Can Science Survive?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#74 by M.B.Z.Isphahani on December 27, 2003 5:26pm PT
with guys like him , the Ummah does not need technology-
........one can hear the common refrain of the mullah- western technology is satanic and the latest products of this technology namely internet and the TV are the results of latest conspiracy against the Ummah. ...
Hehee...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Great quotes,

I like the one from rumsfld, there are known unknowns, there are unknown knowns and there are unknown unknowns. The last variet is the ineffable, the unknowable, the brahman. The first one can be corrected, the second one is ignorence.

Tahmed,

Either you choose to use your brain...or return it for a full refund ;)

If you have no abiding interest in determining for yourself the truth or falsehood of something...why poke fun at others` efforts (whether it be some maulvi or hamidm or sammerjb). Those guys ARE at least using their brain for what its worth.

- - - - - -


OrdinaryHindu sahab,

I`ll disagree with you somwhat. Yes, the amount of anceint indian literature is stageerring...in depth and width. But volume by itself will not carry weight if the theories are mostly fluff.

All these theories (re-incarnation, soul, caste, etc)...arose from human self importance...and the limited scientific knowledge of the ancients. But modern knowledge is pushing us humans into insignificance...showing us our actual position in the vast universe.

Those ancient Indians had creativity...they may not have been always right...but they were creative...not looking at their past for solutions.

We, modern Indians, have lost that creativity...mainly due to that great weight of our past. We`re continually applying (looking for) old solutions to new problems...which is the essence of un-creativity, mediocrity.

This current time is like no other time in the past. Ancient theories/solutons will not apply to modern times. We need to throw out all the old, no preconceived notions, put our faces firmly forward...no looking back...and solve our problems from scratch...be truly creative...thats my humble opinion.

re: shobuz # 44

Your point is valid. Many people left Hinduism willingly. We can`t blame them. Hinduism went through its own long period of darkness. We are not out of the woods yet but are making progress.

Best wishes to you in whatever system you choose to follow.

#61 by nasah on December 6, 2003 3:07pm PT

Great post.

Nasah saheb! The western philosophers have gone through these issues in great details- we are yet to find these issues and arguments discussed in Islamic theology- probably because the two concepts of God and Allah are different according to the Islamists.

``The ancient hindus...those clever, cunning, logical, argument-kings...solved this problem thousands of years ago...Reincarnation.

The greatest thing in the universe, they said, is dharma...righteousness...the laws of which even the gods are subject to. So if you do an un-dharma thing...you`ll pay...if not in this birth...then the next one.

So the 9-year old iraqi kid who lost his limbs was paying his debt to the cosmic dharma account. Neat, eh?!``
..................

Ironman ji

You point to one of the most outstanding achievements and, at the same time, spectacular failures of the ancient Indians. Very much like Einstein much later, who dropped the ball with quantum physics.

Indians figured out the law of cause-and-effect, of action-and-reaction. When confronted with the most difficult problems of explanation, they took their approach to its logical conclusion. In doing so, they missed the more compelling, alternative solution - the role of chance. After all, the science of chance was not well understood until very recently. Even Einstein couldn`t convince himself of the power of the dice.

But Hinduism is about constantly learning. So we can stand on the shoulders of our ancient giants and fix that error.

The truth of God cannot be known. The only way to `know` it is to be on a constant journey toward it. Hinduism asks us to make that journey.

Best wishes.

ironman #67 so you think i AM God`s kindergarten teacher as well as His child psychologist and that I SHOULD know why he lets bad things happen? i dont recall having ever applied for this job..

as for the hindu priests (and muslim maulvis too) who claim to know be privy to God`s mind - they also sell the Brooklyn Bridge i understand.

#65 by tahmed32:

``...point you raise (i.e. if God is kind, why is there cruelty in this world) has of course troubled people through the ages and been the subject of much debate. i dont have an answer to it (short form or long form). nor does the fact that i dont have an answer bother me. since (with all due respect to God), i am not God`s kindergarten teacher, and as such it is not my job to understand why He is mean sometimes...``

Arre Tahmed...you ARE one confused man.

If its not your job to understand...then whose job is it?!! The maulvi/pundit ?

You denounced the preacher/priest in a series of posts...yet...you can`t do without them...you don`t have enough bollocks to admit simple truths that you see proved everyday...each and every day...that god, if there is one, is a sadist.

- - - - - - -

The ancient hindus...those clever, cunning, logical, argument-kings...solved this problem thousands of years ago...Reincarnation.

The greatest thing in the universe, they said, is dharma...righteousness...the laws of which even the gods are subject to. So if you do an un-dharma thing...you`ll pay...if not in this birth...then the next one.

So the 9-year old iraqi kid who lost his limbs was paying his debt to the cosmic dharma account. Neat, eh?!

ironman #63 the point you raise (i.e. if God is kind, why is there cruelty in this world) has of course troubled people through the ages and been the subject of much debate. i dont have an answer to it (short form or long form). nor does the fact that i dont have an answer bother me. since (with all due respect to God), i am not God`s kindergarten teacher, and as such it is not my job to understand why He is mean sometimes (just kidding here).

what i AM interested in is: what are the VALUES that religion teaches us. and this is the context in which i raised this point in my post #56 below, viz. ``in the Quran the idea is to live up to certain values that are attributed to God (mercy, kindness, and so on) and which are ignored by both the maulvi and the anti-maulvi crowd in pakistan. ``

in other words, my interest in God is only to the extent in which belief in God leads men to be kind and merciful or cruel and vindictive.

Hope THIS makes sense.

nasah #64 it indeed is a great quote, i agree. (interestingly, i found this Taoist quote in a commentary on the Mahabharata where it was used to explain a common theme in all religions).

That was a great Quote t ahmed!

``God that is known is not the true God``

tahmed,

Reg. your #56:

``the concept of God for most jamaatiyas (maulvis, their followers) is basically that of a vainglorious King who says ``if you dont bow to me five times a day, you are going to hell buddy!``, or ``so you dont think i exist, do you? well maybe i`ll strike you with lightening then! maybe that will convince you!!`` and so on.

``...in the Quran the idea is to live up to certain values that are attributed to God (mercy, kindness, and so on) and which are ignored by both the maulvi and the anti-maulvi crowd in pakistan.``

``hope this makes sense.``

- - - - - -

Nope. Doesn`t make sense to me.

You laugh at the idea of a vainglorious god, yet think it ok for a `real` god to be `merciful` and `kind`. Remember we are talking of the creator.

Mercy and kindness are needed where there is pain and suffereing. Explain if you can, why a merciful and kind creator is not vainglorious. Stick to the point please...dont launch into your longwinded diversions.

(And never mind that this god of yours in neither merciful nor kind - 9 kids killed in afghanistan)

fountainheader #58 you are too kind with your praise. i will add that it is always a pleasure to interact with someone on chowk who does not come with a need to prove something. but, as in your case, is more interested in having a constructive discussion that leads to a richer and better understanding of things on the part of all those who engage in the discussion.

``“The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species.”

Quran is right -- the mankind is being replaced by another species -- it`is called neocons......

``Q - What happens after death?
A - You go to jannat/heaven/swarg or jahannum/narak/hell.

Q - Where are these places exactly?
A - I don`t know

Q - Who created this universe?
A - I don`t know...``

well these are not tough unanswerable questions -- if you ask the right species they all know where THEY are going......

I put the same questions to my poodle Windy before her death -- as to where do you think YOU are going

and here are HER answers:

Q - What happens after death?
A - we all go to the Animal Shelter

Q - where are these places exactly?
A - next to the the Dog cemetry

Q - Who created this universe?
A - the county dog catcher

so some species more intelligent than us humans do know the answers...indeed

Fountainheader #51

Déjà vu all over again.

Fountainheader #53

{{As you see, Einstein can not be claimed by the Believers. His use of the words ``religion`` and ``god`` was in a very different sense than is commonly accepted.}}

“so you are saying that when einstein refers to God, he doesnt really mean God as generally understood in plain english. Too bad einstein didnt make all this clear. or is it perhaps that, like the maulvi who twists religion to fit his own mindset, you are determined to twist what einstein meant so it fits with your view? i prefer to take him at his word, and assume that if he talks of God, he means God as generally understood; and if he talks of a spade, he means a spade and does not mean a pick-axe.”


“Only ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists) are 100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth. Religious people and scientists recognize that we can never know everything - there will always be unpredictabilities, and the more we know the greater will be our awareness.”

“The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species.”

hope this makes sense.

Yup it does. My opinion is that all your posts do, tahmed, based on whatever I have read in the past few days that I have been a part of chowk. It is the hope of meeting people like you that made me come here in the first place. :)

godot #54 thanks for clarifying your position here.

i shall cancel my reservation for a place in the primates house of the local zoo in that case. or perhaps i should transfer the reservation to jay thakeray (unless you think the existing residents of the primate house might protest at the neighborhood being trashed as a result of his moving in).

fountainhead #52 I read with interest your various posts. i will agree that einstein (and what less would one expect from a brilliant man like him) did not visualize God as the maulvi does. the concept of God for most jamaatiyas (maulvis, their followers) is basically that of a vainglorious King who says ``if you dont bow to me five times a day, you are going to hell buddy!``, or ``so you dont think i exist, do you? well maybe i`ll strike you with lightening then! maybe that will convince you!!`` and so on.

on the other hand, einstein was also smarter than the average Joe Atheist, who in fact is matching the maulvi`s misplaced certitude when he says ``There is no God. And I know that for sure``.

both sides are missing the point. einstein, i think, was concerned primarily with exploring the unknown, and the concept of God incidental but nevertheless not completely irrelevant to this. For einstein, i think, God was what made things tick (he referred to the ``Mind of God``, which he clearly saw reflected in everything when he also said that ``God is in the details``). God to him wasnt the king that the maulvi bows to, nor was God a fairy tale that the atheist considers him to be. God was nothing less than the Unknown itself.

This concept, i think, fits well with the following definition of God from Taoism that in fact applies to the concept of God in hinduism, in islam and indeed in all the world`s great religions: The Tao that can be known is not the true Tao.

Granted that the above is a weird kind of a definition of God, one that is in the negative i.e. on what God is not. And indeed, not just that, but God is what we can never know. And that is why all religions as well as einstein`s various pronouncements on God (and, as you show, he made a lot of such references) all make sense. in the Quran the idea is to live up to certain values that are attributed to God (mercy, kindness, and so on) and which are ignored by both the maulvi and the anti-maulvi crowd in pakistan.

hope this makes sense.

Dear Readers:

Let me start with an Urdu verse:

Zahid-e- tang nazr ney mujhe kafir jana
Aur kafir yeh samjhta haiy Musalmaan hoon mein

(The narrow minded ascetic thought I was a kafir
And the kafir believes I am a Musalmaan)

I had recently published an article on freedom of thought also on Chowk. I had pleaded in it that freedom of expression is good for the civil society. Expression should be allowed not muzzled. If one doesn`t agree with a certain point or an issue, this should be his right. He can and should, if he chooses to express it, share with others.

I have never expected that all the readers will accept my views and that is not why I write on such sensitive and almost ``taboo (in the Muslim world`` subjects. I bring them up for the readers to consciously think about them. In the end, one lives with one`s own beliefs which are not necessarily better or superior to the others`.

Science, technology, religion, metaphysics, philosophy, and the whole lot should not be mutually exclusive; we need all of them. All I have been saying is that the Muslim world should make room for science, philosophy and other liberal arts and sciences and should learn to coexist with atheists and agnostics too.

It is rewardless to live in isolation in a kind of ``Holy Cocoon``. Wishing well to all of you.

Mohammad Gill

Tahmed, 49

My post was not directed towards Gill. Believe it or not, I actually like him. I think he is a very nice and decent guy. Nor my “chimps” referred to everyone on this board. Those to whom my post was directed know, whether on this board or not. No point in me being very specific. They have that much intelligence to figure it out.

Btw, you are funny...and certainly not a chimp...!!!

i think the site I have linked is down for some reason. Here are some more Einstein quotes I had saved during the course of a debate I had with a friend a couple of years back

``My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. ``

Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

``To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. ``

Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

``I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion. ``

Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

As you see, Einstein can not be claimed by the Believers. His use of the words ``religion`` and ``god`` was in a very different sense than is commonly accepted.

# 38 tahmed

while i by and large agree with all your posts on this thread..........and on others too, this is a universally accepted myth, completely apocryphal, that I have an opportunity to correct.

on the other hand, some of the finest among men - einstein among them, who was at least as smart as you are - have always talked with awe about God (and please dont start denying that).


For ages, believers use Einstein`s comment ``God does not play dice``, which he made to express his disagreement with Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle. They take it to imply his belief in god, his awe in god. In a way believers have hijacked Einstein (am not accusing you of that though).

The mistake they make is using a quote, which was not intended to talk about God, to decide on his beliefs on God.

Here are a few quotes he made ``about`` God -

``I believe in Spinoza`s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.``

A longer quote from Einstein appears in ``Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium``, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

``The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...``

Einstein has also said:

``It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.``

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in ``Albert Einstein: The Human Side``, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.``

More of Einstein`s comments on religion are available on the web at this page.

Islam can not be reformed, indeed no religion can be reformed. However, Muslims need a reformation.

What happened in the Reformation in Europe was that Christians were reformed, not the Bible. The Bible is still the same after Martin Luther nailed something to a door, as it was before it, i. e after Christ was nailed to a cross.

Christians just reduced the importance of religion in their lives. They divorced the church from the state, and by doing so, they ushered in a flow of thought which leaves each person`s religion to him and him alone.

Muslims need such a reformation badly, because the Quran specifically sanctions, indeed recommends a link between faith and politics. That is one reason why mullahs are much more dangerous than shankaracharyas, priests, and monks. The heads in other religions justify their actions based on public will, but their religious books do not give them any political sanction, or a right to judge and dictate other person`s personal life. Mullahs however can seek refuge in the Quran.

Once that reformation comes, the marginalisation of Islam to a personal domain rather than public, will be rapid.

#21 fuzair

People have been stupid all along, yet rationality and science is making progress right? I am of the belief that evolution of the mind is as important as evolution of the body. Today you have more atheists and agnostics in the world and the number is growing. The number is small because we are at an early stage of the mental evolution. I am sure that eventually all mankind will voluntarily discard the concept of religion and god.

#22 hamidm2

......... and from what little i know about mr ghazzali it is quite evident that the man was a bonafide idiot - anyone who believes in spontaneous combustion deserves to be burned at the stake ..........

ROFL!! I laughed for about 5 minutes after reading this. Touche!

#26 Romair

Q - What happens after death?
A - I don`t know
Q - Who created this universe?
A - I don`t know

Those are the scientific answers. You say rationalists have not provided answers to the questions above. Think like a rationalist and you will understand that ``I don`t know`` is a valid answer and the only acceptable and rational one. I prefer those answers to these -

Q - What happens after death?
A - You go to jannat/heaven/swarg or jahannum/narak/hell.
Q - Where are these places exactly?
A - I don`t know

Now this is an evasive ``I don`t know``. Because the first answer is pure conjecture disguised as fact.

``Knowing what you do not know is knowledge too`` as a teacher of mine used to say.

I don`t know about others, but I will never call for ``removal`` of religion, as in a legislation like in USSR making religion illegal. I just believe that eventually everyone will voluntarily give up religion. And answers to those questions will not be a prerequisite, because the answers you already have, from religious books are way worse than ``I don`t know``.

Maybe we will find out the answers to those questions through science. Maybe it will lead to people discarding religion.

Until then, I am comfortable with my atheism and am comfortable living in a world where an overwhelming majority are believers.

godot #46 i admire Gill`s articles on science and things like that. but dicussing such subjects you say turns one into a chimp. so i guess that must make me and others on this board chimp. do we need to register in a zoo? and is their a special discussion hour on God and Science at the zoo?

#41 Jay

or better start listening to Jay and ruin whatever is left.

Get a life Jay...how much a hindu fanatic group pays you to write these days ?

#26 by Romair on December 3, 2003 9:16am PT

Religion seems to offer some ``conjectures`` for a very small set of problems. Most good things like dont covet your neighbors wife can easily be arrived thru logical thinking about societal good with no need of god etc. About afterlife etc, science does not offer anything conclusive, but rationalist dont pretend either..they just say i dont know. The problem is that after offering conjectures (not truths) for a small set of problems, religionist attempt to take control of temporal life of fellow citizens in much larger areas...generally not doing a good job, except arriving at simple things like dont kill your neighbor and covet his wife.

I think afterlife fear is one thing which keeps religion relevant, and Rotary-Club syndrome that Pankaj claims is perhaps really important...considering only a very small % of people change religion...meaning that they find is disadvantagous to leave the group.

Tahmed, 45

Anything other than discussing why God doesn’t exist and science is the answer to everything including God. But again, masters of exoteric knowledge thrive on that and their chimp admirers hail them as “intelligent” and “enlightened”!!!

godot #43 and what matters does one discuss when one is no longer ignorant and unenlightened, O learned and enlightened one?

#30 AnOrdinaryhindu


If my writing appears as malicious to your faith, then sorry. Intention was not that. I do not claim to know or pass summary judgment of any other religion.

Otherwise; I was expressing (not out of silliness) of how some of our four generations expressed their reason of converting to another social system. Often I asked them, as Hindus claim that when Islam was imposed to them with brutality, some were coward to cow in and betrayed Hinduism and thus betrayed their fellow brothers. Answer was, what they heard of early preachers of Islam and Quran, found a balance in logic and reason of humanity and God together, that also fulfilled their hunger to feel equal with power, prestige and claim of being significant. Some people of all facet of life, and some of shudro, khatrio….dome, who simply got lost with logic, reasoning, smart, strength and wealth, found peace in Islam and loved it and practiced it. Those some are found in many other parts of world too. They are minority, but they love it with their fullest regardless of how silly they are called.

These writings are not to ‘attack’ an ‘ordinaryhindu’. I rather try presenting an alternate view of what I heard of various issues that mingles our daily psyche.

jay #41 so the voices are telling you now that muslims are bad people is it? take two lithium and call me in the morning. and keep wiping that foam from the mouth in the meantime.

Debating God as to whether it exists or not and that science is a solution to all ills that inflict humanity is a realm of the ignorant and the unenlightened.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Islam is good, muslims are bad.

Here we go again, yet another so called attempt to salvage islam. Take kashmir, palestine, chechniya, philippines, indonesia, every where where muslims are sharing a border with people of another religion, hindu, chrisitan, jewish, killing is the outcome.
It is time that you stop blaming the muslims of various cultural, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds, and distill the essntila commonality across all this, and you will have to accept that they all follow the book. I recognise that it would be scietific to find the cause as the book, but then again the book contaiuns its own science, that rejects the science of causation which points to the book.

Stop blaming the people, blame the education, the book that alters the perception of its followers. There is no way to salvage it, there is only salvation, by rejecting the book.

re: tahmed32 # 32

Thank you.

These unfounded comparative assertions must be avoided. If such statements are not challenged, they acquire validity in the minds of the ignorant and impressionable. On the other hand, if we decide to show the absurdity of such statements, we will be forced to be less than fully respectful to other religions. Neither is a pleasant choice.

If I am not reading too much into what our resident GNOSTIC said- I

think there was a VERY DANGEROUS Thesis propounded by Naqshabandi which

a lot of people missed. It is propounded in this seemingly innocent and

religious discourse, supposedly providing great insignt into (human)

causality-

``....evolution as a knowledge claim about a causal relation does not

seem to me intrinsically different from other similar knowledge claims,

such as the statement ``The president died from an assassin`s bullet.``

Here, though in reality Allah alone gives life or makes to die, we find

a dispensation in Sacred Law to speak in this way, provided that we

know and believe that Allah alone brought about this effect. As for

someone who literally believes that the bullet gave the president

death, such a person is a kafir. In reality he knows no more about the

world than a man taking a bath who, when the water is cut off from the

municipality, gets angry at the tap.....``

That is, in the final analyses any person who gets killed by the

killer`s bullet gets killed because the FIRST CAUSAL link can be traced

to Allah`s WILL- This is his thesis of STRICT DETERMINISM- Rest of the

common language stuff about the killer as the immediate cause leading

to the death of the victim is a ``dispensation in the sacred law``.
This is the most dangerous excuse for all the Jehadi killers who would

massacare people and their ascribe the results of their action to

Allah`s will. CAn`t you see the Al-Qaeda speaking through NAqshabandi-

that 9/11 was an act of the GOd`s will.


I am sure those who mock at others` journey in the life make the most

dangerous mistake of forgeting that that they are walking on the edge

of the sword- it is they who would be surprised to find what is in

store for them in the next world.

sameerjb #33 i am afraid what you write reflects the same superficial and irrational mindset that leads the mullah to the opposite extreme:

1. your first point, about ``just say no`` to religion: go ahead and be my guest. say no. will that make you a better person? jails are full of criminals who have always said no to religion. on the other hand, some of the finest among men - einstein among them, who was at least as smart as you are - have always talked with awe about God (and please dont start denying that).


2. your second point is more reasonable - metaphysics is ultimately speculation that does not even try to seek proof, whereas mathematical models and physics rest on sound foundations and lend themselves to that acid test of rationality - they accept the fact that a theory has to be testable if it is to be taken seriously. neverthelss, rumi was much more than metaphysics - he wrote some beautifully insightful verses and you go too far in belittling him. the one man i would say was an unmitigated disaster was maudoodi. he was a rascal and a hypocrite with no redeeming feature. his followers are the cause of nothing but trouble as they seek to gain power by abusing religion.

Freethinker:

Your post 29 apparently points to a solution...

``...The Muslim world needs ibn-Sinas, ibn-Rushds, al-Ghazalis, Khayyams, Abdus Salams, Qadeer Khans, Iqbals, Ghalibs, Rumis, Hafizs, Mantos, Chughtais, Maudoodis, Parvezs, together with the agnostics and atheists. All of them need to live in a peaceful symbiosis and learn to respect individual beliefs and accomplishments. ``

whereas your article coming from the perspective of a scientist is quite predictable and so are in-fact many of the responses to your article (for and against).

You have couched the issue (the seemingly ``unenlightened`` state of religion or the religious) from an incorrect and rather irrelevant vantage point. The business of religion and specifically the abrahamic revealed religions is roughly a) conceptualizing God and b) morality, yet you seem to have chosen the perspective of science (sense perception / empiriciscm and material progress).

It would have made much more sense then to have prepared a critique of the contemporary muslim expression of religion as largely lacking in providing a contemporary framework of morality (lets leave alone conceptualizing God for the moment) and comparing it with at-least 2 sources of morality emanating from the west (i) secualr humanism and (ii) religion where both sources are ``alive and well``, dynamic and meaningful to westerners (though religion finds it-self in an hostile environment).

Your article then suffers from taking into account and appreciating the point of religion on the one hand, and on the other, presenting the conflict between the traditionalists (al-ghazali) and the rationalists or philosophers (Ibn Sina, alFarabi) in terms of your misdirected perspective - material progress.

I would leave such discussions as you attempt to undertake to people with a background in the social sciences, religious studies and philosophy - however I loved your post 29.

Asif.

Can science and religion merge?

Science is rational...based on discovering cause-effect pairs...based on forming hypotheses and discarding ones which are proven false. Religion is man`s quest for discovering himself (in other words...who am I).

Can this religious quest not become a scientific endeavor. Why not?

gill sahib,

re: your last post--yes I agree that all of us on Chowk myself included are to a large extent Westernised; that is inevitable especially for those who live and grew up in the West. It is probably a good thing as we Western Muslims are developing a European-Muslim culture which is not Indian or Pakistani but Islamic and European at the same time. That is the greatness of orthodoxy as personified by al Ghazzali--it allows us to develop an Islamic culture which is totally orthodox yet totally European too. At the heart of this new Islamic renaissance if you will is al Ghazzali`s Ash`arite orthodoxy linked hand in hand with Sufism. This is the antithesis of the Wahabist intepretation of Islam (Ibn Taymiyyan).
See Abd al Hakim Murad`s articles at www.masud.co.uk


The problem is when everything Western is considered right and everything Islamic is considered wrong (eg hamidm). In matters of aqidah (doctrine/scholastic theology) it is imperative to follow Orthodoxy.

On a practical level how does believing in Allah as the Only Cause stop Muslims from doing science or developing technology?That is simplistic and due to a misunderstanding of Kalam. Our malaise as an Ummah is not due to our following Imam Ghazzali but rather due to our NOT following him...

Almost all modern (Western) scholars of Ghazzali acknowledge him for being a genius far ahead of his time. He was a complete Muslim who combined the intellectual and spiritual, the Shariah and the Tariqah, the Law and the Spirit, the Worldy and the Otherwordly in a synthesis of moderation which became so successful that it has had no match to this day and is the very definition of Muslim Orthodoxy.

To quote Iqbal:

Falsafa reh gya baaqi, talqeen e Ghazzali na rahi...

Fuzair

By itself, religion may be meaningless. But it will survive because it has a ``survival value`` in a neo-Darwinist sense. By forging bonds of trust amongst a group of people and fostering intra-group morality, religion may act as a catalyst in providing the stimulus to the growth of ``civilization``. The social capital of trust that a religion builds among its adherents may sometime play a very important role in promoting economic activities and generating wealth. Take for instance the role of Calvinist ethos, a by-product of Protestantism, in promoting work ethic and generating overall prosperity in medieval Europe (details can be found in ``Trust`` by Francis Fukuyama). Besides, it also gives an individual an identity and sense of belongingness to a community. And all this apart from comforting him and alleviating his anxieties about bewildering uncertainities of life. Religion, when followed in spiritual sense, may be an agent for betterment of the human society; in overdose, it is an extremely destructive force. My own guess is that religion will continue to have an important role in society irrespective of all the scientific developments because it confers certain ``survival`` advantage to its adherents.

shobuz #28 You make a number of points, and i agree on some, disagree on others. as follows:

1. i agree that the advent of islam was beneficial to arab society at the time. the Quran itself says that it is the ``Arabic Quran, meant for a people (i.e. the arabs of the saudi peninsula) who do not understand the languages in which earlier books have been written``.

I will note though that i agree with Ordinary Hindu #30 that it is wrong on your part to drag in other religions, hinduism in this case. Since the Quran does not say that it is meant to replace existing religions - rather, it says it is simply the last in a long line of messages that have been sent to all people. the Quran also tells us to respect rituals of all religions, so even from within the context of islam it is wrong to say anything disparaging about other religions. i only wish our religious extremists would start complying with the Quran on this matter - the very Quran they quote at every step, but violate with impunity.

2. that ilsam teaches “All men are created equal”, muslim and nonmuslim alike: agreed. i just had a dull discussion on this with someone on another board who started arguing that this is not the case, but there is general agreement that there is a strong undercurrent of egalitarianism in islam. of course it is also true that many muslims treat nonmuslims as being lower - but such chauvinists are to be found in every culture.

3. i disagree with your concerns (if that is what they are - your post wasnt too clear) about giving credit to the west for rationality and scientific advances. first, the issues are too important for us to get hung up on who gets credit for it. second, lets have the courage to be realistic - of course the west has been the standard bearer for all humanity in this matter. we all benefit from western science and inventions - even as we write on chowk e.g. - so lets not be petty and hypocritical (as many muslims are) and give credit where credit is due.

4. finally, you write: but when Islam and God is mentioned in plain term, it is not ‘cool’ anymore, or some what backdated or inviting to a self portray of hate mongering stupid Muslim. agreed. this is the approach taken by a lot of superficial south asians, and i find it as empty headed as that of naqshbandi who is on the other extreme. given the mess that has been made of religion lately, i can certainly understand this allergy to any favorable mention of religion that many muslims have. i know of course that like any allergy, this reaction is not based on anything substantive. what i cant understand is the superstitious nonsense that passes for religion among millions of pakistanis, with naqshbandi exemplifying the extreme case.

#29 by freethinker on December 3, 2003 6:03pm PT

Gill:

I would like tp point out two items which you seem to be avoiding throughout your papers and in this otherwise great post also. They are:

1) You are saying - in between lines - need for reforming the infatualtion with the old thoughts and teachings in Islam. This has been discussed many times here and I have always taken the stand that the shortest and easiest path to reform Islam at individual level is to degrade its importance to the extent of becoming nominal or even totally abandoning it. All other avenues are ``via Bhatinda`` routes - the ijtehad, ijma etc. Why do you or Msulims have such a hard time accepting the simplest way out of this trap is by not getting into or near this trap (some may chose to call it crap instead of trap)

2) You have always compared various disciplines (previously about the existence of god) without arrahgind disiplines in order of importnce. Sir, metaphysics is nowhere equal as physics, neither in discussion (except here or in seminaries) nor in practice. It pains me to read comparison between an ant and an elephant in size without making clear that elephant is many order of magnitude larger than the ant. In fact in most of your writings, borderline disciplines are treated as important as established ones. Even in this post (#29), you raised the importance of Rumi, Iqbal and Hafiz for no reason related to the topic. They are good poets but why compare then with scientists. Do products of Rumi or Iqbal cure headache, blood pressure, save life, improve quality of life? They served language and other than than it is entertaining to read (belong to entertainment industry). The likes of Jonas Salk, Alexander Graham Bell, von Neumann etc belong to applied categories directly related to saving and serving life, creating medicines, jobs, comfort, progress and prosperity. In a hypothetical scenario of life threatening situation, I would rush towards the contributions of different class of people than Rumi, Iqbal or Hafiz. Similarly in real world, a pharmacist in local supermarket is more important than Taimiyyah or Ghazali. The importance of research and scientific disciplines can not be achieved by keep refering to Ghazali and Ibn Rushd`s rebuttal. These people belong in the past and they should be placed in the history but not in current affairs or sciences. Whether they did someting meaningful in their times is again irrelevent since we do not celebrate the life of many more important individuals such as the first person who made fire or who invented wheel.

Dear Inter-actors:

I acknowledge and appreciate your interest in the paper. Human beings are diverse in their culture, religion, race, knowledge, etc. In stead of pointing fingers at those who do not think like me or hold similar views, I wholeheartedly accept diversity. One of the inter-actors posed a question: Can Islam survive? Or: Should Islam survive? As far as I can see, there is no imminent danger to Islam or any other religion for that matter. However, the misfortune is and had been that the Muslims have always been defensive about Islam. Islam is in no more danger of extinction than any other religion. And that was not the point of my paper.

The world in which we live has changed a lot during the last fifty years or so. I am not accusing al-Ghazali and ibn-Taimiyyah for our shortcomings because I believe they were great thinkers of their own times and in their own ways. If we have not been able to breakaway from them and their now outdated views, it’s our fault. Their time is long gone. Their ideologies and the views are not valid in the modern times. They need to be changed. We need to un-tether ourselves from them to develop a way of life that suits our times and daily needs.

There was a poignant remark made by V.S. Naipaul about Maulana Maudoodi. I cannot quote it verbatim because I don’t have his book readily available with me. He said that Maudoodi degraded the West and the western culture all his life but when he needed medical care in his last days, he came to America and died in an American hospital. So there was conflict in the way he viewed the west and the way he implicitly trusted the western medical science and facilities. Most of our ulema are against the west because of their traditional education and upbringing. Due to globalization, lines of demarcation are fading out. If you care to think closely, we, including our friend Mr. Naqshbandi (whom I greatly respect for his personal faith and belief although I do not embrace all of them myself), are part of the west. We are westerners.

Having said that let me suggest that the material knowledge is not in vain. Even if this universe is illusory as many metaphysicians and Sufis believe, so be it. This illusory universe in which we live operates according to laws of material knowledge which we call laws of nature. It is futile to denigrate this knowledge because it is useful for human life in this world (of illusion). It is pointless to try to run this universe by some conjectural and otherworldly views because they don’t apply here. Hold them for the next world.

I want to emphasize that the knowledge of theories of quantum mechanics, relativity, mathematics, and other physical sciences is not ‘nothing’ nor illusion; it is real. This knowledge is crucially important for us. Metaphysics is also important in as much as it has helped produce beautiful poetry of Rumi, Hafiz, and Iqbal among numerous other poets.

Let me quote Iqbal (in spite of what I said about him in my paper which I believe is true, I love his poetry):

Firdos jo tera haiy kissi ney naheen dekha
Afrang ka har qariya haiy Firdos ki maanand

(The Heaven that is Yours, no body has seen it
Every hamlet of the west is like Heaven)

We need the material knowledge to make our worldly life as comfortable as the mythical life after death, if there is any. Why should any one degrade and denigrate the material knowledge? The Muslim world needs ibn-Sinas, ibn-Rushds, al-Ghazalis, Khayyams, Abdus Salams, Qadeer Khans, Iqbals, Ghalibs, Rumis, Hafizs, Mantos, Chughtais, Maudoodis, Parvezs, together with the agnostics and atheists. All of them need to live in a peaceful symbiosis and learn to respect individual beliefs and accomplishments.

Another motive for writing the paper was to suggest that we need to study critically and with comprehension the works of the people whom we hold in great veneration. It is alright to criticize their works and thought, not for the sake of malice and spite, but to learn new lessons from the critical scrutiny. Knowledge needs to be renewed like every thing else. No body has said the final word on any thing.

Mohammad Gill

re: Shobuz # 28

``people in Indian subcontinent and other parts of the world learned about a new social system that does not divide people into sects and makes clay god.``

I am in two minds: should I ignore this silliness on your part, as we Hindus prefer to do when we are confronted with others` ignorance about our - and in many cases, these people`s own parents` - religion, or should I call your bluff?

Since I am a Hindu, my first instinct is to avoid attacking any one else`s religion. Please don`t insist on being reminded of some uncomfortable truths.

#27: Tahemd32

“
And this maturity of human society is no doubt the result of scientific progress. If there had been no Age of Reason in 17th Europe, there would have been no Bill of Rights in 19th century England or the US.
“
Agreed.

Also through the knowledge of Islam ‘baby girls’ are being stopped killed in Arab peninsula, black Bilal got equal right to an white Arab, women got equal right, race/look/tribe prides are disallowed, people in Indian subcontinent and other parts of the world learned about a new social system that does not divide people into sects and makes clay god. People are taught via Quran not to be feared by any body pretending as God or God alike, people are assured that justice will be provided in due time for people who were wronged. Mostly, people will be held countable for their action and their faith. These are the words and believes that sooths one’s heart from a book name ‘Quran’ where man’s inventive ideas/words/philosophy, however well intended is not there.

“All men are created equal” may have learned by American in 17th century, but long before that, people from time to time are taught, “insaan (not men only and muslim, non-muslim alike) are equal regardless of race, color, nation” through various known, un-known prophets and good people.

Should a nation or group of people take credit of what equality and justice is or their standard is a way to measure other society or other nations progress. Are we confident that man-made rules however matured, educated, well intentioned will bring a system through which no wrong will be done. Is there any guarantee of such? By any means do we even understand ‘reasons’, ‘logics’ of one’s own short existence in this universe? Can we simply use science and logic and whatever maturity we may have collectively to pretend that we are advancing. Are we sure people who lived before us are not matured as we are, or are we matured enough comparing to people of 30th century.

Did people learn from WWII (or other wars) that mass killing is not good? Once Americans looked as a benevolent nation, now nations those do not think so anymore, are wrong. Turkey that shouted keeping beard and not wearing hizab are the example of how a muslim nation should progress. Did Roman think ‘that’s it, we ARE the civilization’? Is science, logic, reasoning, maturity, education will guarantee that democratic country with power wouldn’t go bizaark or would stand for justice all the time. If so, should I take Palestinian and Kashmiris are stupid people with stupid religion, which is the reason for not having the ability to be technically superior, hence brought misery by their own. Therefore switching or trying to achieve those technology is a prove that “Islam’ don’t work”.

I certainly do not want to sound like Rumsfield of “known known, known unknown……unknown known”.

There is a tendency of providing credit of ‘goods’ to certain nation, group, race or time, as if that is the only or correct process exist, via by passing an admittance of

“However I am educated, knowledgeable, matured with goods, means, wealth, I or we can only try our best to do best, but ultimate logic, reason, correctness is by no means in our control simply because I believe in God and there is an after life”
-Off course from a believer’s point of view.

I enjoy science, engineering and many other logical things where we brainstorm to come up with fancy, useful, un-useful, good, bad ideas. But as a believer (as a Muslim) I am puzzled when I see “will Islam survive” type-brainstorming topics go sky high crediting almost anything possible of all the grandeur of universe, but when Islam and God is mentioned in plain term, it is not ‘cool’ anymore, or some what backdated or inviting to a self portray of hate mongering stupid Muslim.

shobuz #24 Agreed that science has all too often been used for destructive purposes. But those destructive purposes are not the result of scientific progress, but of primitive impulses residing deep inside the reptilian portion of our brain (the amygdala among other places, if i may be specific).

But then: human societies have increasingly matured to a point where they can render our reptilian instincts ineffective. This is done through the rule of law. Thus, it has been increasingly for the past few decades that democracies dont go to war with one another (since checks and balances negate the aggressive behavior of individuals). Thus: in pakistan the mullah is a menace to society. In the US, their ``mullahs`` (christian fundamentalists) are reduced to yakking on TVs where they are treated as clowns by the rest of society, or trying to slip in an odd mullahism in cartoon strips (as Hart did recently in the comic strip BC and got his rear end shot to pieces by columnists and others).

And this maturity of human society is no doubt the result of scientific progress. If there had been no Age of Reason in 17th Europe, there would have been no Bill of Rights in 19th century England or the US.

And it is this very Age of Reason that the mullahs have fought hard against in muslim societies through the ages, so far quite successfully I think. (and not just the Naqshbandis of the muslim world, but seemingly sensible people who will cook up conspiracy theories out of thin air at a moment`s notice).

I agree that we need balance to science. But the balance that you talk about is best represented by the Romantic revolution of the late 18th early 19th century Europe. Not by religious obscurantism of the kind that did Galileo in in Europe or which hounded Ibn Sina throughout his life (Ibn Sina was seen more than once heading out of town with a horde of mullahs in hot pursuit) and of which our resident man worshipper naqshbandi talks proudly of.

fountainheader #17: ``hey, i respect your beliefs. go on deluding yourself by believing in god``. why is this?````

The answer is quite simple. People have an extreme fear of the unknown. And death is the biggest unknown in the world. Until science can prove what happens after death (or doesn`t happen), those arguing for removal of religion will always be fighting a losing battle.

And so far, other than a self-righteous opinion of themselves, I have yet to see any of the, ``Rationalists`` provide any answers about the above. Usually their arguments are based on calling anyone who doesn`t, ``see the light`` like they do, ignorant and misguided. In a sense this is a the non-relgious equivalent of calling someone a, ``kafir.``

I personally think finding the answer to what happens after the death, and the answer to the basis of creation, i.e. who created the very first creation, is beyond the mental capabilities of human beings. In that sense, both the religious and non-religious ``Rationalists`` are offering nothing but opinions. Just like there is no way anyone can be sure, whether their view of life after death is correct, similarly, until someone provides a scientific reasoning for the creation of beings, one cannot say with any certainity that those following a religion are wrong, either.

This is probably why people have hedged their bets. They have favored the religious argument, because at least it provides some sort of an answer to their questions; even if the answers are non-scientific, in many cases. While the non-religionists have yet to be able to provide any sort of a scientific answer to these questions. Since the later bases its views purely on science, until it can provide a scientific answer, it will generally be disregarded and its arguments will rarely get much popularity.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

..........it pains me to see grown men talk so seriously about cause and effect .......... here, let`s do a simple experiment : walk out to the edge of the freeway, say a little prayer to al-lah, and step out into the traffic ......... if you don`t get hit by a car then we can be sure that there is there is no relationship between stupidity and being hit by a car, and that it all depends on which side of the bed allah woke up on ........

......... and from what little i know about mr ghazzali it is quite evident that the man was a bonafide idiot - anyone who believes in spontaneous combustion deserves to be burned at the stake ..........see if al-lah intervenes to save him!........... we all know that in ancient times people believed in a lot of silly things - there are graves of people 27 feet tall all over pakistan ( ``nau-gaza`` peers) - but only madmen would perpetuate these myths in this day and age .......... what really scares the heck out of me is that people actually name there kids after ghazzali and iqbal - but then we have to remember that these are the same people who name their kids osama.............

......... and then there is naqshbandi

#10 by Naqshbandi on December 2, 2003 5:44pm PT

I think SameerJB, Hameedm 12345 or whatever the number is , won hands (pants if is a right word) down.

What do you have sir. EH?

Woman according to your religion ....I do not know (Starts with Gaza.. some one lwho has lots of problem with the word starting S and ends with X...How many problems I do not know). According to him a woman according Islam is a double digit sinner, no matter what she does. Born sinner.. dies sinner. Will give ALL the URLs if you want. Gazalli or who so ever.

But I know you are smarter than that. You will not ask for it. Its all there anyway.

Your Prophet married a woman who was a business woman. She was conducting it before your...Oh well. Do you have guts to say your prophet was.. wrong?? Marrying a business woman. Boy o boy. She actually might have taken interviews of Males and decided .... May be she actually showd her face...Talked to a male.... Sinner o sinner. And your Prophet actually married her???

Let me tell you and URS... (also FV , but she is an Indian)

After you ``realised`` (and so did you and yor Gaza.. or something.)..No business for woman in Macca and Madina. Your prophet was aok with it.

That is progress. That is where Sameerjb and Hameed (what was the number 1? 2? 3?) scores.

I do sometimes or OK do not sometimetimes hate Tahmed 123 or whatever...But I did railed against him once. I do read and love Jay once in a while (Ts eternal love :)). But T, 123 or whatever, never refuted. He actually was the only one who replied.

You will never. Will FV write one single sentence why in Islamic woman ...well... She will always write against Bongos....

Go and bask with urstruely. Those who spit on thalee that feeds them are Truely....

May be T is the one more Islamic (human) than you think. May be Sameerjb or Hamid 100/200 (what is your number??) are saying something you are missing....


Nashq saab

The movement you take out the liberty to question ``WHY`` for every simple or complex thing, including your ``book``.... Well to start with you have loose respect... next you are fanatic.... next you prove a theory Islam is about terrorism.

My way or Highway is your style. You have the gun. Shoot.

Yogiraj

Those nations through its scientific research gains the ability to make ‘parking lot’ of other nation are often mentioned as an exemplary model of what science can achieve to mankind. Mullahs are not only responsible for not marching with science. If that would be the case then nation without mullahs (many African nations) would have scientific progress. Sure you can measure a nation, race through its scientific achievement, but should it be THE way to call names.

Chinese invented gunpowder and used primarily for fun, where West accelerated its usefulness as bullets. Invention of Airplane took a slow pace, but when need for kill came we have F-16 today. Finding atomic structure was great, but A B came on board when mass killing required. Internet itself was invented solely for army’s use. Many inventions that make some nation ‘scientifically strong’ were based on ‘me no go front, but kill many fast & feel brave’. Many uses of modern technology are primarily for dominating other nation. It is quiet understandable why people need technology to claim themselves as ‘advanced people’.

But could there be people who are not disagreeing with any scientific achievement and its usefulness or need to have it, but rather simply pass their life with what they have as generation-to-generation lived (like Amish people in PA). Could it be possible that some people with faith or without faith may not get excited of scientific achievement, specially to those achievement where one need the urge to kill other. Could it be possible like the Native Indians of S America always thought material belongs to every one to share and Spaniards thought it was stupid? Or like the Red-Indians who did not understood the logic of owing land. These people are gone today via the scientific means of West.

There is no quarrel of scientific achievement; only an alternate way of looking, that may be there are other means to measure people/society without looking through scientific prism.

After all, people ‘believing after life’ believes that calling other stupid, naïve, backward via measuring their scientific achievement is certainly not a criteria to enter the next world. AB, fast car, fast plane, modern convenience all are fun and great, but still these are not what I will be measured by. Beside, who knows what I may find out there, where all that ‘earthly grandeur scientific achievement’ may appear insignificant comparing to what I may experience there.

Re: Hamidm #6

Unfortunately, I am not as sanguine as you about science/rationality`s ability to survive the onslaught of the unenlightened hordes. By definition, most people are pretty much average and the average is pretty low. Therefore, stupidity will win out each time. Just look at the US: how many people believe in angels? Talk to God every day? Ask themselves WWJD? Believe that Jesus is personally looking out for them? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

And this is in a country where they try to keep God and the Church out of the schoolroom! Why is it surprising that in a country where they ram Allah down everyone`s throat, from KG to BA and every other minute on TV, our people (those who can read and write and those who can`t) have addled brains and concussions from banging their heads on the floor five times a day and hallucinations from fasting in the middle of summer? (This ramzan being an exception!)

As far as I am concerned, anyone who insists on a public profession of their faith should be hunted down in the streets. Same for anyone who insists on public accomodation for their particular brand of superstition, whether it is time off for prayers or kosher food being served in the cafeteria. But I fear that the rationalists are fighting a losing battle against the forces of ignorance. As that French philosopher said, ``God is dead, Marx is dead and I am not feeling too well myself.``

Yo Gill sahib, nice one! I`m always waiting for your articles. :-)

Can Science Survive?

Ofcourse it will! As someone has already made clear how dependent even the strictest of mullahs are on scientific advancements, the fact that science is and will remain a very important part of every muslim, christian, jewish, hindu populace of the world is undeniable. The, the strict religionist mullahs moulanas drive around posh neighborhoods in large expensive cars and fancy mobile phones flashing near their ears, they try to follow all sorts of latest trends which inculde buying the best Levis jeans in town, going to the most talked of restraunt and fast food outlet and things like that. The point is that everyone from every category is following a single path yet a certain hypocrite group within each category apparently wants to cloak its association with and practise of moderenity! Maybe they are too ashamed to admit their hypocrisy, and coerce others to follow them without making everyone realize their true selves. This is the true evil that should be rooted out from a nation and not the evil which mullahs associate with atheism, rationality and freethinking.

Atheism? Atheists, in my opinion, are THE biggest losers if they are willing and happy to call themselves atheists. Hypocrisy comes in all colors, shapes and sizes... and the number of atheists, moualanas, scientists and others within the circle of evil is large! If someone really wants to be a freethinker and believes in Causality then why should he as a reasonable rational person associate him with a group and put an end to his creativity of thought as soon as he enters the door of his supposed freedom?

The Holy Qur`an is said to have explanations of all new scientific breakthroughs and amazing new discoveries... through indirect words ofcourse. And this is the concept that religiously inclined scientists and researchers strictly adhere to that all that is discovered and will be discovered is due to the will of the Almighty Allah, and the complexity within each and every particle, atom, molecule or superstring is evident of His greatness. None of them would dare say that every event solely depends upon divine intervention, and that all other scientific explanation is nonsense. Thus it is quite clear from this scientific evolution that eventually the future would have more of science and lesser hypocrisy! I do not say `less of religion` because it is here to stay, and it is indeed necessary.

Against the strict determinism of Naqshabandi

Few passages in Arabic philosophy have attracted as much attention as al-Ghazâlî`s discussion of causality in the seventeenth discussion of Tahâfut al-Falâsifa, along with the response of Ibn Rushd (Averroës) in his Tahâfut al-Tahâfut. A question which has been addressed several times is to what extent al-Ghazâlî can be called an occasionalist: whether he here follows other Kalâm thinkers in restricting causal agency to God alone. (1) What has not been addressed in studies of this text is a question which al-Ghazâlî and Ibn Rushd both see as decisive in the seventeenth discussion: what theory of causality is sufficient to explain human knowledge? (2) In this paper I will show that al-Ghazâlî`s and Ibn Rushd`s theories of causality are closely related to their epistemologies. The difference between the two thinkers can be quickly summed up by saying that for Ibn Rushd the paradigm of human knowledge is demonstrative science, whereas for al-Ghazâlî the paradigm of human knowledge is, or at least includes, revelation. In closing I will suggest that al-Ghazâlî`s commitment to this paradigm sheds light on the guiding intent of his critique of philosophy in the Tahâfut.

But before turning to the epistemic aspect of the seventeenth discussion, let me say briefly what I take to be al-Ghazâlî`s basic position on causality. As others have noted, his critique here imputes a very strong notion of causality to the philosophers: namely that given the existence of a cause, the existence of its effect is necessary. (3) Al-Ghazâlî holds that, on such a notion of causality, only God is a cause. This is because, given the existence of miracles, and accepting the proposition that God can do anything, no cause other than God can necessitate its effect. It is always possible that God might will the expected effect not to proceed, or will an entirely different effect to proceed. Al-Ghazâlî defends this view against both philosophers who claim that a natural cause, such as the fire which causes the burning of cotton, is the sole and sufficient cause for its effect, and against those who, like Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna), would say that there is a giver of forms in the celestial world which imposes form once a sublunar cause has prepared some matter for that form. Against the first view, al-Ghazâlî gives the famous argument which has been compared to Hume`s: observation of simultaneity does not prove that causation has occurred. Against the latter view, al-Ghazâlî says that if effects are brought about by higher principles, they depend ultimately on God`s will, and God can do anything except the absolutely impossible. Therefore, no effect proceeds necessarily from its cause, unless the cause in question is God Himself.

But al-Ghazâlî goes on to say, in essence, that natural causes can be regarded as causes if we invoke a weaker notion of causality. He admits that a natural cause has a nature which gives rise to certain effects: fire, for instance, has a nature such that it burns whatever is in contact with it. But this does not mean that fire is a necessary cause, in the sense that the existence of fire in contact with cotton logically entails the existence of burning cotton. The nature of fire itself, says al-Ghazâlî, derives from God, and God chooses whether or not this nature will give rise to its normal effect or not. On al-Ghazâlî`s view, natural causes are only contingently causes -- their effects only proceed if the true Agent who gave them their natures wishes it. (4) Ibn Rushd was the first of many to see this position as an inconsistent concession to the philosophers on al-Ghazâlî`s part, because al-Ghazâlî seems at first to say that God is the only cause, and then asserts that created things do have natures which lead them to cause their effects. But al-Ghazâlî`s view is not inconsistent: it merely sees created natures as inherently contingent and provisional, relying on God`s continued will for their efficacy and very existence.

Ibn Rushd`s response to al-Ghazâlî is based on the objection that if any form of occasionalism is accepted, there is no possibility for human knowledge. He remarks that if what he perceives to be al-Ghazâlî`s denial of causality is accepted, `there is no fixed (thâbit) knowledge of anything,` because `certain (yaqînî) knowledge is the knowledge of the thing according to what it is in itself.` (5) Here Ibn Rushd is tacitly relying on two principles of Aristotelianism. The first is what we might call epistemic optimism: as an Aristotelian, Ibn Rushd takes it for granted that humans have knowledge, so that if a theory of causality is incompatible with our knowing things as they are, then this is itself a sufficient refutation of that theory. The second is the principle that things are only known demonstratively through their causes. This is of course a basic tenet of medieval epistemology: elsewhere in Arabic philosophy, it is used to argue for the impossibility of positive theology in the Liber de Causis, and it is the basis for St. Thomas Aquinas` notion of a propter quid demonstration. (6) For Ibn Rushd these two principles are the guidelines along which a theory of causality must be developed. He says, for instance, that `if the things whose causes are not perceived are unknown by nature and sought after, then what is not unknown necessarily has perceived causes.` (7) On the strength of the two principles, he is confident that he can rule out any form of occasionalism.

The first thing that should be noted about Ibn Rushd`s objection to al-Ghazâlî here is that it does not seem, at first, to be relevant. The objection assumes that al-Ghazâlî rejects the idea that things have natures, which are both the principles of demonstrative knowledge and the principles of causality. By denying causality, Ibn Rushd argues, al-Ghazâlî has also rejected the possibility of knowledge. But as we saw above, al-Ghazâlî does not in fact completely reject natures: he thinks a created thing has a created nature which causes a proper effect, but that this nature and causation are always subject to God`s will. Still, one can readily see how Ibn Rushd`s objection might be adapted to meet this rather less occasionalistic view. If natures only possibly give rise to their effects, then our knowledge of them is not necessary, but only probable: natures must remain always the same if they are to be the objects of demonstrative, scientific knowledge. (8) Ibn Rushd alludes to this requirement when he remarks that knowledge based on natures must be `fixed` -- in other words, it must always be the case that natures cause a proper effect, by the very definition of `nature.` (9) This is one reason why Ibn Rushd insists that miracles, i.e. those cases in which God does step in and disturb the natural course of causation, are not even something we can rationally discuss. Supernatural events, as the very name implies, are beyond any knowledge we can have of nature, and therefore are not properly to be included in any discussion of causality or philosophy in general.

It is a measure of how inapt is the comparison so often made between al-Ghazâlî and Hume that al-Ghazâlî both anticipates this objection and takes it seriously. His goal is certainly not a kind of Humean skepticism; on the contrary, he is just as committed as Ibn Rushd to Aristotelian epistemic optimism, and in a sense he is even committed to the principle that knowledge is only through causes. Thus al-Ghazâlî himself raises the question of why miracles do not prevent our knowledge of the empirical world, admitting that if they did, a man who left a book in his home would have to say, `I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.` (10) Al-Ghazâlî`s response to the objection is most intriguing: he suggests that God continually creates in us the knowledge that He will not perform these miracles. Thus the source of a man`s knowledge that, say, his book is still in the house, is God Himself. Indeed, al-Ghazâlî seems to be contrasting the so-called `knowledge` of experience, which only leads to the habit of expecting given natures to cause given effects, with a certain knowledge created in us by God. It should be noted here that it has been questioned whether this passage represents al-Ghazâlî`s own views -- the dispute turns on a point of translation. (11) We need not, however, decide this question here, because even outside this passage al-Ghazâlî continues to propose that knowledge can be created in us by God, both in the seventeenth discussion and elsewhere. (12)

A modern reader is likely, I think, to reject al-Ghazâlî`s solution as inadequate: a knowledge created by God in a human hardly seems to qualify as knowledge in the proper sense at all. This is in fact exactly the objection put by Ibn Rushd, who argues that one only has knowledge if that knowledge has a direct relationship to the natural cause that is known. Even assuming that God does create knowledge in a person, that person is only said to know if the knowledge `is something dependent on the nature of the existent, because the true is [when] one believes something to be as it is in existence.` (13) Thus our two authors are, at root, at odds with one another over the epistemic question: what are the conditions for certain knowledge? For al-Ghazâlî, the habit of knowing brought about by experience is not knowledge of what is necessary; only a knowledge produced by God is certain. For Ibn Rushd, the situation is precisely reversed: if God creates a knowledge in us, that knowledge is properly designated as knowledge only if it corresponds to a real nature.

Modern intuitions about this question notwithstanding, it must be admitted that al-Ghazâlî`s view on justification is perfectly consistent with his view on causality. Al-Ghazâlî admits that we do know that certain things will and will not happen. But if causes are always contingent on God`s will in producing their effects, then certain knowledge can only derive from the real source of necessity in the causal relationship, namely God. Thus, as already remarked, there is a sense in which al-Ghazâlî would agree to the second Aristotelian principle that knowledge is always through causes. But for him this means that certain knowledge is always through God, because causality is only through God. That this is really al-Ghazâlî`s intent can be seen from the fact that he puts knowledge of normal events on the same plane as the special knowledge that is enjoyed by prophets. The knowledge that comes about through the habitual course of nature is just as certain as the knowledge of a prophet that there will be an exception in the course of nature, because both sorts of knowledge are created by God. (14) Thus it makes sense to say that, for al-Ghazâlî, revelation or prophesy is the paradigmatic form of knowledge for humans.

In the face of this view, Ibn Rushd`s insistence on the Aristotelian definition of knowledge as perception in conformity with a nature seems to be little more than begging the question. This is because, as already mentioned, Ibn Rushd assumes that the supernatural -- which for al-Ghazâlî is fundamental -- is a subject which cannot be understood nor even rationally discussed. Indeed, he chastises al-Ghazâlî repeatedly for bringing into the arguments of the Tahâfut things that should not be disputed, lest the political function of religion be compromised. In the seventeenth discussion, Ibn Rushd`s political argument against al-Ghazâlî is buttressed by an epistemological one: knowledge as such has to do with natures, and therefore excludes supernatural causes and events. Whether Ibn Rushd believes that miracles really do happen, or are only said to happen for the sake of common believers, they will by definition not fall within the realm of scientific, Aristotelian discourse: `it is necessary to say about [the shari`a] that its principles are divine matters transcending human intellects, and they must be recognized without fail despite ignorance of their causes.` (15) By itself, this assertion is question-begging because it does not address possible counter-examples to the `philosophical` paradigm of knowledge -- such as miracles -- assuming in effect that `cause` and `knowledge` are simply terms which do not apply to the supernatural.

Ibn Rushd does, however, have a more elaborate response to give against the accusation of question-begging, because of his own account of the importance of God for natural causes. The regularity and predictability of natural causes, according to Ibn Rushd, is a testament to God`s wisdom. Ibn Rushd can gain support for this view from the Qurân, which he quotes explicitly: `And you will not find any alteration in the doings (sunna) of God, and you will not find any change in the doings of God.` (16) Scientific knowledge is not, then, an affront to God`s power, but is only made possible by God`s wisdom, which does not allow natures and therefore causal relationships to change. The defense is deepened by Ibn Rushd`s allusion to another doctrine he holds in the Tahâfut, namely that God`s knowledge of things is the cause of their existence. Ibn Rushd goes so far as to remark that God`s knowledge of natures must have the same objects as our own, though in God`s case the relationship is causal, as well as epistemic: `if we have knowledge of these possibles, then there is a condition (hâl) in the possible existents to which our knowledge pertains... and this is what the philosophers designate as nature. Likewise, the knowledge of God is through the existents, although [God`s knowledge] is their cause... and therefore it is necessary that the existents come about in accordance with His knowledge.` (17) But the rejoinder open to al-Ghazâlî is clear: Ibn Rushd has here effectively raised scientific knowledge to the level of divine knowledge; indeed, he has identified the two. Thus it also becomes clear how much the paradigm of knowledge, for Ibn Rushd, is that of natural science. But against al-Ghazâlî, the view remains question-begging. This is because Ibn Rushd assumes, rather than argues, that divine wisdom and knowledge would be incompatible with a change in the course of nature, whereas al-Ghazâlî insists precisely that such changes are possible.

Yet, does not Ibn Rushd have a legitimate criticism of al-Ghazâlî insofar as al-Ghazâlî`s stance does not allow for scientific knowledge at all? If al-Ghazâlî holds to some kind of epistemic optimism regarding natural science, this should remain a problem for him. The answer to this question sheds light on al-Ghazâlî`s general attitude towards philosophy in the Tahâfut. Recall that al-Ghazâlî does, in fact, concede to the philosophers that there are natures which give rise to effects. So he leaves room for scientific knowledge of those natures (e.g. the knowledge that fire burns). What al-Ghazâlî denies is that such knowledge constitutes necessary knowledge -- scientific discourse is partial, because it cannot establish whether a given natural cause will be superseded by supernatural intervention. Thus al-Ghazâlî does not reject scientific or philosophical knowledge altogether. What he does do is to show that it does not measure up to the rather high standard the philosophers have set for themselves, namely that knowledge be of relationships which are logically necessary.

This is, I would submit, representative of al-Ghazâlî`s strategy in the Tahâfut. His goal is not to show the `incoherence` of the philosophers, if this is taken to mean that all of philosophy is incoherent. His goal is rather to show that philosophy must be subsumed within an intellectual enterprise which includes revelation -- and further, that revelation must be regarded as the most superior kind of knowledge. The strategy of the Tahâfut is to show that philosophy, mostly as represented by Ibn Sînâ, has overreached itself in a number of cases, reaching false conclusions where reason should simply be recognized as inadequate. Thus in the seventeenth discussion he remarks, regarding prophetic miracles, that `although the extent of [the prophet`s] power is not determined in the intellect, there is still no need to deny what is traditionally handed down and what revelation mentions.` (18) Similarly, in the second discussion, taking an approach like that of Maimonides, al-Ghazâlî argues, `since it is clear that we do not at all dismiss the permanence of the world from the viewpoint of the intellect, but allow as possible the permanence and extinction [of the world], we only know which possibility is really the case through revelation; thus insight into this does not belong to reason.` (19)

Although al-Ghazâlî has traditionally been seen as an anti-rationalist, a mere opponent of philosophy, our analysis of the seventeenth discussion suggests that his attitude towards philosophy is both more subtle and less radical. The al-Ghazâlî of the Tahâfut should be classed not with the anti-rationalists, but with those concerned to keep philosophy in its proper place. For an analogous position in medieval Europe, we need look no further than St. Thomas Aquinas. Though Aquinas is usually considered to be far more of a rationalist than al-Ghazâlî, a Ghazâlîan strategy of limiting the claims of philosophy can be found in, for example, Question 12 of the Prima Pars, where Aquinas argues that human reason by itself is unable to know God, so that humans require the supernatural assistance of grace to achieve their perfection. This is not to suggest that Aquinas` view on the more specific issue of causality is comparable to al-Ghazâlî`s. Rather, it is to suggest that, like Thomas, al-Ghazâlî can be seen as sympathetic to philosophy within its proper limits, even though he holds that philosophy is not the highest paradigm of human knowledge.

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediAdam.htm

#14 by nasah on December 2, 2003 9:27pm PT
HA! The purest Gnostic I have seen in my life-- his arrogance about his PURITY of Character and NOBILITY of thoughts are exemplary!!!

#6 hamidm2

I completely and totally agree.douglas adams, in one of his serious essays, wrote something to the effect-

``If I am a Tory and I meet a Labour guy, I can tear his ideas to shreds in public. If I like Arsenal and I meet a ManU fan, he can launch a detailed verbal assault on the team I follow. But when it comes to religion, we are supposed to say ``hey, i respect your beliefs. go on deluding yourself by believing in god``. why is this?``