Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the necessity of religion in our modern society?
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 20 (22470)
11-13-2002 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Primordial Egg
11-13-2002 8:27 AM


Thanks for replying.
I understand your views and I dont think there is anything I can add that can make you change your mind.
My beliefs, no matter how clear I hold them, will not be able to convince another human being if he has no faith.
But I highly respect your opinion and as long you have your morals and are compassionate then may Allah have mercy with you and let you have a good life
Perhaps I could just add my view about your question before I go.
Your question was that..
As an example of what I mean, lets take the first cause argument (used by many religious adherents) for God.
1) Everything is caused by an external agent
2) The universe is a thing
3) Therefore the universe must have been caused by an external agent (God).
But you're never supposed to substitute "God" for universe in the above argument. Why? This doesn't make sense to me - we're supposed to use this logic to arrive at a God, and this disapply it to God itself. Which is it? (Incidentally I think this argument is flawed because premise 1 is untrue).
As I have understood the dilemma is that since nothing has been noticed that has no preceding cause(I am not mentioning forces such as gravity beacuse even though we cannot explain what the cause is we see that the force is correlate to the matter and without the matter there is no gravity, thats a "cause"), even the universe has to have had a preceding cause.
If you belived that the universe itself was caused by another Universe then you are in my view just relocating the problem.
Thereby.
Every event must have a cause, and each cause must in turn have its own cause, and so forth. Hence, there must either be an infinite regress of causes or there must be a starting point or first cause. I reject the notion of an infinite regress and insist that there must be a first cause, and the first cause must be Allah(god), the only uncaused being.
Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover. This is the Aristotelian form of the argument also propounded by Averroes. The premise being that, every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover.
However, I can never and will never use this argument to "convince" anyone (im sure you will already as you read it come up with a flaw in this argument ) , about religion because thereby I would only make an argument from incredulity and that is not the reason to be religous(religion as a social concept perhaps could be discussed , but not when it comes down to a faith issue.)
Sincerely Delshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-13-2002 8:27 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-13-2002 10:28 AM Delshad has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 20 (22476)
11-13-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Delshad
11-13-2002 9:52 AM


Hi Delshad,
Just briefly:
quote:
Every event must have a cause, and each cause must in turn have its own cause, and so forth. Hence, there must either be an infinite regress of causes or there must be a starting point or first cause
I disagree with the premise every event must have a cause, but the logic you've employed here fom that premise on looks sound....
quote:
I reject the notion of an infinite regress
Personal preference. Again, I see nothing irrational here.
quote:
and the first cause must be Allah(god), the only uncaused being
This is the gigantic logical leap which I don't accept.
Why can't the first cause be the Big Bang, or Allah's creator's creator (if you catch my drift)?
Why does the first cause have to be a "being" or conscious at all?
What caused Allah to make the universe?
And what caused whatever caused Allah to make his decision to make the universe?
etc
Infinite regress?
Does He know his own actions in advance?
If so, in what sense can he be said to be conscious and making decisions?
You see, you have postulated a first cause, postulated a first causer "being" and married the two together without considering the myriad of other possibilities for this first cause - this is the danger of building an argument by starting from the conclusion.
But I have to ask myself why you would not have previously questioned this and I keep coming back to socio-cultural reasons than logic. This isn't to say lack of belief isn't socio-cultural either - if I'd been around in the Middle Ages I have no doubt I'd have been as strident in my beliefs as the next Joe.
But I believe its up to me to use the tools of rationality and apply it as best as I can (although being human does mean I'm not necessary rational . My brain was generally designed for coping with the rigours of the African savannah, so there's no reason I should be able to comprehend the mysteries of the universe, but it seems the best approach for me is to question everything and not accept it simply because my parents / teachers / elders told me to. If you have already done this then good luck to you. I still have a lot more questions than answers...
Kind regards
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Delshad, posted 11-13-2002 9:52 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Delshad, posted 11-13-2002 2:43 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 20 (22519)
11-13-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Primordial Egg
11-13-2002 10:28 AM


Hi primordial.
I just wanted to mention that logics is what makes me to ponder upon the existence of Allah (god), but faith is what makes me accept it.
Therefore, having faith isn`t that I choose to believe because its good for me.
Faith is that I have made a choise, and that choice came fom the realisation that I cant answer the question, nor that anyone will ever answer the question, and that the questions still stands but is beyond the comprehension of material intellect.
(That does not mean that I will stop ponder and search upon whatever truth I can find but I will have my faith upon Allah with me on my journey
Well, if you do not wish to add somethin I thank you beforehand for an excellent conversation Primordial Egg, it has been a very interesting experience for me, thanks.
...and weather you beileve it or not may Allah`s mercy be upon you
Sincerely Delshad
[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-13-2002 10:28 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 8:48 AM Delshad has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 20 (22662)
11-14-2002 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Delshad
11-13-2002 2:43 PM


Hi Delshad,
Likewise - wish you all the best.
However, I note with concern that you've just used the First Cause argument in another thread shortly after I brought it up above as an example of fallacious reasoning, and refuted it (post 17, I think).
In order to understand your point of view I'd appreciate your responses to my objections in #17 or not post the First cause argument anywhere at all, otherwise you'd end up giving the impression that you were simply quoting arguments verbatim and not thinking them through.
(I'm referring to this post of yours:
http://EvC Forum: An honest answer for a newbie, please.
If I've misunderstood and these weren't your views, then I apologise).
Kind regards
PE
edit: wrong post reference - twice!
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Delshad, posted 11-13-2002 2:43 PM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Delshad, posted 11-14-2002 9:14 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 20 (22665)
11-14-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Primordial Egg
11-14-2002 8:48 AM


Well, you could probably blame my altruistic spririt for that and I apologize, (wished to give forgiven a helping hand )
I realise that I had told you I wouldn`t use that argument to convince another, and I still stand by it.
However, there isn`t anything wrong with correcting a question and adding a few things into it.
You see, although the question isn`t a proof of a divine existence
one cannot just dismiss the question as being uncompatible with math.
Where the math stops, logics continue.
However , coming to think of it, I really have made up myself some double-standards, in one reply I state that religion should not be mixed or proven by science, and in the next topic I do, I must be confusing you, and I apologize once again.
I better keep my words.
Sincerely Delshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 8:48 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024