A look into the interplay between Science,Religion and Philosophy

It was just yesterday when i happened to watch the debate which took place between our brother Hamza Tzortis and Parvez Hoodbhoy in lahore university of management sciences.It was the first debate of its kind in Pakistan and LUMS was a good venue for such a discussion as the mentioned institute stands for liberalism and it hosts such diverse opinions on its campus since long. Dr Parvez Hoodbhoy , the MIT trained physicist who has done his doctorate in particle physics , has been serving as a voice of secularism and liberalism in Pakistan. He has been airing his views on political and strategic topics as well. Before this debate ,he was one of the four members who took part in a TV debate on the creation of universe and purpose of life on Geo news( The video can be found on youtube).He has a handsome amount of following in Quid e Azam university Islamabad where he is serving as the head of the physics department. Brother Hamza Tzortis is a Greek convert to Islam.Born to secular pare

Since many days i have been thinking to write something about the ontological argument which i think is the strongest argument for the existence of God. The argument is air tight as it does not involve any externally existing scientific facts to make it vulnerable to any controversy due to the obvious fact that scientific facts change and hence the arguments based on the scientific facts have to undergo evolution. A good example will the multiverse scenarios and quantum vacuum issues related to the cosmological argument. At first sight Anselm's argument is remarkably unconvincing if not downright irritating; it looks too much like a parlor puzzle or word magic. And yet nearly every major philosopher from the time of Anselm to the present has had something to say about it; this argument has a long and illustrious line of defenders extending to the present. Indeed, the last few years have seen a remarkable flurry of interest in it among philosophers. What accounts f

Secondly , the in-determinism at the quantum level and the determinism at the levels of general relativity ( Even Newtonian Physics) can not account for each other. In our journey of physics we have reached a point where things have gone above quantification , determinations and formalizations. Such absurdities and exceptions belong to the realm of metaphysics not physics. The other realization which we have acquired is the misuse of the word "proof". The growing trend in the western academics (David Berlinski , Kurt Godel will be a good read on this subject) is that the word proof suits Maths only or in some cases it suits mathematical physics. The concept of Proof gets diluted,subjective and foggy as one travels down from Maths to biology. It is as absurd to to think of a theory which can bind Quantam mechanics with General relativity as its is to assume that one day my experiences of seeing would become quantifiable and would be explained through formulas

My area of interest will be the consequences of the behavior of the scientific iconoclasts who are getting a far more visibility these days.The scientific establishment of America and Europe is getting on the nerves of the people of that region for obvious reasons. The notion that scientists have some exclusive methods to reach the wonders of nature is falling down and the very detached premises " A. I have studied particle physics B. I am a scientist C. Therefore i know that God does not exist D. Therefore i will dictate the ignorant masses what doctrines to uphold and which to reject" is loosing its flavor. The whole of this argument has been illogical ever since it was proposed. Some TV evangelist priests of Atheism had put some taste into it (You know every priest inherited skills for that) has some and no matter how bad the taste was , human mind has some specific wires which are always keen to opt for a negative change, some people had started liking