Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?

Ron Webb wrote: I thought it best to start a new topic for this comment, rather than risk hijacking Jami's discussion: abuayisha (in Household payments) wrote: The trouble is, whose "simple" logic do we base our religious practice and understanding upon? Ali (raa) once said, 'If the religion were based on opinion, it would be more fitting the wipe the under part of the leather socks rather than the upper part of it. However, I have seen the Messenger of Allah wiping over the upper parts of his leather socks.� (Reported by Abu Dawud with a good chain of narrators) But isn't all religion a matter of opinion, pretty much by definition?  I mean, religion is a matter of faith, not fact.  Muslims believe one thing, Christians another, Hindus something else.  However strongly they might believe, none of them can prove their beliefs.

Faith can be backed up with proof and reason.  For example, the existence of God can be supported by the sheer vastness and complexity of the universe.  To argue that the universe, and indeed life itself, is a mere "accident" is absurd. 

Atheism is also just a matter of opinion.  Atheists cannot prove their beliefs (for example, "God does not exist").   

Ron Webb wrote: islamispeace wrote: Faith can be backed up with proof and reason.  For example, the existence of God can be supported by the sheer vastness and complexity of the universe.  To argue that the universe, and indeed life itself, is a mere "accident" is absurd. Atheism is also just a matter of opinion.  Atheists cannot prove their beliefs (for example, "God does not exist").    I have no idea why the "sheer vastness and complexity of the universe" argues for the existence of God, but in any case that would be a matter of opinion, not proof of anything. As for the existence of life: as long as the probability of such an "accident" is non-zero, if the universe is truly infinite, then it must have happened not just once but an infinite number of times.  Of course, the assumptions of non-zero probability and of an infinite universe are mere speculations too, but we have no reason to suppose otherwise.

"We have no reason to suppose otherwise"?  How do you figure?  Oh, right..it's just an opinion, nothing more.  Gotcha.

As for the complexity of the universe and life, consider the curious case of DNA.  You might want to read Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" for a detailed explanation of how DNA cannot have formed by itself.  The odds are infinitesimally small.  In fact, the probability that DNA formed by itself is something like trillions of years.  In other words, it would take more time than the age of the universe (and then some) for DNA to form spontaneously.  In short, in the time allowed, it is impossible for DNA to have formed by itself, as the result of an "accident".  So, if it was not by "accident", then what caused DNA to form?   

Ron Webb wrote: Yup.  Just like your opinion to the contrary.

Yeah, that's what I said before, remember?  So then, what exactly is the point of this thread? 

Ron Webb wrote: I don't care how small the probability is.  As long as it's non-zero, then multiply that by an infinite universe and the spontaneous appearance of life becomes a certainty.

Oh, you don't care "how small the probability is"?  Well, it does matter in spite of your nonchalant attitude.  The universe is 14 billion years old.  The probability of DNA or even a protein molecule forming spontaneously would require much more time than that.  As Stephen Meyer puts it:

"Scientists have increasingly recognized that the probabilistic resources of the observable universe are insufficient to explain - by chance alone - the origin of a minimally complex cell or even a self-replicating system of RNA molecules (or eve, for that matter, a single protein of modest length)" (p. 499).   

Ron Webb wrote: How big is the universe, according to Stephen Meyer?  And how does he know?

Maybe you should read the book.  It is quite detailed and spans over 500 pages, so obviously, I cannot summarize it in a few sentences.  But as I said, given the age of the universe, and the infinitesimally small probability that even a single protein molecule (let alone larger, more complex proteins) would spontaneously form, the universe simply lacks the "probabilistic resources" to allow sufficient time for life to start by "chance".  Life on earth started some 500 million years ago.  In other words, it only took around 13.5 billion years for life to start on earth (earth being around 4 billion years old), and yet, that is impossible given what we know about the complexity of life.  Chance simply fails to explain how this could have happened.  It should take much, much, much, much, much, much, much (and a few more muches) longer if we leave it to "chance".  In short, it is impossible for life to start spontaneously.     

Ron Webb wrote: But isn't all religion a matter of opinion, pretty much by definition?� I mean, religion is a matter of faith, not fact.� Muslims believe one thing, Christians another, Hindus something else.� However strongly they might believe, none of them can prove their beliefs.

Yes I agree with you. However where truth and falsehood can be deciphered is in True statements that are contained in the Qur'an. For example, it is the only scripture where it states that the creation of the heavens and the earth is a sign that God Almighty exists. So for a non believer this won't be understood even the Christians and the Hindu's etc.