Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

[yazdi]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@psyah

Peace yazdi

… Finally you have understood me … I know this because your counter has changed tune. Your current objection is now a better one. I agree there is a slight adjustment required only in the conclusion however and may be an additional premise is also required.

that would be:

That the preservation of our faith’s understanding is rooted in trusting the ‘ijma’ a of scholars. This part may be contentious for a Muslim from your POV and not so for a Muslim from my POV. We can discuss our differences at this level too …

My conclusion however needs to change to include the phrase “a valid conclusion would be that”…

Okay now we have more or less consensus on how a rational discussion must take place. Can we move forward and see how you will proceed on your earlier claims.
You claimed that you know certain clergymen who can justify the faith with logic (muntaq).. Your POV is your decision to have faith in your interpretation of religion is because of these clergymen who look pious, who are respected by other clergymen, who are admired by general people who are around them, have spent a lifetime in pursuit of truth, and a lot of people praise them. I am not interested in these credentials. I am interested in what they say. I want to know how these clergymen will rationally justify faith.

So please make a premise and then rationally conclude in a manner where faith will be justified keeping emotions-presuppositions aside.

@psyah

If you are saying that your version of Islam is purely based on whether it rings true according to your intellect and if not it deserves rejection that is a clear cut position and we can discuss that against my position which is that we should use rationale where appropriate … And accept doctrinal and scholarly sources on the proviso that they are the majority opinion (majority basis understanding itself is a reasoned and intellectual approach to a problem) … It makes rational sense to follow the majority in matters that have a spectrum of opinions. It also makes rational sense to accept the opinion of a scholar who has devoted his life to the subject matter. It also makes rational sense that we put trust in those scholars who have been given sanction by other scholars. Further trust is only given to those scholars who show a beautiful character … That people only praise them when in contact with them.

You are making wrong assumptions about my faith. I have clearly stated that my faith is not an intellectual or rational decision. My POV is everyone’s faith including mine is an emotional decision, and I am honest enough to admit it. You have certain clergymen who have rationally-logically shown you that your faith is true. Now you have to show me those arguments which will justify faith with rationality-logic. If you are not able to prove your POV, my claim will become valid that everyone’s faith is an emotional decision. In that case either you are a confused gentleman who could never recognize this fact earlier or you were intentionally committing dishonesty to gain respect from gullible forum readers by telling them a lie.

Now you should stop making some useless premises and conclusions which are of no interest to me.. please come straight to the point of justifying your faith through rationality without presupposing anything in your premises. Your conclusion should be derived through rational analysis which must satisfy the requirements of muntaq (logic).

According to you:

Thesis: Faith as explained by some reputable clergymen who are sufficiently praised by some people can be proved through muntaq (logic) fulfilling all the requirements of rationality and philosophy (without presupposing the premises which is the basic requirement of philosophy).

…