So. God established the Universe and the laws that maintain the order and structure of the Universe and then violates them capriciously. That, sir, is a fallacy of theology, completely unsupported by Holy Writ and rather superficial. In fact, that view of God as capricious is the accepted Muslim view.
Without getting into an argument (something that seems to be rather common on this forum, sadly), you might want to actually explain the Muslim view a bit more, for the record.
First of all, this is MY UNDERSTANDING and might be partly or wholly wrong. However, after reading books like "The Closing of the Muslim Mind" by Robert Reilly (as well as "No God but God" by Reza Aslan, who actually *is* a Muslim and therefore can speak from personal knowledge and belief), it appears that, due to a theological debate in the 11th century AD, the side that "won" defined God as the ultimate expression of "will". This "will" could not be constrained by ethics (meaning, God could change his mind at any time on what was good and what was evil, and a believer would still be obligated to obey him), and was also not constrained by scientific law. Not only that, but scientific law could not even operate apart from God's will. For instance, a person striking a match didn't get fire because the sulphur ignited due to a chemical reaction, but because God willed there to be fire.
Prior to this point, Muslims had been making significant strides in science, mathematics, literature, and many other areas. Afterwards, however, advances of those kinds quickly ground to a halt. Because there was no allowance for a recognition that a supernatural God could exist in the same universe as natural, scientific law, scientific inquiry was done away with in exchange for unchangeable judicial precedent (shariah).
Again, I could be misreading what the author is saying. In any case, Archie, it doesn't seem like KWCrazy is completely negating natural, scientific law. However, it does seem like he is forcing scientific law into a subordinate role in order to force a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. That's not QUITE the Muslim viewpoint, imho, but it does have a similar thrust, even if it doesn't quite go that far.
What pains me personally is that there seems to be a willing ignorance of scientific principles going on here. In other words, the assumption is that if Genesis 1-3 is literal, then any scientific evidence to the contrary must be wrong, and so we don't need to pursue proving things one way or another. Imho, that kind of thinking is dangerous, because it tends to lead to a fear-based, superstitious experience of life.
For instance, let's take politics. Rather than thinking in terms of working together to find a better solution to, say, Obamacare, it's very easy for the fundamentalist religious right to simply demonize their opponents rather than recognizing that even secular rulers are God-ordained for a good purpose (Rom. 13:1-3). Or, let's take climate change. Rather than fearfully thinking in terms of a political agenda for climate change-based regulations (even if there might well be such an agenda), what about coming up with middle-of-the-road approaches that don't wreck business productivity and stymie job growth but don't add fuel to the fire, as it were, either?
It seems to me that the underlying reason for simply throwing science under the bus is fear. Fear that, for instance, we deny the Creator if we accept a non-literal Creation account in Genesis 1-3. I honestly don't think this is an intellectual dispute, but an emotional gut reaction.
By the way, it might be enlightening to know that conspiracy theories are rampant in poorer Muslim countries, because they don't operate according to rational logic but through unquestioning (read, fear-based) obedience to Islamic jurisprudence. Conspiracy theories are likewise the purview of the fundamentalist religious right, because they too operate under fear. Whether it be fear of control, fear of the unknown, or what-have-you, it's certainly not coming from love, respect, or understanding.
Ultimately, we might do well to question what causes us to continue to argue with one another. What do we *really* hope to accomplish?
Damon
