You have to start your study with SOME standard of truth to hold other items up to for scrutiny, otherwise you'll chase yourself around in a circle to death.
A standard of truth and evidence is not the same thing as accepting from the outset a particular, and as yet unsubstantiated, tenet of religious dogma.
A standard of evidence is simply something like only accepting ideas that are logically coherent, or accepting ideas that are actually supported by evidence of some kind, etc.
By doing this, you can ascertain whether certain tenets of any religion are supported by evidence or are coherent. To presuppose the rectitude of any particular idea without first scrutinising it is, potentially, merely building one's notion of a true religion on false or unsupported premises.
I'm already familiar with the concept. You shouldn't let it bother you so much, since it is a necessary part of faith-based discussions.
There are plenty of people who argue in defense of their faith without resorting to circular reasoning in the process. There is a reason that 'begging the question' is called a 'fallacy;' it is flawed reasoning, and therefore cannot be used to formulate an effective or logically valid argument. Arguments founded upon such fallacious reasoning prove nothing.
Nah, I believe we use various levels of both at all times. It's the nature of living as a human with our finite faculties. We only f*ck up intellectually when we begin to lite-weight deify Intellect and act like we know everything about a given subject.
As I previously stated, no-one in their right mind should consider their reasoning to be infallible. And likewise, no-one should consider their
intuitions or faith to be infallible, either. The problems with doing so should have been made clear to you by now.
But just to recap: any religionist, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., could rely solely on intuition and faith to defend their belief. All of these religionists are capable of having absolute, unshakeable faith. But of course, they can't all be right because their positions are mutually exclusive.
If you have faith, then so be it. But you should neither consider it nor your reasoning to be infallible.
In addition to this, however, 'intuition' can be a deceptive thing. Consider how many people must hold false beliefs but they hold them solely on an intuitive level. The significance of reason in determining what is actually true lies in the fact that it enables things to be properly examined and tested by an objective standard (such as logical consistency) rather than simply being taken on capricious human intuition; a potentially very deceptive thing indeed.
To give a few examples: flat earth, geocentrism, the belief that solid objects are actually solid (when they consist mostly of empty space), etc.
See? That's the kind of talk I was talking about. You're f*cking up all ready.
Intuition. Faith. "heart." Stuff like that are also how we interact with the world. There is more in existence that touches us than only what you can see, hear, taste, feel.
I'm not saying that people don't or shouldn't use intuition, it's there for a reason. But can people really know what is actually, objectively the case by way of it?
Think of it like this. When you are discussing something with someone, and you're trying to persuade them of something, you don't say 'I feel that this is the case, so therefore you should accept.' Rather, you'll formulate an argument, and give objective reasons as to why the position you hold is the correct one.
People argue with each other using arguments, because simply saying that one feels a certain way about something gives another person absolutely no reason whatsoever to accept it. Just as you would not accept it if I said to you that I just feel like there is no god and so therefore, there isn't one.
People have all kinds of contradictory intuitions and so the only way to know which ones are really justified is to discuss them and the ideas behind them using objective standards, like logical consistency, empirical support, etc.
If people do that, then they will find that some intuitions are justified and some others are not. The only way to truly determine if any given intuition
is justified is to subject it to scrutiny, which requires the application of reason.
Not so. You only think that because you are falsely considering 'faith' to be a triviality to be overcome by 'advanced humans.' That attitude will be your destruction.
I don't know if it will be my destruction. I suppose that's hard for a mere human like you or me to know for sure.
But see what I wrote concerning faith and intuition, and their questionable reliability.
Every atheist I have ever encountered believes it, and even if they don't outright admit such a thing, they ALWAYS imply it during their responses. It's just a matter of time before it shows itself. It is a fundamental tenant of the Atheistic Humanist faith.
I think these people regard it as being important because it's one of the few things by which people can ascertain what is actually the case. Either way, the efficacy of reason cannot be denied, as I'm sure you will agree.
Like any tool, the best use of a particular tool is in combination with its fellow tools as needed. This includes faith, intuition, etc.
Like I stated, there's nothing wrong with intuition. One just has to make sure the ideas that one holds intuitively are actually substantiated somehow, and not the result of cultural, religious or ideological indoctrination.
So yes. One should use all of these things collectively. One should not disregard one's intuition outright, but nor should someone neglect to scrutinise certain intuitive beliefs that they hold from a more objective standpoint.
I'm not sure what you are actually asking here. Try again please.
Well, if Islam is 'The Truth' then I imagine that it would be difficult for someone who exercised their reason well to be led to believe in anything other than it. But whatever.
Topic: Peace, All