“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Harris]

Harris Wrote: Here you are not making differentiation between suffering and Evil. Suffering and Evil are not same concepts.

Tonus Wrote: They are for you, since you believe in the existence of a being who could eliminate both, but does not, and expects you to clear him of any fault for it.

Harris Wrote: Do you think Death is an Evil?

Tonus Wrote: Death is simply the end of the life cycle for organic life forms. For the believer in god, it's not death that is evil. It is god who is evil, for using death as a tool of coercion.

Everyone knows that death is the end of lifecycle so you do not need to mention that. I did not ask you whether God is Evil or not. You have not answered my question:

DO YOU think death is an evil?

And the reason for any of that is because it's how god set things up. God wants suffering. God wants conflict. God wants pain and death and struggle. That's not a trial, that's preparation for the role he intends for you. You think god is testing you in order to send you to a reward or punishment, but god is simply making you tough enough to become a soldier, able to dish out pain and punishment without remorse, and able to take as much as possible before you fall.

You're his video game toy, to be used and discarded. That doesn't strike you as evil?

Do you really think God Exist?

I read that thread and what it shows is that you have an incorrect understanding of evolution and an incorrect understanding of the problem of evil. The fact of evil demonstrates the non-existence of a good god.

What is your opinion about Dawkins after reading his statement? Do he understand evolution better than you or you think otherwise?

“Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO STUDY DETAILS. But we can use the “LENGTH OF BOOK” THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, IF ONLY WE HAD ANCESTRAL ANIMALS TO LOOK AT.

The answer in practice is COMPLICATED and CONTROVERSIAL, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a LIMITED FORM of yes answer.”

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

That had little or nothing to do with my statement. In what sense evolution might be progressive has what to do with the question of information?

Whole Theory of Evolution is standing right upon the idea that living organisms evolved from simpler to complex bodies because of (Mystical) Natural Selection, mutation, replication, etc. Therefore, increase in information content is the most fundamental and most crucial aspect of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, for this (so-called) scientific belief (information content increased over evolution) scientific evidences are absent.

No, you have failed to provide a logical proof. And the Quran is just another book of myth by another little tribe in a little desert.

Would you mind pointing out what is missing in my explanation? If you think something is false then can you demonstrate logically how it is false?

If I say you are an idiot then do you turn into an idiot because I said that?

Atheism is not the same thing as communism. Where do you people get this idea?

I never said that communism is atheism. However, I said:

Materialism and atheism are the most fundamental and central tenant of Communism in Marx's manifesto

In the words of Leon Trotsky,

“We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

Atheism was just one of many tactics used by the communist dictators to control the population.

My point remains intact, if according to you atheism is spreading successfully then why after the fall of Soviet Union atheism falls drastically in former Soviet Republics. Another point to note here is that we can find traces of atheism in ancient Greek literature, which is about 2000 years old; it is a long time for the flourishing of any ideology. Question is why atheism has produced only handful of atheists in this immense extent of time. The answer is because atheism is illogical.

Harris Wrote: After the fall of Soviet Union, more than 60% of atheists dramatically turned their faces to churches, mosques, and synagogues in former Soviet Republics including Russia and Baltic countries. Huge number of former atheists converted into believers of God with the fall of Soviet Union.

Chas Wrote: You have evidence that these people were ever atheists? Please provide it.

Atheist dictators forced people to reject religion and accept atheism literally on gunpoint. That was how they made atheism common among people. Only a very small minority adopted atheism by their free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Naturally, when people got freedom they ran back to their houses of worship. In short, atheism (the idea that there is no God) is illogical.

The only increase in religion is the tiny fraction of Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth

What? Your question makes no sense.

I initially said:

“If you prove that human intellect is man made by the use of which man is making science then I have no trouble in accepting that science is manmade.”

And you answered:

“That was incoherent. Human intellect evolved.”

I came back and said:

“If you think, “human intellect evolved,” perhaps by “blind and unguided natural selection” then does that give any proof that human intellect is manmade?”

Now you are saying:

“What? Your question makes no sense.”

That question makes good sense but you do not know how to answer that. If you say human intellect evolved by natural selection then human intellect is the gift of natural selection which man is using to make science therefore, science is not manmade but natural selection making it through humans. If you say human intellect is manmade they you do not have any explanation to justify your claim. Is not it simple to understand?

You are confused about what I said. The mind is not the brain, the mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Thanks to scientific advancements, that doctors can now inject dyes into several of brain’s sub regions, insert electrodes into it, remove and discard parts of it, and add parts to it. If mind is an emergent property of the brain then does that mean we can share that emergent property by sharing our physical brains?

If I give components of my computer to fit in yours then behaviour of your computer would become somewhat (if not completely) equivalent to the behaviour, what my computer had before removing those parts. Do you think sharing of physical brains also means sharing of intellectual behaviour?

Harris Wrote: So it is clear that the mind cannot be identical to the brain. If that identity held, then every brain state would be mental, which is obviously false. But what is wrong with holding the converse, namely, that every mental state is a brain state?

Chas Wrote: I would agree that every mental state is a brain state.
Harris Wrote: If every mental state is a brain state, then every belief is a brain state. But beliefs have properties that brain states cannot have. One is the property of being either true or false; another is intentionality. So no belief is a brain state.

Chas Wrote: You keep confusing things and properties of things.

Here is another way to look at it. If there are mental states that are brain states, then there must be some properties that distinguish these brain states that are mental states from the brain states that are not mental states. These properties will have to be specifically mental: no physical property could do the trick. But then, applying the Indiscernibility of Identicals once again, any brain state that was initially supposed to be a mental state would be seen to have a property that would entail its non-identity with a brain state. Think about it.

Harris Wrote: What is “MINDLESS ALGORITHM?”

Chas Wrote: A natural process.

Can you give an intelligible description by using conventional scientific methods to “NATURAL PROCESS” namely “MINDLESS ALGORITHM”? It will help not only me but others as well.

I have a great deal of knowledge about biology, particularly evolution, so ask away.

Perhaps you have good knowledge about biology, I do not argue but my response was for “paulpablo” not for you.

If you have good knowledge about biology then you also, like Dawkins, are trying to deceive the world intentionally. Until now, you like Dawkins failed to bring any testable and observable example from real life to justify the claim that “information content increase over evolution.”

Harris Wrote: If the foundation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM then for sure I do not have clear scientific facts on evolution.

Chas Wrote: I agree that you do not understand evolution.

Evolution occurs when there is imperfect replication of replicators. Some will have more success at replicating.

Does “imperfect replication of replicators” increase information content that help the species to transform into other species? If yes, then give scientifically prominent and unambiguous examples.

According to science, humans walk on earth for a substantial amount of time by now yet these “imperfect replication of replicators” failed to make them better humans say humans with wings or humans who can breathe underwater and can live in oceans? Why human body is not developing anymore? Does that mean that structures of all living beings reached to their perfect states and there left no room for further enhancements.

Harris Wrote: You mean precise scientific explanation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM.

Chas Wrote: Try reading the words again. Natural selection means the differential reproductive success of replicators.

Why there is not a single transient being alive in today’s world? Do you think that something is preventing evolution from performing its specified actions?

Note: I never said that natural selection is a blind god - please do not attribute words that I did not use.

When I said, you said that. You are picking bits and pieces from the discussion that held between paulpablo and me but you are quoting as if that was a conversation between you and me.

Harris Wrote: All that you have explained sounds like a myth.

Chas Wrote: That was a good explanation of evolution. Are you trying not to understand?

You have took one sentence from my response and discarded whole part below it which was:

“In nature, behind every action, there is a cause and science gives explanation about that cause. Science tells why and how something is happening. So, what is the scientific explanation for the ELIMINATION.

In other words, you should first give proper scientific definition of natural selection then you should explain how natural selection knows what to select and why, then you should give mechanics how that selection is made and how that elimination process took place. You cannot simply say that survival in nature will be for the strongest and the fittest. Without scientific details and supporting evidences, Natural Selection is not a science it is a myth, a blind god.

If we use logic to understand natural selection, then we have blind unguided process to start with and for sure, that makes no sense in logic.”

I don't know what you mean by properties of physical bodies but they are all related to physical things, as in things that exist and we can see.

The Brain, drugs, chemicals, disease. These are all things which effect consciousness, personality, will power, intelligence.

Brain size is not a definite indicator of intelligence but that doesn't mean intelligence doesn't come from the brain.

Like a supercomputer from the 80s is much much larger than the computers of today but it isn't more powerful, but that doesn't mean the computing is being done by a mystical non physical force outside of the computers.

If someone has brain damage their intelligence and consciousness are often effected and people who have dementia or things of that nature will have personality changes and memory defects.

I'm not an expert on the topic but I'm fairly certain it's a well known fact that it's been established which parts of the brain are used for certain thought processes.

All of your arguments in relation to brain damage and its effect over consciounsess and intellegence are valid logical arguments. I do not have anything against these true facts.

But you are missing the most obvious point here in relation to conciousness and human intellect.

To make this point clear I will give you your example to explan why consciousness and human intellect are not the functions of human brain.

Whether first computer or today’s most sophisticated supercomputer the basic principles of their working are unchanged. Logic – Gates are the foundation for any digital activity. With advances in science the structure of processors becomes more complex and through parallel processing calculations become faster and powerful. But the Logic – Gates remain unchanged. This is what relates to the structure.

Now come to the operating system the foundation of which is Boolean Algebra. Without a proper OS any processor (no matter how complex it is) is useless. How good would be the OS that good would be the performance of that processor. OS is basically a set of instructions which gives fixed commands to the processor and other parts of the hardware on how they should function.

Complex processor and a good OS are not sufficient for makeing proper analysis on the given data. For that there is a need for special software that gives the instructions to the processor on how to analyse a set of given data so the processor after making complex boolean calculations gives the requested result.

If you say that Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) has created most complex and most mystical biological processor (the brain) and the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) developed most complex OS for that most complex brain to function properly and on top of that the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) is responsible to develop different softwares (consciousness and intellect) which that mystical brain use to make different dicisions then I say it is nothing but absurd, absurd, and again absurd.

We have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a Message for you: will ye not then understand?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 10-

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 14-

And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?
Al-Qamar (54)
-Verse 17-

Why should I explain how natural selection knows anything when I explicitly said that natural selection is not a being or entity that knows anything.

It's not normal for me to try and explain why a point is correct that I believe is totally incorrect.

If Natural Selection is not a Being or Entity then how comes you or anyone can take it as Science?

A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:

This is the definition of a cult, so no atheism has no religious beliefs or practices since it's a disbelief in god also no religious veneration or devotion directed towards anything.

Is disbelief in God a mainstream trend in the world?

So then an atheist could be a Muslim if he does the 5 things you mentioned?

If someone believes in God then he is not an atheist. If someone does believe and act upon five fundamentals of Islam then for sure he is a Muslim.