Logic and Errors of Thought
It has become fashionable to appeal to logic in order to establish or "prove" the validity of an idea, and a matter of pride that one is logical. Faith is dismissed because it is equated with "blind belief" which is understood as prejudice or emotional attachment, wishful thinking, fantasy or illusion. It is advocated that people ought to rely only on Logic. It is claimed that there is no other way of reaching truth.
But this belief in Logic as an abstraction or in one's own logical processes is itself based on faith and is a form of Idolatry which also brings unjustified arrogance. There are in fact three sources of knowledge:-
(a) Sensory perception which depends on the accuracy and sensitivity of the senses, and on how much attention a person puts on something and where he directs his attention. This is controlled by his interests and desires. It also depends on what kind of environments he is in and the experiences he has in it. People, therefore, differ in the amount and quality of the knowledge they have. The Data of experience is deposited into our memories in three interconnected forms as thought, feeling and action. But our memory and recall depends on the frequency and intensity of the experience and on the number of connections it makes with other data.
(b) The data so acquired has to be processed. That is, it is analyzed into parts, related, combined, common elements are abstracted to form concepts, ordered and systematized to find patterns.
Reason can refer to these processes if they are deliberately and consciously done. But we are not conscious of all these processes and different people have different capacities for processing, in quantity and quality, according to their intelligence, temperaments, and the efforts they make. Experiences and desires may create attachments, complexes and fixations that prevent analysis. Training, conditioning and habits of thought, feeling and action may create "grooves" as on gramophone discs, which remove flexibility.
(c) The third source of knowledge comes from the quality of Consciousness. It gives us insight, inspiration or revelation. Consciousness varies in extensity, intensity and stability. It may be narrow or wide to different degrees; it may be integrated or disintegrated to various degrees; it may be changeable and distractible.
So differences of opinion can come about because people have different amounts and kinds of knowledge, or because they have processed them differently, or because they have different motives or different capacities for reasoning or for perception.
How do you establish the validity of logic? By logical argument? This is a vicious circle, itself illogical. People have faith in logic. But it is often misplaced. Its power is exaggerated and its limitations are ignored.
The fact is that Logic deals in words. It consists of defining terms, putting these together to form premises, and combining premises to extract inferences from them. A logical argument will go wherever motives take us. If we wish to reach a conclusion then we need only define our terms appropriately and select the appropriate premises. That is why arguments between different people who have different motives will be endless and futile. We can see this in all departments of private and public life. In fact, we are not conscious of most of our motives. The intellect does not work by itself. Thought, feeling and action are interconnected and depend on the nature of the individual. This is why Islam is much more interested in human development than in particular faculties.
However, Logic has its uses. It is good for solving problems where the goal is already known and appropriate data is sought. Reason and Logic are tools like any other, which can be used correctly or incorrectly and for good or evil purposes. Perception requires receptivity and knowledge is a revelation. It cannot be invented. If a person is unable or unwilling to see all this, then further discussion is liable to be futile. One can merely beg to differ.
Reactions:-
Several people have written their reactions to this article, but unfortunately have not understood it. Their reactions have only served to illustrate the errors of thought discussed here. The criticism was based on the success of science and technology as illustrations of the validity of logic. In fact, Science does not depend on pure reason but requires observation and experiment, and its theories are built through insight and inspiration. It is not the argument that verifies and confirms the truth but Nature as made by God. They have also failed to understand that the article was not dealing so much with the various systems of Logic, but with the way in which people actually did their thinking.
Critic:-
What is more important Quran or rational judgment? Why? This question is in regard to any decision we can make in life.
Comment:-
The Quran has to be understood and applied and that requires knowledge, reason and insight. A rational judgment about anything requires information, reason and insight. This knowledge may come from observation or direct experience (outer and inner), from reaction to actions, from communication with other people, and from books, including the Quran.
All human judgements depend on the quality of the minds of those who make them. These depend on a number of unconscious, subconscious and conscious factors - on genetically controlled temperamental factors; on intelligence; on the quality of consciousness; on the sensitivity and accuracy of his sense organs; on motives and desires; on the direction and intensity of attention; on the quality and amount of data available; on the amount of efforts made to analyze, relate, interpret and synthesize the data; on the existence of complexes, fixations, obsessions and habits of thought; on the values a person has; on preconceptions; on the paradigms and frameworks within which things are interpreted; on the tools and instruments, on techniques such as Mathematics.
All these vary between people, and all people have limitations. There is only one realistic way of proceeding, and that is to continue to make efforts to learn and progressively approach Absolute Truth. This is best done by taking guidance from those who are closer to it.
Critic:-
Reality or god? When did we establish that Reality=God? Isn't this a perfect example of "defining terms to fit your motives" that you are describing above? No. Reality is that which is observed. God isn't.
Other than that, you are stating the obvious. Philosophy is as useless as religion. Often, they are but the same.
Comment:-
The nature of God is established in the Quran. Allah is the fundamental Reality. He created all things.
"…That is because Allah, He is the Real, and that whereon they call instead of Him is the False, and because Allah, He is the High, the Great." 22:62
This concept is not to be confused with other usages of the word "god" which are applied to men or objects or forces etc. in other systems. There are more things in Reality than you can observe. Our capacity for consciousness is limited, but greater than that of animals. But we would not say that Reality is that which is observed by animals.
Philosophy, as used by Socrates, was about the analysis of the meaning of terms and the use of terms according to these meanings. This is not useless.
But it is true that pure logic cannot lead to truth. This is because the inference cannot have anything in it that is not already in the premises. These premises must be established by observation and insight.
As for religion:- (a) It is a conscious formulation of an objective way of life. (b) It is integral to human nature, and is, therefore, a Universal phenomena. It came into being when organisms reached a certain stage of consciousness and self-consciousness. The desire to worship is an instinct. (c) It is part of the evolutional process itself. This process becomes self-conscious in man. The desire to improve, follow an ideal, explore one's potentialities and expand ones knowledge and abilities are part of this instinct.
Religion is, therefore, of central importance.
But whether or not you see this and act accordingly can only have consequences for you.
Critic:-
You say:- science is about the external world and about facts and things, whereas religion is about the inner reality . What's this "inner reality" thing? Are you talking about my heart and lungs and intestines or are you simply creating an undefined term by simply putting two words together?
Comment:-
I am sure you understand perfectly well that "inner" here refers to inner experiences, sensations, images, feelings, human potentialities, creativity, responsibilities, motivation, abilities, courage, consciousness, sub-consciousness, unconscious forces.
Critic:-
As for "and about values and the process of living, about goals and motives, about consciousness, conscience and will and about adjustment", Those are all part of the same reality. And what does "Greater Reality" mean. Oh, now we have another type of reality! I am counting 4 so far: Inner, outer, smaller, greater What next?
Comment:-
I think you know very well - you are not that stupid. So you must be trying to seem clever in your own or someone else's eyes. But it does not work. Greater Reality refers to the entire Field of Phenomena. If you represent it by a circle then it also contains smaller circles, which refer to the other things.
Critic:-
Regarding your assertion that "subject, techniques, goals and results are quite different." No. They are the same. Science applies just as well to planets and rocks as does it to animals, humans, brains and neurons.
Comment:-
Really? I was writing about the difference between the goals and techniques of religion and science. Apart from this, are thoughts the same as objects? Is a tree is the same as the experience of the tree and are both the same as the word tree or the memory of a tree? Do we not have different sciences that deal with different phenomena and do they not use different techniques?
The critic is obviously an illustration of the Errors of thought.
In particular, here we have a negative argumentative motive and attitude of mind that will continue to reject by inventing objections endlessly. It is not possible to obtain knowledge or to understand anything with this kind of attitude. But the critic might learn and understand other things towards which he has a more positive attitude. He ought to stick to that.
----------<O>----------