Hi Xavier, nice to read you again.
1) You asked "please can you explain what you mean the biased approach scientists are taking.
what do you mean by the "may or may not" argument?"
The Biased approach to science.
Let me explain. I'll give you one example to get you thinking ok? So, we have the issue regarding the origins of the universe, right?
The common atheist approcah to it is "Once upon a time when time didn't exist - there was nothing. Then from some random and chance occurance - "poof" the universe was born. Accepted? Good.
Now. Scientific enquiry relies on the law of causality, correct? Yet, scientists get stuck in an infinitesimal loop regarding the cause of the universe. Like I said in an earlier post - and please grasp this Xavier: They ask, "What was the caue that led to the effect (universe being born)... then they ask, what was the cause of the cause? and yet still, what was the cause of the cause, etc etc recurring... Does this sound like a bit of a red herring argument to you? Coz it sure does to me. It makes no sense... And I don't need to explain why - you're with me so far. I know that, you're pretty smart.
I wonder, with you beinig an ex-Muslim and all, surely you've studied the ayah of the Quran in which Allah SWT says:
"And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un)" (51:48)
At the time the Holy Quran was revealed, the human understanding of the nature of the cosmos and the movement or the stillness of the heavenly bodies was extremely primitive and obscure. This is no longer the case, as our knowledge of the universe has considerably advanced and expanded by the present age.
Some of the theories relating to the creation of the universe have been verified as facts, whereas some others are still being explored. The concept of the expanding universe belongs to the former category, and has been universally accepted by the scientific community as 'fact'. This discovery was first made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Yet some thirteen centuries before this, it was clearly mentioned in the Quran:
"And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un). (51:48)
Tafsir: With Hands We constructed the heaven. Verily, We are able to expand the vastness of space thereof - Ibn Kathir English translation
It should be remembered that the concept of the continuous expansion of the universe is exclusive to the Quran. No other Divine scriptures even remotely hint at it. The discovery that the universe is constantly expanding is of prime significance to scientists, because it helps create a better understanding of how the universe was initially created. It clearly explains the stage by stage process of creation, in a manner which perfectly falls into step with the theory of the Big Bang. The Quran goes further and describes the entire cycle of the beginning, the end and the return again to a similar beginning. The first step of creation as related in the Quran accurately describes the event of the Big Bang in the following words:
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (21:31)
Tafsir: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe" Ibn kathir English translation
It is significant that this verse is specifically addressed to non-believers, implying perhaps, that the unveiling of the secret mentioned in this verse would be made by the non-believers, a sign for them of the truth of the Quran.
In this verse the words ratqan (closed-up mass), and fataqna (We clove them asunder), carry the basic message of the whole verse. Authentic Arabic lexicons give two meanings of ratqan, that have great relevance to the topic under discussion. One meaning is 'the coming together of something and the consequent infusion into a single entity' and the second meaning is 'total darkness'. Both these meanings are significantly applicable. Taken together, they offer an apt description of the singularity of a black hole.
A Black Hole is a gravitationally collapsed mass of colossal size. It begins with the collapse of such massive stars as are 15 or more times the size of the sun. The immensity of their inward gravitational pull causes the stars to collapse into a much smaller size. The gravitational pull is further concentrated and results in the further collapse of the entire mass into a supernova. At this stage the basic bricks of matter such as molecules, atoms etc. begin to be crushed into a nondescript mass of energy. Thus that moment in space-time is created which is called event horizon. The inward gravitational pull of that something becomes so powerful that all forms of radiation are pulled back so that even light cannot escape. A resultant total darkness ensues which earns it the name black hole, reminding one of the word ratqan used by the Quran indicating total darkness. This is called singularity which lies beyond the event horizon.
A black hole once created grows rapidly because even distant stars begin to be pulled in with the progressive concentration of gravitational energy. It is estimated that the mass of a black hole could grow as large as a hundred million times the mass of the sun. As its gravitational field widens, more material from space is drawn in at a speed close to that of light. In 1997 there was observational evidence suggesting that in our galaxy a black hole of 2,000,000 solar masses existed. But other calculations show that in our universe there could be many black holes as big as 3,000,000,000 solar masses. At that concentration of gravitational pull even distant stars would stagger and lose their mooring to be devoured by a glutton of such magnitude. Thus the process of ratqan is completed resulting into that singularity which is both completely closed as well as comprising total darkness. In answer to the question as to how the universe was initially created, the two most recent theories are both Big Bang theories. They claim that it was initiated from a singularity which suddenly erupted releasing the trapped mass leading yet again into the creation of a new universe through the event horizon. This dawn of light sprouting from the event horizon is called the white hole. One of the two theories relating to the expansion predicts that the universe thus created will carry on expanding forever. The other claims that the expansion of the universe will, at some time, be reversed because the inward gravitational pull will ultimately prevail. Eventually, all matter will be pulled back again to form perhaps another gigantic black hole. This latter view appears to be supported by the Quran.
Whilst speaking of the first creation of the universe, the Quran clearly describes its ending into yet another black hole, connecting the end to the beginning, thus completing the full circle of the story of cosmos. The Quran declares:
"Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of written scrolls ..." (21/105)
The clear message of this verse is that the universe is not eternal. It speaks of a future when the heavens will be rolled up, in a manner similar to the rolling up of a scroll. Scientific descriptions illustrating the making of a black hole, very closely resemble what the Quran describes in the above verse.
A mass of accretion from space falling into a black hole, as described above, would be pressed into a sheet under the enormous pressure created by the gravitational and electromagnetic forces. As the centre of the black hole is constantly revolving around itself, this sheet—as it approaches—will begin to be wrapped around it, before disappearing into the realm of the unknown at last.
The verse continues:
"... As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it; a promise binding on Us; that We shall certainly fulfil" (21/105)
Tafsir: And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a Sijill for books.) This is like the Ayah:
﴿وَمَا قَدَرُواْ اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالاٌّرْضُ جَمِيعـاً قَبْضَـتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَـمَةِ وَالسَّمَـوَتُ مَطْوِيَّـتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ سُبْحَـنَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ﴾
(They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified be He, and High be He above all that they associate as partners with Him!) (39/67) ﴾Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` reported from Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah said:
«إِنَّ اللهَ يَقْبِضُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الْأَرَضِينَ وَتَكُونُ السَّمَوَاتُ بِيَمِينِه»
(On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will seize the earth and the heavens will be in His Right Hand.) This was recorded by Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him.
﴿كَطَىِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ﴾
(like a Sijill rolled up for books.) What is meant by Sijill is book. As-Suddi said concerning this Ayah: "As-Sijill is an angel who is entrusted with the records; when a person dies, his Book (of deeds) is taken up to As-Sijill, and he rolls it up and puts it away until the Day of Resurrection.'' But the correct view as narrated from Ibn `Abbas is that As-Sijill refers to the record (of deeds). This was also reported from him by `Ali bin Abi Talhah and Al-`Awfi. This was also stated by Mujahid, Qatadah and others. This was the view favored by Ibn Jarir, because this usage is well-known in the (Arabic) language. Based on the above, the meaning is: the Day when the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll.
Following the eventual collapse of the universe into a black hole, here we have the promise of a new beginning. God will recreate the universe, as He had done before. The collapsed universe will re-emerge from its darkness and the whole process of creation will start yet again. This wrapping up and unfolding of the universe appears to be an ongoing phenomenon, according to the Holy Quran.
This Quranic concept of the beginning and the end of the creation is undoubtedly extraordinary. It would not have been less amazing if it had been revealed to a highly educated person of our contemporary age, but one is wonder-struck by the fact that this most advanced knowledge, regarding the perpetually repeating phenomenon of creation, was revealed more than fourteen hundred years ago to an unlettered dweller of the Arabian desert.
My question to you is this. Now that you can see that no part of these ayahs conflict with scientific and astronomical findings - when does one actually sit to think that all these findings that scientists and astronomers are discovering today actually correlate with the Quran?... BUT, (and this is the BIG BUT Xavier)
But - still they you are unwilling to accept that the law of causality is a fundamental factor and principle in determining an origin to the effect? Scientists go round in a metaphorical circle regarding the issue as I mentioned above, when quite clearly God has told you that HE created the universe and that HE is not seen by man. This is where the element of faith really kicks in. And it requires little or no real mathematical deduction to understand that after all the evidence provided - God exists. Correct? Just look at the Quran - not one contradiction, not one inaccuracy, and totally coherent.
You may wish to embark on the avenue whereby you rebuttle me with the logic that the Quran does not go into overt details - I rebuttle that back with "does it need to?" Come on, it already has said (in above ayahs) that which scholars of the early Islamic period where scratching their heads over. Yet, we witness the magnificent accuracy of the ayah today - through scientific and astronomical findings, right? Al Quran - for all time? I definitely think so... there's no loose logic here, but factual explanation of the ayahs whcih correlate with your own findings.
So, back to causality. Why is it that scientists today negate the concept that God exists? I kn ow you haven't ruled it out - even though you say you are an atheist, I think agnostic suits you better. So please, do explain why this bias exists? And don't give the "advocative" response, please - last thing I need is for you to insult my intelligence, when I have taken the time to write this for you, ok?
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Ok, moving on -
2) You asked "what is the correct philospohy? where did it come from and why is this better than the approch scientists use today?"
The philosophy of science:
The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are
actually a study of truth. In addition to these central problems of science as a whole, many philosophers of science also consider problems that apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy.
Philosophy of science has historically been met with mixed response from the scientific community. Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited.
I mentioned the Islamic scientist, Al Ahythm (also referred to as Alhazen) in an earlier post.
Neuroscientist Rosanna Gorini notes that "
according to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method." From this point of view, Alhazen developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures. Other historians of science place his experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy and see in such interpretations a "tendency to 'modernize' Alhazen ... which unfortunately serves to wrench him slightly out of proper historical focus. But he is important here, let me explain -
Alhazen (Al Haythm) made significant improvements in optics, physical science, and the scientific method. Alhazen's work on optics is credited with contributing a new emphasis on experiment. His influence on physical sciences in general, and on optics in particular, has been held in high esteem and, in fact, ushered in a new era in optical research, both in theory and practice.
In astrophysics and the celestial mechanics field of physics, Alhazen, in his Epitome of Astronomy, discovered that the heavenly bodies "were accountable to the laws of physics". Alhazen's Mizan al-Hikmah (Balance of Wisdom) covered statics, astrophysics, and celestial mechanics. He discussed the theory of attraction between masses, and it seems that he was also aware of the magnitude of acceleration due to gravity at a distance. His Maqala fi'l-qarastun is a treatise on centres of gravity. Little is known about the work, except for what is known through the later works of al-Khazini in the 12th century. In this treatise, Alhazen formulated the theory that the heaviness of bodies varies with their distance from the centre of the Earth.
Another treatise, Maqala fi daw al-qamar (On the Light of the Moon), which he wrote some time before his famous Book of Optics, was the first successful attempt at combining mathematical astronomy with physics, and the earliest attempt at applying the experimental method to astronomy and astrophysics. He disproved the universally held opinion that the Moon reflects sunlight like a mirror and correctly concluded that it "emits light from those portions of its surface which the sun's light strikes." To prove that "light is emitted from every point of the Moon's illuminated surface", he built an "ingenious experimental device." According to Matthias Schramm, Al Haythm had:
"
formulated a clear conception of the relationship between an ideal mathematical model and the complex of observable phenomena; in particular, he was the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen diminishes constantly as one of the apertures is gradually blocked up."
In his Al-Shukūk ‛alā Batlamyūs, variously translated as Doubts Concerning Ptolemy or Aporias against Ptolemy, published at some time between 1025 and 1028, Al Haythm criticized many of Ptolemy's works, including the Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics, pointing out various contradictions he found in these works. He considered that some of the mathematical devices Ptolemy introduced into astronomy, especially the
equant, failed to satisfy the physical requirement of uniform circular motion, and wrote a scathing critique of the physical reality of Ptolemy's astronomical system, noting the absurdity of relating actual physical motions to imaginary mathematical points, lines and circles. Al Haythm says:
"
Ptolemy assumed an arrangement (hay'a) that cannot exist, and the fact that this arrangement produces in his imagination the motions that belong to the planets does not free him from the error he committed in his assumed arrangement, for the existing motions of the planets cannot be the result of an arrangement that is impossible to exist... or a man to imagine a circle in the heavens, and to imagine the planet moving in it does not bring about the planet's motion."
Al Haythm further criticized Ptolemy's model on other empirical, observational and experimental grounds, such as Ptolemy's use of conjectural undemonstrated theories in order to "save appearances" of certain phenomena, which Al Haythm did not approve of due to his insistence on scientific demonstration. Unlike some later astronomers who criticized the Ptolemaic model on the grounds of being incompatible with Aristotelian natural philosophy, Al Haythm was mainly concerned with empirical observation and the internal contradictions in Ptolemy's works.
In his Aporias against Ptolemy, Al Haythm commented on the difficulty of attaining scientific knowledge:
Truth is sought for itself [but] the truths, he warns, are immersed in uncertainties, and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are not immune from error...
He held that the criticism of existing theories—which dominated this book—holds a special place in the growth of scientific knowledge. To qutoe Al Haythm once more:
"
Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."
And here he hits the nail on the head - by this very example, he set the motion in place for the philosophy of scientific enquiry. Modern Scientific enquiry propagates the need to prove and justify the propagated belief of today which the majority of the world refute - the theory of evolution. Scientists today hold onto a rather primitive ideology which is steeped in madness and is wholly unscientific in the approach to the philosophy which Al Haythm himself set as the standard. Surely you know where I'm going with this Xavier - the idea that man cam from monkey and they in turn from some other animal and so forth is ridiculous. Unprovable. And illogical - it a belief steeped in favouring an agenda to desensitize and disconnect the human from God, through negating the belief of HIS existence - despite overwhelming evidences that the designed must have a designer. Cause and effect. The law of causality. Nothing happens by chance - believing in chance leads to unbelief - and that is not very scientific is it?
Now, let's take a look at some of Al Haythms motivations regarding the reasoning for his study and the need to establish an accurate philosophy that can be followed in science - note that his primary source of inspired knowledge came from the Quran, ok?:
We look at another aspect of the description of the cosmos which relates to the motion of the heavenly bodies. The most striking feature of this description relates to the way the motion of the earth is described without glaringly contradicting the popular view prevailing in that age. All the scholars and sages of that time were unanimous in their belief that the earth is stationary while other heavenly bodies like the sun and the moon are constantly revolving around it. In view of this, the motion of the earth as described by the Quran may not be apparent to the casual reader, but to a careful student the message is loud and clear. If the Quran had described the earth as stationary and the heavenly bodies as revolving around it, then although the people of that time might have been satisfied with this description, the people of the later ages would have treated that statement as a proof of the ignorance of the Quran's author. Such a statement, they would emphasize, could not have been made by an All-Knowing, Supreme Being.
The Holy Quran also pronounces that all heavenly bodies are in a constant state of motion; none of them is stationary:
"... everything is gliding along smoothly in its orbit." (21/34)
This all-embracing statement covers the entire universe, our solar system being no exception. In addition to this, there are many other verses which mention the elliptical movement of all the heavenly bodies. But they also speak of their movement towards their destined time of death. Following are some of the verses which cover both subjects:
"Allah is He Who raised up the heavens without any pillars that you can see. Then He settled Himself on the Throne. And He pressed the sun and the moon into service. All pursue their course until an appointed time. He regulates it all. He clearly explains the Signs, that you may have a firm belief in the meeting with your Lord." (13/3)
"Hast thou not seen that Allah makes the night pass into the day, and makes the day pass into the night, and He has pressed the sun and the moon into service; all pursuing their course till an appointed term, and Allah is well aware of what you do?" (31/30)
"He merges the night into the day, and He merges the day into the night. And He has pressed into service the sun and the moon; each one runs its course to an appointed term. Such is Allah, your Lord; His is the kingdom, and those whom you call upon beside Allah own not even a whit." (35/14)
"He created the heavens and earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. He makes the night to cover the day, and He makes the day to cover the night; and He has pressed the sun and the moon into service; each pursues its course until an appointed time. Hearken, it is He alone Who is the Mighty, the Great Forgiver." (39/6)
Xavier, there are other verses which relate aswell, but for the sake of not making this too long a read for you - and to stick to the basis of the point I am making here - I think the above suffice.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Now, finally...
3) In a previous post, I asked you "Question to you Xavier - is God an unscientific concept?"
You answered my question with "no. just like any other concepts, if shown reliable and verifiable proof, we can acept it."
The concept of God
In light of all the above, does it not strike you as odd that people in todays age are pursuing a Godless existence when clearly HIS book, the Quran has made it all too clear for keen and enquiring minds to reflect and contemplate their own existence? And don't you find it disrespectful that those who choose to pursue this Godless existence, furthermore refute and refuse to acknowledge HIS existence?
Of the 99 names of Allah we are known to have in Islam, one is Al Baatin - which translates to "The Hidden, The Unmanifest, The Inner" HE exists in place where time does not exist, so HE exists outside of our universe, but HE is aware of all. And herein, is where the age old element of faith kicks in. HE has told us of HIS many wonderful creations, and their purposes - yet HE is a mystery to us. And we believe in HIM because HIS is a perfect explanation of everything. After all I have written, I apologise to all for any mistakes I may have made - this is all according to my own limited understanding - and Allah knows best.
I ask you one final question Xavier: Why did you leave Islam?
Scimi