For science and knowledge

< It's snowing! | Brain food: Research Channel >

For science and knowledge

Today is being celebrated as Darwin Day - a celebration of science, humanity, knowledge and intellectual inquiry. I dedicate this post to the Darwin Day celebration efforts and make a firm stand for science and the quest for greater knowledge.

Maldives is increasingly becoming hostile to science, knowledge and free thought. I strongly believe that this undermines the very pillars of progress and enlightenment and would, or rather WILL and IS, sinking the country into a terrible period of ignorance. There already is nationwide hysteria and hostility towards many scientific principles and theories. Certain unchallengeable, unscientific, illogical "truths" about the world are being fiercely hammered into people through TV, radio, newspapers and magazines - all of which contribute towards a sense of authority and authenticity to the false message it delivers. The history of science in Maldives is nonexistent. How many science books/articles are there in our beloved language? How many programmes on our national television/radio cater to furthering a scientific, realistic understanding of the world around us? How much science does our national primary schooling curriculum contain? Who/what encourages free thought, understanding, experimentation and/or knowledge? The National Library, as per my last visit to the place, is an intellectually dry institution that joins the ranks of the media outlets in bolstering fantasy and fairytales with its utter lack of journals, magazines and academic books.

There is one thing in science that faces more hostility than all others put together: evolution. I was naive enough to assume that the evolution-creation debate that (re)sparked off in the US just several months ago would never manifest in the Maldives, for people seemed informed and seemed to accommodate the scientific explanation gladly. After all, much of the country have the privileges of watching educational programs on BBC, National Geographic and Discovery Channel and the likes right at their homes. Some even made jokes about how stupid the American creationists were. Sadly, things didn't remain such for long. The debate has made its emergence in the Maldives and so far, just like it always has been, is a one sided assault on evolution. It has been shot down as pure devil speak and has happily been made fun of in print and on the web. I challenge every and any Maldivian media outlet to talk of evolution fairly and scientifically in even a single article among the barrage of crap they spew so freely. The opposition to the entire concept of evolution has become so strong that even the young students that supposedly follow a modern syllabus are quick to bin this very cornerstone of modern biology as trash without a hint of grasping the beauty of this fundamental process that has shaped the world as we know it. People’s objections to Evolution all stem from a misunderstanding – a misunderstanding derived almost always from reading one of the many intentional misrepresentations from an author whose understanding of the matter is next to zilch. It’s as if people never read up and learn. The Wikipedia page titled Objections to Evolution contains all the popular objections people throw at it and explain it all concisely and with clarity.

Maldives has, as a consequence of giving up on scientific inquiry, let the supernatural world gain solid footing in the country. It has been accepted as a standard and an undeniable "fact". Fanditha, Jinn, Sihuru, Faalu belun etc is thriving as ever. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, psychosis are all treated as afflictions from "bad" jinn. Treatment is sought from self proclaimed exorcists and faith healers. Recent stories of the "miracle" kid from Thulhaadhoo curing people with inspired medicine has run amok and people are apparently flocking for cures. The kid waves Jinn and blessing from God as his ticket to the authenticity of his work. The article on Haveeru on the matter quotes a socially respected religious scholar who vouched for a "possible" validity of the kids doings - an act that certainly credits and bolsters the exploitation this kid and his family is carrying out in public. WTF!!!

I call for all science lovers, educators and the curious to read and read diverse. Get the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Get the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Get the Brief History of Time or Universe In a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking. Get Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman. Get How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. Pick up a book on Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics, Quantum Mechanics, Astronomy or even Dinosaurs... And most importantly, help the fellow countrymen/women understand the scientific knowledge that has driven the world so far and propelled humanity into stellar heights. The scientific method has helped humanity achieve so much ever since the very first beginning and there is no reason it can't do wonders for the stagnant Maldives as well...

Viva la science

This entry was posted by Jaa on Monday, February 12. 2007 at 15:15. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own blog.

Defined tags for this entry: science, skepticism, thoughts

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Simon says:

#1 2007-02-12 22:08 (Reply)

Amen to that!

Science will always be in conflict with religion and there is no doubt that scientific inquiry and the scientific method is the very engine that drives today's world. True, it has it's flaws and is not immune to critical analysis or counter reasoning but that is its very strength and beauty. It's true power is that science can only be logically and constructive attacked only by other scientific inquiries.

The influence of belief in the supernatural has always been part of our culture and tradition. We are more or less born to believe in those things and we do so instinctively. It has been that way for centuries.

I find it hard to believe that otherwise extremely intelligent people can suspend their critical faculties in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and still go on believing in demons and the supernatural. Of course it is who we are and it will take a long time to break free from that mental limbo.

I also recommend The Demon Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark by the scientist whose work has influenced my life more than anyone - Dr. Carl Sagan. Read it and start looking at he world differently.

Jaa. Thank you. Great post.

jaa says:

#1.1 2007-02-13 08:11 (Reply)

Thanks you Simon.

rilwan says:

#1.2 2007-07-18 19:32 (Reply)

"scientific method is the very engine that drives today's world"
you're wrong here simon.!! "science" is just your understanding or what you know.. what you don't know is "superstition". the engine that drives the world will go on without me or you, not to mention hawkins darwin rowlin or harry potter . You guys are lucky that you have or had access to to all darw-in hawk-in , dawk-in stuff and all the intellectual journals . us folk who didn't have the opportunity have one question to ask from you to escape from the ignorance which drives the engine of our world - that is do you guys know everything about your own selves..i mean small stuff like illnesses and sometimes the moods, psychology etc. not like you start an explanation and then it ends up in assumptions which we as well can do..? Im not asking much..am i? after all we are talking about the making of universe and everything ....isn't it more like me talking about what jaa can do with hacking and software and stuff? ..you see! after all im a human 'dhivehi' bieng like him i should be able to explain the less comlex stuff right? but i can't ..i don't know that stuff..seriously its easier for me to believe that my PDA was made by someone and likewise the universe, you and me as well! thats what i have seen so far in my life ..a force behind everything that happens around me..i mean the stuff we can explain , so why not the stuff i can't explain?? ... read!! like what the quran says in its first revelation, not only darwin and dawkin ...take sometime to read quran as well !! there's no harm in reading it. But without prejudice like you would read any other...salaam

M says:

#2 2007-02-12 22:50 (Reply)

Jesus in Baa Atoll?

Btw, check out the story of Buddha Boy in Nepal too. We have prophets and what-nots popping out of the ground these days.

Oh my, the end is truly nigh!

Zero says:

#3 2007-02-12 23:53 (Reply)

nice article..Jaa

"Haveeru" did a really good job in 'marketing' the super natural kid at Baa atoll.

He can make a fortune out from his recently graduated MBBS program.

coxsharp says:

#4 2007-02-13 00:14 (Reply)

The buddha boy did even mesmerise the west. From UK to US people did flock in to nepal to see this buddha boy who never ate or slept for months.

This is a Great entry. There is passion in this post and passion is all that we need to succeed.

millzero says:

#5 2007-02-13 01:56 (Reply)

jaa nice article.

How ever its difficult to let us go of the supernatural this that has happen in the past. also sometimes people feels that supernatural was is better that doctored medicine. and this is common in us.

Lately i been leaning about history of fuahmuah.

You might had heard that 3 times people left this island because of some high fever. There was a part that these people who migrated to Addu atoll Hulhudho once they arrive, A jinn was actually in the boat. And it seems that he was in human form. and this jinn was asked to leave this island in the night. where the tides are unpredictable and extremely dangerous.

So i guess it would be hard to include Darwin's theories and stuff in our education curriculum more than the name coz they are taboo

nass says:

#6 2007-02-13 02:45 (Reply)

This article is biased... fully focused on evolution.

Abt evolution, there are still valid questions which cannot be answered by evolutionists.

As for Richard Dawkins, we know that he tried to make ppl believe in the evolution theory using completely misleading and incorrect means n examples.

Pls, dont ask me to READ his books. Cos I'm reading two of his books right now n all I can see is ranting of a human being who hates God to the guts - nothing else.

jaa says:

#6.1 2007-02-13 08:22 (Reply)

Nass: I did say WHY I talked about evolution. Evolution is bearing much of the brunt on the attack on science. It is somewhat understandable since some either seem to view it as being in conflict of their beliefs and/or see it as a blow on their beloved ego. Whatever objections you have to evolution, do read up the wikipedia article I had linked to. Evolution indeed has many many questions unanswered - the basics of the theory are spot on as far as majority of evidence is considered and more and more research is leaning towards evolution.

Creationism will/can NEVER EVER EVER be considered a valid alternative because it fails to explain the process by which it all occured. It has no empirical evidence whatsoever... and cannot be considered scientific in any of its crazy incarnations.

As for Dawkins, I'd be interested in knowing what misleading "means and examples" you are talking about. But do remember that science is more than one Richard Dawkins... there are thousands of books published on the matter which will explain it all from the basics onwards

Nadha says:

#6.2 2007-02-13 09:06 (Reply)

Biased! BIASED!

How dare you speak of evolution when you are celebrating the Darwin day! How dare you, Jaa!

az says:

#6.3 2007-02-14 07:06 (Reply)

nass: Ranting of a human being who hates god to the guts? What is that supposed to mean? Yes, he writes against religions and gods. He might have written very passionately on those topics. And he might have as well 'ranted' on those topics. But that does not necessarily have a bearing on the truth value of what he says. However strongly he may hate religion, he does not endorse killing of people in the name of his atheistic beliefs, nor does he support any kind of violence in the name of his beliefs.

Show us his ranting from any of his books. What books are you talking about?

Rilwan says:

#7 2007-02-13 03:38 (Reply)

For science sake, id rather believe if they told us a 9 year old boy has been molested by his parents in Baa Atoll Thulhaadhoo. fcuk! Hail Science. Excellent post.

ashraf says:

#8 2007-02-13 03:39 (Reply)

Mainstream science is.. err.. on the path to doom. Just wait until Cern's LHC starts experiments this year.

The only thing I want to read now are the results of LHC's planned experiments (.

I, for one, do not recommend ANY traditional science book to anyone (because most books talk about stuff like speed of light and matter and all but doesn't even mention stuff like quantum entangling or even the double slit experiment?)

People need to know that science has branched itself into two. Traditional (mainstream) science and the quantum world. Be all sciency you want, but that is the simple truth now, and this is THE intellectual debate of the century/millenium/etc.

Thank you

jaa says:

#8.1 2007-02-13 08:39 (Reply)

Ashraf: Err wrong mate. What you are referring to is the modern revolution of quantum mechanics in the field of physics. Physics has split into "Classical Physics" vs "Quantum Mechanics" and has absolutely NOTHING to do with (mainstream) science on the overall.

Physics indeed goes all the way to explain the observable reality and its laws. But, it is in no way in comptetition with the rest of sciences - biology will still have to deal with life, chemistry will still have to deal with molecules and what not, etc. We still have a long way to go in understanding the brain/mind and completely reverse engineer the machines that we are, for what we see and understand of the world are COMPLETELY dictated by that which sits between our shoudlers

ashraf says:

#9 2007-02-13 03:58 (Reply)

"Maldives is increasingly becoming hostile to science"

??

I am hostile towards (a particular branch of) science too. Towards mainstream/traditional science. Towards Darwin, Dawkin and Hawking. The more I read about (this particular branch of) science, the more I find that these people aren't so great after all.

The only thing I want to know are the results of Cern's LHC (the OTHER branch in science - ala quantum). Can't wait till they start firing it this year.

Seriously people, there is no longer a "science vs religion" issue. It has been upgraded to "traditional science vs quantum physics vs religion"

So upgrade yourselves accordingly please.

Thank you

Mary-Jo says:

#9.1 2007-02-13 08:37 (Reply)

Reminds me of what my friend's professor said: "People who are wedded to the science of this generation may be orphaned in the next."

az says:

#9.2 2007-02-13 17:16 (Reply)

Ashraf: Can you make yourself clearer?

There is, no doubt, debate in philosophy of science on the nature, methods, etc of science. But I think there are certain distinct characteristics common to all particular scientific subjects, in that, among other things, they use mostly inductive reasoning with empirical claims (unlike certain pseudo-reasoning and nonsensical claims of religion).

Dawkins or Darwin might talk about a more 'traditional' area in science than say quantum physics. But still EVOLUTION by NATURAL SELECTION is as good as the next piece of science. When you talk about science it is a mistake to equate it with logically certain ‘knowledge’ such as the tautologies of maths, language, or logic. And, yes, theoretically evolution by natural selection is subject to revision, falsification, or replacement with a new one. But, that is what science is generally.

Also, traditionally the talk was whether quantum physics is proper science, because of its very strangeness as opposed to classical physics. The ‘newness’ of a one area of science will not belittle the importance of a different area, however aged it may be unless the new area has a revisional bearing on the other area. Also one’s own awe or enthusiasm in a particular area, whether it is the Large Hadron Collider, does not necessarily make any difference to the importance of other areas of science to the scientific quest.

As for your saying there is no issue between science and religion, again it is not clear what you mean. Perhaps there is no single issue between them, there are many issues ranging from epistemology (for example, the methods used in science as opposed to the religion’s), morality (for example, the warped moral reasoning of some religious people such as evil and good cannot be there without a god), ontology (for example, scientific falsifiable/testable or empirical claims as contrasted to religious claims)to politics (for example, the openness of science as contrasted with the totalitarianism of religion), and so on.

'Great' is subjective, but the people you mentioned had contributed to the scientific enterprise in varying degrees, some very significantly. Darwin’s Evolution by natural selection is, for example, considered very pivotal by the scientific community, which also filled in the vacuum for an explanation for the apparent design in living things (although, David Hume had already ruled out creationism).

Your ‘??’ (question marks) to the statement ‘Maldives is increasingly becoming hostile to science’ is not clear, too. If you question sufficient grounds for the claim, I could question as much. BUT, we have seen even in mvblogs.org a rise in blog posts which can be considered hostile to science. Perhaps the increasing number of women wearing veils, men having long beards, could well mean a hostility towards some scientific areas, such as evolution. However, the more accurate inference could be that such people show support for religious fundamentalism, which has a positive correlation with hostility towards some scientific areas. Also as Jawish would agree pseudo-scientific programmes (Kulhudhun vantha kamuge hekithah) on TVM inspired by the likes of Harun Yahya could well contribute to this hostility towards certain areas of science. But this cannot be verified, one may do a survey or study.

By hostility, I think, Jawish does not mean mere dislike or lack of interest (perhaps what you meant when you said you are hostile towards science), rather denial of certain areas of science based on mainly ignorance, which results in varying degrees of actions against science (such as banning evolution theory in school textbooks).

This comment is already very long, but it can become much much longer. I think Jawish has quite well replied to your previous comment.

PS. I thought it important to reply to a veteran blogger like yourself considering possible psychological effect it may have on others.

Vaz says:

#10 2007-02-13 05:18 (Reply)

Science is making significant sence with holy scriptures however I must argue. Until recently everyone from outside of India thought that the tale of the 'Hanuman (a legendary Hindu character in Hinduism) going to Sri Lanka with his army by building a bridge' was fake.

Scientific advance has now proven that sometime in the past a bridge of some sort was built. It measures 60KM long and 5KM wide.

Pictures are:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/1010/VARADHI.htm

Or drop me an email for more pictures.

Many thing's that science has discovered relatively recently have been told hundreds of years ago.

Things such as:
There are rivers of water on the moon (we now have evidence that at one stage there were).

- The world is round and not flat
- There are millions if galaxies... each one contain hundreds of thousands of planets.

Nevertheless, I alway's like to hold a critical view on everything I encounter.

Mary-Jo says:

#11 2007-02-13 07:53 (Reply)

Can I add some more recommendations?

I reckon more people ought to peruse Slavoj Zizek, Wittgenstein, Michel Foucault, Alain Badiou, Partha Chatterjee, Ellen Meiksins and Martti Koskenniemi.

Also the book 'The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten And Ninety-Nine Other Thought Experiments' by Julian Baggini.

A thought:

"...and whatever a man knows, whatever is not mere rumbling and roaring that he has heard, can be said in three words." – Kürnberger.

The above quote is from the introduction of
Wittgenstein's Tractatus - which says the greater part of eloquence is truth and precision. And from the Preface:

"The book deals with the problems of philosophy, and shows, I believe, that the reason why these problems are posed is that the logic of our language is misunderstood. The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

Thus the aim of this book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather – not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts: for in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought)."

It is my belief that Maldivian hostility towards the sciences stem not from our stringent use of logic but from the lack of grounding in language: Arabic, Dhivehi and English. Our logic failed where our grasp of language failed. Of course there are other influences such as religion and culture to consider, but somewhere amidst the intellectual suicide one sees that language has something to do with all this: language and its use or abuse.

jaa says:

#11.1 2007-02-13 08:45 (Reply)

Mary-Jo: Spot on about the language!

blueminies says:

#12 2007-02-13 16:02 (Reply)

Chris angel can levitate.I wonder the boy in thulhadhoo can fly too..

Ismail Rasheed says:

#13 2007-02-13 20:48 (Reply)

I agree with you that Maldives is increasingly becoming hostile to science, knowledge and free thought. In my opinion we are stepping backwards and there are reasons for this, some of which I have also explored at our blog.
Looking forward to your postings.
Viva la science

ashraf says:

#14 2007-02-14 03:58 (Reply)

woah, this thread is good! although i am totally ignoring the part about maldives/haveeru and the jinn kid. i just needed a thread to puke my science thoughts on. thanks jaa

basically what i mean previously is that, well, if you think from highier level everything is still a mystery, and even the greatest thinkers will agree (think stepehen's paradox). science facts are indeed facts, nobody is denying that phrase. but if one looks at humanity's progress, the trend is that new discoveries keep on dwarfing previous discoveries in capturing our awe, and ultimately the REAL answer to all of this will absolutely make all (current level of) science look like crap (then again, it would become science itself).

one good example is stephen hawkin himself. a lot of modern scientists shun him on his information paradox theory on black holes. after 30 years, stephen just changed his mind (or figured out the real truth) and announced that he was wrong all along (that information survices at the edge of black holes). and then what happened? stephen's presentation was still insufficient for physicists - his papers lacked in math. stephen doesnt even make the top 10 influential physicists of the 20th century. if i am not wrong, he ranked just 18th!

the other trend is the popular "previously earth was flat scientifically" statement. but hey those kinds of statements are the lifelines that science itself hangs on - they are the open windows in the closed factual box of modern science.

my point is, science is not (yet) enough for humanity to depend on for its answers for life, but it is the best (if not the only) accessory around this time.

jaa says:

#14.1 2007-02-14 04:06 (Reply)

Well said mate, on the last point!

PS: People had a reason to doubt Prof Hawking when he said he'd been wrong and offered an alternative. He didnt back up the claim with evidence or math. He hasn't produced a paper on it since his grand announcement afaik...

az says:

#15 2007-02-14 04:48 (Reply)

Ashraf: What do you mean by 'answers for life'? If that means that there are certain questions, some very important, whose answers science has not found out yet, it is fine. But, if it is a generalisation on all of life's questions, then I do not agree with you. We can depend on science for life's questions, because it is science which has so far given answers to many of the mysterious questions of life. As Dawkins argues in God Delusion, theories such as Evolution by natural selection tell us the ability of science to explain amazing phenonmena. If science can answer the questions of this most amazing phenomenon of our life (that of apparent design of living things) then, it raises our consciousness that science can, given time and energy, could answer other empirical questions.

And, I do not mean to say that it is only science proper which could clarify some questions of ours and help in answering them. Areas such as philosophy could also help us, for many of 'life's questions' turn out to be semantic problems, and questions dealing with meaning and values, and so on.

ashraf says:

#16 2007-02-15 06:56 (Reply)

az: you are right. i meant the first - those many important answers, instead of a generalized one. i believe we may not be capable enough to comprehend a wholesome generalized answer for everything, not yet anyway. maybe we can, after a couple more leaps ahead in human evolution. we are still evolving right?

science doesn't give anybody any answers. the answers and methods (and the fundamental principles used in the derivations) make up science instead.

my argument is that people should see science as a tool, rather than looking at it as the law of nature. it cannot be the law of nature because science is subject to mistakes, and the law of nature cannot stand to such possible mistakes (mistakes as we know it). the good thing is that science becomes even more fascinating when taken with a grain of salt.

science, in some level, follows spirituality (in the form of inspiration, ideas and goals for the scientists whose majority gets influenced by spirituality before they get influenced by science).

science then chases those theories and ideas, gives proof of validity or invalidity, which again gives rise to another theory and idea - and the cycle goes on.

people use those scientific results to determine what or how they should approach a given problem (cooking, production and even religion).

if no results exist they go to the next lower level - spirituality. previously rain was god's direct work, an explanation "scientific" enough at that time, meaning that it was a given fact and people believed that no discovery could've changed their view. but now its just the water cycle, and we believe there won't be any other explanation for it. the only thing that really changed down the line was the "level" of knowledge and thinking. so, could there be an even better explanation for rain? perhaps a highier "level" of knowledge for us?

why do these jinn/excorsism issues get evaluated at the spiritual level? because biology and psychology (and also philosophy) aren't enough to give clear cut answers and facts similar to the rain thing.

why aren't there explanations? because humanity spent most of its budget finding out about ants and watching stars, with just a fraction spent on finding more about the "physical" characterstics of consciousness such as its origin and what happens to it after death (rather then the electro chemical properties of the brain and behavioral or psychological aspects of the mind).

until then, we shall see many jinn kids and exorcisms with each event generating religion and science conversations.

az says:

#17 2007-02-15 14:00 (Reply)

Ashraf:

you said: science doesn't give anybody any answers.

Of course it is a figure of speech when one says science gives answers. Science does not give any answers as, say, human beings give them or give things to each other. But if science is made up of answers, methods, and so on, then we can use ordinary language to say science gives or provides answers!

What do you mean by the law of nature? This is the first time I have even heard this odd phrase: ‘science is the law of nature’. But we say there are scientific laws, theories, and so on, the definitions of these terms I do not wish to provide here. Science has its definitions for these words.

Scientific approach ‘takes a grain of salt’ in its inquiry. It never accepts answers without evidence. It is also good to study scientific theories with this attitude. But this does not mean we should have doubt (take a grain of salt) with every scientific theory after good study. Again this can be controversial. We cannot have logical certainty with science. But our certainty in some well-established scientific facts is the certainty we arguably can have with regard to empirical knowledge.

It is perfectly alright to say science follows spirituality if that is a chronologically based statement AND if that is the case: if ‘spirituality’ comes before science, then you may say that statement to mean science comes after spirituality. I notice that you have a very ‘worldly’ concept of spirituality: inspiration, ideas, and goals. ?

I do not agree with the line of reasoning in your ‘rain’ argument if that is to justify our having unwarranted beliefs. There is no doubt that scientific theories in principle may be revised, improved, falsified, etc. But there are also very well-established theories that hold true at least in a given parameter. I think this is true of, for example, Newtonian physics. Einstein’s theories are said to have replaced Newtonian physics because the former explain more phenomena. But, I think this does not mean Newton was wrong about his theories, which still hold true in a more limited context. This is NOT mainly true of your mythical world of our ancestors. The difference is we are justified to hold scientific theories (because they are backed up by evidence) while we are not justified to hold fairy tales.

Evaluation at spiritual level?

I am not sure about your explanation for this evaluation of certain phenomena in terms of religious beliefs or spirituality. There are dogmatic people who believe in stuff which, science has evidence, are not true. To evaluate the causes of a tsunami in terms of godly wrath (while science tells us how and why exactly they may take place) is probably just blind faith in certain teachings. Also, as far as I know science explains at least many of the experiences of alleged ‘possessions’, ‘contact with other beings’, and so on. I think many people who go for religiously inspired ‘explanations’ for such incidents go for them not because science does not explain them, but simply because religious teachings tell them there are all sorts of fairies, ghosts, Jinns, and so on. (Did you read what the religious scholar, Usman Abdulla, said to answer Haveeru question about the ‘superboy’? He says books [presumably religious books] tell him such boys are possible. I even wonder why Haveeru did not question a better authority). These are the people who do not accept evolution, but go for an unscientific ‘explanation’ of the apparent design. Why do they do that? As I said it is largely faith.

I agree we might not have put enough effort in many areas of our universe, which may be one reason we still do not fully understand many things. Then again, another reason might be that certain things are too damn difficult, too complex.

But our ignorance (of, say, what consciousness is) is not an excuse for unwarranted beliefs (say that some monster down the skull gives rise to consciousness). That is argumentum ad ignorantiam?

nass says:

#18 2007-02-16 11:04 (Reply)

i think u all should read this book also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F#Authorship

az says:

#19 2007-02-16 13:03 (Reply)

nass: Yes, I can read that book too.

But every book written by a scientist may not be scientific or even rational.

As Jawish says science is not one Dawkins. Dawkins might be wrong in many things. But that is not the end of science.

The beauty of scientific attitude is subjecting oneself to critical analysis, and revising current theories where they can be improved. People like Dawkins will accept good criticism, and accept their mistakes when they are shown. This is not largely true of say dogmatism. Dawkins will most happily accept that there is a god if one can show him sufficient evidence. His attitude is not one of blind faith, although he may be wrong about what he says. Great atheists or agnostics, I know, did not believe in god because they had no sufficient evidence.

What we do not support is blind anything - theism or atheism. That is the context of the original post by Jawish. As such, we are not automatically against any 'ism'. What we call is being scientific, rational, and logical. Accept ghosts or Jinns, or god, or whatever, when it is rational to do so!

And I'm sure the talk here is not whether god is there or not.

Aicha says:

#20 2007-03-08 04:28 (Reply)

Just came across your blog. interesting stuff.
However i think u are appealing to the wrong crowd now. Incase you didn't realize most maldivians will pay attention to science, philo or any other modern logical strappings 'when pigs will start flying' even than, not so sure. Most maldivians are at PHD level concerning all aspects of life now, as the 'hadith' brigade has fed them the line that all answers are to be found in the hadith books. No need for any other kind of education.Yup we are fast joining the radical loony world. No need for science now

Anonymous says:

#21 2007-03-18 21:21 (Reply)

There was a time when there was "scientific evidence" that earth is flat. But obviously we have now "known" that it is not flat. I guess what I am trying to say is THE TRUTH about world, life, and human nature is ever evolving in science as well, Therefore to say that the truth provided by sceince is THE TRUTH is contradicting science it self.

rilwan says:

#22 2007-07-19 17:07 (Reply)

for rain to be a gift of god, should it come wrapped in glitter paper with ur name on i morgan right? ? you watch too many movies...take a few minutes and think about all the stuff that you don't know ....

Know it all says:

#23 2008-07-30 23:24 (Reply)

Imagination is great...it makes u wonder whether u r right or wrong...
Instinct and logic contadicts...like science and religion...but will we ever know?...never!!!
Religion is faith based on scriptures which is subject to scrutiny
Science is facts based on "current understandings" which itself is questionable

So what we ought to do is stop debating and start believing that paradoxes arnt real and science will one day prove it which inturn will prove what we want to believe!

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry