Journey from Blind-Faith to Conviction
- From: "GWhyte" <gwhyte3003@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:39:13 -0400
Journey from Blind-Faith to Conviction - Part 1
Editor's Note: Yamin Zakaria is a London-based political Islamist. Though
MND does not subscribe to the view of Mr. Zakaria, we nevertheless will
publish his work as a public service to those who wish to understand the
'idea-gap' between Islam and the West.
by Yamin Zakaria
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/10/journey-from-blind-faith-to-conviction.htm
"Have you seen the water which you drink? Do you bring it down (in rain)
from the clouds or do We? Were it Our Will We could make it saltish (and
unpalatable): Then why do you not give thanks?" (Quran - 56:68-70)
Because, being ungrateful is the natural consequence of disbelief in an
omnipotent creator of man, life and universe. No one can dispute water is
one of the essential ingredients of life, yet this is taken for granted
without once reflecting on its constant supply in a form suitable for
consumption. In their arrogance of disbelief, they replace themselves as the
new God of this universe, assuming ownership over it even though they did
not even create their own lives let alone the rest of the universe.
Some time back, I attended a university debate on the subject of the
existence of God, between a young Islamic activist and an old lady
representing the atheist/secular/agnostic viewpoint of a universe without a
supreme creator. Predictably, the atheist demanded proof for the existence
of God, derided blind-faith, and justified the position of disbelief on the
basis of scientific theories explicating the birth of the universe. At that
point somebody from the audience asked her to elaborate the complex
scientific theories, and she retorted in frustration: "I don't know, go and
ask the scientists". Some of the audience started to shout, "blind-faith"
and the rest burst out into laughter, her cheeks became red, and the
humiliation on her face was clearly visible; nobody with an ounce of dignity
likes to be exposed as an ignorant hypocrite, caught by their own
accusations.
Her error was simple, like all atheists, sceptics and agnostics she assumed
that if the case for the existence of a supreme creator had not been proven
in her eyes, then automatically a case has been made for the absence of God.
We hear frequently the question: "Prove that God exists?" but rarely do we
hear "Prove that God does not exist?" Inability to prove a point does not
always mean it has been automatically disproved. A genuine debate on the
existence or non-existence of a creator, by rational necessity demands that
the burden of 'proof' should be a two-way process; both sides need to
provide evidences to justify their respective positions, and cross examine
each others viewpoints! For the discourse to be constructive, the two
parties need to achieve consensus on what sort of evidences would constitute
proof
before they begin their debate. Hence, the next question:
What constitutes proof?
A simple solution is that the one, who is demanding the proof, should detail
what would satisfy as proof to him/her. Otherwise the one who is being asked
will be at the mercy of the interrogator who can refuse to accept any
evidences brought forward. For atheists and like minded people, they
consider something has been proven only when it can be verified by their
senses. So they often repeat the phrase: "I will believe in God when I see
it". However, how often do we use the absolute criteria of sensory
perception to accept and reject matters? There are few things in life we can
proven by direct sensory perception, for example two identical houses are
bigger than one, ice is cooler than fire, sugar is sweeter than salt, two
objects cannot occupy the same space and so on.
In most cases, we believe and act upon information relayed from other
people, because we trust other human beings to be honest and not natural
liars, unless we have evidences to suggest the contrary. When strangers warn
you of nearby danger you are not going to disbelieve them and attempt to
verify the danger through your senses. If you are informed about toxicity of
a certain substance you are not going to taste the substance, proving that
you are a 'rationalist' that only accepts information verified through the
senses. Likewise we believe the identity of our parents because we trust and
believe in their words, as we have not witnessed our fertilization, the
successive growth of the embryo, through to the birth!
So proof cannot manifest exclusively through the sense perception, as all
human beings more often believe and act upon non-sensory information,
information derived from, induction, deduction, extrapolation and sheer
trust on others. Nobody has seen the Creator with their naked eyes nor has
anybody seen the original big-bang of the universe, atoms, quarqs,
electrons, people have conviction in these matters based on evidences
provided from other sources, evidence that is based on tangible and non
tangible sources. Thus direct sensory proof is a rarity in life, as is
absolute blind-faith, on most occasions we tend to act on information that
we are convinced of based on the evidences provided. I have used the word
conviction rather than belief, as 'belief' has become synonymous with
blind-faith.
When we address primary questions about the creation of the universe,
meaning of life, existence or non-existence of a creator, we either adopt
blind faith behind scientists and/or religion - or we acquire conviction
based on analysing the evidences and arguments presented to us by the
various parties. This leads us to the next point of:
What is the difference in conviction in Science and Islam?
Scientific 'theories' and religious philosophies provide an explanation of
how the universe was created, but it is science that is deficient and silent
on the question of WHY the universe was created and put at our disposal, and
WHAT is the purpose of life on earth. Scientists will state how every
phenomenon in this universe has a purpose, they can tell you in detail every
limb and organ in the human body has a specific function, but they cannot
answer, and nor will they contemplate, what is the purpose of life in its
entirety? In addressing these fundamental points the approach is a very
unscientific one. Likewise, after recognising the detailed complexities and
sophistication of the universe, a clear indication of an intelligent
designer behind this universe, the scientist have made all the effort to
justify the absence of a supreme creator of this universe in order to
satisfy the militant secular culture.
As for providing an explanation of how the universe was created, the
atheists and their like minded people, claim only scientific approach is
valid as it is built on evidences and arguments, and dismisses any other
points of view (Islamic and non-Islamic) out of arrogance and distrust. They
shout with their scientific theories but the reality of these theories is
they get replaced with newer ones, with the passage of time. So how can one
exhibit so much certainty in something that is so uncertain and transient to
begin with? Unfortunately due to the fanaticism of militant secularism, they
begin to propagate scientific theories as fact, so it was fact for a while
that we evolved from apes, yet all we see is the beginning point of an ape
and the end point of a human being, no where do we see what exists in the
middle, i.e. a species that represent part human and part ape as clear proof
of that evolution, the infamous 'missing link(s)'. This danger of viewing
scientific theories as fact was brought my attention by my professor in my
final year at university, who stated that in science you prove a new theory
by displacing an older one; - a fact does not change with the passage of
time but theories do.
Now the confusion arises in understanding 'scientific' discoveries that
often lead to scientific inventions by harnessing those discoveries, for
example discovery of radio activity lead to the development of Nuclear
energy. These are often taken as scientific, but in reality it is simply
locating what already exists in this universe. Instead the one who discovers
is given the status of its creator. How can that be?
A scientist is no more than a warden with a torch looking through a
dark-room of the universe, shining a light on the objects that he discovers,
but never asks why they are there and who put those objects there in the
first place? Take the modern aeroplane as an example, if it was not for the
discovery of fuel or a similar substance, i.e. something which could be
manufactured out of something that already exists, would it be possible for
mankind to make commercial flights using aeroplanes?
One of the reasons for the growth of militant secularism was due to the
centuries of Christian dogma entrusted in erring humans in the Catholic
Church, making such rash judgements as the earth is flat, the earth is the
centre of the universe etc and anyone who contradicted their dogma was a
heretic. So they persecuted the likes of Galileo and Copernicus for their
findings. Naturally science and religion in the west parted company, there
began and continued, a separation of Church and science, which has extended
to government and laws. Rapid scientific progress was made possible once
secular governments formed which did not have the constraints of the Church.
This experience led to the west to project science and religion in general
as somehow mutually exclusive, and arrogantly some even assume that modern
science is the exclusive product of western secular nations. It is
irrational and unscientific to use their historical experience to taint all
human history with respect to the development of science. Islam and many
other civilisations never suffered this schism between science and religion.
Most certainly, there was never the inquisition of the Islamic scientists,
and science was always seen as complementary and at times confirming the
Islamic texts.
The atheists, freethinkers, agnostics foolishly shout science has led to the
betterment of human life. However, it is not the scientific achievements but
how the scientific achievements have been used, that has contributed to the
betterment of life. So nuclear energy to provide electricity to light our
homes or it can be used to commit mass murder, like the civilians in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki found out. Similarly, the motor engine led to
invention of cars, but it is the same principles used to build tanks and
demolish towns and cities. The scientific era under secularism of the 20th
century, saw more bloodshed than any other period in human history. Yet like
dodo's the slogans fly that religion causes all the wars, as if war in the
name of profit is more ethical!
Science only corroborates the intelligence behind this universe; yet pushed
by a secular philosophy; they expend effort in justifying a universe without
a supreme intelligent creator. Our experience tells us that nothing comes
into existence without intelligence directing it. If we deposit sand, wood,
brick and other materials in a field, do we expect to see a house the next
day or even after decades?
Why the rationalist's see rationality in attributing chance and accident
behind a universe that is so vast, so complex had so many catastrophic
permutations but evolved in perfect balance with signs of intelligence
behind it everywhere? Because it is not intelligence but human desire,
prejudice and bias that clouds ones judgement, blurring the demarcation of
fact and fiction, truth and falsehood.
Conviction in the existence of an omnipotent God is easy for any human being
to understand, in contradistinction very few have the ability to fathom the
complex scientific theories explaining the creation of the universe, which
are still theories, if anyone is guilty of blind-faith it is those sheep,
who simply submit to those theories without understanding. In order to hide
their inadequacies they place the entire burden of proof on the believers,
and the criterion of proof is direct sensory-perception, which they
themselves do not adhere to. We all have conviction based on our perception
of the evidences around us, and it is only the arrogant ones who claim to
have a monopoly over this, using this fig-leaf of science without
understanding what science really is, and what the reality around us with
the scientific discoveries (not theories) clearly points to.
Scientist only shine that torch in that darkened room, illuminating what is
already there, they are not creating anything, the best advise is to ask
yourself who did? Having asked that question, looked at the evidences, we
have concluded it is an omnipotent creator.
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Why do we believe in God?
- From: GWhyte
- Why do we believe in God?
- Prev by Date: The Unbearable Lightness of Feminists
- Next by Date: Re: No Child Left Behind - the good and the bad.Economy
- Previous by thread: The Unbearable Lightness of Feminists
- Next by thread: Why do we believe in God?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
