Islamic Existentialism

[Mutakalim]

There exist an array of religous creeds and dogmas, islamic and otherwise, that we can not believe, according to Kierkegaard, by virtue of reason. That there exists a purely, absolutely demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not true. All the classical proofs of the existence of God that have been propounded hitherto (ontological, teleological, cosmological...) have all been stupendously slain by Reason. Kant, Hume et al provide a decisive rebuttal and demonstratively remonstrative criticism of these arguemnts. Hence the psuedo-agnostic postion, viz. the existence of a Supreme Being can not be, rationally, proved or disproved . However, clinging to this rationalistic claptrap is , au fond, atheistic in terms. Thusly we must needs "suspend" our reason and take "a leap of faith" and believe in God and all the other dictates of religion. In fact we must believe "in virtue of the abusrd". The mantra of the 19th century existentialsts was "I believe because it is irrational". I can not but think that there is a rational basis to faith and religon. It is perchance my existential angst that is causing me to ruminate thus.

 

 

P.S. Christian dogma asserts the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus) and hence the conception of Religous Irrationlism. However, if there be no intelligible answers to some Islamic doctrines we need not attempt to demonstrate it employing syntactical/logical instruments. We need but to believe and have "faith".

 

Kant and Kierkegaard although devout christians rejected the afore-mentioned arguments proving the existence of a diety.

 

With Salaams

 

PK

[JustCause]

PK, you who claims to be a philosopher king, should know belief is based on faith, which does not have any rational basis whatsoever! The whole concept of faith is based on believing or taking a leap into the unknown; since reason can only go so far due to our lack of knowledge.

 

I can not but think that there is a rational basis to faith and religion.

If you can back up what you said above, I will be happy to hear your arguments and learn from them. Until then I will wait for your response.

 

Remember philosophy doesn?t have all the answers and most of the things philosophers rant about cant be tested or verified experimentally for how close they are to the truth (not that I believe there is such a thing as the absolute truth). Because of this, one should be cautious of what philosophers say!

[Blessed]

^^According to the Quraan 'In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are Signs for people of intelligence'. There are many signs in the Quran that are proved by modern scientific findings.

 

In fact the Quran challenges it's reader to look, question and analyse. So this notion of faith with out reason is a little troublesome for me as a Muslim. What your referring to is more a case of blind following of faith--- but than philosophy as it stands dictates a certain level of blind following. I don’t think that it’s wise to base your judgements of the world on reason (of some dead duq) alone but how reason relates to the physical and vice versa.

 

 

*yawns*

[NGONGE]

Tricky topic this!

 

Philosophising about such things is ok to a point, but then we start running the risk of driving our arguments and ourselves into all sorts of blind alleys. I’m more than happy to take a leap of faith and trust my “instincts”(not the exact translation of the word “Fetra” I know but it’ll have to do I suppose). Now, I think it’s time I retreat to the comfort of the trivial threads while keeping an eye on the more informed brother’s and sister’s contributions to this one.

[Mutakalim]

Q:- You wrote

 

"Remember philosophy doesn’t have all the answers and most of the things philosophers rant about cant be tested or verified experimentally for how close they are to the truth "

 

This is simply not true. Logic gives us sure conclusions, no less if not more, then any empirical experimentation. Logical conclusions are verifiable, falsiable, and certainly refutable, for if this were not the case, then what, I beg of you, are we doing here?

 

You wrote

 

"belief is based on faith, which does not have any rational basis whatsoever!"

 

Need I enumerate the implications of your stipulation? Are you an Athiest? To say that faith has no connexion to reason is , forsooth, offensive to Islam.

 

Amaanimeenah:- The Holy Qur'an has laid the foundation of faith and belief on thought and reasoning. Throughout, the Qur'an insists that men should attain faith through the agency of thought. In the view of the Qur'an, intellectual servitude is not sufficient for believing and understanding its basic doctrines. Accordingly, one should take up a rational inquiry of the basic principles and doctrines of the faith.

 

You wrote

"but than philosophy as it stands dictates a certain level of blind following."

 

You must needs expound your statment!

 

 

NGONGE:-

 

You wrote

"I’m more than happy to take a leap of faith and trust my “instincts"

 

It is a very precarious volition. What shall be your abode should your instincts err? Many Zen-Buddhist practitioners can proclaim the self-same reason.

 

I must abruptly finsh now..... Must needs I come back to-morrow.

 

With Salaaams

 

PK

[pearl]

satan works in many wonders. he tries tediously to confuse ur faith in allah, so as to lead u astray, dont be fooled by him. i find it hard to believe that a devout shia wants to discuss faith, when its his firm believe that allah made a mistake choosing prophet mohammed as his last messenger instead of ali. now what kind of god makes a mistake and how do u have faith in such a god :confused: subxana allah.

 

brother the camel picture lied to u in to thinkin that ppl here are a bunch of herd that need to be lead, i suggest u try somalinet or have u already?

 

p.s. werent u bounce from here?

 

 

2:28 How can ye reject the faith in allah.- seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return.

[Mutakalim]

I kindly ask the Administrators to delete the preceding post as it is nothing save inflammatory ad hominimums.

 

With Salaams

 

PK

[Mutakalim]

To Admins: I have tried to PM you but the PM system does not work? Why has the "pearl" post not been deleted?

 

With Salaaams

 

PK

[pearl]

cuz it serves its purpose.

[NGONGE]

It is a very precarious volition. What shall be your abode should your instincts err? Many Zen-Buddhist practitioners can proclaim the self-same reason.

Heh. Here we go again down those dark alleys! I’m a simplistic kind of guy, I trust my instincts and my instincts all strongly point to an existence of a higher being (like I already said, could not find a better translation for the word FETRA, maybe you could help here). Where I differ from the Zen-Buddhists is in the fact that I’ve accepted and submitted to the will of Allah (swt). All the questions regarding the existence of a god, which might follow this “submission”, become worthless and superfluous in my opinion.

 

 

Told you it was a tricky topic.

[Warmoog]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

All the classical proofs of the existence of God that have been propounded hitherto (ontological, teleological, cosmological...) have all been stupendously slain by Reason.

I think reason itself is classic proof of God’s existence. Abu’l-Walid Ibn Rushd (Averroes) described philosophy as the investigation of existing things or entities, to the extent that they point to the Maker. In other words, the existence of these “made” things around us is enough to point to the Maker begin it all. Unless, of course, one is of the opinion that things came into existence by accident, which is more or less the ill-conceived argument presented by Darwinians.

 

Originally posted by Q:

“…belief is based on faith, which does not have any rational basis whatsoever!”

You describe faith as having to do with “a leap into the unknown”, but it seems to me the uncertain leaps and unknowns you’ve mentioned are mainly symptoms of blind faith, as opposed to faith based upon logic. You ought to differentiate between the two because Islam discourages blind faith, while logic is sawn into the fabric of Islamic teachings. In other words, the faith of Muslim is not without reason… sister Ameenah has already explained that, so I won’t elaborate. Anyway, you might want to check out a book called “Faith and Reason in Islam - Averroes’ Exposition of Religious Arguments”… it’s an English translation with footnotes, as well as an index and bibliography by Ibrahim Y. Najjar. It might clarify some things for you.

[Viking]

Mutakalim,

This sounds a bit like the Asharite contra Mutazilah line of reasonnning. But I could be wrong. You cannot say that the 'teleological thought is slain by reason'. Aren't you content with what is in the Qura'n? When adressing the issue of the existence of God, as Al-Faruqi says; "knowledge of the divine will is possible by reason but certain by revelation". Knowledge of Allah (SWT) is rooted in the Qura'n and not 'just' reason.

 

I have a Shi'a mate who reads a lot of gnostics especially a certain Musavi Lari. He talks about gnosticism and tells me about soul travelling and 'being in touch with the divine'. He claims that one has to get to this higher level of consciousness, where everything is perceived by the soul. What do you think of it as a way to be in touch with the divine?

[Mutakalim]

[QOUTE]

This sounds a bit like the Asharite contra Mutazilah line of reasonnning. But I could be wrong.

 

Really? I have been accused of being everything but an Asharite? At any rate, this particular philosophical enterprise shares some, albeit few, tenets of the Asharite view.

 

You cannot say that the 'teleological thought is slain by reason'

 

-Hume's critique floored the Teleological Argument for good. Although it is revived from time to time in theological circles, philosophically the argument is a refuted argument.-- Should you wish to know all the inherent flaws in the argument I shall my best attempt its explication.

 

Aren't you content with what is in the Qura'n?

 

Was that a rhetorical question? Yes I am content with the Quran. Does it say that we must needs accept that there exists a rational proof for the existence of Allah? I think not.

 

"knowledge of the divine will is possible by reason but certain by revelation".

 

Philosophy and theology are two distinct realms. Thusly you need not, neccesarily, conglomerate so to speak, these two sources of epistimology. Or else a petitio principii would ,ineluctably, be the resultant fallacy of the above-quoted statement.

 

[QB]

What do you think of it as a way to be in touch with the divine?

 

Mysticism and I'rfan are religious dispostions that I esteem are more favourable and attractive than arcane orthodoxy. Be it ever so hard to attain an intimately proximate postion (metaphysical ofcourse) to the Beloved, the fruits are well-worth the labour. Spinzoa articulates that the transcendent experiences are labouriously obtained.

 

"If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

 

With Salaams

 

PK

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by pearl:

satan works in many wonders. he tries tediously to confuse ur faith in allah, so as to lead u astray, dont be fooled by him. i find it hard to believe that a devout shia wants to discuss faith,

 

p.s. werent u bounce from here?

 

 

Either you are lying about everything you have said or you are mistaken. Either your judgements or Ethics are wrong. Please do not post simply to enflame others. Rule #7 states, unequivocally, that you must attack ideas not persons. Attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position; 'tis a fallacious straw man. Clearly, you have violated this rule; with aghast I am apprehending the double-standard of the Administration. Also, please stop constructing straw man arguments.

Finally, by "bounced" if you mean banned then you are mistaken. I have been a member for a few months now; Zalylici was the person who recommended this site.... Anymore questions?

[Viking]

Mutakalim,

I said that your reasonning sounded like the Asharite vs Mutazilah line of thinking. I didn't claim that you were an Asharite. The Mutazilah adopted Greek philosophy and made reason the main criterion for truth and therefore identifying the sphere of religion with the sphere of philosophy.

 

I asked whether you were content with the Qura'n, it is because Islam's authority is based on revelation. The Mutazilah reduced and destroyed the personality of God by trying to reason their way through everything and were later branded heterics. The reaction was eventually the total distancing from anything philosophical by the Zahirites; who followed things blindly without applying any thought or reason. They condemned anyone who tried to rationalise the deen and branded those who talked about scientific matters as innovators.

 

 

The Asharites who came later were somewhat a bridge between Mutazilah and Zahirites. The Asharites differed from the Mutazilah on the attributes of Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) is unique and cannot be comprehended by man, unless if we follow what is wrttien in the Qura'n. The Asharites even forbid associating any attributes to Allah (SWT) unless mentioned in the Qura'n. They also made a clear distinction between Allah (SWT's) attributes from His essence.

 

So sxb, what you are doing is taking us back to the Mutazilah line of thought, making 'logic' or reason the only criterion for truth. The first step to becomming a Muslim is taking the kalimah, 'La Ilaha IlaLah'. Bottom line is, you either believe in God or you don't; knowledge would facilitate the enhancing of your imaan, but first you need to have faith.

 

Mysticism and I'rfan are religious dispostions that I esteem are more favourable and attractive than arcane orthodoxy.

Does that make you a Shi'a or a Sufi bro?