God is a Metaphor

Re: #drsohail,
``ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it? ``

Of course, I do.
And, I define it by the first kalimah.

Re: # 99 Hello zeemax,
First of all i would like to share the problem which i am watching here at chowk.com, people don`t talk about the thoughts written by the writer, they just start their own session and start talking about it, like i have seen hardly 2-3 comments on the work done by ``Dr Sohail``, expect everybody is talking about what thread you have started. If you are so much interested to talk about this why not you write seperately and invite Dr. Sohail to comment on that, and even you can email him directly.

Second what you have asked about weather it is ok or not, then i think after my answer i hope you get the answer which i have given to you.

And again i will request everybody here at chowk.com that please start their seperate thread to talk if they have anything to share with the world, don`t exploit the reputation of others, and don`t answer by using name of ``author``.

Thanks to all.

GT: that`s right but those unverifiable green-monkeys didn`t inspire an Iliad or a Mahabharata or my fav. Faust.

Re: # 113

Dear GT...I am throughly enjoying your feedback and comments. I used to have the same

interpretation of Agnosticism as you have until i read a book THE ROAD TO REASON by Pat

Duffy Hutcheon. In that book on page 88 about Thomas Huxley the founder of the

philosophy and movement of Agnostics. I quote ` Thomas invented that term in 1869 when,

as a member of the new Metaphysical Society, he had felt that the need for a name for his

own philosophical position. His concept (derived grom the Greek gnosis meaning

knowledge) was to be antithesis of `gnosticism`...the mystical creed of an ancient Persian

cult which had believed in the possibility of a mysterious, direct accesability to ultimate

truth. Thomas taught, instead that the empirically tested facts of science are the

only `truths`. accessabile to fallibale humans and BLIND FAITH THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. In

explaining agnosticism Thomas said that it is not WHAT we believe that matters so much as

WHY and HOW we believe it. `Moral responsibility lies in diligently weighing the evidence.

We must actively doubt; we have to continually scrutinize all our views, not take them on

trust.``

What Thomas Huxley was attempting with his new concept was switch the emphasis from

the specific CONTENT of the beliefs that human held (whether these acclaim or disclaim the

existenceof something) to the PROCESS by means of which people attain and retain them

over time. For him agnosticism was `not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in

the rigorous application of a single priciple...it is the fundamental axiom of modern

science...do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or

demonstrable` He was, in fact, changing the emphasis to the scientific method of inquiry,

with all its strengths and limitations, as the sole source of reliable knowledge. However, his

concept was much misundersttod, even by supporters, and to this day many humanists

tend to write off agnostics as people who merely refuse to take a stand or the question of

atheism.``

I found that quotation interesting. I thought you might too. sincerely sohail

Re: # 115
Raw:
Right, but we cant do much can we? Can the following statement ever be negated logically:

``All the monkeys in chowk are green in colour``.

Best.

GT:
I agree. I was stretching the definition on that count. Although, God `notion` (with the meaninglessness inherent in its construction) can be entertained ironically, like getting into a willing-suspension-of-disbelief.

Re: # 111

dear khurram...i appreciate your honest and candid response. words whether holy or

unholy never do justic to our life experiences and truths. sometimes they conceal as much

as they reveal.i was amused by Raw Dust though. he asked the right question in 20 words

that i could not ask in 200 words. i learnt something from Raw Dust...thank you both of

you. chowk is getting more interesting. one learns something new every day.

.sincerely sohail...sohail

ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it?

Re: # 112

Raw:

For the agnostic, God does not signify the unknown. The agnostic is indifferent between the existance of God (with whatever unverifiable definition) and the non-existance of God (with the same unverifiable definition). The agnostic is not a disciple of determinism.

Believers can be choosers in the absence of concrete evidence. These words mean nothing whichever one you use: God, X or supernatural intelligence. For an unbeliever and agnostic, these words will be metaphors (including God) signifying the unknown.

Re #110 Raw_Dust?

When did I dodge anything?

Yes, I believe in God. But NOT as a supernatural intelligence that exists. That is a metaphor, as I said in my very first post.

khurram:
donot dodge the question when you have been asking all kinds of questions on this board. It`s simply not cool. Answer the author without referring to how ``expansive`` or blah the subject is.

Lemme rephrase:

Q - Do you Believe in the existence of supernatural intelligence?

OR

Do you Know the existence of supernatural intelligence?

call super natural intelligence God, if that is convenient.

gracias.

Re: # 98
dear zeemax...i have a few minutes so let me try to respond. i am of the opinion that social

and moral issues can be dealt in two ways with two different attitudes

a. religious attitude....believers can believe in a God and Religion and give authority to Holy

Book and Prophet and then follow the guidelines....Muslims follow Islam and Christians

follow Christianity. Holy Book or their interpretation of the book can decide. This practice

gets into difficulties because different individuals and different sects have different

interpretaions of the same Holy Book. If one group gets into power in a theocratic state and

religion and politics join hands then that group can inpose their values on others and

persecuate and penalize the ones that do not follow.

b, scientific attitude....followers of this attitude rely more on science, medicine and

psychology. any value is tested on rational grounds and if passes the test then they can

follow. Law of a land can be secular and humanistic.

Coming to INCEST and COUSIN marriages. I am not in favour. So you and I agree but

agreeing is not based on religious grounds. I think that from physical and mental health

point of view it is not a good idea. I think when young adults are allowed to choose their

partners from different families and cultures it sets the stage for multi-cultural

communities. i encourage mixed marriages. Shias marrying Sunnis. Hindus marrying

Muslims. Pakistanis marrying Canadians. i even made a documentary on Mixed Marriages.

I think scriptures written by prophets of their time had value for that culture at that time

but as life evolves and social circumstances change we need to review our values.

Those values of any religion or any scripture that can be tested by biological and social

sciences and make sense can be kept but those that do not make sense can be discarded.

Our values change and evolve with the evolution of life.

Maybe at one time eating pork was bad for health because of worms or could not be

kept clean because of poor hygienic standards but now millions of people all over the world

eat it and are fine with that.

So believers have the responsibility to test their theories and morals and find scientific

evidence to prove their point otherwise they can practice privately but not make a law.

So I do not believe in INCEST, so we agree. I do not think it is healthy for people to do

that. But if two people want to do it ...they have to face the consequences...medical. moral,

social and cultural.

It is similar to many of my patients who suffer from mental illness. I tell them that if they

had children some of them might suffer from mental illness but if they choose have children

it is their choice...I just wish people made informed choices and had rational and

responsible attitude towards life.

Similarly for people who do not follow health rules...physical, emotional and mental health,

my attitude is sympathetic. I try to help people with emotional problems. I chose to be a

therapist not be a judge.

A few years ago I treated a man who had sexual contact with his daughter. He came to get

help. We called his daughter, he apologized, i did family therapy, she forgave him and now

the family is healed.

That is my role. As I said before my choice is to help people not judge people.

I believe in education and evolution. I am hopeful the more we have education and raise

our social consciousness the more people will make responsible choices that will decrease

human suffering and increase quality of life. The goal of all religious, secular and

humanistic traditions is to make people more HUMAN individually and collectively.

Whatever philosophy a person is following. If he/she is leading a truthful life and serving

his/her community I have great respect for him/her.

I hope I answered your question....all the best...sohail

Re: # 107
dear GT....thank you for your keen interest in my dialogue with Khurram....

i am going to respond to zeemax and khurram about social and moral values...may be you

can share your views also....sincerely sohail

Sohail and khurram:

Am following your discussion with a lot of interest. I felt like sribbling a few lines on `truth` or `reality` myself, though it may have nothing to do with your discussion. So apologies in advance.

1. I BELIEVE that `truth` or `reality` is relative - relative to one`s frame of reference or ken if you may. Assume that there are two rational beings - scientists say. Now assume being 1 can perceive only two dimensional objects and being 2 can peceive both two and three dimensional objects. Furthermore, being 1 exists on the surface of the water in a glass that being 2 is holding. Being 2, now, dips a perfect cylinder into the glass of water and dips it down and up vertically (perfectly) without taking it out of the water. Note, that being 1 will observe a static circle while being 2 will obseve a non-static cylinder. Thus both of them will disagree about the velocity of the object they perceive. Their relative ``truths`` or ``reality`` is different.

2. Actually, Point 1 does not imply that `truth` is relative for it is based on the assumption that being 1 cannot perceive three dimensions. After all, being 1 should be able to rationally figure out the existance of 3 dimensions even if she were not able to perceive it. In other words, I had assumed a restriction on the frame of reference. Is this a valid assumption? I argue below that it is. I do so by drawing on a well known theorem from set theory to show that a frame of reference cannot be created to include ``everything``. For this I need to get a bit technical. Define a NORMAL SET to be a set which does not include itself. Therefore, its complement is a set which does include itself. Call this an ABNORMAL SET. Of course this set may or may not exist. Now define a set which contains all normal sets and only normal sets and call it U - the universal set. Note that the universal set contains ALL perceivable sets that we know can exist! But unfortunately, such a universal set U cannot exist. For if it were to exist then it would either be normal or abnormal but not both. So suppose U were normal. By definition it would contain itself as U contains ALL normal sets, but then U would be abnormal - a contradiction. So U must be abnormal, but then it would contain itself - an abnormal set. By definition, U contains ONLY normal sets. So this couldn`t be too. Thus the set is neither normal nor abnormal. Therefore it does not exist!

So ..... ``truth`` is simply relative. It is relative to an ad-hoc reference set. Since this reference set cannot include ``everything``, we cannot have absolute truth. But we CAN RATIONALLY believe in it. That is another topic which is difficult for me to put down in words.

Re #101 drsohail

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such a detailed and thoughtful manner.
Your reply reminds me of a little book I read,
My Search for Absolutes by Paul Tillich
(The entire book is online at http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1628)

You seem to be engaged in a similar search. It appears you are at the stage where you have accepted scientific knowledge as an absolute. When I was a teenager, I believed that myself. If you read that book, you may realize that there are stages beyond that.

You are right that this is an expansive subject and can fill an entire book. The only comment I would make here is regarding your reference to scientific knowledge as objective truth. It is not clear to me how scientific knowledge can lead similar objective truth in the human world of values and meanings.

You also asked if I have ever had mystical experiences. If you mean the dramatic kind of experiences that come from temporal lobe disturbances then the answer is no. For me, it has been a slow and gradual awareness over a lifetime of ordinary experiences.

Re: zeemax,

I do have a question for you too.
Would you support the right of a religious minority to practice incest if they claimed it as part of their religion?