Killing Darwin

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?)

Re:nasah#3

[..oh my God what a dreadful mistake -- the curse that has befallen Pakistan TV is the not only Islam but the Alzeimer`s Islam -- today they learn all day and night about Islam and the exposition of its finer points for the trillionth time -- tomorrow morning they forget everything -- have to restart studying Islam anew for the zillionth time.

even though they are born with Azaan in their ears -- they grow up in madarassas and they die in madarassas -- studying Islam over and over again -- every weekend -- and every day five times -- and still they don’t feel they remember anything -- they have to bring it on Pakistan TV as well -- all day all night! .....]

ROTFLMAO!! This was really hilarious......

From the survey done by the Times of India people with TNS November 2006,

Three fourths of Indians are strong believers; 72 per cent of those in their twenties strongly believe in god.

92 % in the north had expressed their belief in God, the figure slipped to 86% in South.

Re: # 22
well u r again oversimplyfy here.i have said again again that these are not my `thoughts`this is my approach towards knowledge.as for being apologist,well againg u r misled on this issue.what is apologetic approach can one define it?two different framework of thinking can reach at exactly the same conclusion but they can both be miles away from each other intellectualy.you n me also know that technology plays a very important role in our life,cars run,planes fly,but do we all know their mechanism and all the scientific technicalities.a scientist sitting on next seat with me in the plane completly understands all the physical laws which keep plane flying but though i also know its flying but know some basics of those laws which i have in general book.we both are right in knowing that plane is flying but intellectualy with two entirely different approaches and abilities.in the same the so called apologist presents the same view as of Allama iqbal.is he intellectualy equel to iqbal?will u call allama iqbal a third rate philosopher coz of apologist`s sheer stupidity?ideas and thoughts can have completly different philosophical perspectives.even though they have same conclusion.one is superficial or APOLOGETIC[i dont what is apologetic approach people know its meanings untill they r asked]and other is devoloped on incredibly complicated philosophical analysis.as for matter of contradiction is concerned u r again oversimplifying ,this issue is as simple as it looks on the surface its perhaps the most complicated logical issue.we can not see things with oversimplified notions.since the day i have read this issue of contradiction i tremble with fear when i m about to call two judgments contradictory coz now i know depth of the matter.i will very soon post my article on chowk.i m not a good writer as u have judged but i will try my level best to convey my thoughts in a lucid manner.

Re: # 6

Vah vah VRVji,

dhimmitude dikhao aur miyon ki chaploosi karo. BTW i have been on a passenger train between Karnavati and Surat and I did not finnd the Bhajan singers hypoctitical at all. They persuaded their fellow passenger every time to squeeze a little more to accomdate a few more of them and shared their food and water with those who appeared to have none. This 255 kilometer thanks to the socialist, secularist and communists took 11 hours and all my life in India I have seen only these hypocritical Bhajanwalas and Sardars (also Bhajanwalas but more likely harbhajanwalas do something similar).

Ishwar aapko sadbuddhi de.

Regards
Sanatani

#21
As I see it brother philosopher, you are nothing more than a cultured apologist for religious dogma. And I also see why satire in which marxists, or former communists like NFP excell, and which usually poke fun at religious dogma, really hurts those who want to ``philosophise`` what he thinks is nothing but contratdiction and philosophical hogwash. This is my thinking on this, brother philosopher, I hope you will treat it with as much respect as I have treated yours?

Re: # 20
i have never said that i m a great philosopher.what am i for?well,its not a simple matter sister.you can not see things with the perspective of either be or not be kinda law of thought.its a complex world sister.well,i m religious [muslim]but i know that there can be people of different atittudes and mental abilities in following any school of thought,same is true about religion and islam.when i read any philosophy i try to find the thoughts of the best scholars on that subject.why shouldnt i have same approach when i try to study religion?if i m a muslim n i do believe in islam i wont accept anything of third class muslim mullahs who are completely unaware of the complex philosophy of relgion only because i m a muslim.in the same way i wont reject any school of thought which doesnt suit to my inclinations unless i go deep into it and challenge at least i wont ridicule it and i would certainly consider it a serious philosophy.i m not able to stand and argue for a few minute in a serious philosophical debate and always use rhetorics i can become `a figure among ciphers`but i wont be able acquire true knowledge which i have strong desire of.the book [Quran]i follow deeply doesnt teach me that.according to the Quran wicked can never be able to reach the truth even if he is a muslim[n there r around u know that]Quran says even a muslim who is following islam mechanicaly he is just decieving himself if he is not pursuing the true level of discovery where truth reveal itself with the light of Allah.
these are not my thoughts this is my atittude towards knowledge.what my philosophical thoughts are ,well its a difficult question can not be answred here so simply.this is my approach towards knowledge.i know many marxists who will not be able to face a few philosophical arguements against their dogma but they have the delusion that something very special and are gonna change the fate of the world.so u will find every kinda people in every school of thought.

#20
No problem, brother philospher. I wasn`t really hurt, just intrigued. And I still am. You said,[[If I am against mullahism, that doesnt make me the greatest intellectual on earth]]. Meaning, if you arent against mullahism, that would make you a great philosopher? Your posts suggest you are not for mullahs and nor are you for them. What are you for then? In other words, I wonder, brother, what does made you such a great intellectual? And I am asking this without feeling hurt, so lay off the sorrys. :)

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.