Atheism

Society Religion & Philosophy
101

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

I'll have time 'inshaAllah to respond to the rest of your post tomorrow, but for now I would like to concentrate on this notion you have brought up ... Regarding scientific conclusion.

According to you a conclusion needs to pass evidence, data, and peer review ... I contest that ... Rather 'conclusion' is something drawn from within ... All it needs to be is consistent and logically possible.

Evidence ... This is collected at or immediately after setting up the hypothesis.
Data ... This is generally what is generated from the evidence
peer review is a process that takes place where peers follow through your work and look to see if they follow your line of argument and try to throw in questions that attempt to undermine the work in order to bring about a more refined conclusion.

However the conclusion is always brought about by the person doing the study ... Others merely accept it as a valid one, or agree with it, or reject it on grounds of fallibility ...

Now ...consider yourself my peer reviewer ... I have given you my conclusion that the fossil records show that different creatures lived at different times in the history of life on Earth, and many of them no longer exist today. We can say they might be human, or animal, but merely by looking at the fossil record it is not possible to prove or disprove that one species came from another ... We need other material to demonstrate this point... Can you say my conclusion is not valid given the evidence? If so ... Why?

102

Re: Atheism

As a preface to my next responses kprasad... InshaAllah I'm going to set about to show you why referencing is scientific, how the scientific approach stems from an Islamic endeavour to find the truth and how modern science is in debt to the methods devised by early Muslim scholars that were trying to get close to Deity ... The Reality ... The idea of something being testable and hence falsifiable is the crux of the new way of thinking and how this idea of falsification is in the Holy Quran .... Then I will ask you to provide a falsification test suitable for the theory of evolution and then we can take it from there ...

I'm sure you will continue to be humoured ... I have plenty of patience so feel free to throw in distractions ...

My latest book purchase is "Why evolution is true" by Jerry A. Coyne ... and I have just started to read it. It's funny how people think by using sophistical reasoning they can package and sell their BS ... But alas that is exactly what they doing ... The tailors from the emperor's new clothes get away with it ... Until the 'stupid' boy breaks the silence. Do you think I'm stupid enough?

103

Re: Atheism

kprasad - The term "scientfic" is ambiguous ... as a result we both need to resolve that ambiguity in order for us to proceed.

Scientific (1) = The term used to describe an approach, investigation or discovery, that is repeatable, demonstrable and logically lucid and objective.

Scientific (2) = The term used to describe an activity undertaken by or outcome/declaration from scientists in a science setting.

Please comment on these ... I am going to argue that to arrive at a belief the process can be scientific according to the definition (1) and yet at the same time it is also possible that what many scientists output is not science according to definition (2).

Consequently I intend to demonstrate that evolution as a theory compares more closely to a religious belief than it does to other well celebrated scientific theories.

104

Re: Atheism

Howdy again, psyah!

This is again a misunderstanding of the scientific process. You do not draw a conclusion first, and then find evidence to support it. One looks at the data, then forms a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, forms a conclusion based on the tests and evidence, and then submits the data, evidence, hypothesis, and conclusion for peer review. In order for it to be accepted, it must pass muster. It must be repeatable. Independent peers must come to the same conclusion you did. If not, your conclusion gets rejected or it gets modified. It's a tedious process, but that's what it has to be.

In religion, you're must work from the fact that the deity exists, everything comes from it, and that your dogma is correct and absolute. Then, you try to find evidence to support it. This is the reverse of the scientific process. This is faith. Not science.

Your reading of evolution is incorrect. It does not state that one life form evolved from another. What it states is that there are common ancestors. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys and dogs didn't evolve from fish. Rather, there are common ancestors. The fossil record bears this out.

105

Re: Atheism

No one can discount the contributions made to science and mathematics and the humanities from Muslim scholars, but I would not accept that the scientific process is Islamic. The Greeks, centuries before, were using it.

Ha! I like your last two sentences! That's some good grammatical construct! Invoking falsification through a negative! Touche! :)

106

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

I'm glad that we are on the same page ... although I never said that one draws a conclusion first ... you have wrongfully applied this to my post. I merely said that a conclusion is drawn from within. The red and blue parts ... I also agree with those. I can accept the tedious process too ... so long as there is no bias involved in the process of peer review ... yes I readily accept that.

The part I have highlighted in green ... I'm going to ignore (I disagree with it) but religion is not the topic here ... We'll park that for later on.

Regarding the part I have highlighted in purple ... Ok ... Darwianian evolution stated Man came from Apes ... Neo-Darwinian evolution states 2 modern creatures (Chimp and human - say) have evolved from a common ancestor ... since the common ancestor is a "LIFE FORM" hence both the old and new ideas of evolution both state that one life form comes from another ... Try to understand this.

We'll talk about the fossil record next ...

107

Re: Atheism

I disagree with both of those definitions. Both of the terms are ambiguous, by design. Lucidity and objectivity do not equate to fact. Science is based on facts and exactness.

I think these are more accurate:

*
1. of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies.
2. occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts.
3. regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures.
4. systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science. *

108

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

Thanks ... I like it, we'll utilise these in the coming discussion, inshaAllah' ... :)

109

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

I haven't explained what I mean yet ... But now I'm more interested in your counter claim ... What is the scientific process that you are referring to here? The one that you say the Greeks were using before the Muslims?

110

Re: Atheism

I'm referring specifically to the methods developed and used by Aristotle and Ptolemy and later perfected, if you will, by Alhazen.

111

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

Ok ... So here you are talking of the scientific method of inquiry ... Wherever you look the form of scientific enquiry that we have today is largely pioneered by Muslims, but my basis for stating this in the first place was not so we could have a side discussion regarding the history of this method, but to show that 'referencing', is a required aspect of all studies in this day and age and that it is part of the 'scientific' approach to finding truth.

Please read your given definition 4 ... For the term scientific ... I meant it that way ... That we as Muslims draw our conclusions one from the other within a framework of rules that can only be described as scientific.

Ibn Haytham (alhazen) was a scientist, but he was a Muslim searching for the truth ... The truth as per Islam. This needs to be understood.

112

Re: Atheism

Your attempt at mockery is as flimsy as your belief in nothingness :slight_smile:

I am surprised a simple quote on the ideas of atheism would get the athiests so upset and flummoxed.

113

Re: Atheism

Hi psyah,

I'm afraid my knowledge of Alhazen is limited to his works on optics, and his writings about rationalism and reasoning. I know he was a devout Muslim, but my knowledge of Islam and his faith are limited. I cannot comment on either.
I do know that he kept his faith and his science separated. I often recall his saying: Truth is sought for its own sake

And in that famous saying, lies the great problem for creationism. The truth contradicts what's written in scriptures. One can retro fit, and say the universe was created in six days..but man does not know how long each day was. One can retro fit and say, scriptures speak of angels and that's what is meant by particles. One can keep retrofitting and say scriptures are filled with allegories. But the fact of the matter is, scriptures, in so far as it comes to science, are wrong.

I commend your faith. I commend the moral basis of scriptures. However, science, they are not. If there is science in scriptures, it reflects the science of the period. No aviation. No rocket propulsion. No space travel. No astrophysics. No biology. No calculus. No telephony. No internet.

114

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

To Muslims Truth and Deity is not differentiated. You talk about retrofitting the length of a day, but this only shows that you do not know the history of the term "yawm" in Arabic ... Where there are several scriptural references that show that idea of "yawm" is not necessarily a 24 hour period, but indeed "a period of time" then this should suggest there is no retrofitting.

You see even after I invoke Definition 4 from your given list of definitions of "scientific" you still feel it necessary to state "Science" they are not ... My claim is that "faith" needn't be totally baseless ... and religion is not the culmination of opinions without evidence. In fact we have terms for certain areas of study within Islam they are called "sciences" ... For example the "sciences of fiqh", "sciences of theology", "sciences of perfecting character".

None of these are "science in scriptures" - All of these are developed by masters in those areas through time and taught to students ...

The fact that any of these "sciences" require the belief in God does not deem them "unscientific" - none of your definitions say that "a science requires God to be out of the equation" ...

Let me clarify about my belief in scriptures once again ... I believe them to hold truth in a manner that stands the test of time. The Qur'an I believe is the Uncreated Word of The Deity - Absolute Truth ... I trust you see this is a belief ... However, the Qur'an asks from us to test it and asks from us things to ponder about. Science does not come from the Qur'an, but whenever established science comes about it is amazing conformance with the Qur'an. I don't believe evolution to be established science, rather I take it as a rival belief system to Creation.

Anyway I don't want to hamper on about religion yet ... I want to bring the discussion back to post #106.

115

Re: Atheism

kprasad? Still around?

116

Re: Atheism

The thesis of this thread is very misleading. It conflates Atheism with scientific pursuits. I don't know, for all intents and purposes, anything about Islam. It's not a topic I can, nor wish, to debate.
If we are talking science, then it's simple...show me the evidence! Your belief isn't evidence.

117

Re: Atheism

I like talking with you kprasad ... You have the tone of an honest person looking out for scientific pursuit. I respect that in you. So let's talk science.

Many evolutionists claim it is wrong to say that humans evolved from apes, or that it is false to say that one life form comes from another. Rather it is said that all life forms come from a series of common ancestors. I understand .... Now these common ancestors ... What were they? We're they life forms? If so ... Then is it not still correct to say that the idea behind evolution is to believe that the various forms of life we have today are indeed from a common ancestor. Life forms from other life forms .... .?

We are being asked to take this as fact ... I don't feel this fits the pattern of how we recognise fact. Here are the ways I know a fact is established.

If I saw it happen
If many people see it happen and they tell me and can demonstrate it too
Lastly, If I see certain things happening that suggest it may have happened, but at the same time I can rule out ANY POSSIBILITY that something else happened or in other words total consistency in a way that does not require constant modification of the base theory.

The base theory of Danwinian evolution has not fulfilled any of the three criteria above. Furthermore, the base theory has been modified so many times and I trust as we find more and more evidence against evolution the evolutionists will continue to modify the theory in order to continue passing on the belief that evolution occurs.

118

Re: Atheism

Again, with all due deference, your basic premise here misstates and misunderstands the fundamental nature of science. To say “evolutionist” implies that there is a contradictory scientific theory! That is completely wrong! Biologists in Pakistan, in Israel, in India, in Iran, in the US, in China, in Russia, and everywhere else, take evolution to be a fact! The argument they have is the manner in which it happened, the mechanics of it. Whereas there are numerous and conflicting creation stories, science agrees on evolution. So when you say evolutionist, lets be clear…you mean scientist.

Second, the entire notion of “Darwinian evolution” is something conjured by creationists. There is no scientist that would refer to himself, or herself, as a “Darwinian evolutionist”. Just as there is no scientist that would refer to himself as a “Newtonian physicist”. This has several implications, the biggest of which implies that there have been no advances in the science for 150 years! Again, a very wrong, though I believe conscious, misrepresentation.

I think your above quote is a perfect example of misunderstanding the scientific process and what bring scientific consensus about.

No one is being asked to take anything as fact. That’s the beauty of science, versus religion. Religion requires you to have faith, in the absence of evidence. Science asks you to be a skeptic in the face of evidence. Science says: Do not believe what someone else says! Science asks for critical thinking, examination, and reason with data.

Seeing something happen can be very misleading. For centuries we had a geocentric notion of the universe, because of what we observed.

Again, many people seeing something happen does not add to it’s veracity. The fundamental question is, can I duplicate what happened? Or, if I examine the data will I reach the same conclusion?

To your last point…the beauty of science is that…your ‘base theory’ can always be modified, if you can find evidence for it. Newton’s theories of motion had to be modified when Einstein found a better explanation, backed with data, for the motion of very small objects and very fast speeds…

Science isn’t bound by dogma.

119

Re: Atheism

Peace kprasad

I don’t consider evolution as science and hence give the proponents of this theory another name - evolutionist … Who I have been trying to argue are following a dogma that they claim is science. Instead of correcting me all the time you should ask me “why” I call evolution a belief system and not a science, rather than trying to strong arm your perception of evolution as a science on to me. Now you are obviously convinced that evolution is science. I am not. That may be because my idea of evolution is flawed or because you have not given enough thought whether the theory stands up to being a valid theory of science.

This what you say is totally true … but some terms need to be conjured up in order for discourse to be specific. For conversation to be meaningful I will refer to the people who pioneer evolution theory as evolutionists and scientists who agree with them as pro-evolution scientists. It is not misrepresentation at all though … these terms have real meanings even if they are completely made up.

Funny … it is you who have brought back faith into this discussion. I’m going to ignore that … If you are true with science allowing critical thinking and examination then allow me to subject “evolution” to that scrutiny … Or do you simply want me to accept evolution like as you say “religion requires you to have faith” ???

No … Newton’s theories were replaced with other theories … If a theory needs to be modified more than three times then the chances are the core of the theory is false and incorrect it should be replaced with a new concept and a new theory entirely - as an empirical rule.

The pattern of how the evolution theory evolved is that there was this theory, then new data shunned it … to preserve the core concept modifications to the theory were put in place … then new data shunned that … then again to preserve the core concept more modifications were applied and the patterns continued …

The core concept of evolution is “Organised Mass and Energy and specifically life forms do not occur or take place through conscious processes” …

Now with the amount of changes that evolution theory has gone through don’t you think it is time for the core concept to be discarded and for us to accept that life did come from conscious processing?

[SUP]**(Inevitably you are going to say that my understanding of science is wrong again … please read this:

[/SUP][SUP]First you must understand what makes a theory, before you can know what causes it to be revised or discarded. All theories are designed with the possibility to be falsified later.
A theory is a set of logically consistent statements about some phenomenon, that best summarizes existing empirical knowledge of the phenomenon, organizes this knowledge in the form of precise statements of relationships among variables, provides a tentative explanation for the phenomenon, and serves as the basis for making predictions about behavior.
Theories are determined through abductive reasoning, and while theories are not 100% likely to be true, it is highly probable that the information is true.
Good theories are productive, and produce a great deal of research. They should be explained in the most simple of terms. Theories shouldn’t force the acceptance of other assumptions in providing explanations of certain phenomena.

Many times theories are revised, because they can be stated in far simpler terms, while others are revised because new data has proven that more than one explanation can be provided for a specific phenomenon. Usually, a theory will be revised if most of the theory still holds true, and it only requires small revisions to include information that may not have been known before. Theories are thrown out when they are proven wrong, or when similar, more correct theories are created. Most theories are discarded when multiple experiments are conducted and [/SUP]
[SUP]results[/SUP][SUP] disprove an outdated theory.[/SUP]
[SUP]

Read more: What may cause a theory to be revised or discarded**

)[/SUP]

120

Re: Atheism

[quote="“psyah, post:402, topic:174850"”]

Peace kprasad

I don’t consider evolution as science and hence give the proponents of this theory another name - evolutionist … Who I have been trying to argue are following a dogma that they claim is science. Instead of correcting me all the time you should ask me “why” I call evolution a belief system and not a science, rather than trying to strong arm your perception of evolution as a science on to me. Now you are obviously convinced that evolution is science. I am not. That may be because my idea of evolution is flawed or because you have not given enough thought whether the theory stands up to being a valid theory of science.
[/quote]

I have no want to strong arm you, or make you acquiesce to my definitions. You’re free to believe whatever you want, just as you’re free to call an apple an orange. However, the qualities that make an orange an orange, remain.

Newton’s theories weren’t replaced, they were modified. There is a hug difference between the two.

Moreover, if you believe that evolution is false, what’s your evidence to the counter position? Simply saying it’s wrong, doesn’t make it so. You have to show evidence for what you believe is correct.

If you quote religious text, which one? There are a magnitude of religious texts and creation myths. Which one is right?