Headache and Heartburn

Re: sadna

``Then how about those lovely new photographs of Ms Chopra:-)``

I find that these things hurt India as a whole...people get a false, meaningless sense of pride...so what if we can produce a few Ms. Universe winners? It does nothing for the over 500 million poor, illiterate, and sick...fixing their problems is what will make us great, not winning Ms. Universe.

Dear Patrick



You say: ``I am not so sure that the religious teachings concerned with the practical part are more or less common among religions. True, the basic principles that you mention in #337 (truth, honesty, justice) might be found in all, but it is important, I think, to note that the `spiritual part` may go way beyond the attempt to encourage/enforce just these principles``

Infact if you revisit my comment, I said that the practical aspects show considerable variance! However you make a valid point by saying that there may be some ``dogmas`` specific to a religion that defy understanding. Actually when I made such comments, I had the ``set of basic value system`` in my mind and the various practices like usury etc ordained by the religion. In short(since it is 1:30 A.M in the night :) I advocate the adoption of a rational perspective in day to day life in dealing with practical problems, and limiting the role of religion to garnering moral strength for the observation of universal ethics. Religion should never be looked upon as a panacea for all problems. It should be looked upon as an aid towards strengthening belief in basic values.

Pankaj,

ahh, I said to myself, what the heck, this stuff is free, sin`t it? :-) So, my two pice worth:

``If so, what are the forces that lead to the evolution of this value system.``

Survival, more than anything else, I`d reckon. But i would not discount factors such as exposure to other systems, and the search for `something more` either.

``Are we in some kind of metastable phase of social evolution or in dynamic equilibrium?``

Are we gonna speak in English here or Greek? :-)

``Are there any dormant undercurrent forces operating that may provide a perturbation large enough to disturb the present metastable phase of social evolution such that a major shift in soci0-economic values can be anticipated.``

In the West, the most dominant force I can see causing this major shift anytime soon is the growing awareness of the near-catastrophic damage being done to the environment. The sooner it hits home, the better.

In the East, or at east in the less-`developed` countries I think, is growing disenchanment with the present socio-ecnomic status will be the prime shaker.

..... but what do I know?? :-)

Pankaj #337
If I may butt in
`` why there is a remarkable similarity between the different religions/societies when it comes to asserting preponderence of moral values like honesty, truth love for the neighbour, helping the fellow beings, etc``

I`m guessing because such `values`/mores are the rational way of making feasible the survival of any interdependent group. Humans are the same everywhere, no surprise if their problems are similar(across centuries even) and the solutions too.

On the surface it seems we are not as interdependent as earlier, so these values are losing stock.

tahmed321 #326
`policeman`

Rsaxena #330
``too young for that``
Then how about those lovely new photographs of Ms Chopra:-). Better than debating cobwebby stuff like religion.

But seriously, IMO nothing provides all the answers, the world has too many `dynamics` and too much diversity of circumstance for any one `system` to suffice.

Sadhana

re. #336,

Dear Pankaj,

you say:

``1. Religious prescriptions/teachings can be roughly divided into two arenas: the spiritual one and the practical one. Spiritual part is the one that establishes the moral code of conduct by examples, and provides for a concept of judgement day/heaven or hell/repentence for bad karma etc...

2. While the religious teachings concerned with the spiritual part are more or less common among all the religions, the ones dealing with the practical conduct show considerable variance.``

I am not so sure that the religious teachings concerned with the practical part are more or less common among religions. True, the basic principles that you mention in #337 (truth, honesty, justice) might be found in all, but it is important, I think, to note that the `spiritual part` may go way beyond the attempt to encourage/enforce just these principles. Some spiritual values exist with no relation to truth/honesty/justice, as unquestionable dogma. The contrasting ways in which Hinduism and Islam/Judaism treat the cow is a case in point. How does the idea of commonality of truth/justice fit in here?? And how do you reconcile belief in One (and only) god as a basic principle of truth with the acceptance of polytheism (though the latter may not compromise a basic tenet of faith of another religion)??

I remember as a kid often questioning some Christian edicts (like abstinence from meat on Fridays in Lent), since they seemed not to appeal to either a sense of truth or justice (not anymore, anyway). The answer I received was that somethings were just wrong in themselves, with no relation to matters of truth, justice, love etc. Religion (or most religions) seems to actually ADD to that et of basic beliefs. Dogma, we call this, I believe.

Ummm... so maybe it is time to look into natural selection and evolution of basic principles. Bertrand Russell`s `Human Knowledge` is a fascinating book-- lucid and accessible. I recall a coupe of essays in his `Skeptical essays which also dealt with the subject quite brilliantly.

As for your follwing post (#337), I gotta tell you, I`m not much of a right-brain (or is left-) person. Abstractions without examples I have difficulty grasping. That one whizzed right over my head. You asked for my view. I am flattered but would be completely out of my depth there. There are, however, a couple of more erudite occassional visitors to the chowk that I would be glad to pass your post on to via email.

best regards,

Patrick

Dear Patrick

Idle Saturday musings :-)

In life,we take so many things for granted.( like sleeping at 4AM unless you are a nocturnal animal on the lookout for a quarry:-)) Have you ever wondered( or I am the only moron left wondering about such ``useless`` things) why there is a remarkable similarity between the different religions/societies when it comes to asserting preponderence of moral values like honesty, truth love for the neighbour, helping the fellow beings, etc. Are these values timeless, at least in the sense that they appear to be fairly constant across different time scales, various social contexts etc. Does that imply that there is an ``absolute frame of reference`` for these moral values or these values also evolved with time by a process similar to natural selection. If so, what are the forces that lead to the evolution of this value system. Are we in some kind of metastable phase of social evolution or in dynamic equilibrium. Are there any dormant undercurrent forces operating that may provide a perturbation large enough to disturb the present metastable phase of social evolution such that a major shift in soci0-economic values can be anticipated.

What is your opinion on the above questions. In my opinion, a judicious application of game theory as in #228 may give us a valuable insight not only in the evolution of the value systems, but also in the state of compliance with them as manifested by the social behavior.

Cheers

(and dont loose your sleep over it!)

Oops, in #333 I wrote: ``...get some chilly-spiked tandoori chicken...`` ... that wouldn`t taste too good. Try chilli-spiked instead.

Dear PM



You say: ``You are mistaken because, Islam`s laws are presumably timeless, and to suggest that there is any domain in which Islamic law would not be valid is, well, unIslamic``

That`s exactly the point I am trying to make, ie. the laws governing/influencing social interactions in the human society can never be ``timeless``. Well if you call it ``unislamic`` then may be it is, and I am not bothered since I do not believe in ``religious prescriptions for everything``. First of all, let me bring out few salient features of my previous post that could have got lost in my ramble:-)

1. Religious prescriptions/teachings can be roughly divided into two arenas: the spiritual one and the practical one. Spiritual part is the one that establishes the moral code of conduct by examples, and provides for a concept of judgement day/heaven or hell/repentence for bad karma etc to provide for a system of rewards/punishment as inducements to follow the teachings. The practical part is one that lays down rules for socio-economic interactions between intrafaith /interfaith group of peoples.

2. While the religious teachings concerned with the spiritual part are more or less common among all the religions, the ones dealing with the practical conduct show considerable variance. These in my opinion, are a function of the socio-economic order in which the Prophets/rishis existed and hence should change with time.

3. Thus while the spiritual part is more stable having universal appeal(this incidentally prompted me to think if these universal values of truth, honesty etc. were timeless or evolved with time by a process akin to natural selection.I have attempted to address these questions in #228), its the practical part which demands new models to evolve to deal with the new complexities of human interactions. The simplistic solutions good thousands of years back, and that too in some particular contexts, should not be generalised to modern problems of varied contexts and different nature. Concepts when overstretched beyond their original context, and across time may give dubious results.Hints/guidelines may be taken from religion but any attempt to address all the modern problems by the use of religious prescriptions is bound to end in a failure.

Sincerely

P.S I hope I have clarified more than obfuscated the topic.

PM #329 ``Nope, no koran in my closet. The fascination only extends to the psychological hold it has over its adherents.``

Maybe you need to keep one in the closet, and go through it. You will then realize that if the adherents are really as fascinated by it as you think, you as a non-muslim Pakistani would feel as much at home as you do in more civilized countries. I regret the disgusting epithets some chowk people have applied to you as a christian, and believe it is an indication of how far we have to go to become a civilized society.

Re: scout

``How about just being a good person and respecting people`s beliefs? You can have your wine and shoes and other ``superficial`` pleasures and still do that.``

This isn`t about me...I was just trying to bring some closure to the argument between Solitude and his enemies on this board. Solitude won`t accept existing religions, his enemies won`t live without a religion..impasse, no? I thought my solution might help them out.

All these serious people with their knickers in a knot are wasting precious time...so I suggest they all get some chilly-spiked tandoori chicken, open a bottle of beer, find themselves a hot Italian for the evening, pop in some groovy music, and thank their gods for the good time.

Rsaxena #331 aka Material Man,

How about just being a good person and respecting people`s beliefs? You can have your wine and shoes and other ``superficial`` pleasures and still do that.

A possible reconciliation between Solitude and the rest of you (god`s soldiers) is to accept hedonism as an official religion and convert to it. The rules (any good religion must have them, no?): Good food, fine wine, Ferragamo shoes, vacations in Luxembourg (and Goa when there`s time), great sex (use plastic surgery to enhance it if necessary), and overindulgence. Only strict adherence will confirm your first class ticket to heaven.

How about it?

Re: sadhna

``Rsaxena #317

Oh thats who you are! That pot-bellied baton-twirling tthulla roaming around chowk. hmmm. I would recommend the bar instead, somewhat like Urstruly does :-)``

Yup, that`s me...but no pot-belly yet...too young for that. Urstruly is the chowkidar at some bar? I`m not sure I understand. If he is, good for him. He gets to decide which short skirts to let in and which ones to keep out :)

TAhmed,

Nope, no koran in my closet. The fascination only extends to the psychological hold it has over its adherents. That aside, with my heart pretty much still in the motherland, I have a stake in its political future. Hence the desire to point out strategies that I think will not work.

(Which is not to say I`m not addicted to the chow, and don`t get my kicks from debating ad nauseum :-) )

Dear fairkinkum,

``I did not find your reply #287 convincing. ``

Yes, on re-reading my poor choice of words and expression, I am hardly surprised.

My statement:

“fairdinkum, UNDERSTANDING the practices/rituals of a faith may require a comprehensive study of it’s philosophy, symbolism etc., QUESTIONING it’s validity based on observable effects DOES NOT.”

By `observable effects` I meant not so much those that would be considered bad by virtue of their outlandishness (though I am not defender of value-relativism either), but those which beyond reasonable doubt are direct outcomes of a philosophy, whether or not intended.

Take for instance the law of evidence or the requirements for a prosecution on zina (knowing very well how such obnoxious laws came to be written/revealed). By observable effects I simpy meant `direct outcomes` that can be observered easily enough: You have clear injunctions-- Quranic, no less! Now, what I meant was that one does not need falana years of religious study to denounce the law of evidence wrt women as a moral affront in this day and age (though apparently further years of study DO help some see why it is right after all ). Neither does one need to travel to Qumm or Damascus to declare that the requirement for four (male, Muslim, no less!) witnesses for a rape conviction is, well, not a good thing on the whole (though, again, one may be somewhat sympathetic when one learns of the situation that compelled Allah to reveal such a law)

Am I being facetious? Forgive me for feeling nothing but disgust for the lengths to which I have seen many a learned scholar go to defend any- and every-thing.

But really, I didn`t even mean to say `observable effects` in the first place (though I thought that since I did, I woud have to defend my words). What I meant was ...ummm.. something like ``... based on self-evident truths``. Again, what are these self-evident truths? Well, the equal status (and intellect) of women and religious minorities, for instance. I am aware of the Prophet`s Last sermon, and have always been truly moved by it, but the fact remains that those admonitions of equality clearly contradict scripture.

``Religion/spirituality is a complex subject … one should never jump to conclusions based on observable effects of religious/spiritual practices…``

Hope I have been lucid enough this time in explaining why the complexity of religion should not cause one to atrophy one`s independent moral sensibilities. Certain things are simply self-evident in a given day and age. Complexity only seems to arise when we try apply an outdated set of guiding values to a new terrain. (Hey Pankaj, whaddya you know... I`m pulling a leaf out of your book!)

`` Europeans made this mistake when they observed the rituals of natives… To Europeans, they seemed liked superstitions/magic etc. (worthless savage voodoo stuff). Christian missionaries forced the natives to stop believing in their religion, forced them to move away from their spirituality, condemned their rituals as magic etc. and forced them turn to Christianity for salvation…``

fairdinkum, while I don`t wish to defend the general attitudewith with Evangelism was conducted, it seems to me that you rather seem to treat every religious/superstitious practice as valid as the next. And all in the name of religion! Frankly, I find this rather simplistic, even naive. I`d be interested in your views on whether the colonists should have turned a blind eye to the Incas mass human sacrifices on fertility rites, or to the PNG`s(?) child-sacrifices, in both cases to appease the fertility gods. In many cases, these superstitions were just that-- flawed cause-event theorizings. Nothing particularly spiritual about them. Too far from home? How about female genital mutilation rituals and suttee? Do/did the Westerns/Christians have a right to interfer there?

Now THESE are what you might call complex questions, not of the `how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-pin-head?` variety that relgious scholars often enough find themselves struggling with. :-)



`` In some cases, church even snatched away their children in order to bring them up as “civilized” good Christians. What is the result? The world has lost another way of looking at life.

Yes, very unfortunate. Screw those darn Christians. Feed them to the lions! But wait... I hope you`re not suggesting that there is no way whatsoever to measure degrees of civilization; no higher values to aspire to. For if you do believe so, you will often enough be morally compelled to interfere with the `internal affairs` of others. And the doubt that you feel about the philosophical rightness of your actions will be outweighed by the pressing `need` to do something. You will even get it wrong sometimes, and admit so, but all the same you will risk action in future.

Why? Because to do nothing in the face of what is perceived as wrong, to believe everything as `equally right`, is to believe in NOTHING. To be a true skeptic!

Please note, I am providing a philosophical defense of `interference`, and am in now way condemning or condoning any particular party.

To condemn or condone -- now THAT can sometimes be a complex question. To wit: should the Western WOrld have `interfered` in the Rwandan genocide, or should it have, as it did, view it as an `internal matter`?

These scenarios are played out every day, fom the familial to the gobal stage, aren`t they?

``It is interesting that liberal democracies/western cultures encourage and celebrate diversity, but diversity outside of the framework (THEY have designed for the rest of the world), outside of THEIR vision of “civilization” is not acceptable to them… I don’t understand that either.``

Again, inasmuch as their are norms and values, there HAS to be framework, which, by definition, has it`s limits. The desirable thing is not to have NO framework (again the skeptic`s world) but to expand one`s so as to be more inclusive-- if indeed diversity is desired. Again, the complexity lies in deciding how much diversity may be allowed before one loses what is essentially one`s `character`. Or how far can the line of diversity stretch without compromising on certain basic values an norms.

``Consensus? :) You know, oppression was also accorded consensus on many occasions in the history of mankind.``

Yes, but should that deter us from believing in the absolute rightness/wrongess of ANYthing?

``Well, perhaps you have a point. If a religion or its followers unnecessarily force others to adopt their “morally/ethically wrong” actions and attitudes this should be resisted. ``

That is the point I was making originally. however, your last post has forced me to think and allow for more liberal use of consenus-based resistance: for eg. Shoud `others` in your question above include one`s children??

As for my your response to my rply #316, I`ll leave it for another day, but I will in short...

Thanks for the quotes re. Requirements vs options-- though I do not think it any more comforting to think that (believing) slaves are to be treated as salvation charges. It would seem there were indeed `kuchha` and pukka slaves. So much for the theory of non-condoning!

You ask about my view on the ``Islamic movement of Mohammed on the progress/evolution of mankind`` Whoa! that`s a biggie! With so many variables and so many unknowns, its always going to be hard to tell. And I am no student of history. But if I were to hazard an opinion.... there is no doubt that Muhammed was a man of remarkable character (viewed from his own time) and totally committed to justice, which, at least initially, was what characterized -- and galvanized -- the movement. Impact? Well, there`s the Arab contribution to the sciences in the Middle Ages, but is difficult to tell what role Islam played in it, especially when the stalwarts were often enough at loggerheads with the ulema. I mean, we don`t attribute every Western success to Christianity, do we? In any event, Arab expansionism seems to have hastened the awakening of Europe. However helpful Islam/Arabs may have been in bringing/relaying knowledge to the West, it apparenty wasn`t equipped for the Modern Science Revolution, which postulated certain beliefs that conflict with Islam at a fundamental, though not always obvious, level. Empricism and Rationality replaced a priori reasoning and revelation. And with the Reformation and then Hobbes and Locke, Man has ``attained`` intrinsic `human rights` independent of divine sanction. Islam, for better or worse, has been unable or unwilling to toe esp this last line of change. Therien lies a fundamental conflict. When I say that `True` Muslims cannot get along with the rest of the world without compromising on their beliefs, I am not so much making a value judgement as an intellectual observation. The current swelling of ranks of Muslims in the West owes more, I think, to disenchantment with the logical outcome of Absolutist Rationalism than to anything uniquely Islamic. Contrary to popular assumption Buddhism, not Islam has the highest conversion rate in the West, (not counting for born-again Christians, for which there are no figures). But my source is dated and things could have changed since. I suspect this floor-crossing will last a generation, maybe two, until the thirst for the `other view of life will be irresistable.

And finally....

``We are all self-serving in one way or another. The purpose of my posts, however, is not to impress F_K or anybody else for that matter… I am surprised by your comment. ``

fairdinkum, I was not implying that YOU were the scholar with whom F_K should be impressed. My tongue in cheeck here was meant to say something to someone who suggested on the one hand, that extensive, `deep` study of religion was required for it`s understanding, and, on the other, that such exercises (as the maulana`s) amounted to ``intellectual luddo`` (sic)

Ahh well... takes all types!

best regards

P



PS This reply was typed between 2 and 4am, so please excuse any incoherence. (Yes, yes, I`ve gotta get a life!)

PM I notice a fascination with Islam on your part. You are not a closet muslim are you?