quantum physics, holographic universe, implicate order, david bohm, the secret, mind over matter, matter does not exist, matter is energy

View Video By Clicking Here -> Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about The Black Swan

Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Unpredictability, 9/11

David Deutsch, Quantum Physics, Quantum Computing, Global Warming

This could be a genuine scientific breakthrough, or simply a hoax.

Or it could be something that is not what it is said to be.

Scientist spontaneously generates DNA by heating sand in a test tube!

Warning: the link goes to an article written by a New Age author who is into those 2012, alien conspiracy theories, etc.

But the microscopic photographs are worth the 4 minutes or so of reading it.

It’s lengthy, you can get to the part that is really worth it by scrolling all the way down till you see the subheading “Pacheco’s Amazing Experiment”. There is a picture of a hand holding a test tube. You can’t miss it.

DNA, New Age, 2012, alien conspiracy, Pacheco

Although the ordering of the myths are not important, you may first read Part 1 here.

That a mind ‘contaminated’ by religion or the idea of God cannot seriously be scientific as well.

Believing the above statement to be true is like throwing away hundreds of years of recorded history. I shall not give an exhaustive list of contributors to sciences and other academic secular fields who are religious or theological as well, but I shall just give you a sample of it - a rather excellent example, I might add - of this list.

I present you Geber, aka Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan (clicking on the link opens its Wikipedia entry in a separate window), an 8th century Shia Muslim polymath credited widely to be the “Father of Chemistry”. I urge you to read about him first as my descriptions based on my infantile knowledge of him may not do justice to him.

People should not mistake him to be the creator of Algebra, although his Latinised name, Geber, and the word ‘Algebra’ sounds similar. The word Algebra is derived from a treatise by a Persian Mathematician, Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi (the word Algorithm is derived from his name), titled “Al-Kitab Al-Jabr Wal-Muqabala”.

But I would add also that Jabir’s chief influence and teacher is the 6th Infallible Imam of the Shia, Jaafar As-Sadiq (pbuh), who was a prolific polymath himself, as well as scientist and philosopher, besides being the spiritual leader of the Shia Muslims of his time.

Suffice it to say, Jabir was a brilliant and prolific scientist as well as a pious Shia Muslim. If that statement and fact were to be viewed under Dawkinsian lenses, you can’t get any more oxymoronic (extremely paradoxical) than that.

Of course, like I said, I am only giving you a sample of the list, and Geber is only one of those people whom the likes of Dawkins can’t accept that a religious mind can be scientific as well.

If I may add, people such as Newton and Einstein, although not strictly religious, are as they would describe themselves, spiritual. Even the late Carl Sagan, the prominent atheist astronomer, described, “But if by ‘God,’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

Interestingly, while I believe most atheists agree with Sagan’s view, I see very little (or nothing) in Dawkinsian rhetoric that acknowledges, echoes or embraces the view of Carl Sagan to at least ‘justify’ or lend some balanced credit to his arguments.

That raising your children in your own religious tradition is child abuse.

So by this, I mean to infer that if I were to be an atheist, freethinker or secular humanist and I raise my children in the philosophies of atheism, inculcate in her the logical fallacies and evils that religious belief can bring about, argue strongly against the improbability of God’s existence and strongly advocating to her the merits of rational and scientific thought, as well as educate her on the finer points of Darwinian evolution, that wouldn’t amount to ‘child abuse’ too?

What would not constitute child abuse then?

Think through that question thoroughly. Take into your account all practical and social considerations. What would it take to achieve an ‘ideal Dawkinsian society’ in which child abuse (by inculcating children in the traditions of the parents’ religion) is virtually non-existent?

If his argument that raising your child in your religious tradition is a form of child abuse becomes mainstream and takes root - although far-fetched - in policy-makers, and even - God forbid - becomes part of the list of no-no’s (amongst perhaps torture, imprisonment without trial, etc) in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, what do you think would happen? Do you think the governments of the world would deem it wise to illegalise the raising of children in their parents’ religious tradition? Do you think parents of any religious tradition would actually want to comply with the new laws being passed against the raising of children in their parents’ religious tradition? What would stop parents from ‘brainwashing’ their children into accepting religion in secret?

What about teaching our children basic morals and ethics? Would that too amount to abuse because morals and ethics are subjective and evolve with the times - what might be ‘moral’ in an earlier age may not be moral now? So do we then allow our children free rein to do whatever they want and decide what is right or wrong, according to their own trial-and-error learning processes? Make it okay for them to curse and swear at their parents, bully their peers, take what’s not theirs, torture their pets, embrace homosexuality while still young, all in the name of ‘giving them the freedom to choose whatever belief systems, moral systems, ethical systems, sexual orientation or life philosophies they want to adopt’?

Geber, 8th century Shia Muslim polymath, Jaafar As-Sadiq

I’ve read The Singularity is Near by the brilliantly naive and profoundly optimistic futurist and technologist Ray Kurzweil. I can’t believe it’s going to be made into a movie!

The Singularity is Near - A True Story about the Future is a 2008 release (actually it’s called a ‘Terasem Motion Infoculture Presentation’ - don’t ask me what that means) starring not only Kurzweil himself, but, of all people, Tony Robbins as well!

I don’t expect it to be a typical decently entertaining fictional motion picture, but I’m going to pre-enjoy it anyway.

The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil, Tony Robbins

1. Death

2. Threat of Extinction

3. Subjective Dissatisfactory Life

Those are the 3 biggest problems facing Humanity, according to Transhumanist Nick Bostrom. View the video of his lecture here:

My views in a later post…

Death, Threat of Extinction, Subjective Dissatisfactory Life, Humanity, Transhumanist, Nick Bostrom

I am a fan of Michio Kaku. I first read his book, Hyperspace, when I was 15 years old and it started me on the path of science - not in the serious professional sense, just as an enthusiastic lover of the developments of science, technology and civilisation.

Then I read Visions, his book on the future developments of technology. It was the prelude to my reading of Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near.

In this video, Kaku describes the 4 types of civilisations according to their levels of technological mastery. Guess where we stand amongst the 4 types:

Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, Visions, technology, Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near

I wish to see an intimate dialogue / debate between Professors Hassanain Rajabali and Richard Dawkins either live or on internet video.

In this lecture, Professor Hassanain explains how the idea of evolution by natural selection need not be categorically rejected from the domain of holistic Islamic understanding and in fact, how it could possibly even be in harmony with what is agreed upon in Islam.

Hassanain Rajabali, Richard Dawkins, evolution, natural selection, Islam