Killing Darwin

Many of us here possess intellects too pedestrian to know whether as any worthwhile academic excercise your arguments ought to receive an A+ or a F- . And even an A+ there may not impress some hardboiled cynics in this Godless place called Chowk.

At best, if you translate one or more of your ``ideas`` in commonly-understood language, people may judge whether you are to be taken seriously.

For instance, what about ``REDUCTION and its philosophical implications?`` What does it prove with regard to evolution or God/Allah/Bhagwan or anything else that you may have in mind?

Re: # 40

well i confess my mistake.rf786 wasnt realy addressing me.i got the impression that he was saying something about my post.well what is true is true.it was my fault.

sorry mr rf786 and thanx love2love for telling me what a stupid atittude i have shown[i m serious].

but love2lone i wasnt addressing you either.you shouldnt be so angry.

well,i wont blame you for your judgment that you have made about me,for a simple reason,

its meaningless to give any kinda judgment on these philosophical issues in forums like this.
these issues can be discussed in serious confrence.well you have always tried to show and give judgment about my atittude but never did you bother to show [technicaly]what is wrong in my first three posts[philosophical or logical].if i say 2+2=4 with any apologetic or negative kinda atittude it wont invalidate that mathmatical simple calculation.

on the other hand if i say 2+2=5 with all the `dukh dard` sincerity `wit``optimism`,all these positive `liberal` traits wont make my stupid point valid.
at the end of the day,the whole issue goes down to the technicalities of that issue regardless of the atittude or inclination of the person presenting it.

you just forget what my inclinations are or what my atittude is.lets talk about it philosophicaly and scientificaly.if you are confident about something you have got be able to defend your point of view but intellectualy.

now you tell me what`s wrong with my claim is presented in first three posts.i have raised threse problems ,
1]REDUCTION and its philosophical implications.
2]paradox of evolution and epipheneoumenalism.
3]incompatiability of evolution with a very important feature of marxism ``sociology of knowledge``
4]the denial of constant self or ``I``and the meaninglessness of epistemology and the structure of mathematics.[if we accept evolution]
5]fallacy of the mixing up different methodologies
6]reducing all methodologies to one methodology and its implications.

these are problems i have disussed in those posts.lets discuss it.i havent presented any religious theory.i am gonna discuss it philosophicaly without using wit or anger.just reply it philosophicaly.

i have called you sister and you still are.i m sorry if u r hurt.just forget mullahs and company ,just reply the problems i have raised.

oh yap.one more thing.you said in one of your posts that my assertions are contradictory.
well,lest discuss what contradictions are.you are a brave person ,i wont be able to give such a judgment so easily for a simple reason,since the day i have looked into the complexity and depth of the issue of contradictions in logic i dont dare to utter this term.
``if i am not asked i know ,if i am asked i know not``

philosopher

Now, you`re not only behaving like an apologist for the mullahs but have gone on to question the comments of people that are not addressing you or your oh-so-informed philosophical arguments. How can you ask other people if they are capable of standing in front of philosophical debate when you yourself cant withstand them right here on this forum? And how silly, nay stupid of you to continue taking this piece as some intellectual discourse. It`s a piece of satire. Has doing a phd in philosophy also drained all sense of humor from your system as well? Stop sounding like those idiotic creation scientists.

Re: # 38
i wont ask you about your intellectual creditability coz your post tells it all.

people of your calibre who dont have the ability to face even a few philosophical and technical
arguements have no other option other than following a pseudo intellectual like the writer.

just see your intellectual worth.are you capable of standing in front of serious philosophical debate for a few minutes?

dont cheat yourself ,just think and try to develop yourself.

NFP,
Thoroughly enjoyed your article, what makes it feel even better is the thought of our religious fundos suffering heartburns.

NFP sahib, what is to become of this conditioned experiment called Pakistan? Jinnah`s Pakistan died long time ago, it is now Maududi`s riyasaat. Having said that, Uncle Bush may have screwed up big time in EErak, but has done one good thing and that is expose these Islamo fascists for what they really represent.

Good show. It is ridiculous to assume that ANYTHING of a theological nature created during Zia`s regime is worth considering.

Probably the same people who supervised said documentary were involved in the making of the lunatic Hudood Ordinance.

Communism is a sociological perspective. Whether you want a ``Red`` state or not, Marx`s theory of exploitation of the proletariat is a correct observation of many nations. INCLUDING Pakistan. The rich feed on the poor and use religion to make them LIKE it.

Darwinism is not a belief. It is a theory of the PROCESS of creation. Darwinism does not deny the existence of God. It may even be an explanation of how God may have created the world and humanity. However what Darwinism DOES deny is religious dogma and by that it denies the spiritual authority of the clerics. And THAT is what they are ACTUALLY scared of.

Good post Nadeem and i hope pakistani media develops the ``cojones`` to run proper programs and not mindless propoganda.

Mindless propoganda creates mindless droids. What a waste of human intellect.

Naqsh -- you wrote a great post.

we Muslims are Islam obssessed -- to a point that we have become Islam opressed -- Islam depressed -- 24 hours a day -- 12 months a year -- years after years.

the more we are hard pressed with the trials and tribulations of the modern living in foreign lands the more vulgerly demonstrative we are becoming about our unreformed religion and our primitive culture -- mostly verbally and mostly apparel-wise -- indulging in an uninhibited exhibition of our decadent antiquity -- selling it as a counterfeit `resurgent Islamic modernity`.

it would seems as if we insecure Muslims have become so self absorbed -- yet so self-amnesiac -- so self-unconvincing -- so narcoleptic about our own religion -- so forgetful about the greatness of our own God -- about the certainty of our own faith -- that we have to constantly remind OURSELVES -- then the world -- ridiculously loudly and angrily -- every few seconds every few minute every few hours -- every day and night -- as to how Great is our God -- how superior is our Islam -- how pious our men are -- and how chaste are our women.

AS IF -- we are under some kind of siege from the entire world -- as if the whole world does not believe us -- as if the whole world is telling us -- that no your God is not great -- your religion stinks -- your men are sinners -- and your women are of ill repute....

this preemptive hysterical paranoia -- of our own making -- has become so loud so shrill -- that the annoyed and the exasperated world has finally started telling us the same -- that yes our God is a killer God -- our religion is out of touch with the time -- our men are chauvinist pigs -- and our women are collared dogs.

And it`s ALL our fault -- WE have converted our own paranoias and our own delusions into ugly realities of today all by ourselves.

like hiv and other horrible viruses, the god meme will continue to replicate and spread unless he himself shows up to put an end to this nonsense - once people see him for what he really is, they will stop believing in him ...........

nadeem, that was amusing. i lived in my parents house recently and they have sky tv with all the asian/islamic channels. since these are the only channels on, i too sat down to watch them at times: geo tv, star plus, dm digital, dm islam tv, the islam channel, QTV, aag tv, NDTV, etc. iniitially i was quite intrigued as having access to islamic channels in the UK was something new. So i sat down and watched. The format was almost identical on all the channels --either re-runs of old bollywood films, cheesy soap operas (some of the paki ones had some good looking models in but that was about it), news--usually poorly presented compared to CNN, Sky, BBC, al-jazeerah, so why bother to watch inferior coverage?--and then the endless Islamic Q and A programmes. Allamah X, Y, Z coming on screen to answer your religious questions. I think this format is good and useful in moderation for those viewers who are serious or inquisitive about their religion--but it is done to death. The same format repeated by different scholars. Then they have the lectures/speeches given by religious scholars every other hour or so! Ocasionally QTV does make interesting documentaries about some of the historical sufi saints of the subcontinent. Watching maulvis on TV 24/7 gets BORING man--and I`m someone who is actually interested in religion a lot!
The Islam Channel is slightly different but not much--all the maulvis speak English and it is a mouthpiece for wahabism but they have one good programme--a current affairs programme with yvonne ridley--a revert and famous british journalist captured by the taliban.

Eventually I have stopped watching altogether except for the odd programme--I couldn`t take it anymore! I think if the aim of these channels is to make the youth of today more educated about islam--and i think with the rise of fanaticism TV is a perfect medium for this noble goal--and thus less prone to fall prey to extremist and heterodox intepretations, the owners of the channels could at least commission interesting programmes. With a cultural, literary and philosophico-spiritual history as rich and as varied as anything, importance in current affairs, and global issues facing the ummah, they is so much scope for a truly visionary islamic channel. I suggested on a forum--an islamic one--once, that muslims should make BBC style period dramas, and MTV style videos, movies etc. and discussion programmes where no question is taboo, etc. etc., i.e. a modern, quality, islamic-orientated entertainment channel, but was told it would not happen as it would be haram and cause fitnah!

btw it is the same for hinduism too--i also happened to flick over to some hindu channel caused aastha tv or something and it was the same: old men in saffron speaking to their audience. boring!

and you expect young people to become better muslims through this?

``If there is out dated fashion about Darwinism do all of you believe in Intelligent Design as church seem to favour?``(shah2)

Darwinism is not outdated -- `Intelligent Design` is -- `Intelligent Design` is the new charlatan name of the same old religious hocus pocus -- called the `Retarded Genesis` -- the universe created in 7 days -- earth 5 thousand years old.

Re: # 23

Senior Sanatani,

I saw ur posts on Dr. Hoodbhoy board. It looks like that I can take liberty here to reply u but I prefer not to looking at ur age.

I understand that u were rooted out from ur homeland and relocated to the new Dominion India. Ditto Mr. Ahmed32 (the other way) but look at what he writes (despite his anti-India jibes)? It`s easy to spew hatred.

As a citizen moving in public I find this bhajan business as nuisance. Overtly religious people are not really good people (that`s my observation). Look at urself. U bigmouth abt Hindu-this Hindu-that and u evoke nothing but disdain. As for Karnavati, ur ideological masters cudnt change the name despite having had a resolution passed in Gujarat Assembly whilst the Vajpayee-headed govt ruled at the Centre zt the same time.

The author writes against the religious fanatics and people like nasah writes stuff that cant be called miya-type, then why u are so uncontrollable that u dont use the basic fatcs in ur posts?

What`s wrong with u? tell me if u are an RSS activist then I write in a language so that u wud understand my point. Btw, I oppose public nuisance and mind u that all freedoms in India are subject to public order. If u want to know more: I am an agnostic. I dont believe in any god much less the stones/totems. Do u think u go to Indra Sabha and eff Rambha, Uravasi, Menaka & Tilottama? They were effed by billions of people by now. There wud be nothing but BIG black-holes there. Wanna go to Heaven/Indra Sabha?

Last but not the least. Discuss on issues with due respect given. I dont keep any crap given to me..I`d give it back. So pl keep ur lingo in control and discuss ur points.

VRV.

If there is out dated fashion about Darwinism do all of you believe in Intelligent Design as church seem to favour?

There is lot of literature claiming embryology knowledge being in Koran could some philosopher or scientist explain the term Phylogenetically ,Onto genetically the development of in utero foetus represents the `stages; mind or body of human developed?

From wikipedia:
Reductionism in science can have several different senses. One type of reductionism is the belief that all fields of study are ultimately amenable to scientific explanation. Perhaps a historical event might be explained in sociological and psychological terms, which in turn might be described in terms of human physiology, which in turn might be described in terms of chemistry and physics. The historical event will have been reduced to a physical event. This might be seen as implying that the historical event was `nothing but` the physical event, denying the existence of emergent phenomena.

Philosopher, please correct me.
I think what you mean by `failing of reductionism` is that - the cause-effect chain has to stop somewhere.

IOW, the `first` cause was itself caused by `nothing`. It was causeless.
The more ancient religions often refer to God as `the causeless one`.
Which means I guess, they too knew where reductionism was leading.

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science.
There is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
—Daniel Dennett, Darwin`s Dangerous Idea, 1995.

Philosopher

What cannot be read without unacceptable cost to the reader is useless.

Re: # 27
kalaachakr or whatever.
well --i m not a good writer and the slowest typer in the world.i know there are some linguiestic mistakes in my posts.i m improving it though.
and as for hubbyty or whatever--i dont know what crap is this.by the way what is it in my posts that u have found useless?

Philosopher

You do not format your posts. Do you do that intentionally in the hope that at least some frustrated readers will assume you have something useful to say?

(By any chance, are you our old friend Hobbyty, now using a new rhetorical trick?)