Probably derived from Norman Geisler who has a book that goes by the name: "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I kind of agree as it not only requires faith but constant struggle as well.
You have to have good strong faith to believe in the absence of an entity, which is believed by rest of the world to be present. Its basically your faith against the faith of the majority of the world.
I think the trouble with that statement is that it essentially has no meaning.
First, what is "more faith," what is the measure of faith here? And in what sense?
If I were to make the somewhat opposite statement: "It takes more faith to believe there is a God than to believe there is no God"
What have I added or taken away in terms of substance? Those who already agreed or disagreed with the statement will continue to do the same.
Secondly, what is God? And I don't just ask to be facetious. For example, does it take more faith to believe in two god than one god? How about 10 gods than one god?
Or rather, does it take more faith to not believe in 10 gods? I could give you examples of hundreds of gods from the past, and I can make up examples of gods. These are all hundreds of gods you don't believe in. Is it taking more faith on your part to not believe in these gods? Or is it something that hardly crosses your mind?
One could say, "God is the one who created the universe." (On a side note, I wonder if there is any reason to believe that the "creation" of the universe was not a collaborative effort.) But for a lot of people there other qualities they attribute to God that makes some entity their God.
For instance, if I believe in a God that sends everyone to heaven, no judgement, no trail, everyone goes to heaven straight away. Does this take more or less faith to believe in comparison to any other definition of God?
Now let's go in a different direction, let's say I strip God of all these attributes, let's say God didn't create the universe, God doesn't judge anyone, God doesn't love anyone, isn't the most gracious or the most merciful. This God is some entity that exists in some way beyond the universe and humans, but has no qualities commonly attributed to a god or gods. Does belief in this "god" require any more faith than a traditional version of god, or any less?
I disagree with the very nature of that statement. It hardly tells me anything.
And thank you about the story! I'm working on it. =)
Although I understand what Aasem is saying but my understanding of that statement was that one has to exercise more of the process of developing a belief or constructing a belief that there is no God. I kind of think in terms of making a diagnosis of a disease.A patient with abdominal pain comes in and you find it easy (most of the time) to say this is Acute appendicitis but to prove that it is NOT requires a whole lot of arguments and tests etc. Am I making sense?
There is hardly anything to disagree with Adnan and bsc but faith should most probably be read in the above statement in conventional popular usage, i.e., in the sense when there is no evidence. One may validly ask what is evidence then, but that would be getting into semantics, semiotics and most importantly the epistemological validities of utterances related to faith and belief. Russell might be of help when he says that no one talks of faith when there is evidence. My comment should be read in that background.
I am a computer engineer by profession and an avid reader of your musings. I was once doing research in automatic detection of repolarizaiton alternans from ECGs for pursuing towards my PhD, which unfortunately (or fortunately) has been hampered due to other casual priorities like reading, writing and aimless brooding etc :)
Aasem, there is a slight issue though with that statement then. If in the case of evidence, it implies that there is more evidence in the favour of the existence of god(s) than not. This is dependant upon what one accepts to be evidence of the existence of god. Even if we agree on the definition(s) of evidence.
So after all, it may not require more or less faith. Because the measure of evidence is different, and highly subjective.
So as someone who both, lacks faith in god(s) and believes that there are probably no god(s), and does not constantly struggle with this, I find the statement to still be rather void of meaning.
Like Aasem I would also avoid going into philosophical discussion but before leaving this ubject, my Qur'anic study says that faith (meaning eeman) does increase (and therefore- from hadeeth statment-)and decrease. See Sura #48 aya #4 and also S.3, Aya 173
On this debate: I think we are talking about same thing but just with different angles. Or may be like..as Maulana Room's story of an elephant in a dark room where everybody describes the animal with his own different perception.
Its like "La Ilaha" (First you say - there is no God)!..which leads to second part "illalAllah".
Aasem; Thanks for reading my blog. Please continue to give feedback. Believe me PhD. is just overrated!!! You were fortunate I guess....
Anonymous: I liked your very example of table and carpenter.
12 comments:
I would highly disagree with that.
Probably derived from Norman Geisler who has a book that goes by the name: "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I kind of agree as it not only requires faith but constant struggle as well.
You have to have good strong faith to believe in the absence of an entity, which is believed by rest of the world to be present. Its basically your faith against the faith of the majority of the world.
Adnan...elaborate please..
BTW, story at your blog is captivating. PLEASE continue. With 3 parts, it became more interesting...
Will be checking every 2/3 days.....
Asem,
I checked your site. First I thought you are an Islamic scholar but from one post it seems you are a cardiologist....Are you?
I think the trouble with that statement is that it essentially has no meaning.
First, what is "more faith," what is the measure of faith here? And in what sense?
If I were to make the somewhat opposite statement:
"It takes more faith to believe there is a God than to believe there is no God"
What have I added or taken away in terms of substance? Those who already agreed or disagreed with the statement will continue to do the same.
Secondly, what is God? And I don't just ask to be facetious. For example, does it take more faith to believe in two god than one god? How about 10 gods than one god?
Or rather, does it take more faith to not believe in 10 gods? I could give you examples of hundreds of gods from the past, and I can make up examples of gods. These are all hundreds of gods you don't believe in. Is it taking more faith on your part to not believe in these gods? Or is it something that hardly crosses your mind?
One could say, "God is the one who created the universe." (On a side note, I wonder if there is any reason to believe that the "creation" of the universe was not a collaborative effort.) But for a lot of people there other qualities they attribute to God that makes some entity their God.
For instance, if I believe in a God that sends everyone to heaven, no judgement, no trail, everyone goes to heaven straight away. Does this take more or less faith to believe in comparison to any other definition of God?
Now let's go in a different direction, let's say I strip God of all these attributes, let's say God didn't create the universe, God doesn't judge anyone, God doesn't love anyone, isn't the most gracious or the most merciful. This God is some entity that exists in some way beyond the universe and humans, but has no qualities commonly attributed to a god or gods. Does belief in this "god" require any more faith than a traditional version of god, or any less?
I disagree with the very nature of that statement. It hardly tells me anything.
And thank you about the story! I'm working on it. =)
Although I understand what Aasem is saying but my understanding of that statement was that one has to exercise more of the process of developing a belief or constructing a belief that there is no God.
I kind of think in terms of making a diagnosis of a disease.A patient with abdominal pain comes in and you find it easy (most of the time) to say this is Acute appendicitis but to prove that it is NOT requires a whole lot of arguments and tests etc.
Am I making sense?
There is hardly anything to disagree with Adnan and bsc but faith should most probably be read in the above statement in conventional popular usage, i.e., in the sense when there is no evidence. One may validly ask what is evidence then, but that would be getting into semantics, semiotics and most importantly the epistemological validities of utterances related to faith and belief. Russell might be of help when he says that no one talks of faith when there is evidence. My comment should be read in that background.
Mystic-Soul,
I am a computer engineer by profession and an avid reader of your musings. I was once doing research in automatic detection of repolarizaiton alternans from ECGs for pursuing towards my PhD, which unfortunately (or fortunately) has been hampered due to other casual priorities like reading, writing and aimless brooding etc :)
(1)"See there is a table"
who made it?
ans. "Carpenter". Simple/easy.
(2) "See there is table"
who made it?
ans.Nobody
it came by itself? by randamness?
Now manage chaos, difficult.
Allah has embeded in humans the love/identificaiton of his sole and only one existance and call it as "Nature".
going against nature surly required more of everything distrutively including the word used wrongly in the statment "faith".
Aasem, there is a slight issue though with that statement then. If in the case of evidence, it implies that there is more evidence in the favour of the existence of god(s) than not. This is dependant upon what one accepts to be evidence of the existence of god. Even if we agree on the definition(s) of evidence.
So after all, it may not require more or less faith. Because the measure of evidence is different, and highly subjective.
So as someone who both, lacks faith in god(s) and believes that there are probably no god(s), and does not constantly struggle with this, I find the statement to still be rather void of meaning.
Like Aasem I would also avoid going into philosophical discussion but before leaving this ubject, my Qur'anic study says that faith (meaning eeman) does increase (and therefore- from hadeeth statment-)and decrease.
See
Sura #48 aya #4 and also
S.3, Aya 173
On this debate: I think we are talking about same thing but just with different angles. Or may be like..as Maulana Room's story of an elephant in a dark room where everybody describes the animal with his own different perception.
Its like "La Ilaha" (First you say - there is no God)!..which leads to second part "illalAllah".
Aasem; Thanks for reading my blog. Please continue to give feedback.
Believe me PhD. is just overrated!!! You were fortunate I guess....
Anonymous: I liked your very example of table and carpenter.
Uncle your comment was always enlightening...
Post a Comment