Logic in Religion

[Les_Nubian]

Yeah, I just have a relitavely small beagle.

But in regards to "logic in religion", I like how www.myislamweb.com puts it:

We can put any religion or system of beliefs to test by examining whether it is rational, universal, applicable at all times, in all places, and by people of all colors and languages, and whether the religion's Scripture is free of alteration, internal and external inconsistencies. A scripture is internally inconsistent if it contains discrepancies and contradictions within its text, and externally inconsistent if it contradicts facts (not theories) from science and nature as we know them. For it is impossible that God does not know His creation or that which He creates.

And I love how the Qur'an puts it:

"Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction." [4:82]"

 

[Les_Nubian]

*relatively, sorry

 

[mlsh27]

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.

I find these arguments pointless because all can be applied to cats as well. Also cats are less likely to listen than dogs.

 

[Joe98]

Can evolution really prove God does not exist?

Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.

 

[Joe98]

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.

As a Muslim it sounds like it would be correct to do so. You can't say it's "logical" to do so as thats bad grammar.

 

[Les_Nubian]

I find these arguments pointless because all can be applied to cats as well. Also cats are less likely to listen than dogs.

Wait, where did I say anything about cats? I didn't know we were talking about cats here, sorry.

Anyways, I don't believe in the least bit that these arguments are pointless. For cats OR for dogs, in my opinion! The only difference between cats and dogs is that cats are arrogant. :giggling:

But at the same time, I think that dogs are generally more useful, and cats are basically couch potatoes who think that they own the house.

 

[mlsh27]

Wait, where did I say anything about cats? I didn't know we were talking about cats here, sorry.

Anyways, I don't believe in the least bit that these arguments are pointless. For cats OR for dogs, in my opinion! The only difference between cats and dogs is that cats are arrogant. :giggling:

But at the same time, I think that dogs are generally more useful, and cats are basically couch potatoes who think that they own the house.

I feel it is pointless to bring up those arguments against dogs, because it brings no point of comparison. It would be different it one said, dogs are dirtier than cats. Because there was no point of comparison, it breeds the question, "Dirty compared to what?" When another domestic indoor pet is used as a comparison, one finds they are pretty much equal in terms of cleanliness. Thus to say a dog is dirty, so it makes sense would also mean that cats are dirty, so we should not have them either.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

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.

I'm saying it could be irrational. I don't understand what ambiguity the phrase "not necessarily rational" contains. It's a standard structure in modal logic, so it should be pretty clear!

The reasons are religious not worldly. Doesn't mean they are any less valid.

Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they? Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.

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' ?

There could be sensible reasons for doing it, but in terms of pure logic it would be "not necessarily rational", since we don't know what reasons the mother has given for the prohibition, and some of them could be silly ones.

Peace

 

[Les_Nubian]

I feel it is pointless to bring up those arguments against dogs, because it brings no point of comparison. It would be different it one said, dogs are dirtier than cats. Because there was no point of comparison, it breeds the question, "Dirty compared to what?" When another domestic indoor pet is used as a comparison, one finds they are pretty much equal in terms of cleanliness. Thus to say a dog is dirty, so it makes sense would also mean that cats are dirty, so we should not have them either.

Look, I live with a dog. Dogs are dirty.

As are cats.

As are humans.

But what is the sense in having unecessary added filth in your home unless it's for a good purpose? Like a seeing dog for the blind, a hunting dog, a guard dog, etcetera?

And even then, it should have a place in the back yard, in a good fenced in area, so not to have your home being dirty all the time.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Joe,

Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.

That's a big generalisation. Religion has absolutely no problem with teh theory that tigers could have developed a difrent set of claws through the proces of evolution. Religion has a problem with other concepts like fish evolving into birds or mamels evolving into birds or apes evolving into humans.
thoes are really two difrent things we're talking about here.

Czgibson,

Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they? Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.

On the contrary Islam is very logical. You are right when you say that we do not follow the rules because they are logical. We follow them out of faith. And were they illogical, we would inshallah follow them anyway. But they actually are logical. Allah (swt) has made it easy for us to follow these rules by putting the rules in such a maner that they hold greater benefit then downsides.
You might have missed my post on dog saliva, so alow me to repeat it.
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.
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/200...8450.Bc.r.html

 

[Les_Nubian]

We can put any religion or system of beliefs to test by examining whether it is rational, universal, applicable at all times, in all places, and by people of all colors and languages, and whether the religion's Scripture is free of alteration, internal and external inconsistencies. A scripture is internally inconsistent if it contains discrepancies and contradictions within its text, and externally inconsistent if it contradicts facts (not theories) from science and nature as we know them. For it is impossible that God does not know His creation or that which He creates.

I'll say it again, preach!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

On the contrary Islam is very logical.

Muslims often like to claim this, but it's highly debatable, and, in any case, it's not the issue at hand.

You are right when you say that we do not follow the rules because they are logical. We follow them out of faith.

This is the point. It wouldn't matter if they were logical or not; you would still follow them.

You might have missed my post on dog saliva, so alow me to repeat it.

No, I didn't miss it. I'm also already familiar with the pH scale, but thanks for your explanation of it anyway.

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.

Walking across the road is potentially harmful for human beings - probably much more so than keeping a dog. Is that prohibited in Islam too?

Peace

 

[Zionazi_Dissent]

Muslims often like to claim this, but it's highly debatable, and, in any case, it's not the issue at hand.

Islam is compatible with science. The Quran comprises of many scientific facts which have been proven hundreds of years later by science.

This is the point. It wouldn't matter if they were logical or not; you would still follow them.

There is logic behind every practice in Islam.

Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.

Fair enough.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm saying it could be irrational.

In other words, it depends on whether the doctrines of Islam are logical or not? So it is really more of a red-herring to argue over whether a subsidiary law is rational or not, one should instead argue over whether the religion is rational or not.

I don't understand what ambiguity the phrase "not necessarily rational" contains. It's a standard structure in modal logic, so it should be pretty clear!

'rational' can mean 'involving the use of thinking/reason' or it could mean 'in accordance with logic'. Your favorite color is a matter of personal preference so it does not involve reasoning, but it is not illogical either!

Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they?

On the contrary Islam has everything to do with logic. Faith should not be placed in illogical doctrines passed down by one's ancestors. Islam provides the most coherent, comprehensive and parsimonious explanation for our existence. It is analogous to how scientists accept the theory that provides the most parsimonious explanation for a specific observable phenomenon.

Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.

It is more comparable to science rather than math.
http://www.islamicboard.com/416060-post165.html
Accepting the subsidiary laws that logically follow from accepting the religious doctrine is much like accepting that which logically follows on from accepting the scientific theory. So accepting the prohibiton on dogs follows logically from accepting the fundamentals of Islam just as accepting the law of definite proportions follows logically from accepting atomic theory.

There could be sensible reasons for doing it, but in terms of pure logic it would be "not necessarily rational", since we don't know what reasons the mother has given for the prohibition, and some of them could be silly ones.

So it all depends. Instead of arguing over whether the prohibition on dogs is rational, one should first determine whether accepting Islamic fundamentals is rational.

Regards

 

[mlsh27]

Look, I live with a dog. Dogs are dirty.

As are cats.

As are humans.

But what is the sense in having unecessary added filth in your home unless it's for a good purpose? Like a seeing dog for the blind, a hunting dog, a guard dog, etcetera?

And even then, it should have a place in the back yard, in a good fenced in area, so not to have your home being dirty all the time.

By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?

 

[- Qatada -]

By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?

Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so sister.


And we know that Allaah Almighty told us to obey His messenger (peace be upon him):

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (Qur'aan 3:132)​

:salamext:

 

[mlsh27]

Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so sister.


And we know that Allaah Almighty told us to obey His messenger (peace be upon him):

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (Qur'aan 3:132)​

:salamext:

No offense, but I need more than that to follow certain aspects. For me it needs to make sense....thus the idea is illogical.

 

[sameer]

By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?

simply beacuse Muhammad (saw) said so. and as muslims we following his teachings and examples. After all he got revelation from Allah who created both cats and dogs. So unlike other religions, we hold the Quran and the sayings of our prophets to be truth and its a part of our faith. I dont need a reason b4 i accept something from him...the reason comes after.

 

[mlsh27]

Not for me....I grew up in a house where I was taught to question everything, and I do. I don't follow things just because it is said to do so- I need reasoning and logic.

 

[Idris]

The Prophet said, “Purifying a container that a dog has licked (in order for human’s to use it) is done by washing it seven times, the first washing being with dirt.”2 However, according to some scholars, a dog’s fur is considered pure3. Nonetheless, Muslims are discouraged from keeping dogs inside their homes, as the Prophet has been reported as saying that angels do not enter into a house that has a dog4.


Creating that barrier between humans (Muslims) and dogs was part of the self-control approach in Islam, and because dogs are such fine animals. So it was a mean to prevent humans from getting too attached to dogs possibly replacing human companionship in the process.