nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Foundational beliefs of the faith

130Kph

This is a question about the core foundational beliefs of the faith of Islam.

The central claim of Islam is that Allah communicated the truth to Mohammed. All well and good so far – who could possibly question such a claim!!!

However to many sceptics this looks like mythology based on absolutely nothing – and that’s being kind.

So which is more likely:-

Likelihood A) :Islam is 100% fiction (made up of stories cobbled together over hundreds of years created entirely from the culture of the people who lived on the Arabian peninsula thousands of years ago additionally using ‘copy and pastes’ from the Bible & Torah – themselves pure fiction). The stories based on nothing more than anecdotes of thousands of unknown charlatans, chancers, ranters, vagabonds, ne’er-do-wells, liars, power grabbers, thieves and warlords

OR

Likelyhood

Islam is 100% true:- It really was Allah-the one and only creator of the Universe- talking to a prophet (a man who was as real as anyone reading this but who is deserving of vast limitless worship -the reasons why are not relevant here)
Also where the many (hadith) writers were not like the mix of selfish, child-men, egomaniacs, we see in the world today – they were somehow altruistic truth tellers with no other agenda other than to write & embellish these stories (that they never witnessed in the first place)

So, which is most likely? This is not a question addressed at the level of Islamic theologians of the ages but simply at the level of honest objectivity, now in the 21st century.

Put in another way, given that the age of enlightenment decisively ended in Europe approx. 220 years ago:-

Why do well-travelled, highly educated Muslims think non-Muslim intellectuals, anthropologists or sociologists, having dismissed as many as 20,000 other religions of human history (-including Christianity, Judaism or for example Pacific cargo cult religions) as primitive manufactured myths, should not similarly dismiss Islam as superficial nonsense?

Find more posts tagged with

islam

sceptics

sceptic

athiesm

Quick Links

Comments

Tom Dunne

130Kph wrote: »

However to many sceptics this looks like mythology based on absolutely nothing – and that’s being kind.

But isn't that the case with any religion?

130Kph

Tom Dunne wrote: »

But isn't that the case with any religion?

Yes, it is.

However, here the question is being asked about Islam. Surely not an inappropriate place to ask?

Which is why it would be interesting to hear from Muslims who have read & thought deeply about the considered criticisms of the tenuous foundational claims of Islam by respected sceptics/academics etc. around the world (who have dismissed thousands of other religions over the last 320 years for similar reasons). This being quite easy to do nowadays with the vast 'library' of the internet)

& yet he/she discounts these criticisms and instead sees a Islam (which stands only on these delicate foundations) as a stronger/better position to hold in the market place of Ideas in the 21st century?

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

This is a question about the core foundational beliefs of the faith of Islam.
The central claim of Islam is that Allah communicated the truth to Mohammed. All well and good so far – who could possibly question such a claim!!!
However to many sceptics this looks like mythology based on absolutely nothing – and that’s being kind.

So which is more likely:-
Likelihood A) :Islam is 100% fiction (made up of stories cobbled together over hundreds of years created entirely from the culture of the people who lived on the Arabian peninsula thousands of years ago additionally using ‘copy and pastes’ from the Bible & Torah – themselves pure fiction). The stories based on nothing more than anecdotes of thousands of unknown charlatans, chancers, ranters, vagabonds, ne’er-do-wells, liars, power grabbers, thieves and warlords
OR
Likelyhood Islam is 100% true:- It really was Allah-the one and only creator of the Universe- talking to a prophet (a man who was as real as anyone reading this but who is deserving of vast limitless worship -the reasons why are not relevant here)
Also where the many (hadith) writers were not like the mix of selfish, child-men, egomaniacs, we see in the world today – they were somehow altruistic truth tellers with no other agenda other than to write & embellish these stories (that they never witnessed in the first place)

So, which is most likely? This is not a question addressed at the level of Islamic theologians of the ages but simply at the level of honest objectivity, now in the 21st century.

This question crops up periodically in this forum and there have been many lengthy threads discussing it. Knock yourself out here.

You're essentially coming at it from the viewpoint of:
1) There is no greater being.
2) All religion (Islam included) is man-made fiction, and used for its various purposes (power, control etc.)

As easy as it is to dismiss all religion and belief in a greater creator as nothing but folly, adopting that position isn't without its problems.

What's more likely:

Likelihood A) There is no greater being. The universe created itself at the big bang. The resulting atoms just so happened to clump together in such a way so as to over time form the walking, talking, and highly intellectual beings that "live" for a relatively short period of time (in cosmic terms) in a surprisingly ordered universe (considering it's rather explosive beginning), and our existence is nothing but recycled atoms.

Likelihood

There is a greater being, who created the universe and the living beings within it, and has created this fleeting life as a test for us in which we constantly have to choose between right and wrong, the specifics of which He communicates to us via His messengers.

Given that option A) isn't without its quandaries (the current scientific theories that attempt to explain the big bang are nothing more than hypothetical scenarios based on very little actual scientific data, e.g. it's a theoretical possibility according to the laws of quantum mechanics, or that the universe could well be part of a multiverse, etc.), option

would make more sense to some people (and I'm sure vice versa).

Your question is specifically directed at Islam, but you have to look at it in terms or two separate arguments.

1) Is there a greater being who created the universe for a purpose, or was the universe self-created.
2) If there is a greater being, which religion is the correct one.

If you believe the universe is self-created, then it doesn't matter which religion you talk about, because they are all effectively nullified.

If, however, you do believe in an all-powerful greater being who created the universe, then issues such as the greater being communicating with humans and appointing men from among them as his messengers is something you would view as very possible (where the "all-powerful" bit comes in). Subsequently, all religions that claim to be representative of that greater being merit an in-depth comparison, and ultimately, it will come down to an individual decision as to which religion one feels to be the correct one.

130Kph wrote: »

Put in another way, given that the age of enlightenment decisively ended in Europe approx. 220 years ago:-

Why do well-travelled, highly educated Muslims think non-Muslim intellectuals, anthropologists or sociologists, having dismissed as many as 20,000 other religions of human history (-including Christianity, Judaism or for example Pacific cargo cult religions) as primitive manufactured myths, should not similarly dismiss Islam as superficial nonsense?

In fairness, many many intellectuals and various-ologists have also accepted different religions. Many religions have been created/used/misused for various reasons throughout human history - religion is a very powerful tool, and it's no surprise that so many different ones have cropped up over time (and people do all too often blindly follow a religion without sufficiently questioning their beliefs), but just because the majority of them are fake/misguided, it doesn't mean that all of them are, and if there is only one correct one that we are supposed to be following, then that one is going to be all the harder to find amidst the chaos. Whether people dismiss Islam and other religions as superficial nonsense is a matter for them to decide for themselves - if that is their honest objective opinion after thorough research and considering all the information and arguments they have at hand, then that's their business, and time will eventually tell if they were right or not, i.e. if the day of judgement manifests itself as advertised.

Lastly, if I could just clarify a couple of your points. Muslims do not worship prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) - we have the highest respect for him and consider him to be the most perfect human being to have ever lived, but we worship Allah (subhana wa'tala) alone. Secondly, whilst we take the Quran as the literal word of Allah (swt), which was written down and memorised instantly, we divide hadiths into strong and weak, depending on certain things, such as the chain of the narration and how many different people reported it initially, and whilst they are helpful in explaining the context of certain matters in the Quran, the Quran always supersedes them (but that's not hugely relevant to your original argument anyway).

130Kph

The thread you suggested doesn't address this issue from an Islamic perspective. It mainly deals with the moods and mannerisms of Allah. All entertaining knockabout stuff but I’m not so concerned about that as I am sure you would not be that interested in the moods & mannerisms of Kolndor, the Pasta Strainer Supreme Being I used to believe in many years ago!!

confusedquark wrote: »

This question crops up periodically in this forum and there have been many lengthy threads discussing it. Knock yourself out.

You're essentially coming at it from the viewpoint of:
1) There is no greater being.
2) All religion (Islam included) is man-made fiction, and used for its various purposes (power, control etc.)

Not quite. I’m saying that there is no evidence for a Supreme Being. Zilch, Nada. All known religions are demonstrably manufactured. So (and this is still for me the key question I am asking is) why would someone who thinks deeply about this reject, for example, a reasonable position of:-
secular humanism plus if necessary, a strictly private, personal belief in a Greater Being

and instead opt for one of the bronze age belief systems which surely belong to a part of our shameful & primitive past we should all like to draw a veil across.

Saying one of the binary alternatives is: the universe may be self-created is a strange way of expressing it. Its more likely in my opinion that the universe has & will always exist and cycles through stages, including ‘hibernation’ for want of a better word. There is likely no ‘creation’ involved.

For me one logical error of your world view is where you confuse mankind’s ignorance of the origin of the universe with the Allah/God concept. The two really must be kept separated. Why? Because the Allah hypothesis stands alone. He either exists or he doesn’t - independently of the former or any other question.

Otherwise, someone can say for example, we can’t explain the origin of the universe and then fallaciously use that as ammunition for any wild or delusional claim about the nature of reality/human nature and then create dangerous, detrimental societies that needlessly harm people who just want to be left alone to live their lives. (Not accusing Islam or Christianity here but any conceivable dangerous political claim or argument).

It could even be used as support for harmless ideas. However, that’s still a muddled and confused line of thinking. All we know is we don’t know and we’ll learn more as time passes. The unanswered question of the origin of the universe has no input feed into any other discussion because as you correctly said its only at the hypothetical stage. It must be kept in the ‘Pending box’ only.

If I understand you right you seem to be presenting an ‘Argument from Incredulity’ for the existence of a Supreme Being (to then lead to you choosing Islam as the right path). You cannot think of any other explanation.

However rather than go down that path I would say - What I have observed after watching hundreds of hours of debates on the atheist experience (based in Austin, Texas) on this important point is:- The reasons religious people give to sceptics for following their particular supreme being are almost never the actual reasons they do.

There is a good explanation for this since many other people struggle to articulate to others things they don’t understand about their own mind.

So here is my theory; I believe one big reason religious people believe in a Greater Being is -
Their brain is wired at birth to need to believe in something i.e. dealing with not having an answer to the big questions is just something his/her brain simply cannot accept. They cannot live without a clear answer or they must have a clear, unambiguous answer; any answer will do rather than no answer. In other words they believe because they need to believe or want to believe. So that is what is driving the entire merry-go-round; Sceptics stand aghast, scratching their heads.

The second reason, I think, is: people with this neurological wiring who then experience love from their parents in their childhood, mix this with the religion they are indoctrinated with in their memory. When he/she grows up they believe that parental love and religion go together and recreate this in their adult lives and for any children that come along – in some misguided sense as homage to their parents love. Nothing bad in any of this, just all bad reasons to follow bronze age nonsense instead of secular humanism.

Another small bit of evidence I have is, I was born with my brain wired for atheism. I never made any effort to learn about atheism or convince myself of atheism. I simply had no need for clear answers. I was/am comfortable with not having answers to the big questions.

Finding oneself needing to believe in a Greater Being / Magic Man seems a comparatively unfortunate roll of the dice to me. I accept there is nothing much such a person can do about it. It isn’t dissimilar to a gambling addict who just can’t give up the addiction.

Maybe in the not so distant future, surgeons may be able to insert thousands of nano-robots into peoples heads to rewire their countless brain neuron connections (like rewiring a phone junction box) so that they then do not require clear answers to the unknown and thus no longer need religion/spirituality. That’s an ethical debate for future generations if it becomes an option.

By the way confusedquark, as others have noted, I think you are a very helpful contributor to this intriguing debate as you can relate to both sides in language/vocabulary they both can relate to.

130Kph

To Confusedquark, I apologise for my last reply. On reflection, It was ridiculously hostile, sarcastic and preachy. You didn’t deserve that response given your well meaning post. I am not a regular poster and I had a few glasses of wine that night which influenced the tone of my ranting. Sorry.

confusedquark

I'll be honest your post didn't particularly come across as being hostile - a few strong opinions in there all right, but I didn't find any of it offensive, so all good, and I'm happy to respond to the points you made.

130Kph wrote: »

Not quite. I’m saying that there is no evidence for a Supreme Being. Zilch, Nada. All known religions are demonstrably manufactured.

It's a matter of opinion and perspective. I look at the big bang as evidence of a supreme being. I look at the order in the universe - sure all the galaxies are simply following the laws of physics (as far as we can understand - I'm sure we'll figure out an explanation for "dark energy" sooner or later), but those laws have worked precisely to facilitate life on earth. I think that's too much of a coincidence and believe there's a deeper meaning and plan behind how the otherwise inorganic and dead universe could spring up such vibrant and complex life here. Furthermore, I look at The Quran and the message it contains as evidence of that supreme being communicating His plans for us. Religions being "demonstrably manufactured" is not something you can conclusively demonstrate - but more so something you can form an individual opinion or belief about after examining whatever evidence you have.

130Kph wrote: »

So (and this is still for me the key question I am asking is) why would someone who thinks deeply about this reject, for example, a reasonable position of:-
secular humanism plus if necessary, a strictly private, personal belief in a Greater Being
and instead opt for one of the bronze age belief systems which surely belong to a part of our shameful & primitive past we should all like to draw a veil across.

People may reject a "reasonable" (dangerous term - hugely subjective) position of secular humanism, on the basis that, after thinking deeply, they form the opinion that there is a greater being who has communicated set rules for them on how they should live their lives. It's a question of what one believes to be the truth.

"Shameful" and "Primitive" are again very subjective terms. People can easily use those terms for much of humanity today (be they religious or not), in comparison to many religious teachings. I think we often get carried away with ourselves - even though we're technologically advanced and living in the 21st century, we're not all that different from human generations gone by. We still have the same basic traits (honesty, caring, greed etc.) and desires (for comfort, food, socialising, entertainment, shiny things, etc.), only in a different context and environment.

130Kph wrote: »

Saying one of the binary alternatives is: the universe may be self-created is a strange way of expressing it. Its more likely in my opinion that the universe has & will always exist and cycles through stages, including ‘hibernation’ for want of a better word. There is likely no ‘creation’ involved.

There's no scientific evidence to support that opinion, but you're very well entitled to believe whatever makes the most sense to you.

130Kph wrote: »

For me one logical error of your world view is where you confuse mankind’s ignorance of the origin of the universe with the Allah/God concept. The two really must be kept separated. Why? Because the Allah hypothesis stands alone. He either exists or he doesn’t - independently of the former or any other question.

Otherwise, someone can say for example, we can’t explain the origin of the universe and then fallaciously use that as ammunition for any wild or delusional claim about the nature of reality/human nature and then create dangerous, detrimental societies that needlessly harm people who just want to be left alone to live their lives. (Not accusing Islam or Christianity here but any conceivable dangerous political claim or argument).

It could even be used as support for harmless ideas. However, that’s still a muddled and confused line of thinking. All we know is we don’t know and we’ll learn more as time passes. The unanswered question of the origin of the universe has no input feed into any other discussion because as you correctly said its only at the hypothetical stage. It must be kept in the ‘Pending box’ only.

If I understand you right you seem to be presenting an ‘Argument from Incredulity’ for the existence of a Supreme Being (to then lead to you choosing Islam as the right path). You cannot think of any other explanation.

I can think of 3 explanations:
1) A Supreme being, who has always existed, created the universe
2) The universe self-created and that's when time began
3) The universe (or whatever inorganic mass-energy preceded it) has always existed in some other form

The first explanation makes the most sense to me, and so that's what I believe. And religion does get misused as ammunition for all sorts, and that's wrong. But just because it gets misused, it doesn't mean that it is something which can't offer answers and insights into our existence, and in itself be beneficial for human civilisations - our modern-day views on what's right and wrong haven't just formed by themselves over the millenia - much of it comes from religious teachings.

130Kph wrote: »

So here is my theory; I believe one big reason religious people believe in a Greater Being is -
Their brain is wired at birth to need to believe in something i.e. dealing with not having an answer to the big questions is just something his/her brain simply cannot accept. They cannot live without a clear answer or they must have a clear, unambiguous answer; any answer will do rather than no answer. In other words they believe because they need to believe or want to believe. So that is what is driving the entire merry-go-round; Sceptics stand aghast, scratching their heads.

The second reason, I think, is: people with this neurological wiring who then experience love from their parents in their childhood, mix this with the religion they are indoctrinated with in their memory. When he/she grows up they believe that parental love and religion go together and recreate this in their adult lives and for any children that come along – in some misguided sense as homage to their parents love. Nothing bad in any of this, just all bad reasons to follow bronze age nonsense instead of secular humanism.

Ah come off it now. Our curiosity and "need for answers" is one of our greatest assets - it leads us to probe, question, and better understand the world we live in and thereby help improve our lives. Even those of us who believe in a greater being live life without many other clear, unambiguous answers, and you just learn to accept the we won't know everything and make do with what you have. You believe that the universe has always existed and goes through cycles, and that's not your opinion because you "cannot live" without an answer, but because that's what makes most sense to you after carefully considering all the evidence you have at hand.

Lots of people do accept religion blindly, and just follow in the foot-steps of their parents, because unfortunately not everyone is thorough and objective in pursuit of the truth. But for those who do think deeply about it (as you would put it) and put a lot of time objectively researching, if they reach the conclusion that there is a greater being, then there's nothing wrong with that, even if you don't agree with their belief.

130Kph wrote: »

By the way confusedquark, as others have noted, I think you are a very helpful contributor to this intriguing debate as you can relate to both sides in language/vocabulary they both can relate to.

Lol, thanks. I try to be as objective as I can, and do try and see things from the other side, even if I don't agree with it. It is an intriguing debate, but fundamentally I don't think one can conclusively prove the other side wrong - it'll always come back to perspectives and what makes the most sense to an individual.

130Kph

confusedquark wrote: »

I can think of 3 explanations:
1) A Supreme being, who has always existed, created the universe
2) The universe self-created and that's when time began
3) The universe (or whatever inorganic mass-energy preceded it) has always existed in some other form

I’m glad that you gave some time to thinking through option 2 & 3. Living in a completely pointless universe isn’t so bad really

I just want to clarify that like most agnostics I think a greater being is plausible and it’s a valid option to believe one exists. I applaud freedom of conscious and prize it as equal to the other core freedoms. My issue is with organised religion due to its damaging real world consequences.

Having said that, just a quick point:- I think the problem of Evil is one that has never been credibly addressed by those who believe in a greater being. The most common answer offered is “we don’t know the mind of God/Allah”. Fair enough. But this is a non-trivial issue. Its just too easy to say we don’t know. Would I be correct/incorrect in guessing this issue lurks ever present in the minds of believers’ daily deliberations & recalculations. Do significant numbers of believers annually lose a belief in a greater being because the problem of evil becomes too much for their conscious or do people mostly compartmentalise this away and get on with their lives. Does simply putting it in the “I don’t know box” alleviate cognitive dissonance.

confusedquark wrote: »

And religion does get misused as ammunition for all sorts, and that's wrong. But just because it gets misused, it doesn't mean that it is something which can't offer answers and insights into our existence, and in itself be beneficial for human civilisations -

Unlike some people, I don’t castigate religions for high death tolls & violence in history. I think the mayhem happened mostly independently of religion– similar to almost all the violence going on today. Scott Atran would say religion is an empty vessel in this context and thus give it a free pass.

However I think organised religion cannot be given a free pass. it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It has to take a small amount of the blame for influencing the evil/violent men who misuse it, even if just to embolden themselves in their violent path – just a very small amount. Condemnation is water off a ducks back to these lunatics.

Allowing for (controlling for) all the factors causing violence in the world (including extreme injustice, neo-imperialism, dictatorship, geopolitics, resource wars etc) I suggest this small calculation.

Lets say: given that the casualty rate (death & serious injury) due to all human violence from bar fights to genocide between say now and the year 2100 is X million then all religions together add on a surcharge. Lets be very conservative and assign a figure of 0.12% onto the casualty figures. This means hundreds of thousands of people coming into the world then later pointlessly having their life ended is one of the ongoing costs of organised religion.

A solution to this macro problem could be: each follower of all religions could change to a private/personal belief in a supreme being – taking the organisation out of religion. In Islam’s case one can live as Allah planned for his followers but keep it in the personal realm. I’m sure Allah would accept this compromise as rational & pragmatic and not punish anyone in the next world. He may even expect his followers to adopt this policy?

It would take a long time but would solve the problem by taking away the public platform & credibility from evil men who misuse the path of Allah. They would be identified quickly by their own countrymen and either laughed off the stage or thrown in jail.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

I’m glad that you gave some time to thinking through option 2 & 3. Living in a completely pointless universe isn’t so bad really

Lol

130Kph wrote: »

I just want to clarify that like most agnostics I think a greater being is plausible and it’s a valid option to believe one exists. I applaud freedom of conscious and prize it as equal to the other core freedoms. My issue is with organised religion due to its damaging real world consequences.

Admittedly, as you said, we don't know the mind of God/Allah (subhana wa'tala), but if a greater being did create this universe with (one of/it's sole) purpose being to test humans, then it makes sense that He would convey that message to us one way or another. So, a belief in a greater being generally goes hand in hand with a belief in some religion - unless one takes the view point that a greater being created the universe (and subsequently us), but without any specific conveyed instructions on what we are to do here. So, if you consider it plausible that a greater being exists, then it follows that it's plausible that He communicates to us and sends us instructions through religion. I'll respond to "its damaging real world consequences" below.

130Kph wrote: »

Having said that, just a quick point:- I think the problem of Evil is one that has never been credibly addressed by those who believe in a greater being. The most common answer offered is “we don’t know the mind of God/Allah”. Fair enough. But this is a non-trivial issue. Its just too easy to say we don’t know. Would I be correct/incorrect in guessing this issue lurks ever present in the minds of believers’ daily deliberations & recalculations. Do significant numbers of believers annually lose a belief in a greater being because the problem of evil becomes too much for their conscious or do people mostly compartmentalise this away and get on with their lives. Does simply putting it in the “I don’t know box” alleviate cognitive dissonance.

If I'm understanding your point correctly, you're asking how/why would God/Allah (subhana wa'tala) create/allow evil? That goes back to why we're here. From an Islamic perspective, this life is a test - we are constantly deciding between right and wrong, defined by a set of instructions we have received in the form of the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah. As part of the test, we've been given basic desires (greed, pleasures, ego, lust, taste buds, hunger, thirst etc.) and on the flip side we've been given a conscience to decide between right and wrong, and then we have the ability to act upon it. Modern psychology would term that as the battle between the id and superego. God/Allah (swt) hasn't as much created evil, but more so has given us the capacity to commit evil - which is imperative for us to have a free will and to be able to make choices between right/good and wrong/evil, and to be tested. It's along the same lines as when people ask "If there was a God, then why is there suffering in this world?" The answer to that again goes back to what this life is - it's not a utopia where everyone is happy and lives forever (that would be heaven), we all are here for only a short(ish) period of time, and will face many challenges and choices on a daily basis. Some more so than others in different ways, admittedly, but it's all taken into account on the day of judgement.

130Kph wrote: »

Unlike some people, I don’t castigate religions for high death tolls & violence in history. I think the mayhem happened mostly independently of religion– similar to almost all the violence going on today. Scott Atran would say religion is an empty vessel in this context and thus give it a free pass.

Allowing for (controlling for) all the factors causing violence in the world (including extreme injustice, neo-imperialism, dictatorship, geopolitics, resource wars etc) I suggest this small calculation.

Lets say: given that the casualty rate (death & serious injury) due to all human violence from bar fights to genocide between say now and the year 2100 is X million then all religions together add on a surcharge. Lets be very conservative and assign a figure of 0.12% onto the casualty figures. This means hundreds of thousands of people coming into the world then later pointlessly having their life ended is one of the ongoing costs of organised religion.

I certainly agree with the first paragraph - many empires have come and gone, and humans throughout history have always found one reason or another to kill one another - be it because of being from different tribes, social backgrounds, countries, race, religion, or simply disagreeing on a matter, with greed/power/control of resources being frequent underlying reasons.

Religion has at times been a part of what has triggered violence, but it's not right to attribute blame onto religion for when it is being misused - evil/violent men will always find something to further their interests, and if not religion, it would be something else.

You're also missing one point. Whilst we can disagree over how just how much religion (vs it's alleged followers) contribute to violence, religion also has a very powerful protective effect against violence. The majority of religions essentially do preach peace and that people should get along, respect one another, be honest, don't be greedy etc., and modern secular beliefs have been heavily influenced by religion through the centuries. You would also have to control for that in your calculations.

130Kph wrote: »

A solution to this macro problem could be: each follower of all religions could change to a private/personal belief in a supreme being – taking the organisation out of religion. In Islam’s case one can live as Allah planned for his followers but keep it in the personal realm. I’m sure Allah would accept this compromise as rational & pragmatic and not punish anyone in the next world. He may even expect his followers to adopt this policy?

It would take a long time but would solve the problem by taking away the public platform & credibility from evil men who misuse the path of Allah. They would be identified quickly by their own countrymen and either laughed off the stage or thrown in jail.

The greatest of scholars are very wary to make claims about what Allah (subhana wa'tala) would and wouldn't accept - aside from what has been explicitly said to us, and so we're not at liberty to redefine the religion according to our own "rational & pragmatic" (and grossly subjective) opinions. I don't think forcing people to keep their beliefs behind closed doors is particularly helpful - there shouldn't be a problem in a society if somebody expresses their religion publicly, or goes to a mosque or church periodically to worship. Your problem with organised religion seems to be more so the violence that (maybe) results from it - but that's only extreme circumstances (usually in the hands of extremists who often aren't even following the religion), whereas everyday organised religion for the majority of people is a rather non-violent affair.

I sincerely do hope that people who misuse religion are brought to justice, but global geopolitics is unfortunately a complicated affair, and solutions aren't always straight forward, esp. when extremist groups (the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS) are well financed.

130Kph

If I'm understanding your point correctly, you're asking how/why would God/Allah (subhana wa'tala) create/allow evil? That goes back to why we're here. From an Islamic perspective, this life is a test - we are constantly deciding between right and wrong, defined by a set of instructions we have received in the form of the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah. As part of the test, we've been given basic desires (greed, pleasures, ego, lust, taste buds, hunger, thirst etc.) and on the flip side we've been given a conscience to decide between right and wrong, and then we have the ability to act upon it. Modern psychology would term that as the battle between the id and superego. God/Allah (swt) hasn't as much created evil, but more so has given us the capacity to commit evil - which is imperative for us to have a free will and to be able to make choices between right/good and wrong/evil, and to be tested.

I now believe, having seen how you answered this question that, If the foundational claims of Islam were an order of magnitude 50 times more convoluted, obscure, mysterious and downright bizarre, you would still easily find a way to interpret them in a way that fits with your pre-suppositional narrative.

Religion has at times been a part of what has triggered violence, but it's not right to attribute blame onto religion for when it is being misused - evil/violent men will always find something to further their interests, and if not religion, it would be something else.

Just shorter points about violence this time. If thousands of people in many incidents & conflicts around the world were continually claiming that they were carrying out stomach churning violence in the name of humanism well, firstly I would be very, very curious about it. Did they pick humanism at random out of an Argos catalogue of ideologies just to smear it & justify their violence?

I would issue relentless condemnations (correcting what I said earlier - they are actually necessary & valuable). Then I would expect humanists who were activists (as not everyone is) to set up many investigation & research committees all around the world to figure this out and come up with strategies to counter it; to disassociate humanism from these knuckle-draggers and do as much as possible to both stop this false smear & violence from happening.

Yes violence around the world is a complex issue but if activist followers of religions can do anything –however small- to help reduce violence, surely that is the moral thing to do.

Admittedly, as you said, we don't know the mind of God/Allah (subhana wa'tala), but if a greater being did create this universe with (one of/it's sole) purpose being to test humans, then it makes sense that He would convey that message to us one way or another.

You have answered my main OP question though. I accept that you follow this faith after having thought deeply about it and rejected alternative ideas. However we still disagree. I still think religions have no substance behind them – none at all. I think faith actually is: - pretending to know what you don’t know.

I think this quandary won’t be answered on the day of judgment of course, because I believe when we die we will not exist in any shape or form. I think it is resolved now - in the sense that humanity consists of two types of people - those who are rational and those who are irrational. Your world view (eg this life is a test) may indeed make more sense to you but it certainly isn’t rational because it doesn’t have any justification beyond pre-suppositional feelings & a-la-carte interpretations of bits of old Chinese whispers.

Having said that, in many (but not all) ways your version of Islam could be seen as being indistinguishable from secular humanism, in terms of outcomes for people & society. So wouldn’t it be great if everyone followed the confusedquark interpretation

130Kph

Just want to correct this line from above “I think faith actually is: - pretending to know what you don’t know. “

Pretending is the wrong word here. I should have said one definition of Faith is: - believing something one doesn’t know to be true.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

I now believe, having seen how you answered this question that, If the foundational claims of Islam were an order of magnitude 50 times more convoluted, obscure, mysterious and downright bizarre, you would still easily find a way to interpret them in a way that fits with your pre-suppositional narrative.

I now believe that no matter how simple and straight-forward the foundational claims of Islam were, you would still easily find a way to interpret them in a way that fits with your pre-suppositional narrative. Take you pick

130Kph wrote: »

Did they pick humanism at random out of an Argos catalogue of ideologies just to smear it & justify their violence?
I would issue relentless condemnations (correcting what I said earlier - they are actually necessary & valuable).
Yes violence around the world is a complex issue but if activist followers of religions can do anything –however small- to help reduce violence, surely that is the moral thing to do.

I don't think that there's been any religion that hasn't been used to justify violence at some point in human history. The reason Islam has been in focus in recent times has a lot to do with global geopolitics over the past century - the end of the British colonial rule and the subsequent divisions of Kashmir, Israel/Palestine, the fallout from the collapse of the Ottoman empire and subsequent Middle East dictatorships/resource wars (as you pointed out). There has been a lot of turmoil and from within that you will get rebel groups who will use anything to gain traction, and very few things are as powerful as religion for that purpose. Prior to the first world war, there was relative calm in the Islamic world for centuries, and it was exceeding Europe in many aspects - and back then it was the same Muslims following the same Quranic teachings.

There have been plenty of condemnations against these extremist groups, and there will continue to be, but in the same way that there was plenty of condemnation against the US invasion of Iraq and Israel's actions against Gaza recently, whilst condemnations do help, they often won't get you very far.

130Kph wrote: »

I think faith actually is: - pretending to know what you don’t know.
Your world view (eg this life is a test) may indeed make more sense to you but it certainly isn’t rational because it doesn’t have any justification beyond pre-suppositional feelings & a-la-carte interpretations of bits of old Chinese whispers.

Rational and irrational are again very subjective terms. I would say my view is based on reason and logic - as is yours. I don't agree with you opinion, but I do see where you're coming from, so I won't label it irrational. I don't think faith is pretending to know what you don't know - it's more so believing in something that you can't conclusively prove, given all the evidence you have at hand. "Pretending" implies deliberately hiding behind a mask and being dishonest, whereas "believing" is one's genuine (and ideally well-considered, researched, and objective) opinion.

130Kph wrote: »

Having said that, in many (but not all) ways your version of Islam could be seen as being indistinguishable from secular humanism, in terms of outcomes for people & society. So wouldn’t it be great if everyone followed the confusedquark interpretation

Lol, I don't see that as a coincidence - secular humanism and our modern sense of right and wrong has been heavily influenced by religion through the centuries, but whether religious or not, it's great that most of us believe in a similar set of principles, and that will hopefully help us all get along in multicultural societies - and all the theological debating aside, that's quite important.

braddun

The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) differ among religious traditions. In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters–a concept that was deleted under the process of Islamization. In Islam, the name Allah is the supreme and all-comprehensive divine name, and all other divine names are believed to refer back to AllahThe name Allah or Alla was found in the Epic of Atrahasis engraved on several tablets dating back to around 1700 BC in Babylon, which showed that he was being worshipped as a high deity among other gods who were considered to be his brothers but taking orders from himMeccans worshipped him and Al-lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, Manāt as his daughters. Some Jews might have considered Uzair to be his sonChristians and Hanifs used the term 'Bismillah', 'in the name of Allah' and the name Allah to refer to the supreme Deity in Arabic stone inscriptions centuries before Islam

130Kph

I now believe that no matter how simple and straight-forward the foundational claims of Islam were, you would still easily find a way to interpret them in a way that fits with your pre-suppositional narrative. Take you pick

In previous millenia, people heard thunder & lightening and thought one of the Gods was angry at them - they essentially believed this on a hunch. The principle they used is the same many/most religious use to this day. It is people seeing patterns, joining the dots, using the brains evolved (but not always reliable) heuristic pattern matching mechanism and coming to a best guess solution. At the time they would have said exactly what you are saying now i.e. since we don't have definitive answers - our answer is equal to your or any other answer. The problem for our ancestors using this principle of reasoning with thunder is :- they were 100% wrong.

Made up stuff is not of equal validity to saying "I don't know". At best, Its an unreliable shot in the dark; its similar to the difference between the treatments given by a quack doctor and a real qualified doctor.

you're asking how/why would God/Allah (subhana wa'tala) create/allow evil? That goes back to why we're here. From an Islamic perspective, this life is a test - we are constantly deciding between right and wrong, defined by a set of instructions we have received in the form of the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah. As part of the test, we've been given basic desires (greed, pleasures, ego, lust, taste buds, hunger, thirst etc.) and on the flip side we've been given a conscience to decide between right and wrong, and then we have the ability to act upon it.

I think the Wikipedia article on the problem of evil is a good one and covers the issue comprehensively.Though your reasoning is among the best that can be offered, in my opinion, it is still unconvincingly weak.

So that deals unsatisfyingly with one aspect of evil :individual intent. Another component is
malevolence - a good example of this from another thread is where a mother crashes a car in a remote location & is killed immediately. Her young child survives but is grievously injured. She is conscious but in excruciating pain. She remains in this state for days, even weeks where every second is suffered in mind bending pain. Nobody passes by or sees the car. Eventually, animals or birds start pecking at, then eating her alive. Finally she dies in unbearable agony & indignity. Her biggest 'sin' upto this incident : taking her school friends colouring crayons!!!

When one looks at it afresh, surely its a very strong reason to reject the greater being/intelligent designer idea? Genuine question - have you ever explored rejecting your greater being idea for this reason of malevolence?

I would say my view is based on reason and logic - as is yours.

When discussing religions but especially Islam one thing that can't be helped is - you speak only for your own self (as do I), as does every Muslim. Another muslim may disagree vehemently with some or many of your views on Islam. Then there is the factor of historical & current inter-sect conflicts (where even allowing for & stripping out tribalism etc.) it still quickly gets unhealthy & unedifying.

A case in point is this post from only 6 weeks ago on the 'mosques in Ireland' thread which deals with a difference of opion on the Ahmadiyya community.

iwantthat wrote: »

and you, confusedquark, the good Muslim you are, please invite people to join congressional prayers, regardless where they are being held. Be it in a room in on Tuam Road, or in a Hall in Westside or in Beautiful home of Allah, the Maryam Mosque of Galway. Please stop spreading hatred. No one is going to benefit from it.

As Bismarck said, its not a pleasant sight when sausages or laws are being made. I think the same holds true for religions where scholars hammer out doctrines for believers.

There have been plenty of condemnations against these extremist groups, and there will continue to be, but in the same way that there was plenty of condemnation against the US invasion of Iraq and Israel's actions against Gaza recently, whilst condemnations do help, they often won't get you very far.

Taking just one common justification/misrepresentation that Jihadists give in their reading of the Quran is where it mentions fighting & killing infidels. Muslim scholars then explain that the context of those verses was a war situation where Muslim communities were fighting for survival. So my understanding of the jihadists interpretation is that they ignore this qualification for violence - they go killing any infidel at hand & get a righteous kick out of it, seeing themselves as carrying out Allahs wishes.

Surely the simplest thing to do is to repeatedly clarify this context and qualification for the call to arms against infidels in RE programs in every primary & secondary school - into every childs head - so that not one child can be misled into Jihad later, aged -say 16 to 22 by the likes of Bin Ladin or some other low-life rabble rouser. This applies both to Muslim majority countries and informal faith schools / community centres in Ireland.

I mean, I can't understand why this isn't the priority of every Muslim worldwide who hates how a small minority of criminal scum have been hijacking Islam at an ever increasing rate since 1928?

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

The problem for our ancestors using this principle of reasoning with thunder is :- they were 100% wrong.

Made up stuff is not of equal validity to saying "I don't know". At best, Its an unreliable shot in the dark; its similar to the difference between the treatments given by a quack doctor and a real qualified doctor.

To the first bit, just because we can explain the scientific process behind something happening, it doesn't preclude there being a deeper reason for it. I don't think thunder specifically is believed to be Allah's (subhana wa'tala) anger in Islam, but speaking in general terms on your point. The Quran mentions stories of corrupt civilisations being brought to an abrupt end for their doings, and whilst we can explain earthquakes, volcanoes etc. scientifically, we are simply explaining how Allah (subhana wa'tala) exerted His will at a specific time and place.

To the second bit, "made up stuff" is again your interpretation/opinion of the evidence we have at hand. When I think about The Quran in the context of all other knowledge that we have about our existence, it makes sense enough to me that it is the truth.

130Kph wrote: »

When one looks at it afresh, surely its a very strong reason to reject the greater being/intelligent designer idea? Genuine question - have you ever explored rejecting your greater being idea for this reason of malevolence?

Why is it a very strong reason to reject the greater being idea? In the first instance, for us to be able to label Allah (subhana wa'tala) as malevolent (which I assume is the angle you're coming from) - we must know what His intent is and why He makes/allows a certain thing to happen. Some bad things that happen to us are punishments, some bad things are tests and challenges, some bad things appear to be bad things to us, but might actually be good for us or those around us. E.g. In your example, one way to look at it would be that the young girl was mercifully taken from this world before she could commit any sins and thereby got a free pass to heaven - even though she had to endure a lot of pain before she got her relief, in the bigger scheme of things (this life being a drop in the ocean and all that) it was just a blink of an eye and she would be eternally happy and grateful as a result. I'm not saying that's always the exact explanation, but it puts things into perspective that as clever as we think we are, we can't always comprehend what Allah's (subhana wa'tala) plans are, and need to be careful before jumping to our conclusions.

130Kph wrote: »

When discussing religions but especially Islam one thing that can't be helped is - you speak only for your own self (as do I), as does every Muslim. Another muslim may disagree vehemently with some or many of your views on Islam. Then there is the factor of historical & current inter-sect conflicts (where even allowing for & stripping out tribalism etc.) it still quickly gets unhealthy & unedifying.

A case in point is this post from only 6 weeks ago on the 'mosques in Ireland' thread which deals with a difference of opion on the Ahmadiyya community.

As Bismarck said, its not a pleasant sight when sausages or laws are being made. I think the same holds true for religions where scholars hammer out doctrines for believers.

I'm not sure the relevance of all that to logic and rationality, but very well. Two people can both be rational in their approach to forming an opinion, and even though one of them might turn out to be wrong in the end, they were still rational. Logic/rationality isn't so much the end opinion, but rather the means by which an opinion is formed. Somebody can be irrational in believing in religion, e.g. "My parents tell me there's a God, so there must be", and somebody can very well be irrational in rejecting religion, but people can equally be rational in adopting either opinion depending how they go about it.

Yes, intersect conflicts can indeed get unhealthy, and unnecessarily so in many cases. I'm all for discussion and people generally getting along and leaving one other be. Regarding the example you cited from the other thread, I don't know how much you know about the Ahmadi's - they call themselves Muslims, but at the same time also believe in a successor prophet to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that's something which the rest of us find completely unacceptable and is one of the very few things that categorically excludes you from Islam. Even Sunni's and Shia's who have their fair share of differences don't go to the extreme of saying the other is outside the fold of Islam. The majority of Muslims would knowingly not pray in an Ahmadi mosque (in the same way they wouldn't pray in a church or synagogue) - and it was for that reason I highlighted that in that thread. I'm always civil, and calling a spade a spade is not "spreading hatred".

Scholars and doctrines are very important, because we're in this for the truth, and as time goes by, new things and issues can come into a religion which weren't there before (Ahmadi's again would be a good example), and you need learned people to help draw lines on what is acceptable and what isn't - otherwise we could end up on wrong paths and committing grave sins without realising.

130Kph wrote: »

Surely the simplest thing to do is to repeatedly clarify this context and qualification for the call to arms against infidels in RE programs in every primary & secondary school - into every childs head - so that not one child can be misled into Jihad later, aged -say 16 to 22 by the likes of Bin Ladin or some other low-life rabble rouser. This applies both to Muslim majority countries and informal faith schools / community centres in Ireland.

I mean, I can't understand why this isn't the priority of every Muslim worldwide who hates how a small minority of criminal scum have been hijacking Islam at an ever increasing rate since 1928?

Yeah, that would be a very valid approach to take and something like that needs to happen. Why hasn't it already been a priority of every Muslim worldwide? I think it has a lot to do with people seeing it as something their child just won't ever be in contact with, esp. with the absolute numbers of people joining these groups being so relatively low. In the same way that Ireland (and the rest of the world) has its gangland elements, we seldom think that our kids will end up getting involved in something like that, and don't bother too much to take preventative measures against it. It doesn't excuse inaction, mind you, but might explain it.

130Kph

The Quran mentions stories of corrupt civilisations being brought to an abrupt end for their doings, and whilst we can explain earthquakes, volcanoes etc. scientifically, we are simply explaining how Allah (subhana wa'tala) exerted His will at a specific time and place.

To the second bit, "made up stuff" is again your interpretation/opinion of the evidence we have at hand. When I think about The Quran in the context of all other knowledge that we have about our existence, it makes sense enough to me that it is the truth.

I have to say this comes across as surprisingly old fashioned, fire & brimstone type religion. But if this is the way you see things – that’s fine.
By ’made up’ I meant without sufficient widely accepted substantiation.

Here I suggest going back to an idea I alluded to earlier. I know the brain is incredibly complex, but I think it is guaranteed we will unlock more & more of its secrets in the future.

What if, researchers discover and can then display as a computer model - a 3D representation of the brain signature of various beliefs an individual can hold - including e.g. religious, agnostic, conspiracy theorist, skeptic, elitist, communist, artistic, mathematic – presumably stronger beliefs will have a more clearly identifiable signature.

A theist might respond with :- yes but this is Allah selecting individuals and organising their brain so that they can see the light!!

Then, after decades of further amazing advances, scientists develop the ability to rearrange neurological connections so for example they could take a volunteer, say an outspoken atheist like Richard Dawkins and slightly rearrange his brain (to the theist signature) so that when he recovers from the operation - he says he now is a theist.
He then speaks about his new sincerely held religious beliefs widely on TV and in print. As he is outspoken, he demands that theist positions must not be mocked

and campaigns for the religious to have a seat at the top table of society again.
Then 6 months later, the scientists reverse the procedure (again, with his agreement) and return his neurological wiring to its original state. He recovers and states he is again a strong atheist. He is shown his recorded interviews and is flabbergasted!!!

So yes, this is speculation but can you see how, if it comes to pass, it might present difficulties for those who live their entire lives within a framework of what they think makes most sense about supposed specific supernatural entities and who place complete trust in the reliability of their own perceptions of same.

E.g. In your example, one way to look at it would be that the young girl was mercifully taken from this world before she could commit any sins and thereby got a free pass to heaven - even though she had to endure a lot of pain before she got her relief, in the bigger scheme of things (this life being a drop in the ocean and all that) it was just a blink of an eye and she would be eternally happy and grateful as a result.

Your take on the girl dying in the outback in agony clarifies the difference between theism and humanism for me better than anything else. I can understand your reasoning about this scene but I deplore that type of thinking and I hope you understand why.

The majority of Muslims would knowingly not pray in an Ahmadi mosque (in the same way they wouldn't pray in a church or synagogue) - and it was for that reason I highlighted that in that thread.

From what was in that exchange - you explained the widely accepted position clearly and I think the other poster was quite wrong headed in his accusations. But I only mentioned it to highlight –in the absence of other Muslim contributors to this thread- the numerous disagreements within Islam, which I think is relevant to my OP question.

Yeah, that would be a very valid approach to take and something like that needs to happen. Why hasn't it already been a priority of every Muslim worldwide? I think it has a lot to do with people seeing it as something their child just won't ever be in contact with, esp. with the absolute numbers of people joining these groups being so relatively low. In the same way that Ireland (and the rest of the world) has its gangland elements, we seldom think that our kids will end up getting involved in something like that, and don't bother too much to take preventative measures against it. It doesn't excuse inaction, mind you, but might explain it.

I’m delighted to see you agree this is a good idea. However, until it happens, followers of this religion will have nobody to blame but themselves for the unwanted heat that Islam has been attracting for 30-80 years (because of Jihadist’s statements & misdeeds).

Anyway, by doing this - it would be, for me, the only contribution that Muslims need to make to the wider issue of violence/terrorism that exists at the moment (the message should of course primarily address the >95% of the victims of jihadists who are Muslim).

A good format for this message would be a colourful & entertaining hardback comic annual given to each family’s eldest child when he/she turns 12 (which is then kept in a prominent place in the house [along with the Koran?] and is available to younger siblings as they get older). The parents could then discuss it & answer any questions the child might have. This comic could go through the top 10 ways that charlatans & killers distort accepted teachings & doctrines of Islam and how the young person should process such material online (e.g. report such websites to parents, police, etc). The comic can be updated over time to counter Jihadists as they adapt their recruitment strategies.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

So yes, this is speculation but can you see how, if it comes to pass, it might present difficulties for those who live their entire lives within a framework of what they think makes most sense about supposed specific supernatural entities and who place complete trust in the reliability of their own perceptions of same.

In fairness, if we could re-wire human brains, we could probably make people think just about anything - but that's really besides the point. Human thought is complex business and we form our end opinions based on many things - our life experiences, our intelligence, our ability to be objective, and our motivation to earnestly research as much independent information as possible about the topic at hand. I don't think that our brains are pre-programmed to hold a specific opinion - they are formed and change as we go along based on a mix of the above things. You can argue whether somebody has reached a logical objective opinion based on what they tell you about their methodology (and counter their opinion using your own methodology if you disagree) - and that's where the focus should be, instead of wondering if their brain is just pre-programmed to think that way.

130Kph wrote: »

Your take on the girl dying in the outback in agony clarifies the difference between theism and humanism for me better than anything else. I can understand your reasoning about this scene but I deplore that type of thinking and I hope you understand why.

I actually don't, please elaborate.

130Kph wrote: »

But I only mentioned it to highlight –in the absence of other Muslim contributors to this thread- the numerous disagreements within Islam, which I think is relevant to my OP question.

Disagreements there always are and new issues always crop up in religions (and how they should be handled is a whole different topic of conversation), but the original point was determining whether an opinion is based on reason and logic, irrespective of whether it is subsequently right or wrong.

130Kph wrote: »

I’m delighted to see you agree this is a good idea. However, until it happens, followers of this religion will have nobody to blame but themselves for the unwanted heat that Islam has been attracting for 30-80 years (because of Jihadist’s statements & misdeeds).

I think it's unfair to suggest Muslims have nobody to blame but themselves. Try as we will (and try as we should) to condemn and take measures to minimise people joining these groups, even if the message was transmitted loud and clear to all Muslims across the globe, people will still join these groups and commit terrible atrocities. There are many non-religious reasons that these groups form and flourish and those also need to be addressed - such as injustice (or at least the feeling of it) and revenge. Many young angry men probably don't even care much about religion when they sign up. The west has it's interests in the middle east and hasn't been shy to exert it's influence over the past century - a lengthy summary of events here, and that has provoked backlashes. Modern day "terrorist" attacks don't happen simply because of a person's interpretation of The Quran, but more so as revenge attacks against what some Muslims view as unacceptable actions/influences of the west against other Muslims. The west is well aware of that, and they've probably calculated that the trade off in the odd "terrorist" incident is worth the price of what they get in return of their middle east endeavours and so are happy to carry on meddling and brushing aside the issue that it's their foreign policies that are as much a cause of them. So yes, Muslims themselves need to do more to prevent their kids from getting involved with such groups - but not all kids will listen to the religious message and will still be attracted to these groups if there are ongoing injustices, so if we (ordinary residents of the west) are serious about curbing "terrorism", we also need to look at our foreign policies and (if they are causing legitimate grievances around the world) do something about them.

Lol at your comic idea - creative

130Kph

In fairness, if we could re-wire human brains, we could probably make people think just about anything - but that's really besides the point. Human thought is complex business and we form our end opinions based on many things - our life experiences, our intelligence, our ability to be objective, and our motivation to earnestly research as much independent information as possible about the topic at hand. I don't think that our brains are pre-programmed to hold a specific opinion - they are formed and change as we go along based on a mix of the above things. You can argue whether somebody has reached a logical objective opinion based on what they tell you about their methodology (and counter their opinion using your own methodology if you disagree) - and that's where the focus should be, instead of wondering if their brain is just pre-programmed to think that way.

My understanding is: it doesn't really matter about the founding claims / dogma of Islam, you'd believe Islam is true regardless even if these claims were completely bonkers. So this seems to imply that your gut instinct is the over-riding reason for the belief in the super-natural. What I'm getting at with the re-wiring stuff is - feelings/hunches are simply a function of the brain so are nothing mystical and are not particularly useful or reliable in judging profound unanswered questions.

Given at the moment researchers have shown: if someone injures his brain at a specific spot he can lose some of his personality or his long term memory. So this isn't even controversial.

Do you accept its widely believed that human instincts are the most unreliable of all reasons for believing in any claim, let alone for huge claims about powerful supernatural beings (given that instincts evolved only to help humans flee wild animals & other threats).

So, many religious have for centuries essentially believed in the God of the Gaps and the gaps have been decreasing for a long time. The last gap arguably is the mind. if this gap is closed - then God will be no more for a lot of current believers. The only remaining believers then, I suggest, will be 1% - 3% of the population.

I can't help noticing your thinking appears to exhibit some of the patterns of a conspiracy theorist who lives within a rabbit warren of instinct, hunches & feelings. Facts that don't fit are downplayed or overlooked. If there is an awkward question he just assumes he doesn't see the full jigsaw and dismisses it : problem solved!!!

You've said a few times that we humans might not be as clever as we think we are, but of course you would say that wouldn't you. I don't think the non-religious are too big for their boots. We don't claim to have all the answers. Most non-religious think that the 7 billion of us are totally insignificant in the big scheme of things (having said that, humans may be the highest intelligence in the Universe) and if we were all vaporised by an asteroid in the morning it would make not the slightest difference to the rest of the cosmos.

I think it's unfair to suggest Muslims have nobody to blame but themselves. Try as we will (and try as we should) to condemn and take measures to minimise people joining these groups, even if the message was transmitted loud and clear to all Muslims across the globe, people will still join these groups and commit terrible atrocities. .

To clarify, if Muslim parents took this simple proactive step and despite this a small minority of youngsters still go on the path of savagery then I would say they've done all they can so cannot be blamed at all and the way forward lies elsewhere (politics). If they don't take this step then these parents/authority figures deserve partial blame.

Btw, the violence I'm talking about all along is inhuman savagery not legitimate armed resistance or a legitimate insurgency. For example, the recent oppression of Iraqi Sunni by al-Maliki was likely to lead to (legitimate) resistance but when it came it took the form of the charming ISIS who add on the troubling layer of nihilistic savagery & cruelty.

I agree with much but not all of Mr Frantzman narrative. I also agree that Western powers correcting blunders & changing policy direction are a key component of lessening violence in the world - thats a given. In this forum I have tried to examine if Islam is a secondary component.

BuilderPlumber

Interesting thread. Like all religions, Islam has started out as a force for good and rebellion against evil. Like Jesus, Mohammed was a leader and prophet who sought something better for his people. He is seen naturally as a sign from god (Allah) and thus a new faith is born.

However, over the years, Mohammed's views just like those of Jesus have been used and abused numerous times. Good leaders have used Islam in positive ways to better their people's lot while evil fascists have used Islam to rally the people because it was the people's faith and they were devout.

A lot of what was in the Koran, the Sunnah and other sources has been hugely distorted by current and recent fascist movements like al Qaeda, the Taliban, Gaddafi's regime, ISIS, Boko Haram, hardline elements of the Revolutionary Guards regime of Iran, al Shabaab and the Zia regime of Pakistan. Not to mention Saudi Arabia, who officiate the hardliners' cause due to Mecca and Medina being on its soil. Draconian laws on clothing, alcohol and especially jihad take what is written in the Koran and bring it to new levels much the same way Hitler and Pol Pot did with their ideologies.

I find it racist and biased when fascist regimes and terrorists who happen to do awful things in the name of Islam are branded as or are made out to be the ONLY adherents and interpreters of the faith. Well, I have Muslim friends who are devout but who dress modestly but show their hair, who drink alcohol in moderation (but consider drunkenness and especially drunkenness that causes hurt to others as a sin) and who consider jihad as the struggle of right over wrong/protection of loved ones (and not as terrorist action resulting from blind hatred). This side of things is always not reported while the fascist thugs and their organisations and/or regimes get all the press.

I wonder what would happen if this happened: Like Islam, Christianity comes in moderate and hardline forms, has been used and abused by evil fascists and indeed has had a much bloodier history than Islam overall due to the excesses of evil fascist medieval kings who considered themselves god and who actually set the bar for the ISIS's. Some forms of hardline Christianity have complete alcohol bans, have dress codes and permit hate fueled war (KKK for one). If such organisations set up say 5-10 hardline fascist dictatorships officially in their own doctrine called Christian Republics or Christist States in Africa or South America or Eastern Europe, I wonder what the reaction would be? Would they be officially labelled as this or differentiated from mainstream Christianity? I'd say the latter. And if this can be done for Christianity, shouldn't Islam receive the same treatment? That's what is totally unfair.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

My understanding is: it doesn't really matter about the founding claims / dogma of Islam, you'd believe Islam is true regardless even if these claims were completely bonkers. So this seems to imply that your gut instinct is the over-riding reason for the belief in the super-natural. What I'm getting at with the re-wiring stuff is - feelings/hunches are simply a function of the brain so are nothing mystical and are not particularly useful or reliable in judging profound unanswered questions.

The process of thinking (my actual point) is simply a function of the brain as well, so I suppose that's not particularly useful either?

130Kph wrote: »

Given at the moment researchers have shown: if someone injures his brain at a specific spot he can lose some of his personality or his long term memory. So this isn't even controversial.

Not controversial, but as fascinating as all the re-wiring stuff it, I really don't see it's relevance here.

130Kph wrote: »

Do you accept its widely believed that human instincts are the most unreliable of all reasons for believing in any claim, let alone for huge claims about powerful supernatural beings (given that instincts evolved only to help humans flee wild animals & other threats).

I'm not sure why you keep going back to instincts and hunches. I've been repeatedly talking about forming opinions based on logical and rational methods - actively researching and objectively examining all the evidence at hand and forming opinions based on that. Your argument seems to be (assuming you've been taking my arguments on board) that we're not capable of forming any reliable opinions - be it via rational methods or otherwise.

130Kph wrote: »

So, many religious have for centuries essentially believed in the God of the Gaps and the gaps have been decreasing for a long time. The last gap arguably is the mind. if this gap is closed - then God will be no more for a lot of current believers. The only remaining believers then, I suggest, will be 1% - 3% of the population.

There's God of the gaps, and then there's God without the gaps. As I've already said, I see science as merely an explanation as to how Allah (subhana wa'tala) exacts His will, so there's no conflict in that, and as science hopefully unravels more and more mysteries, I'd genuinely be delighted to learn more about how He's programmed the universe.

130Kph wrote: »

I can't help noticing your thinking appears to exhibit some of the patterns of a conspiracy theorist who lives within a rabbit warren of instinct, hunches & feelings. Facts that don't fit are downplayed or overlooked. If there is an awkward question he just assumes he doesn't see the full jigsaw and dismisses it : problem solved!!!

Yeup, darn those conspiracy theorists who use rational and logical means after thoroughly and objectively examining evidence to form opinions... Anyhow, I don't overlook, downplay or dismiss (but feel free to cite examples, and I can further elaborate if needs be) - nor I do claim to have all the answers. I'm merely sharing my perspective.

130Kph wrote: »

You've said a few times that we humans might not be as clever as we think we are, but of course you would say that wouldn't you. I don't think the non-religious are too big for their boots. We don't claim to have all the answers.

I've said humans might not be as clever as we think we are, but you're said human aren't even clever enough to form a reliable opinion

130Kph wrote: »

If they don't take this step then these parents/authority figures deserve partial blame.

I'll agree with that. "Partial blame" is a welcome step down from "will have nobody to blame but themselves".

130Kph wrote: »

I agree with much but not all of Mr Frantzman narrative. I also agree that Western powers correcting blunders & changing policy direction are a key component of lessening violence in the world - thats a given. In this forum I have tried to examine if Islam is a secondary component.

Certainly a worthwhile examination. Does get difficult to filter out what's Islam, what's politics, and what's Muslims not following Islam, but at least knowing those distinctions exist before you delve into it means you're starting off at the right place.

130Kph

The process of thinking (my actual point) is simply a function of the brain as well, so I suppose that's not particularly useful either?

That’s true. I hadn’t picked up that you meant this. However, l think everyone decides whether or not to use their instinct for nearly every decision from trivial to complex throughout the day (its always there in the background). Also, one can think rationally and also use a hunch to make a decision (especially if there is not much difference between the options or as in this case there’s no definitive answer). But, I’ll park instincts for the moment.

In the interests of clarification I have decided to sheepishly rescind my fatwa of post #5 (against discussing the most common reasons/canards? given for God belief) which may have been a bit rash! So I suggest a mini dialectic instead.

I’ll do a brief list with descriptions of what I think is the best evidence & reasons for and against believing in God and can you do as well. It may uncover something useful that may clarify where we stand.

My best reasons For a God
1 A personal revelation of another person (since I haven’t had one).
2 [blank]
3 [blank]
Since I am skeptical, I would see no.1 as very weak. Alas, any such individual that I’ve read about had, in my opinion, no credibility.

Against
1 No evidence.
2 No strong logic or reasoning for thinking he exists
3 Everything looks (not approximately but) exactly as one would expect if there was no intelligent designer

Here is what I understand yours are - For God:- (please correct, add, delete, reorder as appropriate):-
1 Argument from incredulity / amazing order in the universe
2 It makes compelling & convincing sense that a God made us to live life as a test to try to get into heaven
3 the Koran

So to recap - before this dialectic my position was/is:-
The time for believing in something is (or should be) when there is evidence that most people agree is sufficient. What I see as going on here so far is:- you start off thinking rationality leading to a plausible hypothesis (a greater being – so far, so rational) but then assigning a personality (Allah’s) to this plausible being is crossing the Rubicon of rationality and going into comforting delusion territory which is as irrational as is possible to be – there’s no reason or evidence for this personality any more than for Zeus, Thor or John Frum etc etc * 20,000.

Otherwise, anybody can define the characteristics of a greater being any way they please – where does that get us. This is all just wish making and self soothing. If you left the greater being hypothesis at the plausible / unknown / black box level you would be thinking rationally from beginning to end and no-one could fault that. Isn’t what is true more important than self-comforting.

a person.

what is the black stone idol about in mecca ?

Tom Dunne

a person. wrote: »

what is the black stone idol about in mecca ?

This has nothing to do with the thread, so please stay on topic.

You could ask such questions in the "Ask about Islam" thread.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

In the interests of clarification I have decided to sheepishly rescind my fatwa of post #5 (against discussing the most common reasons/canards? given for God belief) which may have been a bit rash! So I suggest a mini dialectic instead.

Lol, fair enough. Dialectic's are good. Sorry about the late reply, btw - life's busy and don't have a lot of spare time to come on here.

My best reasons for God:
1) The amazing order in the universe.
2) That everything created has a creator. The universe is nothing but flying matter following the prescribed laws of physics. It makes no logical sense to me that it self-created.
3) Us - incredibly complex, thinking, talking, walking organic beings, arising out of an otherwise massive, inorganic and dead universe. I find it hard to believe we just happened out of chaos/essentially nothing someone overlooking it.
4) The Koran, its explanations and teachings about life.

Best reasons I can think of against:
1) We haven't seen/heard Him for ourselves
2) Reason to be sceptical about alleged messengers given how much they personally stand to gain
3) Science explains much of what God allegedly has done, and even if we don't have an answer to the big bang yet, it doesn't mean it was God

You're right to an extent about going from believing in a greater being to defining that greater being as Allah (subhana wa'tala), Thor etc. being a less rational matter. That does entail an in-depth review of the evidences provided by each religion and then a personal decision as to which one thinks to be the truth - As you said "Isn’t what is true more important than self-comforting" and yes it is, but what do you do when you can't conclusively prove the truth either way, but yet you have to make a decision regarding how you live your life? "When there is evidence that most people agree is sufficient" is a decent means to approach the matter, but it doesn't guarantee you'll find the truth using it. "I don't conclusively know" may be an honest answer, but you still have to choose - you either don't believe in religion and decide to live your life by other societal rules and hope we are just nothing but recycled atoms, or you do believe in religion and decide which one you think is the truth and follow it's teachings in the hope that come the day of judgement (should it happen), you'd have a chance of making it.

130Kph

There’s no problem about posting whenever you have time; all appreciated.

Just to briefly address your 3rd reason first:- I liked the way Dawkins dealt with the probabilities for the origin of life in ‘The God Delusion’. He discussed the science of very large numbers – which our non-statistician minds don’t process well at all.

This has clarified things alright. I’m a little disappointed that the argument from incredulity is your top reason after all (I have always hoped there must be some really good reason for belief in Gods out there that I never heard about).
As I mentioned before this is a well known logical fallacy. And saying:- I can’t believe its a natural explanation says nothing about the truth or falsity of the natural explanation.

You display a hard-to-compute lack of imagination about a natural explanation. Why would someone of your obvious intelligence dismiss what are limitless possible explanations (including most, as yet unexplored) for the existence of the universe to say the only one that makes sense to you is an invisible creator*. I accept its how you see it but I can’t fathom this if its done for - as you insist - logical or rational reasons (& not gut instinct).

If Lawrence Krauss, Steven Hawking or most cosmologists displayed such a startling limitation of imagination like this, I doubt mankind would progress much in this field (or any field for that matter).

[* who has nothing better to be doing than keeping tabs on all our decisions and behaviours in a spreadsheet; and who around the day of our death assigns us our final score and then decides to either torture us for eternity or send us to a 5 star resort for eternity based on this score]

confusedquark

In fairness to you, you did say at one point that "All we know is we don’t know and we’ll learn more as time passes". That's a very honest assessment of where we stand purely from a scientific viewpoint. It would be refreshing to hear that from the likes of Dawkins, Hawkins and co, regarding the origins of the universe, but they unfortunately use their positions to push their own atheistic agendas.

130Kph wrote: »

Just to briefly address your 3rd reason first:- I liked the way Dawkins dealt with the probabilities for the origin of life in ‘The God Delusion’. He discussed the science of very large numbers – which our non-statistician minds don’t process well at all.

Very large numbers and probabilities aren't hard to deal with. You just need to spend a bit more time doing the maths - and maybe use a calculator

I fully understand the arguments of very large numbers, the weak anthropic principle, the universe creating itself being a possibility as per the laws of quantum mechanics, etc. And whilst there's no harm in speculation, as that's the initial step in a scientific enquiry, there's a big difference between trying to prove that something could be scientifically possible and claiming that it actually happened. The latter requires hard scientific data, and we have very little of that to support these claims.

130Kph wrote: »

This has clarified things alright. I’m a little disappointed that the argument from incredulity is your top reason after all (I have always hoped there must be some really good reason for belief in Gods out there that I never heard about).
As I mentioned before this is a well known logical fallacy. And saying:- I can’t believe its a natural explanation says nothing about the truth or falsity of the natural explanation.

"Argument from incredulity" and "logical fallacy" are very convenient terms which typify modern-day atheistic arguments. They deflect away from the gaping deficiencies in their own stances/beliefs, and to avoid having to defend them, they instead focus on attacking the position/intellect of others. I've given you my personal perspective - you're free to be disappointed by it, but your own reasons rely mainly on a lack of evidence from the other side as opposed to you having any evidence to support your own stance of a God-free universe.

130Kph wrote: »

You display a hard-to-compute lack of imagination about a natural explanation. Why would someone of your obvious intelligence dismiss what are limitless possible explanations (including most, as yet unexplored) for the existence of the universe to say the only one that makes sense to you is an invisible creator*. I accept its how you see it but I can’t fathom this if its done for - as you insist - logical or rational reasons (& not gut instinct).

Show me some real science behind the possible explanations of the existence of the universe, and I'll be happy to consider them. But I'll be honest, even then I'll just view it as an explanation as to how God has created it, because no matter how far back we can go - we will never be able to conclusively prove what exactly happened to trigger the creation of the universe, and that there definitively wasn't a God involved. I'm not using that as an "argument of incredulity" to prove to you that there is a God - I'm simply stating that we will not find all the answers in this life, and with as much understanding that we do have about the universe and our existence, we have to decide for ourselves whether we believe in a greater being or not. You can either focus on the logic or lack of logic on both sides of the argument (and we can be as aggressive/dismissive as we like about the other side), but unfortunately it's not an issue which you can conclusively prove one way or another - whether by science/logic/reason. It's all about individual perspective.

130Kph wrote: »

If Lawrence Krauss, Steven Hawking or most cosmologists displayed such a startling limitation of imagination like this, I doubt mankind would progress much in this field (or any field for that matter).

Followers of religion still have their curiosities to understand how things happen/work, and there have been many notable scientists believers through history.

130Kph wrote: »

[* who has nothing better to be doing than keeping tabs on all our decisions and behaviours in a spreadsheet; and who around the day of our death assigns us our final score and then decides to either torture us for eternity or send us to a 5 star resort for eternity based on this score]

I said earlier that I do not claim to have all the answers, and that's one which I don't have.

On a side note, you're obviously into cosmology - I came across this article recently about Muslim vs atheistic arguments and the science behind the big bang, which I'll state from the off is written from an Islamic perspective, so it contains the odd verse from the Quran. I wasn't expecting it to be very scientific, but it delves quite deeply into modern scientific theories and the evidence supporting them, and raises questions about the validity of the big bang. I didn't particularly have a problem with the big bang, because I saw it as our best explanation as to how God created the universe, but it's an interesting (and lengthy) read, and gives food for thought from a scientific point of view.

130Kph

I didn't read much of the critique of Zakir Naik's science views because I came across him elsewhere on the web and I found him to be a hate filled, racist simpleton.

I'm definitely putting Aboutathiesm.net into my bookmarks though after I read "The Atheistic World View is Driven by Emotional and Psychological Preference, Not the Scientific Method" article. I found this to be comedy gold in its crude characterisation of atheists as not wanting God to exist; calling a natural explanation of the universe "absurd"; saying those who use the phrase 'illusion of design' must be suffering from "madness" - all in the first few paragraphs. I'll read it more articles and report back if I find anything that makes me stop & reflect.

It would be refreshing to hear that from the likes of Dawkins, Hawkins and co, regarding the origins of the universe, but they unfortunately use their positions to push their own atheistic agendas.
I've given you my personal perspective - you're free to be disappointed by it, but your own reasons rely mainly on a lack of evidence from the other side as opposed to you having any evidence to support your own stance of a God-free universe.

This is definitely not a claim I make. I said more than once that an intelligent designer is plausible. I don't think one exists because I don't see any evidence or reasoning to support one. If at some future point sufficient convincing evidence becomes available for a supreme being then I would change my position and accept its existence.

Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists and hold this or similar views. A minority of atheists do claim that a supreme being is impossible but they can defend that view themselves. This is where Abu ʿIyaaḍ goes wrong by painting all athiests as the latter type).

This type of discussion only happens because so many theists (including yourself) make extraordinary claims about their certainty in the existence of such a being and even (bizarrely) claim to know its personality.

Agnostic atheists say "Based on current knowledge, we don't know the origin of the universe and we're making no claims to deeper knowledge". How do you propose to question them on claims they're not making.

Show me some real science behind the possible explanations of the existence of the universe, and I'll be happy to consider them. But I'll be honest, even then I'll just view it as an explanation as to how God has created it, because no matter how far back we can go - we will never be able to conclusively prove what exactly happened to trigger the creation of the universe, and that there definitively wasn't a God involved. I'm not using that as an "argument of incredulity" to prove to you that there is a God - I'm simply stating that we will not find all the answers in this life, and with as much understanding that we do have about the universe and our existence, we have to decide for ourselves whether we believe in a greater being or not. You can either focus on the logic or lack of logic on both sides of the argument (and we can be as aggressive/dismissive as we like about the other side), but unfortunately it's not an issue which you can conclusively prove one way or another - whether by science/logic/reason. It's all about individual perspective.

It seems you are categorically ruling out the possibility of a natural explanation? I don't see what grounds you or anyone has for doing so.

If something doesn't exist then of course we will never be able to prove it doesn't exist because there's nothing to work on. Lets say some random person, Assumpta makes a claim that invisible pink unicorns live 100 meters underground in every town & city in countries beginning with the letter 'C'. Now lets say for the sake of argument they don't actually exist (i.e. Assumpta was deluded about the unicorns). Even then its just not possible for others to prove definitively that they don't exist. Assumpta can of course use this as wriggle room and publicly maintain that her claim has not been disproven but I think that is a kind of sad position for her to hold (just in this example).

Also, most people can't decide to or force themselves to believe / not believe something. If you possess that ability - that's very interesting in itself. Do you know how common this ability is in the general population?
I'd also disagree strongly that we won't find out almost all there is to know about the origin of the universe in the distant future. In my opinion its quite likely. It probably wouldn't convince you (if you were still around) but it may satisfy most people.

I commend you for your honesty below - it saves thousands of words to & fro in posts:-

Show me some real science behind the possible explanations of the existence of the universe, and I'll be happy to consider them. But I'll be honest, even then I'll just view it as an explanation as to how God has created it

and yet you laughed previously when I said your thinking showed some patterns of a conspiracy theorist. This is textbook CT thinking. Why not continue in this vein:-

"In fact it was Allah that built the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. How? Well, Allah created Man, then guided Mans scientific development then prodded politicians to fund the project. So Allah made the LHC by proxy as a kind of real-time demo of his awesomeness for the social media generation".

I enjoyed our discussion upto now but, If you assert that everything that science discovers is just an explanation for how Allah did it, I don't think there is much leeway for further debate.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

I'll read it more articles and report back if I find anything that makes me stop & reflect.

I thought the scientific inconsistencies with the big bang model were interesting, esp. with the growing dissent within the scientific community against it. It was purely a by-the-by that I found interesting, and I wasn't using it to make a point. Haven't read much of the other articles on that site, but I guess they're as much entitled to their opinions and conclusions as anyone else

130Kph wrote: »

This is definitely not a claim I make. I said more than once that an intelligent designer is plausible. I don't think one exists because I don't see any evidence or reasoning to support one. If at some future point sufficient convincing evidence becomes available for a supreme being then I would change my position and accept its existence.

Yes, apologies - you did indeed earlier say it was plausible, but when you say "you don't think one exists", that does become your current stance, as opposed to an "I don't know". Most atheists I've come across tend to be pretty certain that "God doesn't exist", so I was just going off my personal experience. Something you can't always rely on of course, so I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many of each subtype there are.

Agnostic atheists still choose to reject all religious scriptures, so by doing that they're taking the stance that a greater being (who would communicate with us to define what we are to do with our lives) doesn't exist - which either leaves the possibilities of there being no greater being at all, or one who created the universe, but chose not to communicate with us. Would you consider the latter to be a plausible position? If not, agnostic atheists aren't left with very much else to stand on...

130Kph wrote: »

This type of discussion only happens because so many theists (including yourself) make extraordinary claims about their certainty in the existence of such a being and even (bizarrely) claim to know its personality.

It seems you are categorically ruling out the possibility of a natural explanation? I don't see what grounds you or anyone has for doing so.

I'd also disagree strongly that we won't find out almost all there is to know about the origin of the universe in the distant future. In my opinion its quite likely. It probably wouldn't convince you (if you were still around) but it may satisfy most people.

Put the pieces of the puzzle together and sometimes you can be certain in your beliefs. Knowing the personality comes from what we are told in The Quran, so if you believe that to be the truth, then the knowledge follows from that.

As I said, the universe is nothing but flying mass-energy following the prescribed laws of physics. It makes no logical sense to me that it self-created. Even if we assume Hawkin's explanation that the laws of quantum mechanics are all that are necessary for the universe to come into existence is a proven scientific possibility, it still doesn't explain why the laws of quantum mechanics themselves act as they do.

I love science, but I'm also realistic about what it can achieve, and I don't think it can give us all the answers.

130Kph wrote: »

Also, most people can't decide to or force themselves to believe / not believe something. If you possess that ability - that's very interesting in itself. Do you know how common this ability is in the general population?

Is this another one of your "simple functions of the brain" things again? Most people possess the ability to look at evidence and form an opinion/belief.

130Kph wrote: »

and yet you laughed previously when I said your thinking showed some patterns of a conspiracy theorist. This is textbook CT thinking. Why not continue in this vein:-

"In fact it was Allah that built the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. How? Well, Allah created Man, then guided Mans scientific development then prodded politicians to fund the project. So Allah made the LHC by proxy as a kind of real-time demo of his awesomeness for the social media generation".

I enjoyed our discussion upto now but, If you assert that everything that science discovers is just an explanation for how Allah did it, I don't think there is much leeway for further debate.

Allah (subhana wa'tala) didn't create the hadron collider, but He gave mankind the ability to do so. And yes, I've already stated that I view everything science discovers as an explanation of how Allah (subhana wa'tala) did/does it - that's my perspective on our existence. There wasn't very much leeway for debate from the off - science will only take you so far in these discussions, and they quickly become subjective opinions on what is and isn't logical/rational etc.

130Kph

Earlier in the thread you said “reasonable” is a dangerous term (when describing a humanist stance) because it is hugely subjective.

After this discussion I have changed my position on this to agree with you; I think some “reasonable” subjective beliefs are & can be dangerous simply due to their subjectivity.

These beliefs may be fine in steady-state circumstances, but when real life variables & pressures (for which the beliefs are not designed) act on them, they can and do bring unintended negative consequences for people inside & outside that belief system.

My humble subjective opinion is that it will be better for everyone when religion is kept fully private (& private only) to each individual that wants it. That day will come and I say: the sooner the better.

In Islam’s case this has another advantage – it could preclude the need for the Holy Grail: - a major reform of the religion (and all the mental & interpretative gymnastics this would require).

confusedquark

Without giving any specific examples of where you're coming from, I can only guess at what you're getting at.

Your rationale earlier for wanting religious beliefs to be kept private was to reduce violence committed in the name of religion. I did say that whilst we can disagree over how just how much religion (vs it's alleged followers) contributes to violence, religion also has a very powerful protective effect against violence, as the majority essentially do preach peace and that people should all get along, respect one another, be honest, don't be greedy etc., and modern secular beliefs have been heavily influenced by religion through the centuries.

Human greed (for power, control, resources) is probably the single greatest cause of violence on this planet today. My argument for not suppressing religion is the protective effect it has against this greed, and that without it, in my humble subjective opinion, we risk the planet becoming an even greater free for all than it already is.

130Kph

Agnostic atheists still choose to reject all religious scriptures, so by doing that they're taking the stance that a greater being (who would communicate with us to define what we are to do with our lives) doesn't exist - which either leaves the possibilities of there being no greater being at all, or one who created the universe, but chose not to communicate with us. Would you consider the latter to be a plausible position?

Absolutely yes. I posit a greater being that created the universe and humans etc in a fit of pique after (the deity equivalent of) a drunken rage. He kept his eye on it for a few billion years but then got bored and switched off all communication channels and forgot about it. Plausible to me.

My argument for not suppressing religion is the protective effect it has against this greed

What? I don’t know what you’re on about - are you afraid Ireland could implement the policies of chairman Mao???

What I mean by keep Islam private is: to go the way Christianity etc. has gone in most European countries due to education & advancing social mores. In Norway for example, I deduce that the few people who talk about their religion in public are seen as eccentrics or uncouth weirdoes. Also, faith schools should voluntarily be seen as a no-no. Let children decide when they’re adults – the way you did.

In your example, one way to look at it would be that the young girl was mercifully taken from this world before she could commit any sins and thereby got a free pass to heaven - even though she had to endure a lot of pain before she got her relief, in the bigger scheme of things (this life being a drop in the ocean and all that) it was just a blink of an eye and she would be eternally happy and grateful as a result. I'm not saying that's always the exact explanation, but it puts things into perspective that as clever as we think we are, we can't always comprehend what Allah's (subhana wa'tala) plans are, and need to be careful before jumping to our conclusions.

Just to recap, I read this answer to the problem of malevolence as: I don’t have an answer to this, so I’ll use the standard issue-dodging place-holder slogan instead (we don’t know the mind of Allah). The reason you don’t have an answer is because there isn’t one.

You seem to be quite confident and generous of spirit in debates here. I think it’s because you know you can’t be ‘got’ i.e. your belief can’t be falsified by anyone or any thing. This must make debating your religion quite satisfying.

For you, the only purpose of new scientific evidence is to slot into and support your belief. This is self-delusion, pure & simple. Even the innocuous phrase “I don’t have all the answers” cleverly plays a bit part in this self-delusion.

Picking Islam (my OP question) seems a trifling issue in light of all this. After carefully & exhaustively deliberating between 20, 200, 20000? religions (and from millions of possible self-defined new religions) you chose the off-the-shelf religion of your parents heritage: what a staggering co-incidence! I mean, what were the odds of that – a billion to 1 ?

Finally, to support this delusion I think you require that this path to truth is publicly accepted as
1. of equal merit to the scientific method and at the same time,
2. an alternative path to the scientific method.
That's something I will not grant, not a chance.

Your hopelessly flawed path (like that of millions of religious people) doesn't even qualify as a useful path to decide which brand of corn flakes to buy. In my objective opinion and with goodwill & due respect, using such self-delusion to reach truth, in 2015, is degrading to human dignity.