Islam Watch - "In defence of Secularism" by Showan Khurshid

Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

In defence of Secularism

04 Feb, 2008

I believe this article will generate a lot of reaction and discussion. - Editor.

Having read few commentaries blaming secularism for the European submissive attitudes towards Islamisation, I thought I should write the following in defence of secularism.

Not every Christian religious leader is as confrontational against Islam. The Bishop of Oxford in England backs, for instance, the broadcasting of the Islamic prayer calls five times a day.[1] And does not George Bush praise Islam as a ‘religion of peace’? Or is he not Christian enough?

However, it is also true that the majority of the secularists or atheists are also multi-culturalists and believers in ethical relativism. Yet, there are atheists, myself included, who strongly oppose both multi-culturalism and ethical relativism. How is it possible to be an atheists and still hold some kinds of moral objectivism?

The starting point for the moral theory, I suggest, is Dawkins’s the Selfish Gene theory, although this should not entail acceptance of Dawkins’ moral theory which he suggested in his book ‘God Delusion’. I agree with the Selfish Gene theory that life is the epiphenomenon of reproducing genes and that humans, like other living organisms, are the survival machines of their genes. Obviously, within this view, life is almost meaningless, and contrary to expectation, this is a good piece of news, because it shifts the onus on ourselves to assign a meaning to our lives.
People want meaning when they have to make choices between different options particularly when some options involve sacrifices or overlooking one’s own interests. What I try to draw attentions to is that humans are creative beings, their lives depending to a great degree on learning, teaching and applying knowledge. Being so, they are able to produce the means of their survival and resolve the conflicts of interests between themselves without resorting to predation, aggression or parasitism. The capacity for creativity is mediated by genes as well as culture, and it is a fact that creativity is responsible for human civilisation, supporting almost every human’s survival at least in some stages of their lives. This means that creativity is what helps us survive and if we stick to creativity we will also be morally right. Accordingly, it can be suggested that the best morality is the morality which serves creativity best. Of course, this simple moral theory lacks the sense of compulsion and fear associated with religions. The creative morality requires voluntary commitment. However, it can be shown that on balance, choosing commitment to creativity is the best option available to human individuals as well as groups and the environment (for more on this read my article ‘The Creative Selfish Gene and Teleology’). Obviously, as such, this moral theory is not relativistic.
Another important feature of the creativity moral theory, I suggest, is its involvement in political theory that tries to explain politics and political history (for details of this point refer to my book ‘Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics’). What I want to note here is that the evolutionary political theory, I suggest, explains the formation of political power in terms of the agreement upon a unified set of moral rules (USMR), which means that following different sets of unified moral rules and principles will lead to the formation of clashing political power structures. Accordingly, I stand against multi-culturalism as well.
Christian scholars claim that religions can provide objective bases for morality by attributing morality to deities. Now let’s leave aside the fact that providing a convincing argument to support the existence of deities is an insurmountable obstacle, the benefits of this divine based morality are limited and the harms done by it are tremendous.
According to the Evolutionary political theory that I have developed, moral discourses, rules and values are bids to change public behaviours and attitudes. That is why when certain moral rules and values are adopted an alignment happens in certain directions. As a consequence, political power is created in favour of some approaches or conducts and against other approaches and conducts. This is obvious: If I suggested, for instance, that doing A is immoral and if a group of people accepted my proposition, for whatever reasons or motivations, those who do A may suffer consequently as a result of facing a group who reject their behaviour. In the meantime I may benefit, particularly if my opponents or rivals are among those who do A.
Now if you are secularist and rationalist you will accept that the moral opinions are products of human minds. As a rationalist, you will also be likely to agree that other people are entitled as much as you are to express their disagreement and express different moral propositions. Hence democracy is an associative characteristic of rationality and secularism.
Yet, the religionists believe that God or Gods (as each religion has its own God) are the sources of human moralities. Some religionists believe that their deities have already sent the complete set of moral rules. But, such propositions undermine moral deliberation. When you disagree with a person expressing moral opinion, who does not make religious claims, you can argue that his opinion is not well founded and you may succeed in changing his mind, or you may change your mind.
One of the greatest achievements of humanity has been liberal democracy. Liberalism, through the institution of Rights, allows people to construct and suggest different moral opinions. Democracy ensures the provision of the unified set of moral rules (USMR) by selecting the USMR that is favoured the majority, which may change thanks to liberalism. Liberal democracy is therefore an institution that can transform the local and private moral dispute into a public one and provide the means and methods to reconcile them.
However, if the same person is making religious references, the nature of your argument will be different. You either suggest that your God says something different to what his God says, without having any common arbitration institution to resolve the potential problems that result following contradictory rules. And as each side pass on conflicting moral judgements on each other they would be very likely to clash – indeed killing and mutilating each other is not a peculiarity of Muslims, Christians did slaughter each other for hundreds of years. In the discussion with a coreligionists, you may also suggest that although you believe in his God but disagree on the interpretation or the authenticity of his texts. In this case, you can only consult a religious authority. However, taking this option will mean that you have subordinated yourself to third person. Moreover, even the religious authority within the same religion may be different and you are left with common arbitration authority.
Finally, you can refuse his religion and God. This is like the first option, leaving both of you unable to reach consensus unless you decide to compromise as an expedient step rather than a moral.
The inference here is that in all cases when you have moral disagreement with others, regardless of whether they are your co-religionists or not, you will be incapacitated politically and deprived from participating in directing the political power because of religion, unless you are occupying a high position in the religious leadership. This is obviously a morally objectionable state of affairs.
Of course, the populations of most of Christian countries do not suffer from such a condition and for this they should thank secularism that has weakened Christianity. Without secularism they would still had to suffer the witch hunt, inquisition and burning of heretics on the stake as well as unending intra-Christian wars, which characterised until Europe only a few centuries ago.
Christianity, although benign in comparison with some other religions, is in fact responsible for much harm that is being inflicted on humanity. It desensitizes humanity against the irrationality of religions. By having carved up a niche for itself in the name of truth based on faith and not empirical facts, it forfeited its moral right or authority to reject other religions because the Christian belief entails that when you claim to be a religion you will not need to show that your beliefs are based on empirical facts. This means that having Christianity taking hold of the minds of so many millions of minds has in effect disabled these millions of minds from confronting Islam. Indeed, it is a very small minority of Christians who are confronting Islam.
Christians may be able to argue for imposing restrictions on Islam in certain countries on the basis of claiming significant contribution to the development and civilisation of these countries. However, in making such claims Christians are coming up against considerable proportions of citizens of these same countries, who see Christianity as a repelling belief system and rightly prone to abuse. This means that Christians create some indigenous enemies even before having done any good in restraining Islam.
Moreover, who does say that Christianity would be sufficiently effective in confronting Islam even in the best of conditions? Christians were ineffective in protecting even Jerusalem and Constantinople. The European dominance of the world came only as a result of modernity which implied reliance on rationality as a source of legislation rather than religion.
Rationality introduced gradual democratisation and thus brought about economic growth and advances in technology, which allowed the European and in general Western civilisation to dominate the world which on balance was good for the whole humanity. So in fact emphasising Christianity at this juncture in the name of saving the Western civilisation is even worse than shooting oneself in the foot.
To conclude: There is no need to cry over spilled milk, the genie of secularism cannot go back into the bottle. In any case, Christianity is not the solution, it is a substantial part of the problem. What exposes the western world to the danger of Islam, beside Christianity, are multiculturalism and ethical relativism. These schools of thoughts are able to cause this much damage because of the lack of right knowledge of politics and human nature. Christianity by presenting itself as a faith does not qualify to be knowledge. Religions have nothing to offer.
Finally, I would say, that criticising Christianity would not have been on my priority list had we not had an enemy like Islam threatening world civilisation. However, with Islam, Christianity becomes too expensive a load to carry.
------------

[1] ‘The Rt Rev John Pritchard backed plans for the call to prayer in Oxford -- splitting away from controversial comments made by the Anglican Church's only Asian Bishop, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, of Rochester.’

If you like this essay:

Stumble it

digg it

r eddit

Showan Khurshid is the author of : "Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics: A Political Theory based on the Evolutionary Theory" which can be purchased from Amazon.

Name: pmk
Date: Sunday February 03, 2008
Time: 22:08:00 -0700

Comment

By having carved up a niche for itself in the name of truth based on faith and not empirical facts, it forfeited its moral right or authority to reject other religions because the Christian belief entails that when you claim to be a religion you will not need to show that your beliefs are based on empirical facts. HUH? What are you talking about? What is faith other than the belief in something even in the absence of empirical facts? What religion in the history of humanity was based on empirical facts? Show me the empirical proof that Muhammad ascended to heaven and came back all in one night. The idea that Christianity has "disabled millions of minds from confronting Islam" with the proof offered being that only a "small number of Christians are confronting Islam" has to be the most outlandish thing I've ever read on IW. Christianity didn't create Islam. It didn't sponsor it. The author is out of his mind. Christianity wasn't weakened by secularism. What saved Europe and America from witch hunts was the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, two things that have yet to happen in Islam. In closing, it is definitely possible to be a moral secularist or a moral atheist. All you have to do is treat others as you would wish to be treated. There is no need to debase religion. Christians aren't afraid of secularism. They believe in the separation of the political and the religious, something that has yet to occur in Islam. You would do better to focus on the problem that is coming from Islam. Christianity had nothing to do with it, unless you think that by its very existence Christianity gives Muslims something to get mad about. Your argument is all backwards. Christians are fighting for their right to exist freely and equally with Muslims. Islam would deny them, using its sharia as an excuse. Look around. Educate yourself. Read a book.

Name: Vaughn
Date: Sunday February 03, 2008
Time: 22:09:17 -0700

Comment

I think the problem is not so much the Christian vs secularist division as the liberal vs conservative division. Conservatives have been ineffective in their opposition of Islam. They start counterproductive wars in the Mideast. They say they oppose terrorism, yet they have no problem supporting the loathsome and oppressive Saudis. Liberals treat Muslims with a double-standard, condoning atrocities like murder of apostates, slavery and abuse of women, by their refusal to condemn what they'd never tolerate in a Western group. We secularists, most of whom are liberals, have failed to support our fellows who are being murdered daily in Islamic regimes. Worst of all, we don't have the guts to stand up the PC crowd and demand that Muslims be treated with the same standards as anyone else. Muslims in the West must respect human rights, or leave! Muslim governments must renounce terrorism and respect our sovereignty, or lose Western cooperation and trade.

Name: No Sharia
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 00:58:34 -0700

Comment

Hello, during the next decade we will probably observe that the most forceful enemies of islam are atheists. Some of them can also present rational and forceful ethical bases for their thoughts. One good example is the articles on the philosophy of Islam by George Mason: http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/a_gmason_p2.htm The quality of thinking behind the ethics of such atheists is of course not below the christian level. Christians have to be more active in the defense of human rights against islam, or it will lose respect of more people than today. Regards, NO Sharia

Name: Igor the Infidel
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 06:16:18 -0700

Comment

Khurshid writes, "Not every Christian religious leader is as confrontational against Islam." Is Pope Benedict XVI confrontational enough? ...From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy "The Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy arose from a lecture delivered on 12 September 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany. The pope had previously served as professor of theology at the university, and his lecture was entitled "Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections". The lecture received much condemnation and praise from political and religious authorities. Many Islamic politicians and religious leaders registered their protest against what they said was an insulting mischaracterization of Islam, contained in the quotation by the pope of the following passage: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The passage originally appeared in the “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia," written in 1391 as an expression of the views of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, one of the last Christian rulers before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire, on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason."... (Does Khurshid know how many died in the ensuing riots of Muslims who were outraged by the Pope's historical observation?) Khurshid unintentionally makes Emperor Manuel's point. Christianity's inability to protect "even Jerusalem and Constantinople" only shows that Islam produced better swordsmen, or more of them.(Somewhere I read that Islamic armies attacked Constantinople 85 separate times before it finally collapsed in 1453.) Without saying as much, Khurshid faults Jesus for this perceived Christian failure, because unlike Mohammad, Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek and to not avenge themselves. "My kingdom is not of this earth," Jesus said. Finally, Khurshid proposes no real answer to the threat posed by Islam qua Islam; it will not be secularized.

Name: Patrick Risk
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 06:25:07 -0700

Comment

Meaning for human life comes from within. Morals are part of human nature. Nothing good comes from religion. Anyone who thinks they believe in God isn't going to be much help in eradicating Islam. Their subconscious mind won't allow them to be rational. Whenever I see a gathering of Christians, I see everyone leaning to one side, on that crutch of faith. I see a slow moving army of fools. The balls of Islam are coming off, with or without the help of Christians...Patrick Risk

Name: Igor the Infidel
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 06:46:47 -0700

Comment

Patrick Risk writes "Meaning for human life comes from within." (What, then, does human life mean, sir?) "Morals are part of human nature." (like survival of the fittest genes?) "Nothing good comes from religion." (said the blind man who dismisses great works of charity around the world that are inspired by religious teachings) "Anyone who thinks they believe in God isn't going to be much help in eradicating Islam." (Have you begun to form your army of atheists, or do you belong to such an outfit? How do you propose to eradicate Islam?) "Their subconscious mind won't allow them to be rational." (isn't that called schizophrenia?) "Whenever I see a gathering of Christians, I see everyone leaning to one side, on that crutch of faith." (I believe that you exist, but I've never met you in the flesh. That is my faith "crutch," informed by reason) I see a slow moving army of fools. (Onward Christian soldiers!) "The balls of Islam are coming off, with or without the help of Christians." (so THAT'S your Atheist Army's strategy for eradicating Islam! Castration!)

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 08:41:33 -0700

Comment

To pmk, well the significant characteristic of enlightenment is the belief that humans can manage their affairs through their own reasoning. Moreover, I did not say Christianity is responsible for what Muslims do. I said Christianity is not able to do anything about it. Vaughn, the reason that most conservatives are getting it wrong is their belief in Christianity and the reason that liberal getting it wrong is their belief in multiculturalism and ethical relativity. No Sharia, thanks for the link it is useful. Well an atheist non-relativistic ethic and non-multiculturalist discourse is far better than the Christian one. All theistic ethics turn human to subjects under some hierarchies which cannot avoid abuses. To ‘What the Quran says about Itself’: So the Quran is self-certifying! You Muslim, how can you disprove that I am not a prophet as well? I am prepared to engage you with such a discussion. I will prove to you that I am morally better than Mohammed, intellectually more creative than him. I appeal for peace and creativity, while Mohammed offered only death and jihad. Mohammed was criminal of worst kind. Now, Listen, if you are so brain washed to believe in the Self-certifying Quran, you should believe in me just as well. Listen! You Misguided! I am your prophet and you must follow me! You must leave Islam or otherwise you be cursed in the hell forever!!!!! Igor, You seems to be justifying the Christian leaders’ silence on the account that their confrontation will lead to Islamic rioting and killing of Christians. Do not worry, Muslims will never stop killing of each other and the none-Muslims. Winning an argument conclusively is essential for the fight against Islam. Christianity based on equally nonsensical beliefs cannot overcome Islam. Atheism that does not believe in ethical relativism and multiculturalism can win the argument and this kind of atheism is my solution to the Islamic threat. You may in fact be able to secularise Islam to some degree and make something like Christianity out of it. However, Islam is a shameful thing, just to accept respecting someone like Mohammed is a repugnant idea to me. Igor, in my opinion, believing that morality is given by gods is immoral because by doing so, you reject other peoples’ right to legislate their own moral rules for themselves. This tantamounts to incapacitating them politically and subjecting them under hierarchical leadership, like the churches are. Social, political and economical hierarchies can lend themselves easily to abuse of power. No wonder, Churches cannot clean themselves from abusive clergies. Finally, I do not see why we should believe in fairy tales and or gory beings to explain our world when science is capable of doing that. Any way you admit that Christianity is not able to do the job of confronting Islam properly. Give your support to atheists and they will do the job.

Name: Zib-ul-Kabir
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 08:49:56 -0700

Comment

Although I agree in general terms with MR. Khursid's argument, I feel that he fails to differenciate between MORAL and ETHICS, and between PRIVATE moral and SOCIAL practices, in other words, between the democratically protected right to hold your own beliefs and opinions (and here I don't mean as much religious beliefs as I mean moral choices and private behavior) as long as they don't conflict with the agreed norms of social existence. Democracy in fact PROTECTS and even PROMOTES this kind of, let's say, dialectic diversity... but the paradox is: it is almost a question of some sort of law of psycological momentum that, at some point, a number of individuals sharing the same privates beliefs will poll to transform them into a part of a socially enforcable code of behaviour. How will you prevent that under the rules of democracy (both the formation of diverginf private vs. social practices, and the lobbying for adjustment of the social consensus in favor of some new agreement)?

Name: Igor the Infidel
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 09:19:01 -0700

Comment

Khurshid, thanks for the reply. I would like to give my support to you, as you request, and agree that, "Winning an argument conclusively is essential for the fight against Islam," but what exactly IS your argument? That turning Muslims into creative atheists is the solution? Maybe by doing "the job" on them you mean quarantining them in a new kind of Gulag? Please explain yourself.

Name: Patrick Risk
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 10:28:49 -0700

Comment

Answers for Igore the Infidel...To understand the meaning of life, you have to accept the fact that man was not created by God. Life is what YOU make of it...Morals are part of human nature, exactly the same way survival of the fittest is...The goodness of religion is substantially outweighed by the bad...No army needs to be involved to eradicate Islam, it's falling apart on its own...Food for informed reason can be found at www.jesusneverexisted.com The castration of Islam is nothing more than a provocative metaphor...This isn't meant to be personal but the people that don't hear what I have to say, generally have ears plugged with faith...Patrick Risk

Name: Igor the Infidel
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 11:01:56 -0700

Comment

Reply to Patrick Risk, who wrote, "you have to accept the fact that man was not created by God." Fact? You cannot prove nor disprove this statement of "fact." "Life is what YOU make of it" Not necessarily. Many nasty things happen to us that are completely out of our control, in which case we respond as best we can, which is a different matter entirely. "Morals are part of human nature, exactly the same way survival of the fittest is." I wonder what survival benefit there is to being absolutely altruistic, say, by offering your life in exchange for the life of a complete stranger and enemy? "The goodness of religion is substantially outweighed by the bad." And exactly how many millions were killed under the reigns of devout atheists like Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, not to mention Pol Pot? "No army needs to be involved to eradicate Islam, it's falling apart on its own." For 1400 years Islam has been falling apart on its own? "Food for informed reason can be found at www.jesusneverexisted.com." Josephus was misinformed? "The castration of Islam is nothing more than a provocative metaphor...This isn't meant to be personal but the people that don't hear what I have to say, generally have ears plugged with faith." I hear you, and I am a Christian. So, "creative atheism" may be the answer after all. Is that your position as well? If so, good luck gaining converts!

Name: Zib-ul-Kabir
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 12:21:04 -0700

Comment

Mr. Khursid, From the standpoint of the non-relativistic atheism that you propose, how do you address this contradiction: (I am selectively quoting from your response to Igor just to make my point): "Atheism that does not believe in ethical relativism and multiculturalism can win the argument and this kind of atheism is my solution to the Islamic threat." [...] two sentences later, you wrote: "Igor, in my opinion, believing that morality is given by gods is immoral because by doing so, ***you reject other peoples’ right to legislate their own moral rules for themselves.***" (emphasis with *** is mine) You see, if other people have the intelectual tools and ultimately the right to legislate their own moral rules for themselves, (I am assuming that you mean here BOTH individuals and natios, or communities) then from which standpoint do I deny the right of, let's say, Sudanese or Egyptian agrarian societies to female genital mutilation? Just because the community I am a part of has reached a different consensus and has the technological and military tools to ENFORCE it on others? Don't get me wrong - I share escencially your opinions. But I strongly sense that there are some logic flaws in your exposition, so I would like you, if you wish, to expand on this issue. Thanks.

Name: Zib-ul-Kabir
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 12:29:57 -0700

Comment

Oh, crap, my spelling is getting down the flush :P :P and this forum doesn't allow any text formating. Anyway... I just wanted to mention another aspect of this complex issue: the issue of "consenting", i.e. of willingly entering a consensus. This consenting makes the difference between a session of S&M between intellectually able and consenting adults, and rape & abuse. ]-------------[ The question is - to which extend do we actually consent (willingly participate) to the moral norms of our society? Which in fact is another way to say: what's the extent of our REAL possibility NOT to consent with then? ]-------------[ I think, Mr. Khursid, that this is an important aspect of the question. I fwe are all ultimatelly biochemichal machines, and it is upon us to make sense out of it, then it can be logically proposed that embracing the total non-sense of existence is another legitimate moral option, and, from this standpoint, neither survival or anihilation are preferable, so as masters of the sense of our existence we might chose anihilation -ours, and our fellow humans'. I invite you to give a sound counterargument to this proposition. ]----------------[ On a more personal note, thank you for taking the time of thinking things through and sharing that with us! :)

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 13:21:21 -0700

Comment

Igor the Infidel, thanks, why do not you read my other articles. You will know what I suggest. Moreover, what I am thinking about here, and I think Patrick Risk is trying to make similar point, is that when we learn the good arguments and confront Muslims with the good arguments and put them before the right choices, Islam will crumble. Our problem is that there are very few who support our struggle. If you talk in the name of religion, and sometimes even if you are a charlatan and abusive, you will be given all facilities to run mosques and churches with access to enormous resources. For us there is none. The anti-Islam intellectuals cannot afford even running a website, let alone a TV or Radio station and magazines. Muslims have million of mosques, radios, and TV. Christian leaders and churches have enormous resources, unimaginable to us. However, what do they do with all these resources? They have turned Christians into zombies, a laughing stock for Muslims and easy prey for them. If you want to help, free Christians so we can have some leverage over Muslims. Zub-ul-Kabir (I have some reservation over your pseudonym though), thanks for your inputs, my answers to you will come soon. I wrote the first reply but with your new posts that has almost been overridden. I can pasted if you wanted me to do so.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 13:55:11 -0700

Comment

Mr. Khursid: Hahaha, yeah, I inherited this nickname when in a pro-Islamic forum someone called me a d*ck, so, I decided to be the biggest one... To show my commitment to a serious discussion, I'll move tu ZuK. I look forward to reading your comments.

Name:
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 14:30:26 -0700

Comment

Zib-ul-Kabir, first of all, I would like to thank you, I think I will enjoy the discussion with you. Thank you also for the name you have chosen for yourself because that will add a bit of humour to the discussion. In the course, of the discussion I will give myself some liberty to change your name as needed because your name as it stand is a bit frightening. For those who do not know, it means the big penis in Arabic. The points you are making suggest to me that you are sometimes Zib-ul-Moshawash (the confused penis) and other times Zib-ul-Mishawish (the deliberately confusing penis). Truly, your image as a penis in the realm of confusion is much funnier. Sorry, you bring this upon your head. I suggest you change your pseudonym, if you do not want me to have this advantage. Now let’s go the real points. You make a very good point. Every ethical relativist asks these questions from the ethical objectivists who condemn some practices as unethical. Unfortunately, the ethical relativists usually win the argument. This explains why secular people are in so much disarray and have exposed the Western world to the Islamic invasion without even the slightest resistance. However, if you think you have found some contradictions in mine argument and this standard ethical relativistic argument will defeat me as well, you are wrong. My point of reference is that we humans are creative beings, dependent on creativity for our survival. Therefore, the morality which serves creativity will serve us in some direct or indirect way. I will not pretend that this morality will be good for everyone. An unenlightened and uncreative but brutal person unaware of his genes, like Muslims are urged to be, may use his capacity for violence to predation and savagery. In this brutal way the brutal will do better than the most creative and beautiful being. However, everyone has interest in creativity. Even the brutal person may not have survived in some stages of his life without the creativities of others – Muslims survive today because the superpower of the world are nice and not as brutal as Muslims. Now you may ask, as you did, but why we should choose the creative ethics rather than that of total destruction. Of course, there is no compelling reason. The decision will be for each one of us to make. For me judging the futility of our lives, the transient nature of all pleasure, the inevitability of pain and death, our love for beauty, knowledge, enjoyment in music, I would invest on creativity. The wonder of evolution by natural selection; the fact that we are able to gain knowledge of this world; the fact that there can be so much more to discover and so much more to enjoy are all great testimonies for this achievement of evolution by natural selection arising just from the simple activities of genes. I would myself invest in this cause rather than any other alternatives. It is because of this that I see Muslims are defiling life and the beauty of life and that is why I want to confront. Tell me please if I have answered you objection and whatever else objection you have.

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 14:38:05 -0700

Comment

Sorry ZUK, I pasted my note without noticing the change to your nickname. I hope you will be luckier next time. I thought you are a tiqqyia Arab-Muslim who is thinking he is fooling us around. And tell you they have succeeded immensely. please, neglect the first part and let's discuss the real issues.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 19:10:45 -0700

Comment

PART I //// Dear Mr. Showar: _______ 1. Thank you for your prompt answer. __________ 2. The nickname had an humorous intention, so your additional twist is most welcome, regardless of whether it was intended for a disguised Muslim provocateur or, in my case, a secularist that doesn't reject metaphysical naturalism as a possible philosophy, and always welcomes unbiased inquiry. [2b: now I realize that I should have actually adopted the nickname "zibi akbar" :) :) ok, enough sophomoric humour - I'll be from now on Z-u-K]_____________ 3. I wish this forum had SOME formatting capabilities... this text stream looks awful. Therefore I will use some lines to improve the typographical view. /// Now, to the issues: if I understood you right, according to your ideas, the basic moral imperative derives from our biological compulsion, or mandate, to exist and last, and the pattern of behaviour that most fully expresses this mandate is our creativity, or capability to adapt and come up with innovative solutions to the challenges posed to our existence. I certainly can agree with that. Furthermore, if -again- I understood you right, you imply two things: first, that the mere fact of our conscious existence as humans is enough source of awe to make innecesary a divine justification of our appreciation for life; second, that although no logical reason can be offered for us to prefer conscious existence to anihilation, conscious existence is preferable in a self-evident way, at least for you (and obviously for all the readers here, since we didn't -still- commit suicide and keep posting.) I can agree with that too, from more than one perspective. ___________ But you see - these points ALONE do not give enough basis (philosophical basis) for EMPATHY. And I find hard to conceive a moral system that ignores, furthermore, that is not based, on the concept of empathy - some of whose ultimate manifestations are altruism and self-sacrifice. Let me put it in a over-simplified way: we might well find that the creative solution XYZ provides a wonderful response to the challenges that nation ABC faces... just at the cost of some N million lives of the nation FGH. Certainly, the politics of imperialism have worked very well to ensure the wealth and security of some nations in the world for a long while. And certainly their implementation was the result of an great deal of creativity from the part of these nations and some of their citizens. How does THIS type of creativity fit in your vision? What's the role -if any- of empathy in this atheistic but non-relativistic moral scheme of things?

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 19:29:11 -0700

Comment

PART 2 ---/// Dear Mr. Showan: continuing with my comments, or more exactly, with my inquiry to better understand your ideas, there are two issues that, if you have the time and wish, I would appreciate you to address. Both issues stem from what I understand is your attempt at building a moral system on a rational base, rejecting a theistic dogmatic foundation. So --- # 1 --- is something I presented to your attention but did not develop as an idea. The issue #1 is: should morals derive **solely** from a rational, scientific understanding of the natural world and human behavior, or should they result from a social contract, a collective agreement? Your thesis seem to suggest the first take, but you clearly defended the right of the people to develop and hold to this kind of agreement. So, my question is: what if they conflict? What if a community, a nation, wants collectively to stick to a moral description of the world in which a 3-day zigot or an irreversibly comatose patient are considered as valuable lifes as yours or mine? (I think you see what I am refering to) Scientific truths prevail because they are backed by a corporation of dedicated specialists, called scientists, whose autority is not overturned by the popular consent or dissent - the Earth STILL will turn around the Sun, even if we vote against it :) but then... what about MORAL truths? Am I making my observation clear? /// --- # 2 --- Again, if we are to treat any moral system as a logical construct, then there should be some AXIOMATIC proposition on which it is based. Theistic dogmatic religions have the huge advantage (read: confort) of providing a complete, ready-for-consumption axiomatic base in the form of a Divine Mandate. Dismissing this consoling pacifier puts us in the difficult position of presenting a no less inexpugnable axiomatic base to our moral system. What would you say that is the basic axiom of your moral non-relativistic non-theistic system? And why is it less culturally biased than any other axiomatic postulate? /// I know that this is an awful lot of questioning, but I am in no rush, and am interested in no debate - just clarification and fresh exchange of ideas for the sake of a better understanding. Thanks!

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Tuesday February 05, 2008
Time: 14:29:38 -0700

Comment

Dear Zuk, I have not abandoned the debate. I will post my reply as soon as I have written it which wont be very long now. Thanks for your patience.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Tuesday February 05, 2008
Time: 21:04:17 -0700

Comment

Dear Mr. Khurshid: No rush! I bet you must be very busy. I'll be glad to read your insights when you are ready to post them. "Read" you soon!

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Wednesday February 06, 2008
Time: 08:57:32 -0700

Comment

Dear Zuk, Thanks a lot. I will try to answer some of your questions. I will not be able to answer all in a short reply. I am currently trying to write a concise outline of moral thinking, so once that is done I hope it will answer the rest of your questions. I do not usually use the terms, moral imperative or compulsion. The central point to my theory is creativity, which is assumed to comprise two parts. Firstly, creativity entails having the ideas and means concerning how to gain resources from nature for sustenance and preservation. Secondly, creativity entails the capacity to resolve conflicts of interests without the need to resort to destruction, predation and parasitism. Becoming creative obviously needed the coalescence of many properties which can be said to include intelligence: The subordination of most emotions to the need for social organisation; the evolution of many emotions, which may exist in another animals in rudimentary forms, are uniquely elaborated and intensified in the human case, e.g., shame, guilt and moralistic anger, gregariousness, jocularity, artistic flare, passion for beauty, among many other emotions: the capacity for morality; dexterity, skeletal modification; language and consciousness. You rightly observed the importance of altruism and I agree. Altruism, you know for sure, is something shared with other animals. I think it was Edward Wilson who said that all sexual living organisms are in some senses altruistic. Still altruism is necessary but not a sufficient condition for morality. You wrote: ‘Furthermore, if -again- I understood you right, you imply two things: first, that the mere fact of our conscious existence as humans is enough source of awe to make innecesary a divine justification of our appreciation for life; second, that although no logical reason can be offered for us to prefer conscious existence to anihilation, conscious existence is preferable in a self-evident way, at least for you (and obviously for all the readers here, since we didn't -still- commit suicide and keep posting.) I can agree with that too, from more than one perspective.’ In terms of the bearing genes have for morality, there are at least two issues. One is that our moral capacity is underpinned by our genes. However, our genes “want” (of course, genes do not have a want- they reproduce because that is their chemical property) nothing more than their reproduction. Although, of course, our genes have gone through natural selection and that is why we do not do any and everything. My assumption is that we have been selected for some degree of creativity. The other point relevant in this regard is our awareness of the drives we inherit because of our genes. We hate, aggress and use violence, try manipulate, and in fact most of these behaviours do not need learning. We will need to learn not to be aggressive and hateful. The point of most of our behaviour is to ensure our genetic survival. We should be aware of them. When we decide that the survival of genes does not matter if it contradicts with creativity we can restrain ourselves and thus sometimes accept defeat and loss. (As a point worth noting here, and this is not against any point you made, is that Islam is perfectly tailored to the needs of the survival of the brutal males’ genes. However, I believe telling them this much will undermine that drive to a considerable extent.) I believe that another set of your questions involves scientificity, democracy, foundation of morality as well as a specific question regarding, as you put it, my ‘basic axiom of your moral non-relativistic non-theistic system’. First of all, I could propose a normative moral theory that since creativity is essential to the lives of the majority of humans and it is behind the wonders of civilisation, then the morality that serves creativity best is the best morality as well. But of course this normative moral principle has no claim to any obligation from other people unless they choose to subscribe to it. In fact, I neither need nor pretend that this principle is more than a moral proposition. The moral system I suggest has more than one part. I believe that human moral system has at least two essential parts: On the one hand, the moral capacity, which has been mentioned earlier: On the other hand, and moral propositions, an example of which is just given. However, that proposition is one among, perhaps, many millions, human mind has produced. These propositions can be extremely self-centred, like Mohammed’s who wanted the ‘one night stand’ sex with women but did not allow it to others as Ayesha Ahmed has recently indicated. To the most universal one like let’s say Kant’s categorical imperative. In essence here moral propositions designate all the ideas that purport to state what is right or wrong socially and try to guide human social behaviour, or guide those behaviours that affect other well being directly or indirectly. As such, moral propositions in this scheme will need to include all laws, whether written or not. The nature of moral propositions as a guide for social behaviour implies that it is likely to produce political power. This is not very difficult to imagine. For instance, if there were a few hundred millions of us believing that Islam is evil, would not we put pressure on Muslims to quit? The pressure here is the political power. We can imagine that in order to coordinate our actions we would agree to establish institutions and leadership. Now does not this mean that we would have had established political institutions? However, I must note that although possible, it is rare to form political power in that simplistic way described above. Usually, those who agree on one thing disagree on tens of other things and thus political power is not formed easily. Sometimes we find a one issue group forming and disintegrating after a short while. Arriving at this point we can take up the issue of scientificity of morality, or in my case, the scientificity of moral propositions. I believe that moral proposition can be scientific. Let’s examine the normative moral theory I suggested that the best morality is the morality that serves creativity best, because creativity is necessary for the lives of all people at least in some stages of their lives. To examine the validity of this supposition we need no more than empirical evidence. Perhaps, in this specific case, we may, indeed, be able to find much evidence to support the proposition. For instance, it can be noticed that creativity has provided us with everything; the creative social behaviour is what spare us from the aggression and parasitism; creativity is responsible for the wealth and civilisation, etc. In fact, one of the criteria which can be used to distinguish genuine moral propositions from the false moral proposition is that the first is amenable to empirical assessment and the second is not – as you see I differ from the logical positivists that morality is subjective and not amenable to empirical assessment. However, what makes moral propositions different from non-moral, non-political propositions or let’s call it natural scientific propositions is that moral propositions have political power dimension, as said before. Hence, when one holds a moral belief about how people should treat him or how they should treat each other one has to make it public before starting to apply it. Even publicising it is not sufficient. One has also to give an opportunity to other to discuss it and propose rejection, amendment or acceptance of it. Such measures are necessary unless one regard the others as infant or just mere cattle. That is why I condemn the religious morality because it purports that its origin is the God and as such no one is entitled to change or amend them. So when the religious rights say abortion or euthanasia are sins, because of a God, we should ask them to bring their gods to tell us “Their” reasons. To compare “moral science” with the natural sciences we can immediately note that holding relativity theory or quantum does not change one’s behaviour toward the man on the street. But having a definition of what constitutes an abusive behaviour, one might intervene against the perception of abuse, which in extreme case, though not very rare, may lead to grave injuries inflicted on one or both sides. Regarding the issue of what if some wanted one moral principle and others wanted different set of moral principles. This is the condition of the real world. It is indeed rare that we would agree on all moral principles all the time. What would happen if people disagree over the moral principles they adhere to? The answer depends on where they are. A political system may keep all in awe and some legislative processes may provide reconciliation. But what were happening before the establishment of states, or what would happen if there is political power vacuum or breakdown of political order? In my opinion killing and destruction ensue. In the past clans, tribes and even family members were either killing each other or moving apart. So in this regard, I am completely against ethical relativism and multiculturalism. The most important question, from the political point of view, is how come that we have political systems? In my opinion, for a political system to exist it must be based on what can be called organisational system of beliefs (OSB). Liberal democracy and religions, communism, fascism have components that function as OSBs. (These are usually referred to as ideologies, but according to the text books, ideologies include feminism, ecologism, etc, such inclusion entail that the authors of these book have not noted an important function some ideologies perform but other do not. (In my book I use the term ideology to refer to religions, fascism and communism, but I realise that to avoid unnecessary confusion, when you have a new concept it is better not to use an old jargon.) The functions of these OSBs are: To provide a set of moral rule over which a group of individuals would generally agree, even if it happened that not every single of the moral rules were as agreeable: To provide justifications for submitting these moral rules: To justify assigning authority to certain bodies or institutions, which are supposed to be authoring the moral rules: To justify itself through some worldviews. In my opinion if we accept the belief that human reason is the author of moral rules and values, then we will come to set up a political system that resembles, though not identical to, the current liberal democracies. The essential ingredient of liberalism (on its own without democracy) is the believing in certain rights, like freedom of expression in political matters, due processes, the right to live, some certain economic measures that guarantees some autonomy so that one is not forced to abandoned his or her freedom of expression are all necessary. When these rights are available and people cannot reach consensus regarding certain moral rules then democracy would be necessary. Democracy, here is to refer to the simple process of election and giving the executive power to the representative of the majority. Liberalism is essential for a healthy democracy, because it allows the reparation of the application of wrong moral principles that a majority may choose. (In my new updating of the theory which I propose, I call the liberal democracy as an inclusive organisation system of belief (IOSB) because theoretically it allows everyone to participate in moral deliberation and decision making.) In general, in this creativity based political theory, that I have been in fact developing for many years, the philosophical authority of morality does not come from an axiom. It assumes that authority of morality should come from liberal democratic institutions and nothing else. Although I mean the procedures and not necessarily only certain congresses or parliaments. Within this context, it would be moral to have a group of people devising their own moral rules, as long as it happens through liberal democratic procedure and can allow others to share deliberation and decision. Nor it would be against these principles to hold and apply a moral principle provided that it is made public and allowed modification or even complete rejection and provided that the damage reparation measures are respected. (I have in fact discussed these matter in my book which nobody buys but that is beside the point). The other set of options when we do not credit human reason directly for authoring moral rules can include religions, communism and fascism and many sorts of nationalism which I will call as exclusive organisation systems of beliefs (EOSB). Religions credit gods with moral authorship. Communism does not acknowledge the importance of morality. However, in the name of science, it states a set of policies, which are the essential core of morality, like how people from different social classes, how they must be treated, what political system should be set up, what rights people should have, etc. Now regardless of whether a scientific proposition is scientifically true or not (in the case of Marxism, is far from true, in my opinion and it is discussed at length in my book and elsewhere) scientific research does not mandate any obligation, it only can promote the case for the proposition. Fascists, racists and most nationalists – well benefited from their ignorance because it allowed them holding power – assume that morality is a part of the nature of their ethnicity or race in some mysterious ways. However, their causes have also being helped by the confusion in the moral studies. The fact that moral capacity is rarely differentiated from moral propositions, and the fact that people assume that morality is personal while legislation, taking place within the confine of which ever board, is something separate. Finally, communism and nationalisms are usually helped by their hostile attitude towards liberal democracy. However, apart from the above EOSBs one can imagine any other entity onto which to ascribe moral authorship. With some manipulation and adjustments, Plato’s, Hegel’s, evolutionary theory can be used to deny the ordinary humans’ authorship of moral propositions. From this point we can move in fact, into explaining how human political proceed, once again, my book and also many articles have gone through that. Finally, I hope, I hope I answered some of your questions and please let me know if you think that I have failed or omitted something important questions.

Name: dh
Date: Wednesday February 06, 2008
Time: 10:59:42 -0700

Comment

I agree with everything was said. It is one thing to teach about other cultures, but when those cultures are continued in a new country, there is no uniformity. In any country, one cannot be _______American. It must be American of ________ethnic origin. The same in other countries. When on moves from one country to another, one must adopt the new country's way of life. If not, there is no nationalism of any king. It must be, united we stand, divided we fall. And by having that small distinction, it causes division. The same with religion. Identifying oneself as (insert religion id) only seperates you from your fellow humans. One must be human first, then ethnic origin. One should NEVER identify oneself with one's religion. Secularism is good for ALL religions. It allows everyone of different backgrounds to come to a common place. In the US, many sects of christianity have actually fought to KEEP secularism because they know if there wasn't, their own particular sect would be outlawed. It helps us ALL.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Wednesday February 06, 2008
Time: 19:27:59 -0700

Comment

Mr. Showan, That is ONE heck of an answer. Attaboy! Such a writing effort deserves a no lesser reading and understanding effort. Let me get back to it in one or two days. Thank you for your dedication!

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Thursday February 07, 2008
Time: 18:31:50 -0700

Comment

Dear Mr. Khursid: I have gone through your detailed answer. I feel that I need to read it once again, for many reasons, the main of them being: that it is obvious that your paragraph, however lenghty might seem for an internet forum, represents just a tiny fraction of a vast intelectual work you have been dedicated to, and - as it is unavoidable in these cases - there are many assumptions and conections that cannot be made evident to the reader unless he or she becomes familiar with the whole system. There is also the issue of the terminological useage of certain words, one that you have stumbled upon in the case of "ideologies". So, before I rush to say if your response does actually answer my observations, I need to double-check myself if I am able to obtain the answer from what you have offered (which, as I said, is obviously a compendium, or overview, or a wider analysis). So, I beg in advance your indulgence if, in my own answer, I seem to oversee meanings and implications of your text that for you are manifestly evident. /////////// adressing tangentially another issue, for me the shipping of your book (being in the USA) is almost twice as costly as the book itself. You might consider publishing a download-for-purchase PDF version. /////////// Write to you soon, ZuK.

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Friday February 08, 2008
Time: 11:27:07 -0700

Comment

Dear Zuk, thanks for your interest and also dedication, which seems to be something common between us. I have requested the publisher which printed my book to offer it in digital format. They have not replied yet.

Name: sandie ficus
Date: Saturday February 09, 2008
Time: 09:25:15 -0700

Comment

what a great artical! Imagine writing such a thing just a few days before the arch bishop of canterbury is in trouble for apparently accenting to shariah law as a working paralel legal system in the uk! i wish religious people (ie those with their own power agenda) would rather not say anything at all.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Monday February 11, 2008
Time: 18:57:42 -0700

Comment

----- Dear Mr. Khurshid: Thank you again for your detailed explanation and generous elaboration on your ideas. As I told you already, it is my goal to better understand them, and the means that suit my intelectual preferences the most is the reasonable objection. I hope this excersice is understood by you as an opportunity to clarify your ideas (and, who knows, shaping them) and not as a sign of animosity or a futile belligerent zeal - I think we all have had enough of that. ----- I will try to keep my remarks short. 1 - Given that the moral system that you propose is ultimately based on the assumption that life is a bio-chemical process and that spiritual phenomena are a result, not a cause, of life, then: is this system limited in its scope to the interaction between human beings, or does it apply to animals and the natural environment as well? Since we can testify to our condition of conscious beings only on an individual base (nobody experiences *my* consciousness; and the consciousness of others might be a matter of belief, logic and empathy, but not a direct experience), and considering the objectively minimal biological gasp that separates us from high primates and other mammals, in short, considering than other living creatures are as C+H+O+N as we are, and we know nothing of their feelings but by intelectual means, then what is the place and role of other sentient beings (I love this expression! sorry, I am "Star Treck" generation...) in your system? This is important for a sound definition of "destruction, predation and parasitism." 2 - You wrote: "[...] one of the criteria which can be used to distinguish genuine moral propositions from the false moral proposition is that the first is amenable to empirical assessment and the second is not – as you see I differ from the logical positivists that morality is subjective and not amenable to empirical assessment." Would you please provide an example of empirical assessment of a genuine moral proposition? I hesitate to further analyze this proposition without a clearer vision of what you had in mind. 3 - You wrote: "That is why I condemn the religious morality because it purports that its origin is the God and as such no one is entitled to change or amend them." That means, and I agree, that theistic morality puts itself above the challenge of logic, pretending to be not the result of a consensus or social process, but the its cause and mentor. Now, if a moral system based on "empirically assessed propositions" were to be proposed by a politically empowered majority... who would be I, you or any other dissident to "change or amend" it? My concern here is that, in the name of the "common sense majority" and the "undeniable scientific truths" we can end up in a dogmatism no less rigid than the theistic moral you criticize - we are talking here about real people in a real world, aren't we? So, how do you propose to address this undeniable danger? 4 - You wondered "what were happening before the establishment of states, or what would happen if there is political power vacuum or breakdown of political order? In my opinion killing and destruction ensue. In the past clans, tribes and even family members were either killing each other or moving apart. So in this regard, I am completely against ethical relativism and multiculturalism." If I understand you correctly, what you wanted to say is that a structure of political power, capable to mediate in intestine moral conflicts and to contain them, is indispensable. Later in your text you classified them into IOSB and EOSB. In your opinion, ethical relativism and multiculturalism conspire against the constitution and stability of such a (necesary) structure of political power, and therefore against the stability of a civilized way of life. My objection is of an historical nature: is there ANY corpus of philosophical (and I dare to say, of scientific) ideas that is NOT the result of a cultural evolution? To resort to an oversimplified example: given a situation in which Muslims are culturally programmed to consider the thriving and mere existence of the kafiruun as a blasphemy and their extermination as a godly mandate, and Western people that appreciate their freedoms so much that might be ready to drop two or as many as needed atom bombs on anybody that threatens them... in which "conceptual neutral ground" will we find the moral ideas that could arbitrate in this confrontation? You seem to propose science as being that ground, but beside the fact that there is a long way between proving scientifically the existence of UV radiation and a moral proposition, the concept of scientific method ITSELF is the product of a cultural evolution. However, if we take the next step and state that we, Western people, are the lucky ones that, once in human history, got it right, so that we don't need to go OUT of our conceptual framework to prove anything to anybody, then from "multiculturalists" we will have turned into "uniculturalists"... which is perfectly fine, of course, but then by participating in the game we endorse its rules, don't we?: every fundamentalist will be entitled to his/her own "uniculturalism".... for example - Islamists. No doubt, you see my point - no need to persist in this example. How you address this difficulty? ---- Thank you! Z-u-K.

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Time: 16:16:50 -0700

Comment

The moral system I am suggesting has two aspects. On the one hand it should be decided by liberal democracy. Liberalism is essential as it is said because it can undo the mistake of the previous decision. In effect the right to live, some means of economic autonomy, freedom of expression provide individuals and minorities to challenges the majority. This is the reason that laws, culture and lifestyles evolving in liberal democracy and in general to the better. I have argued elsewhere that liberal democracy can be seen as a scientific institution that deals with moral issue and such special institution is needed because moral propositions have political power effect.-------- --------------On the other hand, as I said human need morality because it is objectively needed for creativity and we can use creativity as a measure for morality. According to this measure, I will not say, for instance, that “killing or lying is absolutely wrong”. Lying to protect an innocent is good. Killing in self-defence and the defence of civilisation or creativity is also good though unpleasant still. The nature of this moral system, I suggest, requires changing the way we formulate our moral statements and as we do that we will find that they pass the scientificity criteria, in the sense that they can be falsified. You asked me to give an example: Let’s take the morality of treatment of children. I will not say that “beating children is wrong in absolute terms”. A brutal and abusive person will find beating children to be good for him. This is the reason that beating children carries on. Beating children is wrong because it causes unnecessary pain to children. It may be wrong if we wanted a less violent future, or wanted a more productive future adults and a happier society. And these propositions are all amenable to scientific enquiries. A researcher, in theory, will be able to compare two societies which differ in regard to practicing child beating, and see the statistics. These propositions may turn out to be wrong or right or somewhere in between.----- -------------In general in examining moral propositions I will reformulate them in terms of beneficial to someone or creativity, because creativity as said earlier can be shown to be beneficial for the majority of people. If someone told me that “disbelieve in god is wrong”. I will ask him to rephrase in terms useful, harmful and who would be harmed or benefited, and how does he know. One should refuse according moral status on a proposition which judges people as immoral when there is no way to know whether there is an injured party. However, if someone said that I wronged god, I can simply say that that is unverifiable. Although, I will not deny that believing in God play a major role in exclusive organisational systems of beliefs or EOSBs, which is essential to political power of some people. Nor will I deny the belief in God is good for some parasitic Mullahas and priests.-------- --------------In regard to environment and other sentient beings: The moral theory I suggest requires creativity in dealing with anything we handle. Destroying the beauty of earth and lives we found on it is not creative. Indeed, it can be regarded as crime because as we destroy the varieties of life we are destroying achievements of evolution that include ourselves as well. ------------------- ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’‘3 - You wrote: "That is why I condemn the religious morality because it purports that its origin is the God and as such no one is entitled to change or amend them." That means, and I agree, that theistic morality puts itself above the challenge of logic, pretending to be not the result of a consensus or social process, but the its cause and mentor. Now, if a moral system based on "empirically assessed propositions" were to be proposed by a politically empowered majority... who would be I, you or any other dissident to "change or amend" it? My concern here is that, in the name of the "common sense majority" and the "undeniable scientific truths" we can end up in a dogmatism no less rigid than the theistic moral you criticize - we are talking here about real people in a real world, aren't we? So, how do you propose to address this undeniable danger?’’’’’’’’’’’ -----------In the previous post, I mentioned that science itself is not the source of moral authority. Science can only make promote the case for certain moral propositions. Our morality should be decided by liberal democracy institution. Indeed, liberal democracy has already put many awful moralities aright and others are weighting still.------------- ‘’’’’’’’’’‘In your opinion, ethical relativism and multiculturalism conspire against the constitution and stability of such a (necesary) structure of political power, and therefore against the stability of a civilized way of life. My objection is of an historical nature: is there ANY corpus of philosophical (and I dare to say, of scientific) ideas that is NOT the result of a cultural evolution?’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ---------------- Humans, of course, evolved from apes. As evolving apes they knew nothing about liberal democracy. Faced with moral conflicts, our ancestors were either slaughtering each other or moving away, until there was no space left. In the meantime they were inventing religions as EOSB. Religions are easier for unscientific minds. They are also cheaper for the brutal people. Religions in the past, of course, solved some problem but they are in themselves manifestation of the failure of human mind to resolve moral and political problems creatively enough. We are lucky that the West has discovered or evolved liberal democracy and that is why we do not need the awful religions any more, especially not a religion like Islam. ------------------- ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’‘To resort to an oversimplified example: given a situation in which Muslims are culturally programmed to consider the thriving and mere existence of the kafiruun as a blasphemy and their extermination as a godly mandate, and Western people that appreciate their freedoms so much that might be ready to drop two or as many as needed atom bombs on anybody that threatens them... in which "conceptual neutral ground" will we find the moral ideas that could arbitrate in this confrontation? You seem to propose science as being that ground, but beside the fact that there is a long way between proving scientifically the existence of UV radiation and a moral proposition, the concept of scientific method ITSELF is the product of a cultural evolution. However, if we take the next step and state that we, Western people, are the lucky ones that, once in human history, got it right, so that we don't need to go OUT of our conceptual framework to prove anything to anybody, then from "multiculturalists" we will have turned into "uniculturalists"... which is perfectly fine, of course, but then by participating in the game we endorse its rules, don't we?: every fundamentalist will be entitled to his/her own "uniculturalism".... for example - Islamists. No doubt, you see my point - no need to persist in this example. How you address this difficulty? ---- Thank you! Z-u-K.’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ As I said earlier and in my previous reply deciding morality in a creative way is the business of liberal democratic institution and not sciences although as said the genuine moral proposition should be amenable to scientific assessment. Likewise my preference of one system of belief over the other is also based on how each resolve the moral conflicts. Islam needs brutality to resolve it. The better way is through liberal democracy but Islam rejects liberal democracy. That is why Islam is not acceptable according to the theory I suggest. In a sense, Islam is immoral because it does not submit to liberal democratic validation.

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Time: 16:16:53 -0700

Comment

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Time: 16:18:53 -0700

Comment

Name: Showan Khurshid
Date: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Time: 18:08:55 -0700

Comment

Dear Zuk, I've pressed submit three times and that is why three replies are appearing otherwise the content is just one. I also wanted to thank you for your critical reviews and comments and welcome any future comments.

Name: Z-u-K
Date: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Time: 19:52:21 -0700

Comment

Mr. Khurshid: Thank you...three times :) It would be interesting to have this exchange posted on a blog or forum, because with the tools provided by this commentary window, and due to the fact that old articles keep sinking down the front page (no matter if there are new comments) it is difficult to keep track of what's being discussed. Of course, if we had the founding of let's say King Faisal's Foundation for the administration of this website, that would not be a problem, would it? I think I understand your ideas better now. I would like to read your book - may be, when the e-book will be available. Thank you for your contribution!

Name: showan khurshid
Date: Thursday February 14, 2008
Time: 03:34:38 -0700

Comment

Thanks Zuk. I have nothing against pasting the discussion on a blog or discussion board. I will once again contact the publisher regarding the digital copies of the book. Thanks for you interest. showan

Name: mano syouma
Date: Sunday September 28, 2008
Time: 20:10:56 -0700

Comment

Name:
Comment: