Reason or revelation

[Serve]

What do you think takes precedence? I know many will say that Revelation is logical, and scientific and so on... Great, but that doesn't mean you understand said logic. for instance, we can agree that computers and the space shuttles are firmly in the realm of reason and such; but that doesn't mean all of us can reverse-engineer or design something of that caliber; even though we all have the faculty of logical/abstract thinking.

So, as how it relates to you, would you put logic or revelation on top if confronted with theological (of Islamic variety, of course) contradictions -- or at least APPARENT contradictions, which amount to the same thing in the eyes of the beholder.

[wheelworks]

Revelation, then reason. You need some sort of facts from Allah so your reason goes in the right direction. Otherwise it just amounts to a bunch of whack conspiracy theories...

[IbnMardhiyah]

Serve said

So, as how it relates to you, would you put logic or revelation on top if confronted with theological (of Islamic variety, of course) contradictions -- or at least APPARENT contradictions, which amount to the same thing in the eyes of the beholder.

The Qur'an has already addressed this issue.

If you're a Muslim and you're read the Qur'an I'm sure you know the answer.

[jinnzaman]

What reason are you talking about? Rationalism, empiricism, phenomenology, science, parapscyhology.

Which paradigm are you operating out of?

[Serve]

IbnMardhiyah said

The Qur'an has already addressed this issue.

If you're a Muslim and you're read the Qur'an I'm sure you know the answer.

i didn't ask what the Quran's judgement is on this. I asked what yours is. If you say "well put me down for whatever Quran has" then ok, that's pretty much saying "Revelation" since the Quran was revealed and not deduced.

[Serve]

jinnzaman said

What reason are you talking about? Rationalism, empiricism, phenomenology, science, parapscyhology.

Which paradigm are you operating out of?

parapsychology? what? dude, logic. rationalism & empiricism tho for our purposes they're the same.

basically if, by your jdugement, revelation appeared to (or in fact DID) clash with reason/scientific knowledge... which "side" would you hold supreme?

(and why. please don't say because it's in the Quran. NOT THAT IT'S WRONG. but that's a throwaway answer you can use on any inquiry. it shows little to none individual thought. it's recitation of an answer understood by others (presumeably), not YOUR answer, unless you claim scholar status.)

[IbnMardhiyah]

Serve said

i didn't ask what the Quran's judgement is on this. I asked what yours is. If you say "well put me down for whatever Quran has" then ok, that's pretty much saying "Revelation" since the Quran was revealed and not deduced.

Lame duck, lame answer.

I was referring to the ayah in the Qur'an which says "Ask those who know if you yourself do not know." - in other words, just like in every society or industry vertical in the ENTIRE WORLD, if you dont know something and want to know more, then you go to the teachers or the subject-matter experts. You go talk to the professors, the scholars, the certified experts, the doctors, the scientists, etc etc. You don't just go "oh well durrr I think it must be this or that so this is how I'll do it."

So if for example something in Islam seems illogical to me due to my own limited intelligence, knowledge and experience, I'm going to go to someone who is a person of knowledge and ask him / her to explain to me what its all about.

There are many things that on the surface, appear illogical or unfair or just don't make sense. Why does the woman only get half the dowry that a man does? Why do you do masa2 on top of the feet instead of the bottom? How can a man divorce another man from his wife without a single gesture, without a single written or spoken word?

All these things and thousands more, may not make sense on the surface, and that's because your knowledge is extremely limited. if you decide instead to rely on your own nafs to guide you, then you're committing shirk and in general you're being illogical yourself, since logic would dictate that if you don't know something, you go to a source that does know.

In sum, you fail.

Thanks for trying anyways.

NEXT!!

[wheelworks]

IbnMardhiyah said

NEXT!!

The NeXTcube was cool. WAY ahead of it's time

[Bluestar]

jinnzaman said

Which paradigm are you operating out of?

.....................that doesn't make sense in any language but fob language.

[jinnzaman]

Serve said

parapsychology? what? dude, logic. rationalism & empiricism tho for our purposes they're the same.

basically if, by your jdugement, revelation appeared to (or in fact DID) clash with reason/scientific knowledge... which "side" would you hold supreme?

(and why. please don't say because it's in the Quran. NOT THAT IT'S WRONG. but that's a throwaway answer you can use on any inquiry. it shows little to none individual thought. it's recitation of an answer understood by others (presumeably), not YOUR answer, unless you claim scholar status.)

Well the problem is that there have been studies into parapsychology that have been subject to scientific scrutiny which undermines the basic assumptions of empiricism. This is why I was asking what you considered to be "reason". Rationalism and empiricism have had historical tensions throughout history. One could make the argument that the Qur'an is rational and relatively empirical, but those sections that the Qur'an doesn't conform to empirical knowledge are those portions that pertain to the supernatural. Merely because its dealing with the metaphysical doesn't make it false, it merely takes it beyond the realm of rationalism and empiricism. All in all, the Qur'an is a logical self-contained system if you accept its basic assumptions.

I also don't see how ethical theories in general need to be rational or empirical. You're obfuscating deontology and utilitarianism.

[jinnzaman]

Bluestar said

.....................that doesn't make sense in any language but fob language.

I don't know many fobs who use the word 'paradigm'.

[FaizOmac]

jinnzaman said

What reason are you talking about? Rationalism, empiricism, phenomenology, science, parapscyhology.

Which paradigm are you operating out of?

Yeah, this is an issue of epistemology. The understanding of "reason" itself has evolved.

[Bluestar]

This is a question for the mu'tazilites

[jinnzaman]

FaizOmac said

Yeah, this is an issue of epistemology. The understanding of "reason" itself has evolved.

Word. Epistemology is where its at.

[FaizOmac]

IbnMardhiyah said

Lame duck, lame answer.

I was referring to the ayah in the Qur'an which says "Ask those who know if you yourself do not know." - in other words, just like in every society or industry vertical in the ENTIRE WORLD, if you dont know something and want to know more, then you go to the teachers or the subject-matter experts. You go talk to the professors, the scholars, the certified experts, the doctors, the scientists, etc etc. You don't just go "oh well durrr I think it must be this or that so this is how I'll do it."

So if for example something in Islam seems illogical to me due to my own limited intelligence, knowledge and experience, I'm going to go to someone who is a person of knowledge and ask him / her to explain to me what its all about.

There are many things that on the surface, appear illogical or unfair or just don't make sense. Why does the woman only get half the dowry that a man does? Why do you do masa2 on top of the feet instead of the bottom? How can a man divorce another man from his wife without a single gesture, without a single written or spoken word?

All these things and thousands more, may not make sense on the surface, and that's because your knowledge is extremely limited. if you decide instead to rely on your own nafs to guide you, then you're committing shirk and in general you're being illogical yourself, since logic would dictate that if you don't know something, you go to a source that does know.

In sum, you fail.

Thanks for trying anyways.

NEXT!!

I don't see why you had to be so rude. And your answer is not convincing. Here are two objections:


1.) Let us first leave aside the notion of absolute truth. It is a problematic concept to say the least. I agree however, that in most bodies of knowledge there are experts and or those who are more learned than others. But is something made valid because of a community or scholarly consensus or is it justified vis-a-vis its own internal coherency? In addition history has witnessed many paradigm shifts, whether in religion, science, or philosophy. Daring thinkers managed to breakaway from dominant modes of thinking of their time. You have skirted the entire issue. How does one resolve the relationship between truth claims and authority?

2) Secondly, I think it is very possible that one can discover moral precepts and live, relatively speaking, a moral life without religion. However, I will also be the first to admit that this does not necessarily put reason over revelation. It does show however that one can have a meaningful (and I daresay autonomous) recourse to reason in making moral decisions.