[HakSpeame]

http://dratifyousafzai.blogspot.com/...f-reality.html

[gomosopions]

Great post once again.

But I have some points to add.

(1) A thought has been coming to my mind since the evening that I'll put in a question and answer form.

Q: Which part of observation is acceptable?
A: The part that is consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

This is paraphrasing the believe the news (khabar by beloved Prophet (PBUH) and not the vision (nazar or your own observation.)

At some moment above Q&A might look deceptively simple or even a mundane pedantry but but one gets caught in nasty conundrums then is the time when one needs above type of guiding lines.

(2) Here is an interview of Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg by Richard Dawkins. There are many remarkable things in the first episode itself. I'll list two only. Dawkins acknowledges a statement by SW in which latter had asserted that most of the theoretical physicists happen to be believers. It is the biologists who are creating the confusion for the laity. Secondly SW also admits that we may never find answers to all of our questions about reality. This is a rather significant admission. Only if we could make use of such gems.

(3) glu·teus max·i·mus    [mak-suh-muhs]
noun, plural glutei max·i·mi  [mak-suh-mahy]
1.
the broad, thick, outermost muscle of the buttocks, involved in the rotation and extension of the thigh.
2.
Facetious . the buttocks.

(4) I have quoted in some other posts a statement by Burtrend Russel.

I am not ready to die for any cause for I might be wrong. Here it clearly shows the reality of the confidence in the kingdom of atheists. Dawkins himself is one of those who are piqued at the yaqeen of believers. This surety must be broken - they assert.

(5) Reductionism as a term already has a well defined connotation. It is used for the philosophy in which bigger things are understood in terms of smaller things taking you ultimately to particle physics. The sense in which you are using reductionism is in fact scientism. Of course it is a reduction when you call yourself a mere material being.

(6) The combination of Verse 19 of Surah Hashr with Man Arafa Nafsahu Arafa Rabbahu (He who knows himself, knows his creator) is very interesting - need to ponder over it.

[qzgCVHex]

wow

[zueqhbyhp]

http://dratifyousafzai.blogspot.com/...f-reality.html

One pushto poet put it as follows:

"Wara narasa di hase zan rasa rasa ganri
Sok de che da yaar da zulfo wal ta rasedale de

" All those who claim to have reached the reality,in effect are mistaken,Who has got the guts to reach the 'curl' of the hair of the beloved ? "

[HakSpeame]

Great post once again.

But I have some points to add.

(1) A thought has been coming to my mind since the evening that I'll put in a question and answer form.

Q: Which part of observation is acceptable?
A: The part that is consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

This is paraphrasing the believe the news (khabar by beloved Prophet (PBUH) and not the vision (nazar or your own observation.)

At some moment above Q&A might look deceptively simple or even a mundane pedantry but but one gets caught in nasty conundrums then is the time when one needs above type of guiding lines.

(2) Here is an interview of Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg by Richard Dawkins. There are many remarkable things in the first episode itself. I'll list two only. Dawkins acknowledges a statement by SW in which latter had asserted that most of the theoretical physicists happen to be believers. It is the biologists who are creating the confusion for the laity. Secondly SW also admits that we may never find answers to all of our questions about reality. This is a rather significant admission. Only if we could make use of such gems.

(3) glu·teus max·i·mus    [mak-suh-muhs]
noun, plural glutei max·i·mi  [mak-suh-mahy]
1.
the broad, thick, outermost muscle of the buttocks, involved in the rotation and extension of the thigh.
2.
Facetious . the buttocks.

(4) I have quoted in some other posts a statement by Burtrend Russel.



Here it clearly shows the reality of the confidence in the kingdom of atheists. Dawkins himself is one of those who are piqued at the yaqeen of believers. This surety must be broken - they assert.

(5) Reductionism as a term already has a well defined connotation. It is used for the philosophy in which bigger things are understood in terms of smaller things taking you ultimately to particle physics. The sense in which you are using reductionism is in fact scientism. Of course it is a reduction when you call yourself a mere material being.

(6) The combination of Verse 19 of Surah Hashr with Man Arafa Nafsahu Arafa Rabbahu (He who knows himself, knows his creator) is very interesting - need to ponder over it.

Jazakallah.

Most of the points you raised are in line with the sketch of what i am going to add to my blog. I am of the opinion that as there is almost on agreement among the various circles related to the main body of human discourses on the importance of the issue of subjectivity and objectivity while accessing the reality therefor we need to ponder on this subjectivity objectivity issue more. It is unanimously agreed upon that the induction of subjectivity can spoil the observation and one may lead to erred results due to this so one must tend towards objectivity. It is also unanimously agreed upon that we must stick to logic to eliminate the subjectivity out of our observations and arguments. Adopting the scientific method will be another method to reduce or eliminate the subjectivity.

But can subjectivity be completely eliminated? I don't think so as there is a sublime obstacle in its way. It is that by default when a person opens his eyes , he becomes subjective or biased in relation to the universe. So this default subjectivity can not be eliminated. We stay subjective in relation to our universe all our lives. So whats up then? I think the solution can be formulated as below roughly.

1. There is an ultimate reality in the universe
2.All the human beings share that ultimate reality (otherwise we would not have been talking to each other)
3.That ultimate reality is in a causal relation with this universe (the causality can be explained or asserted through kalam cosmological argument)
4.That ultimate reality has to deal with the morality as well (This can be asserted by the various arguments for objective morality)
5.As it is binding on the humans to know about that ultimate reality , it is morally and logically binding on that ultimate reality to reveal itself to the humans (or to reach them)
6.The ultimate reality reaches us through divine revelations
7.Therefor sticking to the divine revelations not only brings us into the appropriate relation with the ultimate reality but also eliminates the subjectivity.

This argument is much rough and i need to work more on it to bring it into symmetry with formal logic.

Regarding Dawkins and biology , i must say that the words like proof and evidence suit mathematics and upto some extent in non maths based physics only. The proofs and evidence become much diluted when one glances down from mathematics to physics to biology.In biology it is at its worst. Strangly enough , this full confidence about which one can say that "I KNOW that it is so" exists in maths and maths is a part of our intuition. Its origins have nothing to do with the physical word at all. It is not based on any scientific procedure and yet maths not only gives a maximal surety to us but also corresponds with the physical world very well. Biology is no way near to this surety , confidence and elegance. Especially the tomatoes of evolution which Dawkins try to sell are filled with incredulity , uncertainty and extrapolations.

I think Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem deals with the most of this debate in a mathematical way. I intend to write on that soon.

[gomosopions]

Looking forward to Godel's theorem.

Also the going is good in other things you mention. I'll suggest that you try to get in touch with Ziauddin Sardar in the UK. It will be nice outlet to get Muslim point across because since long back he got access to publications like Nature and more people refer to it than SF.

[Klavalala]

A Muslim who's been published in Nature? That's quite a feat. From my personal experience that publishing house is staunchly atheist.

dr. ati, I wasn't clear about one section of your piece; do you not believe that the universe has a real existence in the absence of any observers? In any case, Allah is the eternal observer!

Materialists with their reductionist approach have basically defined life out of existence. They have even begun to deny the reality of consciousness: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...580394,00.html

Anyway, I find the best argument against materialists/atheists is that the logical conclusion of their philosophy is nihilism. So the most logical thing for them to do is kill themselves, since their lives have no purpose, the universe and humanity will ultimately end in a cold death, and the oblivion they believe comes with death is preferable to the inevitable suffering that comes with living.

[qzgCVHex]

Anyway, I find the best argument against materialists/atheists is that the logical conclusion of their philosophy is nihilism. So the most logical thing for them to do is kill themselves, since their lives have no purpose, the universe and humanity will ultimately end in a cold death, and the oblivion they believe comes with death is preferable to the inevitable suffering that comes with living.

a great point!
without Resurrection what is the point of existence?justice isnt fully served in the world. thats an obvious fact no one can deny.so if no resurrection what about those who die as oppressors and oppressed?
Islam is the truth. May Allah give us and all mankind Hidayat.

[gomosopions]

A Muslim who's been published in Nature? That's quite a feat. From my personal experience that publishing house is staunchly atheist.

dr. ati, I wasn't clear about one section of your piece; do you not believe that the universe has a real existence in the absence of any observers? In any case, Allah is the eternal observer!

Materialists with their reductionist approach have basically defined life out of existence. They have even begun to deny the reality of consciousness: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...580394,00.html

Anyway, I find the best argument against materialists/atheists is that the logical conclusion of their philosophy is nihilism. So the most logical thing for them to do is kill themselves, since their lives have no purpose, the universe and humanity will ultimately end in a cold death, and the oblivion they believe comes with death is preferable to the inevitable suffering that comes with living.

My attitude is that let us present all the arguments that we have against the materialist philosophies. They have done enough damage to humanity, including themselves. I suppose we do have a possibility of getting heard. I shall urge you too to give it a try. Why should we be reading Hitchens, Spencers, Hirsi Alis, Rushdies only - lies, hatred, opportunism. Time is ripe to trash the shallow sentiments masquerading as profundity.

[AmfitNom]

Q. Why is Atheism popular today?

A. Because of the special history of Christianity and the Church in Europe, there was a violent reaction against religion in general. There is more than one strand to this history, Monarchy was destroyed, the truth claims enforced by the Church were also destroyed because observations made of the natural world contradicted the claims of the Church, though much of this was based on mutual misunderstanding, the Church could have easily adjusted their claims to fit the scientific reality, and some Priests attempted this, but the Atheists were in a militant mood and did not want to compromise with religion. The human self wanted to rebel and poke fun at religion. And of course the role of the money lenders who wanted to increase their role, they sponsored the scientists and gave them power. Even now the scientists like Dawkins are given money and status by the money lenders.

Most humans in Atheist Europe live in dread, they know they will die but they try to forget this through various distractions like consuming things. Drug or alcohol abuse, of course changes in the body are a constant reminder of the approach of death and many turn to cosmetic surgery to try to arrest the signs of ageing. The popular culture itself promotes Youth and Beauty, if you are old or ugly you are not valued. The marketeers and advertisers have gone inside our psyche and made us enter into a type of Dreamtime, where we live in a false reality. A fantasy.

The scientists and priests of atheism are to be pitied. They speak against religion without knowledge Dawkins frequently repeats logical fallacies. The logic of a Godless evolution would mean that really it is acceptable to behave like animals, a powerful lion will eat up a weak gazel, humans too can behave in this way...we are only animals. Religion teaches that humans are not just animals they have a higher self, and there is a God the Source and Sustainer of everything, that human actions and intentions have significance and we can aspire to become less like animals. Atheism calls towards the animal religions and Islam in particular calls towards the higher self.

There are Religious Scientists in Europe and the wider west who argue against the naturalism and Atheism expressed by the ones given a platform, however these are only given little or no coverage.


See:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php
Faraday Papers

The Faraday Papers provide the general reader with accessible and readable introductions to the relationship between science and religion, written by a broad range of authors who are expert in the field. The opinions expressed are those of authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute. Further Faraday Papers are added as they become available.

To see examples of Dawkins fallacies see:
http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm
Darwin’s Rottweiler and the Public Understanding of Scientism

[qzgCVHex]

My attitude is that let us present all the arguments that we have against the materialist philosophies. They have done enough damage to humanity, including themselves. I suppose we do have a possibility of getting heard. I shall urge you too to give it a try. Why should we be reading Hitchens, Spencers, Hirsi Alis, Rushdies only - lies, hatred, opportunism. Time is ripe to trash the shallow sentiments masquerading as profundity.

to brother Nnoor:
what sir maripat is saying is that you should basically start a blog.
or if its too hectic to start and manage a blog you can also try blogs that allow others a place on their blog as well.
my blog is one such example. you just have to write. rest i'll do.

[gomosopions]

Great post akhi Abu Zakir.

[HakSpeame]

dr. ati, I wasn't clear about one section of your piece; do you not believe that the universe has a real existence in the absence of any observers? In any case, Allah is the eternal observer!

My point was that its a general trend among us humans to see the things around us in a calculative , repetitive and predictable manner. Thats how we try to describe the reality around us but infact the nature of reality around us is deeply dubious as for us reality is a pair of the observer and the observed and whenever this pair breaks up , there is no reality. The universe does exist in reality and would exist even if there is no living creature to observe it as Allah is the eternal observer.

[HakSpeame]

I have added a a bit to the topic.http://dratifyousafzai.blogspot.com/...eality-ii.html