Hamza Andreas Tzortzis' Blog

My Next Event: "The Book That Shook The World" FOSIS Tour

2009-12-05T11:18:00.002Z

"The Book That Shook The World"
The FOSIS Tour - December 2009

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis will give a lecture on:
1. What is the Qur'an?
2. The intellectual challenge of the Qur'an
3. The Philosophy of its Miralce
4. Linguistic appreciation of surah al-Kawthar
5. What Muslim & Non-Muslim Scholars say
6. The historical and political impact of the Qur'an
7. The Qur'an in the 21st Century
8. Lessons we can learn for today
9. Responding to some common objections

Monday 7th - Durham | Tuesday 8th - Leeds | Wednesday 9th - Manchester | Thursday 10th - Dundee | Friday 11th - Aberdeen

For further information please contact Sister Nada services.gensec@fosis.org.uk

My Next Debate & Media Appearance: Debate Night on the Ummah Channel

2009-11-24T23:01:00.006Z

Channel: Ummah Channel (Sky 828)
Programme: Debate Night
Date: 29th November 2009
Time: 8pm

Yesterday I particpated in a debate with a priest, an atheist and a humanist (it was recorded and will be shown on the date above). The topic was 'Can the world surive without religion?' During the programme various issues were discussed including the basis for morality, sociology of religion, politics and humanism.

Towards the end of debate one of the arguments I used was the moral argument, and to my astonishment the atheist was squeezed into a corner where, after I pointed out to him that the implications of his thinking was that killing 6 Million Jews in Nazi Germany was only subjectively wrong, he replied "Yes, its subjectively wrong".

My Next Event: Islam in the 21st Century

2009-11-22T21:00:00.011Z

University of West England Islamic Society Presents:

Islam in the 21st Century

By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Date: Monday, November 30, 2009
Time: 6:00pm - 7:00pm

Location: University of the West of England,
Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane,
Bristol, BS16 1QY

My Next Event: Proving the Existence of God

2009-11-20T11:58:00.004Z

Brunel ISOC Presents:

Proving the Existence of God
With Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Date: 2nd December 2009
Time: 5 - 7pm
Venue: Lecture Centre A

"There probably is no God" - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
"Religion poisons everything" - Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

An opportunity to learn about the philosophical and Qur'anic evidences for the existence of God, including an opportunity to ask questions and challenge the speaker.

Contact: info@brunelisoc.com

My Next Media Appearance: The Agenda on Press TV

2009-11-18T20:26:00.008Z

Today I appeared on 'The Agenda' programme that is aired on Press TV presented by Yvonne Ridley. The topic was about soldiers and their right to be conscientious objectors in light of the recent Fort Hood shootings. Many other topics came up including foreign policy, religion and the role of the army. It was a lively discussion with many interesting views. The guests included Charlie Wolf (radio host and political commentator) and Symon Hill (associate director of the Ekklesia think tank). It will be shown on Friday 27th November 2009 at 7pm (GMT) on Sky Channel 515.

My Next Debate: DOES GOD EXIST? With Philosophy Lecturer & Author

2009-11-05T18:02:00.003Z

The Muslim Society of Greenwich University
in association with www.thebigdebates.com presents:

The Big Debate: Does God Exist?
3rd December 2009, 6:15pm

Come and see these two dynamic speakers present their arguments:

Richard Baron

Richard read philosophy at the University of Cambridge and he now lectures on ancient Greek philosophy, the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of religion. He is an author on philosophy, his books include 'Projects and Values' and 'Deliberation and Reason'. Richard will be arguing that God does not exist. He runs the blog 'Analysis & Synthesis'.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Hamza is an international public speaker on Islam. He has debated prominent academics and intellectuals. Hamza is one of the main initiators of the contemporary emergence of Muslim public debaters and speakers using western and islamic philosophy. Hamza will be presenting the Muslim argument on God's existence. He runs the popular blog hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com.

Queen Mary Room 180, Greenwich University, Old Royal Navy College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS

For non-greenwich students please register at isgodadelusion@googlemail.com
www.msgre.org

My Next Media Appearance: BBC Arabic

2009-11-05T17:52:00.003Z

I was interviewed today by BBC Arabic for a documentary on Darwin, God & Religion. It should be shown in the middle of November on the website. Once I receive more details I will post them here.

The Big Debate Video: God - Delusion or Truth? With Editor of the Philosophy Now Magazine

2009-10-28T13:26:00.002Z

My Next Event: My Journey to Islam

2009-10-28T10:42:00.004Z

My Journey to Islam

By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
Brother Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a convert to Islam, is an international lecturer, public speaker, author, and intellectual activist. He is particularly interested in issues related to Islam, philosophy and politics. He has debated prominent academics and intellectuals.

Venue: The Quad (Youth Centre), Green Wrythe Lane, Carshalton, SM5 1JW

Date: 16:00 on Sunday 1st November 2009

Travel: Ample car parking spaces available, bus route 280

Contact: 07946489099

The God Debate with Rick Lewis & the Cosmological Argument

2009-10-25T09:54:00.019Z

Around two weeks ago I participated in the “God: Delusion or Truth?” debate with the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine, Rick Lewis. Before I go into details about the event itself, I would like to say that Rick Lewis was a true gentleman; he was polite, sensitive and engaging. Without Rick, I do not think we would have had a successful event. The atmosphere was almost perfect, the auditorium was full with people sitting on the stairs, and it felt like a dialogue rather than a debate.

This is why I particularly enjoyed the event. No one seemed to be overly zealous or dogmatic in their approach to the discussion, I believe this was facilitated by the decision to omit the ‘rebuttals’ section after the initial presentations.

I approached the debate with a few objectives in mind, firstly I wanted to show that Muslims can have an intellectual and nuanced discussion on big questions such as the existence of God, secondly I wanted to use this debate as a milestone in attempting to change the current narrative on Muslim and non-Muslim discourse. What I mean by this is that I wanted to engage with Rick in a Quranic way, not a “I have the truth and I will win this debate!” kind of way. Many of the discussions between Muslims and non-Muslims, whether they are academics or apologists, tend to be couched in emotional language that usually creates a form of frustration and misunderstanding. In other words participating in a debate just to win the debate is not conducive to better understanding, rather if the Quranic injunction of “And debate with them in ways that are best” is to be taken seriously then I would argue that the focus should be on delivering the message clearly by trying to positively engage the opponent’s intellectual and emotional capacities. Otherwise ego’s will lead the discussion instead. Thirdly I wanted to show that Muslims can positively challenge the neo-Atheist narrative emanating from the likes of pseudo-intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Cosmological Argument

According to philosophical tradition the affirmative has to present first, so I started the debate by delivering a fifteen minute presentation on why I believe there are good reasons to be convinced that God exists. Due to time constraints I used two arguments, the cosmological argument, which was my main argument, and the teleological argument. I started to present the cosmological argument by saying that one of the greatest questions in Philosophy is, in the words of the British Philosopher Derek Parfit,“why there is anything rather than nothing?”[1]

The summary of the cosmological argument can be described as follows,

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Explaining Premise 1

Premise 1 seems obviously true in contrast to its negation, as Philosopher William Craig nicely explains “it is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing.”[2] To start claiming that things come into existence out of nothing is an irrational claim that contradicts our intuition and our human experience.

Explaining Premise 2

Some atheists such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. However if we think about this we will conclude that it is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning that means there must be an infinite history of past events. However does an actual infinite exist in the real world?

I argued that the concept of the infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and it just doesn’t make sense, take the following examples as illustrations of this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of bananas, if I take 2 away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense?

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot?

3. Take distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the “infinitieth” part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised.

In light of this the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle said “the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3] Significantly the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[4]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

I continued to substantiate the claim the universe began to exist by expressing that this conclusion is confirmed by physics in what is popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. According to this theory physical time and space were created and matter and energy were also created. The four prominent scientists, J Richard, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm and Beatrice M. Tinsley describe the event of the big bang as follows, “the universe began from a state of infinite density...Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe.”[5]

However what does “infinite density” mean? Well, infinite density is precisely equivalent to ‘nothing’. This is why the Cambridge Astronomer Fred Hoyle states that the universe at a point in the past was “shrunk down to nothing at all”[6]. So the ‘Big Bang’ model requires us to believe that something was created out of nothing, as Anthony Kenny, a Professor at Oxford University, states “A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the…universe came out of nothing and by nothing”[7]

If we consult our metaphysical intuitions we will conclude “out of nothing, comes nothing!” Even atheists have recognised this, the Philosopher David Hume states “I never asserted to absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”[8].

Explaining Premise 3

Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it logically follows that premise 3 is true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must also have a cause. However to believe that this cause is God is a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion, because this cause could have been a mechanical cause or necessary pre-existing conditions. In light of this how can we justify that this cause is a trancedental personal being?

What is the nature of this cause?

Given that the universe has a cause and it created time and space, it must be,

1. Not subject to time because it created time as Stephen Hawking says “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang”[9].

2. Uncaused as we have discussed the absurdity of an infinite regress. If the cause of the universe had a cause, and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn't be a universe to talk about in the first place!

3. Immaterial and beyond matter because it created the universe, and the universe is the sum of all matter.

4. A personal agent because this cause is eternal, and it caused a finite effect, in other words the universe, then it must have chosen to do so. And choice indicates will and will indicates a personality. Another way to understand this is to familiarise with the kinds of immaterial realities that we know exist that cause effects in nature, the only type we can think of are minds like our own minds (just lift your leg to see what I mean). Since minds symbolise cognition and personality, then it follows that the immaterial cause is a personal agent.

God Exists!

The form of the cosmological argument I presented provided a positive case for the existence of God by arguing that a transcendental personal cause exists.

Responding to Rick Lewis’ Objections

After my presentation Rick placed his notes on to the lectern and presented an interesting case for why he believes there is no equivocal evidence for the existence of God. Rick agreed with premise 2 of the cosmological argument by stating that he didn’t have much to say about the absurdity of an actual infinite. However he did concentrate a lot on my second argument, the teleological argument. Even though I said that my main argument was the cosmological argument he tried to show that there can be another explanation for the fine tuning of the universe to permit life. Personally I didn’t find his alternative explanations plausible, as a lot of his claims where metaphysical claims that were counter intuitive and had no real basis, hence I responded by saying that they were not defeaters of the argument I presented.

Rick’s main objection was that premise 1 of the cosmological argument (whatever begins to exist has a cause) is not entirely true because causality only makes sense in time. The universe could not have a cause because the beginning of the universe is actually the beginning of time itself, so causality doesn’t apply.

My response to this objection was that premise 1, whatever begins to exist has a cause, is a metaphysical premise not a physical premise like the law of gravity. Also in the summary presentations at the end of the debate I stated that we have more reasons to believe that nothing comes from nothing rather than something from nothing, in other words being cannot come from non being, to claim otherwise is grasping at intellectual straws!

Conclusion

I haven’t mentioned much about the question and answer session, one reason for this is that it was very dynamic and included nearly all of the topics under the philosophy of religion! You can watch the video to find out more.

I would like to conclude that I learnt a lot from this debate. It taught me to be more attentive rather than dismissive, and it showed me that people of all backgrounds and persuasions can positively engage with and learn from one another. Just to show you that this is true I received an email with feedback from non-Muslims who were in the audience, and one of them said, “My next book to read is the Koran”.

Please attend my next debate with Philosopher, Lecturer, Author and Chair of the British Humanist Association’s Philosophers Group Peter Cave. See http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/ for the flyer and more information.

References

[1] Derek Parfit. Why Anything? Why This? London Review of Books, January 22, 1998.
[2] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. IVP Academic, p. 468-469
[3] Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html)
[4] David Hilbert. On the Infinite, in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, p. 151.
[5] J. Richard Grott II, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley. Will the Universe Expand Forever? Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65.
[6] Fred Hoyle. Astronomy and Cosmology. W. H. Freeman. 1975, p. 658.
[7] Anthony Kenny. The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence. Schocken Books. 1969, p. 66.
[8] David Hume to John Stewart. Feb. 1754, in Letters of David Hume. 2 Vols., ed J. Y. T. Greig. Clarendon Press. 1932, p. 187.
[9] Stephen Hawkin and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures. Princeton University Press. 1996, p. 20.

My Next Media Appearance: Special Interview on IQRA TV "Does God Exist?"

2009-10-25T08:17:00.003Z

Live on IQRA TV
"Does God Exist? & The Need for Intellectual Dawah"

20th November 2009, 7PM

Special Interview with Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, discussing:

1. The Need and Obligation to engage in Dawah at all levels
2. The Existence of God
3. Providing a positive reponse to neo-Atheism & liberal humanism
4. The Philosophy of Religion

Live call in show, listen to the discussion and call in to ask your question or to make a comment!

Sky Channel 826 or watch online at http://www.sky826.com/

My Next Event: God - Delusion or Truth? At the Islamic Association of North London

2009-10-23T11:42:00.004+01:00

God: Delusion or Truth?
By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

23 October 2009, 8pm

Islamic Association of North London

North Finchely Mosque
685 High Road, North Finchley
London N12 0DA
Call 07961734095

My Next Debate: Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion? With the Chair of the British Humanist Association's Philosophers Group

2009-10-22T12:45:00.007+01:00

Organised by:

Imperial College Union Islamic Society

What?

CAN WE LIVE BETTER LIVES WITHOUT RELIGION?

When?

1st December 2009, 6:15PM

Where?

Imperial University, SAF Building, Room G16 (LT1) South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ

Why?

With the rise of neo-Atheism and liberal humanism, religions and religious belief are constantly being challenged. The outspoken neo-atheist Christopher Hitchens in his best seller 'God is not great' writes, "As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hardwon human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything."

Is he right? Or is he a product of our secular society, condition to point the finger at religion?

Don't miss this big debate that will discuss religion, morality, ethics, God, politics and more!

Who?

Peter Cave, a philosophy lectuer and the British Humanist Association's chair of the humanist philosophers group. He gives talks, lectures, debates and publishes papers on a wide range of philosophical topcis, often with humurous content. He is the author of "Humanism: A Begnners Guide", and of the best-selling "Can a robot be a human?" and "What's wrong with eating people?" For more information please visit www.petercave.com.

Hamza Andeas Tzortzis is a senior researcher and lecturer for iERA. He has participated in debates both at home and internationally with leading academics and intellectuals. He delivers lectures across the world to articulate and shed indispensable light on Islam and its way of life. He runs the popular blog www.hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com.

Registration?

thebigreligiondebate@googlemail.com

My Next Event: 'The Miracle of the Quran' at Cardiff University

2009-10-22T12:25:00.002+01:00

Click on flyer for more details

My Next Event: 'My Journey to Islam' at Westminster University

2009-10-17T11:00:00.002+01:00

Click on flyer to enlarge

The God Debate, Evolution and “Who Designed the Designer?”

2009-10-11T16:12:00.003+01:00

In the last seven years or so, I have participated in a number of ‘Does God Exist?’ debates with various intellectuals and academics [1]. Next week I will be participating in the ‘God: Delusion or Truth?’ debate with Rick Lewis, the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine, at the University College London. Last week I participated in a debate with Alan Woods, who has written the History of Philosophy and is a Marxist political theorist [2], on the same topic and I was disappointed that he did not sufficiently address any of the arguments I presented. Additionally he did not even produce a strong case for the atheist worldview.

Mr Woods’ main premise was that the evolution theory provides the best explanation for the origins of life. The problem with this argument is that evolution doesn’t negate the existence of God; rather it just provides an alternative explanation to the question of how life started. At best the evolution theory, if taken to be true, may provide a theological problem as there would be a need to reconcile the theory with mainstream religious discourse on the origins of life. However it doesn’t take God out of the picture.

Mr Woods’ evolution ‘defeater’ was an attempt to deal with one of my arguments for the existence God, known as the Teleological argument or the Argument from Design. The form of the design argument I chose to present used examples relating to the physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Hence I explained to Mr Woods that evolution is billions of years away and it doesn’t even have a foot in the door as the design argument I chose to present used examples understood in physics and not biology, so I politely advised him to be more attentive to my argument.

Mr Woods then decided to use another argument which is always used by the atheists who clutch at intellectual straws: “who designed the designer?” Even the prophet of neo-Atheism Richard Dawkins writes in his best seller The God Delusion,

“The Temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” [3]

Having prepared for this I addressed his question promptly. However in order for the reader to understand my response I will summarise the form of the design argument that was presented at the debate. I argued that God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life and I started off by presenting the premises of this argument,

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Explaining Premise 1

The existence of a life permitting universe is due conditions that must have been fined tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable! The fine tuning is of two types,

When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant.
There are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.

I used the following are examples of fine tuning to explain premise 1,

Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10¹⁰⁰ would have prevented a life permitting universe.
Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10¹⁰ (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10¹⁰ (123)."[4]

There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe,

Physical necessity
Chance
Design

Why it can’t be Physical Necessity

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,

“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.” [5]

Why it can’t be Chance

Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, "It could have happened by chance!" However would they say such a thing in order to explain how an Elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or if a 747 was parked in your garden on your return from work ?!

Additionally people have tried to get out of this problem by saying “we shouldn’t be surprised at the finely tuned universe, for if it wasn’t the case we would not be here to be surprised about it!” In response to this Philosopher W. Craig aptly puts it,

“But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss." Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.”[6]

It Must be Design

Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe to permit life.

Responding to “Who Designed the Designer?”

The above contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation doesn’t require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.

Imagine 500 years from now a group of archaeologists where to start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not a result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we can’t make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!

Secondly if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. Because if we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?

Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regress of explanations. And an infinite regress of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place, which is to provide an explanation!

References

[1] For example see my debate with Dr Bashour from the American University Beirut http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJtM40TzJAA

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Woods_(politician)

[3] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. 2006, page 158

[4] Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 249.

[5] Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 169.

[6] William Lane Craig. http://www.professorblume.com/uploads/1/0/6/9/1069884/does_god_exist-_w._l._craig.doc

British Academy for Qur'anic Sciences Seminar Slides

2009-09-30T23:05:00.002+01:00

Please access the link below to view the slides for "The Literary Form of the Qur’an & a Philosophical Perspective on Divine Authorship" seminar that was delivered during the British Academy for Qur'anic Sciences "Journey Through" the Qur'an" course.

The Literary Form of the Qur'an & a Philosophical Perspective on Divine Authorship

My Next Debate: Does God Exist? With Author & Political Theorist

2009-09-30T22:51:00.002+01:00

Debate: Does God Exist?

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis vs.
Alan Woods (Author & Political Theorist)

Tuesday, 06 October 2009
16:30 - 18:30

Sir George Monoux College
Chingford Road, Walthamstow
London, E17 5AA

Email: sjb@george-monoux.ac.uk

My Next Event: Is Orthodox Islam Compatible in the 21st Century West?

2009-09-30T22:41:00.003+01:00

Click on flyer for more details

A Philosophical & Theological Response to the 'Problem of Evil'

2009-09-12T14:42:00.007+01:00

By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

In the philosophy of religion ‘natural atheology’ is defined as the branch of philosophy that attempts to prove the central beliefs of theists (people who believe in a God) as false [1]. One of the most impressive and strongest arguments of natural atheology is to do with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil claims that it is unbelievable, if an omnipotent and good God exists, that he would permit so much pain and suffering in the world. The famous philosopher David Hume in his ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ aptly puts it,

“Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”[2]

The problem of evil is without a doubt one of the key intellectual obstacles that a Muslim or theist has to overcome in order to be convinced that God exists (or convince others for that matter). There are two versions of the problem of evil, the internal problem of evil and the external problem of evil.

The internal problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is committed to due to his belief in Islam. The external problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is not committed to but can have good reasons to believe the premises to be true.

The Internal Problem of Evil

The internal problem of evil presents its premises as follows:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist

H. J. McCloskey in his article ‘God and Evil’ summarises the problem well,

“Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil, on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other.”[3]

Responding to the Internal Problem of Evil

The first point that needs to be made is that statements (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent as there is no apparent contradiction. For the atheist to jump to the conclusion that a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist is an unwarranted, unless he has assumed, in the words of Philosopher William Craig, “some hidden premises”[4]. These hidden premises seem to be the following,

4. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he wants

5. If God is good, then he prefers a world without evil

Statement (4) suggests that since God can create and do anything, then he can create free human beings who always decide to do the right thing and do not fall into evil or suffering. Statement (5) suggests that God is all good so much so that if he could create a world without evil and suffering he would. Otherwise he would himself be evil to prefer that humans experience evil and suffering.

The proponent of this version of the problem of evil has made some unjustified assumptions. These hidden premises make some daring assumptions; firstly it assumes a Christian type of God, one that is just good and omnipotent. Secondly it assumes that God doesn’t have any reasons to permit evil and suffering in the world.

Responding to the first assumption

Muslims do not only believe that God is just good and omnipotent. Muslims believe that part of God’s names and attributes include ‘the Just’, ‘the Severe in Punishment’, ‘the Wise’, ‘the Avenger’, and ‘the Compassionate’, amongst many others. So statements (1, 4 and 5) are inaccurate as the Muslim does not reduce God to parts, rather God is seen as one and unique in context of all his names and attributes. So if God was just good and omnipotent, then there may be problem in reconciling suffering and evil in the world. However if you include attributes such as ‘the Severe in Punishment’ and ‘the Wise’, these problems would not exist. Because perceived evil and suffering in the world can be due to,

• God’s punishment as a result of our sins and bad actions.

• God’s wisdom, as there may be divine wisdom in permitting evil and suffering. Even if we can’t evaluate what the wisdom is, it doesn’t mean it is not there. To argue such a thing would be a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The story of Khidr which can be found in the 18th chapter of Qur’an from verses 60 to 82 is an eloquent account of how God’s wisdom, whether understood or not, has positive results and benefits for humanity.

In addition to this the Muslim can argue that the problem of evil is logically posterior to the existence of God. You need to establish that God exists first before attempting to reconcile who God is with our perception of reality, in this case, evil and suffering.

Lastly the meaning of the word ‘good’ attributed to God needs to be understood in a divine context. In general terms the word ‘good’ has a meaning that relates to human experience, whereas in Islamic theology ‘good’ as an attribute of God is primarily viewed as a unique attribute that can be appreciated but not fully comprehended due to his uniqueness and transcendental nature. Therefore the underlying assumption that evil and a good God cannot coexist may be true with a Christian view of God. However it doesn’t apply to the Islamic concept of God as the atheist will have to reconcile evil and suffering with something that he cannot fully comprehend. So his premises are false due to his incorrect assumption that ‘good’ in the context of God is related to a human understanding of good.

Responding to the second assumption

A sufficient response to the second assumption is to provide a strong argument that God has justified reasons to permit suffering and evil in the world. The intellectual richness of Islamic Theology provides us with many reasons, some of which include:

1. The primary purpose of the human being is not happiness rather it is to know and worship God. This fulfillment of the divine purpose will result in everlasting bliss and happiness. So if this is our primary purpose other aspects of human experience our secondary. The Qur’an, the book of the Muslims states: "I did not create either jinn or man except to worship Me." [5]

2. God also created us for a test, and part of this test is to be tested with suffering and evil. The Qur’an mentions “The One Who created death and life, so that He may put you to test, to find out which of you is best in deeds: He is the all-Almighty, the all-Forgiving” [6]

3. Having hardship and suffering enables us to realise and know God’s attributes such as ‘the Victorious’ and ‘the Healer’. For example without the pain and suffering of illness we would not appreciate the attribute of God being ‘the Healer’. Knowing God is a greater good, and worth the experience of suffering or pain as it will mean the fulfillment of our primary purpose.

4. Suffering allows 2nd order good. 1st order good is physical pleasure and happiness and 1st order evil is physical pain and sadness. 2nd order goodness is elevated goodness such as courage and can only happen if suffering or evil exist. [7]

5. People can also suffer from past, present or future sins. God has knowledge of everything which is not contingent on time. Please refer to the story of Khidr in the Qur’an where it mentions Khidr’s reply to Prophet Moses “All this was done as a mercy from your Lord. What I did was not done by my own will. That is the interpretation of those actions which you could not bear to watch with patience.”[8]

6. God has given us free will, and free will includes choosing evil acts. [9]

The external problem of evil

The internal problem of evil fails to convince, however the external problem of evil seems more persuasive because it seems to acknowledge the co-existence of God and evil in the world, but denies God’s existence due to the level of the evil in the world. The external problem of evil argues the following:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exists

2. Gratuitous evil exists

3. Therefore, God does not exist

For the Muslim statement (2) is subjective and not entirely true. The Muslim will believe that evil exists, but not that gratuitous evil exists, and since this is based upon human subjectivity then the external problem of evil carries no weight. The proponent of this argument will have to show that gratuitous evil or evil itself are objective without reference to human subjectivity.

The essential problem with this argument is shown in the following questions:

• What makes our value judgments objectively true?

• What are our definitions of gratuitous evil?

The proponent of the problem of evil is faces a problem because God is required a rational basis for objective good and evil (whether gratuitous or not). Without God these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor, apart from God himself, which transcends human subjectivity. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore in order for the atheist’s premise to make objective sense, God’s existence is necessary. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)

4. Therefore, God exists

Explaining the key premise: Premise (1)

The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it,

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”[10]

Paul Kurtz is right because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. In God’s absence, there are only two possible alternative conceptual foundations.

• Social pressures

• Evolution

Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding, in other words true regardless of who believes in them.

Therefore without God there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”[11]

Therefore evil in the world actually proves that God exists. This argument shows how God and evil can co-exist without attempting to explain why. So in a rhetorical response to the atheist the Muslim or theist can pose the following question,

“How can the atheist formulate an argument against the existence of God when God is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?!”

At first sight the problem of evil seems to present insuperable difficulties for the Muslim. However under intellectual scrutiny the problem of evil actually fails to present a convincing argument.

Concluding with the Emotional Argument

There is a well known Buddhist saying that states ‘desire causes suffering ‘and since human beings desire then we will always suffer. Whether this is true or not clearly reinforces our intuition that we will suffer and experience evil at some point in our lives. This suffering can be the making of our own hands, other peoples or external forces like natural disasters. A consequence of this suffering is that many of us may fall prey to our emotional dispositions thereby questioning God’s existence or entering into a state of some form psychological malady.

Islamic Theology however provides the conceptual ‘tools’ necessary for the Muslim to overcome this problem. Islamic Theology is derived from two main sources, the Qur’an and the hadith literature. The Qur’an is a divine book that Muslims believes to be the word of God, and the hadith are divinely inspired statements attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The following verses from the Qur’an and sayings from hadith provide all the necessary comfort for the Muslim.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"Amazing is the affair of the believer, verily all of his affair is good and this is not for no one except the believer. If something of good/happiness befalls him he is grateful and that is good for him. If something of harm befalls him he is patient and that is good for him." [12]

“Anyone who dies of the plague is a martyr. Anyone who dies of a stomach illness is a martyr. Anyone who drowns is a martyr.” [13]

"There are seven classes of martyrs except the one who is killed while fighting in the cause of God: one who dies in plague is a martyr; one who dies due to drowning is a martyr; one who is killed of Zat al-Janb disease (a disease that attacks ribs and causes inner ulcerations) is a martyr; one who dies of diseases of stomach is a martyr; one who is killed by fire is a martyr; one who is crushed under a wall is a martyr; and a woman who dies while delivery (or pregnancy) is a martyr." [14]

"No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn." [15]

The Qur’an says,

“Do you think that you will enter paradise without any trials while you have known the examples of those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with suffering and adversity and were so violently shaken up that even the Prophet and the believers with him cried out: ‘When will God’s help come?’ Be aware, God’s help is close.” [16]

“Surely with every difficulty there is relief. Surely with every difficulty there is relief.” [17]

“Let there rise from among you a band of people who should invite to righteousness, enjoin good and forbid evil: such are the one, who shall be successful.” [18]

Since the Muslim is intellectually convinced that these statements are from God, then it follows they are truth claims that not only comfort the Muslim, but fills his heart with tranquility.

References

[1] Avin Plantinga. God, Freedom and Evil. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977, p 7.

[2] David Hume. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 10.

[3] “God and Evil” Philosophical Quarterly, X (1960), p 97.

[4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. IVP Academic, p 538.

[5] Qur’an 51:56-57

[6] Qur’an 67: 2

[7] Although this is contended by some philosophers such as John Mackie, philosopher Avin Plantinga provides an interesting response in his book God, Freedom and Evil.

[8] Qur’an 18:82

[9] This requires an in-depth discussion which will be discussed in another article

[10] Paul Kurtz. Forbidden Fruit. Prometheus. 1988, p 65.

[11] Richard Taylor. Ethics, Faith, and Reason. Prentice Hall. 1985, p. 83–84.

[12] Saheeh Muslim

[13] Ibid.

[14] Narrated Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah

[15] Saheeh Bukhari

[16] Qur’an 2:214

[17] Qur’an 94:5-6

[18] Qur’an 3:104

My Next Debate: God - Delusion or Truth?

2009-09-05T11:17:00.010+01:00

God: Delusion or Truth?

The Big Debate!

The Debaters:

Rick Lewis is the founder and editor of Philosophy Now, and thereby one of the main initiators of the popular philosophy movement in the English speaking world.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is a senior researcher and lecturer for iERA. He has participated in debates both at home and internationally with leading academics and intellectuals. Hamza delivers lectures across the world to articulate and shed indispensable light on Islam and its way of life.

When?:

15th October 2009, 6:30PM

Where?:

University College London, Christopher Ingold Auditorium. Christopher Ingold Building, 20 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AJ

Organised by:

Dialogue With Islam

www.dialoguewithislam.org

Supported by:

iERA

UCL Islamic Society

Various london university ISOC's

The Reason:

"There probably is no god" Richard Dawkins in the 'God Delusion'.

Can we really know for sure that God exists? If God is a delusion, then how did the universe appear? Without God, how do we make up our morality? If God exists why is there so much evil in the world? Was Dawkins Right?

To discuss these and other burning questions we have invited a distinguished panel of two dynamic speakers.

Contact:

To avoid dissapointment please contact isgodadelusion@googlemail.com

There are only approximately 400 seats available.

Facebook Event Link:

God: Delusion or Truth?

My Next Event: The Challenge of Dawah

2009-09-05T09:27:00.003+01:00

Click on flyer for more details.

My Next Event: SW1 Ramadan Event

2009-09-03T21:15:00.002+01:00

SW1 Ramadan Event

Saturday 12 September 2009, 5pm - 7pm

St. Saviours Church Pimlico

St. Georges Square, Lupus Street

London, SW1V 3QW

Guest Speaker: Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

My Next Event: The Divine Authorship of the Qur'an

2009-09-03T20:50:00.006+01:00

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis will deliver a lecture on the divine authorship of the Qur'an in Southampton. This event has been organised by Southampton University Islamic Society. Saturday 6th September 2009. The event will start at 7:30pm.

Please contact the Southampton University Dawah Officer for more information: 07766221797

My Next Event: The Unique Literary Form of the Qur'an Seminar

2009-09-01T21:54:00.004+01:00

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis will deliver a semiar on "The Unique Literary Form of the Qur'an" during the 'Journey Through the Qur'an' four day study course organised by the British Academy for Qur'anic Studies (BAQS).

Date/Time: Sunday 6th September, 2PM - 3PM

Details: You must pay for the entire course, more details can be found here http://www.iidr.org/courses/index.htm

Venue: Birkbeck College, Malet Street, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7HX

Tickets: £60 Unemployed £70 Employed

Contact: 07092 813 541 & info@iidr.org