A thought that I had a couple of days ago when I passed by a stand at the student union where a couple of students were celebrating Charles Darwins' 200th anniversary by giving out sweets and cake and what not.
I was thinking to myself that in 15 years time (if not less) this would become a ritual and people would start practicing it as if it was Christmas or Eid or yom kippur.
Anthropologist state that it is of human nature that humans always associated themselves with rituals and that throughout human history people from different cultures have ALWAYS practiced rituals in one way or another.
However, it is interesting that in most cases it is Atheists who take up the ideas of Darwin, especially those on evolution as proof of the randomness of the universe and the reason for denying the existence of a God. They also usually blame religion for everything that is wrong in this world. What is interesting to point out here is that those atheists have, consciously or otherwise, set up a system of beliefs and rituals that are meant to be "practiced" or observed by "followers" or "believers" of atheism. I have watched videos of Atheists arguing with people who follow a religion, it almost always seems that their arguments are set and that most of the time the responses and questions by the atheists are the same, which suggests a 'set system of beliefs'; it is only people with a strong belief in something that will go out and seek to "convert" or change peoples' opinions about something, In Canada atheist are campaigning for the right to place atheist advertisements on buses, you can even "donate" for that cause. As for the link with rituals there is a "proposal for a secular celebration of Winter Solstice meant to be used across society".
"People often mark the major life stage events in life - like being born, getting married and so on - with religious ceremonies like christenings, weddings and funerals. Atheist and Humanist organizations offer their own rituals for these events that give them meaning and significance without any religious content. Such a ceremony can have as much significance and be as dignified as a religious ceremony".
So are atheists trying to create a 'new religion'? If that is so doesn't that dismiss their claims of not believing in religion in the first place?
What annoys me the most however, is how atheist pretend to be smarter than everyone else, saying that they have science on their side forgetting that science is logical whereas their claims are not. Such is the example of the argument between an atheist and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahu allah) who was a Muslim jurist that lived in the 8th century.
The incident happens when an atheist approached a group of Muslims that were gathered at the Royal Palaces in Baghdad and says to them, "I don't believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you're wasting your time! Bring me your best debater and I will debate this issue with him."
A messenger from the gathered Muslim goes across the river Tigris to where Imam Abu Hanifah was and tells him "Oh Abu Hanifah, an atheist is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!" Imam Abu Hanifah tells him he's on his way. The Muslim messenger goes back and joins the crowd that was waiting for the arrival of Imam Abu Hanifah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah still hadn't arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the atheist to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah was the best of Debaters from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the atheist started laughing and said, ' Your best debater is too scared! He knows he's wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I guarantee he will not turn up today.'
The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the atheist had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, 'Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.'
Abu Hanifah apologizes for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story. 'Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realized there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the atheist to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.
I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.
I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, 'Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?' I could not understand what was happening before my eyes.'
The atheist meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah continued, 'I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it. I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, 'How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?' I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.'
At this moment, the athiest burst out laughing and remarked, 'Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debater from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgeable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your talking ridiculous, I swear I do not believe a word of it!'
Abu Hanifah turned to the atheist and replied, 'You don't believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You don't believe sealant can be poured by itself? You don't believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don't believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?'
The atheist remarked defiantly, 'Yes I don't believe a word of it!'
Abu Hanifah replied, 'If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?
The atheist was astonished at his reply got up and fled.
Finally I would like to leave you with this article from The Independent on Darwin.
8 comments:
Well written, but not so convincing. IF you need an naswer to Abu Hanifah's question you can read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
Good Luck.
I enjoyed reading your article. Of course I differ with you on many points but that should make for a better discussion.
You have totally ignored a third and significant group: Non-religious and non-atheists. Of course they exist.
They might believe in God without adhering to any religion. They accept evolution as, for the time being, the most feasible, plausible and elegant explanation for creation.
I am oversimplifying the topic and you have to forgive me for that but the whole complex cosmos is so simple in my mind.
George:
This is how I see it, of course this is such a huge topic and i decided to just write about two things 1) how atheism is becoming a 'religion' and 2) creation and evolution. Will try to read it. thanks for your comment.
Abufares:
True! but then if I consider everyone's perspective I will end up writing a novel. There are also people who believe in evolution but still believe in a religion, for example Gaber Ibn Hayan who wrote about evolution, and Al Jahis in 'Kitab Al Hayawan', and Al Makdisi in his book 'Al Badi'e Wa AlTareekh', these all made theories about evolution but were still devote muslims, treating it in a way that, if it did happen then that is how God planned it.
However since evolution is a theory and there is nothing to prove that it did actually happen mainly, because there is no continuous record of evolving fossils then I personally dismiss evolution. Also the whole randomness thing and 'genetic mutation' doesn't really fit in comfortably in my head. On the other hand what I do believe is that there is adaptation to external factors by living organisms, the longer those external factors are exhibited on living organisms the more adaptation a living organism would have to undergo to be able to survive in those conditions.
Hi Jabi,
I've been wanting to write a post about faith and evolution for some time now but it looks like you've beat me to it. I agree with you that militant atheists are becoming extremely dogmatic in their views and repeat parrot fashion, that which they hear from others and which conforms to what they wish to hear.
As for the issue of evolution, I do think it is a valid theory to hold and also do not believe it is contradictory to Islam. Ideas of evolution have been grasped at by the eminent thinkers you've mentioned and before Darwin, many were devout Muslims and saw no contradiction in their findings with the claims of Islam.
Imam Ghazali mentions how demonstrative proofs were not incompatible with faith in the slightest when he used the example of a lunar eclipse. The hadith of the moon not eclipsing for the birth or death of any person would not be contradictory to what is now known of the causes of an eclipse, which is the placement of the earth between the sun and the moon such as the light no longer reaches the moon. To claim that this understanding now negates religion would be flimsy since there is nowhere in the hadith which is contrary to this claim, all that is being said is that the moon would not eclipse for the death or birth of any human being. On the other side of this argument it would also be just as pointless for a proponent of religion to claim that demonstrative proof of the causes of an eclipse are false and that to accept such proof would be blasphemy. Such a person does a dissatisfaction to religion and it would be a poor religion indeed that would ask us to contravene demonstrative proofs for something such as an eclipse. This is what the Imam says in his Incoherence of the Incoherence.
I have a very good friend of mine working as a paleontelogist in the UAE at the moment who has told me he cannot honestly discount evolution because he sees it in front of his own eyes in the bones he digs up and how they changed over the millenia. What Darwin gave us is a picture of how life grows and develops in all its vibrancy and an explanation for the variety in life forms we find in the world around us, that does not mean more findings later will not improve our understanding of the nature of life on our planet or perhaps even give us a better understanding of the process than Darwin did at the time. The creationists and their biblical understanding of the world faced the biggest threat from such a theory but I continue to stress that this is not a problem which has really shaken any foundations in the Islamic world, simply because the problem is restricted to a particular religious understanding of God (Christianity) and to a particular world view (Europe's).
For example, there is a recurrent theme in the Quran of how man was created from mud, from hot water and so on. There is no reason to believe that such a process, till it reached Adam and Eve was in a day, a year or thousands of years. The Quran states that a day for Allah is like 1000 years of what you count. It is also ridiculous to think that there were not two 'humans' from which we have all come into being. Today there are 1 billion humans lets say, 500 years ago there were 700 million, 1000 years ago there were less and so on and so forth. Eventually you will reach the point when there were two, it's just common sense. As a Muslim I always remember that the Quran is a book for all peoples of the world and for all times and places. Remembering that when we read it helps us a lot when we read things we do not comprehend initially, but we do as Muslims have an obligation to accept and say سمعنا و اطعنا since we accept that it is the pure word of Allah and straight from Him. Nothing in science which has been proven demonstratively or otherwise is in contradiction with Islam and evolution is the least of these to be claimed as such.
Darwin was not a philosopher, he was a pure untainted scientist who diagnosed set of material facts and then came up with conclusions. Reducing his achievement and emphasize the dark side of Darwin evolution hinted in his Origin’s subtitle: The preservation of Favoured Race in the Struggle for life, does not do him or his discovery justice. Misunderstanding his theory caused a lot of ethnic cleansing and unjust racial conflict too. Are we better without his discovery is the real question here? Does religion provide all the facts of science and life and we should not make an effort to know more, is the other imperative question?
I think the true answer for the evolution theory will not come from religion and it shouldn’t, but it should come from science. There are some theories regarding this subject which added, corrected or brought up new idea instead, but all in the aim of enriching the subject of discovery. Religion can be necessity to the human soul or could be way of complete strict practice for Islamic person, but discovery is a living activity and it is essential part of human development motivated by curiosity and aim for achievements. The case of other philosophers dealt with subject of God existence before him, in my views does not validate or refute the theory nor deprive his theory from its name as land mark discovery in human tree of knowledge. The recent publish private (15,000) letters showed him and his group as most forceful moral movement of his age. His adamant support for the anti-slavery movement was unknown till recently. Darwin was not anti-religion, he was adherent to his faith but he exceptionally had the courage to face his faith with the fact and let them deal with it.
"A thought that I had a couple of days ago when I passed by a stand at the student union where a couple of students were celebrating Charles Darwins' 200th anniversary by giving out sweets and cake and what not."
It was also Lincoln's birthday. Also, why does everyone ignore Wallace?
"especially those on evolution as proof of the randomness of the universe and the reason for denying the existence of a God. "
Evolution isn't random- it is unguided.
Also, it is only useful for argument from evil and argument from lack of need.
"They also usually blame religion for everything that is wrong in this world. "
Only the problems commited by religions people and in its name- although some anti-theists get rather broad.
"beliefs and rituals that are meant to be "practiced" "
That would be culture, not religion.
" it almost always seems that their arguments are set and that most of the time the responses and questions by the atheists are the same, which suggests a 'set system of beliefs'"
... They are the same because religious arguments are the same- have been for over 2500 years.
"it is only people with a strong belief in something that will go out and seek to "convert" or change peoples' opinions about something"
In this case reason is the belief.
"So are atheists trying to create a 'new religion'? "
No- just a secular culture.
"is how atheist pretend to be smarter than everyone else, saying that they have science on their side forgetting that science is logical whereas their claims are not. "
We aren't smarter (well as a group, no)- we are right. Slight difference.
"Abu Hanifah replied, 'If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?"
Universe? No idea. I blame HAB and the "Rosa Luxemburg".
World? Accretiation of particles into bigger ones and a combination of 2 planetoids.
Stars? Spinning nebula.
Oceans? Comets and outgassing.
Planets? Same as Earth, but based on temperature of area determining composition.
"They might believe in God without adhering to any religion."
Deists?
"However since evolution is a theory and there is nothing to prove that it did actually happen mainly, because there is no continuous record of evolving fossils then I personally dismiss evolution. "
Why? Do you dismiss plate techtonics because we don't have the original plates? We can see evolution occuring, particularly in bacteria, but also in other creatures. Heck, we can see it in humans.
"Also the whole randomness thing and 'genetic mutation' doesn't really fit in comfortably in my head. "
That isn't a good reason to reject it.
"Misunderstanding his theory caused a lot of ethnic cleansing and unjust racial conflict too."
Not really- it became the new justification, but hurting poor people or those different from us has a LONG history.
Interesting article on the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/genetics-religion
thats a great article.. unfortunate that i missed the show..
Post a Comment