The linear development of our understanding of the physical sciences is unquestionable. Great progress in science etc etc .... we are all living through that. It doesnt mean that any comparable advance has been made in the metaphysical sciences, also other areas of the human condition are suffering from a lack of balance and holism.
Firstly, what do these terms "Balance" and "Holism" mean to you?
Secondly, even if one could make an argument that "the human condition" is one of suffering, what proof do you have that Islam is the resolution or the way to deal with that suffering? Why not another philosophy out of the many insightful ones? Why not Buddhist, Hindu, Zen, Earth-based, Existentialist, Humanist, Utilitarianist and other ideologies? You are here claiming to speak for Islam and so you have to first try and explain how an all-knowing, all-powerful and merciful/benevolent "God" could be overseeing what is a very awful world for many many people (the majority of humans live in and endure awful conditions, poverty, sickness, disease, starvation, wars, violence, abuse etc., not to even mention non-human creatures). Once you can justify how a GOOD "God" could oversee the world as it is and not intervene, not even try to prove "His" existence, nevermind actually, VISIBLY, unmistakably *help* people, then only after all that, you have the task of proving that Islam is the way to get on this God's guest list.
What is the point of a dialogue where there is no agreement on the basic terms.
Good point. Then maybe you need to ask yourself why *you* are really here.
Ah because all has been explained by science, theism is somehow anti-science. Not in my understanding. It actually is the best friend of science as it roots scientific endeavour in a social and moral framework.
Theism isn't anti-science... what stardust was saying (and I'm paraphrasing) is that from the beginning of human civilization we have always used "God" or "Gods" to explain phenomena that we didn't *yet* understand. So it used to be there was a God of the Sun and if you had a couple of cloudy weeks with no sun, you had to sacrifice something or someone to the God of the Sun so he'd send the sunshine back on your crops. Or there was a God of Rain and if there was a drought, you had to do a certain dance to a certain beat to invoke him to send the rains for your crops. Or there was a Goddess of Childbirth who you had to sacrifice (usually helpless animals) to to ensure an easier childbirth.
Our Gods now are no different. We assign the concept of "God" to whatever we don't yet understand. If you study mythology (not just Islam, which is itself a set of myths that too many take literally), you'll see how gods and goddesses and monotheism and polytheism have developed over human history.
And at the the end he/she tacks on something akin to "I cant believe in a God who allows evil (child abuse). God forbid if this was your personal experience and if so I apologies for addressing it. But simplistically the problem of evil is complex and of course the intrusion of personal tragedies is unsettling to the core of our soul. But that is an emotional response. It needs perspective. And I pray to God one you chose as an example not from experience.
It's not an emotional response. It's a very valid, rational question of why an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent "God" doesn't care about things like child abuse, genetic disorders, infant mortality etc etc etc. Of course, you and religion has no answer, that doesn't mean it's an emotional response. It means you have no answer.
Topic: Hi.