Religion - Logic or Faith

USResident · January 10, 2009, 4:24am

psyah:

USResident

Many apologies … okay here you go …

This is not the meaning of belief as a concept it is merely the meaning of belief when used in laymans English. The meaning of belief is to accept something as true. There is no condition attached. Due to a fairly recent trend society has gradually equated the meaning of blind belief with belief per se. This is because gradually society is being affected by the strong arm of secular science. Science is now dictating together with sophisticated contract law that something that is ‘objective’ is the only thing that is true. And that it does not matter what a person may regard it as, but it is not useful for us to determine the argument of faith to such people. The argument I use against them is that it may be that ‘knowledge’ or ‘facts’ are objective, but there are some very clear and logical things that people will reject and at the same time there will be very ambiguous things that people will accept. This suggests that the faculty of belief overrides the faculty of logical deduction or even eye witnessing. On the other side of the coin we can also see that people will think they are ‘sure’ of something but in fact they have been deceived. Personal truth depends on the vantage point. It is therefore more correct to class ‘what we know’ as really ‘what we think we know’ and then to class that in to the superset of ‘belief’ … Belief hence contains all acceptance matters.
To explain my point the following Venn diagram has eight possible positions of belief. True blind belief, false blind belief, true belief in matters of reason, false belief in matters of reason, true belief in matters of proof within reason, false belief in matters of proof within reason, true belief in matter of proof outside reason and finally false belief in matters of proof outside reason.

The belief in matters of the proof circle, be it within reason or not or be it true or false is what is commonly called ‘know’ or ‘the stance on knowledge’. However, Islam requires us to make distinction of true matters of proof and false matters of proof, both of which an honest person will say he ‘knows’. However, he will need to reject some matters of proof and some matters of reason based on other proofs, reasons and beliefs in general. A magician may deceive us but according to eye witness testimony it is proof but our eyes can deceive us. By the way logic resides within the circle of reason, inside the section of matters of proof within reason. It is still subject to being false by the way.
The Qur’an tells us that we are in disadvantage in this matter; it would be difficult to discern truth from falsehood if we were not guided. When we are truly stumped then we should meditate on matters to access our fitrah, which is a form of reasoning outside logic. The way we access our fitrah regularly is do much dzikr and requests for guidance and performance of istikhara. It may be true that some beliefs require us to first accept but should not leave them like that. We should investigate and ponder over those points. This means that the matter becomes reasoned after the acceptance. For example a Muslim tells another about so and so … The Qur’an in the story of Solomon (AS) teaches that the Hoopoe bird was late gave an excuse and the matter was checked up. This proves that blind belief is not acceptable in Islam. Whether we first accept and then get evidence or first get evidence and then accept we are not allowed to establish a belief and leave it in the blind category. Hence we are required to grow our circle of reason, please refer to the new Venn diagram.

When Muhammad (SAW) got a visit from the Angel Gabriel (AS) he initially rejected its truth, but with the reasoning from his wife Khadijah (RA) he accepted it.

Agreed

Hence, Belief and Knowledge are not exclusive from one another nor is there a like for like comparison. Knowledge is extracted truth, be it from the world around us or from within our souls, but we can choose to deny ourselves the knowledge we have and that called kufr and we choose to accept that knowledge and that called belief – ‘iman.
But this is the Islamic definition of knowledge, the worldly definition of knowledge is only extracted information from the world and does not include the inner sources and furthermore it is only that information from the world that can be objectively demonstrated.

Bro

I agree with a lot of things in the post however the Venn diagranms do not jive well. Beliefs cannot always be proven objectively or measureably as I have stated before. This is where the domain of science ends yet it continues with religion. I do not for some reason view that as conflict but rather I say science or scientific logic cannot be extended into all the domains covered by religion. They are a different fabric which is not material.

One thing that I could not make out from your posts is how do consider any differentiation between BELIEF and BLIND BELIEF. I consider belief as just belief, there is no such thing as blind belief. People seem to only consider what can be measured objectively through scientific means as belief and any other as blind belief. The adjective of BLIND gives it a rather negative connotation though today. If you could but cite an example which demonstrates blind belief even in the scientific domain then that makes the discussion much weighty towards our POV.

USResident · January 10, 2009, 4:27am

Neither was he a messenger of God so his opinion regarding religion is irrelevant to the people who follow religion. He was a great scientist and should be respected for that, no doubt.

jaanaan · January 10, 2009, 3:23pm

you are quoting me out of context. if you look at why i posted it like that, you will understand. this guy was using Einstein's quote in favor of religion. I simply told him that was not the case.

anyway, had he been a believer, you would have no doubt mentioned him several times. after all dont we always point to those muslim scientists when we want to pride ourselves that a person could both be a muslim and a scientist.

USResident · January 10, 2009, 3:31pm

And there is nothing wrong with priding ourselves. I do not believe I am dissing Einstein but as I said he should be respected for his achievements. Scientific arguments can be used to support religious topics because they compliment them and in such a case it shouldn't matter who the scientist was. In fact advances in science have helped interpret Quranic verses much better.

jaanaan · January 10, 2009, 4:52pm

what about it when they point in the opposite direction? I Guess you dont accept them then.

psyah · January 10, 2009, 9:40pm

Traditional Pakistani weddings against Islam?

Bro

I agree with a lot of things in the post however the Venn diagranms do not jive well. Beliefs cannot always be proven objectively or measureably as I have stated before. This is where the domain of science ends yet it continues with religion. I do not for some reason view that as conflict but rather I say science or scientific logic cannot be extended into all the domains covered by religion. They are a different fabric which is not material.

One thing that I could not make out from your posts is how do consider any differentiation between BELIEF and BLIND BELIEF. I consider belief as just belief, there is no such thing as blind belief. People seem to only consider what can be measured objectively through scientific means as belief and any other as blind belief. The adjective of BLIND gives it a rather negative connotation though today. If you could but cite an example which demonstrates blind belief even in the scientific domain then that makes the discussion much weighty towards our POV.

bro USResident

I’m frustrated because I can’t seem to get my point across. Perhaps I didn’t do enough to explain the Venn diagrams also. Please read the part that I have quoted above. You and I are not in disagreement. I throughout this thread have held that beliefs come in a variety of shapes and sizes.

My contention was not on this matter of all beliefs being provable. It was on the matter that it is wrong to assume that a belief that cannot be proven is any different from a belief that can be proven except only that the one that can be proven is objective. In other words the objectivity is not what makes something true or false. Truth and Falsehood are absolutes that reside from the external perspective and objective beliefs are just as much beliefs as non-objective ones, they are just easier to accept. It is for this reason that we should try to subject our beliefs to reason and test so they can be strengthened, but to leave them like that without doing some sort of truth analysis that is called blind faith. Also, the acceptance of what someone tells us without regard to checking it up for ourselves nor asking for clarification if we need it, that is also blind belief.

Note: In the Venn diagram there are 8 sections. The largest section is blind belief, the majority of which lies in falsehood, if we accept things just like that … we are more likely to be in error, but we can accept things within reason and then with proof and we are more likely to fall into the truth section. Note there are still some places in the truth section that are outside provable beliefs and outside beliefs with reason, they are blind beliefs which are true, but with reflection and throught we see through wisdom a sense of reason in those beliefs and they help confirm them for us.

USResident · January 11, 2009, 4:40am

Why so many American military defeats/humiliations since 1945?

bro USResident

I’m frustrated because I can’t seem to get my point across. Perhaps I didn’t do enough to explain the Venn diagrams also. Please read the part that I have quoted above. You and I are not in disagreement. I throughout this thread have held that beliefs come in a variety of shapes and sizes.

My contention was not on this matter of all beliefs being provable. It was on the matter that it is wrong to assume that a belief that cannot be proven is any different from a belief that can be proven except only that the one that can be proven is objective. In other words the objectivity is not what makes something true or false. Truth and Falsehood are absolutes that reside from the external perspective and objective beliefs are just as much beliefs as non-objective ones, they are just easier to accept. It is for this reason that we should try to subject our beliefs to reason and test so they can be strengthened, but to leave them like that without doing some sort of truth analysis that is called blind faith. Also, the acceptance of what someone tells us without regard to checking it up for ourselves nor asking for clarification if we need it, that is also blind belief.

Note: In the Venn diagram there are 8 sections. The largest section is blind belief, the majority of which lies in falsehood, if we accept things just like that … we are more likely to be in error, but we can accept things within reason and then with proof and we are more likely to fall into the truth section. Note there are still some places in the truth section that are outside provable beliefs and outside beliefs with reason, they are blind beliefs which are true, but with reflection and throught we see through wisdom a sense of reason in those beliefs and they help confirm them for us.

Now I believe (Hehehe) we are on the same page however I still do not prefer the Venn diagram approach however I will try and understand it again.

USResident · January 11, 2009, 4:47am

Let them point. It does not alter my faith. Everything in religion does not fall into the category of scientific objectivity.