This page has some explanations of the Corrigible Professions (the Tenets of a Reasonable Way).  It tries to explain how they should be read and some of the implications.  It’s a set of brief notes, not a detailed, line by line, explanation.

The Humour of Choice

In saying “I choose” in these tenets, this is a statement of fact, in that the choice is apparently made.  The set of potential alternative paths is reduced to one, in an apparent process of selection. 

This choice may be determined by my genetic inheritance and my upbringing.  It may be essentially an unconscious choice.  The choice may not be made by “me”, who I think I am, but just made, according to the causal laws of the universe. 

There may be no real alternatives – they may be illusions.  But it is valid to say “I choose” because I do, even if we are not quite sure what that means.  This is where the philosophers of language come in.  We are not sure what it means to choose.

If you think this is weird, that’s OK.  It is weird.  But there is no way (that I know of) out of it.  Whatever we say, it will remain a bit weird.

“I am… that I am.”

In Judaism, when the prophet Moses climbed Mt Sinai he saw a burning bush that was not consumed. He knew this must be something mysterious and asked ‘Who are you?’ and the reply was ‘I am that I am’.

In Christianity, when Jesus of Nazareth walked on water, in a storm, past his frightened disciples, he said ‘Courage.  I am.’

In the modern philosophical tradition of Existentialism, the emphasis is on just ‘being’.

Compassion and Mercy

In Islam, compassion and mercy are attributes of Allah, and the name of Allah should not be spoken without saying ‘the Compassionate, the Merciful’.  Despite the views of some to the contrary, it emphasises the ordinary Muslim’s view that God is ultimately about compassion and mercy.

Impermanence

This is a fundamental concept arising in Hinduism that flowed through to Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.  The same concept arose in the ancient Greek philosophy of Heraclitus – perhaps he learned of it from India.

A Leap of Faith

Adopting these ‘tenets’ is a leap of faith because I have the choice to deny reality, to reject truth, justice, compassion and mercy, and to lead a totally selfish life.  I am aware that for me, though perhaps not for everyone, such a path would lead to alienation, aloneness, and more suffering.  So my reasoning and my emotional responses (my compassion) strongly suggest this way is better.  There is a small possibility that my reasoning and/or compassion are misleading.  But it requires a some faith in myself to adopt this path.

Most of us feel happier when we are connected to others.  So I knowingly choose this way in the reasonable expectation that my life will be better.  But I cannot be certain of a positive outcome: it depends partly on external circumstances (perhaps called luck) and partly on how consistently I make the most reasonable choices.  There are limits to my understanding, and limits to what we can learn from philosophy, science, history and religion.  Some reasonable choices can be difficult to justify in detail.  We have a degree of faith that following a good general principle will generally lead to a better outcome.

There are many of examples of unhappy lives, betrayal, cruelty and needless suffering.  Though history seems to show it, I need a degree of faith that this way reflects reality closely enough so that my choices will be effective.  I have faith that this way probably leads to better outcomes for me, or at least for those I cherish, and for humanity overall.

I choose to align myself with others who adopt a similar, even if not identical, path.  I must oppose those who choose the contrary options: those who have no doubt at all, who are totally unreasonable; those who murder, torture, rape or enslave, who have no empathy at all or who are totally selfish; those who wish to impose arbitrary constraints on me.  This requires a degree of trust, or faith, in those who I align myself with.

And finally, in principle, reason cannot justify itself, any more than faith alone is enough.  We must have some faith in our good intentions, our reasoning ability and our insight.

The “Golden Rule”

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

This is found in many religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least.

This is another way of saying that we should try to satisfy the preferences of others just as we would like them to satisfy your preferences (for daily needs and other comforts, etc).

A more sophisticated version of the Golden Rule is contained in these ‘global beliefs and values’.  In this Reasonable Global Way it is more explicit that we must also take into account uncertainty and diversity, and be more aware in assessing what others need or want, which is more appropriate in a modern multicultural world.

Curiosity and Learning

Hinduism and Buddhism emphasise training, in their teachings and practice.  They emphasise that practice (such as meditation) leads to emotional responses that then lead to insight (such as enlightenment).  These approaches were developed when there was minimal understanding of science and history.  We can learn how to interpret these teachings in ways that are consistent with modern knowledge.

Traditionally Judaism, Christianity and Islam have emphasised scholarly thought.  Generally the scholars and the clerics who follow them have been slow to bring the mass of their fellow believers along with their explorations.  None of the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt learn to the best of thine ability”.

Modern evangelical movements, some religious fanatics, and Crude Americanism, now suggest that all we need is faith, devoid of any intellectual or practical effort.  These are out of step with the scholarly traditions of the major religions.

If we follow this Reasonable Global Way, then much emphasis is on learning and awareness: philosophy, science and history can now teach us a lot, and demonstrate that a lot of beliefs that have been (or still are) persuasive are, in fact, false.  Without curiosity and learning we remain ignorant and in error.

Uncertainty and Its Limits

Some people may find these tenets unsatisfying, because of the apparent uncertainty.  Without certainty, the suicide rate could rise, most painfully in the young.  Abortion and euthanasia are not seen as absolute evils.  Without certainty, some will be attracted to extremist or fanatical beliefs which provide a (false) sense of certainty.

We may dread these consequences, especially if they affect those closest to us, but the alternative is to not face the truth, to blindly live a lie.  It is better for parents and carers to foster life affirming habits in their children, based on open acceptance of these truths, through activity (learning, sport, hobbies and jobs or careers) and connectedness (acceptance, hope and love). 

But concurrently with accepting uncertainty we must also appreciate its limits.  On the basis of our experience, influenced by science and history, we can form reasonable expectations, acknowledging that these may be more or less uncertain.  (The Islamic phrase is “Inshallah” – God willing, if God will allow.) 

Although in principle we can doubt almost everything, in practice when we need to make choices we are forced to act as though we believe some things.  So these tenets do not say “everything is relative”.  There are firm guidelines which allow me to say that on any reasonable grounds some things are just wrong.  If I see a child needlessly suffering I am compelled to decide how to act.

Community leaders – politicians, lobbyists, media figures – need to be more sophisticated and treat the general populace with greater respect.  Their “values” should be more nuanced, cautious, but espousing reasonable, evidence based views.

Implications in Religion

Religion has three aspects:

1. The traditional focus on the prophets and sacred texts, including modern interpretations of these;

2. Spiritual experiences and ritual practices, that may or may not be associated with the traditional focus, and are usually difficult to express directly in words;

3. The sense of connectedness, universal longing, natural law, innate caring, that may be the motivation for the traditional focus or for spiritual experience, but is often sensed as separate from both, and acknowledged even by the non-religious and those who resist anything spiritual.

These tenets explicitly address how the sense of connectedness arises and how we choose to respond to it.   They also acknowledge non-verbal “spiritual” experience as valid and useful.  The tenets also conform to the basic structure of the traditional focus of a religion:

a) an explanation of our origins: where we came from, as satisfying as those from any other religion;

b) an explanation of suffering, of our fall from grace, and loss of innocence;

c) a set of values and rules for behaviour, to reduce suffering, obtain redemption, regaining paradise;

d) sources of inspiration – not only the prophets and sacred books but also other historical figures, philosophy, science, history, literature and art.  This approach is inspired by the whole of humanity’s knowledge, not just the visions of a few.

So even though they are consistent with the evidence from science and history, and based on sound reasoning:

● these tenets are the basis for a religious way of life;

● they define a philosophical view of “the world”;

● they constitute guidelines for a reasonable global way of life.

Philosophical Traditions

The approach adopted in these ‘global beliefs and values’ is to be more than just scientifically accurate, historically valid and philosophically sound but to identify beliefs that satisfy our deepest emotions, our spiritual needs, our longing for connection.  The truth must be accompanied by insight into meaning.

Some would say this touches on the main difference of emphasis between modern English language philosophy – which focuses on linguistic analysis and truth – and continental European philosophy which focuses more on meaning.  But obviously we need both.

We also think this approach successfully integrates eastern and western philosophies: ahimsa, anatman and mindfulness with scepticism and reason.

Science and History

We cannot use science or history to make value choices.  What “is” does not tell me what “should be” or what I “ought” to do.

●   If many behave badly it does not mean I should choose to do so.

●   If humans appreciate music in ways that other animals do not, it does not mean it’s criminal or inhumane to not care for music at all.

●   If humans have dominated the animal world, it does not mean they are right to do so, any more than the dinosaurs had the right when they ruled the world.

●   If Europeans (and their offshoot the Americans) dominate the world it does not mean their culture is best.  Might is not right.  “Is <> Ought”.

●   Science and history do help to explain why we make the choices we make, perhaps in terms of the survival instinct, the genetic evolution of altruism, revolutions against oppression, and the growth of the civil rights movements.

●   The source of goodness and truth can only lie within ourselves, within those of us who are motivated by goodness and to seek the truth.

We understand that there may be legitimate contrary views:

● some people will disagree with some or many parts of this, believing themselves to be totally reasonable;

● and sometimes this disagreement will be based on evidence or reasoning that is hard to refute, or can’t be refuted;

● and then we must improve our explanations, or change our understanding, or modify our choices;

● and we can only ask such people to please explain where we appear to be in error, so we can fix it.

We also know that some will disagree for other reasons. more