Whence Then is Evil?

Philosopher

I have a request for you, my friend.

Before the question of whence evil? must come the question of what is evil? Gill sahib won`t even get into that other than portraying evil as the opposite of good. :(

You have a gift for putting across basic islamic insights in most logical fashion. And Islam probably has the best and clearest understanding of evil.

Could you take out a little of your time to write a note on what evil is from Islamic point of view. It will be very helpful.

Thanks in anticipation.

Gill writes <<< The research conducted to date has verified Bohr’s point of view. Certain aspects of quantum physics are not very clear in the classical sense and our understanding will probably change when (or if) a unified theory (Theory of Everything) is discovered... >>>

Actually this hypocrite is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.

That said, can you remove your damn photo from the front page of this site, it has been there for weeks, advertising a long gone article. Just because you happen to be the damn editor of Chowk does not mean you can advertise yourself and censor other much better written articles....

143, Kal Saheb and Philosopher,

Humans have been given limited capacity of perception. They can`t see beyond speed of light, they can`t smell many things, they can`t express/understand/decipher many things. They have evolved the concept of infinity which they can`t visualize. So, they can`t know God. They can not say whether God exists or not. Similarly nothing is evil/good because many things which are good for humans are bad for other species of living beings and vice-versa. God/Nature or call it/Him anything has to look after everyone including non-living things so we, humans can`t decide which is good and which is evil. Universe is carrying on in its own way.

Samar

Re: # 146, masadi saheb,

I said we can`t understand beyond our senses and reason is what our senses have derived/acquired the knowledge of the universe which evidently must again be limited. We can gain MORE and MORE knowledge which may be too vast to imagine today but still it will be limited because universe and the inside of the tiniest particle is infinite. So, we can`t know whether God is or not.

Samar

Re: 145

That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits, you need not become a table to understand a table, similarly the limits of perception are filled through reason which expands human understanding way beyond the limits of perception. Saying that logic has its limits so we cannot understand God, and have to rely on faith is a lame argument, such arguments, supporting whatever status quo might exist at the time are mere excuses that try to take perfectly reason bound phenomenon to the realm of the forbidden.

re. masadi:
``Actually [Mr Gill] is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.``

Indeed it would seem that probabilistic causation and determnism are being incorrectly seen as opposites ( A commoon misunderstanding, I might add); but pray tell, masadi sahib, how is God necessitated by Bohr or Heisenberg being right?

re. Zeemax 136:
God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ...

Right... And what, pray tell, do or can we possibly know, which is NOT a direct result of human perception?

In #146 read, << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

as << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can`t answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

Re, #147

Let me quote the answer for you from my paper, God: The New Scientific Evidence:

(quote)According to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems (based upon which the singularity of the Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, because Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level), objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states (Ferris, Timothy 1997:255). The ``wave function`` of the universe could never have collapsed without the ``observation`` of an observer, i.e. God. The Koran states:

To God is due the starting point (primal origin, Badeeh in Arabic) of the skies and the earth. And Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says to it, ``Be`` and it is.``(Koran 2:117).

(end quote)

sorry missed part of the reference quotation in #149

Timothy Ferris states in his book, The Whole Shebang :

``...the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena, raising the riddle how the EARLY universe could have evolved in the absence of observers. The riddle may be ``solved`` by invoking God as the supreme observer, who by scrutinizing all particles converts their quantum potentials into actual states (Ferris, page 308).``

Actually, just coz this game is so much fun, I`d like to introduce the idea that God cannot be both Eternal and Good. (And this may appeal to Zeemax, actually). It`s not original, of course...

If God is Good, it means he/she/it conforms to some antecedent ethical standards. This of course, isn`t possible if he/she/it is Eternal, the First Cause, or indeed, ``just`` the authority on the whole What`s Good and What`s Evil deal. An ORIGINAL rule-setter on good and evil, implies that such and entity be amoral. (Not immoral, of course.)

Conversely, to be good (or evil) means to conform to (or infringe on) certain ethical standards that already exist. If God indeed is good, then there is that something that precedes his/her/its existence.

No?

re. masadi #149:

masadi sahib, I thought it was ages ago that the idea that human observation actually interferred with sub-atomic phenomena was debunked. Mian, let me explain in as simple language as is possible, where you-- and Ferris-- are woefully mistaken:

The statement``Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena...`` is a crude stating of the the principle that the ``Copenhagens`` treat only observable phenomena as coming under their scope. Of course, I can understand why theists would jump to and interpretation into which God, to them, is necessitated. At best, this is a bad hypothesis based on a ridiculous (mis)understanding of quantam physics.

Further, I haven`t a clue as to how the ayat you quote in #149 is supported by any understanding of the uncertainty principle or probabalistic causation. Every second or third two-bit deity and its followers claims absolute fiat over the physical universe, as I`m sure you know. You really need to do better, masadi sahib.