| |
Evolution of life
is not a chance but scientific outcome of limitless possibilities of
interactions. If life was to be the result of "Be done"; it would have
been much better if that powerful mind had some intelligence also and
had thought of misery, suffering and cruelty that such hastily designed
creation would afflict on human and now on earth also. Remember that old
discussion where three human beings during holocaust got rounded up in a
concentration camp and argued about God and concluded "if there is a
God, this is the time for Him to intervene. If he could not intervene,
he is impotent. If He could intervene but He chose not to intervene then
He is a monster". This says it all too well from social perspective.
It is strange how
such rational people like
Dr. Mansoor Qazi
accuse others of not being objective while they never miss an
opportunity to lash out with the most childish statements about God.
The concept of an "intervening" God is not universal. The concept of
misery, death and cruelty is very relative. The whole Asian tsunami
killed approximately the number of people that die in a week in the
world - a blip - yet it was a media event. The number of people dying
in the Jewish Holocaust was 10% of the total deaths in World War II, let
alone other wars (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm).
Wars started and won by the same imperial powers that today wreak havoc
in the world. So influenced is he by the media that he conveniently
ignores the holocausts that continue to occur, and have occurred, by
governments to which he pays taxes. So much for objectivity!
Without death, there
would be no evolution, and there would be no death without disease.
So, Dr. Qazi mixes
the concept of a "loving God" from Christianity with the concept of
"Divine intervention" from Judaism and is a firm believer in the
holocaust (lower case used by Dr. Qazi) as the biggest instance of
suffering and cruelty. What objectivity!
My only question?
Isn't misery, suffering, death and cruelty a natural condition of living
organisms (deer and lion for example) -- that only take on emotional
overtones due to human psychology geared by Man's spiritual history?
Please be objective. From an objective point of view, what is the
difference between an ant crushed by your shoe and a human felled by
machine gun fire. What is the biological objective difference. Should
God intervene and prevent all death and suffering? What kind of a
system do you propose then?
On the other hand, evolution is possibilities. It does not operate on
pity. It calls this a process of Natural Selection, which not only
destroys good DNA sometimes but bad one for sure. What about 'Apoptosis'
at cellular level and 'Multisystem Failure' at organism level? If life
were to be such a cherished phenomenon why to incorporate the concept of
death in genetics? Understanding life as one of the manifestation of
physical occurrences would sufficiently answer this question rationally
and would teach humility. Evolution does not have a place for arrogance
as religious creationist approach does.
The wrong concept of
evolution as espoused by old-century atheists as the author is the most
arrogant of human notions and has spawned countless moral and ethical
dilemmas without solving many. Natural Selection is an observed process
and it is as simple as "no ability to get food, no chance to have kids"
- perfectably understandable. Accepting death and accepting human life
as a special form of life allows for morality (why then does the murder
of a goat not bring about capital punishment?) and humility to God. The
holocausts of the twentieth century were born of the arrogance of those
in power that ascribed to the irrational extension of the theory of
Natural Selection to the arrogance of "we are a product of chance"! I
still fail to find a logical conclusion of this huge logical leap.
Please enlighten me.
I feel the biggest dilemma of religious/spiritual/creationists is their
psychological fear of death, which makes them feel meaningless in life
and hence they create a new myth of life after death. It may very well
be that all believers need some emotional strength of personality. It
would help them overcome their selective bias in favor of God, then
creation and then its final psychological operative – Religion. But
let's go back to Mr. Yahya's article.
This paragraph is as
derogatory as anything Mr. Yahya could have written. Why do atheists
have to deride and derogate theists in order to hold their head high.
The fear of death keeps the believing theist in check and prepared for
it (I can relate to by personal experience). It is the irrational fear
of death that translates into a complete denial by the atheist, based on
nothing but the notion of himself.
Again the author
lumps together his pet peeves - creationists, life-after-death,
religions - into one mumbo-jumbo of inferior human beings. Well, how
was the Universe created? I say it was created, because everything that
exists is created and there is a point in time when it was NOT - and
another point when it IS -- that is creationism for me, not the
creationism of some Baptist Christian in Georgia. Please get your facts
straight. You deny creation -- any basis? The life after death implies
death -- so how can believers be afraid of death? This is a very common
argument and the author uses it, but I fail to see the logical
connection. If I am afraid of Event X, how can I reduce that fear by
hastening Event X so I can experience something after Event X. The fear
of Event X is not mitigated. The author is confusing the re-incarnation
myths and the myths of death not as actual deaths with the
life-after-death concept of Islam. For argument's sake, it may very
well be a myth (as no one living has seen life after death) but its
purpose is certainly not to alleviate the fear of death, but to be
prepared for it by continually staying on the straight and narrow! What
a difference, Dr. Qazi!
Most respectfully, the last part of the essay is very much an article
faith where author has quickly decided to jump from preceding less than
scientific thought to shear faith based argument. I am sure it a valid
argument for lots of faithful but not enough for discussion in a
rational manner. On the same note I might add that scientific theory of
creation is separate topic. So I would refrain from touching it at this
point.
I hope my friends would look at the article respectfully as I did and
make up their own mind (Hopefully not before listening to the counter
argument - This is my dry humor!). |
|