Questioning Religion

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

When you observe two things A and B one after the other, it is risky to assume that one of them is causing the other. Example, I see a cat walking by my door and then I see my neighbor coming out to get his paper does not imply that my cat causes my neighbors behavior. Now in statistics there are many situations where one can observe very strong correlations but zero causality. In physics direct observations are always correlations, causality is deduced from additional factors and usually input from a model that is being tested where causality has been explicitly hypothesised.

Godel's theorm: It is always possible to formulate questions like:
Is God omnipotent enough to create something that He cannot lift? If the answer is yes then his omnipotence is questionable because he cannot lift everything, and if the answer is no then he cannot create at will. So the answer is 'indeterminable'. The problem, of course is not with God and His omnipotence but in setting up the logical system in which questions are being posed. Essentially in any logical system questions may be asked that are paradoxical and require some 'outside' input.

If the validity of Faith is really a personal and subjective matter for one who believes, then how that personal and subjective matter is arrived at may depend upon the inherent inclination towards Faith by the individual.

I remember reading sometime ago that in the 12th to 14th century there was a great discussion among the Muslim scholars on the place of philosphy, reason and logic within the Fold of Islam. I wish we could find and contact a scholar or a historian who could illuminate that discussion and how it was resolved. I wish I could remember the references or even what was decided. I was not interested in the subject then, and so it went whizzing over my head.

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 13, 2002).]

22

OldLahori,

As I can see, the above description (about correlation) just shows that empirical science should be careful in determining relationship of causality between two things. But how does it negate the causality itself? Causality still holds true that contingent/accidents require a cause (loosely, existence/ effects require cause to occur). And how does it support your initial claim “…I don’t think this type of ‘proofs’ prove or disprove the existence of God.” (posted February 12, 2002 01:46 PM ).

[quote]
Essentially in any logical system questions may be asked that are paradoxical and require some 'outside' input.
[/quote]

Agreed, these paradoxical MAY BE formed. But not necessarily all logic is paradoxical. And possibility of these paradoxes doesn’t make logic unreliable? (with reference to your post: posted February 13, 2002 01:15 AM). As I understand, it is still through our logic that we can distinguish paradoxes from valid logical arguments. But if all logic in unreliable or all logic can be paradox, why can’t be Godel’s theorem unreliable or a paradox in it self.

[quote]
If the validity of Faith is really a personal and subjective matter for one who believes, then how that personal and subjective matter is arrived at may depend upon the inherent inclination towards Faith by the individual.
[/quote]

There is a big IF in the beginning and MAY towards the end. Are you still not sure about your claim? Your way of putting ambiguities like by giving reference to Godel’s theorem or the notion of correlation or frequent use of the word “semantics”, which were not related to the original question, doesn’t add up to any conclusions. Please be concrete what you want to claim.

“Validity” in logical terms refers to a logical proof (implies, if a proper proof is presented a logical person would accept it). Lets assume that validity is really a subjective matter then it becomes mere a conviction. Why should one accept any of your claims, not only in matters of faith but all claims in other threads under different topics? But may be you meant to say Conviction in the above remarks. If it is so, then personal conviction was never an issue in question.

I have also heard about the debate on the legitimacy of logic and rationality in religion in the 12th century. Sadly, I have also heard that the downfall of Muslim science and philosophy and consequently the progress also started in the same century due to the separation of ‘Aql’ from ‘Religion’.

23

I am not denying causality. I was trying to clarify your statement **“Newton found out that the apple that has fallen down from tree must have a cause of going only in downwards direction and not in any other way. Thus he infers from it the Gravitation phenomena. Has anyone seen gravitation force by eyes.” **. It is not precise to claim that gravity causes the apple to fall. Popular folk-lore way the statement is acceptable. When one views Gravity in General Relativity context then it would be meaningless to state that Gravity ‘causes’ the apple to fall. Causality understood in terms of “A causes B”, and I have a model that relates B to A that I can verify and which does not conflict with any other “stronger law” then we have a causal relation. The statement that “Since B happened, something must have caused it” is a statement of philosphy that claims that everything must have a cause. Is this philosphical statement universally valid? I do not know. It does cause (no pun intended) problems with the Concept of God. Like in “What caused God ?”, and then the answers lead to a Paradox which many answer by making an exception and referring God as the First Cause. End result: God is ‘outside’ the logic that defines cause and effect.
We may have trouble posing the question in ways that allows that ‘something’ to be identified. Another example: Is a red apple red in the dark? Is it the light that causes it to be red? I am sure you know, that in the dark the red apple does not emit any visible radiation and so it cannot be said to be of any color. When I shine white light on it, it absorbs certain wavelengths and allows the “red wavelengths” to be reflected. Now if I am the detector, and I have the appropriate cones in my retina, then I will detect the radiation and my brain then can process the information coming and ‘see’ a red apple. It is the level of precision of the question asked that allows a ‘valid’ answer about what is causing what. Without understanding a valid model of what is happening, identifying regular correlations with causality is unwarrented.

Again I am not saying all logic should be discarded, but merely that the notion of God and what attributes we ascribe to him usually has Him ‘outside’ any logical system we construct. And therefore we will always arrive at paradoxical statements about our concept of God. Again look at the example that I gave you about God’s omnipotence. This is an argument that has raged for millenia’s: Is God within His creation, or His Creation is within God, or Are they separate of each other, or etc. etc. ? Philosphers have tied themselves into knots over this type of debate. As I understand, different Muslim scholars gave different answers to the above question at different times. Yes, one uses logic to proceed, but one should keep in mind that there are limits to the domain in which the logic is being applied, and sometime one has to appeal to ‘intution’ to get out of the dead ends of logic.

I do not beleive that logic has any role in arriving at the “validity” of that there is no god but Allah (swt) and Muhammad (pbuh) is his Prophet, and hence for now, I do believe that “Faith is really a personal and subjective matter for one who believes”.
**Why should one accept any of your claims, not only in matters of faith but all claims in other threads under different topics? But may be you meant to say Conviction in the above remarks. If it is so, then personal conviction was never an issue in question. **
That is precisely the point. I hope no one accepts my claims on any topic just because I said it. It is not a matter of authority.
I do not even know how to define, decide, rank, classify any one as a logical or an illogical person. And hence I am in no position to tell you wether some proposition is “valid” by your definition. There are about 0.75 Billion Hindus, 1.6 Billion Christians, etc. who have ‘decided’ that Islam is not “valid”. There are now 5 million Scientologists including some famous names, who have decided that a religion cooked up by a SciFi writer Ron Hubbard is “valid”. How do I argue that of all these billions of people, none are logical?

Perhaps we can find someone knowledgble to educate us about the debate over ‘Aql’ and ‘deen’? A lot of the famous Muslim Scientists and mathematicians that West has recogonized and that many Muslim sites cite, unfortunately were not treated very well by Muslims in their own time. The ran afoul over the accepted ‘creed’ of the reigning Khalifa. It would be nice for someone to point to some good reliable references.

By the way, I came across the following post on Slate on creationism:

This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 10:48 AM PT http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062009

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 14, 2002).]

24

[quote]
Originally posted by Verstehen:
**
My question is: Can we ask logical question about our religious matters and demand a logical answer in response?
**
[/quote]

Verstehen, Are you still following the same question? If yes, then yeh questions are to be asked, and religion is to be questioned. Unless and until I've questioned my beliefs, I'll never be able to stay firm on them.

Now, what do you mean by logical? That in itself is very relative. Some people would say that life without Islam has no logic, hence they try to define everything with Islam's help. And how do you define logic? How do you achieve logic? Do you have enough logic to question, and answer, religion?

When we say that religion TELLS us to do something, and we find ourselves not agreeing with it, people will say that you DONT know whats good for you, but God does, hence he's asked you to perform things a certain way. Now, what exactly is the 'level' of my logic? or yours? Its certainly very low. To question and successfully answer God, and contradict, or suplement God's orders, one would have to have an endless supply of experiences in an endless number of situations. One would need the knowledge equal to that of God, and we all know how knowledgable we all are, dont we?

So, yes you can question religion, but if there are things you disagree with, you should question knowledgable people, and if they cant answer you, it'll be your choice to submit or rebel, whatever it is that your faith in your God and religion would lead you to do. Search long enough for an answer, and you'll find it.

[This message has been edited by ammarr (edited February 14, 2002).]

25

ammar says: “So, yes you can question religion, but if there are things you disagree with, you should question knowledgable people, and if they cant answer you, it’ll be your choice to submit or rebel, whatever it is that your faith in your God and religion would lead you to do. Search long enough for an answer, and you’ll find it.”

I really don’t know how to argue against what ammar says. I am interested in finding out how other people respond to his adivce. There are problems with it. I have just been reading a site (which I referred to on another thread as joke) but which is deadly. http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm
It contains testimony from many Muslim apostates that started questioning and ended up losing their faith. So Beware and Becareful!!!

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 14, 2002).]

26

[quote]
Verstehen, Are you still following the same question?
[/quote]

Well, at least I want to. I think we are getting to the point, though through a long way. Thanks for your participation.

I have veused “logic”, “rationality”, “reasoning”, “understanding”, even “methods of science” (in some sense) interchangeably without any technical difference (, which doesn’t mean that there isn’t any).

Yes logic could be relative and also subjective, common sense could be culturally developed and influenced. Still we can ask many things logically that others also think to be logical and argue/prove many things that to others could be acceptable in our daily lives. If we hear some shouting in the street, we look for who is doing it (look for the cause). If some one gives us some news, we look for its authority and use our reasoning before accepting and believing it (9/11 incident and Muslim involvement in it, for e.g.). People have developed an attitude, the more extreme a person in his religion, the more pious he is (Taliban for e.g.). Using a little reasoning and contemplation on experiences, we can understand that just appearance doesn’t guarantee the piety of a person and extremism doesn't follow that the person if following true Islam. Before concluding Islam doesn’t have answer to some problem or question thinking the answer is out of limits of Islam thus making a dichotomy of religion and reasoning, or even abandoning the religion, it is reasoning that requires us to ask, have we really investigated what Islam is. Unqualified mulla doesn’t make Islam disqualified. If a mulla doesn’t know an answer, instead of giving wrong answer or using some dogma, should simply say, "I don’t know" and refer to a more knowledgeable person. I think by using a little understanding we can solve these problems.

It is in this sense, as I see, we do have some consensus on what is logic. To me it is a rational thinking itself to realize that we have limitations to our knowledge and we haven’t understood all dimensions of realities as yet. Yes, it would be instructive to question, are there any limits to our questions and understanding. But one can get answer to this question itself, only after one does questions. What my contention is, realization of this limitation, not finding some answer, or finding some information contradictory to science, should not result in abandoning of question, suppression of thinking, and barrier in the progress of knowledge and understanding of Islam. Consequences… I have already discussed some of them (that I could think of with my limited understanding) in one of my earlier post. And as I can reckon from the posts of the people, we all seem to agree to it.

27

It is not only a matter of saying "I don't know":
There are two disctinct logical systems that people can operate under:

1) Quran is the Word of God. No word of it has been changed since its revelation, and no one can change a single word of it. By definition it is the truth and reality. Hence it is not I don't know, but even if I think or arrive at a conclusion that says some statement in the Quran is wrong, then my LOGIC dictates that my conclusion must be wrong. We can argue about the words in the Quran and how to interpret them, but we cannot question that the Words in The Quran are the truth.

  1. Anything not 1. above.

I don't see a middle ground here. If you subscribe to 2, then you are not a Muslim. If you subscribe to 1., then whenever and where ever someone tells you that science or anything else does not support some statement in the Quran, then they must be wrong.

So the questions you can ask and the answers you can proscribe are constrained.

28

I believe that we both would agree that this is the side issue we are discussing now, nevertheless, it’s informative and I am enjoying.

[quote]
I am not denying causality. I was trying to clarify your statement "Newton found out that the apple that has fallen down from tree must have a cause of going only in downwards direction and not in any other way. Thus he infers from it the Gravitation phenomena. Has anyone seen gravitation force by eyes." . It is not precise to claim that gravity causes the apple to fall. Popular folk-lore way the statement is acceptable. When one views Gravity in General Relativity context then it would be meaningless to state that Gravity 'causes' the apple to fall.
[/quote]

Well if you are not denying it, then I don’t think we have any disagreement at all. How empirical science confirms a phenomena, that’s a side issue. If you look over my statement carefully, I said, when Newton saw the falling of apple, he didn’t see any gravitation force. So any notion of correlation in this case seems unrelated, because there aren’t any two correlating occurrences. He just saw an apple falling and it is his faculty of reasoning that inquired, every accident has a cause, and this occurrence should have too. ** “Thus he infers from it the Gravitation phenomena.” ** Lets say its not gravitation, some other force etc. But this was never the issue nor was correlation. The issue was Causality and its still there as we all agree that there was some reason that made the apple fall down.

[quote]
Is this philosphical statement universally valid? I do not know. It does cause (no pun intended) problems with the Concept of God. Like in "What caused God ?", and then the answers lead to a Paradox which many answer by making an exception and referring God as the First Cause. End result: God is 'outside' the logic that defines cause and effect.
[/quote]

As I can see the confusing point, there seems to be some implicit notion that causality some how requires an empirical proof to get validated. But the truth is principle of causality is not an experimental scientific theory. Rather, it is a rational philosophical law above experimentation, for all scientific theories depend on it. As I can see First cause is not an “exception” but it is a logical inference itself.

Do we know God? Well at least we all believe or our 'intuition' tells us that He is there (He exist). Does that mean that we have put Him into our knowledge construction? Or we have bounded Him into our knowledge? No. In the same way the ‘knowledge’ of first cause, doesn’t bound God. It’s our understanding to reach to the reality. But this doesn’t mean that we have comprehended the reality.

[quote]
I do believe that "Faith is really a personal and subjective matter for one who believes".
[/quote]

Agreed, it’s your belief. I see what you are saying, but just to throw a thought ( I don’t think I have a decisive answer of this). Don’t you think this thinking leads to secularism (not necessarily denying God or religion but limiting it to individual life, for social life rules agreed upon by society not by religion)? I am sure you would agree that we all have different understanding of the same religion and since it is a personal and subjective matter, there couldn’t be any standard for right and wrong (the most one could say about any deviant belief of a person is that it doesn’t match to Islam (or technically doesn’t match to what most believe as Islam)) and how one acts. On the other hand Islam claims to provide a social and legal system. It interferes in ones personal beliefs and conducts. (Like there is punishment of apostasy (just an example)). How can these two work together, individual belief and a social religion?

[quote]
A lot of the famous Muslim Scientists and mathematicians that West has recogonized and that many Muslim sites cite, unfortunately were not treated very well by Muslims in their own time. The ran afoul over the accepted 'creed' of the reigning Khalifa.
[/quote]

** agrees completely.

Regarding the point on your last post. If you see the examples I gave in my last post or in the post where I was discussing the consequences, you would find that atleast there is some middle ground where one should not abandon questioning. The major problem, as I can see is with questioning beliefs. The solution as I can see is, even in these matter one when is presented with two religion, one uses his reasoning, not necessarily philosophical. But some one might get attracted to Islam, looking at its system of equality among classes and races, as it makes sense to him. We do use reasoning in religion. Yes there could be limits to it, but as I said before, how could we know about it until we question it.

29

Don’t you think this thinking leads to secularism (not necessarily denying God or religion but limiting it to individual life, for social life rules agreed upon by society not by religion)?
That is a debate that is starting to build and will rage on. As the "West" learns to deal with the Muslim countries there is going to be a lot of debate about Sharia versus secularism. Personally I believe that the Muslim scholars are going to 'logically' talk themselves into secularism being part of Sharia.

*We do use reasoning in religion. Yes there could be limits to it, but as I said before, how could we know about it until we question it. *

True. I think humans cannot help but question. It seems to be part of our 'nature'. So in the vein, how do you 'logically' explain the following:
**
007.054
YUSUFALI: Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!
SHAKIR: Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is firm in power; He throws the veil of night over the day, which it pursues incessantly; and (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, made subservient by His command; surely His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
**
The three translations are from Pickett Hall, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir.
Similarly you may want to look at 10:3, 11:7 and 25:29.

For another version of Creation look at 41:9 through 41:12.

30

Absolutely true, bcz we all humans are driven by our intellect to question and look for reasons, from our very first perception. So don’t accept/believe anything without thiking over it, question! And for explanation and understanding question to scholar. I advice all others the same and to you too (question to scholar)

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

31

V: Since the above postings of mine have led to my being called an undercover missionary, I intend to stay away from posting to the religion forum. I am educated in the west by a nonpractising nominally muslim family. I will read and learn for sometime. Thank you for your time.

32

Dear Old Lahori

these are all run of the mill missionery questions and arguments, which are answered here with run of the mill answers by Muslims

visit http://www.geocities.com/zcdeen/islam012.htm

If you have difficulty , let me know will post them here for you.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif