The Rational Believer

  15. Modern day philosophers: Mathematicians trying to unravel infinity   Unsurprisingly, this is also the same sort of confusion that arises amongst the modern day philosophers of mathematics when trying to unravel the nature of Infinity. When mathematicians try to make a formula to represent the idea of the unlimited or the concept of ‘infinity’ then it starts to go against our common sense understanding of reality. This is because it is mathematically and scientifically impossible to measure anything infinite in our limited lifespans as any measurement we make that seems very large (and infinite)  could actually mean that the data is just very large (larger than our lifespans) rather than infinite. So for example if a scientist wanted to send a probe/light ray to the end of the universe in order to time its return (and therefore its distance that it has traveled) but does not get a response in his lifetime- could the successive scientist (as the first one has passed a...

14- Problem of the philosophers part 2- Thinking irrationally about God and the problem of evil. When God is an unsensed reality The errors in thinking and doubt increases when discussing the reality of God.  This has been a source of  contention and criticism between philosophers in the western and Islamic world debating the attributes of god which then in some cases leads to doubting his existence and in other cases creating assumptions about God and what He will or should do. For example the question of evil : whether a God that was omnipotent could prevent the evil that exists and if not then that means he is not all-powerful and unlimited; but if he could but chooses not to then that would mean he is not omnibenevolent- all loving- so if not a good god or all-powerful god then why worship him? Similarly the mutakallimin philosophers of the Islamic world would debate how God's attributes could be understood such as His Knowledge and predestination. Famously, the  Mu't...

  13. Problem of the philosophers part 1: epistemological flaw Ignoring and doubting the rational procedure when establishing sound knowledge . Philosophers like to establish the basis of knowledge that they can be sure of – a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. This would provide the building blocks of establishing certainty of God’s existence, so if you doubt the method of knowledge or tools that you use to establish God’s existence then that would mean you could doubt God himself (the conclusion based on your method of knowledge). There are many views on this topic that the philosophers had over the ages from Plato’s claims that our experience of the world is no more than shadows and that the true reality lies beyond these shadows, to Descarte’s doubt of everything except his own existence. From the  empiricists, to the idealists, to the skeptics – all with different views of knowledge. Even in the Islamic world many philosophers who started to dabble with the trans...

 12.  Living in cuckoo land  Describe to me what a ‘krtitokrac’ does. Anything you can think of. Can you be sure of anything that you think of it? I don’t think you can – because it doesn’t exist – it’s a made up word. Odds are you tried to look it up to try and get an idea. Whatever you had come out with would not have been any closer to the truth than what another may have thought of. You could not produce any thinking on the subject matter because there was no reality for you to sense (you had never seen/heard/felt/smelt/tasted one) and there was no previous information stored that your mind could have linked to the reality of the sound ‘kritokrac’. Any output of your thinking would have been irrational gibberish. What about a ‘thalaja’? can you do any better? If you know Arabic then you may have come across the word before. If you have then you can link the sound of the word to the reality you have seen which is now stored in your previous information. If not then yo...

    Transmitted Knowledge in the quest for purpose  Once the Quran has been established as the communication from the creator then it establishes another line of knowledge for us- a knowledge of the creator about aspects that we will not be able to know due to our senses being limited to the observable universe. This will include any knowledge describing the creator  as well as what happens after life- both of which are beyond our sensible reality.  This type of knowledge as we have already mentioned is transmitted  knowledge and is not directly observable (termed ‘naqli’ in Arabic). We can now go back to our original question about purpose and seek answers from the creator. The creator informs us that it’s name is Allah and refers to itself as He (and so shall we from now on refer to Him as such) and that He is the sole creator of the universe and that He has no partners and had there been so there would indeed be much chaos (as they struggle against each ...

  Language enables the communication of ideas. In the case of a messenger bringing a message, it enables the message itself to be preserved for future generations after the messenger has departed. A miracle of language  therefore allows the message it carries to be kept pure from tampering and corruption for all of time. There is no need for future messengers to confirm the message from God - as long as humans can still use language to communicate! Contrast this with a miracle in a different form- that would mean that the message that a prophet brings would only be confirmed whilst the miracle and prophet exist- possibly a few generations who may be able to confirm through multiple independent witnesses the original witnessing of the miracle. However any message could still be corrupted by those future generations because what is witnessed and transmitted is the knowledge of the existence of a miracle but the message itself is a separate entity. Hence there would be a need for...

  How can a non-Arabic speaker know the miracle exists as it is in a different language? A person does not need to be an Arab (i.e. one who speaks and comprehends Arabic), for though the miracle of the Qur'an is related to the Arabic language, the proof is based upon a rational evaluation of this miracle. Therefore there is no blind imitation (taqleed) in the belief, and neither is it a transmitted (naqli) evidence. Rather it is a rational (aqli) evidence. Also as mentioned already, even the lay person Arabic speaker may not be able to appreciate the miracle in the same way the learned person in the Arabic language would. To briefly explain: the principle of the proof that the Quran is from God alone is an evaluation that takes place at the point of origin of the Quran. This is so, since it is at the point of its origin that the question is raised, 'what/who is the source and origin of the Quran?' It makes no rational sense to evaluate it 1400 years later at year 2020, in l...