Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


.InshAllah. last won the day on June 17 2014

.InshAllah. had the most liked content!


About .InshAllah.

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/02/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,720 profile views
  1. Salam Jebreil, Please continue, I am enjoying your posts. In answer to your question, the lender may charge to compensate himself for the risk he is taking when lending. Or he may charge to compensate himself for the opportunity he is giving another person, to buy a house, start a business etc. Or to compensate himself for the temporary loss of purchasing power, e.g. if I give you £1000, then that's £1000 less that I can spend, until you pay me back. I give these as possible justifications a lender may give, but am not endorsing them as good justifications.
  2. Richard Dawkins is a joke. Some article here directly and indirectly relevant https://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/proving-god/
  3. Charlie Hebdo beheads Theresa May and mocks London Bridge terror victims The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo shows a decapitated Theresa May carrying her own head. Captioned ‘English multiculturalism,’ the prime minister proclaims ‘Too much is too much’ in what seems a reference to her ‘Enough is enough’ speech. The ‘horrific’ magazine also mocks the victims of the London Bridge terror attacks, with many readers saying the satirical publication went too far with both drawings and their message. ‘Slimming advice from Isis,’ the caption reads alongside a picture of people running with Big Ben in the background, one of them still carrying his pint of beer. Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/charlie-hebdo-beheads-theresa-may-and-mocks-london-bridge-terror-victims-6696745/#ixzz4jvg5CMeM
  4. I'll let you have the last word No not yet!
  5. This is true, but to conclude from this that every rational belief requires an argument is invalid. Just because a subset of beliefs require an argument, it doesnt mean that all beliefs require an argument.
  6. I also have a degree in Philosophy (not that it matters) and there is no question that you've got this wrong. Earlier in the thread I mentioned one of the leading internalist theories of justification (roughly: x is justified in believing p if it seems to x that p is true). But you dont have to be an internalist to reject the above claim. Plantinga is an externalist for example. Having said that, I didnt just appeal to authority but gave arguments why the claim cant be true. There are a lot of famous theories of justification. Can you quote one that endorses the above claim?
  7. This is completely false. You need to look into the literature on rationality and justification. In fact, I dont think any philosopher has ever argued for P. At the very least, the majority of contemporary philosophers would reject P
  8. I agree they are not the same. Both cases require everyone to believe or accept a premise to make it rational in the absence of argument, but (1) in practice there is never absolute agreement as there will always be people who deny any given belief no matter how obvious, (2) there are possible worlds in which 'acceptable' is crazy like the Sun example I gave, and (3) there is no argument that everything needs argument apart from the above 2 categories, and this is neither acceptable nor self evident, and so is self refuting. To elaborate on number (3) - in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying arguments, you said we can stop at those beliefs that are 'acceptable' or 'self evident'. Lets call this claim P. P : Every rational claim requires an argument, unless it is obvious to all or acceptable to all. P is absolute - it applies to all claims. But P is itself a claim. So in order for P to be rational, it either has to be based on an argument, or be obvious to all or acceptable to all. But there is no argument that I have seen for P, and it certainly isnt self evident or acceptable to all. (Plantinga in the paper I gave makes a similar move from what I remember). This means that P is not a rational claim.
  9. I was replying to what you said about 'acceptable' and 'self evident' beliefs that are rational despite not being based on argument. You said they are so because theyre accepted by everyone. This makes consensus of people very relevant on the account you gave. I dont believe that consensus of people is what makes something rational
  10. Soroush you might find this useful http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Belief_in_God_Properly_Basic.pdf Is Belief in God Proprley Basic by Alvin Plantinga Its one of the first things I read on the subject about 7-8 years ago
  11. The problem with this is that you have tied rationality to what other people believe. So in a 'possible world' in which all people believe the Sun is made of cheese based on the fact that it is yellow, you would be irrational to disagree. True? Secondly, where is the argument that consensus of opinion = acceptable and rational? You say there is always an argument for rational beliefs, so where is the argument for this? Thirdly, there is never complete consensus on any belief. You will find people who deny any belief you deem self evident or acceptable. So your criterion is never met in practice. Perhaps you want to weaken it to say 'most people', but the above 2 arguments still apply, and since when is truth determined by what most people believe? واكثرهم للحق كارهون
  12. And yet youve just said there are truths that are 'self evident' and 'acceptable' that arent based on arguments.
  13. What does 'acceptable' mean? What does 'self evident' mean? Self evident to whom? Acceptable to whom?
  14. Tabeedh just is Taqleed, but of more than more marji'. The question assumes that if you do Tabeedh you reject Taqleed which isnt true. I know this wasnt your intention, but the way you framed the question suggests that. In fact many Maraji' allow following the opinions of more than one scholar, e.g. Sayid Muhammad Taqi Moderessi who says you can do Tabeedh provided its not based on hawa (personal base desires) I can think of 2 arguments against Tabeedh. The first is that its rational to follow the majority opinion amongst experts in a field, and most experts on fiqh do not allow tabeedh. The second is that it leads to a kind of incoherence, in that different scholars use different principles to derive rulings. So you could end up following ruling x from one scholar who based that on a particular principle, and following ruling y from another scholar who based that on the denial of that same principle. Having said that the above 2 arguments arent decisive, and theres somthing to the arguments you give, plus in cases where one scholar is clearly more knowledgeable in a particular field, or if you have other over riding reasons, then it would be right to do tabeedh IMO. Or if youve looked into the reasoning behind the rejection of tabeedh and found it wanting.