This interview was conducted by Aljazeera and is worth watching. It was circulated to affiliates by e-mail and has already received some comments on the video. Please see comments in the comment area and make your own comments. Link to video,click below;
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2012/12/2012121791038231381.html
a real analytical thinker who actually respects the other person’s opinions and refrains from name calling others. we need more of you on the TF. i am a little tired of participants who go into a lecturing mode, pretending to be lecturing dumb students and comparing people with different opinions to some insect. thanks noor sahib for maintaining decorum.
The Dawkins program was a debate between proponents of two strongly held points of view where each makes strong points but not enough to convince the other. Dawkins used the cause and effect objective approach of science to proclaim his atheistic beliefs to express his disbelief in pre-ordination whether divine or by intelligent design. The interviewer held out his theosophical beliefs and the long human desire to believe through the intangibles of faith to fill in the voids that are not fully addressed by science. It is an update of the contentions that have concerned mankind through the ages. Organized religions, originally polytheistic and later monotheistic, have captivated humans through their messages of divinely ordained mission and purpose. Religion is a tool that has been used to both advance human purpose and conflict. The belief systems have been advanced by cadres of true believers for whom there is no room for doubt. The greater bulk accept the faiths they are born into. Faith in faith is seldom fixed and is usually based upon a variety of personal and social factors and the state of flux. The range of theosophical thinking is quite remarkable. Science is providing us profound insights into the workings of life. Objectively stated, the earth is but a miniscule in the infinite space/ time continuum. Yet we still cling to the centrality of our planetary existence and our overwhelming need and rationale for a sense of purpose still finds solace in religion.
this is in response to wequar sahib’s comments a few days ago. i have copied/pasted it for reference:
“Since the concept of God’s existence has been assumed by the equivalent of Queen Bee among men and conveyed as a reality to equivalent of regular Bees among men, it has been followed as a Belief/Faith by men equivalent to the regular bees, for generations. The process involved regimented indoctrination, dogmatic persuasion and ritualistic training by parents, clan, community, clergy etc., until the regular bees were in completely induced conviction.”
i am assuming that the prophets are compared to queen bees and people following their religions as worker bees(headless creatures whose sole purpose for existence is to serve the queen). fair enough!
what i would like to find out is what does an atheist do with his/her children? does he/she give the child a choice at age 5-8 years to choose between belief in god or be atheistic? or do the parents instill the same beliefs the parents hold? i am assuming the latter; and if so, does that make children of atheists worker bees too(headless creatures…)? because they too are now subjected to “regimented indoctrination, dogmatic persuasion”(of course there is no ritualistic training b/c there are no rituals; and certainly clan and clergy are not involved). i would personally not characterize them that way; all parents instill in their children their own values and you grow up believing in those values to a large extent. some of us do switch from their religion of birth to another religion or to atheism, which is fine. but because you switched does not make that person any brighter than persons who carry on their parents’ beliefs, or call the latter by seemingly pejorative analogies.
i would request anybody who responds to STAY ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT. should followers of religion be characterized as “worker bees” and if so, should children of atheists and their subsequent progeny be characterized as the same?
I think after an excellent commentary on the interview by Dr. Nasik Elahi, there is no room for further discussion on this subject.
Comment by mr. wequar azeem
The analogy of queen bee and worker bee was made to high-light one specific aspect of human behavior. A worker bee does mindless following of the queen bee.
When a person follows any Faith mindlessly, without questioning its various aspects to determine whether there is any logic, justification, rationale in it, it shows that the person has been conditioned not to use critical thinking. Case in point is Islam ; the first and foremost condition of “Eemaan” is that it should be accepted “Bila heel o hujjat”. In plain words, ‘don’t probe’, critical thinking not allowed!
Atheists use critical thinking, and because of that they are atheist. They teach their children to probe, question, verify, find logic, empirical proof, and that is how they raise atheists. Atheists do not raise worker bees.
comment by shoeb amin
this is assuming all people born into different religions are a monolithic group who accept everything they are taught. i agree the majority do (and muslims in general – i think – are more monlithic) but quite a few agonize about and question their beliefs. mother teresa supposedly agonized over her beliefs. people like you, who were born to be a “worker bee” are no longer one.
and you may not realize it now, 10 generations from now, your progeny will accept their beliefs, that you have instilled in your children, just the way “worker bees” do now. not all of them will grow up and wonder what beliefs to choose (some may be will). time will tell.
a) God is believed to transcend the matter and energy; it is, therefore, a notion, open to mental efforts to clarify, understand and elaborate, but not verifiable in any rational manner. It is subject to believe or not to believe. But whether you this way or that, all the realities of the world and life in it remain unaffected.
b) Passing from God to the religion, you come across a never ending chain of believes, although its proponents claim a lot of simplicity.
c) Evolution, minute details apart, is an observed fact in every compartment of life ever since we know or imagine about the existence.
d) Morality is without the least doubt the backbone of every religion, and there is a great lot of it common to every religion. But the basic morality ‘do with and think for the other what you expect him to do and think for you’ defends on no religious premises; it can easily form the starting point of all the best human thought and action.
e) The best hope for the humanity and life in any form resides today in UN principles that have, of course, to be continuously improved upon, extended and complemented where needed. It provides us the secure base that all human beings can adopt without religious, ethnic or any other controversies
msz Chaghtai.
This comment is by Noor Salik. February 9, 2013
Normally we read a comment and comment on the comment if we feel like. We do not have to know the intellectual details of the writer.
The comment speaks for itself. Just by reading the comment we can determine the intellectual dimensions of the writer up to certain extent.
In this situation, I will take an exception and say a few words about the writer of this comment: Professor MSZ Chaghtai
I know very little about Prof. Chaghtai. I met him once in the graduation party of Saljuk, grandson of Salahuddin M. Sarwar Ali Sahib.
Prof. MSZ Chaghtai was a professor of Theoretical Physics in Aligarh University (India). His son Assad Chughtai is a professor of some Physical Sciences in Temple university in USA.
Having said that let us start with the comment.
Dr. Chghtai Sr. Entered 5 points (a to e) in his comments.
I will attempt to comment on the comments in various attempts.
Before I make a comment, I have to understand the comment.
If my understanding is not clear, there are two possibilities:
(a) my personal intellectual level is not up there where I can see the point clearly and understand it.
(b) second possibility is that the statement needs further elaboration for an average person to understand.
In either case I should understand the point first and then I should comment on it.
Let me start with basics.
Prof. Chaghtai listed 5 points.
(a) In this point Professor talks about God (Philosophy & Theology)
(b) Here professor moves from God to Religion (Theology)
(c) Evolution. (Science)
(d) Morality. (Philosophy & Theology)
(e) United Nations (Politics)
All these points are extremely complex, hence they are intellectually challenging, therefore, they belong to the intellectual realm of TF USA.
So we should discuss these points at deeper as well as advanced level.
Dr. Chaghtai started with most complex concept “God” and using a descending order of complexity ended with United Nations.
First I thank Dr. SMZ Chaghtai for these comments.
I am sure and confident that other affiliates will participate in this discussion so that other affiliates are enlightened by the intellectual insights of the people with higher intellectual achievements.
I am entering these few lines just to initiate the process.
Most of the affiliates will not know that these comments came from Prof. Chaghtai until they logon to http://www.thinkersforumusablog.org and see the comments by themselves.
I will forward these comments to everybody to start the process.
Let me have a brief comment on point (e).
Prof. Chaghtai has mentioned UN charter/constitution as a guiding principle/document for present day living beings (including Muslims).
Some of the Muslim may claim Qur’an as complete and comprehensive documents for eternity.
What do you think?
More later on, it is just the beginning.
NSalik.
I can not agree more with the comments of msz Chaghtai, particularly those under para ‘e’.
The worker bee variety of Believers are those who never indulge in serious contemplation about the rationale or reason or validity of why they continue to repose their belief in the religion inherited at birth. If there were no stigma attached or violent opposition likely upon giving up of a religion or creed either in favor of another major Belief System, or none at all, many worker bees will no longer be blind followers. Its the passive condoning of adherence to unverifiable beliefs by the vast majority that sustains such religions.
The fear of Takfiris illustrates the inherent absurdity of religion: aggregating so much control and power in the hands of a few clerics. It’s obscene and morally reprehensible to allow a disproportional share of the control of destiny to the arbitrary whims of a few quirky Mullahs.
The Thinkers among the ‘ Muslims by birth ‘ should not fight shy to be vocal in expressing their disbelief in the irrational and unverifiable foundation of Faith. [The notion that “Resistance is Futile” exhumes a sense of despair and hopelessness which leads to inaction and cynical view, very difficult to distinguish from apathy. This, precisely, is the Learned Helplessness paradigm for Depressive Disorder, a malady among most Thinkers labelled as Believers. I beg to differ. Only few conscious and commited rather die in futile struggle than surrender or succumb to despair. That is zombification process through Intellectual poison.]
Noor Salik February 10, 2013
Let me take Prof. Chaghtai’s point (a)
(a) God is believed to transcend the matter and energy; it is, therefore, a notion, open to mental efforts to clarify, understand and elaborate, but not verifiable in any rational manner. It is subject to believe or not to believe. But whether you this way or that, all the realities of the world and life in it remain unaffected.
First I will ask Prof. Chaghtai how he defines God?
He is referring to monotheistic God, polytheistic god/gods, personal God, anthropomorphic God, pantheistic God or any other form of God
We need some specific reference and definition what we are talking about.
The rest of the point is interesting as well as intriguing.
Prof. Chaghtai is saying God is a notion open to mental efforts to clarify, understand and elaborate, but not verifiable in any rational manner.
The question arises, according to Prof. God is a real entity, God is just a concept or God is just a notion which is the creation of human mind because of some existential and psychological reasons.
We need to clarify this point.
In the same sentence Prof. is saying: God’s notion is open to mental effort, but not verifiable in any rational manner.
This statement must be challenged whether notion of God is not verifiable in any rational manner.
If the notion of God is not verifiable, then is it mandatory to believe in that notion or it is just optional and be left to the personal whims of individuals.
Prof. is saying clearly “It is subject to believe or not to believe”
The last sentence of point (a) is horrendously intriguing.
“But whether you this way or that, all the realities of the world and life in it remain unaffected”
This point needs a deeper reflection and intense critical analysis.
I sincerely invite other TF USA affiliates like Salahuddin M. Sarwar Ali, Nisar Kidwai, Mehfooz-ur-Rehman,
Mirza Iqbal Ashraf, Wequar Azeem, Mian Aslam, Mian Vaqar Ahmad, Babar Mustafa, Hassan Mujtaba, Tahir Qazi,
Prof. MSZ Chaghtai to participate in this discussion and enlighten other affiliates with their profound intellectual insights.
nSalik