Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Ibn Taymiyya refuted logic?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

So, recently I watched this video where the guy was giving an introduction to Ibn Taymiyya's book, rad 'ala mantiqiyyin, where Ibn Taymiyya refuted aristotelian logic, including the concept that deduction can bring certainty. The translation of the book can be read here but if you are not familiar with aristotelian logic, it would be a pretty difficult read. 

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

Now I was reading a work which explained Ibn Taymiyya's alternative to logic, and it was the fitra, or the idea that if we were not corrupted, we have a willingness to accept that Islam is the truth. Ibn Taymiyya's proof for this is basically the general human psyche to desire a higher purpose and to call on God in times of need. Although, I do not see how these proofs are strong. As in how does a tendency to do certain actions or believe in things actually make those beliefs true and certain? I just don't see how it follows. How would one actually prove those beliefs to be true? Arguing like this to an atheist, that "nah I won't prove to you that God exists with deduction because in fact it is an inherent disposition" seems very fallacious.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think it’s absurd to say that deduction doesn’t need to be there to lead to belief like if that is truly the case then one should ask himself why did Allah in Qur'an call people to ponder and reflect upon his creation the answer is he made it a sign to everyone to believe is that fit rah???

or why does he give logical proofs in Qur'an regarding himself and the universe if we just are made to rely on fitrah.

with all due respect I think his argument is flawed 

Edited by Noor Taleb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

 

Logic, like maths or language, is a human construct that we use to understand the world. It’s a tool that describes relationships between ideas. 
Logic only applies to statements, not to the real world.
It deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments." 

Example:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

ws

*
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Frank Griffel sums up the issue with Ibn Taymiyya and his rejection of aql quite well:

Quote

 I see the same vicious circle here in the theology of Ibn Taymiyya. In fact, it is the circle in Ibn Taymiyya's theology that will eventually lead to the one we find in the thought of Sayyid Quṭb, Mawdūdī, and other Islamist thinkers. They claim that natural reason* (or “uncontaminated reason”) reaches the very same results as those that we find in revelation. Given, however, that for Ibn Taymiyya and his modern followers there is no method of verifying reason* which is independent from revelation, we have no way of really knowing what reason* actually teaches other than taking it from revelation. For his Ashʿarite opponents, logic, the method of demonstration (burhān), and the formal rules of arguing provide a method of verifying the judgments of reason which is indeed independent of revelation. Ibn Taymiyya's rejection of formal logic, however, and his failure to put something in its stead that does not itself depend on revelation,88 deprives him of that independent verification and leads to the circularity that I think characterizes his thought and that of many of his followers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

So, recently I watched this video where the guy was giving an introduction to Ibn Taymiyya's book, rad 'ala mantiqiyyin, where Ibn Taymiyya refuted aristotelian logic, including the concept that deduction can bring certainty. The translation of the book can be read here but if you are not familiar with aristotelian logic, it would be a pretty difficult read. 

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

Now I was reading a work which explained Ibn Taymiyya's alternative to logic, and it was the fitra, or the idea that if we were not corrupted, we have a willingness to accept that Islam is the truth. Ibn Taymiyya's proof for this is basically the general human psyche to desire a higher purpose and to call on God in times of need. Although, I do not see how these proofs are strong. As in how does a tendency to do certain actions or believe in things actually make those beliefs true and certain? I just don't see how it follows. How would one actually prove those beliefs to be true? Arguing like this to an atheist, that "nah I won't prove to you that God exists with deduction because in fact it is an inherent disposition" seems very fallacious.

Ibn Timmiya didn't know that he is using logic brother, his belief that man's weakness requires him a powerful being who could solve his issues, is itself prove that human always need assistance is based on reason and logic, hence, he does not know what he was saying lolz 

:hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Ibn Timmiya didn't know that he is using logic brother, his belief that man's weakness requires him a powerful being who could solve his issues, is itself prove that human always need assistance is based on reason and logic, hence, he does not know what he was saying lolz 

:hahaha:

I don't know if you're refuting "man's weakness requires him a powerful being who could solve his issues, is itself prove that human always need assistance" or supporting it, but I verify for my part it is perfectly true and according to the basic theory of Islam.

"Perpetually is the servant either the recipient of a blessing from Allaah, in which case he is need of gratitude; or he is the perpetrator of sin, in which case he is in need of repentance; he is always moving from one blessing to another and is always is in need of repentance." - Ibn Taymiyyah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

I don't know if you're refuting "man's weakness requires him a powerful being who could solve his issues, is itself prove that human always need assistance" or supporting it, but I verify for my part it is perfectly true and according to the basic theory of Islam.

I am saying that Ibn Timmiya considered philosophy haram but he explains things by making use of philosophy, like brother also said that he rejected logic but traces his own beliefs by using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

I am saying that Ibn Timmiya considered philosophy haram but he explains things by making use of philosophy, like brother also said that he rejected logic but traces his own beliefs by using it.

Who says he considered philosophy haram? He simply thought it won't lead to religious truth. He believed that logic is not the way to do it. You are confusing two different meanings for the word logic. Obviously he didn't mean the act of using one's reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

Who says he considered philosophy haram? He simply thought it won't lead to religious truth. He believed that logic is not the way to do it. You are confusing two different meanings for the word logic. Obviously he didn't mean the act of using one's reason.

He refuted Philosphy and made tabligh that it is haram that is why if you ask many people who believe in his school of thought would say Philosophy is haram. What is the way if it is not logic ? You recognize miracles with logic and differentiate who is Prophet and who is ordinary. With logic people became Muslim by believing in the truthfulness of Prophet PBUHHP. And Prophet PBUHHP was not assigned with the task to bring people towards God other than Logic that is Threat and force. Qur'an always says that Prophet was sent for teaching Wisdom, purifying you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

He refuted Philosphy and made tabligh that it is haram that is why if you ask many people who believe in his school of thought would say Philosophy is haram. What is the way if it is not logic ? You recognize miracles with logic and differentiate who is Prophet and who is ordinary. With logic people became Muslim by believing in the truthfulness of Prophet PBUHHP. And Prophet PBUHHP was not assigned with the task to bring people towards God other than Logic that is Threat and force. Qur'an always says that Prophet was sent for teaching Wisdom, purifying you. 

Exactly brother amazing !!!! Logic leads to truth I don’t know why people say it doesn’t when Allah uses it in the Qur'an to convince people and it does convince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

He refuted Philosphy and made tabligh that it is haram that is why if you ask many people who believe in his school of thought would say Philosophy is haram. What is the way if it is not logic ? You recognize miracles with logic and differentiate who is Prophet and who is ordinary. With logic people became Muslim by believing in the truthfulness of Prophet PBUHHP. And Prophet PBUHHP was not assigned with the task to bring people towards God other than Logic that is Threat and force. Qur'an always says that Prophet was sent for teaching Wisdom, purifying you. 

 What do you mean by tabligh?

this is what he means with the word logic

'The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.'

Not this

"a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

 What do you mean by tabligh?

this is what he means with the word logic

'The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.'

Not this

"a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty"

 

good academic definition of logic, but I have come to know that he used to refute philosophy and philosophers use logic and everything which you have today including literature of any religion which is being defined by its  taught in Madrasas and Masajid. Probably, he was not that much oppose to some kind of philosophy, if not all

Edited by Flying_Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

good academic definition of logic, but I have come to know that he used to refute philosophy and philosophers use logic and everything which you have today including literature of any religion which is being defined by its  taught in Madrasas and Masajid. Probably, he was not that much oppose to some kind of philosophy, if not all

So what is your objection exactly? His criticism toward philosophy came from spirituality. Philosophy lacks spirituality on many ways. That doesn't mean a philosopher can't be spiritual, but it does mean that philosophy does not in itself lead to spirituality, not to mention religion.

Or do you think that this above mentioned logic can be used to attain the highest form of religiousness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aragaia said:

So what is your objection exactly? His criticism toward philosophy came from spirituality. Philosophy lacks spirituality on many ways. That doesn't mean a philosopher can't be spiritual, but it does mean that philosophy does not in itself lead to spirituality, not to mention religion.

Or do you think that this above mentioned logic can be used to attain the highest form of religiousness?

I think that he is is considering bad-ideas to be philosophy, and he refers to it by saying that philosophy lacks spirituality. He should have said bad-ideas lack spirituality and not true philosophy, The problems which we face today is because we never understood philosophy of Islam. Besides, he was never pondered over Qur'an and Hadith like philosophers would do, he read it with outward eye and made everything halal and haram according to his own intellect and never thought over the words of Qur'an which asks us to think and ponder. Probably, because he did not read books from good scholars and used his own brain or he could not understand it or his teachers distorted philosophy before he began to think upon it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

I think that he is is considering bad-ideas to be philosophy, and he refers to it by saying that philosophy lacks spirituality. He should have said bad-ideas lack spirituality and not true philosophy, The problems which we face today is because we never understood philosophy of Islam. Besides, he was never pondered over Qur'an and Hadith like philosophers would do, he read it with outward eye and made everything halal and haram according to his own intellect and never thought over the words of Qur'an which asks us to think and ponder. Probably, because he did not read books from good scholars and used his own brain or he could not understand it or his teachers distorted philosophy before he began to think upon it

Amazing how little you think of him. Philosophy and religion don't go together. Try as you may. I wouldn't rely on people who hate him to tell you the truth of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

Amazing how little you think of him. Philosophy and religion don't go together. Try as you may. I wouldn't rely on people who hate him to tell you the truth of him.

lolz, Through Philosophy you find true religion. I do not agree with what you have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

I have read Ibn Taymiyyah's work many years ago and many arguments he brings in it are valid and even other logicians and philosophers acknowledged these critiques later. However, over the later centuries and especially today, there has been a lot more extensive advancement in these discussions, especially in the field of epistemology and while some of those critiques he does are still valid, there have been other ways to justify the value of logic and especially deduction.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I have read Ibn Taymiyyah's work many years ago and many arguments he brings in it are valid and even other logicians and philosophers acknowledged these critiques later. However, over the later centuries and especially today, there has been a lot more extensive advancement in these discussions, especially in the field of epistemology and while some of those critiques he does are still valid, there have been other ways to justify the value of logic and especially deduction.

Wasalam

Do contemporary arguments justify how one can attain certainty with deduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Do contemporary arguments justify how one can attain certainty with deduction?

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anon
2 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? For example, every house I have observed on a particular street is red, therefore the next house I see  on the street is also probably going to be red. In contrast, deductive arguments, which are sound and valid, provide certain conclusions, like mathematical truths.

In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest Anon said:

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

That is what Shahid Sadr was trying to argue against. He argued that there comes a point where inductive reasoning can also result in certainty (what he calls al-tawalud al-dhaati - autogenousism). It is too complicated to explain on a ShiaChat post, but you can see the application of his epistemology in his works on legal theory very clearly, in 'ilm al-rijal, and also in theology (see the work The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message).

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 8:42 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

So, recently I watched this video where the guy was giving an introduction to Ibn Taymiyya's book, rad 'ala mantiqiyyin, where Ibn Taymiyya refuted aristotelian logic, including the concept that deduction can bring certainty. The translation of the book can be read here but if you are not familiar with aristotelian logic, it would be a pretty difficult read. 

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

Now I was reading a work which explained Ibn Taymiyya's alternative to logic, and it was the fitra, or the idea that if we were not corrupted, we have a willingness to accept that Islam is the truth. Ibn Taymiyya's proof for this is basically the general human psyche to desire a higher purpose and to call on God in times of need. Although, I do not see how these proofs are strong. As in how does a tendency to do certain actions or believe in things actually make those beliefs true and certain? I just don't see how it follows. How would one actually prove those beliefs to be true? Arguing like this to an atheist, that "nah I won't prove to you that God exists with deduction because in fact it is an inherent disposition" seems very fallacious.

Ibn Taymiyyah knows what he is talking about.  

I would take that advise very very seriously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest Anon said:

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? For example, every house I have observed on a particular street is red, therefore the next house I see  on the street is also probably going to be red. In contrast, deductive arguments, which are sound and valid, provide certain conclusions, like mathematical truths.

In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

 

23 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

Ibn Hussein,  I would really appreciate if you could give us an example of his induction based certitude.  You have sparked my curiosity as well.

Upon perusing online and skimming through some of Sadr’s works it appears so far that Sadr is not using “certitude” to mean 100% certitude?  He is using certitude to mean something very practical, perhaps something highly reliable.  

But it doesn’t quite qualify as “absolute certitude” in my books.

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

That is what Shahid Sadr was trying to argue against. He argued that there comes a point where inductive reasoning can also result in certainty (what he calls al-tawalud al-dhaati - autogenousism). It is too complicated to explain on a ShiaChat post, but you can see the application of his epistemology in his works on legal theory very clearly, in 'ilm al-rijal, and also in theology (see the work The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message).

Wasalam

With al-Sadr's inductive process, can the same theological conclusions of God not being in a place or having a body and that he doesn't have parts like a face or hands be reached? As well as concepts like infallibility and the necessity of nubuwwah and imamah with the principle of lutf? And also, could one use this process to reach similar conclusions of Shia philosophers on concepts like asalah al-wujud? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...