in Sanskrit.

ARTHAMANARTHAM BHAAVAYA NITHYAM
NAASTI TATAH SUKHALESAH SATHYAM
PUTHRAADAPI DHANABHAAJAAM BHEETIH
SARVATRAISHA VIHITA REETIH

ARTHAMANARTHAM = ARTHAM + AN + ARTHAM = Wealth + not + wealth = Wealth, poverty
BHAAVAYA NITHYAM = think about deeply
NAASTI TATAH = NA + ASTI + TATAH = That is not
SUKHALESAH SATHYAM = Happiness true
PUTHRAADAPI = Even from sons
DHANABHAAJAAM BHEETIH = To the rich fear
SARVATRAISHA = Everywhere
VIHITA REETIH = ordained is this rule

The full translation is:

Wealth, poverty - think deeply on this
There is no true happiness from that
A rich man is afraid even of his own sons
This is true everywhere and forever


The full hymn is in http://www.tantra.co.nz/tantrahome/spirituallibrary/bhajagovindam.htm though to appreciate the beauty of the hymn, one has to listen to the rendering by M. S. Subbalakshmi

re: Romair`s post# 249
This is a must-read for people who are still deluded about Pak.
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=414605
The following letter to the editor is written by a Pakistani in a Pak newspaper:

(Reforming our Universities

The Switzerland-based World Economic Forum (WEF) has issued its Global Competitiveness Report for 2004-2005, evaluating and ranking 104 countries. Under the heading ``Technological readiness``, India is listed at the 26th position whereas Pakistan is at 84th, sandwiched between Gambia and Nigeria.

`Prevalence of foreign technology licensing` lists India at eight, with New Zealand and Japan at six and seven. Pakistan is at 67, between Tanzania and Nigeria. Under `FDI and technology transfer`, India is placed at 20 below Kenya and the United Kingdom. We are at 96, between Ecuador, Mali, Ukraine and Macedonia.

`Quality of scientific research readiness` has India at 17, below France and Norway. We are at 94, below Bangladesh and Vietnam, but above Peru and Ecuador.

Under `Company spending on research and development`, India is listed at 26, with South Africa and Ireland above. We are 101, between Bolivia, Paraguay, Angola and Chad. The last is Ethiopia at 104.

Under `Availability of scientists and engineers`, India tops the list at No. 1 with Finland at No. 2 and Israel at No. 3, while Pakistan lies in the second half at 61 with Slovenia and Bangladesh, but above Ghana.

The annual `Index of economic freedom`, conducted by Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, has stated that Pakistan is included among 10 of the 155 countries whose performance in the education field has worsened during 2004. It is now bracketed with Ethiopia, Uganda, Haiti, Bangladesh, Morocco, Qatar, Cuba and Tunisia.

In an article on ``Reforming our universities``, Prof Pervez Hoodbhoy has taken up the issue head-on: ``The higher education budget has zoomed by 1,200 per cent over three years, a world record. No previous Pakistani government can boast of comparable accomplishments and the HEC chairman deserves congratulations.

``But at the same time, the HEC is also creating very dangerous, possibly lethal, systemic changes and the HEC reforms could make higher education system worse rather than better. Pakistan has almost a hundred universities now, but not one of them is world class and not even one of them is a real university, if by a university one means a community of scholars engaged in free inquiry and the creation of knowledge.``

Universities have now become a numbers game, as most new public sector universities lack infrastructure, libraries, laboratories, adequate faculty, or even a pool of students, academically prepared to study at the university level.

Pakistan`s 150 million people, mostly uneducated citizens, are being denied even the basic civic necessities of living a dignified life, as promised to them by the now mutilated Constitution of Pakistan.

And even now our leaders and politicians still bicker over non- issues and what clothes the president should wear and as to how our passport should be worded. When will we grow up and take a hard look at reality and as to where we are heading vis-a-vis the world.

H. MAKER

Karachi)
Sridhar

Agnosticism is about not willing to take the leap towards faith by resorting to theology............it is about eschewing metaphysics.......

``Historically, ``agnosticism`` does not merely mean a suspension of judgment. Rather, it means intellectual justification for a disregard of theology.``
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html

There`s no such thing as an agnostic Muslim--what an oxymoron that is! Agnosticism: those who are not sure if there is a God or not. Muslim: one who accepts with the heart and confirms on the tongue that there is Allah and in the Prophethood of Sayyidina Rasul Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Is there doubt in Allah?! (for a Muslim).

There is a hadith sharif: Shaq kufr ki alaamat hai : (Doubt (in the existence of Allah/in Islam) is a sign of unbelief).

May Allah protect us! ameen!

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

Re: # 260

Harish ji

Where did I say that those mentioned in the post below have used abusive language? I am talking about those who abuse arjun, etc. because they question. I must have done something wrong while paraphrasing that message is not conveyed peroperly. But i know those who are addressed will get the point.

Regards

Ref. # 257 by Bbabu:

Chowk staff: Could you please explain why this particular interact was filtered out? I see nothing objectionable in the language, logic or thoughts expressed therein.

Re: # 259

To the best of my knowledge, arjun-m, alephnull, and ralph have never resorted to personal abuse.

It is amazing! History is always repeating itself. Why do opponents from other side resort to personal abuses when they find it difficult to answer valid, logical questions? Why nobody is ready to take the bull from horns, give convincing logical replies or say we don`t know and are not interested to create ripples in our indoctrained minds.

But no. They have to abuse those who don`t use abuses.
Bravo! we are proud of our arjun-m, alephnull, ralph and now singularity. Keep it up. Slowly and steadily, all of you will succeed to convine people to learn questioning.

Regards all.

....... what the heck is ``the muslim world`` ?............ as far as i know it can be one of three things :

1. the oic - a debating society for eunuchs
2. al-qaeda - a society for murderous eunuchs who have given up on debating and are now into suicide and homicide
3. delusional pakis who think that the arabs and turks are their brothers-in-deen even though they keep on getting deported from oman and istambul

........... i think most of the folks on chowk who talk about this nonsense belong in the third category .........