One needs no justification to read or not to read any written material. However, if we don't read some written material we are at a loss. If we want to be a productive member of a modern society we must be conversant with science and mathematics wherever we may live. Since much of western literature contains references to biblical and classical material we should be familiar with the Bible and early history if we live in western society. However, we can function quite well without a knowledge of history or the Bible. Such knowledge has given pleasure to me, but such knowledge is not necessary knowledge. One can live a productive, moral and enjoyable life without any contact with the Bible. In China, India and other non-western societies many people live such lives.

AJ:<< But if you really must know, the main reason I don’t read the Qur’an is because, from what little of it I have read, it appears to be excruciatingly boring. The Bible was a painful enough slog for me as it was (though I would never have admitted to that at the time). Another reason I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists.>>

You offer two reasons that I’d like to address.

Firstly, the main reason you do not look to the Qur’an for evidence is that YOU find it “excruciatingly boring”. Since when was science supposed to be a thrill a minute?

When I first tried reading the Qur'an I put it down because of boredom. I also experienced the "excruciating boredom" trying to read the bible (although I was raised by atheists).

However, a year later, I said to myself, “this time let the Qur’an do the talking”, and the guidance, along with confirmation of certain firmly-held principles, was forthcoming. I had no reason not to accept, so I accepted Islam then and there.

You can call it a leap of faith, which indeed it was, but if you read most of my posts I think you’ll also find that I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.

For example, my argument regarding free will is not to “prove” the existence of spirits or gods, but to test what I think is the central premise underpinning a set of essays by 'Alija Ali Izetbegovic in his "Islam between east and West". ....

cont..

cont...

Can we say there is a stark choice. If you argue that our existence is solely contingent on our physical environment, then there can be no free will. Conversely, for free will to exist we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form, as implied by the following definition

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions."

Returning to your statement, you also say “I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists”. The Qur’an is the evidence. But you will not read it. Why? Because, besides getting bored, you find no evidence for god that the Qur’an claims exists.

But is that how science operates? Suppose I claim to have seen a black swan and let's assume that you are living in Europe a few hundred years ago. Would you say” “I will not listen to you because there is no reliable evidence that black swans exist”? That is not someone who can claim to form judgements based on the evidence.

Another example. You disparage Bucaille on the basis of a dot point made by someone else. You didn’t bother to test your first impressions with the author’s own words before dismissing him out of hand. In fact, you only need to go to the conclusion of the relevant chapter to realise that he also concludes that there are scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, although he is far more cautious in making inferences.

I put his work forward because he also examined the Qur’aan and concludes that it is not open to similar criticism. This is intended to challenge your position regarding the Qur'an. If he is to be dismissed in a scientific manner, his reliability, qualifications and the manner by which he reaches his conclusions all need to be assessed. He cannot be dismissed based on a "dot point" that he did not author.

In response to <<..you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures.>>

AJ writes: <<I acknowledged no such thing. I said the evidence you'd provided for the Qur’an being the word of a god was weak. Where you’re getting the element of necessity from, I don’t know.>>

In this very paragraph you acknowledged “the need to assess the strength of evidence” by assessing the strength of evidence (as weak)

For me? All the time, grateful. I love learning new things.

<<Since when was science supposed to be a thrill a minute?>>

But scriptures are not science, they are the writings of ancient people. You are yet to demonstrate there is anything in scripture that can be, to any degree of certainty, interpreted as a scientific claim.

Thanks for the story behind your conversion to Islam. I found it refreshingly honest for two reasons:

Firstly. describing your decision-making process as one guided by, "Why not?", rather than, "Why?", suggests you were in search of something and were willing to accept the first thing that came along without employing the same sceptical mind that, say, a scientist would.

Secondly, you were not afraid to admit that you did indeed take a great leap of faith. But faith isn’t a pathway to truth any more than rolling dice is. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something, yet you’re here claiming that you do.

<<…I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.>>

So you’re happy to accept an extraordinary claim based on faith, but any scrutiny of that claim must meet a higher standard than what it took for you to accept it in the first place?

You have the concept of the burden of proof arse-backwards.

<<…my argument regarding free will is not to “prove” the existence of spirits or gods, but to test what I think is the central premise underpinning a set of essays...>>

See what I mean? You’re starting with the wrong default position. Do scientists accept claims until they’re proven wrong? Are the accused presumed guilty until proven innocent?

<<Can we say there is a stark choice.>>

No, that may be a false dichotomy.

<<If you argue that our existence is solely contingent on our physical environment, then there can be no free will.>>

I’m not arguing either of the two premises there. I have merely rejected your claims as unsupported by the evidence.

Continued…

…Continued

Moreover, I have no strong position on the question of free will. Again, it may only be an illusion.

<<Conversely, for free will to exist we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form, as implied by the following definition…>>

Like I said before, simply re-stating your assertion won’t lend it any more veracity. You need to provide reasoning for this claim. And again, I have already discredited that assertion you describe as a “definition”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323963)

<<The Qur’an is the evidence [for God].>>

You are yet to demonstrate this. But can I take it then that, given the only two options I pointed out earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324336), you believe that your god “isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable”?

<<But is that how science operates?>>

Oh, so now we’re interested in how science operates? Such an interest would have been handy earlier on in your decision-making process.

Your ‘black swan’ analogy is invalid, because I can know that birds exist and that black is a colour/shade. They’re natural phenomena. There is nothing to suggest that anything supernatural exists, however.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

<<You didn’t bother to test your first impressions with the author’s own words before dismissing him out of hand.>>

It appears I did misread that point, slightly. However, that does nothing to relieve you of having committed the Argument from Authority fallacy. Furthermore, rather than sending me off to read entire books, how about you give me what you think is this Bucaille character’s most compelling argument and we’ll go from there?

<<I put his work forward because he also examined the Qur’aan and concludes that it is not open to similar criticism.>>

Then what would this Bucaille have to say in response to Jayb's selection of Quranic verses?

<<In this very paragraph you acknowledged “the need to assess the strength of evidence” by assessing the strength of evidence (as weak)>>

Again, where does the element of necessity come into play? Not everything I do is out of necessity.