"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Quran_Studies]

I'm sure atheists here know what I'm talking about :D The latest "buzz" in the athiest world is Richard Dawkin's latest book "The God Delusion."

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-R...005732?ie=UTF8

Any atheist read the book yet? I just bought it, and sounds promising. What I dont get is why is a scientist trying to disprove something that is not observable? There are entities beyond our mere five senses that exists. Any person with moderate philosophical knowlege knows that existance is primary while conscience is secondary. Dawkins relies extensively on the criticism of Christianity and Islam, in addition to his background as an evolution proffessor, to fallibility of dogmas. He is a philosophical midget, and makes grave assumptions.

What's also unfortunate about his book is that he relies on sources that are anti-religion (ex. Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina in his case against Islam). Dawkin's selective references must raise suspicions in our minds. Surely, it shows that he is not going to engage in a critical, responsible, balanced debate with theism. Any decent, honest, scholarly academician makes disclaimers over their credibility in religious knowledge. Dawkins clearly displays his perverse selection of facts to support his hostile agenda.

As soon as I'm done reading this, I'm going to post a complete book review. Dawkins is a very smart man, but is himseld delusional.

[Keltoi]

The mindset at work in this book is the same mindset that exists in most universities around the world, especially in the West. It is an intellectual elitism which believes anyone who believes in the existence of a higher power is somehow deranged, ignorant, brainwashed, etc.

[Quran_Studies]

^^ Well, I think it's fair if we read his book first. From viewing his videos, called "The Root of All Evil," I totally agree with you. From watching them on youtube, Dawkins intentionally interviews radical Christians and Muslims to somehow exemplify the notion that religion is primitive.

From what I know so far, Dawkins is deceptive in his methodology, since he incorporates anti-religion arguments by unspecialized people, while simultaneously neglecting views from the "other side of the fence."

[Woodrow]

Interesting to say the least. I can not understand why any atheist would have a need to attempt to disprove the existance of God(swt). The fact that the person has not seen convincing evidence to prove God's (swt) existance, should suffice for any athiest. The fact that others believe in God(swt) does not pose any threat to an athiest.



The fact that there are athiests who are trying to prove Allah(swt) does not exist, is very strong evidence of the existance of Allah(swt). If Allah(swt) did not exist, there would be no reason for anyone to believe that there is a need to prove he does not exist.


It seems there is some strong force driving Dawkins to try to destroy belief in Allah(swt). Seems like he is putting forth a lot of effort to destroy what he sees as simple mythology.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Curaezipirid]

Well I dunno about who got banned for what and really find it none of my business; but I agree that what persons like Richard Dawkins are writing is the business of many Muslims. It is our business simply because he is so well known that his point of veiw holds sway over a large extent of the population whom might otherwise be able to consider why so many amply intelligent folk are Muslim.

and Salam (that I forgot at the start of the post because it seems odd often to be amid an already existing conversation and post with a formal Assalamu Alaikum)

What is in my mind in respect of Richard Dawkins is what my Father has told me. My father is agnostic but a very highly intelligent scientist. He was raised Christian by a strict and devout mother, whom is equally highly intelligent, but after He married my mother my mother discovered that He was not able to manifest Faith in Jesus simply because He has no active scientific evidence of Isa's ressurection or that such is possible; and so my mother made Him stop taking communion. So now he is agnostic. Whether or not He sustains theism in mind of constant intent, seems to be the case to my self as his daughter, but I can not be certain since he never says so. Now my Dad reads Richard Dawkins. He reads Richard Dawkins very critically as he reads any such texts. As a scientist alone he points to the fact that Richard Dawkins is lacking in a scientific approach to his writing. But he also has pointed out some really valuable scientific knowledge within Richard Dawkins work that Dawkins is reporting upon, and thus making available to a large group of people.

Now I must take from that the fact that any body with a truly scientific mind will read Richard Dawkins critically and observe that he is placing an ill frame of misinformed associations around much decent scientific research, and then utilising that to place an ill frame around Religion.

Therefore we can comprehend that Science is not against Religion if we are clever in placing our own Islamic frame of truth and realism around the entire set of facts which is inclusive of many of the facts Richard Dawkins reports upon. We need a frame which breaks the many wrong associations in Richard Dawkins work and provides a form of modelling of mental associations within which new associations can correctly form to the scientifically recorded facts.

My father has also mentioned that the subject matter Richard Dawkins writes about is intensely interesting and that there are other authors which write much more consistently coherently within the logic of science to the same facts.

Perhaps what we are needing is for a school among Muslims to commit to making the work of modelling the mental associations of a scientific mind into a pattern in which those persons, like my father, whom are engaged by Richard Dawkins, are better enabled to perceive the ultimate loss to their own being if they ever imagine any atheist point of veiw.

It is all too easy for all self decent Muslims to only ignore the work of people like Richard Dawkins, but some of what he reports to may well be able to be recycled into Islamic based literature. We can all know that Richard Dawkins own account makes grave assumptions to a hostile agenda: and then also know that he has researched the field of what is available in science well enough to use his source material for proving Allah.

My father pointed me to one single page in a Richard Dawkins book which mentions a phenomena called Major Histo-compatiblity Complex or MHC for short. MHC is a group of molecules on the surface of the skin which are studied in the field of immuno-genetics, and are proven in mice to be scientific evidence of the beneficience of the rules of ancient marriage systems still adhered to by many of the worlds surviving cultures and Religions. With that information in hand an effective search can begin among the scientists for the source material which can be presented through the popular media as equitably as Richard Dawkins has used the popular media to present the facts.

Now what we need to know is that occultists whom govern many so called christian based belief structures, but whom truly have not Faith in God, tend to only support the presentation of certain scientific facts through acts of black magic which askew the facts as is demonstrated by Richard Dawkins. Usually there is a simple essential fact not being presented. Once that fact is put back in the picture then the real science actually always proves One God. The grave assumptions are one portion of what needs to be changed in any work like his, but also that tracing to source of his material and finding the missing fact. It is that there are often two different acts of black magic converging in the publishing of many books. That of The Behemoth and that of The Levithan. The Behemoth's trick leaves out a tangible fact. The Levithan's includes something intangible as though fact. The only way to sort through what is and what is not suitable for popular literature and the mass thought about evolution is to go through each fact reported and source the science, also seeking the essential companion facts.

As Muslims whom are required to believe in Angels and the unseen ; and to whom belief in the unseen and belief in Angels is proven scientifically: we have the obvious upper hand so long as we are accessing the actual scientific facts. We need sometimes to let ourselves become aligned with the likes of Richard Dawkins so as to extract those facts, simply because the persons whom are funded to find the facts are very often funded by occultists wants. That is, most of the modern funding for scientific research is being controlled through the black magic of occultists. Yet truly what they are learning is worthy. Therefore we must understand that among those scientists doing the research are many good men like my father, whom sustain only an "I do not know" position, and hide their faith in science. If there were no true believers among the scientists whose research Richard Dawkins often leans upon, why would anybody read. So our task is to find those people and connect with, then find avenues by which to validate our common comprehension.

Basically what I am saying is that eventually it will not enough to say: Richard Dawkins is wrong, but I am going to read him anyway. So begin to read within this context. Read while making notes about what could be worthy of your own investigation. Then you will have no need of returning to Richard Dawkins texts. Because the more often his malformations of mental processing are read, the more susceptible our minds are to the black magic supporting such malformations.

The solution is as simple as knowing that Quantum mechanics can prove God, as well as having split a few too many atoms. But hang on, wait a minute, is not any atomic explosion proof in Allah?

Please be careful in reading work that aligns itself so ill; read it to unmake its ill.

Any atheist read the book yet? I just bought it, and sounds promising. What I dont get is why is a scientist trying to disprove something that is not observable? There are entities beyond our mere five senses that exists. Any person with moderate philosophical knowlege knows that existance is primary while conscience is secondary.

I hope I can make a little constructive criticism of this portion of a paragraph that Quran_Studies posted; but by deconstructing it as a example of how critically we need to be able to read the likes of Richard Dawkins.

First of all when you find he is faulted do not find that his fault is for your pleasure without an actualisable intention in Allah. But that might need not be spelt out. Yet as well as identifying the atheists whom are reading such texts as the folk whom will be of food to be found in Jehannam, to become ourselves deserving of such food we need to give of. So dismantle such texts and the persons whom support. Dismember their comprehension of what it is to be a Human being. But in so deconstructing such texts by learning them piecemeal yourself, (try reading the chapters out of the sequences they are published in is the best), sort the small pieces of relevant data that can be so obtained into groups by which they are more readily re-available. At least, if not following perhaps one set of such data back through its original sources to find the missing facts. This is a way that Muslims can work in the environment of authors like Richard Dawkins effectively and in efforts in Allah to earn alone our own merit.

Qur'an_Studies: what you don't get is that scientists are not trying to disprove something that is NOT observable, but rather are trying to disprove something that IS observable. Allah is observable as the vitalising force in every living cell.

Also find evidence of this: every entity that is observable beyond the five senses is also observable by the five senses combined when those five senses are working in perfection. Such is the means of every Prophet, may Peace be forever theirs. It is a task of worthy merit in science to find persons whose five senses are able to work perfectly and study such comparatively to other brain processing; but the fact is that such work is not being undertaken. Apparently they did some limited study of Buddhist Monks brain chemistry, but only found that the Buddhist have perfected being happy by any means possible. Where is the science proving that other brains can reconcile certain substances in to happy making brain chemistry, but by according to their own self some physical hardship?

Finally, yes it is clear and I agree: existing is primary to conscience, which is feeling; but, . . . but there is a but.

Existing at what expense and at whose expense is existance without conscience?

There is science for this, and those whom have the means to prove to all of us that we ought all be in more fear in Allah of any sin, will never get out of Jehannam.

Good on the fishers of such persons since when they are fished and thoroughly examined, we all learn that there is a way through and past their ills.

Salam Alaikum rvq

[Joe98]

……would have a need to attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Ultimately the world would be a better place. Without religious beliefs, there would not have been the massive upheavals we have seen in world history.

The fact that there are athiests who are trying to prove Allah does not exist, is very strong evidence of the existance of Allah

To Athiests, the same sentence could apply to the existence of the Lock Ness Monster.

[ManchesterFolk]

Ultimately the world would be a better place. Without religious beliefs, there would not have been the massive upheavals we have seen in world history.

Great statement. So called "religons of peace" have been the cause of billions of deaths. It is disgusting.

[Ulysses]

I think Dawkins main point is that, religion is not rational.

[Curaezipirid]

Ultimately the world would be a better place. Without religious beliefs, there would not have been the massive upheavals we have seen in world history.


To Athiests, the same sentence could apply to the existence of the Lock Ness Monster.

Joe98 you don't know that the world would have been a better place without Religion. None of us can know what the world would have been like if the past had not occurred as it has. Maybe you would not exist.

Also by defining that to atheists a reference to Allah could seem like a reference to the Lock Ness Monster is a blatant negation of the actual definition of Allah.

The definition exists within what is called the foundations of Islam, and sadly has been widely misrepresented because of criminality masquerading under the same Arabic name: Al-Qaeda. I will go and fetch a link to that data:
http://www.islam.forumwise.com/islam...ht=foundations

Could you read that before pronouncing Allah as though of any similarity whatsoever to the Loch Ness Monster.

Assalamu Alaikum

[Keltoi]

Yes, some have used religion as a way to make war and divide people, there is no avoiding that reality. Historically speaking, the theocratic nature of most past civilizations has led to many instances of persecution, massacres, and every other bad deed under the sun. That is why I believe secular government has been the most important political progression in world history alongside democracy itself. I know some will disagree that secularism is a sign of human progress, and in some cases I would agree that secularism has harmed certain aspects of society. However, the chances of religious war and persecution have been dramatically lessened by the divorce of government and religion.

[terrellowens]

Got ya !!:?

[Curaezipirid]

Yes, some have used religion as a way to make war and divide people, there is no avoiding that reality. Historically speaking, the theocratic nature of most past civilizations has led to many instances of persecution, massacres, and every other bad deed under the sun. That is why I believe secular government has been the most important political progression in world history alongside democracy itself. I know some will disagree that secularism is a sign of human progress, and in some cases I would agree that secularism has harmed certain aspects of society. However, the chances of religious war and persecution have been dramatically lessened by the divorce of government and religion.

With whom are you in agreement in beginning your post with "yes".

I made a point in the immediately previous post that you have no evidence that the situation would not have been worse without Religion. Or, for that matter that the present situation could not have been far better if Government and Religion were always together, and with Science obviously also. Are you just daft Keltoi? Because the alternative would be to manifest belief that you are a member of the Synagogue of Satan, since that is the only work which manifests certain belief in seperation of belief in God and belief in good Governance. I might prefer to suppose that you are just daft.

[Curaezipirid]

I think Dawkins main point is that, religion is not rational.

That is good to condense the wrong of a Godless Belief system into one statement, it gives us a starting point for refuting.

Check the link I posted, and there is the same in a new Load Islam thread now too, for the rational belief that is the foundation of Islam.

By the way, what is the classical Buddhist refutation of the statement that 'religion is not rational'; or do Buddhists simply accept being irrational these days?

But what was anybody meaning by the word "rational" if trying to portray Religion as non-rational, since clearly Religions could not exist if not actually rational and within the full field of being scientifically verifiable?

That is why there is any worth in reading authors like Richard Dawkins, because they work with raw data material that actually lends itself best of all to Religion.

wasalam

[جوري]

If a great meticulous on top of his craft surgeon, taught each of us on this forum how to perform a Roux-en-Y Procedure, spending the exact same time with each one of us, imparting the same exact technique, with no form of discrimination, I guarantee none of us can duplicate that procedure in the exact same way as he, no matter how hard we practice...

We all have different skills and different levels of education, different interests and different understanding.... furthermore if we are to bequeath our knowledge to generations down the line, with that which we perceived to be the sincerest high fidelity technique again it will not be duplicated the same level to that of the meticulous crafty surgeon ... Is it because there was something wrong with how he taught us? or that he didn't do it right? or the procedure if faulty and wicked and should be made extinct since it caused a couple of patient' death somewhere down the line by those who misinterpreted the technique? Again I doubt it.....

we are simply human ... we employ what we have learned to the best of our abilities, our emotional drive and our level of understanding....... No two people have the same skill, nor can impart the same wisdom, or even view a situation from the exact angel down the minute details.....

In closure I don't think there is anything wrong with religion ... the good is always there right beside the bad to give balance and help us distinguish and appreciate the difference..... The laws are set, and we have seen empires of Good and evil based solely on man's interpretation. They have set their mark on society.... there is no perfection, we can only strive for it......

I will not get into Atheism and its advocates as there is 70 pages of Argumentum ad nauseam.....

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Any atheist read the book yet? I just bought it, and sounds promising.

I've flicked through it at some length, but I haven't read it all yet. So far it seems to be quite good, and I'm glad that Dawkins has finally produced a whole book on a subject that is obviously close to his heart. He's probably the most conspicuous atheist in Britain today, so it's about time he wrote a book on it.

Having said that, so far I've been mildly disappointed with it. His famously elegant and lucid writing style remains intact, but there are times when he seems to take a scattershot approach. This may or may not be the case throughout the whole book, but the opening few chapters do feel that way to some degree.

What I dont get is why is a scientist trying to disprove something that is not observable?

He's not. He points out on several occasions that the idea of god is undisprovable. What he tries to do is assess the probability of god's existence, which does not amount to a proof.

He is a philosophical midget, and makes grave assumptions.

His knowledge of philosophy in this area seems to me to be quite sound. Perhaps you've noticed some mistakes in this regard?

What's also unfortunate about his book is that he relies on sources that are anti-religion (ex. Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina in his case against Islam). Dawkin's selective references must raise suspicions in our minds.

He also quotes plenty of religious people, who give quite dazzling displays of ignorance and obscurantism on occasion.

Surely, it shows that he is not going to engage in a critical, responsible, balanced debate with theism.

This is what he is, in fact, trying to do. He also gives examples of debates he has taken part in where he was the "token atheist" on a panel of highly religious speakers. Balanced?

Any decent, honest, scholarly academician makes disclaimers over their credibility in religious knowledge.

As does Dawkins. In fact, he questions the very idea of "religious knowledge", which to atheists is an oxymoron.

As soon as I'm done reading this, I'm going to post a complete book review. Dawkins is a very smart man, but is himseld delusional.

Let us know how you get on with the book. It'll be good to hear your views - especially if you're able to address Dawkins' arguments head-on.

Peace

[Keltoi]

With whom are you in agreement in beginning your post with "yes".

I made a point in the immediately previous post that you have no evidence that the situation would not have been worse without Religion. Or, for that matter that the present situation could not have been far better if Government and Religion were always together, and with Science obviously also. Are you just daft Keltoi? Because the alternative would be to manifest belief that you are a member of the Synagogue of Satan, since that is the only work which manifests certain belief in seperation of belief in God and belief in good Governance. I might prefer to suppose that you are just daft.

Actually it was in response to Manchester, not you. I should have made that more clear. As for being "daft" and member of the "Synagogue of Satan", I suppose if believing that religion and government function more properly without one controlling the other means I am "daft" then I suppose I am. Perhaps I think you are "looney" for thinking what you do. Perhaps instead of childish remarks you should focus on your point of view.

[Skillganon]

^^ Well, I think it's fair if we read his book first. From viewing his videos, called "The Root of All Evil," I totally agree with you. From watching them on youtube, Dawkins intentionally interviews radical Christians and Muslims to somehow exemplify the notion that religion is primitive.

From what I know so far, Dawkins is deceptive in his methodology, since he incorporates anti-religion arguments by unspecialized people, while simultaneously neglecting views from the "other side of the fence."

The thing you should notice, especially in science is to make a conclusion already, than try to find any evidence; if it can be called evidence, to fit into that and try to supress or ignore any evidence that goes against that.

Actually I been warned against that at UNI.

I haven't read much of his literature but I did watch a documentary sometime ago, which I think is more targeted at the less informed mass.

[root]

I have not heard much on this book, though I have just completed in full Dawkins authorative stance of our current understanding of evolution written in a stryle that takes you from human's as ancestor 1 right back as far as evolution is able to take us. It's called "The Ancestors Tale" and a very good read for anyone remotely interested in the simplicity of an evolution explanation.

Think I will buy that book.

[Eric H]

Greetings in peace ManchesterFolk;

Great statement. So called "religons of peace" have been the cause of billions of deaths. It is disgusting.

I know war and religion are often mentioned in the same sentence, but why?

I remember the story of the serial killer who went around murdering prostitutes, when he was caught he said that God told him to kill.

If there is no God then this is just the guy trying to deny responsibility and get of the hook.

If there is a God, would God tell him to kill? I would say no, the man was making it up and he wanted to kill.

Either way I believe the man was guilty of the crimes, and God had nothing to do with him killing.

When it comes to wars I believe it is just some power hungry person using the name of God for his own ends. Both Saddam and Bush claimed God was on their side, but I do not believe this to be true.

Dawkins is an extremely clever man and it is sad that he is not using his gifts to try and heal the divisions between religions rather than add fuel to the fire. In a way Dawkins almost seems to become the very thing he despises the most a fundamentalist atheist.

take care

Eric

[TheRightPathI]

The mindset at work in this book is the same mindset that exists in most universities around the world, especially in the West. It is an intellectual elitism which believes anyone who believes in the existence of a higher power is somehow deranged, ignorant, brainwashed, etc.

Great observation Keltoi, My friend states this to me all the time. My friend truly believes I'm brainwashed and continues to belittle me about how can I base my life around obeying an "Almighty Creator" that I cannot even see.

[جوري]

Great observation Keltoi, My friend states this to me all the time. My friend truly believes I'm brainwashed and continues to belittle me about how can I base my life around obeying an "Almighty Creator" that I cannot even see.

There comes a time in each man's life or woman... when s/he no longer gives a **** about what others think.......It truly is a wonderful place when you get to it......... They meet you with mockery and ridicule... you should desert them...... that is not saying not to be friends but there is a way to end a topic that will derange itself into an unpleasent place....

How many messangers in the Quran were met with the same? there really is a beautiful meaning to

وَاصْبِرْ عَلَى مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاهْجُرْهُمْ هَجْرًا جَمِيلًا

{10}
[Pickthal 73:10] And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave-taking.

I can't tell you how dignified that is!

[TheRightPathI]

There comes a time in each man's life or woman... when s/he no longer gives a **** about what others think.......It truly is a wonderful place when you get to it......... They meet you with mockery and ridicule... you should desert them...... that is not saying not to be friends but there is a way to end a topic that will derange itself into an unpleasent place....

How many messangers in the Quran were met with the same? there really is a beautiful meaning to

وَاصْبِرْ عَلَى مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاهْجُرْهُمْ هَجْرًا جَمِيلًا

{10}
[Pickthal 73:10] And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave-taking.

I can't tell you how dignified that is!

Salam, Thank You for the advice. The funny thing is, he has strenghtened my faith in Allah (swt).

[Curaezipirid]

Assalamu Alaikum,

good post PurestAmbrosia, but for:

[QUOTE=PurestAmbrosia;523135]
The laws are set, and we have seen empires of Good and evil based solely on man's interpretation. They have set their mark on society.... there is no perfection, we can only strive for it......
QUOTE]

Just that there is need to be careful because "there is no perfection" can be read a little askew to what you might have been meaning. Factually there is perfection in Allah; but as you are clearly pointing to, that perfection is not yet attained in the modern Human condition, so we must strive for.

Greetings,

This is what he is, in fact, trying to do. He also gives examples of debates he has taken part in where he was the "token atheist" on a panel of highly religious speakers. Balanced? . . .

. . . As does Dawkins. In fact, he questions the very idea of "religious knowledge", which to atheists is an oxymoron.

Peace

I had no idea that there are atheists for whom there is a feeling of being disenfranchised and under-represented to the extent of an atheist point of veiw being named token. So sorry.

But what is an oxymoron? I thought it was a phenomena causal to atheism being forced upon others.

Actually it was in response to Manchester, not you. I should have made that more clear. As for being "daft" and member of the "Synagogue of Satan", I suppose if believing that religion and government function more properly without one controlling the other means I am "daft" then I suppose I am. Perhaps I think you are "looney" for thinking what you do. Perhaps instead of childish remarks you should focus on your point of view.

Hi Keltoi;

let me prefer to be childish, and in total ability to totally disregard all wrong opinion of me as looney.


Thankyou

Assalamu Alaikum

[Ulysses]

I've read several of Dawkin's earlier books. He is definitely quite knowledgeable about natural history. Too much else to read at present, and I shan't be picking up a copy of the Delusion. Too off topic for me in my own work I am afraid.

I strongly agreed with Dawkins in the Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, but I will depart from him in his faith that there IS NO supernatural force. That to me seems to take the God Delusion to the other extreme.

However, from my vicarious readings of his central thesis, this much I can agree with: religions, because they are largely based on faith, a mental state that is antithetical to rationality, logic, and dialectic, do tend to promote intolerance.

Intolerance is, I would say, the bigger culprit in the World's history of suffering than is religion; although the two do go hand in hand, both epistemologically, and in historical precedent.

[Keltoi]

I've read several of Dawkin's earlier books. He is definitely quite knowledgeable about natural history. Too much else to read at present, and I shan't be picking up a copy of the Delusion. Too off topic for me in my own work I am afraid.

I strongly agreed with Dawkins in the Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, but I will depart from him in his faith that there IS NO supernatural force. That to me seems to take the God Delusion to the other extreme.

However, from my vicarious readings of his central thesis, this much I can agree with: religions, because they are largely based on faith, a mental state that is antithetical to rationality, logic, and dialectic, do tend to promote intolerance.

Intolerance is, I would say, the bigger culprit in the World's history of suffering than is religion; although the two do go hand in hand, both epistemologically, and in historical precedent.

Exactly. It isn't that religion itself is the culprit, but people are imperfect creatures, and religion can be used to justify very vile deeds.

[Curaezipirid]

Exactly. It isn't that religion itself is the culprit, but people are imperfect creatures, and religion can be used to justify very vile deeds.

and exactly !

but the precise meaning in Religion is that within is a teaching of how to work upon our self toward perfection and evolution. If this aspect of Religion were not in existance none of us could believe through any Religious vehicle.

No believer doubts that ills and even vileness have been committed in the name of Religion; but all true believers believe that if we focus our concentration upon such things then that is more likely to more commonly manifest. Whereas when we focus our concentration upon the benefit to our individuality within Religion, the what manifests of Religion is a general improvement in self worth. This is usually not really noticable outside of Religion. But certainly you must be in no doubt of your self Keltoi? But others will no doubt have been forgetting the basic fundament of why Religions initially manifest and then also why any Religion has any continuance/or else we could not even have a mental category for atheists.

Assalamu Alaikum rvq

[Keltoi]

and exactly !

but the precise meaning in Religion is that within is a teaching of how to work upon our self toward perfection and evolution. If this aspect of Religion were not in existance none of us could believe through any Religious vehicle.

No believer doubts that ills and even vileness have been committed in the name of Religion; but all true believers believe that if we focus our concentration upon such things then that is more likely to more commonly manifest. Whereas when we focus our concentration upon the benefit to our individuality within Religion, the what manifests of Religion is a general improvement in self worth. This is usually not really noticable outside of Religion. But certainly you must be in no doubt of your self Keltoi? But others will no doubt have been forgetting the basic fundament of why Religions initially manifest and then also why any Religion has any continuance/or else we could not even have a mental category for atheists.

Assalamu Alaikum rvq

Athiests have a completely different frame of reference for religion. Instead of focusing on the message of God or the positive aspects of religious belief, they tend to look at religion as nothing more than a man-made social and political system. We who have belief in a higher power experience faith and the comfort that comes with accepting God's word. Basically, one view of religion is that it is an academic exercise(athiests) and the other view holds religion as the most important thing in life(believers). Neither side can "prove" the other wrong, and some arguments put forward by athiests about religion and global instability and violence have merit. Not that I think the world would be better off without religion, far from it.

[Muezzin]

Ultimately the world would be a better place. Without religious beliefs, there would not have been the massive upheavals we have seen in world history.

You cannot possibly know that. Massive upheavals happen for various reasons, religion being merely one among a pantheon.

Great statement. So called "religons of peace" have been the cause of billions of deaths. It is disgusting.

People who pervert such religions to their own violent ends have been the cause of billions of deaths. I tend not to blame the actions of a couple of fanatics on the religion they follow. I find it disrespectful to law-abiding adherents of such religions.

[czgibson]

Greetings Muezzin,

You cannot possibly know that. Massive upheavals happen for various reasons, religion being merely one among a pantheon.

So you would admit that religions can be responsible for massive upheavals? Would it not then follow that without religion, fewer massive upheavals would occur?

People who pervert such religions to their own violent ends have been the cause of billions of deaths. I tend not to blame the actions of a couple of fanatics on the religion they follow. I find it disrespectful to law-abiding adherents of such religions.

But how do religious adherents who claim a sacred motive for illegal actions justify themselves? By claiming that they had a divine sanction to do so. It is because they actually believe in the religion they profess, and they believe that they are acting according to its interests. George W. Bush actually believed he had divine permission to invade Iraq; Christians who murder doctors who practise abortion actually believe they are doing the will of god. I would argue that the more dedicated a person is to their religion, the more likely it is that they will ignore man-made laws and rationality in the face of the religious ideas they believe in.

Regarding the original topic of the thread, I don't have 'The God Delusion' to hand, otherwise I'd give some specific details, so I'll just make some general comments:

Having progressed beyond the introduction to Dawkins' book, I've been more impressed by the clarity and organisation of his arguments than I was earlier on. He covers some familiar ground, but so far he's done it in a refreshingly orinial way. The arguments and concepts he mentions that are new to me seem insightful and persuasive - I think that LI's refuters would benefit from taking a look at them. It would be interesting to see some responses.

In response to an earlier poster, I'd like to re-emphasise my claim that Dawkins' knowledge and handling of issues of philosophy are top-notch, with relevant references to philosophical ideas and thinkers old and new.

Peace

[seek.learn]

Salaam o alaikum,
Peace,

This is an article I was intending on linking here earlier but was unable to. This thread reminded me to do so. Possibly not in tone with the discussion Im afraid, in which case I apologize.

--------

The God debate
EVOLUTION | A pair of eminent scientists squares off in separate attempts to show why a supreme being — God — can or cannot exist within the boundaries of science; Patricia Pearson listens in and ponders why we're here
Oct. 15, 2006. 02:53 AM

If you want to really add some spice to the white wine in your book club this fall, may I suggest the raging debate amongst scientists about whether or not God exists.

A number of scholars — geneticists, astronomers, biologists — have come out of the closet of late by declaring their faith. Even the famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew switched to "deism" in 2004.

At the same time, a cadre of Darwinists have been shouldering past the newly faithful in the opposite direction, convinced that natural selection disproves God.

All of them have written books directed at a general audience to try and press their points. In today's head-to-head grudge match, we present a two-book bout between two of the better-known men of science, Richard Dawkins and Francis S. Collins.

The most vehement champion of atheism is Dawkins, Oxford's chair in the "Public Understanding of Science." Since his 1977 breakthrough book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has shifted from eloquent explanatory science to increasingly emotional attacks on religion. What motivates him is unclear, since his own justifications for despising belief appear irrational.

Consider the first page of his new book, The God Delusion, in which he fantasizes about a world without faith. "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no crusades, no witch-hunts, no Inquisition ..."

Okay. Got my eyes closed, I'm imagining. Oh, I know! How about a world with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and The Shining Path of Peru?

It is baffling that a man of Dawkin's stature could assert that religion is the root of all evil, and blow himself up on page one.

Yet such is his investment in atheism that he barges through history like an irate drunk with a two-by-four, taking broad swings at humanity's subtlest minds, dismissing Thomas Aquinas as "infantile," other theologians as "fatuous," and suggesting that Jesus Christ was "honestly mistaken" when he claimed to be the Son of God.

Sir Isaac Newton only declared faith, Dawkins hints, because, like 19th century homosexuals, he couldn't admit his preferences. Of the great biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote that "we simply can't comment on (God's existence) as scientists," Dawkins says: "I simply don't believe that Gould could sincerely have meant" that.

Good evidentiary points. Next?

Dawkins proceeds to offer startlingly amateurish examples of how religion doesn't make people more moral. He cites a police strike in Montreal in 1969, in which a whole number of crimes was committed. "The majority of the population of Montreal presumably believed in God. Why didn't the fear of God restrain them when earthly policemen were temporarily removed from the scene?"

Who does Dawkins imagine committed these crimes? Parishioners from Notre-Dame?

This kind of sloppy rhetoric takes place in every chapter of The God Delusion. While I am not, myself, a churchgoer, I'm astonished that one of the world's leading atheists would be firing such weak ammunition.

Dawkins's explanation for how religiosity in humans came about, as an accidental "by-product" of genetic evolution, is merely a wild guess. "Natural selection builds child brains with a natural tendency to believe whatever their parents and elders tell them," he declares. This keeps them safe from crocodiles, but you can also announce there is a God, and they will believe you.

To illustrate his theory, Dawkins recalls a sermon he was made to sit through at the age of 9, how he believed every word, and how vehemently he now resents what he was told.

Evolutionary psychology is a very new field, with no proven theorems. So I feel comfortable as a layperson speculating that natural selection would have favoured the wilful and curious child — for instance, the one that most parents encounter, who is about as obedient as a Jack Russell terrier on amphetamines — because mortality in early hominids was extremely high. The child who relied upon the wisdom of elders was a goner if those elders died. Children who survived, like hatchlings who can fly from the nest, were able at a very young age to deploy their own resourcefulness.

Just a thought?

Who knows? And of course, that's the point. Who knows? Dawkins insists upon proof, and then offers absolutely nothing but guesses.

Dawkins's fury with religion reminds me, from my days as a crime journalist, of a psychopath's contempt for love. Because they cannot experience it, or empathize with those who do experience it, they have no way to accept its existence. Talk of it exasperates them. They want proof. But you cannot confirm, scientifically, that you love your father, or your best friend. Like faith, love is subjectively experienced.

Stephen Jay Gould was right: science cannot comment on God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet scientists continue to try. Among those on God's side is Francis S. Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, a former atheist whose immensely sophisticated understanding of DNA has done nothing to undermine his faith.

In The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins explains his belief in Theistic Evolution, or what he chooses to call BioLogos (God's word as revealed through biology). He is as Darwinian as Dawkins, in that he fully accepts natural selection, only he views it as the mechanism by which God chose to set life in motion.

Collins perceives a deity "outside time and space" who created several governing laws when He set the universe off with a bang, including not just the law of gravity but also that of Moral Law.

I can't possibly do justice to this concept of Moral Law (first articulated for Collins by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity) here. But it pertains to humanity's capacity to observe a law of right and wrong. At its simplest level, it has to do with altruism, which is a yearning that defies evolutionary explanation. Why did my 6-year-old feel compelled to rescue a dying tent caterpillar whose nest I destroyed this summer?

Obviously, I didn't teach her to rescue the leaf-gobbling pest, and she gains no genetic advantage in this act of cross-species empathy. There is nothing in evolution that would favour the genes of a child who pitied a bug. Indeed, pity would have been disadvantageous — just as it would be for a lion that felt empathy for a zebra.

What she is responding to, according to Collins, is the Moral Law, and he thinks that human beings evolved to perceive it just as surely as they evolved to discover the law of gravity. God intended one of his creatures to witness Him, and to act as His steward. It could have been the dinosaurs, Collins writes, but for that meteor hurtling down on the Yucatan. As it happens, it was homo sapiens who became receptive to spiritual truth.

I'm providing an embarrassingly cursory summary of a complex idea. Suffice to say that this is thought-provoking stuff, to which Dawkins has his own response. It's been a long while since I've read a pair of books that made me want to call up my friends — for the sole purpose of inviting them over to hash out life's most abiding question.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Pearson is a Toronto author, novelist and freelance writer.

Source
----

Peace,
Alaikum Salaam

[Woodrow]

If I am understanding what I am reading here, the issue being debated is the role religion has in causing war.

For sake of arguement I am going to say that religion is and has been a factor in every war. Yet, in looking closer it seems that war is caused by a series of factors, that need to occur together.

It is very difficult to conduct a successful war without some sort of centralised system, which would probably be a government. If my thinking is not to far off then for us to have a war we will need a religion and a government.

Now I believe a government needs to have financial support in order to function. So that means taxes. to pay taxes people need jobs. Now I am seeing 3 factors required to conduct a war. Religion, Politics, employment. Well people can't simply get a job out of no where. They need skills. Skills come from training which is education. I got it !!!!! wars are caused by Religion, Government, employment and education.

Simple solution. Eliminate order and restore chaos. Chaos and anarchy are the tools to peace.

Excuse me it is time to eat. I have to go next door and murder my neighbor for a meal. I hope he tastes better than the last one. It sure is nice to be at peace and not have to worry about war, now that I have eliminated the causes of war.


Yes, I wrote that tongue-in-cheek and as sarcasm. Now I will agree that Religion has been an issue in war. But, religion is not the cause of war. I doubt if a single war would have been prevented if religion was eliminated. people have tried to use their religious beliefs to justify artrocieties, but the religion did not cause the atrocities. In the world, religion is the basis for organised civilization. Without our religious beliefs, we would be using pure physical logic for civilization and it would eventualy become very similar to the rediculous sarcastic scenario I depicted.


We can not survive without religion. To me the fact that we need religion to even survive, is very strong evidence of the existance of Allah(swt)

[Keltoi]

I agree Woodrow, it isn't that religion itself is the cause of war but that those who wish to have war see religion as a way to galvanize people into action. There are obviously many factors that contribute to conflict and many different ways of galvanizing a population.

[Curaezipirid]

Just a few points. (I can be a bit pointy huh) I stated elsewhere that we have no evidence of what the world would be like without Religion, within which to base any thought against Religion. However, I have reconsidered that situation after watching a television show about The Cultural Revolution in China. They say Mao did try to immortalise Revolution and in so doing ended Revolution. But whether that is true of course depends upon including torture within the definition of Revolution. Mao certainly may well still be there in the fire of Hell working through that matter of the ending of all torture in Revolution. However that is a bit off the point. The point is: Eastern Asia is where Islam had not been; is where Buddhism is believed possible without any manifestation of belief in God; is where Taoism is mistaken with Confucianism; is where they only know false teachings in Jesus and only through missionaries whom came for the opium to trade by; is where the existing Muslims should be told in the end as real heros. So try to compare the situation of the Cultural Revolution with Iranian Revolution before deriding Religion's means in war as causal to lack in Peace.

Also:

Athiests have a completely different frame of reference for religion. Instead of focusing on the message of God or the positive aspects of religious belief, they tend to look at religion as nothing more than a man-made social and political system. We who have belief in a higher power experience faith and the comfort that comes with accepting God's word. Basically, one view of religion is that it is an academic exercise(athiests) and the other view holds religion as the most important thing in life(believers). Neither side can "prove" the other wrong, and some arguments put forward by athiests about religion and global instability and violence have merit. Not that I think the world would be better off without religion, far from it.

good point except that believers in Islam, unlike in any other Religion, believe we can convince atheists by proving them wrong


good article seek.learn; but I am only quoting a little piece of and it may be askewed contextually by its choice here:

.

Stephen Jay Gould was right: science cannot comment on God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet scientists continue to try.

Reality: scientists continue to try because science can comment on God, and because SCIENCE IS THE EVIDENCE IN ALLAH THAT HE IS!

eg what is a 1 or a 2 or 3456 etc, then what is a zero all about, huh? What about: 67892345; that is a sequence that does it for some folk when nothing else will do. And unstickably too:D

wasalam (atheists are such a good resource when my temper is poorly) an'salam (mu'asalam?) weirdo smilie needed here

[Muezzin]

Greetings Muezzin,

Hey! Long time no see! :)

So you would admit that religions can be responsible for massive upheavals? Would it not then follow that without religion, fewer massive upheavals would occur?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is merely speculation.

But how do religious adherents who claim a sacred motive for illegal actions justify themselves? By claiming that they had a divine sanction to do so.

I would say they are simply finding an excuse to justify their violent tendencies, rather than taking certain sections of a religious text too literally.

It is because they actually believe in the religion they profess, and they believe that they are acting according to its interests. George W. Bush actually believed he had divine permission to invade Iraq; Christians who murder doctors who practise abortion actually believe they are doing the will of god.

Though it's entirely possible that their beliefs are misplaced. And yes, I fully realize this is what atheists quite probably think of their religious counterparts, but I don't care. :)

I would argue that the more dedicated a person is to their religion, the more likely it is that they will ignore man-made laws and rationality in the face of the religious ideas they believe in.

I see what you're saying. This does not always manifest itself in violence though.

I still firmly believe that people who are inherently violent find verses from certain texts that justify their behaviour, rather than committing violence because they are acting on a mistaken interpretation of such texts.

I.e.

'Man: Grr, I'm so angry, I want to hurt someone - ooh, look, this particular verse says 'kill all the disbelievers'

Man 2: Yeah, but you're taking it out of context--

Man: SHUT UP! You're weak! You're one of them, an uncle Tom! We have to kill them all! And if you don't agree I'll kill you too!'

Rather than:

'Man: Oh, I so want to be a good (insert religious follower). Hmm, this verse says something about killing unbelievers...

Man 2: Yeah, but you're taking it out of context--

Man: But it looks quite clear...

Man 2: You're wrong.

Man: But God wrote this. Are you saying God's wrong?

Man 2:... Why do I bother?'

[czgibson]

Greetings Muezzin,

Hey! Long time no see! :)

Good to talk to you again. I've been ridiculously busy with my new job (at a boarding school - I've now learned the definition of 'long hours') so I've not had time for LI. Half term is upon us though, so I'll be able to stick around for a little while.

I'd like to air some of the arguments in Dawkins' book a bit more fully so that hopefully we can see some decent attempts at refuting them. He answers pretty much every point that's been raised against him here in the book. I find him convincing (surprise, surprise), but it would be good to see some detailed responses from members here.

One accusation often levelled against Dawkins is that he has become the very thing he opposes: a fundamentalist atheist. He answers this in the following way: a fundamentalist is someone who carries on clinging to a belief in the face of any or all available evidence. He gives the example of a religious scientist saying that, despite all he has learned about geology end evolution, he still believes in young earth creationism because that is what scripture tells him to do. Dawkins on the other hand, adopts the standard scientific approach, which is to hold a belief, pending further evidence. If there was conclusive evidence that atheism was wrong, or that evolution via natural selection was wrong, then he would gladly abandon those beliefs. It just hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is merely speculation.

It's an entirely plausible and indeed logical speculation, though, isn't it, given what you've said?

I would say they are simply finding an excuse to justify their violent tendencies, rather than taking certain sections of a religious text too literally.

So do you deny that they are indeed taking religious texts too literally? It seems like that's just what they're doing.

Though it's entirely possible that their beliefs are misplaced. And yes, I fully realize this is what atheists quite probably think of their religious counterparts, but I don't care. :)

Their beliefs certainly are misplaced, from a religious and a non-religious point of view. Also, I'm not sure that the 'I don't care' approach to argument will serve you well during your illustrious legal career!

I see what you're saying. This does not always manifest itself in violence though.

Correct. It often results in people filling the minds of children with palpable falsehoods, such as the inclusion of intelligent design in school science curricula, among other examples.

I still firmly believe that people who are inherently violent find verses from certain texts that justify their behaviour, rather than committing violence because they are acting on a mistaken interpretation of such texts.

If you want to find peaceful verses from the Qur'an, you will find them; if you want to find violent verses, you will find those too. It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative (which most people are able to do by the time they reach secondary school) are not among them.

Peace

[glo]

It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative are not among them.
Peace

Hi Czgibson

Can I ask you if this is taken from Dawkins, or if it is your own argument, or both?

thanks

[Woodrow]

Greetings Czgibson,

Interesting thoughts. Logical and written with care. Understandable.

Now why would anyone disagree with them? What is there not to agree with?
Probably nothing. But, then again what do they actually mean and why do they have little impact on a believer?

I personaly have come to a conclusion that trying to compare beliefs between non-believers and believers is very similar to comparing carrots and igneous rocks. Although physical and measurable differences can be seen and even some intangible concepts about both can be made, one will have no bearing on the intrinsic value of the other. What we are looking at is a belief and the absence of a belief, not the legitimacy of either.

Religious beliefs are based on many factors that go beyond the realm of the quantifiable. It requires a "spark" of an unmeasurable charecteristic. Without that "spark" I doubt if a person would have any desire to seek guidance from an invisible entity or even believe the entity exists.

I can not say that your not being receptive to that "spark" or that my receptiveness is a deliberate act of volition. However, I do believe that when a person is faced with that factor, it does become a choice of acting upon it or ignoring it. Those that act upon it become endowed with an insatiable curiosity to seek Allah(swt) in all aspects of life, those who either miss seeing it or ignore it, retain the desire to find pure physical explanations for all things. I do not deny that all of creation is subject to the physical laws of matter. I will even agree that all events that can be measured can be explained solely in terms of those physical events.

I just feel that I have seen evidence of happenings that have no physical explanations and have no need to be explained in terms of physical observation. I believe that Allah(swt) has revealed himself to mankind. That revelation makes it impossible to believe that He would reveal information that is not in accordance with His purpose for us.

I desire that one day you will experience that spark and when you do expeience it, I pray that you will make a deliberate effort to nuture it.

I have no doubt that you are a very decent person with high standards and a very workable ethical code that you adhere to. May your days be filled with happiness.

Peace,
Woodrow

[czgibson]

Greetings glo,

Can I ask you if this is taken from Dawkins, or if it is your own argument, or both?

I haven't seen it in Dawkins but it's an idea that came from reading his book, so perhaps a bit of both.

Greetings Woodrow,

Religious beliefs are based on many factors that go beyond the realm of the quantifiable. It requires a "spark" of an unmeasurable charecteristic. Without that "spark" I doubt if a person would have any desire to seek guidance from an invisible entity or even believe the entity exists.

I agree, although I have never understood exactly what this "spark" is - probably because, as you say, it's unquantifiable, unmeasurable and so on. However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say? We're talking about psychological events here, and I'm convinced that what's happening can be explained (in theory) by reference to the operations of the brain, rather than anything supernatural.

Peace

[Woodrow]

Greetings glo,


I haven't seen it in Dawkins but it's an idea that came from reading his book, so perhaps a bit of both.

Greetings Woodrow,



I agree, although I have never understood exactly what this "spark" is - probably because, as you say, it's unquantifiable, unmeasurable and so on. However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say? We're talking about psychological events here, and I'm convinced that what's happening can be explained (in theory) by reference to the operations of the brain, rather than anything supernatural.

Peace

I spent a good bit of my life as a Psychologist, although my forte was primarily in the field of Physiological Psychology, at least some of my background did entail Behavior Modification and Theories of Belief and Attitudes. A few years ago I would have given you a very good basis to show that a religious experience was primarily a learned process combined with physical sensation reflecting changes in the limbic system.

However, after becoming convinced of the existance of a higher power and an understanding that it was He who we call Allah(swt) that revealed Himself to us, I am now convinced that what I had learned was merely the physical methods of allowing us to experience what is beyond the measurable.

However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say?

I would say that I have no reason to doubt you and that only you can decide what it means to you and to how or why you will respond to it. I can only explain how and why I do.

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam

It is funny,but devout people think about allah all the time.

Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

But one beleives while the other disbelieve.
One has faith the other has no faith.

But both still think of Allah always,LOL..

isnt it great,no matter how theyn ry to disprove Allah,they will still think of Allah CONTINUOUSLY..

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

So I don't have to repeat myself:
http://www.islamicboard.com/533571-post3.html

Peace.

[Pygoscelis]

Both the theist and the atheist view each other as lost, and both may be offended by the other's view.

The theist believes that the atheist is blind to religious truth and will suffer without the glory of god etc. Some theists believe the athiest will even be punished or tortured for his lack of belief

The atheist believes the theist is lost in self delusion. The atheist sees the theist as believing in fairy tales and falling for a story passed on from the theists society.

Both of these views can be seen as offensive I'm sure.

[Pygoscelis]

Salaam
Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

What on earth makes you think this? Dawkins is one guy. I personally think he's got a bit of an unhealthy obsession with religionists or fear of them. Most atheists I know don't think at all about religion until they run up against religious people trying to push it on them.

[Joe98]

Salaam

Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

Wrong! This Athiest only thinks about people!

[Curaezipirid]

Wrong! This Athiest only thinks about people!

Well then an atheist whom is at essence a true thinker thinks about Allah all the time too. Joe98 this is not intended as an insult to yourself in the slightest; and please try to let me explain.

There are two different phenomena which pass as thought. One is without words, pictures, shapes, repeats, strings of consequetive repeated pattern, or any attitude. Only a sensiblity that most often goes unnoticed. And a consciousness that goes without description of what we are experiencing. Then the fact that our experience is forming associations in our mind and causing a pattern of mental processing is a different form of thought. The first is of Human Spirit and the second of each our own self.

There are plenty of folk whom in essential Spirit are in Allah but whom disregarded what they have been taught to mind of Allah. Most commonly only because they were initially taught incorrectly. It is very difficult to change a persons education. Thinking in Allah is a sort of consciousness that is the simplicity of knowing beyond every possiblity of doubt.

If you know any matter as provably true and unable to be disproven; then when you are knowing that you are in Allah. This is a part of the definition of Allah.

It is why Islam wins.

wasalam

[Pygoscelis]

There are plenty of folk whom in essential Spirit are in Allah but whom disregarded what they have been taught to mind of Allah. Most commonly only because they were initially taught incorrectly. It is very difficult to change a persons education. Thinking in Allah is a sort of consciousness that is the simplicity of knowing beyond every possiblity of doubt.

I'm not sure the above paragraph is coherent. I couldn't make any sense of it. What are you trying to say here?

If you know any matter as provably true and unable to be disproven; then when you are knowing that you are in Allah. This is a part of the definition of Allah.

huh? I'm thinking of a pink elephant. I know I'm thinking of a pink elephant, its true and unable to be disproven. So I'm in your conception of a deity? What on earth is this supposed to mean?

It is why Islam wins.

Wins what? What do you win for me knowing I'm thinking of a pink elephant? That makes your religion win some kind of prize? Thats just peculiar.

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

If you want to find peaceful verses from the Qur'an, you will find them; if you want to find violent verses, you will find those too. It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative (which most people are able to do by the time they reach secondary school) are not among them.

I did not quite understand how the connection was made here between "violence" and "clarity of thought" or writing with "coherence". The issue of "violence" is one thing: where it can be clarified that unjust killing is forbidden and that just because permission to fight is given, this does not mean barbarianism or calling for wars whenever possible. But what does this have to do with clarity of thought or writing with coherence? The verse is written plain and clear for all to comprehend; perhaps what is required is knowledge on behalf of the reader. A schoolchild might be confused by a writing of shakespeare, but does it mean that the work is written incoherently... or is it more likely to be the case that the child who knows little about shakespeare requires an explanation from a teacher?

Greetings Pygoscelis,

What I understand from Curaezipirid's post is that people might see or experience God's signs, yet they mistake or disregard these as being meaningless experiences, (possibly) due to the teaching they have received during their uprbinging. Yet those who have the concept of God hold on to something that is provably true and cannot be disproven, as once truth is found and error distinguished, how can there be a return to error?

Peace.

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

Good to talk with you again. :)

I did not quite understand how the connection was made here between "violence" and "clarity of thought" or writing with "coherence".

My point was that having the supreme lawgiver of the universe alternately calling for peace and then violence is liable to give rise to great confusion. The evidence that it has caused confusion is all around us if we look at the current world-picture.

The issue of "violence" is one thing: where it can be clarified that unjust killing is forbidden and that just because permission to fight is given, this does not mean barbarianism or calling for wars whenever possible. But what does this have to do with clarity of thought or writing with coherence?

In terms of clarity it would help greatly if we knew how the decision should be made on whether a war is just or unjust.

The verse is written plain and clear for all to comprehend; perhaps what is required is knowledge on behalf of the reader.

If the Qur'an actually was written with clarity, there would be no need for the scholars to work besides giving advice on practical issues as they arise. The whole tafsir industry would be redundant, surely, if the book's message was 'written plain and clear for all to comprehend'.

A schoolchild might be confused by a writing of shakespeare, but does it mean that the work is written incoherently... or is it more likely to be the case that the child who knows little about shakespeare requires an explanation from a teacher?

This is an unusual question, and an even stranger analogy. Let's see what the connections are:

Why might somebody be confused by Shakespeare's writing?

The most common reason is the language he uses (Early Modern English). This difficulty would mean the writing was inaccessible for the reader, but they would be unable to judge on its coherency at all without being able to read it, unless they used a translation.

Why might somebody be confused by the Qur'an?

The language of the Qur'an is often a barrier to understanding it in the non-Muslim world. However, we're talking about coherency here, and this can surely be judged from translations, unless we have serious doubts about the quality of the translation.

In what ways could Shakespeare's writing be considered 'incoherent'?

Shakespeare was a poet, and, as poets regularly do, he often presented us with seemingly contradictory thoughts, whether voiced in his 'own' persona in the Sonnets or through characters in his plays and poems. Poets aim to make us think, and if they use contradictory phrases in order to express ideas that they otherwise can't, that's fair enough. Often in Shakespeare's plays, the opposing thoughts given in the characters' lines together form a kind of discussion that takes place through the play. Does this make the writing incoherent? Well, it depends what you mean. The characters disagree with each other, so it's incoherent in that sense, but overall, how else to show the progression of an idea?

In what ways could the Qur'an be considered 'incoherent'?

In his book, Dawkins makes the bold assertion that early Islamic scholars found the Qur'an to be a document filled with contradictions, and so invented the concept of abrogation. I don't know enough about it to be able to comment, but surely abrogation would not be necessary in a document written with clarity and coherence that was supposed to be a crucial part of an inerrant god's final message to humanity?

Also, the crucial difference between the authors of the Qur'an and the works of Shakespeare is that only one of them claims to be perfect, to have all the answers on how people should live their lives and to have perfect knowledge of past and future. In comparison, Shakespeare can afford to be incoherent if he wants to, since he's never claimed to be anything other than a fallible human being. (Although, as mentioned, it's unclear in what way Shakespeare could be considered to be incoherent, since his writings were largely and essentially works of fiction).

As any leader or manager knows, when giving instructions it is best to be clear. Rather than giving a document that has required constant hermeneutic study, annotation, explication and interpretation from thousands of scholars through the centuries, could the Almighty not have given humanity something clearer in terms of moral direction (e.g. should Muslims take non-Muslims as friends?), on issues such as violence (where many Muslims disagree on the interpretations of verses)?

These are my thoughts on the Qur'an / Shakespeare analogy, but to be honest I'm not sure where that leaves our discussion...

Peace

[glo]

Hi CZ

I don't think this reply will b helpful from a Muslim perspective, so I will keep this to be my personal view as a Christian.

For me, it is those seemingly contradictory verses and parts of the Bible, that make it to be God's word, which can be applied in all situations and cultures throughout the ages - exactly because they require people to sit down, question, ponder and decide how to apply the word to life as they know it. (By people I don't just mean scholars and clerics, but also congregations and individuals)
Am I explaining what I mean? :?

If I just blindly followed written instructions, without weighing the words in my heart and my conscience, it would have no meaning to me at all.
If God's word was so clear and prescriptive that I did not need to think about it myself and draw my own conclusions, I would just be a mindless follower ... I don't think that's what God wants me to be.

(As I said, this is only my personal view, and many believers - Muslims and Christians alike - may disagree with me!)

Peace :)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Callum,
The major flaw I've noticed in your arguments is that you immediately assume the infallibility of the human mind in interpreting scripture, such that any percieved dissonance in directives is immediately attributed to ambiguity in the scripture. Don't you think it is possible that some people may purposefully interpret a directive in a way that suits themselves? For example, if you tell your students, "finish this essay for homework" that is a pretty clear statement but someone could always twist around your words and say that by 'finish' you meant incinerate, by "for homework" you meant in lieu of other household chores that they would normally complete, and so on. Also, sometimes clear directives may not be understood due to emotional or cultural baggage someone has in interpreting them. Or certain directives that elucidate other directives may be denied if they conflict with one's strongly-held convictions. No matter how many instructions you provide, elucidating and explicating everything you mean, the possibility of divergent results will always remain. It is not fair to always attribute such divergent results to insufficient clarity in the instructions, though that may be a cause. Just because a student does bad in your class doesn't mean that you were a bad teacher. I am sure you can relate to that!

To use another example, it is pretty clear why certain arguments are blatantly fallacious but that doesn't prevent people from committing them.

My point was that having the supreme lawgiver of the universe alternately calling for peace and then violence is liable to give rise to great confusion.

The falsity of such a notion is something that I have clearly exposed in the following seventy-plus-page refutation:
Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations
The problem is not that the Qur'an provides contradictory directives; the problem is that people MISQUOTE and MISTRANSLATE the Qur'an, rob its passages of their context, and ignore the methodology that it has outlined itself for its interpretation. I guess myself is inevitable is some discussions, so here is the post I linked earlier:
http://www.islamicboard.com/533571-post3.html
Divergent interpretations of the same text is something INHERENT in language; ANY text can be subject to misinterpretation and misquoting. This is why a book was not sent on its own but rather with a human messenger to explicate its directives and leave no confusion. The confusion that exists today is a result of people abandoning the methodology outlined by the Qur'an itself and instead trying to pick up the text and interpret it according to their whims and without knowledge.

The evidence that it has caused confusion is all around us if we look at the current world-picture.

I'm sorry but that is frankly rubbish. If that were the case then confusion would abound regardless of the era we are living in. But 'confusion' did not abound in such matters until only recent developments in world affairs and it is due to the prevalence of sheer ignorance amongst the masses concerning 'Ulûm Al-Qur'ân (sciences of the Qur'an). The 'current world-picture' is the result of sociopolitical conflicts and developments in various regions of the world. It is not the result of religious confusion; consider the fact that acts of terror have been condemned unanimously by all Muslim scholars - i.e. those with real knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Once educated, hundreds have abandoned their former views [*]. Others may resist changing their views due to their emotional attachment to their previous ideas, not due to their failure to comprehend the evidence provided.

If the Qur'an actually was written with clarity, there would be no need for the scholars to work besides giving advice on practical issues as they arise. The whole tafsir industry would be redundant, surely, if the book's message was 'written plain and clear for all to comprehend'.

If someone has sufficient knowledge about the verses of the Qur'an, the prophetic teachings of Muhammad pbuh, the arabic language, principles of logic, etc. then they would have no problem understanding the directives. But most people don't. Tafsîrs do not bring interpretations for verses out of the blue! They follow very strict principles, the most fundamental of which is that different parts of the Qur'an explain eachother. So the tafsîr of one verse will quote other verses in the Qur'an on the same subject to show the reader how the Qur'an itself elucidates the topic. As such, tafsîr in no way contradicts the clarity of the Qur'an but in fact as a standing testimony to the greatness of its clarity.

However, we're talking about coherency here, and this can surely be judged from translations, unless we have serious doubts about the quality of the translation.

First, the vast majority of english translations suffer from serious flaws. You can list a dozen translations for me and I could show you the ignorance, blatant bias, distortions, etc. of the translator. There are a few exceptions that are better than the others such as Saheeh Int'l and F. Malik, although none are perfect.

Secondly, you are correct that the coherency can still be judged by a translation of the meaning but it precludes any selective quoting of passages on the part of the one who judging the scripture. I have authored approximately fifty articles refuting alleged internal contradictions in the Qur'an:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

In his book, Dawkins makes the bold assertion that early Islamic scholars found the Qur'an to be a document filled with contradictions, and so invented the concept of abrogation.

Dawkins SERIOUSLY compromises his credibility by relying on anonymous sources over the internet who are notorious for their bigoted views and obscene attacks on Islam and Muslims!! It is certainly audacious on Dawkins part to attempt to comment on the detailed Islamic sciences of An-Nâsikh wal Mansûkh, Takhsîs, etc. without even a basic understanding of these bodies of knowledge! Could he not have cited some classical sources on this issue or at the very least quoted the explanations of some contemporary scholars? I've already addressed this issue in my article on abrogation:

With regards to abrogation (Ar. naskh), it is a confirmed Islamic doctrine in the Qur'an. Since the Qur'an was revealed gradually over a period of twenty-three years, the legal rulings were not imposed on its adherents all at once. Rather, it gave them time to grow in faith and become accustomed to Islam. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi mentions:

Among the blessings of Allaah to the Companions is that He revealed to them the laws of Islaam gradually, and thus made it easier for them to adopt these laws. Initially, there were no specific laws of halaal and haraam. The Companions during the Makkan stage were being trained spiritually so that they could form the nucleus of the future Muslim state in Madeenah. Once they had passed this stage, Allaah then completed the revelation of the sharee'ah in gradual steps, so that they could adapt to the lifestyle of Islaam.(Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution 1999, p. 86)

And as Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 1035CE) mentioned regarding abrogation:

And this (meaning naskh) is from Allah, and is meant to be for the betterment of His worshippers. So, He commands them with a ruling at a specific time, since He knows that it will be for their betterment for that particular time, but He already knows that this command will be removed from them at a later time, since at this later time that particular ruling will not be for their benefit. (An-Nahaas, p. 116.)

Thus, abrogation does not imply any imperfection whatsoever on the part of God, as critics allege. It does not mean that God made a mistake or that he didn't foresee an event. Rather, God knew in advance, and intended to send temporary laws for the early Muslims that would later be abrogated once the Muslim society became established.

It is analogous to a Professor who asks his students to perform 30 minutes of studying everyday for the first week. During the second week, he 'abrogates' his initial command and asks his students to perform 1 hour of studying every day. The Professor did not make a mistake initially, nor did he react to an unforeseen event. Rather, he had always planned to give a lighter load the first week to his students, and then increase the workload the next week because he knew they would be ready for it. In fact, he had his plan for the entire course written down and recorded. So when he initially gave the order to perform 30 minutes of homework, he knew that he would later abrogate this command.

Similarly, Allah initially gave some rulings that were later abrogated, but He knew and intended

As we can see, this does not negate God's inerrancy in any way.

(e.g. should Muslims take non-Muslims as friends?)

That is actually a very simple issue; see my quick explanation here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...nds#post532564

on issues such as violence (where many Muslims disagree on the interpretations of verses)?

I think the media contributes to this notion amongst westerners, that there is a prevalent disagreement on verses of peace and violence amongst Muslim scholars. That is false.

Peace!

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

It is nice to see you on the forum again!

This is an unusual question, and an even stranger analogy.

I think you may have taken my analogy too literally and considered it too deeply. I mentioned Shakespeare because I was trying to give the example in a familiar setting for you, not that I actually wanted to compare the Qur'aan with Shakespeare's writings. It could have been replaced with any other book, and my point was that a failure to understand does not automatically mean there is fault with the 'author'.

Peace.

[Avicenna]

Dawkin's relies on Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina for his argument against Islam. These two need to be refuted for good.

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

The major flaw I've noticed in your arguments is that you immediately assume the infallibility of the human mind in interpreting scripture, such that any percieved dissonance in directives is immediately attributed to ambiguity in the scripture.

I don't assume the human mind is infallible in interpreting any text, unless we're talking about some variant of reader-response theory. However, when a book of guidance is interpreted in different ways, it's possible that ambiguity is a cause of this.

Don't you think it is possible that some people may purposefully interpret a directive in a way that suits themselves?

I'm sure they do - this is another cause of confusion.

It is not fair to always attribute such divergent results to insufficient clarity in the instructions, though that may be a cause.

We agree that it may be a cause, then.

The falsity of such a notion is something that I have clearly exposed in the following seventy-plus-page refutation:
Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations
The problem is not that the Qur'an provides contradictory directives; the problem is that people MISQUOTE and MISTRANSLATE the Qur'an, rob its passages of their context, and ignore the methodology that it has outlined itself for its interpretation.

Ansar, I'm sure you deserve nothing but respect for the articles you've produced, but essentially what you're doing is attempting to explain why the Qur'an, on many, many occasions, does not actually say what it appears to say. Can we agree that we're not dealing here with a text that is clear for the ordinary reader?

I'm sorry but that is frankly rubbish.

Sorry for not being clear: the incoherence of the Qur'an is only one factor in the current global situation, and you're right to point to other causes.

If that were the case then confusion would abound regardless of the era we are living in. But 'confusion' did not abound in such matters until only recent developments in world affairs and it is due to the prevalence of sheer ignorance amongst the masses concerning 'Ulûm Al-Qur'ân (sciences of the Qur'an).

Do you mean that no-one ever found the Qur'an confusing and incoherent until now?

It is not the result of religious confusion; consider the fact that acts of terror have been condemned unanimously by all Muslim scholars - i.e. those with real knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Really? Are you suggesting that all Muslim scholars have a unanimously agreed position on suicide bombing, for instance?

If someone has sufficient knowledge about the verses of the Qur'an, the prophetic teachings of Muhammad pbuh, the arabic language, principles of logic, etc. then they would have no problem understanding the directives. But most people don't.

So if the Qur'an can't be used to explain anything without recourse to abundant explanation of itself first, how can it be useful?

Tafsîrs do not bring interpretations for verses out of the blue! They follow very strict principles, the most fundamental of which is that different parts of the Qur'an explain eachother. So the tafsîr of one verse will quote other verses in the Qur'an on the same subject to show the reader how the Qur'an itself elucidates the topic. As such, tafsîr in no way contradicts the clarity of the Qur'an but in fact as a standing testimony to the greatness of its clarity.

There have been millions of doctoral theses, articles and studies on the works of Shakespeare. Why? Because he is one of the most ambiguous writers in history. A hundred people looking at a page of Shakespeare will most likely find a hundred different things that strike them about it. There is case for saying that 'literariness' itself actually consists of a measure of how many interpretations could be made of a text.

This is why you do not get literary criticism being written about bus timetables or instruction manuals. They are meant to be clear, practical and comprehensible by as many people as possible. Now I know the Qur'an is a much more complicated text than these, but it is reputed to be clear, practical and for all of humankind.

The more that is written about a book, the less of a case there is for claiming it to be clear and unambiguous.

First, the vast majority of english translations suffer from serious flaws. You can list a dozen translations for me and I could show you the ignorance, blatant bias, distortions, etc. of the translator.

I agree. This is a great shame.

With regards to abrogation (Ar. naskh), it is a confirmed Islamic doctrine in the Qur'an.

Where is it explained in the Qur'an? Anywhere more fully than 2:106 and 16:101?

As we can see, this does not negate God's inerrancy in any way.
That is actually a very simple issue; see my quick explanation here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...nds#post532564

Right - how could god create such a confusing text on such a simple issue?

I think the media contributes to this notion amongst westerners, that there is a prevalent disagreement on verses of peace and violence amongst Muslim scholars. That is false.

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Of course there is and also in Christianity and atheism, it would be a truly sad world if everyone believed exactly the same as I did.

Even though all my beliefs are exactly right;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

We must learn to value people searching in many ways, we must learn to value diversity.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't assume the human mind is infallible in interpreting any text, unless we're talking about some variant of reader-response theory. However, when a book of guidance is interpreted in different ways, it's possible that ambiguity is a cause of this. [...]
We agree that it may be a cause, then.

Of course; in general, ambiguity of the text itself could be a reason for confusion, but I've explained previously why I feel this is not the case with Islam.

Ansar, I'm sure you deserve nothing but respect for the articles you've produced, but essentially what you're doing is attempting to explain why the Qur'an, on many, many occasions, does not actually say what it appears to say. Can we agree that we're not dealing here with a text that is clear for the ordinary reader?

Okay, let's take an example. In august last year, on the radio an anti-islamist alleged that the injunction "wipe out the infidels to the last" was found in verse 8:7. However, anyone who looks at verse 8:7 would find that the Qur'an - speaking in the context of God's victory to the Muslims at the Battle of Badr - states that this happened because God had intended to cut off the root of the disbelievers. There is no injunction here at all, much less a universal injunction for muslims to kill all infidels to the last, as the critic put it.

So again, most of these miquotations are resolved by examining the textual or historical context of the verse. Instructions of any kind always assume some basic knowledge on the part of the reader. For example, the prohibition of intoxicants entails that one understands that there are such substances.

Do you mean that no-one ever found the Qur'an confusing and incoherent until now?

I mean that no one with sufficient knowledge has found it confusing or incoherent. For instance, if something doesn't have sufficient knowledge to realize that pigs do not live underwater, they would find the prohibition on pigs to be incoherent in light of the permissibility of sea food. Don't you agree?

Really? Are you suggesting that all Muslim scholars have a unanimously agreed position on suicide bombing, for instance?

Well all Muslim scholars agree that suicide is forbidden, which is what the Qur'an very clearly states. What some individuals suggest is that what has become known as 'suicide bombings' does not constitute 'suicide' since that is not the intent of the person involved. So the controversy is over the situation, not the clarity of the Qur'anic text.

So if the Qur'an can't be used to explain anything without recourse to abundant explanation of itself first, how can it be useful?

It is useful because it can and has been used successfully by laymen and scholars to implement Islam into their lives and guide their spiritual relationship with God and social relationships amongst human beings. The vast majority of the time, one can quote a verse on a subject without needing to cite all relevant verses for a deeper understanding. I'm sure the forum provides ample evidence of this.

The more that is written about a book, the less of a case there is for claiming it to be clear and unambiguous.

I think it is because there are so many different lessons and reflections one can draw from it. To give an example, when Islam encourages effective use of one's time, there is so much one can write about time management skills, its importance, its meaning, its application to different tasks, and so on. Detailed commentary does not necessitate ambiguity in the original text, though that may sometimes be the case. As another example, when the Qur'an enjoins prayer, one could write a mountain of volumes on all the topic related to prayer examining it from spiritual, social, societal, legal, judicial, political, technical, lingusitc, [etc. etc.] perspectives.

Where is it explained in the Qur'an? Anywhere more fully than 2:106 and 16:101?

It is explained with recourse to the Sunnah which the Qur'an endorses as the elucidation of its verses.

Right - how could god create such a confusing text on such a simple issue?

I don't think the text is confusing.

Among scholars there is a majority concensus, but not unanimity. Among ordinary Muslims there is widespread disagreement. True?

Maybe not as widespread as you might be think, but I would agree that it is easier to find disagreements on such issues amongst less educated Muslims, which goes back to ignorance as I mentioned earlier.

Peace!