God is a Metaphor

Re: # 77 Hello Zeemax, first of all don`t give any reference fro wikipedia, if it is correct or not it make things suspicious.
second what is wrong and what is right is decided by the society not by any supernatural force, one thing is taken as right in one society and wrong it in other society then it did not make things wrong or right,
if Egypt at one place in history don`t say marriage between brother and sister is wrong it is there society which decided this,
and now if society has decided that it is wrong you think it is wrong,
so there is no hard and fast rule, we can change this rule by saying ok from now brother and sister can marry, who can stop us from doing this.

At one place gay relationships were ok in ``USA``, but when British and French went there, they stopped this, and now again when gays have come into action, society is trying to accept that as right and now in few states of America they are legal.

this is there struggle to do this (ask the society to accept this brother and sister marriage), i think it will answer you, thanks.

check out my esnips stuff at
http://www.esnip.com/user/muhadil

#88 by drsohail,

Thanks for your response. Firstly, I tend to respect people who command respect, and not who demand the same. By the same token, I do not expect to be respected by people whose respect I`ve not earned.

As you`ve seen, I may perhaps be the most maligned interactor on Chowk, but it`s hot in the proverbial kitchen. Even if someone asks me a fair question, albeit in an abusive manner, I always respond though fittingly garnished with some flowery language of my own.

But that doesn`t detract from my past asides at you and I`ll be more watchful of your sensitivities.

Regarding the `trick questions`, why should a direct question which is difficult to answer as well as leaves little room for maneuvering or obfuscation be called a `trick question`?

In any event, I still look forward to your answer because I would really like to have a logical and respectful discussion with you.

Regards.

#97 by muh.adil,

Dear muh.adil, thanks for your input. However, I had really not been looking for origins, history and the like with regard to incestuous relationships. I had only been looking for whether the atheists/humanists support the brother/sister`s legal right to a sexual relationship. However if your point is that ``abhorrence of incestuous relationship does NOT arise from ancient scriptures...``, I would invite a debate on that.

To refresh the issue, let me reproduce an extract from my post #6:

The institution of marriage and the abhorrence of incestuous relationship arises solely from ancient scriptures, which you believe to be folklore and fiction and the sooner dispensed with the better.

In that event, I presume with a high degree of confidence that you support the following couple`s court battle for their rights? If not, why not?

A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.

(P.S. Point noted re wikipedia, but I think it`s ok for calling up inquiries of routine nature)

#87 by khurram,

Thanks. That was helpful.

Re: # 90
IN SEARCH OF TRUTH
dear khurram....i came early to work today to answer your simple but profound questions.

there is no doubt in my mind that you are a philosopher. In my humble opinion

there are as many truths as human beings

and

there are as many realities as pairs of eyes in this world.

Every human being has a unique way to EXPERIENCE this world (with five senses given by

nature) and then give it a meaning (through sixth sense...brain/mind) to creat a

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.

Some subjective truths are personal while others are collective...that we call language and

religion and culture.

Every child is CONDITIONED by the family, school and culture he/she grows up in.

When children become adults they have choices

Traditional Adults are so conditioned that they accept the Subjective Truths of their family

and culture as Objective Truths. That is why most people die of the same Religion as their

parents

Creative Adults are non-traditional and challenge the Subjective Truths of their culture and

religon. These adults use different parts of their brain/mind/personality to challenge their

environments

These adults try to discover OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. For them universe is an Objective Reality

and Laws of Nature are Objective Truths. These truths are independent of the personal and

cultural subjective truths. We call such people scientists and those truths scientific truths.

Let me share an example

There was a cultural subjective truth that people who have fever every 48 hours can be

treated with a herb.

Scientists wanted to test that truth and find out is it a subjective or objective truth. They

followed certain steps

....gave them names....called that fever Malaria

...found out cause......caused by the bite on female anopheles mosquito

....found out the nature of cure...herb had a chemical called quinine

....found out quinine kills the malarial parasite

now we all have quinine pills and can treat malaria....

i gave that example because i had malaria and was successfully treated with quinine tablets.

we can use the similar example for infectiona and antibiotics.

So Scientists are discovering Laws of Nature to understand the universe.

Since Science is still in its infancy we have two theories...one discovered by Telescope

about cosmos and galaxies...the other discovered by mathematics and electron

microscope....quantum physics about the laws of subatomic particles. As Science will

mature we might have a Unified Theory about the Universe.

Since Human beings are part of the Universe....we need a theory for Human Beings...

Since we have five sensory organs and one Brain...but that Brain has two main parts...

Right Brain that deals with intuition and aestheitics.....mystics and artists and poets use it

for creative thinking.

Left Brain deals with language and logical and rational thinking that scientists use.

Research in Neurology tells us so far that when intuitive and creative experiences of Right

Brain goes to the left Brain...Left Brain thninks that it is coming from OUTSIDE (not from

the other side of Brain) and interprets according to the personal and cultural beliefs....says

it came from angels and spirits and gods. Ghalib said

aatay hain ghaib say ye mazameen khial main
ghalib sareer-e-khama nawa-e-sarosh hay

I think that as Human Brain evolves we would have a more unified theory and

understanding of human brain/mind.

Human Brain and MInd so far is in the infancy to fully understand Human Nature and the

nature of the Universe.

So we still have a Mystery... a mystery that keeps on changing.

Each one of us has a Subjective Truth....personal and cultural

While we are exploring the Objective Truth of the Universe through Laws of Nature

Human Beings are growing and evolving but unfortunately most of us die before we are

fully born.

The fundamental difference is among two groups of people

First group...Religious people..traditional majority group has accepted the authroty of their

Culture and Religion and made it sacred....through the beliefs of God and Scriptures and

Prophets and do not want to question it

Second group....Humanists, Atheists, Agnoistics, Freethinkers...non-traditional minority

group wants to question everything. For them tradition is not sacred and Human Beings are

more imporatnt that Gods and Religions

Since Human Beings are social animals. Two people or two families or two communities or

two countries can share their Subjective Truths and respect each others truths and come

up with a pragmatic solution in a Democratic way.

Or One group who is powerful and authoritarian....can call their Subjective Truth as

Objective Truth,,,,Religion with Divine Guidance and call it Ultimate Truth and insist and

enforce it on others and create a theocratic state and punsih and penalize all who do not

agree.

My subjective truth is that I believe that

every human being has a right to have his/her Personal Subjective Truth and I respect that

we need Secular Humanistic Communities and countries where all citizens have equal rights

and priviliges and there is not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.

Now I have to start working so I have to leave here....i hope i have not disappointed you.


thanks for the inspiration....sincerely sohail

Re: # 99

Zeemax here`s a synopsis:

Given your upbringing it might be okay for a fiftysomething man to have sexual relations with a nine year old while haveing ongoing sexual relations with other women. Your impetus to live life a certain way is so in after life you to can emulate this great example and have sexual relations with a variety of women in an ongoing manner. I asked a German colleague of mine if he would object to having his daughter in such a situation and he was horrified.

So what Dr. Sohail and god knows so many people have tried but unsuccessfully communicate to you is that what is normal to you is determined by your culture and religion and it might give people from other societies the real creeps. Get it?

Re: # 98
dear zeemax...thanks for your respectful response....give me some time. i will write more

about the question you asked when i have some free time....sincerely sohail

Re: malikjahanzeb,

These are intra-religion issues. Every religious tradition is flexible enough to adapt and overcome challenges thrown up by new situations. They do not require a rejection of religion itself.

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?

Re #101 drsohail

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

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

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

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

Sohail and khurram:

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

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

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

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

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

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

can share your views also....sincerely sohail

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

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

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

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

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

gets into difficulties because different individuals and different sects have different

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

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

persecuate and penalize the ones that do not follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our values change and evolve with the evolution of life.

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

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

eat it and are fine with that.

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

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

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

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

social and cultural.

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

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

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

responsible attitude towards life.

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

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

therapist not be a judge.

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

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

the family is healed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lemme rephrase:

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

OR

Do you Know the existence of supernatural intelligence?

call super natural intelligence God, if that is convenient.

gracias.

Re #110 Raw_Dust?

When did I dodge anything?

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

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