Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
A lot of we believe in science comes from faith.
Utmost faith on people who said something based on some unproven or unseen 'observation'.
There is no difference in many beliefs of science and religion.
The whole debate of trying to put down religion based on lack of some kind of material evidence is wrong.
**
A lot of scientific beliefs do not have material proofs either, but 'material people' just believe anything their scientific prophets say.**
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Peace yazdi
As I said earlier ... There is nothing logically wrong with a circular argument. Just check it up on Wikipedia. The fact is ... I agree with that it cannot be used for arguing a point and hence I am not using circular logic in MY arguments. This does not seem to compute with you at all. A valid argument means that it is rational ... Using a circular argument as a proof for something is a fallacy ... Because neither the conclusion nor the premise(s) are trusted.
But if you analyse what I said earlier you have to admit it is a sound argument. Let's repeat it here. Then analyse it.
Muslims believe that our religion is true We believe that our Lord has given us guidance We believe that He Knows all things
It follows from these premises that if we are told in our guidance that such and such a question should be avoided then we take it on faith.
now the premises are what are written in red and the conclusion is what is in blue ... Just like this argument.
If it can hold an audible conversation with you then it is a human ...
However, you can't suddenly turn my premises into my conclusion and conclusion into my premises ... Of course it would be wrong to infer that "if it is a human then it can hold an audible conversation with you" because not all people can "talk" like young babies and mutes.
In order for an argument to be sound it needs to have a true premises and true conclusion.
I already understand that perhaps you don't personally believe, "our religion is true, The Lord has given us guidance, and He Knows all things", but since Muslims do believe that (at this moment in time I am not arguing for the validity of why we believe in these to be true, merely the fact that we do), it follows that the blue statement would be consistent for a Muslim to do.
However, I also believe that it is possible to entertain hard questions ... And I stated that there are people well versed in mantiq (logic), and many of them are from the ulema ... Probably not the sort of alims you are used to yazdi ...
So I asked for those questions so we can look at them now and here ... We have a process of iterative belief, which others can confuse to be circular ... We can look into this subject ... Of how belief should be formed by Muslims ... It does follow howevwr that if one person does all the hard work and others follow him in his conclusions ... As long as he is right then they will be "in the right" too ... Hence they do not need to undergo the same exercises that the forerunner has had to go through.
If only you had read my post a bit more carefully. The problem is not only circular reasoning.. but it starts with presupposition of a premise. Rational, critical, logical or meaningful argument can not start with a presupposition. All the answers you will give to my questions (which you are preempting will satisfy you but not me) will start from presupposition. I will term your answers as emotional answers while you will persist that these are logical, rational and philosophical answers.
[quote]
However, I also believe that it is possible to entertain hard questions ... And I stated that there are people well versed in mantiq (logic), and many of them are from the ulema ... Probably not the sort of alims you are used to yazdi ...
[/quote]
It's good that you have come across such clergymen who you think are well versed in logic. I hope they also know the the basic requirement of rationality-critical analysis.. which prohibits you presuppose a premise. As long as we call an apple an apple.. there is no problem.** Faith is related to emotions and is largely presupposed without evidence and reason**. Please tell me the name of those clergymen who will have a rational answer for faith orientation without presupposing..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
A lot of we believe in science comes from faith.
.**
Can you name that valid science which comes from faith?
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") = a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained. Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ Don't you think a person needs to be emotionally detached to reach a reasonable conclusion? Emotion often clouds your judgement.
Take the "ground zero mosque" (it was a community center a few blocks away) as an example. People who were angry about 9/11 were using that as a justification for not allowing it to be built. According to them it "feels wrong". In reality, the US constitution protects all religions, and the mosque can be built anywhere once the land is legally purchased.
dont be so rational lest you lose you faith. As for as human being judgement is concern no one can be free from emotions.
we have a lot of example where we got two different judgement from similar(secular) judicial systems on same issue.
[QUOTE]
p.s emotional detachment is not the same as being devoid of emotion
[/QUOTE]
exactly, Yazdi should be neutral if someone wants to justify his/her faith by logic and reason, but he continues insulting those who are emotionally attached to faith and try to justify logically. Its kind of intollerance.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
dont be so rational lest you lose you faith. As for as human being judgement is concern no one can be free from emotions. we have a lot of example where we got two different judgement from similar(secular) judicial systems on same issue.
exactly, Yazdi should be neutral if someone wants to justify his/her faith by logic and reason, but he continues insulting those who are emotionally attached to faith and try to justify logically. Its kind of intollerance.
Why I should be not rational? Why should I accept dishonesty when someone is trying to justify faith with logic?
Why people with faith have to be dishonest about it?
I have not insulted anyone. I have just pointed out the flawed rationality of justifying faith through logic with presupposed premises. It is only a trust or belief which can not be settled by evidence. I am not against faith.. I am only against dishonesty relating to logically justifying faith.
And where is the intolerance?
May be my deficient intelligence can not see the intolerance. Please give me some rational answers without slapping fatwas on my personal faith system..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Faith = something you believe to be true for which you do not have any proof
"I have faith in a Deity who has created everything around us including us and who does not want us to hurt anyone. " This is my faith and it is an emotional decision. I am not dishonest to term this as a philosophical, rational, logical or scientific decision. I have faith in certain non literal interpretation of ancient scripture and this is also an emotional decision. If I try to present my emotional decision as rational, logical, scientific I'll be committing dishonesty. You also have faith in some other interpretation of ancient scriptures which may require you to believe in something else.. but again it is faith. My faith against your faith.. my interpretation against your interpretation.. but both can not be proven. Both are emotional decisions.
I have no problem as long as faith is termed as faith. If you call these clergymen "men of faith", "momin", "aimaan wale"... there is no problem. Their premise is not based on logical, critical, rational or scientific grounds. It's just faith which is based on emotional grounds. Terming them aalim is dishonest.
There is nothing wrong with you having faith.. but if you are honest (which I think your faith requires you to be), you can not equate your emotional decision with rationality, logic, science, or philosophy.
I am only emotionally attached to the faith system, and I am honest to admit it unlike some others who try to equate faith with rationality, ilm, logic, philosophy, or science (Zakir Naik comes to mind)...
..
Absolutely wrong, you are NOT emotionally attached to the faith system, you are using name "faith".
Let us look at example of emotional attachment of two people, person A is emotionally attached to person B.
Let say person B is not right person for person A.
person A would not like to understand/admit that person B is wrong person for him. Even if his/her freinds try to corect him he would not. That is how you live your daily life, and it is emotional attachment.
person A would rather justify to his/her friends that person B is right person for him. that is called emotional attachment.
Ok, let say being rational, person A admit that person B is not a right person for him, but emotional attachment would force him be connected with person B. But in this case as time passes, these emotions should become less intense and lose emotional attachment, thats how you could lose(God forbid) your faith.
Kia kehtay hain k, Jo banda acha lagta ho oos ki buri batain bhi achi lagti hain. :)
p.s I am just trying to realize you are not emotioally attached to faith.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Absolutely wrong, you are NOT emotionally attached to the faith system, you are using name "faith". Let us look at example of emotional attachment of two people, person A is emotionally attached to person B. Let say person B is not right person for person A. person A would not like to understand/admit that person B is wrong person for him. Even if his/her freinds try to corect him he would not. That is how you live your daily life, and it is emotional attachment. person A would rather justify to his/her friends that person B is right person for him. that is called emotional attachment.
Ok, let say being rational, person A admit that person B is not a right person for him, but emotional attachment would force him be connected with person B. But in this case as time passes, these emotions should become less intense and lose emotional attachment, thats how you could lose(God forbid) your faith.
Kia kehtay hain k, Jo banda acha lagta ho oos ki buri batain bhi achi lagti hain. :) p.s I am just trying to realize you are not emotioally attached to faith.
It's useless to engage in an intellectual discussion with you..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Peace yazdi
What I wrote in red are not presuppositions … 
…
You are not looking at what is written with a clear mind … You are giving the text a meaning that I have not given … My premises are true … Ok let’s do this one at a time …
Muslims believe our religion is true … Do we or don’t we believe that? Answer … TRUE we do.
As I said I’m not stating “Islam is true” I’m saying “we believe that it is true …” … The key word being “believe” … I have also stated earlier that at this stage I’m not justifying that belief … That would be a different argument …
the argument for justifying belief in our faith is through another form of reasoning … It is not circular, because it is not an ontological construct … Understand this … And we can move on.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Why I should be not rational? Why should I accept dishonesty when someone is trying to justify faith with logic?
Why people with faith have to be dishonest about it?
I have not insulted anyone. I have just pointed out the flawed rationality of justifying faith through logic with presupposed premises. It is only a trust or belief which can not be settled by evidence. I am not against faith.. I am only against dishonesty relating to logically justifying faith.
And where is the intolerance? May be my deficient intelligence can not see the intolerance. Please give me some rational answers without slapping fatwas on my personal faith system..
It's useless to engage in an intellectual discussion with you..
dear look at your post above, you want to be rational about and be emoationally attached to faith. you dont what are you talking about.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
I know exactly what you are saying.. if only you could read my post in totality.
Your premise “Muslim believe in a certain religion to be true”… When you are using the word muslim you have to take in to account all the different interpretations of muslim religion. Otherwise you have to reword your premise as “muslims” following interpretations of a certain clergyman..
Your conclusion can only be applicable to your interpretation of muslim. You can not make a sweeping statement for everyone like:
Your concluding statement making a decision on my behalf also who does not consider this to be true. My interpretation of “muslim” religion does not stop me from asking such and such question…
I am a muslim and do not believe that the same God who has given us intelligence does not want us to use it. This is my faith and I do not want to defend my faith in front of you.
It’s just like saying:
Pakistanis believe they are patriotic (Premise)
They will all vote for PTI (conclusion)
You may believe that all patriotic Pakistanis must vote for PTI.. but as long as there are other Pakistanis also who consider themselves patriotic.. and are not going to vote for PTI.. you can not make such a conclusion.
So meray bhai.. Muslim religion is subject to different interpretation.. It’s my interpretation against your interpretation. It’s not a debate about whose interpretation is correct. The first step is to recognize that we have different interpretations.** I think it is okay to have faith and admit that it is based on emotions and not reason, logic or evidence**. You also have faith but you want to use reason and evidence to justify it. Again it’s your interpretation against my interpretation. So far so good nothing wrong with it.. But the problem starts when you declare that your faith is based on reason, logic, and evidence.. but you are unable to rationally present your argument..
P.S. Presupposition argument was only reemphasized to you when you brought to my notice that you know clergymen who can argue faith with philosophy and logic. I just challenged you that such an attempt must not include any presupposition if it has to be really rational..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
dear look at your post above, you want to be rational about and be emoationally attached to faith. you dont what are you talking about.
No I don't what I am talk.. Rationality want to attach to emotionality.. Just like reason want muslim..
Khush..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ your rationality to prove your faith a blind belief, but ours dont.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
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”…
You are obviously countering me by saying God has given us intellect so we should use it. I hope we can also decide when we should intellectually deduce that we are not always intellectually capable to rationalise all things, in which case we should trust in scripture and the given authentic interpretation without disbelief.
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.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Can you name that valid science which comes from faith?
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") = a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained. Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language
A lot of we believe in science comes from faith.
Utmost faith on people who said something based on some unproven or unseen 'observation'.
There is no difference in many beliefs of science and religion.
The whole debate of trying to put down religion based on lack of some kind of material evidence is wrong.
**
A lot of scientific beliefs do not have material proofs either, but 'material people' just believe anything their scientific prophets say.**
If you had read first three sentences, which are connected, you would have gotten the answer.
Hint: Faith does not mean belief on religious doctrines only. I even made word faith bold.
I will explain if still not understood my post earlier.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
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.
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).
...
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^To be follower of faith(as you claimed you are) you must believe in God irrespective of you can or cannot prove existance of God.
to prove existance of God I refer to following article by Dr zakir naik
Islamic Research Foundation - Athiest Proof of Allah(swt)
Now, why to follow a faith?
God created us we have to sumbit our will to Him.
why submit?
Your parents gave birth to you your teachers taught you, you may say that your obedience to your parents and teachers is illogical but its not irrational. That is how world works.
p.s if you do not agree with Dr Zakir then comment his article and elighten us with your intellect.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
TKO
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
From facebook
The bit about the "never seen a monkey evolve" lost me.
That part is such creationist tripe. i almost wanted to vomit.
An actual professor would have said, well, we have evidence to demonstrate that all those things you shed doubt on are actual fact. I have SEEN actual brains, i dont need to assume the professor has one, I can be certain that as a human being, he will have one as well, so that is not something based on faith, its something based on actual anatomy. Infact, I can actually SEE the brain of the professor. And I can see the process of Evolution occuring. There is no two ways about it.
God however, cannot be determined to be true in any way what so ever. Its not based on observation. I have seen what the inside of a persons head contains, but I have never seen ANY evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God. Just belief for the sake of belief and nothing more. And I think the rest of you should be honest with yourselves, and with honest introspection, you will come to admit that you only believe because you want to believe and for no other reason.
There is nothing wrong with belief for the sake of belief. At the very least, such an admission would allow you garner the best from your faith, without indulging in the delusion that ones own belief is the only true belief and thus supersede the belief of others, from which stems much of the evil committed in the name of faith.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
About 90% of science is belief and faith.
Rest of 10% can be measured or proven to be true and absolute.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
LOL… 
OMG the absurdity of that statement is amazing. I honestly hope that your joking. Please tell me your joking. For your own dignity, please just say your joking even if you arent.