Dear Peter,  

Thank you for your commentary on my note on Rethinking etc. I enjoyed it very much because it raises questions of substance and does not get sidetracked into questioning motives (except parenthetically). I think some of the difficulties you may have had with my note, because it was written, as you say, a little too cheekily. Greater attention to developing its arguments more fully was warranted, which I have since done in my exchanges with Khalid. I am not sure if you have seen these, which anticipate some of your comments.  

There are real differences in our views, which I take up below, but, first, there are also points of agreements that should not go uncommented.  

I have no intention of diluting the meaning of useful commonly understood English words like religion; Heaven forbid! That would be very harmful for clear communication. And, even if I were to try that, small fries like me (I am, like you, a modest person to a fault) would certainly fall flat on their face. No, the pristine purity of the word “religion” ought to be maintained as is.  

But it must equally be recognised that that word has a very narrow meaning. The trouble is that that narrow meaning is invested in common parlance with a very large pejorative content (see the last para. of this note), which is mindlessly critical of anything that is based “on faith” and invests superior wisdom to Isms that are supposedly not based on faith. This approach to comparative evaluation is very faulty.  

My attempt was to show that the faith element is not the sole domain of what are commonly known as religions, but that it is a much more widespread phenomenon, which is not captured by this narrowly defined word. The Isms commonly believed to be purely rational ones are, on deeper analysis, based on fundamental axioms/principles/objectives that have to be taken on faith. The purpose of my article was not to tinker with the word religion but to clarify two things:   

First, to demonstrate that given the limitations of rational processes, mankind in coming to a worldview is condemned to adopt some first principles that have to be taken on faith. I am arguing that there are such first principles underlying all “Isms”, i.e., Isms that purport to offer a worldview, if you care to dig deep into it. I am also arguing that many Isms may not claim that they have a worldview but as they grow they develop an implicit but equally powerful worldview that guide men’s action. It is fair enough that Isms have to be constructed on the basis of first principles faith: there is really no option – rational processes just fail to provide an overarching objective. I am arguing that because all Isms are condemned to have a first principle based on faith, the Isms should not be judged on the basis of the first principle, which in any case is beyond the realm of reason.  

Second, notwithstanding these first principles, there is a whole range of implications of these principles -- about objectives and norms and standards of behaviour in day to day life of ordinary citizens (Singaporeans included) -- where the processes of rational judgement can be applied on agreed criteria. I am arguing that our judgement in these cases should be fully subject to rational criteria. Isms can be compared, evaluated and criticised on the basis of their implications. The standards applied to the implications of Secularism, for example, should be the same as applied to the Bahai religion, or any other. The behaviour that is generated by Capitalism is certainly something that can be compared and evaluated on the basis of rational processes as compared with the behaviour, in practice, generated by any other religion, say Islam.     

Based on these two considerations, I am suggesting that the word religion, as presently defined and used, is misleading in that it fails to recognise that there is an element of religiosity, or faith, in all Isms and it is important to distinguish its first principles, which are above judgement, from the second element of its implications, which are not.  

In subsequent postings on this topic on FOTH, I have taken pains to explain at length in what way different Isms can be said to have a first principle. I note that you agree that Socialism is a religion. Personally I think that the case of Capitalism as a religion is stronger: it has a clear set of first principles at its centre; it has close to what can be regarded as sacred books; it has prophets and preachers galore; it has a view of human salvation on this earth, which is based on the maximisation of individual utilities in a system based on free and unrestrained competition as providing the best way to achieve a general equilibrium that ensures the wealth of nations. The doctrine has clear implications for human behaviour in society. This is a view of salvation, not in heavenly terms but on this planet. Small wonder the origins of the doctrine came from a professor of Moral Philosophy. As well, Capitalism, like Communism, is willing to bear arms in defence of its ideology.  

I would be delighted to have your comments on whether or not I have made a sufficiently convincing case for each of the Isms I have discussed. These are certainly matters of debate and discussion.  

You say that we should tolerate no Faiths -- this is precisely the problem caused by the narrow meaning of the English word religion. The trouble is that all worldviews are rooted in nothing but Faith, explicit or implicit. I am suggesting that we tolerate the Faith element but only the Faith element; their implications for human behaviour in society should be rigorously judged on agreed rational criteria. I am urging that the two elements not be confused.   

With best wishes in an spirit of generating better understanding of the world around us, Abrar