Paragon, interesting metaphor for reason vs. emotion. If I understood you right and if I may simplify your argument with the equation less brain (reasoning) + more heart (emotions) equals less inhumane world I think in order to obtain a better society we definitely need less egotism and more sympathy. However I’m not convinced about your argument mainly for two reasons. First, I can’t really remember any historical event that occurred solely on the basis of reasoning. Any war, conflict, atrocity etc. that I know of has mobilised the masses by appealing to their “hearts” in order to commit horrible acts. These historical facts would in contrary to your hypothesis suggest less “heart” and more “brain” equals good society. Secondly, using heart and brain as metaphors for emotion vs. reason over-simplifies in this case a very complex relation. By assigning one attribute to one organ misleadingly suggest one can easily separate one from the other. In some cases you can, i.e. logic thinking, for instance regardless of your emotional state you’ll always find 1+1=2. However when faced with questions such as how to run a society, human relations etc. there are no given answers simply because “reasoning” to obtain an answer will always be affected by “emotions” and to what degree one or the other has affected the outcome is impossible to assess.

Thanx Paragon! Definately need some interesting reading... need to bring some action-potential to my brain Hälsningar Viking, alhamdulillah allt väl. Önskar dig detsamma!

Long time no see SOL, miss it, but there's no time... convinced the earth spins faster around it's axis. Finally took time to glance through the Debate section. Surprise, surprise, someone's asking about me... someone at SOL cares to miss me...really...wow (blushes). Miss the interesting discussions, hopefully the earth will take it slower, so Ely to can contribute to the debates.

The british people are passionate about football, but to be honest what is there to be proud about the english football team. I mean, to my knowledge, they’ve won the cup once... many many years ago. You could always blame the coach, it could be so that the great english players are doomed with one bad coach after another or simply face the fact that Britain is more productive in producing fanatic fans and hooligans than a football team fit to win the world cup. :cool: :cool:

Eid Mubarak! I implore to Allah to accept our fasting, prayers and our good deeds in Ramadan. I wish you all and your families a wonderful Eid with full of pleasure and happiness. Forgive me all, and don’t forget me from your nice prayers...

Ameen to all the duas. O Allah! Make his grave spacious for him and full of light. Be easy on him on the day of Judgement. Grant him jannautl firdaus.

Sorry guys for asking this not to bright question, but I need to know… why does Siad Barre have Hitler-mustache??

I remember once there was this somali lady that had come to the doctor to get rid of a scar on her face (it was next to her right eye). She didn’t know any Swedish, so I was asked to help. The thing was that you could barely see the scratch. She had a beautiful face and the little mark just added some distinct character to her so otherwise perfect face. Despite our efforts to convince her, she was stubborn… all she could see on her face was a disfigure. Before performing any operation she was sent off to take some pictures and I tagged along just in case she would need my assistance. After a long frustrating thirty minutes we were asked to enter a small room with lots of camera equipments and lights. On the other side of the room the photographer walked in. I know it’s very rude to stare at people, especially if they have distorted features, but subhan’allah this kind of person you only see once or twice in your life. Not only was his face disfigured, but so was his body. The huge hunchback made his small, compact twisted body look even smaller. Was this man deliberately put there to make people think twice before acting upon something directed by their vain desire? You can either be ugly in your physical appearance or in the way you perceive yourself. If I was the lady, I wouldn’t dare show him that blemish… but she did to my disappointment. Sitting there watching Mr “Beast†zoom in and amplify the millimetre scratch that needed to be corrected on Miss “Beutyâ€, made me feel very uncomfortable about the irony in the situation.

Thanks everyone, I’ll definately work hard to gain your respect and make you guys proud of me, Socod badne and Sheh sis. My brother Legend, it was indeed your complaints that compelled me to do something about my status. In the end something good came out of it… when does the tour start by the way?

Hmmm... the Harold Pinter I'm looking at in the newspaper looks very much like a man. Sorry brother Caano Geel, can’t help you. I stop thinking when I'm fasting.

Just wanted to congratulate myself for finally becoming a SOL Nomad. Just passed the 50 post requirement… after more than a year… puh that was hard work!! I don’t get it how some nomads can accomplish over 900 posts in less than four months (i.e. Castro ). How does one do it???

Originally posted by Sophist: He had Lost it to some woman. Dear Sophist,would that be worse than losing to some man? :rolleyes:

I was surprised when I heard last year the Somali author Nuruddin Farah to be among the candidates for the Nobel Prize. He’s been a candidate for some time now, what I understand. Hopefully he will be awarded one day, however I don’t think this year. One of the hottest candidates this year is Adonis (Ali Ahmad Said Asbat), a syrian poet, who was recently invited to the biggest Book Fair in Sweden… I wonder if that means something? Never read any of his work, but I got the chance to hear him read some his own poems – impressive. PS. One of my favourite author at the Book Fair was a Swedish writer who wrote a book with the title (translated) “Bin Ladin in our heartsâ€. It’s about political islam as a reaction and resistance against the colonial dominance. I definately like the provocative title

Ramadan Mubarak to all my brothers and sister. And may Allah, subhana wat'ala, give us a generous month.

Paragon thanks for sharing your thoughts. If I have understood you right what you are saying is that we humans are under the influence of “alien†knowledge, which is negative in the sense that it encapsulates the “true†self. And therefore one must liberate oneself in order to live in harmony with its environs and “truly†develop intellectually. You talk about alien vs. indigenous knowledge, how do you define these two? Only when I know their definition will I be able to understand your following statement; “The mind only accepts the growth of what is organic to it and not what is alien to it†You also wrote: “we must be able to identify whether our minds – to operate perfectly and in their natural manner- can prioritize between types of knowledge†How is a perfectly operating mind and what is its natural manner? I’m not able to agree or disagree with your thinking simply because, to me, the post is to abstract, you use too many value-laden words, metaphors and undefined assumptions that the essence of what you want to say could mean just about everything. Why not concretize your thoughts, be more specific, and relate your abstract thinking to something more tangible.

^^^^ There’s a scientific explanation for why japanese people simply can’t distinguish between pronounced R and L. Sometimes it just gets really funny when talking to them. Came to the lab one day. The whole corridor smelled yeast, looked around and found my colleagues at the coffee table at end of the hall. Went up to them and asked about the bad smell. The japanese guy, lets call him Fujiko, raised his cup, smiled at me and replied “we’re having lice beer, want someâ€. In one of the rooms at the lab I use for salaat. I laughed the first time when Fujiko referred to it as “playoom†sounding very much like playroom. But the worst thing is when people looking for me are told “come back lateh, she is playingâ€â€¦ It puts me in a really awkward situation.

A bit off topic, but nonetheless I’d like to add a comment to this discussion about “humans acting Godâ€. I think we need to distinguish what is technologically feasible from what is morally/ethically legitimate. Technologically, the human mental capacity is our limitation, and ethically our conscience. Even if we today could harness a hurricane, should we? An argument such as “we mustn’t play God†is not a valid argument. In that case we’ve been playing “God†since ancient time. Allah has set the natural laws that govern everything we know of, and simply what humans have been doing all along is to understand these laws and if possible use them for our benefit. In this context I believe it’s extraneous to question what the human being can accomplish, when instead the focus should be on IF we ought to do it! Back to the topic. Castro, I don’t understand how you can make the connection that theodicies can’t exist because of advancement in technology? Don’t you think, although we’re able to explain the cause and consequence of a hurricane, the big question WHY can still remain?

Originally posted by Shirwac: Those scientists are the same as those doomsday cults. Originally posted by liibaan: To me,it sounds like a buncha whining protectionist environmental groups pushing around everyone else and making us all feel bad if we drive a car or don't recycle. :confused: :confused: :confused: You guys really think that the ruthless activity humans have had on the ecosystem will not bring any consequences??? Liibaan, don’t get to comfortable with the car, when there’s no more oil, you’ll need other means of transportation to escape future floods. It says in the holy Quraan (XV : 19): " AND THE EARTH WE HAVE SPREAD OUT; SET THEREIN MOUNTAINS FIRM AND IMMOVABLE; AND PRODUCED THEREIN ALL KINDS OF THINGS IN DUE BALANCE " Brothers we have definitely disturbed that balance long time ago!

A very interesting read indeed, Sincere. This illustrate that despite of religious or scientific explanations humans have a profound need to see cause and consequence. I wonder why that is? Castro wrote: It is only a matter of time before humans will be able to control and harness that awesome power. Maybe, maybe not. However, the most unpredictable variable on this planet is the human being, and we know what a fallible creature she is. So regardless of technology catastrophes will always be part of the human scene. Came to think of the human efforts to reach zero-tolerance in traffic, meaning no deaths in traffic-related accidents. With advanced technology, the automobiles and the highways were improved to reach the desired goal. But the death toll did not significantly decrease, only due to the fact that; the safer people feel, the faster they drive.

NGONE Although I belong to the womenfolk who has difficulties relating to sport metaphors (especially soccer) I clearly understood your anecdote. I’ll go back to the sub’s bench, and hope the more fitting topic “The Responsibility of Intellectuals†pops up in the future, so that I can get a game against the SOL giants and perhaps improve my amateur skills. (…bad, bad metaphor, but I’m doing my best)

Ahh, I see now what you mean socod_badne… it’s a matter of linguistic difference I think. An apple falling is a fact, true, but I wouldn’t regard that as a scientific fact, I would call that an observation. You don’t need science for making a statement like “I saw an apple fallâ€, then everything in our environment would be scientific facts… like “people eat apples†or “birds have feathers†… even children would be able to state scientific facts, like “apple is greenâ€. As a researcher the first thing you do is to state a hypothesis and a null hypothesis; for example: Radioactivity cause cancer vs. Radioactivity does not cause cancer. To test the viability of the null hypothesis you have to design and conduct experiments. Depending on the experimental data the null hypothesis either will or will not be rejected as a viable possibility (of course most scientists hope for data that will reject the null hypothesis… no one is interested in “radioactivity does not cause cancerâ€, although that is important finding in itself… but that’s a whole other topic). After you have run all the necessary experiments, collected all data, you interpret the data and/or do statistical analyzes which hopefully supports rejecting the null hypothesis, and finally you can make the statement – Radioactivity cause cancer – which would be a scientific fact! So in the end what you call scientific fact is what I call data/ observations. What would you call “my†scientific fact???

^^^^^ NGONE, wouldn’t you refer the one’s you listed (Ibn Khalduun, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushed, Orwell, Bernard-Show, Hume, Russell) as great thinkers, rather than just intellectuals? And isn’t it so that most of the intellectuals, in the present and past, are mere puppets of those in power to control “the ignorant massesâ€, while a great thinker questions the prevailing ideas among the intellectuals?

As I said, I don’t know what arguments intelligent design presents, if they don’t have any scientific evidence or arguments, it cannot be part of the science curricula. However, they might have some interesting points that can be integrated when teaching evolution... Socod_badne- Scientific facts and scientific theories, are not flawless certainties! Scientific facts involve not only testable and observable elements but they also involve INTERPRETAION. As technique is progressing we’re able to collect more data and make better interpretations, but they are still nothing more than interpretations. I think the story of the blind men and the elephant is a good example of what I mean, and it also highlights the fact that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of the reality. Long ago six old men lived in a village in India. Each was born blind. The other villagers loved the old men and kept them away from harm. Since the blind men could not see the world for themselves, they had to imagine many of its wonders. They listened carefully to the stories told by travelers to learn what they could about life outside the village. The men were curious about many of the stories they heard, but they were most curious about elephants. They were told that elephants could trample forests, carry huge burdens, and frighten young and old with their loud trumpet calls. But they also knew that the Rajah's daughter rode an elephant when she traveled in her father's kingdom. Would the Rajah let his daughter get near such a dangerous creature? The old men argued day and night about elephants. "An elephant must be a powerful giant," claimed the first blind man. He had heard stories about elephants being used to clear forests and build roads. "No, you must be wrong," argued the second blind man. "An elephant must be graceful and gentle if a princess is to ride on its back." "You're wrong! I have heard that an elephant can pierce a man's heart with its terrible horn," said the third blind man. "Please," said the fourth blind man. "You are all mistaken. An elephant is nothing more than a large sort of cow. You know how people exaggerate." "I am sure that an elephant is something magical," said the fifth blind man. "That would explain why the Rajah's daughter can travel safely throughout the kingdom." "I don't believe elephants exist at all," declared the sixth blind man. "I think we are the victims of a cruel joke." Finally, the villagers grew tired of all the arguments, and they arranged for the curious men to visit the palace of the Rajah to learn the truth about elephants. A young boy from their village was selected to guide the blind men on their journey. The smallest man put his hand on the boy's shoulder. The second blind man put his hand on his friend's shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to walk safely behind the boy who would lead them to the Rajah's magnificent palace. When the blind men reached the palace, they were greeted by an old friend from their village who worked as a gardener on the palace grounds. Their friend led them to the courtyard. There stood an elephant. The blind men stepped forward to touch the creature that was the subject of so many arguments. The first blind man reached out and touched the side of the huge animal. "An elephant is smooth and solid like a wall!" he declared. "It must be very powerful." The second blind man put his hand on the elephant's limber trunk. "An elephant is like a giant snake," he announced. The third blind man felt the elephant's pointed tusk. "I was right," he decided. "This creature is as sharp and deadly as a spear." The fourth blind man touched one of the elephant's four legs. "What we have here," he said, "is an extremely large cow." The fifth blind man felt the elephant's giant ear. "I believe an elephant is like a huge fan or maybe a magic carpet that can fly over mountains and treetops," he said. The sixth blind man gave a tug on the elephant's fuzzy tail. "Why, this is nothing more than a piece of old rope. Dangerous, indeed," he scoffed. The gardener led his friends to the shade of a tree. "Sit here and rest for the long journey home," he said. "I will bring you some water to drink." While they waited, the six blind men talked about the elephant. "An elephant is like a wall," said the first blind man. "Surely we can finally agree on that." "A wall? An elephant is a giant snake!" answered the second blind man. "It's a spear, I tell you," insisted the third blind man. "I'm certain it's a giant cow," said the fourth blind man. "Magic carpet. There's no doubt," said the fifth blind man. "Don't you see?" pleaded the sixth blind man. "Someone used a rope to trick us." Their argument continued and their shouts grew louder and louder. "Wall!" "Snake!" "Spear!" "Cow!" "Carpet!" "Rope!" "STOP SHOUTING!" called a very angry voice. It was the Rajah, awakened from his nap by the noisy argument. "How can each of you be so certain you are right?" asked the ruler. The six blind men considered the question. And then, knowing the Rajah to be a very wise man, they decided to say nothing at all. "The elephant is a very large animal," said the Rajah kindly. "Each man touched only one part. Perhaps if you put the parts together, you will see the truth. Now, let me finish my nap in peace." When their friend returned to the garden with the cool water, the six men rested quietly in the shade, thinking about the Rajah's advice. "He is right," said the first blind man. "To learn the truth, we must put all the parts together. Let's discuss this on the journey home." The first blind man put his hand on the shoulder of the young boy who would guide them home. The second blind man put a hand on his friend's shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to travel together.

I read about it a couple of weeks ago in one of the Science issues. Given the fact that it was in a science magazine I imagine it not fully objective to the matter dealt with. If I remembered it correct, they presented this theory as something mainly attractive to Christian students, who were otherwise at loss facing the evolution theory. Don’t recall them presenting the theory more in detail than that it undermined the contemporary evolutionary theory with the argument that it is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms. Since the intelligent design theory has become popular among university students, they have wanted to introduce the teaching of it into the science curricula of the public schools. This has in turn evoked AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) to take some action against the endorsement of this theory. In general one could always wish the academia to be institutions guided by opened mindness and transparency. However, although they know (or should know) that what is called facts today are only true until proven otherwise, it still is a painful experience for the scientists involved to admit they were wrong, hence the dogmatic attitude. Just for the curiosity I'd like to know more about the intelligent design

Salaam dear brother Johnny B. This is what I wrote: In Sweden every now and then a new version of the bible is released, some text are removed, reformulated or added in order “to simplify and keep the text updated†And this is how you replied to me: there is no such a thing like bible updating , or text removals or text refinings And this is what the Swedish Bible Society says ( your translation): "The discussions among the (work-group)writers were sometimes intensive in the course of "TRANSLATING" the bible, Ofcourse more reactions are expected when the public(readers) get their copies, there´ll be many Questions , known dear phrases will suddenly sound diffrent and some will be gone." What did I misunderstand?? (Just a petit remark since you wanted it to be as accurate translation as possible... they say "known dear phrases will suddenly sound TOTALLY diffrent" ) Then you also wrote: To start with you´ve deliberately or not failed to explain to the SOL readers what this bible 2000 is about, and what is the meaning behind the effort :confused: :confused: I never did any attempt to explain! I'm still trying to figure out how what I said could have made you so upset :rolleyes: