Napkin

How can anyone claim The Baha'i faith agrees with science when we have quotes such as this?

This is by Abdulbaha:
We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.
This theory[evolution] has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers[Darwin] will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error.

Now Darwin is long dead and not only did he not realize the error in his theory, it is now a scientific fact being taught in universities across the globe. No one in their right mind will deny evolution...unless of course the Baha'is .

Emilia

Entire books have been written looking at what Abdu'l-Baha said about the origins of man, and you want to boil it down to one dinky quote ripped out from everything else?

I hope you don't do this in other areas of research. If you were my Chemistry student I'd flunk you for such shoddy research.

Really it only required you seconds to Google "baha'i and evolution" to find a starting place.

Read this one and try again.

Is the Bahá'í view of evolution compatible with modern science?

At least it's shorter than a book to start with.

Timothy248

Does this mean Baha'i don't believe in the big bang?

Emilia

It's one scientific theory.

The Baha'i Faith is a religion, not a science.

I don't see the point in religion trying to pretend to be science or science trying to pretend to be religion. If one tries to usurp the work of the other, as opposed to working in concert for the benefit of humanity, then you end up with a mess.

There are plenty of examples of questions Shoghi Effendi was asked where his answer amounted to: that's for science to decide.

As for the big bang, when the cosmologists have settled on that theory, then I guess that's what they found to be the best explanation.

What Baha'i Writings have to say about it is "there is a Creator for this Creation." That is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical one, which is kinda what religions do, not sciences.

Do I "believe" in the big bang? I don't know -- is there sufficient scientific evidence to support the idea?

I don't look to my religion's Writings for scientific opinions. I read journals for that.

Pete in Panama

Internet quotes, ya got to LOVE 'em! Here's another:

Fadl

You've given the quote, but where is your argument that it is unscientific?

Fadl

Goodness, what did Baha'u'llah teach about the big bang? I have no idea! DO tell.

Napkin

That quote is from the book "some answered questions"

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’í World Faith—Selected Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Section Only), Pages 301-303

I've heard all kind sof silly statements about how that quote does not mean what it says, but none ever denied the existence of the quote before. Thank u for being the first

Napkin

As a Baha'i, u are told to not read other people's explanation of the writing. U must refer directly to the writings for answers. Sounds like u have been searching for someone to convince u that that quote does not mean what u think it means. Good job. Nice approach

Zhang

Emilia, I am increasingly more skeptical of your views on science. Could you please make them explicit? I would assume that, as a chemist, you would affirm the theory of evolution, especially considering its inherent role in the evolution of prokaryotes?

Pete, don't you think it's childish to dismiss his quote as a falsity?

Fair enough, but do you see a contradiction when your convictions as a scientist teach you one thing, and the teachings of a religion show another? Baha'ullah did. Why were his followers so misguided?

I think he is trying to show, in the context of the quote, that Abdul'Baha considered evolution to be a falsity. Though I am not learned enough on his sayings to pass a judgement on them.

Fadl

You could be right, however, it is difficult to know what he is trying to show without his stating it. But as for the the title of this thread "Baha'i faith and scienve [sic] do not agree" it makes no sense at all.

There are many theories and ideas in all fields of science. Some of them are new and enjoy support (or dispute) by many scientists, some are old and have been discarded by most scientists. Even the theory of evolution has advanced far from the simpler theory brought by Darwin, so, really, some of Darwin's theory has been falsified by evolution theorists who have moved on from there and improved upon it. The Baha'i faith also has many ideas over a wide array of topics. So which areas of science does the Baha'i faith disagree with? All of them? Some of them? A particular one? If the Baha'i Faith objects to a particular aspects of Darwin's theory, does it mean the Baha'i Faith does not agree with science?

Personally, I find it impossible to say that the Baha'i faith either agrees or disagrees with science in its totality, and would ask that anyone wishing to make a charge to the contrary, should embrace his scientific self and be specific so that we can examine it rationally. Otherwise, I must dismiss it as mere ignorant emotionalism that seeks to discredit a faith through incredulity or begging the question, neither of which are valid logical or scientific proofs.

Zhang

All fair objections.

Jak08

Now perhaps I am completely off base in your book. My approach would be however to read and learn as many different approaches and takes on something as I felt I needed to do. After doing so and some thought on a manner I would think to try and draw a conclusion from the testimonies I had experienced.

I also however try not to take the inventory of others. That is a mater for them to consul. Some things I believe exist and present themselves in our lives as potentials to grow. Whether all you can take from that event is a solid practice in acceptance or if you get something else out of it, growth is important.

rreini

I, for one, believe in The Big Bang Theory...

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy248 Does this mean Baha'i don't believe in the big bang?

I've never heard of the Baha'is having any problem whatever with the Big Bang!

And anyway, that's the domain of science--not religion!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Ghitshu

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.


(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)


If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they should be like two fingers of one hand.


(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 71)


IV. -- The fourth principle of Bahá'u'lláh is:

The Unity of Religion and Science

We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science 131 or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance -- for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

Religion which consists only of rites and ceremonies of prejudice is not the truth. Let us earnestly endeavour to be the means of uniting religion and science.

Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad, said: 'That which is in conformity with science is also in conformity with religion'. Whatever the intelligence of man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept. Religion and science walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to science is not the truth.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)


The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.


(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 239)


Religion must agree with science, so that science shall sustain religion and religion explain science. The two must be brought together, indissolubly, in reality. Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept blindly what was called religion, even though it were not in accord with human reason.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 26)



My understanding of this topic is reflected through the last quote. I believe that the relation between science and religion is that the first one describes a physical process while religion explains why did that physical process occur in the first place.

For example:
I go to the kitchen and see vapor. I can describe, thanks to science, what is happening. I yell to my mother: "Mom! The water is heating in the kettle and attained the boiling point that is the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the waters equals the pressure around the water and it turns into vapor." This is a completely true statement. No one can deny the description I just gave. But then my mom says "Sweetie, I'm just making tea."
Both statements are completly true.

So my understanding of the Baha'i view of Evolution is that man has always been man. We have not developed from a monkey. We have always been man because we have a soul and no thing can develop a soul. The human being is the only creation on this earth that is endowed with a soul and a rational mind and no animal can develop these attributes. But our form might of changed. Maybe we looked something different, maybe we had a tail, maybe we were 3ft tall. Our form changed according to ours needs but we have always been a man and not a simple animal.

I hope I was a able to contribute to the discussion.

Cheers

Anis

Faith demands consistency. And whether this consistency follows observed empirical evidence or justified logical reasoning, is the rational and sought after one. How then, could faith and science suddenly become mutually exclusive? The truth has ever remained the same!

Prior to this, Abdu'l-Baha wrote Abdul'-baha was referring to the timeless agent. Evolution is not a mere spontaneous response to environmental factors, but the direct result of such a profound truth, that one would seemly fathom it as either an 'accident of geometry', or if given a name, 'the soul'.

It is scientifically acknowledged that we are all of the same dust. Therefore, fundamentally speaking, our species did not arise from the first born homo sapien, but has always existed as a timeless entity of dust. The soul. Evidently mass-energy is conserved - we are reminded of this whenever He asserts that 'God is One' and that He is the 'Divine Origin'.

I merely suggest you re-read Abdu'l-Baha's FAQ again. After all, it was written specifically for you. This time around it would help if one were to partake in consultative will and account for all relevant context before attempting to part information.

Regards.

Fadl

Good post, Anis.

There is another way to understand what you suggest, using a thought experiment.

First, let's accept the assumption for the sake of argument that man is merely a highly evolved primate. A primate is an animal, therefore, man is an animal (for argument sake). A man, just like any animal is the result of complex biological systems which can be broken down into complex arrangements of organic compounds. If one were to tamper with the DNA or organic chemistry of a man, that man would have a change in characteristic, or maybe become ill. If one were to change it enough, the man would not be a man at all. For example, if the DNA of a man were reconfigured and the organic chemistry modified enough, say the DNA and organic composition were changed to mirror that of a chimpanzee, then that man would not be a man at all, but a chimpanzee. In sum, a chimpanzee is the result of the precisely combined DNA and organics that manifest a chimpanzee, and a man is the result of the precisely combined DNA and organics that manifest a man.

Imagine the existence of a super advanced extra terrestrial species of biochemists living somewhere in space and somewhere in time far before the first organism emerged from earth, and far before man evolved from primates, and even before the first primate evolved from its parent. Imagine that one of these ET biochemists combined all the organics of a modern man, with the DNA of a modern man, and set all of the complex systems in the necessary order and balance to create something living. What would be the result? I suggest if such a thing were possible, the result would be a man, and this is based on our first assumption that, man is "the result of complex biological systems which can be broken down into complex arrangements of organic compounds." This is a problem however, if as we know, man is a "highly evolved primate" since, it is possible for our advanced ETs to create a man without the existence of primates at all. Therefore, it is not true that man is the product of evolution from primates. It may be very true that man has appeared from long and complex evolutionary processes, but it is not true that man is the creation of these processes, since, it is possible to manifest a man by means other than evolution. When any living thing comes to be from the process of evolution, it is merely a manifestation of something that what already predetermined by God. If an a new combination of organics and DNA is concocted, the result is instantaneous, and manifests only the predetermined properties that it will. There is never hesitation or confusion about it, as the universe calculates the results and properties of that new and previous unknown composition. Therefore, the combinations that make man could only make man, and it was true before the evolution of man which could have been manifested at any time when all these necessary conditions are met.

Zhang

Fadl, you are under the illusion that you are very well-versed in science. Your thought experiment is decent fiction at best.

We can observe the intermediate stages of homosapien life. We have fossils of our ancestors that clearly show we used to be primates not "specially designed" primates, but primates with fur and small brains, and a diet consistent with our other primate brethren. These intermediate fossils must be dismessed if man was "always meant" to be man...

If what you say is true, then the first cell would be coded with human DNA or some variation of it, which is just not true. The first cell probably had nothing in it, and consumed other organisms which resulted in a symbiotic relationships between Mitochondrial (probably a pre-historic prokaryote of some kind) and various other micro-organisms. This cell was responsible for the evolution of all organic life.

Funny thing is, medical science (the very same used to prolong your life) is built upon this very notion, if you but only knew.

But no, let's just defer to the idea that "we were always meant to be man" when clearly our manhood was the result of a series of adaptations made over countless generations in order to survive a harsh environment.

LordOfGoblins

I agree that its a very difficult topic.
If its nothing more than environmental pressurses though then why do we see mankind being so completely differnet from other primates?
DNA is deceptive. We may be close in DNA to chimps but we dont seem close to them in how we have evolved at all do we?
THe human species from Homo EREctus has evolved far more than other primates. THe odd thing is we supposedly evolved from primates such as the ones existing today yet those primates that didnt evolve into us didnt change all that much despite being subject to more or less the same evolutionary environmental pressures.
Thats why ive alwas thought there is something people are overlooking. I dont know if that thing is the soul of man but there is a missing element that causes species to evolve that is nothing to do with environment, something built into their 'coding'.
That is what people should be investigating.
Did all life evolve from single 'life' oranism or from multiple ones..

Fadl

Zhang,

A thought experiment is something that requires thought. Reading your post it is clear that you haven't actually thought about what I wrote since your rebuttal has little to do with anything I said. This is unfortunate. How can we discover anything together if no one is willing to listen or consider different ideas?

Back to the point: Do you or do you not, believe that it is theoretically possible for a very sophisticated and advanced biochemist to synthesize a human being in a laboratory, and independent of evolutionary processes? If yes, then it is theoretically possible for someone to have done it before the evolution of man if that someone possessed the skill and necessary components and arrangements. If you reject that possibility, then explain why you think such a thing could never be possible and how evolution is the only possible way to produce man.

I am not saying that evolution isn't real. What I am saying is that evolution doesn't invent or create, but instead it reveals or manifests the properties that are already inherent and predetermined in nature even before it evolves or comes to be.

LordOfGoblins

why just one cell though?

LordOfGoblins

THis is a difficult one. Is it our dna that makes us men or is it our souls?
Afterall the DNA is a material organic thing that all animals possess. So is it like a goldenBuddha-DNA phenomina that makes man a man, or is it the soul that God has bestowed that caused the DNA to evolved into the current man-DNA which is just another DNA that any animal could possess should they have a soul as well..
Definately worth pondering on.
Personally I dont think if we altered a mans DNA that we could revert him back to an animal!
just my view but i dont have the answers ill be ready to admit that.

LordOfGoblins

actually we should probably just all admit our ignorance on this topic. Its not going to be something you can just stand up and claim to be an expert on, even if you are a scientist there are many questions unanswered.

Fadl

This is a great question, but actually not relevant to my thought experiment where I have stated (for the sake of argument) that man is a highly evolved primate and an animal. Naturally, as a Baha'i, this is not my belief about the nature and reality of man, but I'm willing to presume it is true for argument sake to explore the idea of evolution and its logical limits, if any.

tonyfish58

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins "Is it our dna that makes us men or is it our souls"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadl This is a great question, but actually not relevant to my thought experiment where I have stated (for the sake of argument) that man is a highly evolved primate and an animal. Naturally, as a Baha'i, this is not my belief about the nature and reality of man, but I'm willing to presume it is true for argument sake to explore the idea of evolution and its logical limits, if any.

Fadl - I normally do not have a go at these type of Topics as I fail when I think to deeply :-)

It was a very good question though. I would suppose it would have many answers.

I would say DNA is a product of Gods Word, after all everything came into being through the letters B & E. What separates us from the Animal is Our Soul. This we are told is Given at conception.

Without the Rational Soul we might just be an Animal called Human, with the Rational Soul we are a Human Spirit. IMHO

So I would say it is the Spirit that makes us....mmmm Or gives us the potential to be what is a Human.

That was fun, now I give up, it hurts, too many cogs turning

Regards Tony

Anis

Precisely, the creation cannot create, and what we can observe is merely the rearrangement of the cosmos. Therefore physical existence encompasses all and its origin is the Unkowable.

The soul - the essence of our being - has always existed eternally in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Evidently the law of conservation; the essence of a thing cannot be created nor destroyed.

The spirit of life - the essence of reality - is potential in all things and made manifest at the time of conception in the whom. Evidently we are composed of the same dust, and are the result of physical interaction.

Abdu'l-baha expounded with multiple parallels; that which can be readily observed, that which must be deduced through logical reasoning, and lastly the truth is this (warning - in my own words): since we are all in essence one in the same thing, the qualities of the soul is oneness. And the quality of the non-soul, is non-oneness; fear, loneliness, depravity, lust, hate, jealousy, violence, envy, sadness, delusion and disunity. These attributes are borne when the spirit is unaware of its own essence, and rather than drawing itself towards oneness, seeks to obtain all else that is only contingent. 'The root cause of wrongdoing is ignorance, and we must therefore hold fast to the tools of perception.'

I talk a lot, thanks for reading.

Zhang

Number 1 "defense" used by people who aren't familiar with the theory.

We DIDN'T evolve from modern chimpanzees. We both have a common ancestor who probably looked very much different from the both of us. A group or large migration of these when in one direction, and another in a different direction.

One group stayed in trees while the other group continued to roam the land. We both evolved to suit our environment, e.g. Chimpanzees are now incredible climbers, we now stand upright.

One more time: we did NOT evolve from Chimpanzees, we BOTH evolved from a common ancestor.

LordOfGoblins

Chimps live in trees and land as well though (not to mention gorrilas that live on land)..
I know we didnt evolve from Chimps. Im not stupid..
The common ancestor looked like what? THe further you take homoeructes back the more he looks ape-like (modern apes).

Yet the common ancestor supposedly looked "far differnet" from modern apes..

By the way ive heard this stuff before awhile back. In other words im not unfamiliar with anything youve said here though it has been awhile..

LordOfGoblins

Zhang. Land pessure vs tree pressure is sufficient to cause humans vs modern apes?
Wow..
Even though modern apes live in both trees and on land..
so apparently living in trees makes people stupid (keeps them stupid) but living on land makes them smart enough to eventually build rockets to fly into out of space...
think about. REALLY?

LordOfGoblins

sorry i miswrote this. What i meant was. We supposedly evolved from a common ancestor that modern apes evolved from today. Yet modern apes havnt evolved near as much as we have. Am I wrong? Can you show that the common ancestor looks something radically different?
All evidence shows humans look more and more ape-like the more we go back in time. That is exactly why people thought we evolved from apes in the first place isnt it?
In other words it has stronger characteristics of the modern ape!

Do Chimps show the same type of evolution over time as humans do?

Anis

It actually is not so difficult at all. The DNA is merely a chemical process, and by extension, a complex of atoms which consist of particles and force carriers, composed of quarks, gluons, bosons, photons, etc. The theory of evolution is only applicable in this manner, it is then rational to acknowledge the evidences that there were primitive precursors to our current specie and nor does this oppose Abdu'l-baha's philosophical deductions.

But a number of European philosophers that Abdu'l-baha referred to at the time, were using evolution in a manner of direct opposition to what constitutes reality, stating that the human being came into existence at the point of evolution. This idea is not very useful both morally and scientifically.

The soul on the other hand, refers to our "essence". The soul is the soul, there is no further way to simplify it. Epistemologically speaking it is a logical device that asserts a parameter that can be described as "least possible increments of a thing".

In this manner there are two kinds of knowledge, the essence of a thing, and its qualities. Where essentially speaking we are souls, then relatively speaking we are whatever it is most convenient to describe the essence at the time. A century ago our essence were the atom, later our knowledge evolved and this essence became known as quantum particles. This, in no-wise, denies the soul.

LordOfGoblins

i dont really understand your explanation but ok..

Fadl

Always view with suspicion the "wise and learned man" who spends a great deal of time with those he considers ignorant and foolish only to ridicule them and argue.

Fadl

This is a very important point, Anis. This is something that critics and detractors of the Master's explanation tend to miss (It's called a "context" you naysayers ).

It was never the Master's intention at all to teach us biological evolution. This was not in his purvey to do so. His comments were meant to put it in the spiritual context and gives the spiritual significance. He was never concerned with where men or monkeys (provided they don't jump on the bed) came from, he was only concerned with men; who we are and where we are going.

Anis

No worries (I tried)

Perhaps you are more interested in the social aspect of the Faith rather than its philosophical aspect? Well then you are still in luck - the Faith is the single most diverse, and organised body on the globe.

Indeed Fadl, it is important to remain objective and avoid historian's fallacy.

BruceDLimber

I would urge all of you interested in this discussion to read Eberhard von Kitzing's Evolution and Baha'i Belief, which explains this in far more detail than can fit here!

I refer you to this site:

Bahá'í Library Online

for the details.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Zhang

Lol, I was trying to simplify it. I'm a neurobiologist, I promise you it's not that simple, just trying to make it as clear as possible.

Then why does he make several references to it in the Qur'an?

Fadl

'Abdu'l-Baha wrote the Qur'an???


By the way, are you acquainted with Andrew Newburg's works related to God, faith, and the brain? Interesting stuff. As a neurobiologist, I wonder what your take is on his research.

Anis

Zhang is most likely referring to why the Manifestation (not Abdu'l-baha in particular) would write references to scientific detail in Qur'an.