Mutual Influence of the Metaphysical and Physical

By: Ziauddin Ahmed

Family of the Heart - DIALOGUE & DISCUSSIONS 

Our beliefs become our destiny

 

Dear Family of the Heart,

Feroz Karmally (posts 24, 25 & 27) and Khalid Sohail (post 26) have infused some traditional ideas into this discussion which deserve our attention.

 

Apropros Sohail's "God is a metaphor" we need to understand what we mean by the term metaphor to ensure that we are all looking at the same thing at the same time.

 

Metaphor is the application of a descriptive phrase or term to a phenomenon to which it does not literally apply. In sociology and the sciences, for instance, the role of metaphor is generally considerable (e.g., the notion of light waves as 'particles') and is arguably indispensable.

 

The value of metaphor is in suggesting new relationships or new explanatory mechanisms. However, its use can be problematic if metaphors are taken literally (as Feroz Karmally appears to be doing) and their applicability is not confirmed by independent evidence.

 

Even at this late stage of this particular discussion regarding the physics of metaphysics and what have you, started by our mutual friend Ziauddin Ahmed, it behooves us to arrive at a common understanding that metaphysics is, first and foremost, the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles, e.g., questions of 'existence', 'being' and 'knowing', and, secondly, that metaphysics is merely speculative doctrines and aempirical (i.e., nonscientific) theories.

 

Which brings us to a new term, metatheory, which concerns all or any second-order accounts of theories or second-order theories of theories,  such as Karmally's claims that he knows the mind of God (as in his statement, "There is enough rubbish going around and no one needs more"), yet he voices his own strong prejudice by saying: "Anyone [who wishes] to know the purpose of our life and why we are here -- please feel free to email me. I will not give you my opinion but real answers."

 

Karmally's argument is a demonstration of paradoxical opinions and biases in which he is trapped, as witnessed by his statement to Sohail: "God is a reality whether we want to accept that or not. Our inability to comprehend God is irrelevant. All we can do as intelligent human being[s] is accept the reality and discard our erroneous conclusions of the past."

 

Karmally doesn't see that this and other similar opinions concerning God and all of humankind's beliefs about God are a carryover of the past! Millions of years of it.

 

If, as he says, "Time is the only resource that is limited," then why is he stretching the past into the present?

 

I wish to put it on record that the validity of his opinions (or beliefs) rests on the belief that God did indeed write the history of Adam and Eve all the way up to the Day of Judgment that is yet to come.

 

Again, Karmally voices his opinion by claiming that "all religions are corrupted" because they "have deviated [. . .] from the true religion" -- supposing, I feel certain, that that true religion is none other than the one he follows.

 

Karmally, as I said before, appears to know the mind of God, for he writes: "Organized religion today has very little to do with God, and something that God would have nothing to do with."

 

It's amazing how he knows all this.

 

Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi explained it best: "Our beliefs become our destiny."

 

Rashid Mughal

Send questions or comments to Family of the Heart