Article:Re: Destination: Sense or Non-sense

Dear Shetubondhon friends,

Salam and greetings.

I am still quite behind in following up my replies to several threads. I hope to be up-to-date in not so distant future. I am taking this opportunity to respond to a few aspects of Mr. Masudur Rahman's comments on my original posting. I write this piece with a sense of some sadness and disappointment, which I will explain toward the end.

He wrote:

"I could be clever and instead say that I hope none of it made sense, if it did then I have failed. In that way I would have had it both ways. But I will be more direct and leave it as it is, besides I might be accused of plagiarism! And I would also not be so EGOTISTIC to have my last word and preclude others from responding to my posts by declaring beforehand that I intend to make no sense (while I actually do in my mind :). So I will declare that I did intend to make sense so all are welcome to point out any lack of it." [emphasis is mine]

Mr. Masud's observations are quite interesting. Least of my expectation that my write-up would appear or be regarded as EGOTISTIC, so as to PRECLUDE others from responding. Is that Mr. Masud's estimation, especially while this forum has a good number of capable, articulate and vigilant writers and thinkers like him? That would be a rather foolish expectation on my part. Of course, I have never regarded myself to be a "clever" person. But EGOTISTIC?

In a tug of war between sense and non-sense, I had several reasons for writing that piece, and I decided on that special form/approach, primarily due to the type of approach and perspective often articulated in favor of logic/rationality/science and against religion/faith. Indeed, even though I have used my Other-Self (OS) to set a contrast between me and that OS, Mr. Masud seems to have thoroughly misunderstood and failed to recognize that the dichotomized identity of those, who are logical/rational/scientific and those who are not, actually represents his type of construction, not mine. I DON'T ACCEPT, RECOGNIZE OR UPHOLD SUCH DICHOTOMY.

No chance for us because of double jeopardy

Why did I say that I hope that my writing did not make any sense? It's because people like me don't have a chance. If I said that I hope my piece did not make any sense, I turned out to be EGOTISTIC. If I said or wished that it did make sense, then scientific, rational, "heartless" logic would reduce my articulations to nothing because people like me can't make sense, people like us have no share in the rationality, logic, and sense.

Let me step back for a moment to draw attention to a few samplers from Mr. Masud's writings.

"So LRS sometimes are envious of non-LRS as the latter do benefit from the blind belief in ritual praying which the LRSs are deprived of by their skeptical and logical thinking."

Notice that in such construction, skeptical and logical go together, while for poor us, who believe in some religion, it's blind and ritual.

"1. Premodernism -> a) Spiritualism/faith in a transcendent reality
b) Religious Dogma/Doctrine through blind belief in revelations
and uncritical thinking"

[ http://www.egroups.com/message/alochona/3140 ]

For poor us, it's all dogma, blind belief, uncritical thinking.

"(religion is blind faith anyway)" [Logic and Reason; http://www.egroups.com/message/alochona/53 ]

Please notice that this comment is not merely about rituals of different religions, but religion in general.

In an earlier topic "Hindu-Muslim Relationship" [http://www.egroups.com/message/Shetubondhon/703 ], Mr. Masud's highly-acclaimed definitions in regard to religious descriptions included the following typology:

Communal

Obscurantist

Religious/Spiritual

Religious-Nationalist

He used all sorts of words in offering his definitions in the above mentioned article:

beliefs; revelations; inspirational; and so on. Elsewhere, his choice words are "dogma ... doctrine ... blind belief ... uncritical thinking" and so on. In offering his typology of those who adhere to religions, not a single time he acknowledged or recognized their association or link whatsoever with logic, rationality or sense.

Therefore, how can we have a chance? If we try one way we turn out to be egotistic, the other way would have nothing to do with us as far as rationality or logic. That piece has also been characterized as my attempt to have it "both ways". But one way leads to "egotistic" and the other way we have no share in LRS, that won't be an example of having it both ways, would it?

Heartless logic

"In plain terms, logic is cold, heartless." [http://www.egroups.com/message/alochona/34 ]

Dichotomization of the totality of our humanness is probably one of the greatest myths perpetuated by the advocates of "heartless" logic. As human beings, we are not like machines that we turn the switch logical/non-logical on and off to perform a certain task.

Paul Samuelson won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1970. In the official words of the Nobel Foundation, this was to recognize him "for the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science." Most of his works, as in Foundations of Economic Analysis, are highly mathematical, which even many regular economists would find jaw-breaking. Interestingly, he also wrote a book Economics from the Heart (1983). From the Heart? How can that be? Was Samuelson in this book then beyond logic, rationality or his mooring in scientific approach or perspective? Well, I don't know of anyone who has accused this work of Samuelson as devoid of logic or rationality, because this was from the "heart". Therefore, "heartless" logic must be a special genre.

A lesson in humility

I always welcome an opportunity to improve myself. Thus, if anyone helps me to become more humble, I can only appreciate, especially being a Muslim whose value system requires humility (that doesn't mean that all of us are humble or at our best in this regard.) However, when humility is prescribed in a less than humble way, it might not have its desired effect.

In his effort to articulate the LRS approach, in contradistinction to NLRS, an interesting illustration in humility was offered.

For LRS, the following case was made:

"LRS:
D. Why D? because C.
Why C? Because B.
Why B? because A.
Why A? "I don't know"!
I wish I knew. My aim is to search for the answer."

For the poor illogical, irrational, uncritical, unsophisticated (some might say, stupid) ones, like us, the following was offered:

"NLRS:
Why D? Because its the work of "GOD"
Why C? Because its the work of "GOD"
Why B? Because its the work of "GOD"
Why A? Because its the work of "GOD" Now stop asking for obvious answer!
Now stare at the two. Who was showing more humility? One who proclaims
ignorance at some deeper level or one who claims to KNOW that some divine being does everything because "he" chooses it to be so, whether it is ALB, C, D."

Let's first reflect on LRS version: "Why A? "I don't know"! I wish I knew. My aim is to search for the answer."

I don't have a whole lot to say about this part except that quite a few thinking, rational, logical people have made up their mind that it's not that they "don't know", rather their answer is that "We don't know, but let us state that there is no God." These are the people who are called atheists. Indeed, it seems that the more people claim as being logical, rational, and scientific, their answer to "Why A?" is that ""We don't know, but ... there is no God". According to an earlier message of Dr. Mizan on eShomabesh [http://www.egroups.com/message/eshomabesh/695 ], referring to the Nature magazine, a disproportionately greater percentage of the "greater" scientists don't believe in God. It's not that they are really LOOKING for a logical, rational answer to "Why A?", but they already have found their answer: "No God." Newton believed in God, Einstein was an agnostic and never claimed that "there is no God", and Professor Salam is a practicing believer. Thus, I don't know about "greater" or "not-so-great" scientists, but if concluding that "there is no God" is really logical, rational, and sensible, that's fine.

But this stereotyping of those who believe in God and follow a particular religion begs some question. Are there people among religionists who are illogical, irrational, dogmatic? Yes, there are plenty. But somehow adhering to a religion automatically constitutes a "blind faith" as has been argued, and suggesting that these people are dogmatic, uncritical or irrational defies any sense of humility. Is it that people like us do not know what logic and rationality is, or is it that we know but don't want to apply those? Which one describes us? In either case, readers themselves can make up their mind whether there is a lesson in humility or not.

Adhering to a religion is NOT a blind faith

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to use standardized definition of the following:

Logical: "capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion"

Rational: "having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason"

Reason: " the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways" [taken from the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]

To think or suggest that those of us who adhere to a particular religion means that we are not, or can't be, logical (not capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion) is neither correct nor humility. To think or suggest that we are incapable of reasoning or understanding or we do not have the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in rational ways is also not correct or humility.

Professor Abdus Salam, the Nobel laureate physicist, by his own admission is a Muslim. According to him, "The Holy Qur'an enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart." This must be "blind faith" - devoid of logic or rationality - because of his adherence to a religion. Or, one could argue that he is LRS, when he is dealing with physics, and NLRS, when he is dealing with religion. I wonder what Professor Salam would think of such dichotomization.

I hope at least some of you had the opportunity to read my article "Mind building: A neglected dimension of the Prophetic heritage" [http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/mind_building.htm ]. As articulated there, search for truth or having a faith is not a blind thing. It's not filling every blank with "God" is the way of Islam or a believer. As exemplified in the story of Ibrahim (a), he was not born with the faith in God. He did not know who was his Rabb. He went through his personal, human journey in search of truth and stumbled on moon, star, sun and so on in his search until he concluded who his Lord was. Even then he did not KNOW that there was a God until his human inquiry met divine confirmation. Islam does not teach blind faith, and that's why so emphatically the Prophet (s) has recognized the role of doubt and skepticism in the process of searching for truth (refer to my article, "Mind building"). Of course, it is different than those who simply have filled their "Why A?" blank with "No God" or a permanent "I don't know". They are waiting to "discover" God, if any. If there is such a God, and his signs and proofs for the logical/rational minds are not already imprinted all around us, it simply CAN'T be found.

But that's alright, except this condescending, deferential attitude. Every time the issue of God or religion comes up, people are dichotomized into what I have dubbed LRS and NLRS and, we are categorized as NLRS as dogmatic, uncritical, and so on. As I said, such dichotomy is not for me. I framed this in "Destination: Sense or Non-Sense" merely reflecting the kind of approach that often has been articulated that tends to deny people like me any share in logic and rationality. From such viewpoint, we turn out as simply NLRS: dogmatic, uncritical, blind believers. This is an issue I have not directly taken up before. But have we ever thought that such condescending attitude and approach might be found by others as a sheer insult to their intelligence, and how a mutually respectful dialog or genuine understanding can be built on this?

Our universal humanness

Just as nowhere in my writing ever have I dichotomized into LRS and NLRS other than in that piece - actually Mr. Masud has done so consistently, though not using those labels - another of his misunderstanding is that we the NLRS' believe that people like him, the LRS', do not have any feeling, emotion or appreciation for beauty and mystery.

Yes, we are all human beings - secular and religious, atheists and theists, scientists and non-scientists, Muslims and non-Muslims, and as human beings we have generally common or shared emotions and feelings. Very few of us can rise above such feelings because it is innate to our nature or to put it irrationally/illogically/non-sensically, "God-given". Indeed, that was not the point at all.

The point was that whether I believe in God or any religion, as a human being, I am enamored with so many beautiful things in this life that I DESIRE that there would be an afterlife, that there would be purpose and continuity beyond this life, which also brings up the question of a creator. Human nature would be predisposed, rightly or wrongly, to such a desire. In the name of logic, rationality, science those who have put the answer "No God" for that "Why A?" question, does it really matter? We ALL - irrespective of LRS or NLRS - will have feelings for our parents, our beloveds, our children, friends and more. But if our nature does not even desire that let there be an afterlife, let me see again the faces of those I love, why does it really matter?

Yes, every moment we enjoy in this life, every time we glance at our beloveds, it has value. But it does not have any permanence. Whether there is God or not, a particular religion is true or not, these are matters of human inquiry. But as a human being, I desire and seek such permanence of all the relationships I value. One can say that he hasn't seen an afterlife and, therefore, he doesn't and can't believe in it. That's fine. But to belittle those who logically and rationally believe that there should be - I say, should be because I haven't seen it either - defies any sense of humility.

Those who say that they also appreciate the beauty and feelings, some of them might say that they don't know that there is afterlife, but they wish that there would be. What is so illogical or irrational about this? Furthermore, in consonance with their inner feeling, they should also be seeking answers to such issues in a positive light. I have already given example that whether there is life in outer space or not is a moot issue. However, there are lot of curious, inquiring mind who are favorably predisposed to the notion that there exists life in outer space and they are constantly looking for such life. Those who have already reached the conclusion that there is no other life in outer space are the skeptics in this regard, and we all know that such skepticism are not necessarily always right or healthy.

Some might say that, well, it makes sense that there might be a creator (God), but what about all these different religions. Well, that is a legitimate and logical question. However, if people conclude that there seems to be an order, design, purpose behind the creation, but if there is a creator, he himself neither has tried nor is trying to communicate to us, is that a logical/rational position? Of course, sorting out all these alternatives is a human task. Everything has not been spelled out for us so that we can use our TOTAL human faculty - head and heart - to seek out those answers. This requires an empathetic approach, not merely skepticism. It is not humility on my part, if I try to impose my faith, conviction or theories on others or be condescending about others. Is it not equally true for others?

Building vs. burning bridges

In my personal life, I have gone through stages of disbelief and skepticisms, especially under the Marxian/socialist influence. Even though my perspective on and approach to life have changed, I have deep regard for all those who uphold the value of human inquiry using logic and rationality. This is particularly because I do not know of any other tools that would have guided me from my disbelief to belief.

Indeed, there are many who have similar experience. A decade ago, Dr. Jeffrey Lang, a mathematics professor at Kansas State University, turned toward Islam. He made the transition from being an atheist. His life experience and perspective - from atheism to Islam - and the subsequent "struggle" have been beautifully captured in his book "Struggling to surrender" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0614216834/o/qid=966444975/sr=2-1/102-8449756-0967357 ]. It is a worth-reading book, at the top of my list of recommended books mentioned at my website. Because faith is NOT blind, illogical or irrational - at least, not for all - it is always a struggle as exemplified in Dr. Lang's book "Struggling to surrender". In similar vein I wrote in "Mind-Building:..." that "the faculty of reasoning never becomes redundant: not while searching for truth, and not after we believe that we have found the truth." Dr. Lang has written another book "Even Angels Ask : A Journey to Islam in America" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0915957671/o/qid=966444975/sr=2-2/102-8449756-0967357 ], in which he brings up his particular atheistic background and helps develop a better appreciation of all those who have skepticisms, ask questions, and use reasons.

At the beginning I mentioned that I am writing this response with a sense of some sadness and disappointment. Let me briefly explain why. I have already articulated in several of my humble writings that not only that reason - logic and rationality - is not incompatible with Islam, but also it is essential from Islamic perspective. Also in my writings I have identified the seriousness of existence of dogmatic attitude among many Muslims (which is also true of many non-Muslim religionists). From within the Islamic perspective many of us are trying to reduce that level of dogmatism by drawing the common Muslims' attention toward the relationship between Islam and reason.

Those who value reason - logic and rationality - I expect them to be partners in this regard. If someone said, "We the Muslims have taken Qur'an for granted as the authentic revelation from Allah (SWT). No arguments, no logic and no philosophy. The only thing is we have to understand it and be guided accordingly", I would expect the advocates of reason would be pointing out that inconsistency as I have highlighted in my article "Mind-building:..." because they care about the promotion and nurturing of reason.

But no. Every attempt to foster mutual respect and understanding about reason and logic/rationality is met by the "judgment" that we are "blind believers, dogmatic, uncritical" and so on. While some of us are trying to help develop respect among the believers toward others, including the freethinking atheists/agnostics at the human level, and at the same time, help such freethinking people to understand and appreciate that they do not have any monopoly over logic and rationality, such bridge-building effort is being consistently and persistently thwarted - I admit that it is possibly inadvertently. I can understand if such effort to develop better respect for reason is met with derision and contempt from the little educated, little enlightened, religiously oriented people, including those whom we generally call Mullahs. But when sophisticated people of so-called LRS' simply reciprocate such Mullahs against such bridge-building effort, then one can't but feel some sadness and disappointment.

Such a bridge-building effort requires a deep sense of EMPATHY toward each other. There are many sincere atheists and agnostics, with whom I may not agree as a Muslim or a religionist, but if there is any God, let him judge them or deal with them. I respect their spirit of human inquiry. Yes, some of them have taken their freethinking to such a free level that is questionable, but that is their prerogative. We still have things to learn and benefit from their spirit of inquiry and reason. On the other hand, let it be understood in no unclear term - I can't speak for all - but that many like myself believe whatever we believe is guided by a due proportion of logic and rationality. We can work together to better foster our appreciation and commitment toward reason - logic and rationality - or we can constantly belittle each other from our narrow shell or perspective. The choice is ours.

Does anyone or do I ever write not to make sense? I don't think so. Did I make sense this time? I don't know, because it's not what I think whether I made sense or not. Rather, did others find that it made sense, with the recognition and mutual respect that logic and rationality are no one's exclusive domain. This recognition might be the starting point for an empathetic relationship and bridge-building effort. I can only extend my hand, but can't force others to a hand-shake.

Hit Counter

HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide 1971 Page?
Hadith Humor Page?