I get what you mean. For a lot of people religion has been very ritual and very cultural and I think it loses it's purpose in that form.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I get what you mean. For a lot of people religion has been very ritual and very cultural and I think it loses it's purpose in that form.
Yes, but to labour the point, the initial questions were about other alien life forms. And in that equation we can safely say it is 0.
If we include our own, it is >0, but still an infinitesimally small number.
Nothing wrong with that, but even the staunchest of scientists would agree it's more in hope than expectation that life is out there. To be honest, my initial point was to make that distinction.
But after reading some further replies, I'd say that's it's easy to glibly say that life must be out there because it occurs here. However, it underestimates some of the work done by some of the brightest minds who have done extensive and substantial work in this arena. For example, attempting to find trace molecules of elements needed for life to even begin to exist, the identification of solar systems similar to ours, the identification of Earth-like exoplanets that exist in what scientists call 'the Goldilocks zone' that can perhaps provide conditions for life to exist (i.e. neither too hot nor too cold), the number of Sun-like stars; the list goes on.
We're still at stage 1 of this exercise, and it's why I said in my first post, if it were to be discovered, it won't be anytime soon. One of the overriding themes of this research is that our part of the Universe is still relatively nascent, so we would expect or be able to detect 'noise' from advanced civilisations in other parts of the universe.
So, currently, as in 22 Feb 2021, the notion that life exists outside of our own planet is a belief in substance. And any probability provided is so close to 0 that it would be statistically insignificant according to any / most scientific and mathematical methods...but should we stop looking? No!
Here's a really informative article on how the research occurs if anyone is interested: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...e-probably-exists-how-do-we-search-for-aliens
Last edited:
I'm sorry but isn't part of the recent Mars rovers mission to analyse soil samples for traces of evidence microbiological life? If scientists believe that Mars, which once had running rivers and lakes, so high probability of life, has potentially had life then given its the next planet over you would have to say the probability of life in the universe outside our planet is extremely high. I would say closer to 1 than 0!
Also, science has proven though analysis of life that exists in highly sulphurous lakes on earth, that a goldielocks zone is not a requirement of life.
Yes it is, and hopefully it'll return something.
But running water isn't the only factor required for life to exist. I think there's other trace molecules needed (off the top of my head oxygen, carbon, sulphur, a few others) where all are needed for the process of 'chemistry-to-life'. Again, off the top of my head, previous exploratory missions to Mars haven't provided evidence of some of these other elements needed.
Additionally, it won't be closer to 1 than 0 as things stand, and I doubt it ever will be because of how vast the universe actually is. Who knows - at one point in the future, maybe the probability will be around the 0.0001 or 0.00001 mark which could be statistically significant (but that's a total finger in the air assumption).
Also, so sorry to hear about your dad - hope he went peacefully and you and the rest of your family are doing well.
And it becomes dangerous.
Dangerous in many ways. Not least because these are the people who become the "spokesman" in many situations and the general public's awareness/understanding of the situation.
One of the last people I would go to for Islamic principles is the Imam at the local mosque. Who probably learnt to recite Quran but is not really knowledgeable in Islam. If that makes sense?
I think it's the same, in my experience with priests and rabbis.
Often the argument or discussion, again imo, is based on false premise or the wrong starting base.
An example for me is the whole age of the earth,and it's creation, and universe etc. On the face of it the 6 days and so many years old is nuts. Albeit there are those who argue it no matter what from religious backgrounds.
Yet if you explore the detail then the issue here needs to go back a couple of steps and look at the concept of time in the earliest if writings. Once you go beyond the notion of a day being 24 hours then "6 days" (in a biblical and religious sense) makes more sense.
This isn't the best example to be fair. Its just one I see more people arguing about. In Islam the better example would be Sufism and the books associated with that that "prove" it as an islamic concept.
Not an expert on these matters at all.
As science progresses doesn't the concept of life existing elsewhere increase?
for example the existence of life on our own planet in environments where it was deemed impossible and some of the experiments around that has seen a shift in certain positions over the years, hasn't it?
Although "life" can just be at bacterial levels and not a replica of us as humans.
I'm no expert by any means either (just find this stuff interesting, and have a science background).
On the bolded, I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
On the other question - I see it like this. Discovering life elsewhere is like climbing a big mountain. We don't know how high the mountain is, or how long it'll take to ascent. What we do know is that, we're still ascending the first 100 feet of said mountain and that on the way, we've found better tools to equip us with our ascent up the mountain. That sounds super woolly, so I apologise, but that's how I'd describe things presently.
Some really interesting points. I'd consider myself a sufi, originally merely through cultural assciation, but increasingly I'm actively looking into tassawuf practices and spectically looking for guidance onto the path. I am however cautious - far too many of these guys are cultish and far too many stray away from Shariah and orthodox islamic practices. For me I found increasingly my religious side was split between ritual worship and seeking knowledge as a hobby - it lacks self reflection. Religion is pointless without self reflection. When you bow, you need to know why you bow, whether what you tell yourself why you bow is what you really feel, or what you think you should be feeling. Can't do that without self reflection.
The type of Imam you're describing is what I term as the "halwa molvi" - their understanding of Islam is limited to rote memorization of a few Quranic verses, knowing how to lead prayers of different sorts, how to perform marriage services etc. It's a job for them, but they don't have any leadership qualities, or any wider understanding of the world. Unfortunately many of these people do have leadership aspirations. They can't provide guidance and are often swayed by cash. Masjids where money from haram income is accepted, without asking questions or by making self serving excuses.
I think there are signs of improvement though. Individuals working to create institutions our our masjids. There is an imam in Birmingham called Muhammad Aslam who's doing a lot of that with the Ghamkol Sharif mosque. He's challenging a lot of the status quo and pointing fingers as the cultural elements which have incorrectly become solidified as almost fard by some of our people.
So are you saying the probability of life existing, or the probability of us finding it. Existing for me is 100%, somewhere in the universe. Us finding it is probably closer to 0.
Thanks.
To anyone who is sincere in trying to learn what Islam is, I'd highly recommend to watch this video. Unfortunately, this man has been arrested and imprisoned in Saudi Arabia.
Probability of life existing if fine. but what's:
Probability of intelligent life existing?
Probability of intelligent life more tech advanced than us existing? Probability of them finding us?
Considering there are perhaps 100 trillion galaxies (by recent estimates) I'd say the probability of intelligent existing to be extremely high - personally I think it's over 99%.
However, because of how far everything else is from each other and how little of our own galaxy we can even see let alone know, the probability of intelligent life finding us would probably be well less than 1%.
And then there is the idea that if there was intelligent life so advanced it could travel between galaxies it probably would not make itself known to us.
Because of your interest, can I refer you to the Drake Equation.
In summary, it was put together by a team of leading scientists to help CETI estimate the potential number of intelligent life forms in the either the Milky Way, or our Universe. Can't quite recall which.
The Drake Equation, which is supported by numerous top scientists comes up with a significantly lower probability. You should have a look at it.
Correction. Meant to say SETI
Last edited:
Jaysus keep it simple would you!
Tbf this was initially raised merely as a discussion point and there was a lot of conjecture in some parts of it.
They also raised the point onenil sort of makes so for example any intelligent life would have too short a lifespan to make itself known
Take it the space thread, will ya?
This is distracting my e-Prayers.
This is distracting my e-Prayers.
Wow, what a good watch. And explanations. He went to town on government Saudi scholars (rightly so). No surprise he's under arrest. What's his name please?
It's literally spelled out in the title
I remember having discussions on the Drake Equation on Usenet 20 years ago. It's just an old estimate.
And if you are going towards the Fermi Paradox, that's even more flawed.
My understanding is that the Drake Equation is updated with any of the latest information.
I would be interested why you think it to be flawed.
I've always wondered why the same level of investigation (for want if a better word) isn't applied to religion as to science when folk argue the two?
In my time on fora I've seen or been involved in these kind of discussions and people who are not experts in science (always odd one here and there but generally) will google/wikki or cite literature/YouTube vids/individuals the smallest of details to further their argument
Yet we don't get the same level of investigation or involvement in aspects of religion.
So me being a Muslim was like wow when I found 6 conditions associated with just the word LA in context of the attestation of faith in Islam. The word itself in Arabic simply means NO. But in the context of Islam and the Quran it has 6 conditions (some of which also have conditions).
Not sure if conditions is the right word here, just as I remember being taught it but I found it quite "scientific".
In my time on fora I've seen or been involved in these kind of discussions and people who are not experts in science (always odd one here and there but generally) will google/wikki or cite literature/YouTube vids/individuals the smallest of details to further their argument
Yet we don't get the same level of investigation or involvement in aspects of religion.
So me being a Muslim was like wow when I found 6 conditions associated with just the word LA in context of the attestation of faith in Islam. The word itself in Arabic simply means NO. But in the context of Islam and the Quran it has 6 conditions (some of which also have conditions).
Not sure if conditions is the right word here, just as I remember being taught it but I found it quite "scientific".
Have you heard of Earth?
In the religion thread atheists are not allowed but in the atheist thread religionists are allowed? #doubleStandards
#IHateReligion (banter)
#IHateReligion (banter)
Sure, but it's impossible for us to really know the actual probabilities of many of the variables. Plus, we still can't really detect things in the billions of galaxies that are too far away, and it doesn't take into account dark forest scenarios. Even with all those limitations, I'm pretty sure they already estimate thousands of intelligent civilizations within our galaxy alone so I don't even see it as countering my belief that there is most certainly intelligent life in the universe. So its not flawed in concept just in the application (if we had access to "God's statistics" it would certainly be valid).
Now, the Fermi Paradox is truly flawed and broken even in concept.
Well maybe a lot of posters here have already applied that and come to whatever conclusion about whatever religion they have investigated long before posting on the Caf. Also most religions including the abrahamic ones are walking contradictions. For instance, I have read the Quran(out of curiosity), I admit translated to English(maybe something is lost in translation?) and I found the video posted above with Hassan Farhan al-Maliki to be full of contradictions concerning what he was saying.
The 2 videos cherry picks quotes about Allah/God being merciful and compassionate, but nearly every verse ends with statement that Allah condemns disbelievers to eternal hellfire or will inflict great punishment on them. It's also quite clear that reading the Quran in it's totality, it's clear that the believers are seperated into those to profess there to be one God and Muhammed as his messenger and the disbelievers are those who don't believe in that.
Also I found his statement that those who don't believe that Muhammed was gods final and greatest prophet arrogant and self-worshipping is in itself a incredibly ludricious and arrogant statement to make.
Anyway this is the translation of the Quran I read: https://quran.com/
I don't have the capacity or inclination to learn the arabic tounge to read it in it's most original language I'm afraid.
They needed a safe space.
Same goes for heaven.
That's very understandable. It's very easy to find contradictions including in Quran and Hadith.
When I was a kid I always had these questions in my mind; In some verses mentioned we human have free-will but in some verses said all things in this world are God's will. My second question was why it's very easy to go to heaven (there's a story about a man killed 100 people then he repented, and he go to heaven), but on the other hand it's also very easy to go to hell, like one could go to hell by simply urinating in a small pond or under a tree (where people took shelter).
Only recently I think I have found the answers. "Free-will" is the default, and "God-Wills" is for spiritual or philosophical. It applies mainly when bad things happen, so we don't feel too sad or deppressed. Honestly I kind of regret it that I now have the answer. In the past when bad things happen I automatically thinking "oh it's God's will, ................." Now although I still have that "God's will" believe, the "free-will" believe also entering my mind so often I blame myself (or other people) if something bad happens.
The second question now I understand 'easy to heaven' verses are intended for sinners that it's never too late to stop and 'easy to hell' verses are reminders for good people to keep good deeds and never "underestimate" even the small sins.
-------
The first I read your question in Religion topics I just scratched my head. That's a very very difficult question. Most Muslims cannot answer that. That's actually valid and understandable questions from a non-Muslim, but a little confusing for Muslims.
Well I think a lot of comes down to whether you truly believe in it or not. If you truly believe there is a omnipotent, allknowing, compassionate but also paradoxically vengefull and jealous God who created everything including men and all creatures. Then naturally if you believe there is a great immeasureble reward in eternal paraise waiting for you by being a faithfull and good believer and believe that by not believing and straying from the path there is eternal hell it follows that people will seek to have their faith confirmed as much as possible.
Not watched the video so won't comment on that.
I simply don't see what you say in your starting bit. I often find the same old quotes and same old arguments to knock a belief but not the kind of fine detail applied to and looked up in science arguments.
With all due respect your continued post highlights that to. You've read a translation of the Quran and have put across your feelings. Yet I wonder if you did anything more than reading the translation.
yes translations in and of themselves can often portray a different understanding to different folk depending on the word used in the translation. So the word disbeliever is often used for the different Arabic words used, which can distort the understanding.
I wrote a post in either this or the other religion thread yesterday where I spoke about the conditions attached to the word LA (no in arabic) from the attestation of faith. You know it probably as "there is no God but allah and Muhammad is his messenger". In arabic it's La illaha...
I wonder how many people know or looked into the conditions? Even your response (the whole bit you describe as incredibly ludicrous and arrogant) leads me to believe me you haven't.
I don't want to write a big essay here. But your understanding of believers is flawed, as you wrote it. You can believe in God and his messenger but still be a disbeliever. And yet the Jews and Christians are often referred to as people of the book.
The punishment angle is also something that is flawed in how many people see it and present it. In many instances the punishment for a believer is there when the disbeliever is not punished.
Like I say the finer detail is often not looked into when bashing religion, and certainly a crossover isn't allowed. What I mean is I'm Muslim so any and all questions and answers posed will be quran etc based (did you use the quran for example in your response because you knew I was muslim?). Yet in my discussions with atheists or people arguing science is not limited to one branch if science or a particular theory. So in the past if I've say found a flaw with abiogenesis then we move onto something else.
Yet as a Muslim I have as much "faith" and rights to christianity and Judaism because we have to believe in them and the messengers associated (Moses, Jesus etc).
Interesting one for you. As a Muslim I don't believe in Jesus being literal son of God or even God.
But if I was to answer the whole if God is omnipotent then can he create a rock and not lift it etc, by using Jesus as a way of addressing it what would be your response? Would it be but your Muslim so don't believe he was son of God/God? I know many who used just that but will use scientific theories they themselves don't buy into completely to argue a point themselves.
In case your wondering I once used the trinity to say it's been done, re the rock thing. So if Jesus is the father the son and the holy ghost, then he came to earth and couldn't lift a mountain (that he as God had created). But that's another story.
I think it’s a very arrogant human trait to believe that we, on one single planet, are the only beings in this massive galaxy/universe/space
Extraordinarily narcissistic, similar to thinking the sky fairy has to be a Caucasian male.
Well if this were the science thread and something didn't make sense to you, you would go to the best scientists in those fields to get your answers. Of course you would use your own knowledge and experience but then have comprehensively checked them with these scientists. After that you are in a learned position to agree or disagree with those scientists.
Religion has the same process. You must search for the answers by approaching the experts in these fields, not expect the answers to fall on your lap or into your mind. If this is the approach you choose then your mind was already made up even before you raised the questions, so creating the echo chamber saved you time to do other things I suppose.
What question are you referring to here?
Ok its fair enough if you havn't watched the video I was commenting on. I guess in that context my points didn't come across. I did use the Quran, because I was commenting on a video with a Islamic Scholar building his argument on the Quran. And when discussing the Islam, I'd kind of have to refer to the Quran. And yes I did read the translation and put my impression across, because I actually find it quite easy read compared to so many other religious scriptures out there.
I didn't find it enjoyable, but I don't find it challenging to understand what is meant and I can look up commentaries if I want to. If it were meant to be understood by people who were far less educated than we are today, I believe most people can get the gist of it if they put some effort into it. I know that Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate and I completely agree that you are free to believe in and practice whatever religion you want, I know that Jews and Christians are referred to the people of the book.
I'm not sure what you mean by the science argument. Science is a extremely broad field. If you find a flaw with abiogenesis, you are more than welcome to take up that debate with a specialist in the field. We know quite a bit how life evolved, but I find the origin of life mysterious myself and I'm not sure we will ever find out in my lifetime. But the thing with applying the scientific method to say Islam(same applies to I think all religions), is that it makes claims that can't be falsified so essentially you in up with a debate that doesn't really lead anywhere or anything resembling proof.
I have to admit you lost me with the whole God and rock thing. I'm not sure whether you were trying to introduce me to the nature of a paradox.
I personally think the issue with translations of the Quran is that they are done by academics who almost want to highlight their academia than get over the message.
Incidentally this is why for the Quran to be the Quran it has to fulfill certain criteria and why the classical scholars wouldn't call a translation the Quran but simply a translation. This is one of the finer points that a lot of muslims, today, are unaware of.
The Quran in classical arabic is quite simple to understand. So for example the smallness of something will be compared to an ant, not molecule or atom for simplicity to get the message across that it's small. Considering Arabs were mainly illiterate at that stage, and people like my mum even today (due to where they grew up and conditions in their childhood). So to her molecule mena's nothing whereas ant does.
Anyway I digress. My initial point and my examples earlier were a to highlight that people will look into science a lot more to argue a point but seem not to do the same with religion.
The reason I keep mentioning the conditions attached to LA is that religion, or Islam, absolutely tells you to find proof before accepting it. So in your words it's actually "an extremely broad field" if people were prepared to look into it instead of just focussing on the headlines.
For instance women and homosexuals in Saudi Arabia(or contries in a similar predicament) can look to Europe for freedom and equality of women when religious orthodoxy is used as a means of control and oppression. I find quite depressing that there are still countries in the world with "religious police". Of course I'm not saying that any western military should topple the Saudi regime to try and install a liberal democracy. I just say that when we defend liberal values in our countries they can be taken as inspiration in countries where they are scare. I don't think religion should be ended, only I think it's ideal to have a seperation of religion and state, so people can practice freedom of religion and have freedom from religion if they want to.
I listed some examples earlier with such The Satanic Verses, Ayaan Al hirsi needed full security detail when she published a critical article of Muhammed when she was an MP in the Netherlands, and then later there was the killing of Theo Van Gogh because of Submission. To add to that there was the Miss World riots in Nigeria. There also some fairly comical incidents with authors such as Sebastian Faulks and Sherry Jones.
Poor camel...