Deep Roots of Religious Orthodoxy

amit

The basic premis of your thesis is argumentatively and factually wrong. You have totally ignored the fact that there is not one but five major religions that have shaped the moral structure of contemporary china over the century.

Taoism
Confucianism
Buddhism
Islam
Falon Dafa

In addition to the above Christianity has been the recent introduction.

As a matter of fact Taoism and Confucianism has enjoyed the ststus of state religions over several centuries. Three out of the above five religions are indigeous. There is some anecdotal evidence that Holy Prophet (pbuh) knew about the Confucian ideology and one of the reasons behind his advised to his followers, that in pursuit of knowledge even if they have to go to China then they must, was becuse of his familiariaty with Confucianism.

Since rest of your post is based on this false premis I will ignore it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mr. Gill

Dilemma? Hardly.

So far, through my various posts below i have tried to make these three points.

1. The ``religious orthodoxy`` and the ``rational-humanist orthodoxy`` are mirror image of each other - equal but opposite. In their constitution both of them are identical to each other. If one is driven by the ``belief`` in presence or existence of a dogmatic entity then the other is driven by the ``belief`` in the non-existence of a dogmatic entity. Neither can prove their case conclusively and yet both are hardcore ``believers`` in their respective dogmas. So my question was, why one is better than they other.

2. The second point that I have tried to make is that each and every moral value that rationalist-humanists today try to uphold as their own is actually borrowed from a dogma based religious system of values. And becuse of their very own make-up, construction and constitution ratinalist-humanists CANNOT create a new set of values. This is further explained in point 3.

3. Any system of values that rationalist-humanists come up with is as strong as a house of cards. Only one word ``why`` can slip the rug from under any system of values that is based on rationalist-humanist approach. The examples were given in my previous posts.

urstruly

So urstruly is mullah inside. He says that it was Islam which banned drinking of liquor and eating of pork. Actually in shariah terminology these things have been declared `Harram` in Islam. At least the mullah say so. But my question is what is meant by `Harram` as the human being itself is harram, masjid is harram, a month is harram but a married woman when taken as a spoil is `Hallal`. I am confused to this day as I find no word or concept of the nature of Hallal and Harram in any language other than Arabic. That is why perhaps that Qurani Allah says that He conveys his message in the national language of the people for which it is meant- to Israilies, in Ibrani, to Arabs, in Arabic and to Punjabies in....? Will somebody guide me.

Re:#18

Urstruly

Not every society that didn`t create or embrace a major world religion has become degenerate. Look at China. They did not have and still do not have much of organized religion. Yet they are a conservative society with strong family values. Why is that so? Because you commit a crime, you get punished, no matter who you are or what your status is. People have the fear that they will suffer consequences for non-compliance. On the other hand, the presence of religious fervor is not a guarantee of ``good`` behavior. Take Pakistan for example. On the sexual side, maybe the Pakistanis are conservative, although I am not so sure. But look at the crime rate, especially in your urban areas. If you take any Pakistani newspaper, you read about gang-rapes, carjackings, robberies you name it. A society that has such strong religious values relative to other societies should be in a much better shape. So what gives? There is a lot of moralistic preaching in Pakistan where everyone quotes the Quran and the hadiths, but it is really the lack of an enforceable legal framework where bad behavior gets statutory punishment and the law is applied uniformly to all. Don`t misunderstand me. It is not a failure of religion, rather it is the failure to recognize that you need more than just religion to have a better society.

A particular society can be a success or a failure, just as a particular individual can be a success or a failure. The particular state of a society depends on the ability of its people to recognize what is functional and setup a proper legal framework to enforce that. Religion can aid in that, but it cannot replace it.

One of my posts failed to appear. In it, I had corrected the spelling of the wrongly spelt word ``germain``. The correct spelling is ``germane``.

Mohammad Gill

There is another misspelling. The word should be read ``manifestly`` and not ``manifestl``. Sorry for these lapses.

Mohammad Gill

Urstruly:

I do not understand your dilemma. I am sure you`ll be able to sort it out yourself. In my article I had drawn attention to a few instances which are quoted from the Bible which the Christians believe is the ``word of God``. Those particular instances are rationally inconsistent so much so that a retired bishop discarded them. I tried to make a point that the religions are not divine (my extension; you`ll probably disagree with me which is fine); they are the products of the human cultures. Therefore they are not eternal and universal. They can be modified and need to be reinterpretted and tweaked from time to time according to the needs of a given time period.

If one takes one step at a time, there is hope that one can avoid confusion. It is indeed very difficult to abandon the beliefs, howsoever irrational they may be, with which one grew up. I do not say that rationalism is the `silver bullet`. My point is why do we have to believe in certain propositions which are manifestl and demonstrably wrong?

Coming back to the moral argument; non-believers are not necessarily immoral if lack of faith is not considered immoral. Please think over it.

I liked your posts on this article; particularly your style which is quite germain. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill 10, vertex 16

Whenever, I wear my rationalist`s hat, I become a relativist. I can prove anything and everything right or if I want in the next breath I can prove it wrong. Which tells me that when I become a rationalist I lose a very important thing called the ``moral compass``. Without a moral compass we are nothing but a cork flaoting on the surface of ocean with no direction and no purpose. The only purpose is the survival of my self as an organism. If my survival depends on the survival of others then fine, and if my survival depends on destruction of others then so be it.

That moral compass can only come from a Guide.

amit

I respectfully disagree with your thesis. What you are saying is as hypothetical as the question of chicken or egg is. In the past it has not happened but now when the hold of religion is weakening in various societies it has started happening i.e. societies are codifying themselves only on one principle, which is the survival of the organism. Human beings are organisms now. Thanks a lot.

Take for example, the situation of Arabian society, when Islam banned the liquor. If your thesis were true, then there should have been a majority of society who subscribed to the idea that liquor was injurious to individual and to the society. But on the contrary when Islam imposed the prohibition, imbibing was a mainstream trait. Even some of the companions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) are known to have imbibed. In a society which was so permissive of alcohol, where can religion pick up the ``value`` that liquor should be prohibited. But instead Islam imposed the prohibition at once telling that when you imbibe you cannot differentiate between your mother and a whore. Similarly, the Arabian society at the time was a sexually permiscous and permissive society. According to one Arab custom that existed at the time the affluent men used to send their wives to live with beautiful men so that they could have beautiful children. I don`t see the `organism`s`` desire here to propagate one`s gene. Marrying one`s mother after the death of one`s father was also a mainstream practice. Not to mention the cutome of female infanticide and having harems of women and women having harem of men was also custom. In that society how can a religion pick up a value to impose such a strict decorum between the genders as we know it today. Therefore, in essence the genesis of a religious code is inherently different in nature as compared to the genesis of secular based code.

``This then begs the question why one system is `wrong` and other is `right`.``

Well, let`s try to understand the ``other`` side...

Rational and reasonable are two different things, I guess...with reason you can presume a set of given truths, and work everythign else from there. You can start with things like the golden rule ``do unto others...``, and go from there, for example. Not because this ``truth`` is evident from nature...but because we said so...

So, so-called non-belivers may in fact think very much like belivers in the end...so putting us down because we believe in the unseen is a bit unfair...hell, I see no inherent goodness in Man...I only believe this is the ultimate truth becaues God told me so...(not personally, of course)....otherwise I tend to think mankind is one asshole of a species on average...statistically speakin` of course... ;-)

We only become manageble once we place authority outside of our direct hands and into something abstract...like a ``system` or ``instituion``...and guide ourselves by some external principles. It`s always about faith beyond the self...I guess....

Re:urstruly#15

A legal framework is more than just codifying ethical/moral values, although it might be partially inspired from that. A legal framework codifies what is necessary from a functional perspective, in order that a society will survive and for that matter, our species will survive. All societies need to create a legal framework to ensure smooth functioning where people can survive and prosper. Why do people want to survive and prosper? Because it is in our genes to do so, otherwise we wouldn`t have evolved to this point. Modern religions have been around for only a few thousand years, but humans have been around for 50,000 years. Without modern religions around in the first 47000 years, how did humans survive and prosper without committing mass murder or other destructive activities?

Marriage is not just a religious concept, it is a very functional concept, because it ensures proper procreation of the species. Without marriage, men may not take care of offspring since they are not sure if it is their own, which endangers the survival of the offspring (at least in the past, human females did not have the means to take care of children by themselves). With marriage, a man is reasonably sure that it is his own genes that are getting passed on and surviving. Hence he will take care of the woman and the family. Even if you take the most remote tribal society that had no contact with the external world, you will find the concept of marriage. Now religion came up and adopted this functional concept and made it a religious obligation to strengthen the argument further i.e. God wants you to be monogamous and raise your family. Of course, in the modern times, when a woman can survive on her own, raise children by herself, obviously the functional need of a construct like marriage is diminishing. That is why, people are questioning it and arguing for same sex marriages etc. The functional need for marriage is lesser now given the success of our species. Hence the moral value of marriage is also diminishing.

Similary Islam prohibits eating pork. This is obviously a functional concept, because pigs used to carry all kinds of diseases, hookworms etc. in the past. If you ate pork, you were likely to fall seriously sick or even die. Hence it was a functional thing to avoid pork. Then Judaism and later Islam adopted this functional concept and created a religious concept i.e. God doesn`t want you to eat pork.

So my argument is that functionality came first, because as a species, with our physical limitations, we couldn`t have survived without basic functional concepts. This functionality drives legality and strongly influences morality (of course, there is more to morality based on spiritual needs). Secularism derives its basis from legality that depends on functionality to ensure proper functioning of society and survival of our species. Religion also derives a large amount of its basis from functionality, rather than the opposite. Orthodox people believe that all functionality came BECAUSE of relgious values i.e. religion taught us right from wrong. Actually we always knew what was right in order to survive as a species and it is religion that adopted that knowledge to provide divine sanction and ensure compliance by everyone.

amit & vertex

amit`s argument is invalid because in the world where we live in the legal framework exists because a set of moral values demands it. In other words legal framework only codifies a set of values. It doesn`t work the other way around that we have moral values because a legal framework demands it. Take for example, marriage. Marriage is an ethical and religious value that has been codified into a legal framework. The people who are questioning the institution of marriage argue that since marriage is a religious value and since in a secular society there is no place for a legal framework that is derived from a religious value therefore state has no authority to interfere in it. Extending this argument they further question what is wrong between the union of same gender partners. legally their point is valid but our moral values do not accept that. Similarly, another recent case of `pledge of allegiance` where American people pledge there allegiance to `one nation under God`. Legally, the circuit courts decision, that this pledge is unconstitutional since a secular polity cannot pledge its allegiance to dogmatic figure, is correct. But our moral values are not ready to accept that. The congress and senate were quick to pass legislation to overturn the circuit courts decision. Now what we have here - a secular polity where people pledge their allegiance to God. But it is anyone`s guess that such people are on losing ground. What was their moral value yesterday is not today. I don`t see where can we draw a limit. If yesterday child marriage was perfectly legal, today it is not, and tomorrow, incest will be legal (as it already is in several states). Yesterday suicide was illegal today it is legal. Once prostitution was frowned upon and today pension and retirement benefits are being demanded for sex workers. These people already lost in Europe because in its very ideology secularism is anti-religion; its is an anathema to the very notion of dogma. Seculeism is not accomodative as one is usually lead to believe. It is absolutely exclusive. In the name of fairness and justice, thus, for a rationalist, secularism or religious orthodoxy should be mirror image of each other - where everything is equal but opposite. This then begs the question why one system is `wrong` and other is `right`.

No species on the face of the earth likes to self distruct to the point of extinction. As immune system shows, species try their best to survive by creating defensive mechanism. It requires sefishness of the genes of each species to create defensive mechanisms and survival instincts. The mass murders, holocaust or decimation of native American population do not fall in this category becasue destruction was not against another species and human existence was not at stake.

All through the evolution of our species, we have created certain value sytems out of instinct for the survival. We are not born sinners but born survivors. Whatever helps us survive better is adopted in value system (morals) at every stage of our existence. The ten commandments existed and practiced long before Moses went up the hill. All religion did was to attribute them as god`s order or commandments. You see neither god nor religions are needed to live by certain set of values which help us survive batter as species. For example the role of mother has always been very important due to the long infancy childhood periods. No culture, religion or people have thrown them out after birth of babies. It just does not make sense.

Neither god nor religions is necessary for survival, which means that living by certain non-destructive value system. People can associate on these value systems, develop bonding, creating social constructs to further strengthening bonds such as marriage, inheritance, culture, nations, race, caste or an organization.

Where does spirituality, christianity or islam fit in it? Religions are not innovative beyond innovating something like god from thin air. In computer terminology, it is more like creating a folder in a world of files. Existing files are put in the folder with some spicing up so that people who wish to read these files go through the folder route only. Because a file can be opened as easily and actually more quickly, the party of folder has been making all kind of myths, fears, rewards, threads, murders, bribes and plain old marketing called proselytizing. Why do one has to look into first Jesus teachings, then Quran than 5 hadith, then 2 out of 5 hadith deemed more authentic, then local priest or mullah if loving a child is the purpose. Just open the file created by basic human goodness necessary and complementary to survival instincts of homosapiens-sapiens?

It is totally bizarre to make a case that without spirituality, religions and god, world would be a terrible place to live for human beings with rampant crimes without the fear of retribution. Or that we would be still living in the stone age or any less developed than today.

One of the technique for attracting and keeping in check the people now used to opening file through folder route is posthomous rewards becasue by 3000 years ago, human species was smart enough to account the rewards if there were any in this lifetime. As human became more and more aware of the zero reward in this life except statistical prbabilities (as hamidm2 post indicated), more and more stress needed for afterlife rewards. That is why, Islam promised more in finer details than Christianity and Judaism. It is rather modern that afterlife rewards started losing importance becasue the life as soul (separated from organic human body) became more and more a myth.

So what can a folder do? They can provide services, sales, 2-for-1 sales and using some of the earnings to create some rewards for the faithfuls in the forms of schools, hospitals, charities etc. As a last resort, they can refer to spirituality as a necessity (again without any evidence or proof) and then link spirituality file to the folder.

So the bottomline is that collating and creating folder is gone too far, when everything necessary for a good moral life is present in the form of files since ages. Additionally files can be edited easily, as the time changes, compared to folders.

Urstruly,

You`re right in the sense that those who believe in good without God are in fact deviating from the emperical style thinking and thinking much more in tune with those who are believers.

Any talk of good or bad may not be related to God, but it is in fact a similar discussion.

Orthodoxy is an obssessive compulsive disease (OCD) -- more limbic than cerebral -- should be treatable by psychotropic drugs....