‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.
The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
Therefore there was no ‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ Quran from any God.
Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].
Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.
Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.
When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.
It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.
A system based on threat do work [morally or immorally] but it is limited within circumstance, conditions, time, etc.
Religious based morals are relatively effective if implemented in a society that is full of anarchy, the people are very barbaric and has great sensitivity to fears. But this is an the expense of genuine justice and basic human rights.
A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.
I agree, humanity must explore such a topic via neuroscience, other advancing knowledge, philosophical deliberations, etc.
It is obvious the brain is the most critical source of human spirituality. However to attribute it to specific part [theory abandoned] or certain parts of the brain need to be taken with lots of caution. The human brain has on average 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [chemical connectors] plus the many other elements from the body that are interdependent with the brain.
The point is at present whatever is presented from the neurosciences, genomic and other advance knowledge we should welcome them, the more the better, but the reservation is we can only accept them with a ‘ladle [not pinch] of salt.’ [a caution from Antonio Damasio].
Most of the popular Yoga teachers from India do not focus much on Hindu Philosophy but more on the exercises. e.g.
Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga - Sri K. Pattabhi Jois
Bihar School of Yoga - Swami Satyananda Saraswati[1]
Sivananda Yoga - Swami Vishnu-devananda
Iyengar Yoga - B.K.S. Iyengar
On the aspect of Spiritual Philosophy and Neuroscience I would prefer to read those of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism.
Here he is moving beyond to the Transcendental and thus out of the scope of empirical and philosophical reality. This is likely related to the concept of Brahman as the Transcendental Absolute Reality beyond the self and physical reality which can be theistic or pantheistic. At this ultimate point such concept [albeit more refined] is no different from Transcendental Absolute God [a crude concept] of the Abrahamic religions and other theistic religions.
Note there are those [some] who view Brahman from the non-theistic perspective. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya
The existence of God or supreme being is not directly asserted, nor considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). [wiki]
Fairness and fear/guilt are compatible. It’s fair that a person feels guilt for a wrongful act. It’s fair that he fears the consequence of a wrongful act.
??
A pretty strange statement coming from someone who constantly talks about evil and the potential for evil.
If everyone was “spontaneously good” then there would no need of a justice system or a moral code of conduct.
This is just preaching from your atheist philosophical framework.
Your argument carries no weight because theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews) don’t accept your framework. They do not accept your first statement and therefore the rest of the statements are irrelevant or false.
But if you want to keep repeating this for the benefit of other atheists …
It is not fair and with justice if guilt is triggered based on evil intentions, ignorance or delusions.
For example;
The Bible stated fornication before marriage is sinful.
Johnny was driven by impulse and had sex before marriage.
The above act in 2 triggered fear and guilt.
Upon 3 Johnny committed suicide when overcame by guilt.
There are many such cases as above where innocent commit suicide or suffer terribly due to fears and guilt and all these are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God exists.
Thus the moral system that cause the above cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general.
First there is no 100% perfection. So I did not state every one is spontaneously good with the maximum moral quotient possible.
In an effective moral and ethical system, every one will progress continuously from their base to be “spontaneously good.” Some bases may be 10%, 20%, 50%, 75% and other degrees.
Therefore we still need an effective moral and ethical system to guide every one to progress from whatever their current based of being “spontaneously good”.
Note theists have never accepted my premise 1 since human since conceived it, from thousands of years ago.
But the reality is humans are still discussing it and many theists have accepted premise 1 and became non-theists.
So it does not matter if theist do not accept my P1 [by default they Must not accept it] but regardless we in a philosophical forum must discuss it and give our views.
Why Humanity must discuss the above framework regardless theist agree or not?
One of the consequences of the Framework encompassing 1-7 is this;
With such a link and cause-effects factors between the two, any concerned citizen of humanity must strive to find the root causes and seek solutions.
Are you a concern citizen of humanity?
Well, let’s make everything acceptable so that nobody feels guilty or bad or sad.
Let Johnny have sex with a hundred women, girls, men, boys, children, he-shes. Let him father a dozen children who he abandons . Let him be the cause of uncounted abortions. Let him spread STDs.
Just don’t let him feel bad about anything that he does.
Humans has an inbuilt algorithm for morality and progress in morality which can be guilt free from a autocratic dictatorial non-existent God. So even without immutable religious moral standards, Johnny will spontaneously progress to be good along with the moral consciousness of the collective.
Note humanity has progress naturally with moral issues like slavery [near eradication] and racism [reasonable progress] on a collective basis without any immutable dictatorial moral standards from theistic religion.
Your proposal ‘let Johnny be bad’ is immoral in itself and out of alignment with the spontaneous progress of the collective.
My approach is as a concerned citizen of humanity I strive [within my competences, i.e. philosophy, religion/spirituality, problem-solving techniques and others] to find the root causes and seek solutions to the problems faced by humanity.
Your views seem to be twisted.
The approach to a solution is driven by alternatives and optimal problem-solving techniques.
If the technique require commonality, then we focus on what is common, and if it requires finding out differences or promoting differences than we focus on the differences.
In this particular case of problem-solving the main starter is to trace to the ultimate root and all secondary causes. We have not even agree on what is the ultimate root and secondary causes yet, and I have not presented any full encompassing solutions, so how did you arrive at the idea the focus in towards differences? You need to give more supporting arguments to be credible.
If Capuchin in their natural evolution has some sense of justice [moral standard] then we can infer humans up the highest levels would have a greater potential of natural impulse for morality plus those developed from our collective consciousness.
