Meaning of Life

in half an hour the shaykh explains away the "problem" of evil - which has stumped philosophers and theologians for centuries.

alHamdulillahi 'ala niy'mah al-Islam.

 

That "problem" is a problem - not to the argument that "the Universe has a Creator" - but only, to the arguments about current mainstream Christian conception of God.

It appears that DBH is not the only Christian philosopher who struggles with the issue - one far greater than him - C.S. Lewis - had a very hard time reconciling his Christian understanding of the Attributes of God with observed reality - personal and universal both.

Some papers to peruse:
1. The Problem of Evil - C.S. Lewis Speaks to Life’s Most Difficult Questions (pro)
2. Narrating Pain: C.S. Lewis and the Problem of Evil (pro)
3. C.S. Lewis and David Hume on the Problem of Evil (neutral)
4. C.S. Lewis, God and the Problem of Evil (critical)

Also by Lewis:

“Son,'he said,' ye cannot in your present state understand eternity...That is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, "No future bliss can make up for it," not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say "Let me have but this and I'll take the consequences": little dreaming how damnation will spread back and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Both processes begin even before death. The good man's past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad man's past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness. And that is why...the Blessed will say "We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven, : and the Lost, "We were always in Hell." And both will speak truly.”

I think we can call this concept the "Erasure of Evil" or the "Undoing of Evil" - where pain is not just compensated for - it is practically unlived.

This concept can be validated by our own Hadith literature (some other day - in sha'Allah).

 

N.B. The following comment is not intended as a remark on the real-life individual featured above. It is a generic observation about the human condition.

Chekhov's famous Dreary Story has a similar theme - a well-respected professor rues having lived a meaningless life afterall. His play "Uncle Vanya" also explores this subject - except that, the professor himself is yet to realize what those around him have - that ultimately, his life was to no purpose at all.

اللهم اجعل خير أعمالنا خواتمها، وخير أعمارنا أواخرها، وخير أيامنا يوم نلقاك، اللهم اغفر لنا ما مضى وأصلح لنا ما تبقى​

اللهمَّ إنِّي أعوذُ بك من قلْبٍ لا يخشعُ ، و من دعاءٍ لا يُسْمَعُ ، و من نفْسٍ لا تشبعُ ، و من علْمٍ لا ينفعُ​

 

DBH is very candid here - he avoids the "problem of evil".

 

A very good way to discuss the topic in abstract terms.

 

Interesting discussion



Very articulate interviewee - anyone knows more about him? Apparently he is pursuing a PhD in physics at Oxford.

Maybe sh. asrar can get in touch with him and can have a critical discussion on his book.

 

why would one?

 

A lot of these modern physicists, in order to avoid having to believe in a universe that began to exist, come up with nonsense that has no scientific basis in general. Look at those physicists who state that it's possible the universe exists as a series of big bangs and big crunches and has been in this cycle for eternity. They do this in order to avoid 1. Having to believe the universe, or singularity, came into existence from nothing and therefore always existed 2. Explain the fine tuning of the universe meaning that if the universe has always been expanding and contracting, on at least one of these infinite expansion/contractions, it would have the conditions required for sustainable life.

Apart from the fact that such a theory has no scientific basis and is therefore like their version of religion, it also defies logic. An infinite series of expansion/contraction cannot have existed in reality for the same reasons that's an infitine regress cannot exist. See imam Al ghazali or the arguments of John philoponous.

Example: if the universe expanded/contracted an infinite number of times into the past, then the universe has expanded/ contracted an infinite number of times. But if it expands/contracts again after this cycle, it has done so for an infinite number of times plus 1. You cannot add to the infinite and therefore, it has not expanded/contracted an infinite number of times into the past. Therefore, the universe and any cycle of expansion/contraction had a beginning.

Based on the same reasoning, the BVG theorem isn't strictly necessary in order to prove the universe isn't eternal although useful for the science loving crowd, I suppose.

Example: if there are an infinite series of seconds or moments which must occur before we experience this current second or moment, then we would never experience this current moment or second since an actual infinite cannot be traversed. Yet I am experiencing this current moment or second and thus there cannot have been an infinite series of moments or seconds prior to the current one. Therefore the universe cannot stretch infinitely into the past, no matter what a steady state model may imply etc.

For further attempts by physicists to dupe people, look at Lawrence krauss and his attempt to define 'nothing' as something as opposed to 'the absence of anything' which is what the word actually means. He claims that things pop into existence from nothing (actually referring to the quantum vaccum which in itself would exist within space and time and therefore would still be something and not nothing) to attempt to suggest the universe could have done the same thing.

Those who claim to be scientific and rational will believe any illogical and incoherent nonsense in order to attempt to salvage their atheism.

 

Stephen Meyer’s, ‘Return of the God Hypothesis…’, is a fantastic read about scientific history and present discoveries in evolution and cosmology, if you don’t mind the intelligent design overtones.

My only gripe is that he glosses over islamic contribution to the field.

 

Nice recap of the Kalam Cosmological Argument - and whether new developments in cosmology render it unsuable



In the talk above they discuss the implications of the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - and how the various alternatives to the standard model, devised explicitly to circumvent the conclusions of the theorem end up either failing to do so, or endow hypothetical entities, equations or laws with "god-like" powers - such as Roger Penrose's model (which he is describing in post#7 below).

The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.[1] The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003.[2][3] The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates.[3][4][5]​

Brief summary of CCC: Sir Roger Penrose: New Cosmological View of Dark Matter, which Strangely and Slowly Decays
A technical exposition by penrose: The Big Bang and its Dark-Matter Content: Whence, Whither, and Wherefore

Summary of criticisms of CCC by other physicsts: Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection

 

Superbly put:

Man's Search for Meaning | Andrew Huberman and Lex Fridman

And yet, the inevitable conclusion would be that there is no ultimate meaning - it's all what you make of it.

As far as this most important question goes, even the best of scientific and philosophical minds have been able toc ome up with nothing but placebos.

And the best supercomputer? 42.

Moral: Without the Divine, even solipsism would make a lot of sense (afterall, that' all there is).

---
How Do I Know I’m Not the Only Conscious Being in the Universe?

 

Reminds me of the AI's speech at the end of Metal Gear Solid 2 [Colonel and Rose are both the AI]:

Colonel : The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards the development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
Rose : Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans.
Colonel : Rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims.
Rose : Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species. Everyone grows up being told the same thing.
Colonel : "Be nice to other people."
Rose : "But beat out the competition!"​

 

The last two minutes are interesting

 

so what're these clever and genteel atheists batting for?

this documentary sheds some light [see the tailing segment]




I would say the highlight is dawkins' funny replies in the end - He really got cornered that time.

 

Penrose, I think, is one of those "agnostic atheists", who acknowledge that they don't have answers to the Big Questions - and, are willing to wait, as long as it takes, until the answers can be found "in a lab" - through a scientific analysis.

But life is too short and the questions really aren't the subject-matter of scientific inquiry to begin with - so people like them will probably wait forever.

Until of-course, something dramatic/tragic happens to them personally or to the world that they inhabit.

Usually, those with the best of luxuries in life, also "enjoy" the "luxury" of disbelief.

These are the ones of whom the Qur'an said, even if you brought them manifest proofs, they will not believe.

Its is not the lack of proofs, the problem is not the evidence, but belief itself - as if, their shaqawah, makes the very concept of "ubudiyyah" distasteful and repulsive to them.





As you can see, his constant refrain is along the lines of: "well, maybe all these mysteries are explained by a belief in God, but then, I don't see where it takes me. I don't see what I can do with it. Its just a hypotheses that has no practical applications".

In other words, belief in a Creator adds nothing special to the human lived experience. It's just a trivia which can be relegated to the archives of human history.


You kidding me?




"crazy ideas", "hunting for trans-aeonic signals from pre-big-bang intelligent life" are all very "fascinating" (but hush! don't you dare mention God) - investing in SETI also makes sense - even if millions be starving in third world countries.

hmm.

see the picture that emerges? life is a meaningless dystopia - with sundry "fascinating" moments for those lucky enough to enjoy it.

 

Man's Search for Meaning

irrespective of the specifics, the general argument is pretty powerful and resonantes with the core of my personal experiences.

this theme is very well recognised by the non-religious thinkers/researchers/philosophers - they are not at all in denial about it.

the only problem is that they do not pursue their reasoning to its logical conclusion - at the end of the day, their vision of "reality" remains ensconced in a cold and indifferent Universe which doesn't care for human misery or suffering.

As such, all their solutions are mere placebos. The "meaning" is something you wing out of nowhere, for no objective reason whatsoever ....

 

As he hits the nail on the head regarding modern issues, the real irony here is his dismissal of the very solution (GOD/Religion) he uses to build his point, rather he opts to propose a religion of his own "school of life," to fill that void.

 

Problems with the "modern" worldview

 

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته