Posts Tagged ‘philosophy’

“Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card

July 30, 2015

<>Thread:”A Suggestion: A Science sub-forum”

Post #10

 Red Economist said:

Paarsurrey wrote:

I liked following points in your post:

  • “Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card.
  • “where’s your proof”
  • Science is Atheism’s sacred cow
  • Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin)
  • science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another

You are a keen observer.

Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit

April 11, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

April 8th, 2014 at 6:19 am
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:

I totally agree with you.

The same way one could ask the materialists; do you exist? If yes, give its proofs and evidences. They never give answer to this question.

Thanks and regards

April 10th, 2014 at 6:03 am

@Debilis : April 9th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
“That one has never occurred to me, I must admit.
I’ll have to remember that.”

Thanks for your appreciation. You make good points defending religion.

The arguments, though sophisticated and philosophical for the learned at times; should have a simple form also so that ordinary people could benefit from them and they could also defend religion on their own.

Most people are not much educated; religion is also for them; they should be equipped to defend religion in simple terms.

Communication between us is proof of our existence; otherwise we are just illusions or shadows of existence.

God has communicated with perfect men among human beings in all ages and all regions of the world; that is a strong proof of His existence.


April 10th, 2014 at 6:46 am

@john zande:April 10th, 2014 at 4:23 am

“1. Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
2. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
3. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”
4. Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a switch. The light will reveal a cat… if there is one.”Unquote

I would like to add two more categories to the above.

5. Revealed Religion is like being in a dark room and looking for a cat from its meowing; if the room is dark one cannot know the color of a cat.
6. Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit; and one sees a black cat but insists that there is no cat out there.


Frank Morris
April 10th, 2014 at 10:27 pm

John, I’d say you are as much in the dark as any of us, so you don’t know what is there or what isn’t.

Atheism is like being in a brightly lit room filled with cats and denying cats exist.

Perhaps the majority in the room have found something you haven’t found yet.

April 11th, 2014 at 5:58 am

@Frank Morris : April 10th, 2014 at 11:15 pm
“paarsurrey, you and I had the same thought on number 6, but I hadn’t read your post yet.
As an open-minded skeptic who rejected everything told to me at school, home or church to try to see what the facts are really telling me, I may be in a 7th group.
I am in a brightly lit room desperately fumbling for a light switch but finding cats.” Unqote

Frank Morris

Thanks for your appreciation. I regularly view Fide Dubitandum and sometimes I write comments also. I like Debilis defending religion with good arguments.

You are welcome to visit my blog @

I would be pleased to visit your blog and enjoy your wisdom; please give me the link of your blog.


“Faith Is Not Stupidity”

March 4, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey’s comments on the following blog for your valuable opinion:

“Faith Is Not Stupidity”

paarsurrey: March 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM
@ Doug B: March 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM

“Stupidity is not faith. Superstition is not religion. Asserting that we believe what we have never taken the trouble to inquire whether we believe or no, is not piety, but cant. Persuading ourselves we believe what we dare not investigate, for fear of discovering that we disbelieve, is not orthodoxy, but hypocrisy. Professing that we believe what we see to be contrary to reason, and therefore essentially unbelievable, proves not our regard for religion, but only our indifference to truth. – Alfred Williams Momerie (1848-1900), Congregational minister, professor of logic, metaphysician. ” Unquote

I liked the above quote very much.

A congregational minister with such clear and matter of fact thinking; I applaud him and also you. You have written a wonderful post based on your knowledge and experience.

Thanks and regards.

Paarsurrey says:

@ Doug B
Referring to your words “Some things just “didn’t add up”, “Others I placed on a shelf in the back of my mind and determined to keep an open mind”

Could you please tell me of these things?
May be I can help you; I am not a scholar though.

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris : Reason, passions and Morality

February 8, 2014

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris, I have sent the following essay:

Reason, passions and Morality

The topic of morality has little relevance with science; hence this topic has never been discussed in any text book of science as to its claim or the reasons in this regards. The question relates to religion as its nature suggests.

The true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts has been discussed and explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) – the Promised Messiah. I will provide a summary of it below mostly in his words.

Natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities.

For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.

A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

A human infant, as soon as it is born, seeks its mother’s breasts, and a chicken, as soon as it is hatched begins to pick up corn. In the same way the spawn of a leech behave like a leech, a baby serpent behaves like a serpent and a tiger cub behaves like a tiger. A human infant begins to exhibit human reactions as soon as it is born and those reactions become more and more remarkable as it begins to grow up. For instance, its weeping becomes louder, and its smiles become laughter, and its gaze becomes more concentrated.

At the age of a year or eighteen months it develops another natural trait: it begins to display its pleasure and displeasure through its movements and tries to strike someone or to give something to someone. All these motions are natural impulses. Similarly a barbarian who possesses little human sense is like such an infant and displays natural impulses in his words, actions and movements and is governed by his natural emotions.

Nothing proceeds from him in consequence of the exercise of his inner faculties. Whatever surges up from his inside under the operation of a natural impulse and as a reaction to external stimuli, becomes manifest. It is possible that his natural impulses that are exhibited as a reaction to an external stimulus may not all be vicious, and some might resemble good morals, but they are normally not the consequences of reasonable reflection and consideration, and even if they are to some degree so motivated they cannot be relied upon on account of the domination of natural impulses.
In short we cannot attribute true morals to a person who is subject to natural impulses like animals or infants or the insane, and who lives more or less like animals. The time of true morals, whether good or bad, begins when a person’s reason becomes mature and he is able to distinguish between good and bad and the degree of evil and goodness, and begins to feel sorry when he misses an opportunity of doing good and is remorseful when he has done some wrong. This is the second stage of his life which is designated by the Holy Quran the self that reproves.

True Courage: Of the natural conditions of man is that which resembles courage, as an infant sometimes seeks to thrust his hand into the fire on account of its natural condition of fearlessness. In that condition a person fearlessly confronts tigers and other wild beasts and issues forth alone to fight a large number of people. Such a one is considered very brave. But this is only a natural condition that is found even in savage animals and in dogs.

To be steadfast against every personal passion or against any calamity that attacks like an enemy and not to run away out of cowardice is true courage. Thus, there is a great difference between human courage and the courage of a wild beast. A wild animal is moved only in one direction when it is roused, but a man who possesses true courage chooses confrontation or non-resistance whichever might be appropriate to the occasion.
I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book to understand the topic of morality fully.

Hume Defects to Theism?

January 18, 2014

Fide Dubitandum

UnknownI’ve never been sure why modern materialists are so confident that David Hume has shown their position to be correct. And neither reading his work, nor explanations of him, has helped to explain it. In fact, it’s led me to the opposite conclusion.

Take, for instance, the claim that we can dismiss traditional notions of causation (and, therefore, dismiss theistic arguments like the Kalam) on the grounds that Hume “showed” that we can’t trust the common sense of causation. Of course, it’s always important to note that Hume himself didn’t take the position that he “showed”, but there is a bigger problem here.

What Hume actually showed is that, given materialism, there’s no explanation for the fact that inductive reasoning (and thereby science) actually works.

What is amazing is that so many have responded by soberly reporting that causation doesn’t exist. Clearly, causation does exist. What’s actually been proved here…

View original post 296 more words

“William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence”

January 17, 2014

“William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence”

The above is the topic of the post at an atheist blog which can be viewed at:

Following eight points of Lane Craig has been enumerated and commented upon by coels:

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists
(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe
(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness
(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties
(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists
(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced
(IX) God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

I generally speaking agree with the points or arguments given by Lane Craig if by God he doesn’t mean Jesus but he means the One-True-God in terms of Jesus’ Core Teachings as mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus was a Jew and followed Moses; in fact Jesus only repeated the core teachings of Moses as contained in:

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

I further have to add that I totally disagree with
the last or ninth (IX) point mentioned by Lane Craig by which he means that Bible has given truthful historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

This is simply not correct.

Atheists believe GOD isn’t real because He is neither tangible nor measurable

April 8, 2013

It is an irrational concept of the Atheists. When did the theists say that the one true God is tangible or measurable so that the atheists could make any scientific experiments for His existence?

It is a misleading notion of the atheists or their ignorance of the concept of belief of God that they think in such terms.

There is no need of any scientific experiments to be made in this respect; it will be an unwise attempt to do such thing or even to think of such endeavour.

All tangible and measurable things are material and physical; and a creation of the one true Creator God. God is an attributive being; he has only attributes that could only be experienced; and do not fall under any scientific experiments.

Tell me; what is the measurement or weight of Reality or Truth or Beauty etc? These exist in abstractions and God is an absolute reality of such abstractions or attributes put together.

If one believes that such abstractions or attributes exist; then one should rationally believe in a being which singularly have all of these under ONE.

Am I right?

Evidence for God

April 4, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with you that when the Atheists say that there is no evidence of God they in fact mean that there is no scientific evidence of God.

The believers don’t hold it to be true that God is some kind of a physical being so that the atheists could search for Him with some scientific experiments.

In a way the atheist’s failure to find a scientific evidence for God; in itself is an evidence for God.

Your examples of finding mathematical evidence for Churchill or grammatical evidence of cosmic expansion are very relevant in the issue.


Fide Dubitandum


Part of me would say that I’m not sure what people mean when they assert that there is no evidence that God exists. A more blunt part of me feels that most of the people making the assertion don’t themselves know what they mean.

In fact, this is not so much a suspicion as what more than a dozen proponents of the claim have personally told me. The overwhelming response to “what standard (or definition) of evidence is attached to that claim?” is “I don’t know; you tell me”.

This makes the assertion literally nonsense. That is, a statement doesn’t have content if its key terms simply aren’t defined. They may as well be meaningless strings of letters, and stating “there is no [undefined term here] for God” shouldn’t strike anyone as much of an argument.

But I think the theist can do even better here. I think she can…

View original post 158 more words

%d bloggers like this: