Jahanshah Javid

SCIENCE AND RELIGION…and the twains shall never meet!

1-''There is something very curious about lack of imagination of people who follow religions.'' Disenchanted

So correct, I have extensively written on this subject and I find your points so valid.

Reason and science leads to freedom of mind from dogma and acquirement of rationalism. The belief in the theory of Big Bang, theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of atomic structures and theory of chromosomal inheritance requires no Holy Scriptures but scientific proof and rigorous test of these truths. Science progresses with each funeral whereas religion continues to present the same story of creation with a lot more contradictions.

I consider 'Science' and 'faith inspired dogma' are twains that shall never meet. I see efforts of dogmatic fundamentalists to impose the commandments of scriptures through logic and reason of physical realities as far-fetched. Some truth of 'divine proportions' does not have any scientific reasoning. Let's keep science and religion detached; the two can only be complementary if we believe that as time changes so will the dicta of Providence and deity.

Biology clearly demonstrates how a sperm originates. In the Holy Scriptures unfortunately the origin of sperm is shrouded in a kind of obscurity that is impossible to decipher by the worldly beings. Hippocrates taught that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.

The Holy Scriptures support this theory proposed by Hippocrates in 5th century BC (1000 years before Islam) that sperm originates from the backbones and the ribs. 'He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs: (86:6-7).' For the sperm to originate between the back and the ribs would mean that it comes from the kidneys! Greek physician Hippocrates theorized this erroneous thought that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm. Aristotle described the function of the umbilical cord correctly however mistakenly thought that sperm testicles functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse.  

All Abrahamic religions do not seem to agree on the facts of creation - three different stories for 'one birth of Jesus' that is totally in negation of the theory of chromosomal inheritance, i.e., God has no sperms like mammals. Our dogmatic beliefs should be subjected to similar rigorous tests of truth as we subject scientific realities, if erroneous, these intricate hearsay should be discarded.

Reason and science lead to freedom of mind from dogma and acquirement of rationalism, like the belief in the Theory of 'The Big Bang' instead of the 'Biblical concept of a 6000-year-old history of creation' that defies any judicious explanation supported by the history of civilisation. I am perfectly aware of the 'existence question' known as ''God Gamble is a Win/Win,'' - heads you win tails you win - but it is important that the way we live our life should be based on enquiry and truth. On that count alone, I will not give up my right to question and find the truth that is satisfactory to my faculty of reasoning. I like the God of singularity!There is no region of the world where you can see mindless predominant following of Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein. Yet, those regions where science helped to develop tools of progress are regions where theories of sciences and philosophy are well treasured. Where Newton is respected, logic and rationalism has survived and progressed by leaps and bounds, toleration in those regions is admirably better. Regions, where pre-dominant thinking and learning of scriptures is considered as divine progress, standstill, and with poverty of mind that dominates the landscape material hazards make the life of inhabitants miserable.  

 In my humble opinion, 'Holy scriptures' are ill-treated when their authenticity is extended beyond the orb of clear intention. Science symbolises the name of freedom from dogma and as such there is no place for any religious science. The Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics needs no justification from the Holy Scriptures neither do the Holy Scriptures need any justification from the laws of physics, ultimately what happens in life is that reality triumphs. Let this question be determined, that the notion of 'Islamic science or biblical science' is consequently inconsistent.

 We cannot bastardize science; science is the common language OF THE UNIVERSE. The rules of physics and mathematics are identical in the whole universe, 2 plus 2 equals four is a universal truth. There is only one Universal Science; the challenges that science faces can only be answered through universal precision. Biological developments and evolutionary paths of mankind are physical truths that are concealed in our DNA coding and genome. Biblical stories of a 6,000 old universe are calming for our opiate-frightened intellect but the Hubble physically seeing billions of light years in our past tells a different tale of universe that is 15 -16 billion years old and still counting. As science progresses and new discoveries are made, efforts to justify the origins of 'The Big Bang, Red Nebula and Theory of Relativity' to 'vague scriptures' will not be obliging at all. Absolute truth needs no crutches.  

‘Ebaadat be joz khedmateh khalq neest’

1-‘There is no middle man in Islam  "We are closer to man then his jugular vein."  Quran ‘ 

In all Abrahamic scriptures the only way to reach God is through the middle man, from Prophets to Imam Ghaib, there are lots of middle men. The whole concept of vilayet-el-fiqah is based on regent of Allah on earth. 

 2- ‘I think , we have to put aside the concept of religion when we discuss this topic that is the wisest thing to do .... Now if you want to deny a religion or accept a religion that is totally different subject ...’

I want reason, logic and tolerance to be my tool to accept concepts that are beyond our understanding not coercion. Religion and its agents becomes a force of coercion regrettably

Islam's 'enlightened clergy' has tenaciously resisted change. Change is seen as a threat to Islam. Your connection of Internet to Spring revolution in Middle East is so pertinent. The internet revolution has turned the mullahcratic world of Islam on its head. Internet did what printing presses did to Turkey.

These new spring revolutions should be based on philosophies that ensure freedom not medievalism. Islam remains mired in ignorance and poverty because of Islam's tortured route to distinguish constructive technology as best. Islam's clergy still battles modernity with great intensity.

The Information Age, including mass media, has brought the collision into sharper focus. One question every Muslim should always ask is how the Middle East went from being a global hub of civilization to being the global epicentre of terrorism and ruthless killing as it arguably is today.  In case of the Middle East, it is our ‘cerebral software’ that needs an anti viral dose. The main cause of the backwardness is the mindset of the region. The abhorrence of fine arts and preference of violence and conquest over logic and reason as a matter of holy cause and injunctions have led 1.5 billion to be a part of a stifled society that detests beauty of expression, expressive art or music.

I believe in this wholeheartedly, you summed up ‘my religion so well, this is what most of us follow ‘Ebaadat be joz khedmateh khalq neest’ thanks Soosan Khanoom, thanks a lot; you summed it up so well, lovely end to a very ardent and a passionate post.     

Possibilities

Thank you for sharing quotes from Miller’s book, which created so many interesting and controversial discussions. I think, one needs to be generous and brave to share excerpts from such writer who express his thoughts and actions without fear of criticism. How boring our life could be if there were no differences among our ideas, interpretations and beliefs. It become dangerous only when some think that their perception of reality and their understanding of the world are the only valid and true ones and those of the others are nonsense. However, it is equally dangerous to believe that the possibility of other alternatives is enough excuse for not pursuing and researching further for new possibilities, and truth, whatever the truth might be.    

Cool

Thanks Azarin. I know Miller is not easy to digest when considering the extremes he puts one through in detailing his sexual experiences. It can be shocking and disturbing to many, even experienced readers, I think. But I'm glad that his honesty and clear, unpretentious, writing got you interested.

I haven't ready many books, as you know, so I can't really compare him to others. I just feel lucky I found him.

 I loved the fact that

 I loved the fact that Miller still reads like a modern author. Nothing sounded cliché or déjà-vu

Azarin: That is exactly how I feel but I did not know how to verbalize it.. Thanks. Now, I don't have to racking my brains to find the words.. 

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Great blog

Dear JJ, Thank you so much for always writing the most interesting blogs and sharing your great taste in books with your IC friends!

After your first blog about Miller, I read the Tropic of Cancer. Strangely, even though that novel had no solid structure or plot or conflict, but still I could see why it has been considered as one of the top American novels of the 20th century. A real breakthrough and totally revolutionary for its time. Of course, the fact that I have lived 6 years in paris (and also 6 years in Dijon "that dirty hole"..haha)kind of hooked me and I couldn't stop reading the novel, in spite of the fact that Miller's writing is not easy. His voice somehow reminded me of a sober Kerouac and a much dirtier Beckett, two of my top favorite authors. I loved the fact that Miller still reads like a modern author. Nothing sounded cliché or déjà-vu. I especially was taken by his breathtaking streams of consciousness and his original thoughts about things we all know. 

Now, after reading all these thought provoking quotes from Tropic of Capricorn, my only option is to add it to my "To Read" list...Thank you, JJ jan!

While I was sleeping :-)

     Last night I quoted a paragraph on where the carbon atom in my hand that is writing this post got where it is. Reality-bites took a wrong bit out of that and interpreted that as a theory on origin of life and as such put it on same footing as myth!

        There is a clarification needed. What I quoted was about the origin of a Carbon atom which is not quite the same as origin of life! Origin of life is a speculative issue as far as our current understanding goes. Origin of atoms however is a scientific fact as much as the sun is running on nuclear fusion and water is made of H2O!

        That confusion started a chain reaction that excited theists and atheists alike. Now I found Soosan khanom arguments amusing when it comes to subject of god. I think she is an able representative but she has a very difficult if not impossible task! (She is on the money in matters politics though :-))

         I like her quote on development biology. Here it is:

“The concept of an embryo is a staggering one.  To become an embryo, you had to build yourself from a single cell.  You had to respire before you had lungs,  digest before you had a gut,  build bones when you were pulpy,  and form orderly arrays of neurons before you knew how to think.  One of the critical differences between you and a machine is that  a machine is never required to function until after it is built.   Every animal has to function as it builds itself.”                  Scott Gilbert 

           I don't mean Soosan in particular but there is something very curious about lack of imagination of people who follow religions. The quote above reminds me of the argument that since each of us has a mom this should go ad infinitum! Meaning everyone should have had a mom all the way! That is why we have the story of Adam and Eve. Because for the illiterate man it is hard to imagine how the first human being came about. It took the genius of Darwin to resolve that mystery!

         And of course there is this old argument that evolution is consistent with God. That is like saying, true that laws of physics govern rotation of moon around the earth but God also is watching/helping it! That renders notion of God void of any meaning! Evolution is a random, blind process. That is hardly compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient entity!

 Mr. Latif: Thanks for the

 Mr. Latif: Thanks for the enlighthening and educational  comments.

"To change someone you need to change their self-awarness, provided that they have any".--unknown

Blue lips:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqQXJ16mzrk

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Iqbal

Mark Twain has been brought up Christian and he was thought that there is a middle man ......  are we Christians ?  If not his quote can't be applied to us while it is valid and so true. 

There is no middle man in Islam 

"We are closer to man then his jugular vein."  Quran  

I had this discussion with respect to the Evolution with a few people here who brought up the monkey trail ..... again unless we are christians we do not have any disagreement here as well ...  

I think , we have to put aside the concept of religion when we discuss this topic that is the wisest thing to do ....

YOu like to call it the law of Physics ... fine with me !!  But you should stop here cause anything afterwards is just pure speculation ...  stick to " I don't know " ... 

Now if you want to deny a religion or accept a religion that is totally different subject ... you have every right to deny it as much as another person who has every right to defend it and you are as equal as him ... each with one vote ONLY ...  

About kabee ... there is no God there as It has been said in the book .. no God but GOD there is no idol there ... Kabee has also been called the HOUSE OF PEOPLE .....if you pay attention when you are in Kabee each way you turn to you are actually praying towards people ... you see people  ONLY.... you prostrate while you have people doing the same thing  in front of you ...    

Ebaadat be joz khedmateh khalq neest  

Miller is my 2nd favourite author after mark twain.

From Twain.

The
pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is--a mob; they don't
fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's
borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any
MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness.

Since we are so far from the truth, humanity, once one discovers just how far they have been misled from it, there is a certain pain and anger one needs to express.  We need to be true to ourselves.

My View which is likely to change,

If there was at one time a god we do not know for sure, but what we do know is that God has been dead for a long time and is not alive now except in us.

Amir parviz

When I hear 'creator' it rings too closely to myths!

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?"

Mark Twain

We have transcended into a new creed. I think that we all 7 billion should follow,’ that of unique human kind,’ we have same inherited coding, same love ;same hatreds; we got to go beyond parochial ideological fixations and reach a universal solution where we should identify ourselves as citizens of this big blue planet, we should all call it as ‘mother earth.

‘Simple and plain it helps me eradicate the middle man who tells me through his agents provocateurs who to love and how to love each other, love is born within me. I love to love.

I don’t need an agent provocateur to tell me how to love each other and the only true love is attainable through ‘his’ way, everyone’s way is so different and so complex, we humans can have one way that is ‘human way’ and love should be our main objective, let’s go beyond our self made delusions and avatars.

The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe!

The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible” is one of Albert Einstein's best-known aphorisms. It expresses his amazement that the laws of physics, which our minds are somehow attuned to understand, apply not just here on Earth but also in the remotest galaxy.

Our whole Universe is governed by just six numbers, set at the time of the Big Bang.

Alter any one of them at your peril, for stars, planets and humans would then not exist. These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life.

Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?

I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. This realisation offers a radically new perspective on our Universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws.

It is astonishing that an expanding universe, whose starting point is so 'simple' that it can be specified by just a few numbers, can evolve (if these numbers are suitably tuned) into our intricately structured cosmos.

Perhaps there are some connections between these numbers. At the moment, however, we cannot predict any one of them from the values of the others. Nor do we know whether some 'theory of everything' will eventually yield a formula that interrelates them, or that specifies them uniquely.

I have highlighted these six because each plays a crucial and distinctive role in our Universe, and together they determine how the Universe evolves and what its internal potentialities are; moreover, three of them (those that pertain to the large-scale Universe) are only now being measured with any precision.

Newton taught us that the same force that makes apples fall holds the Moon and planets in their courses. We now know that this same force binds the galaxies, makes some stars collapse into black holes, and may eventually cause the Andromeda galaxy to collapse on top of us. Atoms in the most distant galaxies are identical to those we can study in our laboratories.

All parts of the universe seem to be evolving in a similar way, as though they shared a common origin. Without this uniformity, cosmology would have got nowhere.

I am so fascinated by Sir Martin Rees, I strongly recommend anyone interested in knowing ''Was there a beginning? Whether we are alone? What’s the future of the cosmos? Why the Universe is so large and what we still don't know..." should read Sir Rees’s “What We Still Don’t Know.” It addresses the Universe, which is still a place of mystery and wonder. If humankind with its intelligence continues to live for the next 5 billion years, then today, our condition is akin to the early microbes. If evolution takes its charted course, what will evolve in the next 5 billion years would be a different kind of terrestrial being. If one believes there are millions of “more intelligent species” out there, I think those species have a lot of hurdles to cross before developing into a conscious being.

Rees comments on our limited vision and inadequate extent of understanding: “I think we can understand purpose in a human context. I think it's really arrogant to talk about the entire universe and ascribe purpose to it, because another thing which I feel very strongly is that there may be aspects of physical reality which are beyond human brains' capacity to understand. It's amazing that we have got as far as we have in understanding the universe and atoms etc, but I think there are many aspects of reality which we may never understand as I said, because our brains aren't up to it. And that being so, I think it is rather arrogant to ascribe a purpose to the entire cosmos.''

Rees comments on ''Mathematical laws underpin the fabric of our Universe – not just atoms, but galaxies, stars and people. The properties of atoms – their sizes and masses, how many different kinds there are, and the forces linking them together – determine the chemistry of our everyday world. The very existence of atoms depends on forces and particles deep inside them. The objects that astronomers study – planets, stars and galaxies – are controlled by the force of gravity. And everything takes place in the arena of an expanding Universe, whose properties were imprinted into it at the time of the initial Big Bang.''

I believe in the God of Spinoza!

Don't grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form. Rumi

We created Gods, we love Gods, we want to live perpetually. It is fear of death and unknown that led us to our Gods. We named them and we destroyed them when we wanted at will. Out of 360 in the Kabba we left the one we wanted and destroyed the others!

'Allah' was the chief of the gods and the special deity of the Quraish, the prophet’s tribe. Allah had three daughters: Al Uzzah (Venus) most revered of all and pleased with human sacrifice; Manah, the goddess of destiny, and Al Lat, the goddess of vegetable life.

The observable universe is 14 billion light-years across, and our view is very limited in a insignificant corner. We are not the centre stage, God of our universe would have been at least charitable enough to put us somewhere more prominent, a prominent centre stage would not be hospitable environment for habitation unfortunately.

We live on a for lone, forgotten and unsexy planet; our Sun's is informally designated as a yellow dwarf it serves as our energy reactor source. Yet, we may be the only 'sentient being' in a habitable zone in a quiet part of our universe, and life here could have sprung up crossing all the barriers and hurdles. Intelligent life is a rarity unique and so far unfound, intelligent life likes to create its own myths and own fable. God is our greatest myth, our collective epic. If Dolphins could write, read and listen and philosophise they would or may have created Gods too.

Before Prophet appeared, the Kaaba was surrounded by 360 idols, and every Arab house had its god. Arabs also believed in jinn (subtle beings), and some vague divinity with many offspring. Among the major deities of the pre-Islamic era were al-Lat ("the Goddess"), worshiped in the shape of a square stone; al-Uzzah ("the Mighty"), a goddess identified with the morning star and worshiped as a thigh-bone-shaped slab of granite between al Talf and Mecca; Manat, the goddess of destiny, worshiped as a black stone on the road between Mecca and Medina; and the moon god, Hubal, whose worship was connected with the Black Stone of the Kaaba. The stones were said to have fallen from the sun, moon, stars, and planets and to represent cosmic forces. The so-called Black Stone (actually the color of burnt umber) that Muslims revere today is the same one that their forebears had worshiped well before Muhammad and that they believed had come from the moon. No scientific investigation has ever been performed on the stone. (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996)

It is 'Laws of Physics' that rule the universe. Let us comprehend it well we are beginning of infinity, our end is our beginning; our beginning is our end. This embodiment of 100 trillion cell and more has no dates of expiry, it started with singularity and will end in one. These cells of ours will appear and reappear in new forms.

Limited is generous, our view is like vantage point on an electron riding around the first orbit of H atom in the core of the earth. This electron sees things around it and wants to define life, too ambitous. The limitations of humans cannot be better enunciated.

If you are using science and logic

There is no way , scientifically speaking , for you to be able to deny it and as to what to call it, at most you can say is , " I DO NOT KNOW "   ...... 

Consider this from the author of a textbook that I studied at grad school for my  developmental biology class  : 
“The concept of an embryo is a staggering one.  To become an embryo, you had to build yourself from a single cell.  You had to respire before you had lungs,  digest before you had a gut,  build bones when you were pulpy,  and form orderly arrays of neurons before you knew how to think.  One of the critical differences between you and a machine is that  a machine is never required to function until after it is built.   Every animal has to function as it builds itself.”                  Scott Gilbert  

I understand that some of us have developed allergy to the word God and miracle..The words are misleadings and confusing and limited anyway .... besides we each have our own concerns with those words ... so we sometimes jump to conclusion when we hear them ...Otherwise tell me what is the difference between using the word God or Mother nature or intelegent design , or brilliant mind or designer , or forces of universe , or nothing, or everything , or something.  My point is there is a mind ... why ? it just does not make sense otherwise .... what i sthat mind "  I DO NOT KNOW "  again is the best answer   or you call that mind whatever you like   ..

I took the above from my comments in the following related blog .... I am sure you all read those and I am sorry for the reruns   : )

There has to be a mind behind the creation 

 PS ... Good points from Reality Bites ... I agree 

Ok...

I'm sorry. I'm being obnoxious. When I hear 'creator' it rings too closely to 'god' and religious myths.

But for someone like you, who believes in fact and scientific knowledge, to question whether science can answer everything, I say this: if science does not find the answer to the mysteries of life, any other "answer" is just a guess at best.

Theory vs. Superstition Part IV

I studied science. I believe in scientific fact and knowledge. One of the most fundamental principles science taught me was to always keep an "open mind" and not to totally discount any possibility until there is proof to the contrary.

Seems like you selectively took what you wanted from what I said and laid your own interpretation on it. I also said it is probably correct to dismiss most of what is in religious scriptures as superstition. However, until science proves otherwise, I'll still keep an open mind to the possibility of a creator.

I don't mean a creator with flowing long white beard looking down from above who said "let there be light" and suddenly there was light 6000 years ago, as claimed by some religious nutcases. Rather, as some kind of force or impetus that might have kick-started the bigbang or whatever event behind the creation of the Universe. Again, I stress this is unlikely as there is no scientific proof for it, but then again is no proof against it yet either.

Also, are we that certain human made science can always explain everything?

I'm totally against superstition, ignorance and man-made fantasy that has caused so much strife, misery and impeded progress in the World since some apes turned into humans. But, like I said, on the issue of  how we came to be, I'll go with what science tell us, and as much as it CAN tell us, AND I'll also keep an open mind to what it CAN'T.

Theory vs. Superstition III

When I mentioned theory vs. superstition, you said: "The only issue with dismissing the idea of a 'Creator' behind the existence of the universe out of hand is that, just as this cannot be scientifically proved, it cannot be scientifically disproved either."

Once you bring up the possibility of a 'Creator' the door becomes wide open for religious superstition that can be woven into any "indisputable theory" one wishes. We can hypothesize about a creator, but that is not the same as theory, which is built on the foundations of fact, not fiction.

Puzzled!

Where did I say what you quoted from the book of Genesis was just as valid as scientific theory?!

This is some thoery

Book of Genesis

The Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good... etc., etc.

... yeah right. That's just as valid as scientific theory :)

Theory vs. Superstition II

If we agree it's only theory, which it is, I doubt if anyone can state with any certainty (or credibility) it is the closest thing to reality or not, because we just don't know.......yet.

As regards to dismissing various religious notions on creation of the universe as mere superstition, this is probably correct since much of what is the holy books of older religions especially, is likely to have been rewritten and re-interpreted many times to suit agendas of different kinds.

The only issue with dismissing the idea of a "Creator" behind the existence of the universe out of hand is that, just as this cannot be scientifically proved, it cannot be scientifically disproved either.

Theory vs. Superstition

Yes, what Disenchanted quoted is a theory. But it's the closest thing to reality, certainly more so than anything written in the Bible, the Qoran or any other "holy" book.

Disenchanted

What you quoted is only but one scientific theory on the origins of life and where we came from. There are many others. It is still pretty much all theory and will probably remain so for a long long time yet.

All said and done we still don't really know how we came to be.

stellar dust

Thank you Disenchanted. What you quoted beautifully summarizes the miracle of life: it's no miracle at all: it's as real as it gets.

Here is the quote:

    “We are made from the ashes of stellar death. Some scientists have whimsically imagined the meanderings of a single carbon atom, released in the explosive death throes of a star, drifting for eons across intergalactic space, landing in a gas disk that eventually formed Earth, becoming chemically altered, and finally being inserted into a chain of life as part of a nerve cell that guides a human hand to write about it.”

      This is what science can tell us about who we are and where all this came from. You can either embrace the science and marvel in its beauty or you can create your own myths and live and die believing in superstition.

Thank you JJ....

        For introducing the book on the site and many more thoughtful contributions in social and political discussions. Very interesting selection of quotes. I enjoyed reading them.

        I am not sure on his take on social matters but when it comes to life and man's relation to cosmos/nature I find his views refreshing, thought provoking and a bit unnerving as well!

       It reminds me of a quote I read somewhere. The carbon atom in my hand belongs to ashes of a dead star that after meandering in space for millions of years got here to be a part of my hand and write about its trip!

 No one except perhaps

 No one except perhaps George Eliot author of  Middlemarch, can explore the life of the inner mind in relation to the making and breaking of human relationships like HM. Great collection of quotes; brutally honest not for the faint of heart. Thanksfor sharing.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

Thanks JJ for your quotes from the book

I read many of them and they are very interesting. However, I kind of agree with Soosan Khanoom. But again, I am glad that you wrote about the book so I now know what it is.

JJJ why don't you read some better books?!

BTW are you going to the sculpture garden this afternoon/tonight?  I'll be there and if you're there I can say hello!  I'll be the dashing man with ripped body with muscles, blond hair and blue eyes, looking nothing like an Iranian! 

Everything is sacred

always a pleasure...

to read about resillience in various forms, different views... I feel the pure joy or agony in his sense of resolve/ enlightenment. Very human, very attractive.

I like Miller's fluid honesty, a lot. His thoughts remind me of Alan Watts and other contemporaries. Even though, in real life, I never felt the urgency to finish more than a chapter by Miller. Whereas Watts and other zen writers were more accessible to me... But that was Then.

My favorite: Life is an art.

"To get beneath the facts I would have had to be an artist, and one doesn't become an artist overnight. First you have to be crushed, to have your conflicting points of view annihilated. You have to be wiped out as a human being in order to be born again an individual."