God is a Metaphor

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.

#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.

#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

#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.

...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.

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: 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?

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

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: # 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.....

Re: # 134

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

sincerely sohail

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.

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.

#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.

...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.

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.