Manish's musings

Potential effects of liberalism and individualism

via Google+

One of my contacts on Google+ shared this. I would not disclose the name since this post isn’t about the individual but is actually about the argument

“Potential effects of liberalism/individualism (link). Individual freedom to allow pornography may effect the society in ways we cannot imagine. Who do we protect: Individual rights or the well being of the society? How can so many children rape? In Islam, we are taught not only to preserve our children’s physical well being, protecting their mental health is also absolutely crucial. Islam is the solution not because it came form the desert, it is the way forward because it came from God. Modernity is not defined by men, it is defined by God (who created men and knows better). Follow the desires of humans and move back to the stone age. Follow the instructions of God (Allah) and make you way to prosperity in both lives. Choice is yours.

Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness]. (Quran 30:41). ” via Brother Adnan Rashid 

My response was

Even if I buy your argument that all these things are happening because of individualism/liberalism, then the solution you are proposing is even a bigger problem. The miseries brought on this world in the name of God and Religion is unmatched by any other excuse till date.

Secondly, individualism has scope for betterment of humanity as it has already shown. What the world needs less is appeal to authority, social conformity and obedience.

Look at history, look at all the worst things which have happened on our planet - wars, genocide, social evils, war crimes. None of them happened because of disobedience, it happened due to obedience. It did not happen due to individualism, it happened due to social conformity. It did not happen due to individual thinking, it happened due to appeal to authority. It happened because of excuses of “I have orders to do so” and “my faith asks me to do so”

The solution you are proposing consists of obedience, appeal to authority and social conformity.

The Chlorophyll madness

What happens when you have been a skeptic and have a bad lifestyle? If for a moment you remove the skeptic part, then the next thing to enter you life is detox diet, detox machines, Chiropractic, pills, homeopathy and god knows yet another million different ways of becoming fit and no mention of workout or any kind of advise related to fixing your lifestyle.

Now it’s time to wear your skeptic hat. For a long time, I have been trying to make sense of the Chlorophyll madness. This madness is a phenomena when you take “Eat your greens” to an extreme level. There is just so much misinformation and contradictions that making sense out of these is just painful. I tried doing a bit of search.

Claim: Chlorophyll is similar to Hemoglobin and helps in transporting of human blood

There are many claims on the internet which kind of helps me choose any. Let’s take one

First of all, chlorophyll appears to have an affinity for blood (which may be explained by some similarities between it and hemoglobin cells). Some research suggests that chlo­rophyll can increase oxygen uptake in the blood, which can increase energy, relieve fatigue and improve certain blood disorders.

Why Healthy People Need Chlorophyll & 11 Reasons You Should Try It

The website gives a the molecular structure of chlorophyll and hemoglobin. Have a look at it yourself

So it looks pretty similar, so it should behave similar. Right?

Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are too pretty similar in molecular structure. Carbon Monoxide is a highly toxic gas.

Ethyl Alcohol and Methyl Alcohol: Ethyl alcohol is the one we consume to get wasted every weekend and Methyl alcohol causes blindness in small amount and can prove fatal in larger doses.

Carbon Dioxide contains two atom of oxygen and one atom of Carbon. What happens when you replace carbon with a similar element? Say Silicon. Both Carbon and Silicon have valency of four. What do you get? Silicon Dioxide! What is it? It is like a powder unlike Carbon Dioxide which is gaseous.

Another claim is  “Some research suggests that chlo­rophyll can increase oxygen uptake in the blood”. Where the F**k is the research? References? Atleast name of author or publication or year of publication? None. Nada.

Read More

The role of personal insecurity in setback of Greek Science

Archimedes (c 287 BC - c. 212 BC), by the far the most eminent physicist of antiquity. In today’s terminology, the law of the lever explains that small forces can lift large weights because the lever amplifies a force according to the ratio of distances from the lever’s fulcrum. The law of buoyancy states that any object immersed in a fluid will experience upward force equal to the weight of displaced fluid. And the law of reflection asserts that the angle between the beam of light and a mirror is equal to angle between the mirror and the reflected beam.

Anaximander (c 610BC - c. 546BC), argued that since  human infants are helpless at birth, if the first human had somehow appeared on the earth as infant, it would not have survived. In what may have been humanity’s first inkling of evolution, people, Anaximander reasoned, must therefore have evolved from other animals whose young are hardier

Empedocles (c. 490BC - c. 430 BC) observed the use of an instrument called clepsydra. It consisted of a sphere with an open neck and small holes in the bottom. When immersed in water it would fill, and if the open neck was then covered, the clepsydra could be lifted out without the water in it falling through the holes. Empedocles noticed that  if you cover the neck before you immerse it, a  clepsydra does not fill. He reasoned that something invisible must be preventing the water from entering the sphere through the holes - he had discovered the material substance we call air.

Democritus (c. 460BC - c. 370BC) pondered on what happened if you break or cut an object into pieces. He argued that you ought not to be able to continue the process indefinitely. Instead he postulated that everything, including all living beings, is made of fundamental particle that cannot be cut or broken into parts. He named these ultimate particles atom. 

Aristarchus (c. 310BC - c. 230BC) was the last Ionian scientists. Only one of his calculations survives, a complex geometric analysis of careful observations he made of the size of the earth’s shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. He concluded from his data that the sun must be much larger than earth. Perhaps inspired by the idea that tiny objects ought to orbit mammoth ones and not the other way around, he became the first person to argue that the earth is not the center of our planetary system, but rather tit and the other plats orbit the much large sun. Aristarchus suspected that this was the case and believed that the stars we see int he night sky are actually nothing more than distant suns.

Opposition

Unfortunately the Ionians’ views on nature - that it can be explained through general laws and reduced to simple set of principles - exerted a powerful influence for only a few centuries. One reason is that Ionians theories often seem to have no place for the notion of free will or purpose, or the concept that Gods intervene in the workings of the world. These were startling ommisions as profoundly unsettling to many Greek thinkers as they are to many people today.

Epicurus (341BC - 270BC), for example opposed atomism on the ground that it is
“better to follow the myths about the gods than to become ‘slave’ to the destiny of natural philosphers”.

Aristotle too rejected the concept of atoms because he could not accept that humans being were composed of soulless, inanimate objects.

 - From the book “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, chapter “The Rule of Law”

(Source: amazon.com)

Laplace: “I do not need this assumption”

Laplace (1749-1827) was a brilliant French scientist who took the work of Newton a stage further and showed by means of mathematical calculus who the operations of the solar system were of those of bodies revolving systematically in vacuum. When he later turned his attention to the stars and the nebulae, he postulated the idea of gravitational collapse or implosion, or what we now breezily term the “black hole”.

In his five-volumed book entitled Celestial Mechanics he laid all this out, and like many men of his time was also inttuged by the orrery, a working model of the solar system as seen, from the first time, from the outside.These are now commonplace but were then revolutionary, and the emperor asked to meet Laplace in order to be given either as set of the books or (account differ) a version of the orrery.

I personally suspect that the gravedigger  of the French Revolution wanted the toy rather than the volumes: he was a man in a hurry and had managed to get the church to baptize his dictatorship with a crown. At any event, and in his childish and demanding and imperious fashion, he wanted to know why the figure of god did not appear in Laplace’s mind-expanding calculations.

And then came the cool, lofty, and considered response. “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothese.” Laplace was to become a marquis or perhaps more modestly have said “It works well enough without that idea, Your majesty.” But he simply stated that he did not need it.

— God Is Not Great (chapter: The Metaphysical claims of religion)

Zakir Naik on Big Bang and scientific facts

I have earlier watched this video from Zakir Naik, but have always dismissed this as an attempt to hijack scientific literate. The guy is surely more open minded than the evangelist preachers and tries to prove his beliefs by arguments by threats. Inspite of these, I still find his evidence doctored

1) His first statement was on Big Bang

initially the whole universe was one primary medulla. Then there was a secondary separation which gave rise to galaxies which further split to form things such as our solar system,gave rise to planets,the sun and the present earth we live in

His claim was that it is already present in Quran in Surat Al-‘Anbyā’ 21:30. Let’s see what it reads

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

How is this a proof of big bang? Heaven? When did heaven find it’s way in science? Separation of a fictitious place from earth is a proof of Big Bang?

We all are not made from water. We are made up of many things and one of the many thing is water.

2) Next up, he claims that it was written in Quran that moon does not have it’s own light

blessed is he who has placed the constellations in the sky and placed there in a lamp, a sun having it’s own light and a moon having reflected or borrowed light. The arabic word for moonlight is muneer or noor which means reflected light

This statement is claimed to be present in Surat Al-Furqān 25:61

Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a [burning] lamp and luminous moon.

Can’t find anywhere it claims that moon’s light is reflected. It doesn’t even claim that the sun is a star. It is referred to as a lamp.

Secondly, muneer means “brilliant shining” or “bright light” and not reflected light.

3) Earth is round

Zakir goes ahead and claims that Surat An-Nāzi`āt 79:30 

Then we made the earth egg shaped

whereas that verse reads as

And after that He spread the earth.

How does spreading the earth make it eff-shaped?

4) Sun rotates around it’s axis

This has got to be the biggest thing which he claims to be present in Quran. Let’s read what he says about this

It is the Allah who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each one travelling in orbit in own motion. So the Quran says, besides the sun revolving, it also rotates about it’s own axis.

This is the quote which he claims to be present in Surat Al-‘Anbyā’ 21:33. Let’s see what this verse contains

And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming.

The claim of creation of night and day is the biggest proof that there is no scientific base of this verse. It is claimed to be in orbit and swimming whereas Zakir claims that this verse contains proof that sun revolved about it’s axis. This verse only talks about orbit and not axis.

Furthermore, if this verse talks about rotation then it would have never claimed the creation of night and day, as rotation is the reason for night and day. So proof of “rotation about it’s axis” and “creation of night and day” are contradictory.

5) Universe is expanding

He claims it was also present in Quran 1400 years ago in Surat Adh-Dhāriyāt 51:47. Let’s see what that verse actually contains

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

This verse talks about the heaven expanding. I never knew universe and heaven were the same. </sarcasm>

6) Water cycle

He claims that Water cycle is spoken in great depths in various verses

Surat Az-Zumar 39:21

Do you not see that Allah sends down rain from the sky and makes it flow as springs [and rivers] in the earth; then He produces thereby crops of varying colors; then they dry and you see them turned yellow; then He makes them [scattered] debris. Indeed in that is a reminder for those of understanding.

Water cycle is not just rainfall and drying up. Does it mention evaporation. Does it mention cloud creation and the reason for cloud creation? This is just a verse which speaks about natural observation which does not require any scientific knowledge.

Surat Ar-Rūm 30:24

And of His signs is [that] He shows you the lightening [causing] fear and aspiration, and He sends down rain from the sky by which He brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed in that are signs for a people who use reason.

This verse talks about lightening as a work of god to cause fear. Nowhere it mentions that lightening is caused by clouds. It mentions rains coming from sky and no mention of clouds. Where is the scientific base of this verse?

Surat Al-Ĥijr 15:22

And We have sent the fertilizing winds and sent down water from the sky and given you drink from it. And you are not its retainers.

Where does it mention that the water is sent down by the cloud and why it rains? What the requirements for a rainfall? Where is the proof of how winds are created and how it is related to the water cycle and the weather?

Surat Al-Mu’minūn 23:18

And We have sent down rain from the sky in a measured amount and settled it in the earth. And indeed, We are Able to take it away.

This is what God says? So if god controls the rain then where does water cycle come in picture?

Surat An-Nūr 24:43

Do you not see that Allah drives clouds? Then He brings them together, then He makes them into a mass, and you see the rain emerge from within it. And He sends down from the sky, mountains [of clouds] within which is hail, and He strikes with it whom He wills and averts it from whom He wills. The flash of its lightening almost takes away the eyesight.

Water cycle is natural. No one guides it. If it is guided by someone it is no longer water cycle. Nothing has been explained what are the requirements for rain creation. Just bringing the clouds are not enough, there are always clouds around in the sky and moving around, coming close and moving away.

I have nothing against Quaran, but don’t take it out of context to spread misunderstanding

Zeitgeist User Survey 2011 Fall

Hi everyone,

The Zeitgeist project has created a survey to understand and prioritize user expectations. The survey can be found here

Please spread the word. You can use Twitter, Identi.ca, Facebook, Disapora, Google+ or any social network to spread it. You can even hand it out to your friends via IM.

-

Manish Sinha

(On Behalf of Zeitgeist Team)