Killing Darwin

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.

#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: # 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.

#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: # 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.

#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: # 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.

#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?

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`.

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.

``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.

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.

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: # 7

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

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.