A question on faith (for atheists)

[snakelegs]

as you know, i'm not an atheist. i think religion is often very divisive.
but if it didn't exist, something else would take its place - in other words, religion is just an expression of something deeper that exists in the human psyche, when it comes to this.
so, i don't think the world would be a bit more peaceful if religion disappeared. another exuse can always be found.

 

[Woodrow]

as you know, i'm not an atheist. i think religion is often very divisive.
but if it didn't exist, something else would take its place - in other words, religion is just an expression of something deeper that exists in the human psyche, when it comes to this.
so, i don't think the world would be a bit more peaceful if religion disappeared. another exuse can always be found.

Snakelegs I often find agnostics to be closer to God(swt) than those who profess a religion. I have often wondered why they do not settle down into a specific religion.

Your reply has just given me some insight in this.

I would say that your reply is quite accurate. I think the problem comes not from religion, but from the fact that many people have not found or have forgotten how to worship Allah(swt). we live in an era when few people actually practice true worship. In other words. Religion, is shoved into a back seat and has become invisible to people except those who engage in a sincere search.

From a personal view my reply is a modified version of what you say.

as you know, i'm Muslim. i think false religion is often very divisive.
but if it didn't exist, something else would take its place - in other words, false religion is just a misguided expression of something deeper that exists in the human psyche, when it comes to this.
so, i don't think the world would be a bit more peaceful if false religions disappeared. another exuse can always be found

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Glo, I can relate to your atheist friend.

I too am bothered by people believing in fantastic claims on "faith" - especially when their groundless beliefs then lead actions and non-actions with serious consequences for not just themselves but others as well. Picture a man who has faith that he can fly, so he jumps off the roof of a building, above a busy pedestrian area, people who may be crushed by him if his belief is indeed untrue.

Accepting fantastic claims on "faith" alone IS bothersome. Absolutely. And what could be more fantastic than religious claims?

It is one thing to say that there may be some creator being out there somewhere or there may be some supernatural beings we're not aware of. It is quite another to give them names, histories, and to claim to know that they forbid us to eat pork and forbid us to have sex with certain people or in certain ways.

This answer echoes my feelings on this almost completely.

Having faith in something without evidence is nothing unusual - we all do it every day. It's when that kind of faith determines how you live your life that the trouble begins.

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings,


This answer echoes my feelings on this almost completely.

Having faith in something without evidence is nothing unusual - we all do it every day. It's when that kind of faith determines how you live your life that the trouble begins.

Peace

If you were to do the opposite and not determine allow faith to determine your lifestyle, wouldn't that make one a very bad person? To give an example.
See there's a difference when a narcissist acts selfish and when a modest person act selfish. Both acts of selfishness are unethical, but the selfishness of the modest person is against better knowledge whereas the narcissist is convinced it's only a natural response in the given situation.

In Islam we believe each action is judged by it's intention. Therefor it's unthinkable that someone who has genuine faith does not let this influence his life.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If you were to do the opposite and not determine allow faith to determine your lifestyle, wouldn't that make one a very bad person?

Why? It's perfectly possible to be moral without having faith.

In Islam we believe each action is judged by it's intention.

What if the intention is to become a shaheed for the greater glory of Allah, and you firmly believe you're doing the right thing? Such an attitude could lead to terrible actions, and has done on many occasions.

Therefor it's unthinkable that someone who has genuine faith does not let this influence his life.

This is so dangerous, though, because even within religions (and within sects of religions) people have different ideas about what 'genuine faith' is.

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi czgibson
There seem to be some misunderstanding. You said you had no problem with having faith, but you did have problem with faith determining life-choices. I replied to this that: If you were to do the opposite and not determine allow faith to determine your lifestyle, wouldn't that make one a very bad person?
To which you replied:

Greetings,
Why? It's perfectly possible to be moral without having faith.

So let me clarify what I meant. If one does have faith, but doesn't follow it doesn't that make him immoral? Because by not following what he believes he is not doing what he thinks is morally right. To give yet another (extreme) example: There's a difference between somebody who knows stealing is wrong but does it anyway because he desires some material gain as opposed to someone who steals something but is convinced that under certain circumstances (like hunger) it's ok.

That being clarified, I do think even a disbeliever can have some morality, but I think there's a huge difference both in level and in being steadfast with the believer.

What if the intention is to become a shaheed for the greater glory of Allah, and you firmly believe you're doing the right thing? Such an attitude could lead to terrible actions, and has done on many occasions.

I take it that you meant shahid (urdu for martyr) instead of shaheed (arabic for witness). Well my answer is, those people are not acting out of morality, cause then they would think of the numerous proofs in religion that forbids terroristic actions. Instead they are looking for some sort of gain, or perhaps are being blinded by hate, or maybe even other motivations can be found. In other words, it is not an action driven by morality.

This is so dangerous, though, because even within religions (and within sects of religions) people have different ideas about what 'genuine faith' is.

Everything that is powerfull is dangerous. Atomic fusion and fission is dangerous, yet it has it's advantages to. Feul is dangerous, yet we use it on a daily basis on numerous fields. Electricity is dangerous, yet we find it hard to imagen life without it. Powertools, and even knives and scissors are dangerous. When something is dangerous, that means we need to be carefull with it, it doesn't mean we need to drop it altogether

 

[Malaikah]

Having this kind of conversation with my atheist friend, I came to realise that his concerns are not just around people doing bad things in the name of God - but that in his eyes the very idea of believing in a supernatural being without any underpinning scientific evidence is what he rejects and disagrees with.The very idea of believing without proof is what disturbs him - regardless of whether this idea prompts the believer to do good, bad or whatever ...

I think he is wrong in this regard because,

1. We don't believe without reason. As for Muslims, we have the Quran (the best miracle of all), eye witness accounts of high authenticity of miracles, etc.

2. The argument that you can't scientifically prove that God exists is baseless since God is by definition outside of the scientifically observable realm. Stuff that we can observe, whether directly or indirectly, is called the creation, God is the Creator and is not bound by the laws of science, which He created Himself!

so, i don't think the world would be a bit more peaceful if religion disappeared. another exuse can always be found.

That is true... it is a pretty big claim for a person to make that the world will be peaceful without religion!! As if they have the power to see into 'parallel universes' where religion did not exist.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Steve,

Hi czgibson
There seem to be some misunderstanding. You said you had no problem with having faith, but you did have problem with faith determining life-choices. I replied to this that: If you were to do the opposite and not determine allow faith to determine your lifestyle, wouldn't that make one a very bad person?
To which you replied:

So let me clarify what I meant. If one does have faith, but doesn't follow it doesn't that make him immoral? Because by not following what he believes he is not doing what he thinks is morally right. To give yet another (extreme) example: There's a difference between somebody who knows stealing is wrong but does it anyway because he desires some material gain as opposed to someone who steals something but is convinced that under certain circumstances (like hunger) it's ok.

Yes, there is clearly some misunderstanding here. You seem to be making a necessary connection between having faith (of any kind) and being moral, when in fact no such connection exists. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at.

That being clarified, I do think even a disbeliever can have some morality, but I think there's a huge difference both in level and in being steadfast with the believer.

Why?

I take it that you meant shahid (urdu for martyr) instead of shaheed (arabic for witness).

Either will do.

Well my answer is, those people are not acting out of morality, cause then they would think of the numerous proofs in religion that forbids terroristic actions. Instead they are looking for some sort of gain, or perhaps are being blinded by hate, or maybe even other motivations can be found. In other words, it is not an action driven by morality.

I would agree, but the crucial point is that they believe they are acting morally.

Everything that is powerfull is dangerous. Atomic fusion and fission is dangerous, yet it has it's advantages to. Feul is dangerous, yet we use it on a daily basis on numerous fields. Electricity is dangerous, yet we find it hard to imagen life without it. Powertools, and even knives and scissors are dangerous. When something is dangerous, that means we need to be carefull with it, it doesn't mean we need to drop it altogether

A good argument, and one that hadn't occurred to me. I would respond by saying that the positive effects of the examples you mention could not be achieved in any other way, whereas the positive effects of religion could be achieved without it.

I think he is wrong in this regard because,

1. We don't believe without reason. As for Muslims, we have the Quran (the best miracle of all), eye witness accounts of high authenticity of miracles, etc.

If this did actually count as good evidence, then far more people would believe in Islam than currently do.

2. The argument that you can't scientifically prove that God exists is baseless since God is by definition outside of the scientifically observable realm. Stuff that we can observe, whether directly or indirectly, is called the creation, God is the Creator and is not bound by the laws of science, which He created Himself!

The idea that god's existence is unprovable is misguided. In theory, it is certainly possible to give strong evidence that anything exists. In god's case, it hasn't been done yet.

The suggestion that god is beyond 'the scientifically observable realm' is just a 'get out of jail free' card for believers - I could say the same about any invented concept and it would be just as unconvincing.

Peace

 

[Pygoscelis]

The suggestion that god is beyond 'the scientifically observable realm' is just a 'get out of jail free' card for believers - I could say the same about any invented concept and it would be just as unconvincing.

You just lack faith czgibson. The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Celestial Tea Pot are real. :thumbs_up

 

[Malaikah]

If this did actually count as good evidence, then far more people would believe in Islam than currently do.

Nah, not true. Firstly, one can't really appreciate the miraculous nature of the Quran if you aren't fluent in Arabic. Most people aren't. Secondly, most people haven't read the Quran in the first place. Thirdly, people don't care either way. Fourthly, people witnessed more obvious miracles, such as the splitting of the moon, and still didn't believe. So, no, I don't think that would be the case.

The suggestion that god is beyond 'the scientifically observable realm' is just a 'get out of jail free' card for believers - I could say the same about any invented concept and it would be just as unconvincing.

But you didn't produce miracles, a Holy Book to prove it, nor were you known unanimously as a trustworthy person (no offence, but the Prophet excelled in that), nor did you bring a message that was in accordance with what has come before it and also human instinct (that is, to believe in God).

 

[wilberhum]

Nah, not true. Firstly, one can't really appreciate the miraculous nature of the Quran if you aren't fluent in Arabic.

So I guess Allah only cares for Arabs. :skeleton:

 

[Woodrow]

So I guess Allah only cares for Arabs. :skeleton:

Which would explain why at least 85% of the world's Muslims are NOT Arabic?????????????

 

[wilberhum]

Which would explain why at least 85% of the world's Muslims are NOT Arabic?????????????

Are you telling me 85% of the Muslims "can't really appreciate the miraculous nature of the Quran"? :skeleton:

 

[جوري]

wow another reply that has no relevance to what preceded it-- this is what we call a 'non sequitur' wilbur.. pls try to focus your planes so you can have a decent landing--- with the beginning matching the end as much as possible.

peace!

 

[Woodrow]

Are you telling me 85% of the Muslims "can't really appreciate the miraculous nature of the Quran"? :skeleton:

Nope, telling you that 85% of us believe it is worth the effort to learn it in it's true beauty. It is much more than words. It is the total composistion and the wonder of the word flow that is written. It really is quite a wonder once you read your first Surah in the pure Arabic.

I was farily adept at colloqual Moroccan Arabic, before I ever read my first Surah in the original Arabic and I was absolutely flabbergasted, that the language could be so beautiful. Prior to that I liked the language, but thought it sounded a bit harsh and very glutteral. I did not think it could every be a pleasant sounding language.

 

[wilberhum]

edit
Offending post was deleted. Thanks.

 

[wilberhum]

Nope, telling you that 85% of us believe it is worth the effort to learn it in it's true beauty. It is much more than words. It is the total composistion and the wonder of the word flow that is written. It really is quite a wonder once you read your first Surah in the pure Arabic.

I was farily adept at colloqual Moroccan Arabic, before I ever read my first Surah in the original Arabic and I was absolutely flabbergasted, that the language could be so beautiful. Prior to that I liked the language, but thought it sounded a bit harsh and very glutteral. I did not think it could every be a pleasant sounding language.

You make it so difficult to attack ridicules statements. :hiding:
What can I say but “Uncle”?

 

[Uthman]

But you didn't produce miracles, a Holy Book to prove it, nor were you known unanimously as a trustworthy person (no offence, but the Prophet excelled in that)

Even the Non-Muslims of the time called him Al-Amin (the trustworthy one) Isn't that right?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi czgibson

Yes, there is clearly some misunderstanding here. You seem to be making a necessary connection between having faith (of any kind) and being moral, when in fact no such connection exists. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at.

Well first of all, in this case they were connected. If you trace back the origen of this argument, you'll see it started with you saying: Having faith in something without evidence is nothing unusual - we all do it every day. It's when that kind of faith determines how you live your life that the trouble begins.
So when people let faith lead their choices, they do so because of the morality derived from faith. For example religion says it's wrong to steal, so they don't steal. So you see, in such a case there is a huge connection between religion and morality. Now if a person believes that religion, and thus believes stealing is wrong, that not only makes him/her a thief, but also an immoral person because they do something while they fully realize it is immoral.

That being clarified, I do think even a disbeliever can have some morality, but I think there's a huge difference both in level and in being steadfast with the believer.

Why?

Well first the difference of level comes from faith. If muslims go as far as even avoiding free mixing for the purpose of not leading to free sexual intercourse. Or not sitting at a table where alcohol is drunk for the purpose of not being tempted to join, and not being taken by the mood. If woman go trough all those troubles and difficulties shielding of their beauty from the outside world as to not be the cause of sexual arousion and frustration of others. If we pray 5 times a day remembering our creator and remembering we will be held accountable for our actions. Remembering there are two angels with us who constantly write down all the good and bad stuff we do as we greet them at the end of prayer. And I can keep going like this for a while, but with all those things, can you still question there's a difference of level of morality? I think it's obvious that religious people (in general) are stricter in morality than non-religious. Now of course this is relative in the sense there is no absolute "neutral point" to relate those two groups to. So you can debate what the neutral point is, and wheter it's the case of one overdoing the morality or the other having a lack of moral. What you cannot debate is that three is a difference of level, because so much is obvious.

As for steadfastness. I think I can make up a whole lot of hypothetical situations where a non-believer will be inclined to forfeit his morality due to circumstances thinking it's not such a big deal whereas the firm Muslim would not.

I would agree, but the crucial point is that they believe they are acting morally.

Well some stalkers believe they kill their ex out of love, but nobody in the world seems to be having issues with love because of that. That is because we are all very familiar with love, so we immediately know that the stalker is wrong and did not act out of love but instead acted out of hate. I argue that; if in a similar way the world had an equal familiarity with Islam as they have with love; then the world wouldn't have any problems with Islam despite suicide bombers.

A good argument, and one that hadn't occurred to me. I would respond by saying that the positive effects of the examples you mention could not be achieved in any other way, whereas the positive effects of religion could be achieved without it.

I'm inclined to disagree with both point you made concerning the analogy.

First of all I do think there are alternatives with all the dangerous examples, but that the alternatives are rejected because of a lousy cost-effectiveness balance. In a similar way I would say that the non-believers would forfeit some of their morality if it's only a small immoral act with great positive benefit.

Secondly I do not think the positive effects can be that easily substituted by other things. Perhaps one could do so partially. But such substitutes simply don't cut the mustard.

The idea that god's existence is unprovable is misguided. In theory, it is certainly possible to give strong evidence that anything exists. In god's case, it hasn't been done yet.

I disagree. You seem to be implying that anything that exists must leave some sort of evidence. I think that is narrow-minded.

 

[Sarada]

Hi all

This thread is prompted by a conversation I had with an atheist friend.
You never quite know how these threads run, but personally I am interested in hearing the opinions of atheist posters, rather than discussing or debating them.

So, here goes ...

I can understand that non-believers look at the wars, the in-fighting, the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and shake their heads in despair.
I can understand that non-believers might come to the conclusion that without religion the world might be a more peaceful place.

You see, I too see those atrocities committed in the name of religion, and I too am horrified.
But I also see the good that comes from people who are driven by religion.

Having this kind of conversation with my atheist friend, I came to realise that his concerns are not just around people doing bad things in the name of God - but that in his eyes the very idea of believing in a supernatural being without any underpinning scientific evidence is what he rejects and disagrees with.The very idea of believing without proof is what disturbs him - regardless of whether this idea prompts the believer to do good, bad or whatever ...

Do any of you have any thoughts on this?
I don't really know what it is I am trying to ask, because I cannot get my head around his thinking at all!
Perhaps one of you can enlighten me ...?

Peace

Salaam, Glo,

Before I became a Hindu, for many years I was disenchanted with religion. I too, was an atheist for a time. I don't understand why you can't get your head around his thinking that he needs proof that God exists. We live in a material world, where there has been much research, study and thinking done on cosmology and the nature of the universe. Our day to day life in Western society is based on scientific materialism. "I'll believe it when I see it"

Primitive people used to ascribe every mystery they encountered to a god of some kind. Now we know better, and have a scientific explanation for most natural phenomena. Perhaps, some day, we will have a useful scientific explanation of how the universe came into existence.

So, I believe your atheist friend is saying, that, just because we have no generally agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, does not mean that God exists. Over the millenia, science has provided us with more logical explanations than the primitive peoples had. Therefore, I conclude that God does not exist.

You, on the other hand, are saying, because we do not have scientific proof that God exists, does not mean that s/he does not. I conclude, from my own perspective, and from my own personal experience, that God does exist.

My current position has a Hindu on the spiritual path, is that belief in God is subjective: it depends on one's own perspective and personal experiences. I do not believe that a belief in God automatically makes one a better person, nor do I believe the converse.

My belief comes down to this:

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, “Shall I inform you of the best morals of this world and the hereafter?

They are to forgive he who oppresses you, to make a bond with he who severs from you, to be kind to he who insults you, and to give to he who deprives you.

If we could all do that, despite our religious differences, the world would indeed be a better place.

To me, whether it was said by Mohammed (pbuh) or Jesus, or Krishna, or any other messenger and/or deity, or it is a humanistic principle, is irrelevant.