Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion

Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion0%

Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion Author:
Publisher: www.al-islam.org
Category: Miscellaneous Books

Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion

Author: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei
Publisher: www.al-islam.org
Category:

visits: 6479
Download: 2613

Comments:

Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 24 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 6479 / Download: 2613
Size Size Size
Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion

Ultimate Questions in Philosophy of Religion

Author:
Publisher: www.al-islam.org
English

Chapter 12: Einstein's Paradox

God’s Omniscience and Man’s Freedom

Introduction

Many people when they fail in their lives, they relate it to their destiny. They don’t want to admit they made a mistake and hence, they failed in their exams, or marriage, business, etc. The concept of determinism or free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world particularly in our apportioning praise and blame.

Quantum theory explains in principle how to calculate what will happen in any experiment involving physical or biological systems, and how to understand how our world works.

We can, for instance, determine the exact time of the solar eclipse on 4 December 2002 in which 72% of the Sun will be covered and is visible in Australia. This foreknowledge lead us to the fact that determinism rules in the physical world.

The question that this article is dealing with is ‘can we predetermine the human behaviour’ and if his behaviour is foreknown whether by other humans or a divine knowledge, how can we hold him responsible for his/her action?

Nothing has been more terrible for humans throughout the history than admitting that his destiny is predetermined and he has no choice in it. Freedom has been and will be always the most pleasant word for mankind. Hence, nothing can disturb his mind that knowing that all his actions are subdued by a superpower.

This is the secret why the issue of determinism versus free will has been always and issue of concerns for philosophers and thinkers throughout the history.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is perhaps the best well-known scientist of the 20th century. His theory of ‘General Relativity’; the most accurately tested theory known to science, lead him to acknowledge that God brought the universe into existence and that He is Intelligent. Yet, he was still puzzled with the paradox that” if God is Omniscient then how is it possible to hold man responsible for his deeds?!”

When the rabbis and persists came to congratulate him on his discovery of God, he said to them:

“If this being is Omnipotent then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being?

In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?”

Unfortunately, none of the clergy Einstein encountered ever gave him a satisfactory answer to his objection. Typically, they responded by saying that God has not yet revealed the answer. They encouraged him to endure patiently and blindly trust the All-Knowing One.

Being puzzled with this question, Einstein, like many other powerful intellects through the centuries, ruled out the existence of God, despite believing in a Creator.

The aim of this chapter is to suggest an answer to this on going debate about one of the most fundamental questions of human nature in a unique style presented by prominent Muslim philosophers.

Definition

The question is whether man’s behaviour, thinking, and feeling are driven by something called free will, or everything is predestined and determined. In other words, is the human behaviour like other objects and events in the world determined under certain cause/s and once the cause/s being given, the event follows invariably, or human behaviour is exempted from this law for human mind has the power or ability to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination.

On the one hand, we feel so strongly that we have behavioural choice. On the other hand, modern biology describes humans as mechanisms that follow all of the same deterministic rules as other objects in the universe. How can reconcile our feeling of Free Will with the idea that we are mechanical components of a mechanical universe?

Is none of us really responsible for his/her action? Is freedom to choose an illusion, a myth?

Scope

The validity of either of free will and determinism play a vital role for people and scientists in all different walks of life; from an average man on the street to psychology, sociology, ethics, religion, law and philosophy.

Psychology

There is a clear dilemma in explaining human behaviour through psychological principles. On the one, hand if psychology is a science of behaviour, then there should be laws allowing the prediction of behaviour, just as there are gravitational laws to predict the behaviour of a falling object. On the other hand, objects have been raised by individuals who believe that humans control their own behaviours and possess free will.

The behaviourists, for instance, are the most obvious proponents of determinism, dating back to Jon B. Watson who made one of the most deterministic assertions ever:“Give me a dozen healthy infants… and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select-doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, chief, and yes, even beggar man and thief.”

Other psychologists like William James, who was interested in religion and believed in free will, was reluctant to abandon the concept that behaviours were not free. At one point, he suggested that mind and body operated in tandem, whereas on another occasion he concluded that they interacted. Clearly, James struggled with the issue, and like others was unable to resolve it.

Ethics

The validity of free will has also been a subject of considerable debating among ethical philosophers. It would appear that a system of ethics must imply free will, for the denial of the ability to choose a course of action would seem to negate the possibility of moral judgment.

A person without moral judgment is not responsible for his or her actions. In an attempt to resolve this problem, ethical philosophers have taken a great variety of position, ranging from absolute determinism to absolute libertarianism.

Law

Determinism has its impact on the court cases as well. The most famous American trial lawyer of the 20th century, Clarence Darrow, was engaged to defend the murderers who had confessed. With the following speech he convinced every jury that his clients were not morally responsible for their actions and hence they don’t deserve the death penalty.

 Every one knows that the heavenly bodies move in certain paths in relation to each other with seeming consistency and regularity which we call [physical] law. No one attributes freewill or motive to the material world. Is the conduct of man or the other animals any more subject to whim or choice than the action of the planets? ...

We know that man's every act is induced by motives that led or urged him here or there; that the sequence of cause and effect runs through the whole universe, and is nowhere more compelling than with man."

"[Man's] legs are levers with which he walks. His back is a lever, by which he is able to lift things, through the contraction of the muscles. His arms are levers which he uses in all the activities of life. There is nothing about him that anybody can find which isn't mechanical."

"The principal thing to remember is that we are all the products of heredity and environment; that we have little or no control, as individuals, over ourselves, and that criminals are like the rest of us in that regard."

Prof. Norman Swartz: Free will and Determinism: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm

The belief that man’s feelings, thoughts and behaviours are all forced on him by one or more determinants has changed the concept of crimes and bad behaviour to be seen as a symptom of illness which requires treatment not punishment. Thus, prisons and jails must be abolished and locked hospital wards substituted for them as needed.

Fallacy of Darrow’s argument

If Leopold and Loeb were not morally responsible for their behavior, it was because of what others had done to them. But these others, in turn, were not morally responsible for what they had done, since they were the product of what had earlier been done to them.

And so on, and so on. The argument works like a line of dominos, it is - in effect - the domino theory of moral non-responsibility. If someone is to be regarded as not morally responsible for what he does because he is the product of someone else's actions, then, ultimately, no one is responsible for anything he/she does.

It is interesting to note that one of Darrow's biographers reports that although Darrow constantly insisted that his clients did not deserve blame, he himself was a very vain, prideful, man who thought that he, himself, deserved high praise. That biographer comments that Darrow never quite saw, or admitted, this inconsistency in his own views!

Religion

1) Christianity

Determinism in Christianity starts with the story of creation of Adam and Eve as described in the book of Genesis:

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat1

Thus, from the biblical point of view from the time the Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden. God said, "Adam!" Adam said, "Eve." And, Eve said, "The serpent."! Thus began the pattern of blaming others.

Determinism is important in Christian theology. One of the basic tenets of traditional Christian theology is that god is Omniscient and Omnipotent, and that every human action is foreordained by God. This doctrine seemingly precludes the existence of human free will.

Because morality, duty, and the avoidance of sin are also basic elements in Christian teaching, how, it is asked, can people be morally responsible once predestination is accepted? Many attempts have been made by theologians to explain this paradox. Saint Augustine (350-430), the great Father and Doctor of the Church, firmly believed in predestination, holding that only those elected by God would attain salvation; no one however knows who is among the elect, and therefore all should lead God-fearing, religious lives.

The celebrated French bishop and pulpit orator; Jacques Bossuet (1627-1704) offered another approach, which became widely held; he stated that fee will and divine foreknowledge are certain truths that must be accepted even though they are not logically connected. (Extracted from Encyclopedia of Encarta)

2) Islam

Mainly two doctrines; Ash’ari and Mo’tazeli. The mainstream of Sunni Muslim follow the Ash’ari school of thought which is more on determinism. Mo’tazelists in turn believe in absolute free will.

Abu-Ishaq Esfrayeni (who believed in free will) met Qadhi Abdul-jabbar (who believed in determinism) and told him:“Glory to He who is free from committing a sin” . Meaning as a determinist you hold god responsible for all the sins.

Qadhi turned around and told him with no hesitation:“Glory to he who nothing happens in his kingdom but what He Wills.” !

Philosophical Justification

If all people have is an illusion of behavioral choice, if people are just machines behaving in the only way they can, then what about personal responsibility? How can we hold people responsible for and punish them for their behaviors if they have no choice in how they behave?

Prof. Daniel Dennett (lecturer at Tufts University in the USA) in his book ‘Elbow Room’ gives a two part answer to this question. First, we hold people responsible for their actions because we know from historical experience that this is an effective means to make people behave in a socially acceptable way.

Second, holding people responsible only works when combined with the fact that people can be informed of the fact that they are being held responsible and respond to this state of affairs by controlling their behavior so as to avoid punishment. People who break the rules set by society and get punished may be behaving in the only way they can, but if we did not hold them accountable for their actions, people would behave even worse than they do with the threat of punishment.

This is a totally utilitarian approach to the issue of responsibility.

Paradoxes of Freedom in a logical argument

There is No Moral Responsibility

Premise 1:Every action is either caused or uncaused (i.e. a random occurrence).

Premise 2: If an action is caused (recall Darrow), then that action was not chosen freely and the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done.

Premise 3: If an action is uncaused (i.e. is a random occurrence), then the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done.

Thus, ware not morally responsible for what we do!

Norman Swartz

The reality is that modern philosophy has failed to suggest any convincing answer to the paradox and at the end, they have reached the same conclusion as the average man on the street if not worse than that, as some like Dennett suggest at the end that we have no real behavioral choices, but we continue to behave as if we do! Or to say: God has not revealed it to us yet. Grin and bare it until I solve the paradox for you.

The common mistake of thinkers in the paradox of free will and determinism is that the assumed free will is equal to chaos and if free will accepted then people become totally unpredictable and chaos reigns. And also if the action is caused then the action was not chosen freely. Thus, Swartz put the 2nd premise of the argument in the paradox of freedom.

As I will explain further in this chapter, we agree with the law of cause and effect and that every action is caused, and that the person is also responsible for his/her action without any contradiction involved. For his freedom of will is one of the factors as well.

Epistemic Determinism (The problem of foreknowledge)

The following is the standard argument for epistemic determinism. It alleges to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

1) Secular version:

If x knows that you are going to do (some action) A, then you must do A.

But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.

Thus if x knows (beforehand) what you are going to do, then you have no free choice.

foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

2) Theist version:

• God is Omniscient.

• If God is Omniscient, then I must choose what God knows I am going to choose.

Thus: I’m not truly choosing.

Conclusion

• If I’m not choosing, then I’m not morally responsible for my deeds.

• Believing in Omniscient God leads to the deterrence theory of punishment and praise.

Discovering the Fallacy

1. Knowledge about the past:

‘Imam Ali (a.s) was murdered by Ibn Moljam.’

Today I ask: Who killed Imam Ali (a.s)?

Mr. A: Shemer

Mr. B: Ma’moon

Ms. K: Ibn Moljam

Ms. D: Wahshi

Did Ms. K’s asserting a truth today somehow or other ‘FORCE’ Ibn Moljam to kill Imam Ali?!

Obviously not.

2. Knowledge about the future:

‘Imam Ali (a.s) was murdered by Ibn Moljam.’

In the year 10 AH I ask: Who will kill Imam Ali?

Mr. J : Shemer

Mr. M: Ibn Moljam

Ms. C: Ma’moon

Ms. D: Jo’deh

Will Mr. M’s asserting a truth in the year 10 AH somehow or other ‘FORCE’ Ibn Moljam to kill Imam Ali?!

Obviously not.

3. Natural Laws:

‘There will be a lunar eclipse on 30 December 2001.’

Today (10 August 2001) I ask:

“When will be the next lunar eclipse in Australia?

Mr. A: Oct. 12

Mr. B: Dec. 30

Mr. C: Dec. 25

Mr. D: Nov. 1

Will Mr. B’s asserting a truth today about the lunar eclipse somehow or other ‘FORCE’ the eclipse to occur?!

Obviously not.

Descriptive Laws & Prescriptive Laws

• Natural Laws are Descriptive.

• Moral & Religious Laws are Prescriptive.

Fallacy Discovered

(It must be that) if X knows that I’m going to do A, then I must to A.

Answer:

• It is not true that if X knows that I’m going to do A, then I must do A.

• I will do A whether X knows about it or not.

• X’s knowledge is not the cause of my doing A.

Conclusion

• Foreknowledge no more ‘forces’ the future to be a certain way, than true reports in history books ‘force’ the past to have been a certain way.

• Free will is compatible with believing in Omniscient God.

• Man is determined to have free will and hence, responsible for his/her deeds.

Compatibility of Determinism & Free Will

Points:

1) The law of cause and effect is a universal law both in the physical world and in human behaviour. Denying this law is equal to chaos and accidence, which results in no law and reality in the world.

2) Man has a behavioral choice and every healthy person feels this naturally. Hence, even Darrow expects a high praise. Whereas, if his clients were not to be blamed due to deterministic factors, he is not to be praised for the same reason!

3) There is no correlation between the law of cause and effect and man’s determinism, rather if there is no law of cause and effect man cannot have any freedom of choice. On the other hand, there is no correlation between chaos and man’s freedom of choice. If there is no cause for human behaviours, then it random occurs which means the human himself also has no control or power over his actions. Then, where is his freedom of choice?

Free Will & Determinism in the Quran

• Satan; the founder of Determinism: 7:16

• Determinism; the excuse of infidels: 6:148

• A myth called ‘Predestination’ 8:53

• Man’s free will: A Quranic Principle: 18:29

• A Myth called: Societal Determinism:

• The magicians of Pharaoh: 20:70-72

• The wife of Pharaoh: 66: 11

• The son of Noah: 11: 46

If predestination, then…

• Why do we sometimes regret the past?

• Why do we blame the evil-doers?

• Why do we praise the righteous ones?

• Why do we educate our children?

• Why do we strive for moral values?

• Why do we repent?

• Why do we judge the criminals?

• Why do we punish the criminals?

• Why do we protest to transgressors?

• Why do we feel sorrow or happy about the past?

For Further Study

• Man & Destiny: The late Ayatollah Motahari

• Talab Wa Eradeh: The late Imam Khomeini

• Elbow Room: Dr. Daniel C. Dennett

• Free Will and Determinism: Dr. Norman Swartz

• The Foundations of Morality (Chapter 27) : Henry Hazlitt

Note

1. Genesis 3:9-13

Chapter 13: Monotheism, the Common Word

Unity of God is the common word of all prophets. It is the essential part of all the divine religions. But why there is only One God? Why can't be a company of gods creating and governing the universe?!

You will also learn that the Christian doctrine of Trinity is incompatible with Monotheism.

This chapter aims at introducing the most fundamental aspect of all divine religions, a foundation on which all other religious issues stands; a touchstone by which everything else must be attested.

As a matter of fact, believing in God, requires His unity. In other words, if there is a Creator and Sustainer for the universe, He must be One and only One. Thus, even those who supposedly believe in more than one god, they attempt to unify them to one godhead, and hence plurality of god has no logic.

Proofs of unity of God

1) Infinite Being

This proof is suggested by Mulla Sadra. The similar concept of it is also suggested by Aquinas, St Thomas (1225-1274), the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics Italian philosopher and theologian.

Premise 1: God is necessary infinite.

Premise 2: There is no plurality in an infinite being.

Thus: There is no possible plurality in godhead.

God is necessarily infinite. If several were to exit, none of them would be really infinite, for, it is impossible to have more than one infinite being. The reason being, each should have some perfection not possessed by the others. In other words, there must be an end for the existence of one of them, so that there would be a room for the other to exist, which results in finite of them.

For instance, if A & B were to owe a farm, then each one must owe only a limited piece of land. But if A or B owns a farm which covers the entire Earth, then there is no room for the other to owe anything.

God is necessarily infinite Being, which means His existence is limitless and hence no room for any other to exist.

Therefore, the essence of Godhead necessitates His Unity. The Holy Quran referring to this proof states:“ Allah bears witness that there is no god but Him ” 1 or:“ He is the First and the Last, the Appearance, and the Hidden ”

Why God is necessarily infinite?

At least for the following three reasons, we understand that god is infinite.

1) Finite means limitation and limitation mean god is limited in existence, knowledge, power, etc. A limited god like other limited and finite creatures is just like other creatures and need to depend in his existence, knowledge and power to an unlimited being.

2) Existence is the opposite of non-existence. A being which is necessarily Existent, has no possibility of non-existence.

3) The chains of causes and effects in this world must reach the first Cause whose existence is necessarily and independent from others.

2) Universal Unity

Premise 1: The universe is harmonic.

Premise 2: Any harmonic universe needs one conductor.

The unified universe has One Creator.

The universe as it initially appeared to us, is the combination of billions of different objects; from a tiny cell to the super-giant galaxies. Nonetheless, in spite of this plurality, a closer look suggests that there is a universal unification linking and joining all seemingly separate parts of the universe together and the more the secretes of nature discovered the more this unity is realized.

The most acknowledged theory for the beginning of the universe is the big Bang theory proposing that the universe was created in a gigantic explosion and that the various elements observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the big bang hydrogen and helium would have been the primary products of the big bang. At 1 microsecond after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons dissolve into individual quarks, so the universe was a 'gas' consisting of quarks.

Astronomers assert today that the entire universe we can see is made from matter of the kind we find near us, and in about the same abundances of the elements everywhere.

As mentioned in the chapter ‘Finger prints of God' all galaxies gravitationally interacting and orbiting about ‘a common centre'.

For this reason, a natural law governing an atom is also governing the entire universe. The same gravitational law governing the fall of an object here on earth governs all the celestial bodies in the sky.

Thus, Newton by observation of the fall of an apple in his orchard discovered the gravitation and conceived that the same force governed the motion of the Moon and the apple and hence gravitation is universal. Similarly, Newton’s laws of motion or optics apply to the earthly objects as much as the celestial ones.

There are millions of animal species on earth, yet despite this plurality their structure is quite unified.

The law of cause and effect is also another universal law in the nature, whether man has discovered all the causes of an effect or not, philosophically there is a cause/causes for every effect.

Therefore, the operation of the nature is like a harmonic symphony, which demonstrates the great harmony of creation. Every creature is like a musical pulse, which is made up of the sum of many pure sine-wave tones, playing harmonically in the orchestra of the universe. This universal orchestra proves that there is only one conductor directing the orchestra in performance.

If there were more than one God, disharmony would prevail.

Q. Why can't be the company of gods who are wisely governing the universe?

If there is more than one god for the universe, either they are all the same in everything or totally different, or there are some similarity and some differences amongst them.

Plurality of gods mean that they are not totally same, for, if they were the same in all aspects then there would be one not more than one. On the other hand, plurality means there are differences, and if there are differences there must be disharmony and chaos in the universe.

For instance, God is Omni-wise, and there cannot be two or more omni-wise, because plurality requires that they are not the same in their wisdom, which means one is wiser than the other and the one who is less wise lacks some wisdom and lack of wisdom is insufficiency whereas there cannot be any insufficiency in God.

3) Mathematical distinction

If there were to be two necessary beings, there must be at least one distinction factor between them so that one possesses something that the other lacks. That distinction however must be also a necessary being, or else the two necessary beings cannot be necessary in their essence. Thus two imagine two necessary being we need another necessary differentiating being, which results in three necessary beings.

Similarly as they are all necessary beings, there must be a different between then or else they are the same. In order to differentiate between the three necessary beings we need at least two other necessary differentiating beings, which result in five necessary beings.

Again to differentiate between five necessary beings, we need at least three necessary differentiating beings to differentiate between the five necessarily beings, which results in eight necessarily beings and the calculating goes on infinitely which results in infinite necessary beings!

4) Unique invitation

God is the source of perfection and blessings. It is not possible for such Perfect Being to deprive others of that perfection and blessing. Thus, if there were more than one God, he would have introduced himself through his messengers or other ways, whereas, all the prophets and messengers have invited to One Unique God, therefore there is no any other god than Him.

Trinity

Although all divine religions advocate to the ‘unity of God' Judaism, Christianity and Islam as the main living divine religions are more known for the concept of monotheism. Thus, they are sometimes classified as Abramic Religions for their monotheistic concept.

Among the followers of all the divine religions, however, the mainstream church formulated in the 4 th century the doctrine of Trinity. The classical Western formula of Trinity is: “three persons in one substance (homoousios) not a similar substance (homoiousios). By three persons they mean: ‘god, the father, god the son, and god; the holy spirit. According to this doctrine, God incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ.

The term Trinity is not used in the Bible and Nazorean Jewish Christians, who were in the time of Jesus looked upon him not as God but as a prophet and anointed Messiah. Historically the mysterious term ‘Trinity' was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ between Arius and Athanasius in the 4 th century.

In the words of the Athanasian Creed ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the

Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.”

Since When Jesus became god?!

In the first century, after the disappearance of Jesus, those who followed him continued to affirm the Divine Unity. This is illustrated by the fact that the Shepherd of Hermas, written in about 90 A.D. was regarded as a book of Revelation. The first commandment was believing in One God.

According to Theodore Zahn, the article of faith up0 until about 250 A.D was, “I believe in God, the Almighty'2 Between 180 and 210 A.D. the word ‘Father' was added before the ‘Almighty'. This was bitterly contested by a number of the leaders of the church. Bishop Victor and Bishop Zephysius are on record as condemning this movement.

As the teaching of Jesus was spread, it came into contact with other cultures and into conflict with those in authority. In Greece , especially, it became metamorphosed, both by its being expressed in a new language for the first time, and by its realignment with the ideas and philosophy of that culture.

It was the many-gods viewpoint of the Greeks, which largely contributed to the formulation of this doctrine of the Trinity together with the gradual elevation of Jesus by some, notably Paul of Tarsus, from a prophet to God.

It was only in 325 Ad that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the orthodox Christian belief. Even then, some of those who signed the creed did not believe in it.

That historic decision was more based on a political expediency shown mainly by the part played by Constantine, the pagan emperor of Rome, who presided over the council of Nicea, than on the faculty of Scriptures.

As a result, Rome replaced Jerusalem as the centre of Pauline Christianity.

The doctrine of Trinity since the time of Constantine became officially accepted as the basis of Christianity in Europe. But as it soon caused much confusion among people many were told to believe it without trying to understand it.

Yet, broadly speaking, these schools of thought developed regarding trinity to be explained.

The first is associated with St Augustine , who lived in the 4 th century and was of the view that the doctrine could but be proved but could be illustrated. St Victor, who lived in the 12 th century, is associated with the second school, who believed that the doctrine could both be demonstrated and illustrated. And the 14 th century saw the growth of the 3rd school, which believed that the doctrine of Trinity could be neither illustrated nor proved, but should be blindly accepted and believed.

The author of the fourth Gospel was the first to identify Jesus with the Logos or Word who became flesh for the salvation of mankind. In early Christianity he was also regarded as the ‘image of God', not the eternal God himself.

The Council of Nicea

In early decades of the 4 th century two opposing views, the view held by the Presbyter Arius that stated Christ was similar in substance (homoiousios) with the Father, whereas the Bishop Athanasius held the view that Christ was the same substance (homoousios) of the Father.

Arius argued that Jesus was the firstborn of the Father, was created by the Father and thus was a creature, although the first and highest creature. Arius logically deduced that if the Son was begotten by the Father, there must have been a time when the Son did not exist, that is, before his creation by the Father. The Son therefore, had a beginning.

The debate was brought to the attention of Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome that the controversy might threaten the unity if his empire. In order for Constantine to settle the dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ he summoned an ecumenical council at Nicaea; an ancient city now Iznik, in Turkey in 325 AD. Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire, 318 attended the council.

The Great emperor attended the Council and allowed various debaters to speak by turns. After an intense controversy a confession of faith was drawn up at the order of Constantine and was singed by all the bishops affirming that Jesus Christ was ‘Very God of Very God' and ‘of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.'

And all the papers of the Arius' book were burned. All those who refused to sign the creed were threatened by the Emperor with banishment. Naturally, all signed. However, some of them regretted what they had done at the council and wrote a letter to the Emperor stating:“We committed an impious act, O prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.” 3

It is indeed sad that the creed of faith professed by millions of Christians since the 4th century was born amidst this sorry scene and was at one time considered blasphemous.

The earliest draft of the creed known to us today, and the one that was agreed upon at the council is:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father; he is begotten, that is to say, he is of the substance of God, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten and not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things, both in heaven and on earth, were made.

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and took our nature, and became man; he suffered and rose again the third day; he ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost.

The holy catholic and apostolical church condemns all those who say that there was a period in which the Son of God did not exist; that before he was begotten, he had no existence; that he was called out of nothing into being; that he is of a different substance from the Father; and that he is susceptible of variation or of change.

(http://www.essene.com/Church/Conspiracy/CouncilOfNicea.html# The Council of Nicea)

Do Christians really believe Jesus is God?

Yes, apart from the above-mentioned Nicean creed which clearly states the Deity of Jesus, Christian Doxology is also another proof of that. Doxology means praising God in glory. Christians they say it not only to God, the father, but to Jesus as well.4

A mystery called Trinity

An eminent scholar of Christian history admits that the present-day Christianity is a ‘mask' on the face of Jesus. Muslims believe in Jesus without the mask. This in a nutshell, has been the point of difference between Islam and the church for the last 1400 years. Even before the advent of Islam, the Arians, the Paulicians, and the Goths, to mention only a few accepted Jesus, but rejected the ‘mask'.

The Christina faith contains mysteries and Christian theologians admit that the doctrine of Trinity is one of them, and hence cannot be logically explained. Thus, the sole so called proof for so-called the Blessed Trinity is the Bible mainly the Gospel of John not even the synoptic. They also attempt in explaining the Trinity in terms of analogies involving clover leaves, the appearance of water as ice, liquid and steam.

Trinity Vs Unity

If you have a Christian background, I suggest you free yourself from the Councils and Creeds as well as the fear of being labeled a "heretic" by friends and relatives, and then you will find in the following passages the chance to confirm what you always suspected, the chance to replace nonsense with sense, the chance to replace trinity with Monotheism.

1) Monotheism, the Chief Commandment

The Ten Commandments is spinal core and the common word of all divine religions, which presents the main articles of faith. Although the details of some of the Commandments are not exactly the same in the Old Testament, New Testament and the Holy Quran, yet at least the very First Commandment, which deals with the unity of God, is the same in all of them. The following is the quotation from all the tree scriptures:

a. The Old Testament:“You shall have no other gods before My face. You shall make for yourself no idol in the likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.” 5

b. New Testament: When one of the scribes asked Jesus“which is the chief commandment of all” Jesus answered:“The chief one is, ‘ Hear O Israel : The Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, with your whole mind, and with your whole strength .” 6

c. The Holy Quran:“Say (O Mohammad): Come I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: Join not anything as equal with Him” .7

Therefore, believing in One God is according to the words of Jesus (peace be on him) the chief of the Ten Commandments and obviously when he said:“OUR God is one Lord” he included himself. How is it then possible for him to be of ‘the same substance of God' and ‘very God of very God'? It is not the most impious act and accusation to Prophet Jesus? Thus, Trinity is very unscriptural.

2) Trinity was blasphemy for the early Christians

3) Trinity is plurality of gods!

Christians admit the very differences between the persons of Trinity, which leaves no shadow of doubt that they are neither equal to each other nor are they to be identified with one another. The Father begets and is not begotten; the son is begotten and not a father.

If the three are one, why Christians consider it a sin of heresy to replace the order of the three; meaning by reversing the formula: ‘In the name of the holy spirit, and of the son , and of the father'?! For if they are absolutely equal and coeval, then order of precedence need not be so scrupulously observed.

4) Trinity is illogical

Common sense and logic is the universal means of exchange of opinions amongst humans. Through the means of logic one even from a different religious or cultural denomination can convey his opinion and make others understand it.

Christians say on the one hand that ‘there is only one God', and on the other hand declare: ‘ Yet in the one name there are three eternal persons.' The only conclusion is that they have a mathematical problem that even Einstein could not solve. Because we learned at school that one person plus another person plus another person are equal to three persons, and they can never be one person.

In other words, one cannot be equal to three, because one is the third of the three. In the same way, one is not equal to a third. And vice versa, three are not equal to one.

Those who maintain the unity of God is the trinity of persons tell us that ‘each person is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect God; yet there are not three omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect god, but one omnipotent … God!

We all- Muslims and Christians- believe that God is Omnipresent, that He fills and encompasses every space and particle. Is it conceivable that all the three persons of the Deity at the same time and separately encompass the universe, or is it only one of them at the time? To say ‘the Deity does this' would be no answer at all. For Deity is not God, but the state of being god, and therefore a quality.

Despite all the attempts offered by Christian theologians in explaining the doctrine of Trinity, nothing more than some biblical proofs or analogies have been ever offered. Even the most prominent Christian theologians admit that Trinity is another name for mystery. Thus, on which basis do Christians expect non-Christians to believe it? Isn't this the God of Bible who says:“ Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord” .8

Does Trinity have a biblical proof?

No doubt, the term Trinity is never mentioned any where in the Bible. Rather Prophet Jesus like other Prophets called for One God.

When Jesus (peace be on him) said:“… Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one God” .9 He included himself as a loyal subject of his Lord God.

When Jesus said: “I am ascending to my Father and your father, and to my God and your God'10 he puts himself and people in the same category before God. Thus, if Jesus was the son of God, so were all those of his community.

But even a man of average intelligence will conclude from the above passage that he means he is ascending to God of all around him including himself, and by Father he either means Adam, as his father and their father, or God but not in a literal meaning, rather as an expression of kindness and mercy of Him. Whatever meaning, however, one suggests, it includes his community as well.

Who did Jesus worship?

In the year … a debate took place between Imam Redha (peace be on him), the 8th Imam of Ahlul-bait, and Al-Jatheliq the Christian archbishop at the royal court of Ma'moon. A part of the debate reads:

- Imam Redha(a.s):“It is very unfortunate that your Jesus did not pray or fast?”

- Al-Jaetheliq:“This is not true. As a matter of fact, he was praying all nights and fasting all days” .

- Imam Redha(a.s):“Then, who was he praying to? Himself?! Does God pray and fast?!”

All gods died!

The author of Al-menar in his interpretation of the Quran, quotes the story of three new converts to Christianity. After having studied under a priest for a while, the teacher brought them to one of his Sunday services. The father then asked them to explain to the crowd the meaning of the blessed Trinity! The following is the answer offered by each one of them:

A:“Father taught us that there is a god in the heaven, and another one on earth and the third one came to the second in the shape of a pigeon.”

Father whilst being upset with his non-sense explanation, asked him to sit down.

B:“Well! I think the father taught us that there were three gods. One of them was crucified and hence we are left with two only.”

The father loosing his temper and hope in them, turned to the third student whom he trusted his intelligence and asked him to explain the Trinity.

C:“The blessed Trinity means: God the Father, and God the Son, and god the Holy Spirit are three in one substance. And God the Son was crucified which means all were crucified and we ended up with no god!”

Notes

1. Refer to Ayah 4:18

2. Articles of the apostolic Creed, Theodore Zahn pp.33-37 from Jesus, Prophet of Islam p.9

3. Ian Wilson, Jesus the Evidence. P.168

4. See: II Timothy 4:18, Revelations 1:6

5. Exodus 20:3-5

6. Mark 12:29-30

7. 6: 151

8. Isaiah 1:18

9. Mk 12:29

10. Jn 20:17