Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Manage Quality Customer Service 2
Sarmin Yeasmin
6. We can communicate with colleagues about customer service standards and expectations clearly in several ways. For example discuss with them, invite in a meeting etc.
7. Providing access to information on service standards and delivery to colleagues is to talk to them, call in staff meeting etc.
8. I would use to assist colleagues to deal with customer service issues and to take responsibility for service outcomes by using informal and formal both ways. It depend on how much knowledge on customer service they already have.
9. Monitoring customer service in the workplace to ensure standards are met in accordance with enterprise policies and procedures are following way.
* watch directly or by the surveillance camera.
* from customer feedback.
* from profit outcome.
* randomly inspection.
* close supervise etc.
10. For seeking feedback from customers on an ongoing basis and use this to improve performance where applicable, I would provide feedback form to customer randomly, orally ask to customer where should be improve and use complain box and form so that if they are not happy , they can complain anytime without asking anybody.
11. Customer service problem is a complex issue, It can be happened occasionally or regularly. That is why need to monitor regularly in proper way. To identify the customer service problems, we can watch staff, collect feedback from customers, randomly asking to customer service providers about their role etc.
After identifying the problem on customer service, we have to find out why the problem is occurred , is it for lacking of resource or lacking of staff training. Then we need to solve the problem to ensure continued service quality.
12. Pls make it urself.
6. We can communicate with colleagues about customer service standards and expectations clearly in several ways. For example discuss with them, invite in a meeting etc.
7. Providing access to information on service standards and delivery to colleagues is to talk to them, call in staff meeting etc.
8. I would use to assist colleagues to deal with customer service issues and to take responsibility for service outcomes by using informal and formal both ways. It depend on how much knowledge on customer service they already have.
9. Monitoring customer service in the workplace to ensure standards are met in accordance with enterprise policies and procedures are following way.
* watch directly or by the surveillance camera.
* from customer feedback.
* from profit outcome.
* randomly inspection.
* close supervise etc.
10. For seeking feedback from customers on an ongoing basis and use this to improve performance where applicable, I would provide feedback form to customer randomly, orally ask to customer where should be improve and use complain box and form so that if they are not happy , they can complain anytime without asking anybody.
11. Customer service problem is a complex issue, It can be happened occasionally or regularly. That is why need to monitor regularly in proper way. To identify the customer service problems, we can watch staff, collect feedback from customers, randomly asking to customer service providers about their role etc.
After identifying the problem on customer service, we have to find out why the problem is occurred , is it for lacking of resource or lacking of staff training. Then we need to solve the problem to ensure continued service quality.
12. Pls make it urself.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Manage Quality Customer Service
Manage Quality Customer Service
1.We can obtain information on customer needs, expectations and satisfaction levels in various way using both informal and formal way. Such as-
* watch procedures and suggest better ways of doing things.
* watch customers and see how they react, nothing particular trends.
* ask customers for specific feed back in questionnaire or oral.
* request to give suggestions and check responses.
* use complaining form and box , everyday watch what their opinion or
complain.
*visit competitors and compare operations.
2. In the following way, we can provide opportunities for customers and colleague to give feedback on products and services. Like-
a. Open questions.
* complaining form or book.
* complain box.
* survey with orally and written.
* Internet survey with specific form.
b. Close questions. This type of feedback is limited to answer with yes or not.
* questionnaire .
* oral survey etc.
3. The process I would use to review changes in internal and external environments is to depend on customers need and expectations. It’s can be come up from customers feedback. In other way is that closely observe the continue changing and upgrading the world through the internet and visiting different places.
The above integrated findings I would use to my entity into planning for quality services.
4. For participating in the customer service planning process, I would give to change to my colleague in different way. For example-
* Invite in the restaurant or hotel and ask opinion.
* Request or invite to participate in staff meeting.
* ask orally to provide view on customer service.
* use questionnaire to collect review etc.
5. The following list for standards and plans ,I would develop to address key quality services issues.
* pleasant and comfortable environment.
* Clean , safe and hygien.
* food flavour and texture
* appearance
* proper temperature.
* availability etc.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Food habit for autism baby
This study documents the presence and variety of eating patterns and problems seen in children with autism. Although the study is limited by lack of developmentally normal controls, review of the data reveals some interesting observations compared to typical development. With regard to early eating patterns, the rate of breast feeding appears somewhat high although rates vary considerably based on the population studied (Lawrence, 1985). The reported incidence of colic (24%) also seems somewhat inflated, given the fact that several pediatric texts quote a usual rate of 10% (Avery & First, 1994; Taubman, 1997). However,
other texts note rates of up to 30% (Bromberg, 1997; Rudolph, Hoffman & Rudolph, 1996).
The pattern of food introduction generally follows that typically recommended by pediatricians and nutritionists, although meats were presented somewhat earlier than expected. The information regarding feeding from birth to a year provides interesting insights in that infant
temperament and early feeding patterns seemed to be associated with current eating problems. Nondemanding infants appeared to have more problems with eating nonedibles and taking medication. Initial sucking difficulties were also associated with later problems with eating nonedibles.
It could be hypothesized that these problems might be related to insufficient oral stimulation as infants. Children who were not fed on demand as infants were less likely to have a good appetite for most foods. Interestingly,those who were breastfed at a year were less likely to insist on rituals. The association of prolongedbreastfeeding with decreased compulsivity in children is not readily explained.
With regard to health and nutritional concerns, the incidence of reported medical conditions does not appear excessive. While it is estimated that gastroesophageal reflux is problematic for perhaps 20% of children, it is
noted in various pediatric texts that reflux is almost invariably present in infants less than a year of age (Avery & First, 1994; Belknap & McEvoy, 1994; Rudolph et al., 1996). The incidence of asthma appears in
line with that estimated for the general population (5% to 15%) (Pearlman, Greos, & Vitanza, 1997).
Highly varying epidemiologic figures are available concerning food allergies (Behrman & Vaughn, 1987; Katz,
1997).It is interesting that while two thirds of parents reported picky eating habits, nearly half reported that their
child had a fairly well-balanced diet and an even higher percentage reported adequate nutritional intake. EBSCOhost Page 4 of 11
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B_+shn+1+db+aphjnh+... 1/28/2005 . However, the prevalence of picky eating is confirmed by the number of parents who report that their child has a good appetite only when eating foods that are liked. It is not surprising that texture was believed to have the greatest influence on food selection, given issues of oral tactile sensitivity in many children with autism.
Appearance, taste, and smell were other deciding factors. It seems reasonable that children who were not picky eaters were viewed as having better nutrition and better appetites. They were also more likely to have easy-going temperaments. Nearly all parents described a regular mealtime, perhaps reflecting an effort to maintain structure and consistency in eating patterns. In considering the social aspects of eating, over a third of the respondents felt that situations and people
influenced the eating patterns of their children. The majority of families had some meals outside of the home, with the most frequently patronized settings being fast food and drive-through restaurants. This pattern would appear typical for most American families with children. However, problems arise for the families of
children with autism when the child lacks the skills or presents with behaviors that make inclusion in certain social settings awkward.
When eating/oral problems are studied, the difficulties for families of children with autism become more obvious. The problems reported most often were unwillingness to try new foods, mouthing objects, and rituals surrounding eating. Other strongly documented problem behaviors were licking objects, smelling and
throwing food, and eating nonedibles. One may hypothesize a variety of reasons for the problems described. For instance, food refusal may be based on issues related to sensory difficulties and insistence on sameness. The child may also lack the language to express refusal or negotiate verbally.
Problems with
transition may impact on aspects of mealtime; too much stimuli or a prolonged period of sitting may cause a child to reject food. These are problems that worry parents and cause social disruption. Feeding an infant and child is often viewed as a primary responsibility of parents. When a child responds with difficult
behaviors or refusals, the parent must decide on a course of action. Assisting parents with concerns about eating is important in helping the family avoid tension and difficult behaviors.
While child developmentexperts generally advocate that parents accept their young child's selected eating patterns without forcing the issue, this may not always be the route to take with children with autism. Systematic introduction of new
foods, facilitation of one-partner social interactions during meals, establishing a routine, and minimizing stimuli may be more appropriate approaches for children with autism. Most children with autism, given patience and intervention, are eventually able to establish socially appropriate behaviors around eating.
The current study is limited in its conclusions by lack of developmentally normal controls with whom to compare results. It is also possible that the families who returned the survey were those with specific concerns about eating habits in their children and constitute a skewed population. No attempt was made to delineate racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic differences, nor were issues of family structure and dynamics addressed. Further studies are needed to document the specific nature of eating differences in children with autism as compared to typical children.
However, this study serves to provide preliminary data regarding the
eating habits and problems of children with autism. It raises issues regarding the influence of infant temperament and early feeding patterns on later eating patterns of children with autism. Additional research would aid in the development of strategies to facilitate appropriate eating habits and promote social aspects of mealtimes in this population.
other texts note rates of up to 30% (Bromberg, 1997; Rudolph, Hoffman & Rudolph, 1996).
The pattern of food introduction generally follows that typically recommended by pediatricians and nutritionists, although meats were presented somewhat earlier than expected. The information regarding feeding from birth to a year provides interesting insights in that infant
temperament and early feeding patterns seemed to be associated with current eating problems. Nondemanding infants appeared to have more problems with eating nonedibles and taking medication. Initial sucking difficulties were also associated with later problems with eating nonedibles.
It could be hypothesized that these problems might be related to insufficient oral stimulation as infants. Children who were not fed on demand as infants were less likely to have a good appetite for most foods. Interestingly,those who were breastfed at a year were less likely to insist on rituals. The association of prolongedbreastfeeding with decreased compulsivity in children is not readily explained.
With regard to health and nutritional concerns, the incidence of reported medical conditions does not appear excessive. While it is estimated that gastroesophageal reflux is problematic for perhaps 20% of children, it is
noted in various pediatric texts that reflux is almost invariably present in infants less than a year of age (Avery & First, 1994; Belknap & McEvoy, 1994; Rudolph et al., 1996). The incidence of asthma appears in
line with that estimated for the general population (5% to 15%) (Pearlman, Greos, & Vitanza, 1997).
Highly varying epidemiologic figures are available concerning food allergies (Behrman & Vaughn, 1987; Katz,
1997).It is interesting that while two thirds of parents reported picky eating habits, nearly half reported that their
child had a fairly well-balanced diet and an even higher percentage reported adequate nutritional intake. EBSCOhost Page 4 of 11
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B_+shn+1+db+aphjnh+... 1/28/2005 . However, the prevalence of picky eating is confirmed by the number of parents who report that their child has a good appetite only when eating foods that are liked. It is not surprising that texture was believed to have the greatest influence on food selection, given issues of oral tactile sensitivity in many children with autism.
Appearance, taste, and smell were other deciding factors. It seems reasonable that children who were not picky eaters were viewed as having better nutrition and better appetites. They were also more likely to have easy-going temperaments. Nearly all parents described a regular mealtime, perhaps reflecting an effort to maintain structure and consistency in eating patterns. In considering the social aspects of eating, over a third of the respondents felt that situations and people
influenced the eating patterns of their children. The majority of families had some meals outside of the home, with the most frequently patronized settings being fast food and drive-through restaurants. This pattern would appear typical for most American families with children. However, problems arise for the families of
children with autism when the child lacks the skills or presents with behaviors that make inclusion in certain social settings awkward.
When eating/oral problems are studied, the difficulties for families of children with autism become more obvious. The problems reported most often were unwillingness to try new foods, mouthing objects, and rituals surrounding eating. Other strongly documented problem behaviors were licking objects, smelling and
throwing food, and eating nonedibles. One may hypothesize a variety of reasons for the problems described. For instance, food refusal may be based on issues related to sensory difficulties and insistence on sameness. The child may also lack the language to express refusal or negotiate verbally.
Problems with
transition may impact on aspects of mealtime; too much stimuli or a prolonged period of sitting may cause a child to reject food. These are problems that worry parents and cause social disruption. Feeding an infant and child is often viewed as a primary responsibility of parents. When a child responds with difficult
behaviors or refusals, the parent must decide on a course of action. Assisting parents with concerns about eating is important in helping the family avoid tension and difficult behaviors.
While child developmentexperts generally advocate that parents accept their young child's selected eating patterns without forcing the issue, this may not always be the route to take with children with autism. Systematic introduction of new
foods, facilitation of one-partner social interactions during meals, establishing a routine, and minimizing stimuli may be more appropriate approaches for children with autism. Most children with autism, given patience and intervention, are eventually able to establish socially appropriate behaviors around eating.
The current study is limited in its conclusions by lack of developmentally normal controls with whom to compare results. It is also possible that the families who returned the survey were those with specific concerns about eating habits in their children and constitute a skewed population. No attempt was made to delineate racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic differences, nor were issues of family structure and dynamics addressed. Further studies are needed to document the specific nature of eating differences in children with autism as compared to typical children.
However, this study serves to provide preliminary data regarding the
eating habits and problems of children with autism. It raises issues regarding the influence of infant temperament and early feeding patterns on later eating patterns of children with autism. Additional research would aid in the development of strategies to facilitate appropriate eating habits and promote social aspects of mealtimes in this population.
How to recognize autism
Sometimes a child does not do this. There is an absence of eye contact. Perhaps he focuses on a whirling ceiling fan or a light fixture and appears to be obsessed by the object. A voice or loud clap does not attract the baby's attention and he doesn't respond. Many times, this is the first clue a parent has that something may be wrong.
Studies show that about 17% of children in the United States have a developmental disability such as autism, but fewer than half are diagnosed before starting school. Early diagnosis and treatment is extremely important.
Early Warning Signs Include the Failure to:
•Focus on sights and sounds by 2 months of age.
•Initiate joyful behavior with parents by 4 months of age.
•Exchange smiles and sounds with parents by 8 to 9 months of age.
•Take a parent's hand to find a toy and point to objects by 12 to 16 months of age.
Other Warning Signs:
Does the baby respond to his or her name? Typical babies respond to their own name by a few months of age and turn toward the person who called them.
Does the baby engage in ‘joint attention’? By the end of the first year of age, most babies join with their parent in looking at the same object or event. Typical babies begin to shift their gaze from toys to people, look to where someone is pointing, point to objects himself and show toys to others.
Does the baby imitate others? Typical babies are mimics (sticking out their tongue, imitating facial movements). At 8-10 months, mothers and babies say the same sounds, one after the other, or clap (pat-a-cake) and make other movements.
Does the baby respond emotionally to others? Typical babies are socially responsive to others. When they see another child crying, they may cry themselves or look concerned. They smile when others smile.
Does the baby engage in pretend play? Around the end of the first year, a baby’s play begins to take on a pretend quality. Their actions involve pretending to feed themselves, their mother or a doll, brush the doll’s hair or wipe the doll’s nose.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians routinely evaluate children for developmental problems such as autism, starting in infancy, and begin testing at 9 months of age.
Some critics think this will lead to needless diagnoses in children with normal variations in behavior, but early diagnosis does not mean slapping a label on babies and giving them medications. Awareness to early warning signs increases the chances that children can develop normally.
The earlier the diagnosis, the better the prognosis. With autism, this is especially important.
Source : Collecting from net
Studies show that about 17% of children in the United States have a developmental disability such as autism, but fewer than half are diagnosed before starting school. Early diagnosis and treatment is extremely important.
Early Warning Signs Include the Failure to:
•Focus on sights and sounds by 2 months of age.
•Initiate joyful behavior with parents by 4 months of age.
•Exchange smiles and sounds with parents by 8 to 9 months of age.
•Take a parent's hand to find a toy and point to objects by 12 to 16 months of age.
Other Warning Signs:
Does the baby respond to his or her name? Typical babies respond to their own name by a few months of age and turn toward the person who called them.
Does the baby engage in ‘joint attention’? By the end of the first year of age, most babies join with their parent in looking at the same object or event. Typical babies begin to shift their gaze from toys to people, look to where someone is pointing, point to objects himself and show toys to others.
Does the baby imitate others? Typical babies are mimics (sticking out their tongue, imitating facial movements). At 8-10 months, mothers and babies say the same sounds, one after the other, or clap (pat-a-cake) and make other movements.
Does the baby respond emotionally to others? Typical babies are socially responsive to others. When they see another child crying, they may cry themselves or look concerned. They smile when others smile.
Does the baby engage in pretend play? Around the end of the first year, a baby’s play begins to take on a pretend quality. Their actions involve pretending to feed themselves, their mother or a doll, brush the doll’s hair or wipe the doll’s nose.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians routinely evaluate children for developmental problems such as autism, starting in infancy, and begin testing at 9 months of age.
Some critics think this will lead to needless diagnoses in children with normal variations in behavior, but early diagnosis does not mean slapping a label on babies and giving them medications. Awareness to early warning signs increases the chances that children can develop normally.
The earlier the diagnosis, the better the prognosis. With autism, this is especially important.
Source : Collecting from net
Autism Baby
By Diane Griffith, HealthAtoZ writer
From the moment she's born, you worry. You count her fingers and toes and listen at night to make sure she's breathing. You may even worry that she isn't developing like other babies.
If you feel in your gut that your child's development is delayed, trust your instincts. Many pediatricians won't diagnose autism (also known as autism spectrum disorder or ASD) too early, since children tend to develop at different rates. Remember, though, that no one knows your baby like you do. If you're concerned, tell your doctor and request an evaluation.
Autism spectrum disorder
No two children with ASD behave the same, but some common problems are:
Social skills. Some autistic children don't want to cuddle or be held. They don't interact with others, make eye contact or notice when people are talking to them.
Learning skills. Some children with ASD learn harder skills before easier ones. They may be able to read long words, but not understand what sound a letter makes. They may learn a new skill, but then forget it.
Communication skills. Approximately 40 percent of children with ASD don't speak. Others repeat what they hear, but can't answer questions. When speaking, they may stand too close, speak too loudly or talk about the same subject constantly. They may be able to speak, but not to listen.
Repetition. Some children with ASD need to repeat certain actions. They like routine and resist change. If a child is used to brushing his teeth before putting on his pajamas, he may become upset if asked to put on his pajamas first and then brush his teeth.
Recognizing autism in your child
Ask yourself these questions about your baby:
Does she know her name? By a few months of age, does she look at you when you call her name? Children with ASD respond only about 20 percent of the time. Some parents mistake this for a hearing loss.
Does he point things out? Does your one-year-old follow your gaze, look where you point or show you his toys? When something catches his eye, does he point it out to you? Children with ASD generally don't.
Is she a mimic? Does your 8- to 10-month-old repeat sounds and hand movements, like pat-a-cake and "so big?" Babies with ASD don't imitate others.
Does he pretend? Does your one-year-old like to pretend? Does he make believe he's feeding you or pretend his bowl is a hat? A child with ASD would rather play with his hands or a piece of string than pretend, or turn a car upside down and spin the wheels rather than pretend to drive it.
Does she understand emotions? Does your child smile back when smiled at? Does she laugh and smile when playing? If you cry, will she cry, too, or try to comfort you by patting you on the arm or back? Children with ASD usually don't respond to the emotions of others.
Other signs of ASD
No big smiles by age 6 months
No babbling by age one
No words by 16 months
No two-word phrases (unless repeating a phrase) by age two
Loss of speech, babbling or social skills at any age
If you suspect ASD, ask your pediatrician for a developmental screening. There's no known cure for ASD, but early intervention can help children to talk, interact, play, learn and care for themselves. The earlier the diagnosis, the sooner treatment can begin, and the more progress your child can make.
From the moment she's born, you worry. You count her fingers and toes and listen at night to make sure she's breathing. You may even worry that she isn't developing like other babies.
If you feel in your gut that your child's development is delayed, trust your instincts. Many pediatricians won't diagnose autism (also known as autism spectrum disorder or ASD) too early, since children tend to develop at different rates. Remember, though, that no one knows your baby like you do. If you're concerned, tell your doctor and request an evaluation.
Autism spectrum disorder
No two children with ASD behave the same, but some common problems are:
Social skills. Some autistic children don't want to cuddle or be held. They don't interact with others, make eye contact or notice when people are talking to them.
Learning skills. Some children with ASD learn harder skills before easier ones. They may be able to read long words, but not understand what sound a letter makes. They may learn a new skill, but then forget it.
Communication skills. Approximately 40 percent of children with ASD don't speak. Others repeat what they hear, but can't answer questions. When speaking, they may stand too close, speak too loudly or talk about the same subject constantly. They may be able to speak, but not to listen.
Repetition. Some children with ASD need to repeat certain actions. They like routine and resist change. If a child is used to brushing his teeth before putting on his pajamas, he may become upset if asked to put on his pajamas first and then brush his teeth.
Recognizing autism in your child
Ask yourself these questions about your baby:
Does she know her name? By a few months of age, does she look at you when you call her name? Children with ASD respond only about 20 percent of the time. Some parents mistake this for a hearing loss.
Does he point things out? Does your one-year-old follow your gaze, look where you point or show you his toys? When something catches his eye, does he point it out to you? Children with ASD generally don't.
Is she a mimic? Does your 8- to 10-month-old repeat sounds and hand movements, like pat-a-cake and "so big?" Babies with ASD don't imitate others.
Does he pretend? Does your one-year-old like to pretend? Does he make believe he's feeding you or pretend his bowl is a hat? A child with ASD would rather play with his hands or a piece of string than pretend, or turn a car upside down and spin the wheels rather than pretend to drive it.
Does she understand emotions? Does your child smile back when smiled at? Does she laugh and smile when playing? If you cry, will she cry, too, or try to comfort you by patting you on the arm or back? Children with ASD usually don't respond to the emotions of others.
Other signs of ASD
No big smiles by age 6 months
No babbling by age one
No words by 16 months
No two-word phrases (unless repeating a phrase) by age two
Loss of speech, babbling or social skills at any age
If you suspect ASD, ask your pediatrician for a developmental screening. There's no known cure for ASD, but early intervention can help children to talk, interact, play, learn and care for themselves. The earlier the diagnosis, the sooner treatment can begin, and the more progress your child can make.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
So Called Scientific Creationism
Source: Mukto-mona
Despite the overwhelming evidences showing that life on earth has evolved gradually over millions of years, there are still many people who do not accept theory of evolution. In the United States of America, for example, about a quarter of the population still believe in the literal truth of the creation story told in the book of Genesis.
Some fundamentalist Christians in the United States have even argued that creationism - the idea that God created all species in their current form a few hundred years ago - is a scientific theory on a par with the theory of evolution.
.
In 1987, the US Supreme Court declared that it was no more than thinly veiled religion.
Fixity of Species and Independent Creation: Biblical Story
Fixity of Species and Independent Creation: Biblical Story
For Hundreds of years, Christian scholars accepted (Aristotle's) theory of the fixity of species. They believed that God had created each species independently at the beginning of time, and that each species then remained exactly the same up to the present.
.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[After making the animals, God asked Adam to name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.
But theory of evolution tells us that animals were not created instantaneously from the ground, but evolved over millions of years. And we still don't have names for all of them. Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered and named each year. Check: More conflict between Bible story and evolution]
Theory of Evolution: Universal Acid
Theory of Evolution: Universal Acid
Source:Mukto-mona
The theory of evolution threatens all these old ideas. It undermines the central claims of many religions. It seems to leave no room for God, or the soul, or life after death. Humans, it tells us, are just another kind of animal.
The American philosopher, Daniel Dennett (b. 1942), has described the theory of evolution as a kind of "Universal Acid".
Like universal acid, the theory of evolution eats through just about every traditional religious idea. This is why Dennett calls it "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
Source:Mukto-mona
The theory of evolution threatens all these old ideas. It undermines the central claims of many religions. It seems to leave no room for God, or the soul, or life after death. Humans, it tells us, are just another kind of animal.
The American philosopher, Daniel Dennett (b. 1942), has described the theory of evolution as a kind of "Universal Acid".
Like universal acid, the theory of evolution eats through just about every traditional religious idea. This is why Dennett calls it "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
Conflict Between God & Theory of Evolution
Source: Mukto-mona
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Conflict Between God & Theory of Evolution
MM Collection
"Biological Evolution refutes the idea of an interested God much more decisively than physics does." - Steven Weinberg, American elementary particle physicist; Nobel Laureate of 1979.
"Even though David Hume and other philosophers had already severely battered the design argument for God's existence, only Darwin's theory of natural selection provided a fully convincing refutation of natural theology. Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pictures and the article have been mainly taken from the book, 'Introducing Evolution', written by Dylan Evans & Howard Selina; Totem Books (USA) & Icon Books (UK), 2005.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Conflict Between God & Theory of Evolution
MM Collection
"Biological Evolution refutes the idea of an interested God much more decisively than physics does." - Steven Weinberg, American elementary particle physicist; Nobel Laureate of 1979.
"Even though David Hume and other philosophers had already severely battered the design argument for God's existence, only Darwin's theory of natural selection provided a fully convincing refutation of natural theology. Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pictures and the article have been mainly taken from the book, 'Introducing Evolution', written by Dylan Evans & Howard Selina; Totem Books (USA) & Icon Books (UK), 2005.
Rechard Dokins lectures for Evaluation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOUIITDMmno&feature=channel_page
Monday, February 9, 2009
Secular Humanist Christopher Hitchens
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, October 20, 2003, at 1:04 PM PT
Mother Teresa: No saint
I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.
It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)
According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.
During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …
This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?
The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
Correction, Oct. 21, 2003: This piece originally claimed that in her Nobel Peace Prize lecture, Mother Teresa called abortion and contraception the greatest threats to world peace. In that speech Mother Teresa did call abortion "the greatest destroyer of peace." But she did not much discuss contraception, except to praise "natural" family planning.(Return to corrected sentence.)
Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, October 20, 2003, at 1:04 PM PT
Mother Teresa: No saint
I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.
It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)
According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.
During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …
This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?
The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
Correction, Oct. 21, 2003: This piece originally claimed that in her Nobel Peace Prize lecture, Mother Teresa called abortion and contraception the greatest threats to world peace. In that speech Mother Teresa did call abortion "the greatest destroyer of peace." But she did not much discuss contraception, except to praise "natural" family planning.(Return to corrected sentence.)
A Guide to the Qur’anic Contradictions (Part-5)
SOURCE: MUKTO-MONA
A Guide to the Qur’anic Contradictions (Part-5)
Abul Kasem
After 4th Part
Sura 12: Yusuf (Prophet Joseph)
12:19A passing caravan’s water‑drawer rescued Joseph.Contradiction: 12:20 says Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave for a miserly price.
12:100Joseph thought Satan had created enmity between him and his brethren; Joseph’s parents and his brothers prostrated before Joseph.Contradiction: 2:255, 3:2, 3:18, 11:2, 20:98, 40:62, 40:65 say humans must prostrate (worship) only to Allah, and no one else.
12:109Allah sends revelations to men only.Contradiction: 27:82 says Allah also sends a beast as a messenger.Contradiction: 35:1 says Allah sends angels with wings as messengers.Contradiction: 6:130, 11:69, 11:77, 22:75 say Allah also sends jinns and angels as messengers.
12:111Qur’an is in detail, and confirms what went before; it is a guide and mercy to the believers; Joseph’s story is not an invented tale but a confirmation of Allah’s guide and mercy.Contradiction: 17:106, 25:32 say Allah sent the Qur’an in stages.
Sura 13: ar‑Rad (Thunder)
13:11There are guards (angels) in front and behind each person.Contradiction: 2:107, 29:22 say Allah is the only protector.
13:38Previous messengers also had wives and children; no messenger can produce a miracle without Allah’s authorization. Allah decrees every matter.Contradiction: Jesus had no wife or children.
13:39Allah removes (abrogates) what He wills, and fixes (replaces) what He wills; Allah has kept the Mother of the Book.Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 say none can change the words of the Qur’an.
Sura 14: Ibrahim (Prophet Abraham)
14:4Allah sends His messages only in the language of His apostle’s people in order to make the message clear to them. Allah misguides whom He pleases.Contradiction: 10:35 says Allah Himself guides mankind to the truth.Contradiction: 37:147‑148 says Allah sent Yunus to hundred thousand people of Nineveh, in the region of Mosul.
Sura 15: al‑Hijr (The Rocky Tract)
15:23Allah controls life and death; He will inherit all things on earth.Contradiction: 3:189, 57:2 say Allah is the owner of all things in the heavens and in the earth.
15:26Allah created the man from sounding (i.e., burnt) clay from mud, and shaped him like a potter’s clay.Contradiction: 3:59 says Allah created Adam from dust.Contradiction: 38:71 says Allah created Adam out of wet clay.
15:29Allah completely fashioned the first man (Adam), then breathed the soul which Allah had created for him (Adam); then Allah asked the angels to bow down to a live man created by Him.Contradiction: 32:9 says Allah breathed His own (not a soul specially created) soul into Adam.
Sura 16: an‑Nahl (The Bee)
16:36Allah sent apostles to every people or community or nation.Contradiction: 29:27 says Allah gave prophet hood only to Abraham’s progeny.Contradiction: Allah says in 28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:6 before Muhammad, He did not send any messengers to the Arabs.
16:43Allah chooses only men (human beings) to be His messengers.Contradiction: in 11:69 Allah says he sent to Abraham angels as messengers.Contradiction: 27:82 says Allah sends a beast as a messenger.
16:49Every creature in the heavens and in earth, including the angels, prostrates to Allah and obeys Him.Contradiction: 2:34 says Iblis, the Satan, did not prostrate before Adam; he disobeyed Allah.Contradiction: 17:61 says all angels, except Iblis prostrated before Adam.
16:89On the resurrection day, Allah will appoint Muhammad as the witness of all other prophets, who were the witnesses for their respective people; Qur’an explains all things.Contradiction: 17:106, 25:32 say Allah sent the Qur’an in stages.
16:101Allah substitutes one revelation with another; Allah has the mother of the Book (the original Qur’an).Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 says none can change the words in the Qur’an.
16:103Some people accused Muhammad of learning the Qur’an from a foreigner, but Qur’an is in pure and clear Arabic.Contradiction: 3:7 says only Allah knows the hidden meanings, and only the men of understanding will grasp the Qur’an.
Sura 17: Bani Israel (The sons of Israel) or al‑Isra (The Night Journey)
17:15Whoever does good deeds will be guided, whoever goes astray is due to his detriment; no one can bear another person’s burden. Allah does not punish a population until He sends a messenger to them.Contradiction: 11:110 says Allah intentionally created dispute about Moses’ Book.Contradiction: 16:25 says Allah will doubly punish the arrogant infidels for their unbelief and for misleading others.Contradiction: 20:129 says Allah could destroy the unbelievers instantly.Contradiction: 29:13 says unbelievers are to bear the burden of their own sins, as well as the burden of deluding others.
17:16When Allah decides to destroy a population, He warns its leaders, they indulge in insolence for a brief period, and then Allah inflicts on them an utter destruction.Contradiction: 6:131 says Allah does not destroy a city when its inhabitants are in it.
17:23Worship only Allah, and be kind to aging parents in your care; respect them and do not shout at them.Contradiction: 9:23, 29:8, 58:22 say show no love of friendship to the parents if they criticize Islam or Muhammad.
17:55Allah is discriminatory; he prefers some prophets to others.Contradiction: 4:152 says Allah makes no distinctions among prophets.
17:61Allah created Adam from clay. Commanded by Allah, all the angels prostrated to Adam except Iblis. Iblis, the Satan, was upset that Allah placed Adam superior to him.Contradiction: 16:48 says even the shadows of all objects (unbelievers included) prostrate to Allah.Contradiction: 16:49 says every creature in the heavens and in earth, including angels, prostrate only to Allah.
17:86If willed, Allah could withdraw (cancel) His revelations (Qur’an) to Muhammad. In that case, Muhammad would have no protection from Allah.Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 say none can change the words in the Qur’an.
17:103Because Pharaoh evicted the Children of Israel (from Egypt), Allah drowned him and all his men.Contradiction: 10:92 says Allah saved Pharaoh.
17:106For easy recital, the Qur’an is divided into parts; it is revealed in stages.Contradiction: 2:185, 3:3, 12:111, 16:89, 43:4, 97:1 indicate Allah sent the ENTIRE Qur’an in one night.
17:111Allah has no children; He does not share His authority and power with anyone else; He is the only protector and helper.Contradiction: 41:31, 32 say angels are our protectors in this life and the life hereafter.Contradiction: 5:55 says Allah’s messengers are our protectors.
Sura 18: al‑Kahf (The Cave)
18:31Muslims will be in Gardens of eternity (Eden), beneath which rivers flow. Allah adorns the residents of the Gardens with bracelets (bangles) of gold, green garments, fine silk and comfortable furnishing.Contradiction: 39:73 says one garden in Islamic Paradise.Contradiction: 22:23, 35:33 say Muslims will wear bracelets/bangles of gold and pearls.
18:109An ocean of ink is not enough to write all of Allah’s words. (This means the Qur’an is not complete—Walker, p. 165.)Contradiction: 6:38 says the Qur’an is complete, nothing has been left out.
End of Part 5
To be continued in part 6.
Abul Kasem is a Bengali freethinker and is a teacher by profession. He has contributed in Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out and Beyond Jihad - Critical Voices from Inside. He has also written extensively on Islam in various websites and is the author of several e-Books including: A Complete Guide to Allah, Root of Terrorism ala Islamic Style, Sex and Sexuality in Islam, Who Authored the Quran? and Women in Islam. Mr. Kasem leaves in Sydney, Australia. His latest contribution is in the book Why We left Islam, edited by Susan Crimp et al. He can be contacted at abul88@hotmail.com and nirribilli@gmail.com
A Guide to the Qur’anic Contradictions (Part-5)
Abul Kasem
After 4th Part
Sura 12: Yusuf (Prophet Joseph)
12:19A passing caravan’s water‑drawer rescued Joseph.Contradiction: 12:20 says Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave for a miserly price.
12:100Joseph thought Satan had created enmity between him and his brethren; Joseph’s parents and his brothers prostrated before Joseph.Contradiction: 2:255, 3:2, 3:18, 11:2, 20:98, 40:62, 40:65 say humans must prostrate (worship) only to Allah, and no one else.
12:109Allah sends revelations to men only.Contradiction: 27:82 says Allah also sends a beast as a messenger.Contradiction: 35:1 says Allah sends angels with wings as messengers.Contradiction: 6:130, 11:69, 11:77, 22:75 say Allah also sends jinns and angels as messengers.
12:111Qur’an is in detail, and confirms what went before; it is a guide and mercy to the believers; Joseph’s story is not an invented tale but a confirmation of Allah’s guide and mercy.Contradiction: 17:106, 25:32 say Allah sent the Qur’an in stages.
Sura 13: ar‑Rad (Thunder)
13:11There are guards (angels) in front and behind each person.Contradiction: 2:107, 29:22 say Allah is the only protector.
13:38Previous messengers also had wives and children; no messenger can produce a miracle without Allah’s authorization. Allah decrees every matter.Contradiction: Jesus had no wife or children.
13:39Allah removes (abrogates) what He wills, and fixes (replaces) what He wills; Allah has kept the Mother of the Book.Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 say none can change the words of the Qur’an.
Sura 14: Ibrahim (Prophet Abraham)
14:4Allah sends His messages only in the language of His apostle’s people in order to make the message clear to them. Allah misguides whom He pleases.Contradiction: 10:35 says Allah Himself guides mankind to the truth.Contradiction: 37:147‑148 says Allah sent Yunus to hundred thousand people of Nineveh, in the region of Mosul.
Sura 15: al‑Hijr (The Rocky Tract)
15:23Allah controls life and death; He will inherit all things on earth.Contradiction: 3:189, 57:2 say Allah is the owner of all things in the heavens and in the earth.
15:26Allah created the man from sounding (i.e., burnt) clay from mud, and shaped him like a potter’s clay.Contradiction: 3:59 says Allah created Adam from dust.Contradiction: 38:71 says Allah created Adam out of wet clay.
15:29Allah completely fashioned the first man (Adam), then breathed the soul which Allah had created for him (Adam); then Allah asked the angels to bow down to a live man created by Him.Contradiction: 32:9 says Allah breathed His own (not a soul specially created) soul into Adam.
Sura 16: an‑Nahl (The Bee)
16:36Allah sent apostles to every people or community or nation.Contradiction: 29:27 says Allah gave prophet hood only to Abraham’s progeny.Contradiction: Allah says in 28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:6 before Muhammad, He did not send any messengers to the Arabs.
16:43Allah chooses only men (human beings) to be His messengers.Contradiction: in 11:69 Allah says he sent to Abraham angels as messengers.Contradiction: 27:82 says Allah sends a beast as a messenger.
16:49Every creature in the heavens and in earth, including the angels, prostrates to Allah and obeys Him.Contradiction: 2:34 says Iblis, the Satan, did not prostrate before Adam; he disobeyed Allah.Contradiction: 17:61 says all angels, except Iblis prostrated before Adam.
16:89On the resurrection day, Allah will appoint Muhammad as the witness of all other prophets, who were the witnesses for their respective people; Qur’an explains all things.Contradiction: 17:106, 25:32 say Allah sent the Qur’an in stages.
16:101Allah substitutes one revelation with another; Allah has the mother of the Book (the original Qur’an).Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 says none can change the words in the Qur’an.
16:103Some people accused Muhammad of learning the Qur’an from a foreigner, but Qur’an is in pure and clear Arabic.Contradiction: 3:7 says only Allah knows the hidden meanings, and only the men of understanding will grasp the Qur’an.
Sura 17: Bani Israel (The sons of Israel) or al‑Isra (The Night Journey)
17:15Whoever does good deeds will be guided, whoever goes astray is due to his detriment; no one can bear another person’s burden. Allah does not punish a population until He sends a messenger to them.Contradiction: 11:110 says Allah intentionally created dispute about Moses’ Book.Contradiction: 16:25 says Allah will doubly punish the arrogant infidels for their unbelief and for misleading others.Contradiction: 20:129 says Allah could destroy the unbelievers instantly.Contradiction: 29:13 says unbelievers are to bear the burden of their own sins, as well as the burden of deluding others.
17:16When Allah decides to destroy a population, He warns its leaders, they indulge in insolence for a brief period, and then Allah inflicts on them an utter destruction.Contradiction: 6:131 says Allah does not destroy a city when its inhabitants are in it.
17:23Worship only Allah, and be kind to aging parents in your care; respect them and do not shout at them.Contradiction: 9:23, 29:8, 58:22 say show no love of friendship to the parents if they criticize Islam or Muhammad.
17:55Allah is discriminatory; he prefers some prophets to others.Contradiction: 4:152 says Allah makes no distinctions among prophets.
17:61Allah created Adam from clay. Commanded by Allah, all the angels prostrated to Adam except Iblis. Iblis, the Satan, was upset that Allah placed Adam superior to him.Contradiction: 16:48 says even the shadows of all objects (unbelievers included) prostrate to Allah.Contradiction: 16:49 says every creature in the heavens and in earth, including angels, prostrate only to Allah.
17:86If willed, Allah could withdraw (cancel) His revelations (Qur’an) to Muhammad. In that case, Muhammad would have no protection from Allah.Contradiction: 6:34, 6:115 say none can change the words in the Qur’an.
17:103Because Pharaoh evicted the Children of Israel (from Egypt), Allah drowned him and all his men.Contradiction: 10:92 says Allah saved Pharaoh.
17:106For easy recital, the Qur’an is divided into parts; it is revealed in stages.Contradiction: 2:185, 3:3, 12:111, 16:89, 43:4, 97:1 indicate Allah sent the ENTIRE Qur’an in one night.
17:111Allah has no children; He does not share His authority and power with anyone else; He is the only protector and helper.Contradiction: 41:31, 32 say angels are our protectors in this life and the life hereafter.Contradiction: 5:55 says Allah’s messengers are our protectors.
Sura 18: al‑Kahf (The Cave)
18:31Muslims will be in Gardens of eternity (Eden), beneath which rivers flow. Allah adorns the residents of the Gardens with bracelets (bangles) of gold, green garments, fine silk and comfortable furnishing.Contradiction: 39:73 says one garden in Islamic Paradise.Contradiction: 22:23, 35:33 say Muslims will wear bracelets/bangles of gold and pearls.
18:109An ocean of ink is not enough to write all of Allah’s words. (This means the Qur’an is not complete—Walker, p. 165.)Contradiction: 6:38 says the Qur’an is complete, nothing has been left out.
End of Part 5
To be continued in part 6.
Abul Kasem is a Bengali freethinker and is a teacher by profession. He has contributed in Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out and Beyond Jihad - Critical Voices from Inside. He has also written extensively on Islam in various websites and is the author of several e-Books including: A Complete Guide to Allah, Root of Terrorism ala Islamic Style, Sex and Sexuality in Islam, Who Authored the Quran? and Women in Islam. Mr. Kasem leaves in Sydney, Australia. His latest contribution is in the book Why We left Islam, edited by Susan Crimp et al. He can be contacted at abul88@hotmail.com and nirribilli@gmail.com
Friday, February 6, 2009
God's Existence and Buddhist philosophy: An Interesting Debate -2
God's Existence and Buddhist philosophy: An Interesting Debate -2
Radio Active Decay and Quantum Fluctuation- Really uncaused?
Vir Gupta Showed his doubt while I mentioned about the non-causal nature of quantum phenomena to refute the first premise of Kaläm Cosmological Argument. He responded in MM with the following statement:
Avijit, you wrote: "In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause."
I do not know from where you got the idea that radioactive decay without a cause. Radioactive decay occurs mostly due to electrostatic forces arising out of too many protons in the nucleus. There is a certain ratio of neutrons to protons is required for nucleus to be stable. Decay can also occur in some cases due to chemical environment. Please read below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay
There are forces in the nucleus that oppose each other, notably the strong force holding protons and neutrons to each other and the electrostatic force of protons repelling other protons. In many arrangements of protons and neutrons the electrostatic force causes instability in the nucleus causing it to decay. It will continue to decay until it reaches a stable combination. Nearly all decay products are themselves radioactive, giving rise to decay chains which eventually end in a stable nuclide.
... ( Read more...)
Dear Vir: At first we need to know what "Causality" means scientifically. In physics, the concept that for certain pairs of events, a and b, event a must occur for event b to occur. That is, there is complete statistical correlation (100% to a zillion zeroes) between a and b and it is a direct correlation going from a to b. In that case we can say that event b has a cause. But if an event b that is not dependent on the occurrence of any previous event(s) may be said to occur without a cause. Radioactive decay is one example of such a truly spontaneous event, one that occurs without cause.
Again in other way: Radioactive decay has been described as a random phenomenon which may be characterized statistically. This phenomenon truly random (outside the traditional laws of cause and effect).
Check this link: http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/RadDecay.html
"[T]he energy involved in the phenomena of radioactivity...becomes manifest as an emission of rays which...occurs spontaneously without any known cause of excitation..."
-- Mme. Marie Curie, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1911
Also Aparthib, Brent Meeker, Victor Stenger's responses could be a help for the readers:
Aparthib: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20928
Brent Meeker: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20946
Victor Stenger: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20947
Vir Gupta also sent a second feedback to my answer, where he wrote
... Buddhist principle that nothing exists without a cause is universally applicable, right from the beginning of the universe. There is no exception to this rule. .
Well Vir, your lord Buddha with no offense [:-)], I presume was not familiar with Quantum mechanics. The quantum world is quite different compared to classical world. Quantum mechanics is usually pictured as a great revolutionary break, a giant "paradigm shift", away from classical mechanics. Buddha's law, "nothing exists without a cause" which you think universally applicable, is not true for quantum world. Let me quote from Physicist Victor Stenger (Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado) on so-called "universally applicable" Buddhist rule :
"... Perhaps it is intuitively obvious for him, but not to physicist like myself. Quantum phenomenon, such as atomic transitions and radioactive decay of nuclei, seem to happen without prior cause. In fact, the highly successful theory of quantum mechanics does not predict the occurence of these events, just their probabilities for taking place;... we have no current basis for assuming such cause exist. After all Quantum mechanics is almost a century old and has been utilized with immense success over the period, with no sign of such causes ever being found (Has Science Found God? : The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe , pp 173)
There are some more quote from famous physicists (available in the Net) on how Quantum fluctuation works :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." (Prof. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. London: J.M. Dent & Sons)
"...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events." (Richard Morris, Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997)
The following article of Quentin Smith explains the The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe quite elaborately (a bit technical for general readers)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html
Buddha and some other philosophers perhaps developed their rules (before 8th century AD) based on intuition and common sense. You know what common sense is. It's the human intuition and common sense that told us that Earth was flat for centuries. Objective observation, on the other hand, tells us that Earth is round.
Avijit
Wed Nov 10, 2004
It seemed my above response could not satisfy Vir completely. So he came with his arguments again...
Radio Active Decay and Quantum Fluctuation- Really uncaused?
Vir Gupta Showed his doubt while I mentioned about the non-causal nature of quantum phenomena to refute the first premise of Kaläm Cosmological Argument. He responded in MM with the following statement:
Avijit, you wrote: "In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause."
I do not know from where you got the idea that radioactive decay without a cause. Radioactive decay occurs mostly due to electrostatic forces arising out of too many protons in the nucleus. There is a certain ratio of neutrons to protons is required for nucleus to be stable. Decay can also occur in some cases due to chemical environment. Please read below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay
There are forces in the nucleus that oppose each other, notably the strong force holding protons and neutrons to each other and the electrostatic force of protons repelling other protons. In many arrangements of protons and neutrons the electrostatic force causes instability in the nucleus causing it to decay. It will continue to decay until it reaches a stable combination. Nearly all decay products are themselves radioactive, giving rise to decay chains which eventually end in a stable nuclide.
... ( Read more...)
Dear Vir: At first we need to know what "Causality" means scientifically. In physics, the concept that for certain pairs of events, a and b, event a must occur for event b to occur. That is, there is complete statistical correlation (100% to a zillion zeroes) between a and b and it is a direct correlation going from a to b. In that case we can say that event b has a cause. But if an event b that is not dependent on the occurrence of any previous event(s) may be said to occur without a cause. Radioactive decay is one example of such a truly spontaneous event, one that occurs without cause.
Again in other way: Radioactive decay has been described as a random phenomenon which may be characterized statistically. This phenomenon truly random (outside the traditional laws of cause and effect).
Check this link: http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/RadDecay.html
"[T]he energy involved in the phenomena of radioactivity...becomes manifest as an emission of rays which...occurs spontaneously without any known cause of excitation..."
-- Mme. Marie Curie, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1911
Also Aparthib, Brent Meeker, Victor Stenger's responses could be a help for the readers:
Aparthib: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20928
Brent Meeker: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20946
Victor Stenger: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/20947
Vir Gupta also sent a second feedback to my answer, where he wrote
... Buddhist principle that nothing exists without a cause is universally applicable, right from the beginning of the universe. There is no exception to this rule. .
Well Vir, your lord Buddha with no offense [:-)], I presume was not familiar with Quantum mechanics. The quantum world is quite different compared to classical world. Quantum mechanics is usually pictured as a great revolutionary break, a giant "paradigm shift", away from classical mechanics. Buddha's law, "nothing exists without a cause" which you think universally applicable, is not true for quantum world. Let me quote from Physicist Victor Stenger (Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado) on so-called "universally applicable" Buddhist rule :
"... Perhaps it is intuitively obvious for him, but not to physicist like myself. Quantum phenomenon, such as atomic transitions and radioactive decay of nuclei, seem to happen without prior cause. In fact, the highly successful theory of quantum mechanics does not predict the occurence of these events, just their probabilities for taking place;... we have no current basis for assuming such cause exist. After all Quantum mechanics is almost a century old and has been utilized with immense success over the period, with no sign of such causes ever being found (Has Science Found God? : The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe , pp 173)
There are some more quote from famous physicists (available in the Net) on how Quantum fluctuation works :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." (Prof. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. London: J.M. Dent & Sons)
"...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events." (Richard Morris, Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997)
The following article of Quentin Smith explains the The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe quite elaborately (a bit technical for general readers)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html
Buddha and some other philosophers perhaps developed their rules (before 8th century AD) based on intuition and common sense. You know what common sense is. It's the human intuition and common sense that told us that Earth was flat for centuries. Objective observation, on the other hand, tells us that Earth is round.
Avijit
Wed Nov 10, 2004
It seemed my above response could not satisfy Vir completely. So he came with his arguments again...
God's Existence and Buddhist philosophy: An Interesting Debate
God's Existence and Buddhist philosophy: An Interesting Debate
By Avijit Roy
The interesting discussion was initiated when M RS, one of our prominent members of Mukto-Mona sent an email to the forum on Nov 8, 2004, and asked for some feed back on his forwarded article:
A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD:
The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not. ... ( Read more...)
In response, I sent the following message to the forum:
Dear M RS:
The author of the article you sent made some seriously flawed assertions from scientific point of view. I'll point out some of them. But before that I suggest- you please read last part of my "Alo-Hate choliyachey Adharer Jatree" (in Bangla) carefully. Most of the points author made I did discuss in that series article of mine. Here is the link:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/alo_hate/jaatree7.pdf
I have discussed the interesting topic in a more detailed manner in the printed version. The book is expected to be published next year at "ekushe-boi mela" (February Book Fair). I am not sure if there are any other Bangla books at present in the market on this topic. If I find any, I will let you know. There are some books by Dr. Ali Asghar, Dr. M Akhtaruzzaman, but those are written from academic point of view ignoring the essential philosophical discussion. Anyways, let me point out just two erroneous assertions of the author briefly. The rest you will find in the above link of my article.
The author states in his article:
...If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. . ...
The assumption is wrong. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in the existence of God(s); it has nothing to do with beginning of universe, unlike the author's above assertion. If we look at latest findings of astrophysics, the beginning of the universe can be explained through the theological significance of Inflationary Cosmology (which has been accepted by many renowned physicists at this time) and it is as follows: it shows- how the universe might have formed out of nothing, in complete chaos (maximum entropy), and have order formed spontaneously without violating any known laws of physics. That is to say- it provides an economical explanation about the origin of the universe without creation or design hypothesis. A scientist does not investigate the origin of universe to prove "atheism" or "theism", rather he/she abides by whatever conclusions the experimental data/observations lead him to. Moreover, a Biblical God (as the author insisted quoting Biblical verse) is not required by any contemporary scientific laws/data. The author, however, while quoting a selective verse from Bible, entirely ignored that such Biblical claims as "the earth was created in just six days", and then "the creation of sun and stars", are not supported by any scientific facts or evidences [ In genesis, (1:3-5, 14-19) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects such as the sun and the stars until the fourth day (1:14-19). For more details:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html ]
Let me clarify more precisely. That universe had a beginning through a Hot Big Bang has been supported by current cosmological data, however, such "beginning" does not require any "God". We have no miraculous "beginning" to time or the universe that requires "God's intervention". It will take some space to discuss what scientists mean by "beginning" since no absolute point in time exists in the equations of physics of Big bang. If you want to proceed, I will, however, discuss later. For now be assured that it is quite different from those religious myths and paranormal hypothesis.
The author also states in his article:
... If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause -a creation-but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. . . ...
The statement contains several flaws. First, the author here is using the famous Kaläm Cosmological Argument, which is normally stated as the following form:
(1) Whatever begins has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) The cause is God.
The first premise had been refuted long time ago on the basis of the non-causal nature of quantum phenomena. "Whatever begins has a cause" is not true for Quantum fluctuation. Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. So, Not everything that begins has to have a cause. The uncertainty principle allows energy (which is equivalent to mass by E=mc^2) to appear spontaneously as it disappears in a short-enough time. It is a proven fact. These evidences are enough to refute author's claim.
Since the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was as tiny as a subatomic particle (at singularity point), it could have been created with an uncaused quantum fluctuation that led to inflation which afterwards proceeded through the appearance of matter and structure. Edward Tryon was first to publish this idea in major journals in 1973. With appearance of the inflationary cosmology in 80s, several physicists developed models in which inflation is triggered by an initial quantum event. Here are some: David Atkatz and Heinz Pagels, "Origin of universe as Quantum Tunneling effect" Physical review D25 (1982): 2065-73; S.W. Hawking and I.G.Moss "Supercolled Phase Transitions in the very early Universe", Physics letters B110(1982):35-38; Alexander Vilenkin, "Creation of Universe from Nothing" Physics letters 117B (1982) 25-28, Andre Linde, "Quantum creation of the inflamatory Universe," Letter Al Nuovo Cimento 39(1984): 401-405 etc. I am not asking you to read these technical papers right now. However, they illustrate the point that serious attentions to the possibility of an uncaused origin of the universe have been paid by quite a big chunk of reputable physicists with results being published in major scientific journals. If the concept of arising universe from out of nothing, be such non-sense ,or unscientific, as alleged by the author of your article, or if they violated any laws of physics, these papers would not have been published in scientific journals.
Final objection to such argument is that it finally concludes- a “God” exists; however, if it is so, same "God" must have an origin (cause) using the rationale of the premise of such argument. This leads to an infinite regress of causes ("Gods") unacceptable to the theist, so most believers take an exception to their "God" hypothesis, saying that a "God" doesn’t need a cause. Problem is theists cannot explain why this exception rule cannot be applied to the universe itself. If a God “just is,” why can’t the universe “just be?”, as pointed out by Philosopher B. Russel and D. Hume quite long time ago.
I am a bit short of time at this moment. I will respond to other portions of the argument later if needed. In the mean time, in addition to my Bangla article, you might also want to look at a particular chapter (Chapter 6: The Uncreated Universe) from Vic Stenger's book named, "Has Science Found God? : The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe" in which he discussed the issue somewhat more elaborately. Below is the link:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/uncaused_universe.pdf
Should you desire to read some more articles of Stenger, please check out MM Authors' Index. Those are really illuminating.
Regards,
Avijit
Tue Nov 9, 2004
My above response stirred my old friend Vir Gupta, who has been showing his utmost devotion in Buddhist philosophy for long in many of the responses to MM. He responded back with some interesting arguments...
Has Science Found God?
Has Science Found God?
Victor J. Stenger
Published on February 13, 2007
When the results of the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite first became public in 1992, mission scientist George Smoot remarked, "If you're religious, it's like looking at God." The media loved it. One tabloid front page showed the face of Jesus (as interpreted by medieval artists, of course) outlined on a blurry picture of the cosmos.
Reporting on the conference "Science and the Spiritual Quest" held at the Center for Theology and Science in Berkeley this summer, the July 20 cover of Newsweek announced: "Science Finds God." The several hundred scientists and theologians at the meeting were virtually unanimous in agreeing that science and religion are now converging, and what they are converging on is God. South African cosmologist and Quaker George Ellis expressed the consensus: "There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it."
The Newsweek story noted that, "The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith." However, "for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints at the very nature of God." We learn that, "Physicists have stumbled on signs that the cosmos is custom-made for life and consciousness." Big-bang cosmology, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory all are interpreted as "opening a door for God to act on the world."
Surveys, however, do not confirm the contention that "a growing number of scientists" are finding support for spirituality in their scientific studies. A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members indicated only 7% believe in a personal creator, down from 15% in 1933 and 29% in 1914. If anything, most scientists seem to be moving away from spirituality rather than toward it.
Apparently, what we are hearing is not the voice of a growing majority of scientists, but the well-funded, growing voice of a decreasing minority. The Berkeley meeting was a kind of "Premise-Keepers" rally for academics seeking to keep alive their premise that God exists, while science continues to operate successfully with no need for that premise.
Stepping Over the Line
In a commentary on the Berkeley meeting, George Johnson of the New York Times noted that "religious believers seem more eager than ever to step over the line, trying to interpret scientific data to support the revealed truths of their own theology."
To most theistic believers, human life has no meaning in a universe without God. Quite sincerely and with understandable yearning for a purpose to existence, they reject that possibility. Thus only a created universe is possible, and the data can do nothing else but support this "truth."
However, good science practice demands that everything be open to question, including the premises that are used when interpreting data. While some assumptions are always present in the scientific process, all are subject to change as more powerful and economical assumptions become evident. The Premise-Keepers, pure as their motives may be, practice bad science when they confine their interpretation of scientific observations to a designer universe.
To the Premise-Keeper, the big bang provides "evidence" that creation took place in time - just as in the biblical (that is, Babylonian) myth. Something cannot come from nothing, and so the universe needs a creator. That the creator must have come from nothing is finessed away. God is a different "logical type" than the universe - a type that does not require creation. Theologians do not make clear why the universe itself cannot be of this logical type.
The Premise-Keepers recognize that they cannot prove the existence of God. They simply express the strong feeling that intelligent design is demonstrated by the very order of the universe. Unfortunately, science has little sympathy for feelings and desires no matter how sincere their intent. The universe is the way it is, regardless of what anyone might want it to be. If humanity is in fact a grain of sand in an infinite Sahara, as our telescopes increasingly indicate, then we cannot wish it otherwise. We should accept the fact and learn to live with it.
Nonbelievers recognize that they cannot prove the nonexistence of God. They simply argue that a universe without a creator is the most economical premise consistent with all the data. An uncaused, undesigned emergence of the universe from nothing violates no principle of physics. The total energy of the universe appears to be zero, so no miracle of energy created "from nothing" was required to produce it. Similarly, no miracle was needed for the appearance of order. Order can and does occur spontaneously in physical systems.
A Universe Fine-Tuned for Life
In recent years, the notion that the laws of physics are "fine-tuned" for the existence of life has caught the fancy of believing scientists and theologians alike. Indeed, probably no idea has received more attention in the latest discussions on religion and science.
The fine-tuning argument rests on a series of scientific facts called the "anthropic coincidences." Basically, they say that if the universe had appeared with slight variations in the values of its fundamental constants, that universe would not have produced the elements, such as carbon and oxygen, and other conditions necessary for life.
The fine-tuning argument assumes only one form of life is possible. But many different forms of life might still be possible with different laws and constants of physics. The main requirement seems to be that stars live long enough to produce the elements needed for life and allow time for the complex, nonlinear systems we call life to evolve. I have made some calculations in which I randomly vary the values of the physical constants by many orders of magnitude and look at the universes that would exist under those circumstances. I find that almost all combinations lead to universes, albeit some strange ones, with stars that live a billion years or more. Life of some kind would be likely in most of these possible universes.
The God of the Equations
A second, related line of argument is found in the recent dialogues. The equations of mathematics and physics are claimed to provide evidence for a Platonic order to the universe that transcends the universe of our observations.
Recent trends in Christian theology and its rapprochement with science have moved Christianity closer to a position where a deity is to be found in the order of nature as a creative entity transcending space, time, and matter responsible for that order. Indeed, the modern Western theological notion of God is probably closer to Plato's Form of the Good than the white-bearded Jehovah/Zeus on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or the beardless Jesus/Apollo on the wall.
And here is where some scientists and theologians currently seem to find a common ground - in the idea that ultimate reality is not to be found in the quarks, atoms, rocks, trees, planets, and stars of experience and observation. Rather, reality exists in the mathematical perfection of the symbols and equations of physics. The deity then coexists with these equations in some realm or mathematical perfection beyond human observation. This God is knowable, not by his or her physical appearance before us but by its presence as that Platonic reality. We all exist in the "mind of God."
Past logical disputes over the existence of God were largely confined to philosophers and theologians. This type of purely logical discourse, in which little reference is made to observations, is largely disdained by scientists - believers and nonbelievers alike. Premise-Keeper scientists claim they are going beyond the traditional theological arguments, that they see direct evidence for intelligent design in their observations and equations.
As Paul Davies has put it: "The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness - in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness - is for me powerful evidence that there is `something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming." Note the use of "evidence" rather than "proof" in this quotation.
Still, a Platonic God need not have anything to do with the God of the Bible, nor any other imagined deity, abstract or personal. And the equations need not actually represent a transcendent deity. True that Platonist physicists view quantum fields and spacetime metric tensors as "more real" than quarks and electrons. Materialist physicists, by contrast, think that quarks and electrons are more real than metric tensors or fields of any kind, these simply being human inventions. But the majority from both camps do not view either of these possible realities as deities. They do not see that a "miracle" was necessary for the universe and life to exist.
Still Seeking the God of the Gaps
This illustrates why the claimed convergence of science and religion does not hold up under scrutiny. Look at history. Science has always explained observations in terms of natural (that is, nonsupernatural) phenomena. Religion has always proposed supernatural explanations to fill those gaps where science provided no natural explanations, or simply remained silent. Only one domain of existence has ever been occupied in either case - the domain of human observations.
The shamans in ancient forests taught that "spirits" caused rocks to roll down a hill - until Newton said it was gravity. Priests taught that "God" created humans in his own image, until Darwin said evolution created us in the image of apes. And now we have this new breed of scientist-theologian arguing yet again that just because science cannot explain this, that, or the other thing, then we still have room for God.
We cannot explain why the constants of nature have the curious values they have, so maybe God made them so. We cannot explain the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," so maybe God invented mathematics.
Maybe. But is this modern God of the gaps any more plausible than the God of the shamans and priests? Maybe one day science will fill in these gaps without the premise of God.
Victor Stenger is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii. The above article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 1.
Published on February 13, 2007
When the results of the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite first became public in 1992, mission scientist George Smoot remarked, "If you're religious, it's like looking at God." The media loved it. One tabloid front page showed the face of Jesus (as interpreted by medieval artists, of course) outlined on a blurry picture of the cosmos.
Reporting on the conference "Science and the Spiritual Quest" held at the Center for Theology and Science in Berkeley this summer, the July 20 cover of Newsweek announced: "Science Finds God." The several hundred scientists and theologians at the meeting were virtually unanimous in agreeing that science and religion are now converging, and what they are converging on is God. South African cosmologist and Quaker George Ellis expressed the consensus: "There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it."
The Newsweek story noted that, "The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith." However, "for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints at the very nature of God." We learn that, "Physicists have stumbled on signs that the cosmos is custom-made for life and consciousness." Big-bang cosmology, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory all are interpreted as "opening a door for God to act on the world."
Surveys, however, do not confirm the contention that "a growing number of scientists" are finding support for spirituality in their scientific studies. A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members indicated only 7% believe in a personal creator, down from 15% in 1933 and 29% in 1914. If anything, most scientists seem to be moving away from spirituality rather than toward it.
Apparently, what we are hearing is not the voice of a growing majority of scientists, but the well-funded, growing voice of a decreasing minority. The Berkeley meeting was a kind of "Premise-Keepers" rally for academics seeking to keep alive their premise that God exists, while science continues to operate successfully with no need for that premise.
Stepping Over the Line
In a commentary on the Berkeley meeting, George Johnson of the New York Times noted that "religious believers seem more eager than ever to step over the line, trying to interpret scientific data to support the revealed truths of their own theology."
To most theistic believers, human life has no meaning in a universe without God. Quite sincerely and with understandable yearning for a purpose to existence, they reject that possibility. Thus only a created universe is possible, and the data can do nothing else but support this "truth."
However, good science practice demands that everything be open to question, including the premises that are used when interpreting data. While some assumptions are always present in the scientific process, all are subject to change as more powerful and economical assumptions become evident. The Premise-Keepers, pure as their motives may be, practice bad science when they confine their interpretation of scientific observations to a designer universe.
To the Premise-Keeper, the big bang provides "evidence" that creation took place in time - just as in the biblical (that is, Babylonian) myth. Something cannot come from nothing, and so the universe needs a creator. That the creator must have come from nothing is finessed away. God is a different "logical type" than the universe - a type that does not require creation. Theologians do not make clear why the universe itself cannot be of this logical type.
The Premise-Keepers recognize that they cannot prove the existence of God. They simply express the strong feeling that intelligent design is demonstrated by the very order of the universe. Unfortunately, science has little sympathy for feelings and desires no matter how sincere their intent. The universe is the way it is, regardless of what anyone might want it to be. If humanity is in fact a grain of sand in an infinite Sahara, as our telescopes increasingly indicate, then we cannot wish it otherwise. We should accept the fact and learn to live with it.
Nonbelievers recognize that they cannot prove the nonexistence of God. They simply argue that a universe without a creator is the most economical premise consistent with all the data. An uncaused, undesigned emergence of the universe from nothing violates no principle of physics. The total energy of the universe appears to be zero, so no miracle of energy created "from nothing" was required to produce it. Similarly, no miracle was needed for the appearance of order. Order can and does occur spontaneously in physical systems.
A Universe Fine-Tuned for Life
In recent years, the notion that the laws of physics are "fine-tuned" for the existence of life has caught the fancy of believing scientists and theologians alike. Indeed, probably no idea has received more attention in the latest discussions on religion and science.
The fine-tuning argument rests on a series of scientific facts called the "anthropic coincidences." Basically, they say that if the universe had appeared with slight variations in the values of its fundamental constants, that universe would not have produced the elements, such as carbon and oxygen, and other conditions necessary for life.
The fine-tuning argument assumes only one form of life is possible. But many different forms of life might still be possible with different laws and constants of physics. The main requirement seems to be that stars live long enough to produce the elements needed for life and allow time for the complex, nonlinear systems we call life to evolve. I have made some calculations in which I randomly vary the values of the physical constants by many orders of magnitude and look at the universes that would exist under those circumstances. I find that almost all combinations lead to universes, albeit some strange ones, with stars that live a billion years or more. Life of some kind would be likely in most of these possible universes.
The God of the Equations
A second, related line of argument is found in the recent dialogues. The equations of mathematics and physics are claimed to provide evidence for a Platonic order to the universe that transcends the universe of our observations.
Recent trends in Christian theology and its rapprochement with science have moved Christianity closer to a position where a deity is to be found in the order of nature as a creative entity transcending space, time, and matter responsible for that order. Indeed, the modern Western theological notion of God is probably closer to Plato's Form of the Good than the white-bearded Jehovah/Zeus on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or the beardless Jesus/Apollo on the wall.
And here is where some scientists and theologians currently seem to find a common ground - in the idea that ultimate reality is not to be found in the quarks, atoms, rocks, trees, planets, and stars of experience and observation. Rather, reality exists in the mathematical perfection of the symbols and equations of physics. The deity then coexists with these equations in some realm or mathematical perfection beyond human observation. This God is knowable, not by his or her physical appearance before us but by its presence as that Platonic reality. We all exist in the "mind of God."
Past logical disputes over the existence of God were largely confined to philosophers and theologians. This type of purely logical discourse, in which little reference is made to observations, is largely disdained by scientists - believers and nonbelievers alike. Premise-Keeper scientists claim they are going beyond the traditional theological arguments, that they see direct evidence for intelligent design in their observations and equations.
As Paul Davies has put it: "The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness - in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness - is for me powerful evidence that there is `something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming." Note the use of "evidence" rather than "proof" in this quotation.
Still, a Platonic God need not have anything to do with the God of the Bible, nor any other imagined deity, abstract or personal. And the equations need not actually represent a transcendent deity. True that Platonist physicists view quantum fields and spacetime metric tensors as "more real" than quarks and electrons. Materialist physicists, by contrast, think that quarks and electrons are more real than metric tensors or fields of any kind, these simply being human inventions. But the majority from both camps do not view either of these possible realities as deities. They do not see that a "miracle" was necessary for the universe and life to exist.
Still Seeking the God of the Gaps
This illustrates why the claimed convergence of science and religion does not hold up under scrutiny. Look at history. Science has always explained observations in terms of natural (that is, nonsupernatural) phenomena. Religion has always proposed supernatural explanations to fill those gaps where science provided no natural explanations, or simply remained silent. Only one domain of existence has ever been occupied in either case - the domain of human observations.
The shamans in ancient forests taught that "spirits" caused rocks to roll down a hill - until Newton said it was gravity. Priests taught that "God" created humans in his own image, until Darwin said evolution created us in the image of apes. And now we have this new breed of scientist-theologian arguing yet again that just because science cannot explain this, that, or the other thing, then we still have room for God.
We cannot explain why the constants of nature have the curious values they have, so maybe God made them so. We cannot explain the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," so maybe God invented mathematics.
Maybe. But is this modern God of the gaps any more plausible than the God of the shamans and priests? Maybe one day science will fill in these gaps without the premise of God.
Victor Stenger is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii. The above article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)