As I watched the ex-president of American Atheist, Ed.D. Edd

As I watched the ex-president of American Atheist, Ed.D. Edd Buckner debate against public speaker and intellectual activist, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis I realised the differences and common grounds they differ upon and share. Like many good debates1, structured upon a real concern to convince and share, this one excelled in this particular way that enthused me. I would also like to express my appreciation to those many people who presented me with the opportunity to listen and observe their good debates; those who helped me with my compilations and framework. And aforemost, I thank and praise my good God, the Lord of the worlds.

Please take a minute to gauge:Is this done with science? Pass!on? Is it balanced? Or is it both?!!!

1 https://youtu.be/YI9owlpOQl0

An Introduction: As I was watching this debate something struck me as odd; is

this debate from a pure philosophical predilection or is it a scientific inquisition? Stuck in an either-or whirlpool, since theists are usually more to the philosophical side, and Atheist refute theology with a philosophical-scientific approach, I believe we all end up having a philosophical doctrine with corresponding ‘faithful’ correlations. As many theories, including Darwin’s theories, reach a point when you can’t prove them more, thence deeming them as plausible or sceptically trivialising their evolution or impact; likewise, is done to religious doctrines. At a point you would have to believe on or rebuff, choosing your own diet and filling your own plate with the colors and nutritional values you deem as worthwhile. However, after listening to many debates relating to similar arguments, I realized the reason why they teach scientific thinking before philosophical thinking: tapping into the memories of how I reverted to Islam, I remembered how relieved I was to hear that “from chaos comes order”, yet still equally satisfied later by becoming certain of the existence of one creator. I believe that was not possible except through the scientific tunnel vision and its thinking tools; for me it was my astronomy class, which I proclaimed as “Monotheism101”. Later, I realized that this was the perspective the divine verbatim miraculous Islamic scriptural evidence offers to many of those who are researching to find genuine signs that correlate to proof the existence of a divine being, hence divine guidance2. Upon reaching evidence of monotheism, I started correlating philosophical arguments of theology and ‘balanced morality’; usually labelled as ‘objective morality’, and how its respective nature defines the problem and the solution. As I sought morals, so as to lift my morale and my need for self-fulfilment, I pondered upon the medleys and how can ‘we’ objectively fulfil to reach a balance with the presence and criterion of the better good and the worse evil!? Is religion the better good or the worse evil? 2 ‘I will show them my signs in the heavens and the earth tell they apprehend that it is the truth; is not enough testimony that your lord is a witness over everything: Verily they are wary from them meeting their Lord; verily he is inclusive to all.’ (Meanings from the Qur’an: 41:53-54)

Yet still change and acceding to the unknown was ‘wilfully’ outside the scope of my futurist dreams of enlightenment. I realized, after having something solid to build on, that philosophy can be defined to vary according to one’s belief, augmenting with its’ philosophers!!

“Practical Philosophy is the use of philosophy and philosophical techniques in everyday life. This can take a number of forms including reflective practice, personal philosophical thinking and philosophical counselling.”3

Demeaning philosophy would only mean to strip science of the common-sense it provides us with. Never the less, flawed philosophy can stray to strange realms of gobbledygook or mumbo-jumbo.

Analogous to the importance of philosophical incorporation in our lives, is our discovery to new words to augment our speech with the experimental and figurative trappings they provide us with; further realizing those words in empiricism allows us to correlate actual meanings to them. As I watched the debaters speak their mind and technique, not only was I introduced to how theist or Atheist build upon scientific thinking, but furthered, I was presented by an amazing sound configuration, that can be jargoned by many: epistemically ‘epistemic’!! As it was recanted and re-chanted again and again, I was only lured to further research it:

“Episteme” stems from the roots of “epi” over or near, and “stem” or “stet” is to stand, it is basically the scientific (as opposed to philosophical) study of the roots and paths4.

Belief must be based on theology, the logic or doctrine of a deity (a “theo”). Yet how to reach the belief in a doctrine that claims ‘a must accede with belief hash tag, and still be rational’; is what epistemically dispirits Atheists. Epistemically we can hypothesize,

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_philosophy 4 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=epistemology&allowed_in_frame=0

experiment, infer and conclude, working up the ladder to reach facts; however, theology infers to most Atheist the exact opposite, which to them doesn’t provide the stability and the soundness of a legible argument.

With all the scientific breakthroughs in collecting and analysing knowledge we have come to believe in the power of science in invention and explanation. Still science has failed and disappointed us so many times, we still trust ‘science’, for future horizons. The practical knowledge we gained from plotting scientific knowledge is awe-inspiring in its dimension and potential; the models are hypothetical in many cases, yet amazingly virtual and experimental! The probability by which we can further develop our rational thought and deductive analysis tools, has opened and closed realms of envisioning horizons; for our knowledge of infinity is infinitival to acquire. Basing our understanding or mathematical correlations to build dimensions and models has sometimes reverted us from seeing the amazing depths, wonders and worlds coexisting around us; delving into a more abstract realm, we are always reminded back to reality with subtle encounters or a blast on, or quite near, the head!

As we seek ‘bliss’ on this earth, we sulk upon “C’est la vie”, and scowl upon our many shortcomings and imperfections; some

blame God, and some don’t believe in him, yet some manage to ‘blissfully’ meditate upon a ‘Good God’. I believe, as I am sure you do, that negative feelings can detour, so can denial whether it’s with a ‘blissful’ accent or not. In my essay, inspired by Ed.D. Buckner’s5 concerned approach to Muslims and his structured debate, I would like to present the reader with my answers to his main propositions.

‘O! People we have created you from a male and a female, and we have made populaces and tribes so that you would familiarise; verily the most profuse of you according to God’s appraisal are the most deferential; surely God is the Most Comprehending Proficient.’ 6

Once Upon a Debate:“Give me a miracle…and I will tell you the rest!”5 https://youtu.be/YI9owlpOQl06 Meanings from the verbatim words of God: The Holy Qur’an: The 49th Chapter correlated upon the parable of the prophetic private quarters: 13.

My first Quandary: When irrational is rational: A perspective on the beginnings.

Case discussion: Atheistic claims of incoherency and lack of objectivity in the Islamic notion of the various names of Allaah? (...or is it aptness?)

Further Arguments:@ … Or is it aptness?@ … Or is it ego?

My Second Quandary: The importance of practical philosophy in counselling science and scientists; a step further to the theological ultimatum.

My Third Quandary: The scientific model we live in: Does our innate ‘demo-graphy’ always disagree with our ‘communal’ sense via our “common” sense?!!!

i. Different fosterages and ‘consequence’ observations: the nurturing effect it has on ‘free’ will.

ii. The holistic approach: how we handle and untangle the mysteries of the complex and dimensional models we live in, and model itself. Case study:

@ The demographical-theological tendency and Islam.

The Fourth Quandary Rational thinking, Morality and Willpower: Are they faces of the same, ‘me, myself and I’, or do they contra-dictate? The meaning of objective morality, between philosophy and practical philosophy.

Case discussion:War and suffering: between philosophical Islamic practices and interpretations, unto realizing objective balance.

Case study @ Losing objectivity: An analysis of the chronological parable “the Saturday

consorts” scribed in the Qur’anic scripture.@ “Ouff!”: An expression of intolerance mentioned in the Qur’an, reverberated upon

traditional sympathies, and the consequential practices and empathies it establishes.

When irrational is rational:A perspective on the beginnings.

Delving into the first quandary:

Infinity has always existed in words like forever, yet it is very uncommon to understand it from a “before-ever” perspective! It has existed in the mathematical realm as a finite number accompanied by an infinite reference/symbol. More than the rational could count or perceive is considered as infinity; so if we perceive a physical end to the universe, it is finite comprehensively if not mathematically. Further, if we perceive a chronological beginning or end, it is finite from a different perspective. Nonetheless if we don’t, we say that we perceive it as infinite, yet we perceive it as a finite integer with an infinity symbol beside it! This is “re-creationally” fair, since our brains are very “finite”; even when we can tap into computer memory and a universally finite to the power of ∞ resources. As we are still trying to reach into our dimensional models and perceptions it is considered very rational to perceive more than we can count, it is considered rational to believe in laws we cannot see; that’s if we can see their consequences. We never consider these laws as ‘supernatural’, if we can count or explain them; however, in ignorance, to the contrary of science, superstition has developed many explanations of these laws; ‘touching wood’ to stop an electric strike of ‘envy’, does seem to make sense in a superstitious way, yet experience has proved otherwise!

To remove ignorance without partialities or biases, science inquires and analyses, cures, invents and probes supernatural events as much as possible, by observation if not by theory. Rationally this universe and this ‘spec’ we call home, earth, are part of an amazing system that gains and loses momentum in a very organized anatomic and organic way. Not a junkyard, and earth certainly not a group of systematic computerized elements recycling and creating a balance from no balance; for no probability, mathematic or scientific theory could come near to epistemically proving that the world we live in could exist by chance. In addition, embracing the concept of…

‘give me a miracle and I’ll prove the rest’

…to prove that “the Big-Bang” existed eternally or was created from nothing; then going on to equally justifying one’s scientific fallacy by disparaging those who consider the “miracle” to be a divine being, is an obvious philosophical fallacy. Differentiating between the creation, which has to be created, and the creator, who is the provider of material and the essence of life is a more notably credible argument, even if we just

evaluate it from the philosophical level, not to mention the perspective of human sciences and scientific core foundationalism. Evolution should have always existed according to patterns of basic substantive elements and laws that are scientifically predictable and plotted, believing that this was created by chance would be even more farfetched and irrational than believing in a ‘miracle’ Creator creating this.

‘And it is he who created you metamorphically: Didn’t you see that I have created seven skies of enveloping layers: Besides I composed the moon in them as a light beam, and the sun as a torch beam.’7

According to scientific empiricism and statistics, no such system could ever come to exist from chance, free radical elements or ungoverned wastelands. Upon facing such a gridlock, an Atheist anarchist assumption would seem –for a blink of an eye- as unscientific, compared to a theist who proclaims the existence of the Creator. Upon that an Atheist could try to prove every observable thing epistemically, however this stem has a basic missing proof validation. Not to mention the many theist epistemic fallacies, not necessarily lost in the same “a-mazed blink” but in the process of proving and proofing other evidence.

A ‘blink’ essentially is an intrinsic intelligent response to a sudden intrusion, or a prejudiced “gullible-reaction” to something we do not want to believe, in a-mazement!!! Essentially metaphored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ‘Blink’: “…a book about how we think without thinking, about choices that seem to be made in an instant-in the blink of an eye-that actually aren’t as simple as they seem.”8

Epistemically upon such a premises, a one creator would send one preserved true religion in essence and scripture for an ‘informationally and transversally connected’ era or region. However, the evolutionary development of nurturing scriptures that have accredited one another has strong grounds of “common sense” and historical evidence.

7 The Qur’an: The 71st chapter correlated upon the parable of Noah: trail of the signs from15-17. 8 http://gladwell.com/blink/

Metaphored as a well-designed building, prophet after prophet make its tablets.

Whether one decides to act upon his blink or overlook it to the declaration of a reasonless existence or an infinity upon chaos, none can claim his inference as entirely factual. As we surpass the miracle of existence, we can go on after this “blink” of inner sense into proofing atheism, giving into the abduction, or otherwise furthering on it whilst suggestively inferring to an infinite creator of a finite universe, both seeking hypothetical proneness. Sceptically a believer would come to acknowledge a boundary were the ‘irrational-miracle’ is the only rational explanation: since anything created must have a beginning, epistemically we must be facing a creator with no beginning and a ‘uni-versal’ creating potential, or loop out of the loop into another one. Ultimately, I believe that this is the step, and fork in the road, that epistemically and analytically differentiates between an Atheist and theist practical philosophy.

While theist argue on the philosophical level to prove theology, believing is acceding after a journey of inquisition. A believer would have to see enough epistemic evidence to support a theology as true, then they would have to believe on according to what they consider plausible; they don’t necessarily have an explanation for everything! No created being can encompass all revelation sources or observation empirically and objectively. Yet upon reaching a confident level enough to acknowledge their belief, a legitimate believer would deem they have enough evidence to support the theory or the unseen “theology” they have cross-examined. Believing and faith has an element of scientific imagination or inference, not necessarily solely factual; if it was all-perceived then it wouldn’t be a big deal to further your investigation on your ‘proved- enough’ “theory” or fact! As proofing a “miracle” is not possible, as it shares an element with proving what existed before the “big-bang”; philosophically it is rational to establish that encompassing a vision of a creator of this “uni-versal master-piece” -and its ongoing evolutionary and devolutionary trends- would be impossible without revelation. It is irrational to prove the identity or the essence of a divine miracle or being, except through revelation that comes from the “miracle” before the big-bang! Deferring the further discussion of the definition of the miracle, I encourage myself and the reader to accumulate a consistent perspective, then try to assess it upon the ratio and realm of

the hereafter, then further our etchings to try to conceive a realm of a ‘before-after’; ‘awed’ even if one has to do it through symbolism. As I watched this video explaining the size of this universe, I blinked, overwhelmed and wishing it was not true: https://youtu.be/AC7yFDb1zOA!

‘And the seven heavens are to the governance cathedra but a ring in a vast desert; thus is the appraisal ratio when comparing the divine throne to this cathedra.’

Evidently, this spec of time and place we are living through and in, does overwhelm us, yet the uni-verse of diversity adds the common sensed symbol of “∞” to our perspective.

“Religion is a focal factor in your psychological & mental, hence physiological being. To develop a religion or world view, a ‘counting system’ where some logic is assigned… conforming to the reality of the cosmos & our role in it, as best as we can know that reality… Map making on a socio, psycho unto a cosmic level to reach some kind of direction, even if the direction is what some define as complete no direction or chaos…”9

All in all, I will end my quandary quoting more from the best-selling book “The Road Less Travelled”, hoping we both not lose our civil accommodations to human-developed dogmas or blame:

“Anyone who knows a died-in-the-wool Atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as a believer can be about belief; and as accusing as a believer can be cruel.”10

9 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: World Views and Religion.10 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: The Baby and the Bath Water.

Case discussion:

“Muslims have an incoherent objective concept of Allaah due to the many attributes and names they exalt Allaah with?”

Invoking upon Allaah’s divinity in Islam is the collective respective use of divine attributes and names as to correlate meaningful facets of the same being that are particular to a situation, objectively bonding the worshipper, tendering and directing him in this certain situation! That is also manifested in the Muslim’s belief and perspective in the purposeful creation of the dimensional model we live in: in other words, when one

recalls a situation for an objective reason he would look upon it differently than someone who recalls for a recreational reason. Our perspective of life differs with our reasoning to our existence, those who believe in an afterlife will consequently appraise life and choices differently. As with morals, the use of divine names and the reasoning we give to fate, defines and correlates our perception of utility and our perspective of “praiseworthy”. As a believer enciphers life as salvational, such different adjectives connect to him in a corresponding nature; our perception can change the world around us, moreover they deeply affect us as individuals. As we choose which name or facet to invoke upon, thus we believe we are affecting, thence we are effected; this defines our priorities, course of action and our belief. As an Atheist basically perceives life as evolutionary chaotic, a mundane survival jungle, where luck is the “utmost controller” with a spoonful of synergetic evolutionary wisdom. Building upon what is socially determined by the herd or through trial and error; a believer believes that ultimately there is and will be a divine perfect gnostic.

“If I believe a God exist, I will then consider if I want to worship him!”

@ ...Or is it aptness? Whilst being a very epistemic answer with respect to some people’s perception; I argue its epistemic morality and rationality.

So you would believe in the existence of a creator that created the heavens and the earth, and that provides us with material, a chance and a will to choose, then you would choose to ignore this all?!! Is it the lack of skill and attributes in the ‘scientific model’ around you? Would you rather revert to re-creation? But where? And how? Can we create

another reality? Another earth? Different logic? A different scientific balance?

Or is it the lack of gratefulness?

Or is it how you would like to invest upon the choice and chance you were given?

Do you think it was unfair to introduce you to an existence then make you suffer the consequence of nurture and evolution in order to reach this kind of preliminary epistemic understanding and correlation of consequence? Is there another way to understand consequence rather than empiricism, do you prefer a cyborg existence? Do you question that drive that pushes you to learn, evolve and become the fittest, or would you rather we were all be bionic replicas of ‘the fittest’? Or are you privileged and wondering about the under privileged, but aren’t you fitted for a more active role to service them with support?

Life may seem very confusing, but when fractioned over infinity in a mathematical way it can either mean fie, or ir-ratio-nal! Getting Real about symbols, fie does mean something, but something beyond ‘ratio’ and perspective!!! Losing infinity for a fleeting creation is a decision worth pondering upon; to us we are considering something like here and after, whilst acknowledging before and ever-after!

“I didn't understand this idea of a God who says, 'You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it!' It seemed to be about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me.”

@ …Or is it ego? God from their perspective, always has an ego problem, but they don't!?

Sometimes what really doesn’t make sense to us is what we don’t want to understand or comprehend. So epistemically this argument built on a presumed premise that one believes that somebody created

everything, and because he has an ego problem when he tells us to worship him, he must not be a real God?!!

‘God must be all-forgiving, and never fair; he must provide us with perfect answers and life, but never choice, guidance and care.’

…. It even rhymes, shall I start my new bible??

But then no one should ask us to acknowledge his personal platform and importance in our life, and his academic achievements and personal accomplishments; hence we can assign and adopt whatever substantiation we want… Only, but that’s not rational, even though the ‘ego’ concept is apparent! Acknowledging people respectively is good kind of ego! Ego, when it is based on real self-worth is so handy, it teaches us to respect those who should be respected: when it is more... when it is less... it is a mess...! ‘Anarchisting’ to bogus perspectives!

‘Ego-Worthy’ is a good quality, it does not mean vain, and keeps distance from meek; it presents people in their respective and useful titles, especially in the presence of the ‘not so proper’. This is a facet including one of the names of God, which is the Haughty. Imagine if every time -keeping in mind that he is the Almighty Creator- God hears this person utter words of ignorance or insolence in describing him, or do something really immoral: isn’t it a blessing to that person that God is so Haughty and does not lash back instantaneously at everyone who transgresses? Isn’t it a name one can correlate to mercy, that’s if it is ‘Ego-worthy’ balancing with other attributes? If he was not so great and haughty, he couldn’t be so merciful and forgiving. Yet also, isn’t it a name one can correlate to capability? As to justly and skilfully deal with those who have passed their limit, with wisdom, and without fast overruling and pathetic anger!

The importance of practical philosophy

in counselling science and scientists:A step further to the theological ultimatum.

Resolving to my second quandary:Science, not new to human perception, yet recently coined

to definition as the systemic knowledge of the natural and physical world through observation and experimentation. The scientific process, regardless of its scientist, is a self-amending and accumulating, objective, coherent and communicated process to amount facts and information for further inquiry and usage. The ongoing elements of such an endeavour must include inquiry, pursuit of inquiry in possible ways,

systematically analysing and deducing information to correlate findings, then furthering this all through refining and retesting, communicating and inventing. This all should objectively be based upon rationally encompassing perceptions to project and go hand in hand with conscientious critical thinking to an advanced perception. While science could seem according to many people as a raw set of facts and empirical ‘cold’ values, science is the verbalising and utilization of the laws that govern the world we live in. Whilst we are still maturing upon an aging earth, it can get tricky; yet critical thinking could allow us a more comprehensive approach to science. As we seek to solve problems of reality using language, symbols and thinking techniques, the empirical nature of observable science can sometime disintegrate from its reality. This analogy has empowered scientist to the realm of probability and theory, lest philosophy. For example, as Darwin theories were reviewed and propagated in awry, the philosophy behind atheism evolved partially, in the past century. “Theory” is the English symbolic vocalisation of the notion defining a system of perspectives intended to explain something. Whilst a scientific one…

“is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories should be inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.”11

So intrinsically, as we amass so many theories, some factual in their validating muster and some less, we further on with our critical eye in making more sense of a bigger theory or

11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

analogy, beyond specific observations and empirical values. A long introduction made short due to the many scientists we credit or did not mention their names in scientific reports, only to reach enough evidence for a step-up from “the-o-ry” to philosophy, lest “the-o-logy”; from know-hows to the philosophical reasoning, science and critical thinking imposes upon us. Pointing us to a basic classification, while epistemically rooting our connotations and working-out to vocalizations and meaningful ultimatums: the affix in the word “the-o-ry” rooting us to “Theo” - from the Greek word meaning God- or “Thea”- from the Greek word meaning a viewpoint or theatre- creating two sub-divisional philosophical paths, one strenuous in its requirement of belief in a “Theo” and his ‘uni-versal’ order, and the other recreational for observational and educational reasons of our fleeting entity. Is everything referring to this uni-versal phenomenon of scientific foundationalism leading us to a belief in a common foundational unified verse signage exalting one creator, or leading us to see and observe a theatre of events that randomly align themselves through evolution? At a point it might have been enough to be subjective; our attachment and adoration of mother-nature is like breastfeeding a new-born. Whilst not a cow, mother’s milk and scent is singled-out with new-born senses; then upon developing senses and perspectives, and accumulating them respective to our growth, we -as adults- seek objectiveness.

“…when we have come to science from a culture and home in which the belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional, as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientist, however, is their awareness that science maybe subject to dogmatism as any other religion… The water with its growing baby meddling or bathing to reach purification;

leaving its impurities to effect the liquid properties of water. Throw the water and the baby, if you see the water overwhelming everyone... All of this, with one small problem; did the scientific tunnel vision chop off the baby and our need for bathing, leaving us just with the overwhelming bathing water and its impurities!” 12

What is the philosophy behind the scientific knowledge we have acquired and its common core indications? Can it be analogous to Religion… any religion? Religion, defined in universities as theology, has also been present before we can remember; thus leading us to deduce a revelational or a natural tendency amongst “homo-sapiens” to explain a higher reason or reality. Superstitious in many of its evolutionary trends and innovations, theology is yet still supernatural in its “Big-bang” presence before thorough scientific inquisition!!! How did prehistoric homo-sapiens ‘resonance’ this level of philosophical logic?!? Still all pointing back to inferring upon evolution and the paradox of “the egg or the chicken?”! As we trace back religion, we realise through looking upon the not so primeval ones, that religions usually start with one denomination and then diverse to many interpretations and inclinations. As we celebrate the new “egg”, we could be celebrating some new genera. As we age with our senses and observations, cognition impels upon us to choose critically, whilst understanding consequence and opportunity costs of this choice: are we advancing upon our knowledge objectively?

12 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: The Baby and The Bath Water.

The Scientific Model We Live in:Does our innate ‘demo-graphy’ always conflict our

‘communal’ sense via our “common” sense?

Upon My Third Quandary…As the 7ft model sways on the cat walk modelling the

latest fashion trends and defining beauty, many of us ‘wonder-on’ affected positively or negatively with this beauty; paradoxically this could carry a common element with how a scientist feels after experiencing his latest dimensional modelling of a scientific outlook, whether featuring an angle, in or beyond the biosphere!? Modelling, and observational science, has a scientific and artistically creative factor and perspective, this explains and directs many of our understandings but it will still be up to us to correlate and apply them to our real life. How we envision reality affects our theories, observations and conclusions. Leonardo da Vinci,

painting upon enlightened observation, models how science “once” was…

Leonardo was, and is, renowned primarily as a painter(…) Leonardo is revered for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised flying machines, a type of armoured fighting vehicle, concentrated solar power, an adding machine, and the double hull, also outlining a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed, or were even feasible, during his lifetime (…) He has been variously called the father of palaeontology, ichnology, and architecture, and is widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time. Sometimes credited with the inventions of the parachute, helicopter and tank, his genius epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal. 13

The biosphere, observed from outer space, could seem like an amazing model of a ‘blissful paradise’. Yet after being effected with tsunamis and human pollution, it could seem to portray randomness or even ‘a scientific error’ in its objective intelligence?!! Yet, not hearing bats, we might be impressed upon hearing them! Still dis-covering we are impressed more, yet in the interim of sightseeing we are awe-inspired. Diverted from pollution and demographic common sights, we discover through travelling as we sightsee and associate meanings to the word ‘beyond’, and we learn ‘amazement’. Wanting to leave amazement to meanings where the ‘maze’ leads to something, we correlate to expand our growing minds. As scientific Atheists exhibit their a-theistically a-mazing working-outs, I epistemically question their scientific foundationalism and core perceptions? Is it a lame over-reaction to peoples’ communal ignorance like Einstein likes to put it?

13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 14

Or is it our inconsistencies in understandings and our evolving ‘common-sense’, which is stopping us from epistemically rooting this diverse model and biosphere to the ‘uni-versal’ foundational creative phenomena? Is it the plainness of the model, or the lack of uni-versal signage? Is it the communal sense of the Good God, or is it our common sense subconscious knowledge of the amount of lies, cheaters and subjective worshippers, that is blocking our theological theory from being inferred upon properly and dis-allowing it experimental access to grow into a philosophical doctorate? Do we have an innate demographical inclination like we have a ‘communal’ one? Or have become scientifically abstract awaiting to reach ripeness? As we grow, do we get to choose between our ‘communal sense’ or our innate ‘plains’? Or is it ‘common sense’ that scores? Or is ‘not-so-common sense’ that overrules? Is it like what some of us would like to tell us that we are born with a “critical-rational Atheist-sense”, but we then forsake it to theology? Or is it that our belief in God is an emotional innate vulnerability?

A purposeless design modelling theatre, created for prodigal, evolutionary-overruling reasons; making no common-sense possible when looking at all the data and dreading/loving a ‘tsunami’s’ sudden transfigurement of a curve we had once plotted. As we assumingly vacate nature, we extend a blind eye to ‘the resonance’ of the many things that helped shape and evolve our “common sense”. Maybe everything is just nihilistically winding up to anarchism or none-‘sense’?! Are we understanding the data through variables and rational consequential inquiries? Or are we just pinning it on a dimension, whilst not seeing the other variables effecting our investigation?

14 Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941.

Communal and common sense closely intertwine to shape our new innate ‘demo-graphy’, picking up on the influencing factors, whether with a proportional or inversely proportional correlation. Yet the resultant force tends to fork into a yes or no channel! As we introspect a spectrum of infinite fractional subtleties, relating or misaligning from or with our innate, communal and common sense amalgamations of aural interactions; what do we define as intrinsically developed and what do we consider aurally developed? On which of them, do we choose to further our evolutionary development?

As I mentioned before in my second quandary, and would like to emphasize again:

Religion… Superstitious in many of its evolutionary trends, theology is yet still revelational in its “Big-bang” presence before scientific inquisition. Still all back to the paradox of “the egg or the chicken?”

Most “common-sense” evolutionary scientist, once “utter-sense” evolutionist define the “chicken” as a source, and the “egg” as the evolutionary specie. Whether all “eggs” came from one cell, or from a specie is not the argument here, but rather “the miracle” presence of a “source” is the premises of this argument. As small as a “one cell” or as staged as a “specie”, how did religion inductively develop in homo-sapiens to conclude monotheism prehistorically? While Muslims do not hide their belief that monotheism was the first religion of Adam: how would Atheism explain the presence of monotheism pre-historically? I guess it is always a common premise, whether Atheist or theist, to start from: “Give me a miracle, and I will explain the rest!”.

"I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the

stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk that so the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and rivers, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man's good or bring him evil. He appointed the dukes and lords to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked, and to gather metal and wood, birds and beasts, and to engage in cultivating the five grains and flax and silk to provide for the people's food and clothing. This has been so from antiquity to the present."

Will of Heaven, Chapter 27, Paragraph 6, ca. 5th Century BCE

I guess, the prehistoric presence of monotheism is another real “big-bang” in the philosophical evolutionary trend of human development! Very similar to Mohamed informing us about the embryonic stages 1400 years ago. Then furthering on his “wiki-leak” by distinguishing the difference between our first genetic main predisposition that cannot be altered by co-occurring evolution, epigenetics or genetic engineering, and those genetic features that are subject to epigenetics and concurrent evolution (see the Qur’an: (3:6) and (23: 12-17)?

I have created man from a genus from earth. Then I made him a secreted globule reposing in a cosseted domain; thus I created the globule a gelled latch; thus I created the latch15 a bite-size of flesh; thus I created from this morsel of flesh bones; thus I dressed the bones with flesh; then I created it

15 The latch is a vague translation upon a term coined to denote the clinging attribute of the golobule due to the need for provision.

another creation: so magnified is his ability to bless, the best Creator.Meanings from the the correlated chapter upon the parable of believers: The Qur’an: 23:12-14.

That kind of “Big Bang” indication must be correlated epistemically, or randomized to ‘a Phi’ of empirical infinity quackery!!!?

As the history of religion develops, we realize this “big bang” miracle of religion and many evolutionary trends that disperse consecutively; this Mohamed did not deny, further he prophesized the basic structures of ‘innovative’ religious interpretations, the confusion, and the dismemberments that will follow. Very much like what happen to Gospel and Torah disciples; the history of the sects and the different ‘fosterings’ that followed their shaping and reshaping. Yet still, from amongst truth and lies, our innate ‘demography’ and our ‘common’ sense pleads “not guilty”; we are called upon through our conscientiousness to reconsider many evidences that our community presents to us, questing a more a lucid holistic approach to life. Through ‘fosterings’ and consequence evaluations we monitor many patterns of human choice, lately including Atheism. Some go on to archetypically hypothesize the probability of “the god of cingulate-mental-superiority and critical-thinking” proclaiming eternal heavens to the Atheist who managed to rebut all evidence due to epistemic flaws. Paradoxically ‘creeding’ on a random model of chaotic life choices, and ‘potentially’ promising a theological development of a haven to the exceptionally smart; is a theological evolutionary promising trend amongst Atheists.

Correlation is a natural step-up in science, based on an innate, common and communal sense. Yet without the signage and accumulation of the ‘passed-down knowledge’ of founding

scientist and their observations throughout history, we could have never reached nor accumulated upon to this exceedingly dimensional level of scientific envisioning. Complexity is the step-up in modelling and correlation, whilst science pleads foundationalism, theology pleads 'hol-i-sm', phonetically connoting to ‘whole’ or ‘hole’, and is coined to meaning core correlations that are supported by innate tendencies, common sense and rationality. Yet still, a rationality that should be at least conceding or acceding, whilst appreciatively seeking guidance in holy authentic scriptures informing us about our good Creator!

As we ponder upon our choices we realize the need for a ‘leap of faith’; that which only a scientist would fully comprehend (and correlate to) as he “blinks” to envision his hypothesis for further analysis. If belief was factual, then how is life defined in revelations as a trial? I repeat my question again:

If belief was based on factual evidence and its compelling nature, then why is life synonymous in revelations to a trial? In other words, would you rather be compelled to faith? If not, would you bear the consequence?

#Why is God doing a good job in making himself invisible!!

All scientists know that enough evidence is the premises for further development. Why does the elements of heaven and hell appear in many spiritual contexts? Just reprimanding for moral standards?! Or is it just an eternal promised consequence?! Is it the penal system that reinforces our spirit to extend conscientiously to the realm of sincerity, supporting our mundane life personal growth and communal interactions?! Or are we just being ‘milked’ for a better performance!!!?

Case study: The demographical-theological tendency and Islam.

The evolving of Atheism became an obvious tsunami to the demographic-theological tendencies most people evolve into; instead of innovating upon communal trends, Atheist abolished all kinds of theology imposed upon them by the demographical realms they could commute to. Most people tend to carry a disintegrated form of their parents’ religion, yet still evolving! While the Qur’anic scriptures recognizes the de-evolutionary demographic totalitarian and sectarian trends in many of its verses with amazing observational connotations (e.g. ‘Then they, on their vestige, are hustled’16). However, Islam proved through its historical practices in the prophetic era -not recent transfigurations- that its theology is ‘A’demographic. As an example of great connotations: the Ka’ba17 is the most 16 The Holy Qur’an: 37:69-74.17 “Ka’ba”: literally ‘the founded cube-oid’: based on Islamic scripture, is the first house of worship; it had a symbolic meaning and a sacred status in Abrahamic religions and Islam. As a figurative connotation it represents a common heart and direction of spiritualism; which differs from the evolutionary English-Hebrew word “Kabbalah”, meaning the direction bestowed upon the esoteric few, the inner circles, as a source of guidance. Muslims demographically pin point and paramount all three houses of worship in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, however they ultimately reverted to the Ka’ba due to their belief, not their demographic alignment; further, they did not sanctify the Mosque in Medina for pilgrimage! The immigration trip from Mecca, is also figurative to a Muslim’s

sacred pinned location in Muslim creed, yet Islam had preached that Muslims pray to Jerusalem before redirecting to the Ka’ba. Whilst in the first fostering stage of the Islamic religion, and so close demographically and pin-pointed with Islamic regard, appraised as Abraham’s landmark and sanctified with communal reverence: the Ka’ba, was eulogized seemingly as the perfect choice. Yet Islamic advice preached otherwise, whilst acknowledging how hard it was upon Muslims to abandon their esteemed “Kabbalah18 of Spiritualism” to face Jerusalem. Jerusalem, connoted in their intellect to the Kabbalah esteemed by the Jews, who sometimes ridiculed and belittled their ex-pagan practices. Yet still, Jerusalem19 20was considered in Islamic creed as second best then; however dis-aligning oneself from pagan practices, in Islam, is more esteemed than any material, demographic or communal factor, even if it is apparently better. Later they were preached to leave their lands due to civil-intolerances and excessive practices, unto reaching the “Madinah21” of Islam: they had left their true disposition to the Islamic notion of civility: the Arabic meaning of the word ‘Ma-dee-nah’. Leaving home and communal predisposition, to position oneself to one’s belief, only fully practiced in an Islamic civil society, is the holistic approach Islam fostered in those first Muslims. Those Muslims represented the fostering of the real Islam, unlike many of the demographic, philosophical or totalitarian sects present today.18 Differentiating between the Kabbalah as a mystical source based on paganist rituals that were developed upon Abraham’s legacy, and the Ka’ba of Abraham’s worship, a focal point for spiritual monotheistic worship.19 Jerusalem in Arabic and Islamic scripture is “Al-Kud-ss” which denotes sanctifying oneself to the one’s Lord to reach sainthood. It involves the faithful striving to acquire pureness of heart by struggling to establish a holistic environment and cause. Known as ‘the land of martyrs’: however, Jerusalem has come to connote, for many of us, sacrilegious war and injustice.20 Jerusalem: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jerusalem.html#.VmVVJjahc2w carved from the verb ירא (yara' II) is a Aramaic-style by-form of the verb ירה (yara), and has the same meaning: to shoot (1 Samuel 11:24, 2 Chronicles 26:15) or to water (Proverbs 11:25). And root-verb שלם (shalem) is that of wholeness, completeness or "unbrokenness"… The usage of this ‘shalemize’ form in Scriptures is quite revealing. Wholeness is achieved or restored most often by some kind of restitutory payment or covenant: God pays a man according to his work (Job 34:11), but the wicked borrows and does not pay back (Psalm 37:21).21 Madinah: in Arabic, means ‘city or urban area’. Currently it is a city in modern Saudi Arabia, a city who Muslims had once immigrated to, in order to establish their first Islamic governance. Once called Thebes, immigration to it is also figurative to a Muslim’s true disposition to the Islamic notion of Islamic civility and rights constitution, the Arabic meaning of the word ‘Ma-dee-nah’. It is also called “Al-Madinah Al-Muna-wa-rah”; the enlightened city by the immigration of the prophet Mohamed.

communities and communal predisposition to friendlier environments, with a common communal sense whilst neighbouring some Jewish tribes who paradoxically choose to settle in ‘Madinah’ whilst ‘paramounting’ Jerusalem! Those who became Muslim reveal why. Revelation-directed, Islam connected unto the Torah and Jews with a common Kabbalah. Imminently it preached a modification, eventually ordering its disciples to direct their prayers paramounting the “Ka’ba” as the sacred direction, yet still proclaim ‘Madinah’ as their new home! This being part of a holistic workout to de-install, then re-install the Muslims’ communal compass.

Objective morality is not just a philosophical notion; it is objective when it builds a workout that would actually fulfil its standards!

Whilst common sense may seem to differ upon such a practice in its pre-mature disposition, it realizes its objectivity upon maturation; they had ‘cleanse-dieted’ from a lot of stereotypical predispositions and realigned their inner compasses. Moreover, what seems as a 'leap of faith', and it was, effectuated by installing true priorities as its apparatus, not demographic sympathies; a divine compass, a gift to true believers. A leap of faith and the belief in “the miracle” based on foundational core evidence, saved and matured their way. May we be granted from such intelligent abundance in our fostering, through enlightenment.

Rational thinking, Morality & Willpower:are they faces of the same, ‘me, myself and I’,

or do they contra-dictate?-The meaning of objective morality,

between philosophy and practical philosophy. -

Advancing to my fourth, and last quandary: I believe this line of argument to be the practical common

grounds in which society realms, the balance between religious moral structures and the evolutionary social notions an Atheist proclaims, is what I explore in this theorem. While it seems like the practical proofing of the efficacy of the religion one would choose to abide to, I believe it is not; I believe it to be debating how people should civilly abide, whether they associate their morality to Atheistic or theistic methodology. Since there is no compulsion in religion, why we are moral is a matter of choice and debate, how we are moral affects us all.

As I try to represent “a long introduction made short due to the many scientists we credit or did not mention their names in scientific reports, only to reach enough evidence for a step-up from “the-o-ry” to philosophy, lest “the-o-logy”; from know-hows to the philosophical reasoning, science and critical thinking imposes upon us.

The affix in the word “the-o-ry” rooting us to “Theo” - from the Greek word meaning God- or “Thea”- from the Greek word meaning a viewpoint or theatre-. This creates two sub-divisional philosophical paths:

one strenuous in its requirement of the belief in a “Theo” and his ‘uni-versal’ order, and the other evolutionary for observational and educational reasons of our fleeting existence and recreational reality.

Upon this premise we all morally seek to improve, or ‘make peace with’ our “morale” by claiming objective morality. However, is objectivity in happiness and a sense of wellbeing, or is doing the right thing even if it does not make us very happy in the present juncture whilst delaying gratification: does it have to be an either-or balance between the two ultimatums? Or is it carting, or extirpating, the worst evil to reach the best possible good? Is objectivity just based on fairness and morality, or is it evolutionary with respect to the situation? Whilst a ‘morale-moral’ correlation is an Atheist assumption to prove the lack of objectivity in religious morality; ‘they feel better when they are godly, not necessarily good’. That correlation grounds not on objectivity and rationality but rather through ecstatic presumptions and subjective sub-sequencing, yet still Atheist claim they would reach from nihilism ‘a perfect rational evolutionary consensus’! As Atheist claim a secular spectrum between a perfect rational convention to a society convening on herd morality, moving from chaos to order then to chaos again through periods of ‘global moral-warmings’; religion claims the same spectrum depending on rational of the religious. However, it claims ground for a different kind of objectivity, not just in its collective social impact and aid structures, but in the moral and morale structure it provides through conviction to aid and empower the ‘rationally-deficient classes’ in society. I am not talking hear about salvation through believing, I am talking about the effect of genuine belief in ushering us to become better. Further, not everyone can rationalize to reach objective morality, so does one have to believe in an idol to better envision one’s way?! We can never

rid of poverty and deficiency, whether it’s rational, moral or materially under-privileged. However, it the structure and order we support and empower that determines our future prospective. Not holy through refuting twisted religious guardianship, does seem very tempting and also truth-dedicated; yet the guardianship of communal rationality seems to confine us all to its respective ‘holiness’, at least from a legislative point of view.

But it is not holy… it is objective!!!

…terminology is one of the mud-slides of critical-thinking and logical-proofing. ‘Objective’ by democracy means if society does not support objective moralities, everyone must slide with the new moralities! For example, capitalism is restructuring to support fair trade and enforce funded ‘health’ care, so what structures fund morality? Do we need a morality supervisor? Will it be like the monetary boards controlling the world’s banking industry and central banks? Or will it be like popes and religious preachers? Or will it address our spectrum of understandings and priorities with a convincing argument that we all credit, or at least all of us can convene upon?!

Allowing evolution, or devolution, to recreate a new reality and balance is amazing in its practicality, yet still when built on animalism can produce very irrational outcomes: for the balance between red and blue is purple, yet between grey and black is a darker shade of grey. “As we seek a well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of morality that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation; we must regard religious theology, at least seriously”! Together with some human sciences, religion provide us with premises for scientific evaluation. As there are no moral theories except in abstract science or philosophy; only through the study of theology and human sciences do we have a scientific

observational viewpoint and an empirical analysis of morality and its consequences. For example, socially determining the importance of self-expression rights: we realize the complexities after contemplating upon implemented abstract notions. Yet we do this today faced with a different reality; as we face consequential complications of what we though once as balanced and objective!

As science zooms in and out of the universe realizing details and balance we could’ve never even imagined, we believe we owe it to the scientific method and its scientist to believe beyond our observational realms and trust their conclusions. This kind of scientific belief especially when endorsed with positive scepticism, is an essential characteristic of a ‘civilized-balanced 21st century beings’, even if it goes beyond personal observations. To the religious, religious scriptures, moral choices and consequences are one of most apparent chronologies, lest philosophies, revealed by the Creator of the worlds. Yet what parts of the theological structures should we use as a criterion in a certain situation?! Are they absolute, regardless of our situation today, with no regard to social determinism, or are they completely flexible? Is it always the standard situation and the typical answer? or is always synergy, delving for a more evolutional radical ‘energy mine’? “As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories should be inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.” Critical thinking should be applied in theology to deduce truth, remove cobwebs and establish moral ontological classifications, distinguishing epistemically justified methods from subjectivity or opinionated short-comings. Then it should provide us all with an innovative workout to reach objectively the predicted new scenario of morality. Nihilistically to chaos, or centralizing authority to ordinance; is an either-or structure which religion presumably supports, since chaos is a lack of structure and support! Not all

Atheists have to deconstruct all to reconstruct, yet the religious believe in an ultimate inspiring scripture which they interpret differently!! Is this contra-dictating? Or do we have a lot of common grounds? The ‘meme gene’ presents itself whether we consider this spectrum of ‘readings’ the premise of social determinism or religious “fatwa”s.

On these paradoxical premises we could argue on forever, yet the practical implementations will vary with little differences in practice; both the religious and the Atheist can present us with amazing interpretations, just as much as fundamental dogmatism. A purely philosophical precursor, especially in western secular civilizations; whether the ‘espirit de corp’ is endorsed with moral conscious or conscientious development. This is analogous to the common argument upon dealing with human sciences recognized by any conscientious human scientist whilst reflecting upon the significance of evidence, as one seeks objectivity. Was Hitler the most criminal warlord of all times, or was it World War Two that had the biggest toll? If it was World War Two, then I guess Hitler would be off the hook??! Not either-or, seeking a more respective differentiation: Was Hitler less guilty because there was no UN in his time??! Or was it the bad, bad Jews that deserved to be burnt, or exiled to concentration camps? Then comparing that on real grounds: are the Zionist lucky that the UN condemns some of their transgressions, or was it just Hitler who needed ‘UN regulations’?! Does the UN provide everyone with more structure for morality or not? Or is it herd morality?

Objectively we point out details and critically, yet our answer is always based on personal opinions, seeking perfection?! Whilst we do not all seek to repent from the “original sin”, re-correcting one’s path is a must in any evolutionary notion, even the most primitive of religions acknowledge that kind of evolution. Yet still, while this notion is

a subjectively convened upon premises, it is believed to be civil when this notion is enforced by a civil code and penal system. Call it salvation or re-correcting/ revising for future amendments, here we are just using different terminology to seek a premise. In a spectrum that hues with utilizing morale as a ratio to morality (a Kuwaiti would literally ask: “what’s your color?” instead of “how are you?”); many make this acknowledgment while underscoring for an opportunity to pamper or leverage one’s morale assets, not assessing one’s equation chief substitutions! Some people are ‘just moral’ to go to paradise, adjoining or piously leaving others who seek morality to live fuller or better lives, reaching unto, last but not least, many who consider moral a synonym to morale, rationalising morals just to live easier and ‘happier’ lives. Many notions like unconditional love, altruism and philanthropy have become wide spread throughout communal networks, others like PG and bigotry have come to define civility!! Even though easier, has proved to not always be the happiest choice, and usually a form of devolution; yet easier, to many of us, is an important adverb of better!!! Better, is not a verb, but upon reaching ‘better’ we live easier lives, even if it’s due to our robustness not our little effort or well-off circumstances. How can morality reach this balance of objectively within a society; religion and tradition can sometimes be the enemy, but ‘inner wisdom and spiritual enlightenment’ epistemically is a necessity.

As we determine our moral terminology to deep or deeper roots we engrave our conviction; the deeper the stronger, the better the more rational and prudence it will provide us with.

As Aristotle explains “Virtue has to do with the proper function (ergon) of a thing. An eye is only a

good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight.” 22

Thus he related the perfect nature to induce the perfect judgement. Whether “Aristotle’s perfection” or “Plato’s ideal city” is the philosophical ideology or terminology we use, it is always more rational to imagine a perfect creator to worship than a perfect outgrowth. Our ‘perfect’ eyes ‘perfectly’ observe nature to deduce and induce, then it is our brain that overrules with a verdict of ‘a perfect origin’ or ‘a not-so-perfect chaos’, or just roams antagonistically over a need for further research. As prudence cautions us through the fog, temperance allows us less friction, yet it also temperance that give the others more space. As people utilize more of this space, one would fear that temperance would change to repressed energy as it is exploited for the favor of the not so proper, amounting to a “holy” crusade of exploding anger at the anchor of a subjective society which legislates according to an Atheist predisposition or theist momentum, we seek a balance further aligning prudence and temperance! Hypothetical or theological, all garbing credibility through objectivity, whereas morality rations to direct and motivate willpower. Ultimately true, or grounding on truth, is one equation not two; if this equation sides are not consistent balancing to a perfect equation, then they are either both wrong or at least one side needs further working out. With prudence and sincerity versus the ‘in-credibility’ of personal opinion and imposters of sainthood, society should seek to reach an end to the war, lining up with “enough” of what we sanctify whether we credit it to “holy” or “rational”. But the question remains when is enough, enough?

With a purposeful objective mission statement Mohamed proclaimed: “I was sent to perfect morality”23, later to explain 22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle 23 Authenticated by many sources see: http://www.dorar.net/hadith/index?skeys=%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%85+%D9%85%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%85+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE

that paradise is attained through moral unrighteousness or pious prudence. Morality dictating upon character, or piety’s pruning to prudence, is a road motivated by genuineness, however sincerity must go hand in hand with rational research. While so many subjective interpretations have claimed this objectivity; between bravery and brashness, self-respect and modesty, bashful and blushful, then trying to apply our balances in respective situations flexibly is not easy and requires a lot of wisdom, self-control and practice. A conviction and dedication, a workout to reach this inner progress is what religion claims to the sincere and diligent; the viable heart moreover the sound mind. Through awareness and education, whether personal or on communal levels to beyond the preaching mode, religion goes on to legislate for morality day-to-day unto reaching common communal grounds. Whilst allowing profanity could be argued as a civil right just as much as enforcing ‘priesthood’ amongst the public; such objectivity claims will be to personal perspective or a herd morality. However, are the religious today prompting their society to enforce their full doctrines? Moreover, is it the fog that ushers us to more prudence, or is it spiritual meditation that makes us serene?!!

Furthering this all upon the coordinate of those who claim no moral obligations or accountability, we find ourselves in a very tight spot. Reverting to society’s own balance is prematurely appraised as the best rational down-to-earth solution, yet perplexity apparently increases with an example of an aging population; do I endorse marriage and child bearing, or just go on allowing more lack of restrictions? The workout of some of those data curves are clear predictive indicators sometimes, yet other curves are not as easily plotted even with a mentor of the hypothetical influence of an authority of ‘perfect rational beings’. If there is a chance that anyone reaches

%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82&st=a&xclude=&page=2

perfection, it is the creator, it is the miracle; yet why is he letting all of this happen to us?! Is it the balance between free will and consequence that is bothering us?! Or is it our evolutionary adaptation to trials and hurly-burlies, and the trends we are evolving into that is worrying us? So the question keeps on pinging us: do we need religious milestones for morality and legislation? Or will we choose otherwise?

Philosophising this argument is very trendy since secularity is legislating, but are we precursoring with or against religious freedom?! Do Atheist believe in attainable religious freedom? Simply: are the religious free to be religious to the extent of holy-warin’ the rest of us?!! Then what will happen to Atheist… and the other religions?! Stuck within an interim of moral degeneration, rational evolution and religious temptations, Atheist are claiming grounds to subjective freedom, while morality is prompting us all in red undertones and ‘PG freedom'. Being fair is an important morality, it is based on many other moralities that entwine to make us fair: so how can we be fair if we lose these base moralities when judging upon a situation in the subjectivity of our coordinates, perspectives and experiences!!?

As I was researching the word god, I noticed that English speaking communities -like Arabic speaking communities- associate it -at least phonetically- to the word good; when Arabs see something beautiful or exceptionally good they say "al-lah", meaning this is amazingly good (notice I didn't capitalize "al-lah" in this context). If you read about the origin root of the word "god", you would find that most researcher will refute the common root meaning that god was derived from good, but rather good emerged latter to God.

Popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of the forms ... shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness is not

conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1902]24

They would argue that the word god outposts from " a root (verb) *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root (verb) *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta)"25. This is much resonated when researching the Arabic word and comparing it upon the anthropological usage of the word. This pouring of feelings, overwhelming to the point of invoking "sweetness" or "goodness", is the meaning of the Arabic verb "Laha" which can be also considered as highly onomatopoeic in the pouring and questing music it evokes, like that upon seeing something morally or physically beautiful. With the "Al" for exclusiveness, the proper noun "Al-lah" assembles: the deservingly invoked through overwhelming (pouring) need and our acknowledgment of goodness and beauty. The overwhelming pouring of our inner beings is also observed in the common usage meaning of the Arabic word "allah", not capitalized, but still meaning amazingly good; it has been observed that innately (if untampered) we as individuals have a pouring inclination to the good, the beautiful, the moral and the belief in God.

“For Aristotle, therefore, epistemology is based on the study of particular phenomena and rises to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato, epistemology begins with knowledge of universal forms (or ideas) and descends to knowledge of particular imitations of these.”26

Going from religion to ground rationally, or from rational to prove the true religion of the human essence is

24 http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=God 25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#cite_ref-18. 26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

how close Aristotle is to Plato! Human will-power, has been preached by Islam as a status and gift to mankind, and also a duty and obligation. As belief is not necessarily all-factual but it remains evidentially compelling in its nature, religion is supposed to have preached reasoning, choice and consequence; ultimating on the trial nature of this “secular” life unto an eternal reward or penalty, all of which provides the religious with a lot of motivation. With an obligation towards the creator and upon “the first sin” man trialled by his will-power, for his own accumulative proof drills and mind-body resultant workout; his choices build his temporal world and mundane civility. Yet more importantly his choices build his conscientious; who he is today, and what he will deserve through to eternity. Philosophical, yet from where I see it, is only fair rational balance that induces, and can be induced, by moral judgement from mundane observations; further the only one we can meditate upon to reach inner peace, if not better communal circumferences.

What is penalized or reprimanded by concurrent legislation will always be in the eye of the beholder, especially in secular structures, whether as individuals or communities! With legislative structures and more order, some people benefit becoming better and having more structure, some people screw their lives and choose a different definition of “freedom”; ‘a’nti-secular, ‘a’nti-demo’graphic’ or ‘cratic’ kind of freedom! We all know that not everyone behind bars is bad, but we hope that most of them are; for this defines who our society is. Moreover, some hope those who hurt our communal maxims are behind bars, even though we know it might be subjective, or even not fair at all!!! At this conscientious level some Atheist rest by giving the other the benefit of “social pressure”; yet not always the case, some Atheists oblige themselves to moral obligations! Whilst still some, many forms of religiosity are fine with this form of ‘cruel’ autocracy! However how would you

define instances when our conscious prays on our innate knowledge that we know better; morality seeks a root through the subconscious or is it vice-versa?!

As part of long narration asking Mohamed for samples from past scriptures; he was asked about Abraham’s testament. He replied: ‘It was all parables like: O! Vain trialed despotical king, I have not sent you so that you amass the world, portions upon portions. But I assigned you that you represent me in remedying the oppressed; for verily I respond to their invocation, even if it is from a disparager…’27

Blaming “a not so great god” does not reflect but our choice and how we choose to exercise our willpower. Willpower that should be used to build and help ourselves and others. Do we believe our collective willpower presents us with a very far from perfect reality? Or is it our lame aspirations that requires a “bliss” on earth, with no trials or consequence? Whether maturing in or out of belief, an immature understandings of the essence of difficulties in this life is a neurosis, in which avoidance becomes a substitute to legitimate suffering. Rational problems of delusions not all stem from mental deficiencies, but eminently from neurosis.

“Speaking of the oppressive forces that thwart our freedom can enable us to victimize ourselves more to them, giving away part of our freedom. The freedom to choose between two evils, to explore the issue more fully, resenting life simply because some of its choices are painful…

The more clearly we see the realities in the world, the more equipped we are to deal with them. And the

27 http://www.dorar.net/hadith?skeys=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%89+&st=a&xclude=

less we see, the more befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusions!” 28

28 excerpts from the bestseller: The Road Less Travelled, by M. Scott Peck (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck )

Case discussion

War and suffering: between philosophical Islamic practices and interpretations, unto realizing objective balance.

Theatrically trying to direct our cultural storm of evolution, theist and Atheist both claim objectivity. Although a theist can seem to ‘blissfully’ interpret and correlate the world around him to a perfect creator whilst believing he is the perfect offspring or the most “cross” cleansed; an Atheist seems like a desperate perfectionist who wants to make this world as subjectively 'blissful' as possible, yet he pleads ‘impossible’. As fanatic extremism can wage 'holy' wars relative to one's moralities; compulsion is not just not possible in belief and faith, it is also the announced ‘spirit’ of the developed world. Leaving it to devolve into chaos or standing one’s ground for morality, life will always have its trials whether we choose to adapt positively or negatively; and still the sacred nature of civil rights and freedom of expression can be reverberated as the ‘holy’ war waged for the right to libel and be profane!!! Everything is easily said, once the balance is premised on subjective criteria and overlooks the bigger picture! Obviously not devouring, as civil rights were not intentionally developed to support profanity, immorality or extremism, but ultimately freedom. ‘However, as the surgeon operates he learns and heals to reach ‘wholesomely or holistically’ to a healthy level.’ As the religion of science evolves within an environment of many theistic religions, observations about religion became subjective to what is observed from these religions rather than foundationally evolutionary and objective. Our views of how religion is practiced defines theology, yet theology is on a philosophical level!! Religious doctrines should be based on a lot of scientific thinking and research that would enable us to reach its true essence, meanings and correlations,

nevertheless theology would have a human science structure rather than a physical science one. As one studies the ‘paleoecology’ of religious history, ‘fossils’ should be remodelled to perspective. Instead of reflecting on why the shortcomings and double-standards develop, many of us blame religion. We consider religion as the cause of holy wars and irrational predispositions, but we do not find nor deem passion as the fuel for 'love and what it hates'. As we passionately judge a man by his religious title or classification, we do not judge him by his good or evil disposition in interpreting religion, nor do we progressively examine the psychological elements that surround his belief; some dropping it to atheism, which too reads, sometimes even more subjectively. Is it the good and evil in us that reads, or is a problem in the scripture of some religions; is our morality the founding element in the development of our dogmas and convictions? And is the strength of our passion what shapes our objectivity, drive and momentum? Or is it just the dictation of a theology or the lack of it?! What dictated people like Stalin, and worldwide wars like world war I and II?

As Benjamin Franklin said: “Those things that hurt instruct. It is for this reason that wise people learn not to dread but actually welcome problems, and to actually welcome the pain of problems. With a notion ‘It is never too hard’, problems become part of life’s positive challenges.”29

This is the essence of the theory of evolution; the adaption that people make to life’s challenges is how they survive. This part of evolution is very compatible with the essential element in religion that claims that life is a trial of self-fulfilment and salvation; a trip through which everyone of us seeks the betterment of his self and those whom he is

29 M. Scott Peck, in The Road Less Travelled.

responsible for and can help. Hence suffering should not be viewed negatively but rather as an evolutionary chance for a better life and a better self. As religion blissfully preaches us that this our personal salvational path to reach our better selves; evolution happens for real and good reasons to those who persevere.

Nonetheless, people ironically ask: then why should animals suffer, if they are not promised paradise?? Life on earth is not completely blissful, it is evolutionary with obvious trials and fulfilment, wisely enabled to support the development of better species. As animals live fleeting lives, should they be grateful for this chance to live? Do Atheist feel grateful, even with all the loose ends, and meaningless context? In the animal kingdom, evolution and adaption are efficiently modelled sometimes reaching the extent of endangering species; over-hunting, food chain unbalances, or even climate change reasons have direct observable effects on the animal’s life and choices. While human adaptation is very different, and almost impossible to observe contemporaneously, we normally do not hunt each other, but create tools to allow us to live better lives.

Moreover, we role model for the ‘psychological’ evolution of the next generation!!

Domesticating animals and changing landscape, human beings are the hunters and the creators of the tools of the future. Moreover, as most animal perceptions are suitable for their jungle- like environment, some are domesticated evolving to need and support humans. Further if those domesticated animals were sent to the wild they can cause severe disruption and unbalance. Imagine cows never slaughtered to reach and die of old age, or worse, set free in the woods to change the ecosystem’s balance. As domesticated cows become part of the human world, is it not humane to treat them well and slaughter them with the least painful procedure budgeting a

cycle for their better lives and death to serve a purpose that will help other beings? Isn’t domestication evolutionary? Or should we devolve out of it? And how? As Islamic theology emphasizes on thanksgiving, and how to be grateful in heart and deed, it goes on to inform us that we will be questioned on how we treated and used such blessings. Then it furthers our sense of equity and justice by explaining through the example of a horned animal who uses its horns to bully others, that he will be subjugated after being resurrected while the other ‘hornless’ animal will retaliate justly, hence both becoming eternal dust after consummation. For unlike humans who suffer and hurt in more correlated dimensional way and are expected to be responsible both spiritually and physically, still animals learn and evolve through suffering keeping an amazing bio-globular balance that homo-sapiens, paradoxically, do not always objectively maintain. Yet still given a higher status and responsibilities, homo-sapiens are theologically (and observationally) stewards of the earth, they are responsible to maintain a more civil balance, that requires more structure, integrity and morality.

According to Islamic scripture: ‘And the sky he regally spread and the balance he demonstratively grounded: For I warn you against exacerbating in the balance: And establish the balance with objective fairness and do not fumble the balance.’ 30

All of this theologically grounding upon the philosophical nature of the purpose of life on earth, which Islamic theology deems as a test of willpower, accumulated knowledge and morality in our different subjective circumstances: what will ‘the responsible’ do with their fortune and responsibility? And the epitome the more fortunate, the higher up in the hierarchy, the more their responsibility? Will they instate what is good and fair,

30 Meanings from The Qur’an: 55: 7-9.

or will they follow their blind/ part blind passions and prejudices? Will they be grateful and aspire for long term gratifications, or will they submit to their current desires and biased dogmas? Building upon a conviction, moral values and a rational interpretation of the scriptures know-hows, salvation is aspired through building a balanced better life on earth. Obviously very overwhelmed by bad practices, religion seems to be gibberish, short-coming Gabriel’s divine revelation to the Lord’s prophets.

As passion selectively, and seductively, can guides us to a spectrum of interpretations of morality; it may do this slowly seducing us to a path claiming morality to that which once was deemed very immoral. One could argue that this is easier to happen to people without revelation or doctrine, but in reality passion and subjectivity can do a lot of reshaping. While ‘the rational’ plays an important role in interpretation, the unavailability of correlated data and resources can do the same. Whilst Atheist claim appalling correlations in scriptures, religion can claim lame empirical rationalism in Atheists; as Einstein likes to put it

“Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind”.

As Atheist talk about the many logical progressions that "faith" causes and delivers with disgust, they never correlate this to the logical regression they must make to become Atheist. With a notion that propagates "seeing is believing" hence they must see God to believe in him; they omit observations of greatness and unparalleled precision in creation to the lack of substantiated evidence, not to mention the subjective nature of morality that they seek through objectivity. Interpretations have over shadowed almost all religious scriptures; it is up to the religious to earnestly seek objectivity through sincerity, research and prayer.

It has been related in the Muslim’s verbatim words of the Lord that: ‘Indeed I have sent my messengers with clear signs: further I have sent down with them the scripture and the (weighing) balance so that people would uphold objective fairness; likewise, I have sent down iron having an overpowering property and many utilities for people: so that Allaah would affirm his observations of those who faithfully induce, choosing to strive for upholding his cause and messengers; indeed he is strong and almighty.’ 31

This metaphor reflecting on iron and correlating it to establishing, enforcing and protecting credence, has been correlated in a very inclusive perspective. As iron was not formed in our earth but rather it has descended through comet-like incidences32! Metaphorically mentioned and correlated to upholding Allaah's cause and justice, like enforcing law and order in cities; this must be maintained primarily by what is sent down to us through revelation and good preaching; when people uphold a good balance amongst them they live the benefits of such an established balance. However coerced law establishment and penal systems also serve to establish some form of a strong-held balance, yet not as benevolent as communal enforcement. Nevertheless, as both are equally important, both could also be causes of war and strife. Establishing relative peace and justice could be demanding to the extent of waging war to establish thereupon objective justice; for as iron can be a source of overpowerment, 31 Meanings from the Quran relating (57:25).32 http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_30.html: Not only the iron on earth, but also the iron in the entire Solar System, comes from outer space, since the temperature in the Sun is inadequate for the formation of iron. The sun has a surface temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius, and a core temperature of approximately 20 million degrees. Iron can only be produced in much larger stars than the Sun, where the temperature reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the amount of iron exceeds a certain level in a star, the star can no longer accommodate it, and it eventually explodes in what is called a "nova" or a "supernova." These explosions make it possible for iron to be given off into space.

dictatorship, war and friction, it can also establish stability and structure when utilized and esteemed justly. Religion, objective morality and civil balance have been established for peaceful justice, yet no one can argue the importance of force to reinforce these standards. However, since force cannot be left to individual subjectivity and passion, it should be monopolized and governed in a just and monitored way. Anyone trying to preserve civility must do that, yet it is how one does that that defines how good, balanced and objective one is. Upon realizing objectivity, one would realize both the meanings and the means to deliver.

Case study: An analysis of the chronological parable “the Saturday consorts” scribed in the Qur’anic scripture.

@ Losing objectivity:

‘And ask them to conduce upon the village that based its civilization on its seaside demographic presence, as they evade in holy-days (Sabbath); for their fish comes to them when they revere on their holiday, ushered, and when they do not rest it does not come to them; thus did I trial them for they had progressively flouted.’33

Upon reading this description for the first time, one would think that the inhabitants of this village were rewarded for revering on their holidays with the remunerative provision of more fish; however, they were not, rather they were tempted by the phenomenal behavior of fish, to break their reverence! According to interpretations, the religious inhabitants living in this village had an economy based on fishing; as the fish became scarce, they started coming back only on Saturdays. One could argue adaptation reasons to overfishing, yet the scripture is revealed to explain to us the trial that befell on this village which later shaped their evolution; a fork in the road of objective morality. Faced with this dilemma, the villagers’ sub-chose three courses of action: the first, decided to go around the sanctuary nature of the Sabbath, putting their fish nets on Fridays and collecting them on Sundays. While the second, argued and advised against these acts, then separated themselves from those who practiced such crooked behavior. The third party, did not join the first nor the second even though they believed the first to be sinful, they also believed that the second group were not objective in their attitude, wasting their time in advising the ‘lost’. We all have heard about the scientific 33 Meanings from the scripture of the Qur’an: (7:163).

interpretations ‘surrounding’ the remains of ‘australopithecine’ human body fossils, and how some seem disfigured; many have attributed such disfigurements to evolution, but according to scripture the disfigurements could have been due to a special kind of devolution; that had changed the behavior of the first party to that that resembled monkeys. While an evolutionist could argue otherwise, claiming that human behavior evolve only for genetic and ailing reasons, not epigenetic progressive/regressive morality!! The phenomenal classifications of psychopaths is also evolving, not necessary religious people, but considered in many cases very immoral and neurally disfigured. Was it total disfigurement, to extent that the appearance genes would be affected to a different on/off disposition? Or was it just a behavioral-neural disfigurement? In all cases the Quranic scripture explains with respect to the Jewish privileged descent –some claim that most scientist are Atheist, but genetically I would claim that most of them are of Jewish descent- and the Qur’an does acknowledge that. However, mundane privileges were usually given on trial basis; if they did well they excelled and became more distinguished, if not they were damned respectively, not always to same decadence. Hypothetically, the people who were ordered to revere on Saturdays, had been ordered to do that to tame their material attachment and their love for labor and personal interest by revering in disengagement, obediently. However, they knowingly convinced themselves to such a crooked workout, claiming objectivity and economic reform; still revering on Saturdays and also fishing all the Saturday fish!!! These signs are amongst many other signs relating crooked religious behavior usually damned but not always to absolute decadence; some lost in a maze-like nomadic expedition in Sinai, and other morally cursed by consecutive degenerative trends (all are versed in the correlated chapter relating upon the

metaphor of the knowledge moguls, after referring to the ‘Saturday consorts’).

All in all, objective morality is not just about an end result, it very much includes the workout, that in religiosity basically involves sincerity and piety. It is further extended by understanding the know-hows of the workout and the ‘muscle’ one is exercising.

Case study: An expression of intolerance mentioned in the Qur’an, reverberated upon traditional sympathies, and the consequential practices and empathies it establishes.

@ “Ouff!” !!! !!! !!!

Amazingly, whilst surfing the web for ideas, researching, and taking a break, as I was writing this paper about objective morality comparing Atheist arguments with Islamic, I accidently bumped into a YouTube clip about “Ouff!”! An expression of intolerance and lack of patience, usually towards the pathetic or the unreasonable!!! Delving the essence of both objectivity and morality, I have tried to hear this argument about objective morality from other perspectives, not just the Atheist and the Islamic. When I say this, I really mean it; as much as I think atheism can be some form of denial resolution or even teenage rebellion about the feedback we are getting due to the turbulent meteorological conditions and interconnected age we live in, especially ‘dued’ to us by those who present us with their stereotypical 'rationales' and hypocritical 'saints'. Never the less, as rebellious one can get with atheism, I believe that observed religious practices have many inconsistences and misinterpretations, rebelling with a different ethnicity. I believe that the issue of morality is not just subject to our understanding and communal influences; I believe we find evidence to justify our many deranged positions and dispositions we have as individuals whether theist or Atheist. While an Atheist can choose his quotes, a theist can quote his scripture in the context he wants; correlated contexts whether through empirical values or mismatched proofs have lead many people to believe nihilistically that "phi" really exists, as a "possibility" not as ‘the nil of impossibility or chaos’! “Phi” is rational as it involves a ratio of something we cannot imagine or

calculate! I believe only those who follow through the details with prudence and unbiased predisposition -whether it is blindly following a dogma or blindfolded by hating it- could reach what the prophet -apbuh- meant by perfected morality. For example, when we are talking about our relationship with our parents, grown-ups usually tend to lose their balance to the side of the parent, unlike what is exhibited in the famous incident narrated about how Omar-the second Caliph- once explained that in certain circumstances a parent could immolate the child before the child immolated him impressing upon him a crisis coordinate before he reacts upon them, impressing ingratitude or renunciation. This true meaning accepted and advised by scholars and recounted to Omar, who is proclaimed by the prophet -apbuh- as a balanced judge upon his appointment as a caregiver. Aided by insight, he did not just look at what the produce was doing but he realized the situation from an epistemic analysis of different perspectives delving to objectivity. He realized that relationships are built on mutual ties that create a balance respectively, ultimately resolving to reach objectivity. Sampling upon the word "Ouff!", a gesture of intolerance that is usually quoted by many Muslim theists out of context, you can watch a sample of this kind of compliant preaching on this youtube clip: https://youtu.be/xJ4mC7SX92M?list=PL0l3xlkh7UnvGvIEdpDgu9KcIEasBkx-9. However, the Qur'an only mentions “Ouff!!” sensibly in the situation were parents have reached old age and are under one's care, hence reminding the caregiver of the days which they tolerated their immature childhood:

' It is decreed by thy Lord that thou not worship but him, in addition be consciously grateful to thy parents: implicating by the exemplar, if they reach old age at your ward-ship, one of them or both, so do not say to them a gesture of intolerance, “Ouff!!”, and

do not try to bulwark them, but say to them gracious words. And ease their stay by humbling yourself out of mercy, whilst (repeatedly) saying: Lord forgive them as they had disciplined me when I was young. Your Lord Knows what is inside you; if you are decent, then verily he is to those who redress forgiving. '34

Meanings recited amongst many other signs in the heart of that chapter, ushering us to balanced morality. An exemplar upon complexities, yet clearly the same grace would not be required in a less undefiled situation; questions arise like, what if the prodigy had not reached this maturity and wardship, who is required to exhibit more grace and mercy? Children being in a subjugated position, parents could screw the lives of their children; although now in the developed world there is children rights, yet once it was based primarily on communal determinism. As one reads those signs it would seem to the credulously herded that children should be exceptionally revering to their parents; however, the advice given in this stance is to adult offspring caregiving their parents, not the opposite!! As they do so they must always remind themselves envisioning their parents caretaking by repeating saying: “Lord forgive them as they had disciplined me when I was young.” Nevertheless, they are caretaking them to expiry, so they mustn’t dwell over their upbringing as parent instructs their children!! A strange balance that strikes utility and morality with hands-on genuine wisdom. The advice seemingly for all offspring, yet prompting to the parents through recounting their old age scenario, and then striking this amazing balance by enticing adult caregiving.

Only those who work in counselling know the truth inspired in these signs, for in this implication although only

34 Meanings from the correlated chapter upon the metaphor of the incidence and ability to journey in the stillness of the night: (The Qur’an: 17:23-25)

exemplary in old age, the Qur'an exemplifies and acknowledges the communal distinguished status of the parents, with a theme inspiring a conscientious attitude that is usually appended upon the reverence of a worshipper, aggrandizing their roles to an extent that requires having the highest moral conscious when treating them, yet doing this whilst worshipping the only the Lord. The Qur'an doesn't declare them as holy or sacred, however individuals who usually deserve exceptional status as gracious caregivers, however not expected to be perfect nor holy, as one would expect the Creator. This balance of morality allows us not to lose our critical faculties, yet still abide morally in the strictest and most grateful manner clinging unto sincere piety. Upon seeing many parents, especially in morally degenerated societies, one would understand the importance of this balance, the respective treatment and appropriateness it preaches; upon reaching such a mature level of capability, more is expected, and graciousness from such mature individuals should be developed and demanded. On the other hand, it is also very deluding to see the unbalanced misinterpretations in traditional societies, were parents are direct reason for impairing their offspring choices and growth through preaching parent dictatorship, perfection or holiness. Upon asking and believing in such superiority a parent deludes not only himself, whilst evoking a negative or impairing reaction from his prodigy, moreover overwriting his credit balance. Objective morality is not a limited notion; upholding grounding but not base. I believe objectivity should prove itself in both its perception of the importance and existence of an inner creed supporting morality and mission; doing this whilst foundationally contemplating ‘the Creator’ and observing to reach a philosophical understanding of his objective design and definition of his creations’ utilities. Just as I believe that religiosity should provide us with exceptional insight in contemplating and adjoining perspectives

rationally, aiming upon grounding and balancing to objective morality and how to deal respectively with everyday issues.

As I windup seeking objectivity @“Ouff!”; I ask us all who is “ouffing!!” who? Are we “ouffing!!” our ‘mother’ earth? Or are we trying to care-take it to expiry? Are we “ouffing!!” our God for not providing us with more freedom, choice and blissful bounty? Or are we “Ouffing” each other for our conduct and practices?

“Ouff!!” …can be Einstein putting his tongue out, and can be another scientist overruling logic to his perception and passion’s comfort zone!