From Tribalism to Humanism

drsohail,

Perhaps I was too harsh in what I wrote. But, you are presenting humanism as an alternative to something called tribalism. And you are defining triabalism very broadly. Religious communities are based on shared values. If that is tribalism, then everyone is a tribal , even if they call themselves humanist.

The problem is not tribalism per se but use of coercion in inter-tribal relations. What you are advocating is non-coercion in inter-tribal relationships. That CAN be consistent with most tribal philosphies and is not an alternative to tribalism.

`Being fully human` is the claim of all religions. It is meaningless unless you define the actual HOW. Once you do that you are forming your own tribe. There is no way around that.

``He said, even if you remove religion as a ``common factor`` from the equation, humankind will remain engaged in suicidal wars. I am still pondering on this point to see if it can be refuted.``

Well, just look at the history of the last century. WW1, WW2 and then the Cold War where we teetered on the brink of annhilation for decades. All of that had nothing to do with religion. Currently, we are fortunate to be living in an interrugnum of peace because one side in the Cold War collapsed completely. Just wait till somebody becomes strong enough to challenge the other side. It will be back to the brink - religion or no religion.

Re: # 47
Dear Zeemax...to clarify my position, I do not believe in any Creator as I have not

experienced him/her/it. As a poet I feel God is a metaphor that human beings have created

over the centuries like the metaphors of tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Evolution in fish and birds and animals was guided by instincts but after human beings

came into existence, we, because of our well developed brains and minds and

personalities, have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience, our ethical sense.

Each human being and community decides

...to take life towards the past and regress

or

...to move forwards and accept the challenges of the present and pave way for a better

future

I believe that we need to try at a personal and communal level to make our tomorrows

better than our yesterdays so that we can evolve and grow and inspire our future

generations to embrace the whole humanity and not just our own tribe. I believe in

teaching our children that our enemies are our distant cousins..sincerely sohail

``I believe humanism is better than the divisive religions for harmonious life.``

There is a paradox in evolution of all religions that humanism cannot escape. They start out as critics of an existing belief system. They appeal to something universal and criticize the lack of universality of the existing belief system. Once their critcism is successful and the old belief system is discredited, it falls upon them to build a new belief system. As soon as they do that they become just another belief system and lose their appeal to universality.

There is really no way around this because Universal Truth has to be actualized into practice if it has to have any practical meaning. But once actualized, it is always less than Universal.

So humanism, (whatever it is) once put into practice will become just another `divisive religion` .
Of course, I am using the word `religion` in a broad sense as a basic system of values and not just a dogmatic creed.

Re: # 49
Dear Khurrum...I wish we could talk face to face so that we can go beyond words and have

heart to heart talk. What I am suggesting is that in ever conflict beteen two human beings

or two communities...whether husband and wife, two families or two countries....we can be

stuck with US/THEM position or both agree to rise above it and find common solution. A

solution that both parties can live with. Buddha said...a lasting peace happens when both

sides win equally. Khalil Gibran said...love is not looking at each other, it is looking in the

same direction. You and I are trying this at this time through a genuine dialoge. I can

respect your opinion and find common grounds and resolve our differences and learn from

each other or I can pigeon hole you in one group/tribe and stop communication. To be able

to have a genuine dialogue with people from different philosophies and lifestyles is an art

we learn and are not born with.

I do that every day with couples and help them resolve conflists and save marriages and

families. I tell the couple

husnband believes in A

wife believes in B

both belong to different families from different ribes

I tell them if you love each other then we need to discover C...common grounds which has

best of A and best of B

For me people with tribal mentalities cannot transcend that and believe their philosophy is

better but people with humanistic philosophy and personality (you can use another word or

term for such people) are flexible and can see the telescope and not stuck to their

emotional microscopic view. Is microscopic and telescopic view a better metaphor for you.

Live locally...think globally...is another way of saying the same thing. People who live in

different cultures or exposed to literatures of different cultures usually have more chances

to develop such personalities. They can easily move from microscopic to telescopic to

microscopic views.

For me to be a punjabi and paksitani and muslim is a reflection of the tribal reality I am

born in. But I have a choice to remain that or identify with punjabis who are sikhs,

pakistanis who are sindhis or pathans or muslims who are free thinkers and hindus who are

indians. This is the homework we all have to do. Humanism is not just a philosophy it is

also a personality and I have written about Humanistic Philosophy and personality in my

new book Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion.

It is a process and we are all learning and growing and inspiring each other. Thanks for

inspiring me.

all the best...sohail

Freedom from religion....dr sahib, so long as you carry the label of a religion, you are every bit a part of it. There is then no freedom from religion. A very good likelihood exists that your children will go back to every part you detest.

Humanism is a failed idea. There is no way it can overcome the charm of religion. You are the label you carry, not what you believe. And Buddhists have lost out in place after place.

Re: # 54
dear kaalchakra....you are right...labels can be misleading....but words are all labels...you

are kaalchakra...i am drsohail.....people think because my name is khalid sohail....i am a

muslim....rather than a freethinker or a humanist or just a human being....but that is the

first impression....like the cover of the book....and it is important.....but i feel book is more

important than the cover...person`s character more important than the coulour of the skin

or the name or the tribe he/she belongs to. i hope people judge my book after reading it

rather than just the name and the cover. for me the name of my book is intended to clarify

two interpretations of secular humansim...freedom of religion...freedom from religion.

for you i can rename it...TO BECOME FULLY HUMAN....but human is a label

too for a cultural animal who can create labels through language...animals do not. so we

can use words to reveal ourselves and express love and affection or use words to conceal

ourselves and spread anger, bitterness and violence. ...smiles...sohail

drsohail,

thanks for your article. I admire your aspiration but skeptical whether we, human beings can acheive it.

on a related note, i am interested to know whether you have heard and have an opinion of this guy - U G Krishnamurthi
http://www.well.com/user/jct/

thanks,
avkrishna

Re: # 56
dear avkrishna...every human being that is liberated is a step forward in that goal of

human liberation. evolution is always a slow process. it took us millions of years to get

here, can you not wait another few centuries?

UG Krishnamurti is called a `spiritual terrorist` I am amused by the expression. he sounds

like J Krishnamurti...who I have great respect for. J Krishnamuri had influenced

psychiatrists like RD Laing, philosophers like Joseph Campbell and novelists like Henry

Miller. Did you ever read him? his last book was First and Last Freedom..introduction by

Aldous Huxley who was his friend.

thanks for reference...sohail

drsohail,

I do respect your opinions and agree with much of what you say. But there are also points of disagreement.Perhaps due to my lack of communication skills I am not able to articulate those disagreements properly.

Firstly, let me say that I do not disagree with your goals. Who can disagree with peace and love amongst all? Please do not assume that any disagreement with you implies a rejection of these noble goals.It`s when you describe HOW to get to these goals that I have problems with your statements. Some of these problems may be with the implication of some terms you use that you may not have intended. For example, you keep repeating that humanism is a way ``to become fully human``. Does that mean everyone else is less than fully human?

Beyond these misunderstandings, there is still a fundamental disagreement. You hold that humanism is something beyond tribalism while I insist that it can be an aspect of every tribal philoshpy. Just because I consider muslim as my primary identity does not mean that I cannot empathize with my non-muslim neighbour. It would not make me any less of a muslim nor would I need to step outside Islam to do it. For you, it appears that humanism is only possible outside of religion or at least by relegating religion to a secondary role.

You refer to ``Freedom from religion``. You probably think of religion in a narrow sense as a dogmatic creed. But if religion is seen as one`s ultimate concern then there is really no getting away from it. One is always ultimately concerned with something , even if it is called humanism. So if humanism is your basic , foundational world-view then it is your religion, even though it may not have a God or a prophet. You can claim equal status for your religion but cannot claim it to be something above and beyond other religions.

It appears to me that you are generalizing from your experience of resolving conflicts between individuals. I can rise above the narrow thinking that is causing conflict with my wife and embrace a broader thinking that includes her viewpoint as well. I can do that at an ethnic level and at a national level. Your position seems to be that ultimately I should be able to rise above to all divisions by becoming a humanist. Humanism is to you a foundational belief system that has universal validity above all other value systems. My position is that this is only a CLAIM of universal validity and should be treated at par with other claims like Islam and Christianity. At the foundational level , there is really no rising above . There is only conversion. So the analogy with resolving conflicts between individuals does not apply.

hello drsohail, khurram and k-chukra(after a long time)

Looks like there is an interesting discussion going on where folks are not hurling crockery at each other (read no BJPians here)

I think someone rightly said here that there can be no universality in the practical world. Humanism from its name suggests that its scope is humans. It is really a matter of deciding whether or not humanism is greater than other religions if we don`t pressume that there is a GGGGod.

I personally think that humanism can be above other religions because it targets the matter (ie human wellbeing)directly. Traditional religions insert God as a proportionality constant to do this and of course, the constant becomes a handicap in scaling of ideas to broader situations. Traditional religions suck because they were built with the perspective of a tribal society. They aren`t ready to admit this but this is another story. We have to do our measuring by analyzing their effect on humans.

I think in the future, humanism can feel to be too narrow as it does not completely incorporate the elements of existance. It tries to give more weightage to humans` social attributes than the selfish ones.

More later....

Re: # 26

drsohail

Thank you for your kind words.

I wonder you call yourself a Punjabi and ignore the Punjabi Poet-Sage, Bulleh Shah, the greatest of humanists, when talking of Humanism. I think he had said the last word about Humanism when he said:

``Masjid dha de, mandir dha de, dha de jo kujh dheinda
Ik bande da dil nah dhaawein Rab dillaan wich rehnda``

Again, I don`t think labels essentially cause divisions and hostility. For instance, when you call yourself a Punjabi you become near and dear to myself without creating any hostility among Punjabies and non-Punjabies, but when you call yourself a Muslim and a Pakyone at that a lot of people would get alarmed, especially in western countries. Ironically, in Pakistan you can get the lable of Muslim only by hating Ahmadies and abusing the founder of that community. In fact, the very word `Pak` seems to have become today a symbol of hatred in the global village.

Re: # 59
dear malik ...if you are in toronto then we should meet. we are also having a seminar on

jan 21st on humanism. if you are interested you can call pervaiz at 416-288-3501who is

arranging it.

dear khurrum

i agree with malik that one of the fundamental differences between humanism and religions

is that in humanism...human beings are in the centre of the dialogue and can decide laws

and rules by consultation of parties concerned without consulting gods and

scriptures...which are at the centre in religions....sohail

Re: # 60
dear teshah...i never said that our ethnic and cultural identities are not important. it is only

when the secondary identity becomes more important than our humanity that we get in

conflict... i frequently quote bulley shah...a great mystic poet.

being a punjabi is wonderful...unfortunately my parents never taught me to read and write

punjabi...rather taught me urdu and arabic and english...

my only unfortunate experience was when i went to bangladesh and when i told bengalis

that i was punjabi...there were strong negative reactions...lateron my bengali friend took

me to a museum where i saw what pakistani punjabi army had done to bengalis in

1971...kiilings and rapes and violence and torture...that was one day i felt embarrassed to

be a punjabi and more ashamed to be part of such human community who tortues other

human beings...i never knew the atrosities done by punjabis untill that day...

sincerely sohail

malikjahanzeb

Long time indeed! Hope you have been a fine humanist all these days - taking care of your own welfare rather than running around promoting God`s pleasure. LOL

#51 Dear drsohail,

Thanks for getting this creationist/evolutionist thing out of the way. So man evolved ... so far, so good... and that the evolution has not ended, as you say:

``Evolution in fish and birds and animals was guided by instincts but after human beings
came into existence, we, because of our well developed brains and minds and
personalities, have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience, our ethical sense.``

Here you make a number of `fatal` errors, if I may say so.

Firstly, evolution was not guided by instinct but by purely physical/biological necessity for survival against the elements and predators. E.g. the furry coat was gone by the time of Neanderthals not because of instinct but because by that time the hunter-gatherer culture had taken root and man had learnt to hunt down and use `other` or `less-evolved` creatures` coat to cover himself against elements rather than requiring his own. However, the Cro-magnon (the modern man) came along next who was even smarter and caused the former`s extinction.

Thus, evolution amongst species has been guided by competing physical interests between themselves as well as against forces of nature, and nothing has changed in this regard since the time, in your words, after human beings came into existence. Evolution is continuing in exactly the manner it always has.

Secondly, your proposing ``...have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience..`` it would follow from the foregoing argument that, primarily, natural selection was nothing but establishing a food chain due to necessity of own survival, which is a selfish motive to begin with and thus inconscienable. That should be sufficient proof that any form of conscience (or consciousness ... even assuming that either is a reliable guide) cannot win in competing interests for survival over another, and it isn`t really a matter of choice between the two, never has been, nor can be ever. It may be added here that `Survival` does not mean to the modern man what it did to the Neanderthal. It is now a relative term and may more accurately be substituted with Marginal Existence.

It would appear that you cannot at the same time believe in evolution as well as conscience and ethics.

The only thing that transcends this Marginal Existence and breaks out of its essential linkages is Spirituality, but that stems from religion and in turn leads to a Creator ... but that has been ruled out in the beginning.

Oh well ... back to the drawing board.