A look into the interplay between Science,Religion and Philosophy

Petrograd ,November 1917 ,one a cold foggy morning a huge crowd composed of all age groups has gathered infront of the infamous Winter Palace where the Tsar monarchs used to reside. The zeal and zest of the crowd is unprecedented. Faces are glittering with a happiness of the highest magnitudes and not a moment goes without slogans. For Manov Makhail , it is a normal day. As a priest in the nearby church , He has just left the church for his home with the Bible in his armpit.Not much aware of the events taking place in the city , he fails to make much sense of the crowd infront of him. All what he knows is that a revolution is gearing up in the city but the rest of the details are of no interest for him. In this state of  incredulity , he decides to join the crowd artlessly  hoping that Jesus might praised by the zealots , as it had been the case in every revolution that Jesus was remembered. When he fails to see any signs of  acknowledgment  of Jesus from the crowd , he starts raising

"How about the chicken who responds back violently when her child is attacked? Is she being violent or not?" This  was a question posed infront of Ghandi by the then young Wali khan  , whose father Abdul Ghaffar khan , popularly known as bacha khan , was indoctrinating the idea of tolerance into the Pashtun socities , together with Mr Ghandi. Mr Ghandi did not have any satisfactory answer to that question of Wali khan and he just smiled away by saying that there are more important political issues to think about than the question. But the question did have a depth and it did pointed out the hollowness of the "doctrine of tolerance" vigorously preached by Bacha khan those days. These were the good old days of united India when Abdul Ghaffar kha, popularly known as Bacha khan surfaced from a small village of Charsada, North West frontier province. He was born in an age when the western enlightenment at one hand and the soviet Marxism on the other  were impressing pe

As it is a general sentiment these days among the modernist camp that Islam must be "reformed" properly to make it acceptable to the people in this age so it also necessary to address this issue of reformation as well in details. We all know that the idea of reformation manly originates in the modernistic camp under the influences that the Western "enlightenment" is no more compatible with Islam or Islam is incompatible with the western enlightenment. The western enlightenment is a broad term which encompasses all the social doctrines that became prevalent in the post modernism west. Such ideologies will primarily include democracy , the social doctrines related to the relation ship between men and women , the various economic theories and so on. Why should one think of making Islam compatible with the Western enlightenment? The reason that the modernists give is obvious. The western enlightenment is prevalent , accepted and has taken a grip over the

One of the trends which have captivated the imagination of the new enlightened crowd is the slogan that Human is all matter.Coupled by  the influences of the age , this onliner slogan has been shaped into some kind of an argument for the invalidity of religion as it follows a predictable path. If human being is all and only matter then is nothing beyond that and we know that the matter of human body is an accumulation of hydrocarbons , which when buried decomposes. So a matter has decomposed into the soil and nothing more. So no life after death and so no God and lets join the Dawkins's party which after deeply "absorbing" this argument is chanting "Probably there is no God so lets enjoy". I don't know how this "Probably" comes into such an apparently solid argument and how much disturbing it is for the faithfuls of Dawkins but the argument is a trivial argument like the rest of the cliches coined and regurgitated against religion . A superficia

  In this part i would like to analyze three atheistic claims which are relavent to the topic at hand. 1. There must be a proof for each and every thing : Usually an atheist would come up with his normal preaching tone and will shout out “You must have proof and evidence for your beliefs and if you cannot substantiate your faith with evidence then there is something irrational, irresponsible and immoral about you because you have accepted something without any evidence or proof.” Is it really the case? I honestly think no, it is not. The concept that you must be having a proof or evidence for each and everything that is a part of your world view and if not so you should reject it,is known as evidentialism. Evidentialism has taken a grip over the popular imagination since the advent of scientific revolution in the nether regions of west. However if we observe the basic human instincts we will find out that at the core of human nature faith plays a more i

The Nature of Reality Have you ever pondered on the question that what is reality? Is there any ultimate reality? And if there is an ultimate reality then what is the nature of that reality? Will we ever be able to explore the ultimate reality? These questions might seem to be perplexing but they do generate a colourful world of introspection and deep thought.  Of course we do share some reality otherwise I wouldn’t have been writing this and you wouldn’t have been reading it. The way we all make sense of each other originates a sublime and lucid within us humans that we have some reality in common and if we didn’t share a reality we would never have been able to make sense of each other. Ever since the beginning of the age of “ enlightment” governed by the scientific realism of Galileo and his descendants, a reductionist world view that “the world of matter is the only reality and there is nothing beyond that and the world of matter is all that matters” has succeeded in achieving