God is a Metaphor

GhalibZaman,

GhalbZaman Saheb, thanks for the video. It came as a surprise though that it is made and distributed by MMA, who had kept a 'proper' distance during the actual episode and most of their leaders were in London attending the APC at the time.

That is, except one. The MNA Shah Abdul Aziz who was there in person trying to get inside till the very end.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Anil,

Whose human Mind you want me to worship?

Yours, Dr. Sohail`s, Einstien`s, Hitlers`, Gandhi`s or mine......gengis khan`s?

This is ignorance at its height

God the best creation of human mind......so is the weather....?

or you claim that science understands the weather, then why it has failed to control it and why they are crying for global warming and why physics they talk about butterfly effect.

Donot go so high on science as it is still largely nothing but bunch of theories when you start discussing something as abstract as God.

So instead of start worshipping your mind, or an idol make your life more simple? fail to understand why you cannot believe in one God with the entirety of what you understand and what you donot.

Re: # 193

Mamoon Sahib:

Belief in one God is your minds creation for you.

Many people need to create an abstraction, be it a belief in One God, or belief in idols. I am not one of them.

Re: # 198
dear anil....can you share milestones of the evolution of your philosophy....sincerely sohail

Re: # 199

Sohail Sahib:

Love to share milestones, however this thread is coming to end. On your next thread. Like you evolved yourself into calling a metaphor, that has intrigued curiosity in me too, and love to know your evolution.

Re: # 200
dear anil....i am still curious so write to me at

welcome@drsohail.com

feel free to see my website

www.drsohail.com

sincerely sohail

Re: # 193

Mamoon Sahib:

``Whose human Mind you want me to worship? ``

This is a very good question. One`s own mind... that is all. Your counter on weather being creation of human mind... is an example of what one`s mind can produce. Indeed, societies who relied on agriculture in the past did worshipped weather, not because weather was their minds creation. Their mind created a helplessness if the weather was not good.

Khalid Suhail Sahib:

``Is man the best creation of God, or is God the best imagination of man?``

Carl Sagan in one of the parts of the TV documentary COSMOS, had quoted from Riga Veda.

After all these years I too believe in this question. And my conclusion is that God is the best imagination of man.

Man imagines God to be the way he/she wants to suit the moment, as the authority to give, to take, to problem unsolvable or afflictions, and many many more possibilities for which human knowledge is incapable of providing solutions or answers. It thus becomes the last belief, beyond which reasoning cannot work. Those areas from Planck`s Constant in quantum mechanics to spiritual healing where only uncertainty prevails.

Therefore, if anything, human mind should be worshipped and believed in.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 190

dear zeemax....i thought we had agreed to be mutually respectful....sincerely sohail

secondly,

isnt it logical to believe in the one who believes in you.

Mushammad (PBUH) believed in jews and christians (except that jesus is not a son of GOD). He seeked help for his comrades from a Christian emperor who after listenning to them said indeed Muhammad is a prophet of God.

Muhammad did fought with some jewish tribemen who supported the non believers of quraish due to the power game but he never called for war against any jew or Christian or asked them to become a muslim with force. His was only the way of reasoning.

WHat he expected, requested and reasoned was that God is one and he is a prophet of God. simple isnt it?

He did criticise some of the illogical practices of Christians and jews though which in no way undermine their religion. It is the same as criticising a wrong policy in its historic account regarding a country or a social group. much the same as Muslims are criticised and is correct if seen only in its contemprary context. something like that......

Similarly as mentioned in Quran, the fight was against the ones who did not believe Muhammad but also ridicule his message and preferred to retain their ignorance. The fight was not to have power but to convince and spread the message of truth.

In today`s world a simple click on internet may do the job. Thus trying to relive a similar color of muslim struggle in contemporary times can easily be argued as far less effective and in most cases irrelevant.

Today, due to economic and social development, countries as states work based on efficiency, trust and responsibility and not entirely based on self interest. Though existence of hegemonic foreign posture by some as well as corporate race of interests still trap us into a debate rational and progressive individuals in societies would best like to avoid.

So trust is the whole game and mutual respect is the missing link. secularism seems only a logical step forward. Education and universal wisdom is only to follow. Time is the only real judge here as we behave most times as if world is the same as it is 100 or even thousand or sometimes millions of years ago.

Re: # 188
dear mamoon...in spite of our ideological and philosophical differences we can agrre upon
..
...secular laws are the first step towards global harmony

and

...education and universal wisdom will follow

thank you for your detailed comments...sincerely sohail

````now i

believe that religion needs to be a private affair and state law needs to be based on secular

and humanist priciples so that all citizens have equal rights and privileges.sincerely sohail```````


Now that is a correct assertion. And it is in no way a contradiction to theology and minute details of religious practices. Law of the land in contemporary world should be secular where as you say every one has equal rights irrespective of their set of beliefs or what have you. Secular laws are the first step to global harmony and welfare as well as combined human quest to unravel further truth and mystery of life.

``` if you

were born in a christian or a jewish or a hindu family what would you have believed in?

most muslims that i met never understood the meaning of the holy book they believe

in...how sad...don`t you think people need to understand the book they would like to follow

in their life and discover the right interpretation````

Dear Dr. Sohail

I try to believe in the truth. The Islamic definition of the muslim is to say this:

Allah (God) is one (most logical acceptance of a fact)

Muhammad is the prophet of God (again most logical historic conclusion)

Now I am a muslim.

I belive in jesus. Now i am a muslim again.

I believe in Einstein and admire him dearly. and there is much more to belive in . Again I am muslim (simply put a believer in truth). That is the effort for all of us. Find truth and believe in it . Or atleast be near to the truth.

Eienstein The Genius has this to say to us who could now only read him...

(I have no idea where my ideas come from).
(knowledge is limited and Imagination encircles the whole universe)
*He realised as always a marvelous genius he was that God exists and he had a very defined idea about God sometimes much the same way a Muslim reasons).

So Dr. Sohail you donot have to find reasoning of God from a theologian. Read Einstein you would find ample and rich hints.

```````my request to all believers in GOD is to share with me their encounters with GOD...being a

student of human psychology i have a great interest in such mystical encounters....if they

did not have any encounters that means that their belief is based on a blind faith...````


Dear Dr. Sohail,

I did have elobrate and a bit out of usual encounters and shades of exposure. Though it is quite complicated than to be simply put here. WHat I can say is that I have a greater understanding about the philosophy of life. Though suffice to say: Imagination is an encounter to God in open day light anytime at any place.

You are right that some have blind faith and it is upto me and you and like ones to explain to such individuals the philosophy rather than confuse them by suggesting that God is the creation of our mind.

There is a stark difference between creation and realisation. Muhammad realised and not created God. Hence all the prophets of God (some critical analysis may tell us the definition of prophets ) realised the existence of God (as I defined subtly in earlier posts) not created God.

However many do try to create something of God out of things which is illogical. Thus to end the confusion which still entails us regarding a simple realisation, Muhammad and earlier prophets made a very humble request to beilive in One God (one force) and tried to argue that they themselves are only humans and only a mode to realise the fact that Allah exist.

ALlah says in Quran: There is everything where you can have the proof of Allah.

Yes some minds can see beyond what may an average eye see in it surroundings and find the patterns of his abstract being in a more eloborate and astonishing manners.

It is much similar to your experiences that you mustvehave `realised` that climate is changing, you have realised that like any other human or living organism you age, you have realised that fire can do many jobs, you have realised many and many more........But indeed it would be unfortunate if you have not realised that what simple message of truth some one of the most humble and kind people realised and worked all life to let the others know sacrificing everything they pertain: time, power and resources.

Or you would like to realise it yourself. Then seek it in your own way. Donot create God for yourself dr.Sohail and make an effort to realise it on your own turf which indeed would be if i may say a better scenerio rather getting confused yourself while trying to help out some less logical individuals.

We can have further discussions . Best

Dear Dr. Sohail,

I have a question for you.

Allah in Arabic is a combination of two words. Al which means what is and lah which means what is not.

Muhammad (PBUH) didnt say God, Kuddah etc neither did Jesus of Nazreth. You must know that in times of jesus or before , Roman kings used to claim they are son of Gods. So God was more of an empror and ideed a metaphor.

However elah and Allah have entirely different connotations.

So my question is do you know what Muhammad meant when he said `Allah is one` . What was Muhammad really referring to?

Allah is a very specific word a phenomenon never to be used for idols or even persons. None ever claimed that ``I am Allah``. As the word which means what is and what is not (every thing) can simply be not used. It is very defined expression and at the same time very simple expression and definition of God which is quite different than the representaions you put forward to defend secular athiesm. Since you are writing articles not purely on psyciatry, are you not delving into a bit of philosophy. If you are, then why would you present an argument based on misunderstood notions and cleche`s as if you are being part of the same confused audiences you in the first place wanted to help out with this article.


Thanx

Re: # 181
dear mamoon...thank you for your keen interest in the article. you have raised a number

of questions in your letter. i have no idea what mohammad meant by...allah....i am not an

arabic or islamic scholar. i know there are polytheistic traditions...monotheistic

traditions...and secular traditions...abrahamic tradition that mohammad followed was the

monotheistic tradtion

i am of the opinion that one can have

.... a religious attitude towards life....and have a blind faith in one`s religious tradition and

believe in a creator and prophets and consider holy books as divine revelations....

since there are not only different rather contradictory interpretations of scriptures

associated to GOD they cannot all be true

....a secular attitude towards life....based on history and science and philosophy ,,,,and

consider different religious traditions as part of mythology....and accept scriptures as

wisdom literature....after reading quran when i read old testament i was amased how many

stories were similar....now i realize that they are all part of middle eastern tradition.

....joseph campbell shared in his books that there are seven mythologies that different

cultures have created and in each culture there are different names for that GREAT

MYSTERY that we cannot understand rationally and logically...in middle east it was called

ALLAH....in other cultures that muystery has different name.

i am just presnting a theory...you do not need to accept it....

maybe you can read my dialogue with khurram in this discussion...that might clarify some

of the questions you are asking.

my request to all believers in GOD is to share with me their encounters with GOD...being a

student of human psychology i have a great interest in such mystical encounters....if they

did not have any encounters that means that their belief is based on a blind faith...and if

they were born in a different culture then they would have accepted the faith of that family

and culture as most people die with the same faith as their parents had....i think time has

come that we critically challenge the faith we were born in....what do you think? if you

were born in a christian or a jewish or a hindu family what would you have believed in?

most muslims that i met never understood the meaning of the holy book they believe

in...how sad...don`t you think people need to understand the book they would like to follow

in their life and discover the right interpretation. i read interpretations of maulana maududi,

ghulam ahmed pervaiz, abul kalam azad and many more and they all had different

interpretations.....now i realize that in wisdom literature different interpretations is a

positive thing but if you want to make a law then we all need the same interpretation. now i

believe that religion needs to be a private affair and state law needs to be based on secular

and humanist priciples so that all citizens have equal rights and privileges.sincerely sohail

If God is a metaphor, idol-worship is also a metaphor. It is not the pure stone that one worships but the spirit of god in the cut-stone that has a metaphorical connotation.

There is a story. Vivekananda asked an atheist king to spit on a photo of himself. The king could not do it. The photo is after all just plain paper. Yet, that paper carries a spirit (an image) and that is the mataphorical truth.

I liked this artile.

V.S.Gopalakrishnan

Do you think the miracles performed by the prophets, and the scriptures they got from God are lies?

How do you explain scriptues telling people about many unknown realities years and sometimes centuries before human intellect developed to the height where it could understand and vrify these phenomenons?

How do you explain the constant failure of humans in meeting hte challenge of the quran to produce a chapter like it? How do you explain that some human could write a book so high in literary standards that is still cannot be explained or reproduced by the highest scholors of that language?

The science people refer to for showing that religion and God arent real itself is always based upon unprovable or unknown assumptions. One cant prove or exen explain what ``charge`` is yet people use electricily. Amost in every century some great so called established laws of science take a turn and are proven to be wrong. Using such flawed and incomplete tools to dismiss the idea of God which is but natural in people is just an expression of being biased, stubborn and ignorant.

no offense brother but the truth is what it is :)

Re: # 178
dear imransuhail...did i read it right that you called me...biased, stubborn and ignorant.

how sad. i respect your views even if i disagree with you....sincerely sohail

Re: #175 SaimaShah,

Et tu! Chowkie #1!

``God ....is a name for what we do not know``

What does this mean?
Is it something like this.....
We don`t know what causes earthquakes. So we say God causes earthquakes. Later we find out what causes earthquakes. So, we don`t say anymore that God causes earthquakes.

Is that what you mean?

Enjoyed this deeply. What I`d like to add is also that no matter whether we see ourselves as believers or unbelievers, agnostic or atheist, we create God. It isn`t just the prophets who create God, but we all do. God is not just an abstract idea of an external entity, it is a name for what we do not know. How we react to the unknown, with what courage we face uncertainty, how we do it, is our definition of God. The definition of a personal God, overlooking our lives, (like an icon on our desktop) helps to connect with our deepest sense of self and consciousness. Religion is delightful because it is like a riddle to solve the great mystery of life--which is a gigantic puzzle about the nature of physical, mental and spiritual reality. I hope that before I die, I am one step closer to experiencing my true self. I know that it does not lie within this body, but somewhere close, like a computer program is distributed between interfaces and memories, I too am distributed in the various experiences of mind, body and emotions. Perhaps spirit is the synergy between these. To find ourselves is to find God. Different religions have a different myth but the connecting feature is spirit. There are many such ideas and features e.g.:
1. Spirit
2. The idea of goodness
3. The idea of sacrifice
4. The idea of being irrevocably connected to God.
5. The experience of love
6. The sense of separation from the True One

Re: # 175
Dear Saimashah...thank you for your thoughtful comments. When you use the word `spirit`

are you using it as the essence of human beings or as a separate`entity` that existed before

birth and will survive after death. What do you consider the basis of your life choices...your

own experiences and your own truth or faith in religious doctrines presented by prophets

hundreds of years ago as their truth? thanks once again....sincerely sohail

Re: # 176

Dear Dr Sohail,

Enjoyed the question. Am I rational, empirical and self reliant, or do I need a vastly revered authority figure...:)

Ok here is a frank reply:

1. The question whether the spirit is the essence of human beings or whether spirit is a sep entity--doesn`t it also remind you of the divide between polytheism and monotheism. Maulana rumi and the sufis, saw life as a separation from the One. If so, than God is the sum total of human energy, a sum total of all living consciousness and is distributed among us all. Perhaps this explains the time-space continuum. . This idea very similar to the romantic idea of Gaia, life force or what have you. It is the only explanation for the continuous sense of separation that people have felt down the ages. I have all sorts of odd reasons for thinking so. From Rumi to the nature of technological evolution and discovery. Why did humans invent so many communication devices? What is this need and drive to communicate? Why do people want love.
2. Do I believe in my own truth or in others truths. My own for sure. I am fascinated by the connection of poetry to religion--all religious texts are poems. Their writers had vast mystical inspiration--perhaps their spirit could tap into the higher consciousness or altered reality that we find so difficult to do. So I find them gigantic puzzles to analyze and synthesize.
3. Once upon a time, a couple of years ago, I wrote this. You may see it as a mystical experience or not:

I woke from a long deep sleep, very awake and alert as though there were two minds in mine. One had suddenly been uncovered and a little uncomfortable. The new mind was very detached and different. It was almost disdainful of my lived experience. It knew beyond a shadow of doubt that I was not. I tried to work that out in some rational way, but it was impossible to stop knowing this. I simply did not exist. I was but a memory strung together to be a life and something was recording me. I felt that I was not inside my body really, but just a recording machine whose job it is to witness everything that this woman feels. And that is the odd one. Feels. The purpose it seemed to say, was not to succeed, but to garner happy feelings. And I remember asking this mind inside mine, `but what?? what about goodness, success, duty etc. etc.` ` Your task it said is to find happiness. Otherwise you will die and all your memories. Goodness is happiness. Duty is happiness. You are nothing but the sum total of your experiences.` ``What will happen to me if I don`t get happy or am not good, I asked.`` `Your life will be useless and all your memories erased.` ``And what is your purpose?`` No answer. ``And what do you need from me``. `Your goodness and happiness`. Why? Because we all die if no-one is happy. `Why is happiness the key`. ``Because that is the nature of the experiment.`` ``If you are happy, we all live, if you are unhappy, it (the experiment) dies.``

Upon reflection, I saw the same idea reflected in many religious myths, reincarnation, heavan or hell etc. Something dreadful will happen if humanity is not good, we will revoked, finished. I guess our consciousness dies, thats pretty sad. I asked it again. ``So Is there life after death.` `There is no death, only submission if you are good and happy. You will be taken in, and your memories will become one.` I was sad, because I truly don`t want to lose my self. But the thing laughed and said, `Do you really think you are you?` And I said, `no I guess not.` `` Enjoy this woman you live as, if you do you will be, otherwise your memories will be erased.`` I had no chance or energy to ask more questions. Day faded into night.

Re: # 194
dear saimashah....i like your creative and mystical approach to life and religion and

scriptures...and enjoyed your creative writing piece....wish you all the best...sohail

Dr Sohail,

Great article, thanks

Re: # 173
rf786...thanks for the appreciation....sohail

Regarding your article God is a Metaphor, true, I too learnt metaphors in language class, English language to be exact. Not from psychiatry books, and never from psychology books. Though why should you make it seem as if ” concrete” was directly opposite to a “metaphor”! There could be variations of softer image in the “ concrete “reality . However a metaphor does take away the heavy weight from such words like “ faith” and’belief’! If you take away the ‘concrete’ way of looking at certain higher thought; faith and belief start flying around like mere clouds around a simple ‘metaphor’! Now I’m really interested in the use of “abstract Thinking” as a measure of mental and emotional maturity. Really now there otta be a proper psychological test to ascertain whether a patient can take it. I mean if a patient is really mature and Can take it when he is told the truth about say, a fatal disease! Just See how people blindly follow the demands of modernity. They all wear a certain “positive-ness” and as if it is a fashion they challenge the Doctor, “ C’mon Doc, tell me how long do I have to live!” and the doctor just as main stream, honestly tells the patient how short he is expected to live. Then the carefully cultivated veneer of being positive, collapses. The patient is a nervous wreck. Each sign and symptom is that of impending death. How many deaths will such anxious patients die! ? Such patients who we couldn’t see through behind their apparent maturity modernity and even responsibility, attitude? Imagine what-happens to the family who depend upon such personalities, life has such a flat effect when such charming personalities, crash and agonisingly go into oblivion....

Re: # 171
dear foggy1....can you share your belief about GOD.....and HIS/HER role in your life and

how your philosophy is different than the belief of family and community you grew up in....

sincerely sohail

Aricle with some brief exposition of abstractness but sufferred from pshycological dilemma of falling fr the same trap mr.Sohail accused less abstract minds fall for when they try to literally interpret God and his doings.

God is on average a largely misunderstood cleche and not strictly a scientific metaphor. Only if linguistic diversification is an outcome of metaphor, indeed then word god is a metaphor symbolising a phenonmenon.

Unfortunately Law, legal or social, follows law of averages. If every one is so logical to understand the abstract philosophy of God and not only that but act in the society with utmost coordination and good faith, no authoritarian cleche`s and interpretations to the Man`s intellectual contact to Nature (GOD) be needed.

As a researcher one needs to look into patterns to understand the emphasis on theology in older times which ended up being one of the key contributions to human society and its developments (I am talking about prophets: again a metaphor in the context of this discussion).

Now if athiest believes in nature in contemprary times he believe in God (the misunderstood cleche cum metaphor). Nature is an expression which brings more such Words, expressions and feelings only to define the abstract phenomenon in a different yet more scientific manner.



The expressions ``Messenger of God`` or message of God sounds the same as law of nature or natural event.

Now God /Nature does not work in complex and mostly contradictory manner but human society does follow exactly such trends. Less scientific mind or a scientific mind but a politically twisted mind may manipulate, complicate, misrepresent or confuse simple ideas for some self interest. A quality exercised by most human beings irrespective of power or no power, and this is just one of the practices of futile complexities, just as a matter of routine, one may witness every day.

I listen to Bulle shah, and his poetry shows that his abstract understanding about life was something of extraordinary stature and exceptionally well defined. He was a philosopher of extreme logic. Now if every human being reaches this level I agree with Mr. sohail humans would not need to practice less abstract, much defined, many times repressive and mostly confined ways to reason nature.

I agree these days scientific innovation has helped many of us to have a well developed understanding of GOD. But first only few could benefit but most still live in repressed environments where explaintions of their plight are merely utterances of confusion not only by the repressed ones themselves, be it the repression of mind or body, but the confusion entail socalled doctors of the system too.

So in my view believing in nature is again believing in the metaphor God, which is a philosophy of life, rather than an identity, but mostly embracing the new cleche/and less of a metaphor than GOD is understadning the secrets of this universe and our own existence though in a less abstarct manner than what some thing a poet like Bulle shah would believe in.

So let us not confuse God the metaphor while trying to make a comparison of philosophy and ignorance, and our behavioral constraints which makes many of us less logical sometimes consiously and sometimes unconciously.

sattar:
i get mad-retarded in those moments, i can`t even think straight, let alone to call up my imaginary buddies from childhood. (but i got you)

@ zeemax,

``My position is that morality springs from ancient scriptures, and not mental growth and cultural evolution``.


People can be moral without learning it from scriptures.

Take stealing, for example:
Basic instinct would have you steal.
REASONING would make you stop, because that would hurt someone else, and continue the cycle.

Or are you saying that if it wasn`t for scriptures, then people would have continued to steal from one another unchecked? How can that state of affairs continue to work? Would`nt the ensuing mayhem automatically force people to stop and reconsider?

I srongly submit that it would. Not all of us need scriptures that need to tell us which way to face, whilst having a shit. (No offense meant. I just think it`s absurd).

---

@ sattar2,

Have you never heard of a 3-some; or a 4-some; or a 5-some?
You only need one female to give you a BJ. The other girls can talk... or recite.

;-)

---

Regarding having sex with a close female relative:
I`ve always found my close female relatives to be UGLY and REPULSIVE!
Yet I have been told that they are VERY nice looking!

This `feeling` seems to apply to most us, if we are given the freedom to choose.
All of us, prefer someone DIFFERENT.
Just because people tell us, that inbreeding is wrong, doesn`t mean that our genes didn`t know this from millions of years ago.

The whole evolutionary process can only proceed if it`s allowed to diversify.


Marrying first cousins:
Marrying first cousins has fuck all to do with preference and it being `acceptable`. Kids are forced into them; Usually to keep the family`s monetary/bodily `assets`. (bahain).

Re: # 167

How do you edit your posts at CHOWK?
Is there a guide on how to add bb code etc?

I srongly submit that it would, should read :

I strongly submit that it would

Fine. Deny god all you want ...

There is a downside to being an atheist though.
You have no one to talk to what you are getting a blowjob ...

There, I have said it. This should end the debate for at least half of us …

I came across this last week in Thomas Mann`s DR. FAUSTUS, thought it`s kinda relevant:


``I should be sorry, after what I have said, to be taken for an utterly irreligious man. That I am not, for I go with Schleiermacher, another Halle magician, who defined religion as ``feeling and taste for the Infinite`` and called it ``a pertinent fact,`` present in the human being. In other words, the science of religion has to do not with philosophical theses, but with an inward and given psychological fact. And that reminds me of the ontological evidence for the existence of God, which has always been my favorite, and which from the subjective idea of a Highest Being derives His objective existence. But Kant has shown in the most forthright words that such a thesis cannot support itself before the bar of reason. Science, however, cannot get along without reason; and to want to make a science out of a sense of the infinite and the eternal mysteries is to compel two spheres fundamentally foreign to each other to come together in a way that is in my eyes most unhappy and productive only of embarrassment. Surely a religious sense, which I protest is in no way lacking in me, is something other than positive and formally professed religion. Would it not have been better to hand over that ``fact`` of human feeling for the infinite to the sense of piety, the fine arts, free contemplation, yes, even to exact research, which as cosmology, astronomy, theoretical physics, can serve this feeling with religious devotion to the mystery of creation - instead of singling it out as the science of the spirit and developing on it structures of dogma, whose orthodox believers will then shed blood for a copula?``

Re: # 163

The `science of religion` is hogwash.

Religion would nt exist if not for the organised brain wash engaged in, by people who have been not only brain washed themselves, but probably stand to gain from such acts as well.

If not for religious brain washing of children were abandoned, religion and god will die within years if not months.

All religions depend on brainwashing youngsters for their survival.

GT:
Gill was talking about postmodernism (not ``science``) which is a niche-subject considering the grand scheme of things (``Philosophy``) starting from Socrates. The question you should be asking Khurram is whether the philosophical enterprise starting from Socratic dialogues till Russell and Wittgenstein et al. that concerns itself crudely speaking about ``What is Good`` and ``What is Beautiful`` without referring to the dogmatic ``Truths`` is also an exercise in futility?

rephrasing it a bit:
Can there be a way to define Good and Evil without referring to some guy`s Idea of what he thought divinely sanctioned definition of ``Good``? i.e., without bringing ``GOD`` into the equation?

later

PS: [i remember the russell paradox]

Re: GT

Thanks for your comments. We do seem to be in agreement.

``Science does not posit ultimate axioms, just axioms ..``
I meant ultimate in the sense of basic, not in the sense of privileging some axioms over others.

``The problem is not with science per se...``
Agreed

``The are simply interested in putting a man on the moon or creating the dwarf variety of wheat..``
Again, agreed.

But there is a whole philosophical enterprise that holds that science can somehow lead to morality and values that are `objective` in the same sense as scientific statements.

Re: # 159

khurram:

``But there is a whole philosophical enterprise that holds that science can somehow lead to morality and values that are `objective` in the same sense as scientific statements.``

Yes, and I remember Gill saying, in another board, something like - these guys are quacks. I agree with Gill. Many of the ``Reader`s digest`` type scientists have made science into a religion. I, actually, get pretty depressed with the debate on evolution. Many ``armchair`` scientists instead of getting fascinated by the flaws in the theory start getting dogmatic. I mean, come on, there are flaws in the theory so more is to be discovered! Why bother about what others say? I see nothing wrong in teaching Adam and Eve, or whatever in one class, and evolution in another. Children are not stupid. I myself remember challenging teachers in our ``moral science`` class.

Khurram:

You say:

``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`` .

Science does not posit ultimate axioms, just axioms - which are indeed assumed to be true. The example in #107 rules out ultimate axioms. This is widely known and accepted in the scientific community. Godel`s theorem is a statement on this. Thus, your statement will be accepted (without the ``ultimate axiom`` part) in any good science department. The problem is not with science per se, it is with the scientists who lecture in the Discovery Chanell and write in the ``Reader`s digest``.

Furthermore most scientists, as well as mathematicians, are not so much worried about deep issues like the the meaning of x/0. The are simply interested in putting a man on the moon or creating the dwarf variety of wheat. Yet, they do get amused with philosophers pondering on these questions.

#150 by malikjahanzeb,

Sir,

How many times do I have to repeat that this German case has nothing to do with kids? They`re fighting for their right to have sex. I`m talking of legal sanction for that right and not offspring or even morality. Just the legal right. You gentlemen are being evasive.

Anyway ... all you folks appear to be very confused. If you don`t have a position, that`s Ok. But if you do, you should be able to defend it.

However, since you consider sex between brother/sister being of the same dimension of a social issue as aversion towards eating rotten food, or smoking, or seafood, and the sort by some as you say, and being at the same disgust level, then I have nothing more to offer. But, and its a big BUT, you must be able to superimpose your position on your own selves and your families. I.e if you want to retain families at all. If you don`t, well .. best of luck.

But that`ll be the third question. Regarding the family system. So, forget it.

The ancient scriptures are right, and they`ll always be. No nitpicking will diminish those.

Regards.

Re: # 154

Zeemax , I noticed you ignored my last post as well as Raw_Dust question. Just wondering since you are on the topic of disgust. Does a 54 yr old man marrying and having a sexual relationship with a nine year old while having other ongoing sexual relationship sound pleasing to you. If a 54 yr old devout Muslim proposed to your seven year old niece would it delight you. Would you attend the Nikah and have a Suhaag ki Raat for them. Please answer.

Re: # 154

zeemax:

;-)

good luck

#146 by drsohail,

Dear Dr. Sohail,

This has everything to do with your article. It`s about God being a Metaphor and ancient scriptures being myths, and incest has something to do with it. Or don`t you think so?

The moral of the story is as follows:

When you say ...

when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth and cultural evolution when most people can understand scriptures as folklore and not as divine revelations, can view them as mythology rather than stories, and can differentiate facts from fiction...

...then you better be prepared that this position will be challenged with proof that all morality springs from ancient scriptures, which are embedded in your mind ... hard-wired. And not from evolution of human mind.

If you deny that, then you have to accept that brother/sister sexual relations are quite OK because there`s no rational basis not to allow them .. (forget kids ... this German couple is not fighting about kids as I`ve said a dozen times ... they`re just fighting for sex).

And if brother/sister sexual relations cannot be denied as you have said and Malik Saheb has also said, provided there`s no consequential impact like physically impaired children, then there`s no reason for disgust, and no reason for the State to outlaw it, and you must accept that. This is the rational basis. You have to support it. You can`t oppose brother/sister marriage and/or sexual relations even outside marriage for any reason other than ancient scriptures embedded in your mind. If you want to expunge those, that`s fine.

But do you really want to do that? That`s the next question.

As for the `` you can`t fcuk (did not even spell it right...Freudian slip) your sister or your mother...period)``, perhaps you don`t know the Chowk censor system. Please try typing `fcuk` with the correct spellings and posting it.

But by now, you seem to be clutching at straws.

Regards.

(P.S. I didn`t see your usual signature `Smiles` in this post. Any particular reason?)

Re: # 152

dear zeemax....so we agree to disagree. for you scriptures are ultimate truth and for me

they are part of folklore because you believe in divine revelation and i do not. you believe

in GOD and i do not. for you it is a reality and for me a metaphor. you are part of majority

80% and i am part of minority 20% (used to be 1% in 1900). i just ask people who believe

in GOD to share with me their encounter with GOD. if you had one I would love to hear

your dialogue with GOD not the dialogue of GOD with people hundreds of years ago. so

you can follow your scriptures and i can follow my conscience....and both of us will be

happy and peaceful. smiles....sohail

malik sahib:
zeemax needs the answers with proper references to ``ancient scriptures`` and the glorious Sunnah-e-Rasool. Your well reasoned post(#150) that have blown a Allah-shaped is not what he is looking for.

GT:
I did an exercise similar to that in an algorithm class awhile back. Does this Set Theory problem has a name. I want it for reference.
On a bit of a tangent: I came across probably the dumbest argument in favor of Delusionalism which happens to be since, reason exists within belief and since believing it to be ``TRUE`` in ``human mind`` makes the rational systems work, therefore, Belief is above and beyond reason and it can never be dichotomized with reason as in Belief vs. Reason. This is probably the worst kind of douchbaggery, I`d seen in a long time.

Dear zeemax,

What I meant was that if you can come up with a method which can guarantee that sex will never lead to conception between these couples, you can make a good case in favor of incest. We live in a world in which practicality of an act determines its virtue. For example, smoking is discouraged not because the act of enjoying smoking is wrong (nicotine is not harmful for a man). It is the side effects which increase your long term risk of disease. If you can invent a cigarette that can provide nicotine without these effects, all the disgust around smoking that has been invented in the recent past will disappear and smoking will become as `cool` as was in the 60s and 70s again.

By persistence, I meant that the need for incest should have a reason to sustain. As in the case of homosexuality, we can convince ourselves that no matter what we teach in books, no matter what drugs will make our children take, you will have some homosexuals in the population in the end. This creates a need to address and solve the problem on a permanent basis. If incest is something which at least some people want on an ongoing basis and the risks associated with it in terms of offsprings can be mitigated, a strong case in favor of allowing can be made. I will then vote in favor of it.

Now I want to come to the point of disagreement with you. Incest is not disgusting because it is written in the book. To give you an example, is it written in the book that you should not eat rotten food? I don`t think it is `haram` to eat rotten food. But since it is not good for you, you usually find it disgusting when it smelling in a certain way. This is a classic example of how we develop a sense of something being disgusting for us if it is never useful for us. Similarly, many muslims find sea-food disgusting where islam doesn`t really disallow it. You are probably right that for muslims, the disgust is amplified because it has been sanctioned by the religion but even if you get rid of religion, a good level of disgust will remain there which has practical reason to develop and sustain. And yes, in a completely liberal society, you will find occasional cases of incest here and there (less than homosexuality), which would be considered normal, unless a situation arises which I mentioned above (sex not leading to conception) when it may become more common but those decisions will be made on cultural grounds.

``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!! :)

Re: # 134

dear khurram....what did i miss? who are you responding to about depression and suicide.

sincerely sohail

...afterthought #132 .....

As a recent example, a known and admitted atheist said ``May she rest in peace`` on the obituary of a departed Chowk author. I had asked ``Peace ... where? And in which Land?``

Do you think it had nothing to do with the obituary? Or a trick question?

It was to expose the duality of the atheists who were just saying it to be politically correct while they profess to neither believe in a soul nor an afterlife. Because, believing in either of the foregoing makes belief in God inescapable. To them death ends all and God is a metaphor. So it would have been more appropriate for the atheist to condole by saying ``Hope she had a good life``.

BTW he never responded :)

Regards.

#119 by muh.adil Re: # 99

... people don`t talk about the thoughts written by the writer, they just start their own session ... why not you write seperately and invite Dr. Sohail to comment ...

What do you think I`m talking about if not the article? ... :)

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.

No you didn`t give me an answer, and I can`t accept what you insist is an answer from your post # 97, for the reasons I gave in #99 addressed to your goodself.

... 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``.

muh.adil, I suspect you do not understand the nature of the forum that is Chowk. It is a debating forum. Unless you want us to agree with everything the author says, we are free to dispute his position by bringing up our own which falsify his.

In this case, I am bringing up issues which contradict Dr. Sohail`s (ok .. not author`s) position which he has taken by stating that ``...when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth and cultural evolution when most people can understand scriptures as folklore and not as divine revelations, can view them as mythology rather than stories .. ``

My position is that morality springs from ancient scriptures, and not mental growth and cultural evolution. Hope it is clear now.

Regards.

Re: # 132

Hello Zeemax, First of all thanks for clearing which sentence of article you are talking about and what point you are making.

So my straight answer is they are right about their struggle.

why i am saying so.
Since i believe what dr. Sohail said, and i also give you one example. One more thing, God name has been used for this purpose, but if we see from the Darwin`s Theory point of view we can better look into this how all this happen and it is not because some divine scripture that you do these things,
and if it so What Egypt was doing, actually they were also obeying some divine scripture so how you can defend them.

One more thing, how we can do some test editing while writing, can you help me in this regards

Thanks.

#109 by drsohail Re: # 98

Dear Dr. Sohail,

Thanks for your response, but I`m afraid my question remains unanswered. The question was `whether you will support the legal right of a brother/sister to have a sexual relationship`.

Your earlier response has already concluded (with help by Khurram) that you`re not in favour of incestuous marriages (from physical and mental health point of view as you have further elaborated in the captioned post) but would`nt want to interfere. It was the conclusion reached that since you wouldn`t want to interfere, you wouldn`t want the State to do so either in outlawing the practice.

It makes sense. After all, if a couple is not worried about the physical/social/mental well-being of their own or their off-spring, the State can`t enforce their well-being upon them. Direct analogy is with same-sex marriage which I assume would also be regarded as unfavorable by you for precisely the same reasons, and must have supported it`s legalizing.

Therefore, the conclusion to be reached as to my question would be that you support the brother/sister couple in their legal battle.

Is that correct? If it is, I have my answer.

If not, I would like to know why legality of same-sex marriage is right while legality of brother/sister marriage is wrong, and to which morality or human concern can the distinction be ascribed? Of-course assuming that you`re not in favor of legalization of same-sex marriage as well which is possible.

Regards

Re: # 131 zee,

Since I happen to be a member of the same clan dr sohail is, I can try to briefly answer your question:

If the state thinks that the offsprings of these incestuous marriages will be its future subjects, it will base the decision on their future wellbeing. So, the state will ban having children as a result of incest just because parents do not have a complete ownership of their children`s rights. This is just parallel to the law that you cannot physically abuse your own child in western countries.

A more interesting question would be, if incest is okay if it has zero risk of leading to offsprings. I think this is a trick question and 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.

Dr sb, you can add on this.....

#105 by khurram 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?

To make this question fully analogous with mine to Dr. Sohail, at #6, it will have to be slightly re-phrased as follows:

Would you support the legal right of a religious minority to practice incest if they claimed it as part of their religion?

To the above, the answer is an unqualified and unequivocal `NO` with no mitigating circumstances.

Regards.

Error Message 32AF56:
9:22PM East Lattitude - 2007:04:12

This article is yet another attempt to undermine human spirituality in favor of whatever concepts are used to declare God as a metaphor. At least 85% of human population does not support the concept being advanced in this article. The author insists on declaring God a metaphor perhaps on the grounds of not being able to find God under his microscope.

Making statements, such as, ‘highly evolved minds interpret scripture metaphorically and interpreted literally by those not highly evolved’, appear to be a highly self serving proclamation. I wonder how any one is going to collect the necessary statistical data to support such assumptions. We all know, there are large number of (intellectually) evolved people in all walks of life, including science, who believe in a personal God or a higher being who created life and the universe.

Every religion and belief system does seem to have various folklores associated with it. The followers of a faith or a religion do not necessarily accept or support many of those tales. But mere existence of such tales does not undermine the central theme of a religion. There have been social, cultural and political reasons behind the origin of most folklores. One should not be throwing the baby with the bath water.

The terms like seven heavens have metaphorical meanings, but only the atheists perceive God to be a metaphor. Those who are not spiritually developed, often have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as they do not find Him directly under the microscope or in a mathematical equation.

The article, ‘God is a Metaphor’ is one of several, that I have seen, written by many atheists with the same bottom line - promoting author’s own thoughts and values. I wonder if the real reason of repeatedly harping on the same subject, using different words, is an attempt to strengthen their own uncertain convictions against some kind of inherent deep seated insecurities causing inner cognitive conflicts.

Regarding the notion holy wars – people always find some reason or excuse to wage wars on each other. If we look at all the current hotspots around the world, we see that the geo-political reasons are driving factors, no body is trying to save God or a religion.

Javed I. Chaudry

Re #122, ``How do you know that there is someone real behind this metaphor?``

If by `someone real` you mean a being that `exists` in the sense that its existence can be verified scientifically then I believe that there is no such being. I am not even taking the `green monkey` position that there may be a being whose existence cannot be disproved. I categorically state that there is no such being. What this metaphor expresses is the experience of ultimacy or unconditionality. It is not a subjective or objective experience like other experiences but a dimension of all experiences. Think of what concerns you ultimately. Or the unconditional imperative to act morally, whatever the content of your morality. Where does your concept of true and good come from. It is this reality, which is not an existent thing, but the `ground` of existence that is expressed in the symbol of the Supreme Being.

Re: # 126 khurram,

You seem to be connecting the innate human morality with a supreme being who inspires it and as other things to do with it in the enterprise called religion. Surely this is one of the plausible dimensions to pursue but I miss to see a strong connection between the two, especially when you say that you do not agree to the literal forms of god.

As far as my understanding of this question is concerned, evolutionary explaination of morality makes more sense to me. We are all, on average, moral and immoral to the optimized degree which determined by our existential reality.

Just think of an analogy that in any field of professions, businesses usually compete with each other but also form alliances to safeguard the overall interests of the sector they are operating in. In other words, they are adverseries as well as allies, exhibiting a type of morality which depends on their existence. According to the computational theory of mind, it is nothing more than a complex computer loaded with self-learning algorithms, trying to optmize the evolutionary ideals. And this is where morality comes from. And `the unconditional imperative to act morally` is explained to be the act of these economically simple algorthims are `decieved`.

This is quite a lengthy and complex argument with which I may not be able to do justice with. I am curious to know if you have pursued this line of thinking and analyzed it as a plausible explanation.

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.

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

Re: # 118

Raw:

Yes, I think both you and I understand each other perfectly. But what follows is for others:

How can you rationally refute the following:

1. ``God dictated the Koran to Mohammed.``

2. ``God induced Homer to write the Illiad.``

You can`t.

Now consider the following two verifiable statements:

1. ``If God does not exist then the Arabic Koran has Chinese characters.``

2. ``If the Koran wasn`t written by GT then the Arabic Koran has Chinese characters.``

Now note the interesting phenomenon. Suppose the Arabic Koran is serached and no Chinese characters are found. What do we conclude, ON THE BASIS of 1 and 2? We conclude that God exists or GT wrote the Koran or both. On the basis of 1 and 2, THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION. To refine this conclusion we need MORE verifiable statements. With the addition of more verifiable statements, some conclusions would be refined but other questions would prop up. And so on and so forth. Can we have the entire set of ALL verifiable statements. The answer is probably No (for this see #107).

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: # 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.