Nura: More about survival of the fittest, Occam's razor and I am up against a brick wall. Part I

Submitted by Plato (India), Nov 23, 2008 at 02:01

>>The theory of the life and death of stars tells us that eventually the earth will be engulfed by the sun. That is a really ‘harsh' theory. Will having a less harsh theory make the sun behave differently?

I guess the theory of the sun proves that there will be a last day, as Allah has put it.<<

You keep jumping to conclusions. By that time we would probably have discovered a way to escape to another solar system or become immune to the death throes of our sun

>> So far, we have proven that there is a life after death, and a last day for earth both of which has been determined MILENNIUMS before science discovered either of these facts.<<

You tried. I never accepted your unproven claim of life after death so that justice can prevail or because there needs to be a purpose in life. I told you that because you desire something, it will not come into existence.

Science has discovered that the earth is destined to end. But it does not tell you that that will be judgment day. Allah claims there will be a judgment day but has not told us when and it is nowhere near fulfilment. The Koran is claimed to be a complete book, where in it can you find that information? Allah has reserved the right to keep it a secret?

>>For the record, it was not I who brought up suffering and hardship as a way of disproving a theory. That was your undertaking with your sad story of the little girl to disprove the existence of Allah. I only offered a harsher theory that you happen to believe in.<<

It disproves the existence of a merciful, benevolent Allah. It does not disprove the existence of an uncaring, harsh, threatening, boastful Allah.

>>If Darwin had been alive he would have sued you for defamation. Darwin made some deductions from the evidence he had. Population control and human progress being blamed for saving humanity from disease and injuries have nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin.

Upset because I have attacked your prophet? Darwin is most likely burning in his grave, so I can care less would he would do.<<

I said if he had been alive. A dead Darwin can't harm anyone. Having read of Darwin's nature he would not have harmed you even if you had heaped abuse on him. But the world still shivers at what Muhammad can do even from his grave.

>>If you use deductive logic, you would see that what I am saying is related. Darwin ideology gave rise to further ideologies which does not conflict with his.<<

Why don't you point us to some of these so-called ideologies fathered by Darwin.

>> Population control is a great advancement to the Darwinist ideology.<<

Where among his writings does Darwin suggest or which ideology used his theory to control population? Here is a link to help you: http://darwin-online.org.uk/

>>You know that ideologies never stop expanding even with the death of the inventor and his students developed theories and ideologies based on his. They are closely related.<<

Yes they could be. But what is your point?

>>That is a law you have invented and attributed to Darwin. Evolution does not bother about ethics or morality. They are our inventions to overcome the extremes of some traits ingrained in us by evolution that could be detrimental to our survival.

"Not only is the law thus clearly exemplified in the evolution of the social organism, but it is exemplified with equal clearness in the evolution of all products of human thought and action; whether concrete or abstract, real or ideal…"

Spencer,1857

Ethics and morality are aspects of evolution on the contrary. You should brush up.<<

You seem to read what I write with little care for its meaning. I have stated that evolution does not bother about ethics or morality. When I say ‘bother' it does not mean evolution makes conscious choices, it cannot, it is only a set of rules that Darwin perceived in the working of evolution.

If the morality and ethics that we live by diminished our fitness for survival we will either not survive or our ethics and morality will be modified by natural selection to help us survive.

>>Spencer was very much entrenched into the theories of Darwin and Darwin actual drew from him and a few other philosophers when devising his theories.<<

I thought it was the other way around, that Spencer drew from Darwin. Darwin's theory was wrongly applied to the social sciences to justify colonialism, racism and even laizes fair capitalism. But entrench what you may, use whatever philosophy attracts you, a theory stands or falls on its powers of explanation and prediction. On these counts the theory of evolution still stands tall.

>> It is clear from his perspective, based on evolution, that the human species evolves in all matters of life biologically, psychologically, and socially. It is for this reason, that Darwin's ideas of the strong surviving as a way of natural selection, was attributed to social ideas such as stratification.<<

I don't see how the conclusion in the second sentence follows from your statement in the first one. And you are again concluding that Darwin said strength is what drives natural selection. I think you have mixed up who used whose theory.

Here is a short explanation of what is meant by natural selection from Wikipedia:

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.

>>It was the support of Social Darwinism that propelled the industrial boom in the 1900s. Of course the supporters were the powerful and the wealthy. I have invented nothing. You should look more into your religion.<<

You lost me there. If support for Social Darwinism led to an industrial boom what are you complaining about.

>>The revulsion against incest is to ensure diversity in our gene pool and help eliminate bad genes.

Tell me then, why did human revile incest before their invention of morality? Why would humans invent this morality when they did not know the science behind it?<<

You always seem to miss the point I am driving at. Incest has been taboo even before the dawn of civilization. The science is in the fact that humans and many animals too resist incest. Morality is not just invented but sustained by evolution, not by the discoveries of science.

Allah's legislation does not have anything to do with it. Helping the weak does not pollute society, helping only the weak to survive will pollute society and that society will implode and disappear.

>>Let's look at nature as Darwin did to make his theory. Why do you think a lioness may starve her cub if her innate senses tell her that it is weak or diseased? We see this example in nature all the time where animals abandon or kill their weak.<<

Let us take two lionesses one which will starve/abandon a cub if it feels that it will not survive into adulthood and another which expends its resource in time and food to try and rear it. Which one is your guess will leave more children to carry its genes into future generations? Nature has no morality or ethics. If a gene helps the organism in which it is situated to survive better than others then that gene gets carried into the next generation.

You see some animals that abandon or even eat their unfit babies because the ones that did not carry the genes that allowed them to eat cubs that were destined to die lost out in the competition to project their genes into the future.

>> If this is where Darwin made his judgments, then why is it inconceivable to believe that the weak in society is a pollutant as in nature? <<

Let us take the example of what happened in seventh century Arabia. When Muhammad had gathered the strength he began attacking the weak. One by one he eliminated the weak Jewish tribes. In the process he gathered wealth and resources in the form of loot, land, women and children as slaves. Once the resisting tribes were eliminated and his strength increased further he had ambitions to confront the Romans. The successor Muslim armies next turned on the Persian empire weakened by years of strife with the Byzantines and were easy pickings for them.

They then went farther and decimated entire cultures and nations that were weak, the Buddhists, the hindus and so many other small tribes and people who have now disappeared from the map of the world. You get the picture, Nura?

What makes you think the weak are not being eliminated even now? Not because they are pollutants but because they cannot compete against more well adapted brothers and sisters. The battle is going on right under your nose.

>>They take up space, food, and resources. The poor is often the cause for disease and crime. Do you deny that the world would be much stronger without them? Natural selection of the human species. This is your religion.<<

It is happening right under your nose, Nura. It is not anybody's religion, it is a simple fact our existence.

Natural selection has also given us the emotion of empathy and compassion towards our fellow beings, especially towards our own species because it is an important adaptation for our survival. That is why the vast majority of humans will always help their less fortunate brothers and sisters even though they take up space, food and resources or are a cause of disease and crime and will oppose any move towards ‘social darwinism'. The real reason behind our compassion is not religion but what evolution has hard-wired into us because it is a useful behaviour for survival.

>>And get a clue, the theory of evolution is neither an ideology nor a religion, just as the theory of relativity is not.

Evolution has not been proven to be an absolute fact in itself, like many theories so it is an ideology and theory. It is a tenet of atheism and only a theory.<<

And pray, what exactly is religion? Evolution can at least show you fossils. You cannot even show the fossil of an extinct jinn (like dinosaurs we don't see them any more) or an unformed angel.

Just to keep you informed our DNA has spectacularly shown that Darwin had got most things right about his theory. Yes it is only a theory. Relativity is only a theory but it has been used to explain and predict many natural phenomena and our technology, including the nuclear bomb, nuclear power etc are based on it.

Theories can be very useful. Of what use are religions? To start wars, abuse unbelievers as the Koran does verse after verse and condone unethical and immoral behaviour like having your adopted son divorce his wife so that you can marry her?? Has Allah explained or predicted anything that came true. His self-proclaimed existence and prediction of judgment day is laughable?

>>Atheism is a religion. Darwinism is just an offshoot of Atheism. It's explanation of life. They are your religion. And your God is Evolution.<<

Judaism is a religion. Islam is just an offshoot of Judaism. It is NOT an explanation of life. They are your religion. And your god is Allah.

If that does not make sense to you, nor does your foray into what you think is my religion.

>>They die because of a greater fear than death or the false hope some religions endow weak minds with about eternal rewards for dying for it and literally invite its followers to die.

This is not accurate Plato. Most people die for their country which has no basis in religion.<<

Do a reality check. From the seventh century to this day how many Muslims have died for their religion and how many for their country. How many did your prophet and his followers kill for Islam. How many died during the Crusades. How many Muslims would have readily gone out to conquer if they were not encouraged with verses like 9:111?

>>Would you die to protect your country, family, beliefs? Answer carefully.<<

I would like to think I would. But I have not been tested yet.

>>Nura, if you fight and get to die in Allah's way and earn paradise will you not prefer death to life?

I have already proven from the statement of Allah himself that Believers does not love death. Many people don't seek to die, this is suicide.<<

Read the following verses:

008.065 , 86 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere

These verses sound like an invitation to suicide.

>>Logically, the preference of death would be the most honorable. As a brave soldier is praised for his death, so is the martyr. It is not death that Muslims prefer, it is the hereafter, by which can only be attained through death. No one loves death.<<

You call that logic? You say preference for death is the ‘most honourable', a martyr is praised for his death and the hereafter can be attained only through death. Let me re-state the sequence again: Death is honourable, martyrs are praised and the hereafter attained by death. Now for your conclusion: No one loves death. Allah could not have done a better job of explaining the logic of the love of death!

>>If what you are saying is accurate, they why are not Muslims around the world seeking death?<<

Just goes to show there are very few true Muslims around, for Allah tells you:

009.088
YUSUFALI: But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper

009.052
YUSUFALI: Say: "Can you expect for us (any fate) other than one of two glorious things- (Martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you."

061.010 - 013
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?-
That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew!
He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity: that is indeed the Supreme Achievement

O Muslims (including you Nura) what is the matter with you that you cling to this life of play and amusement, especially, you who live in the West and enjoy its bounties?

Which believer will cling to life after reading about the greater comforts of Allah's heaven?

>>It is better to die fighting for freedom than living a life of persecution and oppression. It is in these cases, where a Muslim should fight until he is victorious in life, or death.<<

I am a hundred per cent with you, Nura. So why are Muslims not up in arms against the Saudi Royal family, the Libyan dictator, the Somali warlords, the Sudanese government for the mass killing of the Darfurians, the Syrian despots who think nothing of wiping out a whole town of dissidents.

Nura, afte reading 6:32 do you now understand why people of your religion are eager to die??

>>Eager to die? This is a gross slander. Muslims are not eager to die. If we were, it would be accomplished on a global scale. <<

If what I said is slander against Muslims then what do you have to say about these Bukhari hadith:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 72:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said, "Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah)."

Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord that "Whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise." Umar asked the Prophet, "Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and their's (i.e. those of the Pagan's) will go to the (Hell) fire?" The Prophet said, "Yes."

Vol 5, Book 59, No. 377: A man came to the prophet and said, ‘Can you tell me where I will go if I get martyred?' The prophet replied, ‘To paradise.' The man fought till he was martyred."

>>Muslims who are being oppressed are more eager to die for their cause because of their condition.<<

Is there oppression in Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia? Are Muslims being oppressed more in India, Israel, the UK, US, Spain, Thailand, Philippines as compared to those Muslim countries?

>> I assume I would be too if my family was being slaughtered and raped. Death is inevitable for all of us. There is no need to seek it, because it will find you.<<

Are you saying that the Muslims who are being slaughtered in Israel, Iraq, Chechnya, Darfur are dying because death has found them i.e as ordained by Allah? So stop complaining about Muslims being killed, it is just Allah's wish and who are you to try and stop it?

>>The verse gives hope for those oppressed that they can overcome their situation.<<

Just pie in Allah's sky.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".