Post by Islamic Revival on Oct 24, 2005 0:55:55 GMT -5
By Yamin Zakaria
Ascertaining Evidences
“Have you seen the water which you drink? Do you bring it down (in rain) from the clouds or do We? Were it Our Will We could make it saltish (and unpalatable): Then why do you not give thanks?” (Quran – 56:68-70)
Because, being ungrateful is the natural consequence of disbelief in an omnipotent creator of man, life and universe. No one can dispute water is one of the essential ingredients of life, yet this is taken for granted without once reflecting on its constant supply in a form suitable for consumption. In their arrogance of disbelief, they replace themselves as the new God of this universe, assuming ownership over it even though they did not even create their own lives let alone the rest of the universe.
Some time back, I attended a university debate on the subject of the existence of God, between a young Islamic activist and an old lady representing the atheist/secular/agnostic viewpoint of a universe without a supreme creator. Predictably, the atheist demanded proof for the existence of God, derided blind-faith, and justified the position of disbelief on the basis of scientific theories explicating the birth of the universe. At that point somebody from the audience asked her to elaborate the complex scientific theories, and she retorted in frustration: “I don’t know, go and ask the scientists”. Some of the audience started to shout, “blind-faith” and the rest burst out into laughter, her cheeks became red, and the humiliation on her face was clearly visible; nobody with an ounce of dignity likes to be exposed as an ignorant hypocrite, caught by their own accusations.
Her error was simple, like all atheists, sceptics and agnostics she assumed that if the case for the existence of a supreme creator had not been proven in her eyes, then automatically a case has been made for the absence of God. We hear frequently the question: “Prove that God exists?” but rarely do we hear “Prove that God does not exist?” Inability to prove a point does not always mean it has been automatically disproved. A genuine debate on the existence or non-existence of a creator, by rational necessity demands that the burden of ‘proof’ should be a two-way process; both sides need to provide evidences to justify their respective positions, and cross examine each others viewpoints! For the discourse to be constructive, the two parties need to achieve consensus on what sort of evidences would constitute proof before they begin their debate. Hence, the next question:
What constitutes proof?
A simple solution is that the one, who is demanding the proof, should detail what would satisfy as proof to him/her. Otherwise the one who is being asked will be at the mercy of the interrogator who can refuse to accept any evidences brought forward. For atheists and like minded people, they consider something has been proven only when it can be verified by their senses. So they often repeat the phrase: “I will believe in God when I see it”. However, how often do we use the absolute criteria of sensory perception to accept and reject matters? There are few things in life we can proven by direct sensory perception, for example two identical houses are bigger than one, ice is cooler than fire, sugar is sweeter than salt, two objects cannot occupy the same space and so on.
In most cases, we believe and act upon information relayed from other people, because we trust other human beings to be honest and not natural liars, unless we have evidences to suggest the contrary. When strangers warn you of nearby danger you are not going to disbelieve them and attempt to verify the danger through your senses. If you are informed about toxicity of a certain substance you are not going to taste the substance, proving that you are a ‘rationalist’ that only accepts information verified through the senses. Likewise we believe the identity of our parents because we trust and believe in their words, as we have not witnessed our fertilization, the successive growth of the embryo, through to the birth!
So proof cannot manifest exclusively through the sense perception, as all human beings more often believe and act upon non-sensory information, information derived from, induction, deduction, extrapolation and sheer trust on others. Nobody has seen the Creator with their naked eyes nor has anybody seen the original big-bang of the universe, atoms, quarqs, electrons, people have conviction in these matters based on evidences provided from other sources, evidence that is based on tangible and non tangible sources. Thus direct sensory proof is a rarity in life, as is absolute blind-faith, on most occasions we tend to act on information that we are convinced of based on the evidences provided. I have used the word conviction rather than belief, as ‘belief’ has become synonymous with blind-faith.
When we address primary questions about the creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence or non-existence of a creator, we either adopt blind faith behind scientists and/or religion - or we acquire conviction based on analysing the evidences and arguments presented to us by the various parties. This leads us to the next point of:
What is the difference in conviction in Science and Islam?
Scientific ‘theories’ and religious philosophies provide an explanation of how the universe was created, but it is science that is deficient and silent on the question of WHY the universe was created and put at our disposal, and WHAT is the purpose of life on earth. Scientists will state how every phenomenon in this universe has a purpose, they can tell you in detail every limb and organ in the human body has a specific function, but they cannot answer, and nor will they contemplate, what is the purpose of life in its entirety? In addressing these fundamental points the approach is a very unscientific one. Likewise, after recognising the detailed complexities and sophistication of the universe, a clear indication of an intelligent designer behind this universe, the scientist have made all the effort to justify the absence of a supreme creator of this universe in order to satisfy the militant secular culture.
As for providing an explanation of how the universe was created, the atheists and their like minded people, claim only scientific approach is valid as it is built on evidences and arguments, and dismisses any other points of view (Islamic and non-Islamic) out of arrogance and distrust. They shout with their scientific theories but the reality of these theories is they get replaced with newer ones, with the passage of time. So how can one exhibit so much certainty in something that is so uncertain and transient to begin with? Unfortunately due to the fanaticism of militant secularism, they begin to propagate scientific theories as fact, so it was fact for a while that we evolved from apes, yet all we see is the beginning point of an ape and the end point of a human being, no where do we see what exists in the middle, i.e. a species that represent part human and part ape as clear proof of that evolution, the infamous ‘missing link(s)’. This danger of viewing scientific theories as fact was brought my attention by my professor in my final year at university, who stated that in science you prove a new theory by displacing an older one; - a fact does not change with the passage of time but theories do.
Now the confusion arises in understanding ‘scientific’ discoveries that often lead to scientific inventions by harnessing those discoveries, for example discovery of radio activity lead to the development of Nuclear energy. These are often taken as scientific, but in reality it is simply locating what already exists in this universe. Instead the one who discovers is given the status of its creator. How can that be? A scientist is no more than a warden with a torch looking through a dark-room of the universe, shining a light on the objects that he discovers, but never asks why they are there and who put those objects there in the first place? Take the modern aeroplane as an example, if it was not for the discovery of fuel or a similar substance, i.e. something which could be manufactured out of something that already exists, would it be possible for mankind to make commercial flights using aeroplanes?
The atheists, freethinkers, agnostics foolishly shout science has led to the betterment of human life, as they assume arrogantly that science is the exclusive product of western secular nations, that has evolved over the last three hundred years or more. They attempt to project that science and religion in general, as somehow mutually exclusive, by tainting history. For sure science did suffer under medieval Christianity for centuries, Christian dogma set by the clergy making such rash judgements as the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe etc and anyone who contradicted their dogma was a heretic. So they persecuted the likes of Galileo and Copernicus, but it is irrational and unscientific to use their history to taint all human history, and taint all religion with respect to the development of science. Most certainly, in Islam we never had the inquisition of the scientists, and science was always seen as complementary and at times confirming the Islamic texts.
Also it is not scientific achievements, but how the scientific achievements have been used, that has contributed to the betterment of life. So nuclear energy to provide electricity to light our homes or it can be used to commit mass murder, like the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki found out. Similarly, the motor engine led to invention of cars, but it is the same principles used to build tanks and demolish towns and cities. The scientific era under secularism of the 20th century, saw more bloodshed than any other period in human history. Yet like dodo’s the slogans fly that religion causes all the wars, as if war in the name of profit is more ethical!
Science only corroborates the intelligence behind this universe; yet pushed by a secular philosophy; they expend effort in justifying a universe without a supreme intelligent creator. Our experience tells us that nothing comes into existence without intelligence directing it. If we deposit sand, wood, brick and other materials in a field, do we expect to see a house the next day or even after decades? Why the rationalist’s see rationality in attributing chance and accident behind a universe that is so vast, so complex had so many catastrophic permutations but evolved in perfect balance with signs of intelligence behind it everywhere? Because it is not intelligence but human desire, prejudice and bias that clouds ones judgement, blurring the demarcation of fact and fiction, truth and falsehood.
Conviction in the existence of an omnipotent God is easy for any human being to understand, in contradistinction very few have the ability to fathom the complex scientific theories explaining the creation of the universe, which are still theories, if anyone is guilty of blind-faith it is those sheep, who simply submit to those theories without understanding. In order to hide their inadequacies they place the entire burden of proof on the believers, and the criterion of proof is direct sensory-perception, which they themselves do not adhere to. We all have conviction based on our perception of the evidences around us, and it is only the arrogant ones who claim to have a monopoly over this, using this fig-leaf of science without understanding what science really is, and what the reality around us with the scientific discoveries (not theories) clearly points to.
Scientist only shine that torch in that darkened room, illuminating what is already there, they are not creating anything, the best advise is to ask yourself who did? Having asked that question, looked at the evidences, we have concluded it is an omnipotent creator.
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org), London, UK
Ascertaining Evidences
“Have you seen the water which you drink? Do you bring it down (in rain) from the clouds or do We? Were it Our Will We could make it saltish (and unpalatable): Then why do you not give thanks?” (Quran – 56:68-70)
Because, being ungrateful is the natural consequence of disbelief in an omnipotent creator of man, life and universe. No one can dispute water is one of the essential ingredients of life, yet this is taken for granted without once reflecting on its constant supply in a form suitable for consumption. In their arrogance of disbelief, they replace themselves as the new God of this universe, assuming ownership over it even though they did not even create their own lives let alone the rest of the universe.
Some time back, I attended a university debate on the subject of the existence of God, between a young Islamic activist and an old lady representing the atheist/secular/agnostic viewpoint of a universe without a supreme creator. Predictably, the atheist demanded proof for the existence of God, derided blind-faith, and justified the position of disbelief on the basis of scientific theories explicating the birth of the universe. At that point somebody from the audience asked her to elaborate the complex scientific theories, and she retorted in frustration: “I don’t know, go and ask the scientists”. Some of the audience started to shout, “blind-faith” and the rest burst out into laughter, her cheeks became red, and the humiliation on her face was clearly visible; nobody with an ounce of dignity likes to be exposed as an ignorant hypocrite, caught by their own accusations.
Her error was simple, like all atheists, sceptics and agnostics she assumed that if the case for the existence of a supreme creator had not been proven in her eyes, then automatically a case has been made for the absence of God. We hear frequently the question: “Prove that God exists?” but rarely do we hear “Prove that God does not exist?” Inability to prove a point does not always mean it has been automatically disproved. A genuine debate on the existence or non-existence of a creator, by rational necessity demands that the burden of ‘proof’ should be a two-way process; both sides need to provide evidences to justify their respective positions, and cross examine each others viewpoints! For the discourse to be constructive, the two parties need to achieve consensus on what sort of evidences would constitute proof before they begin their debate. Hence, the next question:
What constitutes proof?
A simple solution is that the one, who is demanding the proof, should detail what would satisfy as proof to him/her. Otherwise the one who is being asked will be at the mercy of the interrogator who can refuse to accept any evidences brought forward. For atheists and like minded people, they consider something has been proven only when it can be verified by their senses. So they often repeat the phrase: “I will believe in God when I see it”. However, how often do we use the absolute criteria of sensory perception to accept and reject matters? There are few things in life we can proven by direct sensory perception, for example two identical houses are bigger than one, ice is cooler than fire, sugar is sweeter than salt, two objects cannot occupy the same space and so on.
In most cases, we believe and act upon information relayed from other people, because we trust other human beings to be honest and not natural liars, unless we have evidences to suggest the contrary. When strangers warn you of nearby danger you are not going to disbelieve them and attempt to verify the danger through your senses. If you are informed about toxicity of a certain substance you are not going to taste the substance, proving that you are a ‘rationalist’ that only accepts information verified through the senses. Likewise we believe the identity of our parents because we trust and believe in their words, as we have not witnessed our fertilization, the successive growth of the embryo, through to the birth!
So proof cannot manifest exclusively through the sense perception, as all human beings more often believe and act upon non-sensory information, information derived from, induction, deduction, extrapolation and sheer trust on others. Nobody has seen the Creator with their naked eyes nor has anybody seen the original big-bang of the universe, atoms, quarqs, electrons, people have conviction in these matters based on evidences provided from other sources, evidence that is based on tangible and non tangible sources. Thus direct sensory proof is a rarity in life, as is absolute blind-faith, on most occasions we tend to act on information that we are convinced of based on the evidences provided. I have used the word conviction rather than belief, as ‘belief’ has become synonymous with blind-faith.
When we address primary questions about the creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence or non-existence of a creator, we either adopt blind faith behind scientists and/or religion - or we acquire conviction based on analysing the evidences and arguments presented to us by the various parties. This leads us to the next point of:
What is the difference in conviction in Science and Islam?
Scientific ‘theories’ and religious philosophies provide an explanation of how the universe was created, but it is science that is deficient and silent on the question of WHY the universe was created and put at our disposal, and WHAT is the purpose of life on earth. Scientists will state how every phenomenon in this universe has a purpose, they can tell you in detail every limb and organ in the human body has a specific function, but they cannot answer, and nor will they contemplate, what is the purpose of life in its entirety? In addressing these fundamental points the approach is a very unscientific one. Likewise, after recognising the detailed complexities and sophistication of the universe, a clear indication of an intelligent designer behind this universe, the scientist have made all the effort to justify the absence of a supreme creator of this universe in order to satisfy the militant secular culture.
As for providing an explanation of how the universe was created, the atheists and their like minded people, claim only scientific approach is valid as it is built on evidences and arguments, and dismisses any other points of view (Islamic and non-Islamic) out of arrogance and distrust. They shout with their scientific theories but the reality of these theories is they get replaced with newer ones, with the passage of time. So how can one exhibit so much certainty in something that is so uncertain and transient to begin with? Unfortunately due to the fanaticism of militant secularism, they begin to propagate scientific theories as fact, so it was fact for a while that we evolved from apes, yet all we see is the beginning point of an ape and the end point of a human being, no where do we see what exists in the middle, i.e. a species that represent part human and part ape as clear proof of that evolution, the infamous ‘missing link(s)’. This danger of viewing scientific theories as fact was brought my attention by my professor in my final year at university, who stated that in science you prove a new theory by displacing an older one; - a fact does not change with the passage of time but theories do.
Now the confusion arises in understanding ‘scientific’ discoveries that often lead to scientific inventions by harnessing those discoveries, for example discovery of radio activity lead to the development of Nuclear energy. These are often taken as scientific, but in reality it is simply locating what already exists in this universe. Instead the one who discovers is given the status of its creator. How can that be? A scientist is no more than a warden with a torch looking through a dark-room of the universe, shining a light on the objects that he discovers, but never asks why they are there and who put those objects there in the first place? Take the modern aeroplane as an example, if it was not for the discovery of fuel or a similar substance, i.e. something which could be manufactured out of something that already exists, would it be possible for mankind to make commercial flights using aeroplanes?
The atheists, freethinkers, agnostics foolishly shout science has led to the betterment of human life, as they assume arrogantly that science is the exclusive product of western secular nations, that has evolved over the last three hundred years or more. They attempt to project that science and religion in general, as somehow mutually exclusive, by tainting history. For sure science did suffer under medieval Christianity for centuries, Christian dogma set by the clergy making such rash judgements as the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe etc and anyone who contradicted their dogma was a heretic. So they persecuted the likes of Galileo and Copernicus, but it is irrational and unscientific to use their history to taint all human history, and taint all religion with respect to the development of science. Most certainly, in Islam we never had the inquisition of the scientists, and science was always seen as complementary and at times confirming the Islamic texts.
Also it is not scientific achievements, but how the scientific achievements have been used, that has contributed to the betterment of life. So nuclear energy to provide electricity to light our homes or it can be used to commit mass murder, like the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki found out. Similarly, the motor engine led to invention of cars, but it is the same principles used to build tanks and demolish towns and cities. The scientific era under secularism of the 20th century, saw more bloodshed than any other period in human history. Yet like dodo’s the slogans fly that religion causes all the wars, as if war in the name of profit is more ethical!
Science only corroborates the intelligence behind this universe; yet pushed by a secular philosophy; they expend effort in justifying a universe without a supreme intelligent creator. Our experience tells us that nothing comes into existence without intelligence directing it. If we deposit sand, wood, brick and other materials in a field, do we expect to see a house the next day or even after decades? Why the rationalist’s see rationality in attributing chance and accident behind a universe that is so vast, so complex had so many catastrophic permutations but evolved in perfect balance with signs of intelligence behind it everywhere? Because it is not intelligence but human desire, prejudice and bias that clouds ones judgement, blurring the demarcation of fact and fiction, truth and falsehood.
Conviction in the existence of an omnipotent God is easy for any human being to understand, in contradistinction very few have the ability to fathom the complex scientific theories explaining the creation of the universe, which are still theories, if anyone is guilty of blind-faith it is those sheep, who simply submit to those theories without understanding. In order to hide their inadequacies they place the entire burden of proof on the believers, and the criterion of proof is direct sensory-perception, which they themselves do not adhere to. We all have conviction based on our perception of the evidences around us, and it is only the arrogant ones who claim to have a monopoly over this, using this fig-leaf of science without understanding what science really is, and what the reality around us with the scientific discoveries (not theories) clearly points to.
Scientist only shine that torch in that darkened room, illuminating what is already there, they are not creating anything, the best advise is to ask yourself who did? Having asked that question, looked at the evidences, we have concluded it is an omnipotent creator.
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org), London, UK