From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science   
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:31:47 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.022833.22720@cs.yale.edu>, A. Satish Pai <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu>  writes:

> SP == myself, SA == Shakil Ahmed.
> 
> SP> I often wonder why god doesn't actually do something like this, at least
> SP> all or most of us nasty atheists will be convinced by such a tour_de_force
> SP> by him.
> 
> SA> I don't really think he sees it as his responsibility to explain something
> SA> which, to him, is obvious.  
> 
> *Everything* is obvious to him, if he is omniscient as claimed. In that case,
> by your reasoning he shouldn't have explained _anything_ at any time, not even
> in revelations to prophets. 

I think you're missing the point.  What is obvious to HIM in this
case, is that his statements are perfectly understandable as they
stand.  If anyone chooses to ignore them, that's their problem and
that makes them accountable to HIM.

> SA> And ultimately, since he has the power, he can bring all those to task who
> SA> question the obvious.
> 
> "The obvious" to you is not so obvious to other people. If god has to punish
> people who ask questions of something they do not understand he must be rather
> insecure, besides being totallly cruel. Certainly doesn't sound like a god 
> that is compatible with the spirit of science! 

How can you understand what you have not taken the effort to read?
Cruel?  Nope.  God gave us the Qur'an.  You can ignore it if you wish.
But in God's eyes that may make you deserving of punishment.

> SA> You are right.  Of course people can interpret things differently.  That's
> SA> why, despite the millions of books saying that the erth is round, and the
> SA> host of evidence available to support that theory, there is still a Flat
> SA> Earth Society.  That is true for *any* book.  But there is a reason why the
> SA> word "common" is in "common sense," and that is usually what is employed in
> SA> interpreting *anything*.
> 
> True. But it's obviously not common to the two of us. In any case, I don't
> believe that for matters such as this, majority rule is applicable. Science
> would be nowhere if theories were designed by taking a vote from
> everyone.

Then science must *indeed* be nowhere.  Wasn't one of the main points
at the start of this argument centered on Darwinism?  And didn't
everyone argue then that it is the most acceptable theory *because*
most scientists think it is?  What would you call that line of
reasoning?

> SP> If you look hard enough, I'm sure one can find all of physics in any of the
> SP> religious books. Or in "Alice in Wonderland", if it is interpreted in the
> SP> proper way. It's a question of seeing what you want to see.]
> 
> SA> Why don't you prove that to us by showing how that can be done with "Alice
> SA> in Wonderland?"
> 
> But you wouldn't understand anything unless you had total faith in the 
> religion of Alice_In_Wonderlandism! Once you believe in it, you will see
> everything. No smiley. 

But I never claimed that for Islam.  I never asked you to have total
faith.  Hence your sarcasm here is totally out of place, and my
invitation still stands.

> SA> You don't go and explain the atomic model to a kindergarten kid without
> SA> using some of those little color pictures that I speak of above...
> 
> SP> If the kid doesn't believe the colour pictures but wants some more
> SP> explanations do you just tell him/her to take it or leave it, to believe it
> SP> or not as s/he likes? Strange.
> 
> SA> If the kid cannot understand the obvious, I would send him/her to a school
> SA> for the mentally challenged... (how's that for a PC term? :))
> 
> Oh, great! So now we have a situation where someone has honest doubts about
> the metaphorical language used to explain something in the Quran, but then
> the doubters are labelled "mentally challenged". Anything on which I don't
> agree with you suddenly becomes "obvious" and I'm being dumb to not "under-
> stand" it. Wonderful. What other methods of debate do you have up
> your sleeve?

Plenty.  But I don't really need them to point out the obvious.  In
*any* situation, there is a question of interpretation.  But we don't
go around questioning that at every step of the way.  Most English
statements are obvious by common sense.  There are people who don't
have that ability to understand -- in KG and elementary school,
teachers recommend that they be sent to special schools.  Hence the
above analogy.  Similarly, in the case of the question on hand, the
statements of the Qur'an are plain and simple and not difficult to
understand.  Unless, of course, people are attempting to confuse the
issue with deliberate, malicious intent.

> SA> Again, the Qur'an is not a science book, 
> 
> And it's best to leave the situation like that, without going in and trying
> to dig out science from it, IMHO. 

Nobody is trying to dig anything out of it.  But there is no point
denying what is written there.  I can only repeat that throughout this
whole thread, I have only been defending allegations that others have
made.  Unsubstantiated allegations, of course.
> 
> SA> but it does contain many references to scientific truths.  
> 
> No doubt it has some scientific truths. Most books probably do, whether
> fiction or otherwise. The specific claim being debated was that the BB theory
> is present in the Quran. I haven't seen it yet. 

That's because you haven't looked.

> SA> You are expecting to find all the answers in the one verse that I quoted.
> 
> Well, quote the others and we'll deal with them. 

I've given some references which you obviously have no desire to look up.

> SA> You ignore the dozens of other references I provided, but did not quote.
> SA> If you're seriously interested in this, then you will check those
> SA> references.  Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are interested only in
> SA> ridiculing something you have not read or checked.
> 
> Since you claimed the BB theory is present in the Quran, I think you ought
> to show us the verses and your explanation of why you think they indicate the
> BB theory. 

You are ridiculing something you have not researched.  I have provided
some references.  If you have interest, you will go and research it.
Otherwise, your interest is very obviously only malicious.

> SA> IMHO you should actually read what it is you are criticizing before you
> SA> attempt it.
> 
> Look, I can't read every book around to try and show that they _don't_ have
> this or that marvellous theory. It's up to you to show that the theory is 
> present in the book. By default I will assume that the BB theory is not in
> my cookbook nor in my atlas, unless someone shows me something to
> the contrary. 

Yes, you can't go around reading every book.  Does that give you the
right to go around criticizing all those you haven't read?  If I
haven't read something, I shut up about it.  If you were to quote from
the Bhagavad-Gita or any other religious scripture, I would not argue
about it unless I had read it.  This is common sense and common
decency.  It is getting tiresome arguing with people who have no
desire to read what they are arguing about.  Unless you come up with
something substantial, this will be my last article on this thread.

> SA> Again, whether you're convinced or not isn't my problem.  My difference
> SA> with you lies in your critcisms of something you clearly have not read.
> 
> I have read what you posted. My criticism was directed only at that, at your
> explanations. I have neither read the Quran in its entirety, nor do I plan to
> on the vague promise of finding indications of the BB theory in it. 

Your claim is that the Qur'an does not have any references to the BB
theory and that it is not consistent with it.  Pretty bold claim for
someone who hasn't read it, don't you think?

> SA> Perhaps you can explain why you read something different from what I SA>
> SA> posted?
> 
> SP> I tried above. 
> 
> SA> And "tried" is the word!
> 
> In vain, yes. :-(

You said it, not I.

> SA> Nope.  You see, scientists are free to investigate whatever they want.
> SA> What I am saying is that they haven't found anything that *contradicts* the
> SA> Qur'an yet.
> 
> First the BB theory was in or supported by the Quran. Then the Quran was
> _consistent_ with the BB theory. Now it seems that nobody has yet _found_
> anything that contradicts the BB theory. How much weaker can you make your
> assertions? 

Well, I sure hope they never become as weak as yours!  At least I read
what I try to criticize.

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian