Killing Darwin

If religion were just a private club for loonies and the misguided and those being taken advantage of, carrying on its practices behind closed doors with its incense and its candles and its dressing up and its peculiar rituals and its collections, that would be okay, more or less.

But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.

We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.

If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.

The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical.

Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.

If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.

Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...

Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.

nadeem, once again a great article. If I come to Pakistan, I would like to smoke a big fat bowl of ganja with you man. You seem like one of the chillest pakistanis.

btw -- Pracha sahib Darwinism and Communism are not synonymous -- one is for the survival of the fittest -- the other is for the survival of the unfittest.....quite a difference don`t you think?

sick and tired of the bhajans and artees before the incredulously frowning Ganesh -- and the bejwelled putteeburtaa Indian naarees crying their hearts out at the drop the hat in the dismal soap operas on the Zee TV with eye-hurting ear splitting sound effects -- I got for a short while a couple of Pakistani channels and Geo TV for a change of taste in desi entertainment.

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!

now where do you think Pracha sahib is the time -- and where is the space -- for Darwinism or for Evolution in the Islam-forgetting minds and hearts of our Pakistani almomineens -- as Zafar would say: ``etnee jagah kahaN hai dil-e dagh daar meiN``...

and contrary to the Bhajans .....they don’t even sing good – so I had to get rid of the channels fast rather reluctantly....with apology to my Pakistani brethren......:)

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.

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.

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.

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.....!

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: # 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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

#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`.

#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.

#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.

#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: # 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

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.

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: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......

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: # 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

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

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.

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?

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?``(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.

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?

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 ...........

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: # 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``

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?