Logic in Religion

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ JazakAllah khair steve , i knew it

 

[czgibson]

Re: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion?

Greetings,

In the same way that it is not circular logic to trust a renown mathematician who I personally know to be trustworthy to solve a math problem for me that I cannot solve.

That reasoning is circular in exactly the same way, as the argument from authority often is. However, trusting a mathematician to perform a calculation for you is very different from the dog-banishing ruling that we've been discussing.

There are a number of differences: firstly, using Allah as an authority is questionable, because his existence is not certain. Secondly, the mathematician's work can be independendently verified, whereas the reasons for Allah's ruling cannot.

When he solves my math problem I'm not going to worry about whether or not I want to turn it into my teacher the next day thinking maybe he got it wrong. This is not circular logic, but logic, plain and simple.

If you don't mind me asking: how much do you actually know about logic?

The more appropriate question is, how is this circular logic?

I can't think of a way of expressing it more concisely than I did before:

You believe that abiding by the prohibition on dogs (for example) is rational because you believe you have used reason to establish that the authority on which you base that judgement is trustworthy.

At each point where I've written "you believe", there is a judgement call being made, which may or may not be correct.

1. The prohibition on dogs may or may not be rational. At the moment, that is unknown.

2. Whether or not you used reason in assessing the claims of the Qur'an is highly debatable.

In spite of these unknowns, you have used claim #2 to support claim #1, and called it logical. See here: begging the question.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Saying that one belief falls about as the logical conclusion of another is not circular reasoning at all. Saying that the one who accepts Islam to be true must abide by its practices is logical reasoning.

Premise/Supposition: Islam is true.
We must abide by the rules and regulations of Islam.
The Prophet's teachings are a source for regulations in Islam.
The Prophet forbade keeping dogs as pets.
Conclusion: One may not keep dogs as pets.

This is by no means circular reasoning because the conclusion is not assumed in the original premise (the supposition). This is sound deductive reasoning.

It would be fallacious only if one tried to prove to a non-muslim that they must abide by the Islamic prohibition on dogs, because the non-muslim does not accept the premise that Islam is true. Thus, one must first establish the premise that Islam is true before moving on to establish the prohibition of dogs as pets in Islam.

Regards

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Saying that one belief falls about as the logical conclusion of another is not circular reasoning at all. Saying that the one who accepts Islam to be true must abide by its practices is logical reasoning.

True, but this is not quite the example we're discussing (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick).

Premise/Supposition: Islam is true.
We must abide by the rules and regulations of Islam.
The Prophet's teachings are a source for regulations in Islam.
The Prophet forbade keeping dogs as pets.
Conclusion: One may not keep dogs as pets.

What we've actually been discussing is an argument that would look more like this:

Premise #1: It is rational to accept Islam as being true.
Premise #2: Muslims should follow the teachings set out by the Prophet (pbuh).
Premise #3: These teachings are rational.
Conclusion: The prohibition on dogs is rational.

So, in other words, the prohibition on dogs is only rational if one accepts that believing Islam is rational, and its teachings are also. Doesn't this look like a circular argument to you?

This is by no means circular reasoning because the conclusion is not assumed in the original premise (the supposition). This is sound deductive reasoning.

Your example would be sound if you made a slight adjustment in the conclusion (viz.: Muslims may not keep dogs as pets) otherwise you're committing the same fallacy you mention below!

It would be fallacious only if one tried to prove to a non-muslim that they must abide by the Islamic prohibition on dogs, because the non-muslim does not accept the premise that Islam is true.

True - but surely claiming that a particular teaching is rational is to do just that? If something is rational, then it should have universal validity, no?

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What we've actually been discussing is an argument that would look more like this:

Premise #1: It is rational to accept Islam as being true.
Premise #2: Muslims should follow the teachings set out by the Prophet (pbuh).
Premise #3: These teachings are rational.
Conclusion: The prohibition on dogs is rational.

Iff one accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition concerning dogs logically follows as a result of that.

So, in other words, the prohibition on dogs is only rational if one accepts that believing Islam is rational, and its teachings are also. Doesn't this look like a circular argument to you?

No because it is a conditional statement. If someone accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition is logical. Whether Islam is true of not is a totally seperate argument.

Your example would be sound if you made a slight adjustment in the conclusion (viz.: Muslims may not keep dogs as pets) otherwise you're committing the same fallacy you mention below!

Since my original supposition was 'Islam is true' I meant that anyone who accepts this premise would have to follow the prohibition. So it means that Muslims do not keep dogs as pets as a logical consequence of their acceptance of Islam as the truth.

True - but surely claiming that a particular teaching is rational is to do just that? If something is rational, then it should have universal validity, no?

It doesn't make sense to me to talk exclusively about one specific teaching as being either universally rational or not because it comes after one's acceptance of Islam.

Regards

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No because it is a conditional statement. If someone accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition is logical. Whether Islam is true of not is a totally seperate argument.

This point has been missed so many times that I'm only going to repeat it once more.

I'm not disputing as to whether Islam is true or not.

What I am disputing is the claim that a specific ruling, prohibiting dogs, is rational. To see this being defended on the grounds that "it is rational to accept Islam" only begs the question, since it is by no means clear that reason guides people to Islam. If that were the case, then every sane person would be a Muslim, since something that is rational will be universally valid.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What I am disputing is the claim that a specific ruling, prohibiting dogs, is rational.

Are you saying that it is irrational?

I'm trying to understand your argument.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Edit

 

[Joe98]

Logic in religion

The church taught that the sun revolves around the earth when there was scientific proof otherwise.

It will take a while but we will soon debunk all the other superstitions as well :giggling:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

Are you saying that it is irrational?

I'm trying to understand your argument.

I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?

Peace

 

[Zionazi_Dissent]

Can evolution really prove God does not exist?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm saying it's not necessarily rational.

But are you saying the prohibition on dogs is irrational? Sorry for insisting on this but the phrase 'not necessarily rational' has some ambiguity and could carry different meanings.

After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?

The reasons are religious not worldly. Doesn't mean they are any less valid.
But let's pretend that there was a worldly reason - let's pretend that a kid was forbidden to keep a dog as a pet by his mother. Is the prohibition rational or 'not necessarily rational' ?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The church taught that the sun revolves around the earth when there was scientific proof otherwise.

It will take a while but we will soon debunk all the other superstitions as well :giggling:

Well yes the church did say that.
But Jesus (pbuh) never said anything about that. The church just made a lot of assumptions which turned wrong afterwards. In Islam, we don't have those assumptions, and what do we see? That there is absolutely no part of our religion that has been debunked by science. On teh contrary, we are constantly discovering new things that confirm our religion. Discoveries that transform these apearently illogical rules, into logical ones. For example Islam says the best way to sleep is on your right side in semi-fetus pose. Research has shown that that is indeed shown tha that is the most healty position, and that we recover best in our sleep when lying liek that. So why right side and not left? So the weight of your liver does not make it harder for your heart to beat. This is just one insignificant example. But it goes to show, there is a completely difrent thing going on in Islam. Rather then science debunking it, as it did with the wrongfull asumptions of the church, science is actually re-enforcing Islam.

 

[Woodrow]

Just poking my 2 cents in. I am a very avid dog lover. I have had dogs most of my life. I can justify many reasons why having a dog makes sense and is logical.

I no longer have dogs, because I now accept the fact I am Muslim. I desire to be Muslim, I am Muslim by choice. A Muslim is not permitted to have a dog in the house, so if I truly accept Islam, it was perfectly logical for me to give up my dogs.

I need no other reason or understanding as to why dog's are not permitted in a Muslim home. The logic is, it is a fact, if I am to be Muslim.

BTW if I desired to have a dog, I could still have one as an out-door dog and if it served a purpose such as for farming, hunting or protection. However since I can not justify having a dog, I do not have one.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings Ansar,
I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?
Peace

Yes, their is a rational reason.
Their saliva is really unhealthy. Dog's saliva is less acidic with a Ph=9 compared to human who have Ph of around 6.5 to 7.5 (Ph- scales work like this: 1 is very acidic; Ghastric acid is Ph=2; 7 is neutral like water, and 14 is very basic; bleech is Ph=12.5)
That makes their saliva very suscebtible to virusses and bacteria. For example e.coli and streptococcus. So their saliva is potentially harmfull for human beings.
Source: http://madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-01/1074098450.Bc.r.html

Edit: Also note that if you'd look up the fatwa regarding keeping dogs at home, they will tell you the reason for this is because in Islam the saliva of dog is considered great impurity.

 

[Les_Nubian]

Re: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion?

I can understand how you think that. There are mnay times I question Islam for some random stuff..like shaving a baby's head when it is born and not being allowed to have dogs in the house...I pretty much always get the answer "Just trust Allah. He probably does this just to see if you will follow." But to me I generally follow logic, and question things that are illogical.

Well I'm Muslim and I have a dog, so damn me to hell, lol.

Seriously though, I do understand about the cleanliness, though with having a dog in the house. I talked to an Imam once about this, and he told me that it's OK to have a dog or a pet as long it has a seperate place to be while you pray, or that it has a seperate room. I was also told before that you should not just have a dog "for fun". There are plenty of other reasons to have a dog (hunting, blind people, protection), but that a good reason is not to have it only "for fun". I mean, afterall we are the ones who domesticated these poor animals and now we're keeping them in our jail cells to torture them for the rest of their poor lives! :giggling:

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sister you should watch out,
Not only should you not alow the dog in the room you pray. But if the dog drewls on your clothing, then you cannot pray in those clothes since they impure.

 

[Les_Nubian]

Greetings Ansar,


I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?

Peace

Having small children, the dog could bite them.

The dog could bring in all kinds of fleas and mites (that might infect your children and your whole house). And cleanliness is very important, especially with Muslims.

The dog (if not potty trained, or even if potty trained!) could poop and piss all over your house on the floors and on the carpets, causing everything to be unclean even when you wash it, somehow the dog still smells it and pisses in the same spot.

You are not to have a dog around, or have dog saliva on your hands during prayer. This wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have a dog in the first place.
=====================================

After saying all of this, I do have a dog, and I am a Muslim. Go figure!

I'm just listing off some of the reasons (that make perfect sense to me) that people, particularly Muslims, might choose not to have a dog...these aren't the "justifications" in any way officially of the Qur'an, or the general beliefs of Muslims...that's just my opinion.

 

[Les_Nubian]

Sister you should watch out,
Not only should you not alow the dog in the room you pray. But if the dog drewls on your clothing, then you cannot pray in those clothes since they impure.

I know, but I love my baby.

Not saying that I wouldn't be willing to give him up for the sake of Allah, and my religion...but for right now, things are going well...and I haven't gotten saliva on my clothing just yet!

I keep a safe distance during prayer times.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I know, but I love my baby.

Not saying that I wouldn't be willing to give him up for the sake of Allah, and my religion...but for right now, things are going well...and I haven't gotten saliva on my clothing just yet!

I keep a safe distance during prayer times.

Guess a lot also depend on which type of dogs. St-bernards, danish dogs, boxers are all terrible drewlers. But golden retrievers for example drewl a lot less. And also important is does the dog have the habbit of pushing it's chin on ones lab. Some dogs do this all the time, making it hard to avoid their saliva.