Is it the matter of understanding ?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Is accepting religion is a matter of understanding, I mean that the person who understands better will accept religion, because religion is the better knowledge( as claimed by the religious people) and the person who fails to understand the higher level of knowldge will be against the religion.
Our efforts towards proving the religion correct and proving greatness of God imply that We accept the above statements that,

If we explain religion people can understand it and be religious.

But

What will happen if you explain and someone is not understanding you, You give him all the reasons which are meant to explain him the greatness of religion but the other fellow still questioning and not understanding

Now

Should He deserves punishment for his this behavior of not understanding the greatest religion, Which God presented as the Final Religion to mankind.

OR

We let him go, by simply saying that this is too difficult for him…

My final question is…

What In all this is the sin of the person who is not understanding? and for which He will be putted in the HELL? Because the tool ( brain ) to understand is after all created by God not that man himself…

waiting for responses either positive or negative..

2

Re: Is it the matter of understanding ?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by words: *

What In all this is the sin of the person who is not understanding? and for which He will be putted in the HELL? Because the tool ( brain ) to understand is after all created by God not that man himself...

[/QUOTE]

a man whose brain does not enable him to distinguish between good and bad, or between right and wrong is not held responsbile for his actions and according to Islam will not be punished....

but for those who have a fully functional brain and then opt not to use it for thinking ni the right way, they r guilty and they will be punished duly....

3

aham

4

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by armughal:

a man whose brain does not enable him to distinguish between good and bad, or between right and wrong is not held responsbile for his actions and according to Islam will not be punished....

[/QUOTE]

Your reply gives an impression that, the people who don't believe in religion can't differentiate between good and bad so they are not responsible for what they are doing...

If not then,

What you think then, Can someone who understands the religion ( as stated by religious people ) with a working brain take the risk of an everlasting punishment of Hell, meant for non-belivers( as stated by religion ) ?

5

Hello everyone,

Mr. words,
I see that you've put the same question on other places as well. I don't think that you'll get ANY SATISFACTORY answer here as well. Moreover I dont think that any religious person on earth can provide you an answer. Why? quite simply, because it's one of the contradictions common to all religions. How it is a contradiction? Simple, they claim that everything that exists (both objects and events) are created and controlled by God(s), if that is true than we can't be held responsible for ANYHING that we (His creations) do. But on the otherhand, religion hold everyone responsible for their actions.

The best anwer they can provide you is that we have some 'limited free-will'. But if this is true then God is no more an ABSOLUTE authority as he has shared some of his authority with us. Moreover,  David Hume (an eiteenth century philosopher) proved that the notion of 'Free-Will' refutes itself. Here is his ideas in brief:

Imagine that your actions are not determined by what events came before. Then your actions are, it seems, completely random. Moreover, and most importantly for Hume, they are not determined by your character—your desires, your preferences, your values, etc. How can we hold someone responsible for an action that did not result from his character? How can we hold someone responsible for an action that randomly occurred? Free will seems to require determinism, because otherwise, the agent and the action wouldn't be connected in the way required of freely chosen actions. So now, nearly everyone believes in free will, free will seems inconsistent with determinism, and free will seems to require determinism.

6

very interesting, if often visited discussion.

my feeling is that faith is a very personal thing, for this very reason. what may compel you to believe, might perhaps be unconvincing for another. what might convince him, might seem irrelevant to you.

the key to this lies in the fact that there are so many ways to convince yourself of faith, the "signs" Quran often mentions, the world operates at so many levels to convince the mind of the presence of the Divine.. that there is something there for everyone.. if one is only willing to seek it.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdul Qudoos: *
Hello everyone,

Mr. words,
I see that you've put the same question on other places as well. I don't think that you'll get ANY SATISFACTORY answer here as well. Moreover I dont think that any religious person on earth can provide you an answer. Why? quite simply, because it's one of the contradictions common to all religions. How it is a contradiction? Simple, they claim that everything that exists (both objects and events) are created and controlled by God(s), if that is true than we can't be held responsible for ANYHING that we (His creations) do. But on the otherhand, religion hold everyone responsible for their actions.

The best anwer they can provide you is that we have some 'limited free-will'. But if this is true then God is no more an ABSOLUTE authority as he has shared some of his authority with us. Moreover,  David Hume (an eiteenth century philosopher) proved that the notion of 'Free-Will' refutes itself. Here is his ideas in brief:

Imagine that your actions are not determined by what events came before. Then your actions are, it seems, completely random. Moreover, and most importantly for Hume, they are not determined by your character—your desires, your preferences, your values, etc. How can we hold someone responsible for an action that did not result from his character? How can we hold someone responsible for an action that randomly occurred? Free will seems to require determinism, because otherwise, the agent and the action wouldn't be connected in the way required of freely chosen actions. So now, nearly everyone believes in free will, free will seems inconsistent with determinism, and free will seems to require determinism.
[/QUOTE]

I believe determinism versus free will might be another debate.

On this, I too am not completely clear.

A computer scientist in the making, I always view this from a artificial intelligence perspective.

Suppose I create an intelligent agent that behaves in this world based on two mechanisms. Certain built in knowledge (instinct), a mechanism for learning from experience, and a reasoning system based on both unlearned and learned knowledge. Any action an agent takes is a product of its reasoning system's outputs based on its knowledge base. Now consider the sources of this knowledge base. Built in knowledge, the agent is not responsible for. Nor is the agent responsible for the sequence of events that cause it learn certain rules (sequence of disappointments leading to cynicism..). Nor is the agent responsible for its reasoning system, which again, is either built in, or learned.

Why should the agent be held accountable if at the end of the day, the agent succeeds or fails?

There has to be something missing, something intangible, in this simplification.. I am yet to recieve an intelligent answer as to what.

8

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Ravage:

my feeling is that faith is a very personal thing, for this very reason. what may compel you to believe, might perhaps be unconvincing for another. what might convince him, might seem irrelevant to you.

[/QUOTE]

Yes it is personal matter, But if I speak morally, But practically speaking it isn't because One persons belief can effect other person's life, Not only effect but infact can end the other persons's life... So How it is personal ?

Secondly If there are rational basis for someone's beliefs then it is not possible that they are unconvincing for other person. If there are irrational basis for someone's belief then they are not even convincing for the same person, if some how gets aware about the irrationality of his beliefs. Your above assertion actually denying the existence of analytical logic.

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Ravage:

the key to this lies in the fact that there are so many ways to convince yourself of faith, the "signs" Quran often mentions, the world operates at so many levels to convince the mind of the presence of the Divine.. that there is something there for everyone.. if one is only willing to seek it.

[/QUOTE]

I would like to know about some of the ways if not all that one can get convinced of the faith. Specifically what makes you to get convinced about your faith...

9

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Ravage:

Suppose I create an intelligent agent that behaves in this world based on two mechanisms. Certain built in knowledge (instinct), a mechanism for learning from experience, and a reasoning system based on both unlearned and learned knowledge. Any action an agent takes is a product of its reasoning system's outputs based on its knowledge base. Now consider the sources of this knowledge base. Built in knowledge, the agent is not responsible for. Nor is the agent responsible for the sequence of events that cause it learn certain rules (sequence of disappointments leading to cynicism..). Nor is the agent responsible for its reasoning system, which again, is either built in, or learned.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with you in this, Actually free-will and determinism is still an open problem. The kind of free-will gauranteed by religion never exists. We, for what we are depend on two things,

1) what we have inherited
2) The enviornment

None of this is in our controle so how are we accountable for our actions.