Why do you believe what you do? And how did you get to that belief?

[zoro]

Ambro:

It’s interesting to be simultaneously encouraged and discouraged. My feeling of discouragement was well expressed by Isaac Asimov responding to the question why he fights religion with no hope for victory:

Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug superstition to their breasts.

Simultaneously, though, I find encouragement in the possibility that there are some Muslims out there in the e-world who are quietly reading what’s been written here and who will compare your rantings with the quotations I gave from some famous humanists. And, too, I think of the efforts of such Muslims as H. Ali Kamil (pseudonym) who has been engaged in a dangerous struggle to translate famous text on liberalism and democracy into Arabic and to publish them on the internet at such sites as http://www.metransparent.com/ and http://www.misbahalhurriyya.org/ . As stated in a 3 March 2006 article by Jonathan Rauch entitled “Social Studies: In Arabic, ‘Internet’ Means Freedom” published in the National Journal:

Firmly establishing liberal ideas took centuries in the West, and may yet take decades in the Arab world. Authoritarian and sectarian and tribalist notions are easier to explain than liberal ones, and it is inherently harder to build trust in mercurial markets and flowing democratic coalitions than in charismatic leaders, visionary clerics, and esteemed elders. The liberal world’s intellectual underpinnings are as difficult to grasp as its cultural reach is difficult to escape. Thus the disjunction within which Baathism, Islamism, and Arab tribalism have festered. Yet few who are genuinely intellectually curious can read J.S. Mill or Adam Smith and come away entirely unchanged. The suffocating Arab duopoly of state-controlled media and Islamist pulpits is cracking – only a little bit so far, but keep watching. In the Arab world, the Enlightenment is going online.

 

[جوري]

several tyrants were charming and gave really great speech-- The truth always stands firm from error.
philosophies change... politics changes, economic changes, so do social structures and even ideas.... But Islam has withstood the test of time unchanged since its beginning-- and I have no reason to believe it will change... in spite of great controversy created by the liked of you and others with a clangorous need for self-righteous humbug, it is still the world's fastest growing religion. It is the thinking man's religion. People can try to derange it.. make their own spins... but he who wishes to seek it unadulterated will undoubtedly, find what s/he is looking for on a very basic, fundamental level!

BTW.. I'd hate to burst any bubbles you might have of what population represents Muslims, but only 20% of the Muslim world presides in the Arab world. We outnumber the Jews in America... and I am not talking about immigrants, I am talking natural born American citizens-- I hazard state even more educated than the native according to U.S govt reports..

"The report said Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.



and here yet another report!

Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.


So yes... I'd count that there are Muslims reading this... and education alone mandates that something fantastic is responsible for us being here-- the answer is however not going to be found in a zero dividing.

peace!

 

[One Man Army]

i have found a religion that allows me to look at the faults within myself, rather then the faults in others. I am a Sikh.

http://manvirsingh.blogspot.com/2007/05/interview-with-bhai-sahib-mohinder.html

inspiring video regardless of what faith you belong to

 

[Grace Seeker]

Zoro, having read your posts (though admittedly not your book, maybe I should) I am curious why you list yourself as an agnostic?

As I read what you write, it strikes me that you do not believe that there is a God. Have I read you incorrectly? Or, if I am correct about your beliefs, why do you choose to identify yourself as an agnostic rather than an athiest?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Agnostics often are atheists.

 

[جوري]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Seems our dear member Zoro not only doesn't think there is any potential for G-D existing but wishes to exterminate the idea from the minds of those who do.. I'd call that a staunch (zealot) atheist -- although not nearly as horrible as the saloth sar we had for company in the previous weeks-- at least that is or hope!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Seems our dear member Zoro not only doesn't think there is any potential for G-D existing but wishes to exterminate the idea from the minds of those who do.. I'd call that a staunch (zealot) atheist -- although not nearly as horrible as the saloth sar we had for company in the previous weeks-- at least that is or hope!

And Zoro, I don't mean to imply that you aren't welcome to have your views, be they either agnostic or athiest. I'm just curious how you came to have what appears to be one set of beliefs, but use a different label for them? It may be as Pygoscelis says that "agnostics often are athiests", but that still leaves me confused as to how that is so.

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker:

Well, in truth, I really don’t like either label (or any labels!), especially labels that start with “not” [as in A (= not) theist and A (= not) gnostic]. If I’m forced to choose a label, I’d probably choose “scientific humanist”, but if I recall correctly, that option wasn’t available at this forum.

But more to your point, I would refer you to another active thread at this forum, http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...isted-question-atheist-first-many-follow.html, where in my response (in post #159, p. 11) to IbnAbdulHakim, I briefly reviewed my estimate for the probability of the existence of a “creator god”. The “bottom line” is that the probability of such a god’s existence seems to be almost certainly less that 10^(-200), i.e., 0.0000…1, with a total of 199 zeros – and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s closer to 10^(-1,000). In contrast, a “true atheist” would set the probability of any such god’s existence to be exactly zero. I don’t know enough to be able to do that – so in that sense (of not knowing), I’m agnostic. Yet, I would claim to know enough so that I can comfortably state (as I did in that post):

I admit that I don’t know if any god exists, but add that the probability seems extremely small – far too small to have any influence, whatsoever, on how people choose to live their lives… I expect that, as the critical thinking skills of people improve, the “god idea” will disappear, as did the primitive idea that the Earth is a flat plate around which the Sun circled.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker:

Well, in truth, I really don’t like either label (or any labels!), especially labels that start with “not” [as in A (= not) theist and A (= not) gnostic]. If I’m forced to choose a label, I’d probably choose “scientific humanist”, but if I recall correctly, that option wasn’t available at this forum.

I wonder if you could type in humanist on your own? I've seen "Jedi" listed, I don't know if that was one of the available prompts or if somebody added it.

But more to your point, I would refer you to another active thread at this forum, http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...isted-question-atheist-first-many-follow.html, where in my response (in post #159, p. 11) to IbnAbdulHakim, I briefly reviewed my estimate for the probability of the existence of a “creator god”. The “bottom line” is that the probability of such a god’s existence seems to be almost certainly less that 10^(-200), i.e., 0.0000…1, with a total of 199 zeros – and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s closer to 10^(-1,000). In contrast, a “true atheist” would set the probability of any such god’s existence to be exactly zero. I don’t know enough to be able to do that – so in that sense (of not knowing), I’m agnostic.

Thank-you. So, you are not quite prepared to totally ditch the possibility of God, but think the probability of it being true so rare that one might as well function as if it were known to be not true. Interesting. That's probably how I would consider Islam and my Muslim friends here consider Christianity, yet we are generally able to discuss issues but openly and respectfully. I look forward to being able to do the same with you.

 

[جوري]

Thank-you. So, you are not quite prepared to totally ditch the possibility of God, but think the probability of it being true so rare that one might as well function as if it were known to be not true. Interesting. That's probably how I would consider Islam and my Muslim friends here consider Christianity, yet we are generally able to discuss issues but openly and respectfully. I look forward to being able to do the same with you.

Wonder what sort of scientific research was done to affirm those stats? but I digress... if anyone can "believe" the universe and all its glory was a result of a zero division, then I guess any stats in that pamphlet would be a bit more sensible by comparison... I worry about that state of mind though, of anyone who wishes to extinguish the rights of others to live and believe as they choose!
The other day I came up with a theory

-- that just like diamonds go back to graphite under inert conditions, so too can humans --if "evolution energy" or the zero that gave us all life were truly the answer... there is no reason that we shouldn't implode back to the zero or back to more coarse/ rogue de-evolutionary beings.... There is nothing in the laws of science that say we should become more brilliant a diamond which undoubtedly formed from the same zero or the same energy that gave us all life can go back to its roots, why not us as well? G-D becoming an extinguished idea?-- I suppose it can happen as we all become again more primitive -- in fact, I think I should write a pamphlet about it... I'll call it the "implosion of zero"... or maybe the " De-sentience- of consciousness" -- yeah, maybe that is what I'll do... :muddlehea

peace!

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker:

Actually, there’s another significant aspect of estimating probabilities, and I think that its appreciation would help communications. To that end, I think it would be useful to adopt some conventions used by scientists, philosophers, and logicians.

The first step in this convention is to distinguish “open systems” from “closed systems”. As examples, there are a huge number of “open systems”, including the human body, a cell, a school system, a legal system, and so on, out to an including “reality”. In fact, essentially all systems are “open systems”. In contrast, although there are also a huge number of “closed systems”, each is rather special, e.g., the game of baseball (fixed by a set of rules that aren’t to be violated), any game (from poker to chess), a “closed society” (which was hard even for Stalin to create), essentially all religions (in so far as their “rules” are fixed by their “holy books”, etc.), pure mathematics, and so on. Whether our universe, itself, is an open or closed system has not yet been established.

The second step in the convention is to acknowledge that it’s only for closed systems that the concepts of “true” and “false” have meaning, e.g., it’s “true” in poker that a flush always beats a straight, it’s “true” in “pure mathematics” that 1 + 1 = 2 , and so on, including, the “truth” that the prophet of Christianity was born by immaculate conception (in the closed system known as Christianity), that the angel Gabriel communicated with the prophet of Islam (in that closed system), and that the angel Moroni communicated with the prophet of Mormonism (in that closed system). In contrast, in open systems, it’s acknowledged that we can never know if any statement or event is exactly “true” or exactly “false” (e.g., that so-and-so is guilty of whatever, that momentum is always conserved, and so on); instead, the best we’re able to do is estimate the probability of the validity of any statement or event.

There is the additional convention that probabilities are “normalized” to range between zero and unity (or 0% and 100%), with the closer the probability is to zero, then the more likely the event or statement is “false”, and the closer the probability is to unity, then the more likely that it’s “true”.

Finally, my contention is that communications would be facilitated if “on-off”, “true-false” labels weren’t used to identify people, such as “theist” (meaning that the person has assumed that the statement “God exists” is “true”) and “atheist” (meaning that person has assumed that the statement “God exists” is “false”). In reality [an “open system”, since we can never be sure what’s “around the next bend”, either in space or time (or space-time)], the best any of us can do is estimate probabilities. Thus, I think it would be helpful if people stopped using “religious labels” and instead, provided their estimates of relevant probabilities. For example, I showed you my estimate of the probability of God’s existence. What’s your estimate for the probability that Jesus was born by immaculate conception? 50%? 99%? 99.99999%?

When such estimates are provided, then rational discussion can ensue, e.g., examining the bases for the estimates. And similarly for your estimate for the probability that God exists, that Gabriel communicated with the prophet of Islam, that Moroni communicated with the Mormon prophet, and so on. And of course it’s not that I want to go into details about such estimates at the present time (especially since I have so many other irons in the fire right now), but I wonder if you “catch my drift” that communications could be assisted if “dogmatic” statements about “truth” (and falsity) were abandoned.

 

[جوري]

Statistics can't be applied to things outside the sphere of science? the laws of science and physics can't apply to something like a "miracle" for instance-- anymore than we can, reason or come up with statistics for someone's cancer going into remission. or come up for statistics on how painful someone's headache, you can't attribute statistics and mathematics to hope, or pain or fear, satiation of appetite. You can measure the success of the outcome, and that can be an adequate predictor of how truthful the subjective view of the presenter is... someone presents with the "worst headache" should be taken seriously, but not because there is a headache-O-meter that determines yes this is killer on the scale of pain... but if they attest that they have suffered from the worst headache of their lives and end up dead an hour later, can you then believe a 99.9% positive indication that indeed it was the worst headache of their life and that the pt. was telling the truth, that s/he must have had Polycystic Kidney Disease and as a result died of saccular "berry" aneurysm. The measure was never of the headache, but as a direct result of the devastating outcome of the headache. Hopefully being a "humanitarian", should lead you to believe a person as they first present, instead of waiting for the devastating outcome to prove with stats that indeed this must have been a painful one! with this I hope you concede that some things are simply immeasurable sort of like a zero dividing would give the result of function undefined on the calculator

 

[Grace Seeker]

I wonder if you “catch my drift” that communications could be assisted if “dogmatic” statements about “truth” (and falsity) were abandoned.

I entirely catch your drift.


Is the theory that everything that probabilities are “normalized” to range between zero and unity (or 0% and 100%) a closed or an open system? What is the probability that the answer to the question, "does God exist?", is either 0% or 100% and not some point inbetween?

It sounds like you are absolutely believe that we can be 100% certain about nothing. Except, of course, for your belief that we can't be certain about anything; you seem certain of that belief.

 

[Woodrow]

I dare say that this may become my favorite statement for future use:

there’s another significant aspect of estimating probabilities,

I tend to doubt that all things can be reduced to probability. the existance of God(swt) being one of them. The simple fact is God(swt) either exists or does not exist, that is an absolute certainty. There is no criteria for the measurement of the probability of which is correct. Probability is based upon measurement and/or observation. If I observe what is the work of God(swt), that is sufficient for me to say that there is 100% Certainty God(swt) exists. Just because somebody else does not observe what I see, does not invalidate my observation. Therefore I am 100% certain God(swt) exists and all probability is eliminated.

 

[zoro]

Ambro: ‘Statistics’ is different from ‘probability’, a ‘humanitarian’ is different from a “humanist”, and no “miracle” (in the religious sense) has been made available for scientific scrutiny.

Grace Seeker: It’s not a “theory” that probabilities lie in the range between zero and unity; it’s a definition found to be convenient. If you want to start your own “trend”, you can have your probabilities run between, say, zero and ten (you don’t even need to start at zero), but the rest of the people in the world would probably divide your values by their maximum possible value (which is the meaning of “normalization”), and if necessary even “re-zero” your values, yielding the familiar range of probabilities, ranging from zero to unity (or 0% to 100%).

Re. the possibility of certainty about anything: such is possible for closed systems (e.g., in the game of bridge, you can be certain that your ace of trump beats all other cards; you can even be certain that Superman is invulnerable to anything except kryptonite – cause it says so, right there in his “holy book”). But in reality, Popper’s principle is that the best we can do is find other principles (such as all the principles of science) that are falsifiable but not yet falsified. As for how certain one can be of Popper’s idea: it’s falsifiable, but not yet falsified; so, so far it stands quite firm – maybe a 99.99 % probability of being “true”. Similarly, for example, the probability that Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics are “true” seems to be about 99.99999999999 % -- but if you can show that they’re false (and certainly they’re falsifiable), you can win yourself a Nobel Prize.

Woodrow: It does seem to be obvious that various statements (such as “God exists” or “all invisible flying elephants are pink”) must be either or true or false, but that’s not the point. The point is that, in reality, we must struggle to try to determine whether such statements are true or false, and although you apparently have been able to convince yourself that all invisible flying elephants are pink (or whatever), that’s your subjective judgment – which generally is of no value to the rest of us, especially those equally convinced by their own subjective judgments that all invisible flying elephants are purple.

Meanwhile, for knowledge (aka science) to advance, you need to provide evidence for you claim that all invisible flying elephants are pink, evidence that can be examined, tested, prodded, etc. by the rest of us. Of course, you could form a club of all people persecuted because of their persuasion that all flying elephants are pink – you could even initiate terrorist attacks to force your perspective to prevail – but don’t expect that the rest of us will be pleased with your perversions, especially those convinced that the revered elephants are purple.

 

[جوري]

Ambro: ‘Statistics’ is different from ‘probability’, a ‘humanitarian’ is different from a “humanist”, and no “miracle” (in the religious sense) has been made available for scientific scrutiny.
.

bloody fantastic--thanks for that...
we Muslims consider the Quran to be Prophet Mohammed' PBUH biggest miracle-- we can't prove that Gabriel Descended on him, but we also can't explain where the Quran has come to him from-- if not through divine means. You are welcome to run it to the tests, provided you get some peer reviews for every chapter as well as some historians and linguists to work on it with you.

peace!

 

[snakelegs]

something i find incomprehensible:
why do some atheists, and even some agnostics find it necessary to tell believers that they are wrong? why the need to preach?
p.s. not directed at any one in particular.

 

[wilberhum]

something i find incomprehensible:
why do some atheists, and even some agnostics find it necessary to tell believers that they are wrong? why the need to preach?
p.s. not directed at any one in particular.

I would guess for the same reason believers find it necessary to tell others they are wrong.
It is what some must do to prove they are right. :skeleton:

 

[جوري]

something i find incomprehensible:
why do some atheists, and even some agnostics find it necessary to tell believers that they are wrong? why the need to preach?
p.s. not directed at any one in particular.

I couldn't agree more... I find some of them to be the worst group of zealots... which really goes to show you, you don't need to be a part of any religion to be a loon. It is the condition of some of man-kind unfortunately -- wilber logic is also non sequitur here... since I believe this is a Muslim forum and all the Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Zoroastrians etc.. are here by choice... at least I am hoping this didn't come here at gun point!

peace!

 

[snakelegs]

I would guess for the same reason believers find it necessary to tell others they are wrong.
It is what some must do to prove they are right. :skeleton:

muslims do it because their religion tells them too.
christians do it for the same reason.
but atheists? and isn't there something especially absurd about a preaching agnostic???? ;D