Islamic view on aliens .
Sep 4th 2013, 5:35 pm
#31
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Dubai, working at Dust World Central
Posts: 3,706
Re: Islamic view on aliens .
'There are very good grounds to believe there is no actual truth in the claims of religion. I rather liken it to a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort,'
Richard Dawkins
….Man can contemplate his own mortality and finds the thought intolerable. Any animal will struggle to protect itself from a threat of death. Faced with a predator, it flees, hides, fights or employs some other defensive mechanism, such as death-feigning or the emission of stinking fluids. There are many self-protection mechanisms, but they all occur as a response to an immediate danger. When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot—the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of an immortal soul—a soul which is more 'him' than even his physical body is 'him.' If this soul can survive in an afterlife, then he has successfully defended himself against the threatened attack on his life. This gives the agents of the gods a powerful area of support. All they need to do is to remind their followers constantly of their mortality and to convince them that the afterlife itself is under the personal management of the particular gods they are promoting. The self-protective urges of their worshippers will do the rest.
[Desmond Morris, "Religious Displays," Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour, 1977, Abrams, New York, p. 149-51.]
Last edited by mikewot; Sep 4th 2013 at 5:37 pm.
Sep 4th 2013, 5:39 pm
#32
Hit 16's
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: Islamic view on aliens .
I wouldn't go so far as to say what I wrote was false logic.
The two views I wrote makes perfect sense to their respective followers. That is the proof each side needs.
'Science' and religion operate with different types of logic and even understanding of what constitutes rationality. You'll find that many atheists and believers recognise the logic that supports their reasonings and may not understand the logic that supports the opposing viewpoint. What's rational to one side is not rational to the other side and vice versa.
I've read a few interesting essays arguing that the flaws of western science and western critical thinking is that it only accepts a certain understanding of what constitutes logic and rationality. I've seen merit in that argument - it encourages a cold hearted inflexibility towards how the world and its components should be identified and described. Many ancient Greeks argued that in addition to the four main elements (earth, air, water and fire) there was a fifth element, aether, which referred to the spiritual world beyond the material earth, and this concept is also found in old Hindu teachings. The modern scientific world has pretty much stripped itself of this fifth element because it didn't fit within the modern definition of logic and rationality, so we've come to forget that there can be other types of logic and rationality.
As such the clearly devout see and accept 'proof' that would not be truly understandable or recognisable to both of us.
The two views I wrote makes perfect sense to their respective followers. That is the proof each side needs.
'Science' and religion operate with different types of logic and even understanding of what constitutes rationality. You'll find that many atheists and believers recognise the logic that supports their reasonings and may not understand the logic that supports the opposing viewpoint. What's rational to one side is not rational to the other side and vice versa.
I've read a few interesting essays arguing that the flaws of western science and western critical thinking is that it only accepts a certain understanding of what constitutes logic and rationality. I've seen merit in that argument - it encourages a cold hearted inflexibility towards how the world and its components should be identified and described. Many ancient Greeks argued that in addition to the four main elements (earth, air, water and fire) there was a fifth element, aether, which referred to the spiritual world beyond the material earth, and this concept is also found in old Hindu teachings. The modern scientific world has pretty much stripped itself of this fifth element because it didn't fit within the modern definition of logic and rationality, so we've come to forget that there can be other types of logic and rationality.
As such the clearly devout see and accept 'proof' that would not be truly understandable or recognisable to both of us.
Modern science has not so much stripped us of the fifth element, but proved--more or less--that it doesn't exist. Aristotle's assumption that the heavens must be made of something immutable because he could not discern any changes in what lay outside his reach is hardly logical or rational.
*Yes, I can see the conflict in what I've written: my understanding of logic and rationality prevents my being able to perceive them as something different or extended. But there we stray into semantics: I have yet to hear any logical or rational argument supporting the existence of a god.
