|
Dear Rashid
Mughal Saheb,
Thank you for
your comments, which I find helpful for
advancing my understanding of the issues at
hand.
I take your main
point to be your pessimism about the
availability of rational approaches for
evaluating subsidiary implications of a faith.
My optimism rests on the basis that: (i) I am
not suggesting "the" rational criterion, but a
range of them; (ii) the criteria need not be
perfect, but whatever best judgments human
beings can commonly agree to as a good basis;
and (iii) that people use some such basis in
any event as a common practice.
All I am saying
is that such judgments ought to be applied
only to the implications but not to the fist
principles of the worldview, which I am
dubbing as principles taken on blind faith.
The rationale for this latter point is simply
that human knowledge is imperfect and mankind
has always speculated about the ultimate
things where reason cannot be expected to
judge. Let's grant all individual's the right
to their ultimate worldview and not judge them
on that basis.
But we certainly
can judge the implications of their worldview
for human behavior in society. We can devise
all kinds of criteria for judging them: are
the implications effective in meeting the
objectives they are supposed to meet? Do they
advance individual and collective security? Do
they meet fundamental human needs? And so on
and on. What I am suggesting is that these
criteria provide a basis of rational
discussion among humans of different faiths.
To take a couple
of examples, IF Communism's first principle
is common ownership of means of production, I
would not quibble with that if it is treated
as faith. All I will say is good for you, but
please tell me what are the implications for
human behavior in society. And then I will
subject those implications to a range of
normative standards: do these implications
provide a comprehensive set of principles for
dealing with human situations in society: do
they meet individual and collective needs; do
they promote addressing of new problems as
they arise; do they promote peace,
sustainability; growth, etc., etc. etc.
Similarly, IF a
Humanist comes along and says I believe that
"the human individual should be placed at the
centre of things not some Divinity" my
approach would be the same. Bravo, your faith
is wonderful, but please tell me what are your
implications for human behavior, and then I
will pose a battery of similar questions as
above, maybe many more.
All I am saying
is that I would not judge these faiths on
their labels, on their basic faith or on some
subjective principle. In addition, I am saying
that worldviews have a variety of implications
intended to serve a variety of human and
societal needs. it is therefore important to
consider the full range of these and coming
coming to some simplistic snap judgments if
one does not like the basic principles of
faith, or the naming or the non-naming of the
implied Divinity.
I am not sure if
I have addressed all your points but I hope
what I have said clarifies my views, at least.
I am also very open to discussing other
problems of logic or definitions you see in
what I have said.
Best wishes,
Abrar
|