Immortal : A Collection of The Miracles of Qur'an.

A Search for God: Falsification Tests on the Quran

Published by Islamicity

Written by: Shafi A. Khaled

Please read the article at their page: https://www.islamicity.org/81398/a-search-for-god-falsification-tests-on-the-quran/

I. Preamble: "Will they not ponder the Qur-an? Or are there locks upon their hearts?" The Generous Qur-an (47:24)

The acceptance of the existence of a creator is necessary for spirituality and religion to exist at all. Without a higher being, an esoteric view of life is meaningless. On the other hand, simply accepting the existence of a creator does not guarantee wholesome spirituality or fulfilling religious life. Imagining a creator and crafting spirituality and religiosity around that can be as harmful as denying the existence of such a being. Further, should a higher being exist, then it's not up to us to discover it. Afterall, its vastness and complexity of being as well as creativity is up to the higher being to reveal while making known its intent and relationship with its creation. Therein lies the kernel of true spirituality and religiosity. Only then can we have a life balanced among individualistic, collectivistic and spiritualist drives.

According to mainstream organized religions, such a supreme being exists and that it has made itself known to us variously and at various times through various chosen individuals. Even so, man's grasp of the message and acting accordingly have often been wanting owing to a variety of factors: inadequate knowledge, lack of sincerity, lack of wisdom, impatience, selfishness, self-importance, sense of entitlement, etc. Along the way, resistance to the notion of a creator has been magnified by, among other things, an inability to reconcile pain and evil, by virulent sectarian persecution, abject spurning of justice, withering poverty, man-god confusion as in 'Trinity', organic gender bias as represented by the concept of 'Original Sin', and the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection as well as other scientific ideas such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. Further, man's failure to acknowledge, much less understand, the possibility of the existence of a plan by the creator for its creation has not helped in his grasp of the role of a creator. Consequently, denying existence of a creator has been an organic response for many.

Then, much like comfort food, there is 'the good-enough or this-is-the-best-that-there-is' facile theory for denying the possibility of and a need for a creator, spirituality and religiosity: Humanism. This amounts to escapism for Humanism is not properly defined, broadly understood, or vigilantly monitored. On the other hand, the entirety of all revealed faiths is first and foremost based on and steeped in all dimensions of Humanism, with routines for implementation and correction. If a creator is at the root of such faiths, then man and his matters are at the center of their undertakings.

Today, atheists apparently have arrived at cross-roads of sorts: 1. Unlike as in the past when the universe was believed to have always existed, now there appears to have been a beginning. Question then arises, therefore, who brought it into being? 2. Considering DNA's miraculous structure, that of atoms and of the realm of stars and planets, another question arises, is there an intelligent designer? 3. Owing to the perfection in organic things that exist, a final question arises, 'Whereforth are thou evolution?' Despite this conundrum a vast body of philosophers, scientists, and social scientists are going around in circles embarrassed to admit manifest error while irresponsibly misleading millions of their followers. Their vaunted humanism is drowned out. It's an anomaly that methodologically exacting professionals, proud of their attachment to extracting facts, ignore facts screaming out at them on this matter in a manner that people protecting a vested interest would only do. They go about their business as usual completely ignoring the elephant in the room.

Among such philosophers, scientists and social scientists often a faint protest is heard. If the concept of a creator could be tested, only then I would be interested in any discussion on this subject. What they mean is, "Give me a null hypothesis that I could reject using data. Only then the alternative hypothesis would be plausible. By my standard, my time spent would be meaningful, not futile." It's a tough challenge that has yet to be met by those ascribing to a divine presence. Now, questions arise, if such a thing is possible, whether the test(s) would be quantitative or qualitative, and whether they would be parametric or non-parametric. Also, could analogical, circumstantial or indirect proofs suffice? One thing must be conceded that enunciating a null hypothesis is easier said than done!