Re: Religion - Logic or Faith
Peace psyah.
Example of 1+1=2 is not at all equivalent to believing on presence of God or many other religious beliefs. I do agree with many notions in your posts but disagree with giving this example.
A simple logic can make even a child to understand and grasp the concept of 1 + 1 =2 but all the LOGIC in the world cannot make someone believe on certain religious matters even to an adult including presence of God. These matters will always be a matter of FAITH.
I am sure you are aware of many many things in religion which cannot be explained by any logic and to so many, the logic once there in the past no longer apply today but we still have to believe on them.
Why not accept that religion does not require mind to be used in certain matters or our mind just is not able to explain them.
Peace brother diwana
Please step back for a moment and try to understand what it is I am saying. From the discussion above it is clear you have not disagreed with me, but rather you still have not understood me.
I am going to try explaining one more time:
When people 'accept' a concept it is called 'belief' now forget for a moment what you think I mean by the word 'belief' or 'faith' I am using a linguistic explanation.
My claim is that no matter how you have arrived at your conclusions belief of a matter is essential in order for somebody to accept the truth it claims to hold.
When somebody applies logic for something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 in order for somebody to 'accept' the truth in this statement they need to believe that it is true.
Now in the matter of religion some things are logical but many things are not, we use other ways to 'accept' the truth in those 'religious concepts' for example we will use our 'feeling of inclination' we will use 'analogy' we will use other philosophic constructs to convince ourselves to 'accept' the truth those concepts claim to hold. When we accept them we are said to be in 'belief' of them.
The problem with modern language is that it has removed the meaning behind the word 'belief' and it has assoiciated it to mean 'something we believe in without proof' but this is not the case. Something we believe in without proof is more accurately called 'blind belief' ... also the modern language has played games with the word 'fact' because today people believe a 'fact' does not require belief in order to be understood and used, but this is a fallacy. True enough a 'fact' is true even without anyone to think over it is still a 'fact' however, in order to make use of it such as in the case of 1 +1 = 2 we 'humans' need to have at some stage accepted the truth in this concept. So arguably to 'know' something means that we have 'believed in it based on objective testable proof' ...
Okay now to summarise:
'Know' = to believe in something with objective evidence
'blind belief' = to believe in something without any evidence
'e'maan' = the Islamic belief which has been reasoned out and may contain some 'knowns' but will not contain any 'blind beliefs'.
All of these are types of 'belief' and that is what I am saying here. You know that 1 + 1 = 2 ... that is a belief ... do you understand me now?