God is a Metaphor

``It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` . ``

The problem exists in your head. Empirical verification to support the axioms of a logical system makes the difference between generically speaking a Law and one man`s Delusion. That`s why you can only Believe and can never communicate what is it that you call `X`/`God`. To be able to demonstrably prove your proposition, you would need a mutually agreed upon framework that comes from empiricism.

I also have a feeling that when you say `TRUE` you are mixing it with `TRUE` as it is taken in the religious sense. They are different.

GT: I`ll come back to your post later.

Re: GT #141

There are actually 2 parts to what you are saying.

The first part is a purely logical exercise. You start with ``statements ASSUMED to be true`` (I meant the same thing when I said ``defined to be true``). Let`s call them axioms. Then you derive statements that are logically consistent with the axioms (I guess you have to define the rules of logic too). All these statements are considered true. Here, true means logically consistent with axioms. Since this is a purely logical exercise you can come up with any number of different axioms and come up with unlimited sets of statements, all internally consistent with their own axioms. (Of course, all of them will run into problems
described in #107).

The 2nd part is determining the axioms. Here you invoke empirical verification. That is used to select one set of axioms and declare them to be the `scientific` truth. This set of axioms may change over time as a result of more empirical tests. But the basic pricnciple is that it is always derived from empirical verification. And, of course, these scientific statements also run into #107.

I don`t have a problem with the 1st part. It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` .

That`s why I was hoping on a previous board that Mr Gill would come up with an example of a scientific axiom that was derived from empirical verification. Unfortunately, he came up with the wrong one.

(PS. This has nothing to do with the existence of God)

Re: # 148 khurram:

Yep, you have it fully correct. Moreover, yes the rules of logic are assumed. More refinements can be made and you have the whole `modal logic` business. You can also deviate to other systems by violating the definition of complementarity etc.

Raw:

It is the ``Russel Paradox``. If you are into computing, you will immediately see that you cannot compute the `proof` of the paradox. Penrose has a book on this, with some 500 odd pages. I do not understand why he needed 500 pages to do so. Plus, the book is quite unreadable.

Others (with apologies to Sohail for the deviation):
You will see a lot of people on chowk gloating about the number 0. They claim that `eastern philosophies` know a lot about this number. Heck, why is it the case that x/y is understood for all y with values near zero but not when y is zero? Listen to the answers, they are usually great. Actually, in general, ask yourselves what does x/y mean when x is positive and y is negative.

Point is, we need beliefs to survive or even to put a man on the moon.

Best.

zeemax:
``Disgust`` is something you are conditioned to. That`s the answer. Like for instance after living your entire life in sin (earning and feeding yourself on interest) your apparent deterioration into an infantile state when grave and Allah ka Azaab beckons. So, now you chase the metaphorical umbilical chord on chowk.com for that maternal-acceptance, you were ``conditioned`` to when you were growing up.

My turn to question now:
I am assuming you are about the magic number 53 or somewhere around. Do you feel like proposing to a 9 year old girl for harkening back to your ancient scriptures and their Author? It must be an exhilarating thought to be at the age to fulfill the Sunnah-e-Rasool?

... of-course .. it may be that one brother feels the disgust and desists, but another brother doesn`t .. but the sister is both`s sister ... and the father ... dunno which way he goes ... so ...

It goes on and on. But never mind. I`ve let Dr. Sohail off the hook.

Re: # 145

dear zeemax....the article was titled GOD IS A METAPHOR and you made it about INCEST

and challenged everyone who did not agree with your moralistic view about human

sexuality. the climax of your dialogue was...` you can`t fcuk (did not even spell it

right...Freudian slip) your sister or your mother...period) and then said `I`ve let Dr. Sohail

off the hook``...so what were you trying to prove with this marathon dialogue...what is the

moral of the story? so that I am prepared next month when I send my next article...sohail

Arrey Bhai ...

The disgust is there because of the ancient scriptures. That`s all. The scriptures say ``You can`t fcuk your sister or your mother ... period``, and these are the moral values. No nitpicking and all that stuff. No ifs and buts. It`s a rule.

Everyone here is scratching their heads and working hard to come up with an answer, but they can`t. No humanism or atheism nor anything else can explain that `disgust` which all of you feel when it comes to that. These are the values which are eternal, not evolved with time nor the human mind. You will never accept it when applied to your own selves.

I won`t force this subject anymore.

Respectfully,

Zeemax.

...contd...#142

I missed this part:

....my current stand on it would be to allow it if is backed by some good practical reasons guaranteeing its persistance. I hold that the disgust that people have against it is purely consequence based and has no rational value.

This sounds fair. Yes it has no rational value. But the disgust is there. Why?

So it is clear you support brother/sister sexual relations if it is backed by some practical reasons ....

You mean if there`re no other females around to have sex with, which is a practical reason ... you might as well take the one who`s right there under the same roof as you ... as well as being emotionally dependent on you ... that`s easy. (of-course you know that by you, I don`t mean YOU, so pls don`t be offended).

Unless you have any other practical reason in mind, which I would like to know about. Also, do you mean ``guaranteeing its persistance`` to mean a guarantee that they`ll never have kids?

Just a few clarifications please.

Regards.

Regards.

#138 by malikjahanzeb,

Dear Mailk Saheb,

My question was, and pardon me for repeating, whether you will support the brother/sister German couple in their legal fight to have sexual relations.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with off-spring. That`s not what they`re fighting for. They want to have sexual relations as husband and wife and properly registered as husband and wife, which they were, before their marriage was nullified by law. That`s all.

Now, do you support that or not? That is the simple question, and I don`t know why you call it a a `trick` question.

Is it because you will not commit to a position which is against your moral values even though you cannot justify it in the light of humanism? Even though you belong to the evolved human mind of Dr. Sohail`s clan as you have said?

I hope you answer it. If you have a position, you must state it clearly. :)

Regards.

Re #139, drsohail,
Post #134 is not mine. This is a chowk bug. if 2 people happen to submit at the same moment then one of the posts gets overwritten. My post was overwritten by bjkumar`s post from the Xari Jalil article.

Trying again...
Re; #129 malikjahanzeb
I am not sure I fully understand this post. You seem to be making 2 points. First is that the CONTENTS of moral systems are determined by the contingencies of evolutionary history. The second is that the experience of the unconditionality of the moral imperative is some kind of a `deception` .As for the first point, I am sure you are aware that this is not the only explanation of contents of traditional moral systems. There have been others based on, for example, class struggle or gender roles.All these are valid up to a point. They help in uncovering contingent factors underlying moral precepts. They
are valid as a protest against false absolutism. The danger is that they then go on to set themselves up as another false absolutism.
The second point, I would dispute. There is no getting away from the experience of the unconditional. Theories like the above are themselves an attempt to find a deeper expression of the unconditional as truth and morality.

Re: # 137 khurram,

I think you are making simple matters complex. And especially, I have problem understanding your scholarly way of articulating, so I would appreciate if you explain things for me a little bit less formally. I certainly want to know what you beef is which would be useful learning for me but we have to ensure that the communication does not go in vein.

What I get from your post is that you refer to something you call `the unconditional as truth and morality` which you think cannot, at least, in part come from the sources in the world only. The second objection you made was that morality follows strange routes such as absolutism and absolutism because of opposition to absolutism.

I myself am contented with the evolutionary explanation, specifically as a combination of the following stages of evolution:

1) physical life
2) human mind
3) human culture
4) ideas when they become an organism by themselves living in the world of culture

This framework completely and elegantly explains why we are obsessed with `truth` (simply because it is the ultimate currency of this universe; you simply cannot put two coins in a pot and take out 3) and morality (as a set of ideas that works for a human population at one time).

So, I fail to get your beef so far.

Jeez! #134 is not by me.
What happened to my reply to malikjahanzeb`s #129!

Re: GT #107,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying in your example that no matter how one defines a `true statement` it is not possible to have a set of all possible true statements.

Your example does not address the question of how to define a `true statement` in the first place. Right?

Re: # 135

khurram:

You are right #134 is kinda strange!? I was wondering what got to you.

As far as statements go you DO NOT `define` a true statement. Here is what you do:

1. You start with a frame of reference. A frame of reference is a set of statements ASSUMED to be true. For example the following provides a frame of reference:
(a) ``All elephants have tusks and only elephants have tusks.``
(b) ``The weight of any elephant cannot be less than 50kg``

2. You then HYPOTHESIZE that a statement is true in that defined frame of reference. For example, based on (a) and (b) you for example could say:

(c) ``B is an animal with a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``
(d) ``B does not have a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``

3. Now note that, given (a) and (b) [ant this is very important] (c) is logically CONSISTENT but (d) is logically INCONSISTENT. Most theoretical, scientific or mathematical, work is focused on this exercise. For example, if I assume that the Axiom of choice is true then one can show that ``The law of induction`` is it`s equivalent.

4. Next comes empirical verification. You go about catching animals and seeing whether they have tusks or not and if they have whether they are above 50 kgs or not. If all your data agree with the HYPOTHESIS you say that ``ONE CANNOT REJECT THE FACT THAT (c) IS TRUE. Unfortunately, we often tend to then say that (c) is TRUE in the context of (a) and (b). [NOTE: NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT GOD EXISTS, though religious types will say it is not a hypothesis it is simply true that God exists].

5. There is more here though. Suppose you find an animal with a tusk which weighs 45kgs. What do you do. Note, you simply cannot reject the hypothesis (c). You have to reject the TRUTH of (a) too. That is you reject the frame of reference.

So far so good and we do not seem to have a problem. However, in #107, I highlight how we may run into problems even with the above procedure which is accepted by mainstream science.

I was among those who commented on your first article. I am glad to see that you have overcome the loss of your friend and are trying to make something positive come out of it by drawing attention to the problem of suicide and the depressive conditions which lead to it.

It can not be overemphasized that manic depression is a PHYSICAL, medical disorder which needs treatment through medical drugs! Those who suspect it should not be shy about getting a diagnosis (from a properly licensed doctor) so that they can get the help they need.

I hope the Sohail gets his butt over here and adds his own two words instead of merely gloating in inanities on his own board!! :)