Factors in Losing Faith

[sharvy]

Re: Philosophy of Science

Hello Sharvy,

Originally Posted by sharvy

"So if 100 years ago, I asked an educated person why they are sure the earth spins, on your view what should their answer have been?" (Sharvy)

His answer should have been to cite scientific theories and describe what the scientific community believed at that point. (Ansar)

Ok, then by that reasoning, an educated person in 2006 should be sure that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor – because that's exactly what "the scientific community" believes today. Right? (Sharvy)

1. I've explained in my previous post why the analogy isn't complete
2. I never said anything about what the person should believe; I said they should point out the views amongst the scientific community and describe where they are still looking for answers. (Ansar)

Regards

Dear Ansar,

Sorry, but I am still not clear on your position. I did not directly speak of what someone "should believe", I was speaking about what someone is justified in assigning a high probability to – what they can reasonably be sure of given the available evidence. Please be clear and direct:

100 years ago, was an educated person justified in assigning a high probability to the claim that the earth spins and orbits the sun? (All other things equal) wouldn't betting for that claim have been more sure to win money than betting against it?

Would they have been rational and justified in betting good money that (if and when it happened) air and space travel would observe and confirm this spin? Suppose the bet were made just before the launch of the first satellite.

__Simply pointing out what the views of the scientific community are doesn't make the obvious connection between those views and probable truth – a point you are studiously trying to evade or ignore.__

Betting against the claim that the earth spins would have been foolish indeed – given the evidence and views of science. Keep in mind that in effect science makes such "bets" all the time. Governments do not spend billions of dollars and put tremendous resources into space programs and atom smashers without pretty firm evidence that the odds are in their favor for receiving a substantial payoff in either scholarly or economic terms.

If you want to deny there is a connection between scientific consensus and probable truth then your view of science is extremely radical and out of touch with the current consensus conception of science in both science and philosophy of science. The analogy between Newton's corpuscular theory of light and psychoanalytic views of homosexuality is weak at best: however well-confirmed corpuscular theory in fact was, it never equaled the level of confirmation supporting the heliocentric view of the solar system by the start of the 20th century. For one thing heliocentrism stood the test of time a lot longer. No competent physicist, including Newton himself, was ever as certain of that claim (or the ether theory) as a competent professional astronomer was of the claim the earth spins by 1906. That said, while irrational to "bet the farm," at some point betting for the corpuscular view of light was probably a better bet than betting against it (or betting for today's quantum approach). But the fact that it turned out to be wrong doesn't mean it was a bad or irrational bet at the time. Moreover, whatever consensus the psychoanalytic view of homosexuality enjoyed, psychoanalysis was never a true science, and its results in terms of probability and justified belief were never on as solid ground as either heliocentrism or evolution is today. I sincerely doubt any competent psychoanalyst would have bet his house on truth of Freudian theory the way any astronomer or physicist would bet his house on the claim the earth spins today. So there is "consensus" and "consensus" – some more time-tested and better supported than others. For example, I believe there is a consensus that humans probably evolved in Africa before migrating to other continents – but while this may be the strongest supported theory of human evolution, and enjoys a consensus, no paleo-anthropologist would put that theory on par with heliocentrism or the theory that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Eighty percent of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today. The capacity of science to gather evidence, do experiments and confirm data has dramatically increased in the past century – meaning that with more scientists and more rigorous research and testing, the time between hypothesis and well-confirmed theory is growing ever shorter.

Peace,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Sharvy,
I've tried to find something in your above post which I haven't responded to before, but I haven't been able to. I don't see any benefit in repetition - do you?
"Probable truth" ? I've already addressed the issue of probability in my response to your marble analogy and I've shown why it was flawed. I've given more examples on interpretation of scientific evidence as well, and I responded to the issue of science and truth. I've responded to other analogies by pointing out the direct evidence cases and indirect evidence cases. I think you should research the consensus enjoyed by many theories in science that are no longer used. Light was one example, there's also gravity and pretty much all of classical physics.

Eighty percent of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today. The capacity of science to gather evidence, do experiments and confirm data has dramatically increased in the past century – meaning that with more scientists and more rigorous research and testing, the time between hypothesis and well-confirmed theory is growing ever shorter.

I have great hope in science; it has done wonderful things for us and will continue to do so by God's grace. But we should never forget what its focus is and what it isn't.

Regards

 

[sharvy]

Hi Sharvy,
I've tried to find something in your above post which I haven't responded to before, but I haven't been able to. I don't see any benefit in repetition - do you?

Dear Ansar,

You did not answer the following question:

100 years ago, was an educated person justified in assigning a high probability to the claim that the earth spins and orbits the sun? (All other things equal) wouldn't betting for that claim have been more sure to win money than betting against it?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do. Unfortunately I truly do not know what your response to this question is from your previous posts.

Regards,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

You did not answer the following question:

Yes, I believe I did. This is the probability issue which I answered in great detail with your marble analogy and in response to other comments of yours.

100 years ago, was an educated person justified in assigning a high probability to the claim that the earth spins and orbits the sun?

Didn't I explain why this isn't analogous to the biological evolution of human beings? The above example is speaking of a current phenomenon - it is possible to get direct evidence for the earth's rotation and orbit. But what direct evidence can there be to show that Adam and Eve never existed? I think it would be very misguided for someone to think of biological evolution in terms of probability.

(All other things equal) wouldn't betting for that claim have been more sure to win money than betting against it?

Obviously now we can say with certainty, yes it would have. But who gambles with their beliefs? Stephen Hawking made a bet in astrophysics and lost.

Secondly, as I mentioned before the evidence in question is different here. Determining the existence of Adam and Eve is beyond scientific evidence.

Thirdly, for a non-muslim to believe that the theory of evolution is the most likely theory is up to them. On the other hand, rejecting faith and one's previously firm and absolute conviction on such a basis seems very suspicious and suggests that there was more to it than that.

Regards

 

[sharvy]

Re: Philosophy of Science

“You did not answer the following question:

100 years ago, was an educated person justified in assigning a high probability to the claim that the earth spins and orbits the sun? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.” (Sharvy)

Yes, I believe I did. This is the probability issue which I answered in great detail with your marble analogy and in response to other comments of yours. Didn't I explain why this isn't analogous to the biological evolution of human beings? The above example is speaking of a current phenomenon - it is possible to get direct evidence for the earth's rotation and orbit. But what direct evidence can there be to show that Adam and Eve never existed? I think it would be very misguided for someone to think of biological evolution in terms of probability. (Ansar)

Dear Ansar,

Geez Loueez, you call discussing the marble case equivalent to giving me a straight “yes” or “no” answer to that question!? Why, oh why, do you insist on being so evasive – are you worried that a specific direct answer will prove embarrassing to your view?

Look, Ansar, you are the first Islamic scholar that I ever had a discussion with about Islam. For some reason you often avoid direct answers to questions and use the standard politician’s tactic of answering a question I never asked, or indirectly answering by making an analogy that you think is relevant and I don’t. Then when I (or the reporter) tries to zero in on the issue, you use the typical politician’s response: “but I already addressed that issue”. I have no idea whether this style of discussion is a personal eccentricity on your part, or a cultural Islamic mode of “discussing” an issue. But is frustrating from a Western academic discussion point of view – if you were defending a Masters or PhD thesis at a university you would never receive your degree with that kind of rambling, indirect kind of response. This “defending a thesis” mode is the primary mode of academic discussion in all disciplines (in the West at least).

As I pointed out, earlier – at least twice - whether or not science can or cannot confirm or disconfirm the existence of Adam and Eve is completely irrelevant to the scientific case for human evolution, yet you keep raising the issue. An analogy: suppose John claims that (a) his grandfather Richard once had a real genuine American dime that was minted in 1892. Let’s grant there is no way to DIRECTLY confirm or disconfirm the existence of this particular dime. Ok, fine, science has nothing to say on this dime one way or the other, i.e. about claim (a) – there were indeed American dimes minted in 1892. But suppose John then makes the following claim about Richard’s dime: not only was the dime minted in 1892, but (b) that coin was minted in Puerto Rico! Well (I’m very sure) that (c) there has never been a US mint in Puerto Rico, which is something that science and/or historical research can confirm with a high degree of consensus and probability. So if John and Richard are right, then the scientific/historical consensus is plain wrong about the existence of a Puerto Rican American mint. On the other hand, if science is right, then John and Richard must be wrong about either (a) the claim that Richard had a real American dime minted in 1892, or (b) the Puerto Rican claim - one or the other. ***But the point is that if we grant the truth of (a), then science CAN strongly disconfirm the truth of the Richard’s Puerto Rican claim - he must likely be wrong about that– EVEN IF SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF THIS PARTICULAR DIME!!!*** The dime may or may not exist, but if it does, it is as sure as death and taxes that it wasn’t made in Puerto Rico. I am not sure how familiar you are with formal logic, but the truth of (c) is inconsistent with the joint truth of (a) and (b), but in isolation, (c) is logically consistent with (a) and in isolation (c) is logically consistent with (b). So whether or not science can establish the truth of (c) is completely irrelevant to the ability to establish the existence of this particular dime.


Extending this analogy to the case of Adam and Eve: there are two claims made in the fatwa: (a) that Adam and Eve existed and all humans today descended from Adam and Eve, and (b) that Adam and Eve were created independently and directly by God, and were not the result of evolution from non-human ancestors. Let’s call the conjunction of (a) and (b), “the Islamic position” on Adam and Eve. As you say (or as I am willing to grant for the sake of argument), science has nothing to say about (a) in isolation. But science does have something important to say about (c): all humans today evolved from non-human ancestors. In terms of formal logic, the truth of (c) is logically inconsistent with the truth of “the Islamic position” as described above; but (c) is consistent with (a) in isolation, and (c) is consistent with (b) in isolation. It is an unfortunate fact for the Islamic position that as a raw fact describing scientific consensus in 2006 (and not just any consensus but STRONG consensus) rigorous, scientific research and testing strongly confirms the truth of (c) human evolution from non-human ancestors. Thus, insofar as we grant the truth of (a), on pain of logical contradiction ***science can strongly disconfirm the truth of (b) that Adam and Eve were independently created by God, and not the result of evolution from non-human ancestors – the Islamic position must be wrong about that – EVEN IF SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF ADAM AND EVE IN PARTICULAR!!!***

So just as the scientific provability of the existence of Richard’s dime is completely irrelevant to science’s ability to establish that Richard and John are wrong about their claim (b), the scientific provability of the existence of Adam and Eve is completely irrelevant to science’s ability to establish that the Islamic position as described is wrong.

I hope I have made myself more clear.

Obviously now we can say with certainty, yes [betting the earth spins] would have [been a good bet].

First of all, it is false that we can now say with “certainty” that the earth spins – we can only make the claim with high probability – after all, for all we know it is POSSIBLE that aliens are messing with our brains and deliberately deceiving us about the spin of the earth. Science has not disproved that possibility.

Secondly, I did not ask you whether the bet would have been good “now”, IN HINDSIGHT; I specifically asked if it would have been rational for a well-educated, scientifically literate person to take that bet 100 years ago – on the basis of what was known then. So you still have not answered the question.

But who gambles with their beliefs? Stephen Hawking made a bet in astrophysics and lost.

“Who gambles with their beliefs?” What about your case of Hawkings?

Besides, as I pointed out, science and government take such gambles all the time, whenever they fund a major project such as a super collider or choose the moon titan for a major expedition versus some other moon. These choices are all made on basis of largely indirect evidence based on an analysis of probabilities. They a gambles or “bets” in my sense of the term. In my sense of the word: if they get no valuable results, they “lose” the bet and waste money, time, and other resources. If the probe to Titan breaks or is destroyed before finishing the mission, the taxpayer and the government loses the bet. When you drive your car to market, you bet on your belief that the action is safe and will not result in death or injury. A neighbor of mine lost that bet last week – but it was still a good bet and rational for him to set out for the store.

And Hawkings lost his bet. Sooooo….? What are we supposed to conclude – that it was an irrational or bad bet? That there is no such thing as a rational bet to begin with? What Ansar? Be clear and direct.

For example, Ansar, in the case of the marbles, if the first 950,000 marbles (out of 1 million) were black, assuming you had confidence that the setup was fair, would you personally bet 10 euros that the next marble would also be black? But suppose you made that bet and by pure chance, against all odds, the very next marble was the lone red marble out of the million. Well then, in that case you predicted that the next marble would be black, BUT YOU WERE WRONG. What should we conclude – that the bet was stupid or irrational? Or should we say that despite the fact that you lost the bet, it was a very rational thing to do because the odds were heavily in your favor?

Thirdly, for a non-muslim to believe that the theory of evolution is the most likely theory is up to them.

What we should be telling our children – Muslim or not – that whether or not they believe that matter is composed of atoms is entirely up to them? After all, no one has ever directly seen an atom or an electron – their existence is just an extrapolation from indirect evidence. Or, hey kids, whether or not you believe the earth is over 10,000 years old is entirely up to you. Sure, almost every scientist alive happens to believe that – but, hey, we don’t have any pictures or direct observations to go by – so it’s all a matter of whose opinion you want to accept.

That’s a great educational policy.

Peace,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Philosophy of Science

Look, Ansar, you are the first Islamic scholar that I ever had a discussion with about Islam.

I'm not an Islamic scholar.

I won't waste my time with your ad hominem comments, or your assumptions about dialogue in so-called "Islamic culture".

Well (I’m very sure) that (c) there has never been a US mint in Puerto Rico, which is something that science and/or historical research can confirm with a high degree of consensus and probability.

What can science confirm that contradicts the Islamic position on Adam and Eve?

Extending this analogy to the case of Adam and Eve: there are two claims made in the fatwa: (a) that Adam and Eve existed and all humans today descended from Adam and Eve, and (b) that Adam and Eve were created independently and directly by God, and were not the result of evolution from non-human ancestors. Let’s call the conjunction of (a) and (b), “the Islamic position” on Adam and Eve. As you say (or as I am willing to grant for the sake of argument), science has nothing to say about (a) in isolation. But science does have something important to say about (c): all humans today evolved from non-human ancestors. In terms of formal logic, the truth of (c) is logically inconsistent with the truth of “the Islamic position” as described above; but (c) is consistent with (a) in isolation, and (c) is consistent with (b) in isolation. It is an unfortunate fact for the Islamic position that as a raw fact describing scientific consensus in 2006 (and not just any consensus but STRONG consensus) rigorous, scientific research and testing strongly confirms the truth of (c) human evolution from non-human ancestors. Thus, insofar as we grant the truth of (a), on pain of logical contradiction ***science can strongly disconfirm the truth of (b) that Adam and Eve were independently created by God, and not the result of evolution from non-human ancestors – the Islamic position must be wrong about that – EVEN IF SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF ADAM AND EVE IN PARTICULAR!!!***

This is simply laughable - all you've said is:
-Islam says humans descended from Adam and Eve, created by God
-science says humans evolved from non-human ancestors
-therefore, Islam is false

No you've chosen to ignore entirely ALL my points about scientific evidence, the function of science, interpretations and extrapolations, etc. etc. So if you want to ignore all that, what do you want me to do? I've already answered this and explained why science hasn't said anything, but from the scientifc evidence we have gathered to date, scientists have made such an extrapolation. You clearly are not here for dialogue if after 47 posts you still haven't considered a word I've said. I mean just look at this:

For example, Ansar, in the case of the marbles, if the first 950,000 marbles (out of 1 million) were black, assuming you had confidence that the setup was fair, would you personally bet 10 euros that the next marble would also be black? But suppose you made that bet and by pure chance, against all odds, the very next marble was the lone red marble out of the million. Well then, in that case you predicted that the next marble would be black, BUT YOU WERE WRONG. What should we conclude – that the bet was stupid or irrational? Or should we say that despite the fact that you lost the bet, it was a very rational thing to do because the odds were heavily in your favor?

You repeated the marble analogy again. Do you want me to just re-paste my criticism again too?

The flaws in such an example should be obvious:

1. The reason why it is foolish to suggest that the next marble would be red is because it is massively improbable for a red marble not to show up in the first 990 000 outcomes if there are any red marbles in the barrel. but what does that correspond to when we come back to the case of Adam and Eve?? That if they existed there is almost 100% probability that we should have discovered their bones or something by now? That's just nonsense. People who claim that Adam and Eve existed are not clinging to a remote probability that out of a 'barrel' of scientific evidence we have nearly exhausted there must be a single piece establishing the existed of Adam and Eve - on the contrary we're making an assertion about a time period for which we have no scientific evidence.
2. The other problem with your analogy is that, as I alluded to in the first point, you are hinting that there is a finite quantity of ALL scientific evidence which we have almost exhausted. If there are a billion marble in the barrel then we haven't even scratched the surface of a single one. It's like if someone asserts that there was a unique golden fish somewhere in the world a million years ago, and a fisherman says, "I go fishing everyday and I haven't come across anything like that".
3. There is also the implict notion in your analogy that scientists never cling to remote probabilities. That's also incorrect. Just consider the project of the University of California, called Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI); they attempt to analyze the radio telescope data coming in from space to detect signals from extraterrestrial life forms. The probability of detecting such signals out of the massive, vast universe of signals is next to nothing, and yet they engage in this project. How about a more familiar example? Evolutionists agree that the mathematical probabilities involved in abiogenesis are also next to nothing, yet most assert that it happened.
4. Lastly, you've provided me with an example of probability whereas it doesn't apply at all to the case of belief in Adam and Eve. Is there any conceivable way for us to assess the probability of their existence? No, there is not. There are an infinite number of possibilities, we have no way of knowing what is the reality solely on the basis of scientific evidence. In this regard especially, my example was a dozen times more accurate as there is no way for us to asses the probability of whether the sequence we have been presented with is the fibonacci sequence or an arithmetic sequence or perhaps any of a number of more complex sequences or series. Here's another: {1, 2, 3, 3.75, 4.21875, 4.482421875...}. This is a much better analogy because for each piece of evidence (numerical term) there are an infinite number of possibilties as opposed to two (red and black) and there are a number of possible patterns, in science we would incline towards the most parsimonious of them.​

Would it make a difference if you knew 1000 terms of a sequence and yet there were still dozens of possibilties? Consider this example:
If I say that the expression n^2 +n + 41 generates a prime number when n is the set of positive integers, you could start testing the formula out and you woud find out that it works flawlessly.. until you get to 41, at which point it fails. One might be inclined to think that if an expression works for forty terms it is most probable that it will continue to work, but that's not applicable here since this isn't an issue of probability.

And that is why the example I gave with the fibonacci sequence was a suitable example. And consider that compared to the ocean of scientific evidence awaiting us, we have barely scratched the surface - comparable to knowing three terms out of a sequence.

Do genetic simmilarities mean that it is any more probable that creation is false? No they do not. What then is the position on the theory of evolution? Consider another example; Suppose we know that the following ordered pairs are generated by a function: (1,1), (9,1), (13,1), (17,1), (29,1), (41,1), (101,1). One may make a fair conclusion that the function in question is simply f(x)=1. We would find numerous more points to support this and it would seem to work very well, but the reality of the matter might be that the function is f(x)=sin(90x) [degrees]. Just like the first function, the theory of evolution can be very helpful to explain many aspects of biology and allow us to analyse others with greater precision. It should be taken for what it is - a scientific tool, not a statement in the interest of truth. Scientists know now that classical physics is flawed and contradicts experimental evidence - but it is still used everywhere and still taught in the education system. We trust it enough for the construction of all modern architecture, the design of all new innovative technologies, the latest plans for space exploration, and so on. Why? because on the macroscopic level it works. It is a scientific tool. Currently scientists are racing to discover a 'grand unifying theory' which will put all these tools together in a coherent fashion.

“Who gambles with their beliefs?” What about your case of Hawkings?

Why else do you think I cited the case of Hawkings? One's predictions can very often be overturned, as happened with our theories on light, on gravity, on many things. If someone has no reason to believe otherwise, then they can surely go with whatever prediction they want. But when it comes to the theory of human evolution, Muslims certainly do have strong reason to believe otherwise, and there is no scientific evidence to contradict the Muslim belief. And while the theory of evolution will continue to work as a tool yielding a limited number of correct predictions (like n^2 + n +41) or an unlimited number of correct predictions (like f(x)=1), it will forever remain a scientific tool to be used and substituted by superior tools, all of which help to analyze the universe around us. Belief in God, belief in Angels, belief in the creation of humans by God are all matters of religious belief, not scientific enquiry. The IslamToday fatwa was absolutely right:

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).​

After 86 posts, its clear this thread has run its course and there's nothing more to add.

:threadclo