Sometimes I hate this guy for being so intellectually awesome...
Nassim Taleb vs Richard Dawkins - Faith, Stock Market and 'incompetence of philosophers'
- Thread starter AsifAmeer
- Start date
hawkeyeblue
Senator (1k+ posts)
NasNY
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
When it comes to atheism, this is exactly my point.
Physics is filled with theories and conclusions, without any measurements or science to back it up. There are thousands of pseudo science theories.
But the atheist swear by all of them as if every theory is a religion. Evolution being a perfect example, they can't comprehend its called "Theory of evolution" not "Law of evolution"
Biggest thing comes out of them is "We believe in common sense" "We need to see it to believe It" " we will need to find the facts ourself instead of someone telling us how things are.
Well how many people have seen an electron, or a neutrino. Well very few have seen an electron yet everyone else on the planet believes in it. Neutrino has not been seen by anyone, it is a theory yet we believe in the posibility of its existance.
Yet they take a leap of faith and believe in it. Now according to me there is nothing wrong with expanding the frontiers of science.
I can't speak for all religions, but ISLAM is in Synch with all advances in science, and encourages education in every field.
Richard dawkins in 2004 wrote a book, in it he encouraged his followers to go out an actively challenge religion. To Preach atheism.
Turning atheism into EVANGALICAL atheism. Now all the arguments they have been developed in going against Christianity.
When these arguments are applied to Islam they fizzle and fail. Because Islam does not have aversion to science as do all other religions have, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and many more.
As always i can go on for another 100,000 words, (its just a theory, but i believe i can (bigsmile))
I also noticed, my spell check tells me to capatilize all isms except atheism.
Physics is filled with theories and conclusions, without any measurements or science to back it up. There are thousands of pseudo science theories.
But the atheist swear by all of them as if every theory is a religion. Evolution being a perfect example, they can't comprehend its called "Theory of evolution" not "Law of evolution"
Biggest thing comes out of them is "We believe in common sense" "We need to see it to believe It" " we will need to find the facts ourself instead of someone telling us how things are.
Well how many people have seen an electron, or a neutrino. Well very few have seen an electron yet everyone else on the planet believes in it. Neutrino has not been seen by anyone, it is a theory yet we believe in the posibility of its existance.
Yet they take a leap of faith and believe in it. Now according to me there is nothing wrong with expanding the frontiers of science.
I can't speak for all religions, but ISLAM is in Synch with all advances in science, and encourages education in every field.
Richard dawkins in 2004 wrote a book, in it he encouraged his followers to go out an actively challenge religion. To Preach atheism.
Turning atheism into EVANGALICAL atheism. Now all the arguments they have been developed in going against Christianity.
When these arguments are applied to Islam they fizzle and fail. Because Islam does not have aversion to science as do all other religions have, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and many more.
As always i can go on for another 100,000 words, (its just a theory, but i believe i can (bigsmile))
I also noticed, my spell check tells me to capatilize all isms except atheism.
Last edited:
zubair.maalick
MPA (400+ posts)
Science is self evolving .. Impotent to claim or reach ultimate truth. Biggest weak point of scientific method.
Offcourse Morality is another big question science cannot answer.
I did not get what they are saying... But all i need to know stock market is Halal or Haram ...? i m also Stock Trader in NYSE ...but i alsways trading other than banks(Inerest) and Alcholic companies shares... So tell me ..... Mostly i traded in Technologies companies and herbal life etc... Hope to hear from you guyz.... :jazak:
NASH, although a 3 min clip doesnt do justice to explain Taleb's point of view, lekin I feel you missed the point. Taleb has a genuine skeptic and views everything from a probabilistic prism.
What you are mixing in your post is Material Science with Social Science. Newtonian Phyiscs may look deterministic from a macro scale but its building blocks (Quantum Mechanics), is inherently probabilistic. So Physics may not be the best example here.
Any field subjected to consciousness, i.e. Economics, medicine (statistical research), has fat tails on its Probabilistic bell curve. That is what Taleb is trying to point out here. And then he is poking fun at the inconsistencies of the atheists of pretending to be genuine skeptics while blindly buying into the "expert problem". This is straight out of Imam Ghazali's Argument, which Taleb publicly endorses.
Taleb specifically speaks of medicine in his Book Antifragile.
Zubair, sharp comment! It was Karl Popper who pointed out that facts cannot be validated but only negated. So you are right. Scientific or even philosophical arguments cannot prove, only disprove with certainty. Such is the nature of reality.
Interestingly, notice how the 1st Kalima starts - with negation. And notice the 2nd ayat of Al Bakra.. Quran claims its own authenticity. Anyone with the slightest IQ would identify it has a "Circular logic". So why would God use circular logic to start His last Holy Book? Because He wanted man himself to figure out that proof and logic can only negative, not confirm.
BTW, I have borrowed this concept from Jeffery Lang who too was an Atheist and now a Muslim Scholar.
Is Hamaam mein sab nange hain. Lets not pretend.. shall we?
What you are mixing in your post is Material Science with Social Science. Newtonian Phyiscs may look deterministic from a macro scale but its building blocks (Quantum Mechanics), is inherently probabilistic. So Physics may not be the best example here.
Any field subjected to consciousness, i.e. Economics, medicine (statistical research), has fat tails on its Probabilistic bell curve. That is what Taleb is trying to point out here. And then he is poking fun at the inconsistencies of the atheists of pretending to be genuine skeptics while blindly buying into the "expert problem". This is straight out of Imam Ghazali's Argument, which Taleb publicly endorses.
Taleb specifically speaks of medicine in his Book Antifragile.
Zubair, sharp comment! It was Karl Popper who pointed out that facts cannot be validated but only negated. So you are right. Scientific or even philosophical arguments cannot prove, only disprove with certainty. Such is the nature of reality.
Interestingly, notice how the 1st Kalima starts - with negation. And notice the 2nd ayat of Al Bakra.. Quran claims its own authenticity. Anyone with the slightest IQ would identify it has a "Circular logic". So why would God use circular logic to start His last Holy Book? Because He wanted man himself to figure out that proof and logic can only negative, not confirm.
BTW, I have borrowed this concept from Jeffery Lang who too was an Atheist and now a Muslim Scholar.
Is Hamaam mein sab nange hain. Lets not pretend.. shall we?
zubair.maalick
MPA (400+ posts)
Agree with you except 'Circular logic' because first part of 1st Kalma and second ayat of Surat Bakara ... how one pick these two to prove his point .. Quran does not start from either of two .. anyway I respect and admire JeffLang, one of my fav. but does not agree his few concepts too .. Can you tell me in which book he explain this ? atleast not in 'loosing my religion', I would like to read it
about Imam Ghazalli .. his book is "Incoherence of Philosophers"
(Always good to mention book name, for students of knowledge).
:)
Zubair, I didnt know about Lang till about 2 weeks ago when he and his book were mentioned in a Khutba (yes, here in the US Khateebs do read books) where the khateeb explained the concept of negation and the few of Lang's point of views. I found them interesting and bought the book - "loosing my religion". But I have yet to finish even the 1st chapter.
Also, I had heard similar concepts from Hamza Yusuf.
Also, I had heard similar concepts from Hamza Yusuf.
zubair.maalick
MPA (400+ posts)
I read "Loosing my religion" few years back and "Struggling to surrender" is on my desk ... but I must say that his few concepts or explanations are contradicting, one must read him with vigilance :)
Here's the thing. In the world of Physics, when people present a "Theory" it is a "Theory" because it can be mathematically demonstrated. A Good example is String Theory. It can be showed on a piece of paper with all the mathematics involved, but nobody can really "show" it. Similarly the Theory of Relativity can also be shown on a piece of paper. That's how Einstein initially showed it and proved it. It was only later that it was empirically shown. These theories and theorems are not religious beliefs. They are backed by mathematics.
The theory of evolution. This too is backed by statistics and mathematics. And if the math involved does not exist, there is other empirical evidence that can be used to formulate a working principle. Using such principles you can solve other issues.
As far as the arguments against religion, its pretty simple in my view. I had a funny case in court once (I am not a lawyer btw), where a woman had killed her 3 children in cold blood and then surrendered to the police. The evidence was all there and she admitted that indeed she had done what it looked like obviously. She fired her defense team in court. And when asked to explain herself, she said simply; "I did it because God told me to do it. You all are believing men and women, right? You all believe in a God, right? So why can't you all believe me when I tell you He told me to do it? You all never needed much evidence to believe in a God, but you are finding it hard to believe me who has done the deed and is telling you He told me to do it." Needless to say her defense didn't float at all. :P
But it raised an interesting argument. Why not?
Now I am not an atheist. But I do see logic the way it is. There is a very big difference between a Theory of Physics and "Theory Of Islam". Are you even allowed to call Islam a theory?
Reasoning depends on observation. Observation depends of empirical data.
In God's case, He employs miracles i.e. events contrary to empirical data. I am convinced that human are simply not wired to understand God.
I think of Him as the God of probabilities. Thats all He does to proves Himself - change probabilities.
In God's case, He employs miracles i.e. events contrary to empirical data. I am convinced that human are simply not wired to understand God.
I think of Him as the God of probabilities. Thats all He does to proves Himself - change probabilities.
Real scientists don't believe in Miracles. ;) Because Miracles have a track record of just not staying miracles. The "Miracle" of flight, is not a miracle anymore. The Miracle of the Sun is not a miracle anymore. Etc etc.
Have you ever heard of the God of Gaps?
Have you ever heard of the God of Gaps?
Yes. I have heard of God of Gaps. And I get the point you are making. And I agree with it. Lekin there is a point I am trying to make.
In statistical terms, miracles are FAT TAILS. See where I am coming from?
In statistical terms, miracles are FAT TAILS. See where I am coming from?
if your hypothesis is biased, everything looks like evidence. for every lang, there are 100 non-langs who think religion of all types is medeival myth and total stupidity. i am no physicst but do have a PhD in science and it is remarkable that any self-respecting phycisist can be convinced that some medeival stories of some miracles in the middle of nowhere, who no one witnessed can be deemed worthy of belief. especially considering that the bar for proof that they set for themselves in the world of science is so incredibly high. which is why, it makes me believe that human beings are genetically hard wired to believe in nonsense of some sort or the other. each one has his or her own baggage, but believe they will.
My Theory is that Religion/Belief gives people an evolutionary edge. Believing in an afterlife and God wires the brain in a particular way that is conducive to self survival. It also gives you an emotional fall back. You can always complain to God. Ask Him favors. etc.
Ofcourse the only constant is change and I see that Religion seems to have run its course or usefulness. Or is quickly approaching that time. However it will not completely disappear, there are 7 billion humans on this planet. A sizeable chunk will always NEED a God.
Ofcourse the only constant is change and I see that Religion seems to have run its course or usefulness. Or is quickly approaching that time. However it will not completely disappear, there are 7 billion humans on this planet. A sizeable chunk will always NEED a God.
I am NOT the religious kind. Just not of that cloth.
With that said, I have to be intellectually sincere. Its incorrect to say "Just because I do not understand it, it doesnt exist"
With that said, I have to be intellectually sincere. Its incorrect to say "Just because I do not understand it, it doesnt exist"
Well I don't understand how the Earth was flat. As it turned out it was spherical. Therefore it would be OK to say that a Flat Earth does not exist.
It also comes down to the Burden of evidence. If someone comes to me and makes an extraordinary claim that there is supreme being like a God; then it is on *their* shoulder to prove so. Not on mine to prove otherwise. You cannot PROVE in the negative. You ONLY prove what exists.
Instead of me trying to explain u "via negativa", I'll just let Taleb speak
And just to be fair, this is Karl Popper's idea, which is already used by George Soros in his theory of Reflexivity.
And just to be fair, this is Karl Popper's idea, which is already used by George Soros in his theory of Reflexivity.
I understand what he is trying to say. And for the most part I agree with him. However I still do feel that any extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. The problem with Taleb's analogy is that EVERYTHING 'possibly' exists. Mother Goose, Snow white, The big bad wolf, tinker bell, Santa Claus, boogeyman, Superman. You name it.
Instead of me trying to explain u "via negativa", I'll just let Taleb speak
And just to be fair, this is Karl Popper's idea, which is already used by George Soros in his theory of Reflexivity.
