Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Well, does science move the world or arts just makes it round, because otherwise it would have been too flat to move....? is a perennial question, which has indefinite explanations.... rather "relative explanations", yet no conclusive answers.

But yet, all it means in the end, is not being 'correct' but how do you fancy to decipher the "image" of everything around you. Yes, actually there are no facts, just explanations. Lets take the Newtonian physics as an example, which once ruled the world, but was eventually proven flawed-- The Law of Gravity by Newton is false. Gravity is still something unknown to man, even till date, like many other things around us. So we may think that we know something, but we really may not. However, still that law is taught at high school and whats more surprising is that it is very much applicable in quite highly technological industries, like space, aviation, automobile and so on...

The only reason for its dominance over the others lies not in the degree of its accuracy of definition, but to the degree of its comprehensibility to a layman.

After Newton, Einstein tried to explain gravity, which was, to some degree more correct, but even Einstein' s postulates were quashed by Quantum Mechanics, which was superseded by String theory, which further got criticized by the Super String theory..... and the journey of understanding the "Fact" keeps unfolding with the time. Yes, we may think that we know the "Definition" of Gravity, but actually, it is only an "Explanation", underscored by time, space and human knowledge and nothing "Definite" in itself. Who knows what tomorrow brings?

Arts, on the other hand is another contestant in the arena. It is rather more grappling to confute it because it exists not only in proportionate definitions, but in abstractions as well. It deals with feelings as well as senses. It signifies beauty, which has even a more "relative" explanation, than scientific laws and principles. What may be very likable for me may be very unlikable for someone else.

Science and arts do not exist in silos. Scientific discovery and/or invention is capitalized for commercialization. It then evolves into a professional skill, which eventually culminates into an art. Like surgery is a science, doing surgery correctly is a skill but doing it "beautifully" is an art. Art does not only rest in entertainment and recreational activities, it implies itself in every field of life and it is more thriving in humankind than science, because science is somewhat tied to knowledge, but to feel beauty, one may only need to be living in senses. So, it is quite difficult to establish something correct, incorrect, false or true in arts. Yet it fascinates our imagination, it sets our choices, it develops our tastes, shapes our "selves" and our outlook towards life. It drives our approach and it evokes a sense of emancipation, it provides a means of catharsis. It has more to do with human nature, than human beings alone.

Now there are some interjections in the field of knowledge, which are either both claimed by science and arts or either not known to either. The birth of "Social Science" takes place, where either arts subdues to certain principles or the scientific laws start to melt down. On contrary, it might be a totally different setting, where science and art amalgamates into a new premise. Social Science proclaims to derive results from the interactions of mind and matter. It is very diverse in existence and very subtle in its form. Where sciences and arts are brought together, the permutations are endless. It may manifest itself in the hardcore form of Administrative sciences, which govern our industry, establishment and courts, or it may also reveal itself so subtle and intricate in the form of "Neuroeconomics". But overall, it underpins the ideology of converting things from useful to beneficial. Making a car is a science, inducing aesthetics in its design is an art, but from making this car more salable to setting rules of it for driving on the road, all is encompassed under various shades of these social sciences.

Yet again, the determination of something being totally right or wrong. The bamboozling thing about the social science is that there may exist two different explanations of a fact, and both may be applicable, with results. Either you go for Theory X, Y or Z, they all remain applicable, yet so mutually divergent. So the boundaries of absolution are also blurred here.

The question of being right or wrong, is governed by our belief, rather than knowledge. It is something which is fabricated by the yarn of wisdom, rather than knowledge, experience, observation or the degree of personal likability. However, the system of belief does not necessarily underline a necessity of a religion. Yet, it requires a definite and an absolute set of values, which exhibits in our morals.

Why I argue that it does not require an underpinning of a religion because the interpretation of many religious rituals might have emanated from the seat of fear or providence in a human rather than by the absolute rationality of right or wrong. Voltaire said that.






Now this underlines the human nature and the evolution of a religious system. A man, living in this universe is always threatened by the acts of nature over which he has no control, like storms, famine, earthquakes etc. and therefore he creates a super-human entity, which he thinks has the power to save him from these calamities and bad luck. Now this type of super-human entity is the God of Fear, who punishes in the form of calamities and bad luck, if not worshiped. On the other hand, the man is also greedy and things of joy and subsistence in affluence beyond his means are always a lure. This sort of a person may turn to a God who provides riches, food, fame, luxuries, progeny, partner, health and life, power etc, if worshiped. This sort of a God is the God of providence.

Many a religion, if not all have sprung from these two factors of human greed and fear. Furthermore, many of the true religions have also been tainted by many modifications based on these two human emotions. This explains the further divisions in religions, into sects, casts and other differentiating factors.

Here, we still find ourselves at the crossroads differentiating between right and wrong and how should we approach such a question? The God of Provision and The God of Punishment, both seems to be related to the human desires and fear and their following necessarily underlines one of these two human emotions.

One cannot resist to quote Allama Iqbal here, before dwelling down to a conclusion


Here, there exists a third type of entity, which Iqbal is referring to. I will like to call it the God of Love and immense Grandeur. A God who loves His creation and Who created without limitations and any flaw. However, this type of entity manifests in a person, when he starts looking around in awe and starts exploring the links between the existence of mankind and the cosmos. The bounties and provisions one is already disposed off with and the wonders in the creations around, makes one ponder to imagine such an entity, which is free from flaws and limitations and has already given man so much.

Now this state can be achieved through any form of knowledge, whether arts, science and/or social science. It is where the religion or a moral set of values starts making sense, beyond the sublimity of reward, punishment and/or personal gratification. But to reach such a premise, one needs to work his way up through active observation, knowledge and understanding. Even the worst known atheists come to a conclusion like Darwin



It is a state where one absolves the dispositions of any scientific or non scientific paradigm to be utterly an explanation, of what could be sensed more clearly without any evidence, proof or rationale. It is where one understands the meaning of life, which is to support and promote the life around.

No good atheist will ever be able to give you a reason that why we should speak the truth? or why honesty is the best policy? why shall one help the others in pain?

Though, the reason is well understood in sublimity of the mind, where reason rules without any influences of gratification or fear. It is a place which can only be achieved through wisdom and understanding, supplemented by knowledge (not necessarily institutionalized knowledge). But to be in contact with that sublimity, one needs to free his conscience of any false paradigms and "explanations" of all sort and rely solely on reason and the reality, we live in.


It is just about paying a little heed.





 
Advertisement

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
"No good atheist will ever be able to give you a reason that why we should speak the truth? or why honesty is the best policy? why shall one help the others in pain?"

Atheism is not a position on morality. Its a position on disbelief in religion. Same as disbelief in superman does not make a claim on morality. Where do you people manage to find such low IQ nonsense?

Also religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Most of the contribution made to morality comes from secular Greek and Roman writers. Religion just does a bad job at copying them. Other than that we have innate morality which is natural and contributes to our survival as a species.

Science being proven wrong and upated is not a weakness but a strength. Religions cant be updated easily. While you can change translations and tafsirs of Quran to correct mildly ambigious verses and make them upto date with modern science. You cannot change the words in Quran and immoral things such as institutionalizing slavery and supressing rights of women over men. Giving infinite punishments for finite crimes etc. Those are major blunders that even with changing translations and tafsirs cannot be fixed.
 
Last edited:

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Atheism is not a position on morality. Its a position on disbelief in religion.
So an atheist Believes in no religion. This disbelief is his belief.
However, can your belief and morals be disconnected?
I like my neighbor's car, so what is wrong if I just steal it?

Moreover, you did not read my quote thoroughly, I was referring to "GOOD" atheists, not just any atheist. To be honest, I have found many theists who are dishonest, liars and are a scum of the earth.


Reciprocally, I have also found many self deceiving persons who proclaim themselves to be atheists, just because they want themselves to be counted in the echelons of people like many big scholars e.g. Darwin and Nietzsche etc. who posed themselves as atheists.

These sort of self deceiving atheists who become atheists by following those great people already live in a state of false euphoria,,,, a place quite distant from the realms of reality, truth and reason. They are categorized as Atheists, rather a pitiable sort. Certainly there exist things beyond good and evil
 
Last edited:

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Also religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Most of the contribution made to morality comes from secular Greek and Roman writers. Religion just does a bad job at copying them. Other than that we have innate morality which is natural and contributes to our survival as a species.
Seems like quite a spurious comment, and a shallow one too.
I may use the privilege of quoting myself here.

Many a religion, if not all have sprung from these two factors of human greed and fear. Furthermore, many of the true religions have also been tainted by many modifications based on these two human emotions. This explains the further divisions in religions, into sects, casts and other differentiating factors.

Here, we still find ourselves at the crossroads differentiating between right and wrong and how should we approach such a question? The God of Provision and The God of Punishment, both seems to be related to the human desires and fear and their following necessarily underlines one of these two human emotions.
Read this position on religion. Then reassess your comment.

Science being proven wrong and upated is not a weakness but a strength. Religions cant be updated easily. While you can change translations and tafsirs of Quran to correct mildly ambigious verses and make them upto date with modern science. You cannot change the words in Quran and immoral things such as institutionalizing slavery and supressing rights of women over men. Giving infinite punishments for finite crimes etc. Those are major blunders that even with changing translations and tafsirs cannot be fixed.
It is neither a strength or a weakness. As I said, it is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

You actually further reinforce my point here that science has been proven wrong and therefore the proposition remains true that "There are no facts, just explanations". It implies a sense that you walk even a thinner rope, if the problem is approached objectively.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Belief vs Disbelief
I think you are misunderstanding what atheism means and what belief means. Atheism is not a belief, its a position of disbelief.

For example I can say that superman is real, you tell me that I dont believe it until you prove it. It means you are atheistic about superman and your disbelief in him is not a belief of itself.

There are many things that you do not believe in many of which you never think/care about and yet thats not a belief.

This is not a position in morality. When you put disbelief in God and morality in same discussion it sounds as silly as putting disbelief that Korea will win the world cup and morality, or that superman exists and morality. They have nothing to do each other.

Also atheist is not a homogenous group of people. Its just people who have another thing that they have a common disbelief in, it can be a truck driver, it can be an evolutionary biologist, it can be a spiritual person, it can be a serial killer. You cannot group people based on disbelief because they might have completely different beliefs in other things.

Atheism is simply not making a judgement on a claim, until you have enough evidence. It basically means, I don't know if there is a God or not and I will not make a judgement until I have sufficient evidence to conclude whether there is a God or not.

Religious morality vs Secular morality
I think what you mean by atheistic morality is secular morality. Secular morality doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Its different ideas on morality from non-religious writers such as Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Frederic Nietzsche. Secular Morality is considered for law making in Developed countries rather than religious morality and is considered vastly superior to religious/absolute morality.

So an atheist Believes in no religion. This disbelief is his belief.
However, can your belief and morals be disconnected?
I like my neighbor's car, so what is wrong if I just steal it?

Moreover, you did not read my quote thoroughly, I was referring to "GOOD" atheists, not just any atheist. To be honest, I have found many theists who are dishonest, liars and are a scum of the earth.


Reciprocally, I have also found many self deceiving persons who proclaim themselves to be atheists, just because they want themselves to be counted in the echelons of people like many big scholars who posed themselves as atheists. These sort of people already live in a state of false sense of euphoria,,,, a place quite distant from the realms of reality, truth and reason. They are categorized as Atheists, pitiable atheists. Certainly there exist things beyond good and evil
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
There are no objective truths except in mathematical concepts. Explanations are vastly superior to facts. Facts are a dime in a dozen, but without explanation facts are useless.

You actually further reinforce my point here that science has been proven wrong and therefore the proposition remains true that "There are no facts, just explanations". It implies a sense that you walk even a thinner rope, if the problem is approached objectively.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
We cannot have a discussion if you do not understand basics of logic and reasoning. Disbelief in something is not a belief. I do not have time to lecture to you why this is a rule in logic, google it, learn and come back.

So an atheist Believes in no religion. This disbelief is his belief.
However, can your belief and morals be disconnected?
I like my neighbor's car, so what is wrong if I just steal it?

Moreover, you did not read my quote thoroughly, I was referring to "GOOD" atheists, not just any atheist. To be honest, I have found many theists who are dishonest, liars and are a scum of the earth.


Reciprocally, I have also found many self deceiving persons who proclaim themselves to be atheists, just because they want themselves to be counted in the echelons of people like many big scholars who posed themselves as atheists. These sort of people already live in a state of false sense of euphoria,,,, a place quite distant from the realms of reality, truth and reason. They are categorized as Atheists, pitiable atheists. Certainly there exist things beyond good and evil
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
There are no objective truths except in mathematical concepts. Explanations are vastly superior to facts. Facts are a dime in a dozen, but without explanation facts are useless.
Thinking that the reality has caveats of measures is just a half-witted plagiarism, even to scientists. Realities expounds to infinities. Ask any scientist/mathematician that how much was the density of matter at the time of big bang? or how vast is this cosmos?

Moreover, an explanation is just an explanation, without any proof of being right or wrong, conclusively. I sometimes wonder that people who disbelieve in a God because they don't have enough evidence to prove His existence, take these scientific explanations so readily, whereas knowing the flaw of relativity in explanations and the limitations of time and space. Shouldn't they be reclassified in simple terms and be called as Bigots?
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
We cannot have a discussion if you do not understand basics of logic and reasoning. Disbelief in something is not a belief. I do not have time to lecture to you why this is a rule in logic, google it, learn and come back.
I also find myself facing the same issue. When you say that there is a vacuum, it means that vacuum is a definite entity you are referring to, though it just simply explains the existence of nothing. Logic is a chide for amateurs
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Belief vs Disbelief
I think you are misunderstanding what atheism means and what belief means. Atheism is not a belief, its a position of disbelief.

For example I can say that superman is real, you tell me that I dont believe it until you prove it. It means you are atheistic about superman and your disbelief in him is not a belief of itself.

There are many things that you do not believe in many of which you never think/care about and yet thats not a belief.

This is not a position in morality. When you put disbelief in God and morality in same discussion it sounds as silly as putting disbelief that Korea will win the world cup and morality, or that superman exists and morality. They have nothing to do each other.

Also atheist is not a homogenous group of people. Its just people who have another thing that they have a common disbelief in, it can be a truck driver, it can be an evolutionary biologist, it can be a spiritual person, it can be a serial killer. You cannot group people based on disbelief because they might have completely different beliefs in other things.

Atheism is simply not making a judgement on a claim, until you have enough evidence. It basically means, I don't know if there is a God or not and I will not make a judgement until I have sufficient evidence to conclude whether there is a God or not.

Religious morality vs Secular morality
I think what you mean by atheistic morality is secular morality. Secular morality doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Its different ideas on morality from non-religious writers such as Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Frederic Nietzsche. Secular Morality is considered for law making in Developed countries rather than religious morality and is considered vastly superior to religious/absolute morality.
You are classifying atheism here. There are types and degrees of atheism. Some are in a state of exploration, not yet defining anything as conclusive. Some atheists are a by-product of a religion of fear or providence and they develop a sense of dislike for religion. Some are in clear denial and most of them these days are just the malevolent type, trying to make themselves look bigger than they are. They just want to be classed with prodigies like Stephen Hawking and the likes.... it just makes them look more scientific. These are the retards I pity the most, basically. Self deceiving, scrupulous individuals, who will keep on teaching you what Atheism is, rather than clarifying that what makes them think like one?
 

Raiwind-Destroyer

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
people just need to visit graves more because all this life will end soon and no one has the answer where do people go after death other than Islam

just like people work day and night to make their old age secure financially we should also work towards making our life after death secure as well living in disbelief is not an answer
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
This is not a position in morality. When you put disbelief in God and morality in same discussion it sounds as silly as putting disbelief that Korea will win the world cup and morality, or that superman exists and morality. They have nothing to do each other.
How can one not talk about atheism and morality in the same discussion..

religion is..an entity created this universe..
atheism is..science/nature/universe created universe..

if we are product of natural selection and we mean nothing more than any other animal be it an ant then why should we even think about morality..

if atheists justify incest bcz some animals dont shy away from it why not in the same vein devouring other human be not justified
 

Liberal 000

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)

How can one not talk about atheism and morality in the same discussion..

religion is..an entity created this universe..
atheism is..science/nature/universe created universe..

if we are product of natural selection and we mean nothing more than any other animal be it an ant then why should we even think about morality..

if atheists justify incest bcz some animals dont shy away from it why not in the same vein devouring other human be not justified
I am not an atheist but a believer in creator but my creator is one who is just who gave me intelligence to know him
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Atheism simply means disbelief in a god/theism. There is no degree there. Either you believe in a God or you do not.

You are classifying atheism here. There are types and degrees of atheism. Some are in a state of exploration, not yet defining anything as conclusive. Some atheists are a by-product of a religion of fear or providence and they develop a sense of dislike for religion. Some are in clear denial and most of them these days are just the malevolent type, trying to make themselves look bigger than they are. They just want to be classed with prodigies like Stephen Hawking and the likes.... it just makes them look more scientific. These are the retards I pity the most, basically. Self deceiving, scrupulous individuals, who will keep on teaching you what Atheism is, rather than clarifying that what makes them think like one?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Tell me in one or two sentence your definition of Atheism? Because I think you do not understand the position of atheism.

You are classifying atheism here. There are types and degrees of atheism. Some are in a state of exploration, not yet defining anything as conclusive. Some atheists are a by-product of a religion of fear or providence and they develop a sense of dislike for religion. Some are in clear denial and most of them these days are just the malevolent type, trying to make themselves look bigger than they are. They just want to be classed with prodigies like Stephen Hawking and the likes.... it just makes them look more scientific. These are the retards I pity the most, basically. Self deceiving, scrupulous individuals, who will keep on teaching you what Atheism is, rather than clarifying that what makes them think like one?
 
Sponsored Link

Featured Discussions