Science versus Non-Science
Mohammad Gill August 21, 2004
#1 Posted by ballukhan on August 21, 2004 10:42:12 am
It all started with the Greeks - Plato talked about the ``soul developing wings and getting unfrettered by the earthly rivets``-stupid Christian literals when depicting the Angels drew wings on their backs (which is impossible and looks stupid on a human form). This is the stupidity of literal interpretation of spiritual books. The moment we understand that most of the stories are allegories for spiritual instructions we are at peace with our selves. Otherwise we literally believe in the story of hoories awaiting the martys in the heavans. The best guide to understanding Islam is through the Sufi schools- rest is all political stuff.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by echoboom on August 21, 2004 10:42:12 am
This might help:
Excerpt from:
Freethinking Unbound!
Nasr chose to go to M.I.T. for college. He was offered a scholarship and was the first Iranian student to be admitted as an undergraduate at M.I.T. He began his studies at M.I.T in the Physics Department with some of the most gifted students in the country and outstanding professors of physics. His decision to study physics was motivated by the desire to gain knowledge of the nature of things, at least at the level of physical reality. However, at the end of his freshman year, although he was the top student in his class, he began to feel oppressed by the overbearingly scientific atmosphere with its implicit positivism. Furthermore, he discovered that many of the metaphysical questions which he had been concerned with were not being asked, much less answered. Thus, he began to have serious doubts as to whether physics would lead him to an understanding of the nature of physical reality. His doubt was confirmed when the leading British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in a small group discussion with the students following a lecture he had given at M.I.T, stated that physics does not concern itself with the nature of physical reality per se but with mathematical structures related to pointer readings.
.....>
The shock of discovering the real nature of the subject he had chosen to study, together with the overbearingly scientific atmosphere at his Department, led Nasr to experience a major intellectual and spiritual crisis during his second year. Although the crisis did not destroy his belief in God, it shook certain fundamental elements in his worldview, such as his understanding of the meaning of life, the significance of knowledge and the means to find the Truth. He was prepared to leave the field of physics and M.I.T. and depart from America in quest of the Truth. However, the strong discipline in him, inculcated by his father, prevented him from abandoning his studies altogether. He remained at M.I.T. and graduated with honors, but his heart was no longer with physics.
Having realized in his second year that a study of the physical sciences would neither lead him to an understanding of the nature of physical reality nor deal with some of the metaphysical questions he was concerned with, Nasr decided to look at other fields of study for his answers. He started to read extensively and to take many courses in the humanities, especially those taught by Professor Giorgio Di Santillana, the famous Italian philosopher and historian of science. Under Professor Di Santillana`s instruction, Nasr began his serious study of not only the ancient Greek wisdom as contained in the philosophies of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus but also European, Medieval philosophy, Dante`s highly mystical and symbolic Divine Comedy, Hinduism and a critique of modern Western thought. It was also Di Santillana who first introduced him to the writings of one of the most important traditionalist writers of this century, Rene Guenon. Guenon`s writings played a decisive role in laying the intellectual foundation of Nasr`s traditionalist perspective. Nasr also had the great fortune of having access to the library of the late Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, the outstanding Singhalese metaphysician and historian of art. The library had an incredible collection of works on traditional philosophy and art from all over the world. It was in this library that Nasr first discovered the works of the other traditionalist writers such as Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, Marco Pallis and Martin Lings and who were to have tremendous and enduring intellectual and spiritual influence on Nasr.
....>
According to Nasr, it was the discovery of traditional metaphysics and the philosophia perennis through the works of these figures which settled the crisis he had experienced and gained an intellectual certitude which has never left him since. From then on, he was certain that there was such a thing as the Truth and that it could be attained through knowledge by means of the intellect which is guided and illuminated by divine revelation. His childhood love for the attainment of knowledge returned to him but on a higher and deeper plane. The traditional writings of Schuon with their singular emphasis on the need for the practice of a spiritual discipline as well as theoretical knowledge, were especially instrumental in determining the course of Nasr`s intellectual and spiritual life from that time onward.
Upon his graduation from M.I.T., Nasr enrolled himself in a graduate program in geology and geophysics at Harvard University. After obtaining his Master`s degree in geology and geophysics in 1956, he went on to pursue his Ph.D. degree in the history of science and learning at Harvard. Nasr wanted to study other types of sciences of nature apart from the modern Western and also to understand why modern science had developed as it had. He planned to write his dissertation under the supervision of George Sarton, a great authority on Islamic science. However, Sarton passed away before he could begin his dissertation work and since there was not another specialist in Islamic science at Harvard then, he wrote his dissertation under the direction of three professors. They were I. Bernard Cohen, Hamilton Gibb and Harry Wolfson.
It was also at Harvard that Nasr resumed his study of classical Arabic which he had left since coming to America. He struggled with philosophical Arabic while getting some assistance from Wolfson and Gibb. However, the mastery of philosophical Arabic was only attained after he studied Islamic philosophy from the traditional masters of Iran after his return to his homeland in 1958.
During his Harvard years, Nasr also traveled to Europe, especially to France, Switzerland, Britain, Italy and Spain, widening his intellectual horizon and establishing important and fruitful contacts. It was during these travels to Europe that Nasr met with the foremost traditionalist writers and exponents of the philosophia perennis, Frithjof Schuon and Titus Burckhardt, who made a tremendous impact and decisive contribution to his intellectual and spiritual life. He also traveled to Morocco in North Africa, which had great spiritual significance for Nasr who embraced Sufism in the form taught and practiced by the great Sufi saint of the Maghrib, Shaykh Ahmad al-Alawi. Thus, the years at Harvard witnessed the crystallization of the major intellectual and spiritual elements of Nasr`s mature worldview, elements which have since dominated and determined the course and pattern of his scholarship and academic career.
At twenty-five, Nasr graduated with a Ph.D. degree from Harvard and on the way to completing his first book, Science and Civilization in Islam. His doctoral dissertation entitled ``Conceptions of Nature in Islamic Thought`` was published in 1964 by Harvard University Press as An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines. Although he was offered a position as assistant professor at M.I.T., Nasr decided to return permanently to Iran.
Another very important dimension to Nasr`s intellectual activities after his return to Iran in 1958, was his program in re-educating himself in Islamic philosophy by learning it at the feet of the masters through the traditional method of oral transmission. He studied hikmah for twenty years under some of the greatest teachers in Iran at the time, reading traditional texts of Islamic philosophy and gnosis, three days a week at the Sepahsalar madrasah in Tehran and also in private homes in Tehran, Qom and Qazwin. Among his venerable teachers were Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Assar, an alim who was an authority on Islamic law, as well as philosophy, and a very close friend of Professor Nasr`s father; the great luminary and master of gnosis, Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai and Sayyid Abul-Hasan Qazwini, a great authority on Islamic law and the intellectual sciences who knew mathematics, astronomy and philosophy extremely well. Nasr read and studied several of the major texts of Islamic philosophy under these masters such as the al-Asfar al-arbaah of Mulla Sadra and the Sharh-i manumah of Sabziwari and benefited greatly from the invaluable insights and commentaries provided by them orally. In this way, Nasr had the best educational training both from the modern West and the traditional East, a rare combination which put him in a very special position to speak and write with authority on the numerous issues involved in the encounter between East and West, and tradition and modernity, as demonstrated very clearly by his writings and lectures.
During the years Professor Nasr was in Iran, he wrote extensively in Persian and English and occasionally in French and Arabic. His doctoral dissertation was rewritten by him in Persian and it won the royal book award. Nasr also brought out the critical editions of several important philosophical texts such as the complete Persian works of Suhrawardi and of Mulla Sadra and the Arabic texts of lbn Sina and al-Biruni. Nasr`s great interest in the philosophy of one of the greatest later Islamic philosophers, Mulla Sadra resulted in the publication of the Mulla Sadra written by the traditional masters of Islamic philosophy. Nasr was also the first person to introduce the figure of Mulla Sadra to the English speaking world.
The M.I.T & the Madressa: O what a combo!
Excerpt from:
Freethinking Unbound!
Nasr chose to go to M.I.T. for college. He was offered a scholarship and was the first Iranian student to be admitted as an undergraduate at M.I.T. He began his studies at M.I.T in the Physics Department with some of the most gifted students in the country and outstanding professors of physics. His decision to study physics was motivated by the desire to gain knowledge of the nature of things, at least at the level of physical reality. However, at the end of his freshman year, although he was the top student in his class, he began to feel oppressed by the overbearingly scientific atmosphere with its implicit positivism. Furthermore, he discovered that many of the metaphysical questions which he had been concerned with were not being asked, much less answered. Thus, he began to have serious doubts as to whether physics would lead him to an understanding of the nature of physical reality. His doubt was confirmed when the leading British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in a small group discussion with the students following a lecture he had given at M.I.T, stated that physics does not concern itself with the nature of physical reality per se but with mathematical structures related to pointer readings.
.....>
The shock of discovering the real nature of the subject he had chosen to study, together with the overbearingly scientific atmosphere at his Department, led Nasr to experience a major intellectual and spiritual crisis during his second year. Although the crisis did not destroy his belief in God, it shook certain fundamental elements in his worldview, such as his understanding of the meaning of life, the significance of knowledge and the means to find the Truth. He was prepared to leave the field of physics and M.I.T. and depart from America in quest of the Truth. However, the strong discipline in him, inculcated by his father, prevented him from abandoning his studies altogether. He remained at M.I.T. and graduated with honors, but his heart was no longer with physics.
Having realized in his second year that a study of the physical sciences would neither lead him to an understanding of the nature of physical reality nor deal with some of the metaphysical questions he was concerned with, Nasr decided to look at other fields of study for his answers. He started to read extensively and to take many courses in the humanities, especially those taught by Professor Giorgio Di Santillana, the famous Italian philosopher and historian of science. Under Professor Di Santillana`s instruction, Nasr began his serious study of not only the ancient Greek wisdom as contained in the philosophies of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus but also European, Medieval philosophy, Dante`s highly mystical and symbolic Divine Comedy, Hinduism and a critique of modern Western thought. It was also Di Santillana who first introduced him to the writings of one of the most important traditionalist writers of this century, Rene Guenon. Guenon`s writings played a decisive role in laying the intellectual foundation of Nasr`s traditionalist perspective. Nasr also had the great fortune of having access to the library of the late Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, the outstanding Singhalese metaphysician and historian of art. The library had an incredible collection of works on traditional philosophy and art from all over the world. It was in this library that Nasr first discovered the works of the other traditionalist writers such as Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, Marco Pallis and Martin Lings and who were to have tremendous and enduring intellectual and spiritual influence on Nasr.
....>
According to Nasr, it was the discovery of traditional metaphysics and the philosophia perennis through the works of these figures which settled the crisis he had experienced and gained an intellectual certitude which has never left him since. From then on, he was certain that there was such a thing as the Truth and that it could be attained through knowledge by means of the intellect which is guided and illuminated by divine revelation. His childhood love for the attainment of knowledge returned to him but on a higher and deeper plane. The traditional writings of Schuon with their singular emphasis on the need for the practice of a spiritual discipline as well as theoretical knowledge, were especially instrumental in determining the course of Nasr`s intellectual and spiritual life from that time onward.
Upon his graduation from M.I.T., Nasr enrolled himself in a graduate program in geology and geophysics at Harvard University. After obtaining his Master`s degree in geology and geophysics in 1956, he went on to pursue his Ph.D. degree in the history of science and learning at Harvard. Nasr wanted to study other types of sciences of nature apart from the modern Western and also to understand why modern science had developed as it had. He planned to write his dissertation under the supervision of George Sarton, a great authority on Islamic science. However, Sarton passed away before he could begin his dissertation work and since there was not another specialist in Islamic science at Harvard then, he wrote his dissertation under the direction of three professors. They were I. Bernard Cohen, Hamilton Gibb and Harry Wolfson.
It was also at Harvard that Nasr resumed his study of classical Arabic which he had left since coming to America. He struggled with philosophical Arabic while getting some assistance from Wolfson and Gibb. However, the mastery of philosophical Arabic was only attained after he studied Islamic philosophy from the traditional masters of Iran after his return to his homeland in 1958.
During his Harvard years, Nasr also traveled to Europe, especially to France, Switzerland, Britain, Italy and Spain, widening his intellectual horizon and establishing important and fruitful contacts. It was during these travels to Europe that Nasr met with the foremost traditionalist writers and exponents of the philosophia perennis, Frithjof Schuon and Titus Burckhardt, who made a tremendous impact and decisive contribution to his intellectual and spiritual life. He also traveled to Morocco in North Africa, which had great spiritual significance for Nasr who embraced Sufism in the form taught and practiced by the great Sufi saint of the Maghrib, Shaykh Ahmad al-Alawi. Thus, the years at Harvard witnessed the crystallization of the major intellectual and spiritual elements of Nasr`s mature worldview, elements which have since dominated and determined the course and pattern of his scholarship and academic career.
At twenty-five, Nasr graduated with a Ph.D. degree from Harvard and on the way to completing his first book, Science and Civilization in Islam. His doctoral dissertation entitled ``Conceptions of Nature in Islamic Thought`` was published in 1964 by Harvard University Press as An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines. Although he was offered a position as assistant professor at M.I.T., Nasr decided to return permanently to Iran.
Another very important dimension to Nasr`s intellectual activities after his return to Iran in 1958, was his program in re-educating himself in Islamic philosophy by learning it at the feet of the masters through the traditional method of oral transmission. He studied hikmah for twenty years under some of the greatest teachers in Iran at the time, reading traditional texts of Islamic philosophy and gnosis, three days a week at the Sepahsalar madrasah in Tehran and also in private homes in Tehran, Qom and Qazwin. Among his venerable teachers were Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Assar, an alim who was an authority on Islamic law, as well as philosophy, and a very close friend of Professor Nasr`s father; the great luminary and master of gnosis, Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai and Sayyid Abul-Hasan Qazwini, a great authority on Islamic law and the intellectual sciences who knew mathematics, astronomy and philosophy extremely well. Nasr read and studied several of the major texts of Islamic philosophy under these masters such as the al-Asfar al-arbaah of Mulla Sadra and the Sharh-i manumah of Sabziwari and benefited greatly from the invaluable insights and commentaries provided by them orally. In this way, Nasr had the best educational training both from the modern West and the traditional East, a rare combination which put him in a very special position to speak and write with authority on the numerous issues involved in the encounter between East and West, and tradition and modernity, as demonstrated very clearly by his writings and lectures.
During the years Professor Nasr was in Iran, he wrote extensively in Persian and English and occasionally in French and Arabic. His doctoral dissertation was rewritten by him in Persian and it won the royal book award. Nasr also brought out the critical editions of several important philosophical texts such as the complete Persian works of Suhrawardi and of Mulla Sadra and the Arabic texts of lbn Sina and al-Biruni. Nasr`s great interest in the philosophy of one of the greatest later Islamic philosophers, Mulla Sadra resulted in the publication of the Mulla Sadra written by the traditional masters of Islamic philosophy. Nasr was also the first person to introduce the figure of Mulla Sadra to the English speaking world.
The M.I.T & the Madressa: O what a combo!
#3 Posted by _digit on August 21, 2004 7:34:54 pm
Your use of the word ``truth`` is rather simplistic. Scientific truths of today may well be dismissed tomorrow. ``Truth`` has a eternal aspect that is, in some sense, not sought after by science itself. Some scientists may arrogate the status of ``truth`` seekers on themselves, but the honest ones will simply admit to seeking ``coherence``.
Metaphysical ``truths`` are typically self-contained (and so ``true`` by definition), and do not rely strictly on the physical world for validation. When there is references to the physical world, there is an implicit assumption that there is something ``more`` than the physical world itself. Science does not, nor should not, concern itself with this (occam`s razor). That is, it neither confirms, nor does it deny anything beyond the realm of the physical world. Whether divine intervention happened or not is now in the realm of history, not science.
Also, let us not romanticize scientists too much. The Nazi`s had their fair share, and let us not forget that the next WMD`s are being developed in labs across the ``rational`` world as we speak. Science is a profession, not unlike economics. The subject matter is all that is more grand, not the people who are doing the studying!
Metaphysical ``truths`` are typically self-contained (and so ``true`` by definition), and do not rely strictly on the physical world for validation. When there is references to the physical world, there is an implicit assumption that there is something ``more`` than the physical world itself. Science does not, nor should not, concern itself with this (occam`s razor). That is, it neither confirms, nor does it deny anything beyond the realm of the physical world. Whether divine intervention happened or not is now in the realm of history, not science.
Also, let us not romanticize scientists too much. The Nazi`s had their fair share, and let us not forget that the next WMD`s are being developed in labs across the ``rational`` world as we speak. Science is a profession, not unlike economics. The subject matter is all that is more grand, not the people who are doing the studying!
#4 Posted by ballukhan on August 21, 2004 7:34:54 pm
#1 by echoboom on August 21, 2004 10:42am PT
Nasr, Fritzof Schuon, Marco Pallis and Ananda Coomaraswamy remain the aherents of the the school allied ``Gnosis`` who believe in ``Philosophia Perennis`` as the goal of human endeavour. Now that is a spin off from the Greek Gnosticism and Mysticism which includes Plato`s mysticism. The Gnostics are nothing but the EDUCATED Mystics who have read most of the contemporary vulgar religious books. They do not differ from the basic tenets of the religions but rebel against the prevailing PLOITICAL interpreations of the religious books and revelations. So the Gnostics prefer to be out of the mainstream religion lest they may invite the wrath of the politically powerful religious elites.
However, I disagreee with Nasr and others who do not consider highly of modern sciences- especially technology meddling with the prestine jungle life. Their vision remains embeded in the old middle ages technology of Chulha and Chakki. In this sense they are anti-technology (not anit- modern sciences). So they are certainly NOT against the modern sciences and research. However, that is the only lunatic fringe of these Gnostics- otherwise I would recommend them anytime to every vulgar adherent of the religions.
Nasr, Fritzof Schuon, Marco Pallis and Ananda Coomaraswamy remain the aherents of the the school allied ``Gnosis`` who believe in ``Philosophia Perennis`` as the goal of human endeavour. Now that is a spin off from the Greek Gnosticism and Mysticism which includes Plato`s mysticism. The Gnostics are nothing but the EDUCATED Mystics who have read most of the contemporary vulgar religious books. They do not differ from the basic tenets of the religions but rebel against the prevailing PLOITICAL interpreations of the religious books and revelations. So the Gnostics prefer to be out of the mainstream religion lest they may invite the wrath of the politically powerful religious elites.
However, I disagreee with Nasr and others who do not consider highly of modern sciences- especially technology meddling with the prestine jungle life. Their vision remains embeded in the old middle ages technology of Chulha and Chakki. In this sense they are anti-technology (not anit- modern sciences). So they are certainly NOT against the modern sciences and research. However, that is the only lunatic fringe of these Gnostics- otherwise I would recommend them anytime to every vulgar adherent of the religions.
#5 Posted by rahul_capri on August 21, 2004 7:34:54 pm
If the point of this article that religious scriptures should not be interpreted literally,thats fine.But you mention other things as well,and I want to make a few points.
First of all,the scientific method of postulating,exprimenting and verifying only takes us so far.The science that was the corner stone of how objects behave with respect to each other,classical Newtonian mechanics, and was empirically proven to be correct too,later proved to be only an approximation,which was true only in case of ordinary velocities and at a comparitively larger order of distance between objects.The process of empirically testing a hypothesis is limited by the availability of equipments for doing such a testing.
You would know that developments in the mother of all modern science disciplines,quantum mechanics, has dran a lot from metaphysics.Modern Science and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive either in terms of method or conclusion.Many great theories have been germinated through thought experiments,the experiments which have never been conducted.There is this theory of multiverse as opposed to universe,which follows from quantum mechanics and probability.
Pure mathematics has a lot in common with metaphysics .The relation between science and metaphysics deserves a much more nuanced and researched treatment.
First of all,the scientific method of postulating,exprimenting and verifying only takes us so far.The science that was the corner stone of how objects behave with respect to each other,classical Newtonian mechanics, and was empirically proven to be correct too,later proved to be only an approximation,which was true only in case of ordinary velocities and at a comparitively larger order of distance between objects.The process of empirically testing a hypothesis is limited by the availability of equipments for doing such a testing.
You would know that developments in the mother of all modern science disciplines,quantum mechanics, has dran a lot from metaphysics.Modern Science and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive either in terms of method or conclusion.Many great theories have been germinated through thought experiments,the experiments which have never been conducted.There is this theory of multiverse as opposed to universe,which follows from quantum mechanics and probability.
Pure mathematics has a lot in common with metaphysics .The relation between science and metaphysics deserves a much more nuanced and researched treatment.
#6 Posted by freethinker on August 22, 2004 4:15:27 am
Deat Interactors:
Thank you for your interest in the paper. Science is criticized for its limitations. A scientific theory, for instance, is not eternal and will be changed in due time not because it is essentially wrong but because it is extended in application and more generalized. These limitations, which are considered its weaknesses are indeed its strong points also. Science progresses step by step, one step at a time. The next step is taken when the last step has been validated. I had stated in the body of the paper that falsification is not proof of a scientific theory being wrong; it simply means the theory needs extension. Einsteins theory of relativity has not proved Newtons theory wrong; it has shown that Newtons theory is valid in a limited sphere of application and it is true in that sphere. The science that we use in our day to day purposes is Newtonian.
It is innate human nature to desire to discover laws of universal application (if they exist), both in space and time, for everywhere and for all times. This desire is satisfied by metaphysics. The metaphysical concepts are seldom true but we love them because we believe they are universal. We love the universal laws so much that we do not want to relinquish metaphysical concepts even when they are proven wrong or when they appear ridiculous in the light of the new facts. Scientific theories, on the other hand, get modified as a matter of course. Science is limited but correct and accurate; metaphysics, conversely, is immutable but not necessarily true.
Our universe is still in a state of evolution; it has not attained its final form yet (and it is doubtful if it ever will). New construction, reconstruction and destruction in the universe is going on all the time. The cosmological concepts of the past are updated in the light of the new facts. If the business of the construction of the universe is still unfinished, how can there be any finality for the metaphysical truths?
Metaphysics is mental creation while science is also mental creation but it has been vetted by empirical facts. You can use science in your daily work (even for space travel) while metaphysics is only good for creating fantasies (which is not bad; fantasies are part of human life too).
Regarding wmds and wrong use of science; it is due to human weakness and foolishness not because of any inherent fault of science per se.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Thank you for your interest in the paper. Science is criticized for its limitations. A scientific theory, for instance, is not eternal and will be changed in due time not because it is essentially wrong but because it is extended in application and more generalized. These limitations, which are considered its weaknesses are indeed its strong points also. Science progresses step by step, one step at a time. The next step is taken when the last step has been validated. I had stated in the body of the paper that falsification is not proof of a scientific theory being wrong; it simply means the theory needs extension. Einsteins theory of relativity has not proved Newtons theory wrong; it has shown that Newtons theory is valid in a limited sphere of application and it is true in that sphere. The science that we use in our day to day purposes is Newtonian.
It is innate human nature to desire to discover laws of universal application (if they exist), both in space and time, for everywhere and for all times. This desire is satisfied by metaphysics. The metaphysical concepts are seldom true but we love them because we believe they are universal. We love the universal laws so much that we do not want to relinquish metaphysical concepts even when they are proven wrong or when they appear ridiculous in the light of the new facts. Scientific theories, on the other hand, get modified as a matter of course. Science is limited but correct and accurate; metaphysics, conversely, is immutable but not necessarily true.
Our universe is still in a state of evolution; it has not attained its final form yet (and it is doubtful if it ever will). New construction, reconstruction and destruction in the universe is going on all the time. The cosmological concepts of the past are updated in the light of the new facts. If the business of the construction of the universe is still unfinished, how can there be any finality for the metaphysical truths?
Metaphysics is mental creation while science is also mental creation but it has been vetted by empirical facts. You can use science in your daily work (even for space travel) while metaphysics is only good for creating fantasies (which is not bad; fantasies are part of human life too).
Regarding wmds and wrong use of science; it is due to human weakness and foolishness not because of any inherent fault of science per se.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#7 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on August 22, 2004 4:32:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#8 Posted by malikjahanzeb on August 22, 2004 4:32:09 am
Isn`t religion something that originated from the strange dimensions of man`s own needs and psychology?
Isn`t religion given more importance than it deserves because it has been widely in use in the past and has so much `real value`?
Without falling prey to this, can`t we say that religion is a huge, complex building standing on a very weak foundation, i.e. belief on a man`s statements without any solid proof, just because the statements were either of great practicle value or were frightenning? What else is it`s reality?
Isn`t religion given more importance than it deserves because it has been widely in use in the past and has so much `real value`?
Without falling prey to this, can`t we say that religion is a huge, complex building standing on a very weak foundation, i.e. belief on a man`s statements without any solid proof, just because the statements were either of great practicle value or were frightenning? What else is it`s reality?
#9 Posted by nikki7777 on August 22, 2004 8:56:58 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#10 Posted by rahul_capri on August 22, 2004 8:56:58 am
freethinker #6
When you are saying metaphysical concepts are seldom true,I think you are confusing metaphysics for religious scriptures.Theology and theological problems are a very small subset of metaphysical problems.
Read this link-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Metaphysics is more concerned with problems rather than solutions. It tends to ask questions about the nature of what we know and how we know. Its domain is much braoder than classical science.Science in itself tries to provide answers to a small subset of metaphysical problems.
When you say metaphysics is about mind and fantansies, and we can use science in our daily work,how do you know that all your life is not one big fantansy? What if we are all living a big dream? What is reality actually? These sort of questions cannot be answered by traditional science.Metaphysics is probably more free thinking than traditional science can handle.
When you are saying metaphysical concepts are seldom true,I think you are confusing metaphysics for religious scriptures.Theology and theological problems are a very small subset of metaphysical problems.
Read this link-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Metaphysics is more concerned with problems rather than solutions. It tends to ask questions about the nature of what we know and how we know. Its domain is much braoder than classical science.Science in itself tries to provide answers to a small subset of metaphysical problems.
When you say metaphysics is about mind and fantansies, and we can use science in our daily work,how do you know that all your life is not one big fantansy? What if we are all living a big dream? What is reality actually? These sort of questions cannot be answered by traditional science.Metaphysics is probably more free thinking than traditional science can handle.
#11 Posted by freethinker on August 22, 2004 1:16:20 pm
Dear Interactors:
Metaphysics is speculation and science is not (shall I say?) `mere` speculation. The Islamic world has long been indulging in metaphysics; it`s about time it got serious in catching up with the developed world. Indulgence in metaphysical speculation should not be at the expense of science and technology. I am not suggesting to expel metaphysics from our culture because this cannot and need not be done. Let science have its own space (respectable space) in our culture.
We need science as an essential part of the Islamic world. Science should grow from our own culture and there should be no need to import it from outside. Exchanging scientific information with the rest of the world should not be confused with importation of science.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Mohammad Gill
Metaphysics is speculation and science is not (shall I say?) `mere` speculation. The Islamic world has long been indulging in metaphysics; it`s about time it got serious in catching up with the developed world. Indulgence in metaphysical speculation should not be at the expense of science and technology. I am not suggesting to expel metaphysics from our culture because this cannot and need not be done. Let science have its own space (respectable space) in our culture.
We need science as an essential part of the Islamic world. Science should grow from our own culture and there should be no need to import it from outside. Exchanging scientific information with the rest of the world should not be confused with importation of science.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Mohammad Gill
#12 Posted by SameerJB on August 22, 2004 3:41:06 pm
Existence or absense of god, age of the earth and evolution versus creation are three most common topic discussed under religion versus science because they both religion and scinece are far apart ot totally opposite on these issues. Such issues suit clergy, physicists and biologist much more than the rest. In science versus non-science, the list of topics include many more and in many areas religion is neutral on such topics. One topic that should be added to science versus non-science is mind versus medicine.
Most religions do not oppose to medicine which are really the developments of last few hundred years. Before modern medicine, importance of mind in remedying the ills was much more. Medicine men and shamans used combination of mind controls and remedies to treat diseases. Religions also played role in mind control. But modern religions are also merely 3000-4000 years old. We know quite a bit about the religions since the begining of neolithic age some 10,000 years ago but human as hunter-gatherers have lived more than 100,000 years before that.
Generally speaking a cut was often fatal, when a person would bleed to death. So stopping bleeding became the prime importance of shamans and mind was helpless in that regrad. Whatever first rudimentary technique developed for stopping bleeding was actually first major success of medicine over mind. Since then we have come long way. The importance of mind control is still important but its importance is greatly reduced due to medicine.
The bottomline is that all life forms develop strategies to maximize chance of survival of species. In humankind, mind adds an extra dimention towards survival stratefy. For a while mind tried to cope diseases, death, sufferings and depressions through myths, religions and philosoophical ideas. As the time moved, more and more knowledge helped understanding and better techniques for survival of our species. Now aspirin alone is more important to deal with many of the things which in the past required myths, meditation, shamanism, warding off evil spirits and more.
The thing which made this possible is preserving the knowledge gained by a mind and not only passing on as teaching but summing up gains of individual minds over our history and drawing conclusions. Therefore, science is the collective gains of human achievements and thinkings.
Religion, by western definitions, are either godly knowledge or creation of one mind at a time. They can not compete with the collective knowledge and wisdon unless multiplied by an arbitrary large number or figure like god. However, god does not come to defend it and leaves entirely on his supporters to either keep defending it as in the case of creationism versus evolutioin or quietly accept the collective achievements of mankind as modern medicine. The traditions of using mind over medicine are actually longer than traditions of believing in modern religions. So, long traditions alone do not make the reason for persistance. Beleiving in religion does make many people happy and satisfied but human has never been an overwhelmingly depressing species. That is against the instinct of survival of species.
Happiness is a state of mind. If a group of people feels more happy with camels, without indoor plumbing, veiled women and against modern science, they should also be happy to lose out from others because world is a cometition. Only way they can be happy is by withdrawing from the competition and survival of the fittest race by asceticism. However, they have chosen to compete using thigns such as metaphysical thoughts with zero practical importance in life, holybooks, god and clergy.
The concept of god, creation vs. evolution and age of earth are going to unltimately follow the path mind took in cometition with medicine. Just that they have chosen not to go down quietly due to group interests of people who rely for survival and happiness on them.
#13 Posted by dost_mittar on August 22, 2004 8:08:35 pm
Dr Gill:
``Non-science is generally metaphysical in character. Non-scientific truths are postulated largely on religious grounds, or on philosophical foundation which is grounded in pure reason without empirical support, or they are mystical, or mythological.``
I dont think you believe that ALL non-science is metaphysical in character. Perhaps you wanted to imply that Metaphysical truths are postulated largely on religious grounds, or on philosophical foundation which is grounded in pure reason without empirical support, or they are mystical, or mythological.
My understanding of Metaphysics is somewhat different from yours. I would agree that Metaphysical truths, or more accurately postulates, are based on philosophical foundation but not on religious or mystical grounds. The only religion in whose case I MIGHT make an exception is Buddhism which comes closest to Metaphysics. I think of Metaphysics as applying reason to ``Sitaron se aage``. An example would be the type of science fiction explored in Star Trek or Space Oddyssy 2001.
A metaphysist will not consider the example of Miraj even worthy of his attention. He would instead go straightaway to the heart of the concepts of prophethood and revelations themselves. He would ask what kind of Omnipotent and Omniscient Force would need an intermediary to act as a messenger to deliver Its message whereas it would have been for more effective to deliver it directly to each and everyone, either through some kind of celestial ``email`` or genetically built into the DNA? And if IT did choose a messenger, why would IT be so stupid as to render Itself impotent by losing Its power to send another messenger for all time to come or to ever change Its message thus effectively becoming non-omnipotent from that point on?
These are the questions of metaphysics, which would challenge the faith itself. The questions you raise are mostly those of tafseer of a particular faith.
``Non-science is generally metaphysical in character. Non-scientific truths are postulated largely on religious grounds, or on philosophical foundation which is grounded in pure reason without empirical support, or they are mystical, or mythological.``
I dont think you believe that ALL non-science is metaphysical in character. Perhaps you wanted to imply that Metaphysical truths are postulated largely on religious grounds, or on philosophical foundation which is grounded in pure reason without empirical support, or they are mystical, or mythological.
My understanding of Metaphysics is somewhat different from yours. I would agree that Metaphysical truths, or more accurately postulates, are based on philosophical foundation but not on religious or mystical grounds. The only religion in whose case I MIGHT make an exception is Buddhism which comes closest to Metaphysics. I think of Metaphysics as applying reason to ``Sitaron se aage``. An example would be the type of science fiction explored in Star Trek or Space Oddyssy 2001.
A metaphysist will not consider the example of Miraj even worthy of his attention. He would instead go straightaway to the heart of the concepts of prophethood and revelations themselves. He would ask what kind of Omnipotent and Omniscient Force would need an intermediary to act as a messenger to deliver Its message whereas it would have been for more effective to deliver it directly to each and everyone, either through some kind of celestial ``email`` or genetically built into the DNA? And if IT did choose a messenger, why would IT be so stupid as to render Itself impotent by losing Its power to send another messenger for all time to come or to ever change Its message thus effectively becoming non-omnipotent from that point on?
These are the questions of metaphysics, which would challenge the faith itself. The questions you raise are mostly those of tafseer of a particular faith.
#14 Posted by freethinker on August 23, 2004 4:11:17 am
dost mittar and other Interactors:
Let me explain. Aristotle had used Physics as a broad category for all the sciences known in his time; almost everything also was categorized as metaphysics (excluding Politics, for example, Ethics, Epistemology, etc. which were used as specific categories). I used Science versus Non-Science as the title of my paper although I could have used Science versus Metascience also.
There are all kinds of metaphysics but one of the harmless kinds is that of Wolfgang Pauli. He said of Paul Dirac who was an atheist, ``There is no God and Dirac is his prophet.`` I gave an example of metaphysics fro m religion but I didn`t mean that is all there is. The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Let me explain. Aristotle had used Physics as a broad category for all the sciences known in his time; almost everything also was categorized as metaphysics (excluding Politics, for example, Ethics, Epistemology, etc. which were used as specific categories). I used Science versus Non-Science as the title of my paper although I could have used Science versus Metascience also.
There are all kinds of metaphysics but one of the harmless kinds is that of Wolfgang Pauli. He said of Paul Dirac who was an atheist, ``There is no God and Dirac is his prophet.`` I gave an example of metaphysics fro m religion but I didn`t mean that is all there is. The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#15 Posted by ballukhan on August 23, 2004 6:24:13 am
I think Gill has been doing a great service by raking up the issues which are at the heart of the Islam`s conflict with the modernity. It gives us a great opportunity to discuss allegoric and metaphoric interpretations of Islam which have been over shadowed by the literalists and political Islam. This contra juxtaposition of Sciences and Islam helps us understand the stupidity of literalists like Maulana Maudoodi who have to bring in entities like Buraq in order to explain a spiritual journey.
Let us hope that with the spread of sciences and scientific thought in Islamic world literalists and their fanatic followers are shown their true place by the faithfuls.
Let us hope that with the spread of sciences and scientific thought in Islamic world literalists and their fanatic followers are shown their true place by the faithfuls.
#16 Posted by dost_mittar on August 23, 2004 8:02:19 am
Gill Saheb:
``The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.``
I agree with ballukhan that you are doing a great service in giving science its rightful place in the Islamic culture. I did not want to give the impression that this is not possible. People of other faiths have always been able to put their faith aside when exploring science (just like putting one`s brain aside when watching a Bollywood film!). And as has been frequently suggested, Islamic civilisation -not the empire- was at its zenith when it encouraged a spirit of enquiry. In other words, it followed that part of the tradition which asked to go to China, if necessary, in pursuit of knowledge, rather than the part which said that not a word of this book was to be questioned. If I am not mistaken, this was also the time when the issue of whether the quran was creaed or revealed was itself hotly debated.
``The Islamic world has been in the grip of metaphysics of religion for a long time; I wish science had its rightful place in the Islamic culture.``
I agree with ballukhan that you are doing a great service in giving science its rightful place in the Islamic culture. I did not want to give the impression that this is not possible. People of other faiths have always been able to put their faith aside when exploring science (just like putting one`s brain aside when watching a Bollywood film!). And as has been frequently suggested, Islamic civilisation -not the empire- was at its zenith when it encouraged a spirit of enquiry. In other words, it followed that part of the tradition which asked to go to China, if necessary, in pursuit of knowledge, rather than the part which said that not a word of this book was to be questioned. If I am not mistaken, this was also the time when the issue of whether the quran was creaed or revealed was itself hotly debated.
#17 Posted by freethinker on August 23, 2004 11:34:25 am
ballukha and dost mittar:
I appreciate your interest in the paper. I agree with ballukhan that the holy book should be interpreted metaphorically; that is exactly what I have been wrting about in my papers. I admire dost mittar`s knowledge of the Islamic civilization. He is right about the issue of createdness or eternality of the Quran. Similar issue exists in the Christianity also. But the Christians have other things to do also such as doing science and innovative technology besides quibbling on the religious issues.
We have left the interpretaion of Quran in the hands of the Ulema for too long and they are not going to move away from a literal understanding which has already become anachronistic. The people should take time to read the book with comprehension and see for themselves what it has within its covers. I don`t quite remember if it was Manto who said that Quran was the most victimized book because people are scared even to touch it, out of great respect for it. It is placed on the highest shelf in the house and is used only for Quran Khwani which is literal reading without comprehension.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
I appreciate your interest in the paper. I agree with ballukhan that the holy book should be interpreted metaphorically; that is exactly what I have been wrting about in my papers. I admire dost mittar`s knowledge of the Islamic civilization. He is right about the issue of createdness or eternality of the Quran. Similar issue exists in the Christianity also. But the Christians have other things to do also such as doing science and innovative technology besides quibbling on the religious issues.
We have left the interpretaion of Quran in the hands of the Ulema for too long and they are not going to move away from a literal understanding which has already become anachronistic. The people should take time to read the book with comprehension and see for themselves what it has within its covers. I don`t quite remember if it was Manto who said that Quran was the most victimized book because people are scared even to touch it, out of great respect for it. It is placed on the highest shelf in the house and is used only for Quran Khwani which is literal reading without comprehension.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#18 Posted by khurram on August 25, 2004 12:26:32 am
Mr Gill,
I think you are misdirecting your efforts. No one in the Islamic world except a lunatic fringe will disagree with you that the Islamic world needs to be more scientifically developed. Not even the reliogious conservatives.
The under-development in science is a result of economic backwardness, not any philosophical opposition or obsession with metaphysics. The Islamic world needs to free their economies from state control. Rising prosperity will promote scientific development.
I think you are misdirecting your efforts. No one in the Islamic world except a lunatic fringe will disagree with you that the Islamic world needs to be more scientifically developed. Not even the reliogious conservatives.
The under-development in science is a result of economic backwardness, not any philosophical opposition or obsession with metaphysics. The Islamic world needs to free their economies from state control. Rising prosperity will promote scientific development.
#19 Posted by irfanhamid on August 25, 2004 12:26:32 am
Gill sahab,
Your first line says ``Scientific truths do not attain the status of truths until they have empirical support.``, however some things in sciences can be `proven` as truths without having any empirical evidence for them whatsoever. I think you are taking science to mean only the physical sciences. Also Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, not for his work on specific heats.
Regards,
Irfan.
Your first line says ``Scientific truths do not attain the status of truths until they have empirical support.``, however some things in sciences can be `proven` as truths without having any empirical evidence for them whatsoever. I think you are taking science to mean only the physical sciences. Also Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, not for his work on specific heats.
Regards,
Irfan.
#20 Posted by freethinker on August 25, 2004 5:00:19 am
irfanhamid:
Thanks for uor correction. Einstein won his Nobel for Photoelectric Effect.
Mohammad Gill
Thanks for uor correction. Einstein won his Nobel for Photoelectric Effect.
Mohammad Gill
#21 Posted by tahmed32 on August 25, 2004 7:10:44 am
khurram #19 I think you are missing a fundamental point being made here - no one in the muslim world (or the third world generally) is against the FRUITS of scientific progress. However, very few people in the third world/muslim world understand WHAT is needed to have scientific progress in the first place. This article indicates what this WHAT is when it discusses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD for reaching conclusions. What is needed is not a reformation in the muslim world (as is sometimes said), but the dawning of the Age of Reason in the muslim world/third world. That took place in europe in the 17th/18th centuries, and led to monumental advancements in science in europe. It is now taking place in the third world - but quite slowly.
#22 Posted by freethinker on August 25, 2004 11:22:06 am
tahmed32`s post admirably epitomizes the intent of the paper and my motivation for writing it. Incidentally, ``The Age of Reaon`` was the title of a classic book by Thomas Paine. The book is worth reading. It is posted on the Internet and is readily accessible. Wishing well,
Mohammad Gill
Mohammad Gill
#23 Posted by nasah on August 25, 2004 10:05:53 pm
``I don`t quite remember if it was Manto who said that Quran was the most victimized book because people are scared even to touch it, out of great respect for it.``
Gill Sahib it was Manto -- I am sure Manto did not or couldn`t read the translation .....
.....Quran is a great spiritual book -- every Muslim AND Non Muslim -- must Hear it with Qiraat recited by Malyasian or Alazhar`s -- Blind Qaris -- it could rejuvenate ones sagging tired materialistics spirits -- and send them soaring in a flashing moment of Irfan -- to 7th heaven in between those -- eerie silent waqfas.....when the world comes to a stand still -- just for a fleeting quantum moment....
...but it becomes -- and has always been -- a great Victimizer Book -- of the Umma -- by the Umma -- for the Umma -- once those who are paid to understand it.......understand it...
Gill Sahib it was Manto -- I am sure Manto did not or couldn`t read the translation .....
.....Quran is a great spiritual book -- every Muslim AND Non Muslim -- must Hear it with Qiraat recited by Malyasian or Alazhar`s -- Blind Qaris -- it could rejuvenate ones sagging tired materialistics spirits -- and send them soaring in a flashing moment of Irfan -- to 7th heaven in between those -- eerie silent waqfas.....when the world comes to a stand still -- just for a fleeting quantum moment....
...but it becomes -- and has always been -- a great Victimizer Book -- of the Umma -- by the Umma -- for the Umma -- once those who are paid to understand it.......understand it...
#24 Posted by freethinker on August 26, 2004 7:53:00 am
Dear nasah:
I appreciate your feedback although I did not quite figure out your metaphorical locution. The Quran does have musicality to it.
The point I tried to make is that we respect the holy book so much that we kiss it every now and then but seldom open it to read it with comprehension. If you drop the book even by accident, which you’re unable to prove, you are culpable under the blasphemy law.
To understand a book, you’ve to read it and read it again trying to understand its meaning and intent; sometimes you like to highlight some text, which you want to read more carefully. How many of us have read the Quran with understanding? That task we have entrusted to the ulema whom we usually do not trust and with whom we disagree most of the time. If any other person quotes from the Quran with chapter and verse, we don’t trust him either because the suspicion lurking in our mind is that he probably does not understand what he is saying. Quran is not enigmatic.
If we really respect Quran, we should read it with comprehension. Have self-confidence you can understand it even if you do not understand Arabic in which the Quran is written. Read translations by several different translators together with their footnotes and compare and contrast. If Quran is truly ‘the word of God’, He wouldn’t make it incomprehensible for ordinary mortals like us.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
I appreciate your feedback although I did not quite figure out your metaphorical locution. The Quran does have musicality to it.
The point I tried to make is that we respect the holy book so much that we kiss it every now and then but seldom open it to read it with comprehension. If you drop the book even by accident, which you’re unable to prove, you are culpable under the blasphemy law.
To understand a book, you’ve to read it and read it again trying to understand its meaning and intent; sometimes you like to highlight some text, which you want to read more carefully. How many of us have read the Quran with understanding? That task we have entrusted to the ulema whom we usually do not trust and with whom we disagree most of the time. If any other person quotes from the Quran with chapter and verse, we don’t trust him either because the suspicion lurking in our mind is that he probably does not understand what he is saying. Quran is not enigmatic.
If we really respect Quran, we should read it with comprehension. Have self-confidence you can understand it even if you do not understand Arabic in which the Quran is written. Read translations by several different translators together with their footnotes and compare and contrast. If Quran is truly ‘the word of God’, He wouldn’t make it incomprehensible for ordinary mortals like us.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#25 Posted by tahmed32 on August 26, 2004 11:03:36 am
freethinker: well said. couldnt agree more.
the reason the Quran is treated as a magical book rather than simply a form of communicating a message to mankind (per our muslim belief) is i think obvious when one studies the Quran the way way it should be studied - with understanding and using common sense, not reading it like a parrot without any interest in what the message is. when one reads the Quran in this manner, one finds that there is no place for a maulvi in islam. Nor is there any place for the maulvis message - one of irrational hatreds - in islam. There is thus a very rational reason for this irrational manner in which the Quran is treated by maulvis - to preserve their livelihood and control over muslim populations.
personally, i find the Quran to be a book of great beauty, and one that strongly supports the peaceful persuit of science and knowledge (which, as the Quran says, is the reason God created man). Reading about the sun and the stars in the Quran, one gets the same sense of wonder at the grandeur of the universe as one does when reading about things like the space-time continuum, the hidden dimensions of the universe, and the life and death of stars in a good book on science. All this beauty (whether in the Quran or in science books) is lost on these ignoramuses.
the reason the Quran is treated as a magical book rather than simply a form of communicating a message to mankind (per our muslim belief) is i think obvious when one studies the Quran the way way it should be studied - with understanding and using common sense, not reading it like a parrot without any interest in what the message is. when one reads the Quran in this manner, one finds that there is no place for a maulvi in islam. Nor is there any place for the maulvis message - one of irrational hatreds - in islam. There is thus a very rational reason for this irrational manner in which the Quran is treated by maulvis - to preserve their livelihood and control over muslim populations.
personally, i find the Quran to be a book of great beauty, and one that strongly supports the peaceful persuit of science and knowledge (which, as the Quran says, is the reason God created man). Reading about the sun and the stars in the Quran, one gets the same sense of wonder at the grandeur of the universe as one does when reading about things like the space-time continuum, the hidden dimensions of the universe, and the life and death of stars in a good book on science. All this beauty (whether in the Quran or in science books) is lost on these ignoramuses.
#26 Posted by nasah on August 28, 2004 8:04:28 am
those who seek Science instead of Spiritual Comfort from Qoran -- will get neither.......and that is exactly where the so called Umma`s position is right now......neither and nor
#28 Posted by teshah on March 3, 2005 5:40:34 pm
I think if God was omnipotent why in the first place He took six days(equal to billion of years?) to create earth when he was wont to say `Kun` to a thing (which did not exist, mind that)and it came into being. Secondly what the `day` meant at all when there was no earth.
And about science: I had a fried whose father was a baker who had worked with the British Army in Europe in the World War II. His father always scolded him by saying ``Is saale ne `sense` naheeN parhi`. He was illiterate and could not differentiate between `sense` and science but actually used to insist upon his son to study science. In our boyhood we used to laugh at this mix-up but now I see he was quite right; there is actually `science`, (called `sense`by my friend`s father) and `non-sense`. We could have laughed about this non-sense but for the dreaded LOB.
And about science: I had a fried whose father was a baker who had worked with the British Army in Europe in the World War II. His father always scolded him by saying ``Is saale ne `sense` naheeN parhi`. He was illiterate and could not differentiate between `sense` and science but actually used to insist upon his son to study science. In our boyhood we used to laugh at this mix-up but now I see he was quite right; there is actually `science`, (called `sense`by my friend`s father) and `non-sense`. We could have laughed about this non-sense but for the dreaded LOB.
#29 Posted by teshah on March 3, 2005 6:16:55 pm
’¦ ’ βΧΠΡα
’ ₯ €§ ¦₯ ’ ’ € β’ ¦ ¦₯ ’ € € ’¦€ α ’ §’ €
¦₯ υ €¦ ’¦ ¦₯ ’ §₯ € ¦₯ ₯ Θ β€€ α ’ ’ ¦€‘ € ’ § € ₯
₯ € ’ υ € ¦₯ €₯ €’‘ β €’‘ α ₯ €₯ ’ € ₯ ₯ €
¦€‘ υ ’¦ §’ ₯ ¦€‘ € € € ’’‘ ₯ ₯ ¦€‘ ’ € ₯ υ
’ ₯ €§ ¦₯ ’ ’ € β’ ¦ ¦₯ ’ € € ’¦€ α ’ §’ €
¦₯ υ €¦ ’¦ ¦₯ ’ §₯ € ¦₯ ₯ Θ β€€ α ’ ’ ¦€‘ € ’ § € ₯
₯ € ’ υ € ¦₯ €₯ €’‘ β €’‘ α ₯ €₯ ’ € ₯ ₯ €
¦€‘ υ ’¦ §’ ₯ ¦€‘ € € € ’’‘ ₯ ₯ ¦€‘ ’ € ₯ υ
listing 1-16
1 2
Interact Index
Also by Mohammad Gill
Similar Articles
- Freud and Jung and Their Secret Affairs Khalid Sohail
- Judah Folkman Syed Shah
- Ultimate Fate of the Universe mubasher jamil
- Rote Learning Vis-Γ -vis Physical Comprehension Mohammad Gill
- Science and the Islamic world --- The quest for rapprochement Pervez Hoodbhoy
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- masanamuthu: 1.I dubt that there... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 693 buba..... Russia will... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- majumdar: Kaal bhai, 1.I doubt that... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: Back to 2001 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/india.attacks/index.html CNN)... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 673 masadi... indians... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- Eklavya: "refrain from drawing chut!ya... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: #678.... GF Yeh, sometimes brothers misunderstand... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- harish_hyd: And yaar GF, these... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
