Conflict of Science with Theocracy

tahmed sahib,

ok … have it your way … but I do think it’s useless being incensed …
like I said … you are alright … just a little headstrong at times … only this time I decided to go tit for tat …
and once again … no hard feelings … but would recommend though … not to take this chowk stuff too seriously …

peace out …

Urstruly,

You are wrong … when you claim that Mirza Sahib called his opponents “children of prostitutes”. Furthermore, you incorrectly state that the actual words were written in Urdu. This shows your ignorance.

The actual quote is in Arabic … and is mistranslated by your mullah. Mirza Sahib used the expression “zurrayatil baghaya” for his opponents. The sentence is … “Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya, whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty” (Ayena Kamalat Islam, pgs 547-548).

The well-known lexicon Tajul Urus gives the meaning of “baghy”, which is singular form of “baghaya”, as a female slave, whether of ill conduct or not. Accordingly, the meaning of “zurrayatul baghaya” is progeny of female slaves, that is to say, those who do not passes the manly quality of accepting the truth. Note that there are no references to the conduct of the female slave here.

Tajul Urus further states that to call a person “son of baghayyah” means that he is deprived of guidance.

+++++++++++++++++

Your mullah made things up against Mirza Sahib, and you have made a fool of yourself by believing him. Your credibility … and the credibility of your mullah … is at stake here. Naqshbandi earlier bit the dust. It’s your turn now …

Comments?

Dear roohi:

You are correct; the clash between Hypatia and Christianity precedes the clash between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church. My statement, if you notice, was qualified. I had stated, ``The first head-on clash between science and theocracy, which is well documented in the hhistory of science....`` I had used Galileo`s episode only to make a point. I am glad however that you brought up Hypatia in your post because she was surely a remarkable woman. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

urstruly #77 i am not whining, nor am i mad at mr. sattar2. i didnt even ask him to go wash his mouth after he was through with his abusive outburst after being caught lying.

As for me, just get me a female ape (or four, being a muslim ape) to share the cage with and i`ll be fine.

A correction Mr.Gill !!

The first head-on clash between science and theocracy was NOT between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church, in the seventeenth century.

The first head-on-clash between science and theocracy was between the Roman Catholic Chruch and a woman mathamatician, Hypatia of Alexandria in the forth century !! Do you agree ?

Read more about her

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or030897.htm

tahmad , the caged ape in a zoo.

bhai you are whining for nothing. I think sattar is being incredibly nice to you as compared to his prophet who wasn`t that charitable with his opponents:

``Except for the children of prostitutes, whose hearts have been sealed by God, everyone has accepted my Prophethood.``

(Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p.547 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani)

The actual words are written in urdu something like this ``sawaae kanjariuN ke bachoN ke jin ke dil par khuda ne mohar laga di hay sab meri nabuwat par iman le ay haiN``

I guess this prophet had quite a sense of humor.

sattar2 #75 As I said, I will not be responding to your posts anymore. So please dont try to continue interacting with me. Thank you.

tahmed,

Your situation is a bit like that of a caged ape in a zoo … irritated and enraged … because a mischievous six year-old is making faces at him from the other side.

Now, you’ll probably respond by posting your medical history and your PCP’s testimonials … and insist that sattar is lying once again … since in reality you are a human and not an ape ... and you can prove this. Relax Sahib … and don’t get excited. The said reference is to your mindset and behavior … and not to your DNA.

You continue to slip into delusions of self-importance … and are determined to win every tiny cyber conflict with total strangers. This is not good. You need therapy … the more severe type. Logic, quran, morality etc. will not work here … as you refuse to use common sense and fail to lighten up. With that said, I’ll leave you alone in your cage and let you quietly ponder over your condition …

hamidm2 #72 So far, sattar2 has been trying to cover-up by pretending that he was lying only as part of a comedy act (sattar2 of course being a well-known chowk comedian).

Given his lack of success with this coverup (his anger and abusive language kept slipping out of the cover, as I pointed out in my post #70 below), I guess you felt the need to provide him another cover to hide behind, namely the Ahmedi community. This wont work either, I am sorry to say. Since what he is hiding from are his own words, not mine.

As for mrs. hamidm, you are obviously doing something wrong. This is the way you convince her and save your child from having to read without understanding what is written:

.......................(thinking)...................(thinking).....................

OK: I`ll let you know when I have figured out a way - luckily in my case it was my child who spoke up, and saved me the trouble of having to point out the irrationality of reading something in Arabic.

``Events in the Muslim world may very well fall in the pattern of European history … if it has not already happened.``

It has not, and can`t.

``Furthermore, a mullah does not need an advanced degree in physics to understand the threat posed by education to his halwa, jihad fund, and the following of devotees … his age-old formula simply being … keep people ignorant, and stay in the driver’s seat … ``

No, that`s the feudal lord`s formula. The breed of ``mullah`` you`re talking about simply scoffs at education period. Kind of like rualites over here...``whyse you all get a university edumacation?`` they ask. ``What good is it?`` There`s a difference between that and *preventing* people from obtaining an education.

sattar mian (and tahmed, you might read it too),

.......... you are a very brave man to tangle with the likes of mr tahmed, a man who is bent on winning the cyber jihad against drunkards, ahmedi sympathizers and other assorted enemies of the book? ............ thank god for microsoft, otherwise he would be out their living in a dark cave in afghanistan!

........ i am glad to inform you that my older daughter was rescued from the clutches of the tax-evading arabic-babbling qari at the age of twelve ......... i am also sorry to report that my younger one, inspite of her protestations, is still being subjected to this senseless torture once a week ............ BUT, i try to undo the harm within an hour of that fiend`s departure............ i also try to set a good example by not praying, saying blasphemous things at the dinner table and doing what the crazy muslims hate most - drinking!........... tahmed still doesn`t get the importance of drinking in the jihad against islam and ignorance!....... he doesn`t understand the powerful symbolism!.......... and no, it is not like bra-burning, it is more like gandhi`s insistence on running around naked!...... he was cold and he knew he looked ridiculous, but he still did it for the cause.........

........ but you still might ask, ``what kind of a man am i to allow my poor daughter to be subjected to this cruelty`` ............ obviously, you haven`t met mrs hamidm!

sattar2: And incidentally, further to my post below, I will not be responding anymore to your posts.

sattar2 #69 So first you lie. You get caught, and instead of apologizing, you choose to lecture me on lack of humor. I remind you that there is nothing funny about being untruthful. You try to continue your lecture to me on my lack of humor, but cannot control your anger and your post is littered with abusive words (``moron...paranoid...Dullness...is only matched by your obsession …paranoia borders on abnormality...as$...fool...senseless, neurotic comments.``). And you end your post with a pious ``no hard feelings, I hope``.

I dont need to define you for what you are. Your post speaks for itself. And you seek to discuss religion on chowk!!

tahmed Sahib,

If you notice … Naqshbandi does not have an uncle in hazara with a camel either. But that’s alright … it’s only a joke … which seems to have escaped a moron like yourself. And rest assured - no one is out to get you, so you can stop being paranoid.

Now, despite kissing the graves of dead pirs, Naqshbandi apparently still has enough sense that he understood the joke. But you didn’t. And that’s a travesty. Dullness in your personality is only matched by your obsession … that of diligently ``catching untruthful people`` on chowk, as if with a divine purpose, … and citing statistics and records of each one`s individual reaction. Sahib … such paranoia borders on abnormality and is not healthy. A normal adult should have other interests. Apparently, you don’t.

So I’ll give you some friendly, earnest advice. You may reject it … and that’s alright … I can only try. Take a joke as a joke … and don’t lose sleep over it. No one is out to get you … so learn to relax … and have a little fun in life and on chowk. Morality, Quran and stuff are good to have … but not worth annoying others over while making an as$ of one’s self. And as the old adage goes … don’t argue with a fool … I’ll try to minimize responses to your senseless, neurotic comments. Good luck … and no hard feelings, I hope.

sattar2 #66 Lying is not funny, my dear sir. Chowk is a great place to catch people who forget that, unlike the spoken word, what you write on chowk cannot be disowned by you later on. You are the fourth such person I have caught being untruthful on chowk.

When thus irrefutably caught lying on chowk by their own words, three of the others chose to simply not respond after that. The fourth had the decency to apologize. You have come up with a new tack: to try and catch the moral high ground by lecturing me on humor. I guess every fish tries its own way to escape when caught by the net of its own making.

tahmed,

humor my friend ... it is called humor. Apparently you are missing more than a few genes ...

... don`t take life sooooo very seriously ... it makes discussions with you more annoying than being seated next to a talkative proctologist at a shadi dinner ...

From http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251535435&call_pageid=970599109774 :

Science can`t supersede religion: Einstein


TOM HARPUR

``Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.``

Albert Einstein, May 19, 1939.


Humanists with an axe to grind like to list famous people who, they dogmatically affirm, had no use whatever for religion. This is a tempting ploy in the attempt to gain credibility for their particular cause. But, over-eagerly, they often miscue and twist the truth.

For example, a recent list of allegedly anti-religion ``greats`` in a Star feature included Socrates and Albert Einstein. Since they`re obviously the right kind of brains to have on one`s side of the argument, they are frequently cited as key examples of ultra-rationalists, as humanists - in the anti-religion use of this term - par excellence.

Nothing could be more erroneous. Socrates spoke openly about his ``daemon,`` that is, his guardian angel, spirit-guide, or Quaker-like ``inner light.`` Plato, the ultimate believer in the sanctity and power of reason constantly used Socrates in his renowned Dialogues as his mouthpiece for some of the highest teaching ever conceived of regarding the soul and a mystical view of reality. Condemned to death, Socrates` last words, after drinking the poisonous hemlock, were those of religious piety: ``Crito, I owe a cockerel to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?`` Asclepius was a mythical Greek god of healing.

Albert Einstein, the most brilliant scientist of the modern era, is even more interesting because of the widespread lie in our culture that science and religion are two mutually contradictory incompatibilities. Anyone who counts Einstein as an opponent of religion simply hasn`t read what he had to say on the subject.

For example, in the address at Princeton Theological Seminary, from which the quotation at the beginning was taken, he stated categorically that ``a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist.`` Where conflicts do happen, he argued, it`s always because of a poor, mistaken understanding of the true nature of either one of these approaches to reality or of both.

Science deals with the issue of ``how facts are related to, and conditioned by each other,`` he said. It is the `` ... endeavour to bring together by systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.``

Religion, on the other hand, is concerned with the goals, the values, and the meanings of human existence both individually and collectively. It tells us how we should relate to the universe and to each other.

In a little paperback, ``Ideas And Opinions - Albert Einstein`` (Three Rivers Press, 1954), most of his thinking on such issues has been collected under the general heading of Science and Religion. Einstein notes that the efforts of humanity to obtain knowledge through the scientific method have been even more than ``heroic.``

Yet, he powerfully insists upon the truth that, no matter how much you learn about what is, this still leaves you sitting very far away from what should be. You can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is and yet ``not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations,`` he declares.

In other words Ñ and this is precisely where our world at the moment stands most at a loss Ñ ``Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievement of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.``

What he says about a scientist`s need for a religious outlook seems very moving: ``You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.``

He goes on to explain: ``His (or her) religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

``This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he keeps himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.`` (My italics.)

I wouldn`t want someone to take from all this the wrong conclusion, however, that ultra-religionists can therefore now ape the humanists by claiming Einstein for their camp instead. He always made it abundantly clear that his religion was definitely not that ``of the na•ve man`` who has a wholly personal God, a sort of super-daddy, from whose care ``one hopes to benefit`` and ``whose punishment one fears.``

He had no use, for example, for the kind of religion that insists upon the ``absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.`` Apart from being self-evidently false, he regarded the consequences of such belief to be an immediate and unjustifiable intrusion into the ``sphere of science`` proper.

Religion, he said, can never be superseded by science. But, only by losing its anthropomorphism (making God like ourselves) and striving after rational knowledge, can it play its true role.

sattar2 #60 In response to my post to hamidm2, you write ``And initiate a discussion on Islam with you? I`d rather watch dr. Phil...``

You, my friend, are lying. I say this based on the last discussion I had with you (described below). If you wish to prove me wrong, I suggest you cut and paste any subsequent discussion you think we had (I know that is the last discussion we had, and that is what I told hamidm).

I went back and found the discussion I was referring to: On the board ``Telic Chowk: A Personal Odyssey``, when I was discussing something with YLH, you wrote your post # 72 on August 15 where you addressed me a presented your views on the subject. In response, I wrote my post #97 on that baord, which I ended as follows: ``Anyway, I think I have spent way too much time trying to discuss religion on chowk and dont plan to engage in discussions again. ``

That was a polite but very clear way of telling you that I did not wish to engage in discussion with you on religion. What kind of a religious man are you anyway, if you are unable to speak the truth? Like I said, mullahs come in all shades: shia, sunni, ahmedi, atheist, hindu, christian what-not. They hide behind religions and philosophies, when it is in fact their own lack of character that is the problem.

ironman #59 Historically, I think it is correct to say that there have been two categories of the concept we call God: (a) in the Greek tradition, a god is like a court politician: uncaring about humans, busy trying to outdo or take revenge on other gods. (b) in the Jewish tradition, the monotheistic God is caring about humans. In (a), God does not go far enough in helping humans, and in (b) I think he goes too far (promising land to Abraham if only the latter would believe in His existence - a very good real estate deal, incidentally).

These were gods of a primitive society. I think we need to move beyond that, and understand God for what science tells us: He sets rules whereby the heavenly bodies go about their business (as noted in the Quran, e.g.), and by the same token the rules whereby life flourishes. But, He does not bend his rules because someone is a member of a Chosen People. In other words, our brains and hands and feet are all we have to improve the human condition. God wont cure disease. Only the scientist can through use of his God-given faculties.

It is for this reason that I think that prayer should be restricted to thanking God for giving us life and family and other good things. Begging God for small favors (as we muslims do every time we have a little problem like a life-threatening disease) is demeaning both to God and to ourselves as individuals.

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

Ironman on God:

``human suffering moves Him not the slightest.``

well ironman -- you might as well say that Human suffering will move only a Human God -- not an inhuman(e) God.....:-)

sattar2:
``Stories of men of god parting the ocean, turning sticks into snakes, flying above clouds … have largely resulted in a madrissah culture, where people are required to blindly accept absurdities as reality. ``

There are even more absurd stories in the Hindu religion. The only difference is that not too many hindus believe in them and there is absolutely no risk in expressing disbelief in them. But there is a downside to that, too. Just because a Hindu can believe in everything and nothing, often at the same time, he is a fertile ground for anyone who really believes in what he says.

tahmed32: ``And that is all i am saying: God is the vast unknown and unknowable.``

dost-mittar: ``Now, if you add that He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, just, blah, blah, blah..... we may have a problem.``


Quite Sir!

God may be unknowable...but we expect to see the effects of His mercy and kindness (at least) in this world.

But our daily experience tells us just the opposite...that human suffering moves Him not the slightest.

Digit (#39):

Events in the Muslim world may very well fall in the pattern of European history … if it has not already happened. Furthermore, a mullah does not need an advanced degree in physics to understand the threat posed by education to his halwa, jihad fund, and the following of devotees … his age-old formula simply being … keep people ignorant, and stay in the driver’s seat …

Moving on …

Quran and Mohammad form the core of Muslim thought process. The teachings are ingrained in the minds of believers from childhood and shape their perception of human relations, community living, science, and more. Stories of men of god parting the ocean, turning sticks into snakes, flying above clouds … have largely resulted in a madrissah culture, where people are required to blindly accept absurdities as reality. Hints of disagreements are likely to earn disapproval of others, if not harsh penalty from the authorities.

Such an atmosphere makes it difficult for an inquiring mind to reconcile the obvious conflicts while continuing to seek knowledge. “What the hell was god thinking when he authored the quran?”, a curious mind is bound to wonder as it attempts to square away this nonsense. Sooner or later these conflicts intercept one’s intellectual progress and reduce it to a crawl. Faith devoid of reasoning turns religion into a fairy-tale. Such fairy-tale notions fundamentally distort one’s perception, and produce not innovative thinkers and scholars, but below-average minds, and at best, loads of mediocrity. Likes of Dr. Salam, who manage to think past mullah’s ranting … are disowned and chased out of the mosques for heresy. Christians had their Gallileo …and we have our Salam. We refuse to be outdone by the western infidels.

As an additional comment …

Coming to grips with this reality is now more important then ever. Mainstream Muslim perversion is not limited to merely Quran and science … but has distorted their social and political outlook as well. Muslim world can no longer screw around in the name of jihad and Islam and get away with it … as we have recently seen. Stakes are now higher … and margin for error continues to shrink. As we repeat mistakes from the past, hundreds and thousands of innocents will continue to perish and suffer, as we witnessed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, New York, and more.

For one to point to Iranian nuclear program as a sign of “Islamic” progress … or accept that Quran only has to be followed and not necessarily understood … or argue that actually it was the church that corrupted Muslim ranks … is futile, as well as dangerous. It may give one the delusion of comfort for a while … but will only make matters worse over time.


hamidm,

… granted you want to take panga with tahmed and urstruly … but sahib, why prop this gun on my shoulder when firing? And what’s with forcing quran on kids? I thought the deal was if she got a 1600 in SAT … no more quran. Did you renege, or what?

tahmed Sahib,

… correction … last time few times we interacted, I asked you to cut back on incessant fatwas of kuffr … let it be against Naqshbandi, his deceased pir sahib, or the camel he stands to inherit from his jihadi uncle in hazara. And initiate a discussion on Islam with you? I’d rather watch dr. phil on nbc after a long day at work …

tahmed32:
``And that is all i am saying: God is the vast unknown and unknowable.``

Even an agnostic like me has no problem with that definition. Now, if you add that He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, just, blah, blah, blah..... we may have a problem.

Alephnull #52 you write ``I can’t see a single good reason why those who divide based on religion should not be considered ‘truly religious’, or at least as truly religious as those who do not. ``

Here is one good reason: you dont call an apple and an orange by the same name. similarly, a philosophy (or mindset) that divides mankind cannot be seen as a philosophy that unites mankind. When I read the Quran, I see it treating all mankind as one and downplaying differences between religions. e.g. it says ALL individuals (not just muslims) will be judged on the Judgement Day. When I listen to the Mullah, I see him preaching differences between the muslims vs. jews, christians etc. Logic dictates that what the mullah preaches is the antithesis of what the Quran teaches. Logic also dictates that Islam is what the Quran teaches, not what the mullah preaches. Hope this explains why I distinguish between the two.


you write ``Religion in practice almost invariably contains aspects of tribal identity, with designated in-groups and out-groups, disputes about who is and who is not a `truly religious`, a ‘true’ believer, etc. etc. ``

THis is not ``almost invariably true``. It has been largely true in hindu societies due to the caste system (and even in pakistan we have many people drawing distinctions based on ``zaat``, which is the same as tribal affiliations). However, most religions in the world are in fact forces that unite individuals of different ethnic groups, tribal affiliations etc. And, as is generally agreed, Islamic societies have generally been very good in this respect. I remember reading about how the brit Toynbee (a learned man, but quite racist consistent with his times) was surprised to see a white egyptian student acting in a sincerely deferential manner to a black egyptian student.

I will wholeheartedly agree that religions (except perhaps in China and Japan) have tended to replace tribal differences with religious differences. Thus, for centuries, we have had the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus at each others throats. All I am saying is: this need not be so. There is nothing in the holy books that supports this religious strife: I can speak with confidence about the Quran since I am most familiar with it and it amkes it clear and explicit that all faiths are to be respected. Christians came to this conclusion formally in the 1960`s when the Pope issued a statement saying that non-christians need not suffer damnation and as such missionaries need no longer seek to convert people to save their souls.

So, once again we draw the distinction between what the great religions of the world teach vs. what the theocracy preaches. The former seek to unite all people, they downplay religious differences. The latter do the opposite. And for the same reason that the military bureaucracy encourages differences between nations.

I hope this explains why I think it is so important to distinguish between Religion and Theocracy. It is necessary if we are to survive as a species.

Alephnull #54 You seem determined to make Einstein say what you want him to say. I need to do some work now, so will leave off this discussion on what Einstein meant by God. If you wish to believe that when referring to God Einstein meant Little Green Apples, that is fine with me too.

SameerJB #35

{{Supporters of the concept of god do like to run with one statement from the entire life of well-known personalities ignoring the extensive available material in the form of lectures, speeches and books.}}

Bingo! But don’t expect those who want to inject god and their religion into every damn thing to appreciate that remark.

Tahmed #43

{{so you are saying that when einstein refers to God, he doesnt really mean God as generally understood in plain english. … or is it perhaps that, like the maulvi who twists religion to fit his own mindset, you are determined to twist what einstein meant so it fits with your view?}}

Maulvi Tahmed sahib, you might want to consider some other possibilities. Such as, for instance, that your interlocutors, for reasons of prior personal interest, might have dug into this matter somewhat deeper than you seem to have. And that you – whether by innocence or design – have managed, after absorbing a remark or two of Einstein’s out of its context, to twist his conceptions to fit your own preconceived notions. Witness for instance your ignorance of the physical context and significance of the remark to Niels Bohr “God does not play dice with the world”.

{{Too bad einstein didnt make all this clear.}}

So says Maulvi sahib. The facts are different, and are a matter of record, for those who can be bothered to look them up. Einstein repeatedly refers to Spinoza’s god and identifies himself as a Spinozist, with some reservations. Spinoza’s conception is of a rationally intelligible order to the universe and of a strict determinism – as opposed to, say, a sustaining deity that can interfere at any moment in the unfolding of events. Spinoza’s conception has been called pantheistic though Einstein rejected that specific term to characteristic his own cosmic religiosity. Spinoza’s and Einstein’ s conceptions absolutely rule out the Old Testament or Quranic notion of a personal god, i.e. a consciousness concerned with human beings and judging, rewarding and punishing their thoughts, words and deeds, with attributes such as beneficient, merciful, etc.

{{in your post you presume that i have a certain concept of God while ignoring what i have been writing below.}}

Not everyone has poor reading comprehension as you do. Suffice it to say that I have read your recent posts and many of your past acrimonious polemics on religion with care and not a little amusement.

{{As i said before, i am defining religion in terms of the essence of the message}}

How do you know you have managed to distill the correct ‘essence of the message’ – assuming that such a thing even exists - that your so-called essence is not a selection conveniently chosen to fit your preconceptions? It is at best the essence of your (mis-?)understanding of the message. The observed fact that two believers rarely agree, whether on the essence or the details, should be reason enough to doubt anyone’s claims to having isolated the ‘essence of the message’ in some religious text or other.

{{Less seriously, whats the deal with writing einstein`s phrases in German and then in english?}}

“Raffiniert ist der Herrgott…” is one of Einstein’s most famous pronouncements involving ‘god’, and arguably the one statement that gives the best insight into his worldview. In English translation, as “Subtle is the Lord…”, it is the title of a well-known scientific biography of Einstein by Abraham Pais. The German has an Old Testament flavour which I wished to expose precisely because I wanted to make the point that the words might be utterly misleading.

{{you think perhaps that I understand German better than English??}}

Sahib, I am well aware that your command of German is tenuous. Witness your use of “Grund” (cause, ‘grounds’) for ‘reason’ in a context where “Vernunft” would have been appropriate. What was the deal with that, BTW? I guessed though that you would be able to parse “Herrgott” into its constituents. It seems I guessed wrong.

{{and thanks for pointing out my ``little knowledge`` of things.}}

I specifically pointed out your apparent ignorance of the context and significance of Einstein’s remark about god and dice, which led you to impose your own preconceptions on him. You have a problem with that? Would you rather continue to wallow in ignorance?

If you wish to get a better idea of what Einstein’s religiosity might have been, rather than merely trying to fit his conceptions into the Procrustean bed of your preconceptions – I suggest you try to read – really read – Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion (1999). Though given your past track record, it may not do you much good …

ref 40#

This is not my posting. Somebody has used my name.
Ahmed Madani,Karachi,Sindh,Pakistan

Tahmed #24

{{I would not characterize such inspiration as being a ``denatured neutered...`` feeling.}}

I’ll grant that ‘denatured’ was an exceptionally poor word to choose since I was implying that cosmic religiosity is nature-inspired and nature-centred rather than god-directed and god-obsessed. Perhaps ‘natured’ as a neologism might have been just right.

The point is that diffuse ‘cosmic religiosity’ is light-years away from traditional religiosity with its anthropomorphic, often jealous personal gods, revealed scriptures, moral precepts, immortal souls, reincarnation or resurrection, etc. etc. It has nothing to do with human hopes and aspirations and struggles.

{{While theocrats (and many people on chowk) get their jollies by emphasizing differences between people based on religion, the truly religious person gets his or her jollies by nurturing exactly the feeling you characterize as being ``neutered``.}}

That may be your preferred definition of ‘truly religious’. I can’t see a single good reason why those who divide based on religion should not be considered ‘truly religious’, or at least as truly religious as those who do not. Religion in practice almost invariably contains aspects of tribal identity, with designated in-groups and out-groups, disputes about who is and who is not a `truly religious`, a ‘true’ believer, etc. etc.

{{And he or she sees all religions as pointing exactly to this feeling (Brahma in hinduism, Allah in Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the scientist).}}

Your ‘truly religious’ person may choose to see it that way. That doesn’t make it true. Theistic religions come with a mass of superfluous dogma starting with the notion of personal god creating and sustaining the universe, absolutely useless to the scientist. They also vitally depend on the notion of ‘revealed truth’, which is epistemologically the antithesis of the scientific method.

{{it was exactly this feeling that led darwin to overthrow man`s conceit of being created in God`s image}}

The real error was probably for some men to create a god in their image in the first place.

{{The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species.}}

How about an irreligious point of view: it matters not a whit to nature whether humans survive or not; though it evidently matters to humans.

Tahmed #25

{{Only ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists) are 100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth. Religious people and scientists recognize that we can never know everything - there will always be unpredictabilities, and the more we know the greater will be our awareness.}}

Amusing choice of associations and contrasts: “ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists)” contrasted with “religious people and scientists”. Talk of false dichotomies and prejudicial language! Let us hope it was caused by befuddlement rather than intellectual dishonesty.

Theocracy by definition (go to the Greek roots) is primarily about the exercise of power. A theocrat need not be ignorant. He could easily have a shrewd if cynical inkling about the untenability of the religious dogmas in whose authority he wields power.

Atheists need not be “100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth”. In fact, they typically are not so disposed. They typically reject ‘existence of god’ on epistemological grounds because it is an untestable hypothesis and therefore meaningless.

hamidm2# if you have a problem with anything i write, i suggest you try to be a man and respond directly to what i said. I dont see you doing that. Thus, on the other board, you clearly implied that i had said the meaningless mullah (``koran is infallible``), when in fact i never said that. On this board i see you offering your sympathies to sattar2 for having to interact with me (we havent intercted in a long time, and the last time we did - a couple of months back - it was in fact i who advised mr. sattar that i did not wish to engage in a religious discussion with him).

So:

my understanding of your problem is this - you dont like the fact that i sometimes expose your weaknesses (your desire for your drinking habits to be noticed, the contradictions inherent in having your ridiculing mullahs and inflicting the mullah practice on your child by having her read the Quran in a language she does not understand, your blanket ridicule of indian and pakistani traditional culture which indicates a superficial mindset, and above all my refusal to accept your equation of the message in the quran with mullah culture). you have never been any of these things. so, instead of ever taking up my invitation to cut and paste what i have written if you disagree with it (or else simply being man enough to indicate agreement with it if you cant argue against it), you take the ``chawwal`` way out by attributing things to me that i never said or bad mouthing me when writing to sattar2. great job!!

Passionate thoughts at ahmedmadani on September 7, 2003 8:29pm PT.

I would like to point out that similar problems existed in the history of sciences in Christian world when the Church had a stifling influence over the scientific thought. The Church always wanted to ensure that the Bible percepts are saved and this led to the recantation of Galileo. It was only with the enlightment and separation of church from state (and its policies) that nobody made efforts to save the percepts of Bible, rathar now every body started making their own postulations about everything from God to the phenomenon of falling apple. Now, the myth of the ``Given`` was broken. Nothing was considered as certain, so much so that philosophical elites like Descartes had to fall back to his brand of intuitionism to save the concept of ``God`` and arrive at a ``certainity`` and a ``given`` proposition of cogito-ergo-sum.
The same situation is confronting the mullahs: and they still want to save their (interpretation of ) percepts rathar that the corroborated hypothesis of sciences like the Newton`s and Einstein`s theories. They would have destroyed the science laboratories first, if they had the weapons like the Americans because scientific theorizing does not believe in a ``foundations`` any ``given`` propositions and does not confuse the question of ``truthlikeness`` with the ``revelations`` of some ``divine``.
Without secularism no scientific theorizing can successfully take place in any culture, because religious blinkers on the intellect stops the intellect at some proposition which is the ``given`` truth in some religious book.
Scientific theorizing is almost an art, an act of intuition unfettered by the religious dogmas which is constantly being bombarded by the mullahs through fears of retribution by some metaphysical being.

These are my personal views and I do not intend to rake up the Popper-Feyerabend-Kuhn controversy again which is well documented in the western intellectual tradition. Instead I would suggest that whenever there is a conflict between the well established scientific theories and the religious propositions then efforts should be made to save these established theories rathar than the religious propositions. Here we require the effort from the modern interpreters of Quran and Hadith to save the established scientifi theories through suitable (alternative) interpretation of the propositions of Quran and Hadith. This is how the west tackled the menace of the Church which had become very powerful like the Taliban once upon a time.

great mumbo jumbo at ``The Omega Point Theory ``

With great blinkers people go to great extents trying to justify the stories given in the books.(what is called as saving the religious propositions)

What a waste of human intellect.??? I Pity!!

ironman #47 i agree that we cannot ever discover God through some scientific theory. What we can discover is that we dont know everything: you would be surprised at how many people - not just the mullah, but the average joes as well - are unable to grasp this very simple proposition. The fact is that even the known universe (with a radius of 16 billion light years) contains secrets that we cannot even imagine at this point. Indeed, even the solar system (a minute speck inside the milky way galaxy which is itself a minute speck inside the known universe) has shown incredible diversity - individual moons of individual planets are proving to be incredibly unique.

And that is all i am saying: God is the vast unknown and unknowable.

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

tahmed32,

The point I`m trying to make is that einstein was ordinary in many respects...his opinion about god among them.

If god was something we could `think` about and `discover` by applying our mind...someone like einstein would have done so already.

However, (so these mystics tell us), god can NEVER be touched by thought...that a 56K connection to the divine can be obtained ONLY in the ABSENCE of thought.

Now what does one make of that???

(this clearly rules out einstein, who was only a `thinker`, albeit a sharp one).

`` no wonder that Einstein, arguably the greatest Scientist the world has seen, was a deeply Religious man.``(AlephNull)

And that was Religion and its God that did him in -- as well -- when Einstein insisted -- God does not play dice --

it turned out-- God DOES play dice...........:-)

God of the Quantum World was particularly NOT very kind to that deeply Religious greatest Scientist of the world.....

a lesson indeed for those who invite God to do Science with them.....

`` no wonder that Einstein, arguably the greatest Scientist the world has seen, was a deeply Religious man.``(AlephNull)

And that was Religion and its God that did him in -- as well -- when Einstein insisted -- God does not play dice --

it turned out-- God DOES play dice...........:-)

God of the Quantum World was particularly NOT very kind to that deeply Religious greatest Scientist of the world.....

a lesson indeed for those who invite God to do Science with them..... IN THEIR OLD AGE:-)

alephnull #32 so you are saying that when einstein refers to God, he doesnt really mean God as generally understood in plain english. Too bad einstein didnt make all this clear. or is it perhaps that, like the maulvi who twists religion to fit his own mindset, you are determined to twist what einstein meant so it fits with your view? i prefer to take him at his word, and assume that if he talks of God, he means God as generally understood; and if he talks of a spade, he means a spade and does not mean a pick-axe.

in your post you presume that i have a certain concept of God while ignoring what i have been writing below. if you re-read my posts, you will see that i have been emphasizing CREATION as well, and i have been making it clear that the nature of God is by definition unknowable. Things like khumb mela (or the hajj) do figure greatly in the minds of ``religious`` people. However, these are peripheral to religion, and are promoted by theocrats. As i said before, i am defining religion in terms of the essence of the message (whether in the Quran or in holy books of other religions), and that is the same: in chinese, they say that ``the Tao that can be known is not the true Tao``. Substitute Brahman for Tao, and you will find similar words in Bhagvad Gita. Substitute Allah for Tao and you will find similar words in the Quran. And that is what I am emphasizing in my posts below. And that is what einstein clearly meant - the Great Unknown.

Less seriously, whats the deal with writing einstein`s phrases in German and then in english? you think perhaps that I understand German better than English?? and thanks for pointing out my ``little knowledge`` of things. i am duly humbled, and stand in awe of your vast knowledge of things. now all you have to do is match this vast knowledge with some reading ability (e.g. reading what i wrote, not what you assume i meant to say), you would be perfect.

MNIPhirsay:

``Ahhh...so it IS about Muslims. ``

No Sir, it is not. That was me throwing your cheap shot at religion right back at you. To me, religion and race does not matter, neither in individual interactions, nor in national policies. Attitudes do. I have the same amount of impatience with anyone else who may profess a victim mentality, regardless of race and religion. I do know that if I was to display that impatience, you would again call me a bigot. If I was to criticize my own people, you would probably call me an Uncle Tom. So you, there is no winning because regardless, I will be labelled. Which is why I don`t give a shit.

The rest of your post is written in a good spirit and was worth reading.

sattar mian,

.......... i have given this subject some thought and have come to the conclusion that you are the most consistent, the most reasonable, and most mature interactor on chowk.......... congratulations on having your head screwed on right !.......... it is a pity that you have to respond to folks like urstruly and tahmed ............

echoboom #36 so english was your mother-tongue. and you discourage use of it!! wait till your mother learns of your rebellious behavior.

ironman: einstein did not invent the railway. nor the internet. that is true. what he did was to provide a quantum leap forward to human awareness. this represents as big a leap forward for mankind as the time humans started talking to one another. ripples from this leap will be felt for hundreds of years, and could very well transform mankind from an three-dimensional earthbound creature into a species that colonizes planets, and even harnesses the powers of other dimensions. that is why he is considered the foremost scientist of the past millenium.

In response to #37,

No, Urstruly is dead-on. The arguments raised in this article are misplaced. It almost seems as if the author is asserting that what is going on in the Muslim world is somehow a repeat of what went on in Europe several centuries ago. Aside from that, the arguments falsely presumes an endemic Muslim thought pattern, rather than any particular conflict within the Muslim world between science and religion. A conflict which really doesn`t exists by virtue of the absence of any real scientific institutions within the Muslim world.

Pointing to religion as a source of this absence is inaccurate, since most ``mullahs`` are not well enough versed in scientific thought to be able to conceive of a threat coming from that domain, let alone articulate some sort of defense against it, rhetorical or otherwise.

The examples of this clash cited in this article don`t support the point either, the most relevant being a man from the 10th century whose views on Math and Science are easily rejected, and in fact are. No, the intellectual climate in the Muslim world isn`t hospitable to dissenters...but the point that the scientific view is de facto a dissenters view within the context of Muslim societies has not been made.

The Quran does indeed make reference to the natural world, albeit in vague ways. With the exception of Evolutionism, it takes a contrived reasoning and an enforcement of a painful literalism to suggest that these references are contradictory with our current scientific knowledge. To be fair, ditto for those who claim the presence of modern scientific ideas within the Quranic text. The Quran is not a book of theories or other such knowledge tangential to our existence in relation to God. Asif’s view is a lot more mature and reasonable than you perhaps care to admit.

No, no, Urstruly … you are avoiding the issue …

This subject is relevant today more than ever … as it explains where the Muslims went wrong. The divergence between science and Quran … as perceived by the mullahs … only highlights mullah’s intellectual deficiencies.

Quran repeatedly implores the readers to ponder over the design of the universe and laws of nature. It makes references to various scientific facts … even you have to admit this. For mullahs like Naqsh to insist that there can be no meeting point between Quran and science … and your own insistence that this subject is totally irrelevant … indicates the failure of mainstream Muslim thought process … and explains their gradual decline and decay.

And since when did the stories of prophets flying above clouds, one-eyed monsters riding giant fire breathing donkeys, people practicing magic and raising the dead … become a part of nature? The only element of human psyche that resonates with these fairy tales is the one pertaining to superstition and baseless fear. Incidentally, that’s where your Islam is heading at warp speed …

Simply stated … you mullahs have backed yourselves into a corner … and are now forced to take the position that … Quran really does not have to make sense … one only has to follow it … with or without understanding it … and if it does not make sense, don’t worry … just do as the imam says … and all will make sense when Issa descends from the clouds on the shoulders of two angels …

#34:ironman

Nice Try!

But you see it is possible that I am not truly religious either. My eemaan is really as weak as my understanding of the law of mechanics.

Given a choice wouldn`t you rather have mind controlling matter than matter dictating to my mind.

But then Doesn`t matter, Never mind.

PS: Einstein was certainly great by being the best in what fascinated him. We are all the more richer because of him. He is being quoted here because the subject being discussed is related to his views.

PS: TAhmed is a very simple and decent man. Life for him is pretty uncomplicated.As easy as 1,2,3.. and as simple as A, B, C....

You just cannot argue with decent people. He always was the class monitor and always got a good-conduct prize..even when the brothers were not looking.

tAhmed:27
It always hits where it hurts. Some have freed themselves. You may take a bit longer. You are a very simple & decent man. Growing up among uniforms not only addles the mind , it also makes taking orders fun.

It might sadden you to know that english was my mother-tongue.

AlephNull:

Both Spinoza and Einstein used vague statements intentionally to dodge the issue or to be unnecessarily embroiled into a discussion outside their immediate interests. Same technique has been used by many modern scientists including Carl Sagan and Steven Hawkins whereas Steve Wienberg, Stephen J Gould and Linus Pauling were blunt and, of course, Dawkins is very blunt against the concept of god.

Supporters of the concept of god do like to run with one statement from the entire life of well-known personalities ignoring the extensive available material in the form of lectures, speeches and books.

---

The lack of institutionalization in Islam, as Urstruly pointed out is not a blessing when state officially backs it. The state takes over the role of church as has been the case throughout Islamic history. Most of the invasions of India by Afghans and Turks over the history of last millenium as well as wars within India were backed by fatwas from official gazi or head mullahs. The other disadvantage is difficulty to reform. In Europe once pressure mounted on catholic church to reform, they yielded - albeit slowly - to the demands. In the absense of institution in sunni sect(s), the reinterpretation and reformation are useless expectations from a wide body of independent clergy. The best strategy for masses is to become immune to dogma and doctrine with the help of whatever - culture, education, secularism, liberalism or any other mean of enlightenment.

echoboom (#26),

``Believing in Permanence and constancy and consistensy is noble and worth pursuing. It is called religion. Until the doomsday, science would still be trailing religion under the mistaken `belief` that it is leading the way.``


Interesting statement Sir. Can we put this to a test?

Next time you need to cross a road (by walk), ask yourself this question: Shall I close my eyes, pray to my God, and walk across with eyes closed...or shall I cross it like I usually do (look left-right, etc).

If you prefer the latter, you will have proved your above statement wrong in a simple instance in your own daily life...and Science, which includes common sense and logic, will always lead (where it can be applied).

If you prefer the former...then I say, you have proven yourself correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

tahmed32 (#25),

Why is everybody obseccessd with Einstein?

Did he build a new kind of airplane, a bridge? Did he live a happy life with healthy relationships? Did he discover the secret to health and longitivity? Did he turn copper to gold? Did he...you get the point?

He failed to secure entrance to the zurich polytech. (another problem he couldn`t solve).
Was an average student (he must have tried to better his grades, but couldn`t).

Finally he got a simple job at the patent office. Here he bent his mind (in a fresh manner) to a few problems of his interest and came up with a new angle which nobody thought of.

Is he really the `most brilliant mind` ever?

Brilliance must reflect in all areas of one`s life. How come he`s just average in all other areas of his life? (nobody called him great musician).

So, why do we place so much weight on what he said about religion or God or whatever (other than relativity) ???

AlephNull #32

Vital correction to third para:

{{... Those statements must be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”).}}

should read

{{Those statements must NOT be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”).}}

---

Those who want to invoke Einstein`s name should realise that his deepest philosophical inspiration appears to have been Baruch Benedictus Spinoza. `Spinoza`s god` is not anthropomorphic or personal - it is `revealed` in the inner simplicity and harmony of the laws of nature. It is utterly indifferent to the lives, thoughts and deeds of humans.

hamidm2 #8

{{and what about book bearing angles, and fire breathing jinns, and the seventy houris ?..........and if you believe in all that than why don`t you believe that a monkey once ruled india ......... }}

As an Indian I`m inclined to regard the last as far more plausible than the rest. Some might argue that monkeys of various species rule in New Delhi to this very day ..... they certainly frequent the environs and corridors of South Block with impunity ... see for instance langurs on GoI`s payroll.

Tahmed #21

{{Religious gatherings and so forth are a characteristic of a Theocracy. Not of Religion.}}

Religious gatherings such as the Kumbh Mela, dips in holy rivers, pilgrimages to famous shrines and sacred lakes, etc. have occurred from time immemorial in India, which is the antithesis of theocracy and has historically had a completely decentralized religious culture. Ditto with reading religious scriptures. I think you are confusing issues or terminology. But that is a digression …

{{However, the fact that Einstein was a deeply religious man is evident from his well-known references to God when discussing his incredibly brilliant theories.}}

You have to be very careful here. Einstein might have said “The lord is subtle, but not malicious” (“Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht”), “God does not play dice with the world”, “When god made the universe, did he have a choice?” etc. Those statements must be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”). See them as verbal shorthand for metaphysical assumptions and speculations about, respectively, the rational intelligibility of nature, determinism as a governing principle in nature, the degrees of freedom in natural law.

{{For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``,}}

Ah the perils of a little knowledge. Einstein was complaining to Niels Bohr about the irreducible probabilistic indeterminism in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was to remain wedded to a metaphysics of strict determinism through his adult life. That statement had nothing to do with the universe “just happening” or not.

{{and that there is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness that is outside our perceptions that sets certain rules.}}

Down the slippery slope we go. There is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness etc. blah blah. There is equally no reason why we cannot conceive of such a consciousness not existing. Can its existence be empirically tested or refuted if it lies beyond our perceptions? No. Can it be established or refuted deductively? Hasn’t been done to anyone’s satisfaction despite no shortage of effort; doubtful if it’s even meaningful. Then what does such a construct buy us in terms of understanding the causes of, or relations between, phenomena? Nothing. It is a superfluous hypothesis. It is at best an anthropomorphic metaphor.

In fact, Einstein’s interest was in whether the hypothetical rule-setter had any choice in the matter. He absolutely did not believe in the notion of a personal god on the lines of YHVH/Allah etc. His cosmic religiosity, a metaphysical assumption – ‘faith’, if you will – in the existence of all-encompassing natural laws, would provide little satisfaction for theists, and especially from those who search for guidance in chapter and verse of some revealed scripture.

This subject is totally irrelevant in present day context. It was relavant in 17th and 18th century AD when Europeans discarded their religion and they were trying to find a moral compass that did not include any refernece to divinity.

In Islam there has never been a church as compared to the infallible church of christians. Our religion has not disappointed us in any way or form as the christianity did to christians. There hasn`t been inquisitions and infallible popes with words of god, in Islam, ever. Islam has spread thru far reaches of this planet because it is compatible with nature, a religion that proclaims itself to be the deen-e-fitrat i.e. the religion of nature. There are no invasions on Europe and North America yet it is the fastest growing religion there. It is spreading among the people who put the logic and reason before everything and rest of the world tries to follow their lead. As soon as a man is willing to view Islam without contempt and prejudice he finds himself on a one way train. There have never been any invasions on any of the far eastern countries and yet some of the biggest Muslim countries are in Far East.

The closest thing that amounts to a working theocracy ever since the advent of Islam is the constitutional democracy in Iran that slants towards empowering clergy. Even then in the last 24 years there hasn`t been any conflict at the philosophical level between science and theocracy. Iranians on the other hand are making huge strides in nuclear sciences, which has caused quite an unrest among imperialists.

And by the way there is no room for a theocracy in Islam. In Iran the theocracy is backed by the the concept of Waliat-e-faqih (in simple words the concept of waliat-e-faqih demands that the only a person from the household of Holy Prophet (pbuh) has the right to lead Muslims politically and theologically). It is this very concept that created the schism between sunnis and shias and only after 23 years it has created another schism among the shia clergy itself. Lets not forget history that this very concept has always created schisms in shias whenever they got political power whether they were fatmides or the the Ismailis.

.......... i am a very simple minded person and really don`t understand how people can go on believing in religion once it is proven that a virgin cannot have a baby, man cannot walk on water, people cannot travel faster than light to go and talk to god, and a monkey cannot run a kingdom..............in my rather feeble mind, if you can prove even one ayah in the koran to be suspect, illogical, incoherent, or downright stupid, than the whole thing becomes suspect ............ and even i can find dozens, if not hundreds, of these masterpieces!

Quran makes references to principles of creation of life and matter, and the subsequent working of the universe. It does so to emphasize the Unity of the Source of all creation and evolution, while encouraging the reader to discover scientific details and laws of nature through human reasoning and experimentation.

From the very onset, Quran makes it clear that it is a source of guidance for the righteous. This implicitly suggests that those who seek to create mayhem and disorder, cannot be helped by Quran. One’s understanding of the scripture is only as good as one’s own intentions and inclinations.

When Quran is read with an ignorant, dysfunctional mindset, one finds in it stories of holy men, flying above clouds, raising the dead, parting oceans, turning sticks into snakes … and tales of blood-thirsty men of god. Unfortunately, this is how it is understood and presented by the clergy in most of the Muslim world.

Ironiclly, these mullahs do not tire of quoting amazing scientific facts mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago … to support its divine origins! And in the next breath, they claim … that Quran and science belong to two different domains … and should not be mixed. This admission suggests that Quran has nothing to do with human intellect and reasoning … and one should follow it like a donkey carrying a load of bricks … all muscle, no intellect. By no coincidence, this is an accurate description of the ummah of this today. Our resident mullahs on Chowk and local mosques … are good examples of this decay and decline.

echoboom #26 ``I hope Paki englo-slaves get some ghairat``

I will expect all future posts on chowk from you to be in urdu, and using the Pakistani script (you will need to invent it incidentally, since the only scripts in which urdu has been written has been Arabic or, lately, Roman aka English). You will also ensure that you dont use english words when writing in urdu. Also ensure that you will avoid all Arab words, all Turkish words when writing urdu. Being a ghairat-mand man, you do not wish to be seen as being a slave of either the English, or the Arabs, or the Turks. Also, being a ghairat-mand man, you will definitely avoid use of anything from sanskrit and avoid their script as well.

I guess that will leave you with no words to construct your sentences with, and no script with which to write even if you had any words left. But you will retain your ghairat.

PS: Also, please rid yourself of your absurd moniker (echoboom), since it clearly indicates you are apeing american slang. Who ever heard of a ghairat-mand ape?

#22:ironman


``.........cornerstones of atomic physics today. ``

---

Everything can change tomorrow, and that itself might change the next day. The more things change , the more they remain the same.

Religion means to seek permanence an an ever-changing material world. Western/`modern` science disavows religion. Religion (Islam) never disavowed science. Science is the handmaiden of religion. It is a mistress. A servant. Someone to be ordered around and never ever to be entrusted with the whiff of leadership.

Believing in Permanence and constancy and consistensy is noble and worth pursuing. It is called religion. Until the doomsday, science would still be trailing religion under the mistaken `belief` that it is leading the way.

For in refuting something, one already believes in it.

The religion for the entire mankind ( Al-Islam) is holistic. It does not comparmentalise Life. It does not believe in separation of this and separation of that from any endeavour in life.

PS: Einstein was a very deeply religious. His letter to an Arab, written in Yiddish because he did not know english well--( I hope Paki englo-slaves get some ghairat)--, is an ample testimony to that. If one never seeks the ``purpose of Life`` and where we came from & where we are heading then one can only become a scientist ( a pitiable situation indeed ) but never a learned religious person ( a very enviable situation, for sure). The former is reactive whereas the latter is pro-active.

ironman #22 Einstein`s theories remain intact. Some counterintuitive things he predicted (e.g. bending of light by gravity, slowing down of time by motion) were proven decades ago by actual experiments (e.g. through comparing passage of time in atomic clocks placed inside a globe circling aeroplane vs. one on the ground). What has happened is that they have been further extended - thus black holes were envisaged theoretically in the 1960`s by building on Einstein`s constructs (and have been indirectly located since then). There is no doubt that Einstein`s theories will gradually be replaced with a deeper understanding of nature, but rest assured that (to use his predecessor Newton`s famous phrase) ``We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us``.

You make, imho, a glib point when you say that einstein`s phrase that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is replaced because we cannot predict many things with certainty. As our circle of knowledge widens, so does the perimeter of that circle, and thus we become increasingly aware of what we do not know. Only ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists) are 100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth. Religious people and scientists recognize that we can never know everything - there will always be unpredictabilities, and the more we know the greater will be our awareness.

Long post, sorry.

Alephnull #17 You quote me as follows: ``Religion is about the awe and love for creation (the vastness of space, the subtlety of life, the mystery of the sub-atomic particle) by the individual.``
In response you write ``That is a description of a denatured neutered utterly innocuous kind of diffuse oceanic feeling that even depraved atheists and other unspeakable perverts might find unobjectionable. ``

I would not characterize such inspiration as being a ``denatured neutered...`` feeling. On the contrary, this feeling has been the engine of that has allowed mankind to progress from berry-eating apes to becoming discoverers of objects that are billions of light years away. By curbing freedom of human thought, theocrats, on the other hand, have historically served to put hurdles in the path of such progress.

While theocrats (and many people on chowk) get their jollies by emphasizing differences between people based on religion, the truly religious person gets his or her jollies by nurturing exactly the feeling you characterize as being ``neutered``. And he or she sees all religions as pointing exactly to this feeling (Brahma in hinduism, Allah in Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the scientist).

It is exactly this feeling that has caused copernicus to overthrow the established ``order of the world`` whereby the earth was the center of the universe; and it was exactly this feeling that led darwin to overthrow man`s conceit of being created in God`s image. The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species. Thus: there is plenty to get excited, and one need not simply fling insults at other communities of people in order to get excited by religion.

Dark Matter
The Shadow Matter Universe Theory
Points Regarding Dark Matter
What Do Muslims Believe?
Prophet Suleiman (pbuh)
The Omega Point
Expansion of the Universe
Summary


Dark Matter

Physicists have found out that over 90% of the mass of the universe is in the form of invisible matter. This matter does not interact with light or rather does not radiate light and hence can not be detected directly, but does have a gravitational effect. Therefore it is called ``dark matter``.

It is indeed, a strange form of matter/energy. The remarkable thing is now, physicists have come to the conclusion that there is a great Unseen World that we do not have access to.

Physicists theorize that perhaps there is a whole universe out there, coinciding exactly in time and space with our own, but different and not physically interacting (but may be in other ways, strange ways of course).

The Shadow Matter Universe Theory

This theory is known as The Shadow Matter Universe theory, and some theoretical physicists argue that it is likely that this universe has its own rules of physics that would appear strange to us, and that there are probably people and civilizations dwelling in this universe, maybe similar to our own. Of course these creatures would be strange and be able to do things we can`t do, as their universe follows some different laws from our own. Whether they can see us, is of course an unanswerable question at the moment.

Points Regarding Dark Matter:

1.There is an imbalance in the equations of the ``big bang``, and this can be solved by postulating that just before the splitting of the singular mass that caused the ``big bang``, there was an earlier splitting, that created the dark matter. That is to say that dark matter had to be created before our own form of matter came into existence. This is required by the equations of relativity and the big bang.

Hence, if dark matter came into existence before our own matter, it is conceivable that the shadow matter universe developed earlier than ours and is far more ancient.

Interestingly, Allah [swt] tells us in the Quran that the jinn were created before mankind.

2.Also, if the dark matter actually exists, then this universe will ultimately collapse because of the gravitational effect caused by the presence of this extra mass.

Imagine a small child sitting on a chair. The chair is strong and won`t collapse. But what if there was a heavy set invisible man also sitting on the chair ?

Sooner or later it is bound to collapse...

ie IF dark matter exists THEN the universe will END.

What Do Muslims Believe?

We, as Muslims, all believe that this universe will ultimately come to an end. This is one of our fundamental beliefs.

One of my own ideas about why dark matter is dark is that this form of energy is made of super luminal waves (ie moves faster than light, hence light cannot interact with it, ie light is always trying to catch-up but cannot...?).

Prophet Suleiman (pbuh)

Interestingly, when Prophet Suleiman [pbuh] asks the jinn to accomplish a task, the jinn says that he will do it

QUICKER THAN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, OR RATHER

QUICKER THAN THE LIGHT WILL REACH HIS EYE...or something very close to that effect.

And Allah swt says in the Quoran:

``Said one who had knowledge Of the Book :
`` I will Bring it to thee within
The twinkling of an eye ! ``
27:40

This means that the jinn are not bound by the same laws that we are, and can move very, very fast, perhaps faster than light. And when matter (if matter) can move faster than light, many strange things can happen.

It seems that our histories and futures with this universe are very intimately intertwined...

The Omega Point


The ideas for dark matter and shadow matter universe are explained in renowned Astrophysicist John Gribbin`s book, THE OMEGA POINT. There are quite a few books now available on dark matter.

Though at the moment some are saying that the scientists have found out that the universe is flat and will expand forever, and never collapse....however there are a lot of camps and schools of thought and we haven`t heard the last of this story.

Expansion of the Universe

``And the universe, we constructed with power and skill and verily we are expanding it.`` (51:47)

What struck me though, was the remarkable similarities between the basic Islamic concept of Jinn and this Dark Matter Universe

Summary:


1 They live in the Unseen World.

2 They can move very fast...

3. They were created before mankind...

4. Their existence is predicted in the ``big bang`` theory and

5. Their presence ultimately is required for the end of the universe,etc...

Tahmed,

``Einstein: For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``...``

Well, Einstein had to eat crow...because probability and statistical mechanics are the cornerstones of atomic physics today.

It looks like God does indeed play dice!!!

Azure #18 you write that Einstein was ``least interested in Religion and never bothered freqenting religious gatherings or reading the Talmud.``

My point exactly: Religious gatherings and so forth are a characteristic of a Theocracy. Not of Religion. Thus, you too are using Religion and Theocracy interchangably - which is exactly the reason for the confusion that I pointed to in my previous post.

Einstein shunned religious gatherings. He even turned down an invitation to become President of Israel. However, the fact that Einstein was a deeply religious man is evident from his well-known references to God when discussing his incredibly brilliant theories. For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``, and that there is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness that is outside our perceptions that sets certain rules. Indeed, a major scientific theory nowadays is that the entire universe as we perceive it is a reflection of knowledge that resides beyond the dimensions that we perceive.

Let me hasten to emphasize again that in order to see how religion and science are two aspects of the same thing, we must first understand religion in a very specific and simple way (the way Einstein perceived it). Religious rituals (including muslim rituals like prayer) are by no means central to religion - indeed, they are often the antithesis of religion. e.g. when we pray for some favorable outcome, we are begging God to bend his rules on our behalf. Religion means being grateful for what he have. Theocracy means asking for more. I could go on on this subject, but I think you see what I mean.

Romair & Naqshbandi:
You might enjoy this.

Ther Physicist got this stuff published in the highest scientific journals, hitherto a NO-NO OR ``KUFR`` to bring in religion into a `science`.

Islam, as a religion of Adam to Abraham, Moosa, Eesa, and Ahmed (muslims all--according to Quran al-Hakeem) has never considered science to be not-holistic to human nature. This ka-ka about separation of this and separation of that is the ultimate stupidity thrust upon mankind by the western and westernised baboons.

The slaves of satan will always use whatever argument to rationalise their incestous, drunken, and hedonistic ways. The nine-hole golf-course is their only theology.
``Summun Bukkmun Ummun

---

`.

Ignore!


The Omega Point Theory

I have presented and defended my Omega Point Theory at length in my book The Physics of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), which is available from Barnes and Noble or Amazon. As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe:

(1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),

(2) there are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point

---

the Omega Point,

(3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it,

(4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite,

(5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached.

I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). An outline of my proof is given on this web page.

I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God`s Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther`s translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.

I am also including on this web page two critical defenses of both my scientific argument and my theological argument.

My science is defended by Dr. David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford University. In January of 1998, Deutsch was awarded the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer. Deutsch`s defense of my science is taken from his brilliant book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, 1997). This book is available from either Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I can strongly recommend this book for its presentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the physics upon which the quantum computer is based. In fact, I agree with almost everything Deutsch says in his book. Where we disagree, I believe it is only because Deutsch has rejected his own theory! I shall reproduce here (with permission) most of the 14th Chapter of Deutsch`s book.

My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian at the University of Munich, Germany. Professor Pannenberg has been called ``the most brilliant living theological mind``. He has been termed ``one of the three great theologians of the 20th century``. He holds five honorary doctors of divinity degrees. He is eminently qualified to judge theology. Professor Pannenberg`s paper, which I reproduce here (with his permission) was originally presented at a conference on my book, held in June of 1997 in Innsbruck, Austria.

Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn`t like my theology! As you will read, Pannenberg does not like the Many- Worlds Interpretation (which Deutsch

---

and I

---

believe in because it is required by quantum mechanics). Deutsch defends the MWI in his book. I am placing on this web page another defense of the MWI, entitled ``Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist,`` which shows that locality

---

a fundamental fact of relativity

---

is restored to physics by the MWI. I might add that most of the great physicists

---

Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, for examples

---

have publicly announced their support for the MWI.

I have included my replies to Deutsch`s criticisms of my theology in the excerpts from Deutsch`s book. Deutsch does not like the idea of God as the Ultimate Future, but Pannenberg many years ago concluded, as I have, that the Bible says God is the Ultimate Future.
Book Review
Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality,

Doubleday, New York, 1994; 528 pp., MR 29.90.


The author of this highly exciting book, subtitled ``Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead``, is an American professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, Florida, U.S.A. He should know what he is taking about when he sets out to scientifically prove in this book that God exists and that man will be resurrected after death to live an everlasting l