mails1a.html
From me Fri 25 Aug 2000 13:56:00 -0700
Subject: E1: ON RELIGION ETC
E1. ON RELIGION ETC:
---------------
1. To L. On Sufism, fundamentalism etc
Sufism is not orthodox Islam and most Islamic purists don't like Sufism and they are
harassed in Muslim countries. I guess maybe its because Sufism is very mild and
emphasizes love and union with God instead of Punishments and chauvinistic Islamic
nationalism, obsessions with cutting hands and feet for adultery etc which most male
Islamic biggots are preoccupied with. Just my views, not to offend anyone.
My interest in religion and spirituality comes from my desire to understand life in
general. And since religion occupies such an important role in human I am curious to
understand why. I read the Koran, Bible, Gita and now I am reading books that deal with
paranormal behaviour, Psychics, ESP, Life after death, Soul, Mind etc and what New
physics (Quantum Theory and relativity) has to say on these. You can get some idea on
these in the links under "Philosophy" under my hobbies and interests.
[I definitely agree that the fundamentalists act in a way that is forbidden even in the
religion. I can understand more tolerant and reasonable people like you would like to
interpret the religious verses differently so that it appears more acceptable.
Unfortunately that may not be always possible as certain verses clearly says things
that gives lower status to women. For example, Two women witness = One man witness.
Any man can marry upto four women but women have not been given that right. A
woman's inheritance right is less than that of a man. How can you interpret it differently
so that this inequality disappears?]
[Godly people? Who are godly people, those who just practices some rituals prescribed
in ancient books? I think Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan are the godliest people on earth.
They have penetrated the deepest core of nature's secret and is more qualified to even
talk about God than anyone else. So don't subject yourself to this tension by their
invitation. They have their agenda. Each species have an instinct of propagation/
proliferation.]
2. To H.B: on Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi article:
[Thanks for forwarding the article. I did read it with interest. It reinforces my own
assesment of the problem of a deadlock in Islam. Well meaning scholars like Dr. Yusuf
al-Qaradawi are faced with the dilemma of how to deal with the negative references to
Women and other issues in Koran and hadith. They have two choices : 1. Criticise the
Koran and hadith as being wrong/unfair or (2) claim that they have been misinterpreted
by most. You can see that (1) is very risky and will invariably invite death threats (As it
has for so many scholars who paid with their lives for choosing option (1) like Ali
Dashti and host of others over the centuries). Whereas choosing option (2) is much
safer. The interesting thing is although option (2) amounts to denying an unpleasant
truth but it still helps to organize a reform movement without infuriating the majority
whereas choosing option (1) although is honest but it serves no practical purpose as
the consequence is death. As I said, it is clear from reading the Koran and from the
countless criticisms by courageous scholars that there are indeed many negative
references to women and many other issues (like killing idolators etc), calling it a
misinterpretation is a face saving way out of it. It is true that some extreme radical
preach some extra things not mentioned in religion but leaving those extremes aside there
are still enough negative references in religion itself. The fact is most of the people
(including you) have staked their emotions highly by placing a deep and unconditional
faith in religion to fulfil their inner spiritual need/aspirations and to admit a flaw in
the religion/faith itself is emotionally costly to accept and needs strong courage and
conviction to withstand the impact. The natural instinct would be to resort to denial and
shift the blame on people having misinterpreted the religion instead of criticising the
religion itself. That way one doesn't have to face the trauma of disillusionment of the
very faith they have staked their emotions so highly in. The fact is that offering
prayer, devotion, following rituals etc are a form of self hypnosis and are known to
provide comfort/solace to a Muslim woman as much as praying in the temple or performing
Puja (Again devotion like Namaz) does to a Hindu woman or performing the sacred rituals
does to a Christian woman. Being born in a Muslim race a Muslim woman naturally will
perform the Muslim religious rituals to fill their inner need. By admitting the flaws in
Koran and hadith (i.e Prophet) logically renders belief in the religion baseless and thus
leaves no means of satisfying their spiritual need. So to enable them to continue
deriving peace and solace through religious rituals (Praying, fasting, etc) the natural
instinct would be to deny any flaw in the religion and blame it on its interpretation. I
will provide you with all the lists of the negative references later in person or by mail.
3. To ozged on Koran
From me Wed Jun 16 16:25:55 1999
To: [email protected]
>1- Do you believe that Koran is revelation (protected in a
>non-falsified form) as opposed to a man-made book?
>(And, by implication, what does it mean for you?)
>
This is an interesting question that cannot be answered in a simplistic way. Since it
is related to the very issue of the concept of GOD let me first give my own thoughts
on GOD and religion and then go on to address the more specific question.
First let me discuss some generalities. To most the word GOD is a taught one by
hearing/reading from the social/religious background one grows up in. One is
taught usually an anthropomorhic concept of GOD, one who has human like attributes
(Very akin to a father figure), one who observes, judges, punishes/rewards, advises,
warns, talks to human through a holy book supposedly the word of GOD, usually is
attributed a male gender etc etc. In other words, the mind of most people are
invariably implanted with man made concepts of GOD without his/her conscious choice
or will. So the very question "Do you believe in GOD?" or "What is your concept of
GO?" presupposes the hearing/acceptance of GOD as is described/defined by the
followers of some religion that one is born/brought up in. Now it is theorectically
possible to pretend that one was never told about GOD by any human and left to his/her
own devices while still leading life as usual. How would that person think/belief
or develop a belief system? I take this stand vis a vis questiuons on spirituality.
To me a belief has to be totally from within one's own inner experience or intuition
or observation and should not be based on concepts and ideas which are hearsay or
are implanted by other human. There is nothing in my personal
experience/intuition/observation that *naturally* leads me to any of the GODS described
or defined in the existing religions. The profound question "Where does the universe
come from and why does it exist?. Where do we come from and why were we created?" is
an eternal question and will remain a mystery that propels a human for ever in quest of
truth. To abruptly end that mystery with a blind declaration like "It is because *GOD*
made it that way according to the *holy book*" is a circular statement adding no
substance in the quest for an answer to the mystery and leaves no room for any drive
for the answer to this profound question. The traditional arrival at the concept of
a GOD through the logical need of a creator of everything is a construct of
superficial logic. The word "creator" invariably implies an entity limited in space and
time and establishes a linear chain like relation in time and space also
(creator->creation) and would thus need its own creator and thus would lead to an
infinite regress and end up in a deadlock. So the word creator is a flawed attempt
to answer the the fundamental question of the existence of the Universe and us. A
close approximation to this question is an abstract view that nature with all the
natural laws (known and potentially unknown ones) itself is at the very root and all
we see and perceive and will ever happen is the result of these natural laws at work.
i.e there is no beginining or end but continuous change or evolution with the
possibility of cyclical patterns. As far as the fundamental question it would be too
naive to assume that ONE INDIVIDUAL will ever figure out the mystery in all its
entirety. The process of searching for the answer to this eternal question is bound
to be an incremental one through collective attempt of many human souls over different
generations with each new generations inheriting the insight of its previous generation
and passing it to the next in a value added way and the human species as whole getting
closer and closer to the truth but will still never be quite done! A simple example may
illustrate the basic idea. A single person may never posses the knowledge/sectret of
how to build a complete Super Computer/Boeing 747/Stealth Fighter/ etc starting from
scratch (soil/minerals/water/trees etc). But the combined brains of many hundred human
pooled together and tapping on the accrued knowledge over the centuries can indeed
accomplish the task from scratch. So the knowledge to understand the basic mystery of
life and universe will have to be ultimately a collective knowledge. Again an example
may help to illustrate the idea. It is like the human pattern formation by large number
of people in an athletic field. Each person is aligning him/herself in a certain way
so that a general pattern is formed as observed by a spectator high above. But imagine
there is no spectator. Everybody is part of the pattern. So nobody actually sees
the pattern but together they are indeed producing a known pattern. The ultimate
knowledge/truth may possibly be like such a pattern, which no one person individually
can see but can be arrived at in a collective/global sense. That is not to say
that all human have equal insight or knowledge. Certainly not. It is the natural
scientists who are the top of the food chain of spiritual knowledge (With of course
division of knowledge among them) followed by others in various disciplines.
Now after the above background, I can only state that if it comes to a "dogmatic"
belief of one of the religions then I don't "believe" in any one of them. The closest to
what I can call as my belief is a tentative belief that there possibly exists a set
of laws in nature (Some of which are already known to us, the rest unknown. We may
never discover them) that totally governs the behaviour/evolution of both animate and
inanimate objects. In this broad concept everything that we experience (Including
love, hatred, suffering, happiness, right and wrong, the possibility of apparitions
and psychic/occult phenomena etc) is only a natural manifestation of these underlying
laws at work. This belief in no way implies the belief that we should be fatalist
and be totally resigned and passive as we are just being governed by these natural laws
,so why defend against crime or do anything right? In fact the natural laws itself
through its workings drive us to these instincts in a statistical level. One
isolated individual may suddenly realize that its all futile and decide to be totally
resigned to fate and bring his/her life to a halt. The natural laws can allow such
deviations on a smaller scale but not on a larger scale. We will never see all of
humanity deciding to stop functioning in consort. In a similar way individual humans
can persih prematurely but human race as a whole can be alive and well and flourishing.
It will always be true that the natural laws are highly coupled system where the laws
are constantly requiring certain actions/inputs from the elements of nature (humans etc)
on an aggregate/grand scale to make the laws self consistent and work its way.
Regarding my views on other's belief/views on GOD I find the Omega Point approach to
"God" by Frank Tipler most interesting. It certainly seems most plausible among all
the existing concepts. Einstein's inclination of a Spinozza's concept of God as
being nature is also quite sensible to me. In fact what I have said above is in line
with Einstein's and Tipler's concept (Tipler's being a very sophisticated one requring
incredible depth of understanding of natural laws and human knowledge as a whole).
Now getting back to your question, it is clear that there are three steps to answering
this question (i.e if Koran was inspired/written/created by "GOD" or by humans), viz,
(1) Define GOD is a satisfactory way and then prove its existence. (2) Determine its
nature (i.e anthropomorphic or natural), (3) Then determine if Koran was written by
GOD as defined in (1) and (2). Obviously for (3) to be true then GOD has to be
anthropomorphic. Now it is clear that GOD as defined in (1) and (2) may be common
to more than one religion (e.g Islam ,Christianity, Judaism). But (3) applies to Islam
only, i.e to a Christian or Jew (3) is false. So believing in GOD alone doesn't imply
believing that "Koran" was written/inspired/created by GOD.
Keeping the above perspective in mind I must state that humility demands that I don't
claim to any knowledge (belief is a claim to a knowledge based on intuition/wishful
desire) of which I have no objective way of arriving at. So it would be audacious for
me to claim to believe one way or the other in regard to your question, because I have
no way of verifying it. I can only state without doubt that the existence of Koran (in
the form of a book) has been introduced to me through humans. I have read the Koran
(Translations by Dawood, Yusuf Ali Pickthall & Shakir) I have no way of even guessing
that it was made/written by a divine source. It could be but since I have not seen any
objective indication I am unable to make that extraordinary assumption. I also think it
is possible that humans made/wrote it, but that also I cannot verify since I have no
recourse to the entire objective history/knowledge of the last 2000 years or so to
track its evolution. Since it is not essential that I strongly believe in one or the
other I take an open position on it and hope to at best incrementally gain better
insight as to its origin. As a life long student of Life and the Universe I have no
problem reconciling with the fact that not all truths will be known to me in my entire
life time, but always trying to get closer to it is itself a truly spiritually
fulfilling endevour. I have discussed my views on related issues of religion, god and
spirituality in my views of life, that may explain in more detail my position on this.
I hope you have read article F8 on religion, belief etc in my views on the web for soem
additional thoughts on this and now have a clear picture of where I stand on this
issue. Thanks for bearing with me so far.
From me Tue Mar 31 14:15 PST 1998
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: M7. Mail To O.B on Cursing
Mail To O.B on Cursing
Dear O.B,
Thank you for the lunch today. I enjoyed talking to with you on the topic of
discussion relating to religion/values etc. Please know that my sole intention is to
understand the depth of issues and gain insight by asking your opinions and views and
the reason for those views. The intent is not hurting or insulting you or anyone's
belief. Agreeing to disagree after a debate and not getting personal or losing one's
balance is the basic principle I follow while arguing or debating. The outcome of
this kind of debate/discourse is always a greater insight for both no matter if their
is an agreement or not. I appreciate your willingness to discuss beliefs and
religion. I wish to follow up and continue this with you if you dont mind. Several
points came to my mind after our discussion. First, you commented about Sura Lahab
and said you were satisfied with the explanation that since God knows who is bad he
can curse him and its valid. Now think of this. Remember how annoyed you felt when
some Bangladeshis always criticized BD. and you felt that its very negative to
criiticize and one should solve the problem and not criticize. Now those
Bangladeshis are mortal humans far from perfection. But God by definition is PERFECT.
Being perfect is it appropriate to CURSE a human being (who is after all God's
creation). Could God not prevent (since he's almighty) that person from doing wrong
instead of cursing him after he committed the wrong? Please think about when you
have time and comment on it. I have some more thought on "Choice vs. Free will" as
we wre discussing but will talk about it later after your response.
O.B Replied:
-----------------
cosmic thinker:
Your comment:
"Could God not prevent (since he's almighty) that person from doing wrong instead of
cursing him after he committed the wrong?"
Yes, God can prevent a person from wrong doing. But than he did not need to give human
any intelligence. God has given human the information of right and wrong, intelligence
to understand the difference, and freedom to choose right or wrong. Extending your
argument, God could have given us food and feed us. Than why do we need to work so
hard to earn food. God could have cured us from all the diseases, than why do we need
to do so much research to find cures for diseases, etc. etc.
Thanks,
O.B
===================================================
Thanks for your response. I understand your point. You have described the way things
are (i,e God has left it up to human to decide to do wrong or right and then punish
them if they do wrong etc) but not WHY they are that way. My concern/question (still
not answered) really was WHY did God CURSE a human for its mistake? What is being
achieved or solved by cursing?. Is cursing a human being (An insignificant creature of
GOD) by the Almighty and perfect GOD appropriate? If so , why or what is the real
usefulness or morale behind it? I hope now you see the focus of my discussion. Will
appreciate your thoughts on this.
Thanks
************************************************************
Mails to Dr. M.F.
*************************************************************
Dear Dr. M.F.,
Thanks for your positive remarks. yes, indeed I also strongly believe in
Hindu Muslim amity. To make tangible progress in this regard I believe it
is very important that instead of always criticizing the other religion and
boasting about the superiority of one's own, we should all instead talk
about the equality of the two religions and emphasize harmony. Of course an
invalid criticism of one religion can be in good conscience be refuted with a
counter argument. And if that defense comes from somewone from the offending
side all the better. Also it is important that one also criticizes the wrong
done by members of one's own religion and come to the defense of the other
when justice demands. This is the best way of winning credibility and can do
magic in breaking the endless cycle of attack/counterattack, defense/counter
defense etc. If any Islamic party ever brought out a procession condemning the
burning of Hindu temple or persecution of Hindus and call for the punishment
of the culprits, that would have gone along way in healing the centuries old
acrimony between the two. Of course this has to be reciprocal process.
In this context I want to add that I was very encouraged by a recent post of
Zafar Sadique in eshomabesh appealing to contribute to IMRC for helping the
flood victims in India until I read the concluding part and felt sad that a
golden opportunity for the healing process was missed again. I am referring
to the statement "A DESTROYED MASJID/MAKTAB CAN BE REBUILT
WITH $500". If only it was changed to MASJID/MAKTAB/MANDIR/ it could
have gained a substantial mileage in the quest for religious harmony(sigh). Was it
that hard to do? But I do appreciate your good will and hope we can at least
keep the spirit of this noble wish in our heart and do whatever we can
whenever the opportunity arises. Thanks for your input.
Best wishes,
cosmic thinker
P.S. The name Dr. Biswas doesn't ring the bell.
******************************************************************
From me Wed Nov 10 13:04:51 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: On communal harmony
Dear Dr. M.F.,
I am pleased to get some more of your considered thoughts. I am glad
to be able to share my insights with you. lets continue-
>
>I am not sure that believers of any religion would truly equate their own
>faith/religion to others. Nor might it be necessary. As long as we DO NOT
>demean others or others' faith/religion, display by our words or deeds
>prejudice/hatred against others or others' faith/religion, nurture mutual
>respect, seek harmony and cooperation, and also foster common bond against
>injustice, wrong, and oppression in an universal sense. Would this not still
>be an ADEQUATE basis for positive and better relationship? It can and should
>also apply to religion-followers and SHs to as much we can identify as
maybe the word "equal/equate" is the problem here. I obviously implied
it in equal rights/status sense (What other sense can it be used in?).
So the statement "believers of any religion would not truly equate their
own faith/religion to others" is really not a meaningful one since
equating two religions can never make sense in the way 2*3=6 does etc.
Neither did I imply equality = identity. An apple is not an orange so
Islam is not Hinduism. These are tautological statements. So yes
religions can be DIFFERENT yet should be EQUAL (in stature/rights/priviledges)
in a society of communal harmony. Equality of religions can only be used
in the sense of equality of rights and priviledges and refraining from
claiming a superiority of one over another. These are the the very basic
premise of communal harmony. You cannot tell a Hindu "Islam is superior
to Hinduism" and then extend a hand of harmony. Its taking back what is
being given by the other. That does not in any way prevent anyone from
believing in his/her heart that his/her religion is superior to the
other. Personal thoughts are like private property. It can only be kept
inside one's heart or shared with like minded. But it cannot be translated
into an official dogma or a social agenda. It is not at all impossible to
follow the principle of equality as it does not interfere in the peaceful
practice and preaching of all religion (As guaranteed by constitution).
Just because the of followers of Islam far outnumber the followers of
Hinduism/Buddhism etc does not mean one should announce in public that we
outnumber you. Judged in isolation thats a tautological statement (saying
that 5 is bigger than 3 etc). But beyond the tautology saying so in public
gives a wrong signal to the minority and hence will hamper a sincere quest
of communal harmony. I believe the insertion of "Islam as the State religion
of Bangldesh" did (and will) damage the effort to bring harmony. It was
not necessary. Islam will not be at threat nor would any Islamic practices
be hampered (It never was before this insertion) without this article, but
by not including it we could have gained extra credibility/legitimacy in
approaching other religions for communal harmony. Here in USA majority are
Christians, but their constitution never states that Christianity is the
State religion (In God we trust applies to ANY religion, so it is
still non-preferential). But still christianity can and does flourish here
without any hindrance. In our constitution there is an article "Faith in
almighty Allah shall be the guide". That is still OK as it does not really
place one religion over another in a formal way (Allah can be used in
metaphorical sense for GOD/VAGABAN etc). Please look at my views from a
Principled (i.e logical/consistent/fair) approach. For a moment think of
yourself as a human before Muslim. (Nazrul actually did that. He can be
very aptly labelled a secular humanist). Secular humanism is not a creed/cult
belief etc. Its (at least to me) just a principle of equality (with the above
clarification) and respect for all religion/faith, against: forcible
preaching, persecution,violation of individual rights, and the right to not
believe/practice any religion, all of which Nazrul would have advocted).
I can't see why a religious believer can object to such a principled
definition of secular humanism. A certain secular humanist may indulge in
sarcastic remarks/writings (Not as an argument in a debate, or as a reaction
to another such remark against his/her views, but purely as an intentional
act without any context), that just shows the bad taste and mentality of
that particular individual, it DOES NOT make the principle of secular
humanism invalid, in the same way that the acts of a religious terrorist
should not nullify an entire religion. Hope I made it clear enough.
>
>One other thing. Let's say the world consists of only you and me. Based on
>what I have already written, articulated, and conveyed on Alochona and
>Shomabesh (and you also know my background and perspective and which I am
>sure should not be expected that I will give up), what are some of the areas
>you can suggest toward which we can make common effort?
Well, its a scenario of very broad implications, not just religion. With two
people its not a society and it will really be a matter of survival :)
But if you are really wondering about what a SH and NSH (like you and me)
can do to contribute to religious harmony in our society then I think we have
both articulated it through our exchanges (including this one). I will just add
some more now. I have noticed in my 20 or so years of my stay here that in most
cities the Hindu and Muslim Bengali community do not take any effort to join
in each other's religious festivity. If each participated (not in the ritual
sense. Just attending) in each other's religious festivities then that sure
would have contributed a great deal of trust and respect for each other and
would go a long way towards harmony. Of course this trend has to be followed
back home too (more so). Another point (consistent with my above writings) is
that no promotion by the participants/organizers of any particular religious
belief be done in a neutral event like Nazrul/Tagore anniversaries, New year
festivities etc. The value of religion (Not its superiority) can certainly
be preached in a religious event like Eid, Milads, Pujas etc. I think these
are fair guidelines and can/should constitute the effective premises for a
genuine and sincere effort towards communal harmony.
I just wanted to express my passionate views more clearly without intending
a bit to offend you. I hope you will understand it. I appreciate your
interest in discussing with me this issue of vital significance.
Best regards,
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Mon Nov 15 14:34:12 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: My feedback
Dear Dr. M.F.,
I have gone over your two web articles you listed in your last email. I hope you have
already read carefully my opinions articulated in my last email. Much of my comments
are already included in that email, so I will try not to repeat them here. First let
me focus on your first article viz
1.Fundamental Challenges Facing the Muslims: a concept paper
The basic goals you are listing there are not at all different from what any secular
person would say. Basically all of your cherished objectives are indistinguishable
from existing framework of secular democracy of Bangladesh or the West. These are all
ideal goals of humanity. There is no goal in your list that is also not a goal of
secular democracy and society. All you are adding is the word "Islam" before every
goal. You are quite liberal and progressive in your goals. Many orthodox Muslims may
find it unacceptable. Other orthodox Muslims will probably accept it because of the
very inclusion of Islam as the sole motive for aiming for this goal. My stand here
will be again why bring in religion where the goals are already embedded in the
present socio-political framework and is agreed to by all, religious or not. All we
need is effective implementation. If other democracies can implement it (if not 100%,
but at least better than us) then why not work towards the elimination of the barriers
to its implementation.? If we have to depend on religion then we are revealing some
weakness that others don't have and for which we have to cling to this dependency. A
worthwhile goal is by itself worthy of a sincere pursuit, not BECAUSE of religion. I
am sure it is possible to achieve the secular goals you have listed by a bold and
inspired leadership (History abounds with examples). Besides as I emphasized before
bringing in religion in the pursuit of general human goals brings with it an extra
baggage of damaging the credibility of a sincere effort to bring about religious
harmony. I still don't see why this insecurity among so many Muslims in approaching
matters in a secular way. Islam is in no way affected by neutrality in state and
social affairs. None of the four pillars of Islam viz, (1) faith (2) Namaz (3) Roza
(Hajj) and (4) Jakaat are in any way diminished/threatened by secular state policies.
In your article you have indicated that there was/is no Muslim country, which was
ideal by your criterion after prophet Muhammad's death. So if in 1500 years, if it
did not happen, that tells us how non-persuasive the Islamic method of pursuing
secular humanistic objectives are. Basically it is not due to not following religion,
but due to not cultivating a culture of tolerance, respect for law, bad politics, not
keeping up with modern science and technology, not enforcing accountability and
honesty in personal and state matters. You would say that only through Islamic
teaching these can be cultivated. My point is it is not true, as the examples of
advanced countries and even many third world emerging countries (Taiwan Korea,
Singapore etc etc I can list many more) show. They don't mention "we should do
this/that because it is said so in Buddhism/Christaianity/Hinduism/Shamanism etc).
What makes the Muslims so different from other religions (They all have the same
genes) that they HAVE to stipulate all goals on Islam ? I would like to believe we can
do as good as any other and without the extra prop of religion. Needing a prop will
sure reveal a sign of weakness. Of course religion/Islam can still be very importanct
in personal and social life (As is in all countries). But not in an official way. A
honest bold leadership with visions and inspiring qualities, together with a social
change of attitude and reform are needed (Through family teaching, from an inspired
leadership, school and media etc). Basically we need a secular rennaissance in our
society (And other Islamic countries too).
Regarding your second article, which was a compilation of various postings in Alochona
by various authors(you and myself included), I think my posts already reflect my view.
Also my writings in my home page under "Life As I see it" dwells extensively on my
views on religion. I hope you have already gone over them (They are always being
updated though). Also I hope you have read my link on "Mind, Life, Universe and God"
under Philosophy. You are ureged to read all of the contents of that link, but in
particualr the reviews of "Physcis of Immortality". AN interesting review is by Dr.
Sarfaraz Niazi. This will give you a glimpse of how complex and varied the meaning of
God has become in view of modern Cosmology and Physics, since the process theology of
teillard De Chardin, Whitehead and Spinozza. It is not fair anymore to dimiss any pure
scientist/humanist not believing in any traditional religions
(Judaism/Islam/Christianity) as "aethist".
Hope to get your valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] 21 Nov 1999 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: resp to Altway on God
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Altway 2) wrote:
>[..]
> God exists for the normal man who is not spiritually blind. There are thousands
> of them, if not millions.
First, I don't think that was naive at all but was very well said.
Whether one is spiritually blind (Whatever that means) cannot be
objectively decided. The expression above : "God exists for.." already
shows the relativity of the concept of God. It exists in the mind of
the believer as a personal perception of truth, not THE truth. The
affirmation of the existence of GOD or the lack of it, is not amenable
to scientific analysis since it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable,
so it can never be elevated to an objective truth. But if Occam's
razor is any guide then it is almost certain that the personal GOD of
the three revealed religion portrayed as all compassionate, all
powerful, etc does not exist in that form. Although a supreme but
abstract deity as a first efficient cause of the universe, or a
naturalistic God of a process theology can still be postulated without
violating rational thinking, like Einstein did. Or if you push the
envelop of Physics a purely natural GOD (satisfying the condition of
omniscience/omnipotence) created by the laws of physics at the end of
time (Omega Point) is also plausible (Read The Physics of Immortality
by Frank Tipler. See a review of it at http://niazi.com/resurrec.htm)
Then it is also possible that the very concept of GOD is genetically
programmed in the mind of human species. Thats why so many humans
instinctively believe in it without thinking critically about it,
(besdies the very plausible reason of wishing for immortality)
Reading the book "The God part of the brain" by Matthew Alper (see the
review at http://www.godpart.com ) will certainly convince this point
to anyone who thinks critically.
Or for a more comprehensive and illuminating debate on the existence
on GOD than here check out the following sites:
1. http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/shb/haught_08_96.html
(Does God exist?)
2. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/
(Debate on GOD)
3. http://www.metaphysics.freeserve.co.uk (click on Debate on God.html)
> What do you mean by metaphysical light?
> Light is a symbol for a certain experience - inner illumination, inspiration,
> enlightenment, sudden realisation and understanding what you did not understand
> before.
Again the problem with the above ostentatious terms is that they all
reduce to subjective claims of individuals. For each subjective claim
ther can be an equally justified subjective counterclaim. Anyone can
say I understand, you don't etc etc. Who is to settle that? By what
criterin? Thats why all these so called "inner illuminations" etc be
best left as personal perceptions that can neither proved or
disproved.
> Most people have had experiences of this kind.
> It is connected with ideas or data of experience which were separate falling
> into a self-consistent unified pattern or system which gives them meaning.
Most people having had experiences of this kind doesn't prove it is an
objective truth anymore than the reported alien abductions/sigtings by
thousands of people make it true. Nobody can deny the genuineness of
the experiences. But to take a quantum leap and start preaching those
expereinces as the absolute truth about reality cannot be beyond
debate.
>
> However. If you do not have such experiences and cannot understand it, then the
> ideas are useless to you anyway. Do not worry about them.
Exactly. Thats the whole point of religious claims. They cannot be
useful to all because they are subjective beliefs and not all can be
expected to believe in others' subjective beliefs. The problem arises
as most who do have religious beliefs try to rationalize it and
belittle the non-believers and sometimes attempting to impose those
beliefs on them forcing the non-believers to argue back with hard cold
logic.
From [email protected] 17 Oct 2000 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Muslim behavier towards non believers
Date: 17 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
TRUE: "It's some extermists who do something evil"
NOT TRUE: "and we all are labled as extremists"
The fact is that in no other religion religious extremists are so
lenientlytreated by the majority than in Muslim nations. And its this
lack of condemnation (strongly) by the majority and sometimes the
defensive attitude taken by them towrds them that bothers other
nations/religions. They are well aware that not all Muslims are
extremists, This fact is emphasized by media in all such reporting of
extreme acts. But no Muslim nation has ever set an example of punishing
and holding any extremist accountable. Oklahoma bomber was not condoned
by the US society/government and was arrested and punished. Once the
majority starts to take a strener stance against the minority extremists
Muslims would be viewd no differently from any other religion as far
extremism is concerned.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Sherif911) wrote:
> In general muslims abide by laws too. It's some extermists who do something
> evil and we all are labled as extremists. And this is done in all over the
> "civilized" world. These extremists elements are in all societies. Think of
> Oaklaha bombing, think of Waco, TX. So when we generalize, we all make the
> same mistake.
>
From [email protected] 20 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Babri Masjid and Joseph's Tomb
To Subir, Shomir and Sr. Zaman,
I have been following the excahnge between you three under this thread
and it has turned into a long drawn criticism of Islam and its defense and
sometimes criticism of Dr. Zaman and his defense. I just wanted to
remind all that it need not have gone in that direction. The thread started
with the act of vanadalism of Joseph's Tomb, a despicable act that was also
condmened by Dr. Zaman. Inspite of the common stand against such a
despicable act the three enetered into a polemic on religion (Islam).
As Dr Zaman pointed out, feeling towards religion is like feeling for
wives and children. Ettiquette/decency demands that don't say ugly
truth about them. Upto this point its a valid point. All religions have
revelations, verses that can be refuted and debunked through science and
no logical defense can be given to justify or validate religious belief.
This is true for Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism. So in condemning
acts of vanadalism/barabarism one need not start a critical discussion of
religious beliefs and practices, which are by their very nature rooted
in irrationality and blind faith. To that extent it is personal and
and its useless to try to prove its irrationality. The moot point here,
which is more than personal belief, is the question: how much is religion
repsonsible for the acts of violence and barbarism? Does such acts by
some or many followers of a certain religion imply that the religion
sanctions such acts? If not, does it prohibit such acts? If it
sanctions it then certainly the tenets of that religion should be
questioned and challenged as it affects the lives of others. If it does
prohibit such extreme acts then such acts should be punished according
to the religion.
If they are not punished then it is the fault of the followers, not
the religion (After all, religion itself is an idea, an abstract thing
with no life, like a software, only the followers make it come alive,
like a hardware running the software). Arguments have been made that
because of some controversial verses in Koran, Islam does sanction
killing and violence. Again, it all depends on how it is being
interpreted by the majority. If the consensus is that it does not
sanction violence then any acts of violence will be the responsibility
of the minority extremeists who interpret it differently to suit their
lust for violence. I that case it is the repsonsibility of the majority
to condemn and bring to book the minority extremists. Dr. Zaman obviously
condemns all acts of vanadalism against any religion. So I don't see
any scope of any polemic after this. Religion is by itself is based on
blind irrational faith, there can be and has been philosophical debate
on the validity of revelations by rationalists and apologists and that
can be a legitimate separate thread of discussion elsewhere. The fact
that Shomir, Subir are agnostics and Dr. Zaman is a believer (My assumption)
should by itself not be an issue. In fact there should not be any issue
between an agnostic/aethist "A" born in a religion "X" and another
believer "B" of religion "Y" Issue should arise if "A" and "B" have
contardictory positions on matters on human rights solely due to
religion and if and when "B" defends the acts of extremists of his
religion. As far as a logical discourse on the contradiction between
religious beliefs and science/logic that is fair game for any religion,
because all religions are based on irrational ideas. If religious
faith were kept private and personal, religion should not be an issue
in any acts of barbarism. What should be an issue is whether such
barbarism is being condemend or condoned in the name of religion.
Hope that puts an end to this long drawn polemic.
Subject: Re: Israel, Arabs and bangladesh
Date: 10/21/2000
Logically "its the responsibility of the man of the house to get the bread and
butter" doesn't sound like a "RIGHT" of a woman, rather a PRIVILEDGE.
Granting a priviledge is not equivalent to granting a right (more precisely
equal rights). Slaves and animals are also given priviledges. Its the
responsibility of the master to provide food and shelter for their slaves or
pets. And yes if the master commits a crime the slaves and pets also are not
responsible and don't share in the punishment.
Subject: Re: Israel, Arabs and bangladesh
Date: 10/22/2000
[..]
Now regarding DNA being recent technology, are you saying that God didn't
know that it would be discovered in 1400 years? (a blink in the scale of earth's
history), then why make a revelation that only holds for 1400 years, where
humanity will in all likelihood continue for millions (maybe billions of years).
Or more logically why not make the revelation conditional, like until
1986(When DNA testing would become available) women cannot have 4
husbands, but after that they can. Sure God is omniscient, isn't he? Also
aren't revelations supposed to be timeles? Then why should it be relevant for
some time and not for later times? Points to ponder.
************ Posting on banning Hijab for Tukish women *********************
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Because the modern Turkish nation has rejected something in
> the past, it gives the Turkish MPs the moral authority to flout
> accepted, and *modern,* norms of democracy, freedom of expression
> and tolerance, to trample on anything associated with this
> rejected thing of the past. Nice logic, Mr. Seshadri!
expression here refers to expression of views and ideas as conveyed through words and
scripts, not ACTIONS (including wearing dresses). MORE IMPORTANTLY freedom of
expression applies to public forums and in the privacy of homes, not to specific groups/
organizations etc like companies, restaurants, clubs, assembly or parliamnt houses, as in
this context. (See below for more on this).
>
> A person of your astuteness must know the fundamental paradox
> of democracy: a democracy must allow those who intend to destroy
> democracy the same freedom of expression as allowed anybody else.
Irrelevant. Expression was not the issue. Action (wearing a scarf) is involved here.
Just like admission to restaurants/conferences may require dress code but that does not
restrict any personal belief or religion. Democracy allows public expressiion (verbally
and in script) but need not allow all conceivable public actions, like. Public coition/
defecation is not allowed in any democracy.So there is no paradox. Only private groups
can impose their own resctriction for granting priviledge/special rights. Just like a
mosque in a democratic society may require one not to wear shorts to enter. But that
does not make the society undemocratic.
> If you eliminate this paradox, democracy loses both its rational
> basis and moral legitimacy.
>
> Even if one accepts your questionable assumption that scarf wearers
> are the enemies of liberty, you still have to allow them the same freedom
> as allowed anybody else, *including* the freedom to *advocate* a dress
> code. You certainly have to allow them the freedom to *follow* a
> dress code.
>
You have made a sweeping extrapolation of the concept of "freedom" here.
Even in free society/democracy like here in USA there are restrictions
and dress codes imposed for certain situations/groups etc. Companies have
dress codes, some restaturants have dress code for admission, ome private
schools have enforce uniforms, moderated lists have codes to follow for
posting articles etc. A freedom only applies to a free forum and in one's
home, and need not apply to a priviledge offered by specific groups and
organizations like companies/restaurants/parliamnet/schools etc. These are
all compatible with a free society and democracy. A right is not to be
confused with priviledge. Whereas the right to wear any dress is allowed
in public places and homes it need not be allowed for a priviledged postion
like admission to a restaurant or in this context the assembly house. She
is not being prevented from wearing the scarf at home or to the market or
when visiting her friends place, only in the assembly building.
Response to Article 159 by Sheshadri:
>
> This is known as a 'category error'. When muslims
> stone women to death, they do it as muslims, carrying
> out their religion's commandment to stone women
> to death. If they weren't muslims, they wouldn't be
> stoning. It is their being muslim that causes
> them to stone. Hence 'muslims stone women to death'
> is a correct sentence, with correct connotations.
^^^^^^^
INOCORRECT. dead wrong you are. SOME muslims stone woman
to death is correct. You are making a ctegory error of your
own. Stoning to death is a cultural/traditional trait of
some ethinic Mulsims who have created their own Fatwa. Stoning
to death in never mentioned in Koran. I challenge you to quote
any verse which says so. Only lashing is ordained (for both men
and women) for adultery. But even that is not practiced in
Bangladesh by majority Muslims because that is against the
prevalent culture and values. I am not a fan of any religion. But
lets stay accurate for credibility in the debate. Now let me point
out your category error. What you say about Hinduism is equally
true for Islam and Christianity. It is not because of Islam that
stoning of women occurs. If it was so then stoning of women
would have been common in Bagladesh, Malaysia... where adultery
is not too uncommon. But its not. They will be arrested by police
if anyone does that. Its only done in certain fanatic ethinic
Muslim societies in the some near/middle eastern countries. Same
thing is true for Christianity where medieval church misinterpreted
Bible and burned many innocent women in the name of witchhunting.
Even satidaha is a result of similar distortion of Veda. In Rig veda
it is said that:
"Arohonoto Janayo Janim Agrey" ie. let the mothers be allowed to be
at the front". It was distorted by fanatics to "Arohonoto Janayo
Janim Agni" i.e let the mother go to the fire. So it is by your
definition due to just being Hindu (misinterpreted) that Satidaha
was practiced in the same way that stoning to death has been
fatwaed by the fanatics. To say "ALL Muslims stone women to death"
because of being Muslim is wrong, unconsciounableand Inaccurate
biased. Indeed there are many unacceptable verses and practices
in Islam which are can be legitimately criticized/questioned, but
those practices and beliefs are not folowed by all Muslims around
the world. It will be a crass stereotypoing to conclude that. In
the Clintonesque way I have to say (metaphorically): Its
the culture stupid, not the religion.
>
> To clarify with some examples - it would be wrong
> to say 'christians rape women in New York' instead
> of saying 'men rape women', as if christianity was
> the cause of rape. But it is correct to say 'christians hand
I will quote your own statements from another article and
juxtapose it with the above: (you resolve it):
"Would you have preferred the Christian Way, where
non-christians were either massacred wholesale or
their cultures put down as pagan ?"
The "Christian way" ? Doesn't this imply just being christian
was the cause of this massacre? What a contradiction!
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> You are right there. NOt all muslims get to carry out
> the punishments; only the authorities. I meant it in the
> sense of "Americans raise the prime lending rate" as
> a news headline. This does not mean ALL americans do
> that, only the chairman of the federal bank does. But
> most people get the point.
Trying again. Not ALL Muslim AUTHORITIES carry out stoning of
women. The authorities of Bangladesh and many other Muslim
predominanat countries don't carry out stoning of women. Only
SOME authorities do as you (As you mention Saudi, Afghan, Iran etc)
>
> -Further correction: some Muslims stone both men and women to death.
>
> Agreed. Though how this is a "correction" is not
> clear. Even by your statement, the statement
> "some muslims stone women to death" is not incorrect.
"Some Muslim stone women to death" is subsumed in the statement
"Some Muslims both men and women to death" since the latter statement
implies the former but not vice versa
So Dr. Zaman's statement is not a further "correction" of my statement
but a "further" generalization. So your question to Dr. Zaman is valid.
>
> Now I could give you a canned textbookish answer
> to your question by citing the fact that no scripture
> sanctions widow-burning. But we all know that
> hinduism is not just what is written in scripture;
> it is also the myriads of practices and traditions.
That was my point exactly regarding Islamic practices too.
Islamic customs are not just what is written in scriptures
but myriad other practices and tradition (some disgusting,
like stoning to death etc) which are not practiced everywhere
(even by authorities).
(Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
> Similarly wherever stoning to death is
> practised, it is only because they are muslims.
> No non-muslim practises it. The saudis and the
> afghans and the iranians practise it, and
> they are firmly convinced it is islamic.
>
> RS
Please pay attention to logic here. The expression "only
because" has a very precise connotation. And because of
the connotation it is invaliadating your assertions. If
stoning is practised due to "only because" of being Muslim
then ALL Muslims will do it, and I showed you thats not the
case. The correct statement is Stoning to death is practised
by someone who:
1. Is Muslim AND
2. Who belongs to a culture where it is practised
due to a local adaptation of Islamic law
and who is in power to fatwa and implement it.
(1) and (2) are satisfied in Saudi Arab/Talibanic Afghanistan (Not
in Najibullah's Afghanistan), Iran etc.
So both 1 & 2 have to be satisfied for your statement to
be true. Just 1 is not enough as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Iraq,..
(Iraq is a highly secular country, for which it is hated by
Saudi Arabia) etc demonstrates. In fact condition 1 and 2
above can be applied to Satidaha also by the substitution
Muslim->Hindu (in 1) and Islamic Law->Rig Veda,
adaptation->misinterpretation/distortionin (in 2)
Satidah was practised mostly in Bengal.
(Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
> : The "Christian way" ? Doesn't this imply just being christian
> : was the cause of this massacre? What a contradiction!
>
> I see no contradiction. While men rape women in
> New York without any religion being the cause of it,
> when christians massacred muslims during the
> crusades, it was because they were christians.
> No non-christian ever massacred muslims during the
> crusades. Christians were specifically exhorted
> to kill, in the name of christianity, to defend
> christian shrines. It was deemed a christian cause.
Again my logic above holds here too. For the massacre to
have happened more than being just a christian was needed
(violent impulse, the prevailing zeitgeist, Europe was
under a obscurantist spell, orthodox church was totally
dominating civilian life and adopting barbaric practices
which had nothing to do with Bible. Reformation had not
taken place yet. many factors.). Otherwise if it is ONLY
due to being christian then by pure logic the massacre
should be occurring now and always and everywhere by
ALL Christians.
>
> To make this point clearer, the Bible does not
> say 'distribute free food during christmas'.
> Yet when people do that, you will have no problem
> with the statement 'christians distribute free food
> during christmas' ? And correctly so.
>
The bible DOES SAY to give alms (This is a common feature
of Jewish/Islamic/Christian scripture). Now "give alms" is
general enough to include 'distribute free food during
christmas'. Or you want ot be priggish about it? We (Or you)
By the same logic 'christians distribute free food during
christmas' is not a technically accurate statement. Only
churches and some devbout and wealthy Christians actually
do it. But not ALL christians. Most of the people I know
around me (they are christians by birth) don't do it. BUT
MOST IMPORTNATLY when you make an inaccurate yet positive
statement thats a non-issue. But when an inaccurate statement
carries a negative connotation for a large number of people,
like ALL (by implication of "ONLY BECAUSE") Mulsims stone
(or support it) women to death it is serious enough to be
raised as an issue and the inaccuracy pointed out. We have
drifted far enough from the original controversial statement
about Muslims to your tautological assertions above where
there can be little controversy other than semantics.
(Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
> If I gave ALL necessary conditions, then I would
> be giving sufficient conditions.
OK, but why preferentially pick #1? That was my point
in my last post.
>
> Not at all. Only muslims stone women to death. This
> is not negated by the fact that not all muslims stone
> women to death. Just as only hindus commit sati, a fact
> not negated by the fact that not all hindus commit it.
>
Call the above "Reference 1" for later reference below
> Also, of your two necessary conditions, even condition #2
> is hugely dependent upon condition #1. So condition #1 is
> a master necessary condition.
Necessary conditions stand on their own merit. there is
no "master/slave" concept in necessary conditions.
> But I didn't include both necessary conditions, so
> I didn't write any tautology.
OK, it was not a tautology but an omisssion (with important
negative consequence)
> My intent in my original post was to point
> out Mr Sanyal's grievous error in equating the
> 2 statements "muslims stone women" and "hindus burn brides".
But they ARE equal. They both require necessary
conditions 1 and 2 for it to be true. Also see
your reference 1 above.
>
> > My intent in my original post was to point
> > out Mr Sanyal's grievous error in equating the
> > 2 statements "muslims stone women" and "hindus burn brides".
>
> -But they ARE equal. They both require necessary
> -conditions 1 and 2 for it to be true. Also see
> -your reference 1 above.
>
> *sigh* I have already explained this in detail in
> my reply to Mr Sanyal. I can only urge you to reread it.
> I have nothing further to add.
>
Let me wind this up by summarizing what we should agree on and
if we do then we can ignore all other semantic, epistemological
nad logical subtleties that don't really matter in this
discussion.
Incorrect Statemnets:
1. Muslims stone women to death
2. Hindus burn brides.
Note: Wrong because without the qulaifier "SOME", "ONLY" etc it
means "ALL" which is incorrect by our consensus. In your original
post which I responded you stated the 1 above without the qulaifier
and hence was incorrect. For either of them to be correct one has
to list the necessary and sufficient conditions:
cond#1. One has to be a Muslim/Hindu AND
cond#2. One has to belong to a culture where it is practised
due to a local adaptation/distortion of Islamic/Hindu
scripture and who is in power to issue fatwa/injunction
and implement it.
The following two statements are however CORRECT but tautological
(i.e obviously true, truism that is, like it is to say only
Indian citizens possess Indian passports etc, a burial takes place
only if one dies etc etc).
1. ONLY Muslims stone women to death
2. ONLY Hindus burn brides.
If you agree with me so far then it trivially follows that the
2 statements "muslims stone women" and "hindus burn brides" are
both equally incorrect and hence ARE equal (i.e both are equal
in its incorrectness). So it naturally follows that Mr Sanyal
didn't commit "grievous" error in equating the 2 statements
"muslims stone women" and "hindus burn brides" as you claim he
did, assuming the above was a faithful quote of him.
In article ,
[email protected] (jimmy) wrote:
> Very informative article
That was not an article, let alone informative. It was a contrived
and fictitious dialog between two contrived characters manipulated
to project the dogmatic belief of the author. A fictitious counter
dialog can be contrived between two contrived characters to reverse
the whole impact of this dialog. This dialog doesn't prove or disprove
anything nor does it provide any fact or evidence in favour of GOD.
>
> Just to add:
>
> The Universe and everything within it has a purpose.
> If there is a proof of purpose, then there has to be a designer.
> For example, if gravity was not created, there would be nothing
The above are not "proof" of GOD. They are just tautological
assertion of facts as they are. Nothing profound. They don't
address the why. They just state as they are. These teleological
"proofs" have been discussed and criticsed to death and debunked
by philosophers and scientists. "Purpose" is in the eye of the
beholder. Human are too obsessed with the simplistic cause and
effect frame of mind.Even if there is some cosmic purpose that
is far from validating the personal God of the three revealed
religion. The seeming fine tuning in the cosmic ordering is
called Anthropic Principle and is a subject of discussion by
Cosmologhists and physicists. Human mind has gained an incredible
amount of insight since the days of ourt ancient ancestors. No
longer can we naively explain away the mystery of the cosmos in
the one liner "God created it" and rest our mind. Now global
general relativity, quantum physics, evolutionary biology and
information theory has made it imperative on human (through
scientists of course) to elevate the level of explanation (There
may never be a complete explanation) to a more mature one. One
should ead the 706 page book called
"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by John D Barrow &
Frank J Tipler to appreciate this cosmic fine tuning before
rushing into a God of the Gap.
>
> Finally, Science tells us "the formulas, mechanisms and processes
> created by the Supreme Maker/Designer/Inventor.
It is lot more substantive than declaring in one swoop that GOD has
created everything which, an "explanation" that doesn't need any brain
or thinking and just helps the mediocre to experience a feeling of
closure and go about doing daily business having "explained" and
understood the existence of cosmos. GOD of the gap is only a placebo
for the naive.
>
> Scientists want to take the credit.
So who gets the credit? Some brain lazy laymen with no substantive
cerebral ideas to contribute themselves other than stating the
obvious facts and claiming them as "explanations"?
>
> Scientists only discover the work of the Supreme Maker/Designer/Inventor.
> For example, they discovered the formula "2 parts of Hydrogen and one
[..]
Getting back to science's inability to "explain" "God", science cannot
explain fairies, goblin's, either. Science has no business to explain
every myth that are born in human mind. Science cannot disprove the
claims of many that they were abducted by aliens. Science only "attempts"
to explain phenomena/objects that are objectively perceived. Only
objectively perceived events and objects lend itself to scientific method.
All subjective experience/imginations/notions etc are not only irrelevant
to science they are beyond even a logical discourse. It is meaningless to
to try to rationalize belief in God by any argument as those arguments are
nothiong but tautological assertions of reality as it is and reflect only
the cherished belief of a personal God rather than an "explanation".
A scientist does not have to remeber or forget that his/her brain is needed
to think or learn. It is obvious. No scientist ever need to remember that
as much as one does not need to remember that one cannot enjoy sex without
possessing sex organs, or that one cannot savour a tasty dish without the
taste buds.
MAILS TO NASIMA
Subject: Re: Ref: Fwd: Dr. Ali Sina talks.......Cocooned in Lies
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:33:07 +0600
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Dear Mr/Ms Nas,
What you are saying has a point. So what? Dr. Sinha has his
point too. Its like Dr. Sinha is saying 2+2=4 and you are
saying, No,no 3+3=6. There is a place for everything. Your
crticism of US has its place too. But why bring it here?
Just becasue US created taliban should that grant Taliban
any impunity or should that stop conscientious people from
condemning the acts of Taliban? USA also armed Pakistan,
so does that grant pakistan the moral sanction to commit
genocide on innocent Bengalis in 1971. Should we sabsolve the
Pak military and condem US for that? And about nuclear weapon,
just because the West inveneted it, so all others are absolved
of any crime of misusing it? Why not be more specific, nuclear
bomb was conceived and designed by german born scientists. So
why not absolve all non-German nations from the guilt of using
it. Chinese inveneted the Gun Powder. So blame the Chinese for
all gun related crimes? The Khmer Rouge were armed by Chinese
and USSR. So blame the killng fields of Cambodia on USSR and
China? Now stretch it to its logical exxtreme, if you believe
in GOD, then you sure believe all humans were created by GOD,
so why blame human for any crime they commit?
Of course, for fairness and consistency ALL crimes should be
criticized. But each criticism has its proper context. Lets
do one at a time. Adopting a Easr vs. West view of world is not
the way to approach injustice and crime. Crime, injustice has
no boundary, East/West/North/South
To: "Jamal Hasan" , [email protected]
Date: 5/31/01 10:33 AM
Re: A challenge to an Intellectual Muslima
Cc: [email protected]
Interesting dialog. Thanks to Jamal Hasan for sharing it with us. I would like to
make some comments as this dialog is related to my post on NFB sometime back
Titled "On Trivilization and where credit is due etc" and also posted on the on line
discussion forum on the secularislam site titled "The Unfortunate bickerings between
secularists and Modern Islamists". The fact that Ms Majid and Dr. Sina both are
emphasizingtolerance, mutual respect, love, compassion and critical of coercion,
hatred, intolerance etc and yet both seem to be caught up in a controversial and
adversarial exchange that stubbornly defies any closure and resolution ponts to an
underlying source of miscommunication and misunderstanding betwen them. Being
intrigued by this irresolvability despitesubstantial identity of principles between
them I have given considerable thought into the root of this divide. It is evident
that this divide is due to a siginficant miscommunication between the two camps
represented by them. The one camp being (using labels just for identification
purpose, will seem unnecessaryafter my discusssion) the secular humanists
(Dr. Sina, myself et alia, henceforth abbreviated SH)and the other camp being
Modern Islamists/Compatibilists/(henceforth abbreviated MIC) like Ms. Farida Majid
The main point of MIC is that Islam is compatible with modern life and values,
and that it is wrong to criticize any religion even if muchwrong is committed in the
name of Islam by extremists. Regarding the verses and edicts in Islam that patently
represents violation of basic human rights, some of MIC contend that those verses
are open to misinterpretation and the extremists choose to use the negative
interpretations whereas some other MIC contend that "so what if the verses are
negative, it all depends who is misusing them, well-meaning Islamists will ignore
them and focus on the positive". Both groups of MIC hold that "it is the extremists
who commit those violation and should be criticized, not Islam, because many well
meaning peaceful Islamists (religious people of Islamic faith) following Islam are not
extremists". So far nothing is seriously flawed in MIC's position. So it is clear that SH
and MIC agree at one level on the wrongness of the ACTS of human rights violation in
the name of Islam. The flaw in MIC's position lies in their accusation against SH that a
ariticism of the objectionable part of Islam constitutes a blanket attack of ALL the
followers of Islam or and intolernace of their belief. The bone of contention lies in one
level down when the root cause of such ACTs are identified and blamed for the
extremist ACTS. Whereas MIC have not yet clearly identified any root cause the SH
can see very clearly that the root cause lies in those problematic verses, edicts and
preachings by many influnetial clerics over the entire period in the history of Islam. It is
very true that not all Muslims ollow/defend the edicts or commit extremist acts, but it
is also very true that if those problematic verses didn't exist, then extremism would
not exist (At least not the religious ones, extremist impulses do exist in humans and
find its way in other forms like killing fieldsof Khmer Rouge, Nazism etc) either. So, it
seems like there should not be any bitterness between SH and MIC other than a mere
academic difference in the way they each view extremism. The bitterness is a one
sided one. It is the MIC who are bitter towards the SH for criticizng religion (A subset to
be precise) It is ironic that while MIC preach tolerance, they are themselves intolerant
of the views of SH. The very premise that criticizing some subset of religious belief
constitute an attack on the entire followers of religion or an intolerance towards
religion is flawed. First of all Islam and Muslim are not the same. One is an idea/code,
abstract, harmless, useless like a computer program, not being run. The other is a
human being of flesh and blood who canmake the idea harmful/useful by
implementing it, running the computer program. If an idea/program contains
potentially harmful code in it then criticizing the code is by no stretch of imagination a
criticism of any USER, but of the PROGRAMMER who wrote it or themalicious user
who intentionally runs the program keeping the harmful part of the code . If all Muslims
agreed to the harmful part and skipped/deleted it then we would not have this bitter
polarization that we see today among the Muslims. Instead we would see the pure
academic polarization ofdifferent schools of interpretation like creationist vs.
evolutionists in Christianity etc. Such non-coercive non-threating differences are
non-issues. But in Islam any differnece of views is condemened with death threats
and intimidations from the extremists with tacit approval from the MICs or mild
criticisms at best.
I think the reason Ms. Majid and Dr. Sina seem to be so wide apart despite such crucial
agreement on cherished values is due to the misunderstanding of the nature of the
criticisms of scriptures by Dr. Sina and others. Such criticisms by no means indicate
a hatred for religion itself or its followers. Religion has its spiritual, ritual and the
"political/coercive" part. If Islam was confined to the first two parts i.e praying,
believing in God, after life, angels, heaven and hell, fasting, etc on an individual level,
problems would not arise and the need for Dr. sian and likes to criticize scriptures would
disappear. For example Buddhism/Hinduism/Taosim/Shamnism etc does not cause any
problem for non-believing/non practicing Buddhists/Hindus etc and vice versa. It is the
third (political/coercive) aspect of Islam which exhorts its followers which directly affects
other's lives that is the culprit. (e.g Call for killing idolators, subjugate non-believers,
persecuting disenters, establishing a Muslim society). Ms. Majid glorifies plurality which
a SH also advocates. But ironically the spirit of plurality/diversity is not glorified in
Islam but is discouraged at each step. Even the famous verse of "your faith is yours,
mine is mine" is not unequivocal in implying mutual tolerance. It only makes the
tautological statement that your faith is yours, and my faith is mine. The statement
does not unambiguously rule out coercive efforts to change each other's faith or
persecuting one for not following the other. Had it instead said, "you can have your
faith, I will not force mine on you and you should not force yours on mine" then it
would have been indeed preaching tolerance in unequivocal terms. Extremists
hardly pay attention to such equivocal brief and non-repeated verses of
"tolerance" but are more easily sayed by the unequivocal, trenchant and repeated
call for the killing idolators, non-believers, apostates etc..
When my sister offers her prayer, genuflects and lies in prostration, I don;t feel any
hatred for her or ridicule her. Instead I feel happy that she fionds peace in such acts,
however irrational that may seem to me. By the same token, when my nephew or niece
believes in fairy tales, I don;t ridiclue or despise them. But instaed I buy them books of
fairy tales to make them happy. But such irrational act actually is therapeutic for a
believer. It is interesting that our brain is wired for such placebos through evolutionary
process to cope with stress.So if religious dogmatists left the non-believers alone there
would not be this lingering strife between believers and non-believers. We don't see this
lingering issues between practicing Buddhist and Buddhist born non-believers as I said
earlier.The obvious reason being the absence of the aspect of imposition and coercion
in Buddhism. If Islam was limited to Sufism, or Christianity to gnosticism, and
Judaism to its Jewish equivalent of mysticism(The right word is escaping me), then
the word secularism would not have been found in the dictionary. It is the political
aspect (Necessarily coercive) of all revealed religions that are the cause of the birth
of secularism as a reaction to it. The religionists try to make an insidious attempt to
demonize/dehumanize secularists/secularisms by labelling them as atheists devoid of
any sense of spirituality etc. But in fact secularism and free thinking does not and
should not have anything to say on the spiritual and ritual aspect of islam or any
religion. I hope Ms Majid and other MICs will make more sincere efforts to
understand the true intention and mindset of SH and not jump to a knee jerk
bashing of the critical remarks of SH about scriptures. Thats all for now.
Aparthib
Subject: My also long [but good, I hope!] response!
Date: Jul 7 2001
Thanks Munir, for your elaborate response, that helps me to look at the
subtler aspect of issues. Basically I accept your clarifications. Two points
need further thrashing. In what follows I will be talking as if I am
writing to an apologist of religion (Which you are not), the reason being
that it might provide you with some alternate/better way to look at this
perennial bickerings between apologists and rationalists. First the issue
of scholarliness and its relevance to the typical exchanges between
freethinkers and apologists. By the way, my bringing in the issue of scholar
was not soley to point at your usage, but as a general comment on the
common invocation of such arguments . Anyway, it is not fair or proper to
say that one needs to be a scholar (in the sens e of a formal degree in Islamic
Studies/History/Arabic/etc) to be critical about a specific aspect of religion.
If we apply that standard uniformly then all the posts in all the forums will
become illegit, as all of those posts can be categorised under either economics,
political science, sociology, religion, history, litterature, jouranlism,physics,
chemsistry, pharmacy, philosophy etc etc and nobody is really a scholar in
each (i.e an advanced degree in the area they are posting), Even I will be
disqualified from posting logic related issues as I don't have a masters in
philosophy (Where logic is formally taught). I am also critical of religion. I think
using my sense of fairness, logic I can criticze the edict in Koran that two
women are worth one man as a witness. I don;t need to be a PhD in Islamic
studies or an expert in Sharia just to criticize that verse, since that verse is an
unconditional one, no conditional clause is attached to it. There are MANY
more such verses in Koran (Very clear, not in metaphoric or vague terms
like so many others) that are highly objectionable to me as a human with sense
of logic, and fairness. The apologicts always dismiss the criticisms of freethinkers
by invoking the "you are not a scholar" clause as that provides them the
"saving bell" so to speak and they can be spared of those embarrassment
of having to fact those critcisms. But in logic we know that it is a fallacy to judge
the merit of a critcism solely by the identity/motive etc of the critic. I am very
much aware that even with those negative verses there are many peaceful Muslims
who choose to ignore the negative verses and just believe in the peaceful side of
religion. I have full respect for them and have no complaint against them (Although
technically they are being hypocrite to ignore those verses of Koran which they
believe as the word of God, but I still prefer them being so rather than a literal
believer ). They are non-issues for me or any freethinkers, except for engaging in
an intellectual debate with them when they try to defend those verses by cleverly
"explaining them away" by putting their own convenient interpretations to it.
I once urged you to read the negative verses, if you haven't yet, I would urge you to
read them (So at least you will make a more informed criticism of either side. I
have compiled them in an easily accessible format in the file
http//www.geocities.com/aparthib/kor.txt Please take a look at ithey were
eye opener for me. I was VERY disturbed to read them, because now I am forced to
be on the critcial side, had those verses been at least neutral, if not noble, I would
have been spared of this baggage of taking the critical camp. I don't relish it.
Anyway, coming back to Avijit, If he had only provided his subjective judgements
and views against religion, I would not have much to say or support. If he was a
Hindu apologist criticizing Islam with exact quotes from hadith, my attitude
would have been, yes, but what about you? ..But he is a humanist, not a Hindu,
providing exact quotes from hadith,Koran, Veda, Upanishad. And his analyisis
(sometimes direct and embarrassing) are not any different form my own
independednt findings from Koran and hadith. How can I dismiss something thats
exactly quoted from Koran (with verse and para #) staring at me with the
embarrasing yet clear negative contents? If it was not Avijit it can be anyone else.
the facts won't change. But as final point, let me state it clearly that as a logical
skepticist, If I find any evidence or logical arguments that disproves my opinion of
Avijit, I will rethink it, becasue it was evidence and logic that made me form my
opnion about him in the first place.
I agree with you in principle about his not being accurate
in calling the hate mailer a devout Muslim. But there are other sides to it that are
more relevant here. Remember the common dictum that all of us often use "So who
are you to judge who is a better this , better that etc? Who put you in the judge's
seat"? These hate mailers claim to be as devout as any others. Its just that they are
not politically as correct as many others who do not verbalize their hatred. They can
quote Koran and show that God has urged believers to subjugate the non-believers,
be harsh to them, (They are all there in the link I gave you) and they can embarrass
these priggish judges by proving their devoutness (in Koran). The second side is that
that the apologists take hands off attitude when some hate mongering believer writes
or speaks hatred and distance themselves from them, saying they are not true believers.
But when some radical (verbally) freethinker like Taslima Nasreen, Rushdie makes a
verbal criticism of religion, the same apologists makes a blanket condemnation of
secularists/ism or freethinking/thinkers and takes a us vs. them attitude and in the
frenzy of condemnation, would even justify the (physical) death threats by religious
extremists against those radical freethinkers saying "How can I blame the extremists
for their acts? The freethinkers deserved it" etc. Although if pushed, they will also
say that the extremists are not being devout/true Muslim. See the hypocricy here of
these apologists? So although, Dr.Farooq in his letter to Avijit, made a one liner subdued
remark (That the hate mailer is no devout follower), his main theme and emphasis
was still condemning the secularists, freethinkers and complaining against them. My
last but not the least important point to ponder is this (Even moderates like you
overlook this) Even the most radical of freethinker/rationalist has never issued a
physical threat to any individual (let alone committing it). They have limited their
ideas and views to verbalization, and not VIOLATED any civil law. They are totally
unarmed with no armed support base. Whereas even the not so radical religious
extremist speak about physical threat against the freethinkers(In Violation of the
laws of the land) , or condone acts of such by others . So when an apologist of religion
EQUATES the radical freethinkers with the religious extremsists , do you the see
the unfair assymetry in it. ? Thats what Dr. farooq's main thrust is. Diluting the acts
of extremists by dismissing it as nothing different from acts of the radical secularists.
How clever isn;t it? Any comments. I Apologize for this long one. But I hope it served
to elucidate the point that I was so intently trying to make.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Subject: My final long [but good, I hope!] response!
Date: Jul 3 2001 10:05 AM
Thnaks again for your thoughtful and appreciative note and response. It
is interesting how subtler aspects of issues surface through thrashing it.
I can now better appreciate the vanatge points of one's viewpoints.
What now needs to be thrashed out is this. This has to do with the notion
of radical freethinkers. We have to be careful and ficussed when we use this
term on two counts. When I was referring to this expression , I did not
have in mind the young liberals in US (mostly leftists) agitating against
trade meetings, against conservative policies of GOP , killing cops, burning
SUV dealerships etc. I was quite focussed on poets, writers, painters, (not
necessarily leftist, Rushdie, Nasrin, Duran none are leftists) Duran is the
president of Ibn Khaldun society, a highly intellectual writer well-versed
in persian literature and Arabic who is under death threat for his book) who
are sedentary people, expressing their views solely through their works,
not in the least physically violent. I didin't extend the expression to include
with a blanket sweep all the radical ACTIVISTS (almost without exception
young leftists students/ union workers etc). I don't think people like
Rushdie, Duran, Nasrin will become physically violent IN FUTURE.
Its just not in their nature. They would not be even known had the Mullahs not
issued their death fatwa against them. They are just drawing room intellectuals .
They could never pose a physical threat to anyone. If anyone feels threatened by
their writings, poems, then its them who need to check for their mental sanity.
I am not concerned about the quality or accuracy of their writing. That should be
the realm of literary criticism, not fatwabaji. So it is important to keep the focus
right when we refer to a specific expression. So I don't agree that the
EQAULITY between the "radical freethinkers" (Now with clarified connotation)
and "fanatic extremist" is a matter of TIME. They are too different to be same
at ANY time. The latter do not believe in the freedom of speech and targeted the
former with death threats for expressing their views. There is a clear action-reaction
duality here, which was and still is my main thrust. Am I correct in assuming that
you believe in the freedom of expression and hence oppose any threat (death to boot)
to anyone for expressing his/her views, regardless of whether you agree with them or
not? I believe you do, but you may reconfirm that. But ironically, Dr. Farooq and his
similar ilk has never categorically expressed such principle, instead has said "How can
I blame the extremists for their acts,..the freethinkers deserved that" etc. So he takes
an identical view as the fanatics, its just that he would not do the dirty work to finish
off these freethinkers, instead would not object if others do it. Its like many
meat eaters would not slaughter cow themselves!. Imagine a respected professor's
conscience not being bothered by the call for one's decapitation solely for
expressing a view. This is the cause of my perennial unease with these moderate
apologists. They lack in that principled position. At least the freeethinkers would
(I would) also defend anyone being a victim of death threat for expressing
his religious views (Which has no precedent).
Finally regarding the felicity of the very expression "radical freethinkers". It is
a common logical fallacy (You are probably awrae of many by now) to associate a
pejorative term and jutapose with a neutral term to make it sound pejorative
expression. This is the case here. As I contended in referring to this expression, I
have meant writers, poets, intellectuals etc advocating secularism mostly. What can
be so negatively radical about it? If you read my responses to Dr. Farooq on
"secular fundamentalism" thread you will see the fallacy of such expression. If one
agrees to neutrality/positivity of secularism, then there can be nothing negative about
it. (Also refer to my post on terrorism, bombing vis vis religous and non-religous parties)
So it may be even appropriate to not even use "radical" in this context but reserve it
for the (leftist)ACTIVISTS on the street. If the views of a freethinker appear "radical"
(like critcizing a verse in Koran) to a believer should that justify (condoning) a death
threat against him/her and condemning her? I hope I have thrashed out the remainig
moot point.
Thanks again,
Aparthib
Subject: finishing touch and more...
Date: Jul 3 2001
Just a note about Karl Marx. There are two differences that stand out when
comparing dogmatism (like that of Karl Marx) and secularism/freethinking
etc. I am assuming you still have some residual misgivings regarding
secularism /freethinking and dogmatism, by your citing Marx in this context.
So let me try to thrash it out .
(1) A dogma proposes or initiates a NEW social/political view/plan that
is proactive and envisages some action plans to implement such a social
plan and such implementation necessarily entails undemocratic means,
as the dogma already postulates its absoluteness disregarding dissenting
views. So dogmatism is in direct clash with democracy.
Examples Religion(islam in particular), Marxism and all its variation etc,
Military Rule etc.
(2) Secularism, advocacy of freedom of expression etc are not new social
inventions or plans that require action plans like a dogma to be
imposed undemocratically , but are simply aspects of existing democratic
ideals and symbolize a defensive stand against attempts of imposing
dogmas, or against violation of the very core ingredients of democracy ie.
secularism and freedom of expression.
So it is a fallacy to compare the radical implementation of Marxism with a
strong advocacy of secularism/freespeech which is nothing but an affirmation of
democartic ideals. So it is never logically possible for a supporter of secularism
or freespeech to become radical in the the same sense as the dogmatist, since
secularists/freethinkers are forced by their adherence to democracy to abide by the
democratic rules as well. Even for Marx, I am not sure if we should blame him
for all the killings of Khmer Rouge extremists of Pol Pot regime, or the ruthless
killings of Stalin. They acted on their own. Marx may not have envisaged/espoused
such brutal killings himself. But anyway staying on track, there is no way to even
suggest a possible Marxist counterpart among secularists . No precedents exist.
Now I have to seek your clarification reagrding your following comments
That freedom should NEVER include destruction of property--either private or public;
NEVER include throwing rocks and stones at perceived 'bad guys'; NEVER include
using swear words such as "bastards, fuckers, assholes.." largely unwarranted expletives;
and NEVER include any forms of anarchy that may lead to social chaos. A case in point
might be when someone held a Dean's office in a college under siege [happened in the
late sixties, I think!].
I oppose any and all threats issued by individuals either singularly or as part of some
group. However, if any expression of "views" should amount to breaking the existing
laws of the society, then I'd consider that to be an act of anarchy and expect the cops
to handle it any way they may seem fit, including shooting and maybe killing some people.
I am always opposed to social disruptions in the name of some cause---have seen way
too much of this 'dung' in Bangladesh while growing up---and to me one does not
deserve the right to freedom of speech if he fails to respect the same for others.
Re
"destruction of property--either private or public; NEVER include throwing rocks
and stones" etc ""
My comments Again it is a question of being focussed on the context,
like I was talking about regarding activiost vs. thinkers in my last email.. Such
acts that you referred to above are against any civil law. These are criminal
offenses. We were however discussing freespeech, secularism and religious
extremism in the context of Avijit's exchange with Dr. Farooq. We should not
lose focus and speak against breach of laws which can be and is dealth with by
law enforcing bodies within democracy. Nobody should defend criminal acts.
I am always referring to people expressing their views, not engaging in such
criminal acts of course. The entire bickerings between Avijit, myself, Dr, Farooq,
Syed Mirza, Fatemolla or more broadly the writings of Nasreen, Rushdie etc
are about expressing critical views. Destruction of Property is not the moot
issue in this context.
Many leftist radicals in Bangladesh envisage a bloody mass revolution. I would
never (or any true freethinker) call those radicals secularists. They are as much
a dogmatist as the talebans. I think the Talebans and the Khmer Rouge are just
birds of the same feathers.
secondly re " However, if any expression of "views" should amount to breaking
the existing laws of the society, then I'd consider that to be an act of anarchy and
expect the cops to handle it any way they may seem fit"..
My comments Of course the keyword is "breaking the laws". This again was
never a moot issue in our context of secularists vs freethinkers . Law being
a part of democracy is respected by secularists/freethinkers. It is rather the
dogmatists who defend those who are breaking the law (calling for someone's
death just for expressing view) is against the law. here in US they would be
arrested).
re
"someone's radical-ness. Freethinkers, after all, are human beings and may have
the capacity to be "physically" radical, as well; therefore, a clarifier such as the one
proposed might help! "
My response Well, here we are wandering into the realm of "maybe, could be".
I have to insist on focus again. We have to judge by "actions/words". We don't
know about the inner minds of anyone for that matter. A freethinker may be
tax evader, loan defaulter, in personal life. As I mentioned theer si no precedence
of a defender of secularism, freethinking engaging in physical violence against
anyone. I have challenged Dr. Farooq to come up with one. He hasn't responded
to my challenge yet. We cannot bring in hypothetical personal vices in this
discussions about an issue of principle , that of allowing freespeech/condemning
violation of such etc. besides that would be straying from the context, which
we are so committed, aren't we?
Finally re "and to me one does not deserve the right to freedom of speech if he fails
to respect the same for others"
My response I cannot see a scenario where it is applicable, although it is in
principle true. Those whose freedom of speech (Nasrin, Rishdie and Duran)
was brutally suppressed (With death threats) never expressed theor
opposition to freedom of speech for anyone else. No secularists/freethinkers/
rationalist ever believe in disrespecting anyone's freedom of expression. That
would be an oxymoron. Because the very emergence of secularists/freethinkers
was triggered by violation of the same. So I cannot come up with any case
where we can say that "X" does not deserve freedom of speech since "X" does not
respect the same for others (As you are saying above), unless X=Religious/ or
Marxist extremists/dogmatist. Can you?
So to summarize an important point about secularism and Communism/marism
etc. We should separate the two very clearly. Even though the latter may require
the former, the former does not require the latter. So it will be fallacy of false
association to characterize the mideeds of the latter as being also of the former.
This goes back to the terrorist bombing in BD by non-religious party goons being
labeled as secular terrorism. By the same token, brutalities of Stalin should
not taint Nasrin or Rushdie as advocates of secularism, as they are believers of
democracy, not Marxism. I have dwelt at lenght on these mischaracterization
in my responses toDr. Farooq under secularism/secular fundamentalism etc. please
read them. By the way, I must mention it now that I am suspecting you may not
be aware of the true meaning secularism. The more widely accepted and advocated
definition of secularism does not mean forcing any elmination of religious beleifs or
rituals, but an elimination of representation of religion (in respect of policy or bias)
in state affairs. This has been the main reason for many to link communism with
secularism as the latter envisaged a complete elimination of religion. True secularist
(non-communists) are perfectly at peace with Buddhism, Hinduism (except Hindu
funfdamentalits), and many other non-political beliefs like Bahai, Quadianis etc.
I hope now I have been able to clear any residual ambiguities (finishing touch)
Finally, as more, I wish to share with you my personal exchanges with many
individuals dealing with many issues. The names are all disguised to
ensure privacy. In my two exchanges with Dr Farooq he is referred to
as Dr. M.F. Its at http//www.geocities.com/aparthib/mymails.html
Its a pleasure to write to you, as you have good language and comprehension
skill and I acknowledge you potential as a cogent debator to drive home the
right argument.
We can ceratinly plan on a coffee rendezvous some time in future )
Best wishes,
Subject: Re: Response to your comments about Nadiya!
Date: 8/4/01 (magne65)
Dear Munir,
[..]
2. Regarding your criticism of Kamran Mirza, I fail to understand your anger
towards him which seems no less intence than the apologists' hatred towards
him. You refer to his "poisonous tooth" metaphor. He never attacked anyone
personally. He has been critcial of the oppressive aspects of religion and used
that metaphor to describe that evil aspect of religion, and the fanatics, not the
millions of peaceloving Muslims. So I don;t see why this metaphor should taken
so literally and used to detract from his message.
Date: 8/27/01 (magnet65)
Sub: Clannishness
[..]
I have the following clarification to offer When a criticism is made
against a person which not only is not fair but more importntly
than that, has important implication for all, then writing to refute
the critcism is not clannishness. The word clannishness can only
genuinely apply when one jumps into defending the PERSON
against a personal accusation, abusive words, name calling like
calling someone monster etc (with no implication for others) and
where logic and evidence is not applicable. I only resort to defense
of the first kind, and it is a valid one for anyone who values truth
and fairness. If you dig throug the archives of MM you will see
there wre many such personal echanges between Avijit and some
other freethinkers with some not so freethikers (Yahia, Usman
Malik, Lina, and some others) where I didn't feel the need to
step in to defend. I myself abhor clannishnes which is blind with
no logic (and hence may well end up in an unjustified defense).
we see plenty of that in poltical arena.
Date: 8/28/01
Sub: Re: Private Email, Confirdential
Hi Munir,
Just to clarify that I am not defending SKM . Rather I am
defending MYSELF here. As I clearly stated earlier that I do
not in principle write in defense or in the offensive when.
The use of "Mullah", "Upper Volta" etc are such expressions
that SKM and MOF have to deal with between them. Not
much logical points can be made either way. Just as MOF's
use of the expression "Nordomar Kit" referring to some
freethinkers earlier in NFB was not soemthing I could defend
or attack with logic and no general points could be made.
But common sense tells me "nordomar kit" is much more
a sinister expression than "Mullah" (After all there are Mullahs
who claim themslves to be and command respect in Bangladesh).
MOF did make many unjustified personal insinuations against
me in our egroups exchanges too. Of course there were too
many posts of abusive attacks by various other religious
apologetics against freethinkers all over, but not a single one
of them were ever criticized for such personal abusive attack
by any of their fellow religious apologists. I don't want
to make this longer. Hope that does clarify my point. I can't
do any better.
Date: 8/28/01 (magnet65)
Sub: Re: Private Email..(Clarificatio of when to be outraged)
[..]
Let me categorically say that stand for anything or not, I DO
honestly feel pained and outraged when someone
DEFENDS/CONDONES/CONNIVES/REMAINS SILENT ABOUT/
TRIVILIZES/ the explicit act (or threats of such) of
KILLING SOMEONE (RA or FRS) FOR EXPRESSING HIS/HER
VIEWS (No matter how critical it may be). To me life is the
most precious thing (To both RA and FRS. And to RA it is a
gift of God, and only God has the right to take it). Nothing
can be more shocking to me than such acts and when an RA
does either one of the above (DEFEND/CONDONE/CONNIVE/
REMAINSSILENT ABOUT/TRIVILIZE) it detracts significantly
from their respectability. All the RA's I know have done
one of the four above. On the other hand there are no
cases of anyone who have issued any death threat or actually
killed an RA for any reason in the name of FRS. My principle
would apply equally had it happened in reverse. So regardless
of the fact that both RA and FRS may have used objectionable
languages (not in equal degree though) which detracts fron both
sides to a smaller extent, at the end the equation heavily tips
to the FRS side because of the above stand by RA's on matters
of such colossal significance as taking human lives and similar
extreme intolernace shown occasionally by RA's toward FRS
(e.g Wahab's case if you recall).
date: 8/29/01 (magnet65)
Sub: when to respect someone
I always am to anyone
who does not (1) attack anyone personally (2) attack an entire group for
its belief/ideas (e.g astheists, secularists, christians, Muslims.
The orogonal author did neither. But I always don't verbalize it like I
did this time. he seemed to be a fresh change from the abusive RA's that
I have seen lately in eshomabesh. Thats all. I also posted another article
on Dr. Shaikh's thread (repsonse to Wohid) in eshomabesh just before it.
Date: 8/29/01 (magnet65)
Sub: Re: Thanks for your email; my response! [academic vs. moral issues:]
I will be brief (Or try to be)
1. I reiterate that it taking someone's life (or theatening to) for
expressing views (NO MATTER HOW CRITCIAL) is inhuman,
shocking and DEFENDING/CONDONING/TRIVIALIZING/REMAINING
SILENT is morally evolting. If you agree to it (As you say you did),
then you also agree to the (NO MATTER HOW CRITCIAL) part,
but whether/how to be critcial or what language to use, whether
it was advisable etc are academic issues, not relevant to the
moral outrage I expressed above. Now to give a specific example
of Taslima Nasreen and Rushdie. many RA's including someone you
know very well defended/condoned/trivialized the death call
against TN/SR, saying they deserved it, because they asked for it
(nordomar kit) etc.
2. Re Wahab. Same points above. I didn't call Wahab anything (FRS or
whatever). I was expressing moral outrage at the way he was handled
for just reading a book. I don;t have to know Wahab's affiliation, nor
is it relevant. Whether he was stupid or not for what he did, is a
different non-moral pragmatic issue.
Pragmatic issues should never be mixed with ethical issues in
the same context because ethics do not depend on pragmatism.
Each has its place for doiscussion, and I was onlly discussing the
ethical part with you.
Just to clarify myself agains as usual.
Thanks,
Date: 8/29/01
Sub: Re: Thanks for your email; my response! (diff b/w rel vs. non-rel crimes)
Just waned to add some improtant points that you have not considered.
You have asked why is it that ONLY persecutions in the name of religion
is preferentailly publicized, why not others like acid throwing etc? My
answer
1. IT IS NOT TRUE. Acid throwing, rape, extortion are all reported and
criticized profusely. They are spread over different forums. You could
not have overl;ooked them had yo read carefully. They don't lead to
hot discussiions. You recall my bdnews.html link I gave you. I posted
some of them in different forums and I was ciriticized for being
unpatriotic, negative etc. You can read many artcicles on such issues by
many other freethinkers (Dr. Shaikh Mizan being one of them).
2. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, so pay attention!
All non-religious based crimes, persecutions (acid throwing, rape,
extortion, corruption,..) are UNANIMOUSLY CONDEMNED/DISAPPROVED
by RA's and FRS alike. There is no debate or isue about the culpability
of those crimes. Nobody raises the propaganda motives or bring
in "why pick on acid throwing only when.. " kind of qualifier.
AND (another important point) moreover those crimes are subjected
to accountability and punitive measure by existing law without any
controversy (Of course legal system is not effiebcient, that is a separate
issue). BUT, all religious based crimes are not universally condemned. as
I said many RA's DEFEND/CONDONE/JUSTIFY/TRIVIALIZE them. And
law is not fairly enforced in such cases. Take Wahab's case, and many
deceased victims of fatwa (Nurjahan is a hocking reminder) who were
not proteted by law and the perpetrators were not subjected to punitive
steps by law. So these crimes deserve a more accentuated exposure
and condemnation. Hope you see this vital difference.
Subject: In Search of the TRUTH
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:23:17 +0600
To: [email protected]
Dear "spiritual" sister,
[...]
Now let me comment on your mail to Kamran Mirza. You made the same
mistake that William Paley made centuries ago. That is to immdiately conceive
of a grand designer (Of course with a humanlike attributes) just by observing
the order in nature. Paley said, if you come across a watch in a forest, wouldn't
you think of a designer? So why not think of a designer for the entire universe
which appears to be so orderly. This logic has been totally discredited, due to
the new insights of science and the progress in complexity theory and the
study of chaos theory in all natural phenomenon.
The reason you believe in a creator is that "everything seems to be moving
perfectly in its own system and all are controlled and very much organized."
You seem to conceive of a creator Now think of it. Is this a good reason?
Do you know that scientists know much more about that order in detail than
you or me? Do you know (not believe) anything that they don't? So why is
it that majority scientists don't believe in a creator (or at least don't cite the
same reason as you are citing even if some of them do). Do you realize that
it is a purely subjective conclusion you have come to on your own. How
can you call a subjective conclusion a TRUTH unless you provide an
objective criterion to verify it? You have indicated your desire to convince
us of the TRUTH. I am very willing to be convinced. I have studied science
and Koran in detail. I am not convinced. So I would be very interested to see if
you can convonce me of your truth. Youn have to tell me something that I don't
know already. Telling me how orderly the universe etc is not going to do it as I
already know it. Think about one thiong for a moment. If the reason you
mentioned for believing in God was really so convincing and obvious then
there woul be no need for you to tell us about it as it would be a self-evident
truth to ALL. But it is not. There are many for whom it is not at all obvious
that there has to be grand designer behind the order. Secondly it is not even
a meaningful idea for scientists. What all humans share is the notion that there is
a reason for all the order we perceive. It is only in the root cause of the universe
where scientists and non-scientists part company. Whereas most lay folks conceive
of a grand designer of certain attributes (This really indicates an arrogance of
human to even claim to know what a desiner is like, let alone claiming to know
thare is a designer). What a scientist can agree to is that ther is some root cause.
What that root cause is is beyond human comprehension. But the root casue of
scientist stops at the Laws of Physics. laws of Physics in its latest state nicely
explains all the order in the universe and life. What is the root cause of physics
is beyond scientists even. Calling an unknown "GOD' doesn't add to any indsight.
If one cannot define God precisely then believing in God itself is a contradiction.
Have you ever experienced anything privately that you can cite as a conclusive
evidence for supporting belief in the creator or that the revelations are the word of
God? Of course you can cite verses that convinces YOU of its divine origin. But you
realize that your being convinced does not make it an official truth to be stated as a
true proposition as you have done. Faith can never be declared as TRUTH if one is
true to logic.A TRUTH is an objectively VERIFIED proposition accepted on the
basis of consensus that crosses religious/racial boundaries. So no religious revelation
can qualifiy as truth. You said that you have come to realize the truth
on your own without any dictates from any teacher. Isn't reading the religious
books equivalent to a dictate? Can you tell me what indpendent method did
you use to arrive at your truth, other than the religious books and sermons.
By offering to convince us of your truth are you not implying that we cannot
like you arrive at the truth without other's dicate? Why so?
I will urge you to read all the artciles and provide me your feedback and hope
to get some convincing argument from you in favour of God and revelations.
(But please read all my articles firs). I would congratulate you from the bottom
of my heart if you can convince me through arguments.
Thanks,
C.T
Subject: Re: In Search of the TRUTH
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:27:41 +0600
To: [email protected]
Dear spiritual sister ,
I am delighted to hear from you. I do sense a feeling of love, compassion and
devotion in you that I must say I admire a lot. I can understand why Bahai faith
appeals to you. I have been to the Bahai temple in Chicago. What Bahai says
is identical with what secular humanism says. Except Secular humanism doesn't
have a church/temple/place of congregation and a mystical tone to it to capture
one's heart. Your experiences of life are interesting, but not unique, just that
you made note of it and shaped your thinking by leaving a permanent imprint.
You said:
> I do not believe in the word "argument" - This had ego attached to the mind of
> speaker and ego blocks the truth.
Dear Sister, can you see the other side of the coin? Egoists also don''t like
argument as they want unquestioning acceptance of what they believe
and say. Ego is an intrinsic attribute, indepnedent of whether one engages in
argument or not. One can be an egotist and not engage in argument and vice
versa. Both a false ego and an uncritical mind incapable of reasoning is an
obstacle to truth. Argument and logic is essential to the search of truth. By
argument I don't mean quarrel. One can argue based on logic. Logic is essential
and is taught in academia for good reasons. One does not need logic to experience
love and beauty. (See my article on SCIENCE, LOGIC , FAITH, BEAUTY ETC).
But truth is something that can be hidden in illusion. And logic is the only tool to
remove this veil of illusion. Truth requires objectivity for its establishment, even
though its epiphanic realization may come from intuition (Excellent example is
Einstein). You asked about Creator/God and the Purpose of Life. I have very
carefully discussed both in my article "Life, Death, Immortality". Please also
read my article on Science and Spirituality. Please also read all the references
cited at the end of that article. The book by Dawkins "The blind watchmaker"
and "Climbing Mount Improbable" clearly shows how the intricacies of life
can evolve from within the laws of science without a grand designer without a
human attribute. I have explained what a plausible notion of God is in my article
as well. You haven't yet appreciated that there is no debate as to the cause of
creation. We are all in agreement. But its in what we perceive as creator. Its
the Laws of Physics which is the creator of observable universe and life. We
don;t know what is the creator of the Laws of Physics, if there has to be one
(There dpoesn;t need to be. Just as one arbitrarily assumes that an almighty
God always existed witjout any creator, same can be said about the Laws
of Physics). You still haven't told me anything different from what we all
observe routnely in life to convonce us of a creator with a human lime attribute
portaryed in all religions. Do you have any other notion of God than the existing
religions? If not then clearly it shows the effect of cultural conditioning.
Again, to appreciate how humans can evolve frpm one celled organisms, please
refer to the two boks by Richard Dawkins. I do believe in open mind, but an
open mind means not to accept anything in blind faith, but look for convincing
reason for any belief. And the convincing reason has to be of universal nature
that crosses all religious/racial boundary or has to be a private epiphanic
realization which is not as a result of cultural/religious conditiioning.
My concluding comment: All you are saying about earthly matters (interracial
marriage, love, hatred that exists) etc I am in full agreement. But it has
nothing to do with the philosophical/scientific issue of Creator as portaryed
in the religions. There IS a creator, of all what we see (Life, stars etc).
IT IS THE LAW OF PHYSICS. What we don;t know is whether there is anything
before Laws of Physics. It is arroogant to claim to know what it is (As religion
does). Please read Dawkins. Please also check my links on philosophy under my
homepage www.geocities.com/C.T if you find it interesting. Another excellent
place for science and spirituality is at:
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk/ (Read specially what we know and what
we don;t). And also http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk/links.html
Hope to hear more from you to enrich my views and perceptions.
Your spiritual brother
Subject: Re: In Search of the TRUTH
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:30:30 +0600
To: [email protected]
Dear Spiritual Sister,
Let me first express my deepest regard for you for continuing to
write to me and for your kind words about my web site. Let me also
assure you that my disagreement opr critique of your views are not
personal at all. I do have an open mind and I am desperately looking
for any new insight, thought etc that might reshape my thinking
first, let me emphasize in response to yout comment:
[There is something in your writing very strong that you may want to think,
"Your
> one track faith on Law of Physics" Can you for a minute get out of this
> "Darwin's theory" because we have many other theories that go against this
> evolution process.]
that SCIENCE IS NOT FAITH . Please refer to my article with this title
Science/Physics has logic, mathematics, eveidence and observations which
forms its basis, none of which is required in faith. There is no reason to have
faith in Physics as ther is no gain in pure faith in science. Only religiuous
belief requires faith. Faith cannot be taught or communicated to a skeptic..
Science can. be taught and communicated to anyone (skpetic or believer). Do
you see any department in universties to teach christian/Islam ic FAITH (Not
history)? Regarding Darwinina Evolution, can you cite any other "theory"? No
other theory other than evolution is accepted in science. Belief (creationism) is
not a theory. A theory requires objectiive evidence to establish. We accept
evolution not because we have blind faith in it but because it is proven by evidence
and reasoning. PLEASE READ the two book of Dawkins. Evolution is nice eplained
with objective reasoning. Creationism (Which is not even a scientif theory, only
of religionists) never uses objective logic (accpeted only as such by its believers).
Ultimately it is universal consensus that validates a theory. Creationism lacks such
universality. All current thoeries of evolution are highly modified forms of
Darwinian theory. Despites their differnces they are all evolution theories and
are scientifc (implyinmg no faith, but scientific reasonings).
You asked:
> Why is that we still have monkies and the family of monkey are not changing to
> human?
If you ask why then read the answer when it is being given to you again and
again. The above answer has e very obviuous and easy answer. (Actually the
question is itself wrong) . I have been repeating myself to death READ DAWKINS
(The two books I mentioned in the reference of Life, death, Immortality),
or any contemporary books on evolution. It answers all your whys. These whys
have been answered long ago are well established now. You are out of date with
all that developments. If you don;t understand it thats a different story. Not all
principles of science are easy to understand on a first reading. Do you question
the validity of the scientific principle of nuclear bomb? But it takes a highly
intellectual physicist to figure out its principle, thats what nuclear technology
is so sophisticated and difficult to develop.
You asked:
[ How do you explain the word "Feeling, compassion, intution" that generates in
our soul? What is your understanding about the soul that only the human
being posses?]
These are words that don't require definitions. They are universally felt. But
sure thay can be explained. EXPLAINING is not the same as DEFNING.
We all experience love, compassion etc. So it exists. It does not need definition.
Why it exists can ceratinly be explained. Again these are explained beautifully
in the books I listed at the end of "Life, Death, Immortality etc". Again, read
my article " SCIENCE, LOGIC , FAITH, BEAUTY ETC".
You mentiuoned Einstein. We both agree on Einstein. Then whats the basis of
your contraidctom me on other points. Its all consistemt. Einstein was a scientist. He
was not a believer. His theory is a scientifc one. Its been verified time and again.
He didn't start from ablind belief rooted innreligion. He was just doing what a
scientist does. Start from observation, propose a thery in a scietific kanguage and
then look for evidense to support it. Isn't that what I have been defending too?
Intuition is essential to science. But its a non-religious intuition. Religion requires
the blind belief in God and revelations. Einstein didn't believe in either. Also
PLEASE read my article "ON UNIVERSALITY OF SCIENCE AND THE
RELEVANCE OF PHILOSOPHY/MYSTICISM IN MODERN TIMES: "
(under scimeta.html under my homepage) to get my views of mysticism vs. science.
Regarding Bahai faith, as I said, it preaches essentially the same principle as
those of secular humanism . Being a secular humanist, I dont't see the need of
any faith with its own house/followers etc. It is common sense to me. I love,
respect, tolerate all of humanity irrespective of their faoith, color, race etc.
What more can Bahai faith add to that? let me know if there is.
Looking forward to your valuable views and thoughts.
Your spiritual brother
Subject: Re: Search for truth
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 01:14:26 +0600
To: [email protected]
Dear Spirititual Sister,
You are using the word soul. Its just a word to reflect our common
perception of our intelligence, thoughts, will etc. We all share this
intuitive notion., To call it soul is dosn't add any extra meaning. You are not
eperienceing anything that I or anyone is not. So your calling soul is just a
personal mode of expressing your experience which is not different from
anyone else. Again, I have to urge you tell me anything that is unique which
is a result of your deep realization that we don't have. Whay you see as
different in humans from animals is due to advanced intellgence in us (due to
highly evolved cerebral cortex in our brain). call it soul or whatever,
simply calling it soul doesn;t make it anyomore profound than than
realizing the origin of that difference between us and animals. Again READ
"LIFE, DEATH, IMMORTALITY". All these issues are dealt with in
great details in that article.
You said:
"whether or not you are willing to come forward to recognize the
existence of your soul in you. No one but you can do this favour to
yourself."
I recognize the same thing in me/you/us as you do. We have the same
senses, same organs. We perceive the same. Whether I call it "soul" is a
semantic issue. Not of any new realization. So it is not a question of
"willing" to come forward. There is no need of "will" in an instinctive
experience. Just like we don;t have to be "willing" to come forward
to call a color "blue". Blue is the name of a visual experience. Soul is
the common man;s term to characterize consciousness of humans.
Consciousness is an "EMERGENT" aspect of the compleity of brain.
It is well understood (though not fully) in scientific terms. Please
read my links on Physics of Consciousness.
Well, it may as well be that we are disagreeing on semantics. What do
you want me to believe in other than what we all share as common human
experience. As I said I see no reason to believe blindly in anything. Your
evidences that you cite are all comon human experiences. You said:
[To know God and His revelation, one needs
> to open the eyes of his soul. Physical eyes and mind do not posses the capacity
> to know or understand the spiritual realms or significant of the revelations of
> God.]
All you are saying above are just poetic expressions. "eyes of the soul" etc are
just poetic/metaphoric way of describing common human feelings. They don't
have any intrinsic meaning indpendent of your verbal construcs of your intuitive
experiences of the same human perceptions of life. I don;t know what more to
say. It seems like we have to agree to disagree. Feel free to ask any question
though. And also, I will still be open to listening to your reasonings and evidences
for your belief, hoping to get some new relaizations that I haven't gotten yet.
Wishing you the best,
Your spiritual brother.
Subject: Re: Search for truth
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:41:37 +0600
To: [email protected]
My Dear Spiritual Sister,
[..]. But hackneyed words and the usual jargon of
religion and vague mysticism doesn;'t help at all in my undertsanding. (I dont
believe it dopes to anyone. All such illusion of understanding based on vague
mysticism never ultimately advances human's search for the truth, but serves
only to give solace a group of people with amidst the insecurities of life, so yes
to that extent such vague mysticism is useful, but not in the search for THE TRUTH.
TRUTH is universal, not personal and it must be communicable without the
prerequisite of a or surrender ot through persuasion based on personal exhortation
instead of objective reasoning. science has and is provoding us all the truth. But the
search for truth is an onngoing and never ending process, as science never stops, it is
constantly progressing. Mysticism has stopped and is static, trapped in the same
cliches for centuries, not adding (or even having given at all) anything to our insight
into nature, life and universe. The only question I have now in my mind which science
or anything else cannot answer is, where or what is the origin of the laws of science
(Physics to be precise, as all else follows from there). SAYING GOD WILLS IT IS
NOT ANSWER, it is a simplistic answer with not added insight. First one has to
DEFINE GOD. no one has doen that yet. All concepts of GOD in religion suffers
from serious internal inconsistencies and merley reflect human's desire to have a
father like figure controlling each human's life (A reflection of inherent insecurities
in all of us).
You said:
[ > Example, if we are hungry, we can decide not to eat. But an animal cannot. We
> can design our life in a system and order which an animal cannot. ]
Is there anyone who doesn't know that? SO what profound truth does that reveal?
Why is it that only you are making so much out of that, and not the brilliant
scientists, like Einstein? I don't feel any impulse to derive any more meaning
from that simple observation. You cannot define SOUL. Can you? PLEASE
DEFINE IT FOR ME (or for all of the humanity). There is no accpeted definition
of SOUL among scientists, philosoiphers etc. Only vague mystics .religious people
use that term. So what good is it to use a term that has no universal definition
other than the obvious remark (requring no thought) that since humans can
decide not to eat when hungry but animals cannot there must be a SOUL. So soul
is the reason for that difference. Right? Is that a definition pf SOUL? Then
"cerebral cortex" is also soul, since it is known that human decision are due
to that part of the brain, which lower animals either lack or have a very
primitive cerbral cortex? Can you define SOUL in any other fundamental way
than simply by observing the obvious and then attribuiting it to a vague term
SOUL? I am desperate to know (As Are all scientisists/philosophers) if
there is anything called soul defined not in the simplistic and vague way.
If you already know (or claim to know, in that case I will not hesitate to
say thats an overly pretentious calim) then please let me and the world
know. Truth never remains suppressed too long.
You said:
[ > Again, I do not wish to proceed on arguments, because this is something one has
> to understand, if he wants to - understanding this only requires our submission
> to Creator and meditate on questions with our innerbeing.]
I do mediate a lot. As I said have spent hours and hours. Submission to CREATOR?
what do you mean? The only creator so far I know is the Law of Physics. If there is
anything prior to that, I don;t know what IT is, HOW IT is etc . (Nobody can. One
has to be utterly arrogant to claim one does). It is an unknown. I cannot
SURRENDER TO AN UNKNOWN, becasue surrender does not have any
meaning for anything otherthan to a human. It also doesn''y make sense to say
that I am NOT SURRENDERING either. It doesn't make sense to say one
way or the other. So understanding cannot require such undefined surrender
to an unknown. Understanding requires deep thinking, observation, logic,
evidence and intuition (All very important for scientists).
Dear Spiritual Sister, I invite you to dig deeper into SCIENCE for a meaningful search
for the truth, and a true appreciation of the mystery of the unknown, for a lesson of
humility that science teaches (The more we know, the more we know that we don;t
know a lot), and for a real mystical satisfaction. Please read the books referred to at
the end of LIFE, DEATH, IMMORTALITY etc.
Your Spiritual Brother.
Subject: Re Search for truth
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 003525 -0700 (PDT)
To: [email protected]
Dear Sister, I never doubted for a moment about your faith and conviction or the
fact that it gives you peace. Faith can heal. It is therapeutic. If faith comes
in you sponateousloy (Thats the ONLY way it can come) you are lucky. BUT FAITH
IS NO GUARANTEE TO BE THE ROUTE TO TRUTH, NOR IS IT GUARANTEED
THAT THE OBJECT OF FAITH IS TRUE. Faith in itself is therapeutic, whether the
object of faith is reality or illusion. One can find peace inbelieving in fairy godmather,
another may find peace in the Lord of the Dogstar (LIke the Dogan people of Mali).
But none of these beliefs are true by any objective standard. But they all serve the
purpose of their respective believrs.
Your final comment below betrays it all
> defined. So does the Love of God, it is a wonderful feeling of being complete.
> Cannot be defined. To get to this, one has to believe in Him and pray for His
> mercy. In His Mercy and Love He has created us, to Know Him and to Follow His
True Love can never be conditional. To get the love of God (If there is such a
thing) one need not believe in Him (And pray tell me, why is it a "HIM"??).
You are just imagining an ideal father that you may have fantasized in your
real life.
All you said are nothing but poetic words in various arrangements. It can
never convey any truth. But it does convey very clearly a wishful belief
in soemthing ill-defined that helps you find peace. This is as primitive a
placebo as humanity. Nothing new. (I am sorry I couldn't find anything new
in your words to help me in my quest of truth. But I do share a feeling of
spirituality/mystical awe with you although we channel that in very different
way. Solets agree to disgree and appreciate each others spiritual urge.
I am travelling. So it will be few days before I can write agin with more
detailed views. Wish you the best.
Aparthib
Subject: Re: My response to your post
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:34:13 +0600
To: "M. Harun uz Zaman"
Dear Dr. Zaman,
I appreciate your response. In fact my response to shetubondhon
was delayed and I thought it wasn't going to be posted, hence I sent
you my reponse personally. It was posted after my mail to you. I
apologize for that. As for our debate, I do view it as a constructive
exercize as it hones my critical faculty. I hope you would look at it
the same way. If not, feel free to stop responding and I will understand
that it is due to your reluctance to continue and not necessarily because
you agree with me. Now let me draw your attention to some finer points
in your clarifications that I disagree with.
You said:
> DISAGREE
>
> A. Standard (1) is the ONLY one (because it is "objective") that
> applies.
>
> I believe there are other standards, however "subjective," that are
> also legitimate provided condition (2) holds.
My point is that (which is implicit in all my earlier posts) that a "standard"
must be established through universal consensus. We cannot label
something as a standard if it is a subjective one held by a segment of
people belonging to a certain belief system. A standard by definition
has to satisfy some general consensus across belief systems. That was
the whole issue of our contention. A subjective "standard" is really an
oxymoron and can only be called a standard by the believers of such
subjective standard. Here we are back in the same difficulty as
wrongness. It is logically inconsistent to expect condition (2) to hold
on a "subjective" standard as you are doing above, because a
general agreement crossing religious/racial boundary DEFINES an
"objective" standard. So you cannot reconcile the contradictory parts
in your assertion.
I do certainly agree that we can agree to disagree on the ownership
issue. But I was expecting some references and further arguments
supporting your belief that Talebans own the statues. I appreciate
your mail.
Best wishes,
C.T
Subject: Re: My response to your post
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:22:02 +0600
To: "M. Harun uz Zaman"
Dear Dr. Zaman,
We are again getting lost in verbiage and rigmaroles. So let me get to my
point as best as I can in this followup.
1. You are clearly defending moral relativism by insisting on the validity of
subjective standards. By your logic any subjective standard is OK, since
you don't seem to agree to the need of an objective criterion to judge
the quality of that standard. In other words you are saying that simply
believeing something makes it right. I will let a profession philosopher
handle that view. (Refer to the article by Theodore Schick at the end).]
2. I believe you are dismissing the value of consensus of across belief systems
as a good criterion of standard by citing the example of the earth based solar
system view of the ancient world and the fact that slavery was accpeted across
belief systems one time. (Or else what was the point of citing thatt eample?).
Here you have created your own slippery slope. If consensus view is suspect
as a standard, then how can you even accept or validate a subjective standard?
We cannot charcterize the old notions of earth based cosmology or slavery as
truly consensus based. First of all, slavery was never preached as OK. It was
simply condoned and practiced (NOT in ALL societies either). No, philosophy,
state laws or principles ever decreed that slavery is RIGHT. Secondly, the
earth based view applies to a natural fact, NOT to a moral judgment. Veracity
of natural facts are not decided by consensus alone. We have what we call
scientifc method, which was lacking in old days. A consensus view achieved
through scientific method is needed to establish a natural fact. So quoting a
world view of the past on a NATURAL FACT is irrelevant to a debate on
MORAL STANDARD.
3. You are insisting that nontangible damage is considered a moral offense by a
large section of humanity across belief systems by citing eample of "Harassment,
libel and hateful speech " etc. You are missing the subtle implication, that
harassment, libel etc are DIRECTED PERSONALLY and potentially do lead to
tangible damage, hence do meet the objective wrongness criterion. If someone
lies about me, it may potentialy lead to my tangible damage (Loss of job etc).
But burning Koran, Gita etc are IMPERSONAL ACTS and do not carry
any potential of any loss of reputation, health risk, or materiual loss for anyone.
I am sad that I have to explain such obvious distinction to you. I certainly
disagree with your assertion that "Most societies (across belief systems) would
agree that the above act constitutes a moral crime." Most societies do not view it
as a CRIME. Or else it would be prohibited by law. very few societies do that.
and it is due to the very fact that such acts don;t carry any potentials of loss for
anyone that it is not considerd a crime. On the other hand most societies agree
(Like myself) that such acts are distasteful, indecorous and counterproductive.
But calling it a moral crime is a long stretch from that. I hope you can clearly
see the distnction between the two. Yes, some societies may capitulalte to the
extremists who use those acts as a pretext to disturb social harmony and ban
such acts. But that is more so because they are ineffective in punishing/preventing
the extremists from committing the objective moral wrongs (killing, burning other's
properties etc) and choose the easy way by preventing the subjectively worng
acts of flag/Koran burning which are used as a pretext by the extremist. As i said
it is like making it illegal to wear shorts by women rather than banning rape.
Regarding the ownership issue you said:
> [Ownership (private or public) is passed on through inheritence.
> Public property is inherited by successive goverments. Now consider
> if the Taleban had bought the property from some Budhdhist society,
> then by YOUR argument, it would have been OK for them to demolish the
> statues. By MY argument, it would still be WRONG.]
Well yes, my argument is based on objectivity (tangible damage of other's
property, the fact that it was condemned across belief sytem is additional
to that). Your argument was based on only your personal subjective standard
AND the fact that it was condemned across belief systems. But had it been
a case of demolition after true ownership, you cannot be sure the second part
(condemnation across belief sytem) would be true, I believe then it would not
have drawn condemnation unanimously as now and , and then your calling
it wrong would only reflect your personal subjective standard.
I think I have said enough for now. Now here is the article by Schick:
Best wishes,
C.T
Subject: Re: My response to your post
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:06:25 +0600
To: "M. Harun uz Zaman"
Dr. Zaman,
I agree its time for a time out. I am writing this to
point out only two major points of disagreement and ignoring
the other hair splitting ones for later. First is to remind
you of how this debate originated. Mr. Ahmed was lashing
at the world conscience for not condemning Koran
burning. Which clearly implies that the consensus among
majority of the world is that it was not a crime worth
condemning, but distaseful and unfortunate at worst. Now
you have insisted in your last email that your moral
standard agrees with (or is based on) consensus view.
So obviously you considering/condemning Koran burning
as a moral crime is at odds with majority of world and
at odds with your claim of using consensus criterion of
wrongness.(Refer to your your quote: "I SAID I TAKE
THAT AS ONE OF MY STANDARDS (My standard (2))").
Rather Its my view which is in line with the world consensus
view of not considering that as a serious crime worth
condemning. Secondly look closely below : (Please answer
in terms of the words and expressions used in this context
only to avoid possible "red herring/ignoratio elenchi" fallacy,
I said:
> But burning Koran, Gita etc are IMPERSONAL ACTS and do not carry
> any potential of any loss of reputation, health risk, or materiual
> loss for anyone.
>
You said:
> IT DOES, TO THE VICTIM GROUP. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY IT IS
>DONE BY THE PERPETRATOR GROUP.
[IT DOES? Can you explain how Koran/Gita burning etc carry potential
of any loss of "reputation, health risk, or materiual" loss TO THE
VICTIM GROUP? Please use reasoning that is not reflective of your
personal bias/judgement here. Your using the expression "VICTIM"
already reflects prior biased judgement which obscures objectvity.
Define a victim here. (Just claiming to be a victim doesn't make
one).]
You said:
>
> THE DISTINCTION IS NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. IT IS A CRIME
> TO INJURE A GROUP AS MUCH AS IT IS A CRIME TO INJURE A PERSON.
>
Please explain how Koran/Gita/flag burning can "INJURE A GROUP"
Again use an impersonal objective criterion to prove it.
You said:
> THE LAWS ADDRESS INTANGIBLE DAMAGE AS
> WELL. LAWS ADDRESS SUCH THINGS AS *PSYCHOLOGICAL* "PAIN
AND SUFFERING"
> BESIDES THE POTENTIAL FOR TANGIBLE DAMAGE (SUCH AS
*PHYSICAL* "PAIN AND SUFFERING").
Well, if you think carefully all such *PSYCHOLOGICAL* "PAIN AND
SUFFERING" mentioned in LAWS are due to possible tangible damage they may
lead to, Koran, Gita burning can never lead to such possibilitoes at all (Other
than someone simply CLAIMING to be so). Here again we have defer to
the consensus view. LAWWS reflect consensus view and consensus always
invariably weigh in all the objective factors. Thast why there is no law against
private Koran/Gita burning. By considering them wrong you are going
against consensus view.
Finally just to point out My using the example of "earth is round" was
admittedly inappropriate. I should have said that one can find one wacko who
would disagree that raping an infant is wrong. So that doesn't change my
contention that 100% literal consensus on any moral judgement is not possible
or is ever implied.
So much for now.
Best wishes,
C.T
From me Mon 28 Aug 2000 13:56:00 -0700
Subject: E4: LOGIC ,EMOTIONS, PHILOSOPHY ETC:
Status: RO
E4. LOGIC & FREE THINKING VS. EMOTIONS, PHILOSOPHY ETC:
--------------------------------------------------
Well, you are stating merely your opinion when you say "Many activities cannot be
explained by logic". Its true some activities are harder to explain and not EVERYONE
can explain anyway. Just because you (or anyone) could not explain it doesn't mean
some one else cannot. Fair statement? There are plausibility argumenets to "explain"
activities. Logic does not always have to be a mathematical statement. What I am trying
to say there is always a rational way to look at any activity in life. We cannot explain
logically romantic feelings, or love of art. These don't require explanation. But most
others can be viewed from a rational outlook.
I grew up with an analytic mind, not influenced by traditional beliefs and customs
taught(brain washed) to us by our society/religion and blindly accepting things that
have no rational basis whatsoever. I think in our society the free thinking faculty
of a person growing up is crippled at the very start by heavy dose of indoctrination
of unquestioning belief in traditional and religious dogma. I like to think freely
for myself using critical thinking. Its not true (If you assumed so) that I only
base my belief and views on reading only. I do draw observations from real life as
well like you. In fact that is the fun of living life: Watching, Observing the
wonders of human mind and nature and life. Observation is key to gaining insight.
This has to be supplemented by reading authoritative books by Scholars Books serve
to gather all that has been known to human through the pursuit of knowledege over
many years by brilliant minds.
[ I think its more important you try to understand WHY Riaz didn't express his feeling.
It may be that its not meant to be for you both. There are subtle forces at work in
nature that dictate the way things happen and aome of them don't happen the way we
would like it to. I did explain to you in one of my past email that true feelings
don't stay in the background for too long. A true feeling should be an honest one
and should give one a moral conviction to follow through it mutually.]
>Look Mr. Practical, Standing at my point of view,I almost disagree with
>you in thisregard. Don't you think you go too far by explaining
>everything according to your own point of view? .... (By T.J)
[ Well, well, I did manage to get you riled up, didn't I? Sure, everyone has differnet
experience and their own subjective way to view it, I cannot call it either wrong or
right. My focus was not on how to view or interpret it, but how NOT to let those
interpretations/views get in the way of controlling/affecting our lives/decision making.
That again was my view and one is free to criticize/reject it. Its freedom of thougts at
its best. Now is this better? Smile. By the way i am not practical in isolation. I am a
pragmatic idealist (Oxymoron? Not at all)]
[Yes, good things can guide a person (Isn't it a truism?), but my point is a good does
not only have to be found from poems/movies. Real life and a reflective mind is much
more reliable guide to good things. Only narrowing your views to poems/movies will a
very slow process of gathering truths. You have to read/watch hours to gather one line
of truth. reading books on philosophy/arts/logic/ethics and critical thinking is a more
effiecient source.]
[Emotions and Practical sense don't have higher or lower priority for me. I just use
them for different purpose. Emotions (like my sense of beauty, surrealism, love etc i.e
my heart) guide my spiritual/artistic/romantic side of life, practical sense (including
the sense of fairness, logic, i.e my head) guides my practical side of life (including
decisions regarding compatibility,fairness etc in relations). They are BOTH EQUALLY
IMPORTANT. Did I succeed in expressing myself? Maybe we don't have really basic
differences under close scrutiny.]
[Its just my sense of beauty/aesthetics that is responsible for my liking. We cannot ask
"WHY you like ... (poem,flower etc)". We cannot ultimately reduce a "like" to a
fundamental reason. Its a result of subjective "perception" that is unique to each
person reflecting their inner soul/psyche. So, no its not the "final destiny", just the
whole spirit, language and the artistry of it that creates the appeal. Final Destiny etc
are of philosophical nature and I am interested in that from a different angle. Check my
Link under "PHOLOSOPHY" in my Home Page.
The song and the poem both evokes a feeling of beauty/romanticism/lyricism which is
"WHY" (If you insist) I like them. For Abole tabole the feeling that is evoked is not
the same but a "yearning" to surpass this mundane world and escape into a surrealist
world of my subconscious, where abstract/absurd imageries symbolize the sublime and the
bizarre, an essential ingredient of my intellectual self. Check my Link on SURREALISM (I
have updated it with my concept of Surrealism). Confusing? :)]
[Well, again I am not denying the reality of EXISTENCE of "blind love", but like all
other realities, e.g "jealousy/impatience/rudeness etc", a reality may not necessarily
be DESIRABLE. A blind love , although common, is nevertheless undesirable, as it can
potentially lead to harmful side effects. We all know blind love have led to
crimes of passion as well as self destructing pursuits (depression, mania and
in extreme cases suicide).]
[Again REALITY vs. DESIRABILIY, IS vs SHOULD issue as I explained above.
Not being able to think staight IS OBSERVED but is undesirable as it also is known
to lead to crimes of passion and other harmful side efeects, not to mention the self
destructing pursuits (depression, mania and in extreme cases suicide).]
[Trying to explain the causes of love doesn't mean saying to someone "How can you love
such and such, he/she is so different?". Thats a personal comment and can be made by
even those who don't try to explain love. For someone like me who like to explain love I
would rather look at it as a challenge and try to explain/understand why there is a love
between "A" and "B" inspite of their difference instead of giving advice to "A" about
the big difference between them. You are looking at things from a negative point of
view. Besides even if "C" says to "B", how can you love "A", "A" is so different. So
what, if "B" has conviction about his/her feelings, other's COMMENTS cannot/should not
change that. Even forceful attempts by parents cannot change the mind of their
son/daughter when the love is strong then how can a mere "comment" by someone matter?
Makes any sense? Your views above still doesn't really show how love can be "spoiled".
Is love such a trivial/fragile thing that it can be "spoiled" by a trivial comment of
another person? Hmm, I have to worry about that kind of love.]
>I believe that it is not so much what we say that matters but ***how***;.. (By S.S.)
Ever agreed with the expression "One exception breaks the rule"? Your belief
is not a rule because I dont see it that way. For me What we say (and also mean) is
what really matters (Or at least matters MORE than how we say). How we say is just
reflects one's personality. A cosmetic cover really cannot change the content. Your
above statement clearly says "how" matters MORE than "what".] (To S.S)
>you want to know my opinion, then here are some examples: Dissecting a
>beautiful poetry instead of just enjoying it for what it is meant to be; (By S.S.)
Enjoyment is total spontaneous reaction of the reader. If the poetry doesn't provide
enjoyment to the reader then its the failure of the poetry/poet or that the poet(ry)
is limited in its appeal to certain readers. "Beautiful" is relative isn't it?
For example when I read "To Minnie" by Robert L. Stevenson I am moved by its sheer
beauty and aesthetics. Dissecting it is out of the question. But the same may not be
true for many other poems that you might consider beautiful.] (To S.S)
>So the question is, "Are most people you meet asinine or is it just your
>assessment of their intellect?"); Assuming that *if* others get turned (By S.S.)
Ans: Neither. Misconstructions/misinterpretations are bound to occur as we communicate
through man made languages with all its limitations and ambiguities (or rather lack of
a standard uniformly perceived meaning). An intellectual recognizes this and strives
to redress this by restating/revising/rephrasing their expressions/ thoughts for
better articulation. If and when the spirit and emotions of two souls do get tied
intimately then maybe at the heightened stage there would be no need of words to
communicate feelings/thoughts/ideas. (To S.S)
The bottom line : There is no element of compulsion in any dialog. Even if I am
talking to you in person I can never force/command you, no matter how persuasive I
may sound. We are (or should be as intellectuals) mentally strong enough to resist
persuasion mentally. Obviously there is no physical persuasion here (Absolutely NOT).
Actually I have not been even persuasive in my bla bla so far, I have at the most
stated what I believe in and may have expressed my disagreement with you (acceptable
between intellectuals) and put forward my reasons for believing so. (To S.S)
Among one of the many givens for me is the fact that I (or anyone) do not change deep
inside, at times just make accomodations appropriate to the circumstances at hand on a
temporary basis which does not in any way negate my inner urge or passion for my
beliefs or principles and which I will assert if and when needed. I am glad to hear
from you in unequivocal terms the premise that we can accept others the way they are
when the fundamentals are sound. This ties in with my assertions relating to the
Doppelganger topic discussed before. and the statements like "Agree to disagree" etc.
ALthough I take a different view of this statement than is normally taken by most
(maybe you too) which is "let us not argue or reason and let each have their own
opinion or reasons". For me the approach is "Let each put forward their own reasons
and argument and the other judge its merit, present their own reasoning to refute the
others and let this continue as long as each is making a point without repeating
verbatim the reasoning/argument made before. If it comes to a point where each has
exhausted what they have to say and none is convinced by the other only then it makes
sense for sensible people to say "Let us agree to disagree". It is important to not
get personal or sentimental while engaging in this exchange of reasonings/arguments.
Thats the way I look at it. (To S.S)
Argument and self control:
-------------------------
>and why are we arguing over this. and any argument can go on and
>on...there will be no end.....and there are so many things in life...why
argument (friendly of course. Ever watch crossfire on CNN? They shake hands
after the debate) only happen if both take part. If either one cease to
participate it can stop (e.g agree to disagree). (See my article A8 on
debate/argument. I am following the guideline there. And A8 was not in the
list of articles that you disagreed on. :). There can be no compulsion in a
debate. But if someone gives an opinion on something and I don't happen to
agree then I will give my own opinion. Its fair, because we both gave our
opinion. No bitterness at all. Just a human instinct to share intellectual
insights. So if one doesn't want to listen to my opinion then one has to stop
giving their opnion as well to be fair. maybe just talk about the weather or
one's travel experience (Any conversation that does not include an giving
an OPINIION). The converstaion might be quite dull in that case, I must admit.
[To E.C 3/98]
As to "indulging in one's ego" and "bringing another person down" this requires a
detailed analysis. In everyday life we engage in games and sports of "Win or Lose"
nature. The end result of winning is some sort of ego boost or a pleasure in seeing
others lose. It is accepted by all and doesn't prevent people from playing these games
(I.e. "let go"). We see contests/debates all over including media where one tries to
prove their superiority in one form or other. In most of these games/sports/contests
the winning does not generate any beneficial byproducts other than the sheer egotistic
pleasure of one's dominance. It is a truism to say or realize that we are not the best
in everything in life so it is perfectly OK to lose in a game/debate/contest and thats
the way it is in practice also (except some fringe elements who throw tantrums or
resort to violence when facing defeat or anticipating one). So why it should be so
profoundly DIFFERENT in the case of a private debate/argument/reasoning between two
persons? Why is it that indulging egos or bringing someone down i.e by winning or
losing in the argument (By the way not everyone who argues/reasons necessarily are
trying to indulge egoes or bringing others down, only some percentage) be looked at
differently than all the other win/lose situations so routinely accepted in other
things in life? Besides winning or losing in an argument can bring potential
beneficial byproduct of insight and and better undestanding of issues and people which
other win/lose doesn't. Food for thought :) (To S.S)
Desire for "Perfection" is illogical as perfection is like the number "infinity" in
math (cannot be reached), what is appropriate is a desire for IMPROVEMENT. If by
inner tranquility you mean a mind that is free from anxiety and guilt then it depends on
many factors in life. Most important of which is a clear conscience. Anxiety is
something we all have in various degrees. I don't see how a desire to IMPROVE can
interfere with inner tranquility. It can make one's mind work harder and may cause
some psychosomatic stress but that can be managed eventually. (To S.S)
As I said myself, not everyone acts in the ideal/rationl way as I profess (which you
agree in principle) and try to practice. I am skeptical too, but that does not stop me
from presenting my arguments/ reasons to others (without making personal attack and
losing self control myself) and if that irritates them and THEY lose self control then
I withdraw. But at least that way I get to know about this flaw in their personality
(i.e getting irriated/losing self control if others differ) which I would not have
discovered if I didn't engage in such a discourse. On the other hand if such a
discourse doesn't irritate them or they don't lose self control then also I will be
discovering a good side of their personality which I wouldn't have known without
engaging in the discourse. Understanding people is knowing both the flaws and the
virtues in them. (To S.S)
When we were having discourse there was no history of MY losing control (since you
didn't know me) or repeat of a history nor was there any logical basis of ANTICIPATING
that from me. So in this case your letting go of any argumentation (intellectual) with
me would be totally based on a prejudgement of me potentially losing self control and
would amount to denying me the benefit of the doubt. Thats the whole point I was making.
That you let go AFTER you see someone losing control (For a first timer) or BEFORE in
anticipation (For someone with a history of such). Am I communicating better this time?
:) (To S.S)
[..]
OK, its a valid observation on the realities of Politics in work places and the clash
of vested interests and professional jealousy (All human frailties that do exist in a
REAL world). I have never for a minute doubted the realities of life (Being different
from what I believe the way it SHOULD be). I never expect a logical discourse with
someone who has vested interest in putting me down or looks at me as a rival specially
in a meeting where accepting/rejecting ideas/opinions of each will translate into
actions/decisions which will affect's vested interest of each differently(e.g enhances
one's image over another to their advantage in later promotions/influences etc) SO
these are not really purely intellectual sessions but are basically sessions with
practical consequences. My focus of discussion was an intellectaul discourse (with
differing logic and arguments by each) where accepting/realizing the merit of others
argument/logic doesn't or the lack of it doesn't affect vested interest of anyone.
[..]
"Perfection is not achievable whereas improvement IS". Improvement is an incremental
process and is always possible and desirable. This is an example of an interesting
aspect of reasoning where one responds to a statement with a valid statement which
does not invalidate the statement being responded to :) Now I would like to know if
"Perfection is not achievable whereas improvement IS" is only *MY* perspective and not
yours. (To S.S)
criticism can mean pointing out only my flaws. I am trying to convey to you how I
differ from others in that I can handle negative only criticism. Being able to handle
negative only criticism should ideally be the goal of an intellectual since it still
helps to know oneself. (If being dispassionate is an attribute that is required of an
intellectual in certain circumstances then this is one.) (To S.S)
Its NOT (An emphatic not) a win/lose game for ME. For me its a win/win exercise
since the only outcome of a discourse (irrespective of whose reasoning/argument is
vaild) is an enlightenment, better insifgt into issues and human mind. If you look
back at my earlier mail, you will see the win/lose analogy was brought up to justify
not losing self control even if it was looked upon as WIN/LOSE as some do, but not
me. (To S.S)
I only agree with someone when I see a valid reason/argument is presented (As does
anyone else). Until then we continue our discourse or Agree to Disagree. So no one is
under compulsion to agree with me. (To S.S)
Well, if someone loses self control (i.e shows temper/get personal) just because
someone disagrees with them and is presenting their reasons/arguments calmly without
making personal attacks then it is one who is losing self control who is being
insensitive. There is always the clause "Agree to disagree" which should be resorted
to in a stalemate instead of resorting to temper. BTW the nature of losing
temper/self control is different for male and females. For most males it is a prelude
to physical violence, not so for females. My problem is really with the male species
as resort to physical violence is something I despise with all my gut. (To S.S)
Now I am making the statement again: "Losing self control just because
someone differs with them is an imperfection". Nobody is perfect. An imperfection does
not disqualify someone as a partner/friend. I never demand that my partner/mate/friend
be PERFECT. I have lot of imperfections myself. I will enumerate them as the context
arises. I may have an obsessive desire to be understood correctly. (To S.S)
[To T.J:
There are two general points I like make:
1. When A askes a simple question to B and B refuses to answer the
question (Sometimes it may be just a yes/no) then it indicates
that B is making more meaning out of the question by A than was
intended/expressed by A.
2. Whenever A makes a statement that is ambiguous and can have two
meanings and B requests A to which meaning A had intended then
it helps the cause of good communication if A identifies what
was intended. Refusing to do so goes against the principle
of better effective communication. After all, the importance of
effective communication for better interpersonal communicatiojn
(Between friends, colleaguers, spouses) is stressed by all
socialogists/psychologists without exception and I believe in
it too. Don't you?
Dear TJ,
[..the fact is that as much as we wish
everything went our cherished way, life is a series of compromise, you
take some and give some. In real life a conflict of interest can arise
invariably time to time. In this case, your interest (15 days vacation)
is in conflict with your boss's (your work to help him in his Job and
Grameen Trust). He may consider his job and Grammen trust more important
than your vacation. If you consider 15 days vacation more important than
his recommendation then you can refuse to oblige him and leave earlier.
But if you think the recommendation is more important then you may decide
to sacrifice your vacation. Thats the reality of life. We sometimes
sacrifice for friends. But that is out of goodness of our feeling for them,
and it can go in either direction. But in profession and business one's
vested interest usually takes precedence. I don't know your boss personally.
he may be very nice to you still give you recommendation evcen if you leave
earlier. I don;t know. But as to what you should do that is totally upto
you to decide what is your priority. You don't have to compromise. You are
not being forced to oblige him. Its your desire to get recommendation that
is the reason you may want to compromise by your own decision. This is a
very common situation that many of us face. You can lead a life without
compromising but then you lose many favours too. Thats the unwritten rule
of the game. You may find comfort to know that I have had to compromise
in life also(I am sure a lot of other peple too). But these compromises
do not have lasting effect on life as a whole and life moves on. Sometimes
others will compromise for you. So everything averages out. I am sad that
you have to compromise but I hope you will take a positive view of it and
move on...]
[To Denever:
>>>"I really, really hate ignorant people."
Have you ever been accused of what you are not? Let me know how you responded
if you were so I can respond to you in the same language. Just curious what
you mean by "hate" here. I have told you I am offended when people do one of
those absolute wrongs (listed in my web writings) to me. But even then its not
hate that I feel. Does a judge feel hatred when sentencing a criminal to capital
punishment? I will do whatever needed to protect myself and deter further
wrongdoings.
Dear Denver,
..
It is a common human instinct (fascination through asociation?) that when we meet
someone with atribute that we admire we tend to develop a general fascination for the
entire culture/race etc forgetting that an individual doesn't represent the whole. I
believe that in every race/culture there exists at least one person who merits our
admiration. It may be that in a certain race/culture we may find more to our liking
and taste. [..]
[ Now on to your own example of miscommunications. First I don't
understand your fascination with Arabic language/culture/people. In all Arab countries
(except Iraq) culturally women are viewed as subordinate to men. A good woman is defined
as one obedient/compliant/submissive towards men. They are not allowed to work in the
physical presence of men. Men can marry four women but not the other way around etc etc.
They simple can't take no for an answer from a woman and interpret the "NO" either as
a desire on the part of the woman to challenge him to win her over through additional
display of his masculinity or out of her humility (Like saying no when a guest is
offered a food but actually desires it and eventually eats it after some persuasion).
Anyway thats my opinion or impression (general) but know that there are always
exceptions to a generality. It is ironic that the most secular and progressive
country has been relegated to the status of a foe and demonized (ONLY because of
its contention with Kuwait) whereas the other obscurantist and fanatic countries
are being cajoled and befriended by US. ..]
[ I really think your conflict/flounderings are ill founded. Social norms and
standards are for the teeming avergaes just as a ballpark attempt to maintain social
order and can by no means address individual needs and circumstances. So use your
heart as guide and thoufghtful discretionand and as long as you are committing any
of the absolute wrongs you are fine. Godly people? Who are godly people, those who
just practices some rituals prescribed in ancient books? I think Steven Hawking,
Carl Sagan are the godliest people on earth. They have penetrated the deepest core
of nature's secret and is more qualified to even talk about God than anyone else.
So don't subject yourself to this tension by their invitation. They have their agenda
. Each species have an instinct of propagation/proliferation. They are just doing that.
YOU decide what is right for you (Avoiding the absolute wrongs at the same time)..
- To Denver 10/98]
Date: May 08 10:19:38 1998
To: SS
Subject: Back to my usual mode :)
Dear SS,
[..]
Anyway I will try to discuss your critique of my "The way things ougtta."
in my usual mode of intellectual discourse :) First when I write:
NEVER END A FRIENDSHIP BASING ON "WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO
FOR YOU", RATHER BASE IT ON "WHAT THEY DID TO YOU"
You have equated "basing on" = "think of" (quite strange and I can't
understand why). Anyway read "basing on" as "because of" then the
meaning will become clear.
Next in critiquing the following:
THE ONLY RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NATURALLY BOUND BY
OBLIGATION IS THAT OF PARENTS TOWARDS THEIR MINOR
CHILDREN. IN ALL OTHER RELATIONSHIP THERE IS NO
INHERENT OBLIGATION OR RESPONSIBILTY TO TAKE CARE
OF ONE BY THE OTHER BUT MAY RESULT FROM A SPONTANEOUS
LOVE/AFFECTION.
You have added that its also bounden on grown ups to take care of their old
parents. You missed the very important "naturally" in the first
sentence above. What you are saying is not a universal truth but reflection
of your own belief which is cultural in its origin. Western society doesn't
say its a "MORAL/NATURAL" obligation. Look at animal kingdom and you will
understand the "natural" part of it. Again don't forget we are talking
about an inherent obligation. It still leaves open individual spontaneous
feeling which is not obligatory or morally incumbent. It is important
that you pay attention to each word used in my writings and not just make
a summary conclusion of the entire writing.
[..]
C.T
Date: Fri May 08 10:19:39 1998
To: "Robin Hutchens"
Subject: Re: Photos and hijab...my responses
Dear Robin,
Thanks again for writing. I appreciate your taking time to address my
questions/comments and other considered opinions. let me address some
questions that you have directed to me.
At 07:24 AM 4/28/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
> Wow, I could write a book it seems. You ask interesting questions and I
>wonder if hijab bothers you and if so, why? Hijab doesn't make me a better
>muslima than someone who doesn't wear it, in my opinion. That is a personal
>choice. I pray 5 x /day even when I am tired and want to sleep. Why?
>Because I have to, a part of me now. But if I am somewhere, I wait till I
>get home. I don't need to show the world I pray. I am not fanatical in the
>least, probably more Sufi than anything. But not following any Sufi imam or
>anything. Just basic Islam.
>
Let me make it clear that nothing personal about others which is also
non-intrusive bothers me. I respect everybodies individual ideas/practices/
idiosyncracies as long as they are not forcing them on others. I may differ
with those but then my difference is also non-intrusive in nature and I just
use civilized logic to express my differnce or make a critic. The bottom line
is I believe in agreeing to disagree. As i said I admire your compassionate
and kind attitude and appreciate your maintaing the personal nature of your
belief and practices. If I may I want to place my two cents worth on the
negative response you got in response to your article on the news group.
Once you publish articles in a newsgroup extolling a specific religion you
are not staying totally personal but will be perceived as promoting that
religion and and you will qualify for a critic by those differing with you.
Discussing these with individuals one on one is a different matter. Hope
this sets the perspective right.
[..]
Sincerely,
C.T
Date: 8/26/01
To: [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Sub: Clarifiying impersonal defense
Avijit, first as always I am thankful (that may be an understatement)
for your kind words about me. I mustbhowever point out to all,
not just you (I think you understand), I was not defending anyone
PERSONALLY or apologizing for anyone. I was just expressing my
disagreemrnt with what I perveived was misplaced criticism about
freethinking and freethinkers of Mukto-Mona. You recall I also
repreated your line that no one is beyond/above critcism, and was
using the moderator's example (Notice I didn't mention name as it
was not necessary, I was not defending a person) to refute the
allegation that moderator was acting like a despot or that he was
beyond critcism, because he actually was critcized (preemptively) for
seeking fellow mukto-monas opinion as to whether to ban the RSS
aplogist. After all it is a moderated forum, a moderated forum is not
antithetical to freethinking, freethinking should not be in clash with
democratic norms and values or need not permit abusive language
or spamming in a forum that discourages these.
My refuting an unfair allegation against a nameless person
(the moderator) to make a general point is not against freethinking,
unfortunatey it was not understood by some. Freethinking should not
paralyze oneself from taking a fair stand on an issue backed up
with evidence, whether that stand goes against or in favour of
someone in a given instance is incidental. Besides I was refuting
the allegations OF a freethinker too (By his own proclamation, and
I didn't challenge that). So it was not an act of kneejerk defense of
a fellow freethinker against a non-freethinker as the characterization
"klannish" would imply.
************************************************************
Mail to A.M.
************************************************************
From me Sat May 22 13:35:16 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: M4 - My response to A.M.
Some key words/concepts to keep in mind are:
1. The issue of what is Logic/reason/rational (In a debate/dialog) is a different
issue (It is the topic of the field of epistemology) than what is a miracle
(topic of paranormal studies/Science).
2. Belief vs. logic (No connection whatsoever).
3. Differences between declarative ("IS" type), Optative ("SHOULD" type), and
and explanative ( "..." BECAUSE "...." type statement)
4. A clear Understanding of OCCAMS' RAZOR (VERY important, cannot be
overemphasized)
We can safely first eliminate what rational/logical IS NOT:
1. A belief
2. An "IS" (declarative) type of statement, A "SHOULD" (Optative) type
of statement etc.
There is one fine point to note that a skeptic mind may also SEE things
that believers see, but believers may "explain" it by assigning divine
nature to it but a skeptic will not. The Shroud of Turin is visible to
any eye (Skeptic or believer), but that does not mean both will trace
it to the same source. The Romans may have seen visions/apparitions
(These are also possible, but no scientific explanations), but that does
in any way make it an EVIDENCE of the resurrection of Jesus as is
described. You don't have to cite the miracles of Jesus. Miracles are
happenning even now routinely. You should see DISCOVERY/TLC/HISTORY/A&E
channels regularly for the cumulative compilations and anecdotal
plausibility arguments of experts/scientists/parapsychologists etc to
get a handle on the nature of these phenomena in depth. Some miracles
are observed routinely by scientists but not accepted as such since they
don't violate Physical Laws (One example is Dowsing, utilized by Detectives!
a similar phenomenan in WB/BD is called Bati Chalan, i.e catching a thief with
the help of a copper bowl dragging a tranced person touching it with a finger,
Wija board is another example)
A pattern will emerge if you put together all the inputs from various
sources/minds and by the sheer observations of these phenomena (Countless of
them, some reconstructed, some originals). Three hints as to the limitations
of our human mind:
1. We are easily deceived (Even scientists) by Magic. It seems to accomplish
miracles.
I have sometimes seem to have lost a good sized article (After thorough
search in a room not too full of furniture/stuff) but found after several
days lying a place that could not have been overlooked innmy thorough search.
2. Hypnotic suggestions seem to do miracles (Surgery without anaesthesia)
3. The fact that signals of brain activities are transmitted (How, not known)
(That may explain how collective praying sometimes do seem to work)
3. The possibility of parallel worlds (In physics).
All these together with Occam's Razor must be constantly be the guard when
making even a tentative conclusion on miracles etc.
>
>Who knows, cosmic thinker. The reason it's so hard to debate religion with religious
>folk is because they're not quite as deluded as athiests/agnostics like to
>think they are, and athiests/agnostics aren't quite as 'rational' as they
>think they are....... I don't think it has much to do with the inability to
>be swayed by logic.
Your 'because' is really not explaining, is it? If they are not as deluded
as you say then it would not be hard to debate with them. So its the otherway
around. A given atheist/agnostic may not be a rational person completely (More
rational than a given blind believer in the aspect of belief in God/Religion
only) but may be less rational in many other daily dealings. A truly rational
person will invariably be an agnostic rather than a believer. See also article
A20 (The last part on levels of credulity).
>
>In the end, the simple logic that 'if God didn't make us, who did?'; where
>'God' is defined as who or what made us, is both circular but at the same
>time, unbreakable. Athiests and agnostics seem to hit a logical wall when
>they come to this inevitable point in the debate... who made us? We'll say
>BIG BANG... they say, who made it happen? We'll say PRESSURE and the LAWS
> OF PHYSICS... they'll say who wrote the laws? We'll say NATURE and they'll say
>who made nature? In the end, the only way out is to say, God. Good riddance.
>We were getting tired of this argument anywayz.... isn't that usually how it
>goes?
Yes, but notice in that game the beliver is no better off (Actually worse,
I will explain how) than the skeptics, as "explaining" the creation of
everything by GOD (Actually saying that everthing has been created by GOD is
not really an "explanation" as it is a declarative statement and uses a word
that is not even defined to begin with) runs into problem of not explaing the
existence of GOD, unless GOD is accepted as an axiom (Just for convenience, no
depth). At least to the skeptics/scientists, the wall is the Laws of Physics.
It is more natural to assume those as the axioms and explain everything from
that, rather than something intagible (invented ONLY by the believers of certain
religion). Read the book "The Fabric of reality" by Oxford Physicist/thinker
David Deutsch for an excellent debunking of the "explanation myth" of divine
revelations. I cannot reproduce in few sentences that he so elegantly
constructs authoratively in the book.
Well, there some food for thoughts I hope.
take care
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Fri Sep 3 11:23:06 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: copy of my response to your post
A.M.,
You are taking a strictly binary view of dividing people into "liberal" and
"fanatic". It doesn't work that way. Most people are moderate somewhere
between these two extremes. Its not just the "liberals" who believe in the
"Univeral Charter of Human Rights". Republicans believe in it too. Most
countries in the world signed on to it (Most would not qualify as liberals).
Many moderately religious folks also belive in "Univeral Charter of Human Rights".
I am sure most Indians would believe in it? Don't you? (India was a signatory
to this charter being a member of the General Assembly, so was Pakistan). Its
only the small minority of fanatics and radicals (from both left and right) who
may oppose such a broadly humanistic charter of human rights.
I don't see any instance of "liberals" ramming their agendas on the public
by brute force. Only a Military Junta (Right or Left), Marxist or Theocratic
state/society can "ram" their agenda down the public throat. I see a basic
unfairness in equating liberals with fanatics. Maybe you are redefining
"liberal" here.
cosmic thinker
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:45:17 "A.M. " wrote:
[..]
>
>As I see it, neither side to this argument can be judged as being "wrong."
>Liberals believe the principles enshrined in the Human Rights Charter are
>universally applicable; religious folk believe the same about their
>principles. To both, there can be no compromise. Indeed, both sides have in
>the past, resorted to brute force to ram their agendas down the throats of a
>public who really couldn't care less. And in the end, the more powerful
***********************************************************
From me Sat Sep 4 15:12:21 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: liberals and fanatics
A.M.,
Seems like much (but not all) of our exchange is due to a discrepancy in our
definition of terms. So Let me first get the terminologies straigtened out so
we are on a level field.
Let me define them and let me know if I am correct/consistent in my contentions
within my definition.
1.Traditionalist = Generally religious but doesn't take every word of divine book
literally and don't have unquestioning belief in the interpretation of the the same
by the orthodox clergy (in a generic sense for any religion). They adopt most of the
injunctions that don't contradict basic human rights but conveniently ignore
or reinterpret the ones that do to make it look consistent with their own belief in
the basic human rights). They are not vocal or active in trying to enforce these
religious injunctions on others in the society but merely practice them in a personal
way.
2.Fanatic/Fundamentalist/Purists.. = Believe in religion in its most rigid orthodoxy
taking every injunction literally or adopting the clergy's interpretation in cases
where the dictums are vague or are amenable to various interpretation and are quite
vocal and active in tryong to enforce those injunctions on the society at large
3.Liberal = Not a traditionalist or a fanatic
Now my contention is that with the above definitions it is quite clear to me (I can
speak from my own interaction of many traditionalists of BD) that may traditionalists
do believe in the equality. I would nevertheless hasten to add that I would agree with
you that a traditionalist (With the definition above) who believes in *equality* of
gender is strictly being illogical (because religion does not grant a strict
mathematical equality between the sexes, but redefines right of a woman and then assert
equality (i.e man is entitled to "male rights" and women are entitled to "female
rights". Hence they are equal. Case closed!). Just like many homosexuals also believe
in the tenets of Christianity (some are even pastors) but also contend that
homosexuality is not a sin as GOD is merciful and cannot be so unjust to them, although
it is clearly stated in Deuteronomy 23 (Old Testament) that homosexuality is forbidden.
They are obviously being self-contradictory. This contradiction is rampant among all
races, religions and people at large. But at least it is a benign contradiction, as it
does not hurt anyone. It is the nature of the reality. I was disagreeing with you that
its a battle bewteen a liberals and fanatics (You may not like the term fanatic but you
are sure implying my definition above). If at all it is a battle (More vocal between
liberal and fanatic, very subdued between traditionalists and fanatics, as
traditionalists. Having clarified my points let me go on to respond to your specific
comments:
>In essence, the problem here is simple - dogma vs. dogma. Any pretences of
There is one dogma here. You cannot label equate (No Dogma) = (Another Dogma).
Its like saying skepticism is also a biased view! A liberal is according to my
definition = (Not a traditionalist or a fanatic). Hence a liberal cannopt have a
dogma since only traditionalists and fanatics have dogmas (Stronger among fanatics).
Of course if you include Marxists etc in liberal camp then of course they would
have their own dogma of a different kind. So you must acknowledge people who don't
have any dogmas (Count me in). That was whole issue with you rpost that you didn't
acknowledge the existence of this segment of people.
>the other feels the whif of impending defeat (intellectual assimilation),
>they may resort to force to reverse the tide... and that's when liberals
>become Marxists and traditionalists become Fanatics.
The word "becomes" is an oxymoron. You can be one or the other. If a certain
individual switches bewteen liberal<->traditionalist, liberal<->Fanatics,
or traditionalist<->Fanatics, or any other possible combinmation, then he has
to be considerd to have been belonging to the new category (The stable one) all
along. One has to categorised by their stable affiliation. The previous affiliation
(unstable) would have to be retroactively annulled. But even then that does not
signify the diappearance of any of these categories as a whole.
But regardless of what I said above there is a more fundamental principle here: A
true belief (or lack thereof) is absolute and hence unchangeable. What changes is
an external affiliation/activity to avoid/achieve certain results, which may
contradict one's internal absolute belief. An example: When Taslima Nasreen visited
Bangaldesh she wore a Borkha (worn by a few orthodox Muslim women) to avoid being
recognized. Would you say she "became" an orthodox Muslim woman from a highly
liberal one? :)
>
>Anyways, my point is, compromise is not possible. There can only be
>assimilation.
I agree with this in the sense there can be no truly voluntary compromise, but
there can be a reluctant (either by force or by democratic vote ) acceptance
by one group of the ideas and practices of the other. There is hardly any instance
of fanatics democratically enforcing acceptance of their beliefs anywhere.
Luckily almost invariably the number of (traditinalists + liberal) far exceed that
of fanatics anywhere. So at least in a democratic society it is not possible
for fanatics to enforce their belief, but in an autocracy/theocracy it is, like
Saudi Arab, Iran, Afghanistan etc.
Thanks for your response
cosmic thinker
************************ earlier responses to A.M. ************************
Cynicism based on OBJECTIVISM is desirable (As I am and I believe you are too)
so as not to fail to recognize the good when it exists. Unfortunately cynicism
in some can assume a morbid level that it blinds their objectivity and only sees
bad in everything.
>A13: Would you say adult children have an obligation to take care of their
>elderly parents?
Not in a natural way as I mentioned in A13, but by the norms/standards of a given
society (Indian, Chinese etc). Mother nature is the best teacher. Mother animals take
care of their young ones (No exceptions), but not the other way around. The fact that
in human the reverse happens is a testimony to the fact that tradition/culture is a
distinctive feature of this species not rooted in its animal instinct. Thats why its
not universal. Its not considered a moral duty in the West. I am not saying its bad.
Its definitely good (Sp for the elders).
ON ABSOLUTE WRONG:
>A15: I abhor the very idea of a "Universally" correct value. Nothing is
>universal, and everything depends on circumstance. For example, people
>would say murder is universally wrong. But I can think of many situations
>where murder would be perfectly justifiable (IMO). Can't you?
You said "many" situation, by that you implied in some situations its not.
(many != all, right?) That is my whole point. There is some situation where it
IS universally wrong.
"same" here is obviously refering to "Causing injury to someone's body or loss to their
property". As a computer science student you would realize this way I am avoiding a
recursive infnite loop. One can go in a loop saying a wrong was done in response to
another wrong, which in turn was inresponse to a previous wrong... and so on. But
ultimately one will arrive at a point where a wrong was first initiated. Thats where
the absoluteness of the wrong lies.
Now coming to your second point of preemptive attack on the gunda, this can be handled
by generalizing B1 to state: "Causing injury to someone's body or loss to their property
when they didnt do the same to anyone", i.e by replacing "you" by "anyone" (I will do
that, thanks for inspiring this:) Obviously this Gunda has committed many absolute
wrongs to others. So you can launch a preemptive attack on him and it will not be
defined as "absolute wrong" by my above deifition but still may be a "wrong" (e.g in a
legal or logistic sense)
>
>D11: Minorities in all countries (I'm not aware of any exceptions) have
>genuine gripes against the majority. Sometimes, the system is set up in
>such a way that the minority can not get legal redress,..
I agree, but the rampage is done not against the authority or the enforcer of the
inept legal system which is causing the genuine grievances but against innocent
members of the community. If those mayhem mongers burned out the secretariat, court
houses, disrupted communication systems (i.e anyway they can affect the funcationality
of the system which is perpetuating the grievances) then I can defend it.
>By that same token, telling the truth is also universally wrong since
>there are circumstances where it would always be wrong. For example, if
>you're struggling against an unjust government, then revealing the true
>location of others in the struggle would be wrong.
>As you can see, I AM nitpicking here. But the point is, that nothing can
>be universally right or wrong since everything can be either always right
>or always wrong in atleast one given situation, ..
I think the problem lies in my use of universal. Just replace "universal" by
"absolute". (Perfection through iteration and feedback :). As you see,
there are absolute wrongs as I have defined and you agreed ("Okay" )after my
clarification. on "same"
>So the fact that the Gunda harmed someone gives me sanction to harm the
>gunda?
Again we have strayed off on a tangent. The emphasis was on what should be
DEFINED as ABSOLUTE wrong and what is not. If something cannot be defined
as absolute wrong (as above) that DOES NOT mean it is SANCTIONED. As I
parenthetically added it may still be wrong by legal and logistic sense and hence
may not be advisable but only that it cannot be considered as absolute wrong by
my definition and which you agreed with. walking naked in public is not absolute
wrong but is not sanctioned either.
>
>F14: Shuddho bangla is supposed to be the dialect that originated from
>Shantipur, right? And since that's in West Bengal, West bengali Bangla...
Shuddho Bangla is what it says. Shantipuri accent is again a local dialect. I didn't
mean that as Shuddho bangla. Shuddho Bangla is pronouncing/spelling correctly as we
learn in grammar. It has evolved over a long period in time and was set by the
pundits and scholars of Bengal (In the greater sense) during British rule and, yes
Calcutta University did paly the most central role in setting these standards. It
is similar to English language. The rules for correct pronunciation is same (whether
you are American or British). They both have distinct accent. But iseally if you
pronounce accurately with no accent one way or the other it is possible you may not
sound either American or British, but most still would doggedly attach an accent toi
it. Thats what happens to WB/Banglades. If yuo pronounce Bangla words correctly
without accent you will be labelled Ghoti in bangladesh and You will be labelled
Bangal (or from bangladesh by more polite people) in WB. Because in both cases you
are talking in a way that is different from them (Most have accents one way or the
other)
..
>trivial anecdote... about a certain species of turtle in the south pacific
>that eats its own young during a drought. How would that fit in with this
>'universal value'?
There are always aberrations in any species. The aberrations don't set the rules in
nature. (Exceptions don't make a natural rule). There are instances of cannibalism in
human but that is not a natural trait of human, is it? Also in times of hardship
(e.g. in famine) even mothers have been known to sell their children or abandon them
and saved their own soul (or tried to). In extreme situation all animals (including
human) revert to a base from. Also those animals who are known to eat their own
usually produce offspring in large numbers and this cannibalism is a natural way to
maintain a balance in number (e.g crocodiles. The male eats up quite a few new born,
but since hundreds are born, no threat to the species). Mothers never devour their
own. We have strayed away from the original premise which was "The only natural
instinct of nurturing is by parents toward minors (with some exceptions as noted.
This is a revision :) BUT not by offsprings towards their parents. The above
remarks still don't disprove this.
>Yes, that would certainly be an example of misdirected rage (ie., whenthey
>harm innocent ppl) but the rage itself is nevertheless justified (given
>certain conditions which we've already talked about). Besides, in most
>countries with oppressed minorities, the majority plays a role, either
>through active involvement or through silent "spectatorship," in the
>oppression of the minority. So how "innocent" can they really be?
Most do fall in the silent spectatorship category. Again this is a case of how to
categorize passivity (non prevention of a crime) as a wrong . It is definitely not
an absolute wrong. Also even in a true democracy if the elected force commits a
crime that does not reflect a intent of the voters en masse to do the same. Ideally
(theorectically) they have the obligation to prevent (politically/legally) the
leadres to commit the crime. But since even on a personal level we walk off from
the site of a crime how do we expect the same collectively from the same people?
The silent majority is as passive in committing a crime as in preventing. Its a
fact of life.
>I guess the question here is, if you know somethings going on in your
>country and you think it's wrong, do you have a moral obligation to protest?
I believe we DO have a moral obligation to protest. But whether we will act on
it actually do it is different matter. Most of us want to play it safe when
there is the slightest risk involved. Also passivity (laziness) does contribute
also.
>thing he told us over and over again, there is no such thing as speaking
>in English without an accent - for that matter, in any language. Whenever..
I disagree. I think we are confusing "pronunciation" with "accent". pronunciation
IS standard as you will see in any American or British dictionary where they
instruct the same pronunciation of any word and which any English phonetics class
will teach be it American or British. Even after correct pronunciation there will
still be left what is like your finger print: Your own intonation/voice, that
will impart it a distinct "accent". My point was that peculiar accent (Assuming
you have pronounced it correctly by the rule) should not be labelled
American/British/Ghoti/Bangal etc. It should be cosmic thinker's or A.M.'s accent.
I believe I pronounce Bangla words correctly. In Calcutta I am identified
as Bangladeshi and in Dhaka I am identified as West Bengali. None had the insight
to realize that I my pronunciation is just as is taught in grammar and that my
accent is purely my own. They just classify any accent that is not like theirs
(Their accent actually lies in their incorrect pronunciation and/or use of
nonstandard Bengali words and an intonation that is common in certain region.
I never use any intonation typical of any region. ) as belonging to the other
category (i.e Ghoti/Bangal). Its one or the other. You can't be neither.
>Anyways, changign the point a bit. Most people I know, Bangladeshis and
>West Bengalis, believe that the Bangla spoken in the two Banglas is moving
>rapidly apart and will probably be two different language within a few
>centuries. Of course, Bangladeshis (the ones I know) say this with
..
I would not agree that it will or has diverged significantly. For that matter the
dialect of Chittagong is totally unintelligible to someone from Rangpur. If BD and
WB sticks to the mainstream Bengali language (In writing and in educational
institutions) then there will always be the standard language both will revert to
aside from the local varaiations within each. There is some mentality in BD to
officialize some sort of Bengali Ebonics which is distinctive of young
generations from and around Dhaka but I do hope it will not get any attention from
the academia.
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: M8. Mail To Aditi
This is regarding your comment at one point where you mentioned that my way of
charactering a class of people (Masculine gays in this case) was WRONG. I must insist
that ERRONEOUS would have been a better word to use. Wrong and right are determined
by actions and are tied to the concept of morality. Since you feel strongly about gay issues
as you mentioned and I feel strongly on RIGHT vs. WRONG and ethical and moral issues
in general an elaboration of this discussion is in order. One thing I must categorically
point out is that no matter what unique views I have in characterizing any class/species
I am a stickler for fairness and equal rights. I strongly condemn denial of equal RIGHTS
on grounds of sexual orientation. I know it is very easy to lose perspective and not
realize that someone's ideas about a class (Based on a combination of observation,
intuition and logic) DOES NOT necessarily imply their JUDGEMENT of right and wrong
about them or an intent of denial of rights or causing harm to that class. This is where lot
of hot air is raised by gay activists where many act on their bias against gays
and extend it to the level of denying equal rights to them. I don't want to be lumped
with them and your choice of "WRONG" made me a little concerned that that may be the
case. Trying to characterize any phenomena through observation,intuition and logic while
keeping an open mind and revise it if necessary is a perfectly acceptable intellectual
pursuit and thats what we as human are all about. When you are using your instinct to
eliminate a potential partner you are basically doing that also i.e making a
characterization (Which can conceivably be wrong) and based on your instinct you are
denying that person a priviledge so to speak (Of becoming your mate), and that is
perfectly OK, as "priviledge" is not the same as "right", by the same token any
characterization is OK as long as they don't interfere with any one's basic rights. I
just needed to clear this thing up as it is not fully appreciated by many I know. I would
strongly urge you read my writings in http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~me/precept.html (Which
is also a link in my home page) where I have dwelt on these and many related issues in
details and is in fact a sort of manifesto of mine. Hope to have further exchange with
you again.
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: M9. Mail To Sita
Most of the people in their thirties/early forties grew up with the Star Trek genre of
Sci-Fi of the sixties which generated a romantic yearning and a make believe wishful
world. Like some seriously believe Elvis is alive and is sighted occasionally etc. most
of these people have only a smattering of scientific background and stretch it to an
absurd limit. Some thoughtful ones who do go into seroius professional pursuit of
science and get disillusioned and eat humble pie. It is this very hysteria of
pseudoscientific riff-raff that forced the creation of the Skeptic Society, CSICOP(
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in the late
sixties and seventies. Specially in reaction to these so called New Age and Quantum
Healers/Psychics went as far as to claim their hypothses/speculation as science and
attempted to get into tax payers pockets through funding for University sponsored classes
etc. Teletransporation can qualify for a genuine scientific SPECULATION (There is a
difference between a scientific speculation and a non/pseudo -scientific one), as can
immortality and resurrection etc (Like Tipler's "Physics of Immortality"). But a
speculation can never conscientiously qualify for a genuine scietific experiment.
Whenever someone tells you an "experiment" is being done immediately ask the two
questions "Who is/are the experimentars. Where is the experiment being done?" An
experiment only done by Professional Scientists actively engaged in the forefront of the
relevant research having credentials of extensive research work before as acknowledged
by their peers can only qualify for a serious attention/consideration. Same applies for
even a speculation. Thats why Tipler's book/theory deserves serious consideration.
These kind of speculations (Teleportation/resurrection etc) carry a very long term
(millions to billions of years time span) plausiblity with them. Teletransportation is not
only infeasible practice but also absurd in principle within the bounds of known
scientific laws TODAY. Resurrection is possible (in bilions of years) within present
bounds of Physics principles at the end of time (Possibly billions of years).
Lot of this hyp about teletransportation was als generated by some false propaganda
surrounding the so called "Philadelphia Experiment" aka Project Rainbow. But the Navy
itself (Who is alleged to have initiated the research) dismissed as hoax the whole aura
surrounding this.
Subject: Re: Ref: Fwd: Dr. Ali Sina talks.......Cocooned in Lies
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:01:28 +0600
To: [email protected]
Hi,
I appreciate your attempt to clarify yourself but I am afraid the
point was missed again. You are right that Islam is not the "ONLY"
reason for violence. Dr. Sinha didin't claim that either or even
use the word "ONLY" anywhere. You are putting words in his mouth.
Islam may not be the ONLY reason for violence but it is ONE of the
reason, right? If there are "N" number of reasons for violence to
we have to stop condemning each reason because theer are are other
reasons? Why not condemn ALL reasons, one at a time? But there is
another significant point you are missing. Equating apple with
orange. All the other violneces in the world (non-religion cause)
are manifestations of the inherent aggression of humans as animals.
It is nothing but territoriality. Nature is not fair and square,
but Red in Tooth and Claw. Animals prowl on the weaker and usurp
other's food and territory. Brothers kill brothers to disposses them
of their rightfully inherited property and usurp it by force. War
between nations/races are the collective manifestations of this
territorial aggression rooted in our animal instincts. While
these violences are rooted in nature, it does not go unrequited. Each
such violence is also paid back with retribution. Checks and balances
are built in nature. Besides humanity has evolved concepts of justice,
ethics, laws, conventions to prevent such natural impulses. War and
aggressions are condemned. Yes, their will be biases, but no aggression
goes uncondemned. So these wars between nations while may not be always
due to religions are nevertheless results of evil aggression instincts
inherent in animals, humans being animals themselves. Contrast that
with the cold blooded, premeditated preaching of violence by religious
scriptures. This can never be equated by the natural impulses of
violence. Specially when religion is pretentiosly claiming to preach
peace.
Subject: Re: argument with Ali Sina
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:55:29 +0600
To: [email protected]
CC: Avijit Roy , [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Dear Ms. Nasima,
Have you heard of "meme" ? Let me first clarifiy that my
impression about you from your earlier respsonses is that you are NOT a religious
bigot who believes in issuing fatwas against women like stoning, lashing , physically
torturing someone for their heretic belief etc (I apologize if I am wrong about
you). I have nothing against you as a person but just trying to refute your points
as I find them errponeous. I would strongly recommend to you to read up on the idea
of memes(virus of the mind) before you talk about your belief in revelations as it is at
the very root of ALL blind beliefs. Once you understand the idea of memes you can
test your belief in religion against such understanding and come to an informed opinion
about not only religion but about yourself too. I will provide some links for an introduction
to the idea of memes later. An excellent book is "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore
of the Psychology Department at Oxford. Since you are in UK you may be lucky enough
to be able to talk to her personally about memes. Also not to forget, the classic
"The Selfish Gene" by biologist Richard Dawkins in which the idea of meme debuted.
Now let me try to explain my way of looking at memes as it applies to
religious belief. Have you ever wondered why only Muslims place faith in the
Islamic revelations, whereas not a single Hindu, Buddha, Christian (except those
Christians who have been infected by te memes of Islamic revelations) have such
strong faith in them? It is such an obvious answer that it escapes many. Because you have
been told about it enough starting from childhood by fellow humans around you whom
you placed great faith in for no good reason other than they are near to you and you
feel a sense of belonging towards them. A Hindu, Buddha or christian, on the other
hand were not subjected to such an indoctrination about Islam, but instead to their
own religious ideas. Thats why they bet on the veracity of their religious beliefs. As
I said before few instances of conversion of faith do occur. Such sidewise meme
transmission is possible between members of different faith, like Christians converting
to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and of course many cults too. Sidewise memetic
transmission of faith is more due to gentle persuasion that is applied at a very vulnerable
state of those who are highly suggestible (read brain washable). The reason for the
absence (or rarity) of conversion from Islam to Christianity/Buddhism is mainly due to
real fear of implementation of the edict of death for apostacy. Apostacy is considered a
a dreaded offense only in Islam. Very few religions, if any has such strong concept of
apostacy. Also not many religions are so persuasive about preaching their religions
(Although it does happen in christianity though). Thats why the culture of conversion
FROM Islam didn't grow.
Anyway, all elements of faith like revelations, day of judgement, heaven/hell, etc is
solely based on faith in a "chain of hearsay" and indoctrinations. This chain can be
symbolized as:
A believes in B who says that he believes in C who says that he believes in D who says
that......... who SAID that he believed in Z who said that God said that....(revelations)
The entire edifice of revealed religion and divinity is based on such a chain of belief.
We have all heard and read about the revelations from reading the Koran, that were
handed down to our ancestors, who were handed down the same from their ancestors
and so on. There was no independent checks conducted on any revelations or any
objective test applied to verify whether Koran is indeed the word of God etc. Have
you ever experienced anything privately that you can cite as a conclusive evidence
for supporting belief in the revelations as being the word of God? Of course you are
citing verses that convinces YOU of its divine origin. But you realize that your being
convinced does not make it an official truth to be stated as a true proposition as you
have done. Faith can never be declared as TRUTH if one is true to logic. A TRUTH
is an objectively VERIFIED proposition accepted on the basis of consensus that crosses
religious/racial boundaries. . So no religious revelation can qualifiy as truth.
So It is only faith, a faith that you have inherited from the chain that precedes you and
traces all the way back to a faith in the prophets. One can give you many scientific
explanations that will contradict many verses of Koran and also one can refute claims
about the scientific nature of some verses but you will in turn provide your own
(pseudo)scientifc counterarguments on both counts so it will never end. So instead my
request is to think a little more analytically, and read up the idea on memes before
believing in relgious revelations. Here are the links on memes:
http://maxwell.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/what.is.html
http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/~mac/memetics.html
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
No Offense intended
Aparthib
From [email protected] 21 Nov 1999 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Comments on Tagore
In response to [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (AGosw11229) wrote:
>To quote Bertrand Russell in an assessment of Tagore's genius would, I think,
>be a ridiculous exercise.
Yes, it would be ridiculous in an assessment of Tagore's "genius" or oeuvre, but
not in an assesment of Tagore the "MAN". Every genius is subject to critical
appraisal both as an artist and as a human. Nothing wrong with that as long as the
two are not mixed up or used to make a case for a poltical agenda as the original
poster seemed to have done.
>We should bear in mind that Russell was a scientific rationalist and had nothing
>but disdain for anything that went beyond logic.
And Tagore was an intuitionist. Mystical feelings and intuititions cannot put in dicta.
Russell was not just a scientific rationalist but also a philosopher. Tagore certainly
had metaphyical feelings, an awe for the mystery of the universe, like all great minds
do. Einstein certainly had it. But instead of channeling this mystical awe into a quest
of objective reality he chose to express it in poetic imagery and embellishing it with
the ornamenst of language. Einstein went beyond that mystical awe and tried to extract
an objective reality and put it in an objective language. Thus came the notion of
curvature of space time which an astute mind of any lingustic background can understand
mastering the universal language of topology and calculus of manifold. Tagore's
ornamental language of expressing his metaphysical intuition in Bengali, not to mention
the aesthetic way of portraying human emotions and the splendours of nature, is not
expressible with the same beauty in any translation as you have correctly pointed out.
But when he tries to put his metaphysical intuitions (Like living the life of an
infinite and not bound by the finite etc) in words and tries a put a truth value to it
certainly that would appear to Russell as devoid of any substance. The above words of
Tagore are just poetic expressions of his subjective feelings, not ofany objective
reality. As Wittgenstein has said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain
silent". It is for this reason of non-objectivity that non-scientifc metaphysics was
debunked by Heidegger, Hume, Wittgenstein as pure play of words, without substance or
analyticity. So it is not just Tagore, but any attempt of philosophising about
metaphyiscs in the form of dicta would be rejected by philosophers of science and
epistemology insisting on precision. As poetry they are and Tagore's poetry are a superb
example of beauty flowing in words.
>He epitomized the arrogance of the nineteenth century physicists and positivitists
>who held that they had a monopoly on the technicalities for finding the truth.
Digression. Certainly truth does require a universal language (i.e logic/math),
consensus through logical consistency, and a verification mechanism that only
science can provide. Non-scientifc Metaphysics (meditation, ornamental words)
certainly lacks that. It is nothing but litereature, trapped in words and cannot
go beyond that. Where the nineteenth century physicists went wrong is the
insistence of complete determinism that was destryoed by the non-locality and
built in indeterminacy of twentieth century quantum phyiscs. But quantum phyiscs
is still physics and the fact remains that Physics still claims the monopoly
(Biology/chemistry are all derivatives) to objective reality that both Eastern
(Like Chandrasekhar, Yang, Salam etc) and Western minds have used in unravelling
the objective truths of reality. That fact has not changed, like it or not.
Date Sun, 09 Sep 2001 153318 +0600
To [email protected]
Subject Re My comments on FM/AS dialog
[..]
At 9/8/01 1134 AM, you wrote :
[ help my frame of reference?� What I wonder, without knowing more, is
how much of the 'blanket attack' is a perceptive issue due to, perhaps,
1) the language used by SH, and 2) denial to face the facts by MIC.� Is
that accusation a clear indication of only 1) or, more likely, a
combination of 1) and 2)?�.. ]
���� It is clear to me that (2) prompts the RA's to exploit (1) as a way to divert
���� attention� and thus avoid having to face facts. [..]
[I still believe that people on both sides should be willing to have a dialogue
with a common goal to remedy the social ills and human misery perpetrated,
provably, by either religious verses or ]
������� Who can disagree with that. But just look at eshimabesh, and all the sarcastic,
������� personal attacks came from the RA's side. Even Dr. Farooq� stops continuing his
������� dialog when he sees that he cannot influennce the dialog in his favour (happened
������� with me an another� well-known FSH) and then resorts to insinuation as he did
������� with me (remember pity, piety and the intellectual jungle?)
[on MM over a very personal and arguably generalized comment between two
close friends, I realize that the reactionary sentiment exists in good measure on
both sides.� The starting point of such hysteria was possibly the personal panic
of someone who shared a quote with an activist and thus started a defensive chain
reaction among some of us.� And of course, my mere mentioning of hinduunity.org
only worsened the reactionary position of the freethinkers.�This clearly defensive
mode evidenced by what turned out to be utter hysteria among some freethinkers
was rather alarming, which was perhaps indicative among other things their
unshiny]
��������� Here I have to totally part company with you. An unjust accusation/criticism
��������� itself� is unconscionable and should be the issue for� concern, not the just
��������� and conscientious rebuttal and reaction to it. Pointing out the unfairness/
��������� inaccuracy of an accusation/criticism/characterization with logic and evidence
��������� is by no stretch of� accepted norms of conduct a "hysteria".� And it was a serious
��������� accusation.� Insinuating that� someone is endorsed/affiliated with fanatic
��������� groups (when they ARE NOT)� is libelous and� objectionable worthy of� raising
��������� an issue. Maybe that was not intentional, but a mistake, but it was never
��������� admitted as such even after the volumes of evidences provided. IF you
��������� disagree with "ARE NOT" above then this whole issue will take a different
��������� turn. But if you do agree then logically you have to admit it was an
��������� inconscientious accusation. Please think over it.
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2001 232905 +0600
To [email protected], [email protected]
Subject Re Some research on "Nardomaar Kit" [your comment/quote]
�������
[..]
6.[..] that tn/sr by their derogatory remarks against religion
�� had justifiably invited such extremist reaction, and that he can understand the
�� extremists's position. how clearerer one can be in expressing his condoning/conniving
�� of a death call/. i havnen'te saved that email, but to me it� something that i can hardly
�� forget. As a skeptic/rationalist, i base my opinion and judgements on evidence and logic.
��� and dr. farooq has shown enough evidence of his lack of outrage against a death
��� edict� for freespeech that appears unpalatable to his islamic beliefs. to me a death
��� edict against an anti-islamic freespeech� would be as worthy of condemnation as a
��� a death edict by secualarists against a muslim� for speaking against secularism
��� (which has not and will� never happen).� besides my own experience of my exchanges
��� with him has revealed much of his disrespectful demeanour when i didn't deserve
��� it. if you go through all the archive you will discover plenty of personal insiniuations,
��� personal remarks etc.
7.� so as i said before and i am syaing again, the most important issue for me is
���� somone's life. both religion and humanism treat as the most� precious thing
���� to protect and respect,. and when in this day and age i see a call for someone's
���� death� just for� expressing one's critical views of religion, something which is
���� reminiscent of�� the dark days of inquisition,� i cannot but feel a sense of
���� shock and revulsion at the trivialization/condoning/defending such extreme
���� acts against human values and instead using derogatory expression against
���� the targets. there can be no comparison� between the level of
���� seriousness of the death edict and its trivialization/condoning and that� of
���� the critcal remarks of religion by the� targets of this edicts.� religion
���� should not have any priviledged claim to immunity from criticsm. it cannot be
���� a birth right for them. scientists who have the highest evidence to back up their
���� theories,� are routinely castigated by new agers, creationsists, and even
���� non-scientific� academicians with no such immunity to critcisms against them.
���� same applies for any two groups. (except communism under hardcore
���� communist� regime, but that is history also like inqusition).
���� i don't think i can say much more on this. if you fail to understand still, let us
����� then move and agree to disagree.
���� best,
duplicate of M3_1
To: Munir
[..] I usually do not take a
�� public stand on personal contentions unless it carries an implication
�� for�a collective whole in the context of�an ideological principle.
�� Moderator's decision to approve or not an individual post in a
�� MODERATED forum is not such a� contention.� I myself havequietly
�� acquiesced to rejection of my posts MANY� times without quationing
�� its propreity, and I can assure you I had no abuses, insinuations in
�� my post. I consider them as an accepted rule� of the�game of
�� democracy.� [..] , I am just making the point
�� that there is bound to be some subjectivity in any moderator, moderation
�� itself being a gray area, since the guidelines of moderation themselves
�� lend itself to a considerable leeway of interpretation and personal
�� judgement call. It is not possible to be objective� in a subject inherently
�� subjective. Objectivity in judgement is possible when the criteria itself is
�� objective. Freethinking is not at�odds with democracy and subjectivity.
�� It is HUMAN nature (Not freethinker or religionist nature) to exploit
�� leeways granted hy a system and exploit that leeway to suit to one's
�� own convenience.� I as a freethinker and as a moderator� might have
�� made different judgement call and a different moderation style. So
�� freethinking and� moderation have nothing to do with each other.
�� In a laisser faire system not everyone will be satisfied.�And certainly
�� no modeartor, M-M or others,�is by any� means a GOD, beyond
�� critcism, or�the most logical person on earth.� As I can judge from you
�� email, the main contention is was it fair for the moderator to make an
�� exception (poisting 2289) when he earler declared that the thread
�� was closed after 2287? It is not an ethical issue, but an issue of
�� moderation philosophy, and ther is bound to be difference of views
�� on this. There is no absolute ethical/moral standard to hold a moderator
�� strictly to on this act. It was certainly legal, and certainly no ethical
�� wrong was done, in as much as no ethiclal wrong was done when a
�� restaurant decides to bounce a customer not properly dressed.
��� Thanks,
To: Munir:
Date: 9/13/01
[..]
�� [...] Now, regarding� Christianity,
��� I agree it comes close to caliming itslef perfect. Granting that, it still
��� invalidates the original author's assertion that ALL religions claim so,
��� it doesn't do justice on Buddhism, Hinduism, and perhaps Judaism (No
��� other religions existed then anyway to make a comparative statement).
��� Now coming to Jesus's assertion that you quoted,� this to me is nothing
��� but a rephrasing the christian faith of Jesus as the son of God. So his
��� "nobody comes to Father but through Me."� is just an affirmation of
��� that faith, not an affirmation of� christianity being a� perfect religion. In
���� fact christianiry as a religion didn't even take shape in Jesus's life.
��� He was refomist Jew at best. Anyway such metaphoric� expressions
��� of achievieng goal in a ceration way can be found in any religion, cult,
��� philosophy. But I was just limiting to clear official statement of religion
��� itself as per the scripturres (Quran and Mohammed clearly mentions
��� Islam) .� We should be aware of the slippery slope� or
��� argument from the beard fallacy, where� small� but important differnces
��� can be� added up fallaciously to show the equality� two widely differring
�� things.
��
���� As for Vatican's� declaration, admittedly that is a parochial
���� denominational stand.� But Chrristianity in B & W to me is the Old
���� and New Testament. Sectarian claim by some denomination
���� is not the same. If you stretch it further, the you will see� subsect
���� within sects claiming superiority and eventually this reductive
����� process will end up in� (I am a� better� person than you are).
����� I certainly agree with you that all religions� claim that they
����� have the� final answer to the truth. That is� really a tautological
����� fact. Because� religion came about to provide the� (putative)final
����� answer in the first place! So no surprise� there.� But still the
����� scriptures of� many� religion stopped short of� declaring theirs
����� to be the� perefect� and only� acceptable� religion. I just wanted
����� to emphasize that fact as the author� was giving the mistaken
����� impression that all religion were same� in this regard.
����
����� Hope that made sense,
����
����� Best wishes,
M3_7:
To: Munir
Re: pseudonym
[..]
������� You are not distingusihing formal (academic) with informal (various e-forums).
������� Of course one has to use their true names to enrol, pursue academic
������� pursuits. It is mandatory. No choice. pasport use real names too. The
������� comparison was not relevant. here. Each place has its advantages, rules.
������� Shetubondhon does not permit pseudonym, eshomabesh does. That
������� does not make on right and the other wrong. I don't see� to much relevancy
������� of the "frame of reference" expression at all. To me� if someone is really
������� eager to hear and� learn from others then one would not say "I don't
������� engage in a dialog with a faceless person as a matter of principle"
��������Refusing to engage in a� dialog�becasue of not knowing a trivial
��������personal info� and thus depriving oneself� from a potential learning
��������experience�is no sign of a desire to learn� or� erudition.� I have�
��������learned much from people� whose name� I have no way to judge
��������was real or fake..�The merit of a discussion should�not be� judged
��������by the� personal info provided. If a personal anecdote�is relevant to
��������a discussion then� it is the author who may wish to share� it, the reader
��������has no reason to require� it beforehand without�first�even� reading
��������it.�I don't see what does�the issue of psudonym have to do with citing
��������references from harvard or a Rickshaw.�A credible�or disreputable�
��������reference�can be cited with a pseudonym or a real name. either way.
��������I� rather see�that a lack of any� background or personal info about the
��������writer as a plus in that it may force the�reader to�judge�the writer
��������without prejudice and bias. A good writer is a good writer is a good
�������writer. A bad writer is a bad writer is a bad writer. Names do not
�������matter. There are examples of all four combinations i.e.
�������(1) bad writer->Real name (2) Good writer-> real name(3) bad
�������writer->pseudonym(4) Good writer->Pseudonym.� Thast the way
��������I look at it. As I always say� we� may have to agree to disgree� .
�����������
��������������� Regards,
To Munir:
Date: 10/13/01
Well, if� you are referring to PERSONAL ATTACKS then yes, it is always
a B who first attacks an N (usually for rejecting/debunking a claim/faith).
As you said, N can be picking on religion without being pushed by anyone,
But that is not the same as a personal attack. You have to keep this
important distinction mind. As I mentioned to you in my earlier emails,
that religions faiths or dogmas� should not� be granted any preferential
immunity to criticisms which scientists and artists routinely are subjected
to (most often unfairly) by their critics with impunity .
Criticizing a religious scriptures, dogmas can never be equated to attacking
persons.� Religion and its foillowers should have the conviction to
withstand their critics.
And when an individual N is attacking B it is almost always in reaction to
some previous offfensive by A. It is a common oversight to overlook the
root cause and judge from the middle of a cuase effect chain. For example
let us for� the sake of� generality assume two adversarial groups A and B
(e.g A=Secularist, B=Apologist) . By� "-->"� I mean an offensive and or a
defensive action ) :
������ A-->B-->A-->B-->A-->B-->A....
������ 1-->2-->3-->4-->5-->6-->7...
������
It is a fallacy to look at some intermediate step (4->5 say), ignoring the
preceding sequence and declare B as the offender. If one traces back it was
A who initiated it.� Now about� a specific� N not being noble, you are
miing up individuals verses principles.� Of course an N may use derisive
language or be arrogant. It is not the monopoly of B only. They are
humans too. Of course it is advisable not to be arrogant and derisive,
Bor N.� It is more common among B than N to see thses human flaws
though. But I will agree with you that not all N's are� immune to these
human flaws.� An N may be ill tempered person, be loan defaulter etc.
We are not making issue about personality traits and shortcomings. In
an academic debate it is� ISSUE we should be focussed on.
You are saying again� N� is not always non-dogmatic. (i.e N is sometimes
dogmatic). I requested you earlier to give an example.� I am requesting
again. Here dogmatic� has to be in its strict definition. An N may be an
obstinate person sticking to a logical point and not agreeing to a B.
That is not being dogmatic by strict definition, if he is just following
logic and evidence� (Like scientists). About name calling of historical
figures, again I agreed to the extent that such name calling does not
aadd to any logic or is a good taste.� But on the other hand the name
calling does not take away from the hard facts and logic that are used
to support the name calling. Not using "name calling" is a matter of�
good taste and political correctness, not� logic.� Now the crux of the
issue.� You have felt bitterness and outrage at the perceived hypocricy
of some freethinking writers. Now� these freethinkers that are name
calling the historical figures (We know who are we talking about), it is
easy to understand that it is also as a reaction to a hypocricy. You are
right about Muhammed being only a human representing the norms of
his time and day. So far so good. Nothing to debate about it. But when
a normal human claims to be sent by God and claims to be chosen by
God to lead humanity to the ideal life, and when millions of followers
start claiming the same, then the crieterion for "normal humans"� no
longer apply. It is hypocritical to� defend someone's acts using
normal human standards when that person (and his followers)
makes� the most extraordinary claim that he has a direct connection
to God and has the divine authority to lead the entire human race to
the path of righteousness and truth. Extraordinary priviledges require
extraordinary standards to fulfil. You can't have it both ways. Imagine
today if one is to make such a claim of divine connection. Even if this
human is of superhuman qualities (much better than Jesus or
Muhammed) people will turn a deaf year to his claim of divine
connection. Past is past. People may have been naive in the past to
accept such claims on faith. But it is amazing to see such hypocritical
defense of the historical figure and claim to divine connection by
people� of this day and age.� But again that would all have been
acceptable and non-issue if such faith were not taken out of one's
private beliefs and not preached with so much intrusiveness and
persistent claims of truth and accompanied by occasional threats�
and coercions for� dissension. You may notice that these issues are
do not arise for similar� absurd beliefs� held by some other sects and
followers, like Buddhists, Shamans, Tibettan Monks etc.� I don't
agree that N' s belittle anyone with beliefs as you said. It is only
those B's who make the aggressivley advertize their presumptuous
claim (in writing and verbally) to the truth of their belief that the
N's belittle, if at all. N's do not belittle their mother� or sisters for
their belief, since almost invariably they keep their belief private,
and don't preach in public claiming absolute truth of their beliefs.�
A humble admission by a B that his belief is his peronal and he
cannot justify it to anyone else by logic and would not like to
preach it� should be and is� respectfully accepted by any N. Just
as scientist making a claim to new theory has to be ready for critics,
the same should be the criterion for a religious dogma. We cannot
conscientiously allow double standard.� The clause of not hurting
the sentiments of the followers is only applicable for non-intrusive
dogmas like Buddhism, Shamanism, Bahai etc.� It is fair to refute
and critique intrusive dogmas when they publicly assert their claims
with pseudo-logic. Well, note that all I said here is pretty much
covered in all my emails and posts to different forums that you have
read. So if I am able to make any sense to you now, then yuo might
wonder what did you miss before :)
P.S. Thanks for forwarding Ms Imam's mail. As you see most
B's� take it too personally. I am not surprized.
To: Munir
10/14/01
Re: APolgist vs. freethinker
�[..]
At 10/13/01 10:03 PM, you wrote:
[...]
���� Just to recap from my earlier emails: (1) personal style of response is not
���� a worthwhile debatable issue. Priunciples are. I agreed it is not in good taste
���� to do it. So lets not make this a moo point in future.� The statement
���� "a professor from an obscure university in Upper Volta, USA" is a derisive
���� remark (human frailty I mentioned). It is not a PERSONAL attack. Example
���� of personal attacks (And there are galore) are "You/He is a downright lie(liar)",
���� "You/he is a lackey of� Zionists/imperialists",� "You/He is� out to hurt the
���� Muslims", etc. All of the above reflects� negative a judgment of the person.
����� It is not derisive, it is judegmental and detrimental.
����� (2) Your� comment here� is an example of the fallacy I mentioned before
����� you looked at 4->5 intermediate step. Dr. Farooq DID make sarcastic
����� remarks about not just SKM but all freethinkers in many of several of
����� his� earlier posts in NFB. You are a relatively new comer to NFB, so you
����� may not know about it.� Its the same cause-effect chain.� Dr. MOF has
����� been sarcastic and made� many serious insinuations against me in the
����� last two years in Alocona/eshomabesh/Shetubondhon. So it should not
����� be hard for you to understand that he will not be any less so towards
����� SKM. But SKM or any other freethinker never picked on another apologist
����� Nesbath Maswood, who was quite a frequent poster on NFB but was very
����� polite� in his approach. Ideally even an impolite approach should be
����� responded with polite response (Teaching of Christ), but that should
����� apply to both MOF and SKM equally. But MOF� has not only not adhered
����� to that, on top of that� he has responded sarcastically to a polite approach
����� (My case is a first hand example).� At least SKM has not done so (i.e
����� responded impolitely to� a polite approach).�
[..]
���� Well, back to square one. The "vituperation" you are referring is of
���� personal nature (without� even provocation by personal attack by N),
���� but for N it is only against an idea/dogma (that also only with a
���� provocation. )So yuo cannot compare apple to apple here.� And any
���� personal taunt/derision of a specific N towards B is also due to an
���� earlier provocation.
�������
Regarding 'ISSUE', I agree with you 100%.� However, what may get unclear
at times is how do we determine an 'academic debate'.� Sometimes the
term 'academic' may have been bandied about rather loosely on the e-forums.
I understand your
����� Sorry for not defining it. I thought it was self-evident. An acdemic debate
����� is that which occurs in an open forum (can be informal , like the ones we
����� are in, or� formal like the list forums by departments of schools). The
����� other one (non-academic) is one that happens between two persons face
����� to face. Ideally the rules of engagement should be the same for the two.
����� But we have no way to enforce it on two private individuals. But we do
����� have� more control on public forums.
[..]
������ Well, again as I said you have to go far back to be sure if it was truly
������� unprovoked. As I said it� isn't true in case of Dr. MOF. Are you referring
������ to another example. Can you be specific which one? But then again the
������ B->N chain is millenia old.� It may be that a specific step� N-5->B-7 may
������ may not be due to B-7 but it still is due some other B. The whole group
������ B is reponsible for creating N. So I am attaching more importance to a
������ group responsibility. Just like we blame a country (USA for eample) for
������ some act even though individually an American may be innocent.� But
������ again at least on NFB I dont; know of any unprovoked personal attack
������ by N->B.� Even if there was it would be an issue of� ettiquette, not of
������ a principle, which is what it is when someone is attacked personally for
������ expressing a view on non-human (religion/dogma) entities, no matter
������ how harshly.
��
[..]
������� To me the act of labelling "child molester" is a far less serious issue
������� than� the act of marrying a six year old niece by someone who claims to
������� be a messenger rof God and lead humanity to righteousness and truth.
������� And again to remind, it is not the style or labelling that should be the
������� prime issue of debate. But facts and the� use of logic.�������
Muhammad, yet the N insists on using that term, he is not being 'logical' while
obstinate.� Calling physical union with Zainab an act of 'rape' is another obstinate
and non-logical example by an N.� No one knows if Zainab consented to the
physical
������ I am not sure the the word "rape" was used in Zainab's context. Can you
������ double check? It was in terh context of Safia binte.. (The Jewish prisoner
������ of war fron Banu Quraiza).
I understand your strict definition of what a dogma is.� However, if an N insists
on being obstinate and sticking to an arguably non-logical position, then the
position to which he is sticking may take on the appearance of a dogma, and
it is only in this sense did I use the term 'dogma' earlier.
������� Again it is not a logical vs. non-logical issue. But an issue of using
������� a subjective label to characterize an act that is supported by historical
������� evidence (quotes from hadith).
It may be easy to understand at some simplistic level, to better comprehend
the shallow approaches of these freethinkers, but your angle also infers that
two wrongs make it right, and they do not.� If such hypocrisy exists among the
Bs, then any
������ It was never implied that two wrongs make a right. BUT that (1)
������ if you can� live with one wrong then you should be able to live
������ with the other wrong for consistency AND (2) that one wrong is
������ not comparable with the other, becasue of the very differenrt
������ inherent nature of the two.
>Muhammad in fact greatly resisted the idea of being treated as superhuman, ..
����� The very claim of being a messenger of God is already betrays a claim
����� to superhuman stature by any standards. Claiming to be the only/best
����� chosen one among the entire human race is nby no standards a humility.
����� So any other quotes by him� to prove otherwise is bound to run into
����� contradiction. One cannot have it both ways as I said. One has to be
����� held accountable to one;'s claims and use the appropriate standards
����� consistent with that claim.
������������
[..]
����� Using a human standard to judge/defend someone claiming a
����� superhuman stature is hypocrticial by an objective standard
� ���� (any philosophy� professor will agree). Of course it is not
����� hypocritical to a hypocrite . Is that worth mentioning ? :)
[..Munir]
������ I disgree with Zeeshan at some level. Anyway thats a differnt issue.
������ We are talking about logic that is consisytently used by ALL. So
������ one cannot use logic to suit one's convenience. Use it when it can
������ justify(Of course through sophistry), discard it when it cannot.
������ This is the hypocricy.� There are cases where logic� is not applicable.
������ If you read carefully my "God, Atheism & Secular Humanism"� (With
������ a proper technical understnding of the terms and definitions used),
������ then logic is not applicable to prove whether atheism or platonism
������ is true. But all other claims of religions� are not immune to logic.
��������
It is only those B's who make the aggressivley advertize their presumptuous
claim (in writing and verbally) to the truth of their belief that the N's belittle, if at all.
To Belittle'� I think should never be an objective of the Ns, since they are the ones
���� To belittle should never be ANYONE's objective, period. but belittling is
���� an ettiquette issue, not an issue of rationality and logic. And B or N
���� are to helkd by the same standard in regards to etiquette.
���������
thinking and logic.� However, do note my earlier comment that rational thinking and
logic alone do not prove or disprove much about the ultimate reality of the universe,
and because something is not comprehensible by us at this time, after we ram it
������ Not strictly true. Logic and evidence does bring� "CLOSER TO" (not "TO")
������ to the ultimate reality. Stephen Hawking definitely is CLOSER to the
������ ultimate reality than MOF.
through rational thinking and logic, we can not conclude that that is an impossibility.�
Imagine talking to an Eskimo in 1899 about Boeing 757s.� Just because the Eskimo
could not conceptualize it, or thought it was "absurd" it did not mean the Boeings, at
a later stage in our evolution, would not be a reality.
����� this analogy is not really applicable� here. Becasue we are talking about
����� some self-contradictory claims of religion.� There is nothing absurd in
����� believing that a� 50 storied bulding will be built exactly� at lattitude=40,
����� longitude=50 in the year 3002. I cannot prove it. But it is not impossible.
�����This is a possible, yet unprovable belief. It also� suffers from no self-
�����contradiction . But still� I cannot start preaching a cult on this non-absurd
�����, non-contradictory but possible� claim either. But on the other hand
�����religious claims are sometimes not only unproavble,
�����but self-contradictory.
����
To: Munir
Date: 10/19/01
Re: Is Islam Truly a Religion of Peace? - Response to M.Mahbub
Good to hear from you and also appreciate your comments on my
NFB post. Well, I couldn't� help responding to the smug manner
of� the views expressed in the article with all the obvious fallacies.
Re: your comment "Just as anyone else, I'm sure you have your
capacity limitations at some levels, though, even though that level
may be much higher than whereat an average educated person
thinks.",� if you mean that everyone has limits of perception,
and that everyone has room, for improvent, then who can disagree
with that, and it would be a truism to say that, will it not? :). But
for� A to KNOW what the limits of perceptibility of� B is , the
necessary condition is that A's limit of perceptivity be greater than
that of B.� Just providing an epistemological angle to your comment :)
Also note that 'metaphysical' might "exist" in "dimensions" contain
words that are not clearly defined.� Thats why Wittgenstein said, one
cannot really speak of these in a way that all can agree objectively.� But
its clear that by saying that you are reflecting the fact of limitations
(which is not a static limit however) of human pereceptions, which no
one disputes and should never have been an issue. Its only due to
misunderstanding by laymen (believer or non-) about scientists
that this remark is repeatedly made with no real applicability. I havr
not yet encountered� any individual, or school if thought (other than
religion) who claims that all that can be known is known. That there� is
nothing that cannot be known to humans. religionists cleverly claim
knowledge of the ultiomate by attributing the ultimate knowledge to
a divine God. But that in itself a roundabout way of claiming
superknowledge, because to claim to KNOW that there exists a clear
entity who KNOWS ALL� is itself� a claim to a superknowledge. This is a
subtle point, that is not appreciated by many, believers or non-believers
alike. Anyway, to change the subject, I wish you had a background in
the natural sciences, the I could communicate to you in some common
language the� route to searching for the ultimate through the laws of
nature (Physics,biology). If� anyone is privy to it by some unique route
only known to him, I or any one else will never know about it or can
comment about a subjective, unique route to the unknown. But if
human knowledge, that is objective and reliable is to be used in� this
search, then it is Physics and Biology (But the latter is really a
manifestation of the former), is the way to go. Much of the mystrey
of life and universe is already known (Need I emphasize that much is
still unknown?) that many laymen are not aware of , or care to, since
they have relegated all the mysteries to a divine god, and not care to
dig further� by any rational path. Here is my punch line:
"If� there is an OBJECTIVE ultimate reality, same for ALL, then that
ultimate reality has to be understood also in an OBJECTIVE language
that is also same for ALL".�
And the only objective language for all humanity that is applicable
to teh ultimate� reality are the laws of the� natural science . Without
a common objective language any CLAIM of knowledge of� ultimate
reality by "A" is a private claim of� A, with no significance and it cannot
be either challenged (unless A asserts it a truth to be accepted by ALL)
or taken seriously. B cannot aquire this same perception of truth of A
as it was arrived at subjectuvely by A and hence cannot be duplicated
in anyone lese (subjectuvity implies uniqueness and hence non-duplicable).
And anyone who has no knowledge of that� common objective language
cannot� be qualified to make a universal negative assertion like "one
cannot know anything about the ultimate reality" using� any objective
language.
Ok , enough epistemological philodsophizing. Re Khurram, I disagree
with him. This may be a bit more subtle. Beneath the apparent
reasonableness hides an inherent logical insconsistency.� He is mixing
and matching the crietria for the divine with that of the mortals The fact
that the verses of the scriptures NEED a human context logically renders
it of human source. A divine verse should not need a context made up by
HUMANS. It is self-contradictory. A divine verse should provide it itself, it
should be built in. All the attempts to explain a verse by a context
relegates the whole religious discussion as a� BY HUMANS, OF HUMANS
affair. One canmot have it bith way.� Context is fine if the verses are�
attributed to human. It is an internal incinsistencies, historical contexts
about wars, anecdotes, sequences etc cannot alter this inherent
contardiction of mixing and matching of criteria ofthe divine with
mortal.� Let me know if you have any other points to say. Thanks
again.
Regards,
To: Avijit 10/1/01, response to Zamir
[..]
Religious apologists always claim that verses in their scriptures
contain in them scientific facts. Most insist on the scientific
accuracies of the verses, some cliam they are metapphoric. Either
way the claim does not hold under a scrutiny of logic and science.
If it was indeed the case that scriptures contain scientific facts and
principles then we wouldn't need popular science books to explain
scientific facts to laymen. Instead the verses of the scriptures which
are claimed to represent scientific facts and principles could be
compiled and published as an "introduction to science".I can bet that if
those verses are indeed compiled and edited (omitting references to God
or prophets or the scriptures where they are derived from) and then
published as a popular science book WITHOUT MENTIONING THAT THEY
ARE DERIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, these books will not even be
published, even if it is, no one will by it. It is a sure failure, thats why it
has never been attempted by the apologists. These vereses cannot satnd
on their own merit as anything close to even a popular exposition of
scientific facts and principles, let alone as accurate scientific
statements.
Now if one insists that the verses of scriptures are literally word of
God who is omnipotent and omniscient then one is forced to conclude that
God as a perfect being is even a worse science writer than humans and if
God really wanted to communicate scientific facts and principles to his
mortal creations, humans he failed miserably. Nobody discovered or
understood those scientific facts and principles until humans discovered
them on their own with no help from the verses. And as the words of a
perfect being, the scientific accuracy of the verses should have been of
such magnitude and objectivity that there could not be any scope of any
dispute about them among humans and ALL would accept them like they
do all the scientific principles discussed in science text books.
Zamir's commented:
>Do the unbelievers not realize that
>The heavens and earth used to be
>Once solid mass that we exploded to existence
>And from water we made all living things
>Would they believe? The Holy Quran 21:30
>
� First of all, the verse cannot refer to Big bang. Big Bang in Physics
� refers to the explosion of SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY (not matter).
Matter� WAS NOT EVEN CREATED when Big Bang happened. Earth was
formed billions� of years after the Big Bang. The above verses are clearly
referring to� earth and sky being "joined" (Which doesn't even have a
common sense or� scientific meaning) together and then being split apart
(Again no� scientific or common sense meaning),forget about comparing it
to Big Bang!� A scientifically and common sensically meaningless
statement (sky and earth being joined and subsequently separated)
cannot be suggested as hinting to the scientific fact of Big Bang! Besides
the above� translation incorrectly translated it as "exploded into existence"
points� to the pathetic attempt to make it sound similar to Big bang! The
widely� used translations of Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir don't translate
� it using that expression, they all refer to earth and sky being parted
� /opened up/cloven asunder.
Zamir's comment:
> He created seven universes in layers
> You do not see any imperfection
> in the creation by the Most Gracious.
> Keep looking; do you see any flaw?
> Look again and again; your eyes will
> Come back stumped and conquered.
>
> Qur'an 67:3-4.
>
[..]
BTW there is no concept
�� of seven universes (in layers or not) in science,
�� these words (seven and layers) do not have any
�� scientific meaning.
Zamir's comment:
>51/47:� And it is we who have built the universe with our power,
>and verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it.
>
>51/48. And we made the earth habitable; a perfect design
>
>Possibly : Expansion of universe theory?
>
��� First of all, thats not the correct translation of� verse 51:47 above
has been mistranslated. Neither� "universe" nor "expansion" is
mentioned in the verse.� Here is Yusuf Ali,Pickthall, Shakir:
��� 51:47
��� YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for
��� it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
��� PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who
��� make the vast extent (thereof).
��� SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely
��� We are the makers of things ample.
The heaven/firmament refers to sky. No mention of an expandING universe.
Saying that "we MADE the vastness/vast extent of space/sky" is not the
same as "universe IS EXPANDING". Anyway the cause of the expansion
of the universe is known from Modern High Energy Astropysics, known as
the theory of inflation. Nothing in those verses come any close to what
an expansion of universe means.
>When you look at the mountains
>You think that they are standing still.
>But they are moving, like the clouds.
>Such is the manufacture of God,
>Who perfected everything.
>He is fully cognizant of
>Everything you do.� Quran 27:88
>Possibility that this talks about geological facts?
>
��� All thre translations refer to "mountains will pass
��� away with passing clouds". Now what geological fact
��� does it represent?
Zamir's comment:
>---------------------------------------
>For creation of Human being see The Quran 96:1-8
>------------------
>Embryology� The Quran 23:12-16
>-------------------
>Preservation of Genetic Data� The Quran 75:3, 75:4.
>
�� All of the above claims have been refuted and debunked. No need
�� to repeat it here. Just refer to the folowing links:
1. http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/science/embryo.htm
2. http://www.hraic.org.au/scientific_errors_in_the_qur'an.html
3. http://answering-islam.org/Science/embryology.html
4. http://answering-islam.org/Science/clings.html
6. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/islamsci.html
6. http://www.secularislam.org/guide/mirza.htm
7. http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/qurcontr.html
8. http://www.rim.org/muslim/quranproblems.htm
9. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html
10.http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5591/contra.htm
Zamir's comment:
>What is the probability that they will all be true out of a stroke of
>LUCK? X..Y.Z.Q.W.E = ?
>
>1/500.100.1000.5000.100.500 = 1/7500000000000000� anyone has a
>calculator?� Does it not look like NEGLIGIBLE?
>
��A monumental fallacious argument: "that they will be all true.."
Whose truth? Truth is in the eye of the beholder. A statement does
not become true just because one claims it to be. All the claims of
the truth about the scientific accuracy of the verses have been refuted
by objective logic and has never attained a unanimous acceptance
outside the blind believers themselves.So there is no scope of
proceeding to statistics/math/logic on the basis of a false (or debatable)
claim of truth here. All the claims of the scienific accuracies of the
verses don't hold under scientific and logical scrutiny.