Strangeness, but no charm

Oh God, he's at it with the cod science again (Answers to questions, Feb 6). Last time it was chaos theory, this time it's quantum physics.

Of course, whether we believe in him or not makes no difference to God himself. But if we can believe, for example, that a particle can also simultaneously be a wave, a logically contradictory suggestion but theoretically and experimentally a coherent one and the basis of quantum physics, then what is the problem with believing that God can do both: mercy and judgment?

Like chaos theory, quantum physics is a precise science, and not simply a licence to say vague things. Unlike chaos theory, which is at least meant to be applicable to a range of concepts, quantum physics is about something very precisely defined, the behaviour of subatomic particles.

It's also not logically contradictory in the sense that it refutes logic, but in the sense that it highlights problems in our concepts of what it means to talk about waves or particles. At any level above the level of the microscopic, the physical universe remains consistent and predictable, which is why we don't go spiralling into the sun. Even quantum indeteerminacy is in itself mathematically quantifiable.

Science is not like metaphor, which is a literary concept. In metaphor, qualities shared by otherwise disparate concepts are arranged into a pattern, for the purposes of entertainment or insight. You might think of it as a many-to-many relationship. In science, the relationships between concepts have to be more precise. Simply turning science into a metaphor is an attempt to grab hold of the respectability of science, as an evidence-based discipline, without applying the rigour which generates that respectability in the first place.

Here, the discussion is about the contradiction between the claim that God is merciful and the claim that he is prepared to punish. In the Qur'an this is sometimes taken to ludicrous degrees, with God being described as merciful in the very same passage as he is threatening to burn unbelievers in hell.

The correspondent, Richard Kimber (whose contributions have been consistently interesting) quotes the following verse. If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to our servant, then produce a single surah like it. And summon your witnesses (whom you serve) apart from God, if what you say is true. If you fail to do so - and you will fail - then beware of the fire whose fuel is people and stones, made ready for the unbelievers.

The linking minion seems to have linked to the wrong page, and I can't find the original, but Kimber's quoted remark is that this is less an invitation to explore one's doubts and more a defiant and purely rhetorical challenge to the sceptical backed up with a warning that is surely designed to intimidate.

In effect, Sardar claims that the contradiction between what the book says and what he says it says isn't a problem, because of quantum physics. If that isn't an abuse of science as metaphor, it'll do until one comes along.

He also says that the quoted passage isn't intimidation. To justify this claim, he says this.

Like the bird's nest, "fragments" of the Qur'an have to be connected to the "whole" to get an overall picture. Even though the warning here seems specific, it has to be seen in terms of the whole text.

He then goes on to talk about the Qur'an as a whole. Throughout the Qur'an, we find similar warnings to all - believers, sceptics or non-believers. So, the sceptic here is not being singled out. The warning has to do with the Qur'anic notion of accountability, emphasised again and again in the text, which suggests all of us are ultimately responsible for our actions before God whether we believe or not.

This is the strangest explanation of why a threat isn't a threat that I have ever read. It's as if someone had come up to you in the street and threatened to put you on a big fire if you didn't do as you were told, and when you complained, you were told don't worry, he says that to everybody.

And to be fair, he is at least right about the contents of the Qur'an. From start to finish, there are threats. Even when there aren't threats, for instance in the first sura, which refers to the desire to be one of the ones God isn't angry with, the constant stream of threats elsewhere sets the context. I've referred previously to the many, many references to fire, and Sardar dismissed that as a metaphor, but it's very clearly a metaphor for severe punishment.

And that is the definition of intimidation. If you don't do what I say, the intimidator says, I will arrange for a bad thing to happen to you. We know from Sardar's previous remarks that he believes that God punishes. He says so at the end of this post. Therefore, the text is intimidating. It is designed to instil fear.

But then, I suppose by his own terms he isn't tied to making sense. Sub-atomic particles do behave strangely, so why shouldn't anything mean anything you like? Does a sura begin This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah? Never mind, give the quarks a bit of spin and suddenly it's an invitation to open debate.

Unfortunately for him, his approach torpedoes his original claim. If you recall, he is trying to defend the Qur'an as a perfect book, living in the infinite ether with God before the physical universe was ever created.

But if anything can be taken to mean what it says or the exact opposite of what it says depending on what's convenient, then any book could be a perfect book. As soon as you fall back on that level of - well, irrationality, let's not be frightened to call it by its name - then you have to abandon the kind of absolutism that can label a book perfect.