God is a Metaphor

GhalibZaman,

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

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

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

welcome@drsohail.com

feel free to see my website

www.drsohail.com

sincerely sohail

Re: # 199

Sohail Sahib:

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

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

Re: # 193

Mamoon Sahib:

Belief in one God is your minds creation for you.

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

Re: # 193

Mamoon Sahib:

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 176

Dear Dr Sohail,

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

Ok here is a frank reply:

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

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

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

Dear Anil,

Whose human Mind you want me to worship?

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

This is ignorance at its height

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

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

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

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

Khalid Suhail Sahib:

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 190

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

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

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

and

...education and universal wisdom will follow

thank you for your detailed comments...sincerely sohail

secondly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

````now i

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

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


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

``` if you

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

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

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

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

Dear Dr. Sohail

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

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

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

Now I am a muslim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dear Dr. Sohail,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can have further discussions . Best

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

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

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

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

monotheistic tradtion

i am of the opinion that one can have

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

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

since there are not only different rather contradictory interpretations of scriptures

associated to GOD they cannot all be true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the questions you are asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dr. Sohail,

I have a question for you.

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

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

However elah and Allah have entirely different connotations.

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

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


Thanx

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

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

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

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

I liked this artile.

V.S.Gopalakrishnan

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

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

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

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

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

Re: #175 SaimaShah,

Et tu! Chowkie #1!

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

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

Is that what you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Sohail,

Great article, thanks

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

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

sincerely sohail

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 167

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

I srongly submit that it would, should read :

I strongly submit that it would

@ zeemax,

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


People can be moral without learning it from scriptures.

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

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

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

---

@ sattar2,

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

;-)

---

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

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

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


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

Fine. Deny god all you want ...

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

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

Re: # 132

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Re: # 163

The `science of religion` is hogwash.

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

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

All religions depend on brainwashing youngsters for their survival.

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


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

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

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

later

PS: [i remember the russell paradox]

Re: # 154

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

Re: # 159

khurram:

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

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

Re: GT

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 152

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

happy and peaceful. smiles....sohail

Khurram:

You say:

``I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` .

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

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

Re: # 148 khurram:

Yep, you have it fully correct. Moreover, yes the rules of logic are assumed. More refinements can be made and you have the whole `modal logic` business. You can also deviate to other systems by violating the definition of complementarity etc.

Raw:

It is the ``Russel Paradox``. If you are into computing, you will immediately see that you cannot compute the `proof` of the paradox. Penrose has a book on this, with some 500 odd pages. I do not understand why he needed 500 pages to do so. Plus, the book is quite unreadable.

Others (with apologies to Sohail for the deviation):
You will see a lot of people on chowk gloating about the number 0. They claim that `eastern philosophies` know a lot about this number. Heck, why is it the case that x/y is understood for all y with values near zero but not when y is zero? Listen to the answers, they are usually great. Actually, in general, ask yourselves what does x/y mean when x is positive and y is negative.

Point is, we need beliefs to survive or even to put a man on the moon.

Best.

Re: # 154

zeemax:

;-)

good luck

#150 by malikjahanzeb,

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

Re: # 137 khurram,

I think you are making simple matters complex. And especially, I have problem understanding your scholarly way of articulating, so I would appreciate if you explain things for me a little bit less formally. I certainly want to know what you beef is which would be useful learning for me but we have to ensure that the communication does not go in vein.

What I get from your post is that you refer to something you call `the unconditional as truth and morality` which you think cannot, at least, in part come from the sources in the world only. The second objection you made was that morality follows strange routes such as absolutism and absolutism because of opposition to absolutism.

I myself am contented with the evolutionary explanation, specifically as a combination of the following stages of evolution:

1) physical life
2) human mind
3) human culture
4) ideas when they become an organism by themselves living in the world of culture

This framework completely and elegantly explains why we are obsessed with `truth` (simply because it is the ultimate currency of this universe; you simply cannot put two coins in a pot and take out 3) and morality (as a set of ideas that works for a human population at one time).

So, I fail to get your beef so far.

#146 by drsohail,

Dear Dr. Sohail,

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

The moral of the story is as follows:

When you say ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

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

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

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

Dear zeemax,

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

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

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

``It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` . ``

The problem exists in your head. Empirical verification to support the axioms of a logical system makes the difference between generically speaking a Law and one man`s Delusion. That`s why you can only Believe and can never communicate what is it that you call `X`/`God`. To be able to demonstrably prove your proposition, you would need a mutually agreed upon framework that comes from empiricism.

I also have a feeling that when you say `TRUE` you are mixing it with `TRUE` as it is taken in the religious sense. They are different.

GT: I`ll come back to your post later.

Re: GT #141

There are actually 2 parts to what you are saying.

The first part is a purely logical exercise. You start with ``statements ASSUMED to be true`` (I meant the same thing when I said ``defined to be true``). Let`s call them axioms. Then you derive statements that are logically consistent with the axioms (I guess you have to define the rules of logic too). All these statements are considered true. Here, true means logically consistent with axioms. Since this is a purely logical exercise you can come up with any number of different axioms and come up with unlimited sets of statements, all internally consistent with their own axioms. (Of course, all of them will run into problems
described in #107).

The 2nd part is determining the axioms. Here you invoke empirical verification. That is used to select one set of axioms and declare them to be the `scientific` truth. This set of axioms may change over time as a result of more empirical tests. But the basic pricnciple is that it is always derived from empirical verification. And, of course, these scientific statements also run into #107.

I don`t have a problem with the 1st part. It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` .

That`s why I was hoping on a previous board that Mr Gill would come up with an example of a scientific axiom that was derived from empirical verification. Unfortunately, he came up with the wrong one.

(PS. This has nothing to do with the existence of God)

zeemax:
``Disgust`` is something you are conditioned to. That`s the answer. Like for instance after living your entire life in sin (earning and feeding yourself on interest) your apparent deterioration into an infantile state when grave and Allah ka Azaab beckons. So, now you chase the metaphorical umbilical chord on chowk.com for that maternal-acceptance, you were ``conditioned`` to when you were growing up.

My turn to question now:
I am assuming you are about the magic number 53 or somewhere around. Do you feel like proposing to a 9 year old girl for harkening back to your ancient scriptures and their Author? It must be an exhilarating thought to be at the age to fulfill the Sunnah-e-Rasool?

Re: # 145

dear zeemax....the article was titled GOD IS A METAPHOR and you made it about INCEST

and challenged everyone who did not agree with your moralistic view about human

sexuality. the climax of your dialogue was...` you can`t fcuk (did not even spell it

right...Freudian slip) your sister or your mother...period) and then said `I`ve let Dr. Sohail

off the hook``...so what were you trying to prove with this marathon dialogue...what is the

moral of the story? so that I am prepared next month when I send my next article...sohail

... of-course .. it may be that one brother feels the disgust and desists, but another brother doesn`t .. but the sister is both`s sister ... and the father ... dunno which way he goes ... so ...

It goes on and on. But never mind. I`ve let Dr. Sohail off the hook.

Arrey Bhai ...

The disgust is there because of the ancient scriptures. That`s all. The scriptures say ``You can`t fcuk your sister or your mother ... period``, and these are the moral values. No nitpicking and all that stuff. No ifs and buts. It`s a rule.

Everyone here is scratching their heads and working hard to come up with an answer, but they can`t. No humanism or atheism nor anything else can explain that `disgust` which all of you feel when it comes to that. These are the values which are eternal, not evolved with time nor the human mind. You will never accept it when applied to your own selves.

I won`t force this subject anymore.

Respectfully,

Zeemax.

...contd...#142

I missed this part:

....my current stand on it would be to allow it if is backed by some good practical reasons guaranteeing its persistance. I hold that the disgust that people have against it is purely consequence based and has no rational value.

This sounds fair. Yes it has no rational value. But the disgust is there. Why?

So it is clear you support brother/sister sexual relations if it is backed by some practical reasons ....

You mean if there`re no other females around to have sex with, which is a practical reason ... you might as well take the one who`s right there under the same roof as you ... as well as being emotionally dependent on you ... that`s easy. (of-course you know that by you, I don`t mean YOU, so pls don`t be offended).

Unless you have any other practical reason in mind, which I would like to know about. Also, do you mean ``guaranteeing its persistance`` to mean a guarantee that they`ll never have kids?

Just a few clarifications please.

Regards.

Regards.

#138 by malikjahanzeb,

Dear Mailk Saheb,

My question was, and pardon me for repeating, whether you will support the brother/sister German couple in their legal fight to have sexual relations.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with off-spring. That`s not what they`re fighting for. They want to have sexual relations as husband and wife and properly registered as husband and wife, which they were, before their marriage was nullified by law. That`s all.

Now, do you support that or not? That is the simple question, and I don`t know why you call it a a `trick` question.

Is it because you will not commit to a position which is against your moral values even though you cannot justify it in the light of humanism? Even though you belong to the evolved human mind of Dr. Sohail`s clan as you have said?

I hope you answer it. If you have a position, you must state it clearly. :)

Regards.

Re: # 135

khurram:

You are right #134 is kinda strange!? I was wondering what got to you.

As far as statements go you DO NOT `define` a true statement. Here is what you do:

1. You start with a frame of reference. A frame of reference is a set of statements ASSUMED to be true. For example the following provides a frame of reference:
(a) ``All elephants have tusks and only elephants have tusks.``
(b) ``The weight of any elephant cannot be less than 50kg``

2. You then HYPOTHESIZE that a statement is true in that defined frame of reference. For example, based on (a) and (b) you for example could say:

(c) ``B is an animal with a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``
(d) ``B does not have a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``

3. Now note that, given (a) and (b) [ant this is very important] (c) is logically CONSISTENT but (d) is logically INCONSISTENT. Most theoretical, scientific or mathematical, work is focused on this exercise. For example, if I assume that the Axiom of choice is true then one can show that ``The law of induction`` is it`s equivalent.

4. Next comes empirical verification. You go about catching animals and seeing whether they have tusks or not and if they have whether they are above 50 kgs or not. If all your data agree with the HYPOTHESIS you say that ``ONE CANNOT REJECT THE FACT THAT (c) IS TRUE. Unfortunately, we often tend to then say that (c) is TRUE in the context of (a) and (b). [NOTE: NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT GOD EXISTS, though religious types will say it is not a hypothesis it is simply true that God exists].

5. There is more here though. Suppose you find an animal with a tusk which weighs 45kgs. What do you do. Note, you simply cannot reject the hypothesis (c). You have to reject the TRUTH of (a) too. That is you reject the frame of reference.

So far so good and we do not seem to have a problem. However, in #107, I highlight how we may run into problems even with the above procedure which is accepted by mainstream science.

Re #139, drsohail,
Post #134 is not mine. This is a chowk bug. if 2 people happen to submit at the same moment then one of the posts gets overwritten. My post was overwritten by bjkumar`s post from the Xari Jalil article.

Re: # 134

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

sincerely sohail

Re: # 131 zee,

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

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

A more interesting question would be, if incest is okay if it has zero risk of leading to offsprings. I think this is a trick question and my current stand on it would be to allow it if is backed by some good practical reasons guaranteeing its persistance. I hold that the disgust that people have against it is purely consequence based and has no rational value.

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

Trying again...
Re; #129 malikjahanzeb
I am not sure I fully understand this post. You seem to be making 2 points. First is that the CONTENTS of moral systems are determined by the contingencies of evolutionary history. The second is that the experience of the unconditionality of the moral imperative is some kind of a `deception` .As for the first point, I am sure you are aware that this is not the only explanation of contents of traditional moral systems. There have been others based on, for example, class struggle or gender roles.All these are valid up to a point. They help in uncovering contingent factors underlying moral precepts. They
are valid as a protest against false absolutism. The danger is that they then go on to set themselves up as another false absolutism.
The second point, I would dispute. There is no getting away from the experience of the unconditional. Theories like the above are themselves an attempt to find a deeper expression of the unconditional as truth and morality.

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

Re: GT #107,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying in your example that no matter how one defines a `true statement` it is not possible to have a set of all possible true statements.

Your example does not address the question of how to define a `true statement` in the first place. Right?

I was among those who commented on your first article. I am glad to see that you have overcome the loss of your friend and are trying to make something positive come out of it by drawing attention to the problem of suicide and the depressive conditions which lead to it.

It can not be overemphasized that manic depression is a PHYSICAL, medical disorder which needs treatment through medical drugs! Those who suspect it should not be shy about getting a diagnosis (from a properly licensed doctor) so that they can get the help they need.

I hope the Sohail gets his butt over here and adds his own two words instead of merely gloating in inanities on his own board!! :)

...afterthought #132 .....

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

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

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

BTW he never responded :)

Regards.

#119 by muh.adil Re: # 99

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

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

Second what you have asked about weather it is ok or not, then i think after my answer i hope you get the answer which i have given to you.

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

... please start their seperate thread to talk if they have anything to share with the world, don`t exploit the reputation of others, and don`t answer by using name of ``author``.

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

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

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

Regards.

#109 by drsohail Re: # 98

Dear Dr. Sohail,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

#105 by khurram Re: zeemax

I do have a question for you too. Would you support the right of a religious minority to practice incest if they claimed it as part of their religion?

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

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

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

Regards.

Re: # 126 khurram,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Javed I. Chaudry

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

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

Re: # 123 by malikjahanzeb:

Yes.

Re: # 118

Raw:

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

How can you rationally refute the following:

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

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

You can`t.

Now consider the following two verifiable statements:

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

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

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

Re: # 121

GT: Does the statement,

` all prophets sent by god were true`

the same as your monkeys statement?

Re: # 111 Let`s see if you do face questions:

How do you know that there is someone real behind this metaphor? Is it your subjective guess?

Does this reality you call `God` have traits which can be talked about non-metaphorically? For example, will we be right if we say that your god is jealous of other gods?

If the metaphors we use to address god are only helpful to us, what`s in it for the god who is independent of these metaphors?

Re: # 117

Sohail:

Thanks for the quote. Did not know about Huxley. The definition that I used was mine and I believe that it is generally accepted. But my definition does not contradict Huxley`s in any manner. There are certain `statements` (or definitions) which simply cannot be empirically verified. What does one do then? Well, you remain agnostic:)

Let me give an example of such a statement: ``All the monkeys in chowk are green in colour``.
Note that there are no monkeys in chowk (or so I think), hence I cannot verify whether they are green in colour or not.

The Greeks were the first (to my knowledge) to accept this as a premise of logic: If the antecedent is false then all implications are true. I do not know whether the Chinese and indians ever considered it as a rule.

Best.

Re: #drsohail,
``ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it? ``

Of course, I do.
And, I define it by the first kalimah.

Re: # 99 Hello zeemax,
First of all i would like to share the problem which i am watching here at chowk.com, people don`t talk about the thoughts written by the writer, they just start their own session and start talking about it, like i have seen hardly 2-3 comments on the work done by ``Dr Sohail``, expect everybody is talking about what thread you have started. If you are so much interested to talk about this why not you write seperately and invite Dr. Sohail to comment on that, and even you can email him directly.

Second what you have asked about weather it is ok or not, then i think after my answer i hope you get the answer which i have given to you.

And again i will request everybody here at chowk.com that please start their seperate thread to talk if they have anything to share with the world, don`t exploit the reputation of others, and don`t answer by using name of ``author``.

Thanks to all.

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

Re: # 113

Dear GT...I am throughly enjoying your feedback and comments. I used to have the same

interpretation of Agnosticism as you have until i read a book THE ROAD TO REASON by Pat

Duffy Hutcheon. In that book on page 88 about Thomas Huxley the founder of the

philosophy and movement of Agnostics. I quote ` Thomas invented that term in 1869 when,

as a member of the new Metaphysical Society, he had felt that the need for a name for his

own philosophical position. His concept (derived grom the Greek gnosis meaning

knowledge) was to be antithesis of `gnosticism`...the mystical creed of an ancient Persian

cult which had believed in the possibility of a mysterious, direct accesability to ultimate

truth. Thomas taught, instead that the empirically tested facts of science are the

only `truths`. accessabile to fallibale humans and BLIND FAITH THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. In

explaining agnosticism Thomas said that it is not WHAT we believe that matters so much as

WHY and HOW we believe it. `Moral responsibility lies in diligently weighing the evidence.

We must actively doubt; we have to continually scrutinize all our views, not take them on

trust.``

What Thomas Huxley was attempting with his new concept was switch the emphasis from

the specific CONTENT of the beliefs that human held (whether these acclaim or disclaim the

existenceof something) to the PROCESS by means of which people attain and retain them

over time. For him agnosticism was `not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in

the rigorous application of a single priciple...it is the fundamental axiom of modern

science...do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or

demonstrable` He was, in fact, changing the emphasis to the scientific method of inquiry,

with all its strengths and limitations, as the sole source of reliable knowledge. However, his

concept was much misundersttod, even by supporters, and to this day many humanists

tend to write off agnostics as people who merely refuse to take a stand or the question of

atheism.``

I found that quotation interesting. I thought you might too. sincerely sohail

Re: # 115
Raw:
Right, but we cant do much can we? Can the following statement ever be negated logically:

``All the monkeys in chowk are green in colour``.

Best.

GT:
I agree. I was stretching the definition on that count. Although, God `notion` (with the meaninglessness inherent in its construction) can be entertained ironically, like getting into a willing-suspension-of-disbelief.

Re: # 111

dear khurram...i appreciate your honest and candid response. words whether holy or

unholy never do justic to our life experiences and truths. sometimes they conceal as much

as they reveal.i was amused by Raw Dust though. he asked the right question in 20 words

that i could not ask in 200 words. i learnt something from Raw Dust...thank you both of

you. chowk is getting more interesting. one learns something new every day.

.sincerely sohail...sohail

ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it?

Re: # 112

Raw:

For the agnostic, God does not signify the unknown. The agnostic is indifferent between the existance of God (with whatever unverifiable definition) and the non-existance of God (with the same unverifiable definition). The agnostic is not a disciple of determinism.

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

Re #110 Raw_Dust?

When did I dodge anything?

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

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

Lemme rephrase:

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

OR

Do you Know the existence of supernatural intelligence?

call super natural intelligence God, if that is convenient.

gracias.

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

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

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

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

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

gets into difficulties because different individuals and different sects have different

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

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

persecuate and penalize the ones that do not follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our values change and evolve with the evolution of life.

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

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

eat it and are fine with that.

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

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

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

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

social and cultural.

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

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

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

responsible attitude towards life.

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

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

therapist not be a judge.

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

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

the family is healed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can share your views also....sincerely sohail

Sohail and khurram:

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

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

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

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

Re #101 drsohail

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

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

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

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

Re: zeemax,

I do have a question for you too.
Would you support the right of a religious minority to practice incest if they claimed it as part of their religion?

Re: malikjahanzeb,

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

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

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

Re: # 99

Zeemax here`s a synopsis:

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

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

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

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

there are as many truths as human beings

and

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

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

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

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.

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

religion and culture.

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

When children become adults they have choices

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

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

parents

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

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

environments

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

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

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

Let me share an example

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

treated with a herb.

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

followed certain steps

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

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

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

....found out quinine kills the malarial parasite

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

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

we can use the similar example for infectiona and antibiotics.

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

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

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

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

mature we might have a Unified Theory about the Universe.

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

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

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

for creative thinking.

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

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

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

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

it came from angels and spirits and gods. Ghalib said

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

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

understanding of human brain/mind.

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

nature of the Universe.

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

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

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

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

fully born.

The fundamental difference is among two groups of people

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

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

Prophets and do not want to question it

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

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

more imporatnt that Gods and Religions

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

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

up with a pragmatic solution in a Democratic way.

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

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

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

agree.

My subjective truth is that I believe that

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

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

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

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


thanks for the inspiration....sincerely sohail

#87 by khurram,

Thanks. That was helpful.

#97 by muh.adil,

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

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

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

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

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

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

#88 by drsohail,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

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

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

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

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

Re: # 95 What a word of wisdom. I am impressed.........

When secularist/athetist loonies grow up they would realize that God is essential. Not as a divine entity or some super massive blob of energy, but as an unseen spirit which unifies all that exists.

Re: # 90 Would you also provide your speculations on these questions?

Re: # 85 dr sahib,

You are probably right that interfamily marriages are more of a learned trait and in spite of Islam, things can be made better by creating awareness about the harmful consequences of the practice. The only reason I feel Islam is to blame somewhat is the reason I wrote in reply to khurram. Islam`s extreme conservatism in the matters of sex surely does have significant effect of encouraging the practice. The girls in a family, even the elderly women do not have any method of socializing with men outside the family because of conservative values that usually family members are the only ones well known and trusted and become the natural choice. I think for the change to come, these values must also give way.

Re: # 89 khurram,

You may be right. But there should be no denying about the indirect effects of relavent pressures. For example, it is said that women is Islam are encouraged to get educated and work. But in reality, they are discouraged by some relevant but indirect social behaviours directly stemming from religion e.g. perdah and sex starvation through segrigation. I am for looking at the system in its totality as that is how it affects its subjects.

Re: # 90
dear khurram....i wish you lived in toronto and we could have a marathon dialogue.

your questions are valid. give me some time and i will try to answer them the best i

can...thanks for reassuring me that we are having a genuine dialogue trying to learn from

each other. between the two of us we can write a book....sincerely sohail

ps...you still did not answer whether you had any ``mystical/spiritual/divine experience``?

Re: drsohail #64,

Thank you for honestly stating that this article is your subjective truth. I would like to ask you some questions regarding subjective truth. I am not trying to be argumentative or trying to trip you up. I GENUINELY want to understand and don`t have good answers myself.

1. Do subjective truths have any criteria for validity? Or anything goes?
2. Is there any way to compare different subjective truths and choose one over another?
3. When collective action is required among people with different subjective truths, how to come to a decision?
4. What if there is a conflict between 2 subjective truths. How to resolve that conflict?
And lastly,
5. Is there anything beyond subjective truth?

Thanks

Re: eastmwest,

There is nothing in your posts 74 & 76 that I disagree with. Neither does the article that I quoted. The solution it proposes is greater education and awareness and use of latest technology to make informed & rational decisions. An outright ban would make it a polarizing issue and would not help solve the problem.

Re: malikjahanzeb,
As eastmwest points out cousin-marriage is not universal among muslim cultures.
Making it a religious issue would not be helpful.

Re: # 86

dear zeemax...the reason i do not answer your questions is because i would like to have

mutually respectful dialogue. in the past you made comments about my writings that were

not respectful. i am aware that you are an intelligent man. if we have a difference of

opinion... you being a believer and i non-believer.. is not an issue. i have many believer

friends with whom i can have an intellectually stimulating dialogue and learn from them. it

is our mutual attitude. if you promise to have a serious dialogue with me about any

subject....God or Sex....I am willing but when you want to throw some trick questions and

get an answer from me that you can use for your next debate and highlight my weak points

then i get disappointed and stop the dialgue. i never claimed that all i say is right and is

absolute truth. i am learning from all of you and growing and getting inspired to write more.

for example your comments about human sexuality is inspiring me to write an article about

RELIGION AND SEX.

so choice is yours. if you want to end the dialogue i am fine but if you want to continue we

might learn something from each other. respectfully and sincerely and honestly...sohail

Re #86, zeemax,
I didn`t decline. I was busy.
So, here it goes.

drsohail was pretty clear that he would not interfere in the personal decision of 2 consenting adults to have an incestous relationship. So we can safely assume that he would support their legal right to have this relationship. If he wouldn`t interfere, surely he wouldn`t want anyone else(the state, for example) to interfere.

A good follow-up question would be , if drsohail would consider incestous relationship immoral for himself [no disrespect intended here] . Is it consistent with his `subjective truth` ? If yes or no, then why? maybe he will care to explain.

As for his defensive reaction regarding morality, I think he was assuming that you were about say that since he doesn`t believe in God he has no foundation to base his morality on. That is a whole `nother discussion.

Dr. Sohail,

I see Khurram has declined my request for clarification of your position. I respect his decision.

would you care to clarify? Or if you do not, we can end this discussion right here.

Regards.

Re: # 81


Joint family living does not necessitate consanguinous marriages. Various Hindu, Sikh, Chinese families live in such arragnements. When everyone is on the same page you are correct there is a lot of warmth and support. However there are plenty of disaster stories as well.

Btw not all Muslim communities have high rates of intermarriage. Ie Turkey esp western parts it is uncommon and among Persians it is fowned upon by educated classes. Defn orthodoxy and social constraints are highly correlated with is incidence, Saudi Arabia the most obvious. In Great Britian there have been honor killings punishing girls who have found their own partner (even if he is a Pakistani Muslim) as opposed to going along with a pre-ordained arranged match with a cousin back home. I recently was at the house of an acquaintance and there was this very sweet elderly Pakistani lady talking about her grandchildren, I couldn`t follow what she was saying because she was talking in Punjabi. Later my friend explained that she was sizing them up to see how to match up her grandchildren as potential partners.

I am not sure why this is not taken up by the sizable Pakistani medical community and public health initiative developped to address this. It is easily addressed by seeking alternatives to cousin marriages. What Khurram is really addressing is not having the need to ever forbid cousin marriages which is okay for societies where they are an anomly but most defn not for societies where they are common place.

Re: # 68
dear kaalchakra,

readers like nazarhayat khan, malik jahanzeb, mohammad gill, rafi aamer and khurrum

makes it all woth it....thanks for your inspiration....sohail

Re: # 78
dear khurrum....
your humorous comment about advocating on zeemax bahalf or me reminded me of ghalib`s two couplets

poochtay hain wo kay ghalib koan hay
koi batlao key hum batlain kia

badal kar faqeeron ka ham bhais ghalib
tamash-e-ahl-e-karam daikhtay hain

have fun....sohail

Re: # 68 kaalchakra,

For us slackers, its always a pleasure to find you here and a previlege to be remembered by you.

I like to say that I have liked this cultural aspect of hindu people that extra effort is made to carry out marriages between virtually perfect strangers. If only they could get circumcised too.......... (kidding)

Re: # 70 PM

Speaking of my intentions, my case was indeed against cousin-marriages only. But since you reminded me of its ties with joint families living together, I have to admit that the later will have very hard time to sustain without the help of the former. This is my practical experience, again from my paternal family that an outsider girl is more likely to drag the husband out of the joint. Actually, my mother did this to my father. :-D

I don`t know how good or bad extended family system is, but it always sounds like a fun idea to me. Whenever you go there, you have so many people to socialize with.

Re: #79

A common man usually trusts religion on questions he has less knowledge about. If I were an average religious guy, this is how I would think:

`If there is something really wrong with it, allah would have forbidded it already. Hence there is nothing wrong with it`.

I know the primary reason for cousin marriages is not religion per se but by all means, Islam fosters such an environment by limiting and discouraging intra-family interactions between males and females (the primary method for couples to know about each other) and creating a paranoia around this whole sex and honour thing. As a result, family marriages become the default and convinient choice.

Yes, I can`t find a hadis saying `marry thy cousins`, but you gotta take practical things into account..... makes any sense?

Re: #66,
``They see all this happenning but religious endorsement is so strong that they keep doing it. ``

religious what? There is no religious mandate or even encouragement for cousin marriages.
It is just not outlawed. The article I referred to makes the point that an outright ban on cousin marriages per se is not necessary. Moderation and rational behaviour is required.

Re #75 drsohail,
I thought I was being asked to be your advocate ;-)

#75 by drsohail,

Dear Dr. Sohail,

I`m not asking Khurram to be my advocate, but only to clarify your position on the issue, since you tend to be very evasive when confronted with direct questions :)

In fact, asking Khurram to be my advocate would be disrespectful to his far superior intellect to mine.

Re: # 65

Khurram, also it seems that the artcile you have quoted is from and Islamic website probably trying to justify this heinous practice. What I am quoting is actual facts on the incidence of birth defects. Anecdotally though I personally know a number of Pakistani families in Canada whose children have learning disabilities, development delays etc... whose parents are first cousins from a long line of intermarriages. These children are NOT counted at birth! I can also forward you educational testing from Britain that when controlled for socioeconomic status and parental education Pakistani children do the worst academically among other South Asians. I really want to understand how this can persist when it is universally accepted that most parents want the best for their child. Why is the the medical community of Pakistani doctors not more vocal about this? Although I do know several who are personally very opposed to this trend.

Re: # 71
dear khurrum...congratulations for being asked to be the advocate for zeemax...smiles.....sohail

Re: # 65

Khurram I am afraid you are confusing two very different situations. Incidental first cousin marriage is not disastrous and the risk of genetic abnormality is minimally increased. What I am talking about is completely different. It is the preponderance of first cousin marriages over generations. The risk here is phenomenally higher for genetic disease. Pakistani`s acount for 3.4% of live births but 30% of recessive genetic disorders in Great Britain. As a physician it has baffled and disturbed me how even educated Muslims are not alarmed by this trend. Do you honestly think such a tendency has not had negative impact on intellectual faculties.This has not been adequately researched. Is it not possible that the poor academic performance of Pakistani students is affected by this? The article you quote is about the ``occasional`` intermarraige but likewise there a numerous jokes about the limited faculties of inbred people in the south of the US. Saudi Arabia is the most telling example. It has one the highest rate of birth defects in the world. The gov`t is not going to go on a public health campaign anytime soon. It is distressing for me as a physician that innocent children pay the ultimate price for this misguided mentality. Here is an article in the BBC:

risks of cousin marriage

By Justin Rowlatt
BBC Newsnight


Many people would find the idea of marrying a first cousin shocking, but such marriages are not unusual in some British communities.

CLICK HERE TO SEND US YOUR VIEWS ON THIS STORY



Watch the report
It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.

But there is a problem: marrying someone who is themselves a close family member carries a risk for children - a risk that lies within the code of life; within our genes.

Communities that practice cousin marriage experience higher levels of some very rare but very serious illnesses - illnesses known as recessive genetic disorders.

Open debate

Now, one Labour MP is calling for an end to the practice. ``We have to stop this tradition of first cousin marriages,`` Keighley MP Ann Cryer tells Newsnight.

Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related

Neila Butt
Mrs Cryer believes an open debate on the subject is needed because - despite the risks - cousin marriage remains very popular.

Mrs Cryer`s constituency is in the Bradford area, where the rates of cousin marriage are well above the national average. It is estimated that three out of four marriages within Bradford`s Pakistani community are between first cousins.

The practice remains so popular because the community believes there are real benefits to marrying in the family. Many British Pakistanis celebrate cousin marriage because it is thought to generate more stable relationships.

Strong unions

Such unions are seen as strong, building as they do on already tight family networks.


``You have an understanding,`` explains Neila Butt, who married her first cousin, Farooq, nine years ago.

``Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related,`` she says.

``You have the same family history and when you talk about the old times either here or in Pakistan you know who you are talking about. It`s just a nicer emotional feel.``

But the statistics for recessive genetic illness in cousin marriages make sobering reading.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

Variant genes

Recessive genetic disorders are caused by variant genes. There are hundreds of different recessive genetic disorders, many associated with severe disability and sometimes early death, and each caused by a different variant gene.

My skin is really fragile, and can blister very easily with a slight knock or tear

Myra Ali
We all have two copies of every gene. If you inherit one variant gene you will not fall ill.

If, however, a child inherits a copy of the same variant gene from each of its parents it will develop one of these illnesses.

The variant genes that cause genetic illness tend to be very rare. In the general population the likelihood of a couple having the same variant gene is a hundred to one.

In cousin marriages, if one partner has a variant gene the risk that the other has it too is far higher - more like one in eight.

Myra Ali has a very rare recessive genetic condition, known as Epidermolisis Bulosa.

Her parents were first cousins. So were her grandparents.

``My skin is really fragile, and can blister very easily with a slight knock or tear,`` she says.

Myra has strong views about the practice of cousin marriage as a result. ``I`m against it, because there`s a high risk of illness occurring``, she says.

Denial

We all have to get involved in persuading people to adopt a different lifestyle

Ann Cryer MP
According to Ann Cryer MP, whose Keighley constituency has a large Pakistani population, much of the Pakistani community is in denial about the problem.

She tells Newsnight that she believes it is time for an open debate on the subject: ``As we address problems of smoking, drinking, obesity, we say it`s a public health issue, and therefore we all have to get involved with it in persuading people to adopt a different lifestyle``, she says.

``I think the same should be applied to this problem in the Asian community. They must adopt a different lifestyle. They must look outside the family for husbands and wives for their young people.``

Re: # 72
dear zarrar....welcome to the creative dialogue ...you can send me your creations
welcome@drsohail.com
and can see my other creations on
www.drsohail.com
sincerely sohail

Dr. Sahib,

Glad to know there are other secular humanists in this world and particularly in this chowk community. Would love to read more of your stuff and share some of my own.

#62 by khurram,

Since you have the proven ability to decipher Dr. Sohail`s complex thought process, which I don`t, could you kindly advise me if my following reading of #47 is correct?

1) ... for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults.

It appears from the tone of this that Dr. Sohail is prepared to `condone` the practice but does not encourage it either as being fully natural.

2) ...what you are trying to prove is that secular humanists and atheists are immoral people and only religious people are moral people.

My question didn`t raise any issue of morality, but only of legality. However Dr. Sohail raises the morality question. Why? This is really confusing. To my mind the above statement asserts that secular humanists and atheists are as moral as religious people. But to meet that condition, wouldn`t it be necessary for both sets to regard brother/sister sexual relations as immoral? With the only difference being that the former group condones the practice while the latter group does not? Read together with (1) above, which reinforces this conclusion of the captioned statement, it would appear to be true.

But if the foregoing was true, then although it is clear that the religious people`s morality springs from scriptures, but it remains murky regarding from where the same morality of atheists/humanists comes from. But still, wouldn`t it be curious in that case that the both sets of moralities, irrespective of where these spring from, converge at this point?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

mailk, re. #66
Would it be fairer to say that you`ve presented a case against extened-family set-ups as opposed to cousin-marriages?

Or are the two tied up in some way? Please explain if so.
Thanks.

eastmwest #61

The promise and prospect of 72 houris waiting in Paradise, though a tad unfair to straight women and gay men, is in no way a inconsistent with a more prudish sex ethic for us while we`re earthboud. Islam recognizes, and rightly so, that for social stability, man cannot have his every wish fulfilled. Islam opposition to certain sex does not, like in Christianity, have an erotophobic basis. It is purely utilitarian: Sex is good; but not if it`s gonna upset the social apple cart.

That said, your exposing of Z`s hypocrisy in #60 is both valid and complete! Well done!!

nazarhayatkhan, malikjahanzeb

Wah, wah, two uncommon visitors blessed with uncommon, astute minds seen at the same board one after another. Only khalid sohail`s high-powered draw could make that happen :)

Daktar

As usual, you built up the logic systematically to reach the final cresendo. What you say makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Scripture & religion have proven to be quite a bit of nuisance when used by nit wits.

I wonder how those two brothers of Jama Hafsa would respond to your line of thinking?

Fatwa - behead - Murtid - suicide attack?

Poor Minister Nilofar who did a Paragliding jump has been fatwaad because an elderly person patted her!

I think the Hell is not yet to come - it is already here.

regards

NHK

#65 khurram,

This is what I would call `bending over backwards` to be a religious appologist. I can tell you my first hand experience that about 1 in 4 children have died in my father`s family who live in a large haveli usually marrying internally. And I not taling about a sample of 4 kids but about 20 of them. They see all this happenning but religious endorsement is so strong that they keep doing it.

Also, it looks like your experience of god not being a dellusion begs some explanation. Would you bless us with some?

Some perspective on cousin marriage.

From http://www.members.aol.com/ruqaiyyah/articles/index.htm
Scroll on the left to find ``Some Thoughts on Cousin Marriage``
It`s a LOOONG article! Some excerpts,

``In fact, throughout history moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, and not the exception, for humans. Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, concluded that it was likely that some 80 percent of all marriages throughout history have been between second-cousins or closer.``

``Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.``

``First-cousin marriage does not necessarily result in congenital defects. An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can actually produce exceptional children, and increase their strengths. A founding couple could pass on advantageous genes.``

``A team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counsellor at the University of Washington and the President of the National Society of Genetic Counsellors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage. The study determined that children of first cousins did face about a 2 to 3 per cent higher risk of birth defects, and a little over 4 per cent greater risk of early death, than the population at large. But putting it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin-marriages therefore makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.``

``The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what biologists call the founder effect. If the founding couple pass on a large number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. But whereas it is true that marriage among close kin can increase the chances of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual with dire consequences, the problem is not that of cousin-marriage per se, but rather how many such genes are floating around in that particular family’s pool. If the pool is pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin-marriage is low. If the founding couple hand down a comparatively healthy genome, their descendants could safely intermarry for generations - at least until small deleterious effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, the long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.``

``Any danger can these days be minimized easily with genetic testing. Science is increasingly able to help people look at their own choices more objectively. Genetic and metabolic tests can now screen for about 100 recessive disorders``

``It would be good practice to have a blood test before marriage``

Re: # 63

dear khurrum....i am impressed by your perceptions and enjoy your intelligence. to answer

your question honestly GOD IS A METAPHOR is my subjective truth. i also think that all

poems and stories and scriptures and folktales created by mystics and poets and prophets

were also their SUBJECTIVE TRUTHS.

as a poet and a writer all my truths are subjective truths. i asked you if you care to share

your encounter with GOD and then tell me whether it is a subjective or objective truth. i

will take it seriously even it is a subjective truth as i believe you are an honest person.

sincerely sohail

Re #39, drsohail,
``...i do not want to get into intellectual debate...``

As you wish :-)

But, one last question,

``...some truths are subjective while others are objective ..``

Is your statement, ``God is a metaphor`` an objective truth or subjective one?

Thanks

Re #58,
``...Besides isn`t it also okay for you to marry your niece..``

Nope. That is not allowed.

Re: # 59

Too funny comeing form a guy who believes Allah approves of sex with multiple virgins in hte afterlife and a prophet who promises young boys as beautiful as pearls...

It never ceases to amaze me of how oblivious people like you are to normal family values.

Re: # 57

So you would kick their butts huh? Most people would lynch a fiftysomething guy having sex or screwing a nine year old but it sounds good to you.

What don`t you shut up with your hypocritical moralizing. Most socieites thinks a family is ONE man and ONE woman not one man and an assortment of women he sleeps with. Yuck! But it is totally normal to you.

#55 by Folio

Pl treat that incident as an exception.

:) Same sex marriage began as an exception too. Now it is a socially accepted norm. This case is in the highest court in Germany. This will be a norm too in due course. Will you be happy with it?

I suppose the more sisters one has, the more they will support it ... all in the family ... you know .. :)

Re: # 56

To most people yes. But I am certain you have done worse. Just a hunch. First to always cast stones, judge others etc...

Besides to you screwing your sister should be no big deal to you. You never answered my post about first cousin marriages across generations that results in sibling like marraiges. Alot of these first cousins grow up like brother and sister and are genetically related like siblings. Yet because is is sanctioned in Islam it is okay. Make a family tree of it and show it to most people. They will want tp throw up. Besides isn`t it also okay for you to marry your niece? Most people/cultures globally would find that abhorrent but again coz its santioned by Islam it is okay for you. What`s you next beef? Lemme guess Pedophilia? Please we don`t have to go there do we...

#47 by drsohail,

...for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults...i am not a judge. nor a qazi. i do not represent law nor religion. i follow my own ethics and my conscience and let others follow their own conscience.

Thanks. I have my answer. So for you sex is a private matter in between two consenting adults even if they`re brother/sister, and I assume you would legalize it since you`re neither a judge nor a qazi nor do you not represent any law. So you support the brother/sister in their fight to have a licit sexual relationship because they`re following their own conscience.

Very good. You`ve been honest and I salute you for that.

ps....now you tell me what would you do with this couple who had incest?

It`s kind of strange you ask what I would do, after having said you do not represent any law nor religion and you follow your own ethics and your conscience. I would do the same.

So then we agree after all!

As to what I would exactly do, I would kick their butts for destroying the entire institution of family and marriage and kids to raise in a social set-up, and not in a set-up of monkeys and hyenas in a jungle. Wasn`t it you who had said that humans have `evolved`?

But I have my answer, and I thank you again for that. Thankfully, it wasn`t as esoteric as I had feared :)

:~)

#45 by eastmwest,

Screwing your own sister is a sexual impropriety?

Re: # 44

Zee,

I am not saying that all the 6 bio people are having it in a wrong way. If ur religious text didnt give a clear answer abt the multiplication of mankind from time of the first couple then make ur own conclusions.

Inbreeding is common in ancient times. Ur own ancestors (since u r not a descendent of Ganga Ram) i.e arabs did inbreed a lot. The literature of Hindu mytholgy didnt give detailed record of any incestous relations except that of the Yama and Yami (in the previous post I meant to say that Hindu religion is not far behind; `not` is missed in that post). Even in Old Testament there`s a ref to a daughter giving wine to her father and sleeping with him.

We in 21st century are all past those events....German couple is an exception. Pl treat that incident as an exception.

P.S: Instead of having fun with learned people here, why dont u go to Happy Valley, Stanley Village, Lantau Island or Macau?

Dr. Sohail, why are you even replying to zeemax - lol. Please read his other posts and you will know what and who he really is.

#52 truemind,
The bulk of the society`s (admittedly confused, shifting-rationale) opposition to intergenerational sex and even to sex between minors, is rooted at least ostensibly in concern for the protection of minors, who are deemed incapable of making reasonable and safe decisions the pleasurable use of their bodies.

The opposition, as it may be, to sibling sexual relationships is not characterized by similar concerns. The opposition is plainly irrational, and biology is only disingenuously invoked. See, if biological imperative, as understood, were to be the basis of our `body-politic`, homosexuality would have remained illegal for much longer than it did. After all, from a strictly biological standpoint (not anthropological, though) homosexualty would appear to offer no benefit to the survival of the species.

The fact is biology is not God anymore.

I feel that the answer to our sexual desires is answered in Darwin’s Natural (sexual) Selection. Our bodies are survival machines for our genes. In order for the genes to continue they have to move out of the host machine and a build a new one which is where sex comes into it. So sex is really a process for our genes to continue like that has in all of us. For those of us reading this our gene string ha never been broken from the being of life on this planet. Now that said there really has never been a rule as to what age sex should be permitted but incest yes since inter breeding has shown us the problems which evolve. Even most plants avoid it. Now society has religion and laws have created guidelines for us to live by and follow in order to build a functional society. We see in today’s world a clash of such laws and beliefs as to what the right age is and who with etc. Today societies put more pressure on humans which requires education and maturity that it makes sense to wait to later years for having children. In times when all there was to do was farm to survive for example maturity seemed to come at a younger age it seemed. Now with the need for better education and more wealth times adjust and conflict surfaces. Today with hormones in foods we eat are just one explanation for earlier development in children and attraction to the opposite sex can be notice in a draw to younger people. It is wrong naturally wrong to find a young person under the age of 16 attractive? not at all but in our society we have to understand the consequences of our actions and respect and act according to what is right for the society we live in.

if Adam and Eve story is to be believed, one of adam`s sons screwed one of his sisters ....so this whole humanity is nothing but paennchodaN da kabila.

God is a metador (that old wagon) that everyone wants to ride and take advantage of.

Dr Sohail,

Zeemax would probably suggest appropriate punishment would be stoning of them. He is a good Muslim and afterwords will enjoy deflowering his 72 virgins.


Dear Zeemax,

Just a reminder raping a kafir or slave girl is A-okay!

It`s jsut a matter of time before liberal democracies, taking the cue from South Asian societies, will legalize not only marriage between first cousins, disgusting as that seems to 95 percent of Westerners today, but also between siblings, which is disgusting to 99% today.

And ten years from now that will raise only as many eye-brows as gay unions and polygamy-in-Pakistan do today.

Learn to live with it like mature adults now!

Re: # 44

dear zeemax....you spelled it out....`i am just having fun`....you are insisting for a response.

what would i do if i find out that someone who is an adult is having sex with a sibling or a

parent. what would you do? put them in jail. stone them to death. penalize them and give

them 100 lashes.

for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults. i am not a judge. nor a qazi.

i do not represent law nor religion. i follow my own ethics and my conscience and let others

follow their own conscience. what that man and woman do is their business. i do not make

it mine. you seem to be interested in their sex life. and now insisting that i give a verdict

and a fatwa. what you are trying to prove is that secular humanists and atheists are

immoral people and only religious people are moral people. as a psychotherapist i know

that religion and ideology are poor reflections of personality and behaviour. religious

people as well as atheists can be moral or immoral people. i respect people who have

character and are sincere to their philosophy.

dear zeemax....you keep on insisting to get an answer from me so that you can have fun. i

hope you are happy now. i am amused by your persistence...sincerely sohail

ps....now you tell me what would you do with this couple who had incest?

Paul Tillich from Systematic Theology,

``projection always is projection on something--a wall, a screen, another being, another realm.... The realm against which the divine images are projected is not itself a projection. It is the experienced ultimacy of being and meaning. It is the realm of ultimate concern``

Re: # 44

Dr. Sohail is a learned man who makes valuable contributions to his community. He does not have time to interact with dimbulbs who have too much time on his hands and and is just biding his time on Earth till he goes to Jannat and frolicks with 72 virgins. In the meantime he must rail against sexual improrieties.

#43 by Folio

... how the mankind multiplied to over 6 billion people? ...

I don`t know. Do you know? If you do, and your obvious conclusion is that it must be through incest, then you support the couple. Right? But then, I thought you just said in your previous post that incest (even cousin marriage) results in retards. So by the same token, the entire six billion population must be all retards. No?

I think it`s better if you let Dr. Sohail answer the question. This question is not in your league (neither is it in his, but never mind). I`m just having fun ...... :~)

Re: # 37

////////////
#37 by zeemax on April 10, 2007 5:33am PT
.... #35 ....

Just a small clarification in case you start off on the wrong track:

The German brother/sister couple is fighting for the right to a sexual relationship and NOT the right to have children from that sexual relationship.

Now please respond.

Thanks.
////////////


I posted this question long back on some other board. Pl do respond Zeemax.

Allah/Jehovah/Jesus created this world and gave life to Adam and Eve. How they multiplied?? Any idea????

The ONLY plausible combinations are:

Adam`s children haveing `it` with with their parents OR the siblings having `it` among themselves.

Since u are not a Ganga Ram but descendent of a true Muslim u must answer as to how the mankind multiplied to over 6 billion people?

P.S: Hindu mythology is far behind! Yama and Yami (siblings) had incestious relation.

My opinion on Gemrany`s odd `couple`:

The case u r asking came into news becoz, it`s not a normal incident. Germany doesnt allow such relations by law.

This world is full of surprises. There are people with three hands, 11 fingers (Hritik Roshan), two heads & there are people who had no head i.e You.

#40 by GT ,

No no. They were married and registered as husband and wife. Then the Marriage Registry Clerk found out they were actually brother/sister and canceled their marriage license, due to anti-incest laws. Now they`re fighting to get that back to maintain a licit sexual relationship.

But Dr. Sohail will never respond. He doesn`t have an answer and everyone knows it ... :)

Re: # 32

Thank you for sharing a list of your gods. I think you misunderstood my question. It was in reference to the writer`s perspective. The writer has clarified that for me. No worries :)

Re: # 37

Zee:

I am a bit confused here. These guys are asking the courts for the RIGHT to have a sexual relationship? I never thought that you need the court`s permission to have sex! Now `marriage` could be a different matter as one may want to get it `certified` for reasons pertaining to taxes, childrens` education, punishments in the case of `infidelity`, bequests etc.

Re: # 38

dear khurrum....i enjoy reading your responses but i do not want to get into intellectual

debate. we agree on most things and disagree on some. i respect people`s truth based on

their own experiences and reasoning. some truths are subjective while others are objective

and can be experienced by others. i have not seen or experienced God. I had accepted him

as a blind faith. later on i realized that such blind faith was shared by millions of other

religious people. now i read holy books as part of the mythology and folklore. i was

fascinated when i read old testament and realized that how many stories of quran and old

testament were the same as they were all part of middle eastern mythology. when i

translated world folktales in urdu i saw the similarities in different cultures and realized

that before sciece, psychology and philosophy became popular people followed their

religious traditions and did not question or criticize as it was prohibited in their culture. i am

aware that you have come to different conclusions than mine. i am sharing my ideas and

my philosophy. some might agree with me, some might disagree and for some it might be

an inspiration to explore further. i am not here to convert anyone. i am here to share.

thank you once again for your keen interest in the article and a thoughtful response. my

main point is that we can read holy books as wisdom literature and not make them into

cook books and make laws in a theocratic state and then persecute others who do not

agree with our literal interpretations. people have the right to believe in whatever they wish

as long as they do not impose on others. for me God is a metaphor, if you have

experienced HIM / HER / It i would love to hear your encounters with GOD...sincerely sohail

drsohail,

Any comments on post #16?

.... #35 ....

Just a small clarification in case you start off on the wrong track:

The German brother/sister couple is fighting for the right to a sexual relationship and NOT the right to have children from that sexual relationship.

Now please respond.

Thanks.

wasif2,

Hehe .. what did you expect?

#26 by drsohail,

...especially when other interaters have answered your question more eloquently...

Hehe ... Dr. Sahib you`re a slippery fish. Which interactors have answered my question?

My question can only be answered in a simple yes or no. No further verbosity required.

Are you willing to answer it? Or guide me to the `other` interactor who has answered it?

oh sorry... i didnt notice. he (dr sohail) has indeed come bacak and chosen not to answer. what a shame !

#22 Zee

I think Dr Sohail is not answering because he hasnt come back to read the inter act yet. I am looking forward to his comment/reply, because I think it will be most entertainting. In the meanwhile.... may I say a word.

Why do all answers to the issue of incest relate to marriage and reproduction ? Can we simplify please ? Is there anything wrong with the sexual act itself ?.... assuming that no offsprings are produced and no disease is transmitted ?? As for myself, while I do not feel attracted to any of my brothers/sisters or parents etc (sexually) I dont have a problem with others having that attraction and consumating it......(i am not touching other issues, like free consent, adulthood since i think they remain constant whether its incest or not....but i am assuming we are talking about consenting adults).

Also, marriage between maternal cousins amongst muslims is ok...not so in certain christian sects... so even between religions this incest thing doesnt look like its of universal application....or agreement....

Re: # 27

Of the Sun:
Helios (Greco-Roman)
Mithras (Roman)
Ra (Egyptian)
Amaterasu (Japan)
Tonatiuh (Aztec)
et al.

Of the Moon:
Diana (Greco-Roman)
Artemis (Greek)
Coyolxauhqui (Aztec)
Khons (Egyptian)
Ix Chel (Maya)
Sin/Nanna (Sumerian)
et al.

Of Thunder:
Thor (Norse)
Raiden (Japanese)
Jupiter (Roman)
et al.

Of Kings or Rulers:
Alexander the Great (Greek)
Augustus Caesar (Roman)
Jehovah (Hebrew) ``our Elohim, King of the Universe``
Jesus (Greek) ``King of Kings``
Allah (Arabian) ``Malik (King)``
Stalin (Russian) ``Red God``
Kim Il-sung (Korean) ``In place of a god, Juche substitutes Kim Il Sung, who`s called North Korea`s ``Eternal President``...``
et al.

Are you sorry that you asked??

Re: # 30

Dr. Sohail - Is it proven that those who follow and die following their ancestors` religion or leanings are less content than those who find their own path?

Finding one`s own path is a huge undertaking in itself. Requires a lot of committment and drive. It`s not an easy investment for many worldly beings.

{i think time has come for people to question those ideologies and let their own hearts and minds guide them based on their own observations and experiences and reasoning rather than blindly following their ancestors.}

I partially agree with you. I have a very sweet old friend who did explore his own religion. He was raised by a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He came across a woman during his university years in California and started visiting her church. He felt more at peace in the church than what he was taught while growing up. He decided to change his path from one religion to another. He did not give up on the concept of God, but he was looking for peace and serenity that he expected religion to provide to his soul. He has three kids now. He is a very loving father, a kind man and a good husband. In this case, his exploratory journey steered him from one religion to another. He was still searching for the God he could connect with. His father was very upset with him for years, but being the fact that he was the only son and they lived on different continents he could not completely write his son off. My point is that one`s search may bring one back to God. I respect the journey since it`s a very personal thing, but I do not necessarily agree that it`s our fear or dream or desire that has created an illusion -- God. I believe it is in us to either accept the presence of a higher being or deny it. I am not a ritualistic being from any angle. I strongly believe in being the sponge to let the spirit soak in and soul embrace the concept. Keeping that in mind, I am not in concurrence with the concept of illusion. I am not trying to conduct a literal interpretation of a ``metaphorical`` concept. You may have referred to illusion in a methaphoric sense.

You have discussed the miracles of Jesus and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I am surprised you did not include Moses and Solomon (my favorites). King Solomon had everything in life one could ever imagine, desire and pray for. He never denied the presence of a supreme being. In fact, some of the stories from his times can easily make one fall in love with myths, folk tales, human goodness, blessed hearts, wisdom, and character.

The concept of God is a very personal thing. I agree that as we mature and evolve that concept has a different significance for each of us on an individual level. I am not sure if it`s a blonde moment or I guess I have not yet been there where parallels are easily drawn between a concept and an illusion of this level.

Re: # 29

dear zahraj...i am a student of human psychology. it is my impression that children are

conditioned by their families and schools and communities and are asked to have blind faith

in certain traditions. as adults they have the choice to question those beliefs. unfortunately

most people not only accept the faith of their parents but also die on those faiths. i think

time has come for people to question those ideologies and let their own hearts and minds

guide them based on their own observations and experiences and reasoning rather than

blindly following their ancestors. that is the beginning of enlightenment and wisdom. such

wisdom not only leads to freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.....

sincerely sohail

Over here, I find ourselves confined in the mind space. What about the contact of that mind with the heart to create a connection ? It seems that we are living on a planet where we only function based on our mind`s leanings. I did not say that I disagree with that direction, but I am curious to learn why our hearts are disengaged in the process.

Re: # 27

dear zahraj...God is a metaphor for human fears and desires and dreams....projected on to

self created image of unknown mystery ....sincerely sohail

Dr. Sohail -

So, God is a metaphor for what ?

Re: # 22
dear zeemax....you like winning arguments and i do not mind losing.

if i have nothing important to say i act on my grandmother`s advice

ik chup tay sau sukh

especially when other interaters have answered your question more eloquently

than i can answer. so sorry to disappoint you

all the best in your search for truth..... sincerely sohail

If god ever ever turned out to be anything like the muslim allah..I will personally punch that bizzatch right in the mouth..

now that the obvious has been stated for Masadi and Peemax`s consumption, you do bring an interesting point dr. Sahib...that is the inability for adults to get over Allah ala the tooth fairy. I think the reason is that tooth fairy was a loving entity..she left a dollar for each tooth and her governance over her domain was universally applied. She rules with love. allah on the otherhand rules with fear and exclusion. ``Verily those that equate him with monkeys should be beheaded`` etc etc... If allah ever stopped being a petulant little biyatch, maybe she would get the same love from all that the tooth fairy gets.

chall yaar ohday ton sunn laiN jawaab...par toon mann`na phir vi nai.:) jatt wali aRhi.

#20 by farzanahassan

Its been a while since we communicated.

Sure. For an interactor who joined on the 9th April 2007, it`s been a while since you communicated with Mr. Gill. Right....

Another gillster nick? We can do without that.

#21 by dullabhatti,

Yeah yeah ok. I wonder why so many people are answering on Dr. Sohail`s behalf. Why doesn`t he answer it himself? Too tough a question?

Why so many `khwajey dey gwah duddoo`?

Yes, it is a very tough question. But Dr. Sohail just won an award, didn`t he? So he should be able to answer it convincingly.

#18 zeemax, I read somewhere about this german couple that most of their children were born with special needs and sick. even if half of children or even 25% of children from such relationships are born retarded or sick, society does not need religion to decide that it is not good practice. any relationship that produces such a large pecentage of sick offspring will get outcasted, outlawed or become a social stigma. Its is commonsense.

BTW there was an 1 hour 20/20 show on this subject few weeks ago. there was a mother who had given up his son at birth and met him after 20 years or so when he was grown up. she was sexually attracted to her. other cases were similar to this German case. The conclusion was that close relations when grown up away from each other and not meeting for years, can feel a sexual attraction to each otherwhen they finally meet and live with each other.....particularly when they don`t have any other close relations alive.

Dear Mohammad Gill....choicest greetings! Its been a while since we communicated. I hope you are faring well.

You are probably not aware that there is as yet an unresolved and quite vicious death threat against me and the charge is none other than blasphemy. Furthermore, people are slaughtered by fanatics almost daily in countries like Iraq and Pakistan if they are perceived as following the ``wrong`` brand of Islam.

Any way, that`s not why I am writing. I read Sohail`s article with interest. The notion or belief in God however, is not going away because of the fear-mongerring around the concept. Reducing God to a metaphor in my opinion will not serve the purpose, though it may defintely convince a few enlightened souls! What God might do to people in a hearafter is what drives these fears. Maybe Sohail shoud write another article to address some of these irrational fears.

Re: # 17

Actually first cousins who are raised together like brother and sister and are themselves progeny of first cousin marriages are just as incestous to most people in the world and extremely distrubing. Just because YOU are ok with it and your culture/religion sanctions it doesn`t mean its is healthy or rational or desirable for societies to choose marraige partners solely from their immediate family members.

#13 by GT,

See my post below. I`m not talking about Endogamy. Endogamy is about marrying within a social group, like Parsis, or Ismailis. No problem with that. I`m talking about marrying your own sister here. According to wikipedia, T``he caste-system of India is based on an order of (mostly) endogamous groups.``

This question is highly disturbing for secularists, not me as another interactor has alleged. I know it is wrong. Why it is so disturbing to secularists is that if moral values are determined by evolving societies, and not by religion, as has been the case in legitimization of same-sex marriage in order to preserve human rights and liberties of a lifestyle choice in a practice which is socially acceptable, then by the same token why outlaw brother/sister marriage? After all, if this German couple wins the case (which I think they will because they`re fighting it on the same grounds as same-sex marriage), then it will become socially acceptable.

My question to Dr. Sohail is whether he supports the couple`s struggle? If he does, why? If he doesn`t, why not?

I`m awaiting an answer.

#14

I`m talking about real brother and sister from the same mother and father, not cousins. Cousins is not incestuous.

God is NOT a metaphor.

But, we can only talk about God metaphorically. We think of God as a Supreme Being - a being with extreme supernatural powers. That supreme being is a metaphor (or a symbol).
But beyond the symbol there is a Reality that is being pointed to by the symbol. That `God beyond God` is not a metaphor.
A person who takes the symbol literally would think that there is actually a person with God-like powers in some corner of the sky. That would be a mistake. But you are making the opposite mistake - denying the reality behind (or beyond) the metaphor.

As Ghalib said,
Parey Sarhad-e-Idrak say hai apna masjood
Qiblay ko ahl-e-nazar Qibla-numa kehtay hain

Hi Dr. Sohail,
I loved this essay. I disagree with one thing you said. You mentioned that Hazrat Mohommad was using metaphors and people took those things literally. In my opinion, he was being literal. I think when he spoke of fire and maidens in heaven these were not metaphors. Even back then the Arabs were into excellent poetry and literature. So I think they could make the distinction between metaphors and literal claims. People dont die for metaphorical statements. They die to gain actual eatable rewards like honey and grapes and things they can feel like cool breezes and gorgous companions. But I whole heartedly agree with you that to fall for such claims is not the act of a bright man.

Re: # 6

Zeemaz your arguement is patently absurd. As a physician I can assure you that the societies where incestous marital bonds are most rampant and the genetic consequences most deleterious are in Islamic societies. Here is a link on consanguinity:

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003130.html

The preponderance of first cousin marriages in the Muslim world is astonishing. I know you might think this is vastly different from this brother and sister but you fail to understand the these first cousins are often themselves the product of first cousin marriages. It doesn`t take a scientific genius to figure out that after a 2-3 generations it is akin to marrying your brother or sister which is precisely what happens in many Muslims societies. The phenomenally higher rate of recessive inherited disorders among such communities is well documented. Recently the British Health Minister appealed to the Pakistani community in England who comprise 3.4% of all births but ~30% of all inherited recessive disorders to basically stop marrying their relatives. Saudi Arabia is a goldmine for pathologists for the same reason. What has not been well studied is the effect of all this inbreeding on intelligence but I can assure you it has been speculated although not publicly argued the the often poorer academic performance of Muslim communities compared to other Asian and Europeans might be attributed to this. In spite of ample evidence showcasing the genetic problems associated with consaguinous marriages there is little public advocacy for reform in Muslim communities. Partly this stems from the fact that it is sanctioned in the Quran. I wonder if you are equally disturbed by this phenomena which is real, prevalent and not one anecdotal case from Germany. What you featured is not the ``norm`` what I am describing is.

Re: # 6

Zee:

Though your question is directed to Sohail, do let me hypothesize that non-endogamous groups evolved at the expense of endogamous groups. So it may have had very little to do with religion. Moreover, following Sohails thesis, some people realized this and codified it in their religions.

Sohail:

Essentially, people find it difficult to deal with uncertainty. Much more difficult is the issue of unawareness. Bayesians have dealt with uncertainty in a way that most people will be uncomfortable with. For example, subjective probabilities are defined in a state space which is KNOWN. Even when probabilities are replaced with non additive measures, the state space is KNOWN. And this is the best that mainstream mathematics has been able to do (all these works are based on the foundations developed by Kolmogorov). My point is that uncertainty and unawareness as people perceive them is difficult to model in mainstream logical systems. So the gap, if you allow me to use the word, is usually filled in by beliefs which transcend logic. These beliefs could be those of a Believer, atheiest or an agnostic. Since these beliefs have to be formulated they could indeed be based on languages. And languages, as far as I know, are not confined to the bounds imposed by logic. Thus, I agree with you. However, I disagree that these and only these beliefs drive people to war and violence. Without perceived economic gains there would be few wars. But many would disagree with me. And it is from this set of people that the fodder of war is drawn, often in the name of some of the BELIEFS that I talked about earlier.

God, metaphor or not, has been the focus of attention of mankind since ancient times. The more objectively one thinks about God, the more he starts believing that it indeed is a metaphor created by human imagination.

The center-piece in Newsweek (April 9, 2007) is about God. It includes a piece captioned “The God Debate” between the Christian pastor Rick Warren and the atheist Sam Harris who is the author of “The End of Faith.”

Homer wrote, “All men need God,” (ca 800BC). And Plato wrote, “A certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of gods,” (ca 400BC). We have Homers and Platos in our societies but thank God (pun intended) no one is put to death for blasphemy these days. In Pakistan and in some other Muslim countries, some blasphemers were sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out on any case.

To a question from the mediator, Warren replied, “If you’re asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don’t. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used.” He also said, “..there are clues to God. I talk to God everyday. He talks to me.” Warren however did not specify if this dialogue between him and Him is literal or metaphorical. Does God speak to him in English?

There will always be believers and non-believers. The important thing is that they should be able to converse with each other peacefully.

Going by our recent history, it appears that our religious beliefs will give way to and accommodate our scientific discoveries. The number of Galileos will increase with time.

Mohammad Gill

Dr. Sohail
Another good contribution. You are right in saying that its pointless when an atheist and a believer argue against or in favor of God. To me statements like these are meaningless, for which there is no way of proving either right or wrong. This is the view held by the school of logical positivists, like A.J.Ayer and to a large extent by Russell as well.
Obviously one cannot apply the ``theory of correspondence`` to verify the existence of God. Even the ``theory of coherence`` cannot help us understand the concept of a personal God. Science fails us as well for there is no way of knowing, what happened before the singularity as all know laws of physics breaks down.

In spite of all the above discussed problems, I think an atheist and a believer are quite similar as neither can come up with a way to verify there respective positions. Therefore I think the only reasonable alternative is being as agnostic and keep searching for the truth
Regards

Brampton. Canada

Prathab, it`s a matter of faith. Even non-believers get into situations that warrant them praying for miracles sometimes.

People fight, negotiate, form ideological groupings for one reason or another. If not for god then for race, if not for race then for culture, if not for culture then for money, if not for money then for women; or something else. That`s in our blood. It`s like an animal instinct. May be that`s what it means to be a human afteral.

As for belief in god, god may be a metaphor for imaginary or material things around us but it`s also true that until we uncover all the secrets of universe we will always attribute the unknowns to the god or some divine power.

I always have abhored the concept of religion, inspite of my fanatically religious upbringing.

Some questions continue to intrigue me :

Why is that we continue to brainwash our children, that too systematically, into believing in God, whether we may or may not believe in it ourselves?

How is it that even if we `grew up` enough to stop believing in ghosts, we do trust in God?

Why is that the western countries, supposedly `pure and godless`, continues to finance conversions in poorer countries like Africa and India?

How do we trust in religion, (which claims to be pro-peace) when it has been proven time and again to be more violent than any political organisation? (whether or not the church disowns Hitler)

When lies told for the sake of religion are so blatant, ( Mother Therasas miracles for eg.,), we still continue to trust in the church`s miracles?

How could we end up in this believing mess?

Have we lost our sense of rationality, or has it been robbed from us?

Re: # 5,

This is a poem by alberto caeiro/fernando pessoa.

Samar

Dr. Sohail,

... when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth ... cultural evolution ... understand scriptures as folklore ... not as divine revelations ... mythology ... can differentiate facts from fiction, there might be more wisdom and peace ....

This is a serious question, and I really hope you will answer it despite my past transgressions, your being an acknowledged humanist for which I congratulated you.

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

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

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