Dear Farzana,
Thanks. Must complement
you for a very thoughtful approach to this
exchange. What a relief! I was beginning to
be utterly dismayed by the emotive and
totally non-substance related comments from
Torontonian acquaintances, especially as
I have decided to make Toronto my home,
giving up (only partially though!), the city
of Love, Paris.
First a response to
your question. If I substitute "empirically
tetable implications of religious beliefs"
for your shorthand "religious beliefs" then
the answer your question is absolutely yes.
That is the whole point: I was struggling to
get a handle on applying
acceptance/rejection criteria and was having
trouble with judging principles that in
priciple are "un-judgeable". Hence, my
methodological solution to divide the
problem in two parts: do not judge by the
label or the cover, as most people do, but
grant the "un-judgeable" first principle on
blind faith. But, if these principles are of
any consequence, they must have implications
for human behaviour in society. Many of
these implications must be testable on the
grounds of criteria -- rational criteria --
developed on the basis of accumulated and
growing human knowledge. And the full weight
of human rationality should be brought to
bear in judging these, in accepting and
rejecting. on the bais of their usefulness
for individuals and societies.
One might say: much ado
about nothing?
Well, I think
not. Observing ordinary behaviour, in media
and on individual level -- I might add ,
throughout history -- judgments on religions
and ISMS have typically been of the
knee-jerk emotive type of arguments, based
largely on perceptions of the nature of God,
its absence, or on the basis of God in my
sense of implied first principles. This is
very damaging and counter-productive. I
think a rational approach, applied to the
implications -- but not to the first
principles -- gets away from
this unproductive approach.
Now, in regard to your
other points. No, I wasn't interpreting
first principles as referring to emotive
elements. I am talking about the first
principles taken on faith, emotive or coldly
calculated, underlying any ISM. To
illustrate it with an example: if
rationalism is my bag, its first principle
may read something like this: "I know
rationality is imperfect , and its coverage
not comprehensive in addressing all my
questions; nonethless, it is the only tool
at my disposal, therefore, I
accept rationalism blindly as a faith
for underpinning my worldview. Rationality
is my God, I worship it and follow all its
dictates."
My contention is -- and
this is presented as a hypothesis that could
be proven wrong -- that all ISMS, with
any worldview to speak of, have, at their
base, principles that are taken on faith. I
have just given you an example of
the rational approach. Perhaps you can cite
some ISM that does not rely on "faith" as an
underlying principle. I would be open to
correction: can you suggest an example?
Best wishes for
continuing rational exchange,
Abrar