An inevitable clash between belief and science - virgin birth of Jesus

You might be surprised to know that the Quran refers to the virgin birth of Jesus.  In fact, it is a requirement of the Islamic faith to believe in this.

So how to reconcile a virgin birth with science? I don't think you can.  You can talk of assexual reproduction but do we have any scientific examples of this in humans? This is an issue that you either believe or you do not. There is no scientific basis (as we know to today) to explain this. So how come some people believe and others do not? This issue is dealt with in the Quran itself.

Quran - Surah Maryam 19:16 - 34

The Quran reveals that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel and she conceived a son.  Mary says

"How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste" [19:20].

When Mary is experiencing the pains of childbirth she says

"Would that I died before this and had been forgotten and out of sight" [19:23].

Why is Mary saying this? She recognises the embarrassment of her situation - she is chaste - untouched by man but yet she is pregnant. What will her family think? What will the community think? We can easily imagine her predicament even in our relatively liberal times.  Note that Mary wishes she was dead. Indeed, when Mary returns to her people with the new born Jesus they say

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are her people saying to Mary? What is the inference? If we imagine any young girl in this position today what would you think? So you can see the question of believing the virgin birth was at the very beginning, at the time of Jesus' birth. No need for a scientific perspective, the inference is clear.

For a moment, imagine the event replayed today with someone you know, someone who you believe (or believed) was chaste. Would you believe them?  Would you think I believe that the young girl believes her story but maybe something happened that she didn't recollect?  What a test?

I believe Mary. Why do I believe Mary? I believe the Quran is God (Allah) inspired and it contains no errors. I also believe that this event (or story if you disbelieve) would not have been recorded in history if it didn't have other corroborating factors. Indeed, how many teenage pregnancies have occurred throughout the ages?  Why did this event (or story) stick? Why are we talking about it today? Well, it just so happened that the child born to Mary did turn out to be a very special man - I don't think there is much doubt or at least any evidence to show that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. Isn't it a coincidence that the boy born of virgin birth came to be a significant figure in our history (not to mention the three main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Doesn't this mean something? Isn't it a bit more than a coincidence?

Have you any experience of speaking to an innocent person charged with a crime but they cannot prove they didn't do it? Usually, there will be additional data points to point to the truth. Is the person usually honest? Science cannot in all circumstances determine the truth of a particular event.

What I find amazing about the mentioning of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Quran is that it (to my mind) succinctly describes Mary's predicament. Imagine, Mary, the mother of a prophet, visited by the Angel Gabriel, wishing she was dead because of her virgin pregnancy. The Quran shows that this was a difficult matter to explain. Look at the reaction of Mary's people.

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are Mary's people saying? We can imagine.

So, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Science will not help you believe. All we have to go on is that Mary was reported to be a young girl of unblemished character, a pious young lady. We have her word (assuming you don't doubt that she claimed this). We have the fact that the child born of the event was a remarkable figure. A coincidence? And for Muslims, we have this recorded in the Quran which we believe to be the infallible word of God (Allah).

I would be interested to know if Christians believe in the virgin birth? Do they really believe? Notwithstanding the fact that to believe is to fly in the face of our scientific understanding today. For those who do not believe what are they saying? What is the evidence not to believe Mary?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After posting this post I received a good deal of feedback as to why some people do believe Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus. Let's look at how such people believe?

Well, let's look at the facts.  That's right, FACTS.  The fact is that Mary gave birth to a significant person in history. Putting aside whether Jesus was a prophet (as believed by Muslims) or son of God (as believed by Christians), Jesus is an amazing historical figure. How many of us know of Jesus? How many other historical figures do we know?  What are the chances of a claim of virgin birth AND the child who is born of such birth being such a remarkable figure?  When we say remarkable, how remarkable? Well, a person who has a religion based on him - that religion is the largest in the World - plus Jesus is honoured in the second largest religion in the World. So when we say a significant historical figure - perhaps one of the most significant historical figures.

Is all of this a coincidence? It would be such a remarkable coincidence that you have to say that a coincidence is unlikely.  Surely, more than coincidence?  So if not coincidence?

Who wrote the bible?

It seems to me that the science proves religion wrong debate is based largely on finding scientific errors in the Bible and then using this to show that the Bible cannot be divine and therefore dismissing the entire notion that a "creator" was responsible for creating the universe, the Earth and mankind. This led me to thinking who wrote the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God? Is it God inspired? Is it correct in every aspect?

The book "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman provides a scholarly analysis of who wrote the Bible and, based on evidence, shows that for the first five books of the old testament that there is a strong case to show that a number of different authors wrote the Bible. Indeed, Mr Friedman shows how different authors wrote/compiled the first 5 books of the Bible in accordance with their own social and political perspectives. This isn't cheap shot at dismissing the authenticity of the Bible, it is a scholarly study based on evidence.

If we take the evidence presented by Mr Friedman as authentic (and I have no reason to doubt this) it is clear that the Bible, or at least the first 5 books, were not written by a prophet of God, certainly it appears they were not written by the prophet Moses.

Indeed, Mr Friedman's conclusions are mentioned in the Quran: 2:79

Sahih International: So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Pickthall: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

Yusuf Ali: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Shakir: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Muhammad Sarwar: Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!

Mohsin Khan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. 

Arberry: So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

This is not to belittle the Bible or to cheaply say that the Quran is better than the Bible. It is agreed amongst the biblical scholars that no one knows who wrote the Bible. This is an important fact when considering whether it contains a divine message.  Whilst one could say that the Bible is "God inspired" and leave it at that - it seems absurd to do this when the historical evidence appears to show that editing and refinement took place - by whom we do not know - for what purpose - we can only guess at.  

If we therefore have doubts over the divinity of the Bible we therefore cannot simply say that scientific errors in the Bible mean there isn't a creator.  The scientific errors in the Bible would, if anything, suggest that the Bible isn't divine. Finding the Bible to be error strewn isn't proof that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer. 

The Quran in comparison has a much clearer history with less doubt as to its authorship.  I would also say that I am unaware of any clear contradictions in the Quran to scientific facts.  Indeed, Islam has never had the aversion to science that Christianity has had.  If anything, we can see from the historical record that after the revelation of the Quran there was a burst of scientific knowledge. Did you know that the names of stars have Arabic origins? 

Does the finding of an extinct human like species really mean that there isn't a creator?

The Independent ran an article today with the heading "Sorry creationists, but scientists have found an entirely new species of human" (see the above screen shot).

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/sorry-creationists-but-scientists-have-found-an-entirely-new-species-of-human--ZJG6L_Gk8e?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

This led me to ask myself - is this really the case? Does the finding of an extinct species mean there is no creator? Well, I don't think this is the case. From a scientific perspective, there is no "science" to prove that there is no creator. At best, the case is inferential, the inference being that humans gradually evolved from pre-human species. Again, what is the scientific evidence for this? I think it is fair to say that this isn't conclusive.

The fossil record hasn't really shown the gradual evolution - the fossil record seems to show long periods of stasis (no change) with species appearing fully formed and then departing into extinction. Defenders of the view that there is no creator (based on the inferences of evolution) say that we are lucky to have the fossils that we have and that it would be foolish to think we will ever have a complete record to show the gradual evolution of one species into another. However, such a view of itself isn't "scientific".

From an Islamic perspective it is clear that Allah created man.  Does this mean Allah created man by the process of evolution and natural selection? Was man placed on the Earth fully formed? These are questions I will explore and hopefully proffer an answer. Certainly, for now, I don't think we can say that the finding of extinct human like species means that there isn't a creator.

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

I am currently working on writing a book to explain how people believe there is a God. In my efforts to write my book I have been reading up on scientific discoveries and how "believers" see these as signs of God - an intelligent creator/designer.

As part of my reading  I came across the above article entitled "How the World's most notorious atheist changed his mind". I was interested to read that Mr Antony Flew changed his mind about the existence of a god because he felt that the complexity of life and the universe could only be explained by the existence of an intelligent source.  He concluded that to suppose life and the universe came about by accident or chance was illogical.

Here is an extract from the article:

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

The ironic thing is that many seem to point to science as a basis for their disbelief in God (intelligent designer) however the science doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Quran 3:190

Sahih International

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.

Is being offended by how someone dresses ever ok?

On the 4th March 2015, the Independent newspaper commented on Professor Richard Dawkins' Newsnight interview with Evan Davis. In the interview, Professor Dawkins said he was personally offended by burqas.  This led me to think, is he really offended by burqas or is he perhaps offended by the reasoning behind why he believes people (ladies) wear burqas.

I doubt that Professor Dawkins is offended by clothes that cover the body. I suppose he isn't offended by a space suit or a diver's frog suit. Same for a balaclava when it is cold in winter. Also, would he be offended by traditional Arabic dress for men which also covers the body?  I would doubt it.

I really don't see how someone can be offended by clothes or more precisely by wearing clothes that covers the entire body. The offence must be at the reason why someone dresses the way they do. But this is a tricky area when a man comments on what he thinks a woman should wear or he is offended if she dresses in a certain way. I wonder what clothing a woman could wear which doesn't offend Professor Dawkins.

The comment from Professor Dawkins reminded me of a joke. It went as follows:

3 ladies were interviewed by a male store manager for a job as a cashier. In each interview, the ladies were asked what would they do if when they cash up their till at the end of the day there is a surplus of US$50 in the till. The first lady said she would keep the cash in her till and inform her boss the next day. The second lady said she would wait until the end of week and see what the discrepancy was before informing her boss. The third lady said that when she worked as a cashier before she would often use her own money for needed change and put it in the till so any positive discrepancy would be hers. Who got the job?

The lady wearing the tightest shirt.

This is a joke to show obvious sexism which is deplorable. But I would ask is it ok to be offended by the fact someone is covering themselves? Can you allow this to creep into your judgment when you are conducting an interview? Can you actually remove your personal offence from such a situation? Indeed, in the interests of avoiding sexism, isn't it unhealthy to hold such a view or at least unhealthy to pre-judge why people dress the way they do?

Don't hate debate - can you ridicule and not hate?

Following on from the horrible Charlie Hebdo atrocity there seemed to be little restriction as to what constitutes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Where do we draw the line? Should there in fact be a line?

I certainly believe that all views should be allowed, but such views must be offered in a sensible and responsible manner.  Do we have the full freedom to offend? What if an unfettered freedom to offend  incites hatred and the carrying out of hate crimes?

I think certainly that the more responsible amongst us have a greater duty of care to ensure that opinions are expressed in a civil and respectful way, especially given the sensitivity involved.

Today, three innocent Muslims were murdered in the US in what has been headlined as being committed by a suspected "anti theist". Professor Richard Dawkins, to his immense credit, immediately condemned the murder.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-condemns-chapel-hill-shooting-suspected-to-have-been-carried-out-by-antitheist-that-left-three-muslims-dead-10037983.html

As at the time of writing I don't know if today's killings were carried out by an "anti theist" and I certainly don't know his motivation. That said, perhaps the killings should encourage those who are engaged in the debate about the existence of God to act in a sensible and responsible manner and certainly not in a way that could incite hatred and/or hatred by others.

In my blog, I try my utmost to be respectful. I do not think lesser of someone who does not believe in God, I do not hate them. Indeed, I have been surprised at the nasty comments I have received to my blog which I assume stems from a reader's disagreement to my belief in God. Where does that venom come from? You can be passionate about a belief (or disbelief) but this shouldn't lead to hatred or the incitement of hatred in others and I think the higher your profile you have the more you need to think about how others might interpret your actions.

In the context of Professor Richard Dawkins, he is passionate about his beliefs and I respect him for that. His books are thoughtful (although I don't agree with his conclusions). That said, I don't think he needs to approach the subject with "ridicule" as he mentions on his Twitter profile.  We can lighten the debate with good humoured comments but "ridicule"?

rid·i·cule

ˈridiˌkyo͞ol/

noun

1. 1. 

   the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

   "he is held up as an object of ridicule"

   synonyms:

   mockery, derision, laughter, scorn, scoffing, contempt, jeering, sneering, sneers, jibes, jibing, teasing, taunts, taunting, badinage, chaffing, sarcasm, satire;  informalkidding, ribbing, joshing, goofing, razzing

verb

1. 1. 

   subject (someone or something) to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

   "his theory was ridiculed and dismissed"

   synonyms:

   deride, mock, laugh at, heap scorn on/upon, jeer at, jibe at, sneer at, treat with contempt, scorn, make fun of, poke fun at, scoff at, satirize, lampoon, burlesque, caricature, parody, tease, taunt, chaff; informalkid, rib, josh, razz

One synonym for "ridicule" is "contempt". How far away is this from "hatred"?

ha·tred

ˈhātrəd/

noun

1. intense dislike or ill will.

   "racial hatred"

   synonyms:

   loathing, hate, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration;  aversion, hostility, ill will, ill feeling, enmity, animosity, antipathy;  revulsion, disgust, contempt, odium

To what extent can you have contempt for an idea and/or a belief but not have the same contempt for the person with the objectionable idea or belief? What if your contempt of an idea inspires someone to have contempt for the one who holds the objectionable idea?

Certainly, I don't intend to ridicule anyone's beliefs no matter how much I may object to them.

Indeed, there is also the danger that your views can be mis-interpreted.  Does this matter? Well, I suppose it depends on who you are. If you are a high profile figure who people respect, look up to and follow then I think it matters more.

Looking at Professor Dawkins' t-shirt - "Religion - together we can find the cure" - could this be misinterpreted? What is the cure? Medicine? Intellectual reasoning? When I first saw the t-shirt I thought of Sylvester Stallone.

Of course, you cannot be held responsible for the criminal acts of someone who plainly takes what you say and do out of context but I would have thought that leaders in this debate should debate with utmost responsibility. Does such responsibility allow for "good humoured ridicule"? Would be interested in the views of others.