Natural Order and Science

[little_monkey]

I think you've failed to comprehend the part in which I said, "science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered."  

I'm not blaming you, perhaps I didn't explain myself enough. Humans are prone to error. Scientists are human, therefore they will err. Religious people are humans, and therefore are prone to err too. But here's the difference. In science there is an inbuilt mechanism in case it is wrong - it's called empirical evidence - if the theory can't explain the facts then the theory needs change, and in some cases be abandoned totally to be replaced by a new theory. But religion doesn't have that feature: it takes its beliefs and morality as eternal, immutable, universal, sacred. But what if it's wrong? They are hundreds of religions on this planet, not counting those who have disappeared. So which one has the truth? Which one has the right morality? On what basis are you going to make those decisions that will distinguish the true religion from all the others? The answer is you have none. Your religion is basically determined from where you were born, who were your parents/guardians, which school you went, and so on, but there is no inbuilt mechanism in your religion for you to use.

You are expressing your thoughts in definite manner and I do not have any difficulty in understanding them. We have somewhat conflicting ideas about the existence of God which has nothing to do with comprehending each other.

I totally agree with the idea that people are “prone to errors.” However, we should not overlook the difference between a person who makes a mistake inadvertently and repent soon after realizing it and people who try to rationalise their mistakes to justify their criminal acts.

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

Richard Weikart,
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

I also agree that people do have hard time in making their choice between God or no God.

If God, then which God?
If no God, then what?

There are many reasons behind this confusion but here I highlight only one.

Majority of people are least interested to know about God or about their own existence. That is because all their efforts are concentrated over making their lives comfortable, joyful, and pleasurable. This attitude pushes people to egocentric behaviour and once a person is self-centred then he/she lost the ability to see anything else than his/her own being.

Instead of explaining why people are confused let me explain it through the question why am I a Muslim. Why not atheist, Buddhist, etc.?

If I am a Muslim that is because of my own conscious and intentional choice and no culture in the world has forced me to be a Muslim. I think I have sufficient knowledge about the physical world, about the morals, and about different religions and that knowledge helped me in making a considerate choice.

Here I mention couple of reasons for my being Muslim:

1. Quran is the only literature (scripture) in the world that is not yet corrupted in about 1,500 years. I count it no less than a miracle.

“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-

2. Quran does not have:

a.   Historical errors
b.   Scientific errors
c.   Mathematical errors
d.   Contradictory texts
e.   Discrepancies &
f.    Evidences that may confirm human writings

“Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

I can give numerous rational reasons but I think what I have written above is sufficient to make my point clear.

Thank you for your frank description of your position. 

However you are still in the position that your theory does not have an inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. To that, you answer that your theory is devoid of error and so it is not in need of this inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. By insulating your theory, it can never be corrected. And therefore you have to believe the Quran as it is literally written, no interpretation is allowed.  I'm not going to debate all the verses of the Quran but just a few on women:

Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse ). 
 - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." 

A man's worth should be valued twice as highly as a woman's.


Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Quran (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.



This reaffirms that a man is to be the superior of a woman.



You can see that such declaration goes counter to what is believed in the West: that men and women are equal, and should be treated as such in a court of law, in inheritance and in every social occasion. Your Quran states otherwise.  The danger that the belief the Quran is inerrant, is that Islam and the West will be in a perpetual war.