Ibn Rushd vs Ghazali: Did the Muslim world take a wrong turn?

[Vitamin_C]

All the critical thinking is before you arrive at the conclusion of the presence of God.

Since last 2,000 years in which we have been applying critical thinking and logic, we have not been able to come accross a single logical argument that leads to a conclusion of God. The Greeks tried it, the Romans tried it, Christians tried it but we couldn't find any. Neither does the Quran provide any arguments nor "signs" of God.

So the question is, was Allah not aware that humans did not possess any logical arguments in favor of God. Or was God aware but not capable himself of providing those arguments? Thats my question.

Or maybe the Blind Arab Poet of the Abbasids was right that these holy books are just a set of idle talk with nothing in them.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Once you are convinced that their is a creator and Quran is the word of God than you have to take the commands of Allah without getting critical as common person’s intellect is incapable of comprehending the wisdom behind every order of Allah.

And even if we get over the impossible hurdle of making a logical argument in favour of God. Then we still have all our work left in front of us.

Even by the standards of Abrahamic religions. All Prophets were either vouched for by another prophet during their own life time for example Moses vouched for prophethood of his sister. Or the prophet performed a miracle like Moses did by seperating the red sea as there was no one to vouch for his prophethood.

Now there is no witness of Muhammad and his encouter with Gabrial in cave Hira, nor did he perform any miracles. So who is the gawah of Muhammad's prophethood? Two Christians, one his own wife the other his brother in law Warqa Bin Naufil who never become a Muslim. Muhammad does not pass the prophethood challenge even by his own Abrahamic standards.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Far from being opposed to the exercise of reason, the Holy Qur En is the only Book among the religious scriptures of theworld which lays repeated stress on the exercise of human reason and condemns the disbelievers for not using their rea- soning faculty and, this it does, not in one or two places but in manyof itsverses.

I think we have a misunderstanding over the definition of reason you are using. What I mean by reason is the standard form of philosophy and thinking as established by Greeks then passed on to Arabs and now its what modern philosophy is based on.

Its what we now know as reason and it is used to find out if arguments are logical or not.

The Reason that quran is refering to is something else. They are talking about making rationalizations and justifications for believing in God, regardless of if those justifications are rational or not. Most of the time people use arguments from ignorance to justify God, for example I dont know where the universe comes from therefore God did it. This is not Reason this is fallacy.

 

[Vitamin_C]

"If there be of you twenty steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred and if there be of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they
(the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

Quran is obviously wrong here as every Intelligence test shows that disbelieviers and skeptics are more intelligent than religious people. Name any modern scientist and over 90% would be atheist.

On the one hand, Quran provides no proof or argument for God on the other hand it uses abusive language for non Muslims calling them unintelligent, donkeys and pigs. Not a very intelligent way of presenting your argument.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Since last 2,000 years in which we have been applying critical thinking and logic, we have not been able to come accross a single logical argument that leads to a conclusion of God. The Greeks tried it, the Romans tried it, Christians tried it but we couldn't find any. Neither does the Quran provide any arguments nor "signs" of God.

So the question is, was Allah not aware that humans did not possess any logical arguments in favor of God. Or was God aware but not capable himself of providing those arguments? Thats my question.

Or maybe the Blind Arab Poet of the Abbasids was right that these holy books are just a set of idle talk with nothing in them.

You will always come to conclusions after deductive reasoning on both side whether in favour of God or against him.
Every individual can decide on the weightage of those arguments and conclusions.
To be honest Atheists arguments against the presence of creator are very weak. Even Einstein was not able to deny God but instead choose to deny Religious God.
Its the quality of conclusions which brings us closer to the ‘signs’ of ultimate genious of the supreme creator.
Whether Muhammad pbuh was the prophet or the nature of his prophetic experiences is a different debate again.

 

[Vitamin_C]

You will always come to conclusions after deductive reasoning on both side whether in favour of God or against him.
Every individual can decide on the weightage of those arguments and conclusions.

Not true. Whether or not a an argument is logical or illogical is not left to everyone's own interpretations but rather laws of reasoning and whether an argument is commiting any logical fallacies.

Deductive arguments by definition are deductive. Meaning they can either be true or not true. For example if I make a claim that its raining outside, there are only 2 answers to that and both cannot be true at the same time and they are not up to personal interpretation. Either its actually raining or its not.

 

[Vitamin_C]

To be honest Atheists arguments against the presence of creator are very weak.

Atheists do not need to argue against god to be atheist.

In Critical Thinking there is a concept called burden of proof.

Which says that you do not need to argue agaisnt a claim to reject it. But rather the burden is on the person making the claim (God exist) to prove their claim. The default position is always disbelief.

If I make a claim to you that there is a golden unicorn somewhere in the 100 billion galaxies. Its physically impossible for you to go check every inch of the universe to argue against my claim. Thats why the burden is on me to prove my claim and not on you to disprove it.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Even Einstein was not able to deny God but instead choose to deny Religious God.

There is a logical fallacy called the equivocation fallacy. In this fallacy a person uses an word that has many meanings but uses the meaning which the person did not originally mean.

For example Here and Hear.

What Einstein meant by God has nothing to do with the type of God you had in mind. Einstein was talking about the Spinoza God, which basically means nature, or a process that does not have concience nor intelligence and is not a personal god.

Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am not saying that you are dishonest in what you are saying but I suspect you are victim of lies that were told to you by others.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Its the quality of conclusions which brings us closer to the ‘signs’ of ultimate genious of the supreme creator.

Not true. The existance of God is a claim. Now that claim can be either true or not true. The burden of proof is on the believer to present arguments and evidence. So far we have found none.

This is why religious people settled on faith. Faith means believing something without any logic or evidence.

There are neither *signs* nor *conclusions* that brings you any closer to an intelligent creator.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Whether Muhammad pbuh was the prophet or the nature of his prophetic experiences is a different debate again.

There is alot I want to say about Muhammad's character from his biography and hadiths but I will restrain myself because I dont want to hurt people's feelings.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Not true. The existance of God is a claim. Now that claim can be either true or not true. The burden of proof is on the believer to present arguments and evidence. So far we have found none.

This is why religious people settled on faith. Faith means believing something without any logic or evidence.

There are neither *signs* nor *conclusions* that brings you any closer to an intelligent creator.

Its strange how you put the onus on the believer only. Believer can give you thousands of credible arguments but cannot make you a believer because the test of the faith is in believing without emperical evidence and only through the light of intellect.
If someone is convinced that there is no Intelligent Creator of this universe than good luck to him.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Its strange how you put the onus on the believer only.

I don’t put the onus on the believer, that’s how logic works. The person making the claim has to prove his claim. Unless you want to throw logic and reason out of the window then that’s fine just be open about it.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Believer can give you thousands of credible arguments

I have not came across a single one. Even religious leaders and the Catholic Church admits there are no logical arguments for God. They were the ones to introduce logic and reason in their curriculum.

 

[Vitamin_C]

the test of the faith is in believing without emperical evidence

That is also the definition of naivety.

Also faith is nothing to be proud of. It just means believing without proof or evidence.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If someone is convinced that there is no Intelligent Creator of this universe than good luck to him.

Yes good luck to him because he’s going to need it. In the modern world, irrationality is the cause of major tragedies from Saddam Hussein’s irrational secular Ba’ath republic to Communism and Fascism. That’s why people have a duty to not believe things on faith without empirical evidence. The result is in front of everyone.

 

[hammy_lucky]

I have not came across a single one. Even religious leaders and the Catholic Church admits there are no logical arguments for God. They were the ones to introduce logic and reason in their curriculum.

Maybe Catholics or church admits but not Islam. The concept of Trinity, in reality, is very illogical and absurd.
I think you misunderstand the very definition and types of logic and reason.
Give me the logical reasons for the denial of the existence of God and I will take it from there.
Intellect arrives at conclusions and theories which ultimately are subject to debate based on there weightage and soundness.
I have provided enough material regarding wisdom, ethics and reasons for God and the religion. Now it's your turn to put arguments.
By the way, I don't know if you went to Oxford or not but I went to Edinburgh and I am happy to engage in a constructive debate
The purpose of revelation is to provide the seal of truth on matters which cannot be solved through the consensus of the philosophers. Logic and reason without God’s revelation is just a never-ending debating exercise.
Purpose of life and ethics becomes self-made without the belief in God.
The analogy you gave of a unicorn is extremely wrong. The creator is demanding to ponder upon the intelligent design of the universe and his creations to conclude the existence of God. Unicorn’s presence at an unknown place doesn't make case for those signs.
How can you declare the default position to be disbelief?
What is your position on intuition & consciousness?
The sense of good & evil is ingrained in humans. Revelation only guides and support them to choose good & refrain from evil.
If someone follows black & white approach for good & evil than again he will be misguided, there are a lot of matters in which apparent wrong acts are not only allowed but become a compulsion on a person to act upon.
In short, Wisdom is something which demands more than simple B & W approach.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Not true. Whether or not a an argument is logical or illogical is not left to everyone's own interpretations but rather laws of reasoning and whether an argument is commiting any logical fallacies.

Deductive arguments by definition are deductive. Meaning they can either be true or not true. For example if I make a claim that its raining outside, there are only 2 answers to that and both cannot be true at the same time and they are not up to personal interpretation. Either its actually raining or its not.

The main thing in arguments is the premise. If the premise is different than the conclusions would be different. So it's important to agree on the premise first to have a debate for finding the truth on the basis of this type of reasoning. That is why I wrote earlier that the conclusions could either be in favour or against the existence God.

 

[Vitamin_C]

That is why I wrote earlier that the conclusions could either be in favour or against the existence God.

In deductive arguments all your premise have to be true for the argument to be true. So if you are basing your arguments on false premises then yes you can make the conclusion in favour of God but no rational person would accept your argument because your premises are false.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Give me the logical reasons for the denial of the existence of God and I will take it from there.

The logical reason to deny gods existence is that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

 

[Vitamin_C]

How can you declare the default position to be disbelief?

Because that’s how it works. If I told you I am God worship me would your default position would be on your hands and knees or would it be disbelief until I prove myself to be God?