Ibn Rushd vs Ghazali: Did the Muslim world take a wrong turn?

[Vitamin_C]

After we have collected, sifted and analysed all facts in establishing any rational or scientific proof, the conclusion at which we arrive is one which is based on an act of faith

No its not. Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Scientific conclusions are based on evidence. Faith is when you believe something in the absense of evidence.

Let me repeat for the 100th time, you do not need absolute knowledge to conclude something, you need sufficiently enough to conclude something beyond reasonable doubt.

When you do not have enough information to make a conclusion, thats when faith comes in, a rational person at that time would say I dont know, the religious person would say on faith #godidit.

Have you never learned about the rigourous methods scientific hypothesis go through to become a theory? Its impossible for faith to play any role in this process.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Famous Philosopher Immanuel Kant in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ has exposed the fallacies contained in the three famous theological and philosophical proofs for God's existence,

I dont think its fair to give credit to Kant for that. Pastors in the church themselves had destroyed those arguments hundreds of years before Kant. Some of those arguments go far back as Aristrotle.

One can say Aristrotle might be to blame for monotheism because of his teleological argument for god. Which may have influenced Jews to shift to monotheism which lead to the nuisance of christianty and the plagiarism of both that turned into the various sects of Islam.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Every phenomena we observe in the universe goes from less complex to more complex, whether it is biological evolution, big bang, formation or stars and planets etc.

I challenge you to find anything that started as complex and grew less complex over time.

Religiously because He is the creator, he creates as he wishes. Creation only gets better.
Scientifically it's because of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (one of many laws of nature)
Once the process of creation started at big bang it has been dynamically moving in only one direction ie forward. Creations do get destroyed too but only to create a new one. I have not observed evolution in my life so can’t make a comment but I think decaying is less complex than birth.
Can you reverse the time or decrease entropy?
This reason is not enough to deny the existence of an intelligent creator, on the contrary it actually supports him because this implies that every next creation is better and more complex than before. The creator is only showing consistency of his progressive creation. Had it been coincidentally or randomly your claim could have have hold the truth.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Wouldnt be the creator of the universe be more complex than the universe itself? And thats a contradiction because thats not how reality works, it always starts less complex and gets more complex as it progresses.

Not satisfied.
You are again making an assumption.
I am surprised how you can assume that with zero pre-big bang knowledge.
You can't even tell what happens in the black hole or the laws of nature at the singularity let alone making this big assumption.

 

[hammy_lucky]

I dont think its fair to give credit to Kant for that. Pastors in the church themselves had destroyed those arguments hundreds of years before Kant. Some of those arguments go far back as Aristrotle.

One can say Aristrotle might be to blame for monotheism because of his teleological argument for god. Which may have influenced Jews to shift to monotheism which lead to the nuisance of christianty and the plagiarism of both that turned into the various sects of Islam.

I am saying this one more time. If even philosophers have different views than it's hard to reach truth solely through the philosophical way.
I would prefer to take this forward once you have finished your research on intuition and consciousness.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Thats not correct. In 21st century over 96% of the members of national sciences academy which is cream of American scientific intellegencia are atheists.

The few people you quoted are from the 17th, 18th and 19th century.

Einstein on the other hand was not religious. Religious people cherry pick his quotes nd twist them to claim him but even he spoke out against this during his lifetime saying that he doesnt believe in God or religion.

Einstein had a bad habit of using religious words such as God to explain scientific things, dishonest religious people took opportunity of this to twist what he actually meant.

For example when Einstein said science does not play dice, he wasnt literally talking about god but he was talking about mathematics and probabilities. They used God in a poetic and metaphorical way.

So what if they were from previous times?
Tell me specifically why their judgement went against Atheism.

Einstein believed in the intelligent designer of the universe. You can interpret him in any way you like but he was not an atheist. I think he was naughty rather than exhibiting bad habits :)
You can find loads of his statements denying Atheism. Just type and search. I don't want to post any made-up video as such.

Only one example

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/06/26/did-historys-most-famous-scientists-believe-in-god/

If I take your 96% as True figure. Why the other 4% not Atheists? Are they following different science?
What if one of that 4% is a bigger scientist then the rest?
Is it science which is making them Atheists or are there any other reasons behind?

 

[Vitamin_C]

This reason is not enough to deny the existence of an intelligent creator on the contrary it actually supports him.

It’s a logical contradiction where philosophers who try to prove god get stuck. If low complexity always preceded more complexity then the universe cannot come from a complex intelligent creator god, the source of the universe has to be even less complex than the atoms that came into being after Big Bang.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I am saying this one more time. If even philosophers have different views than it's hard to reach truth solely through the philosophical way.
I would prefer to take this forward once you have finished your research on intuition and consciousness.

There are no alternatives. Philosophy is the only way to organize and evaluate claims to see whether they are logical or not.

Truth have nothing to do with Consciousness and intuition because those deal with the Hunan experience not with reality.

 

[Vitamin_C]

You can't even tell what happens in the black hole or the laws of nature at the singularity let alone making this big assumption.

It’s not an assumption, it’s an observation.
1. Everything complex comes from something less complex.
2. Supernatural has never been observed or detected

Therefore the universe cannot have come from a supernatural intelligent God who thinks and behaves like a human and shows anger, pride, ego and other human emotions. He pays special attention to one species of primates on a piece of rock in an infinitely large universe and punishes them if they do not stroke his ego. It seems more like the imagination of superstitious ancient people rather than reality.

The God argument is an argument from ignorance. Ancient people made up superstitious stories like this like the big turtle under the earth shaking its back when they couldn’t explain natural phenomena such as Earth Quake and where universe comes from.

From our discussion to me it seems like you are not searching for the truth but trying to justify your irrational beliefs, when there is no evidence, you run to philosophy, when that doesn’t work you try to question philosophy, when that doesn’t work you try to question human senses, when that doesn’t work you want to talk about intuition and consciousness. It’s like you are trying to force a rope through a needle.

The reason why your quest For truth is poisoned from the start is because you are starting with a conclusion that God exists and then trying to find ways to prove that conclusion.

Intelligent people on the other hand study the evidence first and then find the conclusion last. Whether or not God exists shouldn’t even be the starting question.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If I take your 96% as True figure. Why the other 4% not Atheists? Are they following different science?
What if one of that 4% is a bigger scientist then the rest?
Is it science which is making them Atheists or are there any other reasons behind?

There are surveys that show that more intelligent people are less religious.

Also another PEW survey shows that scientists are significantly more atheist than general population. The highest degree of atheism is in physicists and evolutionary biologists.

Religions are basically arguments from ignorance. Humans trying to answer questions they do not understand yet and when we gain more scientific knowledge we find that the actual answer is natural answer. That’s why people who are more knowledgeable aka scientists are less religious.

There are certain people who are so brainwashed that no matter how knowledgeable they get they will keep believing in God. There was one Harvard Geology Professor who believed earth is 6000 years old even though his entire life study shows it’s over 4 billion years. Such is the power of religious brainwashing since childhood.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Einstein believed in the intelligent designer of the universe.

I just linked a video in which he says he doesn’t believe in intelligent designer.

I think I will take his word over yours.

 

[Vitamin_C]

You can find loads of his statements denying Atheism. Just type and search. I don't want to post any made-up video as such.

You can cherry pick quotes and misquote anyone out of context. But to get an actual picture you have to look at his whole interviews and books in context. Einstein was an atheist by any definition of that word. He didn’t believe in Intelligent creator God and he didn’t believe in religion.
I think Einstein was probably more atheist than anyone else in his time.

 

[Vitamin_C]

So what if they were from previous times?
Tell me specifically why their judgement went against Atheism.

Because hold of Church in Europe was strong back then and almost everyone was religious. We didn’t have some of the answers that we do today, theory of evolution, general relativity and Big Bang didn’t exist back then. If they possessed the same knowledge we do today and the freedom we do today then their views would be similar to scientists of today.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I think a decaying person is less complex than a living person.

A decaying person is like shedding of the skin or hair. The continuation is his DNA in his offspring which continues to get more complex iteration after iteration.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I have not observed evolution in my life so can’t make a comment

Talking to a person who hasn’t studied evolution is like a 21st century person talking to a 17th century person.

How can you study intuition and consciousness without studying evolution? It’s like studying calculus without studying addition and multiplication.

You are starting to scare me away now.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Talking to a person who hasn’t studied evolution is like a 21st century person talking to a 17th century person.

How can you study intuition and consciousness without studying evolution? It’s like studying calculus without studying addition and multiplication.

You are starting to scare me away now.

I said I haven't observed evolution doesn't mean I don't know about evolution. It's just I disagree parts of it on the basis of the missing links in the fossil records. My argument would be to prove to me just one transitional period fossil. Anyways that can be a different discussion altogether. In the end, it is still a theory.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Because hold of Church in Europe was strong back then and almost everyone was religious. We didn’t have some of the answers that we do today, theory of evolution, general relativity and Big Bang didn’t exist back then. If they possessed the same knowledge we do today and the freedom we do today then their views would be similar to scientists of today.

May be or maybe not. It's again your claim which can be debated. We still don't possess enough knowledge to deny either.

 

[hammy_lucky]

A decaying person is like shedding of the skin or hair. The continuation is his DNA in his offspring which continues to get more complex iteration after iteration.

Agree. But if for instance imagine that a big asteroid hit planet Earth. All the evolution can be destroyed and the Earth can become a dead planet again. From intelligent creature to dust.

What exactly is causing evolution forward??

Scientists knows about laws of nature and specific values even at quantum level but till date have unable to provide an adequate justification for these values.

In short science is also incomplete.
You can argue about evidence about God but providing evidence was never my intent. It was to present my argument.
You are doing the same.

 

[hammy_lucky]

You can cherry pick quotes and misquote anyone out of context. But to get an actual picture you have to look at his whole interviews and books in context. Einstein was an atheist by any definition of that word. He didn’t believe in Intelligent creator God and he didn’t believe in religion.
I think Einstein was probably more atheist than anyone else in his time.

Again I can dispute with you on this likewise.

Did History's Most Famous Scientists Believe In God?

Is it possible for theists to be a biologist or maybe a chemist or a physicist? This question was originally answered on Quora by Jack Fraser.

www.forbes.com

 

[hammy_lucky]

There are surveys that show that more intelligent people are less religious.

Also another PEW survey shows that scientists are significantly more atheist than general population. The highest degree of atheism is in physicists and evolutionary biologists.

Religions are basically arguments from ignorance. Humans trying to answer questions they do not understand yet and when we gain more scientific knowledge we find that the actual answer is natural answer. That’s why people who are more knowledgeable aka scientists are less religious.

There are certain people who are so brainwashed that no matter how knowledgeable they get they will keep believing in God. There was one Harvard Geology Professor who believed earth is 6000 years old even though his entire life study shows it’s over 4 billion years. Such is the power of religious brainwashing since l

Science relies on evidence. No theist ever has a claim to have found one.
We would’nt be discussing if there was one.
You talk about surveys then I would say religious people are happier. Also, Yuval Herrari in his book ‘Sapiens’ has mentioned that people in the past were much happier than people today.

Does that make me present a case for believing in God based on emotional wellbeing and experiences?