Edgars learning thread

[EdgarAleNPie]

i have decided to refresh my knowledge of the worlds religions. the only way to stay in target is to have it in 'threads I'm on' and have a promp to stop any backsliding...

so last night i commenced 'Understanding Islam' -

stuff i remember this morning -

to be 'Muslim' = be as God intended. therefore a rock or tree is muslim whatever it is or does. A person is only Muslim however if they choose to be as God intended. How you know you are as God intended - God sent out prophets to every people on the Earth. The Qu'ran lists 25 prophets, the first is Adam, in fact 21 are biblical characters (Abaham, Moses, Jesus and John the baptist)

To be a prophet generally means one in receipt of revelation from God. Prophets are regarded as sinless, at least in so far as their being a prophet goes - though majority opinion is that they are sinless in every way (thus the sin of Adam is regarded as the Will of God, or a non-sin as they weren't conscious of evil then,)

the duties of a Muslim 'the five pillars of Islam'

Shahadan - the key profession of faith 'there is only one God (one thing worthy of worship) and Mohammed is his prophet' - so an anti-idolatry profession, but also an invocation against e.g the worship of money.
Salat - five times daily prayer - facing Mecca (though early practice was prayer to Jerusalem, and 'for the first 16 months in Medina' - then in the direction of the Qa'ba) - planes for e.g Brunei air show you which direction to pray!
Zakat - charity - purification of wealth by donation of 2.5% to chairty (specific groups, i'm gusessing widows, orphans as per bible?)
Sauwm - fasting in Ramadan - a month of abstention fom food & sex - to emphasise 'taqwa' or god-consciousness by ranscending the demands of flesh (these things still seen as good)
Haj - the pilgrimage to Makka - if healh and wealth allow -

Mohammed was meant to be the last of the prophets - sent to give us a definitive account of what God wants humanity to be in the form of the Qu'ran. although God was believed to have sent prophets to every people, Mohammed was sent in the spirit of 'that's your lot'. The list of previous prophets in the qu'ran is not exhaustive though - they recognise there may have been, e.g prophets to the Chinese.

the Baha'i differ from this slightly, believing here may be room for future prophecy.

correction: the word spoken to Mohammed by Jibril was 'iqra' = recite.

this thread is not intended to be authoritative, rather i am trying to learn by reading, then remembering the next day, then checking after baby bedtime...and r=eading more.

it helps to have questions to answer though - going to the aterial without a question in mind makes it harder to remember.

material.

in fact, I'd quite welcome corrective input on this one.

and though i'd love to crack open a book on Sikhism, if I'm going to learn anything i have to complete the book i'm on...then move forwards. Hully you tease you.

5Ks right - Kammeez = pants. root word for cami knickers? i'd never thought of it that way...

what i read last night -

The belief that evrything that happens is God's will hence 'Inshalah' = 'God wills it'
but this should not result in fatalism but rather the willing submission to Gods will. God determines what happens, but not how people act - secondary causation is for humanity.

the ethics of Islam

god consciousness (taqwa) is meant to prevent temptations of Iblis (the saytan character of Islam, a Djinn, not a fallen angel mind) - this is raised by the Salat or five times daily prayer - prayers are called from the Minaret of a mosque by a Muezzin the call goes

then there is du'a and dik'r -
du'a = saying 'Bisma'llah' = in the name of God..before every act - this is intended to make a person to continue to obey God
di'kr = mindfullness of God. If a person is constantly aware that their two recording angels are with them at all times (one for good deeds, one for bad) and what they do and think will count when they are judged to go to heaven or hell - they will remain good agents. God is meant to have not sent any temptation so great it coud not be resisted - and taqwa makes one deaf to Iblis.

The Islamic version of heaven is usually described as a garden with flowing water, hell is an inferno, a pit, an abyss -

scholars struggle with hell being permanent, however the Qu'ran states the sin of attributing other things as divine (so, worship of money, some heresies) is never forgiven, though lesser sins may be.

(note that the Hindus are also regarded as 'people of the book' in the Moghul Empire as the vedas were also the revelation of God, despite having more than one God....)

last ngiht -

finance -

islam pays attntion to financial duties - the duty of zakat extend beyond mere giving of wealth - it means that your wealth should not be used on ana exploitative way.

investments in a non-halal(upright) business is forbidden so, booze trade can' be entered by a Muslim, or invested.
Lnding of money at interest is forbidden -- the history beign hat only people in dire need would ask for a loan, and therefore it would be exploitative to charge interest on money given out of kindness, to a neighbour ina spirit of brotherliness.

Mortgages are allowed but only for a modest house, and on a fast scheme of repayment - practical allowances have been made on the modern world.there are 'halal' accounts now available..

Women

big topic..

Women actually have many rights given by the QU'ran that were denied women in the west well up to the C20th - the right to own and inherit property independently, the right to a divorce (though they have to plead to an Imam, and usually are required to attempt reconciliation, wheras men may divorce by sayin g'i divrce you' three times, usually over the coure of three months), the right to marry who they pleae (good story: A woman goes to M. To complain thst her father has married her to a cousin agaist her wishes. He annulls the marriage. She then marries the cousin...)

although people view the covering demande of a uslim woman as extreme - in fact what is asked by the Qu'ran is that men and women only show face, feet, hands. that their clothes do not touch the contours of thir body. this has resulted in a more extreme prescrption for women for cultural reasons mostly, although there are other suggestions that a Woman should hide her 'allure' -

being a hot country one can imagine that anyone not wearing loose robes and displaying skin unnecessarily probably was acting out of vanity or a wish to be alluring to another- this is probs why it is prohibited. Moderate Muslims may interpret it more freely - as the Qu'ran is intended to be read bearing in mind he quetions it was intended to answer at the time. (Indonesia - Muslim women wear Niqab, tight t-shirt and jeans...)

FGM - the Qu'ran does not mention it (though it does mention male circumcision) the Hadith however mentions that 'one should not cut severely - that is better for the woman and her husband also' - it is certainly not a 'must' of Islam, and in fact the fact woman have the right to sexual fulfillment seems to contradict its practice. nonetheles it is practiced where it is an endemic practice. (and amongst Christian, Hindu and animist communities in those areas also)

this single post probably deserves its own topic, though outside the hysteria it normally attracts on MN!

i seriously seriously need to sort out this keyboard. hope i won one last month. about 1 in ten letter missed.

dath: fueral rites are usually performe as soon as possible - th ebody is washed in a sheet (if they went on the Haj, their ihram is used) - near where they died. There is a marker and raised mound (usually) - although cremation is not practiced, it is believed God wil still raised those burned to death or dead by pther accident that breas the body.

the period of mourning for a widow - four months and ten days (to ensure she isn't pregnant?)

other religions: the treatment of other religions brings a few problems -

judaism - Moses is regarded as a prophet and the Torah as a book of revelation (though not the deinitive book of revelation)

Jes are tolerated as worshippers of the one god - where their beliefs differ from Islamic ones, this is an error on their part. There are some Qu'ranic verses that appear to be very harshly critical of the Hebrews that they wrote verses in the Torat to please themselves, that they do ot follow their own rules, that they say one thing to Muslims and then go aay and say different amongst themselves....(things one could possibly allege of some from every group of rligious folowers!)

this is all to be understood in contxt - that there ere disputes at the time with Jews, but not for being Jewish...

Christians - some christians were welcomed by Mohammed to give thei prayers at his mosque - so obviosuly they were recognised as being followers of the same 'one' God..

Christ as 'son of god' is problematic, but it is sai that this is meant in the context of Hebrew usage, i.e as an honorific title.

Mary became prgnant at the command of God, not after physical congress in the ay that, eg. Zeus would have 'sons'

Islam is very clear that God does not share divinity, so the doctribe o the trinity is interpreted thus: xian belief does not diminish the belief in a single indivisible God, but believes that like a mother can love two children ithout dividing her love, the total is present in each - so as father son aor holy sprit there is still the one true God.

hmm.. five classes of action for Muslims -

1. fard - mandatory with subclass 'fard khafiya' mandatory but delgateable - things like the ritual prayer, fasting during the day at Ramadan
2. recommended (masun? - no - mustahab or masnun) things like modest dress, behaviour, learning the Qu'ran - saying 'salaam alaykum' 3)indifferent - (mubah) taste in food,
3. discouraged (makruh) - smoking,
   % haram or haraam - forbidden - adultery, idolatry, alchohol and 'shirkh' [edit] Shirk (Idolatry)Say: I am forbidden to worship those on whom ye call instead of God. Say: I will not follow your desires, for then should I go astray and I should not be of the rightly guided. ?[Qur'an 6:56]

'Sharia'a' law often gets a bad press - a 'Sharia'a' is the beaten path between a village and the water source - one that can be seen in the dark (imagine going to get water in the dark in the desert - you would want a clear path so you did not get lost, and die of cold, or be set on by wild animals..)

the code set down by ancient Hebrew practice dos allow for harsh punishments, and the Qu'ran is mdoelled on it it - but bear in mind -

the penalty for adultery is death, but in order to pronounce it, four witnsses to the actual penetration are required, or a definite confession (so, pretty hard to prove- if one man had seen it, surely he'd have done something!)

the penalty for theft is the loss of a hand, but M. suspended this when a famine struck: meaning - law should always be in a spirit of mercy and practicality, current circumstances should always be considered.

right, i have now finished the book -

a few bits to tie up.

the lives of muslims in the Western european world

As the Islaic system is designed to function within an Islamic state, this cresats all kinds of problems for Muslims.

Jihad

Jihd does not mean war - it means 'struggle' al jihad al-akbar = the greater struggle that is the struggle to overcome the wayward self, and move towards god-consciousness

political struggles are recognised as legitmate - this is not a religion that refuses to get involved politically where an injustice is noted, (unjust as per Mohammed) , though it is a religion that encourages peace it is not pacifist in any absolute way. Muslims developed a theory similar to Just War theory - the war must be winnable, for a good reason, and approved by the ruler of the islamic state. As no Islamic state has existed since the failure of the Caliphate (need timeline!) this could mean no legitimate jihad could be decalred.

what a person is recomended to d when encountering un-Islamic things - 1)change it if possible
2) speak against it
3) dwell alongside it, whilst not being involve with it nor promoting (such as Islamic people living in the Uk but not involved in the sale of booze)

Da'wa - the duty of sharing the faith - 'with gentle words and reasonable argument'

ok..

Ad 70 - destruction of the temple
Ad 325 - Council of Nicaea
Ad 410 - fall of Rome
Ad 570 - Mohammed born
AD 572 - his mother dies
Ad 582 - Mohammed on camel train with uncle Abu Talib (d 619) noted as bearing the sign of prophecy' by an Xian scholar - in the way that nice people do say things about your brihter chidlren!
Ad590 ish - Mohammed employed by Khadija (d 619) to operate her camel-train business - Mohammed is known as 'Al-Amin' - the trustworthy one
595 ish - she marries him, as sole wife. she bears a daughter Fatima (d 633) and two sons that die in childhood
AD610 - the first revelation
Mohammed is in the habit of going to the hills to meditate on his own. On one such night, he is isited by the Angel Jibril who says 'Iqra' - Mohammed does not speak - he approaches and says again 'iqra' - ohammed explains that he is 'ummi' - Jibril embraces him and and as he pulls away the first verses of he Qu'ran erupt from his heart (Remembered by the night of power, the 27th night of Ramadan)
Ad615 Persecution of Mohammed's converts so bad he send a party of Muslims to Abysinnia where the king welcoed them as 'like Xians'
Ad 619 - death of Abu Talib, Uncl and protctor of the fledgeling community.
Noteable converts - Ali (M's son-in-law) Abu Bakr (later caliph, d. 634) Uthman (d656)
The Second revelation - ohammed undergoes a miraculous journey atngiht - and ascent into heaven 'miraj' - woken by angle and taken to Jeruslem Temple Mount where he receives instruction that Muslims should pray five times aily (amongst other things) - some have this journey starting with him tipping apail of wateer, and this still splashing when he returns (so poss a spiritual journey)

Ad60 delegation from Yahtrib go to see M.
AD622 (AH = anno hijira, year of migration) M. Invited to Yahtrib to be their leader.
M goes to Madina whilst some Makkans try to kill him, hiding n a cave along the way - a spider web woven hides his presence there
Ad - 624 - community now setttled - battle of Badr
Ad =- 625 Battle of Uhud
Ad 627 - Battle of the trench - Jewish clan conspired with Makkans in this - shown leniency
later same year different clan also fights against them - not shown leniency but men executed, women and children sold into slavery
AD629 - first Hajj by M. to Makka
Ad630 -econd (Makkans leave the town for three days to avoid trouble)
Ad631 - this time someone killed on Hajj M. marches south with army
Ad631 - delegation from Najiran - Christians welcomed by M. and Jesus recognised as prophet by him - it is recognised they worship the One God.
632 Mohammed makes a final Hajj and dies in June buried in his house in Madina(PBUH!)farewel sermon on the plain of Arafat
A Qu'ran completed - written by Zayd - Ibn - tabit from verses as recited by Mohamed with system of checking.

I have to say this is a very well written book - Understanding Islam by C.T.R Hewer - written from the Christian perspective but you don't need to be an expert theologian to grasp it.

A few of the chapters are a bit over-facted but there is plenty of narrative charm to keep someone reading it for pleasure as well as knowledge.

A 632 - 634 Caliph Abu Bakr - draws up rules of engaement
AD 637 - Palestine, Iraq Islamic
641 Egypt and Syria
650 - Iran
711 - 756 conquest of Spain
712 - mouth of Indus
714 Morocco
AD 750 - Central Asia
AD 773 Multan in India

phenomenaly fast expansion of Islaic Empire - this is a 'religion of success'

ok - i have commenced 'Philosophy of Religion' selected readings - first chapter on religious experience.

more tomorow.

William James on Religious Experience -

he argues that religious experience isn't gratly different from other kinds of experience - and thereforecan be authoritative on this point - after all, i someone says they can feel a 'presence' - i can't tell thm that they don't feel it, can i ?

he identifies four features of Religious experience - PINT passive ineffable noetic transient

1. ineffable - can't be explained, dificult to find words for - outside what words describe
2. transient - no definite moment of starting and finishing, but seemingly it is there...and then it isn't..
3. passive people talk of bing done to, acceptin of th experience rather than being an agent in it
4. noetic - to do with knowing rather than doing, no actual events involved...

furthermore -

when a person says they have eperienced sth, geneally we asume this means there is something to experience - only someone who disbelieved Gods experience would choose to believe someone elses experience of God was in fct not and experience of God, but sth else.

the counter argument ensues -

1. regular experience can be wrong too - a stick looks bent in water
2. we generally interpret our experience in the light of our pre-existing beliefs
3. there is not a single kind of religious experience, they do not experience the same hing- if everyone went to the same place and encountered the same being their experiences would be similar - this is not the case
4. given that people see all kinds of things whils under the influence of drugs, alchohol, famine, insonia - might this not be more of the same?

ok, i see i've issed a few days.

I have read Thomas Aquinas on the ethics of belief - IIRC he argues that we must believe, for the magnificence of the divine revelation compells it, the miracles et - though beyond human understanding - are too overwhelingly indicative to ignor.

then Pascals wager

1. God is beyond understanding
2. Therefore arguing about whether he exists or not is pointless - we're talkin abotu sth we don't understand, can't understand
3. thereofre lets analyse on profit an loss -

Do belive -be wrong - it doesn't matter
do believe - and you're right - eternal reward
Don't believe -= and wrong - eternal damnation
dob't believe - and be right - it matters not!

from these options he only way to benefit is to believe, the only way to lose out is not to believe.
4) therefore the only snsible thing to do is believe in God

Then William Clifford -

his argument - we are under a moral duty not to allow ourslves to believe things against the evidence - nor to ignore doubts, or indeed the certainty of our senses -

therefore it is important not to believe things without properly thinking about them.

if you believe thins merely because you have been told to - then you are not a good believer.

quot from coleridge ' he who begins by loving xianity more than the truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church more than xianity, and end in loving himself better than all'

'no simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the duty of questioning all that we believe'

Willim James - he thinks that belief is not as straightforward as that - that simple rationality is not going to lead to belief, nor is faith 'the thing you believe that you know ain't true'

he wants to argue that ..ell, tht people believe dafter things that in religion..but also that disbelief is not a non-deicion - but rather a position in which we lose something of value, and choose another position which we may find equally hard to efend.

eg in the standpoint of marrigae - one can choose not to get wed, in doubt that ones wife may remain a lovely wife after the fact. But this leaves you bereft of the ladies company - merely in order to be sure you aren't a sap.

James considers this a kind of over-proud paranoia - he thinks that you must sometimes commit yourselves to things you can't prove in order hat you may have to believe something.

obvious counter argument: it is perfectly possible to get on wih ones daily business without believing in God, or having faith in a religion - it is not going to leave us short of company in this world.

also this is not an argument for any particular faith, beyond saying that you nee to find that which you believe -

1. Live option (ie one made real to you by prev experience - mohammedanism vs manichaeism is hardly a lie option to the person of his time and place - Xianity is a live option)
2. forced (or avoidable - e. g onean choose grey or red paint - = an avoidable thing - as you can choose not to paint at all. forced would be such a thing as 'one must 'either accept this truth or go without it' - i think we would call this a closed question vs an open one..)
3. Momentous (as opposed to trivial - so it must matter)

he views Xianity as a live option, a truth one must accept, or reject (there is no 'agnosticism' in this schema!') and momentous (therefore something beyond where onepends ones sundays...?)

basically James does not regard unbelief as a neutral choice, but one that says as much and requires as much proof as belief - and also one in which one loses out

h quotes Pascal 'le coeur a ses raisons, que le raison connait pas'

basically i foud his pasage very smug, wooly reasoning, to justify a partial position on the grounds that my side is partial also....

yet this is argument could equally be used to argue for belief in fairies!!

eg

1. i read books about fairies, therefore the notion speaks to me (a live choice)
2. if i choose not believe, then i lose some magic from my life (so momentous)
3. one either believes in fairies or not, there is no non-choice in this one (so forced!)
4. in refusing to believe me that there are fairies, without having any definite proof to the contrary - a counter-arguer is revealing the partiality of their opinion. (a choice that is equally valid..)

Abraham - 'Soft Rationalism'

he argues that classical hard-logic arguments for the existence of God do not do the topic justice - the god they result in is not the one worshipped in the heart of the believer.

so - he argues this kind of argument might be persuasive...

a person becomes itnerested in a faith, finding it makes a friend happy.
then they see other things in their own life that make them happy, an fill them with purpose.
they write this off as having a psychological cause but other things - lucky chances, etc give them to believe in God....

this isn't an argument completel without vience - but is an acrual of evidence fom a persons life.

THE person then acepts that God exists, on the basis on these small bits of evidence - not on the back of a single rational argument, but because many events have lead them to that point.

In this way Arguments about God could be held to be acceptable in the same way as arguements about historical facts ...

e.g 'The input of the USSR won WW2' - is something one would back up with several facts, and weighing in the balance, agree with.

problems -=

yet again one could believe wholly erroneously in sth - eg Aliens - several flawed bits of evidence don't make a good case,

this could lead you to believe anything!

also, it allows you to create your own 'God of the gaps' -i think 'god casued X, Y Z..'..
every point is subject to objections. - although for William J Abrahams 'when examined they do not prove to be of a decisive character' - perhaps for someone who want sto believes they don't..but for me, a lot of bad evidence oes not mak a good argument!

as tthe 'if one does appeal to personal judgement to support the metaphysical system that hepe to create it then that appeal is patently circular' - ie - your immediate world view is is the origin of the belief, therefore not a good measur to check against.

Soren Kierkegaard - the primacy of the subjective -

Soren Kierkegaard's argument is essentially that belief in things we know to be true ia not really faith - therefor as soone as we believe we have proved God, we have done away with our faith.

when one acts in faith 'where is the most truth, and who acts in the most certainty'?

he gives the exampleof Socrates, takng his own life in the 'passion of the inifinite' - if taking the hemlock is the end of his life, all is lost, if by takign ti he has won all - so in such an act there is firmer belief than there is in believeing eg. that it is raining.

'only in subjectivity is there decisiveness, to seek objectivity is to be in error'

JN FIndlay - gods necessary existence is impossible.

found this bit difficult - his prose is about as clear as mud.

God is the 'adequate object of religious attitudes'

in order to make this object mor worship-worthy, phiosophers demand he me 'limitless' 'unsurpassable' etc.
'God mustn't only cover the territory of the actual, but also, with equal comprehensiveness, the territory of th epossible.'

'god must be wholly inescapable, whether for thought or reality'.

i think the nub of it may lie here 'the divine existence is either senseless of impossible'

'those who believe in necessary truths which aren't merely tautological think that such truths connect the possible instances of various characterisitics with each other, they don't expect such characteristics to tell them whether there will be any instances of any characterisitics.'

'a divine existene could only be a necessary matter if we made up our minds to speaktheistically whatever the empirical circumstances might turn out to be'.

so - he wants to argue (If i have understood correctly) that as Gods existence is not universally accepted, that being whos existence is inescapable hasbeen disproed.
Also, as Thiests want God to be involved in the world, they donn't want a God that is above, or outside of verything, like amathematical concept - true, bt if you unerstand it, not consequential.

.anywya, too much time on this guy.

Thomas Morris

1. necessarily God is good
2. necessarily God is omnipotent
3. necessarily, God is omnscient

it can also be expressed thus:

1. gOD IS NECESSARILY GOOD
2. god is necessarily Omnipotent
3. god is necessarily moniscient

each property is essential to his existence, so you move to

1. necessarily God is essentially good
2. necesarily God is essentially Omipotent
3. necessarily God is essenially omniscient

as 'a being who was vulneable to evil, weakness or ignorance in any way isn't a 'greatest possible being'

you can skecth these thre different things out in logical notification (which i can't do in a computer) they do work as logical equivalnces

possible worlds -

an 'essential property' would beloong to you in every possible world. eg a triangle has three sides in every possible world.

most properties are contigent for a person - however a person can't be a person without 'being at least potentially conscious'

for God , God must possess all the above in every possible world then. he is 'a bieng whose anchorage in reality is so great that i is not even possible for the being to have failed to have exist'.

however 'the most plausible candidates for necessary existence are abstractobjects like numbers' - now i'm not even sure that this is true. having discussed this late into the night wit dh the laws of physics and the basic pronciples of maths could conceivabley be different in another universe. the fact hat humans ind this very difficult to get their heads around is because we are very much the products of this universe...

however, that's just my criticism, lets go on..
he goes on to say that if numbers exist in every possible world, then the conditions that apply to them also must.

so..

'the critic of divine necessity allegso suppose god exists necessarily . The paradigms of necessary existence as we have seen, are abstrat objects . but god is a person and and persons ...are concrete objects

thence

1. persons begin to exist and cease to exist.
2. persons exist contingenelty but 3) God is a person so
3. god exists contingently and thus 5) God does not exist necessarily.

Xian belief howveer has it that persons are do not cease to exist - that is the body may prish but the 'essence' continues ad inifinitum,

'we never know that any intersubjectively experienceable object ceases to exist by sense experience alone'.

also onemight argue that 'create person cease to exist' God is not a created person, threfore mya function ifferently.

he then attacks the modal disproof - ie that

(G) God exists
could not be true in all possible worlds unless the opposite was formally inconsistent ie -

9GN) god does not exist

this is not an inconcsistent statement such as 2+2 = 5, nor in the same way as imiagining I exist without having or ever having had consciousness (no consciousness, = no 'I') though. his counter is 'i see no reason to be so restrictive about the grounds of necessity and impossibility'

now he explains Findlay to me -

'there are no necessities or improbablilities except for those which are established by human linguistic convention or agreement' - therefore it is absurd to suppose a God-being could be exisitng in every possible world, or even one, because of such a convention. - that's why he thinks it impossible. '

one could fform the arg

1. Gods existence is a necessity
2. Gods existence is therefore a consequence of linguistic convention

therefore

3. if a consequence of linguistic convention, God's existence is not necessary - those conventions are arbitrary

then

4. God does not exist.

this argument seems fairly constructed to me - a bit manafactured.