The enemies of reason. A must see!
-
Peace "House M.D" and "OPF",
Thanx bro OPF and yes thats what he meant. By hidden tribes though i was referring to the elite(as pted out in bro Arnold's articles too) or priests/monks who were and still are very cut off from the main society hiding in their big castles and controlling the people from there through their money and wealth or dogmatic "spiritual" influence. And theres nothing esoterical about universal forces or rather "one in control" as that can refer to the forces of nature as well as the ones who have authority. GOD Bless! -
Yes, that absolutely is esoterical. If the Quran was meant to shake us out of superstitions, it surely would have been explicit, rather than use hords of terminology that makes people think of Angels and Jinns. And what about the Pharoh's dreams? Is there a scientific explanation for that to? I'd like to hear you explain it to Dawkins!
-
Indeed, I apologise, I have not read brother Arnold's articles. But may I ask how would you answer the criticism that you're reading modern ideas into an anchient text? Even if the languge in the Quran can, when you try hard enough, be translated to exclude the supernatural, that is definately not he way it would have been understood in the Prophet's time, considering Arabs are culturally quite supersticious, and I mean that in the nicest possible way, being part Arab myself.
I agree.
I am ready to accept that the quran is full of allegories that have been misunderstood because of literal interpretations, but the quran certainly doesn't contain miraculous scientific knowledge.
I think we underestimate the people of the past, they probably had more knowledge than we think they did, and any information in the quran must have been known by people at the time, especially since that knowledge is being used to make a point. -
Peace "Mahmud",
Yes, that absolutely is esoterical. If the Quran was meant to shake us out of superstitions, it surely would have been explicit, rather than use hords of terminology that makes people think of Angels and Jinns. And what about the Pharoh's dreams? Is there a scientific explanation for that to? I'd like to hear you explain it to Dawkins!
JK- You mean the king al-aziz's dream in the story of Joseph. The Quran accurately doesnt call him pharaoh cause at that time the term pharaoh was non existent. Thats no one. 2ndly dreams do have a meaning, not in a paranormal sense, but in a psychological one. And also there are no universal interpretaions of a particular dream meaning we have to look at the person's background whos having the dream in order to get to know whats going on in his psyche. Furthermore there are ofcurse verses in the Quran which pertain to a phenomena which may not yet be known or was unknown at the time of revelation (eg 2130 big bang and every living thing being made from water). BUT thts nothing paranormal or supernatural. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Mahmud",
JK- You mean the king al-aziz's dream in the story of Joseph. The Quran accurately doesnt call him pharaoh cause at that time the term pharaoh was non existent. Thats no one. 2ndly dreams do have a meaning, not in a paranormal sense, but in a psychological one. And also there are no universal interpretaions of a particular dream meaning we have to look at the person's background whos having the dream in order to get to know whats going on in his psyche. Furthermore there are ofcurse verses in the Quran which pertain to a phenomena which may not yet be known or was unknown at the time of revelation (eg 2130 big bang and every living thing being made from water). BUT thts nothing paranormal or supernatural. GOD Bless!
But the dreams Joseph interpreted first predicted which inmate would be killed and which released, and secondly predicted a famine, seven years hence! I don't see how you can complain about alternative medicine at the same time as arguing that dream prediction is a sound scientific basis for long term economic planning.
There is a saying, that 'Magic' is simply a term for science that we don't yet understand. But that is not Dawkin's stance. Dawkins condemns all religions as being superstitious, and says we must reject any idea that is not verifiable in the Lab. I call this naieve becase it is not the way that many social sciences work, and is in ignorance of the writings of the Philosophers of Science Kuhn and Lakatos, who understand that what consititutes 'scientific method' is far more diverse and complex.
-
Peace "Mahmud",
But the dreams Joseph interpreted first predicted which inmate would be killed and which released, and secondly predicted a famine, seven years hence! I don't see how you can complain about alternative medicine at the same time as arguing that dream prediction is a sound scientific basis for long term economic planning.
There is a saying, that 'Magic' is simply a term for science that we don't yet understand. But that is not Dawkin's stance. Dawkins condemns all religions as being superstitious, and says we must reject any idea that is not verifiable in the Lab. I call this naieve becase it is not the way that many social sciences work, and is in ignorance of the writings of the Philosophers of Science Kuhn and Lakatos, who understand that what consititutes 'scientific method' is far more diverse and complex.
JK- Ths is not true. So much of science IS INFERENCE and Dawkins surely knows this. The Quran has proven itself to be true consistently by comparison with the real world and by its not containing contradicitons neither it being falsified. However that doesnt make it supernatural. Just because we dont understand something yet does not make it supernatural. Now regarding the precidtions Joseph made from the dream i dont think there was any mention of when an inmate would killed. Regarding the economic issue this is very possible. It as happened many times that certain people felt that a war or a big uproar was about to happen soon and it did. This has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has to do with SUBTLE SUBCONSCIOUS PATTERN RECOGNITION from the surrounding events which if the brain is rational enough could sum up and make a rather accurate prediction out of it. A marvellous example studied by scientists is that of Zebras. They have the ability to recognize whether a lion wants to hunt them down just from his facial pattern WHILST HES STILL LYING DOWN, APPARENTLY CALM, IN THE FIELD. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Mahmud",
JK- Ths is not true. So much of science IS INFERENCE and Dawkins surely knows this. The Quran has proven itself to be true consistently by comparison with the real world and by its not containing contradicitons neither it being falsified. However that doesnt make it supernatural. Just because we dont understand something yet does not make it supernatural. Now regarding the precidtions Joseph made from the dream i dont think there was any mention of when an inmate would killed. Regarding the economic issue this is very possible. It as happened many times that certain people felt that a war or a big uproar was about to happen soon and it did. This has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has to do with SUBTLE SUBCONSCIOUS PATTERN RECOGNITION from the surrounding events which if the brain is rational enough could sum up and make a rather accurate prediction out of it. A marvellous example studied by scientists is that of Zebras. They have the ability to recognize whether a lion wants to hunt them down just from his facial pattern WHILST HES STILL LYING DOWN, APPARENTLY CALM, IN THE FIELD. GOD Bless!
I don't think you can compare judging an animals thoughts from its face with accurately predicting the climate over a period of 14 years.
But since you accept that things we don't understand yet are not supernatural, why don't you say the same about alternative medicine? It could be we just don't understand it. The same goes for everything. We just don't understand Angel's, and Jinn's, maybe their creatures living in another dimension. Maybe psychics read minds for a scientific reason. Why defend one set of unknowns as being legitimate science whilst condemning another set of unknowns as paranormal superstition?
-
Peace "Mahmud",
I don't think you can compare judging an animals thoughts from its face with accurately predicting the climate over a period of 14 years.
But since you accept that things we don't understand yet are not supernatural, why don't you say the same about alternative medicine? It could be we just don't understand it. The same goes for everything. We just don't understand Angel's, and Jinn's, maybe their creatures living in another dimension. Maybe psychics read minds for a scientific reason. Why defend one set of unknowns as being legitimate science whilst condemning another set of unknowns as paranormal superstition?
JK- Reg alternative medicine it has been falsified in all cases ive seen. If you know of some that works under controlled conditions lease show me. Reg the meanings of jinn, malaaika etc we already have discovered the simplest understandings of these terms from dictionaries and Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest understanding is mostly the right one. It is possible that the DNA molecule was oroginally created by aliens(under the command of GOD) on another planet and then trnaferred here on earth through meteors BUT this is not the simplest understanding. So we first look for explanations here on earth and only if we can under controlled conditions positively exclude any possibility of the DNA assemobling itself here on earth(which has been done via RNA), then we can go on to something else. GOD Bless!
-
Occam's Razor isn't a scientific principle but a philosophical one, and it isn't very meaningful. Nothing in this universe is simple, if you go down to the smallest possible scale, the atom is an immensely complex particle that can only be understood with pure mathematics, and an entirely new field of maths had to be invented to discuss it in the 1930s.
When you come to something like dreams predicting the future, there is no simple explanation. So all you are left with is a miraculous story that science cannot explain. I don't understand why you insist on saying that it cannot be "supernatural". It's not "natural" as defined by modern science. Hence "super" natural means beyond what science would predict.
-
Peace "Mahmud",
Occam's Razor isn't a scientific principle but a philosophical one, and it isn't very meaningful. Nothing in this universe is simple, if you go down to the smallest possible scale, the atom is an immensely complex particle that can only be understood with pure mathematics, and an entirely new field of maths had to be invented to discuss it in the 1930s.
JK- Man now your misunderstanding the concept between simplicity and the simlest possible explanation. The simlest explanation itself can include many complex detils. Is RNA structure simple? Occam's Razor means that if you have many explanations for something then the one which is more down to earth and in that sense simple is more likely to be the correct one and this has consistently shown to be the case. Yes there maybe extra ordinary claims which come true BUT THOSE REQUIRE EXTRA ORDINARY EVIDENCE TOO. Take the Diana conspiracy for example. Did the UK royalty conspire to get her killed or was it the driver's mistake. Occam's Razor supports the latter and so it is more likely. Ofcourse this doesnt mean that the former cant be true. It can but qould require a lot more evidence to be justified than the former would.
When you come to something like dreams predicting the future, there is no simple explanation. So all you are left with is a miraculous story that science cannot explain. I don't understand why you insist on saying that it cannot be "supernatural". It's not "natural" as defined by modern science. Hence "super" natural means beyond what science would predict.
JK- Again there can be many explanations of dreams, each having their own associated details, and one of them is the simplest explanation which is most liekly gonna be the correct one unless any of the others are supported by a relatively heavier amount of evidence. GOD Bless!
-
I disagree. If you have no evidence to support A or B as explanations, and A is simple whilst B is complex, you have no reason to believe either. Simplicity in itself is an artificial concept. When a situation looks simple, that is always because you lack information. Aren't you familiar with the concept of fractals?
-
Peace "Mahmud",
I disagree. If you have no evidence to support A or B as explanations, and A is simple whilst B is complex, you have no reason to believe either. Simplicity in itself is an artificial concept. When a situation looks simple, that is always because you lack information. Aren't you familiar with the concept of fractals?
JK- You do have appx equal facts supporting explanations A or B. This is what ive explained before. In that case the simplest is most liely to be the correct one. If you disagree then im sorry to say you disagree with science since it has been observed consistently that Occam's Razor works for the majority of cases. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Mahmud",
Heres a more clear definition of Occam's Razor from wikiOccam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness" "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
GOD Bless!
-
Yes, it doesn't say the simplest explanation is 'usually' correct. Because that wouldn't be scientific.
I don't like this attempt to strip down religion to observable, understandable phenomenon. It is not taking the revelations in the spirit in which they were given.
-
Peace "Mahmud",
Yes, it doesn't say the simplest explanation is 'usually' correct. Because that wouldn't be scientific.
JK- I believe i clarified this now.
I don't like this attempt to strip down religion to observable, understandable phenomenon. It is not taking the revelations in the spirit in which they were given.
JK- And here exactly is the problem. I myself and many others dont even call Islam a religion but a system/way of life. I also dont like the terms spirit/soul and would rather use conscience/self instead of them which we understand now is formed by specific combination of neural signals in the brain. Religion and blind faith is nonsense and unacceptable to any rational mind. It has caused nothing but problems in the long run. As for the true Islam based on Quran Alone we are making observations everaday and the data is adding up showing that this system is very consistent with reality. Hence we accept and trust it otherwise why would we bother following it? Why do you bother following your version of Islam/hadith islam? GOD Bless!
-
I believe in following the religion that accords with human nature, with the spirit of what we are. Allah did not create us to be logic automatons, rolling around like Daleks, computing bits of evidence to mathematically construct a system/way. Allah created living, breathing human beings. He didn't make us communicate using binary code, but with all of our languages. Islam isn't a rulebook but a living culture. The Prophet did not convert Arabia using argument, but through singing poetry.
Human nature isn't logical or rational. The things that motivate us most are faith, hope and love. That is why religion must be spiritual. The soul isn't what we think with, it isn't the inefficient calculator that is the brain. Only Allah knows the essence of who we are. True worship of Allah only occurs when our thoughts go quite, that is why the Prophet sang the poetry of the Quran, and didn't argue it. Arguing makes people think more, whilst singing relaxes us, especially devotional singing to our most merciful creator.
If you want to know what is in the middle, between blind faith, and blind logic, you have to look into our humanity, the essence of ourselves that we call the soul because we know no material definition can every truly capture it. The connection with God inside ourselves, the word of god, holy spirit, spirit of wisdom, great life force, the Power of Almighty God, the natural desire to worship Allah that was implanted inside our humanity. Every culture and every society in the whole world has developed a system of spirituality, of worshiping God, however they understand him. Of course God wants us to worship him, he wrote it into our DNA. You don't need a handful of apocalyptic prophecies and medieval number games to work that out.
Interestingly enough, Dawkins seems to have copied William Ralph Inge in the title of his video. "The enemies of reason" of course echoes the saying "The enemies of freedom do no argue, they shout and they shoot". But enemies of reason lacks something that enemies of freedom has. Of course, it is because freedom is a passionate, spiritual concept, whilst reason is much more mundane. Freedom is also a religious concept. "Whoever sins is a slave to sin", the Prophet Jesus tells us, whilst he, the Messiah - the one Anointed by the Power of of Almighty God - comes to set us free, as the spirit is what guides our conscience, so we know the difference between right and wrong, and can become free from sin.
-
Peace "Mahmud",
I believe in following the religion that accords with human nature, with the spirit of what we are. Allah did not create us to be logic automatons, rolling around like Daleks, computing bits of evidence to mathematically construct a system/way. Allah created living, breathing human beings. He didn't make us communicate using binary code, but with all of our languages. Islam isn't a rulebook but a living culture. The Prophet did not convert Arabia using argument, but through singing poetry.
JK- Wrong infact GOD said that the Prophet is NOT A POET
What we taught him (the messenger) was not poetry, nor is he (a poet). This is but a reminder, and a profound Quran.
Now regarding human nature, how do you know what the true human natue is. Remeber this is not so universal otherwise there wouldnt be so many cultures. Faithful Christians claim their religion is in accordance with nature, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus all make the same claim so which one is right. Through observations and science weve got to know much about human nature which we didnt know before carrying it out subcnsciously only. It is very important to learn and understand it only then can we advance.Human nature isn't logical or rational. The things that motivate us most are faith, hope and love. That is why religion must be spiritual. The soul isn't what we think with, it isn't the inefficient calculator that is the brain. Only Allah knows the essence of who we are. True worship of Allah only occurs when our thoughts go quite, that is why the Prophet sang the poetry of the Quran, and didn't argue it. Arguing makes people think more, whilst singing relaxes us, especially devotional singing to our most merciful creator.
JK- Yes human's are not only logical but they should be as far as possible. Yes they should allow their emotions too but never give u rational thought. This is very important and if we dont do that wed end up back in the dark ages with fighting and killing each other because everybody thinks his culture/religion is the best. Moreover faith, hope and love must never be the things to motivate us withut reason. If they do then we may be ready to kill people of other faiths just because they criticise ours. Dont you see that this is exactly where the problem lies?
If you want to know what is in the middle, between blind faith, and blind logic, you have to look into our humanity, the essence of ourselves that we call the soul because we know no material definition can every truly capture it. The connection with God inside ourselves, the word of god, holy spirit, spirit of wisdom, great life force, the Power of Almighty God, the natural desire to worship Allah that was implanted inside our humanity. Every culture and every society in the whole world has developed a system of spirituality, of worshiping God, however they understand him. Of course God wants us to worship him, he wrote it into our DNA. You don't need a handful of apocalyptic prophecies and medieval number games to work that out.
JK- Yes one is the spiritual deveopment which has been there in societies to simplify things for them and ru away from ral life. But hings are never that easy. The other side was also emotionl like all humans but used the rational approach to come to know whats true. As for the definition of soul i told you "nafs" should be interpreted as "self". Regarding the connection with GOD sure one can try and connect with GOD through meditation but before one accepts anything as coming from GOD there needs to be evidence otherwise you might be carrying out an irrational command whcih your brain just made up and tht is very dangerous.
Interestingly enough, Dawkins seems to have copied William Ralph Inge in the title of his video. "The enemies of reason" of course echoes the saying "The enemies of freedom do no argue, they shout and they shoot". But enemies of reason lacks something that enemies of freedom has. Of course, it is because freedom is a passionate, spiritual concept, whilst reason is much more mundane. Freedom is also a religious concept. "Whoever sins is a slave to sin", the Prophet Jesus tells us, whilst he, the Messiah - the one Anointed by the Power of of Almighty God - comes to set us free, as the spirit is what guides our conscience, so we know the difference between right and wrong, and can become free from sin.
JK- Yes but relgionists pick and choose. Religion has much more than just this statement by Jesus like killing apostates, stoning aduleters, burning witches, etc etc. NOW whos making the decision of what is moral and what not and HOW? Dont you see that it is us USING OUR RATIONALE by which we get to know what is right and what is wrong. Go check out Shermer's "the science of good and bad". Religion is mostly a disaster should it rely on blind faith. The progrss we see in Judeo-Christianity today is not due to their religion but to science. They adopted it so they wldnt be eradicated completely. GOD Bless!
-
Peace,
I agree.
I am ready to accept that the quran is full of allegories that have been misunderstood because of literal interpretations, but the quran certainly doesn't contain miraculous scientific knowledge.
I think we underestimate the people of the past, they probably had more knowledge than we think they did, and any information in the quran must have been known by people at the time, especially since that knowledge is being used to make a point.Forget even people of the past, we don't know what they know. That'd be guess-work. The quran says that the stories contain lessons for the people of intelligence (12111) and The God doesn't shy away from any allegory; from the mosquito to greater (226). Is a mosquito mentioned anywhere else? And according to 226, the metaphors leads to guidance as well and right after that it goes into the the Adam story... (230 on).
We should be seeking lessons from the stories.
-
Peace "House M.D",
No we shouldnt entirely forget the people of the past. Infact they are very important to explain ur evolutionary history and proper archaelogical reserach can verify alot in this regard. This is the only way many Quranic verses talking about such people and the events associated with them could be verified also, there momentary acceptance relying on the basis of the Quran's mathemtical structure and the lack of contras within itslf or with science if interpreted in the classical arabic language. The Quran even states
Precedents have been set for you in the past; roam the earth and note the consequences for the unbelievers.
This is exactly what archaeologists are doing and should do. Bro Andya Primanda also once pointed this out. GOD Bless!GOD Bless!
-
^
Yes, but I believe DArgento was talking about textual accounts that are not dated to an age where they have authority? Hadeeth, of any type really.