The Role of Mystics, Artists and Scientists in Human Evolution

Re: # 95, Khalid:
You may have returned from your trip by now. Hope you had a satisfying experience. I missed your article initially and therefore, currently, I am also not aware about the discussion that proceeded.

Nevertheless, I commend your effort to review the various disciplines - religion, mysticism, philosophy, science and psychology - and indicate their potential interrelationships. I agree with your statement: ``I am of the opinion that blind faith and religion were our past and science, psychology and philosophy are our future as human beings.`` I would add further that religion indeed was an attempt to understand the science as the primitive humanity - tentatively growing out of animalistic life into an understanding existence via maintenance of the records of the thoughts of the individuals - could. It is unfortunate that the vested interests captured and exploited the religious movements all over the world for their dominance on the common people. Yet, the rational efforts of the Marxists also failed miserably because unless we grant essential freedom and incentives to the Individual. even the rationalist doctrines merely become the tools of the exploiting coteries.

Greater and more specific understanding of the interrelationships of the disciplines mentioned above can lead to a more comprehensive and substantive understanding of human development. Viewing the totality of human intellectual and spiritual development will lead an individual to a more rational and equilibrated self. Yet, do many people want this independence? Many among us conveniently hold on to the crutches which give them even though pseudo, comfort and sometimes provide them their intellectual/spiritual/financial existence.

Notwithstanding this all, I look forward to reading more of what exist in the posts and interact in future.

Freethinker quoted:

``David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows:

``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.``

Blind faith is risky, to say the least.``

Chowk interacts don`t have the facility of smilies. Anyways, I always use to smile whenever I happen to see this famous quotation by David Hume. This quotation itself doesn`t contain any such rational reasoning which can have anything to do with quantity or number. It also doesn`t contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence.

Anyhow, there is nothing solid on which to agree with David Hume on this issue.

Shall discuss in details at some other time as these days I am busy with some other matters.

Regards!

#97 by JIC

Very well thought out and clearly laid out post.

Actually Chaudary Saheb, some people will propound any mish-mash as long as it takes a swipe at religion.

Regards.

You contradict yourself when you oppose the religious ideologies on the basis of science and yet supporting phenomenon like mysticism and then lumping it with equally allusive entity, the human spirituality. It is any one’s guess how science, mysticism and art is going to serve humanity or humanism while claiming that religion has become redundant. The religions provide ethical values and guidance to achieve and implement basic human rights and freedoms. Science helps to explain various physical phenomenon that we observe; the two are not interchangeable or mutually exclusive, in fact very much complimentary to each other.

Ever since the industrial revolution took place in the west, science and technology has been at the forefront in the lives of the western societies and the religion has taken a back seat. The science has indeed played an important role in raising the standards of life in many societies. But how has this helped the humanity or humanism for the world at large? In fact, on the basis of science and technology, it has become easier, for the technologically advanced societies to dominate those who could not keep pace with scientific developments. The modern technology has made it easier now for some societies to colonize others and keep them as economic slaves for as long as they wish. The spiritual thinking has been replaced by materialistic values. The religious values that support universal humanism for all, have now been replaced by the law of jungle – ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘might is right’ Some one should ask the Iraqis how (American) science and technology has helped humanism and humanity in that country.

Science and religion can be partners in so many ways to work together rather than against each other. For a better human survival the two need to exists side by side such that they provide spiritual uplift and enhance life in physical sense at the same time. The modern science has already raised many questions which it has not been able to explain by itself. It is certainly absurd to dismiss theism and yet go on to embrace mysticism and further claiming that our spirituality is part of our humanity rather than part of divinity.

‘Mysticism’ is often said to be a path to look for ultimate truth. There are Muslim mystics, Christian mystics, Jewish mystics, in fact, every society appears to have their own mystics in one form or the other. The term mysticism, does not seem to have rigid and well defined meanings but a variety of understandings have been attached to it. For some, it may be a religious thought whereby, one can feel an intimate union with the divine force. On the other hand, from philosophical point of view it may be considered a link of the human soul to nature through love. No matter how one looks at the concept of mysticism, it involves soul and spirituality in somewhat undefined and in an abstract way.

In some cases, mysticism may be of interest to those who have decided not to subscribe to a religious model centered around God and at the same time do not uphold the scientific and rational model of the universe either. The mystics therefore could emerge as the misfits of both the worlds. I wonder how the misfits of the world can be considered to contribute toward the improvement of humanity and sustain humanism. About mystics, some one has said:

“A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics”.

This may have been said jokingly, but I think it hits the message home.

Javed I. Chaudry

#94 by subuhiansari,

Haha ...

My point is, you have been asked certain questions by some readers (eg. Khurram) but you skirt those questions. It almost seems that you don`t quite know how to address them.

You have answered your own question. Dr. Sohail can only fool the Readers Digest types, but not any other, let alone the sharp intellects like Khurram who simply demolished his argument quite effortlessly ....

P.S. Don`t wait around for him ... wait till the next article (wink).

Re: # 92
dear friends....i am going out of town, rather out of country on holidays where i would not

have access to internet so i would not be able to pursue the dialogue. thanks for your

intellectually stimulating feedback...sincerely sohail

I have a friend who describes people who use lot of complex words and concepts without explaining them as suffering from ``verbal incontinence``. My point is, you have been asked certain questions by some readers (eg. Khurram) but you skirt those questions. It almost seems that you don`t quite know how to address them. Their personal philosophy or belief system is not pertinent to the question asked and the anticipated answer.
My main criticism of your paper is that it is extremely simplistic to divide the human community into two opposing camps: traditionalists who are blind followers of a religion and secular humanists ( artists, mystics, philosophers, scientists etc. who seem to fall in this category) who are blazing new and higher paths. Many creative people were and are adherents of their respective faiths and religions including Socrates, William Blake, Darwin. Socrates was tried and condemned because he challenged the Establishment and encouraged the youth of that time to do the same. Same is true of Jesus. He also challenged the Estabilshment and not his Faith. Furthermore, religion is not always a dark force that demands blind adherence. Religion has also inspired sublime Thought( Tillich, Buber, Bonhoeffer et al); music and Art. You must also realise that although many mystics challenged the orthodoxy, they remained within the fold of their respective faiths and some became part of the orthodoxy. In Christianity some of them were even granted sainthood.
Also, it was this intense love of God that inspired beautiful mystical poetry and other writings. So, you cannot equate religion with all that is negative. Equally, many crimes have been committed in the name of Secularism. Any system of thought that becomes an ideology treats humans as an abstraction and thus becomes potentially dangerous. Nazi Germany stands out as a stark example.
You are from Science background. You shouldn`t be using the word ``proof`` so loosely. Psychologists and social scientists can conjecture and present highly probable hypothesis and theories but cannot really give ``proofs``.
I would really appreciate if you define spirituality for me. For me spirituality is a metaphysical term and not a scientific one. I just do not understand how spirituality figures in an atheisit`s scheme. Spirituality is supra-rational and supra-material. I had asked this question once before in another context but you never gave a satisfactory answer.
One more question: In the title of your paper, you use the term `human evolution`, Shouldn`t it be `The Role of...............in the Development of Human Consciousness` ?

I am curious if any culture or society taught mysticism as a formal subject to its masses. Yes, now we do have books that serve as a collection of mystics from Islam, Judaism, and various other -isms. But I am not sure if there was a dedicated focus on this subject area. Can mysticism be considered an offshoot of philosophy?

drsohail,

Thanks for the kind words. Nice to know we share an appreciation for Tillich. `Courage to be` was the first book of his I read and it got me hooked on him. For me, he settles the issue of Psychology and Religion. Have you read his `Dynamics of Faith`? What do you think of his concept of faith? What about his views regarding God?
I am also a great admirer of Buber. Among muslim scholars, I am an admirer of Dr Fazlur Rahman (not the politicain!), Ismail Faruqi, Mohd. Asad and H. Nasr . These are the kind of people I believe will take us beyond secular humanism. I have had only brief exposure to Ghulam Ahmed Parvez`s writings. Did not feel excited by his theology. I only know of Azad`s political writings. For me the ultimate source of knowledge is through the experience of the divine mystery mediated by theologians, institutions and tradition.

Don`t worry about America and Christian fundamentalism! I don`t know how things look from up there but we are quite far from that.

I live in North Carolina. Toronto is definitely a place I would like to visit someday.I have heard it has a vibrant desi community and great food!

I can imagine you getting along well with Mr. Gill. You 2 hardly seem to disagree on anything. I, on the other hand, seem to disagree with almost everything you say.

Re: # 90
dear khurram....your letter is very refreshing and revealing. did you read jimmy carter`s (

a liberal christian`s) recent book...Our Endangered values... in which he is critical of bush`s

ideology and policy of bringing religion and politics together

. Karen Armstrong in her recent books also shared that America has been

moving towards christian fundamnetalism.

Paul Tillich is a wonderful scholar. i have a lot of respect for that Christian scholar. have

you read his book THE COURAGE TO BE. it is one of my all time favourire books. it is the

only book that discusses when a person should see a psychiatrist and when he needs

a `spiritual` counselling.

among muslim scholars who is your favourite...what are your views about ghulam ahmed

pervaiz and abul kalam azad. i adore them as much as paul tillich.

in jewish tradition i adore martin buber ...father of the philosophy of....i and thou.

i am curious now that if you believe that human beings are not the source of truth...then

who is? please share with me what has been your source of truth? and how do you think

others can access it.

thank you for sharing your thoughts openly...looking forward to your response...

sincerely sohail

ps...after reading your last letter i feel we can be friends..if you lived in toronto i would

have come to visit you or invite you to my place. i have bben fortunate to make new

friends through chowk...met mohammad gill who visited toronto and malik jahanzeb who

lives in toronto. where do you live?

Re #89,
Wow!
America=Christian fundamentalist & Canada=Secular Humanist !!!
Do all Canadians think like that?

Let me share my views on Secular Humanism. For me, secular humanism is the philosophy that says that Truth (including ethics, morality etc.) is completely knowable through autonomous exercise of human reason. No revelation from beyond is required.
This philosophy (Religion?) is completely dominant in the modern world and has been so for 2-3 centuries. It completely vanquished Christianity. There are no Christian countries anymore. Christianity is just a `personal` religion now and is not the dominant cultural force anywhere. Secular Humanism has spread to all corners of the world and is virtually unchallenged everywhere. The muslim world is sort of holding out. Even there it is a major force in an ongoing internal struggle.
Within Secular humanism, there have been liberal & autocratic trends.The liberal trends seem to be winning out lately.
But all along there has been a current of protest against secular humanism within Western culture itself. It has questioned the basic premise of secular humanism (that truth is knowable by autonomous reason) . It has questioned the concept of `objective` knowledge. It has questioned the materialistic description of reality.
It is my view (hope?) is that this current will eventually prevail and result in a renewal of religious culture (not in an autocratic form). On this subject, my favourite author is American theologian, Paul Tillich, with whom I largely agree.

Re: # 88
dear khurram....no i was not offended i was just amused. if i knew you personally and we

were discussing in our living rooms we would have a more fruitful dialogue. dialogue is

more productive when both parties know enough about each other`s point of views. Being a

secular humanist i am challenged from both sides....extremist atheists as well as extremist

religious. i think secular humanistic tradition is also challenged from both sides. it is still

in minority. my impression of twentieth century is that there were two extremes

religious extremism (anti-atheistic)..............................atheistic extremism (anti-religious)
exp....saudi arabia/afghanistan....................................exp.mao`s china

capitalism (america)..................................................communism (exp lenin/stalin`srussia)

secular humanists of twentieth century...whether individuals or countries like canda,

norway are still in minority...they do not have power and authroity on the world

stage...major fight even today is betwen

america...christian fundamentalists....

and

iran/afghanistan.....muslim fundamentalists

secular humanist europe is still in minority.

if the secular humanist philosophy became a major force in the next century and had

cnetres of power like vatican or whilte house then there would be a creative minority rising

from inside who would challenge secular humanistic scientifc philosophy and we would see

the dawn of a new philosophy....and the next cycle of evolution would start. these are my

humble thoughts.

what i wanted to know from you was your views so that i can have a better dialogue...do

you have a religious...spiritual...secular philosophy? what do you believe in? if you want to

be private that is your choice. i just feel that i openly show you my cards but you keep

them closer to your heart... smiles... sohail

Re #87,
Such a long list of open-ended questions! Is this a diversionary tactic :-) ?
Hopefully, some day I will find the time to write a long article on some of these topics and you can critique it to your heart`s content.

Meanwhile, this dialogue is about your views, as expressed in the article above. Your views should be able to stand on their own, irrespective of availability of alternatives.

Btw, I didn`t have a problem with your simple writing style. Only the simplistic ideas expressed therein. I hope you didn`t take offense to that.

Also, I find it a little strange that you keep avoiding one specific question.I don`t know if it`s intentional or accidental. So let me ask it again.

With respect to contemporary western secular humanistic society, do you think there exists a traditional orthodoxy? Do you think there is an intellectual elite that imposes this orthodoxy? Do you think there is a creative minority that is challenging it?

Re: # 86
dear khurram...i am impressed how you summarize my views but i think you are unfair to

the dialogue. you have taken the role of the leader of the opposition. you have a sharp

mind so you keep on coming with new questions with has subtle objections and criticisms to

my philosophy without offering a better alternative. no one theory or one system is perfect.

similarly no words and terms communicate all of what we try to communicate. i try to write

in a style so that most people can understand. i can write in a professional and academic

jargon that a few would comprehend. one can write about profound thoughts in a simple

language. bertrand russell said...it took me 50 years to write simple.

i think it would be reasonable request for me to ask you a few questions so that i can learn

from your philosophy since you consider mine simplistic. can you share with me your views

about

....monotheistic religious traditions..judaism...christianity...islam

....secular humanistic tradition

....role of religious institutions...mosques, madrassas, churches, temples today

...role of secular schools today

....role of religious leaders...maulanas, priests, pundats, rabbis today

.....role of selular teachers...university professors today

....theocratic states like saudi arabia and afghanistan under mulla umar and osama

....secular humanistic states like canada, norway

...do you believe in human evolution? what are your criterion to judge?

sincerely sohail

drsohail,

It seems you have built a `model` of historical process. It seems to work like this. There is a power elite that imposes a traditional worldview through coercion. Majority of people find security in accepting and following this worldview blindly. A small minority (`mystics, artists, philosphers, scientists`) challenges this worldview, suffers persecution, but eventually overthrows the traditionial worldview.The new society soon establishes its own traditions and the whole cycle is repeated. However, things keep getting better with each cycle.

I think this model is very simplistic and one-dimensional. It will not hold up to careful scrutiny. Traditions are not always as rigid and coercive as you think. Majority of people are not as always blind as you think. `mystics, artists, philosphers, scientists` may not always be challenging tradition but also re-affirming it. Those who challenge the status quo are as likely to be reactionaries as revolutionaries (or anarchists). Social processes are much more complex than you seem to think. I reaize that your expertise is dealing with individuals and you are not a social scientist. I am sure you are aware that individuals are complex and cannot be described by simplistic models. You should also try to gain a similar awareness of complexity of social processes.

By the way, in your previous articles and interacts you have equated traditional with religious. However, in your last post you have included `non-muslim` and `secular` societies.
Would you care to comment on the contemporary Western society. Does it have a traditional orthodoxy? Is there an intellectual power elite?

Re: # 84
DEAR ZAHRAJ AND KHURRAM....it seems both of you are inspired to take the dialogue

further. my impression is that in all societies in all times...east and west, north and

south...muslim and non muslim...religious, spiritual and secular....there is a majority that

likes traditions and follows them blindly and has religous and political powers as their power

is institutionalized...and there is a minority of creative people...mystics and artists and

philosophers and scientists...who challenge those traditions...and inspire the community to

the next stage of personal growth and social evolution. traditionalists try to suppress them

and call them heretics or traitors and make blashphemy laws or patriot laws....those

creative people are put in jail or persecuted or go in exile....philosopher socrates had to

drink poison for inspiring (misguiding by traditionalists) ...mansoor hallaj was hanged for

saying analhaq and oscar wilde was put in jail for supporting homosexuality....interestingly

the heretics and traitors on one generation can become leaders (religious or secular) for

next generation like galelio and ghalib....but in their lifetime are rarely fully

appreciated. i discussed that in one of my previous article on chowk how einstein, darwin

and krishnamurti and walt whitman were told by teachers that they were slow learners and

will not mount to anything. i hope parents and teachers appreciate those unconventional

and nontraditional creative children who will be the leaders of tomorrow..sincerely sohail