This whole "life is a test" is a complete non sense. God is suppose to be all about Justice, where as no two people life have similar initialization conditions. Nobody id clear about the specifics of test, its made up as we go. No body asks us weather you want to take part in it or not. If you are born human, you are part of the test...
On top of that, test is for 70-80 years and reward/punishment is for infinite amount of time. Why? - Does not follow any logic...
Faith or Blind belief is fundamental to the test. In Quran or most holy, God is most insecure about his status, and is one of the selfish entity you will ever encounter. Biggest Sin is not believing, which I don't get what believing has to do with you morals? Believing does not require any critical thinking/intellectual or free will(the reason we are tested because we are a thinking/decision making being), does this make any sense??
The more you study the more you realize it was a made up thing, that was design to
control the masses. This method has being so successful for thousand of years. But how long people will remain illiterate/ignorant? Religion and or superstition only thrives in illiteracy. That's why process of Science is dangerous to institute of religion and superstition... But inorder to have a self sustain development in the society thinking, analytic and scientific processes has to be at the fore front of society. Right now we look up to west to solve all the problems, while we rest of mind with the drugs of spiritualism and superstition. Then we blame west for their selfishness. Aren't we selfish and hypocrite? - We are not committing ourselves yet want all the fruits of scientific development...
Steven Weinberg (Physicist that shared the Nobel Prize with Abdul Islam), once said that Abdul Islam had hard time getting funding from Muslim world for research in fundamental Physic, although he was popular and respected by Muslim rulers (he was the only Muslim Scientist to get Nobel Prize in Physic). The prime reason was rulers were worried that fundamental science conflicts with religion and can cause problems in the society.
BTW: You look like a sensible and thinking person, I can't imagine you would be following any religion or similar doctrine
This is one interesting topic yasir. I recently came across a (prestigious) publication on topic "Does Science make belief in God obsolete?", that include responses from some of the top scientists(mostly Physicists and Biologists both Theists and otherwise) and one interview of Noam chomsky regarding belief etc .
There were almost unanimous response against effects of organised religion and frictions it can produce but the answer to question regarding God wasnt that simple from even atheists .The common response was it is fear/reality of "death" and thus lack of meaning of life(as human brain is more evolved than other organisms so it can have such feeling) and being nothing after death that cause people to find spiritual solace in belief. It cant be proved right or wrong but its scope can be qualified depending upon scientific progress at that time.
some interesting excerpts from different responses , link to publication as you might like reading it.
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/essays.pdf
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University.
"Despite the fact that I’m an atheist, I recognize that belief offers something that
science does not.So why is belief still relevant? To this I’d offer a very a-scientific answer. It is for the ecstasy. I’m not talking about glossolalic frothing in the aisles, nor other excesses that most religions neither generate nor value. I mean those instances where you’re suffused with gratitude for life and experience and the chance to do good, where every neuron is flooded with the momentness of feeling the breeze on its cellular cheek. A scientist or a consumer of science may feel ecstatic about a finding—that it will cure a disease, save a species, or is just stunningly beautiful—but science, as an explanatory system, is not very good at producing ecstasy. For starters, there are good arguments to be made for why science shouldn’t do ecstasy. One reason is that scientific progress so often constitutes minutiae that lurch you two steps back for every three steps forward. It is also because of the content—the gratitude part of ecstasy is particularly hard if you spend your time studying, say, childhood cancer, or the biology of violence, or causes of extinction. By contrast, the potential for ecstasy is deeply intertwined with religiosity, where the mere possibility of belief and faith in the absence of proof is where it can be an ecstatic, moving truth. !is may seem an unfair tilting of the debate against science. After all, you wouldn’t write an essay trashing the profession of commodities broker because it doesn’t produce ecstasy. But building your life’s explanations around science isn’t a profession. It is, at its core, an emotional contract, an agreement to derive comfort only from rationality.
Science is the best explanatory system that we have, and religiosity as an alternative has a spectacular potential for harm that permeates and distorts every domain of decision-making and attribution in our world. But just because science can explain so many unknowns doesn’t mean that it can explain everything, or that it can vanquish the unknowable. !at is why religious belief is not obsolete. !e world would not be a better place without ecstasy, but it would be one if there wasn’t religion. But don’t expect science to fill the hole that would be left behind, or to convince you that there is none.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pervez Hoodbhoy-Pakistan Physicist
"But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one. God of your choice must be a stickler for divine principles. Science does not take kindly to a deity who, if piqued or euphoric, sets aside seismological or cosmological principles and causes the moon to shiver, the earth to split asunder, or the universe to suddenly reverse its expansion. !is God must, among other things, be stoically indifferent to supplications for changing local meteorological
conditions, the task having already been assigned to the discipline of fluid dynamics.
Nietzsche and the theothanatologists were plain wrong—God is neither dead nor about to die. Even as the divine habitat shrinks before the aggressive encroachment of science, the quantum foam of space-time creates spare universes aplenty, offering space both for a science-friendly God as well as for self-described “deeply religious non-believers” like Einstein. Many eminent practitioners of science have successfully persuaded themselves that there is no logical contradiction between faith and belief by finding a suitable God, or by clothing a traditional God appropriately. Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (
www.skeptic.com), a monthly columnist for Scientific American
"Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. !e only God that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could know Him. Does science make belief in God obsolete? Belief, no. God, yes."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I want to ask is that what is your views on one's personal/customized belief set (w/o any organised religion) in response to one's spiritual need(arises from basic realities about human life).? Do you think this would have same issues as organised religion.?