Rational Proof of Islam
Critic:-
There is rational proof for the truth of Islam.
Comment:-
The fact is that proof of anything depends on your capacity to see and understand it and on how you understand the words and concepts use.
If, for instance, you think that God is a man with a beard sitting on a particular planet in the sky then all arguments, proofs and disproofs, are irrelevant to someone who has another concept of God. And if a person cannot see a table, then he will have to rely on verbal descriptions and there may be many different one from many points of view. He may accept one and ignore the others on no rational ground at all.
Rationalist:-
I know proof is a subjective term in some instances, but the best definition for me when someone asks for proof is reasons you can give to convince some-one who is rational, that what you're saying is true.
Comment:-
Do you mean that the definition of "proof" or is it "truth", is the process by which you convince someone? And that these processes can be different according to who is convinced?
What do you mean by rational? How do you assess that the other person is rational or not? Is it that he accepts your rules?
I do believe that there are causes why someone accepts or rejects something and one of these is the way they see things and how these things fit into their system of experiences. In order to convince someone we have to know this. This is easier if all concerned are trained to use the same concepts in the same experiential situations in the same contexts that are under discussion
I do not accept that proof or truth refers to a verbal argument according to certain rule even if all concerned have consented to them. This is more like a game where the results are also established by consensus but have nothing to do with realities.
Rationalist:-
But you must have *reasons* for why you think your particular world-view is true over others to avoid running the risk of your choice simply being arbitrary - a historical and geographical accident.
Comment:-
But everyone has reasons why they accept any world view even if they make one up as soon as asked. The fact is that all human beings have a set of experiences and these are systematized to various degrees. This mean that an item of experience X has multiple connections with other items e1, e2, e3, e4 etc. And all these connections are reasons.
Rationalist:-
But *if* he chooses one perspective over another without any rational grounds whatsoever, then the choice is purely arbitrary. And perhaps there may not be a table after all.
Comment:-
If there are descriptions then these relate to some experiences even if they are only in the imagination (unless of course concepts are arbitrarily thrown together). The concept or the experiences of "table" will be different for different people, but the object these words point to may be the same.
We know from reports of journalists and other that the same situation or event is described in many different ways. This is because all have only partial views and they select data according to interest, assumptions, and action (which of course provide data through reaction). How can the choice be other than arbitrary. This is like looking at a scene from different positions, distances and through different angles of vision.
The only differences of merit are whether the view is (a) sharper and more detailed or (b) more comprehensive or (c) more ordered than another.
To my mind, any method that enhances experience and understanding in these respects is valid, but some are better than others. It is valid from an organic and real point of view - that is, it enhances the process of living and creates a real change in the world - it is Really Objective. Other things have value only with respect to this aim.
A purely verbal logical argument has very limited value. It may enhance understanding or not. Indeed, it may do the very opposite by creating endless controversies and valueless abstract concepts. Reason is a much greater thing than formal logic, and intelligence is a still wider thing.
To get back to the subject of Islam - Islam is primarily a revelation, not just for the Prophets or Messengers, but for those who accept it consciously. It is a deliberately constructed way of life (as opposed to an arbitrary unconscious an accidental one). This includes certain attitudes of mind, motives and actions. (a) These provide certain experiences not otherwise available. (b) It also provides a framework of reference within which experience are interpreted. (c) The purpose of both is human development - to take people from the position in which they are to a position that they are not yet at.
This inevitably means that they may not yet be in a position to understand what they would after having undergone development. This is nothing unusual. Every school child undergoes the same process.
If, however, by limited reasoning, the child reject the discipline then it might stay in the same position unless traumatic events forces it to learn.
This is why faith in the teacher is required. Here "faith" does not mean "blind belief", but confidence which lead to action.
The fact is that we learn most from observation, trial and error, and from each other. Even thinking takes data from these sources. We doubt or accept our own experiences according to whether they are contradicted or corroborated by others. (There are illusions, hallucinations and delusions recognized by contradictions with the experiences of others if not from one's own.) This corroboration is required in science too. It is also required in Religion. There does not seem to me to be any good reason why one should accept the word of scientists but not those of saints as long as one has acquired some understanding of what they are saying and it is compatible with one's experiences. This is, of course, for everyone to establish for himself. No one else can do so, no matter how logical the argument might seem to others.
It should be noted that thinking is an activity, whereas perception requires passivity and receptivity. The former uses up energy and the latter enriches. Generally these two functions are mutually exclusive in that thinking prevents perception. However, the two lead to one another - we must actively seek in order to find and we cannot act without knowing.
The fact is that there is a difference between verbal descriptions, experiences and the reality. It is the reality, which we are, or should be, interested in.
"We will show them Our signs on the horizons and within themselves, until it become manifest unto them that it is the truth. Is not your Lord sufficient , since He is Witness over all things? " 41:53
----------<O>----------