1=== 
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:48:39 -0700 (PDT) 
Subject: A critique of Mr. Mukul's essay on creation etc 
To: "NFB"  

Mr. Mukul's essay made some erroneous assumptions. It is not true that the
universe is a world of four-dimensions. It appears so at our level of
resolution.  Fundamnetally the universe can have many more higher dimensions
that are curled up at our current state and may not be detectable. This is the
what the superstring theory is searching for. And his discussion of two-
dimensional beings embedded in a higher dimension didn't make any point and
arrived at an irrlevant conclusion of scientists vision of the universe. A
modern view of universe can conceive of much higher dimensions, dimensions as
high as 26. A two dimensional beimng can figure out if they are embedded in a
three dimensional space simply by measuring the local curvature, no need to step
outside of the two-dimensions. This is the lesson of differential geometry. I
am not sure what point was he trying to make by such irrelevant and inaccurate
discussions about dimensionality? Mr. Mukul's essay further resurrects a now
defunct simplistic view  credited to William Paley who said that if one comes
across a watch in a forest he cannot but arrive at the obvious conclusion that
such a device must have a designer(watchmaker), so why not of life that we
observe to have a similar if not higher complexity?  This has been totally
refuted by modern Biology and it is not even debated anymore in scientific
cirlces. Evolution is well understood and is fully supported by observational
evidence. Books after books by reputed biologists have painstakingly explained
this process of evolution using irrefutable logic and evidence, NOT FAITH or
naive intuition that have always proven to be prone to error as history teaches
us. Just like the earth is round even thought it appears flat to a layman with
naive intuitive thinking. A beautiful snowflake looks like the work of a skilled
designer. A beutiful gemstone seems impossible to be designed without a
"designer" with a superb sense of beauty. But who is the designer? "Someone"
with a "mind", consciousness?, feelings,emotion etc? It is understood beyond
even any debate how these are formed. They are both the product of the design of
none other than the unconscious yet profound LAWS OF PHYSICS. More exactly, the
inviolable law of the increase of entropy and the laws of quantum mechanics
combine to give such shape and beauty to snowflakes/gems. And the same is true
for the colorful cloud formations, rainbow etc. They are all the results of the
laws of physics at work. No conscious humanlike designer is involved here. Now
come to the intricate work of human body with all its complex organs. What/who
is the designer of it? It is the same laws of Physics, but now working over
billions of years instead of few hours (snowflakes) or few hundred/thousands for
gemstones. Natural selection and Random mutation is nothing but a manifestation
of the simple laws of physics tending to maximize entropy and satisfying other
emergent forms of the basic laws underneath. Life is a dissipative structure
that has achieved the threshold of complexity to become an autopoietic system,
is the modern jargon for the scientifc view of Life.  The purpose of life is to
faithfully obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics by increasing entropy (Even
eating and sex are dictated by this requirement, although our brain translates
it into a sense of desire and pleasure for us, hiding the real underlying
purpose from our conscious mind).


Now one can preserve his/her life by doing a complete genome sequence and saving
it for eternity as an information in a database. Human cloning is a reality, not
a science fiction anymore. So life is nothing but a process, the program being
run being that of the gentic code using the entire genome sequence of each
unique lifeform.  A similar analogy of software running on a hardware is a
nuclear bomb. The spectacular mushroom cloud, the blast, the destruction is just
nothing but a materialization of an information or code (The laws of nuclear
physics and relativity) with some hardware ingredients (uranium etc). Behind any
natural or artificial wonders are nothing but some code (ultimately reducible to
the laws of Physics) at work. Some programs need human intervention to run (Like
nuclear bomb), others (like life, snowflakes, stars etc) are initiated by nature
itself through chaotic effects. But it is only a matter of perspective.  If we
take the big picture of humans as being part of nature obeying laws of physics
then every materialization of code in nature is spontaneous, and human
intervention is also a result of natural laws at work. The ultimate example of
materialization of physical laws is the Big Bang which created the entire
universe together with all its life forms and other structures.  The Big Bang
was the materialization of the Physical laws (Software) using the hardware of
tiny quantum bubble created through fluctuations of quantum vacuum. Thus a tiny
Quantum Bubble ended up as the observable universe we wonder at today, thanks to
the laws of Physics.  Big Bang is certainly a speculation, albeit a scientific
one. It is predicted by the same principles of Physics that predicted nuclear
bomb which was also succesfully tested(Any doubter?). Do we dare question the
reality of nuclear bomb? We cannot question the validity of the laws of Physics
while placing complete unquestioning confidence in the reality of a nuclear bomb
whenever one is built, since the latter is nothing but a materialization of the
former. So Big Bang, or some possible variation thereof in future (As dictated
by Physics), which is predicted by the same laws of Physics that gave rise to
nuclear bomb cannot be dismissed by non-scientific reasoning. Saying that "It is
God's miracle", does not "explain" life, it only puts a closure by hiding the
ignorance by inventing a new word. Inventing a new word to reflect an ignorance
does not define the new word in meaningful way.It is a common human instinct to
put a closure to any unresolved questions because they feel uneasy living with
mysteries and unanswered questions. A scientific inquiry goes against this
instinct and strive for further insights, incremental advance being the goal,
not a closure necessarily.

The kind of thinking typified by William Paley and Mr. Mukul are reminiscent of
the time  when our intellects were primitive that such simplistic answers were
put forth. But humanity have come a long way since then. Engaging in vague
metaphysics does not get us much futher in the quest for truth. Now a genuine
understanding should involve a scientific study spanning across a host of
disciplines. Every day a new insight is being added to the knowledge base and
getting us incrementally closer to the final understanding. Quantum jumps of
insight do occur in history.  For example Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Mendel's
theory of heredity and most importantly the almost legendary discovery of DNA
and deciphering of the genetic code in 1953. The experiments of Urey and Miller
showed how chemical and physical process can create the ingredients of life if
not life itself(as yet).  Although Darwin explained beautifully how life evolved
from simple to the complex but only vaguely mentioned about a possible mechanism
of the origin of life itself (The primitive pond). The first scientific attempt
to understand the origin of Life was by the Russian scientist Oparin in his 1929
classic "The Origin of Life". He extended the Darwinian theory of evolution
backward in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might
have combined into complex organic compounds and how the latter might have
formed the primordial organism. The first attempt to understand life in a more
fundamental way was by the nobel laureate physicist none other than the founder
of quantum physics Erwin Schroedinger in his epoch making book "What is Life?
The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell With Mind and Matter" written more than
fifty years ago.  He anticipated DNA in that book even before its discovery (He
called it some kind of aperiodic crystal).  Although now dated, it is a mark of
amazing insight for its time. This book was the inspiration for all later
generation biologists and physicists interested in life's mystery like Watson
and Crick who materialized their inspiration into discovering the "DNA",
Schrodinger's aperiodic crystal. About fifty years later another physicist from
Princeton, Freeman Dyson improved upon Schrodinger's idea and wrote the book
"Origins of Life". His ideas have been based on much more insights gained in
Biology and Physics since Schrodinger and others. There has been a continued
increase in our understanding of life and its origins by scientists all around
the world. One of the most creative of them all was the Sri Lankan born American
chemist/biologist Ponnamperuma, who was the director of the laboratory of the
chemical evolution of life at the University of Maryland until his premature
death in 1995. He along with Carl Sagan and Ruth Martiner was able to produce
ATP, one of the funademantal building block of DNA, and thus life. His insights
into the chemical nature of life's evolution signifies a quantum jump from the
days of Schroedinger and Oparin.  A nice article on the origin of life with some
description of Ponnamperuma's work can be found at the site:
http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html. Another pioneer in life research is
Nobel Laureate Eigen. He was able to induce (chemically) RNA molecules to
replicate in the lab. This is very close to producing a virus. Viruses are in
between living and non-living. Two more pioneers that should be mentioned are
Stuart Kauffman (A Biochemist) and Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine (A physical
chemist) both of whom have shown how order can spring out of chaos.  At the base
of it all is the most profound aspect of life which is the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and the law of increase of entropy. In fact the purpose of life
if one has to find one is to satisfy the second law and to maximize entropy
production as I said before. The main attribute of life is autopoiesis mentioned
before, a tendency of aggregate moleclues of matter to maintain its identity
through metabolism and replication/reproduction. And autopoiesis is the
inevitable result of a dissipative system trying to maintain its far from
equlibrium (thermodymanic) state to maximize entropy generation.  A dissipative
system is one that requires continuous input of energy to maintain itself.  Life
is not simply an entity created from scratch from conception to birth. Life is
an evolving process that has been going on over billions of years in an
incremental way. Our body may have been formed in matter of years after
conception, but the program (our genome sequence) that builds us (our body+mind)
has taken billions of years to perfect.  The most insightful discovery by Darwin
was that natural selection and mutation can give rise to a complex life form as
human through a prolonged and cumulative action of those laws. The complicated
body and brain of ours are not just a creation from our birth to date. We have
inherited the blueprint of life (the genetic code) that has evolved and
prefected through billions of years of evolution. Thats why life is so precious.
It contains huge information collected over an incredibly long span of time. Our
genome sequence will take thousands of pages to write down in paper. Like a
complex software that starts with few simple lines but eventually is perfected
into a sophisticated program of millions of lines with contributions from many
people over a long time, the genetic code of life took billions of years to be
developed and is still evolving. Life will look different and more advanced in
another million years.  We can never undertsand life without understanding the
history of how life has evolved from the primordial earth with single cells
becoming more and more complex by incremental steps. But the process of this
evolution of life from simple to complex is purely natural. Down at the bottom
it is nothing but physics. Natural selection and mutation is nothing more than a
manifestation of the laws of Physics at work on cell/gene level. As Watson of
DNA fame said "In the last analysis, there are only atoms. There's just one
science, Physics; everything else is social work" in his lecture at the London
Institute of Contemporary Arts in 1985. This view is also echoed by Stephen
Hawkings and Steven Weinberg.  Hawking nicely summarizes this view as:
Biology<-Chemistry<- Physics. Biologist Richard Dawkins (see reference 4 at the
end) states that Physicists have to come into the scene at the end of the long
chain of reasonings to explain evolution of life to complete the last but not
the least significant step. (In this context also refer to reference 7 at the
end ). A caveat must be issued that it is never implied that Physics is complete
and all that can be known is known already. There will certainly be insights
gained in Physics in future and current concepts and laws may be revised or
subsumed under a more comprehensive scheme of laws (Theory of Everything). But
it will not at least invalidate what is certainly known and tested today, like
nuclear Physics and relativity since nuclear bomb is the litmus test of its
validity, among many others. We are misled by apparent beauty and complexity of
a product to immediately conceive of a designer with a human attribute. But it
is nature which is the designer. Sure, humans as yet cannot create life, but
that does not automatically imply life must be a direct product of a divine act.
Humans cannot make a naturally beautiful snowflake or a natural gemstone with
beautiful patterns either. But we know these are all results of the Laws of
Physics as mentioned earlier. Similarly, life, in all its complexity, impossible
for humans to create, is nothing but the result of the laws of Physics, although
acting over a long (billions of years) period of time, unlike snowflakes where
it acts over a much shorter time span. If there has to be a divine designer for
life then it is the Laws of Physics. A beautiful snowflake with its artistic and
symmetric pattern is just a result of the laws of thermodynamics and Quantum
mechanics. So is life. Life is an EMERGENT behaviour of matter. Life is a result
of self- organization of matter driven by the requirements to maximize entropy
and reduce the gradient of temperature difference between sun and earth. What is
the origin of the laws of physics? Nobody knows! Not even the physicists
themselves.  But do they say "God made the Laws of Physics", because it is not a
staement that adds anything to an ignorance other than hiding the ignorance
inside a newly coined term (God) as I said before. If one really has to
contemplate a designer, then its the law of Physics that one has to wonder who
is the designer of. But at this primitive level it hardly makes any difference
 whether one postulates a grand designer that exists necessarily without
itself(himself?)  requring a creator, or postulates that the the Law of Physics
exists necessarily without a creator. The former just provides a consolation to
mortals in the form of a hope of a personal God looking after each human who
will resurrect him someday and bestow eternal life along with the fulfilment of
all desires unfulfilled in this life. So this question of the designer of the
Laws of Physics has no answer, or better yet, it is not a meaningful question
even. Just saying "God" made these laws is another way of saying we don't know.
It sounds better than admitting ignorance. But it does not increase our insight
by phrasing it that way. Its a pretentious cop out. We can "label" the unknown
as "GOD", but thats an affirmation of our ignorance, not a deep realization. 
Not only that, if the wonderful design necessitates a wonderful designer, then by
the same logic, a wonderful designer (which itself is a wonderful design in its
own right) necessisates a yet more wonderful designer. Where do we stop in this
infinite regress? Isn't it more sensible to stop at something that we understand
and know (i.e Laws of Physics, including its possible extensions in future) or 
admit that we don't know where to stop, rather than stopping at an ill-defined
thing by coining the word God?

we as human can still spend our lifetime learning and discovering just the
natural laws that exist and understand how it (Natural Laws) works and give rise
to the marvelous phenomena of evolution, formation of stars, galaxies,
snowflakes etc and try to understand life in an incremental way. There is no
reason (other than faith, which does not require reason) to assume that the
phenomenon of life cannot be ever understood in terms of natural laws. Mr.
Mukul's asertion that "If any one claims that human species have learnt
(collectively) everything that is humanly possible to learn, then I would
declare him the most ignorant man in this universe." is really misapplied. It
really applies to the dogmatists, who claim to know th answer of it all with a
one liner "It is the work of God".  Scientists on the other hand claim
ignorance as to ultimate questions of existence and origin issues. They only
claim to know as much as it can be and has been known, and occasional
speculations based on known laws.

 The fact that we do not completely understand life now does not imply that it
is not understandable in physical terms.  We don't understand weather too,
inspite of all the technical advances. This lack of understanding is rooted in
the complexity of weather and life. The chain of reasoning based on laws of
physics that links a simple molecule to a living organism is broken in the
middle due to the enormous complexity of cumulative effects of over billions of
years of evolution. In weather, it is the enormous number of air molecules that
is at the root of complexity preventing an exact understanding.

 Gone are the days when arm chair philosophers were idly talking about their pet
theories of life, consciousness etc. Without the new language of genes, DNAs,
entropy, Second Law, autocatalysis, autopoiesis any talk of life would now sound
like childish babble, trapped in words going in circles, getting one nowhere. It
would require a superphilosopher today (There are a handful, Paul Davies, Daniel
Dennett to name a couple) well versed in all these disciplines to pool together
all these separate insights into a coherent story of life. Thousands of pages of
results of scientific research into consciousness, mind, life are being
published monthly in journals of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology,
biomathematics, biophysics, molecular genetics, artificial intelligence, quantum
consciousness etc. The best approximations todate of the truth of life are
distributed among these separate database of knowledge that is rapidly
expanding. Some of the key words vital to the understanding of life are:
COMPLEXITY, EMERGENT PHENOMENA, CHAOS, SELF 
ORGANIZATION, DISSIPATIVE SYSTEMS, AUTOPOIETIC SYSTEMS, 
AUTOCATALYTIC PROCESS. 
etc.

The books by Dawkins quite convincingly demonstrates how complex life can arise
out of the simpler ones and ultimately be traceable to inanimate physical laws.

He also has an interesting on line article debunking such design arguments at:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html


Some more references containing the detailed source of the ideas discussed above:

1. What is Life? - Lyn Margulis and Dorion Sagan [A book of incredible insight
in to life. A very appropriate title]

2. What is Sex? - Lyn Margulis and Dorion Sagan [This is not a book on ordinary
sex as most undertsand it.  But an evolutionary explanation of how sexual
reproduction evolved from bacteria to higher organisms over billions of years
and how genders became separated over time. Lyn Margulis is a distngusihed
scientist with hundreds of publication and is affiliated with many Nasa projects
in exobiology. She has original ideas in biology and is also in touch with Dyson
and other physicists about the latest reasearch in life and evolution. By the
way she was married to Late Carl Sagan.  Dorion Sagan is her son]

3. The Selfish gene - Dawkins. (An eye opener, take a gene's eye view of life)

4. The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins (Clearly shows how complex life can evolve
from simple through small natural steps)

5. Climbing Mount Improbable - Dawkins (uptodate and more convincing than above)

6. Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative - Christian De Duve(Nobe laureate) .
Written both in a scientific and philosophical way

7. Life's Other Secret: The New Mathematics of the Living World - Ian Stewart
Below is a summary of a talk by Ian Stewart with the same title as the book
above ( Given on 4/23/98 at the Univ. of Minnesota):

What is life? Why is the world of living creatures so different from the
inorganic world? The discovery of the first secret of life, the molecular
structure of DNA, in the middle of this century, showed that Life is a form of
chemistry - but chemistry unlike any that ever graced a test tube. Some secrets,
however, lie deeper that the genetic code. It is the mathematical law of physics
and chemistry that control the growing organism's response to its genetic
instructions.  That is Life's OTHER Secret. Its full understanding will come
only when we combine the mathematical and physical sciences with biochemistry,
genetics, and developmental biology. One of the most exciting growth areas of
twenty-first century science will be biomathematics. The next century will
withness an explosion of new mathematical concepts, of new kinds of mathematics,
brought into being by the need to understand the patterns of the living world.

8. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life : A Scientific Detective Story - A. G.
Cairns-Smith [A pioneer in life's origin.  Originator of the clay theory of
Life]

9. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-organization and
Complexity - Stuart Kauffman

10. The Fifth Miracle - Paul Davies (Speculates on life's possible
extraterrestrial origin)

11. Life Itself - Francis Crick(Nobel Laureate)

12. Steps Towards Life : A Perspective on Evolution - Manfred Eigen(Nobel
Laureate)

13. Physics of Immortality - Frank Tipler [An intriguing book that postulates on
the possibility of immortality based on pure physics]. For a review click on:
http://niazi.com/resurrec.htm or
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb96/PhysicsOfImmorality.html

14. Web Link: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/origlife.html

  - Aparthib Zaman

2=== 
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:56:35 -0700 (PDT) 
Subject: Some thoughts on Belief 
To: "NFB"  


Mr. Mukul's latest response brings out an important issue. That of belief.
Now belief in GOD is not like any other belief. Let me explain. Take
the case of belief in fairies. Fairies are well defined entities, they
are beautful women with wings that can fly. Whether or not they exist
their images are well-defined. One can make a virtual reality version
of fairies. Another points to note that children do believe in fairies
upto certain age and then outgrow it as adults don't reinforce such
beliefs, rather reinforce disbelief as they grow up. Now come to
belief in GOD. What is GOD? can anyone define it? One definition can 
be God is defined as the creator of the universe. It is not an
informative definition as it does not add anything to what we already
know or feel intutively. Its just adding one more word to our vocabulary 
reflecting our primitive intuitive idea of a cause for an effect. So 
belief in God is not profound, but very primitive. By harping on the 
theme, "how can this ammazing universe a]with all its amazing life forms 
not have a designer'", does not make one any more profound or knowledgable, 
but shows that one is still stuck in that primitive intuition and not
being able to get beyond it. What is the reason for this stagnation?
Unlike fairies, adults constantly reinforce the notion of GOD and adds 
around that intuitive notion of a creator of an unknown nature, an image 
of a superhumanlike being. Thus not only is the primitive intuition 
being kept alive til adulthood but it is also adorned  with an attribute
that is appealing to mortals who are inherently insecure. Now one extra 
level of baggage is created. Not only one is urged to believe in a creator 
(which anyone does, even scientists or atheist, although the notion of 
creator is very different for them), but a creator with a humanlike
attribute except that all the human attributes (Like strength, kindness, 
etc) are given infinite value. Now is this notion of God well-defined 
like fairies? Humanlike attributes without a human physical existence is 
as absurd and illogical as it can be. Of course Physics laws have their 
peculiar mind too. It does things that we marvel at. But stiil not
in the same way as does a human to us with feelings and emotions.
Although Mr. Mukul fails to appreciate the scientific findings that
the roots of all human attributes, like emotions, free will are pure
relutlts of the Laws of Physics (Quantum uncertainty in particular)
acting thorought the trilllions and trillions of neurons in the human
brain. Mr. Mukul also cites the examples of human sacrifice suggesting 
the casue of such human attributes as being the soul. Again like God, 
it is circuitous definition that does not add any value to human insight. 
If soul is defined to be the cause for human emotions then it is 
vacuous definition. All such human attributes as altruism is also nicley
explained by evolutionary biology as is discussed in the books by Dawkins
and also by sociobioloist Wilson. The book "The sefish gene" by Dawkins
very eloquently discusses the evolutionary basis of altruism. Any modern
book on sociobiology will discuss altruism, aggression etc in the light
of evolutionary biology. No need of soul here, as if soul had an
independent definition. If soul has to have a consistent definition
then it has to be "Soul is the program of life in running". the
program of life being the genetic code for each genome sequence.
Just as a process is nothing buit a program running so is life. The
momnet the process of life stops, life stops. So if his bringing in
the notion of "soul" was to lend some dfense to God's notion that also
is pointless as soul can be relegated to biology just as God can be
relegated to laws of Physics

Mr. Mukul said that "evolution is not a random process. It is a controlled 
orderly process - which is an indicator of controller behind the scene". 
He is trapped here in inconsistneices. On the one hand he agreed 100% that 
evolution is the relsut of the Laws of Physics and then suggesting above 
that it is the result of a "controller" obviously suggesting a divine being
i.e God's intervention. Even granting his assertion that evolution
is orderly (although science points to random element in evolution).
that orderliness comes from the laws of physics. The order is issued
by the laws of Physics. Randomness and order in Phyisics are not that
unrelated. They are joined by the laws of complexity and chaos. Weather
seems random to us, but it is still governeed by the orderly laws of
physics. The example of black hole to assert that laws of physics can 
break down also reflects some misunderstanding of black holes and also 
of the sense of "breaking down" as used by phsicists themsleves. Physicists
say that to imply that the usual classical general reltivity ceases
to apply in black holes. The extremities of a singularity requires
a combined application of graviation and Quantum mechanics (ie.
Quantum Gravity) whic is still not fully developed due to its mathematical
complexity. So it is not a breaking of a law rather the absence of
the necessary mathematical tool to deal with such entity that is meant.
Again I have to ask, what was the point of this all? What was established
through such discussions?

Often a believer in personal God says that God is infinite, unknowable, 
undescribable etc etc. Then it truly is undefined. Does it make sense to 
believe in any entity that one does not even have an idea how to define? 
Then why such belief. Seems like the belief in this case is solely a result 
of some inherent wish in the mind. A wish for immortality, a wish to be 
protected, guarded, and be rewarded etc. It is merely the image of an 
ideal father, who is infinitely powerful (All child believe's their father 
is the srtongest etc), infinitely merciful etc. So this extrapolation
from a primitive intuition of a creator (Which I repeat ALL humans
are born with, including scientist, atheists etc) to a personal God
with humanly definable attributes is a reflection of the inner need
of humans to have such a God, no other reason or evidence can lead
to such extrapolation. Now come to science and logic. As I said
saying that wonderful designs must have creator is no profound
observation, it occurs in all humans, no special talent or skill
is needed. Believeing that a designer with humanlike attributes
(all "powerful", all "compassionate" etc) also does not require
any depth or sepcial talent either, only requires a wish to believe
and to not worry about it any further. But scientists go a step beyond 
that and try to find the designer step by step through scientific 
investigation. And they have found that at least upto now the buck 
stops at the Laws of Physics. If there is any root cause of the laws 
of Physics then it might be called God. But the important point is 
that calling something not known by any name does not define it's 
nature. If  there is any root cause of Physics we can't say it is 
this or that, because it is not known. We can fantacize about its 
nature. Giving it some human attribute may make one feel good but it
suffers from some inconsistency. We cannot reconcile human attributes
with an undefined non-human entity. It may very well be that the 
root cause of Physics (Whatever that is) may have no humanlike 
consciousness with will and mind, it may itslef be an inanimate 
set of laws (more fundamental than the laws of Physics). Lets call 
it the Superphysical laws. So symbolically:

Superphysical Laws (Unknown) --> Laws of Physics (known) --> Life, Universe etc

Then the we can extrapolate one level up and say there must be a
root cause of superphysical laws. Fine. Its also fine to say that
the root cause stops at some level n (n = 3, 4, 5.. you pick). Then
we have a true God, something that is not created and does not need 
a creator. Fine. Now is there any reason (other than faith, which is
not a "reason" after all in the true sense) to say that such primal
root cause has to be humanlike, with consciusness, will, mind etc
that is envisaged in traditional religion? Beyond debate the answer
is NO. Then what difference does it make to assume that the buck stops
at level 1 (i.e Laws of Physics) rather than at level 3,4 5 etc?.
Mr. Mukul appealed to the "unknown" factor to suggest the existence
of something that is not known by limited human knowledge. Now who
can debate this trivially true statement. Even a scientist can say
that. Science always recognize the possibilities beyond that currently
known. Its only that scientists are not that presumptuous to give shape
and attribute to such unknown possibilities. But for laymen to go a 
step further and exclaim that "since we can't know everything by
current human knowldege, therefore we cannot say that the existence 
of God can be ruled out by future knowledge and someday the existence 
of God will be proven beyond doubt by science" is a stretch of
intellect. First if one accepts the logic that since human knowledge
is limited so it is possible that God's  existence may be proven when 
more knowledge is avaible then that logic has to be applicable to ANY
belief, since God is a belief. So if one believes in fairies, Godmothers,
Unicorns etc which cannot be priven by limited human knowledge today
may have the potential of being proiven someday in future.This will
lead to a slippery slope, as any belief can qualify for serious
attention. Secondly if anything can be "proven" later, then by definition 
that "thing" is scientific, since science deals with things that are 
provable. By definition, God is unprovable? Why? Because the religious
notion of God has no unambiguous "definition" and is such that it 
has built in inconsisntcies to be even amenable to science and logic!
It is incompatible mixture of an intutive notion of root cause and
wishful thinking rooted in inherent insecurity of humans. 
So such hope is far fetched. All science can do is to discover another
level higher in the chain of causality, but may never really find the
root cause. So there may well be an unknown forever. It would be
pretentious for anyone to claim to know the attributes of that unknown
root cause. Well they can fantacize anything they choose to to make 
them feel good. Imagination has no rules to it. It can roam freely. 
But such imagination (beliefs) cannot be claimed as truth and preached.
I agree with Mr. Mukul the need to save humanity from destruction and
develop tolerance and ethical values. But that shoul be based on pure
humanistic grounds alone. No need of psotulating beliefs. Beliefs should
not be a prerequisite for human values that are for the good for all
of humanity.


Aparthib Zaman

3=== moved to mailp4.html

4===
Date: 11/23/01
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: God responds to Ryan & Avjit

With due apology to God I am taking the liberty to  preempt the message from
God to Ryan and Avijit and try to add some of my own thoughts  hoping it
will help to bridge some communication gap between Avijit & Ryan :)

First, true, what Avijit is saying applies more to believers of revealed
religions, who assert the existence of God. The burden of proof  lies with 
the believers of God who claim the existence of God as truth. Ryan was not 
claiming the existence of God as a truth, so to be fair the burden of proof 
does not apply to him in toto.

But by saying "However just because I can't PROVE the existence of 'God',
does not mean that 'God' does not exist."  Ryan may have averted
the burden of proof  but has made a statement that has no substantive
content at all. It is a well known fallacy in philosophy and is called 
argumentum ad ignornatum.

The problem with this statement is that God is not a well-defined meaningful
philosophical concept.. All religious definition of God  has proven to be
either contradictory or circular. Second,  all philosophical  definition of 
God which do not suffer from such  stigma of circularity and/or contradiction 
are nothing but relabelling  (based on various criteria, depending on the 
school of philosophy) a set of  things that exist, or whose existence can be 
predicted by science/logic.

So a proof of  existence or non-existence of such God of the label is an
irrelevant question.  And such labelling is also vacuous as relabelling 
does not reflect any additional insight about a fundamental truth. So 
defining God = nature, or God = The set of laws of Physics do not 
really add much except add an extra term in the vocabulary. Same is 
applicable to Einstein's proverbial mention of Spinozza's God. It was said 
mainly to appease the famous Rabbi of NY who questioned Einstein's 
religious belief (Einstein was suspected of  being
communist sympathizer). Spinozza's God is not a very profound concept.

Now come to Ryna's defintion of God. he defined it as some "creative"
"force". This is a nice example of an ill-defined concept. So it cannot 
even be
placed on the table for a proof or disproof. Creative is teltale of 
creator. Force is only a well-defined concept in Physics. Saying that a 
creative force exists is not saying anything more than "a creator exists". 
So it begs the question, because it leads to an infinite regress, since the 
concept of a creator forces one to posit the creator of the creator. And if 
one has to say that at certain level  the regress must end say creator-n, 
i.e there is no  creator-n+1, then the question is what is n? We know 
that creator-1 is The laws of Physics ( n=1) . More importantly if 
creator-1(Physics) is not the primal creator then what is the nature of the 
primal creator-n? Any attempt to assign any nature to creator-n has 
always led to contradictions and circularities. Like the attributes of 
INFINITY and LIMITLESSNESS that Ryan mentioned, as appealing as they 
appear, are laden with logical difficulty if examined with
philosophical rigour, one such problem is the Cantor's paradox well known 
in Philosophy. And another problem  is that invariably one feels tempted to 
assign CONSCIOUSNESS to a primal creator. Consciousness (created by 
Laws of Physics) is a purely human concept and to assign this human 
attribute to  its creator is not logically permissible and thus leads to many 
incompatibilities. And without  consciousness, the most likely creator  by 
Occam's razor is creator-1 (Physics). After all consciousnes is a human 
attribute, and hence created by creator-1 (Physics), since humans are 
creation of Physics (via evolution).

The major flaw in Ryan's post is in his following statement:

  Although it is not PROVEN that the BIG BANG theory is the correct
  one, it is by far the most LOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE theory. If you can
  accept this theory as possibly true, then why not mine about the
  'creative force'?

The major problem with the above is the use of  "logical". The answer to
Ryan's why is that Big Bang is a well-defined concept , and B-B theory is 
based on logic (The laws of  Physics) and is supported by observations. So 
it is truly a "logical" plausibility. But the notion of "creative force" as 
ill-defined  as it is, with no rigourous definition, is not based on any 
logic (or science) and is not supported by any observations.So it IS NOT a 
logical plausibility.  It is an uneven comparison with BB.

Scientific theories are not just a matter of  opinions or beliefs. They are
preceded by rigorous mathematical work based on the well-known laws of 
Physics. So it is not pure belief. The notion of  a "creative force" is a 
pure belief. Big bang is precisely defined and is based on logic, "creative 
force" is neiter. So you cannot put the two on the same level. The last 
exit strategy of pure belief  is  "Not everything has to be based on logic 
or science". True. But then one cannot speak about it.

Anything beyond logic or science falls in the category of unspeakable. 
(Mysticism) Wittgenstein realized it and made the wise recommendation that 
philosophers better focus on language and its evolution (wisely heeded by 
Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker) rather than vague metaphysics. Any attempt to 
engage in dialectics invariably falls into the category of logical 
discourse, where pure belief has no place.

I didn't intend to be only critical of Ryan, but it may have appeared to be so.

Hopefully this will be taken as pure dialectics.

Aparthib

5===
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 23:42:27 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] "don't do to others"  To Ryan, No problem

In response to Ryan:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3148

Stare at the original statement below: 
1. "don't do to others what you would not have them do to 
     yourself. This is called morality."

Next stare at the alternate statement below:
2. "(You can) DO to others what you would want them to
     do to yourself or don't mind them to do to yourself"

Are the two same? THEY ARE NOT!   Not only that, (2) can 
not be derived from (1) by any  correct  logical inference . 
Sorry, would be rapists and child  molesters, you are out of luck,
as it is the former that is defined as part of morality, not the 
alternate one!  SOPHISTRY CAN NEVER WIN!

But anyway why is the simple point not sinking in. One liners 
cannot define morality. The most important point in ethics 
that must be added to any other precept is  "not infringing on 
other's property and body". That is the basic axiom that all 
acceptable system of ethics has to meet. Now that immediately
eliminates rapists, childmolesters, and what have you. 

Aparthib

6===
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:25:07 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: "don't do to others"  To Ryan & Audrey

To  prevent one more mails, I am  following up on Ryan's and
Audrey's interesting jab at morality in  a oneliner . I still maintain
it is problematic unless the one liner has many "AND" s in it.
Lets see.

At 11/6/01 10:30 AM, Ryan wrote: 
>
>"Do not do to others what they dislike, if you do not want others to 
>do to you what you dislike!" Ryan 
>
>Is this a better way to sum up moraltiy? :-)
>

       Unfortunately no. The  "IF"  in the second  part of the sentence
       is the problem. Morality cannot be based on conditionals, must
       be unconditional based on an absolute principle.  Rememeber 
       there was no "IF" in the original  precept. Now let me point out
       the problem. By your definition, it is OK to torture someone,
       IF you want (or don't mind) others to torture you. But its not OK.
       That is  not morality. One should not do unto unto others what 
       they  dislike, PERIOD. No  IFS, BUTS.  But then that is also a part
       ( a necessary part of morality), but not all. For example,
       a rapist or child molester may not want the judge to convict 
       him, but the judge will not be immoral in doing so. So it is
       not that trivial.

>This one makes rapists realise that if they do to women what they 
>dislike, then it is totally justifiable for another to do things to 
>the rapist things, he may dislike! (For example, torture!) 

       See my remarks above. The same argument applies here too.
       The rapist may willingly embrace torture   as a trade off for
        rape.  No valid precept of morality should justify rape, no 
       IFS and BUTS, PERIOD.

       Thanks to Ryan for the morality teaser :-)

Now to Audrey.

At 11/6/01 09:28 AM, Audrey wrote: 
>Ryan,Maybe a better rule would be 'do unto others what they would have you do
unto them'.
>In this way we would have to consider the other person's feelings.
>Audrey

    This formulation has no problem with morality. But it is more
    than morality. It  is referring more to good  samaritanism.
    Do to others what they want you to do to them, is being a nice
    guy/gal. It is optional. A moral person need not be nice, but
    must need be "NOT BAD". Morality is about satisfying the 
    minimum. Anything more is optional and nice to do. And as a
    one liner this also will have probalems like Ryan's. For example
    a rapist may want the judge to aquit him. Again the judge does
    not have to oblige the rapist to be moral, as your formulation
    of the morality precept would indicate as a one liner.


     Aparthib 

7===
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 15:29:18 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Creation - Aparthib some questions please :-)

In response to Ryan:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3170

Thanks to Ryan for his nice words and very profound 
questions. I will share my thoughts on the questions 
abouit ultimate reality  with my limited underatanding.

At 11/4/01 06:58 PM, you wrote: 
[...] also I was a bit drunk too (which is why my points 
were a bit dodgy lol), [...]

     See, it is not without a good reason that I mentioned in my
     last post that I don't have one reader in mind when posting
     a response, I don;t put all my eggs in one basket. lol. :-)

now, I want to ask you, how do you think the universe started? 
According to what I know, it was the 'BIG BANG' which came from 
a 'SINGULARITY'? Now please tell me, WHAT caused the 'BIG BANG'? and 
WHERE did the 'SINGULARITY' come from? How was it ceated? What 
created it? How did it come in to existence? 

     All of the above are really the same question in various
     garbs. At the deepest level it is like asking why we (i.e
     the universe) exist at all, rather than not. It is a metaphysical
     question, and as is said metaphysical questions are not
     well defined, but are nevertheless asked to reflect our ultimate 
     ignorance, human being part of the whole, a part cannot 
     understand the whole in a meaningful way, but tries to because
     we are inspired by analogy from daily experience to look for
     a larger picture from smaller, like a picture built from tiny dots,
     patterns of human formationn seen from above, an ant-hill
     etc. But we haredly realize that it may not be a meaningful quest
     when applied to the cosmos in its entirety.  ! Anyway, the cause of 
     Big Bang is understood at  the level of Physics (Again the cause
     of the existence of  the laws of  Physics still eludes us, which is 
     the unanswerable  metaphysical  question of  why existence
     rather than non-existence) at the present time  best by the 
     chaotic inflation theory, where  Quantum Fluctuation  
     (Which is the physics part) causes to  inflate a tiny part of the 
     singularity to our observable  universe, other tiny parts end 
     up in uninteresting universes  with  no life, barren, some 
     die out soon for not meeting all  the  cosmic  conditions to 
     even last long enough. All this talk  is about the  forefront of
     Cosmology and anything can be out  of date soon. Some 
    leading figures in these research are Lee Smolin,  Andrei Linde, 
    and of course Setphen Hawking. I suggest keeping  oneself 
     posted through the following links (Among many others):

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/contents.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/web_site.htm
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/kagaku/E/kag_e.html
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/faq/FAQ_index.html

Articles read the articles by Michio Kaku and Lee Smolin in:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html

[...]


Aparthib

8===
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:40:22 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Your One Stop Guide to Bangladeshi  Newsgroups

In response to Eshon's valid question. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3221

Here are some general points to help understand how to fit anyone into 
any category in the context of  religion. It is helpful to refer to my earlier 
post oin faith, philosophy and dogma under this thread as well:

SOME CATEGORY DEFINITIONS:

1. COMMUNAL : A belief that a member of another religion is inferior/evil
                       simply due to being born in that religion.

     a) Soft form: When belief is limited to pure thought as  prejudices.
     b) Hard form: When belief is followed by physical  actions to harm
         and violate the basic human rights of   the members of the other
         religion in opportune moment.

2.  OBSCURANTIST : Who (mis)interpret religion in a very strict and 
      narrow  way   and engage in practices/beliefs in the name of religion 
      that  goes against knowledge and reason and progress. Examples are
      Insisting on   strict  codes of  conducts, like on dress, movements,
      social activities etc that  are implied by strict adherence to
      scriptures like Hadith, Manu Smriti etc.

3. RELIGIOUS-SPIRITUALIST: One who believes and practices at  a
     personal  level  those aspects of the  revelations,  scriptures, rituals of 
     their  religion that  are not  politically doctrinal  in nature and do not
     infringe on others indiviudal rights. Praying,  fasting, going to
     pilgrimages etc are examples.

4. RELIGIOUS-NATIIONALIST : One who may or may not  be religious/
     spiritual  at a  personal level, but are extremely nationalist  and are
      particularly obsessed  with the political and  doctrinal aspects of
      religion and which provides inspirational base for their  nationalistic
      zeal.

Notes: (1) One can be communal and NOT Obscurantist (True among
     both Hindus and Muslims. (2) One can be Obscurantist but not
     Communal. I have a personal experience of an example of this.
     I knew of an obscurantist Muslim who was very kind and and
     completely free from prejudice towards a Hindu guy. He helped
     the Hindu boy a lot in his finacial crisis and helped him to get
     through his college. But he practiced the most antiquated religious
     rituals at  home. (3) One can be Religious-Spiritual  but  neither
     Obscurantist nor Communal, nor Religious-Natiomalist. Most Muslims
     and Hindus in Bangladesh and India probably fall into this  category.
     But  even a vocal and aggressive minority of religious-nationalists
     can drown out the majority. Moreover  if they succeed in convincing
     the majority (who are mostly naive) about the justness of their political
     belief/struggle then they may even draw moral support for their
     "cause"  if not for their explicit actions to promote such cause. This
     is the inherent  contradiction of the religious-spiritual. Its like eating
     beef  while loathing  the act of slaughtering a cow.

9===
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 14:06:47 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: [mukto-mona] Faith, Philosophy & Dogma(Was  Re: Your One Stop Guide to..

In response to :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3194
==========================================

Oklanto Pothik's following remarks prompted me to make
some general observations on faith, dogma and philosophy
after  responding to his/her specific remarks below.

At 11/6/01 08:36 PM, you wrote: 
>
> One of my friends think that a beilever can't be a humanist. The term 
> "religious dogma" is very vague to me. Does that mean GOD is waiting 
> with an axe to hit me if I think as I wish to? Does somebody have to 
> be an atheist or agnostic or religion basher to be Mukto Mona?

1. "The term "religious dogma" is very vague to me
    
      How so? dogma is well-defined English word. so is religious. The
      expression "Religious dogma" is used to distniguish it from other 
      dogmas, like communist  dogmas (or political dogmas in general), 
      dogmas of  various cults etc.

  2. "Does that mean GOD is waiting  with an axe to hit me if I think as I wish to?"
     
         Asking 2 right after 1  means  a perceived vagueness of "
         religious dogma" leads to "God's waiting with an axe to hit
         the perceiver of the vaguness". Confounding to say the least.
         The answer to 2 is an obvious no. But  I am not sure why was
         it even asked and directed to whom? Anyway this question (In
         the right context) can only be meaningfully asked to a
         follower of any one  of the Abrahamic religions (Only they
         have notion of a vengeful God).

3. "Does somebody have to  be an atheist or agnostic or religion
basher to be Mukto Mona?"

      Who said so? Why ask a question when the answer has been given
      umpteenth time Here is the answer for the umpteenth+1 time:   NO

       Terms that have multiple interpretations (atheist/agnostic, "
       basher" etc) can not be used precisely define any  word, like
       freethinker.

        A freethinker is defined by  what it isn't, not by what it is:
        A FREETHINKER IS ONE WHO DOES NOT  BELIEVE IN A FAITH
        OR DOGMA .

        An example of a freethinker who was not an atheist/agnostic
        or a religion basher.

       Einstein:  Believed in Spinozza's nature God (Hence eliminates
       atheism, exploiting atheism's admitting of multiple
       interpretation)., did not follow any religious or any other
       dogma.

Now let me engage in some general discussions of Faith, Philosophy and Dogma
that will subsume all that I have said above as well. (Important  keywords are
capped)

1. FAITH: A PERSONAL belief that  is  based on  a  logically  non-
verifiable and observationally unsupportable belief on  any object (
tangible or not). A faith necessarily CONTRADICTS  logic and reason.
An important attribute of faith is that it does not  require the
participation of others to form the faith. Faith of "A" should not
require any act or thought  from "B".  Another important attribute is
that  is it is harmless, since  belief of "A" does not in any way
refer to "B"

    Examples of Faith:
    Faith in Pegasus, Santa Claus, round square, reincarnation., An
    omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent  PERSONAL  God etc

2.  PHILOSOPHY:  A PERSONAL  view about reality  that is  logically
non-verifiable and  observationally unsupportable, BUT  unlike faith,
DOES NOT CONTRADICT logic  or observation. Example:

     Spinozza's nature God, Pantheism, Omega Point Theory, Process theology,
     Socinism   neoplatonism, humanism, atheism/agnosticism (in any
     of its multiple definition), humanism, secularism, skepticism..

      Philosophy shares the attribute of privacy  (no requirement of others
      participation) and harmlessness of faith as well. 

3.  DOGMA:  A system of view, belief  that are also not based on logic or

     supported by observations but, DOES require the partcipation
     of others to materialize. Hence if the view is not shared voluntarily, the
     participtation will be  necessarily through coercion, to implement the 
     view in practice.  So exercize of power is an important factor in dogma.
     A dogma necessarily infringes on other's individual rights and works
     by intimidation. Thus dogmas  can be potjentially harmful IF the dogma
     is implemented with zeal, vigour and literally without leaving out any
     part of it.  Examples are the dogmas of:
     Judaism, Islam, Chrsitianity, Communism, various cults founded by various
     cult leaders.

Notes
Faith and Philosophy can sometimes be combined sometimes, e.g Buddhism
Some organized religion can contain elements of all three, like the three
Abrahamic religions. But if any view  is based on dogma, then it is not
necessarily harmless despite the presence of the the faith and philosophy
part.  To be harmless dogma part has to be absent.

Thats all my thoughts on this. The next iteration , if any will be better :)
      
Aparthib 

10===
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 20:15:36 -0800
Subject: Re:[mukto-mona] Audrey, my ideas about 'God'..

Ryan's�post�made�several�contradictory�and�incorrect�assertions�that
I�feel�compelled�to�point�out�conscientiously�for�general
clarification.�First,�By�persistently�asserting�a�"logical"
possibility�of�a�"belief"�he�is�mixing�metaphysics�and�dialectics,�a
marriage�that�is�not�meant�to�be.�"God"�or�a�"creative�force"�(As�if
there�was�clear�distinction�between�creative�"force"�and�a�"creator",
or�between�a�creator�and�"God"�:)�cannot�be�a�"logical"�possibility
because�the�notion�of�God�fails�all�logical�criteria.�Hence�God�is
not�a�well-defined�philosophical,�logical�or�scientific�notion�to�be
even�considered�as�a�"possibility"�and�all�attempts�to�define�it
inevitably�leads�to�contradiction.
 
Ryan�has�called�his�his�belief�in�a�"creative�force"�a�"theory".
Thats�not�what�a�theory�is�meant�to�be.�A�theory�worth�its�name�is
based�on�a�set�of�WELL-DEFINED�terms�and�concepts�and�then�derived
deductively�from�logical�inferences�using�well-established�scientific
principles.�Big�bang�theory,�inflation�theory,�Parallel�Unibverse�of
Quantum�Physics,�Anthropic�Principle,�Theory�of�Evolution,�these�are
all�genuine�theories�and�are�accepted�as�such�in�academia,�i.e�they
are�acceoted�as�Theories,�not�that�all�have�to�agree�with�it.�But�to
claim�a�one-liner�statement�"I�believe�in�"X"�because�it�is�a�logical
possibility"�as�a�theory�where�"X"�is�not�even�accepted�as�a�well-
defined�term�by�scientists�and�philosophers,�let�alone�not�even�going
through�any�inferential�step�utlizing�any�scientific�principle�would
be�stretching�it�too�far�.�Merely�mentioning�a�scientific�principle
does�not�qualify�as�utilizing�it,�a�clear�logical/mathematical
derivation�must�be�provided.�It�must�be�noted�that�all�the�theories
above�have�been�put�forward�after�elaborate�logical�inferences,�which
the�laymen�are�not�aware�of�(and�are�not�given�by�the�theorists).�Big
bang�theory�was�not�born�just�by�one�scientist�simply�declaring�one
day�"That�the�universe�began�with�a�big�explosion"�A�painstaking
rigorous�work�has�gone�behind�it�with�many�physicists�adding�their
contributions,�starting�with�George�gamow.�A�complete�techinical
exposition�of�Big�Bang�would�be�too�formidable�a�mathematical�tome
even�for�a�professional�physicist�not�specializing�in�Cosmology�or
Particle�Physics.�Scientific�theories�are�not�accepeted�so�lightly.
Specially�now�a�days.�Human�intellect�has�advanced�too�far�and�a
theory�worthy�of�even�being�called�one��today�has�to�neet�extremely
exacting�criteria�that�quite�realistically�a�theory�only�developed�by
a�collective�effort�of�many�can�hope�to�meet.
 
A�common�misconception�about�singularity�is�that�something�must�have
caused�it.�This�is�a�human�presumption�that�human�sense�of�cause-
effect�has�to�be�applicable�without�exception.�that��is�certianly�not
the�case.�The�very�notion�that�something�caused�the�singularity
assumes�there�is�a�notion�of�time�before�the�singularity.�that�is
false.�Time�itself�is�a�human�construct�that�ends�at�the�bigbang
singuilarity.�Ther�is�no�time�before�the�big�bang�to�even�make�such
an�assertion.�Cause-effect�notion�does�not�apply�to�the�ultimate�end
point�of��time�and�space.�Is�it�any�surprise�that�no�Astrophysicist/
Cosmologists�(Some�of�whom�are�among�the�most�brilliant�minds�)�ever
said�with�awe:�"there�must�be�something�that�must�have�caused�this
singularity.�It�is�a�logical�possibility.�I�will�call�it�theory�"X"
X=creative�force.."
 
As�a�side,�let�me�refer�Ryan�and�those�interested�who�may�have�missed
my�earlier�post�on�"God,�Atheism�&�Secular�Humanism"�in�Mumkto-Mona,
the�same�article�in�the�link:
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#article10
 
In�that�article�I�have�tried�to�carefully�examine�all�these�notions�and
intuitive�feelings�about�God�in�detail.
 
Moving�on..
Ryan�said:
 
>Remember,�if�we�didnt�ask�questions�then�we�would�never�look�for
>answers.�Just�a�few�centuries�ago�many�people�asked�about�the�Earth
 
���very�true.�But�"Saying�I�believe�in�"X"�is�not�asking�a�question.
���It�is�not�even�answering�a�question.�It�is�affirming�one's
���ignorance�about�the�ultimate�reality�in�a�way�that�hides�the
���ignorance�and�projects�a�false�insight.�Part�of�scientific�quest
���is�to�ask�the�right�question�and�then�find�the�right�answer.�That
���is�much�much�harder�than�answering�a�wrong�question�or�to�assert�a
���belief��and�claim�to�it�be�an�answer.
 
��The�following�statement�of�Ryan�is�totally�contrary�to�Physics:
 
>because�you�can't�get�something�out�of�NOTHING�(a�VOID).�If
>there�was�NOTHING�before�then�there�would�be�NOTHING�now.
 
Ordinary�intuition�and��common�sense�does�not�hold�in�the�realm�of
Quantum�Physics�or�General�Relativity.
 
Ryan�took�some�pain�to�drive�home�the�point�that�all�is�perception,
reality�may�be�an�illusion,�a�virtual�reality.�OK,�but�then�why�not
accept�the�possibility�that�a�belief�in�a�creative�force�may�be�an
illusion�also,�merely�a�perception?�Is�that��belief�immune�to�such
perceptive�illusion:)?�But�anyway,�it�may�well�be�that�the�entire
reality�as�we�perceive�may�be�a�virtual�reality�(I�agree�here�with
Ryan),�because�such�a�simulated�reality�cannot�be�distinguished�by�a
true�non-simulated�reality�by�existing�scientific�laws.�I�made�sure
that�my�conclusion�is�in�accord�with��scientific�law,�as�supported�by
Oxford�Physicist�David�Deutsch�(See�his�excellent�book�"Fabric�of
Reality").�BUT,�within�our�level�of�reality�(virtual�or�actual),
there�is�still�two�types�of�perception,�(1)�An�objective�one,�tested
by�logic�and�evidence�by�humanity�collectively�and�(2)�a�subjective
one,�by�individuals�or�a�group�of�individuals�mutually�influencing
through�feedback,�but�not�tested�by�logic�and�evidence�by�humanity
collectively.�The�two�cannot�be�placed�on�the�same�footing.�A�clear
distinction�and�a�hierarchical�stature�has�to�realized�between�the
two�types.
 
Now�come�to�the�final�misconception.�About�love.�Ryan�mainatained
that�love�cannot�be�explained�by�science.�It�is�here,�if�not
elsewhere�that�one�must�insist�on�what�is�meant�by�"explain".��Can
science�explain�why�the�color�blue�has�a�shorter�wavelength�than
green?�Does�it�even�make�any�sense�to�ask�this�question?�Blueness�and
Greenness�is�a�perception�of�a�what�is�known�as�"qualia".�So�is�the
feeling�love.�It�is�not�meaningful�to�say�that�science�cannot�explain
the�feeling�of�love.�Feeling�of�love�is�only�a�sense�perception.�Just
like�my�perception�of�blueness�is�totally�private,�not�comparable�to
the�percpetion�of�blueness�by�someone�else,�feeling�of�love�is��also
a�"qualia".�There�is�no�explaining�needed�(And�it�does�not�make�sense
to�even�talk�about�it)�in�the�qualia�of�a�subjective�attribute.�BUT,
(Pay�attention!),�SCIENCE�CAN�EXPLAIN�WHEN�A�COLOR�
APPEARS�BLUE�AND�WHEN�GREEN.�SIMILARLY�SCIENCE�
CAN�ALSO�EXPLAIN�WHAT�CAUSES�ONE�TO�PERCEIVE
(OR�EXPRESS)�LOVE.��This�may�take�many�uninformed�layfolks
off�guard.�This�is�the�triumph�of�this�new�offshoot�of�evolutionary
biology�called�sociobilogy�that�can�explain�all�human�emotions�from
biological�perspectives.�After�all,�humans�or�all�animals�are�crafted
by�the�laws�of�nature�(Physics�via�the�random�mutation�and�natural
selection),�so�emotions�and�feelings,�which�are�inevitably�linked�to
animals�(humans�included),�must�be�the�creation�of�the�same�laws�of
Physics.�Unless�one�believes�that�the�bodies�are�created�by�evolution(
laws�of�Physics),�but�the�emotions�are�injected�by�God!�Now�why�would
"God"�do�such�a�ridiculous�thing�as�build�a�body�the�hard�way�through
evolution�(thus�paving�the�way�for�imperfections,�and�we�know
evolution�leads�to�suboptimal��organs)�and�shortcircuit�the�creation
of��the�emotion�and�create�it�by�a�magic�wand.�In�that�case�emotions
should�have�been�perfect�for�all,�it�is�not.�Anyway�I�was�referring
to�science�explaining�emotions�(or�the�biological�basis�of�emotions).
Even�our�artistic�senses�and�yearnings�have�an�evolutionary
explanation�("Survival�of�the�artiest"�as�John�Barrow�puts�it,�see
the�refernce�5�below).�The�kind�of�paintings�that�human�on�the
average�feels�attracted�to�is�shaped�by�the�early�humanods�living�in
the�plains�of�African�Savana.
 
There�are�several�layers�of�scientific�explanation.�There�is�this
evolutionary�level�(long�term�genesis�of�the�emotions)�in�life�forms�
(the�degree�of�love�is�directly�relasted�to�the�size�and�complexity�of
the�brain's�cortex)�,�and�then�there�is�the�hormonal�level�in
individual�humans�(which�is�ultimately�rooted�in�evolutionary�biology)
.�Can�a�person�feel�or�express�love�if�all�the�serotonin�or�PEA�
(called�the�molecule�of�love)�hormones�in�his�blood�is�taken�out?�;)
Something�to�think�about.�Anyway�here�are�the�references�with�my
annotations.�All�these�are�written�by�professional�scientists�and
Psychologists�from�the�academia.
�
 
1.��The�Alchemy�of�Love�and�Lust�:�How�Our�Sex�Hormones�Influence�
�����Our�Relationships�-�Theresa�L.�Crenshaw�(1997)�
 
�����[An�excellent�oxposition�of�the�hormonal�level�explanation�of�the
������genesis�of�emotions,�by�a�scientist)
 
2.�What's�Love�Got�to�Do�With�It?�:�The�Evolution�of�Human�Mating�
���������-�Meredith�Small�(1996)�
�����[�Evolutionary�level�explanation�of�love]
������
3.�Why�We�Feel:�The�Science�of�Human�Emotion('99)�-�Victor�S.�Johnston,�
�����
����[Another�look�at�love�from�an�evolutionary�eye�glass]
 
4.�ORIGINS:�Cosmos,�Earth�and�Mankind-��by�Hubert�Reeves�et�al�
����(�In�this�book,�leading�biologist�Yves�Coppens�has�traced�the�origin�of�the�
������emotion�"love"�to�the�gradual�increase�in�the�gestation�period�of�primitive�
������human�(Australopithecus�Afransis)�in�East�Africa)
 
5.�Between�Inner�Space�and�Outer�Space-�John�Barrow
����[�Traces�the�aethetic�sense�to�its�evolutionary�origins.�Specially
�������the�chapter-23��on�"Survival�of�the�artiest"�is�a�must�read]
 
[...]
 
Aparthib.


11==
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:37:30 -0800
Subject: Re:[mukto-mona] Aparthib, u misunderstand my views

"ryan_american"��wrote�on�12/8/01�7:55:09�PM:
 
�[...] �����
��������1.�Read�http://www.gecoties.com/aparthib/religion#artcle10
��������2.�Try�to�clearly�understand�MY�definition�of�"atheist"�and�"Neoplatonist"
�������������and�"Agnostic"�(Agnostic�is�one�who�believes�that�both�athesim�and
�������������Neoplatonism�are�valid�probabilities,�not�necessarily�50/50)
 
��������3.�In�the�light�of�1�and�2,��it�would�be�most�accurate�to�say�that�I�am
������������a�skeptical�agnostic�with�probability�for�Neoplatonism�higher�than�
������������for�athesim.�:)
 
�����������(Again�it�is�important�that�this�is�true�ONLY�if��MY�definition�of�"atheism"
�������������"agnosticism"�and�"neoplatonism"�defined�in�my�article��is�used,�NOT
������������the�widely�understood�definitions,�which�I�think�are�simplistic,�flawed
������������and�misleading).
�������������
You�wrote:
>�
>Hold�it.�I�am�speculating�(using�logic)�about�the�begining�of�the�
>universe.�Whats�wrong�with�that?�The�SINGULARITY�was�a�'something'.�
>You�can't�get�something�out�of�nothing�(a�VOID,�NOT�to�be�confused�
>with�a�VACCUM),�so�where�did�the�SINGULARITY�come�from?�It�MUST�have�
>come�from�something�else!�Now�I�am�speculating�WHAT�that�'something'�
>COULD�have�been?�The�only�reason�I�said�that�it�was�'something�that�
>creates'�is�because�of�the�existence�of�the�SINGULARITY�(which�
>was�'created').�Can�you�tell�me�what�you�find�so�confusing�about�
>this?�
���
����������You�are�signally�missing�a�very�important�point�and�argument.
���Do�you�see�where�your�logic�will�take�you?�If�you�insist�that�you�can't
���get�something�out�of�nothing�then�where�did�the�thing�from�which�you
���got�your�something�come�from?�This�will�lead�to�an�infinite�loop.�
���Then�by�your�logic�the�"creative�force"�of�singularity�also�cannot
���come�from�nothing.�So�what�created�this�"creative�force"�of
���singularity?�You�claimed�not�to�be�a�believer�in�religious�God.�then
���you�cannot�argue�like�them�that�"creative�force"does�not�need�a
���creator.�Saying�that�would�be�the�most�vacuous�ad�hoc�statement
���made��only�to�end�a�debate�in�an�aribitrary�manner�as�a�copout.
���It�is�like�saying��"Because�I�say�so"�in�a�clever�way�invoking�divine
���notion.�What�logic�can�you�provide�in�affrming�this�"uncreatedness"
���of�the�creative�force?�So�your�logic�"something�cannot�come�from
���nothing"�falls�flat�right�there.�What�I�was�arguing�is�that�cosmology
���already�has�been�able�to�formulate�a�mechanism�whereby�universe
���CAN�comeout�of�nothing�(void,�no�matter,�virtual�or�real).�I�mean
���void,�not�the�Quantum��vacuum�which�contains�virtual�particles�and
���which�is�created�along�with�the�universe.�Void�means�truly�nothing.
���It�is�the�the�condition�before�singularity�and�Big�Bang.�Absolute
���zilch.�But�there�still�"something"�even�during�the�void.�It��is:
���INFROMATION.�THE�LAW�OF��PHYSICS.�The�creation�of
���the�universe�is�a�case�of�information�turning�into�matter.�So�yes,
���singularity�did�come�from�something,�that�something�was�information.
���Sounds�exotic?�It�is�not.�To�a�physicist�that�is.�This�is�called�by�many
���Cosmologist�as�"IT�FROM�BIT"�(IT�=�Matter,�BIT=Information).
���See�the�nice�article�by�Cosmologist/Philosopher�Paul�Davies'�nice
���article�under�the�same�title�in�New�Scientist,�January�30,�1999,�Pg.�3.
�
���BUT�WE�DON'T�KNOW�WHERE�THE�INFORMATION�CAME�
   FROM.� It�is�THE�ultimate�mystery�that�no�one�yet�has�been
���able�to�even�attemtp�to�find�a�meaningful�answer,�and�seems�like�it
���is�unanswerable�in�principle.�We�can�never�know�about�the�higher
���reality�unless�we�are�in�the�higher�reality.�But�that�is�logically�
���impossible�and�contradictory.�We�can�only�conjecture�about�that.
���Which�will�be�necessarily�bague�and�meaningless.
 
You�wrote:
>�
>So�where�did�the�SINGULARITY�come�from?�
>"Ther�is�no�time�before�the�big�bang�to�even�make�such
>an�assertion."
>OK,�but�I�am�asking�where�did�the�SINGUARITY�come�from?�How�did�it's�
>existence�come�about?�
>"Cause-effect�notion�does�not�apply�to�the�ultimate�end�point�of�time�
>and�space."
>How�do�you�know�this?�Maybe�cause�and�effect�can�sometimes�occur�
>simultaniously?�Explain�the�following�please,�If�t=0,�then�how�did�it�
>start�'moving'?�How�come�'t'�is�not�'0'�now?�How�come�we�now�have�
>t=20�billion?�What�got�the�clock�'ticking'?�;-)
��
������This�is�where�logic�applies.�"how�I�know�this?"�is�not�the�issue.�Both�
�������time�and��space�were�created�in�the�Big�bang.�Big�Bang�is�THE�END�
�������point��of�time.�Does�it�make�any�logical�sense�to�talk�about�before
�������the�end?�That�would�not�be�a�true�"end"�would�it?�END�of�time
�������by�definition�is�that�which�does�not�have�a�before.�Time�is�a�concept
�������meaningful�to�a�universe�AFTER�it�is�created.�By�the�way�time�is
�������complex�Physics�concept�to�undertand�in�technical�term.�Only�after
�������understanding�the�mathematics�of��Global�general�Relativity�one
�������can�truly�appreciate�the�meaning�of�the�creation�of�time�(Of�course
�������also��the�other�exotic�ideas�such�as�the�stretching,�curving�of�time,�as
������well�as�"imaginary"�time,�which�means�time�in�a�perpendicluar
������direction�to�our�time,�much�like��the�imaginary�"i"�in�complex�number
������theory�is�perpendicular�to�the�real�axis).�The�classic�reference�is�the
�����book�by�Hawking�:"The�Large�Scale�Structure�of�SpaceTime",
�����a�truly�formidable�book,�not�for�the�faint�hearted.�I�admit�I�cannot
�����understand�it�fully.�If�Stephen�Hawking�wrote�
�����"The�Brief�History�of�Time"��as��the�Dr.�Jekyl�then�"The�Large�
�����Scale�Structure�of�SpaceTime"�is��Stephen�hawking�the�Mr.�Hyde�:)
�����But�it�is�the�latter�that�contains�all�the�stuff�that�makes�him�what
�����he�is�(Rouse�Ball�professor�in�Oxford),�not�the�former.�And�the
�����former�is�a�book�he�pretends�to�convey�the�ideas�in�the�latter�to
�����layfolks,�but�kniows�very�well,�it�is�disingenuous.�Certain�things
�����are�meant�to�be�esoteric.�There�is�no�way�around�it.�But�what�he
�����did�(And�many�scientists�do�in�popularizing�diificult�ideas�of�scienc)
�����is�cheating�for�a�good�cause.�and�is�defensible.�Without�themsleves
�����writing�to�instill�an�awe�or�inspiration�to�the�mass,�scientific�literacy
�����would�be�much�worse�than�it�is�now.�Anyway�that�was�digression.
 
>�
>It�was�this�'LOVE'�concept�which�was�very�hard�for�me�to�explain�
>using�just�a�few�written�words.�But�I�will�re-explain�if�I�can.�
 
�����You�mean�you�can�explain�"LOVE"�which�philosophers�and
�����scientists�even�cannot�explain�(As�you�claim)?
 
>statement�where�I�said�that�I�could�not�scientifically�explain�it�as�
>there�was�no�way�of�PHYSICALLY�'observing'�my�own�personal�'love'.�
>Does�this�make�it�clearer?���
>�
��������Feeling/experiencing�IS�observing�it�PHYSICALLY.�Your�body�and
��������brain�both�participate�in�the�generation�of�this�feeling�and�experience.
��������The�problem�was�your�using�the�expression�"scientifically�explain".
��������More�on�this�later�further�down.
 
>Can�you�please�define�Qualia?�What�is�a�clear�definition�of�this?
����
�������Qualia�is�the�individual�perception�of�a�subjective�experinece.�For
�������example�we�all�see�the�same�green�color.�But�what�perception�that
�������green�color�appears�to�each�of�us�is�totally�private�and�not
�������possible�to�quantify�or�compare.�Thats�a�qualia.�So�is�the�pleasure
�������of��eating�a�cake�or�a�feeling�LOVE.�This�is�beyond�science�and
�������and�language.
 
>even�though�she�still�knows�what�I�mean�by�'love'.�I�already�said�she�
>could�not�(even�scientifically)�'observe'�or�'quantify'�my�own�
>personal�'love'.�'Love'�is�an�EXPERIENCE,�so�too�is�'God'�according�
>to�some�religious�people.�I�am�not�sure�what�your�point�is?�
 
������I�agree�totally�that�love�is�a�subjective�perception�that�all�of�us
������feel�irrespetive�of�religion,�creed,�race�etc.�God�is�a�subjective
������perception�to�those�who�claim�to�have�such�expereince�(Assuming
������thay�are�not�hallucinating�or�lying).�My�point�was�that�it�is
������meaningless�to�say�that�one�cannot��scientifically�observe�or�
������feel�love.�Because�science�is�not�for���observing�or�feeling�(Love,
������God..).�Science�is�to�explain�the�the�cause�behind��any�
�����"observation"�or�feeling.�It�is�vital�to�understand�this�point.
�����We�don't�USE�science�to�enjoy/experience�a�Pizza,�a�fudge�brownie
������or�LOVE.�It�is�such�a�truism�that�to�say�it��at�all�would�be�to�
������pretend�saying��something�deep,�or�to�imply�that�it�is�a�limitation�
������of�science�and��not�of�religion/mysticism,�arts�etc.��Otherwise�
������why�emphasize��this�truism?�We�don't��need�the�help�of�
������ANYTHING�(science,�economics,�history,�mysticism,�religion,�
������Kabala,�Shambala,�Marx,�dianetics..)�to��feel�love�or�enjoy�a��
������food�and�this�need�not�be�mentioned�even.
������
>Degree�of�'love'?�or�degree�of�chemical�production�that�causes�
>the�'feeling'�of�love?�As�far�as�I�am�concerned,�I�'love'�my�mom�and�
>dad�infinitley!�Are�you�saying�that�my�body�will�produce�an�infinite�
>amount�of�'love'�chemicals�or�what?�Also�are�there�different�types�of�
>chemicals�for�different�types�of�'love'?�I�'love'�my�girlfriend�
>infinitley�too�but�not�in�the�same�way�I�'love'�my�parents.�Do�you�
>see�what�I�mean?�
 
������yes,�but�my�"degree"�was�in�reference�to�that�between�various�
������animal�species.�Love�and�affection�is�more�accentuated�in�those
������species�having�a�pronounced�cerebral�cortex.�Fish�has�very�little
������sense�of�love�and�affection.�Chimpanzee,�dolphins�have�a�lot.
������I�didn't�mean�between�various�humans.�Love�is�an�EMERGENT
������property�of�the�complexity�of�human�cerebral�cortex.�Emergence
������is�a�technical�term.�Any�thing�highly�complex�which�can�process
������information�displays�emergent�properties�(epiphenomena).
������Yes,�there�are�many�hormones�and�they�all�interplay��with�each
�����other�in�various�ways�to�generate�a�wide�range�of�distinct�feelings.�
�����So��yes,�the�fact�that�your�love�for�girl�friend�and�parents�being�
�����different��are�all�explainable�at�hormone�level.�Please�refer�to�the�
�����book�I��recommended.
�����
>Can�a�person�feel�anything�at�all�once�their�head�has�been�chopped�
>off?�What�about�when�you�'miss'�someone�you�care�about?�What�about�
>anger,�jealousy,�like,�dislike�etc.�If�P.E.A.�CAUSES�the�'feeling'�
>of�'love'�that�does�not�mean�it�IS�'love'�does�it?�What�about�the
 
������You�are�a�bit�confused�about�semantics�here.�LOVE�is�an
�������a�perception,�a�qualia.�PEA�is�one�of�the�CAUSE�of�that�
�������perception.�So�why�ask�me�"that�does�not�mean�it�(i.e�PEA)
�������IS�love?",�When�I�didn't��say�it�meant.
 
>�
>P.S.�Dear�Aparthib,�youre�very�intellegent�and�make�some�interesting�
>and�challenging�posts,�I�was�just�wondering�what�your�field�is,�I�
>mean�what�subject/s�did�you�get�your�university�degree�in?�You�seem�
>to�know�quite�a�bit�about�everything�lol
 
������Thanks.�I�do�feel�flattered.�For�the�answers�you�can�email�me
������personally,�if�you�wish.
 
��Thanks,
��Aparthib


12===
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:56:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] To Ryan,  on creative force, logic, Hawking etc

"ryan_american"  wrote on 12/11/01 7:06:41 PM:
>
>Dear Moderator please do not be offended, I was only kidding 
>about the conspiracy theory lol Besides, Aparthib is not an Atheist 
>anyway. Forgive me for that. :-)
 
���� Aha, don;t pay to much attention on labels. These words "atheism",
���� "agnostisicsm", "theism" have many definitions. By defining them
���� appropriately one can turn instantly an atheist into theist, agnostic
���� or any of the three into another. Unless you have read my own
���� definitions in my article it would not make much sense to categorize me.
���� I would say I am noncognitivist as well. Confused? If you have read my
���� article then let me refer to you another one for further illumination
���� or confusion (whichever applies to you:). I recommend reading:
���� http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
���� (Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism)
 
��� By the way, I gave the wrong link to my article in my last post, it is:
��� http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#artcle10
 
>Dear Aparthib, great post and I learned a lot, however I already
>explained how I came to my conclusion about the existence of
>a 'something that creates'. If you read the part where I explained 
>this then you would have seen that it is an infinite 'constant'. 
>Please read the following carefully to see if it makes sense: 
> 
����� Thanks Ryan for your graciousness. I am learning too, maybe in
����� a different way :).� But "infinite" constant?? !! I am sorry, but
����� it is not making sense. Maybe it is like the qualia of perceiving
����� green color. I can never duplicate the same perception of green
����� in my mind that you feel in your mind. Certain perceptions are
����� doomed to be private, solipsistic. Maybe this one of those things. 
���� It is likely everyone has certain perceptions which are unique to 
�� � them,� like fingerprints or DNA. It is futile to try to communicate 
���� it to others. I call them ineffabilia. Sometimes "A" claims to "feel"
���� understand an ineffable perception of "B" and "B"� in turn may
���� believe that� "A" truly understands "B"'s perception. But even then
���� there is no way to substantiate that even if it was true, it will be a
���� matter of faith.
 
>CREATIVITY. So since the 'somethings' are infinite and their process 
>of 'creating' is also infinite, then their CREATIVITY is infinite, 
>thus it has no beginning and no end! Do you see what I am getting at?
 
������ No, my friend, I am not. You are trapped in a verbal circularity.
������ What you are saying does not convey any information. You are using
����� some words "creativity", "infinite", etc to make a tautological assertion of
����� the cause-effect notion. Did you notice you see that you cannot avoid
����� invoking the vague words� "creative force", "infinite constant" in order
����� express your ideas.� Any idea has to convey some new or 
����� additional information beyond the tautological assertion of a truism.
����� And this information cannot be simply expressed by some catchy 
����� words or phrases or should not be contingent on them. Words and phrases
����� do not provide any new insight or� information, unless some new,original
����� logic, observation is provided. Only logical inference based on non-trivial
����� objective� observations can add any meaningful information or insight.
����� Any other� exercize is plain narrative, a structural construct, like arts, 
����� poetry...
 
[...]
>is 'creating' so I just called it a 'creative force') or 'God'. 
>Please rememebr that I am not asserting that this CREATIVITY 
>or 'creative force' even exists! I am merely proposing that it IS 
>logically plausible that it COULD exist. Thats all.
� 
��� Before referring to your "IT", a clearer definition of what
your� "it" is is in order. A creative force is merely a phrase to capture
your awe and sense of mystery (I have that too) of the unknown
reality (if there is any)� beyond the one we live in. The phrase itself
does not give us any insight into the unknown higher reality. As I said
nothing can. We are trapped in our own reality. Anything we can
perceive, explain,� is by definition, our reality. So it is not even logical to
try to explain/understand higher reality. We have to live with this
ultimate ignorance. Notice that� you are not saying anything that 
anybody else does not feel. Everybody intuitively feels some
invisible cause of the universe by extrapolating(which may not be justified)
from their daily experience.All you are doing is adding some words
and phrases to characterize that mystery and calling it a logical
possibility. I don't see how that can add anything to our insight.
 
> 
>I can't see any contradictions in my above explaination, so I'll 
>leave it to you too think about what I have just proposed. This my 
>IDEA of a 'creative force' which ultimately created the universe.
 
���� Again. I have pointed out that saying a "creative" force "created"
the universe is a circular assertion. Or at best a tautlogy. You are in effect
DEFININg a creative force as that which creates, after assuming there
IS a creator,(Which again is debatable if it is meaningful at all when applied
to the entire universe) . A definition cannot generate a new insight or 
information. This is just going around in a loop. Think hard to realize this, 
because this circularity well-known (well-refuted)� in philosophy and is
no longer debated.
 
> 
[..]
>it. Thats all. 
�� 
���� Agreed. If there is indeed a personal experience of GOD (It can only
���� be meaningful to one who is experiencing) then it is� certainly a 
���� private non-communicable one. A pure and simple solipsistic one.
���� Not rationalizable, communicable, preachable (If one is honest).
���� But love is not like God, it is experienced by all, and not debated like
���� God. The intutive feeling of an unknown mystery behind the creation
���� of the universe IS however real and not debated.

���� All you points about Hawking is misapplied if it was made to refute my
���� post. No body is a high priest in science, infallible and absolute. I never
���� said anything in defense of Hawking's theory over Andrei Linde's, or
���� Lee Smolin, or any other leading Cosmologist. 
���� Hawking's theory is ONE of many PLAUSIBLE explanations of the
���� origin of the Universe. It is subject to revision. Other theories may
���� be more plausible. there is no last word in science, and no prophet.
���� But to be able to formulate a theory about the universe requires a
���� lot of dues to be paid.� These are not pseudoscience or postmodernist
���� bunkum. This is EXACt science. You mentioned about mathematics 
���� being manipulated to make any point that one desires. Yes, but that 
��� is postmodernism,pseudoscience. It has no place� in science. But to
��� challenge or critic� well-established� theories one has to technically
��� understand it to challenge it, if any flaw is found and pointed out. One
��� has to be part of the scientific methiod, a layperson cannot authoritativley
��� critic an inherently esoteric stuff. By the way� I gave a wrong information
��� about Hawking. he is the Lucasian� Professor in Cambridge, not a 
��� Rouse Ball professor of Oxford, which applies� to Roger Penrose.

>the�Atheists�is�on�its�way�out.�My�friend�who�is�a�physicist�told�me,�
>that�just�recently,�IBM�(yes�the�people�that�make�the�computers)�
>conducted�an�experiment�where�the�'uncertainty�principle'�was�proved�
>false.�They�managed�to�give�VERY�accurate�information�about�the�
>POSITION�of�a�particle�and�its�MOMENTUM�at�the�same�time!�(An�
>impossibility�according�to�the�'uncertainty�principle')�So�you�see,�
>not�everything�is�always�as�black�and�white�as�some�may�have�us
 
������"So,�you�see?".�Are�you�so�confidently�accepting�or�believing�a
������well-founded�scientific�theory�of�this�century�has�been�proven�
������worng?�This�would�be�a�big�news�to�Physicist.�One�should�not
������be�so��gullible�when�it�comes�to�debunking�scientific�laws.�We�heard
������of�cold�fusion,�teleportations�(human)�too.�Many�quacks�have
������tried�to�prove�Einsteins's�theory�wrong.�But�very�few�of�them�were
������made�by�reputed�scientists�and�never�passed�the�screening�tests.
����.�If�it�is�indeed�true�it�will�be�a�headline��news�and�we�will�all�know
������it,�we�don't�have�to�hear�ot�from��your�physicist�friend,�or�here
������in�Mukto-Mona.�Scientific�laws�WILL�be�revised�and�generalized,
������no�doubt,�but�that�will�be�internal�to�science,�it�need�not�be�a
      rumour�or�publicized�by�layfolks.
 
>believe.�All�I�say�is�that�one�should�question�everything�until�one�
>is�satisfied�with�an�answer�which�is�beyond�reasonable�doubt.�Thats�
>all�I�try�to�do.�
 
������100%�agreed.�thats�what�scientific�method�is�all�about.�If�you
������try�to�follow�scientific�method�I�wish�you�best�of�luck�in�your�quest�for
������the�truth.
 
��Thanks
��Aparthib 

13==
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:37:03 -0800
Subject: Re:[mukto-mona] Audrey, my ideas about 'God'..

"audrey"��wrote�on�12/8/01�4:10:56�AM:
>Dear�Aparthib,
>Thank�you�for�your�well�thought�out�views.�However,�may�I�say�that�brilliant�
>minds�usually�stick�to�the�prescribed�route�that�has�been�mapped�out�for
>them�by�the�brilliant�mind�who�have�gone�before?�To�promote�a�different..
 
���Thanks�Audrey.�Well,�IF�"brilliant�minds�usually�stick�to�the�prescribed�route
���that�has�been�mapped�out�for�them�by�the�brilliant�mind�who�have�gone�
���before"�THEN�they�are�not�truly�brilliant,�are�they?�High�IQ�does�not�translate
���to�brilliance.�Creativity,�originality�both�are�integral�to�being�"brilliant"�in�the�
���true�sense�of�the�term.�Those�who�follow�the�prescribed�route�never�ended�up
���up�as�a�brilliant�thinker.�I�didn't�have�them�in�mind�when�I�used�the�term
��"brilliant".�I�had�names�like�Hawking,�Hartle,�Penrose,�Linde,�Smolin,
���etc�in�mind,�to�name�only�a�few.�Scientific�method�allows�and�encourages
���creativity�and�novel�ideas.�Science�does�not�prohibit�that.�But�for�any�view
���or�idea�to�be�accepted�it�has�to�pay�a�lot�of�dues.�Not�all�ideas�put�forth�by
���all�can�be�unconditionally�accepted.�Any�idea�or�views�have�to�be�critically
���examined�and�tested�for�any�worth.�One�is�free�to�express�ideas�though.�A
���free�society�like�here�in�US�allows�that.�Lot�of�ideas�have�been��put�forth
���and�are�routinely�put�forth�in�dianetics,�astrology,�numerology,�etc�and�many
���other�ones.�There�is�no�bar.�Well,�"dismiss"�may��be�a�politically�correct�
���term�But�let�me�say�that�these�ideas�are�not�accepted�as�scientific�ideas.
���And�regarding�Ryan,�I�also�like�you�do�not�agree�with�his�ideas�but�do
���not�dismiss�it�either.�I�was�only�giving�reasons�for�not�agreeing.�And�it�had
���to�do�with�the�inherent�inconsistency�in�the�way�he�expressed�his�idea
 
��Lets�take�the�classic�case�of�Einstein.�When�he�expressed�his�view�of�space
��time�(opened�our�eyes�to�something�different,�in�your�words),��he�was�a�
��young�mind,�not�a�professional�scientist�in�any�respectable�academia,�but
��nobody�could�spot�any�contradiction�or�internally�inconsistency�in�his
��views.�More�importantly,�his�ideas�contained�NEW�INFORMATION.�He
��was�not�rephrasing�existing�intuitive�notions.�Whether�one�agrees�it�or�
��not�that�is�a�separate�issue.�But�all�had�to�agree�with�him�eventually
��after�he�was�ablle�to�formulate�his�theory�in�a�more�formal�way�and
��verified�experimentally.�But�saying�there�must�be�a�cause�behind
��everything,�therefore�there�must�be�a�casue�for�"X"�(X=singularity,
��universe..)�does�not�carry�any�new�information.�It�is�rephrasing�the�very
��old�common�intuition�that�all�humans�instinctively�feel�from�the
��experience�from�daily�life.�I�did�not�dismiss�that�intutive�feeling�that
��all�of�us�feel.�But�that�intuition�from�daily�experience�does�not�
��mean�much�when�we�try�to�extend�it�to�understanding�the�ultimate
��reality.�I�also�don;t�see�how�this�intuitive�notion�can�possibly�become
��an�eye�opener�to�any�new�info.�If�it�does�then�every�child,�every
��human�being�(myslef�included)�can�calim,originality�to�it�:).�I�just
��admit�that�this�intuitive�feeling�of�mine�does�not�carry�any�weight
��in�explaining�the�cause�of�the�universe.That�was�my�main�point�
��of�contention.
 
��Thanks�again,
���Aparthib

14===
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:45:40 -0800
Subject: Re:[mukto-mona] Re: Response to a Shallow Theory

"butcher_from_mecca"  wrote on 12/5/01 9:09:23 PM:
>is. Similarly Saddam Hussien inspite of being a Muslim (and a 
>terrorist) is never labelled an Islamic terrorist because Islam is 
>not his agenda, a fact which makes him a little less dangerous than 
>Bin Laden because once Saddam is no more we can breathe easy whereas 
>the spirit of Bin Ladenism is going to be around and maybe stronger 
>even after his death.
 
���� Totally agreed with the rest of the post. But I have to say something in
���� signal disagreement with the observations above.This is a mistaken 
���� perception among� the American mass (and many other nations too). 
���� First Saddam Hussein was never considered a terrorist before 1990.
���� There was no terrorist activity at all by Iraq against the west at all,
���� and there is no proven terrorist acts (specially against US) sponsored
���� by Iraq, even after� the brutal punishment that US has been dishing 
���� out to Iraq since 1990.� Terrorist activities against the west so far 
���� has been traced to Islamic� radical groups� from all other Arab nations
����� including Palestine.� The only reason Iraq/Saddam hussein has been
���� demonized is because Iraq� attacked Kuwait (a theocratic Muslim 
���� nation) and US didn't� like it� because it doesn't want to let anyone
���� else have control over Kuwait's oil, as it can manipulate the corrupt
���� and obscurantist Kuwait rulers to suit its own interst better.
 
���� Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been rather a staunch secular state
���� for which it is hated by all non-secular Muslim States, specially
���� Saudi Arabia, the most obscurantist Muslim nation. Turkey, although
���� a secular state itself has other axe to grind with Iraq (Kurdish issue
���� one of them). Syria also was not too friendly because of Asad's
���� rivalry with Saddam for Arab leadership. So Iraq never made a 
���� friend with Muslim nations,� secular or not. In no Muslim country
���� did the protesters then jump up and down shouting for Jihad in 
���� support� of Iraq during the Gulf war, like they are doing now in the
���� case of Afghanistan. The whole� then world was sadistically 
���� relishing the pounding on Iraq and the civilian deaths it seemed. 
���� Only few conscientious Americans (One father� in US burned 
���� himself to death in protest, calling Bush the butcher) were 
���� protesting the merciless pounding.
 
���� Ironically Iraq was a friend (or in the leat� was considered� neutral) to 
���� the USA. Iraq had fought a� prolonged war against Iran, which calls 
���� US (at least called then) the great Satan and Iraq was getting US 
���� blessing in its fight against� Iran. After all an enemy's� enemy cannot 
���� be enemy, specially Iraq� and US had no bone of� contention before
���� the Gulf war. 
 
���� Iraq's foreign minister is Christian and was very active in presenting
���� Iraq's side during the gulf war. Iraqi life style is toatally modern.
���� The Bagdad Symphony performs western Classics. Arts and
���� Science are enouraged and allowed uninhibited. These are
���� Unthinkable� in other Arab Muslim nations. When US troops
���� were figthing in the Gulf, Bagdad radio was not broadcasting
���� Jihadi chants but were broadcasting classic Hollywood music
���� and telling the troops how they have been misled by the US
���� Government against iraq. Bush Sr. laughed at that and joked 
���� about� the songs and that those were outdated music and present
���� generations in US care for Mike Hammer's music. He didn't
���� appreciate that Iraqis were playing American golden oldies
���� instead of chanting Jihadi songs. Even during the war when
���� Bagdad was being bombed mercilessly the Iraqui people when
���� interviewd in CNN were saying in a sad tone "we want to be 
��� friends to US, we like them,� why are they bombing us?" There 
��� was no hatred in their tone, no "Satan" calling, even under such 
��� ruthless atack by US. Contrast that�� with the militant people of
��� Iiran and other Muslim nations calling for the destruction of the
��� great Satan. But these did not get noticed by the hawks, their
��� obsessed focus was oil, and� the obsessed fear of a secular 
��� Muslim state becoming too� strong to threaten the Muslim 
��� fanatic Sheikhdoms, who serves the US's interest� well, since 
��� in turn US help them to keep their dynasic rule intact over Arabia.
��� It is much easier and cost effective to manipulate the contented
��� obscurantists, than the smart ones.
 
��� It is ironic that US and Saudi Arabia, a theocratic nation can 
��� become bed fellows (And they still are) whereas a secular Iraq
��� became a bugbear for US. That proves, money is the� deciding 
�� factor� in geopolitics, not principle (democracy,secular principle..)
�� But make no mistake, this bedfellow is purely limited to parctical
�� matters. Saudi Arabis still considers Americans as infidels and
�� restrict their activioties and righst in Saudi Arab, but making up
�� for it with high salary.
 
�� After all, Jim Baker, the then US foreign secretary did admit 
�� on CNN that it was all about oil, not mincing any words. 
�� But the� US public were being brainwashed into believing it 
�� was to punish a oppressive dictator, uphold� international laws, 
�� new world order etc etc. Saddam the is no worse a dictator 
�� than any other dictators in the middle East. And US is known 
�� to have nurtured worst dictators when it served their purpose. 
�� Saudi Arabia is itself the best example of dictatorship. One can 
�� imagine what� becomes the fate of anyone that dare challenge 
�� or oppose� its regime.
 
� All this not to defend Saddam the dictator, but to help see things in
� the right perspective. When people are acquiescent, the worst
� dictators seem benign, since they don;t have to do anything 
� (No news is good news), as in Saudi Arab, Iran under Ayatollah 
�� Khomeni, and most theocricies, but when there are rebels that 
�� would not acquiesce (The Kurds in Iraq's case), that brings out 
�� the worst and a run of the mill dictator would become a big news
�� that is the nature of things in politics.
 
�� Aparthib

15===

es3164:
Date:  Fri Jun 8, 2001  7:30 pm
Subject:  Re: [eSHOMABESH] DisbeliEver
 
[..]

First of all regarding your comment below:
>
> trying to make a point by indicating that even though the speed of light is
> constant, no one can
> yet explain the cause of that, just like quantum tunneling. I am sorry you
> had to go through the
> trouble of explaining something that is quite obvious.

   There are always various level of causality.  Although the
   constancy of the speed  of light and quantum tunneling is
   explainable within physics in terms of the basic  principles of
   Physics ( Through the identification of light with electromagnetic
   wave propagation and Scrodinger's Equation respectively) the basic
   principles of Physics is not explainable in terms of any more
   basic principle yet, although  M-theory version of superstring is
   a possible candidate for it. But then that will push the primary
   level  of explanation one more layer down. There will still be the
   nagging question what is the origin of Superstring theory etc.
   However deeper we delve into the most fundamental  level of
   explanation there will always be the question, what is the cause
   of this  fundamental principle?  This quest of root will never end,
   because logically we cannot get a root as we can always talk about
   the root of the root. This has been the basis of all philosophical
   debates about the creator of creator etc.   Religion  puts a stop
   on this eternal quest by coining a  term (GOD)  to define a  vague
   supreme force (This doesn't require much thought, it is a one
   liner that "explains" everything  to  simple mind that cannot
   think too deep) . Religion pretentiously affirm that  GOD is the
   root cause (As if that is a legitimate explanation) and  then
   cleverly  adorn   this invented concept of God with all sorts  of
   attributes  to appeal to humans who  easily identify with such
   attribute in  their  vulnerability and  inherent insecurity and
   buy into this construct.  The  honest answer that  any rational
   human  (And most  scientists do answer it this way)  can give is
   to assert  that WE DON"T KNOW  what is behind all these beautiful
   laws. We may never know.  Or we may know. Scientists don't even
   care to ask  that ultimate  question anymore (Not that they never
   wondered, it is  very natural to wonder), as it is futile,  not
   answerable in  a self-consistent way as it is trapped in an
   infinite chain.  There is a real possibility though that the Laws
   of nature  (Physics)  are uncreated,  always existing. This is not
   at all inconsistent with  observation and experimental evidence.
   But it cannot be argued either in a conclusive  manner.   It is
   beyond human comprehension  at this time to settle this issue
   although   Metaphysicans/Mystics  insist that the ultimate root
   can be understood through intuitionism.  But thats a  vague claim
   to an ultimate  understanding and  is  useless and vacuous, a game
   of words. Trying to find the  Theory of Everyting  (TOE, i.e the
   deepest  level of  Physics Laws that is  attainable by human brain)
   is itself a challenging intellectual pursuit enough to keep any
   critical mind busy  for one's entire  lifetime to even worry about
   the futile ultimate question of reality.   So far  M-Theory of
   superstring seem to the possible candidate for that.  Asking what
   is  the origin of TOE  is a question that cannot be answered
   logically.  Nobody  can pretend to be able to answer it,  the
   least of which being a  religious  dogmatist who just invents an
   appealing construct to put an artificial closure  to this infinite
   chain but hardly with any substance.

>
> And as for the laws of physics being the creator, I would love to agree with
> you. However, I still
> have a problem understanding how these laws of physics came to existence. I
> find it very hard to
> visualize that a bunch of physical laws had a round table meeting and decided
> to behave so nicely
> to create this universe. (Side note: a sincere question, does modern physics
> explain the creation
> of universe using theories or laws?)

  I have addressed your question about the origin of physical Laws
  earlier. Again   to  recapitualte, THAT IS THE ULTIMATE MYSTERY.
  Modern Physics  does  indeed   explain  the creation of universe
  using theories. But those theories are themselves (Quantum Theory,
  General Theory of Relativity etc) well tested  and verified by
  experimental evidence. Some additional assumptions are needed of
  course but thats how science works. If those assumptions do lead to
  agreement between theory and observation then the assumptions are
  accepted as basic  postulates of a set of Physical  laws. Big Bang
  theory (Of course through many refinements including chaotic
  inflation etc) has already been tested through enough experimental
  evidence (Cosmic Abundance, Cosmic background  Radiation, Red Shift
  etc) to be an accepted theory of the creation of the   universe.
  But there is room for further revision. Science is an ongoing
  iterative  quest for the truth. Nothing is final.

   Finally let me refer you to an earlier post of mine that is
   very relevant to our current discussion. Please look at: http://groups.
   yahoo.c om/group/eshomabesh/message/2651

   Hope this all made sense to you. Although the ultimate mystery still
   persists :)

16===
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:26:11 -0800
Subject: Re:[mukto-mona] If this is LOGICAL, then so is Islam!

"ryan_american"��wrote�on�12/11/01�9:07:40�PM:
>�
>Just�goes�to�show�that�even�science�is�not�always�'RATIONAL'�
>or�'LOGICAL'.�Like�I�always�say,�QUESTION�EVERYTHING,�THE�TRUTH�IS�
>OUT�THERE!�:-)
>�
>Ryan
>�
>P.S.�By�the�way,�for�all�you�Atheists�who�love�the�'uncertainty�
>principle'�so�much,�don't�worry,�your�turn�is�also�coming.�IBM�is�on�
>the�verge�of�even�disproving�this�law�of�Physics!�
>�
 
����Dear�Ryan,�I�can�see�why�Audrey�keeps�referring�to�your�young�age,
����although�I�also�believe�I�am�young.�You�got�too�carried�away�by
����Schrodinger's�cat�thought�experiment.�You�may�have�dioscovered�it
����today�but�this�thought�experiment�is�more�than�half�a�century�old.
����And�nothing�has�changed�sicne�then�science�or�logic.�What�it
����changed�is�the�perception�that�ordinary�(not�scientific)
����intuitions�and�logic�is�always�right.�Schrodinger's�cat�is�a
����SCIENTIFIC�(thought)�EXPERIMENT,�by�a�scientist�and�about�
    science.�Not�by�a�pseudoscientific�quack,�or�by�a�claimant�of�divine
����mysticism�(Although�I�consider�Physics�as��the�purest�form�of
����mysticism).��What�Schrdinger's�cat�experiment�forced�us�(layfolks)
����to�conclude�is�that��it�is�the�COMMON�MAN's�intuition�and�logic
����that�can�be�misleading,�a�point�that�I�had�been�trying�hard�to
����hit�in�my�last�few�posts�in�your�response.�Science�is�NOT�about
����common�man's��intuition�and�logic.�Common�man's�logic�says�that:
 
����1.�Matter�cannot�come�from�nothing(i.e�no�matter),�which�is�false�scientifically
����2.�Time�is,�absolute�which�is�false�scientifically��
����3.�Space�has�to�be�infinite,�
�������false�scientifically(it�CAN�be�finite)
����4.�Everything�the�universe�has�to�be�in�a�deterministic�state,��which�is�false�
��������as�illustrated�by�Schrodinger's�cat�experiment.
 
�����One�can�add�many�more�counter-intuitive�SCIENTIFIC�truths.
�����Schrodinger's�cat�is�a�Quantum�mechanical�thought�experiment�(i.e
�����it�is�based�on�Quantum�principle).�Quantum�physics�do�challenge
�����common�human's�(I�was�being�sexist�by�saying�man)�intuition�and
�����logic.�BUT�Quantum�Mecahnics�itself��has�a��highly�(I�cannot
�����overemphasize�this�fact)�LOGICAL�foundation.�You�just�need�to
�����take�alook�at�the�classic�book�by�Von�Neumann's�Axiomatic
�����Foundations�of�Quantum�Theory.�Of�course�there�are�similar
�����highly�mathematical��books�on�Quantum�Logic�since�then.
���
������I�tried�hard�earlier�to�drive�home�the�point,�that�SCIENCE
�����emerged�from�questioning,�doubting�which�is�an�essential��is�a
�����prerequisite�for�scientific�method.�But�you��still�keep�harping
�����on�doubting,�questioning.�Who�are�you�exhorting?�The�scientists?
�����(I�mean�legit,�not�pseudos).�It�is�like�exhorting�the�Jihadi
�����terrorists��that�they�have�to�follow�the�scriptures�that�urge
�����them�to�kill�non-believers.�Carrying�coal�to�newcastle�comes�to
�����mind.�Your�exhortations�to�question,�doubt��really�should�be
�����directed�to�the�pseudoscientists,�postmodernists�quacks,�and
�����gullible�layfolks.
 
�����Any�revision,�or�dismissal�of�a�scientific�principle,�if�at�all,
�����will�involve�the�very�same�SCIENTIFIC�METHOD�that�established�
�����it��in�the�first�place.�Please�try�to�appreciate�this�extremely
�����important�point.�IBM�or�any�one�has�to�follow�the�scientific
�����method�(peer�review,�objective�verification�by�independent�teams
�����around�the�globe�etc)�before�it�can�be�accepted.�And�IF�(The
�����being�IF)�is�indeed�true�then�we�find�a�new�scientific�truth
�����replacing�another�one,�or�a�more�generalized�theory�that�will
�����subsume�the�older�one�as�a�special�case.�This�has�happended�in
�����science.�Remember�how�(or�you�need�another�eye�opener�in�case
�����you�didn't�know)�that�Einstein�himself��admitted�his�mistake�(
�����Described�it�as�his�biggest�blunder�in�his�life)�when��one�of
�����his�equation�of�the�state�of�cosmos�contained�a�term�that�Hubble'
�����s�observation�proved�wrong?�So�IFFFF�IBM�proves�to�be�right�then
�����it�will�be�another�SCIENTIFIC�milestone,�I�am�looking�forward�to
�����that.�SCIENCE�is�a�dynamic�method,�not�a�static�entity�(like
�����religious�dogma),�a�method�that�humanity�discovered�by�a�lucky
�����fluke�in�post�rennaisasance�period.�which�has�the�in�built
�����mechanism�to�self-correct,�if�mistakes�do�ever�creep�in.
�����Mistakes�are�harder�and�harder�to�creep�in�with�time�as
�����scientific�method�involves�more�and�more�a�team�effort�spanning
�����across�nations,�ethnicity�and�religion.�All�the�hot�issues�of
�����science�(proton�decay�for�example)�are�being�carried�out�by
�����joint�teams�in�USA,�Japan,�India..�by�thousands�of�scientists.
�����There�is�no�scope�for�dogma,�personal�whims�here.�Truth�wlll�filter
�����out�eventually.�This�is�like�evolution.�What�will�survive�at�the
�����end�is�what�is�truth.�Science�is�to�human�intellect�what�Darwin's
�����evolution�is�to�life�forms.
 
�����The�moral�is,�if�one�is�to�find�true�humility�anywhere,�it�is�in
�����the�scientific�method,�where�the�basic�premise�is�"I�can�be
�����wrong".�And�when�proven�wrong�is�admitted�cheerfully.�Science
�����does�not�claim�to�know�what�is�unknowable�(unlike�religion,
�����mysticism,..).�And�science�does�pay�hard�dues�(It�takes�a�lot�of
�����sweat�to�master�all�the�formidable�math,�and�the�ruthless�peer
�����review)�to�arrive�at�the�truth,�not�by�arbitrary�affirmation
�����from�one's�intuitive�logic.
 
����Aparthib

17====

"audrey"��wrote�on�12/12/01�10:43:24�AM:
 
>A�little�like�Plato's�analogy�of�the�cave,�hey?�:-)
>���-----�Original�Message�-----�
>���From:�H�Singh�
>����
>���Q:�How�to�prove�if�God�exists?
>����
>���A:�How�will�you�describe�a�blind�man�who�have�never
>���seen�light�all�his�life,�about�daylight�and�night?
 
Actually�its�like�neither.�The�first�analogy�(Singh's)�assumes�there
is�at�least�one�person�is�not�blind.�And�Audrey's�analogy�assumes�that
at�least�one�knows�(Plato�in�this�case)�the�existence�of�the�world
outside�the�cave.�But�when�it�comes�to�God�talk,�WE�ARE�ALL�BLIND,
and�WE�ARE�ALL�INSIDE�THE�CAVE.�So�neither�analogy�applies.
NOBODY�knows�or�can�even�define�God,�let�alone�prove�or�show�it�to
another.�God�is�a�belief�in�an�indefinable�notion�arising�out�of�a�helpless
realization�that�we�are�all�in�a�cave�and�we�don't�know�what�is�outside
the�cave�or�if�there�is�a�such�a�thing�as�outside�!�And�if�ever�all�were
blind,�then�there�would�be�no�one�to�talk�about�light,�but�some�blind
person�might�have�suddenly�suggested�there�is�an�entity�called�"light"
just�out�of�the�helplessness�in�not�knwoing�what�is�beyond�his�blinded
reality.�But�that�"light"�would�be�a�meaningless�term�to�the�rest�and
only�a�word�to�the�one�suggesting,�just�to�put�a�label�to�the�genuine
feeling�of�unknown�that�he�believes�exist�outside�his�blinded�world.
Remember�belief�!=�knowledge�(!=��means�not�equal�to)


Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 18:46:01 -0800
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: Abortion is wrong!

It�is�interesting�to�see�how�logic�can�take�a�back�seat�when�issues
become�too�emotionally�charged�and�when�sides�are�taken�based
on�that�emotion.�If�in�any�issue�where�logic�almost�invariably
is�sidestepped,�it�is�in�abortion.�And�it�is�this�issue�which�pushes
the�rationalizing�skill�of�the�freethinkers�to�its�limit�and�many�of
them�succumb�to�their�emotions�and�fail�to�take�a�logical�position
on�it.�The�very�first�fallacy�that�these�freethinkers�commit�is�to�
lump�atheism�with�pro-choice�and�theism�with�pro-life�
(and�vice�versa),�a�lumping�contrary�to�all�rules�of�logic,�the
very�same�rules�of�logic�that�is�used�to�debunk�theism.�No
rules�of�logic�(hence�secular�humanism�which�follows�from
logic�and�fairness)�preclude�an�atheist��from�being�"pro-life"
using�the�terms�in�their�widely�interpreted�senses.
 
For�example�in�the�following�line�in�Audrey's�post:�(12/16/01�5:46:04�AM)
>This�post�(and�I�can't�believe�you�wrote�it)�says�more�about�
>you�and�your�god�than�you�can�possibly�imagine.
 
Audrey�linked�Ryan's�opposition�to�abortion�"except�in�case�of�rape"
(A�VERY�important�qualifier)�with�his�belief�in�"God",�an�example
of�such�a�fallacy.�Well,�Ryan�does�believe�in�some�kind�of�creator,
but�not�the�Christian�God�for�sure.�His�belief�in�a�creator
itself�is�contrary�to�logic,�as�I�tried�to�point�out�to�him�in�a�futile
way.�But�it�is�hard�or�impossible�how�such�a�belief�in�a�vague
creative�force�can�have�anything�to�do�with�a�principled�stand�against
abortion�right�"except�in�case�of�rape".�So�such�linking�was�a�fallacy.�
It�is�a�well�known�logical�fallacy�called�ad�hominem�fallacy.�It�would
be�as�much�a�fallacy�if�an�atheist�had�said�"Right�of�abortion�applies
only�in�ase�of�rape"�and�someone�retorted�"It�says�more�about�him
and�his�atheism".
 
Secondly,�the�abortion�issue�has�two�unrelated�aspects�that�are�subject
to�debate�and�get�quite�mixed�up.�One�is�the�moral-philosophical
question�as�to�whether�the�ACT�of�abortion�should�be�considered
unethical�and�the�other�is�the�question�whether�it�is�the�women�who�
should��have�the�sole�right�to�decide�whether�to�abort�or�not.�These
two�are�totally�unrealed�and�it�is�logically�possible�to�take�any
combination�of�stands�on�these�two�questions.
 
�The�first�issue�is�gender�neutral�and�is�a�question�whose�answer�is
bedevilled�by�the�problem�of�subjectivity�in�(a)�the�notion�of�life�itself
in�deciding�at�what�stage�is�abortion�considered�as�taking�life�and
(b)�the�problem�in�judging�whose�life�is�more�important,�the�mother's
or�the�unborn�child�in�the�eventuality�when�medical�complications�can
permit�only�one�to�live�over�another's.�The�first�subjectivity�in�(a)�can�be
best�resolved�by�a�deeper�knowledge�of�molecular�genetics,�neuroscience
and�embryology.�But�even�such�objectivity�will�not�be�acceptable�to
those�whom�it�will�not�favour�in�such�an�emotionally�polarized�issue.
Case�(b)�is�very�subjective.�But�even�here�an�objective�answer�is
possible�by�evolutionary�biology�by�calculating�the�best�odds�for�the
genetic�survival�and�propagation�in�such�a�choice.�But�again�that�will
not�be�acceptable�to�the�mother�for�sure�as�she�has�a�very�ingrained
bias�for�self-preservation�(The�selfish�gene�paradigm�manifestation).
 
The�second�issue�being�an�adversarial�issue�between�gender�issue,any�
logical�resolution�of�the�question�will�not�be�accpetable�to�both.�
If�only�rationality�is�placed�above�emotion�and�vested�interest,
would�the�answer�be�acceptable�(But�not�necessarily�palatable�)�to�both.
That�is�a�hallmark�of�rationalism�anyway,�being�able�to�accept�the
position�that�is�compatible�with�logic�even�when�it�contradicts�personal
bias�as�well�as�the�interest�of�the�vested�group�one�is�a�member�of.
 
Let�me�address�some�remarks�earlier�by�srparke�and�Audrey�in�this�thread.
 
"srparke"��wrote�on�12/16/01�11:21:44�AM:
>
>Stupid�sluts?��Verrry�enlightened,�Ryan.��What�would�you�say�to�the�
>literaly�thousands�of�married�women�whose�birth�control�fails�them,�
>cannot�afford�a�child�and�cannot�fathom�carrying�a�child�for�nine�
>months�with�the�father�looking�on�and�then�give�it�away�to�a�perfect�
>stranger�who�would�raise�a�child�with�your�blood�in�a�manner�contrary�
>to�your�wishes?
 
��Ryan�made�a�big�mistake�in�using�an�abusive�term�that�is�sexist.�After�all
��only�a�woman�can�be�slut.�So�it�very�sexist�and�hence�P.I.C.�Any�logical
��stand�if�preceded�by�P.I.C�remarks�would�be�deemed�illogical.�Thats�a�lesson
��to�be�learned�:).�All�of�the�above�points�by�srparke�clearly�indicate�the
��limitations/failures�by�the�parents,�NOT�the�unborn�child.�So�logically�it
  is�the�parent�who�must�take�responsibility�and�pay�or�sacrifice�for�such�
��imitations/failures�(And�it�would�hardly�be�a�supreme�sacrifice),�not�the
��unborn�child�who�has�to�pay�by�a�supreme�sacrifice�for�the�parent's
��limitations/failures.�Whether�killing�an�embryo/fetus�is�killing�a�life�or
  not should�be�decided�apriori,�not�aposteriori�conditionally�after�certain
  fact�has�occurred,�because�the�decision�has�a�drastic�implications�in�the�
  two�possible�decisions.�In�one�case�it�would�be�a�case�of�murder,�and�in
��another�case�disposing�of�an�unwanted�object/article.�So�such�post�hoc
��rationalization�of�abortion�is�a�convenient�one�and�hence�not�a�truly
��ethical�rationalization.
 
For�example�srparke�further�remarked:
>pregnancy�that�fetus�becomes�a�child.��Myself,�I�believe�it�is�the�
>woman's�choice�up�to�the�15th�week,�because�that�is�when�the�spinal�
>cord�and�brain�become�fully�active�in�that�fetus�and�that�is�when�it�
>becomes�a�child�with�rights.
 
����Here�is�the�ethical�dilemma�in�the�above.�The�above�implies�that
����abortion�on�the�16�the�week��is�killing�a�life,�but�is�not�in�the�14th�week.
����Now�is�the�boundary�between�life�and�death�a�matter�of�one's�perception?
����Is�the�15the�change�a�sudden�abrupt�one?�it�is�not,�it�is�a�gradual�evolutionary
����onbe�that�is�merely�the�unfolding�of�the�genetic�code�in�the�embryo�with�the
����mother's�womb�serving�as�the�early�ambience�for�temperature�control�and
����as�a�startup�process�for�eventual�independednt�growth�outside.�An�embryo
����is�on�its�way�to�being�a�human�being.�All�the�genetic�code�is�already�there,
����a�dipoid�set�of�chromosomes.�The�neurons,�the�main�player�of�consciousness
����forms�and�multiplies�continuously�througout�the�gestation.�So�the�15�week
����threshold�is�only�a�convenient�one�for�someone�to�plan�an�abortion�ahead
����and�justify�it�by�doing�it�before�the�15th�week.�It�is�not�a�meaningful
    ethical�rationalization�at�all.�So�if�it�is�100%�unethical�to�abort�on�the
    16th�week,�it�cannot�be�0%�unethical�on�the�14th�week,�because�there�is�a
    gradual�evolution�(onotgeny)�of��the�embryo.�An�ethical�decision�should�be
    less�conditional.�Just�like�rape�of�a�autistic�girl�is�not�less�culpable
    than rape�of��a�bright�articulate�girl.
 
Before�I�make�my�logical�presentation�of�my�views�on�the�rights�issue
this�issue�let�me�warn�against�a�common�fallacy�that�many(women)�
commit�in�a�debate�of�this�issue,�which�is:�If��premise�is�stated�clearly
by�one�party�then�the�other�party�in�the�debate�cannot�make�a�point�that�
contradicts�the�premise.�For�example�if�one�accepts�the�premise�that�the
woman�should�have�the�unquestioning�sole�right�on�the�decision�to�abort
in�the�case�of�rape,�but�not�otherwise,�then�in�the�debate�his/her�opponent
cannot�try�to�make�his/her�case�in�favour�of�women's�sole�right�by�citing
the�plight�of��rape�vicitims�etc�as�that�was�already�accepted�as�an
extenuating�clause�for�exception�by�the�other�side.�This�is�a�common
mistake�that�is�committed.
 
[..] 
Aparthib


[Published on NFB Dec 25, 2001]
On the talibanization of cyberspace by crypto-Islamists

The�article�by�Ms.�Majid�once�again�brings�an�underlying�festering
problem�that�bedevils�the�two�adversarial�approach�to�opposing
religious�fanaticism.�I�touched�on�this�problem�before�on�NFB�in�the
article�"On�trivialization,�where�credit�is�due�etc".�The�problem�is
that�the�difference�in�style�and�personal�taste�have�been�exaggerated
and�promoted�to�a�perceived�difference�of�substance�and�leading�to�an
ideological�difference�and�then�engaging�in�bitter�ideological�verbal
battle.�It�shouldn't�have�been�that�way,�as�there�is�no�real�basis�of
such�ideological�battle�This�artificial�battle�between�them�undermines
the�common�goal�and�and�can�only�be�welcome�by�the�fanatics�which�both
groups�oppose.The�two�groups�have�lot�more�in�common�than�difference�in
substance.�The�ideological�divide�between�the�two�camps�is�due�to�a
significant�miscommunication�between�the�two�camps�represented�by�them.
The�one�camp�being�the�incompatibilists,�who�are�secular�humanists�
(self-�declared�or�not),�and�vocal�critics�of�Islam's�scriptures�and�believe�
that�Islam�if�followed�according�to�its�strict�literal�teachings�(which�the
fanatics�do)�is�incompatible�with�secular�humanistic�ideals.�The�other
camp�being�the�compatibilists�represented�by�those�who�also�profess�to
believe�in�the�ideals�of�secular�humanism�(implicitly�if�not�explicitly)
but�also�insist�that�Islam�is�compatible�with�secular�humanism�since
Islam�is�what�is�adapted�and�reflected�in�the�Zeitgeist�of�the�society
that�it�applies�to�and�and�not�what�the�extremists�interpret�or�enact.�Well,�
it�may�be�that�the�two�camps�are�really�answering�two�different�questions,�
but�let�me�put�aside�such�philsophical�issues�for�later.�Hence�the�
compatibilists�insist�that�Islam�should�be�left�out�in�any�criticism�of
the extremism�and�fanaticism.
 
��Of�course�there�are�some�pseudo-modernists�that�claim�to�be
compatibilists�and�pretend�to�be�moderates�but�in�fact�are�closet
supporters�of�fanatics,�as�they�have�more�in�common�with�fanatics�than
differences�and�would�rather�see�the�fanatics�live�and�prosper�than�the
incompatibilists.�They�have�as�much�hatred�for�the�incompatibilists�as
the�fanatics�themselves.�I�am�not�including�them�in�my�discussion.�My
concern�is�the�compatibilists�like�Ms.�Majid�who�are�clearly�vocal
against�fanatics�and�extremism,�and�I�am�sure�would�rather�see�the
fanatics�disappear�than�the�incompatibilists,�if�such�a�hypothetical
choice�arise.�But�they�are�now�too�focussed�with�the�stand�of�the
incompatiblists,�merely�due�to�some�coincidental�events�that�happened
in�which�the�remarks�of�some�incompatibilists�is�seen�to�be�responsible
for�the�untimely�demise�of�a�mass�movement�against�the�fanatics.�So�it
is�more�as�an�"oviman"�or�lament�against�the�incompatiblists�for�putatively
screwing�up�a�sensitive�battle�by�an�inopportune�remark�that�seemed�to
have�angered�the�compatibilists�so�much.�But�how�much�is�that�lament
justified?�Can�one�provocative�remark�really�overthrow�a�strong�and
committed�movement�if�the�movement�is�agreed�to�as�being�right?�Could
the�struggle�against�the�Pakistani�military�in�1971�be�sabotaged�by�any
such�provocative�remarks�by�any�one.�If�a�movement�is�believed�in
earnest�to�be�right�by�ALL�segments�of�the�society�nothing�could�have
stemmed�its�advance.�It�gathers�a�momentum�of�its�own�and�nothing�so
trivial�as�a�remark�by�an�obscure�author�could�have�outright�sabotaged
it.�Besides,�the�remarks�of�the�obscure�author��did�at�least�bring�to�fore
a�malaise�of�fanaticism�in�our�society.�Unpleasant�truth�even�if�uttered�in
an�irerevernt�manner�still�is�calling�a�spade�spade.�If�the�remarks�
precipitate a�disruptive�backlash�then�it�is�still�the�perpetrators�of
the�disruption�who bears�the�primary�repsonsibility�.�And�the�failure
of�such�a�movement against�fanaticism�must�be�searched�somewhere�
deeper. If�a�movement requires�a�total�pin�drop�silence�and�not�the
slightest perturbation�for�its success�then�certainly�there�is�a�loophole�
or�goraey�golod�as�the�saying goes,�somewhere.�This�root�cause�is�
what should�be�the�focus�of�concern by�both�camps.
 
The�rhetorics�and�sarcasms�by�either�camp�only�masks�the�real
underlying�commonalties�and�concerns�and�instead�creating�misgivings
and�miscommunications�leading�to�the�perceived�ideological�battle.�I�am
pretty�sure�that�both�camps�will�agree�and�share�with�all�the�facts�and
concerns�that�Ms.Majid�expressed�in�her�article.�Much�of��the�concerns
expressed�can�hardly�be�distingushed�from�the�same�expressed�by�many
secular�humanists�including�incompatibilists.�She�has�mixed�up�too�many
things�and�gave�it�a�confrontational�character.�But�really�there's�not�much
in�the�facts�and�concernes�that�one�can�disgaree�with.�It�is�only�in�the
rhetorics,�judgemenst,�accusations,�blaming�etc�where�her�article�seem�to
most�controversial.�As�an�example�of�the�stuff�that�all�can�agree�is�the
following�excerpts�from�her�article:
 
����"A�couple�of�years�ago,�foolishly�taking�their�self-description�of�"
����secular�humanists"�in�good�faith,�I�tried�to�point�out�that�secularism
����means�pluralism,�peaceful�coexistence�of�many�religions,�faiths�and
����ethnic�cultures,�and�according�to�that�definition�of�secularism,�Muslim
����Bengal�had�always�been�a�secular�place.�At�no�point�in�Bengal�s�history
����Islam�was�declared�a�state�religion.�The�group�roundly�blasted�me�for
����committing�the�crime�of�mentioning��culture��and��history�.
 
Who�can�disagree�with�the�idea�of�secularism�as�she�outlines�except�the
fanatics?�That�shows�how�petty�differences�can�accumulate�over�time�
and�give�rise�to�such�monumental�divide�in�perception�between�them,�if�
not�addressed�timely.�But�her�articles�also�contain�plenty�of�rhetorics,
angry�accusations�and�judgements�that�are�in�turn�probably�due�to
rhetorics,�sarcasms�and�judgements�that�the�other�group�may�have
indulged�in�their�own�writings.�But�such�quid�pro�quo�of�causticity�
and sarcasm�back�and�forth�is�one�major�reason�for�the�progressive
transformation�of�an�inconsequential�stylistic�difference�into�a�major
perceived�ideological�difference�and�war�of�words.�One�set�of�rhetorics
or�judgement�cannot�be�countered�by�another.�Sarcasm�and�rhetorics�of
course�stem�from�frustrations.�The�main�frustration�shared�by�both
camps�being�the�helplessness�felt�in�the�face�of�the�increasing
religious�fanaticism�and�and�extremist�acts�and�the�failure�to�do
anything�about�it.�Frustrations�also�arise�due�to�the�insincere�talk
and�bitter�critcisms�of�the�incompatibilists�by�the�pseudo-modernists
crypto-fanatic�supporters�which�evoke�sarcasms�as�well.�And�the
compatibilists�take�the�side�of�the�pseudomodernist�in�such�a�war
of�words�and�thus�exacerbating�the�difference�between�the�compatibilists
and�incompatibilists.�One�should�distinguish�the�incompatibilists�and
psudo-modernists.�One�problem�is�that�this�frustration�also�causes�one
to�find�a�scapegoat�for�this�failure.�For�example�Ms.�Majid�blamed�the
rise�of�fanaticism�on�the�critics�of�Islam�and�blamed�them�for�creating
the�fanatics�and�that�fanatics�owes�their�genesis�to�them.�This�is
nothing�but�an�oversimplification�and�scapegoating�due�to�that
frustration�The�fact�is�that�the�fanatics�had�always�existed
independent�of�the�critics�of�Islam�and�would�find�an�another�pretext
for�its�outburst�sooner�or�later,�like�the�pretext�that�the�NGOs�are
out�to�destroy�the�values�of�Islam�by�empowering�the�women.�And�some
acts�of�fanatics�do�not�need�any�pretext.�The�killing�of�Nurjahan�or
many�other�hapless�women�by�Fatwa�was�not�due�to�some�critical�remarks
against�religion�or�any�other�pretext.�So�the�critical�remarks�against
religion�by�an�obscure�author�cannot�"create"�fanatic�beliefs�and
ideals�and�would�be�too�simplistic�to�think�that�way.�Rather�the
fanatics�created�the�critics�of�Islam�as�a�backlash�to�their�fanaticism.
And�as�always�some�backlashes�tend�to�overshoot�as�well.�A�women�abused
by�her�husband�may�declare�all�men�as�evil.�Thats�certainly�untenable.
But�do�we�lambaste�such�women?�many�radical�black�victim�of�segregation
utters�the�rhetoric�that�all�white�are�evil�etc.�So�some�critics�of
Islam�may�go�overboard�and�blame�the�entire�religion�and�call�for�the
complete�rejection�or�even�abolition�of�religion.�That�is�as�untenable
as�is�an�abused�women's�calling�the�entire�male�species�as�evil.�But
the�proper�context�may�help�understand�the�genesis�of�such�rhetorics.
Such�rhetorics�may�not�be�politically�correct,�specially�since�it�seems
to�provide�a�rallying�cause�for�the�fanatics�(And�invariably�they
exaggerate�and�twist�the�actual�intent�remarks�of�the�critics)�but
there�is�no�basis�of�a�counter�rallying�against�such�rhetorics�other
that�a�philosophical�counter�argument.�Criticism�of�religion�is�an
accepted�practice�in�the�West�and�it�does�not�provoke�rallying�of�the
fanatics�that�disrupt�public�life�and�does�not�pose�physcial�threats�to
the�crticis�.�Thomas�Paine,�Russell�were�critics�of�Christianity�too.
But that did�not�give�rise�to�a�disruptive�fanatic�backlash.�And�should
criticism of�Islam�be�wrong�only�because�it�provokes�a�disruptive�
backlash? Thats�more�like�a�pragmatic�ethics,�not�a�principled�one.�
Similar to�advising�women�to�wear�veils�or�not�to�go�out�alone,�as�that
may invite�rape.�But�that�again�is�looking�at�the�symptom,�not�the
disease. The�wrongness�of�rightness�of�an�act�should�not�be�solely
determined by�the�effect�it�produces,�becasue�the�effect�itself�may
be�caused�by "worng"�acts��in�its�own�merit.
 
Of�course�the�language�in�the�backlash�of�some�of�those�critics�of
religion�are�not�always�the�most�ideal�as�one�would�wish.�But�again
that�is�an�issue�of�style�over�substance.The�genesis�of�fanaticism�has
to�be�found�by�digging�deeper�as�I�said.�And�if�this�backlash�of�the
critics�in�turn�reinforces�the�fanatics�then�that�is�an�indication�that
the�problem�is�deep�rooted�and�the�solution�has�to�be�deeper�than�just
silencing�the�critics�which�would�not�be�really�treating�the�disease
but�suppressing�one�manifestation�of�it.�The�analogy�with�Bush-Bin
laden�is�also�not�correct�here.�Bush�(Sr.)�may�had�created�Bin�Laden,
but�the�critics�of�Islam�surely�didn't�create�the�fanatics�who�are�the
creation�of�indoctrination�through�scriptures.
 
The�remarks�of�the�critics�may�provide�a�temporary�excuse�for�a�blip�
of�outburst�by�the�fanatics�at�a�point�in�time,�but�certainly�not�in
creating�or�sustaining�it.�Ironically�it�is�the�fanatics�who�push�the
obscure�writers�on�to�the�limelight�by�their�raising�hell,�and�of
course�the�media�reporters�being�the�abettors,�who�are�good�at�creating
a�sensation�out�of�an�otherwise�routine�criticism�of�religion�which�is
not�uncommon�in�many�private�and�semi-public�conversations�without
making�any�news.�But�the�reporters�did�know�the�potential�that�such
reporting�would�carry�due�to�the�author's�other�interesting�personal
baggage�and�would�thus�be�conveniently�packaged�with�her�anti-religious
remarks�for�sensationalism.�So�the�blame�can�equally�lie�with�them�for�"
creating"�the�fanatics.�But�again�it�would�be�as�simplistic�as�blaming
it�on�the�remarks�of�an�author.�And�regarding�the�accusations�that
those�authors�make�such�remarks�to�draw�attention�and�fame.�If�that�is
so,�then�the�critics�of�those�authors�are�themselves�abetting�in�the
perpetuation�of�their�fame�by�their�ceaseless�criticism�of�their�views�and
remarks.�Besides�if�secularism�means�pluralism�as�Ms.�Majid�so�rightly
outlined�(�And�there�is�no�discord�here�between�the�two�camps�on�this
meaning)�shouldn't�pluralism�include�tolerating�individual�critics�of
religion�as�well?�In�a�strict�pluralism�nothing�should�be�more�sacred�than
others�or�less.�If��system�of�ideas��like�communism,�capitalism,�or�even�
scientific�principles�can�be�subject�to�blanket�questioning�and�critcisms
with impunity,�why�should�such�critcisms�of�religion�be�taboo?�The�west�
seems�to�have�followed�this�tolerance�more�or�less�faithfully.�Otherwise
that�would not�be�pluralism�in�the�true�sense�of�the�term.
 
Going�back�to�the�blame�issue.�This�kind�of�contextual�blaming�really
skirts�around�the�deeper�root�cause.�The�author's�remark,�or�the
reporters�sensationalism�only�brings�the�underlying�disease�to�the
surface�by�provoking�it.�The�root�cause�lies�in�the�powerful
indoctrination�of�extremist�dogma�that�religious�schools�and�many
families�themselves�instill�into�their�students,�sons,�brothers,
nephews�friends,�etc�and�actively�aided�by�vested�fanatic�foreign
powers�by�pouring�money�to�aid�in�this�indoctrination.�Our�families�do
not�instill�with�zeal�any�strong�values�against�fanaticism�in�the�way
they�do�other�socio-religious�values�like�not�dressing�certain�way�etc.
If�anti-fanaticism�was�instilled�in�a�way�that�it�would�be�a�disgrace
to�be�a�fanatic�and�social�outcast�then�we�would�not�have�this�problem
of�fanaticism.�also�strong�deterrent�actions�were�taken�by�government
against�the�fanatics�that�would�also�have�helped�in�curbing�extremism,
so�Governments�of�all�parties�have�been�remiss�in�this.�Some�token
conviction�in�isolated�cases�do�not�have�much�impact.�But�regardless�of
the�contextual�or�root�cause,�the�final�blame�as�always�should�rests
with�those�who�at�the�actually�commits�a�criminal�act.�And�they�are
unmistakably�the�religious�extremists.
 
I�would�like�to�put�the�hat�of�a�prud'Hommne�and�try�to�bring�about�an
rapproachement�of�ideas�between�the�two�anti-fanatic�camps.�I�would�try
to�read�the�mind�of�both�the�camps�as�both�seem�to�be�not�paying�much
importance�in�trying�to�analyze�the�root�of�this�miscommunication�and
try�to�understand�each�other's�real�concern�and�frustration.�It�is
important�for�each�camp�to�understand�each�other�piercing�through�the
veil�of�rhetorics�as�it�is�certain�that�each�camp�is�trying�to�address
some�deeper�problem�honestly.�I�may�read�them�wrong,�which�they�are
both�welcome�to�point�out.�The�problem�may�well�be�of�personal�nature
between�Ms�Majid�and�the�two�incompatibilists�she�referred�to�in�her
article.�In�that�case�it�is�just�a�case�of�personal�bickerings�of�no
consequence�to�the�issues�that�concerns�general�readers�who�may�not
relate�to�such�personal�bickerings,�and�should�be�sorted�out�between
them.�After�all�the�two�incompatibiliists�do�not�represent�(Nor�did
they�claim�to�represent)�ALL�incompatibilists�or�secular�humanist�who
do�not�take�such�a�strong�bipolar�stand�as�incompatibilists�or
compatibilists,�in�terms�of�styles�and�rhetorics.�They�speak�for�their
own�as�does�anyone�else.�But�still�it�is�worthwhile�to�analyze�the
genesis�of�this�personal�misgivngs�between�them�as�it�may�have
potential�implication�in�general�and�some�aspect�of�this�difference�may
appeal�to�many�who�may�relate�to�it.�The�main�contention�of�Ms.�Majid
against�the�incompatibilists�is�that�they�are�advocating�throwing�the
baby�with�the�bath�water.�That�Islam�is�more�of�a�culture�for�the
Bengali�Muslims�that�has�been�adopted�and�adapted�to�our�socio-
cultural�context�and�has�evolved�separately�here�in�historical�Bengal
and�has�nothing�to�do�with�the�strict�scriptural�version�of�Islam�as
born�practiced�and�outside�the�fertile�land�of�Bengal.�And�that�this
Bengali�Islam�is�not�intolerant�and�is�part�of�Bengali�culture�for�the
large�majority�of�Bengalis�who�are�Muslim.�This�cultural�aspect�of
Muslim�Bengal�may�be�more�of�Sufi�nature�than�orthodox�version�as
exemplified�in�the�Baul,Marfoti,�Murshedi,�Hasan�Rajas�songs,�and�in
the�works�of�Litterateurs�like�Garib�Khan�(17th�century�Muslim�Podaboli
writer),�Kanu�fakir�(another�17th�century�podaboli�writer),�Mir
mushraaf�hussein,�Kaikobad,�Abdul�Karim�Shahittobisharod�and�of�course
Nazrul�etc�may�be�good�examples�of�this�Muslim�Bengali�culture.�There
is�a�lot�of�syncretism�in�Muslim�Bengal�between�elements�that�are
indigenous�Bengali�cultural�aspects�and�imported�element�that�can�
be traced�to�Islam�and�in�the�syncretism,�those�elements�have�been
modified�and�readapted�to�conform�to�Benagli�heritage�and�culture.�
Now it�would�be�foolish�for�anyone�to�demand�that�to�fight�against
fanaticism�we�have�to�deny�and�renounce�this�Bengali�Muslim�heritage
that�has�evolved�for�centuries.�Or�that�all�have�to�stop�celebrating
Eid,�fasting,�praying,�exchanging�food�on�Shab-e-barat,�eating�Ifatries,
waking�up�for�Sehri�etc.�Most�of�these�rituals�and�festivities�are
treasured�more�by�women�and�children�and�are�not�intrusive�at�all.
Thats�ridiculous�to�suggest�giving�them�up�or�to�believe�that�that�is
what�is�being�suggested.�All�this�has�become�part�of�our�cultural
festivities,�even�for�non-religious�folks�much�like�Christmas�is
observed�by�the�non-religious�Christians.�If�thats�what�the
incompatibilists�suggested�then�it�sure�will�alienate�lot�of�women,
children�and�peaceloving�ritual�followersers.�If�this�is�Ms.�Majid's
main�contention�against�incompatibilists�I�would�disagree.�I�would�
be hard�pressed�to�believe�that�indeed�incompatibilists�are�really
pressing�for�that�kind�of�radical�solution.�I�am�yet�to�see�explicit
expression�of�such�advocacy�in�any�writing,�misinterpretation�aside.�As
for�the�incompatibilists�side,�I�must�admit�that�overly�focussing�on
the�religious�roots�of�extremism�they�may�not�have�been�careful�enough
to�emphasize�that�their�criticism�does�not�encompass�such�broad�facets
of�Islam,�specially�the�cultural�side�of�it,�and�to�acknowledge
explicitly�the�existence�of�such�non-intrusive�and�harmless�cultural
aspects�of�it�and�to�clarify�that�such�should�not�be�held�to�the�same
ignominy�as�the�oppressive�political�and�dogmatic�aspects�of�it.
Failure�to�emphasize�and�issue�this�disclaimer�may�have�contributed�to
this�ever�widening�ideological�divide�with�the�compatibilists.�Now�
are the�compatibilists�really�reading�the�mind�of�incompatibilists'
correctly�through�the�veneer�of�rhetorics�and�sarcasms�in�their
writings�if�any,�and�the�exegesis�of�the�scriptures�?�Rhetorics�are
said�in�frustrations�and�hardly�should�be�taken�literally�although�it
is�not�politically�correct�to�utter�rhetorics�incriminating�an�entire
system�of�beliefs,�race�etc.�As�for�their�exegesis�of�the�scriptures,
again�my�reading�is�that�it�is�done�mainly�to�explain�the�genesis�of
the�fanaticism,�not�to�disgrace�religion�primarily.�After�all�religion
is�an�inanimate�body�of�beliefs.These�fanatics�get�their�indoctrination
at�the�religious�schools�where�these�scriptures�are�taught�rigorously
and�accurately.�So�obviously�these�scripture�do�inspire�in�the�genesis
of�their�fanatic�mindset,�and�so�this�tracing�the�roots�of�fanaticism
to�indoctrination�via�the�scripture�is�not�far�fetched.�One�cannot
dismiss�this�exegesis�of�correlation�as�being�motivated�by�hatred�for
religion.�If�at�all�there�is�any�hatred�for�religion,�that�may�be�be
motivated�as�a�result�of�the�findings�of�exegesis,�not�the�other�way
around,�as�the�former�makes�more�logical�sense�than�the�latter�scenario.
So�either�the�schools�that�indoctrinate�such�fanatic�ideas�be�reformed/
eliminated�and�create�a�mass�awareness�so�that�families�instill�a�sense
of�distaste�and�disgrace�for�fanaticism�or�omit�those�part�of�the
scriptures�that�do�inspire�these�extremist�ideas�in�the�curriculum�of
religious�schools.�Of�course�all�these�are�idealistic�goals.�But�it
would�be�a�stretch�to�extrapolate�the�exegesis�of�the�incompatibilists
as�being�motivated�by�a�hatred�towards�religion�and�all�its�followers.
That�certainly�is�not�the�case.�After�all,�the�parents,�friends�and
relatives�of�these�incompatibilists�also�are�mostly�religious,�albeit
peaceloving�ones.�So�obviously�their�target�of�criticism�is�not�against
those�non-intrusive,�private�aspects�of�religion,�but�the�coercive�and
hateful�ones�that�target�non-believers,�dissenters,�followers�of�other
religion,�women�etc.�I�hope�I�am�reading�the�incompatibilists's�mind
right.�If�not�they�may�correct�me.�If�I�am�right�then�a�reaffirmation
would�be�helpful�as�the�compatibilists�don't�seem�to�be�aware�of�that.
 
So�it�seems�like�this�bitter�war�of�words�is�really�misplaced�as�there
is�no�fundamental�basis�for�such.�It�would�be�more�worthwhile�to�engage
in�a�non-confrontational�dialog�to�understand�truly�each�other's�views
and�mindsets,�and�suggest�better�strategies,�since�both�have�zero
tolerance�for�fanatics/ism.�And�this�common�shared�concern�should�be�of
too�vital�an�importance�to�engage�in�fruitless�sarcastic�war�of�words,�
and it�is�ill-advised�to�engage�in�such�for�either�camp.�A�philosophical
or academic�debate�in�a�dedicated�forum�only�can�make�sense�between
them.�An�angry�war�of�words�in�public�doesn't�really�add�anything�of
value,�and�can�only�come�as�a�welcome�relief�to�the�fanatics�and
those�so�called�moderates�who�are�actually�closet��supporters�of�the�
fanatics,�than�to�spend�energy�and�time�dishing�out�quid�pro�quos
at�each�other.�
 
Aparthib�Zaman


Subject: Re: [Aalaap] The other side of fundamentalism and bigotry - my personal observation
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:30:49 -0800

��Seems�like�any�critique�of�even�some�aspects�of�religion�and�its�verses,�not�
��whole�of��it��seems�to��always�invariably�draws�the��kneejerk�retort�from
��apologists�and�stickler�for�religious�correctness�(RC)�that�such�criticism
��amounts�to�spreading�hate�and�that�the�critics�are�hate�mongers.�It�is�appropriate
��to�use�the�expression�RC�rather�than�PC�since�these�apologists�don't�feel
��outraged�at�any�hateful�remarks�against�secualrists,�humanists,�rationalists,
��even��scientists�(all�humans)��but�would�react�with�bitter�anger to�an
��impersonal�criticism�of�dogmas.
��
���Well,�consider�the�reverse.�The�religious�extremsists�invariably�derive�their
���source�of�inspiration�for�acts�of�terrorism�from�those�verses�and�vindicate
���their�acts�through�them.�These�apologists�and�RC�sticklers��contend�that
���religion�and�believers�should�never�be�considered�as�spreading�hatred��or
���responsible�for�these�terrorist�acts,�even�though�those�verses�inspire�the
���extremists�to�commit�acts�of�terrorism,�saying�that�the�terrorists�have�nothing
���to�do�with�the�scriptures�and�its�true�believers.�Well,�then�is�it�not�an�even
���greater�stretch�for�them�to�contend�that�the�critics�of�those�verses�are
���hate-mongers,�when�such�criticism�never�inspire�any�counter�acts�of�terrorism
���by�"non-religious"�extremists?.�Even�if�such��counter�terrorist�acts�did�occur,�
���the�critics�of�religion�could�equally�well�contend�that�the�counter�terrorists
���have�nothing��to�do�with�the�critics�or��their�critcisms.�They�would�be�equally
���justified�in�taking�such�a�stand.�And��in�the�absence�of��such�counter�terrosts
���acts�following�such�criticism�of�religion�it�is�a�monumental�hypocricy�for�the
���apologists�and�RC�sticklers�to��accuse�the�critics�of��part�of��religion�of�
���spreading�hatred�while�absolving�religion,�its�verses�and�authors�of�any
���such�implication�in�the�acts�of�terrorism�where�hatred�is�not�accused,�but
���are�committed?�After�all�who�is�spreading�hate�is�not�matter�of�opinion,�but
���a�matter�of�observational�evidence,�a�hatred�is�recognized�only�when�it
���leads�to�ACTS�of�hatred�as�in�the�case�of�the�acst�of�religious�extremists.
���The�effect�itself�identifies�who�spreads�the�hatred�and�caused�the�effect.
�
���Aparthib


Subject: Re: [Aalaap] The other side of fundamentalism and bigotry ....
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:50:34 -0800

I�repeat,�writing�or�making�criticisms�of�religion�or�any�dogma�
(specially�of�its�intolerant�side)�is�never�defined�as�an�act�of
hatred�by�any�standards�of�democratic�and�humanistic�norms�which
is�what�the�majority�of�the�world�adheres�to�as�is�formalized
through�the�United�nations�declaration�of�basic�human�rights�and
individual�freedom.�So�it�is�not�my�own�definition.�A�majority
of�the�worlds'�nation�and�religion�allows�such�critcism,�as�well
as�alowing�counter�criticism�to�it.�Any�one�that�doesn't�would�be
the�odd�one�out�in�this�regard.�Tolerance�of�critcism�is�in�the
spirit�of�democracy.�The�acts�of�hatred�by�the�terrorsists�are�in
clear�violation�of�individual�rights�and�freedom.�And�the
extremists�are�inspired�by�and�more�importantly�are�acting�in
support�of�the�religious�scriptures�and�edicts.�In�contrast�the
act�of�writing�by�critics�of�religion�does�not�inspire�or�lead
any�"non-religious"�extremists�to�such�acts�of�human�rights
violation�in�support�of�the�critics�or�their�criticisms.�There
is�no�comparison�between�the�two.�There�is�a�clear�assymmetry.
No�amount�of�sophistry�can�reverse�this�fact�of�assymetry.�
 
The�religious�extremists�have�never�been�tried�and�convicted
under�religious�laws�for�their�extremist�acts,�and�the�extremists
invoke�religion�to�justify�their�acts.�If�a�political�goon�of�a
party�commits�an�act�of�terrorism�in�the�name�his�party�and�seek
justification�from�some�clause�of�the�party�manifesto,�and�the
party�does�not�bring�him�to�book,�then�the�party�will�be
considered�to�be�harboring�the�terrorists�and�the�specific
clause�will�be�legitimately�open�to�criticism,�regardless�of
how�the�party�tries�to�interpret�it.
 
And�regarding�the�remark�that�writing�can�also�hurt�someone,�the
point�is�no�one�is�responsible�for�what�goes�inside�one's�brain
other�than�the�owner�of�that�brain(mind).�Others'�cannot�be�held
responsible�for�every�negative�feeling�that�someone�creates�in
in�his/her�brain.�Everyday�there�is�something�on�the�news,�radio,
TV,�public�speech,�a�literary�critcism,�a�book�review,�that�will
hurt�somebody.�Scientists�face�critcisms�of�their�theory,�and
it�is�not�just�faith,�even�when�the�theory�has�been�verified�and
tested,�and�they�live�with�such�critcisms.�It�will�be�the�height�of
paranoia�to�label�any�such�act�as�spreading�hate,�just�because
someone�chose�to�get�hurt�in�their�mind.�Human�has�free�will,they
can�control�their�mind�and�learn�to�live�with�dissenting�views�and
criticisms.�If�any�criticism�weakens�the�faith�then�one�should�rather
look�inside�and�question�the�strength�of�the�faith�instead�of�feeling
insecure�and�blamimg�others�for�weakening�it.�And�if�it�does�not
weaken�it�or�strengthen�it�then�it�should�be�non-issue.�There
are�quite�a�few�devout�religious�believers�who�hold�such�positivist
view�and�welcome�(or�at�least�do�not�feel�bitter�at)�criticism
instead�of�threatening�the�critics.�They�are�the�true�believers
to�me.
������������
Aparthib


Subject: [aalaap] Re: The other side of fundamentalism and bigotry ....
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:20:50 -0800

Response�to:�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aalaap/message/1502:
 
>It�really�does�not�matter�how�many�times�you�repeat�that�
>written�hate�propaganda�is�criticism���it�is�not,�otherwise�the�word�
>"propaganda"�would�not�be�in�the�English�vocabulary.�Propaganda�
>which�can�be�the�distribution�of�information�of�the�written�type�to�
>spread�hatred�is�not�criticism.�So�unfortunately�you�are�using�your�
>definition.
 
����[I�never�said�(let�alone�repeat)�written�hate�propaganda�is
����criticism.�Rather�it�is�the�reverse�"written�critcism�is�hate
����propaganda"�by�the�apologists�that�I�am�disputing.�It�is�the�very
����characterization�of�a�critcism�as�"written�hate�propaganda"�that�I
�� �questioned�and�argued�that�criticism�is�not�spreading�hatred.�One
����cannot�disprove�my�contention�that�criticism��is�not�hatred�by
����assuming�it�is�hatred,�that�is�begging�the�question,�arguing�in�a
����circle,�assuming�the�very�proposition�that�one�was�supposed�to
����justify.�BTW�I�am�not�using�MY�definition.�That�criticism�of
����religion�by�itself�not�considered�hatred�is�obvious�by�the�fact
����that�it�is�not�illegal�and�is�accepeted�and�tolerated�in�secular
�� �democracy.�When�a�member�of�a�religion,�cult,�sect�etc�issues�a
����written/verbal�call�to��his�fellow�members�to�cause�physical
����assault�or�injury�to�a��group�or�individual,�that�IS�hatred�and�is
����not�allowed�in�secular�democracy.�Critcism�of�religion,�scientifc
����or�economic�theory,�etc��are�not.�All�these�are�part�of�basic
����human�rigjht�to�do.�If�that��is�my�definition�then�so�be�it.
    definitions�do�not�change�ethics�or��facts.�The�fact�that�criticisms
    of�religion�DO�NOT�ispire�or��lead�any��non-extremists�to�commit
    acts�of�hatred�against�religious�believers�whereas�the�religious
    edicts�do�is�not��changed�by�any�definition.�The�fact�that�religious
����criticism�is�not�a�a�crime�in�a�secular�democracy�is�also�not
����dependent�on�my�definition.�If�oneside��alleges�that�words
����are�being�defined�by�the�other,�then�the�same��allegation�can
����be�equally�well�applied��in�reverse.�Sophistry�can�only��lead�
����to�counter�sophistry.�And�it�only�serves�as�a�red�herring.�By
����the�way�If�anyone�advocates�or�promotes�the�dogma�of�theocracy,
    where�criticism�of�religion�is�forbideen�by�religious�law�then
    that�is�not�amenable�to�any�argument�or�debate,�a belief in a 
    dogma�itself cannot be�refuted�by�argument, only an argument to
    justify a dogma can be refuted by argument�since�to�dogma�holders,
    dogma�comes�before�logic�or�evidence.�My��arguments�are�in�the
    context�of secular�democratic�values�based�on�humanism�and�for
    those�who agree�to�such�systems�and�ideals.]
 
>Again�you�can�call�it�asymmetry�but�there�is�no�difference�
>between�hate-crimes�perpetrated�against�people�due�to�propaganda�and�
>"religious�extremism"���both�can�result�in�the�murder�of�innocent�
>victims���so�no�such�asymmetry�exists.�Sorry!�I�know�talking�about
 
���[We�were�talking�about�criticism�of�religion,�not�propaganda.
���Propaganda�INSPIRE�acts�of�hatred�as�did�the�Nazi�propaganda,�as
���do�the�propaganda�of�religious�clerics�who�call�on�their�followers
���to�commit�acts�of�hatred.��Individual�critics�of�religion,�do�not,
���they�never�call�on�anyone�to�commit�acts�of��hatred.�There�IS�a
���clear�assymetry.�No�amount�of�sophistry�can�change�this�objective
���difference.]
 
>Others�CAN�BE�HELD�RESPONSIBLE�FOR�what�they�say,�
>write�or�any�propaganda�they�devise�to�cause�negative�affects�[even�
>emotional���even�though�I�never�said�that!]���Otherwise�verbal�abuse�
>would�not�be�considered�ABUSE;�written�letters�of�verbal�misconduct�
>would�not�be�considered�THREATS,�and�guess�what�punitive�damages
 
��[Verbal�abuse,�misconduct�all�these�apply�against�individuals.�And
���there�are�laws�within�secular�sytem�to�deal�with�that.�Criticism�of
���religion�is��never�considered�"verbal�abuse",�:misconduct"�in�a�legal
���sense.�Anyone�is�free�to�label�it�that�way�as�a�matter�of�personal�taste.
���We�are�not�talking�about�such�personal�taste�here.]


Subject: Re: [aalaa] The other side of fundamentalism and bigotry ...
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:06:09 -0800

Response�to:�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aalaap/message/1580
 
>People�on�Aalaap�are�saying�that�what�is�being�written�is�spreading�
>hate�[hate�propaganda]���you�(Aparthib)�are�calling�it�criticism���
>hence�you�are�saying�that�written�propaganda�is�criticism�when�you�
>dispute�it!�No?
 
���No�indeed.�I�have�been�disputing�the�very�claim�that�"what�is�being
���written�is�spreading�hate".�I�am�calling�"it"�a�criticism,�the�"it"
���being�"what�is�being�written"�referred�to�above.�The�very�
���characterization�of�"it"�as��hate�propagnada�is�what�I�am�disputing.
���So�I�cannot�be�saying�that�written�propaganda�is�criticism�since�I�don't
���even�agree�with�the�first��part�of�this�statement.�This�should�be�a
���simple�logic�to�follow]
 
>First,�hate-propaganda�need�not�be�an�outright�direct�call�"to�cause�
>physical�assault�or�injury�to�a�group�or�individual"�as�you�propose!�
>Any�kind�of�hostility�or�animosity�reflected�in�ANY�way�can�be�
>hatred!
 
���Reflection�of�hostility�and�animosity�can�be�a�result�of�one's
���own�subjective�mental�creation�as�I�arguied�before.�To�someone
���who�is�rejected�for�a�position�after�an�interview,�that�may�be
���a�reflection�of�animosity�and�hatred�towards�himn.�An�author�
���may��see�annimosity�in�his/her�critics.�Similarly�proponents�of�
���a��scientific�peuinciple�may�see�animosity�in�the�critics�of�that
���theory.�Paranoia�cannot�constitute�an�objective�critterion�for
���calling�criticism�as�spreading�hatred.�An�unfavourable�criticism
���of�an�idea,�or�belief�may�be�perceived�as�animosity�or�hatred�
���by��its�adherents,�but�that�should�not�be�a�ground�for�
���disallowing�criticism�and�condemning�the�critic.
 
>Propaganda�[which�obviously�does�not�seem�to�register�the�correct�
>meaning�with�you���as�reflected�by�your�writing]�means:�to�spread
>hate�subtly�to�make�it�LOOK�LEGAL,�and�OK,�ACCEPTABLE�to�
>make�it�LOOK�maybe�like�"mere"�criticism!�Why�would�one�refuse�to
>accept�that?�That�is�what�it�means���NOT�anything�one�fancies�it�to!
 
���to�spread�"hate"�subtly..�?�That�is�begging�the�question�again.
���It�is�the�very�appropriateness�of�the�word�"hate"�which�is�the
���moot�issue�for�controversy.�An�argument�cannot�contain�any
���presupposition�that�is�being�debated�in�the�first�place.�One�has
���to�have�a�convincing�reason�to�justify�why�a�criticism�of�religion
���should�be�considered�hatred,�but�not�critcism�in�literary,�scientific
���or�politico-ideologcal�categories.�Dedicated�fsdherents�exist�in
���all�categories.�There�has�to�be�a�good�reason�to�accord�a�special
���priviledge�for��religion,�and�more�so�for�a�specific�religion.
 
>So�when�some�people�acted�in�a�violent�way�to�followers/
>non-followers�of�Islam�and�even�killed�a�sheikh�man�
>because�of�the�misinformation�of�who�terrorists�were,�
>and�because�of�the�"criticism"�(judging)�of�Islam�and
>the�misapprehension�that�it�supports�terrorism�that�
>resulted�from�"criticism",�were�these�people�not�
>inspired�to�do�so,�[to�kill]?�They�were�non-extremists
>who�were�inspired�by�fatal�criticism�[or�very�well
>maneuvered�hate-propaganda]�to�do�such!
 
���Never�heard�of�a�Sheikh�man�being�killed.�A�Sikh�
���was��killed�after�the�9-11�incident.�That�killing�was�
���committed�purely�as�a�backlash�against�the�9-11
���terrorist�act.�It�was�not�inspired�by�any�criticism,
���including�the�critcism�that�the�original�author�of
���this�thread�originally�was�condemning.�He�did�not
���quote�from�a�secular�book�calling�for��killing�the
���believers�to�justify�his�act�or�to�seek��inspiration�from.
���He�acted�on�his�own,�as�a�reaction�to�the�horrible�
���9-11�acts�of�terrorism.�What�he�did��was�wrong,
���and��he�is�accountable�for�his�act�under�secular�
���laws�and�would��be�punished�under�secular�laws.�
���No�critic�of�relgion�defended�his�act.�"Fatal�critiism"�
���is�a�loaded�judgemental�expression�and�does�not�add
���any�logic�or�evidence.
   [..]
 
Aparthib


Subject: [aalaap] Re secularism, democracy, theocracy and incest
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:53:48 -0800

��This�is�in�response�to�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aalaap/message/1512
������������
��Let�me�at�the�outset�remark�as�a�sidenote�that�it�is�preferable�
��to��address�questions��to�readers�in�general,�not�to�anyone�in
��particular�so�that�others�can��participate�in�the�thread�in�case
��the�particular��reader�may�not�be�checking�the�messages�for
��any�number�of��reasons.�
�����Anyway�let�me�try�to�address�the�two�questions�raised
��relating�to�the�issues�on�A.�secularism,democracy�and�theocracy
��and�B.�Incest
��
��A.�Secularism�vs.�democracy�vs�theocracy:
��
��Let�me�state�a�proposition�in�(1)�below�and�corroborate�it�in�2-9:
��
��1.�Democracy�and�theocracy�are�mutually�incompatible.
��2.�Democracy�implies�equal�status�and�rights�of�all�in�any�state
�����affairs�irrespective�of�religion(including�the�sects�and�non-
�����believers�within),�race,�language,�gender�etc�formalized�in�the
�����constitution.�No�preferential�position�of�any��group�over�others
�����and�state�should�be�participated�and�represented�by�all
�����according�to�some�neutral�criterion.
��3.�Secularism�=�no�preferential�position�of�any�religion�over
�����another�or�over�non-religion�in�state�matters.
��4.�From�(3)�secularism�is�a�subset�of�democracy,�hence�democracy
�����necessarily�imply�secularism.�
��5.�Secularisn�DOES�NOT�imply�"atheism"�(A�common�myth�is�that�it�does)
��6.�So�from�(5)�democracy�is�compatible�with�"theism"�
�����(defined�in�7�below)
��7.�Theism�=�Those�religious�beliefs�and�rituals�held�and�practiced
�����by�individuals�or�groups�that�do�not�affect�the�rights,�status
�����and�freedom�of�any�other�individuals�or�groups.�Theist�=�one�who
�����subscribes�to�theism.
��8.�Theocracy�=�Control�and�governance�of�a�state�by�one
�����religion�based�on�the�injunctions�of�scriptures�of�that�religion
�����and�thus�necessarily�places�that�religion�in�a�priviledged
�����status�over,�and�affects�the�rights,�status�and�freedom�of,
�����other�religions,�those�theists�(see�def.�7�above)�who�are
�����opposed�to��theocracy,��and�non-theists.
��9.�Since�(8)�fails�to�satisfy�the�criteria�set�in�(2)�so�theocracy�is
�����not�compatible�with�democracy�as�stated�in�(1)�as�a�proposition.
��10.�Since�democracy�rules�out�theocracy�any�political�party�which
�����advoctaes�theocracy�in�its�manifesto�cannot�be�eligible�for
�����participation�in�a�democractic�elections,�so�theocrcay�cannot
�����be�democratically�established.
 
��Now�the�question�that�one�may�ask�isn't�democracy�just�what�the
��majority�wants?�Not�necessarily�as�explained�following�observation
��11�below:
��
��11.�Democracy�is�what�the�majority�wants�within�a�given�range�of
�����options�that�are�compatible�with�the�criterion�set�in�(2)�above
�����and�more�importantly�none�of�the�options�within�the�range�should
�����be�such�that�choosing�it�would�prevent�choosing�other�options
�����later.
�����
��For�example�in�Bangladesh�majority�may�very�well�want�a�military
��dicatorship,�but�that�choice�is�not�compatible�wirh�democracy�since
��a�military�rule�automatically�implies�a�non-representative�and�not
��participatory�form�of�government.�A�similar�example�would�be�even
��if�the�majority�white�population�of�the�US�population�wanted�for
��reduced�righst�and�priviledges�of�all�people�of�colored�origin,�U.S
��constitution�would�not�allow�that�as�that�woulde�be�against
��democracy.�A�democracy�cannot�permit�any�step�that�would�defeat�the
��very�spirit�of�democrcay�even�if�the�majority�wants�it.�So
��democracy�is�not�just�rule�by�public�poll�or�mandate�without�any
��concommitant�conditionals�that�need�to�be�met�as�well.�Hence
��theocracy�cannot�be�allowed�in�a�true�democracy�because�by�it
��contradicts�the�criteria�in�(2)�and�also�theocrcay�is�absolutist�in
��the�sense�that�it�officially�denies�the�legitimacy�of�any�opther
��system,�and�hence�once�elected�it�will�prevent�any�steps�to�revert
��to�any�other�options�by�force�contradicting�9.�For�a�similar�reason
��a�communist�or�any�dogmatic�form�of�government�is�not�permissible
��within�democratic�framework.�In�other�words�any�absolutist�dogma
��which�does�not�admit�of�reform,�renovation�by�fair�resentation�by
��all�is�not�consistent�with�democracy.
 
��Even�in�the�extremely�unlikely�scenario�when�EVERYONE�of�a�state
��at�some�point�in�time�desire�to�have�theocracy,�establishment�of
��theocracy�would�still�be�against�the�notion�of�democracy�since�the�very
��establishment�of�theocrcay�would�permanently�block�any�reversion
��to�non-theocratic�rule�(since�theocracy�forbits�any�other�form�by
��its�very�dogma)�in�future�when�such�homogeneity�in�thoughts�may
��not�exist.�Democracy�should�be�based�on�timeless�criteria�and
��should�aniticipate�changing�human�needs�and�views.
 
��I�am�not�making�up�all�the�definitions,�just�paraphrasing�the
��meaning�as�widely�accepted�universally.�This�is�how�democracy
��is�practiced�in�US,�UK,�India�etc.�Even�BJP�has�to�adhere�to�the
��conditions�set�by�Indian�constitution�(which�is�based�on�democratic
��ideals)�to�compete�in�election.�In�US�no�party�which�promises�to
��implement�theocrcay,�communism,�or�racial�supremacy�in�thiir
��manifesto�are�allowed�to�compete�in�elections.�
��
��B.�INCEST:�The�question�on�incest�can�be�answered�quite�simply
��by�biology�(or�more�precisely�evolutionary�biology).�One�of�the
��paradigm�facts�of�evolutionary�biology�is�that�any�trait�that
��reduces�the�odds�for�the�survival�of�any�species�over�the�long�term
��is�not�favoured�by�natural�selection.�And�what�is�not�favoured
��by�natural�selection,�the�laws�of�biology(ultimately�Physics)
��instils�a�negative�instinct�against�that�trait�in�human
��brain�slowly�through�gene�mutation.�So�as�much�as�we�consciously
��think�in�our�mind�and�in�our�short�individual�existence�that
��act�"X"�is�immoral,�disgusting�etc,�the�root�cause�for�us�to
��think�that�way�is�that�through�millions�of�years�of�trial�and
��error�biology(evolution)�has�coded�an�instinct�against�such
��traits�in�our�genome�to�prevent�extinction.�A�genome�of�any
��human�is�millions�of�years�old,�not�as�old�as�indivdal's�life
��time.�This�instinct�is�a�result�of�the�millions�of�years�of
��cumulative�effect�on�our�predecessors�as�captured�in�our�genome
��sequence�(which�is�living�trace�of�our�millions�of�years�of
��past�evolutionary�history),�not�a�making�of�just�our�life�time.
��And�any�biological�instinct�by�definition�applies�to�all�human,
��race�religion�is�immaterial.�Laws�of�biology�do�not�discriminate.
��Now�to�the�specifics�on�incest.�Incest�has�been�known�to
��biologists�as�being�responsible�for�increasing�harmful
��recessive�genes�in�human�which�may�threaten�the�longevity
��of�any�species�if�not�limited�to�within�a�small�magnitude.�
��Thus�the�biological�negative�instinct�in�our�brain�against�it.
��Another�example�is�homosexuality.�This�is�also�a�trait�that
��is�counter�evolutionary.�Hence�there�is�negative�instinct
��in�most�humans.�And�this�evolutionary�implantatioj�can�also
��work�in�reverse�and�create�a�positive�instinct�for�some
��traits(or�acts).�mating�urge,�urge�for�sugar�etc�are
��pro-evoutionary�traits,�hence�human�brain�is�programmed
��to�feel�attraction�for�such.
��
��Negative�traits�can�still�exist�within�a�small�threshold
��as�long�as�it�does�not�cross�the�threshold�to�threaten
��extinction.�Hence�we�do�see�counter�instincts�as�exceptions,
��as�the�instances�of�homosexuality�and�incest�shows.�But�the
��negative�instinct�among�the�overwhelming�majority�ensures
��that�it�remanins�within�that�limit.�This�is�as�true�in�humans�as
��it�is�among�lower�animals.�Any�trait�that�leads�to�a�species
��extinction�over�a�long�time�is�intinctively�avoide�by�animals,
��with�some�exceptions.�But�one�must�also�remember�that�right
��instinct�alone�does�not�guranatee�survival�as�the�sad�fact�of
��thousands�of�extint�species�tell�us.�Unexpected�catastrophe,
��natural�and�MAN�made�can�extinguish�a�species�as�exemplified
��by�dinosaurs(natural,�asteroids)�and�dodo�bird(MAN,Spaniards)


Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:05:40 -0800
Subject: [NFB] Who is a true freethinker - A response
 
This�is�in�response�to�the�following�article�by�Syed�Munir�Islam:
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/jan/10/g10012002.htm#A3
�
Let�me�start�with�the�observation�that�the�essay�contained
words�and�exprewssions�like:
�
���"prancing,�one-trick�pony,�'ox-feces',�dorkism,�noxious,
����flatulence,�boorish,�blather,�ignorance.."
�
quite�a�handful�of�expletives.�One�wonders�why�so�many�expletives
are�needed�to�make�any�point.�Anyway�let�me�see�how�far�I�can�go
without�using�a�single�of�such�expletive.
�
In�response�to�his�rhetoric�question:
��'Would�any�deshi�secular�atheist�(humanist)�you�know�EVER�write�any
���critique�of�secular�humanism"?
�
Firstly,�a�humanist�need�not�be�an�atheist.�Nowhere�is�it�defined�so.
No�one�can�claim�so.�Even�if�anyone�did�(I�don't�think�anyone�did)
claim�that�he/she�would�be�speaking�for�her/himself.�If�a�self-
proclaimed�or�an�accepted�humanist�practices�nudism,�that�would�not
justify�someone�jumping�to�an�expression�like�"..atheist(nudist)".�So
that�was�a�loaded�or�complex�question.�Getting�past�that�fallacy,�the
question�was�does�any�atheist�OR�humanist�write�any�critique�of
secular�humanism?�Does�this�question�really�make�sense?�lets�see.
�
First�of�all�the�underlying�thrust�behind�that�rhetoric�question�was:
�"See�how�Professor�Khaled�Abou�El�Fadl�is�critical�of�Islam
despite�being�a�Muslim�himself",�does�any�secular�humanist�similarly
critcize�secular�huamnism?�etc�..
�
Well,�the�point�that�was�missed�was�that�Mr.�Islam�himself�emphasized
that�Professor�Khaled�Abou�El�Fadl�criticized�religious�Puritans,�not
religion.�So�for�the�similitude�to�work�the�rhetoric�question�should
have�been:�does�any�secular�humanist�criticize�"Secular�humanist
puritans"?�I�think�that�we�all�agree�that�there�is�such�a�thing�as
religious�puritans,�as�Mr.�Islam�himself�has�ratified�it�by�using�and
quoting�that�qualifier�and�I�think�all�secular�huamnists�would�also
agree�that�there�is�such�a�legitimate�entity.�But�is�there�such�a
thing�as�secular�or�humanist�puritan?�If�one�can�be�would�that�be
negative�or�positive?�The�concept�of�secular�humanism�is�quite
universal�and�is�internationally�accepted�one.�And�that�concept�does
not�admit�of�a�concept�of�puritan.�Even�if�one�takes�literal�sense�of
the�term�that�would�mean�a�secular�huamnist�who�strictly�adheres�to
the�philosophy�of�secular�humanism�and�follows�literally�what�is
written�in�the�secualr�humanist�manifesto.�If�any�philosophy�is
accepted�as�positive�then�obviously�a�strict�adherence�to�a�positive
thing�cannot�be�negative.�Again�what�an�individual�secular�humanist
does�or�says�cannot�change�the�universally�accepted�definition,�simply
because�the�individual�acts�or�words�cannot�be�traced�to�any�written
clause/subclause/verses�in�the�manifesto/charter/book��of�secular
humanism�or�United�natins�declaration�of�human�rights.�Besides�there
is�no�holy�book�of�secular�humanism.�United�natins�declaration�of
human�right�basically�captures�all�of�core�philosophy�of�secular
humanism.�The�whole�world�(or�the�majority�including�Bangladesh)
by�being�signatory�to�it�has�effectively�endorsed�secular�humanism�by
endorsing�UN�declaration,�in�a�sponatneous�and�democratic�way
crossing�racial,�cultural�and�religious�border,�not�through�imposition�of
�a�dogma�belonging�to�one�race/religion/culture.�So�I�don't�see�any
reason�for�a�true�secular�humanist�to�criticize�secular�humanist
puritans�(since�it�doesn't�even�exist�unambiguously�unlike�religious
Puritans)�let�alone�criticize�secular�humanism,�which�was�said�(may�be
not�intended)�in�the�rhetoric�question�of�mr.�Islam.�And�as�I�said
earlier,�an�individual�who�claims�to�be�secular�humanist�does�or�says
anything�that�is�not�an�integral�part�of�secular�humanism�as�accpeted
universally,�there�is�no�obligation�on�the�part�of�secular�humanism
to�hold�such�individual�accountable�or�accpet�responsibilty�for�an
individual's�act.�And�if�that�of�the�secular�humanist�act�is�a
violation�of�basic�human�rights�then�of�course�that�would�be�against
secular�huamnism�and�would�also�be�a�crime�under�secular�laws�and
would�thus�be�taken�care�of�law�and�order�forces�of�a�secular�state
anyway.�or�for�that�matter�if�a�secular�humanist�advocates�nudism,�an
opponent�of�nudism�has�no�ground�to�ask�other�secular�humanists�to
critcize�that�person.�By�the�same�token�if�an�individual�remarks�that
"The�holy�book�of�religion�X�is�#$@!",�secular�huamnism�as�a
philosophy�or�its�adherents�collectively�(majority�og�the�world)
cannot�take�responsibility�for�that�since�that�is�not�in�its�charter.
Thomas�Paine�said�the�same�thing�regarding�Bible�and�there�was�no
demand�on�the�secular�humanists�by�similar�"critics�of�so-called
freethinkers"�to�criticize�him�for�that.�And�not�just�Paine,�there
is�a�myriad�of�examples�of�such�unflattering�view�of�holy�books
in�Christianity�and�the�Vedas�in�Hinduism.
�
Mr.�Islam�further�remarked:
���[An�atheist�who�ignores�the�negatives�of�secular�humanism�may�be
���NOT�much�different�from�any�believer�of�a�religion�who�would�deny
���ANY�acts�of�cruelty�EVER�perpetrated�in�the�name�of�his�faith.]
���
He�is�referring�to�the�"negatives"�of�secular�humanism.�It�would�be
interesting�to�see�what�the�negative�is�in�the�philosophy�of�the
widely�adopted�concept�of�secular�humanism.�Any�quote�from�the
international�council�of�secularism�or�its�regional�chapters
would�be�welcome.�I�have�argued�that�individual�acts�or�remarks
cannot�implicate�the�whole�if�the�those�individual�acts�or
remarks�are�not�tracebale�to�any�written�concepts�of�secular
humanism�(even�by�the�taking�it�"out�of�context"�as�is�so
zealously�done�by�apologists�to�defend�some�verses�for�their
alleged�negative�connotations).
���
Secondly�if�the�purpose�was�to�convince�readers�that�the�author
of��http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/jan/09/f09012002.htm#A2)
who�had�quoted�an�article�on�Professor�Abou�El�Fadl,�is�a�true
freethinker,�it�can�be�argued�that�attaching�an�article�of�a�freethinker
does�not�automatically�make�one�another�freethinker.�One�has�to
establish�that�by�one's�own�writing�and�saying�in�a�consistent
manner�over�a�period�of�time�to�be�recognized�as�such�by�all.
Whether��he�is�or�not�is�not�my�point.�But�the�criteria�is�not
sufficient�to�convince�one.�More�is�needed�as�I�said�above.
We�see�post�modernists�quoting�scientifc�litterature�to�make
a�case�of�their�pseudoscientifc�theories.�We�see�routinely
many�religious�apologists�quoting�phrases�and�works�of�reputed
scientists�(who�are�often�non-religious)�to�bolster�their
claim�of�the�truth�of�religion�etc.�That�doesn't�make�them
scientists.�So�quoting�an�article�by�a�true-freethinker��is�not�a
convincing�way�of�establishihng�one's�credibility�as�one.�
In�thearticle�on�Prof�fadl,�the�author�TERESA�WATANABE
�remarked�:
�
����["I�don't�know�any�other�Muslim�who�sticks�his�neck�out�like
����he�does,"]
����...
����[Abou�El�Fadl�has�received�so�many�death�threats�that�new
����security�systems�are�going�up�around�his�office�and�home]
�
The�excerpts�above�and�the�article�shows�clearly�Prof�Fadl�
establishes�himself�through�his�acts�and�clear�stand�on�issues.
That�should�be�an�illustration�of�a�convincing�way�to�establish
one's�credibility�as�a�true�freethinker.
�
TERESA�WATANABE�further�quotes�Prof�Fadl�himself:
��["I�am�so�lonely,"�he�blurted�out�one�night.�"God�gave�me�this
���affliction�of�law.�I�learned�all�of�it,�and�there�is�nothing
���I�can�do�with�it,�and�if�I�don't�preserve�it,�it�will�die."]
�
Now�if�Prof�Fadl's�criticism�against�the�puritans�make�him�so
"lonley",�one�should�wonder�whether�the�puritans�are�in�the
majority�or�minority,�or�the�majority�are�closet�supporters
of�the�puritans,�or�acquiescents�at�the�least�if�not�supporters.
And�the�acquiescents�of�puritans�cannot�be�true
freethinkers.�These�are�the�points�I�hope�readers�would
reflect�on�instead�carefully.
�
Finally�if�the�secular�humanists�were�against�anyone�who�is�religious,
as�is�always�alleged�by�the�bitter�"critics�of�so-called�freethinkers"
then�secular�humanists�would�also�have�unkind�words�for�prof�Fadl,
since�he�is�also�being�rightly�projected�as�a�religious�man.�But�that�is
not�the�case.�Prof�Fadl�is�held�in�high�regards�by�all�secular�humsnists,
and�in�fact�another�"so-called"�freethinker�also�attached�the�same�article
and�eulogized�Prof�Fadl�!�I�hope�the�intelligent�readers�will�reflect�on
all�the�points�I�made.
�
Aparthib�Zaman.


Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:02:29 -0800
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: Cry Bangladesh: Simi Banu and Women

In response to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4157
 
I agree with Avijit in that education and financial independence is not
a sufficient guarantee of social security for women in Bangladesh.
All else being equal, education and financial independence can certainly
provide more security, but not are equal. For single women who
has to live with her parents, she must be also from an affluent family
so she can travel by car. Most women are vulnerable (like Simi)
when they have to walk on the street to catch� Rickshaw and travel
on a Rickshaw. It's a jungle out their on the streets in Dhaka, hyenas
are ready to prowl on young ladies alone on the street. 
 
So education and finacial independence alone cannot provide
all the security. Not all women are from afffluent family to afford a
car, nor all come from a family that have strong social or political
connection that would make a eve teaser think twice before teasing 
her. If she isn't fortunate to have such connection, she will still
be vulnerable on the street and in the public, as the case of Simi
shows. So it is not the education of the women, but the education of
the children(boys) at home and in school that is at the root. If the
school currculum includes courses condemning acts of harassments
against women and make it a social stigma to do so, that would work
better than anything else. If parents inculcate in their sons a strong
sense of respect towards girls and teach it as zealously as they do
religion it will go a long way. And if it is taught in the school with the
same zeal as religion then even the classmates will reinforce it
to each other. I think, allowing boys and girls to mix more freely
and at the same time discouraging disrespectful acts against
either gender through cultural conditioning can help create
an institution of inter gender tolerance. The price (as judged by 
tradtional mindset of society, not by objectuve ethical standards)
may be a bit more permissivity, but the cost is worth it as then
the crimes like acid throwing, eaves teasing etc will be opposed
and prevented� by the majority boys themselves and the bad apples
will find it� harder to commit these.
 
Aparthib
 

Date:  Fri Feb 15, 2002  3:55 pm
Subject:  Re: [mukto-mona] Supporting the 'lesser evil' versus the other 
alternative

In reponse to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4489

Some interesting counterpoints can be made. First the kind
of defense of socialist dogma. i.e that "it not the dogma,
but the practitioners who is to be blamed for its failure"
bears a striking resemblance to the similar defense advanced
by apologists of Islamic dogma i.e that the pathetic state of
the Islamic nations is due to "real" Islam not being implemented
and that the Islamic nations have been ruled by corrupt
leaders etc. Dogmatists find it hard to accept the simple
truth that there is no magic solution of human problems in
any dogma. Dogma by defintion are a set of absolutist recipe
for the conduct of a society. Be it leftist or theological.
Human society is inherently a complex entity that requires
a dymanical and evolutionary approach to tackle problems and
continue to grow and evolve. Reading a fictional book
may only add some entertainment value but it cannot make a
logical case for a dogma as a panacea for complex socio-economic
political problems of an individual society. Corruption and
powercrazy politics have been blamed for its failure. The fact
is with an honest, visionary leadership, almost any systen of
governance can produce good results. And lack of the same
will bring debacle no matter what system is pursued. So citing
corruption, and power craze of the leaders as the cause for
the failure of a dogma cannot by itself provide a logical
defense of any dogma. Only a positive example can provide a
evidential support when all other common factors are eliminated.
None such exist. If they did they would cease to be a dogma and
would become part of democracy, freemarket economy. Besides
it is mistake to take a communism vs. capitalism rigid bipolar
view. Communism is dogma. Capitalism, in the sense of free
market economy is like atheism, an absence of a dogma. Since
some superpowers who adpted free market ecoomy were also
guilty of imperialism, capitalism has become attached to
exploitiation. But it need not be. The new emerging tigers of
Asia nicely illustrates free market without exploitation. Now
exploitation is also a loaded word, human can never get rid of
the concept. As a biological species there is bound to be a
a assymmetry among humans. Not all will be or can be equal. So
a subjective feeling of exploitation will always persist in
the mind of a less achiever with respect to a higher achiever.
Now communism can put some artificial lid on this subjective
feeling. But there is a tradeoff. In todays world, society
is very dynamic, and because of global village, growth is an
imperative. To tackle new problems. innovativenees is a must,
and innovativeness can only come from free market as the
goading force. The spirit of human enterprise can only be unleashed
if allowed the freedon amd reward in proportion to the result
to brinbg to its max. A sytem of incentive is a prerequisite for
a innovation and thus growth.In a regimented system it cannot. 
Besides
each generation would thing diffrenetly form its predecessor,
because of interconnectivity of the whole world. So a static 
dogmatic system can never sustain a society too long. Only if
a society chooses to become completely isolated, brings its
increase of population rate to zero, is happy with no growth,
can dogmatic socialism be expected to work indefinitely.
Getting back to the socialism vs capitalism issue again, there
is no rigid absolutist way to prescribe for any given society.
Thats what we see so much overlap now a days. European society
is called democratic socialist (or socialist democratic),
so is Canada, US is capitalistic. But even in US, after the
great depression, Roosevelt was forced to adopt social security,
which is not strictly capitalism. So there is no monolitihic
capitalistic system. The underlying philosophy among most nations
is free market with some safety net provided by state, to account
for inevitable failures of many humans. And the essential point
is dynamism and a problem solving approach. Adopt any innovations,
measures that help to fix a problem. Of course
the supreme guding line should be justice, fairness (in the
sense of equal opportunity to all, no discrimnation etc).
A dogma fails to provide that dynamism and pragmatism as it is
rigidly tied to some unchanging predetemined concepts. Even the
so called "leftist West bengal goverment is really not a dogmatic 
leftist government, but a very pragmatic one. The leftists of 
Bangladesh many of whom were fascinated by catch words as 
Petit-beurgeoise, and were enamoured of Marxism-Lenism and even
Stalin are yet to shake off that romanticism and show similar 
pragmatism. It is ironic that many "free thinkers" in disavowing
religious dogma swing to the socialist dogma. For many,
"progresivness" is synonimous with "leftist ideology"
A true rationalist (hence progressive) should be skeptical of
any dogma.

 Aparthib 


Subject: [M-M] Re:�The�Islamic�Psycho
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:56:59 +0600

Re:
>Date:�Thu,�07�Mar�2002�15:48:08�-0000
>From:�"Syed�Yousuf"�
>Subject:�Re:�The�Islamic�Psycho

this�message�is�typical�of�the�widespread�misuse�of�the�term��"hate/hatred"�or
equivalently�the�expression�"spreading�hate/hatred".��this�is�nothing�but
a�fallacy�of�appeal�to�emotion�where�a�negative�reaction�is�aroused�sheerly
by�the�repeated�usage�of�emotive�expression�to�label�an�opinion�or�writing.
What�constitutes�"spreading�hate/hatred"?��hatred/hate�can�be�meaningfully
applied�to�humans,�NOT�beliefs,�opinions,�or�tastes.�Bush�Sr.��hated
broccoli,�but�that�does�not�mean�he�hated�ALL�who�eats�broccoli.�One�may
hate�a�belief�or�a�part�of�a�belief,�but�that�would�not�mean�he/she�hates�ALL�
those�who�adhere�to�such�a�belief.�if�"shati"�is�indeed�a�part�of�hindu�scriptures
then�if�someone�hated�that�part�of�hindu�scripture�(and�also�the�shati
advocates/enforcers)�then�would�he�be�judged�as�hating��ALL�hindus?�
So�if�one�personally�hates�a�religion�because�of�many�of�its�objectionable
verses,�by�what�logic�should�that�be�considered�as�"spreading�hate/hatred"?
how�can�hatred�be�"spread"�by�one's�personal�view�against�scriptures?
Just�because�"A"�says�broccoli�tastes�disgusting,�that�does�not�mean�"B"�
should�also��believe�that.�"B"�should�judge�that�by�tasting�broccoli,�not�blindly
accepting�what�"A"�says.�The�same�logic�applies�to�hatred�of�beliefs,�practices�
as�well.�If�"A"�hates�a�belief�due�to�the�verses�of�the�scripturres,�that�does
not�mean�"B"�has�to�do�the�same.�If�"A"�provides�a�false�information�about
a�belief�thereby�attempting�to�create�a�negative�perception�towards�the�belief�
(To�strong�believers�such�don;t�matter)�then�it�can�be�refuted��by�resorting
to�logic�and�evidence(data)�to�prove�that�false�information�was�indeed�
provided.�Merely�alleging�that�"hatred�is�being�spread"�does�not�prove�that�
misinformation�was�provided.�Exact�quotes�from�authentic�version�of�scriptures
cannot�be�dismissed�as�providing�false�information,�unless�the�authentic�scriptures
themselves�are�dismissed�as�false!�it�is�the�burden�of�those�alleging�"hatred�is�
being�spread"�to�prove�thst�such�is�the�case.��"Spreading�hate/hatred"�is�a�
serious�accusation,�and�should�be�not�be�made�so�cavalierly,�but�with�discretion.
 
Aparthib


Subject: Re:�[M-M] Capitalism�--�A�Few�Points
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:44:06 +0600
 
This�debate�between�capitalism�and�socialism/communism�suffers�from
the�same�pitfall�as�that�bertween�atheism�and�theism.�when�the
debate�is�cleverly�framed�as�theism�-->�morality�and�atheism�-->�no
morality,�then�obviously�that�seals�the�fate�of�the�debate.�of
course�morality�will�win�over�immorality.��the�same�applies�to
capitalism�and�socialism/communism.�capitalism�-->�exploitation�of
the�poor,�social�injustice,�greed�etc.�socialism�-->�social�justice,
no�greed,�end�of�class�exploitation�etc�Framed�that�way�capitalism
is�a�sure�loser.�to�begin�with�the�terms�"capitalism"�,�"socialism"
have�diverse�meanings�to�different�people�under�different�contexts.
For�some�capitalism�is�synonimous�with�exploitation.�Free�enterprise
system�is�another�common�meaning.
 
Some�contend�that�free�enterprise,�on�which�US�is�based,�is�in�fact
the�opposite�of�capitalism.�To�them�under�free�enterprise�business
is�taken�care�of�locally,�creating�a�huge�middle�class�of�people�in
business�for�themselves�with�good�livings�but�not�ultra�rich.
Capitalism�is�the�concentration�of�capital�into�the�hands�of�a�few,
which�we�have�today�when�1%�own�over�45%�of�our�wealth.�The�top�10%
own�90%�of�the�wealth�while�90%�of�Americans�fight�to�get�a�piece�of
the�10%�of�the�wealth�they�create�that�is�left�to�them.
 
Capitalism�and�Communism�are�in�these�senses�both�means�of
concentrating�power�among�the�elites.�The�essentials�of�power
concentration�do�not�change�-�although�the�manner�of�its�expression
appear�different,�there�are�always�more�than�one�way�to�skin�a�cat,
as�they�say
 
if�capitalism�is�intended�to�mean�a�free�enterprise�society�where
individuals�earn�in�proportion�to�what�services�they�offer�and�earn
the�right�to�keep��what�they�acquire,�exploitation�is�not�a
necessary�prerequisite�of�such�a�system,�but�can�occur�due�to
inherent�human�nature�to�break�ethical�principles�and�imperfect
implementation�of�laws�to�prevent�the�same.�But�such�flaws�are
contingencies,�not�necessities�of�capitalism.�Historically�most
western�capitalistic�nations�have�exploited�their�third�world
colonies.�But�modern�Asian�nations�have�built�their�wealth�through
trade�and�free�enterprise.�So�the�association�of�capitalism�and
imperilaism/colonial�exploitation�is�also�not�a�necessary�one.�The
same�human�foibles�that�can�and�have�appeared�in�a�capitalistic
societies�can�and�do�rear�its�ugly�face�under�socialistic�systems
too,�becasue�it�is�in�human�nature.�No�system�has�ever�been�devised
which�will�turn�humans�to�robots�or�superhumans.�The�rabotnik
experiment�of�of�early�soviet�era�did�not�have�a�lasting�effect.�A
realistic�systems�should�not�be�based�on�an�unrealistic�assumptions
of�perpetual�honesty�of�a�group�of�people�implementing�such�a�system.
professional�economists�may�have�a�more�techincal�definition.�then
there�are�variations�within�capitalism�and�socialism,�like�anarcho-
capitalism,�anarcho-socialism,�Marxism,�communism�etc.�So�it�is�not
a�meaningful�exercize�to�pit�capitalism�vs�socialism�and�take�an
absolute�stand�on�either.�it�is�probably�better�to�characterize�the
comparison�between�the�two�as�socialism�vs.�a-socialism�much�in�the
vein�as�theism�vs�atheism.��I�will�losely�use�the�term�capitalism�to
mean�any�alternative�to�the�dogmatic�version�of�socialism/communism.
 
The�original�meaning�of�socialism�as�an�economic�system�in�which
workers,�not�private�capitalist�individuals,�own�and�control�the
means�of�production.�(This�includes�factories,�stores,�farmland,
machinery,�etc.)�has�never�been�tried�anywhere�on�a�national�level�(
It�is�sometimes�practiced�at�the�company�level,�with�employee-owned
firms.)�This�is�not�the�same�as�socialism�nominally�practiced�by�the
Soviet�Union,�which�was�no�more�than�a�dictatorship�over�workers�by
a�ruling�elite.��Socialism�has�been�proposed�in�many�forms,�ranging
from�anarcho-socialism�to�social�democracy.�However,�in�those
variants�where�socialism�advocates�a�centralized�government,�that
government�is�always�democratic.�In�what�follows�i�will�refer�to
socialism�in�its��dogmatic,�non-democratic�sense.
 
Anyway,�the�basic��distinction�that�divides�the�two�is�competition
vs.�cooperation.�Most�varieties�of�socialism�implicitly�assume
unanimous�agreement�on�goals�and�needs�of�people.�Everyone�has�the
common�good�in�mind.�so�there�is��zero�competition.
 
There�is�a�difference�between�what�institutions�allow�and�what�they
require.�If�in�a�capitalist�society�everyone�is�convinced�of�the
desirability�of�one�common�goal,�there�is�nothing�in�the��capitalist
institution�to�prevent�them�from�cooperating�to�attain�it.
Capitalism�allows�for�a�conflict�of�ends;�it�does�not�require�it.
Socialism�does�not�allow,��it�either�mandates�or�forbids.�Socialism
does�not�recognize�varying�individual�needs�and�ability�but�assumes
a�common�goal�pursued�by�all.�This�does�not�mean�that�if�we�set�up
socialist�institutions�everyone�will�instantly�have�the�same�goals.
The�experiment�has�been�tried;�they�do�not,�with�no�exceptions,�as
expected�of�humans.
 
most�a-socialistic�systems�try�to�balance�cooperation�with
competition�recognizing�the�different�needs�and�goals�of�different
people.�Finding�the�optimal�balance�between�the�two�in�a�given
society�is�a�tricky�problem�in�economics�and�there�is�no�absolute
way�to�prescribe�it.�trial�and�error�and�empirical�method�is�the
only�viable�approach.��Even�cooperation�is�known�to�be�rooted�in
biology�as�evolutionary�psychologists�have�realized.�Altruism�and
coperation�is�a�higher�level�manifestation�of�the�selfish�genes
cooperating�to�preserve�and�propagate�individually�(see�the�links
provided�at�the�end).�The�same�works�at�the�aggergate�level.�The
need�for�cooperation�and�altruism�is�dicated�by�biological�instincts
which�explains�why�culture�reinforces�it�through�moral�precepts.
Dogmatic��socialism�just�takes�that�need�to�an�extreme�and
unregulated�capitalism�ignores�the�cooperation�element�altogether.
Both�are�therefore�unstable�and�bound�to�collapse�in�the�long�run.
 
unregulated�capitalism�inevitably�leads�to�concentration�of�weakth
to�a�few.�So�regulation�is�important.�but�not�by�complete�abolition
of�competition�or�free�enterprise.�that�would�be�an�overkill.
competition�and�free�enterprise�has�to�be�the�baseline�with�some
regulation�to�make�sure�it�never�leads�to�a�runaway�disparity.
 
But�more�importantly��there�is�the�issue�of�a�basic�concept�that
humans�by�nature�cherish.�the�right�to�private�property�as�Gary
pointed�out.�This�is�a�a�very�basic�human�instinct�and�is�biological
in�origin�and�is�rooted�in�territoriality,�one�of�the�four�main
imperatives�of�all�higher�life�forms.�The�problem�is�that�advocates
of�socialism�insist�that�private�property�can�only�be�acquired�by
exploitation�under�a�capitalistic�system.�But�that�seems�to�be�a
definition.��A�property�acquired�under�capiatlsitic�system�is�by
definition�exploitation.��but�is�that�always�true?�doesn't
capitalism�allow�non-exploitatiove�acusition�of�wealth�or�property?
how�about�arts�and�sports�celebrities?�Michael�Jackson/Jordan��have
acquired�billions.��Some�may�say�they�"exploited"�the�people�by
convincing�them�to�part�with�theior�wallet.�but�their�fans�will
vehemently�oppose�the�characterization�"exploitation".��when�does
one�draw�the�thin�line�between�exploitation�and�parting�of�the�money
by�the�mass�willingly?�it�seems�distasteful�to�see�high�school
dropouts�amassing�billions�when�brilliant�minds�trying�to�solve�the
most�profound�mysteries�of�nature�of�great�significance�for�humanity
and�potential�impact,��acquring�a�mere�pittance,�and�where�many�are
starving.�Unregulated�capitalism�can�lead�to�such�assymmetry.�So
many�a-socialist�nations�resort�to�progressive�taxation�to�offset
this.�But�unfortunately�such�taxation�system�is�often�prone�to
clever�workaround�and�is�not�effectively�implemented�in�many
societies,�but�at�least�it�is�a�step�in�the�direction�of�reducing
this�glaring�assymmetry.
 
back�to�the�socialistic�ideals.�achieving�social�justice�is�a�noble
ideal.�but�just�like�it�is�not�possible�to�balance�a�needle�on�its
pointed�end�on�a�surface�by�forming�a�committe�of�dedicated�people
bent�on�balancing�the�needle�(because�the�atmospheric�interference
would�always�be�present).�the�ideals�of�socialist�dogma��is�also�not
possible�to�implement�by�a�group�of�people�in�charge�of�implementing
such�a�ystem,�the�analog�of�atmospheric�interference�here�is�the
lack�of�a�uniformity�of�goal�and�human�fallibilities�among�the
people�and�as�well�those�in�charge�of�implementing�socialistic
system.�Power�craving�and�corruption�among�the�ruling�elite�of�a
communistic�system�is�inevitable.�When�the�functioning�of�a�system
requires�an�honours�system,�invariably�humans�fail.�When�a�groups�of
humans�have�option�to�misuse�power�they�invariably�will.�this�is�the
problem�with�dogmatic�socialism�where�power�is�entrusted�with�a
ruling�elite.
 
This�is�a�well�known�social�dilemma�as�illustrated�by�the�well-known
"Tragedy�of�the�commons�dilemma".�
(see�http://flymail.canufly.net/~leonf/sd/�for�"tragedy�of�ther�commons"�and�
some�other�social�dilemmas").�Honesty�and�uniformity�among�the�leaders�
and�mass�are�as�elusive�as�a�zero�atmospheric�disturbance�required�to�
balance�a�needle.�thats�why�a�democratic�system�with�public�accountability,
with�flexible�policies�that�evolve�naturally,��is�the�realistic�way
to�approach�a�social�system.
 
I�just�rambled�on�some�disjointed�thoughts,�i�t�would�be
illuminating�to�see�some�insightful�and�dispassionate�critique�or
defense�of�various�systems,�instead�of�an�absolute�defense�or
criticism�of�one�or�the�other.
 
Here�are�some�links�with�some�interesting�thoughts�on�the�issue�of
capitalism�vs.�socialism.
 
1.�http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/misindex.html
2.�http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/Capitalism.htm
3.�http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/Altruism.html
4.�http://www.lightparty.com/Visionary/DilemmaOF1990s.html
��(Astronaut,�philosopher�Edgar�Mitchell's�interesting�view�on�socialism)
 
Aparthib



3/23/02
Subject: Re:�[M-M] Religion

The�"taken�out�of�context"��is�a�cliche�defense�and�is�the�only�defense
offered�in�support�of�the�controversial�verses.��It��is�a�subjective
expression�that�can�be�conveniently�suited�to�defend�any�verse.�It�is�a
"one�expression,�fits�all"�type�of�defense.�The�need�for,��or��the�mention
of��a�context�undermines�both�the�claim�that�the�holy�book�is�of�divine
origin�and�that�it�is�a�perfect�guide�book�for�mankind.�The�unacceptable
nature�of��some�of�the�scriptural�quotes�can��not�be��diluted�by�any
"context",�because�no�human�context�can�justify�such�a��quote�if�the�
quotes�are�supposedly�attributable�to�divine�and�sublime��source.�Such�
attempt�to�dilute�by�citing�context�is��understandable�for��human�quotes,�
since�human�quotes�are�imperfect,�prone�to�misinterpretation�and�poor
phrasing.�Sayings�of�divine�origin�on�the�other�hand�should�be�far�too
perfect�and�ideal�to�need�a�context�provided�by�humans�to�explain�it�
and�make�it�appear�reasonable.
 
The�fact�that�the�verses�of�the�scriptures�NEED�a�human�context
to�avoid�being�interpreted�negatively�betrays�the�claim�of�its�putative
divine�origin.��A�divine�verse�should�not�need�a�context�made�up�by
HUMANS.�That�would�be�a�contradiction.�A�divine��verse�should�itself
provide�such�context,�if�needed.�All�the��attempts�by�humans�to�explain�a
verse�with�a�context�relegates�this�entire�exercize�as��BY�HUMANS,�OF
HUMANS�sort�of�affair.�Only�human�quotes�(less�than�perfect)�do�need
human�contexts.�A�divine�quote�by�its�very�requirement�of��perfection
should�not�be�dependent�on�a�human�interpretor�and�should��not�have�
been�left�up�to�humans�to�interpret�it�and�find�a�context��using�their�own
judgements�(which�may�not�be�correct).�Besides�that�would�raise�a�dispute
of�authenticity�between�various�interpreters.�No�human�interpreter�is
divinely�approved/appointed�as�the�authentic�one�anyway.
 
Moreover,�the�advice�on�reading�the�Tafseer(contextual�interpretation)
for�proper��understanding��when�reading�verses�of�Quran�,�is�contradictory�
to�the�messages�of�Qur'an�itself�.�Qur'an�(i.e�God)�clearly�says�in�three
suras��(44:58,�54:17,54:22)�that�Qur'an�was�made�easy�to�understand��by
God�for�human.��It�also�asserts�that��Quran�is�the�best�explanation�of�the
truth�in�verse�25:33.�A�book�that�is�claimed�tobe��(a)�A�perfect�
self-contained�guide,�(b)�easy�to�read,�(c)��The�best�explanation�of�truth
and�most�importantly��(d)�of�divine�origin,�cannot�by�any�stretch�of�
logic�need�the�help�of�a�supplementary�book�of�context�written�by�
human�for�its�proper�interpretation.
 
Finally�if�"out�of�context"�defense�is�applied�to�the�verses�then
unethical�practices�in�history�can�be�explained�away�with�this
clause.�Widow�burning�in�Hiunduism�can�also�be�explained�away�by�the
proper�context�of�the�the�then�prevailing�Hindu�society�(As�is�indeed
explained�by�some�contemporary�Hindu�Apologists).�So�can�caste�system
(It�is�even�more�ingeniously�and�commonly�defended�by�apologists�with
the�context�clause).�Slavery�in�US�can�also�be�explained�away�by�the
context�clause�wuite�convincingly.�Many�more�expamples�can�be�given�
to�rationalize�all�evil�practices�of�the�past�and�present.�If�current�human
standards�of�ethics�are�applied�to�these�controversial�verses�of
scriptures�none�would�satisfy�the�requirements�of�political�correctness.
We�don't�accept�politically�incorrect�statements�by�humans�today�(Racial
supremacist�remarks,�threats,�sexist�remarks�etc),�no�matter�how�much
context�is�provided�and�no�matter�how�convicning�they�are.�So�why�not�the
verses�that�clearly�violate�political�correctness�criteria.�And�to�think
that�these�are�supposed�to�be�timeless�perfect�guide�for�humanity.�These
verses�can�at�best�be�considered�to�reflect�the�socio-cultural�reality�of
past�society.�In�that�sense�they�can�qualify�as�historical�anecdotes�of
the�social�tradiction�and�practoces�of�a�certain�society�in�by�gone�times,�
not�as�enduring�guideline�for��human�conducts�which�it�is�claimed�to�be
by�apologists.�A�context�can�only�serve�to�"explain"�a�past
practice,�not�"justify"�it.�And�this�explantion�by�a�context�can�only
apply�to�human�quotes�and�actions.
 
[...]
 
Next:
>They�were�allowed�to�work�even.�Wasn't�the�Prophet's
>wife�his�employer?
 
���That�was�before�Quran�was�revealed�and�Islam�was��established.
���No�examp[le�can�be�given�in�a�post�Islam/Quran�period.
 
Next:�����
�>1.�A�woman�has�a�right�to�ask�for�a�divorce.�Sura�4:128
 
�� That�verse�refers�to�an�"amicable�settlement"�not�a�unilateral
���divorce�by�wife.��A�settlement�implies�mutual�consent.�An�abusive
���husband�may�not�consent�to�a�divorce.�What�then?�No�verse�in
���Quran�unequivocally�asserts�woman's�right�to�divorce�her�husband.
�� 
�[..]
Aparthib


3/23/02: Subject:�{M-M] Re:�strange�connections�and�coincidences�!
 
In�response�to�:��http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5021
 
[...]

The�desire�to�see�divine�connections�or�design�in�mundane
occurrences�of�coincidences�is�a�strong�human�instinct�arising�out
of�a�yearning�for�a�world�beyond�this�observable�one�and�rooted�in
the�desire�for�life�after�death�in�order�to�find�a�meaning�of�this�life
and�to�move�on.�This�yearning�was�behind��Jung�'s�theory�of
Synchronicity,�which�is�nothing�but�a�pseudoscientific�mish�mash,
although�in�his�desperation�he�even�tried�to�enlist�some�help�from
his�friends�well-versed�in�Quantum�Physics.�He�tried�to�link�an
aspect�of�Quantum�Mechanics�called�Quantum�non-locality�(Einstein
called�it�spooky)�with�apparent��connections�between�human
experiences.�A�case�of�pure�quackery�like�astrology.�Quantum�
non-locality�has�many�alternate�scientific�explanations�and
is�not�"spooky"�anymore,�although�it�still�remains�the�ultimate
epistemological�intellectual�challenge�to�physicists.
 
Any�way,�the�fact�is�that�all�coincidences�appear�to�be�strange
connections��to�many�because�of�(a)�improper�understanding�of
statistics�(b)�selective�bias�of�human�mind�and�(c)�sometimes�due�to
succumbing�to�intentional�manipulations�of�facts.�Misunderstanding
of�statististics�can�lead�one�to�view�a�not�so�unlikely�occurrence
as�very�unlikely.�Selective�bias�leads�one�to�forget�and�ignore�the
majority�of�events,�all�of�which�are�individually�very�unlikely,�not
treat�them�as�coincidences�or�strange�connections�but�only�the�ones
that�appear�to�be�interesting�to�the�human�mind.
 
For�example�if�we�roll�ten�dice�the�likelihood�of�getting�the
sequence�6526553214�is�the�same�as�6666666666�both�of�
which�are�equally�likely�and�also�very�unlikely�to�occur�in�one�trial.
(1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6)�But�the�former�will�
not�catch�anyone's�attention,�the�latter�will.
 
When�one�is�dealt�a�bridge�hand�of�thirteen�cards,�the�probability
of�being�dealt�that�particular�hand�is�less�than�one�in�600�billion.
Still,�it��would�be�absurd�for�someone�to�be�dealt�a�hand,�examine
it�carefully,�calculate�that�the�probability�of�getting�it�is�less
than�one�in�600�billion,�and�then�conclude�that�he�must�not�have
been�dealt�that�very�hand�because�it�is�so�very�improbable�or�that
it�must�be�a�divine�connection�for�him�to�get�this�rare�hand!
 
Another�important�aspect�of�probability�that�is�not�appreciated�by
many�that�time�and�numbers�play�a�bery�important�role�in�statistics
A�very�unlikely�event�will�eventually�occur�guven�enough�time.
Or�equivalently�if�many�trials�are�conducted�for�an�unlikely
event��simultaneously,�one�of�the�trial�will�materialize�the�very
unlikely.�Those�who�have�studied�statistical�Physics�will�recognize
this�in�the�Ergodic�Hypothesis,�a�very�important�concept.
Sometimes�we�are�amazed�that�out�the�billions�of�known�stars
and�their�planets�only�Sun�harbours�wonderful�life�forms�and�only
in�the�planet�earth.�Is�that�a�surprise.�Life�requires�a�sensitive
range�of�conditions�of�temperature,�gravity,�density�of�atmosphere,
right�distance�from�star,�right�tilt�of�the�axis�etc�for�life�to�evolve.�
Only�earth�satisifes�this�condition.�Its�like�6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6�
people�rolling�ten�dice�at�once.�One�of�them�will�certainly�roll�
6666666666.�Any�surprise?�All�the�billions�of�planets�are�like�
ten�rolled�dice.�Only�one(earth)��is�666666666
(ie.�has�conditions�suitable�for�life�forms).�So�here�we�are,�on
planet�earth�wondering�about�life.�If�planet�"X"�instead
satisfied�the�conditions�of�life�instead�of�earth�then�we�would�be
on�planet�"X".�But�then�we�would�call�"X"�earth.�Its�only�a�matter
of�label�.
 
How�about�lottery?�One�lucky�person�picks�the�right�number�.
Someone�has�to�win�it�if�all�the�numbers�are�sold�out.�No�divine
connection.�Yet�the�winning�person�may�view�it�as�a�divine
connection�for�him�to�win�it.�Even�if�that�lucky�person�has�just
lost�his�home�and�belongings�in�a�fire�that�would�not�make�it�any
more�divine.�Because�again�if�anything�can�happen�at�all,�it��will
eventually�happen,�if�one�waited�long�enough.�No�one�who�
has�lost�his�belongings�in�fire�has�ever�won�in�a�lottery�before,
in�million�years�of�human�history,�humanity�waited�long�enough�
for�it�to�happen�and�finally�it�did�happen�to��Mr.�X�on�day�Y�of�
Year�Z.�By�the�same�logic�a�billionaire�may�also�someday�win
a�lottery�ticket�(Talking�about�carrying�coal�to�Newcastel!)�it�
would�not�have�any�different�significance�from�the�former�case.�
No�amount�of�coinincidences�of��PHYSICALLY�POSSIBLE�
(i,e�natural)�events�can�point�to�divine�or�supernatural�
connections.�Occam's�Razor�will�always�point�to�a�natural
explanation�through��an�eventual�realization�of�a�very�
unlikely�(but�not�impossible)��event.
 
A�nuts�and�bolts�calcualtion�may�help�to�dispel�the�mystic�of
strange�coincidences�that�we�sometimes�experience�in�life
(Like�you�were�thinking�of�an�old�friend�in�an�airport�and�then
suddenly�he�appears�approaching�you).�A�person�may�have
100�distinct�experiences�a�day.�In�ten�years,��for�1000�people
that�would�mean�4950x3650x1000=18,06750000�pairs�of
events.�So�its�very�likely�that�some�of�those�events�will�be
of�strange�coincidence�types�to�some�of�those�1000�persons.
 
As�a�final�example�lets�take�the�case�of��"prophetic"�dreams.�
Sometimes�a�person�"X"�dreams�of�an�event�and�the�event�
takes�place�soon�after�the�dream.��X�sees�ta�divine�connection�
in�his�dream.�Now��consider�this.�Normal�people�have�about�
25�dreams/night.�With�250�million�people�in�US�there�must�be�
billions�of�dreams�dreamt�everynight�and�trillions�in�a�year.�
With�so��many�dreams,�some�are�bound�to�match�with�reality
and�seem�prophetic,�It�would�be��astonishing�if�there�wasn't�
any�(p-55�Schick).
 
Some�may�object�that�the�connections�do�not�have�to�be
divine.�They�could�be�natural,�but�not�mere�chances.�There
must��be�some�deep�natural�(scientific)�connections�between
them.�This�is�what�Jung�had�hinted�at.�But�that�is�a�mere�
"May�be".�A�natural�or�scientific�connection�can�only�be
made�through�scientific�method�itself.�And�science�has�not
found�any�connections�between�such�coincidences.�Nor�is
there�any�need�to.��All�such�connections�have�been
explained�nicely�through�Occam's�Razor�by�probability�
theory,�which�is�an�important�tool�of�science�as�well.�
 
I�hope�to�have�dispelled�some�myth�and�misconceptions�
about�coincidences.�I�apologize�if�I�seemed�to�have�
ruined�any�hope�for��divine�supernatural�connectioin
that�certainly�appears�to�be�a�more�appealing�option.�
And�one�can�continue�to�believe�in�that.�After�all
placebos�are�as�effective�(or�more)�a�therapy�as�real�
drugs.�But�if�it�did�inspire�a�little�bit�of�interest�in�critcial
thinking�then�I�suggest�going�further�and�read�the
following�two�books.
 
1.��How�to�Think�of�Weird�Things�-�Theodore�Schick�&�Lewis�Vaugn
2.��Innumeracy:�Mathematical�Illiteracy�and�its�Consequences
�������������������������-�John�Allen�Paulos,�
 
Thanks,
Aparthib



3/24/02 : Subject:�Re:�{M-M] Religion�-�Polygamy�issues
 
In�response�to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5030
 
>
>I�am�sorry�Ms.�Ray,�but�this�was�not�what�I�was�trying
>to�justify�at�all,�since�I�believe�firmly�that�it�is
>NOT�allowed�for�a�man�to�marry�more�than�one�woman
>at�any�given�time.�The�Sura�I�mentioned�states�that�it
>would�NOT�be�possible�to�be�equal.�Hence�the�answer
>to�whether�or�not�it�is�permitted�for�a�woman�also�is
>academic.
 
�����No�sura�mentions�that�IT�WOULD�NOT�POSSIBLE�to�be
�����equal.�It�only�says�"IF�you�fear�you�cannot�be�equal
�����THEN.."�The�two�are�not�the�same.�Lets�look�at�verse�4:3
 
�����YUSUFALI:�If�ye�fear�that�ye�shall�not�be�able�to�deal
�����justly�with�the�orphans,�Marry�women�of�your�choice,�Two
�����or�three�or�four;�but�if�ye�fear�that�ye�shall�not�be
�����able�to�deal�justly�(with�them),�then�only�one,�or�(a
�����captive)�that�your�right�hands�possess,�that�will�be
�����more�suitable,�to�prevent�you�from�doing�injustice.
 
������So�clearly,�verse�4:3�says�that�IF�you�fear
������that�you�cannot�do�justice�to�all�four�ONLY�THEN
������marry�one.��Whether�one�fears�or�not�is�left�upto�the
������individual�to�decide.�No�body�can�decide�for�anyone.�I
������may�not�fear�that,�so�by�the�clear�phrasing�of�this
������verse�I�am�not�bound�to�marry�one.�It�would�be�a
������sophistry�to�say�that�oh�well,�Quran�indirectly
������prohibits�polygamy,�since�WE�ALL�KNOW�that�being�
������equal���to�all�four�is�impossible�in�principle,�so�that
������automatically�bans�marrying�four�wives.�This�is�a
������sophistry�and�this�kind�of�sophistry�reduces�God�to�a
������ridiculous�human�level.�A�perfect�God,�in�a�perfect
������book�need�not�have�resorted�to�such�circuitous�language
������to�make�a�point.�If�God�was�convinced�that�loving
������equally�is�indeed�impossible�then�he�would�not�have
������said�"IF�you�cannot�love�equally�THEN�marry�one",
������rather�he�would�have�said�"SINCE�you�cannot�love
������equally�THEREFORE�marry�one".�(SINCE�vs.�IF,�THEREFORE
������vs.�THEN,�vital�differences).�By�phrasing�it�in�the
������form�"IF�you�cannot.."�God�has�left�open�the�option
������that�some�can�love�equally.�After�all,�many�parents
������claim�to�love�their�children�equally.�If�one�argues�by
������subjective�reasoning�to�conclude�that�loving�equally�is
������impossible�for�wives,�then�the�same�subjective
������reasoning�can�rule�out�loving�all�children�equally,
������then�one�can�come�up�with�a�convioncing�reason�not�to
������have�more�than�one�child�also.�Sophistry�has�no�bounds.
 
������As�a�side�note�one�can�also�raise�the�question�that�if
������at�all�that�was�the�real�intent�of�verse�4:3�as�argued�then�
������why��even�mention�"four"?�In�that�case�a�better�phrasing�
�����(by�perfection�criterion)�would�be�that�do�not�marry�more
������than�one�wife.�And�finally�some�circumstantial�evidence.
������If�marrying�more�than�one�wife�was�indeed�prohibited
������then�at�least�there�should�have�been�one�instance�of�a
������person�tried�by�Islamic�law�for�marrying�more�than�one
������wife.�Has�there�been�any?�Not�that�I�know�of.�So�all
������this�clearly�shoiws�that�verse�4:3�ALLOWS�(although
������conditionally),�does�not�PROHIBIT�polygamy.
 
�����CONCLUSION:
�����IF��you�agree�with�Quran�(i.e�verse�4:3)
�����THEN�you�ARE�justifying�that�one�man
�����������be�allowed�to�marry�more�than�one�wife
�����conversely,
�����IF�you�insist�that�you�believe�firmly
��������that�it�is�NOT�allowed�for�a�man�to�marry�more
��������than�one�woman�at�any�given�time
�����THEN�you�are�not�agreeing�with�Quran.
 
Next�re
>But�I�do�have�an�answer�why�it�wouldn't�be�allowed�for
>a�woman�to�have�multiple�husbands,�even�though�it�does
>not�come�from�a�direct�quote�in�the�Koran,�but�from�a
>tafsir�book.�Just�picture�this�woman�getting�pregnant.
>Now�who�would�be�the�father?�Which�husband�of�the�4?
 
����OH,�yes,�the�paternality�issue.�How�can�a�man�know�which�one
����is�his�child,�right?�But�Couldn't�a�PERFECT�GOD�anticipate�DNA
����testing�merely�1400�years�ago,�a�blip�in�the�history�of�the
����earth?�Or�couldn't�the�ALL-KNOWING�God�proclaim�that�women
����can�also�have�the�same�freedom�as�men�only�AFTER�1986�when
����DNA�testing�will�be�available,�so�that�the�correct�father
����could�be�identified?�(IF�it�is�indeed�such�a�big�deal�for�any
����father.�It�would�not�be�surprising�if�none�of�the�four
����husbands�make�a�big�deal�of�paternality�issue,�at�least�not
����any�more�surprising�than�the�fact�that�all�four�agreed�to
����marry�one�wife�:):).
 
 Aparthib


3/28/02, �Re:�[M-M] Polygamy�issues
 
In�response�to�Ms.�Yasmin�Amin�:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5086
 
>>No�sura�mentions�that�IT�WOULD�NOT�POSSIBLE�to�be
>>equal.�
>�
>I�am�sorry�to�contradict�you�Mr.�Zaman,�please�do�look
>at�:�4:129
 
������And�I�thank�you�for�contradicting�me�and�correcting�my
������statement�as�made�above.��I�stand�corrected.�Sura�4.129
������does�indeed�mention�that.�But�here�is�the�more�important
������point�that�is�the�crux�of�the�debate,�which�my�factual
������error�should�not�cloud.�Sura�4:3�is�about�marrying
������more�than�one�wives.�And�this�is�not�where�God�did�mentioned
�����that�since��it�is�not�possible�to�love�equally�so�marry�one.�
�����Sura�4.129�on�the�other�hand�is�about�how�to�deal�with
������a�marital�problem�that�can�arise�with�any�wife.�Sura�4.129�in�
�����fact�EXPLAINS�that�such�problems�are�possible�since�one�
�����cannot�love�equally.�EXPLAINING�does�not�mean�
�����PROHIBITING.�If�the�"impossible�to�love�equally"
�����clause�was�intended�to�prohibit�polygamy�then�4:3�is�the�right
�����place�for�that,�not��4:129.��4:129�relates�to�POST�marital�stage,
�����4:3�refers�to�PRE�marital�stage.�The�prefection�criterion
�����of�divine�book�needs�to�be�kept�in�mind�here�as�well.
 
Next
>>As�a�side�note�one�can�also�raise�the�question�that�
>>if�at�all�that�was�the�real�intent�of�verse�4:3�as�
>>argued�then�why�even�mention�"four"?�
>�
>I�have�no�answer�to�that,�but�please�do�take�a�look�at
>:
>�
>[3.7]�
 
�������Citing�3:7��did�not�change�the�status�of�the�assertion
������"I�have�no�answer�to�that"�in�any�way.
 
�������Metaphors�are�not�relevant�as�a�guide�on�practical�matters.
�������In�fact�questions�can�be�raised�if�there�is�any�place�of
�������metaphors�in�a�perfect�guide�book�for�ALL�humans.
 
[...]
 
 
Aparthib



Date:�4/2/02
Subject:�Re:�[shetu] Two�recent�controversies�and�a�secular�solution
 
In�response�to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shetubondhon/message/3468
 
Dr.�Tanveer�wrote:
>Yes,�I�am�aware�of�some�of�these�supposed�Sunnah�and�Sahih�Hadith.
>However,�I�doubt�their�veracity.�While�Islamic�scholars�seem�to�be
>insistent�on�the�supposed�care�the�Hadith�collectors�took
>to�check�the�sources,�what�is�not�usually�said�is�that�the�checks�and
>rechecks�are�on�secondary�sources;�the�primary�source�is�usually�a
>companion�of�the�prophet�(sm)�recollecting�things�from�years�back�when
>some�of�them�were�merely�in�their�childhood.
 
�����Sahih�Hadith�is�already�known�to�be�filtered�from�the�distorted
������ones.�Islamic�scholars�also�insist�on�that�as�Dr.�Tanveer�also��
������mentioned.�Sahih�Bukhari,�the�one�quoted�by�Dr.�Sen�also
������happens��to�be�the�most�authentic�among�the�authentic�ones,�
������So�to�dismiss�the�verdict�of�the�Islamic�scholars�and�insist�that
������some�of�the�Sahih�Bukhari�Hadiths�are�not�authentic�would
������require�a�strong�evidence�and�even�greater�Islamic�scholarship,
������reference�of�which�were�not��provided.�If�one��holds�a�skeptical
������view�and�holds�that�only�a�primary�source�is�acceptable�,�not�
������secondary��(Obviously�not��held�by�the�Islamic�scholars),�then�
������a�logical�extension�of�that�skepticism�will�lead�one�to�doubt�even
������the�veracity�of�the�primary�ones.�From��a�rigid��skeptical��viewpoint
������theer�is�not�much�quantum�difference�in�acceptability�between
������the�two.��After�all�even�the�direct�testimony�of�those�companions
�����were�also��recorded�by�someone�and�compiled�by�Imam�Bukhari
�����centuries�after�the�death�of��the�prophet.��And�by�that�same�
�����skeptical�criteria,�even�the�holy��book�will�not�meet�a�skepticist's
�����criteria�of�authenticity.��At�the�end�it�all�boils�down�to�A�PRIORI
�����belief�in�the�authenticity.��If�the�veracity�of�the�secondary�sources
�����as�defined�by�Dr.�Tanveer��is�questioned�then�a�substantial�part
�����of�Hadith�has�to�be�questioned�and�much�of�Sharia�and�Islamic
�����traditions�and�practices�(which�are�based�on�many�of�the
�����secondary�hadiths�and�are�not�necessarily�objectionable
�����as�the�ones�quoted)�become��irrelevant.��So�this�suggestion�
�����of�selective�authenticity��of�the�"authentic"��hadith�has�a�
�����slippery�slope�implication.�
 
>The�way�I�see�it�reflects�my�own�bias�and�an�unshakeable�belief�that
>the�Almighty�cannot�thrust�upon�some�of�his�creation�the�duty�of
>eliminating�others�enmasse�just�to�make�him�happy.
 
������That�is�also�a�logical�position�taken��by�a�skeptic�except�that�the
������skeptic�will�add�and�"IF":�"IF��the�Almighty�is�indeed�as�claimed�by�the
������apologists�THEN�the�Almighty�cannot�thrust�upon�some�of�his
������creation�the��duty�of�eliminating�others�enmasse�just�to�make�him�
������appy."��But�the�above�view�of�Dr.�Tanvir�(without�the�"IF/THEN"�
������clause��and�the�view�of�most��average�believers�as�well�Islamic
������scholars�that�hadith�and�Quran�are�authentic�are�both�A�PRIORI
������beliefs.��Dr.�Tanvir's�views�are�more�in�line�with�theistic�humanism.
 
>Ultimately,�what�matters�is�not�what�the�religion�is�supposed�to�be�but
>how�it�is�followed�and�on�that�count,�there�is�plenty�of�blame�to
>go�around.
��
�������Again�this�is�what�any�humanist�(secular�or�theistic)�would�affirm,
�������not�to�a�true�believer�in�the�scriptures��who�hold�a�strong�Apriori
�������belief�as�to�what�religion�is�supposed�to�be�and�their�aim�is�to
�������follow�what�their�apriori�belief�imply�and�I�agree�this�is�where
�������there�is�plenty�of�blame�to�go�around.
 


Subject: Re: {M-M] [Essay] Religion Is Lethal
Date: 4/7/02

Several�points�can�be�made�regarding�this�response.�First�there
is�a�fallacy�here�known�as�false�dilemma�(either�or�fallacy).�An
example�of�this�fallacy�is�"Why�Space�program,�when�we�have�not
succeeded�in�eliminating�poverty".�The�fact�is�that�if�everyone
in�USA�donated�the�cost�of�a�burger�to�NASA,�they�could�send�a
man�to�Mars.�Poverty�elimination�cannot�be�achieved�by�donation,
feeding�the�poor�for�a�limited�time�can�be.�Poverty�elimination
requires��sustained�planning�and�measures.�So�the�very�expression
(Religion�cannot�be�eliminated�so�focus�on�elimination�of
economic�porblems�instead)�points�to�this�fallacy.�The�fallacy
lies�in�the�fact�that�the�two�objectives�are�not�mutually
exclusive,�specifically��elimination�of�poverty�does�not�require
postponing�of�the�"elimination"�of�religion.��They�can�go�in
parallel.�I�am�assuming�here�that�"elimination"�of�religion�is�a
desired�objective,�since�the�very�expression�"Religion�cannot�be
eliminated�so�focus�on�elimination�of�economic�porblems.."
carries�that�implication.
 
Now�regarding�the�contention�that�"elimination"�of�religion�is
impossible�but�elimnation�of�poverty�is�not,�the�issue�can�be
raised�that�complete�elimination�of�poverty�is�also�impossible,
at�least�with�human�effort.�Poverty�is�present�in�different
degrees�in�all�societies�that�requires�human�effort�to�eradicate
it.�Only�those�minority�of�nationas�that�have�been�lavished�with
the�gift�of�precious�natural�resources�require�no�effort�and�may
be�the�exceptions.�In�a�limited�resources�environment�it�may�be
contended�by�evolutionary�biology�that�the�amount�of�altruistic
efforts�required�by�all�to�eliminate�poverty�is�against�the�biological�
instincts�of�human.�Anyway�that�would�take�us�off�a�tangent.�On
the�other�hand�elimination�of�religion�is�also,�if�not�completely
possible,�possible�in�degrees,�much�like�poverty�through�human
effort.�Take�the�case�of�all�the�far�Eastern�nations.�Religion�as
we�know�it�(belief�in�divine�being,�prophets,�revelations,�divine
code�of�conduct�etc)�is�non-existent�(or�were�not�there�to�begin
with)�among�the�billions�residing�there,�comprising�the�majority
of�humanity.�Also�there�are�more�infidels�(non-believers�of
scriptures�and�revelations)��in�the�western�industrial�nations
today�than�compared�to�any�time�in�past,�due�to�increased
emphasis�on�rationalism��since�the�rennaissance�period.
 
Now�to�my�last�point.�Some�may��feel�outraged�and�qeasy�about�
the expression�"elimination"�of�religion�and�question�the�need�for
the�same�(in�the�sense�that�they�perceive�it).�First�of�all,�this
is�not�my�chosen�expression,�it�was�used�by�someone�lese,�but
anyway�for�the�sake�of�argument�let�me�use�it�for�this�discussion.
So�it�is�important�to�define�what��is�meant�by�the�expression
and�hopefully�thats�the�sense�in�which�all��would�use�it.�By�that
it�is�meant��arousing�a�skeptical�attitude�towards�the�religious
dogma�through�sheer�logical�reasoning.�no�weapons,�no
intimidations�or�coercions,�only�pen,�paper�or�speech,�i.e
through�dialectical�reasoning.�It�is�not�a�news�that�in�history
such�rational�dialectics��have�indeed�succeeded�in�turning�blind
believers�into�skeptics.�And�thats�why�rationalism�incurred�the
wraths�of�apologists.�Today�this�pursuit�is�perfectly�consistent
with�modern�democratic�values.�An�dianetics�apologist�can�grab�
a�pedestrian�into�their�corner�office�and�try�to�convince�him/her
of�dianetics�and�may�sometimes�succeed�in�turning�him/her�a
convert.�We�don't�dispute�it.�It�is�accepted�as�part�of�a
democratic�pluralistic�society.�So�why�should�a�much�less
intrusive�dialectics�of�a�skeptic�(through�writing,�speech�etc)
to�an�apologist�be�an�issue?�Specially�when�the�dialectics�of
skeptics�is�in�response�to�the�preaching�of�apologists�(through
a�long�cause-effect�chain,�not�necessarily�in�an�individual�case),�
unlike�the�gratuitous�approach�of�dianetics�apologist.�Please
note�that�I�am�using�dianetics�as�an�illustrative�example.�I�have
no�selective�bias�against�them.�A�host�of�others�might�serve
equally�well,�like�astrology,�Jehovas�witness,�Hare�Krishna,�etc�.
 
Anyway,�so�it�is�clear�that�"elimination"�of�religion�(In�the
sense�just�defined)�it�is�not�at�all�an�impossible�goal�as
history�shows.�Now�the�question�regarding�"Whats�the�use�of
elimination�of�religion?".�The�"usefulness",�if�at�all,��can�be�seen�
from�the�correlation�of�scientific�and�techonological�advance�versus�
the�degree�of�influence�of�the�scriptures.�Industrial�revolution�took
off�as�soon�as�the�infleunce�of�church�and�christianity�dwindled
in�society�and�rationalism�took�root.�Early��Arab�civilization
flourished�in�science�only�when�rationalism�was�encouraged�and
accpeted�and�dwindled�soon�after�orthodoxy�replaced�rationalism
and�continues�to�this�day.�All�the�far�Eastern�Nations�(Japan,
Korea,�Taiwan,�China)�that�do�not�hold�beliefs�in�scriptures�and
revelations�and�do�not�impose�rigid�adherence�to�religious�codes�
of�conducts�(except�voluntary�adoption�of�such�by�a�minority�of
monks)�have�progressed�in�science�and�techonology.�Japan
boasts�the�highest�number�of�Nobel�Laureates�in�science�from�Asia
as�well�as�original�contributions�to�science�and�technology.�The
minority�of�affluent�Islamic�nations�adhereing�to�scriptures�are�
affluent�due�to�sheer�luck�of�possessing�liquid�gold.�The�fact�of
inverse�correlation�of�advances�of�a�society�to�its�adherence�to
blind�belief�is�corroborated�by�many�books�and�authors.�The�book
titled�"Uncommon�Sense"��by�physicist�Alan�Cromer�is�a�good
one�for�reference.�It�is�the�the�poor�nations,�not�being�lucky�to
have�been�bestowed�with�liquid�gold�that�need�to�emphaszie
rationalism�more�for�ending�poverty�and�exploitation.�This�is�the
recurring�theme�of�Prabir�Ghose,�founder�of�Indian�Association
of�Science�and�Ratioanlism.
 
Now�the�reverse�is�also�an�equally�acceptable�pursuit,�i.e
believers�can�try�to�"convert"�skeptics�into�believers�by�their
own�version�of�"logic",�although�often�such�logic�tend�to�be
circular�and�appeal�to�fear�type�fallacies.�And�in�many�cases
they�resort�to�physical�force�and�intimidation�(even�today�in�the
thrid�millenium).�Skeptics�welcome�the�dialectical�approach�by
the�apologicts�to�convert�the�skeptics�as�it�gives�them�the�
opportunity�to�test�their�logic�against�counter�logic.�
Unfortunately�the�apologists�do�not�show�the�same�spirit�of
openness�and�conviction.�And�that�is�an�indirect�vindication
that�it�is�possible�that�rational�dialectics�can�turn�one�from
a�believer�into�skeptic.
 
Aparthib



Subject: Re:�[M-M] FIGHT�FOR�YOUR�RIGHTS,�WOMEN!
Date: 4/8/02

I�must�admit�that�I�haven't�followed�closely�all�the�posts�in�this�thread.
But�Dr.�Mizan's�poignant�message�caught�my�attention.��I�think�post
#�5231�and�Dr.�Mizan's�reply�points�to�a�misunderstanding�between
them.�The�sarcastic�tone�of�5231�certainly�doesn't�help�in�bridging
that�misunderstanding.
 
Several�issues�that�relate�to�the�discussions�in�this�thread
need�to�be�addressed�(In�random�order):
 
1.��Emotional�vs.�pedagogic�approach�to�debating�an�issue
2.��Inductive�(blanket)�generalization.
3.��Poetic�Licence�vs.�political�correctness
4.��Class�victimization�vs.�individual�victimization.
5.��The�adverse�effect�of�Radicalism�in�any�just�movement.
6.��The�question�of�nature�vs.�nurture�in�sexual�discrimination
7.��The�principle�of�giving�the�benefit�of�the�doubt.
 
Let�me�address�each�aspect�of�the�above�as�it�reltes�to�this�thread.
 
1.�There�is�no�room�for�emotionalism�(sarcasm,�accusation�etc)�in�a�debate
�����when�all�sides�are�agreed�on�the�basic�premise�that�women�have�been
�����and�are�subject�to�gender�discrimnation�and�abuse.�Emotional�response
�����is�understandable�when�anyone�(I�mean�in�this�forum)�ever�defended
�����discrimination,�oppression�of�women�by�men�under�any�pretext�or�denied
�����that�such�incidences�does�not�occur.�Some�men�(not�in�this�forum)�do�
�����indeed�defend�gender�discrimnation�and�control�by�men�over�women�
�����using�religious�scriptures�and/or�a�misperception�of�biology�to�justify�
�����that�stand/attitude.�That�not�being�the�case�in�Mukto-Mona,�any
�����resort�to�emotionalism�in��response�is�uncalled�for�and�unfortunate�and
�����is�misdirected�effort.�It�is�much�better�reserve�that�passion�for�use�
�����towards�those��who�deserve�that.��Any��disagreement��in�this�case�
�����needs�to�be�thrashed�out�in�a��pedagogic�manner.
 
2.�It�is�not�politically�correct�to�sweepingly�indict�whole��class�by�the�acts�of�
����individual�members�(large�or�small)�of�that�class.�This�is�a�truism�and�is�not
����disputed.�
 
3.�Paying�excessive�importance�to�a�poem�in�defense�or�in�critcism�is�an
����exercize�in�futility.�Many�of�the�poems�(specially�early�ones)�contain�
����language�and�contents�that�are�patently�in�violation�of�political
����correctness�today�and�we�see�DJ's,�celebraties�etc��taking�the�rap�for
����the�slightest�breach�of�political�correctness.�Shanges's�poem�clearly
����contains��blanket�indictment�of�all�men,��not�connsistent�with�the�strict
����norms�of�political��correctness�today.�But��by�poetic�licence�clause�it�is
����understandable�as�an�emotional�statement�of�protest�of�the�oppression
����against�women.�One�can�get�away�with�all�sorts�of�poltical�incorrectness
����in�poetries�and�songs!,�specially�if�such�poetry�or�song�is�written�as�a
����protest�against�a�class�discrimnation/oppression.�
���
4.�Dr.�Mizan�pointed�out�the�victimization�of�males�by�males�too.�This�is
����analogous�to�Muslim�women�victims�of�rape,�murder�and�acid�throwing.
����by�Muslim�perpetrators.�But�such�incidences�not�being�reflective�of�a
����class�victimizations�in�the�communal�sense,�people�would�discount�their
����significance�in�the�context�of�communalism,�but�would�aquire�significance
�����in�the�context�of�gender�crimes.�In�the�case�of�male�to�male�crimes,�such
�����incidences�cannot�be�fitted�into�any�class�characterization�and�quite
�����unfortunately�for�those�poor�male�victims,�they�have�no�way�to�draw
�����sympathey�as�there�is�no�label�to�go�along�with�it�that�can�be�made�into
�����a�political�movement.�Numbers��do�not�matter�when�individual�
�����incidences�cannot�be��pidgeonholed�into�a�class�characterization.���
��
5.��This�is�an�important�issue.�We�have�seen�the�adverse�effects�of�radical
�����fringe��elements�in�any�legitimate�movement��by�tainting�the�mainstream
�����activists�of�the�movemnent�by�the�acts�of�radicals,�specially�when�the
�����mainstreams�are�not�quick�enough�to�distance�themselves�from�the�radical
�����and�condemn/prevent�the�acts�of�radicals.�This�has�happened�in
�����racism�in�America�when�some�radical�blacks�(Like�Black�Pnathers)
�����openly�advocated�killing�whites�(even�women�and�babies)�calling�the
�����entire�white�nation�as�evil.�Of�course�Martin�Luther�King
�����distnaced�himself�from�such�movements�and�they�were�not�able�to
�����cause�much�damage.�We�see�the�same�in�Islam�where�radical��terrorists
�����terrorizing�innocnet�civilians�in�the�name�of�a�just�movement�(Palenstinian
�����self-determination)�and�moderate�Muslims�not�forcefully�condemning�and
�����dterring�such�acts.�So�the�whole�Muslim�community�get�tainted�by
�����such�acts�of�terrorism.�Similarly�an�offshoot�of�mainstream�feminism,�called
�����radical�or�ultra-feminism�whose�manifesto�explicitly�calls�the�entire�male
�����gender��evil�(most�of�whom�are�lesbions�and�can�dispense�with�males).�
�����Mainstream�feminists�have�been�vocal�against�these�ultras�and�have
�����distanced�themselves�from�that�fringe�group�in�their�own�interest.�
�����Interestingly�(But�not�surprisingly)�the�strongest�critics�of�ultra-feminism
�����have�been�women�themselves�who�are�mainstream�feminists�and�have
�����blamed�these�ultras�for�alienating�many�men�sympathetic�to�women's�lib
�����and�women's�right.�Two�of�the�strongest�critics�are�Christina�Hoff�Sommers,
�����and�Daphne�Patai�who�have�written�books�and�lectured�on�media�on
�����the�dangers�of�radicalism.�Christina�Hoff�Sommers�has�written��
����"The�War�Against�Boys�:�How�Misguided�Feminism�Is�Harming�Our�
����Young�Men"�.�It�is�a�fervent�call�on�radicals�to�stop�this�obsessive�male
����class�bashing�attitude.��Daphne�Patai�has�written�"Heterophobia�:�Sexual�
����Harassment�and�the�Future�of�Feminism",�which�was�according�to�the
����edtorial�board�of�the�publisher:�"A�devastating�expose�of�the�way�
����academic�feminists�are�driving�their�wedge�between�men�and�women."
����Because,�like�any�movement,�success�depends�involving�both�sides
����and�calling�all�members�of�one�side��evil,�guilty�in�a�blanket�manner�
����is�not�only�a�strategic�blunder,�but��morally�and�factually�wrong�as�well.
���������
6.�This�is�also�a�potential�pitfall�that�many�activist�who�are�not�savvy�in
����biology�and�neurology�blame�acts�of�sexism��wrongly�to�male�nature,
����discounting�the�role�of�culture�and�environment.�Patriarchal�societies
����are�a�result�of�culture�and�environment.�Males�do�not�have�genes�that
����is�programmed�for�chauvisnim�or�sexual�abuse.�Lessons�from�Biology
����unanimously�points�to�pretty�much�identical�genetic�traits�of��men�and
����women.�There�are�nevertheless�differences�in�male�and�female
����brain�(on�an�average�basis)�having�to�to�do�with�spatio-temporal
����skills�but�those�differences�do�not�play�any�role�in�the�gender
����crimes�and�abuse.�So�there�is�no�scientific�basis�of�blaming�sexual
����abuse�and�discrimination�against�women�on�male�biology.�One�of
����the�strongest�proponent�of�the�inherent�biological�identity�of
����male�and�females�is�none�other�than�a�female�biologist�who�is�also
����a�feminist:�Anne�Fausto-Sterling.�She�elaborates�this�point�in�detail
����as�a��recurring�theme�of�her��320��page�book:
����"Myths�of�Gender�:�Biological�Theories�About�Women�and�Men"
����She�distinguishes�sex�vs.�gender�and�contends�that�sex�is�determined
����in�the�embryo�and�has�no�cultural�implication,�whereas�gender�is�more
����of�a�social�construct�and�has�such�cultural�implications�like�gender
����discrimnation,�control�and�oppression�of�women�in�a�male�dominated
����patriarchal�society�etc.�So�the�bottomline�is�that�male�domination,
����oppression�of�women�by�men�are�rooted�in�cultural�conditioning
����which�in�turn�may�be�rooted�in�religious�doctrines,�vestigial
����legacy�carried�over�from�the�early�agricultural�societies�when�women
����took�to�household�while�men�took�to�farming,�in�contrast�to�the�hunter-
����gatherer�society�prioir�to�that�when�both�were�equal�partners�in
����the�struggle�for�subsistence.�
 
7.�The�point�was�made�that�since�so�many�men�are�sexual�abusers�and�since
�����it�is�hard�to�identify�one�by�looks,�so�it�is�legitimate�to�suspect�anyone.�This
�����may�be�a�tenable�position,�except�care�should�be�exercized.�There�is�a�
�����golden�rule�of�ethics:�(a)�Give�the�benefit�of�the�doubt�(b)�Innocent�until
�����proven�guilty.�While�the�instinctive�fear�and�suspicion�inside�one's�heart�
�����is�natural,�an�intentional�incriminatory�remark�or�action�against�any�male
�����due�to�him�being�a�male�only�is�not�natural�or�justified�and�is�itself�a�crass
�����evidence�of�racism.�take�the�case�of�the�peom�by�Shange.�Luckily�it�is�a
�����poem,�not�a�binding�religious�verse�to�be�literally�followed�by�fanatics.
�����And�it�will�be�not�surprising�that�just�as�despite�the�clear�injunction�to
�����beat�wives�in�verse�4:34�many�apologists�(including�women)��don;t�see
�����it,or�would�raise�the�"out�of�context"�clause,�similarly�the�blanket
�����demonization�of�all�males�in�Shange's�poem�is�subject�to�the�same
�����"I�don;t�see�it,�or�look�at�it�in�the�right�context"��defense.�But�again�it
�����is�just�a�poem.�So�whats�the�big�deal.�And�most�importantly,�it�does
�����serves�to�issue�the�stark�reminder�of�the�grim�reality�of�the�abuses�that
�����women�go�through�in�male�dominbated�socieies.�That�is�the�only�
�����redeeming�value�of�the�poem��As�I�can�read�the�poem�she�is�clearly
�����making�a�sweeping�judgement�of�all�males�being�an�abuser�and�all
�����women�have�immediate�cause�of�killing�their�husbands,�boy�friends�
�����etc.�No�exception.�I�understand�it�is�an�emotional�outburst�of�a�women
�����who�let�loose�her�raw�rage�with�no�regard�for�felicity�of�expression.�I
�����also�believe�that�sometimes�a�radical�of�one�class�serves�to�offset�
�����the�radicals�in�the�oppressor�class.��But�such�radicalism�have�no�
�����enduring�universal�humanist�value.�



Date:�4/15/02
Subject:�Re:�Does�God�really��exist?��Part��1
 
The�message�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aalaap/message/2262
contains�a�lot�of�verbiage.�But�it�really�did�not�succeed�in�making
any�clear�case,�as�far�as�proving�the�existence�of�God,�or�refuting
any�argument�against�the�claim�of�God's�existence.�No�surprise,�as�
that's�how�it�has�been�for�centuries.�The�main�thrust�of�the�article
seemed�to�be�that�attempts�to�disprove�the�existence�of�God�are�not
scientific.��Well,�science�is�not�in�the�business�of�proving�or�
disproving�myths�or�beliefs,�which�are�vague,�ill-defined�mental�
constructs�invented�by�human�minds.�Science�deals�with�well-defined�
concepts�about�reality�that�are�amenable�to�theoretical�or�observational
study.��In�the�context�of�God�the�issue�is�not�whether�it�can�be
proven�or�disproven�by�science;�rather,�the�issue�is�whether�the
term�God�can�be�defined�in�a�consistent�way�that�suffers�from�no
logical�contradictions.�The�fact�is�it�does�not;�all�definitions
inevitably�gets�into�circularity,�mutual�contradictions�and�all
sorts�of�fallacies.�(Readers�are�urged�to�carefully�review�the
following�two�articles:
 
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore�drange/incompatible.html
and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore�drange/definition.html
)
 
As�a�belief�it�can�be�held�privately�by�individuals,�since�beliefs�
do�not�need�to�satisfy�the�requirements�of�logical�consistency.�
But�such�beliefs�cannot�pass�the�logical�criteria�to�be�a�
unanimously�accepted�notion�in�academic�fields.�The�only�definitions
(if�at�all�they�are�accepted)�of�God�that�do�not�suffer�from
any�of�the�logical�flaws�are�God�=�Laws�of�nature�(Physics),
God�=�Nature,�God�=�Love,�etc.�But�those�are�just�redefinitions
of�existing�words,�and�hence�the�existence�or�non-existence�
of�God�of�such�definitions�cannot�be�an�issue�of�debate.�
Moreover,�such�definitions�do�not�reflect�the�religious
notion�of�God�that�human�mind�wishes�to�believe�in.
 
So�before�even�the�question�of�scientific�proof�or�disproof�of
God�arises,�the�logical�question�of�the�consistency�of�the�
notion�of�God�needs�to�be�resolved,�which�it�has�not�been�
done�in�philosophy.�
 
Let�me�present�the�issue�as�follows:
 
1.�Has�the�existence�of�God�been�proved�scientifically?�(Yes/No)?
����If�No,�then�case�closed.��If�yes,�then�please�provide�the�proof,
����or�give�reference�to�a�"scientific"�journal,�book�where�a�decisive
����proof�has�been�provided�for�God,�as�understood�in�religion.
 
2.�Stating�some�scientific�facts�does�not�constitute�a�proof�of
����God,�regardless�of�how�amazing�that�fact�appears�to�human�mind.
����So�it�is�a�fallacy�to�say�that�"Since�only�left�handed�DNA's�are
����observed�in�nature,�hence�God�exists�Q.E.D",��or�that�"Since
����Carbon�has�a�resonant�state�that�allows�triple�alpha�process�to
����form�stable�carbon�molecule�(hence�life),�so�God�must�exist".�
���This�is�a�non�sequitar.�(See
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
��)
 
����The�fact�is�no�amount�of�scientific�fact�or�data�can�be�used�to
����"scientifically"�prove�God,�because�the�last�line�of�such�a
�����"proof"�will�always�be�the�statement�"Therefore�God�exists",
�����which�is�not�only�a�non�sequitar�but�also�an�unscientific
�����statement�of�faith,�not�connected�to�any�of�the�scientific�
�����facts�and�data�that�precede�it.�Scientific�language�does�not
�����necessarily�make�science:�(See
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1115.htm#SCIENTIFICLANG
����).
����
����So�all�the�volumes�of�scientific�fact�cited�in�message�2262�(Some
����of�those�are�inaccurate,�but�it�would�not�make�any�difference
����even�if�they�were�accurate)�added�nothing�to�prove�the�
����existnece�of�God.�At�the�end�it�remains�an�apriori�belief.
 
3.��The�strongest�motivation�for�the�belief�in�God�is�the�argument�from
�����design.�How�can�there�be�creation�without�a�creator?�This�is
�����a�fallacy�that�results�from�trying�to�generalize�from�human�
�����experiences�to�its�absurd�limit.�Since�we�know�that�humans
�����are�the�designer�of�many�objects�that�we�see,�so�the�generalization
�����is�made�that�the�whole�universe�is�designed�by�"someone".
�����That�is�stretching�human�reason�to�an�unrealistic�limit.
�����There�is�no�equivalent�experience�of�unknown�designer�of�known
�����objects�to�inductively�generalize�from�into�drawing�this�conclusion
�����about�the�ultimate�reality.�It�will�be�an�arrogance�to�insist�on�
�����this�extrapolation�of�human�reasoning�from�the�known�to�the�unknown
�����and�unspeakable.�So�this�is�not�a�logical�inference.�It�is�a�leap�
�����of�faith.�There�is�no�"logical"�reason�to�insist�that�the�whole�
�����universe�has�to�have�a�designer,�just�becasue�we�know�that�many
�����objects�we�know�to�have�human�designer.�It�is�a�logical�fallacy
�����known�as�Affirmation�of�the�Consequent�(See�
�����http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#consequent.)
�����Besides,�insisting�so�would�logically�lead�to�the�insistence
�����to�a�designer�of�the�designer�and�to�an�infinite�regress.�Saying
�����that�the�designer�does�not�have�to�have�a�designer�would�be�
�����arbitrary,�and�a�statement�of�faith,�not�logic.�An�equally�
�����tenable,�if�not�more�statement�would�be�that�the�laws�of�nature�
�����itself�is�the�designer�and�does�not�need�a�designer�itself.�At�
�����least�we�have�plausible�evidences�that�point�to�laws�of�
�����nature(Physics)�giving�rise�to3�universe�of�space�time�and�matter�
�����(through�nucleosynthesis�and�inflation�of�quantum�vacuum)�and�life�
�����through�evolution.�The�emergence�of�living�molecule�from�non-
�����living�ones,�although�not�understood,�but�does�not�rule�out�a�
�����purely�natural�process�behind�that.�All�the�intricacies�of�life�
�����and�consciousness�may�quite�plausibly�be�built�into�the�laws�of�
�����Physics,�and�manifesting�themselves�as�the�workings�of�a�conscious�
�����designer.�But�making�a�leap�of�faith�to�a�designer�other�than�the�
�����laws�of�Physics�would�the�case�of�fallacy�of�argument�from�
�����ignorance�(See�http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm.
�����)�If�one�really�wishes�to�get�to�the�bottom�of�this,�they�may�
�����wish��to�go�through�all�of�the�following�articles:
 
Finally�I�wish�to�respond�to�some�specific�comments��in�message�2262:
 
Re:
>�"Ghoraar�Deem"�theory�is�
>>the�most�uneducated,�idiotic�theory�anyone�could�give.��
 
As�for�the��"most�uneducated,�idiotic.."�part�my�response�is:�
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
 
Now�regarding�the�"Ghoraar�Deem�theory�is.."�part,�I�don't�think
that�such�a�"theory"�exists�or�was�proposed.��The�point�that�was
being�made�that�just�as�science�cannot�prove�that�Ghorar�deem
does�not�exist,�similarly�science�cannot�prove�that�God�as�the
object�of�a�belief�does�not�exist.�That�would�be�proving�a�universal
negative,�a�logically�impossible�task�and�is�a�fallacy�to�attempt
to�do�so.�And�it�is�another�fallacy�to�turn�around�that�impossibility
and�conclude�that�since�you�cannot�disprove�that�such�and�such�
do�not�exist,�therefore�they�do�exist".�This�is�called�shifting�the
burden�of�proof�fallacy�(see�example�3�of�the�follwoing�link:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html�).
It�is�the�(logical)�burden�of�one�claiming�the�existence�of�some
entity�to�prove�it's�existence�to�others�to�justify�the�belief.��No�
logical��burden�lies�on�others�refusing�to�believe�to�justify�their�
disbelief�by�disproving�the�claim�of�the�existence�.�Lack�of�
proof�of�its�existence�is�a�sufficient�justification�for�non-belief.
I�think�that's�what�was�meant�by�Avijit,�if�not�then�he�must�have
failed�to�convey�what�he�meant�(At�least�to�the�author�of�
message�2262).
 
Re:
>�There�are�many�examples�
>�where�the�creation�explanation�is�more�scientific�than�evolution.�
 
�����This�is�remarkable.�Creationism�is�scientific?�Beliefs�have�no
�����place�in�science.�Creationism�has�not�been�accepted�by
�����the�scientific�community�as�scientific,�that's�why�it�is�not
�����taught�in�any�branch�of�science.�An�individual�scientist
�����can�hold�creationism�as�a�private�belief,�that�fact�does�not
�����make�it�scientific.�Evolution�on�the�other�hand�is.�Evolution
�����is�a�fact�supported�by�evidences.�No�scientist�disputes�that.�
�����The�only�disgreement�among�the�scientist�are�in�the�theory�
�����behind�the�explanation�of�this�fact.�There�are�various�
�����versions�of�the�theory�of�evolution.��But�there�is�no�
�����scientific�theory�of�creationism,�as�creationsism�rests�on�
�����belief�primarily.�I�would�like�to�see�a�specific�example�of
�����creationism�being�more�scientific�than�evolution�as
�����agreed�to�by�scientific�community�as�a�whole�and
�����reflected�in�the�journals�or�academic�text.
 
[...]
 
Re:
>If�not�then�they�need�to�put�in�gear�and�study�their�own�faith�and�
>come��
>up�with�more�believable,�scientific�evidence,�and�proof��rather�then��
>attacking�us�those�who�believe�in�The�Creator.�
 
���A�refutation�of�the�"logic"�trying�to�prove�a�belief�is�not�an
���attack�of�the�believer.�If�someone�mistakes�a�criticism�of�the
���message�as�a�critcism�of�the�messenger�then�he�has�to�take
���responsibility�for�such�a�mistake.�If�a�believer�has�the�right�to
���gratuitously�offer�a�logical�proof�of�their�belief,�then�so�does
���one�who�refutes�such�a�proof.�The�use�of�the�paranoid
���expression�"attack"�has�no�relevancy�here.�There�is�no
���victim;�there�is�no�assailant�either.�The�same�standard�and
���criterion�is�applicable�and�is�not�disputed�in�other�cases
���of�belief�like�Astrology,�dianetics,�homeopathy�etc.�There�
���is�no�reason�to�grant�a�special�privileged�status�to�religious�
���belief.��All�dialectics�has�to�allow�counterpoints�to�any�points.�
 
Thanks
Aparthib
 

Date:�4/19/02
Subject:�Re:�Islam�and�the�Scientific�Dilemma
 
In�response�to:�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aalaap/message/2289
 
Responding�to�specific�comments�(�preceded�with�">"�)�in�the�above�
message:�
�
Re:
>The�difficulty��arises�as�there�are�intrinsic�differences�in�the�way�
>the�West��approaches�and�uses�>science�and�philosophy�and�the�way�
>Islam�deals�with�these�matters.��I�will�try�to�show�that�it�is�
>>Western�views�that�have�become�dogmatic�and�imperious�and�it�is�they�
>>who�are�behaving�like�>chimpanzees.�
��
A�remarkable�statement.�It�would�be�illuminating�to�know�in�what�
conceivable�way�or�sense�does�West�and�Islam�differ�on�"approaching"�or�
"using"�science.�Also�it�would�be�instructive�to�get�a�precise�meaning�
of�"approach"�in�this�context.�How�differently�does�Islam�"approach"�
Maxwell's�Equation�of�Electromagnetics�in�Physics,�or�Mitosis�in�
Biology,�or�Gibbs�Free�energy�in�chemistry,�from�a�Christian/Western�
scientist?�Can�we�get�some�specifics�beyond�the�vague�expression�of�
differences?��Rather,�it�is�a�fact�that�the�same�principles�are�behind�
the�the�lasers�in�the�laboratory�of�an�Arab�university�as�that�in�any�
other.�I�have�met�many�Saudi�students�who�have�been�sent�on�Saudi�Gov.�
scholarship�to�study�science�and�Engineering�in�US.�
 
How�are�Western�views�dogmatic,�and�imperious,�specially�in�the�context�
of�science?�And�what�is�that�dogma?�Of�course�assuming�the�precise�
definition�of�dogma�is�being�meant.�One�has�to�give�specific�evidence�
to�conclude�with�such�a�sweeping�statement�that�"Western�views"�are�
dogmatic�and�imperious.�And�"They"�are�behaving�like�Chimpanzees?�This�
is�a�wholesale�mockery�of�not�a�message,�or�a�messenger,�but�a�
community�of�nations�(The�west).�
������
Re:
>Your�experience�in�Romania�is�a�problem�many�Muslims�face�due�to��
>arrogance�and�the�ignorance�of�the�Western�mind.
�
Again�a�negative�stereotyping�of�the�"West"�with�no�good�reason.�
Moreover,�this�sweeping�generalization�was�drawn�by�the�statement�of�
one�professor�who�rightly�made�the�remark:�"You�have�accepted�some�
given�things�without�investigation,�philosophy�cannot�be�studied�by�
you"�in�the�context�of�learning�philosophy.��Any�philosophy�department�
worth�its�name�in�a�secular�society�would�emphasize�putting�critical�
thinking�and�logic�over�dogmas�and�blind�belief.�The�basic�premise�of�
philosophy�is�to�question�and�be�skeptical�of�any�claim�of�truth�and�
beliefs,�including�religious�ones.�So�the�professor�is�simply�stating�
the�basic�premise�of�any�philosophy�curriculum.�What�is�there�so�
arrogant�about�him?�And�to�generalize�from�him�to�"arrogant�western�
mind"�is�not�only�fallacious�but�also�a�negative�stereotyping.�
�
Re:
>It�is�therefore�possible�for�the�Muslim�mind�to�fathom�the�
>complexities�and�intricacies�of�Western�>philosophy�(and�science)�but�
>the�Western�mind�finds�it�impossible�to�grasp�that�Muslims�may�have�
>>their�own�philosophy,�points�of�view,�inclinations�and�perspectives:�
�
What�evidence�is�there�to�conclude�in�such�a�general�manner�that�the�
Western�mind�finds�it�impossible�to�grasp�that�Muslims�may�have�their�
own�philosophy,�points�of�view?��Rather,�we�see�a�host�of�western�
scholars�and�academicians�specializing�in�Islamic�and�oriental�studies�
and�writing�scholarly�books�on�it.��Many�of�them�have�been�acclaimed�by�
Eastern�scholars�as�well.�If�individual�examples�are�cited�to�prove�the�
contrary,�then�such�individual�examples�can�be�cited�from�other�side�
too.�Misunderstanding�about�western�thinking�is�also�seen�among�many�
Eastern�Scholars.�So�one�cannot�draw�a�general�conclusion�on�either�
side.�
�������
Re:
>Simply�put�the�objectives�and�values�of�Western�scientific�thinking�
>are�not�necessarily�shared�by�>Islam�or�for�that�matter�any�other�
>peace�loving�culture�or�civilization.�
�
Again�how�is�scientific�thinking�different�in�West�from�the�East�(or�
Islam?).�Let�us�hear�precise�and�specific�difference�(Preferably�no�
vague�general�talk,�only�scientific�terms�and�concepts�to�drive�home�
this�difference).�Regarding�the�second�part,�it�is�very�unethical�to�
pit�Western�scientific�thinking�in�contrast�with�any�"peace�loving"�
culture�or�civilization.�This�clearly�implies�West�is�not�peace�loving.�
Again�if�individual�examples�of�war�or�exploitation�are�used�to�draw�a�
general�conclusion,�then�it�can�go�either�way.�This�is�not�win-win�
situation.�Pointing�finger�in�this�context�is�always�a�lose-lose�game.�
Almost�all�nations�in�its�history�had�been�taken�over�by�regimes�and�
leaderships�that��committed�wrongs.�One�can�cite�those�individual�
instances�to�prove�any�claim�to�the�contrary.�But�to�make�such�a�
blanket�disparagement�of�one�civilization�is�unconscionable.�
�
Re:
>In�fact,�the�eleventh-century�theologian�al-Ghazali's�belief�in�the�
>value�of�logic�in�dealing�with�>Islamic�legal�subjects�helped�to�
>spread�the�acceptance�of�rational�process�as�a�valid�tool�in�
>>organizing�knowledge�in�the�Islamic�world�
�
Rather,�what�Ghazali�stood�for�and�did�is�to�accept�reasoning�only�in�
theology,�while�fully�conforming��to�belief�in�scriptures.�Logic�is�not�
to�be�used�to�question�divinity�itself�according�to�him.�So�what�worth�
is�that�restricted�oxymoronic�"religious�logic"�for�the�humanity�at�
large?�Here�is�an�exact�quote�from�Turner's�"Science�in�Medieval�
Islam",��page�32�
�
"He�placed�the�mystical�thinkers,�the�Sufis,�above�the�philosophers�in�
their�ability�to�reach�the�truth"�
�
Al-Ghazali�blasted�the�philosophers�and�wrote�a�book�called�"The�
incoherence�of�the�philosophers".�Al-Ghazali�was�a�Islamic�theologian�
with�only�disdain�for�the�philosophers�for�their�rationalism�as�
rationalism�inevitably�leads�to�questioning��the�very�foundation�of�
religious�dogmas�and�belief�which�Ghazali�would�rather�not�tolerate.�
�
Re:
>For�these�reasons�it�is�erroneous�to�elevate�science�into�a�total�
>belief�system�since�it�is�subject�to�>continuous�correction�and�
>revaluation.�This�is�what�differentiates�Islam�from�the�West�as�
>Muslims�>have�been�adept�at�creating�new�science�in�the�past�but�will�
>not�make�science�an�end�in�itself�but�a�>tool�to�further�knowledge�
>that�serves�the�needs�of�the�Muslim�Ummah�and�which�are�in�accordance�
>>with�the�teachings�of�the�Quran.�
�
The�very�core�of�scientific�method�is�to�not�accept�any�belief�system,�
but�to�emphasize�observation,�evidence�and�logic.�So�elevation�of�
science�to�a�belief�system�is�an�oxymoron,�it�does�not�and�will�not�
exist.�So�to�cite�such�an�"imagined"�elevation�and�to�say�that�the�
elevation�differentiates�Islam�from�the�West�is�a�height�of�fallacy�
reflecting�a�total�ignorance�about�the�nature�of�scientific�method�
itself.��I�am�curious�to�know�what�is�that�"new�science"�that�Muslims�
have�been�adept�at�creating?�Is�the�new�science�distinct�from�the�old,�
boring�"science"�that�we�read�in�our�schools�and�college�(No�not�in�
USA,�let's�say�in�India/Bangladesh�say?).�Can�we�hear�about�at�least�
one�law�of��that�"new"�science?�Moreover,�can�we�know�how�that�law�of�
the�new�science�has�been�applied?�The�answer,�if�it�exists,�would�be�a�
surprising�revelation�to�all.�So�we�are�waiting�eagerly.�
�
The�whole�idea�of�pitting�"Islam"�with�"west"�is�misleading.��Either�
"East"�be�pitted�against�West,�or�Islam�vs�Christianity,�if�one�HAS�TO.�
I�find�this�whole�exercise�of��"Us�vs�Them"�approach�quite�uncalled�for�
and�divisive..�And�it�is�ironic�to�bring�in�science�in�all�these�
divisive�attempts�as�science�itself�is�the�truly�unifying�human�
enterprise�among�nations�and�civilizations.��Science�is�where�minds�
from�all�worlds�converge,�as�there�is�one�Quantum�Mechanics,�One�Cell�
Biology,�One�Chemical�Thermodynamics,�instead�of�Islamic�Quantum�
mechanics,�Christian�Cellular�Biology�etc.�Only�one�language�spoken�
here.�
�
Re:
>Science�in�Western�hands�only�leads�to�further�destructiveness�and�
>exploitation�of�resources.�
�
Science�in�the�hands�of�ANY�one�(East/West/North/South)�devoid�of�
humanity�can�lead�to�further�destructiveness�of�resources.�Because�the�
west�having�been�at�the�forefront�of�scientific�research�for�a�long�
time,�happened�to�use�it�also�more�than�others.�But�the�East�is�
catching�up,�and�the�same�destructions�and�exploitations�can�happen�
equally�in�their�hands�(and�has�happened).�Nuclear�or�biological�
weapons�for�example�are�not�being�developed�among�some�Eastern�nations�
that�posses��them�exactly�for�peaceful�purpose�either.�Human�nature�
does�differ�much�between�races�and�nations.��The�rhetoric�of�"for�
defensive�use�only"�is�uttered�by�all.�
�
Re:
>These�words�were�penned�in�1988�but�Western�science�is�no�closer�to�
>solving�this�great�mystery�>even�after�14�years�of�relentless�
>perseverance�and�exhaustive�experimentation�and�analysis�by�the�best�
>minds�in�Western�academia.�
�
Ok,�so�western�science�has�not�solved�the�ultimate�question�of�science.�
But�what's�the�point?�Has�any�other�science�("Eastern"�or�any�other�
variety"�if�they�exist?)�come�closer?�Are�they�trying?�Who�asked�the�
ultimate�questions�about�reality�to�begin�with?�Who�cared�to�try�to�
answer?�Those�are�the�questions�whose�answers�are�more�revealing.�
It�is�a�fallacy�to�Quote�Stephen�Hawking's�(A�great�western�scientist)��
famous�1988�remark�and�use�it�to�disparage�Western�scientists.�
�
It�is�quite�legitimate�and�imperative�to�criticize�an�individual�(or�a�
group�of�individual)�western�author�(Or�Eastern)�if�they�misrepresent�
facts�and�history�of�other�nations�or�races�and�draw�derogatory�or�
prejudiced�conclusions�about�a�whole�community�of�nations�(East�or�West�
implies�a�community�of�nations).�But�it�is�unconscionable�to�disparage�
the�entire�West�(Western�mind,�western�scientists�etc).��The�overall�
tone�of�the�message�#�2289�was�"Us�vs�Them"�type.��I�don't�think�this�
is�the�right�spirit.�We�are�one�human�race.��Such�divisive�tone�does�
not�help�to�redress�the�divide�between�civilizations�in�an�already�
divided�world,�rather�pushes�us�closer�to�the�proverbial�"clash�of�the�
civilizations".�


Subject:   Re: The Existence of God debate
Date:  4/26/02
To:  NFB
 
This is in reference to the article : 
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/apr/23/g23042002.htm#A4 
appearing on April 23. 

Excerpts from above are enclosed within [ ], with response 
following that: 

Re: 
[ "Being an engineer, etc, does not give you the authority to 
  speak on behalf of the community of mathematicians and 
  physicists, and does not give you the license to say things like"] 

   Unfortunately this ad hominem remark on the judgement on 
   the competence of the messenger, rather than the message 
   deprived us, the readers of  the illumination that might have 
   resulted from  pointing out any scientific or logical flaw in 
   what was stated supposedly without a " licence" ! 
   Ad hominems do not serve the readers in anyway and is a 
   wasted effort, writing or reading it. 

Re: 
[ "There is a sizable fraction of professional mathematicians and 
physicists who very much believe in God, and consider it a most 
rational belief. And the proportion would be much greater had 
they not started from a Judeo-Christian background, ..] 

    Before even  considering the accuracy of the above remarks 
let me note that in science and logic, individual beliefs that 
are not testable (verifiable/falsifiable) are of zero worth, 
regardless of the status of the believers and their numbers: 
0+0+0+....ad infinitum = 0 

  Moreover the quotes also illustrate the logical fallacy of 
argument from authority. Just because individual scientists hold 
private beliefs in something, that does not elevate those beliefs 
into unquestionable truths. Even the scientists themsleves would 
admit that. No scientists worth his/her repute has ever tried to 
rationalise religious beliefs with science publicly, nor would even 
conceive of doing so in professional or academic journals. 

Last but not the least, the expression "sizable" can certainly be 
challenged. Rarther it is the  minority among them that hold a 
belief in God. Not only that, all the survey questions refer to 
any belief  in God, regardless of the definition. If the 
questionnaire was phrased so as to limit it to a personal God as 
envisaged in religions, the proportion would clearly be smaller 
simply because a subset is always smaller than the superset. The 
landmark survey of scientists' personal view of God was done in 
1998, in "Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: Leading Scientists 
Still Reject God." Nature, July 23, 1998, p. 313. " That survey 
revealed that  only 7.9% placed a belief in personal God.. "Among 
the top natural scientists," Larson and Witham observe, "disbelief 
is greater than ever - almost total." 

Mentioning the names of specific scientists and claiming knowledge 
of their private religious beliefs should be taken with a grain of 
salt. First, it is very unusual for scientists of repute to proclaim 
their private religious beliefs, so such claims are nothing but 
putting words in their mouth based on superficial observations and 
guesswork at best.  One can never guess accurately what the true 
perception of God is in their minds, or what is the true motivation 
for practicing religion as some of them do/did, unless they 
themselves articulate it.  We know Einstein was pushed into 
declaring that he believed in the God of Spinozza when challenged by 
the powerful Rabi Goldstein of New York to reveal his religious 
beliefs. He might have said so just to avoid being perceived as an 
atheist to the influential Rabi . After all, he must have already 
felt vulnerable enough, suffering the traumatic experience of having 
to flee Germany, and also being suspected of his socialist leanings 
in his new home in USA. It may have been wise for him not to rock 
the boat further. Without such a motivated question by Rabbi 
Goldstein, Einstein may not even have felt the need of 
unsolicitously mentioning such private notion of God (Spinozzas God 
is really nothing but nature itself. So  it might have been just a 
ruse to placate the Rabi as it sounded better than atheist, 
politically highly incorrect to be in the 50's). By the same token, 
one can argue, again as a MAY BE,  that Prof Salam may had a 
perception of an abstract idea of God  (As the cause of the laws of 
nature), but for fear of being seen as an atheist, might have 
decided to be less passive about religion. After all, he had 
suffered enough persecution as a Quadiani, and even the slightest 
perception of not being a devout Muslim could have provoked even 
further persecution and even death threats by the hostile Sunni 
majority in Pakistan. What better recourse than to engage in  ritual 
prayers (After all it is known to have salutory effect on health) 
and not arouse any suspicion among the hostile majority. Prof Salam 
may have been wise to take note of Einstein's precedent. A small 
cost to avert a major problem in life may be worth it. Again all 
this is pure plausibility  speculation. No claim is being made that 
this was indeed the case, in fact no definite conclusion can be or 
should be drawn from personal anecdotes. This is just to illustrate 
that many plausible interpretations can exist for private human acts. 
Depending on which interpretation one picks one can be led to quite 
different conclusions. So its better not to engage in such game of 
interpreting the personal beliefs (rather acts) of famous 
personalities and exploit it to draw conclusions about general 
issues. And the relevant point is that citing the private "beliefs" ( 
or perception of it) of scientists cannot be exploited to prove 
either theism, or atheism, leaving aside the inherent 
incompatibility in the  definitions of  these notions, which thus 
defy a precise defintion  that can satisfy all. 

  Finally, stating scientific facts does not constitute a proof of 
  God, regardless of amazing that fact appears to human  mind. 
  Concluding that "GOD" exists (Again leaving aside the question 
   of the impossibility of a precise definition)  is a non sequitar.. 

 In fact the existence or non-existence of God is not a question 
 that can be or should be settled with science. Science cannot 
 be used to either "prove" or disprove  that God exists. The 
 question is that of logical consistency. Logic can be used to 
 determine whether the arguments claiming to define and prove 
 the  existence of God is flawed or not. And indeed it is, because 
 the last line of such a  "proof" will always be the 
 statement "Becasue fact "X" of science is so amazing , 
 therefore God exists", which is not only a non sequitar but 
 also a very unscientific affirmation of personal faith, nothing 
 to do with the scientific facts and data that precede such a 
 an affirmation 

  The reference to evolution contain some misperceptions. Evolution 
 as a "fact" is not debated (Even the Vatican has accepted it). And 
 this is not because of any biased belief. But due to the 
 incontrovertible evidence behind it. A "theory" explaing the "fact" 
 of evolution, however is not beyond debate. And this is where 
 science has plenty of room to improve. But it is only science that 
 can  give us any theory of evolution. And at a given point in time, 
 there is one theory that seems to be better than all others, but 
 not final as no theory at present can explain all the "facts" of 
 evolution. But to exploit this acknowledged limitations of current 
 science to argue in   favour of a very unscientific "creationsim" 
 is the  fallacy of false dilemma. If science cannot explain fact " 
 X" 100% , "therefore God has to exist" is not a scientific or even 
 a logical statement. Many  scientific facts that are well 
 explained today were once unexplained. God did not spring into 
 existence for each  "X" changing from unexplained to explained 
 status. 

 The main issue that  any rational person can and should agree 
 on is that there is a mystery at the end. Even an atheist has to 
 admit that although the creation of space-time-matter and the 
 evolution of life might well be explained by the workings of the 
 laws of Physics in its many facets and subtlities, the mystery 
 remains as to from where did the laws of  Physics itself come in 
 the first place?  Did the laws of Physics remain latent in some 
 Platonic existence "before" BigBang occurred? Is there a more 
 "fundamental" cause of the laws of Physics?  Does it even 
 make sense to refer to "cause" in the extreme case of the 
 origin of the entire universe? Any potential cause will not 
 close this ultimate question as that "cause", once uncovered, 
 will become integrated with the known and push the boundary of 
 unknown one level higher, the unknown will still remain, as 
 the  grandcause of the newly found "cause" which was unknown 
 before. The Theory of Everything(TOE), if found by Physicists, 
 will illustrate this problem. Theory of Everything might explain 
 everything  except "itself".  From where TOE? Invoking God at 
 that point is only an argument from ignorance  as it is an 
 aribitray statement of faith, not an explanation of a cause, and 
 creates the same problem : since God  is imagined in the image of 
 a man, a conscious entity with a will. So if a conscious human 
 with a will needs a creator to explain his/her existence, by the 
 same human criteria, a conscious and wilful creator of human 
 should also need an explanation of   its/his/her existence. 
 Doesn't this all then become arbitrary and  a mere playing with 
 words? Of course we canmot deny the   "need" (as evolutionary 
 biology tells us)  of humans  to think of a  conscious, wilful 
 entity watching over them. A brain that has evolved far enough to 
 reflect on itself and realize (Not by pure faith, but by 
 incremental accumulation of knowledge) the origin of the 
 religious belief cannot place faith in that belief  by logic 
 anymore. That would be self-inconsistent. 

 At the end, one has to ask the question, as to whether we can 
 extrapolate common human notions and reasonings to this extreme? 
 We have no precedents to inductively generalize from in the case 
 of Universe, like we have for all other worldly experience. 
 Ultimate mystery may well be for us to live with forever. For the 
 scientific minded, that unending mystery acts as the unending 
 inspiration to move ahead and push the frontier of the known 
 further into the unknown. For the blind believers, that mystery 
 is brought to a closure by a feel good explanation that is 
 claimed to be final and absolute. 


Date:  Sat May 11, 2002  1:13 pm
Subject:  [aalaap] Faith, Philosophy & Dogma

[..]
�
1.�FAITH:��A�PERSONAL�belief�in�an�object�(tangible�or�not)�that�is�not�
����verified�and�supported�by�logic�and�evidence.�Some�personal�beliefs
����may�even�CONTRADICT�the�strict�rules�of�logic��(The�classic�example�
����of�an�omnipoetemt,�omniscient,omnibenevolent�being).�An�important
����attribute�of�faith�is�that�it�does�not��require��the�participation�
����of�others�to�form�the�faith,�it�is�non-intrusive.��Faith�of�"A"��
����does�not��require�any�act�or�thought�by�"B".��Another�important�
����attribute�that�follows�from�the�preceding�attribute��is��that�faith�
����is�harmless,�since��the�faith�of�"A"�does�not�in��any�way�affect�
����"B".�
�
����Examples�of�Faith:
����Faith�in�Pegasus,�Santa�Claus,�round�square,�reincarnation,�An
����omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent�GOD�etc.
�
2.��PHILOSOPHY:��A�PERSONAL��view�about�reality��that�may�or�may
�����not�be�logically�and��observationally�verified��or�supported,��BUT�
�����unlike�faith,�does�not�CONTRADICT�logic��or�observation.�
����
�����Example:
�
�����Spinozza's�nature�God,�Pantheism,�Omega�Point�Theory,�Process�
�����theology,�Socinism�,�platonism,�humanism,�atheism/agnosticism�
�����(however�defined),�humanism,�secularism,�rationalism,�skepticism..
�
������Note:�Philosophy�shares�the�attribute�of�non-intrusiveness��(does�
������not�affect�or��require��participation�of�others�)�and��
������harmlessness�of�faith�as�well.�
�
3.��DOGMA:��A�SYSTEM�of�view,�belief�that�are�also�not�based�on
�����logic,�or�supported�by�observations,�but�DOES�require�a�collective-
��������
�����participation�of��more�than�one�for�its�materialization.�Hence�if�
�����the��belief�is�not�shared�voluntarily,�the��participation�will��
�����necessarily�involve�coercion,�to�implement�the��system�in�practice.
�����So�exercize�of�power�is�an�important�factor�in�a�dogmatic�belief.
���������A�dogma�always�invariably�prescribes�a�set�of�rules�and�
�����conducts��for�its��believers��(often�discriminating�between�
�����genders)�as�well�as�for�the�non-believers.��A�dogma�necessarily�
�����infringes�on�other's�individual�rights��and�works��by�intimidation�
�����and�coercion�.�Thus�dogmas��can�be�potentially�harmful�IF��the�
�����dogma�is�implemented�puritanically�with�zeal�and��vigour.��
�����Examples��are�the�dogmatic�part�of�(i.e�the�political��part)�of�
�����Judaism,�Islam,�Chrsitianity,�Communism,�various�cults�.�
�
A�SIDENOTE:�Often�the�issue�of�what�is�freethinker�(Mukto-Chintuk)
is�raised�and��cynical�remarks��are�made.�Let�me�offer�my�own�
definition�(At�least��how�I�think�it�should�be�defined)�in�then�light�
of�the�above�discussion�that�will�hopefully�put�the�debate�to�rest,�and�
will�unambiguously�identifiy�who�is�or�isn't�a�freethinker,�no�need�of
any�debate:
�
A�Freethinker�is:
�������
������1.��One�who�does�not��believe�in�a�faith��or�a�dogma.�
������2.��One�who�is�guided�by�logic��and��evidence,��not�by�
������������emotion�in��forming�any��conclusive�judgement�
������������about�reality.
�����������
Note:�A�freethinker�can��however,��believe�in�a�philosophy,�
������������since��philosophy�does�not�contradict�logic�or�evidence
������������and�does�not�require��a�conclusive�judgement.
�
Followup�Discussion:
Faith�and�Philosophy�can�sometimes�be�combined,�e.g�Buddhism,
Hinduism.�Some�organized�religion�can�contain�elements�of�all�three,
like�the�three�Abrahamic�religions.��A�system�of�belief��based�on
dogma��is�not�necessarily�harmless,�despite�the�presence�of�the
faith�and�philosophy�part�in�it.��It�may�or�may�not�be�dangerous
depending�on�how�puritanically�the�dogma�part�is�enforced�or
implemented.��A�system�of�belief�that�does�not�contain�dogma�is
not�dangerous��per�se.��A�follower�or�a�group�of�followers�may
subscribe�to�both�a�dogma��"A"��and�a�philosophy�"B",�for�example,
A=communism,��B=athesim.�The�classic�fallacy�among�many,�as�the
quote�below�from�that�article�demonstrates,�is�to�characterize�the
acts�of�extremism�of�such�a�person�committed�in�the�name�of�"A"�,�
as�being�due�to�"B":
�
������"genocides�have�occurred�for�causes�rooted�in�religion
�������as�well�as�in�other�philosophies,�including�atheism"
�
This�fallacy�is�often�due�a�deliberate�attempt�to�discredit�atheists,
in�defense�of�the�theists.�And�the�defense�of�the�theists,�as�I
can�understand�from�the�article�is�due�to�an�"empathy"�for
the�theists,�as�they�are�viewed�as�the�victims,�whom�the�tyrant
atheists�are�supposedly�attempting�to�rob�of�their�only�pain�
management�tool�(Read�"belief�in�God")�by�trying�to�debunk
the�notion�of�God!.�And�the�atheists�hardly�deserve�any�empathy
in�the�face�of�the�harshest�personal�attack�(being�declared
Immoral,�inhuman�etc),�and�intimidations�by�the�theists.�I�can't
see�how�an�atheist�can�ever�hurt�a�theist�by�trying�to�logically
refute�theism.�Since�theism�requires�a�faith,�how�can�logic�affect
faith?�So�this�empathy�to�me�is�misdirected.�Whether�or�not
atheism�is�a�less�logical�tenable�notion�than�agnosticism�is�an
altogether�different�question.�But�I�see�no�reason�to�imagine�a
paranoid�state�of�theists�caused�by�atheists�and�to�feel�empathy
out�of�that�imagined�paranoia.
 
Anyway,�continuing�on.�
 
Stalin�did�not�commit�atrocities�in�the�name�of�"atheism",�but�in�the�
name�of�communist�dogma�(Or�his�version�of�it�:�"Stalinism").�One�can�
never�commit�atrocities�in�the�name�of�atheism.��Betrand�Russell�was�
an�avowed�atheist.�He�could�not�have�any�committed�any�atrocities,�no�
matter�how�hard�he�tried,�in�the�name�of�atheism,�SINCE�HE�DID�NOT�
BELIEVE�IN��ANY�DOGMA.��No�one�can�come�up�with�any�example�of�
anyone�committing�atrocities�solely�because�of�atheism.�All�attrocities
are�committed�by�theocratic�or�communist�regimes�,�to�enforce�their
dogma�by�coercion,�or�by�an�oligarchy�(military�or��otherwise)�to�
crush�any�opposition�to�its�rule.�
�
One�can�now�see�the�flaw�in�the�remarks:
�����"The�alleged�dangers�from�religion�are�not�much�different�
������from�the��dangers�from�believing�in�ANY�philosophy�the
������defense�of�which�would��justify�murder�and�other�atrocities."�
�����
As�I�clarified�above,�a�Philosophy�CANNOT/DOES�not�require�or�
justify�murderand�other�atrocities��for�its�defense.��Only�a�dogma
does.
�
The�same�flaw�can�be�seen�in�the�remarks:
�����"I'd�much�rather�enjoy�the�rule�[the�moderate�ones�who�
�����make�up�the�bulk�of�"humanity"]�while�remain�alert�about�
�����the�dangers�that�the�exceptions�on�either�side�might�be
�����capable�of�brewing,�and�flinging."
�
The�flawed�part�in�the�above�is�:�"dangers�on�either�side".�As�I�have
argued�above,�danger�is�only�posed��by�one�side:��The�DOGMA�side.�
NOT�faith�or��philosophy�side.
�
Aparthib



Date:  Mon Jun 25, 2001  2:53 am
Subject:  For Mr. Mab, Re: Islam


Dear Mr. Mab,
   Your attempt to validate faith with logic reminds me of the famous
   quote of  Wittgenstein : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one
   must remain silent" ,  referring to the impossibility of mixing
   logic and  faith. I must congratulate you for your Quixotic effort
   to validate faith with logic,  an ambitious project  that  so many
   undaunted  souls  tried  for centuries in  history but failed, and
   is  not even attempted  anymore in any cirlce with minimum
   intellectual integrity for fear of looking ridiculous. There is
   nothing wrong or  laughable about claiming to have faith that one
   cannot  prove by logic. But claiming to to be able to  logically
   prove one's faith is an invitation to embarrassment.  Maybe  you
   need to review the very notion of logic before even trying to
   attempt to prove your belief logically to a non-believer (
   believers don't need a logical proof to believe. They invent the
   proof after believing , like you are doing without admitting or
   realizing it).  A logic, by definition  is such that if applied
   correctly, ANYONE (irrespective of race/religion/tastes) would be
   convinced of it and accept the conclusion based on it.  Scientific
   principles, mathematical theorems,  engineering rules etc are all
   based on logic, anyone who can think logically from any religion/
   race/personal taste, therfore agree to it.  If faith could be
   similiarly proved using correct logic,  it would not  be even
   considered faith anymore.  Don't you think  that if your logic was
   correct,  then all the topmost philosophers/sceintists  would be
   convinced  and become instant believers? I invite you to circulate
   your logic wordlwide and see how many get convinced. It is a no
   brainer that faith and logic are incompatible, or else faith would
   not be a faith, it would be an objective truth. I don't want to
   repeat why I am not convinced by your logic (I am sure many will
   not be) but I am assuming  the purpose of your continuing to
   engage in this debate is to convince us that you logic is right. I
   am convinced that I cannot convince you that your faith is not
   provable by logic or that your faith is inconsistent with logic
   but I have to respond to you as there are other readers who  are
   neither a  very convinced believer like you nor logical skepticist
   like me  but in between and they are prone to be misled. So I have
   to point out your logical loopholes. I  hope you don't take that
   personally (And I understand you are not which I  appreciate). I
   am aware that you may argue that you are proving your faith by
   logic but trying to make your faith look probable by using logic.
   Fine. But that hardly makes it a convincing argument for others to
   believe.  Probability argument is like beauty. Its in the eye of
   the beholder. It is in the mind of the believer. It is subjective.
   Subjectivity and logic are incompatible. As I pointed out,  there
   are similar or more convincing  subjective arguments in favour of
   other religious dogmas, cults. I provided  9 specifc examples  (
   Dogan people of Mali is an excellent example).  Even granting that
   the prophet  was not lying, believing in God and the entire
   foundation of religion is still a faith, because just because one
   person undergoes a "miraculous" experience and  provides his own
   interpretation to it (God exists and talked to him etc) does not
   by itself provide a convincing logic for the rest of  humanity. It
   still would be a leap of faith by others who accept such an
   interpretation of his experience.  As I also pointed out there are
   convincing accounts of  many credible humans about their
   experiences. But nobody accepst them as absolute truth do they?
   God is a concept that can never be verified objectively. Its
   beyond any logic or test. .  You made the remark cavalierly "I
   BELIEVE that they are all the same God. I also  believe in  the
   authenticity of Moses  and Jesus .."  without realizing the
   implications. If  the same God was behind all the religions then
   one could follow any one of the  three religions without being an
   apostate. Such is not the case. You cannot convert  into
   christianity ans still be acceptable as a  Muslim. Besides God has
   said in Quran  that only Islam is  acceptable,  if you believe in
   the Quran.
   
   You also said: (I quote):

>
>  "Yes, I would certainly be impressed. I would even want to know more 
>  about the scientific facts  mentioned in their scriptures and would
> TRY to 
>   discover how they came to know about such scientific truths."

  Well,  do you realize you have bertrayed your truth of  "faith
  first, logic later" ?:) I am sure you would be impressed and
  certainly I gave you many impressive examples of other
  religions  being "validated" by science, but you will not
  become a believer will you? If logic was the sole reason, then
  you had  to be  convinced by all of them, they all the same
  quality of  logic (poor), but you are  allowing only the
  Islamic logic to shape your  belief (hence belief first, logic
  later), letting other logics only impress but  not convince you.
  Besdies, the reasons you provided for belief (That there is no
  reason for him to lie, so he was speaking  the truth) can be
  equally applicable to many humans, not even (preachers). So
  they all  have to be right by that crietrion. Similarly all the
  criteria you provided  can be apllicable to all the religions.

  In conclusion let me pose this simple question to you.  Can you
  make a checklist of some objective conditions  that have to be
  fulfilled to  convince you that your faith is not logically
  justified?  (If you can find logical  reasons to believe,  sure
  you can think of logical reasons not to believe also).  You
  will see that you cannot think of  any conditions other than 
  "non-fulfilment of the  conditions that led to your belief". So
  nothing can  convince you to the  contrary, because you have
  already accepted  those conditions as absolute  truths . That
  is the basis of all  faith.  Thanks for your reply. 
Aparthib