Deep Roots of Religious Orthodoxy

``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....

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.

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.

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

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

Mohammad Gill

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

teshah

I did not quite understood your point. It looks like that you are angry and frustrated on some other issue which is unrelated to topic under discussion and venting your frustration here. There is a punjabi proverb that describes the situation in these words ``raundi yaaraaN nu lay lay ke naaN bharaawaN da``. Anyway I would like to address some of your points.

Islam as a religion instills a certain discipline in its adherents and demands a certain decourum to show that they are disciplined. For that Islam has put forward certain guidelines that Muslims must follow to show that they obey the demand for this discipline. These guidelines are a set of dos and donts. In religious lexicon they are divided into two braod catagories Halal i.e. allowed and Haram i.e. forbidden. Not only that but Islam also elaborates in detail as to what will be the consequences as a reward if we follow the Halal ways and a punishment if we chose to go astray with the Haram way. Islam is a unique religion that it does not classify actions as good or bad or natural or un-natural. In Islam every action no matter how dispecable, is natural. Islam does not stipulate that man is genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. A man is not born a sinner. On the other hand Islam talks about the choice. Islam shows what is ``allowed`` and what is ``forbidden`` and leaves the choice upon us. We make choices on every step of the way in our lives, everyday, every moment, some willingly, some unknowingly, and some under compulsion. On the Day of Judgment those choices that we made in our lives will be evluated and we will be rewarded or punished accordingly.

The word ``Haram`` in Arabic lexicon has more than one meanings. One meaning as I discussed above is ``forbidden``, the other meaning is ``sacred``. The phrase ``Masjid al Haram`` thus means `the sacred mosque` and not `forbidden mosque`, which is usually referred to as Kaaba in Mecca. The month of Ramadan is also Haram meaning that moth of Ramadan is sacred. On the other hand when we use the word haram in the context of other person`s wife saying that `she is haram for you` means that she is `forbidden for you.

I hope that helps.

But urstruly the problem is islam is static in its morality, you cant change a word of the Quran, where as humans are evolutionary beings, our morale sense of today is repulsed by punishments such as stoning to death, amputation, or taking of war booty in the form of women or slaves.

hindvi

I also used to be repulsed by the idea of going to school when my mother used to wake me up at 5:30 am in the chilling December mornings. Whether I liked it or not, that discipline was beneficial to me. Similarly, being a Muslim, like a benevolent mother, it is incumbent upon us to convince others that a certain discipline and certain decourum is necessary if human race is to progress and achieve salvation. Of course, the message puts many out of their comfort zones, but we have to do our job selflessly and compassionately.

As far as the issues of crimes and punishments, and genesis and evolution of Islamic jurisprudence and law is concerned, we can have a separate discussion on these issues where the format of discussion conforms and falls with in the realm of these sciences and not generalities.

Re:urstruly#27

I have associated with Chinese people for a number of years and have seen first hand that they have almost no religious fervour. Most of them consider Confuciansim and Taoism as philosophies rather than full-blown religions. Buddhism is there to some extent and Islam is only in one province. By and large, the chinese are not a very religious people unlike say hindus and muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

In any case, thanks for an interesting debate. Our difference is that you consider religion to be a central aspect of life i.e. without it, we would become degenerate savages. I consider religion to be a useful guide to remind us what we should realize from our common sense and lead a good life. Perhaps it is because I have lived in secular societies all my life where religion is your personal matter whereas you have obviously had a different upbringing.

#30 by Urstruly

ok with the discipline, great that its helping you, except i am worried about getting killed, and cant convince you by argument (the discipline comes in the way).