Killing Darwin

Re: # 18
sorry sister if you r hurt.i didnt mean that.i m not saying that i m the greatest philosopher the world has ever seen.but being a humble student of philosophy[doing phd]i know at least i can understand philosophical aspects and complexity of certain philosophical issues better than any non-philosophical mind.you see that`s the problem with philosophy.even a student of philosophy can not deny even the opinion those who r completly unaware of philosophical analysis.if doctor tells u do something u will love to do that coz u know at least he knows better than `naani amman`[granny]and daadi amaan &company.than y shouldnt we be carefull about philosophical issues before jumping into some ridiculous highly superficial conclusion suited to our inclination.one must pursue knowledge.as for my knowledge of Quran is concrend[i m not concrend about ignorant mullahs]Quran is also against blind faith.that`s why it distinguishes mechanical practice of islam from `imaan`imaan in its broadest terms is necessarily an intellectual act which leads to discovery of the ultimate being.what i mean to say is that we should take into consideration our own ability to comprehend those highly complex philosophical issue which have always been controversial in the philosophical community all over the world.thisngs are not as simple as they look on surface.if i m against mullahism it doesnt make me the greatest intellecual on earth.sorry again.

#17
Meaning only YOU know the philosophy behind the issue and everyone else here is doing jhaak baazi? Just a question and not a comment. :)

Re: # 16
you first read both theories and than say anything in terms of their philosophical aspects.
i m not saying that we shouldnt teach science or confuse our youth by mixing up many things by telecasting these kinda programmes on tv but same is applicable to other extreme.if u have read my posts u maight have got the idea that these are two separate issues which can not be mixed up.these are highly philosophical debates.if you are confident and give judgment without knowing anything about its complexity and technicalities it doesnt mean that every one around is doing`jhak baazi`.

#15
NFP makes good sense. The question he is asking is simple: Why are these channels showing progs attacking Marxism and Darwinism in a day and age and country where Marxism is no more a threat to Islam (if it ever was). The second question he asks is pretty senseable too: Are these channels telling young people to dump secular sciences in favour of Islamic creationist myths?

NFP, it doesn`t really make sense.
i think so i agree with PHILOSOPHER here. he is right when he says that everyone think they know philosophy. In reality it is not as simple as that.

Re: # 1 ParthaAB

My understanding is that any religion is a set of ideas that challenges an older, rigidly established, regimented and retrograde set of ideas during its infancy, builds up a following of like-minded people and later it develops into a similarly rigid, regimented and retrograde system itself. In this respect communism is also as good or bad as any other religion, although it professes to be against religion as such.

Its also not correct to say that all believers are prudes and intolerant towards debate and doubts. It depends upon the environment one is brought up in (I don`t mean family background exactly). Those who branded their opponents ``enemy of the people`` at the drop of a hat were as closed-minded as the worst religious fanatic around.

Someone believing that his life is controlled by Gods in the skies shocks you, but how can you be sure that under more favorable circumstances, Communists wouldn`t have conferred the same status upon Marx or Lenin, say 200 years on?

``dont draw conclusion out of sheer stupidity``(Philosopher sahib)

then why bring Holy Quran into the sheer stupidity....:)

NFP
How come that obnoxious lady was ``so Darwanian`` when all she wanted to do was dump you and break her fast? :)
Another great piece of satire, though. Reminded me of that Sissy Facists article you did a few months ago.

Re: # 3 Nasah

Hasan saheb, don`t you get Star One on your cable/DTH? You can watch the The Comedy Show Ha Ha Ha (the best) and The Great Indian Laughter Challenge (second best) for a change. Why watch those stupid saas-bahu serials?

Re: # 8

dont draw conclusion out of sheer stupidity.i have never said that all answers are in the Quran.just read my intreracts again[though its not well organised]i m saying that no domian of knowledge can be reduced to other domains.every domian has its certain methodologies.mixing them with each other is doing violence to them.i have said that whatever is mentioned in the Quran dealing transcendental universe of discourse its verses are symbolic not literal.this distinction has been made by the Quran itself.the distinction b/w mutshabihaat[metaphorical or symbolicl]and muhakmaat[categorical].language and all religious assertions dealing with transcendental univesrse of discourse are allegorical.they are not factual statements in the strict sense,they are existential truths.there significance is phenomenonlogical not formal[in the philosophical sense].Quran is not concerned with any lifeless formal consistency or for that matter factual[epistemologicaly].i have not said anything in that #7 reply that is based on Quran or tried to reject anything coz Quran doesnt agree with it,i have just pointed out some of the philosophical problems which stem from the theory of evolution.read it again but read any introductry book on philosophy so that u may be able to `misunderstand`#7 in its right perspective n can be able to comprehend the complexity of the matter.

Philospher, it will be helpful to your interested readers if your `train of thought` takes an occasional station-stop and change of line
:)

You`re absolutely right about the `constant` self/mind and the reduction principle.
This same idea was known to the ancients.

The hindu texts for example, say the first thing that gets created is `aham-kar` (What a beautiful word!). The sound of `Me`. Me-ness. Self-awareness - the very essence of life, intelligence.

Aham-kar creates the mind and everything else. Those ancient dudes did think deep.

---

Does darwinism contradict religion?

Off course darwinism does contrdict the medieval religions (Islam, Christianity), which say God made everything in a flash (ok, 7 days).
And God being God, there can be no possibility of `improvement` on His creation.

The Hindu texts are a little more elaborate. Here`s from the SuryaSiddhnta:
``One hundred times four hundred and seventy four divine years passed while the all-wise was employed in creating the animate and inanimate creation, plants, stars, gods, demons and the rest``

1 divine year (year of the gods) = 360 human years.

So Brahma took about 17 million human years to create everything.
He certainly took his time!

In essense however, the Hindu belief is the same as Islam and Christianity.
Humans, animals, plants, etc were `created`, not evolved.
And this Darwinism appears to contradict.

Re: # 7

so here we go again -- the answer is not in Marxism nor in Darwinism -- it is in the Holy Quran.....!

hey mr nadeem you think darwin`s theory throws the baby of religion away,you are right but with the bath water.such oversimplified philosophical thinking can only be grabed by those who are activist practicaly but lazy intellectualy.the matter is not as simple as this.compatability or incompatability of religion and darwinism is an irrelevent question.the real is mind-body relationship which is as controversial a philosophical issue as any.the question of physical devolopment of humans is irrelevent at least Quran doesnt speak about the creation of adam anywhere.whenever it says anything about adam ,it refers to human beings not adam as an individual.no where does the Quran says that statue was made of adam.that`s why the word `eve`is not their in the Quran.the Quran speaks about adam as a symbol for `human mind`and it relation with the ultimate mind.its a symbolic represntation of theory of knowledge or the epistemology of the Quran.regardless of what the ultimate scientific fate of this darwanian theory ,we have to face a very serious paradox even if we accept it.that is the problem of `reduction`which is perhaps the most important philosophical issue in the 20th century philosophical movements.if we accept this theory we will have to reduce all mental acts to biological causes and physiological factors.it would necessarilly be `ontological reduction`not `theoretical[in the philosophical sense of the term]thus we will have to reduce the numbers of all ontological primitives.it is an extremly dangerous situation .it would destroy the whole structure of mathematics and its `a priori `[in the philosophical sense]nature.even the whole structure of language becomes meaningless.it would eleminate the independent `self` or `i`as a constatnt factor which will further destroy the entire structure of epistemology including empiricism which is the base of scientific methods.and last but not the least its[darwanism]own creditability becomes questionable.if there is no constant `self`or mind and bilology is the ultimate destiny than it itself is the product of biological causes which has[in the case of ontological reduction]no constant tool to judge its creditability.this is not to say that biologist is wrong but the point is that even if we accept its thesis these are the paradoxes that we have to face.these are the ultimate problems of philosophy.they dont stem from the pessimistic atittude of philosophers.nor do they raise these issue because they are having constipation and out of sheer frustration they start talking nonsense.they highly philosophical and technical issues.no domain of knowledge can be reduced to other nor can one domain provide the ultimate tool to judge other domains.knowledge is a contineous and probable process based on conjecture and refutation.if one can come out of the delusion of granduer and imperialist consiparicy theories he will find that philosophers[who can never accept marxism which has such a philosophical basis and grave philosophical shortcomings]are not doing `jhak`.theory of evolution[on which marxism is based]itself not compatiable with a very important features of marx i.e sociology of knowledge.they rather contradict each other[plz dont tell me there is dialectical relation between both these contradictories ,i wont be able to restraint my laghter and its effect ejaculation.there is a problem with philosophy every body considers himself a philosopoher and logician.if a person is not doctor he will never he is a doctor but every body considers himself a great philosopher.he understand philosophy untill he is asked.

Re: # 3

Hasan,

Ur post reminded me of some hypocritical believers in Gujarat. Once I was travelling by an early morning train to Baroda from Ahmedabad. Somewhere after Nadiad I was disturbed by bhajan dickheads in train. They are daily commuters. They are singing: .....kashta kaapo....sanmati aapo... (in Gujarati it means Oh Devi/demolish all my problems/give me good mind).

The guy who`s leading the song himself occupied two-persons sitting area. There were old women standing but this dickhead was singing....sanmati aapo (give me wisdom/good mind). How hypocritical?

This hypocricy continues everyday coz they are daily commuters.

The local Communist Party leader claims the Islamists have been courteous to the commies as their goals have become one - the defeat of American capitalist pigs. Unlike say fifteen or so years ago when the Islamist fuks and were lap dogs of the American capitalist pigs sent out to do the dirty work.

Paracha sahib, it is sad to see both the commies and the fundoos share the same vision when it comes to economy. Both of them want the big-Moma government. The same big-Moma that can feed her milk to little fundoos and little commies.

Yes the communists of Russia are dead. Does that mean all those card-carrying communist Pakistanis are dead too? Heck no! These neo-commies are different. They now carry little chavez or little-Nejat idols in their hearts.

In the end our Des is full of fundoos and commies, may be the only losers are those Darwinists.