Religion without Science is Blind

A Crazy Man:A blind without science and `religion` sight dog remains blind and hopeless all set to suicide.
A Character in Sholay: `` Yeh Socide kya hota hai bhai ??``
Another Character Explains: ``Jab angrez log marte hain to usey socide kehte hain !!!``

UrsTruly!!!!! I am still expecting a theological exposition on what is the ``PURE`` and ``CORRECT`` interpretation of the Qura`n and Hadith.

nasah

What I find most remarkable about Indic tradition is its concept of time and underlying evolutionary thinking. While there was no `theory` in the sense we currently use the word, but compared to simplistic linear views of the world held by many others, Indian and perhaps chinese thought came closest to what we believe today.

Then they mixed it up with the caste system!

dost-mittar,
You`re welcome! Thank you.

Maharana, nasah,

After these ancients discovered these enormous time-cycles, it was probably just one more step to conclude that the universe must be *much* older than its largest time-cycle.

Personally, I believe there was more than one Indian civilization...which went up and down (tide and ebb). There is simply far too much literature in Indian culture with mythical authors...for them to be recent creations (I mean post-Alexander).

The oldest Indian civilizations must have had intimate contact with babylon and egypt...both being so close.

Nasah # 41,

``now -- when you compare the Hindu sages talking in billions the age of universe -- and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sages describing the age of the universe of being of only 5 thousand years -- and the world created in 7 days! ........ one cannot help but say..... how pathetic the Judeo-Christian-Islamic `religious science` of God and Creation can get...:-) ``

My feelings exactly. Despite this fact we are culturally defensive as compared to the rest of the world. But perhaps as you put it
``....has turned out to be one of the most imprecise disorganized mish mash of Myths and Maths.......``

is perhaps responsible for our apathy towards our bizzare culture in this organization dominated science, religion and society of the modern world.

adios

nasah:
``yet our heritage mixed with -- the Charas and Bhang -- has turned out to be one of the most imprecise disorganized mish mash of Myths and Maths.......of wildly improbable gods and godesses -- in wildly improbable numbers.....performing wildly improbable feats of wildly improbable miracles ....in wildly improbable time and space...... ``

well said!
..and the tradition continues...some of the top mathematicians and scientists in India today are the disciples of miracle-maker Sai Baba.

Dost Mitter,

My knowledge in this regard is perfunctory at best. Ironman`s reply explains your question well.

Ironman,

Its strange that astrologers in india should account for preccission of earth`s axis in their planetary computations, but the calendar makers don`t do so. I`m not doubting the veracity of your explanation, rather wondering why...
Perhaps a science historian could dig some information on this.

I agree with you about people claiming modern scientific theories as their ancient heritage.

Adios

the prowess of ancient Hindu math -- you can see in the remotest villages in the most illiterate parts of India -- where few can read and write but almost everybody can calculate one and a half time(dheRaa) -- 2 and a half time(aRhiaa) -- on his fingers -- without pen and paper...

honestly speaking -- any community that could come up with the concept of ZERO, Decimal system and the FRACTION -- 3 thousand years ago -- can rightly claim to be the the intellectual giant of the world -- for all times to come -- as the true originator of the universal language of measurement and precision -- the language of mathematics --

yet our heritage mixed with -- the Charas and Bhang -- has turned out to be one of the most imprecise disorganized mish mash of Myths and Maths.......of wildly improbable gods and godesses -- in wildly improbable numbers.....performing wildly improbable feats of wildly improbable miracles ....in wildly improbable time and space......

.....perhaps another name for the Quantum world?

now -- when you compare the Hindu sages talking in billions the age of universe -- and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sages describing the age of the universe of being of only 5 thousand years -- and the world created in 7 days! ........ one cannot help but say..... how pathetic the Judeo-Christian-Islamic `religious science` of God and Creation can get...:-)

UrsTruly,

I think we are actually talking in different frames of reference. You want the issues back into the old sectarian frameworks whereas I am talking about how your discouraging hermenuetical interpretation in the name of ``biddah`` is a retrogressive step.
Your examples of eating with fork and knives etc. can be argued against by using some other premises from the same ``GIVENS``. The issue is that there are actually no ``GIVENS`` which can be considered as ``FUNDAMENTAL`` and others propositions as ``PERIPHERALS``.
A major part of the Quran refers to the conflicts of ``THAT`` time, which are basically references and not principles. They have to be read in a certain way and are meant for our instruction. One particular verse which has been put to increasing use recently to paint the Muslims as intolerant of the followers of other religions is `Take not the unbelievers as your friends,` today this has been turned into a principle. It is NOT a principle and was revealed in a certain CONTEXT. How can such a principle be for all times? In several verses, Allah has referred to the Ahlal Kitab - people of the Book - and given them a lot of importance. People who pick Quranic verses out of context have twisted the verse.
Getting back to the issue of interpretation, take for example the word ``hijab`` which means curtain. The law of hijab laid down in Surah Nur applies equally to men and women. `Lower your gaze and guard your modesty.` The Quran puts a lot of emphasis on dignity, elevating human beings, calling them the children of Adam and putting them above the rest of Allah`s creations. The Quranic injunction is not restricted to the dress code, it includes the way you talk, walk and how you conduct yourself in public space. The message is to be mindful of your human dignity.But it can also be interpreted literally in the manner the Talib mullahs do to put the women folk behind the confines of the four walls.
I have also seen people arguing against the Satanic Western Technologies by refusing even the food cooked with Gas Stoves. And mark my words, they were equally convinced as you are that their moral stance was justified by the ``GIVENS`` of Qura`n and hadith. Their logic and their arguments givens were equally impeccable.
your formula that ..
.``The main criteria for Muslim is to always check whether what he is doing is contradictory to Qura`n and Sunnah or not?``
is bound to justify one`s decision, no matter what your position is, by using appropriate interpretations of the texts as well as the ``GIVENS`` of the person`s historicity.
Now as far as I can understand, your Aristotelian methodology of deriving every moral principle as well as social legislation from the ``GIVENS`` of Quran and Hadith is doomed- If you do not understand why I say so- that is because every HERMENEUTICAL understanding is entrenched in the historical horizon or context of the interpreter that is supposed to be determined by his or her ``tradition``- the . I would suggest that you go through some of the issues on the hermeneutics of Islamic text in Abu Zaid`s thesis :
http://amalid.com/Islam/Abu_Zaid_study_of_the_Koran.htm.
as well as the issues on hermeneutics in the recent western philosophical texts like Gadamer`s ``Truth and Method`` in order to appreciate what I am driving at.

ironman#38:
That was brilliant. Thank you very much.

Maharana,

I agree with you about us being short-changed as far as ancient achivements go. What I was pointing to was that a lot of Indians tend to go overboard (eg. Subhash Kak saying that Indians knew the speed of light!!), which makes us lose credibility.

-- - - - - - - -

dost-mittar,

``The calendar, I believe, is lunar in character. And most dates on this calendar do not coincide with the christian calendar. Yet, there are certain dates in the year which do seem to coincide. For example, the first of baisakh is always on the 13th of April and the Panjabi festival of Lohri is always on 12/13 January. What is the mechanism through which these two calendars synchronise? How many months are there in the Indian calendar and do they add up to a year of 365 days and how?``


The Indian calendar is technically Luni-Solar (a little of both).

The Lunar month is about 29.5 days. So if you add 12 lunar months, you come up with 354 days. What happens to the remaining (365-354) = 11 days ?

The muslim calendar says `I don`t care`. If 12 lunar months are 354 days, then my year is 354 days. As a result, the muslim year is faster than the actual. Ramzan keeps moving up by 11 days each year.

The Indian calendar takes care of this by adopting a Solar month.
So days are Lunar (called tithi) , but months are Solar.

The sky (zodiac) is divided into 12 equal parts. When the sun leaves one part and enters another, one month is over and another starts. (This moving to new part is called `sankranti`). So the Indian year is well sychronised with the actual year, because it is Solar-based.

But still...how does one account for those 11 days??

The long answer will bore you with technical detail. Short answer is, by adding extra months every few years called `adhimasa` months.

One more point is that the Lunar day is not equal to the Solar day. Sometimes the same Solar day overlaps two Lunar days. The same technique is applied, but in a more complicated manner (some overlapping Lunar days are discarded).


- - - - - -

Now your other question.

An important issue is, where is the starting point in the sky from where you measure? Answer is `where the sun is during the spring equinox`. Thats the zero-reference point. Currrently as you know the spring equinox happens approx Mar. 21.
In olden times the equinox was much later (in April). The change (moving forward) of the equinox is due to the earth`s precession. It moves forward one degree in 70 years.

The current Indian calendar, unfortunately, has not been kept in sync with precession. So we still think Baisakh which is the spring equinox (or new year) to start on april 13, whereas it has already moved ahead to Mar. 21 (about 23 days ahead). We can back calculate that baisakh was correct in about 400 AD (about aryabhatta`s time).

Same is true for Lohri (winter solstice). This was in earlier times the peak of winter (sun has reached southernmost point and now starts moving northwards (called uttar-ayana).
In about 400 AD, Lohri was correct at Jan. 13. But today the solstice has moved ahead 23 days to Dec. 21. And we haven`t corrected for precession since 400 AD.

So...those Indian holidays that are Solar-based, will always fall on the same day each year (our calendar is in sync with the actual, but offset by 23 days).

Those holidays which are Lunar-based (ekadashi, etc)...will be different each year.

Hope that was useful.


cheers,

Maharana, Ironman:
Could you help me with a puzzle in my mind wrt the Hindu calendar. The calendar, I believe, is lunar in character. And most dates on this calendar do not coincide with the christian calendar. Yet, there are certain dates in the year which do seem to coincide. For example, the first of baisakh is always on the 13th of April and the Panjabi festival of Lohri is always on 12/13 January. What is the mechanism through which these two calendars synchronise? How many months are there in the Indian calendar and do they add up to a year of 365 days and how?

Ballukhan:

Most of your questions will answer themselves when you get clear on the concept of biddah, (also pronounced as biddat). There is one hadith where an inquirer is reported to have asked the same questions from Holy Prophet (pbuh). He asked of the criterion, which might help one chose the right path and differentiate between right and wrong. The Holy Prophet replied this man that you would never go astray as long as you stick to Qura`n and my Sunnah (i.e. the way I have lived).

As a matter of fact the life of Holy Prophet is a living example of the interpretation of Qura`n and primary source of guidance after Qura`n.

Now by definition, biddah is a new invention in addition to what Qura`n and Sunnah has prescribed for us. When we say that, we naturally come across the question whether every new invention is a biddah? This, I guess, is your question too. Lets take an example; Holy Prophet (pbuh) used to eat with his hands instead of using fork and knife. So the question is whether eating with fork and knife is biddah? We can find the answer to this question by examining how this effects our religion. First we check Qura`n and then Ahadith. We come across some general manners of eating but not the specific answer that either of two prevent us from eating with knife and fork. Do we get rewarded by Allah if we eat with hands and punished if we use forks? The answer is no. Which means that the way we eat has no bearing on our religion. So eating by forks is not a biddah. (Some ullema argue that if we start using knife and fork we will loose the tradition of Holy prophet (pbuh) eventually. However, my argument (and many others) is that the criteria to adopt a way is through Qura`n and Hadith and not the personal opinion of Ullema).

Now lets come to some real issues. One of the issues between Brelvi and Deobandis is also that of celebrating the birthday of Holy Prophet (pbuh). This custom started about 600 years ago. For 900+ years before that, Muslims did not feel a need to celebrate such an occasion. Superficially, it shouldn`t make much difference by dedicating a day in the memory of a person who changed the destination of humanity forever; and who came as a blessing for the whole humanity. If the matter would stay up to this point then it is acceptable. But when one starts considering it a religious obligation and starts preaching that the celebration of this birthday is a religious duty of each and every Muslim and those who celebrate are rewarded by Allah and those who don`t will be punished, then we have a problem. Because neither Qura`n nor Sunnah attest to this position. So here we have a new invention that has corrupted the religion. After a few generations a common man who is not well versed in religious injunctions and teachings will start considering it a part of religion and will be ready to die for it. Isn`t it what we see happening in our daily lives? Now this custom of celebrating Prophet`s birthday has been corrupted to the extent that those who celebrate make circles (tawaf) around the card-board figures of Ka`aba during these celebrations and think that they are being rewarded by God if not as much but close to it as if they had actually performed the Hajj. So the religion is corrupted.

By using this logic we can analyze almost every aspect of our lives. For example, Holy Prophet used to ride camels or horses; so is riding a car biddah?. The answer is simple that riding the car does not corrupt the religion and neither Qura`n nor sunnah prevents it. Similarly, we can argue on many things like using computers, performing surgical operations, and even forming a democratic government. The main criteria for Muslim is to always check whether what he is doing is contradictory to Qura`n and Sunnah or not? And believe me it is not an impossible demand. A Muslim is conditioned from the very childhood to analyze the matters through this criterion – whether it is reading labels at a grocery store or mortgaging a house.

On Discouraging Innovations and Hermenuetics in Islam:

UrsTruly,

I agree that for ``POLITICAL`` reasons uniformity or ``broad consensus`` over the principles of what is it that makes one MUSLIM may be important.
But is this what muslim world really needs? If we were to accept this then the obvious POLITICAL question will arise:
Who is going to enforce such concensus?
Who is going to take steps to discourage hermeneutics by calling it Biddah?
Are we going to have Talib guards caning or charging them with apostasy those who make different interpretations of even the ``PRINCIPLES``?
What quantum of penalty the ``Elders`` should prescribe for such sub-altern behaviour?

Infact, it is these issues which have been the fertile ground for Islamist politicians and mullahs to enter and scr*w up the lives of rest of the ummah. They are ready to PURIFY the ummah of the IMPURE interpretations and individuals.
Remember, this is what made the Talibs become the self proclaimed saviour of Islam who were professionally into the business of ``discouraging`` hermeneutics of Islam and calling innovative interpretations names like biddah. The day we start doing this we are doomed to live in the world of discourse created a thousand years ago for ever- our vocabularies would be frozen and so would be out intellects!!

``....And that is exactly the reason why we as Muslims should discourage even the slightest form of biddah even if it looks harmless and done with best of intentions, because it is so subjective and it has potential to turn malignant as the case of Quadianis have turned out to be.``

Ironman # 31,

I think it would be best to settle this issue if you actually looked up the calculations as mentioned in the translation i mentioned to you or sagan`s ``Cosmos``. I referred to the copy of ``cosmos`` I have again after your post. This is what roughly sagan says about the hindu theory on the age of the universe.
``Surely it must be a mere coincidence that ancient indians calucalted the age of the universe to be 14 billion years``.

You did not follow clearly when i mentioned that while christians go to ridiculous lengths to justify childish theories, indians on the other hand are hesitant to claim what is rightfully their heritage. I was trying to show you the contrast in two cultures. And No i`m not hoping that indians behave like these conservative christians. Rather, they learn to atleast assert confidently what is their contribution in any area.
As a small example, the vast majority of indians I know in academia do not know that trigonometric functions like ``Sine`` were first discovered by Aryabhatta. Its because of what people like you that the number system prevelant is called arabic numerals and not indian numerals. Atleast you can learn from the chinese, how they have been able to assert on their fair share of credit where due. There are many such exmaples, but then nations like germany care more about sanskrit literature then indians do.
In all of the above examples it is not my intention to go back to past and live life the ancient way. But, for heaven`s sake, give credit to people for what they have done, even if they are indians. And yes in the eyes of a common indian, such information will definitely have a positive affect upon their self-esteem.

``The only surprise here is that you don`t know this simple fact. A panchang is made using data *FROM* an almanac``.

If that was the case, I would not have bothered to post this statement. But obviously you did not care to reserach. A panchaang FORECASTS the position of planets based upon calculations. These calculations strangely take into account preccission of earth`s axis. Pick up a panchaang 100 years old (lot of folks have these but perhaps in tattered condition). And you will see that sun eneters a new zodiac every 15th o the month not 23rd as claimed in western world since 2000 years. Although 2000 years ago sun enterd every zodiac on the 23rd of every month, due to slow shifting of earth`s axis the dates now coincide with 15th/16th. An astronomical almanac differs with a panchaang only in about less than a degree for all the planets and sun. Incidentally, sawai mansingh of jaipur who built his jantar mantar (observatory) was perhaps the llast time indian astrologers looked up in the sky to actually measure the position of planets.

Adios

Urstruly,

Inter-sectarian fatwas of kuffr that I alluded to … are from scholars of your Islam … who cannot agree upon a definition of a Muslim … but agree that all those who disagree should be killed. I am not joking … this stuff has been documented in government-led inquiries in Pakistan in the 1950s. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Furthermore, if one goes by your definition of a Muslim, personalities like Shah Waliullah, Mohiyyuddin Ibn-e-Arabi, Jalal-ud-Din Room etc. become non-Muslims. They believed in coming of future prophets, and made that clear in their writings.

Quran supports continuation of prophethood. To support your views, you incorrectly quote ahadith (as I showed several times) … while ignoring numerous ahadith that negate your views.

Unanimity among scholars does not validate absurdities. Islam is not defined by scholars who also believe in a two-thousand year old prophet residing above clouds, the giant fire-breathing donkey, Issa raising the dead, Mohammad flying above clouds to meet with god at night, and similar absurdities.

Mainstream Islam has become a case of blind leading blind. Their decline over the past few centuries, punctuated by inter-sectarian violence, attests to this fact. Like I said … look in the rearview mirror before making bold claims. Recent history of Islam negates your claims.

SameerJB

I said ......Theory of Relativity has to do with it........not Einstein.......plus better read soem works of Stephan Hawkings....its not necessary that you can infer everything from express statements....!!!!!

Sattar

I do look into the back view mirror more often than you think. The reason for fatwas of Kufr, that you have pointed out, is none other but the differences on the matters of new inventions i.e. biddah in the religion and nothing else. Take for example: Brelvis and Deobandis: They agree on dogma that all other Muslims agree upon; they agree on doctrine i.e. both agree with Imam Abu Hanifa`s interpretation of the law to the hilt. But they disagree on new additions i.e. biddah that I`ve pointed out in my post below.

Now take the case of Shias and Sunnis: The original schism is because of a political reason and not because of a dogma or even doctrine. Imam Jafar Sadiq, the main shia jurist was a student of probably Imam Abu Hanifa, one of the four sunni Imams, and Imam Shafi`i one of the key Sunni jurist in turn was a student of Imam Jafar Sadiq. Even a cursory look at their juristic work confirms that their difference were only doctrinal and to the extent of interpretation of law. All the historical records show that Imam Jafar is as revered by sunnis as they rever their four imams.

But the case of Quadianis wrt the Muslims is different: Quadianis invented a dogma that goes against the very core of the set of beleifs that makes one Muslim. That is exactly the reason, despite all the fatwas of Kuffar, from hardliners in each Muslim sect against the other, there is never a consensus (i.e. Ijma`a, which is necessary condition that turns ijtehad into a law) even with in those sects that the others are Kaffir. However, Quadianis are considered non-Muslims by each and every sect and Ummat (nation) has an Ijama`a on that and this consensus expresses itself in laws.

There is a mountain of difference between the two. And that is exactly the reason why we as Muslims should discourage even the slightest form of biddah even if it looks harmless and done with best of intentions, because it is so subjective and it has potential to turn malignant as the case of Quadianis have turned out to be.

Maharana,

The day of brahma (4.32 billion years) is what most scholars agree as the hindu age of the universe. The day is followed by the night of brahma when nothing exists (as brahma is sleeping, having absorbed all matter into himself).

This day-night cycle repeats till Brahma is 100 years old. So the entire life of Brahma is 311040 Billion years. Surely you`re not going to quote this ridiculous figure as the hindu age of the universe?!

Now I`m sure you didn`t earlier know what I`m going to tell you next:

Most hindu astronomical books mention the current age of brahma as 50 years (!)

- - - - -

I didn`t quite follow your second point. You seemed to say that the christians are going to ridiculous lengths to justify their bible...therefore we should do the same with ours (did I understand you correctly)?

Observe this board. Quite a few muslims on this board (hamidm, nasah, ballukhan, sattar, etc) are challenging islamic heresys...do you see a single hindu doing that with his religion?

- - - - -

``Another indian scientific nugget you might not know is a popularly available panchaang with an astrologer. Try to compare the positon of planets in panchaang with actual almanac and the western astrological almanac. You`ll be in for a big surprise.``

The only surprise here is that you don`t know this simple fact. A panchang is made using data *FROM* an almanac.

A panchang is simply a pictoral record of the planetary positions at a given instant of time. These positions may be calculated...but astrologers prefer to get it from an almanac.


cheers,

One should leave it to our internet mullah … Urstruly … to present a lovey-dovey picture of today’s Islam. There is dogma … then there is doctrine … and there is love everywhere. He assigns to “dogma” what he fancies … and calls it kosher. Well … so do others … and the result is fanaticism and unmitigated violence in the ranks of believers. He ignores the barrage of inter-sectarian fatwas of kuffr … issued against each and every sect by unwavering scholars … where arguably those who dissent are to be killed. A small of dose of reality may be a good idea for our budding genius here. Sahib, do look in the rear-view mirror every now and then ...

Ironman # 21,

Relax and look up the number 4.32 billion years again in the puraan. One day in the life of brahma is equivalent to 4.32 billion earth years. One day of brahma is not the age of the universe.
For an actual numerical calculation please read Stephen Cohen`s translation of Bhagvad Puraan which comes close to 14 billion years. Carl sagan confirms the same in his book.

I don`t believe that ancient indians were the greatest scientists or were a bunch of know-alls. Whatever their methods of reaching the conclusions, todays physcisists marvel at their insights. People in india have a tendency to either downplay their own country`s contribution or exaggerate it beyond belief. I guess there`s nothing wrong to openly admit the facts even if they favour your culture.
Try to look at the christians in the US and their crusade against evolution or any other scientific theory. These include well read people who go to unimaginable lengths to justify creation by bible. We belong to the other extreme, where people are defensive to even admit that some guys in ancient india speculated the age of the universe to be roughly 14 billion years. Can you imagine what the world would be if bible had the same creation theory as bhagvad puraan?

Another indian scientific nugget you might not know is a popularly available panchaang with an astrologer. Try to compare the positon of planets in panchaang with actual almanac and the western astrological almanac. You`ll be in for a big surprise.

Adios

re#22

``but what i don`t understand is why did god have to speak in long-winded parables and riddles ?............ why couldn`t he just come out and say the you shouldn`t eat bacon because it can cause trichinosis, and you shouldn`t drink because it can cause cirrhosis of the liver?............ (HAMIDM)

what a great question hamidm!

may be because the Evolving God of the Evolving Universe -- DID NOT KNOW -- 5 thousand years ago -- that along with his beloved creation the PIG -- he had UNKOWINGLY CREATED -- a species of parasite worm called Trichinella that ALSO loved to live in pig muscles....

-- yet the GOD of the YORE could see thru HIS well developed instinctive RIGHT BRAIN of the time -- that HIS Creations -- the pot belly pigs and the pot belly cachectic men who ate them over a gallon of fermented grapes juice -- had some SINFUL realtionship going on between them that definitely should be TABOO.....for the health of HIS -- `CHOSEN PEOPLE`.......

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

Sameerjb

Under current circumstances, deobandi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for barelvis and vice versa, wahabi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for most except a group of bribed clergy by Saudis………

This statement is based on total ignorance about the principles of ijtehad and does not even represent the actual situation on the ground. However, it is true that the difference between the sects exist. It is imperative that first the nature of these differences should be understood before making such sweeping judgment. The differences among the sects can be classified into two broad categories:

1. Dogmatic

2. Doctrinal.

It is also imperative that the hierarchy of these two categories should be understood first. The origin of these two categories, however, is based on the interpretation of the religious tenets. The dogmatic differences are not that great in any sect. All sects believe in the seven basic beliefs of Islamic dogma e.g. Oneness of God, God being absolute, Qura`n being His message along with Torah, Bible, Psalm and some lost (un-named) scriptures to previous prophets, finality of the Prophet-hood of Mohammad (pbuh), angels, and the end of the days etc. A belief in these tenets is what makes one Muslim. In the matter of dogma the ijtehad is not allowed. For example, we are not allowed to sit down and come up with a reason to prove that there are actually two gods or there is none.

Then there is this category, which falls under doctrinal classification. The doctrinal principles are the result of the interpretation of those instructions from divinity that directly deals with social and personal life of human beings. Ijtehad is only allowed in this category; which means that you are allowed to reason and justify and find best possible solution to implement the rules, ethics and principles, which originate from the interpretation of such dogmatic tenets. The difference of opinion in such matters is called ``a blessing`` by the Holy prophet; because it is that difference of opinion that helps societies and their laws to evolve. It was that difference of opinion that gave the world the `science of jurisprudence`, which forms the backbone of any law. The five Imams - four of Sunnis and one of Shias - have opined differently on different matters based on their interpretation. All of their interpretations are valid since they are qualified by both Qura`n and Hadith; which is the qualifying criteria for any doctrinal issue. There is no serious, life threatening differences among Muslims in this regard either.

But then there is this third category of differences, which I deliberately did not include among the above two. The Arabic name for this category is Biddah, which literally translates into ``the new additions``. These ``new additions`` can further be divided into two categories:

1. Biddah i.e. new additions in dogma (which is not supported by neither Qura`n nor Hadith)
2. and new additions in doctrine, which do not qualify through Qura`n and Ahadith but considered so just because some ``Shiekh Sahib`` said so.

One example of the first category of Biddah is that of the one of the Brelvi belief that body of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was ``Nuri`` i.e. made up of light as opposed to ordinary human beings who are made up of flesh and bones – this issue is one of the bones of contention with Deobandis who believe that Prophet was made up of flesh and bones just like any other human being, however, he was undoubtedly an exceptional human being. The second example is that of the concept of ``Wali or Imam`` in shia doctrine, which is the main bone of contention with Sunnis.

The example of the doctrinal ``new additions`` is that of integrating local social customs with religious doctrine and considering them part of religion when actually they are not. For example, the Qura`n Khawani at the death of a person, or celebration of the birthday of Prophet. From religious point of view these rituals sound and look very pretty but they are actually ``new additions`` to the religion, which cannot be proven through Qura`n and Ahadith.

This category of differences is ``life-threatening`` because origin of these differences is not in religious dogma but its origin is in the ego – the ego of the sheikh sahib who invented this dogma and the ego of his followers who blindly follow him. For such people the message from Allah is very clear:

As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did. AL-ANAAM (The cattle) 6:159

#16, Inquirer:

A little preamble is necessary before elaborating on what you ask for.

AFAIK, the Hindus believe there are three ways to approach God and attain salvation.

For the multitude, the preferred way is the ``bhakti-marg`` (the path of devotion) meaning an unquestioning faith in God, and letting every conscious act be in His name and devoted to Him. Any inconsistencies in the matter of faith and the observable universe are explained away as ``maya`` or illusion, and any logical problems are attributed to the unknown and unknowable nature of God. By totally accepting one`s inability to comprehend God and His ways, one becomes free to live happily. Though easy to follow, not every follower of this approach is expected to attain salvation, because one inevitably fails in being totally faithful. A few saints are said to have attained salvation that way.

The second approach is the ``karma-kand`` which consists of conscientiously following the dictates of your ``dharma`` i.e. the duties prescribed for you by virtue of your birth. One may not even think of doing anything against what has been prescribed. Here the focus is on duty and action, and living in a certain prescribed manner as a part of the society. This way of life may include certain aspects common to the bhakti-marg, but the focus is on one`s Dharma and not primarily on devotion to God. This path is also necessarily slow as one must go through the ``snakes and ladders`` like cycles of birth and death across some 8.4 million species, all hierarchically ordered, before escaping the cycles of life and death. And remember, any faulty karma will almost always push you down by one or more rungs of the ladder to salvation. As an example of the Karma-Kand path to salvation, performing a hundred ashva-medha yadnyas (ritualist horse sacrifice to be performed at the end of a conquest of the world) would make a king eligible to replace Indra, the King of Gods in heaven.

The third, and potentally the quickest (!) path is the ``Dnyana-Marg`` or the path of pursuit of knowledge. There are layers and layers of knowledge, and the brain must see through the illusions (Maya) all around us and aim to acquire the ``Brahma-Dnyana``, i.e. the Ultimate and Total Knowldge, which is supposed to be the exclusive privilege of Divinity. Possession of that knowledge makes you effectively become one with Brahman.

Interpreting it mythologically, it can mean that by achieving Brahma-Dnyana, you get to be on par with Gods in Heaven, and therefore they have a vested interest in keeping you from attaining that ultimate knowledge. The concept of Brahma-Dnyana therefore has a romantic appeal to intellectually inclined Hindus. Many a male child has been named Nachiketa by Hindu parents, putting a heavy burden on the poor baby right from birth. ;)

The original, mythical Nachiketa is a brilliant young Brahmin boy, who sets out to attain the Brahma-Dnyana, and is made to go from pillar to post and suffer all kinds of pain and trouble. He eventually accosts Yama-Dharma, the Lord of Death, who is also entrusted with safeguarding the Brahma-Dnyana. Yama-Dharma refuses at first, but Nachiketa engages Him in a intellectual debate and convinces Him of his eligibility to receive the Ultimate Knowledge.

The story of course does not give any clue about any aspect of the Brahma-Dnyana, nor does it tell what Nachiketa did with it. But actually the idea that there can be such a Brahma-Dnyana, is fascinating in itself.

Apart from Brahma-Dnyana, the Gods are also said to be stingy about some other items that humans have always longed for. The mortals are required to die at prescribed times, and Yama-Dharma is duty-bound not to make any exceptions to the time table. As a corrollary, no mortal may be granted immortality either, even when Lord Shiva Himslef has been propitiated through pennance.

But there are always legendary exceptions to such prohibitory orders in Hindu mythology.

Thus does Savitri trap the Lord of Death in his own words, and wins back the life of her dead husband for a long duration. There is also the story of Kacha, who is killed a number of times, but brought back to life through a life giving knowhow, jealously guarded by a Guru of the demons.

Quite a few of such stories are retold in a rather interesting way in the serialized novel ``Wanderings in the Twilight Zone`` that was published on Chowk a few months back.

Somewhat boring mystical question/answer/counter-question cycles are found in the Upanishads, that try to unravel the mysteries of the physical world. One of them (I forget which one) consists of the Guru asking the disciple to break a grain in to progressively smaller pieces and asking what does the disciple see inside. This session leads the dialogue into a philosophical realm, and can be considered to be an attempt to bring science and philosophy together.

Wish I could give you more references, but that would take some looking up.

- E

Allegoric Interpretation of Religious Language

Guys!!!Let us get to the point.

We require this not because religious allegories contain great truths, mystical stuff which common man does not comprehend.

We need it to throw out the professional mullahs, professional jehadis qnd mujahideens who want to kill for following some propositions of the Quran and Hadith in its ``true`` and ``literal`` spirit.

We need it because we want to give political space to other interpretations so that there is no monopolist of ``THE`` religious truth who wants to enslave us with their ``PURE`` and ``TRUE`` interpretation of Quran and HAdith.

This step would dilute the power of the mullahs and the create space for other discourses of freedom amongst the Ummah.

............. i am all for allegorical interpretation of the scriptures and any other argument that will absolve the poor pigs and make wine halal......... but what i don`t understand is why did god have to speak in long-winded parables and riddles ?............ why couldn`t he just come out and say the you shouldn`t eat bacon because it can cause trichinosis, and you shouldn`t drink because it can cause schrossis of the liver?............ what was all this allegorical nonsense about casting evil spirits into swine and then driving them into the sea?......... what is all that about ?............ and if lazarus wasn`t really dead, don`t you think it was rather dishonest of god and his son to pretend that he was? ........and how do you explain a virgin birth - today, if mary walked into the emergency room complaining of a ``sudden`` pregnency, they would kick her and her little lamb out the door!............or was he just being allegorical?........... and why did he have to invent gabriel instead of simply giving the message to one of daughter`s - lat or uzza?.............. allegorical daughters or allegorical winged angel?

......... seeing that it is ramadhan and all that, i don`t want to be blasphemous but i do smell an allegorical rat!.......

Allegorical interpretation of Islam is impossible. Islam lacks organization heirarchy in spiritual matters which is a necessity for any interpretation other than literal. In Christianity, before reformation, Catholic church was an organization whose interpretations were systematically adopted by the masses through the network of churches. Therefore only certain sects like Ismailies, bohras, ahmedis, druze, alavites and to some ectent shias can do it for their own sects and in fact most of them have done allegorical interpretations of various aspects of historical Islam. The prerequsite of majority sunni ijtehad requires sunni religious institutional heirarchy, which is only possible under the aegies of politically unified Muslim world like it once existed in the form of Ummayyids, Abbsids and Otomans - Khilafat.

Under current circumstances, deobandi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for barelvis and vice versa, wahabi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for most except a group of bribed clergy by Saudis. A Pakistani ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for Indian or Afghan and so on. Therefore a wide gulf exists between bringing Islam and science together to complement each other. Other problem is that religions do not like to be treated as junior partners despite a world totally dependent on science. They like to be the elder and dominant partner despite being losers every minute around the world. The religions face defeat left and right daily in modern life in which rational understanding and logic is totally in control without bothering to consider the beliefs part.

Science is hardly concerned from the fallout from religions but religions are trembling under the pressure from science based modern societies. It is religious people who write books and express need to bring science and religion closer, yet they refuse to surrender the worst and unscientific part of the faith in the form of belief in universal god. I do not know about Mohammed Gill`s personal faith but in general such writer would be extremely pleased if god is accepted by the science or existence of god is proven by science. They wish to pull science towards their beliefs and science accepting their blah blah because Einstein once said something like ``science is lame without religion``.

Basically religions have to accept/ surrender to science unconditionally, sign blank paper and let science do what it has been doing to make us better understand the nature and universe. I really do not understand the demand of religions to be treated superior or minimum equal in a world where they contribute nothing to generating wealth, economy, electronics, mechanics, computers, information tech, communications, physics, life sciences, transportation, production, banking etc. They are only service providers in few aspects of social life and yet want to be treated equally with science. They are really worth no more than equal status on negotiating table with some sanitation worker`s union in New York.

This article and the topic of ``religion and science`` defies the commonly acceptable status of religion as personal. Science is not personal and once such questions of bringing religion and science closer are raised, they raise the level of religion from personal to collective. Again authors of this and similar articles imply that religion has some place in modern world beyond personal set of beliefs and practices. The western societies have already made religion a matter of personal choice by separating state and church. Once it is personal, religion is not at the same wavelength in importance as science. The overlap is not needed and, in fact, avoided.

The statement like ``religion and science are the two faces of the same coin`` is both absurd and false. It is false because religion has already been relegated to personal and private whereas science is just the opposite. That day will never come when electricity will be considered personal and private matter and then the conflict between two personal matters would be resolved. Do whatever you want in personal life, but public life must remain on scientific basis .

#17 by Maharana,

``...then Bhagvad puran, in its very first chapter calculates the age of universe as approximately 13.86 billion years. You could confirm this in carl sagan`s book``


Maharana saab, some of us who happen to own a copy of the Bhagavad Purana have no need to refer Carl Sagan. (You can own it too...only Rs. 150 for both volumes I & II, from Gita Press, Gorakhpur).

There`s nothing in the first chapter. In the third, the total life span of the universe is given as 4.32 billion years...not 13.86, which is a modern scientific estimate.

Still, even this 4.32 billion appears very impressive.
After all, the earth`s age has been found to be 4.5 billion years.

But after you research a little more...it appears less than impressive.

- - - - - - - - -

To the ancient hindus, the earth was the center of the universe covered by the twins bowls of the sky. This was the cosmic-egg, brahma-egg or brahma-anda or brahmanda.

Inside this cosmic egg, there were objects (planets, moon) that revolved around the central earth in a regular fashion. To the great credit of these ancient scientists, they measured the motions of these objects very very accurately.

They found that taking into account all the motions (revolution around the earth, precession, etc)...these objects would all come in a perfect line once in 4.32 billion years and that, they theorized, would be cataclysmic for the brahma-egg.

So...a wrong idea by chance gives an impressive looking result.

- - - - - - - - - -

Maharana saab, there are many Indians who stretch a truth a little. Unfortunately, these are easily found out...and the WHOLE thing becomes a laughing stock, especially to the western man.

This is most unfortunate...because, just what we genuinely have is impressive enough.

By unwarranted `stretching` you make us lose that.

As I understand it, religion and science do not contradict each other. Rather, they complement each other. It seems that problems arise mainly when allegorical references in scripture (say Quran) are interpreted literally.

As I recall, there is a reference in Quran to the “wing of kindness” of Prophet Mohammad. Now, it may be a matter of time before a believer is heard screaming … ureka … Mohammad had wings … which explains his flight to the seventh cloud with gabriel where he met with god. The other option is to understand this reference in the light of metaphors of Arabic language.

In anther place … there is a reference where unbelievers are likened to pigs and apes (I think). I once came across an unflinching believer … who argued that flesh of pig is forbidden … since pigs were once human … and were turned into swine due to disobedience to Mohammad. My whole life flashed before my eyes in one instant. For a moment I could not tell if he was messing with my head or what. I still wonder at times.

Now, Quran does make passing references to principles of water cycle, motion of planets, formation of fetus in a womb etc. The idea is not to replace books on physics and biology with Quran. These references are made to emphasize Unity of Source of all creation … and harmony in nature … where material and forces are created for benefit of mankind. No oceans were parted for Moses, Solomon did not speak to birds, Jesus did not raise the dead, Mohammad did not fly to heavens to met his favorite deity. Physics works today like it has for billions of years. No room for magic or fairy-tales here.

Allegoric Interpretation of Religious Language::

Guys, Listen to what Gill is saying!!!

````Religion can benefit if such conflicts are resolved peacefully through ALLEGORIC INTERPRETATION of the Scriptural text which might appear to conflict with rational and empirical facts. Such a resolution was proposed early in the history of Islam by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi (801-873 CE). His idea of allegorical interpretation was further worked upon by al-Farabi (870-950 CE) and formalized by Ibn Rushd (1128-1198 CE). Ibn Rushd’s proposed method was called the doctrine of double truth. ````

I am in complete agreement with Gill`s analyses and his suggestion. This is what is actually required in Islam now- ijtihad. Further, whenever there is a conflict between the Scientific Materialism and the propositions of any religious texts attempts should be made to save the propositions through allegoric interporetation of such propositions. In this way you will shoot down the literal interpreters or Mullahs and Pharsis- I heard a hilarious lecture by a maulavi on metaphysical reasons regarding what one should do in case one happens to break air during namaz. The stories about satan, hooris, heavens, hell, retribution by the god have to be interpreted allegorically. So should the stories about final day, journey after life and god revealing to the prophets. Infact, the best interpretation of the supposedly metaphysical beings and entities has been done by the sufi thought by connecting these stories to the maqams in one`s spiritual quest.
In this way you can save Islam from the mullahs and Talibs.

#14, Essensauer:
I agree with your interpretation of Einstein`s statement. My statement in #13, about the sharing of brain by rational as well as faith based thinking is similar to your faith in superior reasoning power.

Would love to know more from you about your ``parting thought.`` Could you provide some refernces/further elaboration?

Mohammed Gill,

Both religion and science as defined by the western world will remain incompatible. Religion claims to know it, while science claims to seeek it. Never the twain shall meet.
Its a classic case of open vs. closed system in such societies.
Where religion has developed with the same motivation as that of science, there is a harmonious synergy between the two.
Einstein along with heisenberg, schroedinger, bohr etc. leaned heavily towards eastern thoughts after unravelling major theories of their own. They often quoted from upanishads, avatamska sutra and taoist literature to explain the same scintific phenomenon they helped explain using their theories. Not that these books were authored by people who claimed to be God, but by those who considered seeking and knowing truth originally as the highest ideal. Quite the same ideal as a scientists`. Would you agree?

When einstein mentioned about science being lame without religion he probably was talking about what nasah has mentioned ``ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion``.
Remember, his theory was the basis for atomic bomb which took the lives of thousands. I`m sure he realized that his knowledge of science needed to be used ethically.

Oh and your statement “Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth`` needs a little correction. If you consider hinduism a religion, then Bhagvad puran, in its very first chapter calculates the age of universe as approximately 13.86 billion years. You could confirm this in carl sagan`s book ``Cosmos``.

Adios

Science and religion are not two faces of the same coin. Religion was an attempt by older man to make sense of happenings around him. Depending on the founder, different religions took on different personalities or `interpretations`. Science on the other hand is not dependent on revelation rather on inspiration, insight and dedication. Having faith in a singularity is not the same thing as having faith in Gabriel.

Much seems to be made about what Einstein thought of religion or who Stephen Hawking`s favorite saint is? I wonder how many take sartorial or speech lessons from either.

later
-sac

Gill:
****``It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other. ``****
Einstein lived at times when it was still not safe to come out openly against the traditional centers of power in religion, hence he had to bring the weekness of science also. This is the source of your problems. Christian and other religious Churches would have issued FATWA aginst him. You are free to elicit from his statement that the belief in theoretical divinity was needed to have faith in human mind. This so because the religious conceptions also reposed in human brain. The conception of God and Science both share brain , not any other organ of human body.

****``When religion is viewed in this broad sense, it can be said that religion without science is blind because progressive scientific developments can broaden the religious perspective and make it more relevant to humankind. ``****
If by blind you mean that one is unable to sense the direction of benefit, then religion is blind for all except its owners and for them it is indeed a very successful tool for material benefit and power over other humans obligated to follow their diktats.

****``Nevertheless, these kinds of conflicts can be resolved if it is accepted that portions of the revealed scriptures are embodied in allegorical language which need not be read and understood literally. ``****
Yes, I agree that is a good compromise for gradual deemphasis of the irrational in human thinking. But do not forget God and its radiance, religion, serve a very useful purpose of escaping the personal responsibilities for one`s own knowing or unknowing failures. This leads to easing of life. Definitely, if you can shift the burdens of failures on amorphous conceptions like God`s Will, Luck, and past life actions the life becomes easier to accept.

****``But this doesn’t mean that describing his beloved as a rose is not telling the world a lot about what he thinks about her, and what she is like, and what love is like,” (6). ``****
This is simple the use of accepted conceptions. Nobody`s beloved is a rose, but by using the word rose we invoke an imagery of shapeliness, fragrance and thorns and every beloved invokes those imageries. So the wisdom lies in not putting too much importance on the analogy.

****``It appears that the western world has reached a kind of rapprochement between religion and science. ``****
I agree with you but a very important precondition for this low population density of European countries. We already find that as the world is getting overloaded with human mass the individuals - particularly inconvenient ones to the powers of the society - will become easily dispensable. In that condition use of religion to kill off humans is a good tool. That overloading always existed in Asia and Africa.

****``Such a resolution was proposed early in the history of Islam by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi (801-873 CE). His idea of allegorical interpretation was further worked upon by al-Farabi (870-950 CE) and formalized by Ibn Rushd (1128-1198 CE). Ibn Rushd’s proposed method was called the doctrine of double truth. ``****
I look forward to more information on these subjects from you.

****``Islam seems to have become static. `` ``No attempt was allowed to resolve such conflicts through reinterpretation of the scriptural text. The inevitable result was that nobody undertook to develop the rational and physical sciences. ``****
The first need is to revise Q`uran. One can always use the pretext of corruption by the later interpretters. Secondly, like all other major religions of the World Islam has to publically denounce - thus far followed - violent streak. It is common knowledge that use of sword in teaching and expansion of Islam is not only practically allowed but scripturally declared to be essential. When this fanatical-terroristic tendency is abandoned by Muslims Science will automatically develop.

****``It is the need of modern times to resolve the conflicting issues peacefully through appropriate interpretation of the allegorical scriptures. That is the only way that religion can use science and rational thought positively for its own revitalization. ``****
I cannot agree more.

``Science without religion is lame`` - Einstein.

Let us try and build upon the literal interpretation of ``lame``ness, be a little loose in interpeting the word ``religion``, and see where it leads us in the context of scintific pursuit, which is essentially a quest for the comprehension of the universe.

Lameness results in impeded progress, if not stagnancy. Perhaps Einstein`s statement implies that an absence of faith in a ``superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe``, would obstruct and limit such a quest. Such a belief would be essential for generations of scientists to sustain that quest.

``If you don`t know where you are going, any road will take you there`` (source unknown).

In other words, a direction is essential to make progress. Nor can you sustain the effort to progress in any given direction, if you do not have faith in the direction you are trying to follow.

An unwavering faith in there being a explainable rationale behind it all, which the scientists share, provides a direction to their quest and allows them to make concrete progress. That faith is why they have been making continuous additions to our storehouse of knowledge. It is that faith which has caused scientists to carry on research; propose, reject, and build upon theories over millenia; and has resulted in making a sustained, net progress on behalf of humanity.

The concept of ``Singularity`` that Hawking`s book mentions would not have been arrived at without such an implicit, shared belief guiding scientific effortacross history; nor could the possibility of a unifying theory be imaginable in the absence of such a faith. In a way, the concept of the Singularity by extension, logially points to the possibility of the unifying theory, an indirect endorsement of the faith in a supreme rationality that Einstein mentions.

Perhaps Einstein was not making an original statement here, he may have been merely acknowledging that the community of scientists is bonded by a certain kind of faith.

But perhaps he also meant that it is not enough to pursue the ``what`` and the ``how`` of the Universe as scientists limit themselves to, but also the ``why`` of it, as the theologicians seem to focus on. To truely comprehend the Universe, it is important to know the what and the how, as well as the why: i.e. to make science and theology compliment each other.

A parting thought. Different religions speak about the concept of ``Ultimate Truth``, the Hindu mythology speaks about the ``Brahma-Dnyana`` so jealously guarded from the mortals by the Gods. Would they be speaking about the complete comprehension of the Universe that Einstein is asking for?

- E

[ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...]

I agree with you nasah #3. Moreover science does not need religion to define such ethics, they are common sense, humanism and mostly adopted voluntarily by the science. There are more than a million scientists in the world. Most of them do not succumb to criminally producing mind altering narcotics, which are real easy to make and world could be flooded with drugs within days, despite the huge financial gain in doing it. The scientific ethics are better than even catholic priest regarding sex and light year ahead of muslim clergy.

malyk:

I disagree with turning Einstein into the first and last prophet of relationship between science and religion. He never wrote a single paper about it except few politiclly correct statements of his time. Stephen Hawkins is totally non-commital to any organized religion and ritualism and does not accept existence of god. Since his interests do not lie in disproving it, he usually does not say it like many famed chemists and biologists that god does not exist. As I said in the previous post: if the finer details of various compnonents of science such as atomic physics, chemistry and biology do not need god or religion to unsdersatand them, the sum total of all these components (science) does not need them either.

You know your information right. Thanks

#7, Mantolives:
`Science without religion is lame`

There is nothing to explain. It is a meaningless statement. Amply PROOVED by last two hundred years` achievements of Science.

Allama Iqbal said the same thing but slightly differently:

achcha hay keh dil ke saath rahe passban-e-aqal
magr kabhi usko tanha bhi choR day.

Congratulations, Gill. This the subject near to my heart. I will get to you.

sameerjb,

Agreed... I too will like some one to please explain this statement : `Science without religion is lame`

-YLH

tehmed 32 # 2

(Thus seen, science and religion are two sides of the same coin, the one that is known, the other that is unknown. And the more that is known, the greater our awareness of how much is unknown. We may one day know infinitely much, and that day we will realize that we know infinitely little)

Completely agree & very well put.

(incidently, whenever I think of that Pathan driver`s interpretation of Gay March, I can not help bursting into a laughter)

I am sorry Mr SameerJB but I dont agree with your first point. Have you really read Einstein`s Theory of Relativity? If you have read than it must be some scientific perspective. The relevance of time and space to our existance is something like relavance of rose petals to insects. We all see insects coming and getting attracted by flower but only few of us know that the flower petals are a way to attract the insects to become carrier for theri reproduction. So is case for Einstein`s TOR. I would recommend you to read some stuff from Stephan Hawkings that will broaden your horizon. `A Brief History of Time` is recommended.

Plus science cant exist without religious beliefs. So cant religion be understood without science. The stand juxtapose to each other and complement each other. Try reading Karen Armstrong`s great classic ``The Hisotry of God``.

These two books are `not finality` but these will surely resolve a lot of questions in minds.

A thoughtful article, as we have come to expect from you Gill sahib. Einstein`s concept of religion is clearly very different from the mullah`s concept (or the secular desi sophisticate for that matter), and you point towards the difference when you say how he did not associate with any religion in particular. The mullah (or the average desi sophisticate`s) concept of religion is basically superstition. God is not impressed by the number of times you repeat his name, or if you fling yourself into the ganges, or you dress up as pope. These are all superstitions, not religions.
Thus seen, science and religion are two sides of the same coin, the one that is known, the other that is unknown. And the more that is known, the greater our awareness of how much is unknown. We may one day know infinitely much, and that day we will realize that we know infinitely little.

``Deliberating on spirituality and religion, Einstein (1) asserted, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other.``(M Gill)

``It is hard to understand this assertion.`` -- and I agree with you 100% -- Einstein`s assertion was sheer nonsense -- neither need the other -- yet both obstruct each others visions... ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...

good article

``Deliberating on spirituality and religion, Einstein (1) asserted, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other.``(M Gill)

``It is hard to understand this assertion.`` -- and I agree with you 100% -- Einstein`s assertion was sheer nonsense -- neither need the other -- yet both obstruct each others visions... ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...

good article

Mohammed Gill:

You have been acidly trying to make a case for bringing science and relifion closer to each other but due to inherent flaws in the argument, it is not gelling. I see two major flaws in the foundations of this thesis.

1. Einstein was a great scientist but his words can not be taken as approval seal of sciences. He kew about photoelectric effect and relativity to maximum details at that time but he did not have knowledge to speak authoritatively on religion, god or raising chickens. Science is more like Hindu religion with no heirarchy, nobody on the top endowed with authority to speak on science behalf. We have previously discussed the belief of Einstein and it appears he separated religion from the question of existence of god. It is not incumbent upon scientific community to defend his views about god, religion or raising chickens. Any discussion of religion and science must include broad knowledge of laws of nature in physical and biological sciences instead of relying on Einstein, Ayala and few other scientists.

2. The discussion of science and religion is a separate topic than science and existence of god. While Einstein`s words are relevent to religion, they are irrelevent to god. The presence of supermost force as god has been in steap decline for more than two centuries now whereas religion declines are much slower. God needs scientific proof whereas religions can be proven by social and spiritual needs. God`s domain has been shrinking whereas domain of science is on the rise. A loser has little say to a winner in any form of negotiation except surrendering.

Many people sick of orhganized religions and ritualism have turned to deists - believing in god without practicing but many more have become agnostics - doubtful of belief in god. The shrinking domain of god has pushed deists to seek god more and more within human mind than outside with gurus like Deepak Chopra on the forefront. Removing god from the vast universe into human mind limited to earth is nothing short of unconditional surrender after major defeat at the hands of science.

Now the problem with theistic religion is to survice with much less god than before. The Judeo-Christian-Islam are strongly tied to god and it poses serious dilemma for them to accept lesser god in the presence of non-theistic Buddhism and semi-theistic Hinduism, Taoisma and other eastern folk religions. The gibberish nature of revelations made concept of god failing even without science. To call them allegorical is nothing more than defending with sand wall. A god was no god when he chose indirect communication instead of direct communication to each individual - given his powers - or in simple understandable languages with useful information.

The failure of concept of god is at the heart of science versus religion debate in the west. Otherwise, religion as set of morals popularly known as secular humanism has no problem with science.

Now what does, ``Science without religion is lame`` mean in practical terms? It is a bogus and useless statement. A person doing science in a lab is not doing lame things than the person doing same thing facing on next table Mecca and regularly praying in between. Science will work according to the natural laws without religion. A titration between acid and base at high school level is not lame in atheist China and meaningful in religious Pakistan. They are same. Here comes the priciple of microscopic reversibility. If individual components/ sub-experimetns of a larger experiment do not need relgion, the whole subject does not need it. Only a mulla can take pleasure in calling it lame because nothing else he can do or say to challenge it.