Tag: theism

  • Atheists and Me

    It’s disappointing, yet almost unsurprising to note that the very same behaviour atheists accuse theists of, they’re guilty of themselves. I was recently invited into a closed group on Facebook with the assurance that it was a mature environment in which constructive and objective debates are held to test the various views of either side in order to seek to understand each other better. Again, unsurprisingly, the kind of attacks and arrogance that I encountered on other blog sites prevailed there as well.

    There are few, and I mean few that actually do try to present a well considered view of various issues and despite how lengthy the debates can be at times, they stick to the point, and don’t turn it into a mud slinging match in their efforts to try to bully the theist into agreement or submission. It appears that the lack of maturity that atheists are quick to criticise in theists is just as common place amongst their own ranks. Their insistence on not subscribing to a formal structure or singular view of their atheistic philosophy is starting to appear as extremely convenient because it allows the perpetual graceful exit that suggests that they’re not organised religion, and they have no dogma.

    Engage with any number of atheists and the dogma disguised as science is quick to show through. The assumed arrogance and selective qualifications of their statements is forced as the only reasonable approach to the subject when issues like infinite regression and impossible-to-prove theories are highlighted. There’s a stubborn claim that science is all that matters, but a quick deflection when questioned about how science deals with spirituality, or the spiritual needs of their communities. Blatant assumptions are made about the ideology of the first man/woman that set foot on this earth despite there being no proof to confirm it either way. So claims that we are inherently atheistic are supposed to be believed and accepted without question by theists, although atheist have no way of proving this. We’re supposed to accept blindly that infinite regression questions based on their own theories of causality do not apply beyond the current time and universe constructs, even though there is no objective authoritative source to confirm this, which makes it just another theory.

    Authoritative source is dismissed when asked to present one, since such a thing does not exist. The absence of this resulting in personal biases and theories being the order of the day appear to be accepted as factually accurate amongst their ranks, although there are very few that are willing to acknowledge that this glaring gap in their rationale does suggest that there must be a cause that set the creation of this universe in motion. What that cause is, or what form it takes, is entirely open to conjecture for obvious reasons.

    So the sum total of my experiences to date is that the very same extremism, rigidity, blind faith and dogma that atheists claim plagues religion is very much rampant in their own circles. Trying to find a middle ground, at this point, appears to be a pointless endeavour. But I am the anal optimist, so I will persevere for a while longer before I decide if throwing in the towel is as inconsequential as persevering in my efforts to understand the rationale of the atheistic mind set. In fact, I don’t think it’s an attempt to understand the rationale, because I’m already quite convinced that that is as flawed as any argument a theist can present to prove the existence of God. If it was possible to prove the existence of God, we would not need faith to believe in God because the proof would render faith irrelevant. Unfortunately this is a point that many theists and atheists alike fail to understand.

    The fact remains that atheists cannot, with hard evidence, disprove the existence of God, and theists cannot prove it either. But until they get past this blatantly obvious fact, and set aside the arrogance that accompanies such a debate, not much progress will be made in finding mutual understanding, respect or common ground between the two.

  • Imam Al-Ghazzali on Feeble-Mindedness

    …the parable of the feeble-minded person who thinks that the light of the sun is the result of its rising, is like the parable of an ant which as it happened upon the surface of a sheet of paper, was endowed with reason and thereupon watched the movement in the process of writing, only to think that it was the work of the pen, but would not go beyond that to see the fingers, and behind the fingers the hand, and behind the hand the will which moves it, and behind the will a deliberate and an able scribe, and behind all, the Creator of the hand, and the ability, and the will. Most people do not look beyond the nearby and earthly causes and never arrive at the Cause of all causes.

    Imam Al-Ghazzali (The Book of Knowledge)

  • Fate and Free Will

    I often see posts of people questioning why the Almighty does not answer their prayers. Then there are atheists that believe that if God existed, we would not have so much evil and cruelty in this world because a benevolent god would never allow that to happen. All that this proves is that we have a power of choice and reason that we are able to apply in our lives to inform our choices, because it is this same power of choice and reason informed by our intellect that confirms that we are free thinking beings. By extension, this confirms the indisputable fact that we have a limited free will. Limited because anyone that has lived a single day of conscious being knows that we cannot control everything around us, hence our need to determine the difference between that which we can change, and that which we can’t. So we pursue the acquisition of wisdom that would help us identify the difference. At least that’s what we should be doing if we’re self-aware.

    Bearing the above in mind, why then would it be reasonable to expect the Almighty’s intervention in every unsavoury experience of our lives where we may lack the courage or resources to set aright that which is wrong? Are not the bad choices of some the test of character of others? Or do we believe that everyone should be good and wholesome and no one should slight anyone else, because then we’ll finally have peace on earth and all will be right with the world? But then, again, I ask you, what would be the purpose of our existence? 

    If not to exercise our power of reason and choice towards acquiring good in our lives, then what? If there was no bad, what would we need to strive for? Something that I’ve been more aware of recently is that anything bad requires no restraint at all. If you want to damage, destroy or eliminate something, it’s not restraint that is needed, but in fact a healthy dose of indulgence. But anything good that we wish to achieve or acquire requires restraint in ways that we rarely imagine when committing to a noble goal. 

    So it seems that sitting back and feeling like a victim waiting for the world to treat you right is a fool’s endeavour that will never come to pass. We need to be conscious in our efforts to oppress the oppressors. If not, if we cower in the face of a challenge and believe that we’re not worthy, we lose any right to claim fulfilment in a life fraught with suffering and challenges. Evil is not an incarnation of its own. It simply manifests itself in the absence of good. Therefore, it’s not evil that exists, but rather good that ceases to. And given that effort is required to uphold good, there can be no overcoming of evil unless we apply ourselves to a course that is destined to realise that which we seek in our own lives. 

  • Is there an argument against God?

    My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

    C.S. Lewis

  • The Purpose of Life?

    In my efforts to discover the true meaning of life, I keep thinking about the differences between the principles of atheists and theists. The former professes that there is nothing beyond this and therefore whatever we do we either get punished or rewarded for it in this life but entirely within our control with no consequences beyond death. The latter professes that of everything we do in this life, we’ll reap the rewards or punishment in full in the after-life, whilst also benefiting, or being required to persevere in this life, which ultimately adds to the rewards in the after-life.

    If we are to assume that the atheists are right, I can’t help but wonder how that would play out because there’s so many more questions that arise as to the purpose of life. If we only had this lifetime to worry about, then why restrain ourselves at all? I mean, if I go off the deep end and abuse, molest and destroy anyone and everything at whim, why should I bother about the repercussions if I believe that there is no accountability for a life poorly lived except whatever physical pain, suffering or discomfort is imposed by my fellow man in this lifetime? Why should I entertain the idea of wanting to improve the quality of life of others if any efforts of mine cease to benefit me the moment I die? Why should I care if others live a better life as a result of my efforts? Shouldn’t my efforts then be solely focused on my own gratification since I will only reap the rewards during this lifetime? And since this lifetime will occur only once without any second chances, isn’t it even more critical that I not waste any time in benefiting others unless there’s an inherent benefit for me? This potentially starts a vicious cycle of licentiousness since instant gratification is all we should live for given that we could die at any moment, and given that there would be no account after death.

    Now let’s assume that the theists are right.

    Suddenly my moral compass would be guided by the dangling carrot of a reward that far outstrips my efforts, and makes my sacrifices seem noble. Because now, I can focus on improving the lives of others, treating them with kindness and all those other wholesome ideals, while living in perpetual hope of attaining a state of bliss that will cause me to instantly regret why I didn’t sacrifice more or apply myself in even greater measures during my lifetime. Suddenly, I need to make the most of this lifetime because it is a precursor to a much greater experience. It’s almost as if I’m earning my credentials to lay claim to a specific level of comfort or pleasure in the next life. So I need to follow specific rules and live within specific guidelines that ultimately work towards determining my quality of life in eternity.

    But here’s the real clincher for me. Assuming that the atheists are right, theists would live an equally inconsequential life within the context of the individual, but would inherently be driven to strive more for their fellow man than atheists. To me, the logic dictates that atheism depends on the benevolence of the individual, whereas theism depends on the benevolence of the Creator. Given the state of this world, it’s safe to assume that benevolence in man is a rare commodity, and I call it a commodity because we live in a time when everything has a price. Look at the disparity between the spend and effort to resolve first world problems versus third world problems, and immediately the void of benevolence in man is blatantly obvious. 

    So how does it end? We already protect profit margins more than we protect life, that’s why we pay trillions in bail outs to help those nations that refuse to live within their means, and count every penny and attach inhumane conditions to the contributions we make to feed a starving child, or provide drinking water to the thirsty. The attribute of humanity itself, except by individual choice, is not a prerequisite to live a life as an atheist, whereas it is a precondition to achieve anything meaningful as a theist. So what’s the point? I guess, for me, the point is that if my life were to cease to have meaning beyond my current existence, I would have lived a more fulfilling life as a theist than an atheist, although it can be argued that the selfless efforts of an atheist are potentially more sincere than those of a theist.

    However, judging the intentions of man is impossible, even by the one reflecting on their own intentions, and therefore the measure of sincerity cannot weigh in on this argument. Self-preservation drives most of our motives, and therefore, in the absence of accountability to a greater power, or at least the belief in such, what else would there be to keep us honest and true? 

  • Often, after a tedious debate about atheism versus theism, the residual thought that keeps floating in my head is the last verse of Surah Kaafirun. And then I wonder why I had the debate to begin with. But I always get sucked into the debate anyway. It all feels so futile sometimes. But I guess I could never sum it up better than this Surah does…It confirms that unless there is a willingness to consider the alternative, we’ll always be locked in our own views of faith and belief. So instead of continuing the insane pattern of reblogging and debating, this is my reminder to myself, and anyone else that I may have been engaging in any discussion (meaningful or not) about issues of faith.

    Lakum, deenukum, wa liyadeen…to you is your way and to me is mine. 

    I’ll try to restrain myself to the point of only establishing understanding, but not to go as far as trying to convince. 

    (Source: http://www.youtube.com/)

  • Wishful thinking…I wonder what’s so intelligent about observing symptoms of creation and then declaring that to be the source of intelligence and the purpose of life? It’s one thing to maintain a belief system, but entirely different to use it as a soap box from which to dismiss other belief systems. 

    I always wonder how prudent a use of time it is to spend your life seeking purpose and forgetting to live in the process? Perhaps some would argue that the search is in fact living in itself, and perhaps there is truth in that. But given that atheists firmly establish their belief system in science, and given that the foundations of science have recently been shaken to their core with the discovery that the speed of light is in fact not the limit that we thought it was, I wonder what implications that may have on the belief systems that are based on science?

    Seems rather convenient to suggest that theism is flawed because it can’t be proven when in fact atheism is just as theory-based. Big difference is that theism is capable of defining theories of existence that atheism was denying until they could prove scientifically that the theistic theories were actually true to begin with. The fact that those theistic theories were based on broadly accepted divine inspiration will always be conveniently overlooked. But the fact that the speed of light was based on one of the greatest scientists this side of the Ice Age and has now been proven to be incorrect as the basis for the theory of relativity will also be conveniently overlooked.

    But science is progressive, and must therefore be allowed the convenience of breaking its own rules in its search for the truth. It’s all just too convenient for me. Far too convenient to take the moral high ground as an atheist, dismiss the definitive influence that religion has had and continues to have on that same moral code, and then conjure up even more elaborate theories about how morality is independent of religion when a simple study of various cultures will confirm that morality is very definitely based on the religious customs of any community. 

    Reminds me of another post I wrote not too long ago on the subject of Atheism and Theism.

  • On Atheism and Theism

    This is a subject that has fascinated me for a long time, and will continue to do so for an even longer time. So when I came across this in a book that I’m reading (which is extremely rare for me, to read a book that is), I just couldn’t help myself but share it because of the eloquence in how it explains my perspective on the subject.

    “…the parable of the feeble-minded person who thinks that the light of the sun is the result of its rising, is like the parable of an ant which as it happened upon the surface of a sheet of paper, was endowed with reason and thereupon watched the movement in the process of writing, only to think that it was the work of the pen, but would not go beyond that to see the fingers, and behind the fingers the hand, and behind the hand the will which moves it, and behind the will a deliberate and an able scribe, and behind all, the Creator of the hand, and the ability, and the will. Most people do not look beyond the nearby and earthly causes and never arrive at the Cause of all causes.” ~ Imam Al-Ghazzali (The Book of Knowledge)

    The reason I’m so positively incensed about this is because recently I’ve been plagued with the arguments of science and religion on so many blogs. And the one thought that always lingers in my mind is that science will always be on the back foot because it is always an observation of what has been. Never will it be able to advise on what is to be, or why, only how. It will always be an observation after the fact, and never before, since it is aimed at establishing the knowledge of how everything relates to everything else.

    Anything before the fact is considered mere theory and therefore subject to change, interpretation or perspective. This does not imply that our ability to predict future events based on established relationships between different events or forces is not part of science. It is, but it is also entirely dependent on what is known, and will therefore always be a work in progress. Weather forecasting is a typical example of this.

    Therefore, in my mind at least, the belief in science as the ultimate pursuit of knowledge to define the purpose of our existence is inherently flawed. But this is just my opinion, and I suspect that I may be blissfully unaware of numerous refutations that have already been compiled in defense of science and atheism, of which I have no knowledge because of my aversion to read lengthy discourses about the philosophies of others.

    Am I naive, or perhaps ignorant? Am I over-simplifying a complex issue? Or does this perspective hold some merit?