Essay talk:Materialism in comparison with Islamic Creationism

A fundamental problem with this essay is that it proposes a series of definitions that are nonstandard, without being clear about the difference between experiential report and verifiable fact, on the one hand, and interpretation and theory on the other.

Something called "Islamic Creationism" has been invented by the author, and is contrasted with "Materialism." Essentially, the author has invented a "creationism" and is labelling it as Islamic, without solidly grounding it in the sources of Islam, nor in a basic understanding of the reality of Islam.

Science is rooted in verifiability, not theory. Scientific theories are those which can be used for prediction of experience, that can be tested and that are, at least potentially, falsifiable.

"Materialism" is not a scientific theory. And "creationism" is not an essential part of Islam, no "ism" is. Humans make up "isms," as systems of thought.

The essay states that "Creationism: is a kind of knowledge based on Revelation which is the main subject of all monotheistic religions,"

Yes, it can be a "kind of knowledge," but knowledge of what? I guarantee this: the word "creationism" is found in no scripture known as "revealed." Nor is the equivalent of it found there. It is a modern human interpretation; human beings want to understand things, we feel threatened when we don't understand. In order to alleviate this fear, we make up interpretations and believe that these interpretations are real. These inventions are not a manifestation of faith. Faith is trust.

Trust in what? I'm a Muslim, so I could say, "Trust in God." (What's "God"?) I could say "Trust in the Qur'an." (A collection of letters, a sequence of sounds.) But what I cannot say is "Trust in my own inventions and the inventions of other humans about the nature of God and the meaning of the Qur'an."

That would not be trust in reality itself, which is the condition of what the Qur'an calls the 'Muw'miniyn," usually translated as "believers," but meaning -- linguistically -- those who are secure and at peace. I add, because they trust reality itself.

The author here has not examined the foundations of knowledge and faith, and is, instead, participating in an old argument, as if one side is right and the other is wrong. "And those who argue about it do not know." -- Qur'an, my translation. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• (1) Questioning on definitions should be specific and their standard definition should be provided as a great help, otherwise I am compelled to note the commentary as a target of criticism (ism). Simply, we can say that no life without water and no truth without science. No science without knowledge. No knowledge without learning. No learning without experience and no experience without mistakes. Can I ask you now the relationship between science and mistakes? Is science product of time and space or otherwise? {if you are not a moulvi (a religious authority/scholar)}

• (2) Thanks for recognizing me as an inventor of creationism (Islamic), but please keep it on record that I am not claiming for that honor. Allow me to quote here an event happen with me in the year 2002:

I was playing chess on Yahoo, I noticed that my opponent is a Jew. I started chat with him, during chit chat he pointed out that …. We (Jews) invented religion later on the Christian and the Muslims adopted it. What a philosophical joke he did.

• (3) Yes “ism” is manmade, even the revelation has been conveyed through the statement of the holly Prophet and the pre existed use of language (this is above 5 senses - Perception, Intellect, Intuition) . Subject of Islam is man; reward (positive or negative) in Islam is man. Creator in English language Khaliq in Arabic language are same in meaning. Prefixing and suffixing is part of language. Thus suffixing of “ism” to ward Create/Creation is a process of language expansion in order to satisfy the exigency of time and region (space). There is no mention of cellular phone in the early Islamic history, so we should not talk it in …….

• (4) Foundation of knowledge, as per my understanding (which is still not matured because am learning) can be derived:

“The eventual demarcation of philosophy from science was made possible by the notion that philosophy's core was "theory of knowledge," a theory distinct from the sciences because it was their foundation… Without this idea of a "theory of knowledge," it is hard to imagine what "philosophy" could have been in the age of modern science. ” — Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature - source: EN-Wikipedia

• In last I request all of you to point out the mistakes very clearly for my ease of learning.Nannadeem (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some others will do that, though I don't think that users here will understand much of what you are saying -- nor do you understand much, I suspect. But I'm not going to do it here. Waste of time. I will only point you to one essential distinction: what happens as distinct from what you make it mean. Understand and get clear on the difference between fact and interpretation. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)