A lot of people around the world have a lot of faith in paradise or heaven. In the Middle East, in particular, notions of paradise carry a lot of weight, as some feel compelled to kill and die for the sake of their ultimate reward in paradise. And others, in addition, are willing to tolerate the injustice of the present, and do nothing about it, for the sake of the justice that will be meted out in heaven.

 

Frankly, I choose to believe that paradise does not exist, for two reasons: one, because paradise makes no sense to me, and two, because a belief in paradise may do more harm than good.

 

Why does paradise make no sense? Every version of paradise that I can think of quickly devolves into the realm of absurdity. Let's consider the possibilities:

 

Reuniting with loved ones in heaven: Suppose, when we die, we reunite with our loved ones in heaven. Presumably we would have quite an extended family waiting for us up there, considering all the generations which have passed on. Now, consider just one question: Did you ever spend an extended period of time with your extended family? And if so, did you consider that experience to be a "heavenly" experience? I rest my case.

 

The Garden of Eden version of heaven: Suppose we imagine an enchanted paradise where all our needs are met, and where happiness reigns supreme for all eternity. Can you imagine such a place? Some of us picture 72 virgins attending to our every whim and fancy. Don't get me started. The cost of headscarves alone would probably break the bank. But I, for one, picture the Caribbean Islands: turquoise waters, sunny blue skies, palm trees swaying in the wind, luscious frozen drinks, a delicious international buffet, and a courteous hotel staff waiting on me hand and foot. Sounds heavenly, doesn't it? But consider the time factor...eternity. How am I supposed to drag this vacation scene out for eternity? How many mystery thrillers can I read already? And who will write them up there in heaven; some saintly best-selling author? Doesn't quite work, does it.

 

The heaven where the soul reunites with God: Suppose I die, and my soul drifts upward and reunites with my Creator. At this point, my soul has no body with which to function, no brain with which to think, and no memory with which to remember. In short, no nothing; no resemblance to human life. Therefore, the soul, whatever it is, is not me, and therefore it is not me up there in heaven, but rather a disembodied spiritual essence of me which I can't really relate to, try as I might.

 

So, paradise makes no sense to me, but why is a belief in paradise so harmful? Because a belief in paradise or heaven defers to the afterlife what needs to be done right here and right now. The justice we await in heaven should be the justice that is meted out here on earth. Believing in heaven can inhibit us from doing what we need to, today, to make this world a better place, and to make our lives here more purposeful and sustainable. And for all those fervent potential martyrs and suicide bombers out there; do you really want to gamble with the here and now, on the possibly false hope for things to come?

 

The truth is that heaven and hell are with us right here, and right now. We have it within our power, and in our own hands, to make this life a paradise on earth, or to render the possibility of paradise null and void by making our lives here a living hell. We have the potential for paradise right here and right now. All the necessary ingredients are already in place. But it is up to us to realize that potential, as is the case with all aspects of human potential. Which way do we go as a species?

 

Suppose I'm wrong. It could happen. I say we cease to exist when we die, like we were before we were born. That's not so scary, is it? You don't really worry about how it was for you before you were born, unless you're deeply in need of therapy. But suppose paradise does in fact exist. Wouldn't it make more sense to say:

 

"Well, since I don't know for sure, I choose to believe that my life here on earth may be all there is, and I will therefore make the most of my life, because my life, right here and right now, may well be all that I may ever have?" That way, if heaven does exist, it will be like the icing on the cake, to be enjoyed after living a full and happy life. If, however, heaven doesn't exist, then we will still have enjoyed a full and happy life.

 

You see how common sense works? It covers you coming and going. Any way you turn, it's right there, ready to guide your way along the path of life, like a moral compass you carry within you. It's that special gift, the gift that comes packaged in a box, the box of core truths and universal values.

Every once in a while we hear of an "honor killing" carried out by a family member against one of their own. A recent article about an Iranian father who stoned his daughter to death, for bringing "dishonor" to him and to his family, is a case in point. The girl may, or may not, have consorted with a man without the father's approval, but he took it upon himself to restore his "honor" in the cruelest way possible, by taking the life of his own flesh and blood.

 

How is it that people come to believe in such things? And the Muslim world is not the only place where such thinking abounds. You could be riding a subway or a bus in a modern American city, and you make the mistake of looking at a young man in the wrong way. He pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head for "disrespecting" him, simply by looking at him in a way that, in his mind, demeaned his sense of "honor."

 

A lot of times you see this kind of thinking among the poor and among the uneducated, but not always. If you are poor and uneducated, and if the weight of a hard life weighs heavily down upon you, then you man find yourself grasping at straws trying to reclaim a sense of honor and a sense of dignity. When you have nothing in your life that gives you dignity, or respect, you may end up looking for it in the strangest places: by stoning your daughter, or by shooting a fellow traveler for looking at you the wrong way.

 

What can I say? We have come to believe in a lot of stupid things. Why? Because many of us have no other reference point, and because sometimes it's just easier to accept what we are told is right, instead of thinking it out for ourselves. But if we think things out before acting out, we may think twice about acting out in the wrong way, and against our own best interest.

 

Common sense would suggest that there is no honor in killing. Honor is not bestowed on us as a matter of right, but is earned by each of us with the good things we do for one another. We are not entitled to honor. We earn it as we go. Common sense would also suggest that we were put on this good earth to live; not to kill, and not to die, before our time.

 

But poverty and ignorance do play a part, as many of you rightly point out. They make it more possible for stupid thinking to grab hold. If a father, for example, has a decent job, and a decent education, and is able to provide adequately for his family, then chances are good that he will find his sense of honor in the good things he has, and does, without resorting to the perverse notion of "honor killing," as a source of honor. If his daughter goes astray, he will find the strength, within himself, to set her straight with love and understanding, because his life gives him the self-respect he needs to respect others. But if that same father is left poor, and ignorant, he will find it difficult to respect others, even his own family, when he has no respect for himself.

 

People the world over will have to begin rethinking some of their deeply held beliefs, so that a semblance of order  has a chance to emerge. We will need a new framework for rational thought based on universal notions of common sense-the collective wisdom borne of shared experience. We will also need to invest in one another, as many of you so rightly point out, so that the moderating influence of education and prosperity could begin to neutralize the influence of extremist thinking. Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the kindness that we owe it to ourselves, to show one another.

This post is dedicated to Mohammad Memarian, who rightfully questions whether it is possible to discern a universally shared ideology based on notions of common sense, which would find widespread agreement throughout humanity at large.

 

As some of you may already know, I believe that the answer to world peace is Selling a Vision of Hope, which consists of five parts, like the five fingers of a hand:

 

The thumb is for Ideology: Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to one another with Common Sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

 

The index finger is for Investment: Invest in one another with projects that resonate with hope, that create jobs, and that protect the environment.

 

The middle finger is for Hope: Use Ideology and Investment to Sell a Vision of Hope-a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom-on the Arab street, in the Muslim world, and in the world as a whole.

 

The ring finger if for Diplomacy: Sustain the Hope with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to bolster a Vision of Hope, and to carry it forward, such as: Empowering Women, Student and Cultural Exchanges, Media Campaigns, Expanding the Peace Corps, and International Conferences.

 

The pinky is for the Fight: When absolutely necessary, fight, and fight hard, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose.

 

As you can see, Selling a Vision of Hope has many aspects to it, but it begins with a new ideological perspective, a new framework for rational discourse, a new way of thinking and speaking called an Ideology of Common Sense. So what exactly is this new ideology all about, and is it something that people the world over are likely to buy into?

 

Let's start with a few questions. Do you believe that a lot of what we believe just doesn't make any sense? And do you believe that the world is moving to a place where we have to begin making sense of our lives, if we are to survive as a species? Do you believe that some of the ideological nonsense we hold on to so tightly is holding us back from taking the steps that are needed to solve the problems we face? And if so, is there an ideological framework which is better suited to the requirements of our current realities? And is it just possible that this new ideological framework is not new at all, but was given to us as a gift, in the very beginning of our stay here on this good earth?

 

What is Common Sense? We use it every day of the week; except when we're drunk. But what exactly is it? Try defining "common sense" in one sentence. Not that easy, is it?

 

For me, Common Sense is the intuitive wisdom to conform our thoughts and actions to universally shared truths and values. Don't blow a circuit; it's not all that complicated. The "intuitive wisdom" is the wisdom that comes from within. It's inside you. "Thoughts and actions" because it's not enough to think straight; you have to act on what you know to be true. "Truths and values:" Truths are the realities we perceive. Values are the realities we aspire to. And why are these truths and values "universal?" Certain truths and values are so logical, so fundamental, and so self-evident, that they are universally perceived as true, and therefore universally accepted.

 

Let me suggest, with your kind indulgence, three such universal principles: The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good. I call them the 3-G's for short.

 

The Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would have them treat you," is found in every major religion on earth. Why? Because it makes sense. That's why. You don't kill me, and I don't kill you, and we can both continue on our merry way. It's that simple, and therefore, true. What if The Golden Rule would have us treat each other well, by Investing in one another, especially as part and parcel of a truly Global Economy?

 

The Golden Mean: "The truth is usually somewhere in the middle between two extremes." In other words, truth is not an extremist position, but is rather sitting somewhere in the middle. Aristotle first introduced the idea, but the Prophet Muhammad and the Jewish scholar Maimonides subscribed to it as well. What if the Golden Mean would have us moderate our views by using notions of Common Sense as our Ideology?

 

The Greatest Good: "Do what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest numbers." First enunciated by Jeremy Bentham as part of his philosophy of Utilitarianism, this principle is reminiscent of the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya, a Muslim scholar. What if The Greatest Good would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a vision of Hope?

 

Putting it all together, the formula for world peace is not all that complicated. As Thomas Jefferson might have put it: "We find this truth to be self-evident: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope." And with Hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

 

This gives you a feel, all be it incomplete at best, for how an Ideology of Common Sense could help to bring us together, and to give us the language to be used in solving some of the big ticket problems we face, like: Global Warming, Poverty, Disease, Ideological Extremism, Nuclear Proliferation, Violence, and the like.

 

In a better world, Common Sense, as opposed to ideological extremism, will inspire our thinking, and inform our speech. The collective wisdom of humanity-wisdom borne of years of hard won experience-will help repair this fractured world, and will focus our collective energies with common purpose. In our fractured world, Common Sense is the Common Denominator!

 

Just as mathematics and music share a recognized universality, so too can our ability to decipher what is right from what is wrong be conferred a certain sense of universality, by viewing such issues through the prism of what makes sense. Only then will we be truly ready for the next stage of human development. Only then will the potential for peace, prosperity, and freedom, be truly realized. Only then will we come to know the true destiny we were meant to share.

Sometimes I wonder: What is harder, waging war, or making peace?

 

Waging war is not all that easy. In war we kill, and die, and suffer the devastation of wartime injuries, both physical and psychological, not to mention the loss of national treasure. But to my mind, as hard as war is, making peace is that much harder. Why? In war, we fight for what we believe. And we all feel good about fighting for our beliefs. It gives us goose bumps just thinking about it.

 

But for peace to happen we often have to give up some of our deeply held beliefs, in a search for something we can believe in even more, like peace. And it's hard to let go of our beliefs. It's like letting go of a part of ourselves, because to a great extent, especially in modern times, we are what we believe. Not that it had to be that way, and not that it was that way for most of our existence as a species, but it is that way today.

 

And so it seems that our beliefs are at the heart of issues of war and peace. What we choose to believe will very much determine whether we head toward war, or toward peace. The question arises, therefore: What are the legitimate grounds for belief? Or put another way: How do we know that what we believe is true?

 

Would it be too much to suggest that most of us come to most of our beliefs by sheer chance? Let's take religion as an example, since religious beliefs are often a cause of violence and war. Isn't it the case that most of us adopt our religious beliefs due mostly to the families we happen to be born into? For the most part, we are Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists because our families are. A Jew could have been a Muslim if only he were born into a different family. Once in a while people convert, but for the most part, that is the exception, not the rule.

 

Does it make sense that the accident of birth confers legitimacy to our beliefs? And what kind of legitimacy are we talking about? We're talking about the legitimacy that would have us kill one another in God's name, no less, because somebody else's beliefs are different from our own. Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

 

Maybe we can point to other sources of legitimacy for our beliefs, sources which can truly confirm the validity of our beliefs. Maybe we can point to Holy Scripture as the confirmation of God's truth. The trouble is, however, that all religions contain scriptural passages which are not palatable to the modern mind. In Judaism, for example, the book of Deuteronomy tells us that if a man marries a woman, and she turns out not to be a virgin, he is supposed to kill her on her father's doorstep. I think it's safe to say that Jews, throughout the ages, chose to ignore this passage. Why? Because it makes no sense. That's why. And take a look at the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. That's a trip if ever I took one. And what about the "72 virgins" in Islam? If I'm not mistaken it's a mistake in translation. It's really "72 white raisins."

 

Why do I bring into question the legitimacy of religious belief? Am I against religion? No. I consider religion as a legitimate pathway to God. But as with all other pathways; we need to stick to the path to get to where we're going. And when we sense that we're heading in the wrong direction, we check our compass to get back on track. And to my mind, the best and only compass we have, when it really comes down to it, is the universal moral compass of Common Sense.

 

Because so much is on the line, we may no longer be able to afford the luxury of false belief, whether religious, or any other belief, for that matter. False belief will embolden us to go to war for the wrong reasons. We may have been able to get away with it in the past, but only at the expense of scores of millions of corpses left behind in the wake of false ideologies. But the potential devastation of modern weaponry makes the consequences of false belief too costly to bear.

 

And so, I submit to you, for your consideration, the possibility that there is only one source for legitimate belief, and that is our shared notion of Common Sense. If an idea makes sense to you, then believe in it. If it doesn't, then let it go. We can no longer afford to let the accident of birth, or the content of scripture, or the persuasiveness of religious leaders, to convince us of the truth, when deep down we know that the truth is to be found elsewhere.

 

As between reason and faith, I prefer to believe in what makes sense. And I have come to believe that only through the language of Common Sense does God actually talk to us. The rest is pretense. And pretense will give us only the semblance of truth, but never the real thing.

As some of you may already know, I believe that the world is ripe for a new ideological framework; what I call An Ideology of Common Sense. Instead of believing what we want to believe, it may well be time to begin believing in what makes sense.

 

If the world is already coming together technologically and economically, it makes sense to come together ideologically as well, in order to pave the way for the unprecedented level of cooperation that a world economy will require. And so, I would like to devote a few posts to the idea of An Ideology of Common Sense, and with your kind indulgence, I begin with God.

 

It may not be politically correct to talk so openly about God. Who am I, after all, to even begin to explain the mystery that is God? And yet, we may have no choice but to begin talking about such things, because in the absence of common sense talk, people tend to grab hold of notions which make no sense, and which can easily threaten our very existence on this good earth. Some may say, "Let's blow ourselves up in God's name." I say, "Let God speak for Himself, and when He does, I suspect He'll use the language of Common Sense, as has been His custom since the beginning of time."

 

So we begin with first principles. Does God exist? I think He does. How do I know this? Well, scientists theorize that some 13.7 billion years ago there was a great explosion, appropriately named The Big Bang, which brought the universe into existence. Before The Big Bang there was nothing. And after, there was everything.

 

So to my mind; whoever or whatever caused that explosion to happen is certainly "godlike," in every sense of the word, and is therefore God. Call it The Big Bang, or a force of nature, or a random confluence of events...call it what you will, but whoever or whatever caused the universe to come into being is God.

 

This mode of analysis is reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God. I thought up of this proof myself, I want you to know, only to find out that Aquinas beat me to the punch some 700 years ago. Must have been quite an ambitious little fellow, God bless his soul.

 

What else do we know about God? Um...pretty much nothing. That's right folks, you heard it here first. We really don't know anything about God other than the fact that He created the universe. Listening to us talk, you'd think that we knew everything there was to know about God. But if we are true to ourselves, we really don't. And in that vacuum of knowledge, since we know nothing about God, we proceed to create Him in our own image.

 

Here's how this craziness works:

• God created the universe.
• As part of His creation, God created us in His image.
• Therefore, we are creators as well.
• As part of our creation, we choose to create God, in our image.
• Since we are imperfect, we taint God with our imperfections, and fashion Him to suit our needs.

So what's wrong with this picture? By tainting God with human frailties, we can easily delude and manipulate ourselves into believing that God would have us do all sorts of crazy things, in the same way that we convince ourselves to act loony with respect to one another. And once we come to believe that we are acting in God's name, no less, how difficult it becomes to curb our enthusiasm for the nasty things we choose to do.

 

And so, I got to thinking: What concept of God would make more sense? In answering the question: Who is God; I would say, with all due respect for other opinions and beliefs, that I think of God as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe.

 

In other words, since all we really know about God is that He created the universe, then it would make sense to associate Him with that creation, and with the various forms of energy that it took to bring that creation about, including: radiation, heat, electricity, kinetic energy, and of course, the energy of intelligence.

 

Does it help us to make sense of things to say that God is the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe? I think it does.

 

For example, if someone asks, "Do you have a personal relationship with God?" you could say, "I certainly do. His creative energy flows through me, and mine flows through Him."

 

If someone asks, "Why is there evil in the world?" You could say, "God is the Creator of all things. If He wanted to create good, He had no choice but to create the possibility of evil, because we could not know what is good without also knowing evil, good defining itself by its juxtaposition to evil."

 

If somebody says, "Let's kill one another in God's name," you could say, "Since God created each and every one of us in His image, when we choose to kill one another, aren't we, in effect, spitting at God's face?"

 

It is time to make sense of things. Don't you think? And the one thing we were given to bring about a semblance of order to this world is the notion and the language of Common Sense.