Table Tennis Tournament Amazingly realistic table tennis game!

Play this free game now!!

MORALITY IS NATURAL

There are enough scientific studies to show that moral law is inborn in humans, not God-given.

The idea that man needs God to tell us how to behave morally, to be kind and thoughtful towards our fellow man, to aid others without any promise of benefit to ourselves, is a central tenet of most religions. To emphasize the point, we are told that if we do not obey God’s moral law, we will spend an eternity in hell while if we do obey the moral code, we will spend an eternity of bliss in heaven. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health is the head of the Human Genome Project responsible for sequencing the three billion base pairs of the human genome. In 2007, this eminent scientist wrote a book titled ‘The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief ’. He recounts that in his early years as a scientist, he was an atheist but one day, he had an epiphany and came to believe that man could not be a moral animal without the aid of a god given moral law. As a result of this realization, he became of person of faith. This epiphany blew me away because although he was a geneticist, he found the extensive genetic evidence that altruism was an inborn genetic trait unconvincing. He also believed that while the development of all other living organisms on earth was the result of Darwinian evolution, the evolution of man was special and was guided by the hand of God. Surveys have shown that most scientists, especially those in the field of the biological and genetic sciences, are non-theists, partly because they so strongly believe that Darwinian evolution was responsible for the origin of the species, including man. As a fellow geneticist, I was surprised that this eminent scientist was both disavowing the decades of research into the genetics of altruism and proposing that humans were so unique that God was required to guide the evolution of humans. This was uncomfortably close to the tenants of the Intelligent Design creationists. I wish to just address the issue of altruism as an inborn genetic trait. Altruism is defined as aiding another individual while incurring personal costs to oneself. For example, if I jump into a raging river to save my son from drowning, I place myself at risk of drowning. This behaviour of being kind and helpful to others is a central tenet to of Christian thought, the golden rule, consisting of treating others, as you would like to be treated. One of the best examples of altruism in the animal kingdom is the behaviour of sterile worker honeybees who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the queen bee. Darwin was quite concerned about altruism, fearing that it seemed to directly contradict his theory of survival of the fittest, thus allowing better genes to be passed on to the next generation. Worker bees are sterile and thus, derive no direct benefit for their altruistic acts and cannot pass on their genes. Darwin’s solution to this apparent contradiction of this theory was to suggest that the survival benefit did not always have to apply to the individual — it could also apply to the relatives of the individual. Thus, a sterile worker bee helping the queen to survive would help guarantee the preservation of the genes of the whole family. This became known as the ‘kin selection’ theory. As if his general theory of the evolution of the species were not enough of a problem for religions to swallow, Darwin was now suggesting that selfsacrificial behaviour, generally considered only to be within the purview of religion, was also biologically controlled and could occur in animals was well as humans. The controversial issues of the genetics and evolution of altruism were addressed by some of the most brilliant and famous mathematical geneticists of the 20th century, including JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and Sewell Wright. Wright provided the field of population genetics with the term r, referring to the degree of genetic relatedness between relatives. For example, fathers and sons and brothers and sisters share half of their genes in common producing an r = 1/2. Grandfathers and grandchildren share 1/4 of their genes in common producing an r = 1/4. However, it was a naturalist and student of economics, William Hamilton, who in 1963 published the equation that provided a framework for understanding the genetics and evolution of altruism. Hamilton was both a naturalist and a student of economics. The latter provided him with an appreciation of cost-benefit analysis. Hamilton’s famous equation was r x b > c, where b is the benefit accrued by the relatives for an altruistic act and c is the cost of the altruistic act. Thus, if a father saved his son from drowning, the odds that his son would be saved (benefit) must be twice the odds that the father would drown (cost) for the altruistic act to genetically benefit the family. The rearranged equation would be b > 2c (the benefit must be greater than twice the cost). Inherent in the equation is the fact that the closer the relationship between the individuals involved in the altruistic act, the higher the r, and thus the greater the benefit to the family. This process that Hamilton defined mathematically was termed “kin selection” for its implications for evolution and natural selection. Examples of altruistic behaviour adhering to Hamilton’s equation have been described in a wide range of animals including mammals. Subsequent work involving the concepts of reputation and punishment in societies has expanded the role of altruism in humans to include unrelated individuals in both small and large groups. These studies suggest a selective advantage for altruism involving not only small kinships, but also larger societal groups. Brain imaging studies indicate that cooperative behaviours that benefit the group, can activate pleasurable reward pathways, thus making altruism a pleasurable act. Combined, the aggregate of these studies suggests that man is a moral and mutually cooperating animal not because God dictated the laws of moral behaviour, but because the genes for such behaviour were selected for and evolved over time. These behaviours were advantageous to early societal groups and individuals and groups displaying such behaviours were more likely to survive than those who did not. Moral law is inborn, not God given.

Origin of DHAWANS [ Khatris]

The Khatris are a north Indian community that originated in the Potwar Plateau of Punjab. This region is historically connected with the composition of the Vedas and classics like the Mahabharata and Ashtadhyayi. The Kshatriya are members of the Hindu military order. As administrators and rulers, Kshatriya are assigned with protecting the Hindu Dharma, and serving humanity. In course of time, however, as a result of economic and political exigencies, the Khatri also expanded into mercantile occupations.
When Pakistan and India gained independence, most of the Khatris in what became Pakistan migrated to India. Today Khatris live in all regions of India, but are concentrated in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. While most Khatris are Hindu, some are also Sikh or Muslim and a small minority are Jain. Khatris of all these faiths collectively form one community. In modern times, the Khatri play a significant role in the Indian economy, serving as businessmen, civil and government administrators, landlords and military officials.


For the most part, Khatris have been in the civil, government, and military administrators roles for centuries. Some subgroups of Khatris have gone in the merchant business as traders, and have participated in trade well beyond India's borders, for many centuries from Burma to Russia. At one time, the Khatris controlled a significant share of the trade in the central Asian region. The Hindu fire-temple of Baku, Azerbaijan, supported for centuries by Khatri merchants flourished until the middle of 19th century. The Hindu temples of Kabul built by the Khatris still exist.
Khatris continue to be the most educated group in modern Punjab. Their historical access to resources and education, has translated into wealth, influence and service to the society.
Many prominent historical figures have emerged from the Khatri. All ten Sikh Gurus were Khatri, belonging to the Bedi, Trehan, Bhalla and Sodhi subcastes. Raja Todar Mal was a Tandon Khatri who codified the revenue collection system as Revenue Minister for Akbar. Haqiqat Rai was a Puri Khatri whose martyrdom was celebrated on Basant Panchami in Lahore until independence. Hari Singh Nalwa, an Uppal Khatri, was a prominent general under Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The father and son pair of the Diwans Sawan Mal and Mul Raj Chopra were successive governors of Multan under Ranjit Singh. The former instituted vast improvement in agriculture, while the latter was instrumental in leading the revolt against the British to prevent the annexation of the Sikh kingdom into the East India Company territory. Sadhu Singh Gulla fought against the British Empire in 19th century. Later on he died in prison or battle.

Why some engineers become terrorists

An IIT graduate — so the story goes — is walking near a pond one day when a frog speaks to him. "Kiss me," it says, "and i will turn into a beautiful princess." The IITian does a double-take, turns back to check if he has heard right, and sure enough, the frog repeats itself: "Kiss me and i will turn into a beautiful princess." He looks thoughtfully at the frog, picks it up and puts it into his pocket. A plaintive wail soon emerges: "Kiss me and i will turn into a beautiful princess." He ignores it and walks on. Soon the frog asks, "Aren't you going to kiss me?" The IIT guy stops, pulls the frog out of his pocket, and replies matter-of-factly: "I'm an engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend. But a talking frog is cool." No prizes for guessing what a literature graduate would have done in the same situation! Such is the self-image of the engineer in India: rational, hard-working, self-disciplined, steady, focused on the results of his work. Parents pray for the smartest of their kids to become engineers. Any child with better than average marks in science at school is pushed towards the profession, sustained by peer pressure that convinces him there could be no higher aspiration. And no doubt for some there isn't. But that clearly isn't the whole story. Disturbing new research at Oxford University by sociologists Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog points to an intriguing — one might say worrying — correlation between engineering and terrorism. If that doesn't raise eyebrows at the IITs, nothing will. But consider the evidence: Osama bin Laden was a student of engineering. So were the star 9/11 kamikaze pilot Mohammed Atta, the alleged mastermind of that plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and their all-but-forgotten predecessor, the chief plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef. The Oxford scholars, after putting together educational biographies for some 300 known members of violent Islamist groups from 30 countries, concluded that a majority of these Islamist terrorists were not just highly educated, but a startling number of them are engineers. Indeed, according to Gambetta and Hertog, nearly half had studied engineering. A summary of their research in Foreign Policy magazine remarked that "across the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the share of engineers in violent Islamist groups was found to be at least nine times greater than what one might expect, given their proportion of the working male population." Is there something about engineering that makes its most proficient graduates vulnerable to the temptations of violent extremism? Gambetta and Hertog seem to think so. They have no patience for the more conventional possible explanation — that engineers might be sought after by terrorist groups for their technical expertise in making and blowing up things. Instead, they argue that the reason there are so many terrorist engineers is that the subject helps produce a mindset that makes one prone to radicalisation. Engineers consider themselves problem solvers, and when the world seems to present a problem, they look to engineering-type solutions to solve it. Engineering, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, predisposes its votaries to absolute and non-negotiable principles, and therefore to fundamentalism; it is a short step from appreciating the predictable laws of engineering to following an ideology or a creed that is infused with its own immutable laws. It is easy for engineers to become radicalised, the researchers argue, because they are attracted by the "intellectually clean, unambiguous, and all-encompassing" solutions that both the laws of engineering and radical Islam provide. According to Gambetta and Hertog, surveys in Canada, Egypt, and the US have proved over the years that engineers tend to be more devout, and more politically conservative, than the rest of the population. I'm not suggesting one should buy wholesale the conclusions of the Oxford researchers; I know a few engineers who wouldn't harm a fly, so i'd be wary of making any sweeping generalisations about an entire profession. But the study does seem to me to open the door to make a nowadays unfashionable case: the argument in favour of studying the humanities. I have always believed that the well-formed mind is preferable to the well-filled one, and it takes a knowledge of history and an appreciation of literature to form a mind that is capable of grappling with the diversity of human experience in a world devoid of certitudes. If terrorism is to be tackled and ended, we will have to deal with fear, rage and incomprehension that animates it. We will have to know each other better, learn to see ourselves as others see us, learn to recognise hatred and deal with its causes, learn to dispel fear, and above all just learn about each other. It is not the engineering mindset that facilitates such learning, but the vision of the humanities student. The mind is like a parachute — it functions best when it is open. It takes reading and learning about other peoples and cultures to open (and broaden) minds. Ignorance and lack of imagination remain the handmaidens of violence. Without extending our imagination, we cannot understand how peoples of other races, religions or languages share the same dreams, the same hopes. Without reading widely and broadening our minds, we cannot understand the myriad manifestations of the human condition, nor fully appreciate the universality of human aims and aspirations. Without the humanities, we cannot recognise that there is more than one side to a story, and more than one answer to a question. That, of course, is never true in engineering. Perhaps the solution lies in making it compulsory for every engineering student to take at least 20% of his courses in the humanities. Maybe then he might even kiss the frog.

Einstein’s Idea Of Religion

In a long life, Einstein spoke and wrote on a vast range of topics, and practically every paragraph has been dissected to discover its meaning today, or to bolster our own particular beliefs. One of his interesting sayings is that the most beautiful experience one may enjoy is a ‘sense of mystery’. Inevitably this has led to the suggestion that Einstein was in some way a mystic. (I define mysticism as the search for conscious awareness of, or communion or unity with, the divine through direct experience.) Einstein’s religious views have been a matter of considerable controversy. Max Jammer, the well-known Jewish historian and philosopher of science, wrote a thoughtful book, Einstein and Religion, concluding that for Einstein ‘religion’ was definitely not ‘atheism’. Einstein himself said that: ‘You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling’. Yet in his bestselling and much-publicised atheist polemic, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, who takes most of his Einstein quotes from Jammer, categorises Einstein as ‘atheistic’. Einstein, in fact, spoke and wrote of God extremely frequently; for example his most famous way of criticising the random nature of quantum mechanics was to say ‘God does not play dice’. He described himself as ‘an intensely religious man’, but also, equally interestingly, as ‘a deeply religious non-believer’. A crucial point is that Einstein stated categorically that he did not believe in a personal God, of the kind assumed by most practising religious people. He had not always been this way. Though brought up in a very liberal Jewish household, at the age of six he became fervently religious, obeying all the religious prescriptions. However, when he was 12, he read various scientific texts and came to believe that much in the Jewish bible could not be true. This was a crucial period in his life, in which he became an intense freethinker, first over religious matters, later over orthodox scientific beliefs. Einstein detested the idea of a personal God who rewarded or punished his creatures, or exercised his will by interfering in events. He felt such an idea was intrinsically connected with human selfishness, merely ‘a reflection of human frailty’. Einstein’s God was a much more lofty idea. However, for Christian fundamentalists on one flank, and for Dawkins on the diametrically opposite flank, anything but a personal God was no God at all, and Einstein could be vilified or saluted as an atheist. So what was Einstein’s religion? He called it ‘cosmic religion’ and it was a sense of awe at ‘the nobility and marvellous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought’. He believed that throughout history the greatest religious geniuses have followed cosmic religion, and that exploring this order in the laws of science was the motivation for the most celebrated scientists such as Newton and Kepler. Without this feeling of confidence in order and simplicity, science, he felt, degenerated into uninspired empiricism. Einstein felt closest to the nineteenth century Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, who also rejected the idea of a personal God. Like Einstein, some considered Spinoza intensely religious while others judged him an atheist. Spinoza’s firmest belief was in a universal determinism; all events, including the actions of human beings, followed a precise law of cause and effect. There was no free will, and thus no justification for punishment of offenders. Einstein broadly followed Spinoza in these beliefs. As is well known, as well as realism, he was a strong believer in determinism; one of his main arguments against quantum mechanics was that it respected neither. Spinoza’s belief in the unity of nature was paralleled in Einstein’s long search for a unified field theory. Einstein’s view of traditional religion was somewhat ambivalent. He detested any idea of indoctrination or fundamentalism, but admitted that conventional religions had a role in setting ethical standards. Dawkins would disagree, considering that ‘the cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is religion itself ’. Einstein also venerated the founders of the major religions, especially Jesus and Buddha; Dawkins might be more sceptical. Einstein even found the elements of cosmic religion in the Psalms and the Proverbs of the bible, and particularly in Buddhism. An interesting question is whether Einstein’s beliefs, like those of Spinoza, were pantheistic, in the sense of actual worship of Nature, giving it the status of God. At times Einstein seemed close to accepting this label, but he was clear that God was to be found in the laws of the Universe, not in Nature itself. Jammer suggests that Einstein’s theology may be called a naturalistic theology, in which one searches for God by study of the Universe. So at last we reach the question: Could Einstein be considered a mystic? Awe about the Universe might lead to some direct spiritual experience of ‘God’, however ‘God’ might be defined. However Einstein explicitly rejected such ideas, saying: ‘Mysticism is the only reproach that people cannot level against my theory’. Whatever his feeling of wonder about the Universe, his exploration into its laws was always entirely rational. He believed that scientific knowledge could not be obtained through direct supernatural perception, and incidentally considered any idea of personal immortality or the suggestion of any contact with the dead ridiculous. I started off by suggesting that many things may be read into Einstein’s words, but mysticism is certainly one thing that may be ruled out.

Why ISB Featured in Top 20 B-Schools of the world

For the first time an Indian institution of higher education has been ranked among the top 20 in the world. The Indian School of Business (ISB) was ranked 20th in a list of the top 100 business schools by a prestigious foreign business daily two weeks ago. A Chinese business school was No 11; four European schools came in the top 10, and the rest were from the United States. But wait a minute. Isn’t the ISB illegal? ISB officials explain that they don’t want accreditation from All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) because then ‘‘they will decide our courses, our student intake, and even the size of our buildings.’’ I spoke to a top AICTE official, who scornfully dismissed ISB — ‘‘its fees are too high and it doesn’t even have a permanent faculty.’’ I gently suggested that its faculty is world-class if not permanent. And why worry about fees when every student has a loan. They must be doing something right if students command a mean salary of Rs 16 lakh a year at graduation. ISB is India’s only school in the top-100 list. There might have been more but for AICTE. One of these is Mumbai’s premier SP Jain Institute, run by a no-nonsense Harvard graduate. It doesn’t bribe; nor does it succumb to politicians for admissions. Hence, it is punished. It applied to admit 120 students in 1992, but got approval for 45. In 2001, it applied for 180 but didn’t get approval for six years. In 2004, AICTE rejected its unique dual degree programme with a reputed foreign university, whereby the latter would have flown its faculty to India. Its innovative programme for family-run businesses was also rejected. Last year, it seriously contemplated closing down. Instead, it has started campuses in Dubai and Singapore — far beyond AICTE’s reach. What do you do when the keepers of the law become its oppressors? AICTE was set up to encourage higher education but it achieved the opposite. Honest officials have tried cleaning it up periodically, but they have always been removed by politicians, who happen to own many of our worst private institutions. The answer, of course, is to give autonomy to all education institutions. Regulators should only ensure that they provide mandatory disclosure on the Internet about their courses, faculty, fees, and facilities (with severe punishment for false claims). Professional rating services should evaluate colleges with the same credibility as Crisil rates industrial companies. Competition will take care of the rest. Students will be able to make informed choices. Good institutions will thrive and poor ones will close. In the India of my dreams the government will stop running universities and colleges. All institutions will be autonomous. The government will plough all the money saved into scholarships. The government’s role will be limited to governance — ensuring corruption-free ratings and corruption-free exams (with the credibility of IIT-JEE) at various stages in a student’s career. The tombstone of the UGC/AICTE Raj will thus read: ‘‘For 50 years we promoted rote learning, incompetent faculty, and mediocrity. We punished original thinking and failed to create an employable graduate. We pushed students into a parallel universe of coaching classes, which ironically took their obligation to students far more seriously. We deserved to die.’’ Building India is about building institutions. This Sunday let’s celebrate the emergence of a world class institution in India. The altruistic founders of ISB had a vision. They funded it privately and nurtured it in its early years. They persisted in difficult times, especially when they were under attack from AICTE. Now, this is how to build fine institutions.