My Next Event: My Journey to Islam
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
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.
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?"
"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
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
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
The God Debate, Evolution and “Who Designed the Designer?”
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
Posts
