Can you have judgment if you have no faith?

swedish chef

At the Start
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
4,847
Location
London
By iqbal.latif

'Man has just learned to walk upright, and now he presumes to create his gods.' Trevor Karsdale

Man is fresh out of cave. 10,000 years of known civilization starting from Jericho is only a fraction of time in our one-billion- year plausible, and likely to stay here, until the sun implodes and busts us. The Prophets and Gods we have created in this cave age era of ours will all be forgotten as a small footnote of our pagan humble beginning.


One thing will continue and that is the ideas perpetrated by the likes of Carl Sagan: ''For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.'' Future recorder of events will treat us 'the knowledgeable creatures of this age of information' as 'upper cave age' limited mortals due to our predominant addiction and mental enslavement on a set of beliefs originated from hearsay, scriptural myths and legends. 4 billion of practicing faithful are oblivious to the fact that mankind is at the cusp of a new era of information that shall last millions of millenniums.

The true literary inheritance of mankind in probably a few hundred years and for future millenniums will be Homer's Iliad or Odyssey, Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost, not any consecrated scripture.


(Odyssey is a major ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer. It is, in part, a sequel to the Iliad, the other work ascribed to Homer. The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and his death in 1321. It is widely considered the preeminent work of Italian literature. Paradise Lost is an epic poem in blank verse by the 17th-century English poet John Milton. It was originally published in 1667 in ten books.)


‎''That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”


“Does faith matter? Absolutely,” Gingrich said. “How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” He continued, “the notion that you are endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary of what we mean by America.” Gingrich said that Americans should value religion first, above morality and knowledge.


The reason our life is devoid of the richness of renaissance men is that the days are past when our present schools could give time and attention to a child to learn knowledge.

History is the first step of learning for any child; history teaches man to learn from the mistakes of the past. That knowledge will lead him/her to Geography and finally to familiarity of classics and our globe. Once he/she knows our earth well, some unanswered queries will lead him to know our solar system where our 'blue pearl' sits as a third planet around the sun in quite a silent part of our galaxy.

Once we discover our triviality in the system of the Universe, the road to self-discovery is laid bare. The idea of a 14 billion-year-old Universe raises an enquiry and questions the entire logic and philosophy of Abrahamic scriptures. Faith tells us a story that is the greatest myth of all times. If that is the litmus test of trust that Gingrich imposes“How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” then USA/mankind has a big problem. Either we are created in 7 days / are only 6,000 years old, or came out of nothingness 14 billion years ago from the womb of Providence and The Big Bang. The two positions are incompatible, one has to give way to other.

It is this dichotomy and basic error of understanding of our age that is rarely addressed. Majority of the Faithful across the lines of Abrahamic scriptures refuse to believe science of creation that evolved through a carbon-based life from the throes of dead stars. From the womb of death we are formed, to quote Rumi who inspires me a lot:

I died as a mineral and became a plant,

I died as a plant and rose to animal,

I died as an animal and I was Man.

Why should I fear?

When was I less by dying?

Rumi

When a star dies we form! Yes, every carbon atom in our body is the primordial 'star dust.'



Though the 'faithful' have broken the hearts of atoms, discovered particles that travel faster than light very near to the Vatican at CERN, they undertake journeys to study distant galaxies but the eternal sin and guilt of reconciliation with the scriptures that acquaint us with an allegorical tale of creation still remains a collective burden on mankind's conscience.

Human progress and our mental capacities are driven by our creativity; by maintaining status quo we become crude and intellectually self-indulgent. Nothing is perfect or faultless, we are in midst of dynamic changes; only our continuous flux and change of opinions by asking the right questions, sceptical enquiry will set up the foundation of a great society, a culture that frowns on questions and condemns analytical enquiry is bound to implode.


What consumes my mind is the void and slow pace of human history and phase of discovery from 500 BC to 1600/1800 AD and the huge exponential growth from 1600 to 2011. I am obsessed with discoveries that led to the causes and origins of that massive exponential increase in rate of growth of our knowledge spectrum. If you want to discover those nations who failed, and those who progressed, just see the names from where the prophets of knowledge appeared in between ‘1600-2000.’ In between 1000-2000 AD, "Medieval theologians" have been singlehandedly responsible for the arrest of growth of knowledge in some geographical regions of the world.

Ideas should be rewarded, not persecuted. The idea-man should be loved, not condemned. When Galileo was condemned and arrested, the emphasis of science moved from Italy to Northern Europe. When in 1200 AD Ghazali arrested free will over philosophical dialogue of Averroes and introduced the concept of predestination as the favourite strain of Allah’s ideology, Middle East descended into a chaos which it has not recovered from so far. History takes time but grinds very fine and destroys those who deny the flow of knowledge.

The holy scriptures in succession tend to wean authority from the previous and tend to support the incoherence of the myths, though supportive of fables, but defining them for their own geography. The stories of Torah, Bible and Quran are not supportive of each other rather contradict each other, Newton negation of Aristotle made Aristotle even the greatest of beings.

‎"Come, come again, whoever you are, come!
Heathen, fire worshipper or idolatrous, come!
Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times,
Ours is the portal of hope, come as you are."
.
 
Chef, you seem very keen on Mr Latif. Can you please explain the final paragraph to me (not the poetry bit, the prose before)? Do you actually know what he's talking about?
 
Chef, you seem very keen on Mr Latif. Can you please explain the final paragraph to me (not the poetry bit, the prose before)? Do you actually know what he's talking about?

No I haven't worked that out but fortunately I can ask him to decipher it at work tomorrow. I'll come back to you on that one. :confused:

You are referring to this piece bracketted aren't you?

(The holy scriptures in succession tend to wean authority from the previous and tend to support the incoherence of the myths, though supportive of fables,) but defining them for their own geography. The stories of Torah, Bible and Quran are not supportive of each other rather contradict each other,( Newton negation of Aristotle made Aristotle even the greatest of beings.)
 
Last edited:
Er, yes. It's absolutely incoherent all right - myths or no myths. The Torah, Bible and Koran don't have to support each other - they were written at different times and the Bible was certainly twiddled around with over decades, as well as not being written by one man (as was the Koran/Quran, by the prophet Muhammad). I wouldn't say that the New Testament and the Koran necessarily contradict each other, either, since they deal with the correct manner of conducting relationships, particularly those related to usury (money lending), marriage, inheritance, obedience/submission, no false gods/believing in one god only, etc., etc. Muhammad was able to build on his reading of biblical texts and, to some extent, refine them, particularly in the case of precise inheritance laws.

He also no doubt decided that alcohol wasn't such a good idea, unlike Christ, busy turning water into wine.

Both books demand absolute obedience to God, that the faithful should trust in Him alone, and that everything that happens is God's will. Both also bang on about angels, celestial messengers, etc.

The Quran claims to correct and confirm the earlier scriptures of the Jews and Christians. If we used something like the Apostles' Creed to show the divergence of the Quran from the Bible, it would read like this (with the parts which the Quran does not accept in brackets):

I believe in God
(The father)
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ
(His only Son, our Lord),
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,
(Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried,
He descended into hell; The third day
He rose again from the dead)
He ascended into heaven,
(And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty )
From thence shall He come
(to judge the quick and the dead).
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
(The Holy Catholic Church;
The Communion of Saints )
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the life everlasting.

The term 'the Father' is abhorrent to Muslims because it implies a physical generation and to say that God is a father means to them that he must have a wife; therefore on that ground they're perfectly right to reject the term as blasphemous.

Jesus is believed to be an apostle sent by God - as a man, and a slave of God. His crucifixion is explicitly denied - "They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but one was made to resemble him". Which has given rise to the strong belief among many Muslims, especially Pakistanis, that Jesus left his homeland and preached throughout the Indian continent, accompanied by his own family.

There are plenty of accords between Islam and Christianity, though: such as the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting - heaven, and hell, angels, God, and the Devil (Shaitan or, as we know it better, Satan).

A quick squint at the teaching of the Quran as compared with Christianity shows that the difference between them is more what Islam denies, than in what it affirms. It's agreed that God is the creator of the universe, that Jesus was miraculously born of a pure virgin,and that he ascended into heaven when he died, that there's a holy spirit (ghost) and that God will forgive men's sins and grant them everlasting life if they obey his revealed will.

There is a lot in accord between the two religions' doctrines except when the Christian Trinity is involved, but there is enough in common that neither religion should regard one another with suspicion and dislike.

(I'm indebted to the author Alfred Guillaume, whose little paperback "Islam" has been concise and helpful in setting most of the above out for me.)
 
Last edited:
Yes I understand what your saying but the whole point of his article is religion has had its time.

QUOTE:
Man is fresh out of cave. 10,000 years of known civilization starting from Jericho is only a fraction of time in our one-billion- year plausible, and likely to stay here, until the sun implodes and busts us. The Prophets and Gods we have created in this cave age era of ours will all be forgotten as a small footnote of our pagan humble beginning.

Once we discover our triviality in the system of the Universe, the road to self-discovery is laid bare. The idea of a 14 billion-year-old Universe raises an enquiry and questions the entire logic and philosophy of Abrahamic scriptures.

For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.'' Future recorder of events will treat us 'the knowledgeable creatures of this age of information' as 'upper cave age' limited mortals due to our predominant addiction and mental enslavement on a set of beliefs originated from hearsay, scriptural myths and legends. 4 billion of practicing faithful are oblivious to the fact that mankind is at the cusp of a new era of information that shall last millions of millenniums.
 
myths or no myths. The Torah, Bible and Koran don't have to support each other - they were written at different times and the Bible was certainly twiddled around with over decades, as well as not being written by one man (as was the Koran/Quran, by the prophet Muhammad)

I've just spoken to him and this is what he was trying to say, but twiddled around over the centuries to suit each geography. He was also implying that those religious countries which will not accept science - stand still, whilst those that do, move forward.
 
But some of the best scientific works came from 'religious countries'! There was no problem with astronomy, mathematics, medicine (i.e. not relying on a miracle cure from God, but being a bit proactive) in Islamic countries, particularly in Persia/Iran, which came up with a number of navigational innovations, astronomical data and algebra, for just a tiny taste of its contributions to the world.

I don't think that there was a problem with science working for the good of mankind because it was seen, in itself, as a gift from God. If someone found XYZ, then it was because God intended them to find XYZ.

What has been the problem, and still is, is the promotion of the myth that there is a God, or gods, and that you fatalistically have to leave your life in his/their hands. All countries have moved forward to a degree over time, but some have ground to a halt in evolutionary terms because of egotistical maniacs coming to power and stopping whatever they didn't like in its tracks (democratic change, freedom of expression, freedom to innovate and change) because it threatened their own excessive lifestyle. These corrupt creatures took - and take - old sayings from the past to shore up their views and to vilify those who fail to agree. Thus, North Korea, a whole truckload of African countries, the Belgian Congo (shored up by the Catholic Church in its despotism), Iran, Afghanistan, and numerous other nations which have for too long been subservient either to a military hardcore backed by religious fundamentalism or the other way around! Let's just hope the evangelical Christians don't make it to the White House in the USA, because you'll see a load of humanist policies unpicked in five minutes from the oath of office.

I think you can be a scientist, and believe in evolution and accept gay people AND have a personal faith if you wish. One thing - a blind faith in the unseen and unknown - and another, very much the seen and known, don't cancel each other out.

Personally, I'm with St Ockham. If you have a world, and everything in it, it's unnecessary to attribute its being to 'Another'. His premise is, very simply put, "what you see is what you get" - including all of the discoveries and ideas that flow over the centuries. You don't need to invent a "higher being" to have created them, because they just are, or occur, as a norm. (See Ockum's Razor theory. It's a lot more thoughtful than this brief expression, of course!)
 
Aha! Far too subtle for me to twig! I suppose I should feel that having a faith or belief is to be defended as a person's right, but too often the holder of such beliefs wishes to impose them on everyone. Not enough that you're an African animist and believe that there are spirits everywhere, you have to be told that everything is made by one God, and that your spirits are worthless, but a Christian or Muslim god is not. Or to be a Hindu and told that it's sinfully wrong to worship more than one God, and worse still to worship none. There is this obsession to mission to everyone with a self-righteous arrogance that only you, a Christian or Muslim, are right. You don't get Jewish believers hammering on doors trying to convert people, or running schools in the Congo provided all the kids become sons of Judea. I'd like everyone to accept that religions are not essential to leading ethical lives - in fact, it often seems that an overzealous religious belief leads to anything but ethical behaviour, so what is its purpose, if it causes conflict and repression? Humans should be able to get along pretty decently with religion out of the equation.
 
I think Latif is lacking a good night out with buckets of champers, fine food and two hookers to round things off

He needs to get out more
 
But some of the best scientific works came from 'religious countries'! There was no problem with astronomy, mathematics, medicine (i.e. not relying on a miracle cure from God, but being a bit proactive) in Islamic countries, particularly in Persia/Iran, which came up with a number of navigational innovations, astronomical data and algebra, for just a tiny taste of its contributions to the world.


What has been the problem, and still is, is the promotion of the myth that there is a God, or gods, and that you fatalistically have to leave your life in his/their hands. All countries have moved forward to a degree over time, but some have ground to a halt in evolutionary terms because of egotistical maniacs coming to power and stopping whatever they didn't like in its tracks (democratic change, freedom of expression, freedom to innovate and change) because it threatened their own excessive lifestyle. These corrupt creatures took - and take - old sayings from the past to shore up their views and to vilify those who fail to agree.

QUOTE]

http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_new...d-ikhwans-please-your-heretics-are-our-heroes
 
Back
Top