Islamic Response To Claim: We need only reason to find truth

**AntiKarateKid** · 02-07-2008

Hey guys. I often bring my questions to this forum for guidance and advice and this time is no different. During my philosophy class today, my teacher insisted that we needed logic to find the universal truths of the word and started comparing moral dilemmas to mathematical equations such as

2+ 2 = 4
Murder = killing unjustly = bad

I countered that mathematical laws have no exceptions, whilst moral laws almost always have exceptions which need to be elaborated on further.

Next Point: He claimed that humans, now these are his words, have an almost mystical understanding or intuition that can pluck moral laws out through reason just as mathematical laws can me made.

I did a double take on that one. This guy denies God then believes in some mystical intuition that people supposedly have. I countered that we can't do this in most cases because there are extremely complex moral issues that cannot be brought into mathematical laws. I gave him the example of the poor man who uses his lunch money to feed a terminally ill homeless guy on the street. He said just because we cant find the law for that right now doesn't mean that we cant find one.

Is the Islamic response to the teacher as follows: We as human beings are i many ways products of our environment. Our reason is subject to our experiences and biases and not some pure tool as he supposes and religion remains as a pure guide tot he most complex problems that he admits cannot be solved by his " mystical mathematic reasoning".

I do hope that you guys can help me out in this topic and explain to me the Islamic response to the statement mentioned in the title of this thread!

**Isambard** · 02-08-2008

Your teacher is one of them fools that tries to applies mathmatical universals, which require them to be exclusionary, if you ever want to make any use of them.

Translated into issues of morality, youll end up being so specific that a universal in the way moral universalists believe them to be would be impossible.

For. "Stealing is wrong". Thats a "universal" same way as 1+1=2 (undefined) is a universal.

Now ask ppl to define stealing to make it equivilant to an observation to an equation in use. Now you get hundreds of scenerios and definitions.

Same goes with mathmatics. Simply saying an equation in a room of objects tells you nothing. You need to pick an object and assign it a number based on a criteria. (#of type of objects, # shapes, size, #atoms etc etc.)

Now a "mathmatically universal" moral statement would look like this.

"If you are an anarchist who follows the Sorealian school of thought of syndacalism, and you live 2008, and you are in a closely knit group of similar ppl who believe what you believe, and you live in a western nation and you......etcetc.

...Then stealing is wrong 'universally'."

Ah moral universalists, the most idealistic of theists hahaha

**Isambard** · 02-08-2008

Actually, the Islamic response relies on ignoring the opinions of others and claiming to be correct.

Its basically nothing more sticking fingers in your ears and crying out "God is right!" while never actually giving evidence for any of your claims.

Both are wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.

**AntiKarateKid** · 02-08-2008

I appreciate you answer, and your critique of my teacher lol.

Any Islamic answers to my question though?

One thing though, you coming in here and insulting the Islamic school of thought based purely on your opinion is something I am not interested in the least. If you must speak about it like that, then go create a separate thread and vent your anger and Islamic thinking.

**Trumble** · 02-08-2008

Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

He claimed that humans, now these are his words, have an almost mystical understanding or intuition that can pluck moral laws out through reason just as mathematical laws can me made.

Sounds fair enough to me. My first thought was that that statement made no sense as if those moral laws are being discovered 'through reason' just like mathematical proofs where do 'mystical understanding' and 'intuition' come into it? My second thought was that, in actuality it does happen that way; think of Einstein, Newton or Archimedes... just that spark of intitution. If you can come up with general relativity that way, why not universal moral laws? The only sensible answer I can come up is that, unlike moral laws, general relativity isn't just a matter of opinion, whatever that opinion may be founded on.

**AntiKarateKid** · 02-08-2008

general relativity has its flaws, also moral laws are more esoteric than scientific laws, there is really no scientific method for moral laws

thanks for the response, any other people? Muslims?

**Muezzin** · 02-14-2008

I'm not saying this is an Islamic response. It's simply my own personal response.

Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

Hey guys. I often bring my questions to this forum for guidance and advice and this time is no different. During my philosophy class today, my teacher insisted that we needed logic to find the universal truths of the word and started comparing moral dilemmas to mathematical equations such as

2+ 2 = 4
Murder = killing unjustly = bad

Say to him: 'Yo teacher, [well, you can adapt it] so you think murder is bad. Why?'

And he'll say: 'Because it's killing unjustly'

'So you think killing unjustly is bad. Why?'

'Because it's bad for society as a whole. People can't just go around killing each other.'

'So you think people going around killing each other is bad for society as a whole. Why?'

'Because if everyone did that, it would lead to the extinction of the species.'

'So you think the extinction of the species is bad. Why?'

'It just is.'

'HA!' you say. '"It just is" is not a logical argument! You have backed it up with nothing but your own preferences and personal morality! There is nothing mathematical about it! It is simply the embodiment of you biological attachment to your species - all hormones and gametes and offspring.'

That's not necessarily bad. Morals are generally good in that they promote certain codes of behaviour which are beneficial to the survival and wellbeing of humankind. But morality and logic are two different things.

Next Point: He claimed that humans, now these are his words, have an almost mystical understanding or intuition that can pluck moral laws out through reason just as mathematical laws can me made.

Nah. How does he explain the differing morality of different cultures? It comes down to surroundings, survival instincts and, well... hormones. Logically, there's no reason to be angry if someone swindles you out of literally a couple of pennies. No big deal, you'll make that up in no time. But you'll still be angry that you were swindled. You'll still be angry, at some level, because 'it's the principle of it!'

Which comes down to the values of the culture in which you were raised. In most, if not all cultures, deception is generally seen as wrong, even if little or no harm results from it. If you were raised in a different, hypothetical, culture, whose basis is deception, you'd probably have a very different reaction - 'Feh, a couple of pennies? Amateur.'

I did a double take on that one. This guy denies God then believes in some mystical intuition that people supposedly have.

I believe in God, and I still think this mystical moral intuition thing is baloney. I do believe that we've been biologically hardwired to protect one another, but that's not really a 'mystical intuition' so much as a survival mechanism - survival of the entire species. All organisms do this in some way. Are we to believe that the bees in a hive react violently to intruders because the bees think that the intruders' actions are inherently wrong? That the bees have some sort of mystical moral intuition which, as a by-product, also means the survival and protection of the hive?

I believe that holy books tell us to be good to one another etc, simply because it is good for us as a species, and that ultimately God wants to see His creations triumph over His tests.

I countered that we can't do this in most cases because there are extremely complex moral issues that cannot be brought into mathematical laws. I gave him the example of the poor man who uses his lunch money to feed a terminally ill homeless guy on the street. He said just because we cant find the law for that right now doesn't mean that we cant find one.

What kind of logic is that? I wonder how your teacher would react were you to say 'Ah, by that logic, just because we lack the means to prove God's existence today, doesn't mean we will always lack it'. You see? The entire logic is based on proving the person's presupposition at some unknown future point - and actually implies that the person's presupposition will be proven at that unknown future point.

Yeah, the statement in and of itself is true (possibly), but only because it's so vague - 'Just because I'm not a world class tap-dancer today, doesn't mean I never will be!' True. But ultimately meaningless and fallacious unless the words are acted upon.

Is the Islamic response to the teacher as follows: We as human beings are i many ways products of our environment. Our reason is subject to our experiences and biases and not some pure tool as he supposes and religion remains as a pure guide tot he most complex problems that he admits cannot be solved by his " mystical mathematic reasoning".

By his own logic, religion embodies this mystical mathematical reasoning.

**czgibson** · 02-15-2008

Greetings,

What an odd discussion your philosophy teacher has brought about.

Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

Hey guys. I often bring my questions to this forum for guidance and advice and this time is no different. During my philosophy class today, my teacher insisted that we needed logic to find the universal truths of the world and started comparing moral dilemmas to mathematical equations such as

2+ 2 = 4
Murder = killing unjustly = bad

Ethics is largely non-rational, so I don't know where he's getting this from. I suspect he's using this idea as some kind of thought-experiment.

I countered that mathematical laws have no exceptions, whilst moral laws almost always have exceptions which need to be elaborated on further.

Good point.

Next Point: He claimed that humans, now these are his words, have an almost mystical understanding or intuition that can pluck moral laws out through reason just as mathematical laws can me made.

So he seems to be contradicting himself here. Intuition does not operate with the aid of reason.

I did a double take on that one. This guy denies God then believes in some mystical intuition that people supposedly have.

There are a number of issues being confused here: your teacher seems to be arguing for some kind of deontological system of ethics, where some actions (e.g. killing) are simply wrong in themselves. The most likely explanation for the source of ideas like this is the one mentioned by Muezzin - a survival mechanism. It doesn't have anything to do with mysticism, and your teacher's belief or non-belief in god is irrelevant to the discussion, as far as I can see.

However, the details of your teacher's position are hard to discern from your description. It sounds like he's very confused indeed, but it could be (with respect) that it is your confusion that is coming through. There's nothing wrong with that, of course - ethics is a highly confusing subject.

I countered that we can't do this in most cases because there are extremely complex moral issues that cannot be brought into mathematical laws. I gave him the example of the poor man who uses his lunch money to feed a terminally ill homeless guy on the street.

That's a good line of attack.

He said just because we cant find the law for that right now doesn't mean that we cant find one.

It sounds like a bit of a cop-out, this, but it does have a serious implication, depending on whether you believe that moral issues could in theory be reduced to mathematical style equations. I think your teacher is just encouraging you to think about whether that's a possibility.

One thing though, you coming in here and insulting the Islamic school of thought based purely on your opinion is something I am not interested in the least. If you must speak about it like that, then go create a separate thread and vent your anger and Islamic thinking.

Isambard's comments may look insulting to you, but in fact they form a perfectly valid philosophical argument about the nature of ethical decisions in Islam (or, indeed, other religions). That argument is based on more than mere opinion, and your belittling of it shows that you are not prepared to think about your religion (in this instance) in anything other than a submissive, unquestioning way. That may be good from a religious point of view, but from a philosophical point of view it shows real self-limitation on your powers of thought.

Peace

**IbnAbdulHakim** · 02-15-2008

bro i advise you to learn your religion strongly before talking to a philosopher..

**Isambard** · 02-15-2008

Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

One thing though, you coming in here and insulting the Islamic school of thought based purely on your opinion is something I am not interested in the least. If you must speak about it like that, then go create a separate thread and vent your anger and Islamic thinking.

I dont remember this being here. Someone has been whispering in your ear havent they? haha

If you have a problem with my analysis of Islamic "ethics", then I suggest you attempt to refute it by demonstrating that God himself operates and is constrained by a higher moral code.

If not, then my critisism stands.

kay:

**Trumble** · 02-16-2008

Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

bro i advise you to learn your religion strongly before talking to a philosopher..

You would be far better off learning some philosophy and argumentation skills, at least in that respect. If you don't a competent one will tear apart any argument you present, whatever it is based on... and religious based arguments are usually sitting ducks.

I'd point out in passing that teaching "some philosophy and argumentation skills" is precisely what your teacher is trying to do. At this stage of your education (and at any stage below post-graduate) your teacher/professor is far less interested in your, and his, arguments than in how you make and dispute them respectively.