Is theism necessary to reason properly?

[Northwest]

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

Is there any particular context or philosophical thought you're referring to?

@Mahdii I am referring, broadly, to a tendency by theists. These people argue, essentially, that a doctrinaire belief in God—as defined by a particular creed—is a prerequisite for science. In other words, unless one believes in a particular faith, one cannot gather any insight as to the nature of the universe, given that supernatural agents define reality, including the concept of ‘truth’ itself. For example, according to this line of logic, if one does not believe in, say, the Abrahamic tradition, one cannot use any external source, including one‘s own reason or natural law, to conclude that same-sex intercourse is unnatural. In other words, recourse to empiricism or other forms of unaided rationality, even if one comes to a similar conclusion as the theist, is considered forbidden, if not almost sacrilegious.

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

Otherwise, it is difficult to understand the premises of your post. It does not follow why faith in God (professing an ultimate metaphysical existence, however you want to define it) is a necessary prerequisite for knowing whether something in our physical reality, if anything, is true or false.

I never made that claim. I was describing how many theists seem to think about this matter, not how I think. I have personally known theists who do advocate this line of thought: that a certain metaphysical premise, i.e., belief in a Higher Power, is indispensable to knowing (i.e., verifying) the truth, or any truth, about our existence. Many theists seem very uncomfortable with the notion that one does not need to refer to a Higher Power before declaring something to be true, false, unnatural, illogical, irrational, and so on. In their minds, 2 + 2 = 4 only if their deity and/or sacred tradition has already pronounced it thus. To use a prior example: one cannot use, say, biology alone to prove that same-sex intercourse is unnatural. One must only say that the Higher Power has deemed it ‘wrong’ or ‘sinful’.

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

Why cannot the existence of God be proven?

I would think that the existence of God involves metaphysical postulates that cannot be measured or otherwise confirmed. We can logically conclude that God exists, but cannot prove that He does. After all, God, being incomprehensible, exists beyond and outside this universe.

[Abu Nur]

4 hours ago, Northwest said:

I never made that claim. I was describing how many theists seem to think about this matter, not how I think. I have personally known theists who do advocate this line of thought: that a certain metaphysical premise, i.e., belief in a Higher Power, is indispensable to knowing (i.e., verifying) the truth, or any truth, about our existence. Many theists seem very uncomfortable with the notion that one does not need to refer to a Higher Power before declaring something to be true, false, unnatural, illogical, irrational, and so on. In their minds, 2 + 2 = 4 only if their deity and/or sacred tradition has already pronounced it thus. To use a prior example: one cannot use, say, biology alone to prove that same-sex intercourse is unnatural. One must only say that the Higher Power has deemed it ‘wrong’ or ‘sinful’.

What you are referring is the common Knowledge that is derived from cause/effect of physical realm. All the science is base on that realm, and it is true that we can not derive what is right or wrong for soul just based on science alone. Because science only describe the body (cause/effect) not the soul. Natural or unnatural of physical realm have nothing to do with soul itself. 

When human beings make rules for society and for what is right and wrong it is mostly an mixture of both science and fitrah, and because of this mixture it will make bad and good rules and values. Humans confuse themselves with nafs attributes (the body) and fitrah, and they use their reasoning to derive the rules based on these two. 

Religion morals is based purely on fitrah and soul, because that is what humans truly are. 

[Abu Nur]

26 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

i.e., belief in a Higher Power, is indispensable to knowing (i.e., verifying) the truth, or any truth, about our existence

We can derive the truths of this physical universe, barzakh and realm of spirit. Physical universe is for any human being, even if he is atheist can derive the truth of physical universe. But as for Barzakh, and Spirit realm and to witness and derive the truths from them, this requires faith and detachment of this dunya. 

The real reason for anything always comes from Spirit realm. So for example the process of any event of physical universe has real reason, only know in spirit realm. But what we can derive is the truth of cause/effect of this physical realm. But we can not call them the real reason of their existence. 

Edited November 24, 2025 by Abu Nur

[Northwest]

7 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

What you are referring is the common Knowledge that is derived from cause/effect of physical realm. All the science is base on that realm, and it is true that we can not derive what is right or wrong for soul just based on science alone. Because science only describe the body (cause/effect) not the soul. Natural or unnatural of physical realm have nothing to do with soul itself.

I understand the concept you are expounding here, but you are drawing a radical distinction between spiritual and physical ‘truths’ (in the moral realm). To me, this comes across as odd, or difficult to comprehend, given that the human self or soul (which includes the innate consciousness or fitrah) is, in Islam, said to be a unitary physical-spiritual interface. So on the face of things the spiritual and physical realms would seem to correspond, mirror each other, and/or operate in harmony, so that one could derive morally-sound inferences just by relying on aspects of either. But you rule out such a possibility by asserting that religious truths or morals can only be derived from the spiritual rather than either or both realms. If I understand this correctly, then real-world experience or observation—a testable, measurable thing—has nothing to do with, or is apart from, morality. To me this sounds quite dualistic; it is seemingly at odds with the holistic, integrated nature of man and his environment.

If so, then this seems to run into problems when confronted with other perspectives that also reject sensate phenomena in favor of metaphysical castles, which may or may not be grounded in ultimate truth. Then we might end up with rival groups arguing over things that cannot be proven by physical facts, senses, or tests. Then we enter the realm of postmodernism, which, like many theists, rejects the value of empiricism, as well as the notion that we can derive absolute truths from the physical realm. Hence I repeatedly go back to my previous observations, which no one seems to have directly addressed: the common frame of reference that seems to unite ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ ideologues who reject the value of unaided reason. If one concludes that the physical world cannot provide any real meaning (given that all truth is said to be derived from the hidden or spiritual realm), then one regresses into a kind of occultism in which anything can be said to pass for ‘truth’, because there is no physical way to check it.

Therefore I, once again, bring up this matter: what is the difference, on this score, between an LBGTQ+I/transgender proponent, a Trinitarian Christian, and a Muslim? The first two both reject the notion that the tools of the physical realm, such as logic, empiricism, or rationality, can draw any viable conclusion about reality by means of the natural sciences. In the case of Trinitarian Christianity, as I said elsewhere, ‘hocus pocus divinizes form’, contrary to reason (given the absolute separation of God’s essence from matter), while in the case of LBGTQ+I/transgender ideology, ‘hard sciences such as biology are just constructs’ that do not tell us anything about the ultimate nature of physicality. I would have thought that Islam would try to avoid falling into this trap, and to me the easiest way to avoid doing so would be to emphasize the hard sciences more. In my mind, I would tend to think that if this were the case, Muslims and other rational people would be better equipped to oppose nonsense such as LBGTQ+I and Trinitarian Christianity.

If we relied purely or even partly on hard sciences, I would think that constructs such as LBGTQ+I/transgender ideology and the Trinity would go away faster.

7 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

When human beings make rules for society and for what is right and wrong it is mostly an mixture of both science and fitrah, and because of this mixture it will make bad and good rules and values. Humans confuse themselves with nafs attributes (the body) and fitrah, and they use their reasoning to derive the rules based on these two.

But don’t religious people—both non-Muslims and individual Muslims—also fail to separate the spiritual from the physical and thus mistake one for the other? I think this is a universal human flaw that is not restricted to any particular outlook.

7 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Religion morals is based purely on fitrah and soul, because that is what humans truly are. 

^ As I said before, how, if true, does this statement draw a line between a Muslim and, say, an LBGTQ+I/transgender proponent and a Trinitarian Christian, given that the latter two also reject the notion that one can attain moral truths by observing the physical realm or using its means? For an LBGTQ+I/transgender ideologue ‘morality’ or even science is not based on biology, for to them ultimate reality is beyond physical sex, while for a Trinitarian Christian the truth, being spiritual, is inaccessible to ‘carnal’ (i.e., naturalistic or physical) means such as logic. Yet in our daily, practical lives we operate on the assumption that, as physical beings, we live in a deterministic universe in which various natural laws operate, whereas the spiritual realm marks the boundary of human comprehension. If we cannot extract truth, whether moral or other, from the world we live in, then what would be the point of human endeavor, including industry, economics, and so on, given that these rely largely on hard sciences that, as you implied, are entirely apart from spiritual realities?

Edit: I hope no one takes offense from this. I am genuinely trying to understand the rationale(s) here so that things begin to make more sense to me.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Northwest

[Abu Nur]

9 minutes ago, Northwest said:

I understand the concept you are expounding here, but you are drawing a radical distinction between spiritual and physical ‘truths’ (in the moral realm). To me, this comes across as odd, or difficult to comprehend, given that the human self or soul (which includes the innate consciousness or fitrah) is, in Islam, said to be a unitary physical-spiritual interface. So on the face of things the spiritual and physical realms would seem to correspond, mirror each other, and/or operate in harmony, so that one could derive morally-sound inferences just by relying on aspects of either. But you rule out such a possibility by asserting that religious truths or morals can only be derived from the spiritual rather than either or both realms. If I understand this correctly, then real-world experience or observation—a testable, measurable thing—has nothing to do with, or is apart from, morality. To me this sounds quite dualistic; it is seemingly at odds with the holistic, integrated nature of man and his environment.

 

The soul here I mean the human Spirit and self is the Nafs. Because it is only the Spirit that can attain the knowledge of religious truths or morals by God inspiring it. 

Quote

 If one concludes that the physical world cannot provide any real meaning (given that all truth is said to be derived from the hidden or spiritual realm), then one regresses into a kind of occultism in which anything can be said to pass for ‘truth’, because there is no physical way to check it.

What exactly do you mean by Real here? Scientific truths tell us how things works in this universe. They are truths because the Human intelligence and reasoning which is part of the "Spirit attributes" (they are not tools of physical realm) can derive them by observing and testing in this physical universe. They are truths. But for the question of "why", which exactly will answer the question of what is "real meaning of something" can not really be derived by science or even reasoning of the cause/effect universe. But because we are Spirit, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) can inspire us more truth when we ponder upon the creations and give more truth about them than just "how" things works in this cause/effect universe. The inspiration comes exactly from the Spirit realm that descend down to physical universe.
 

Quote

Yet in our daily, practical lives we operate on the assumption that, as physical beings, we live in a deterministic universe in which various natural laws operate, whereas the spiritual realm marks the boundary of human comprehension. If we cannot extract truth, whether moral or other, from the world we live in, then what would be the point of human endeavor, including industry, economics, and so on, given that these rely largely on hard sciences that, as you implied, are entirely apart from spiritual realities?

I don't understand how did you derive this from my quote? It is because of our fitrah we proceed in human endeavor. It is because of our fitrah we go to school and learn the truthfulness and not falsehood and so on.

[Northwest]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, Abu Nur said:

The soul here I mean the human Spirit and self is the Nafs. Because it is only the Spirit that can attain the knowledge of religious truths or morals by God inspiring it.

@Abu Nur You said that one cannot deduce truth by using both science and fitrah. If this world is designed by a Creator, why cannot one use each to discern truth? Can faith not be informed by science and vice versa? (I.e., to prove that LBGTQ+I is ‘wrong’, cannot one use arguments from biology rather than solely from faith?) My issue is that faith deals with a reality that, however ‘real’, cannot be measured, tested, or described; it is, in a sense, a mystery. Metaphysics can thus err and erect propositions that may or may not be founded in reality, yet a way to prove or disprove this using scientific methods does not exist, given the nature of the subject.

On 11/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, Abu Nur said:

What exactly do you mean by Real here? Scientific truths tell us how things works in this universe. They are truths because the Human intelligence and reasoning which is part of the "Spirit attributes" (they are not tools of physical realm) can derive them by observing and testing in this physical universe. They are truths.

If they are part of the “Spirit attributes”, then why do “Natural or unnatural of physical realm have nothing to do with soul itself”? You said that spirit underlies physicality. So why would one not reflect the other?

On 11/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, Abu Nur said:

But for the question of "why", which exactly will answer the question of what is "real meaning of something" can not really be derived by science or even reasoning of the cause/effect universe.

Why can the two not be integrated?

On 11/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, Abu Nur said:

But because we are Spirit, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) can inspire us more truth when we ponder upon the creations and give more truth about them than just "how" things works in this cause/effect universe. The inspiration comes exactly from the Spirit realm that descend down to physical universe.

But a way to verify this using empiricism, measurement, ‘cause/effect’, etc., i.e., ‘science’, does not exist.

On 11/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, Abu Nur said:

I don't understand how did you derive this from my quote? It is because of our fitrah we proceed in human endeavor. It is because of our fitrah we go to school and learn the truthfulness and not falsehood and so on.

? You just said that (‘religious’) truth(s) cannot be extracted from experience with or observation of the world, i.e., the kind of ‘science‘ that is taught in schools about physics, chemistry, biology, and so on.

[Northwest]

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

Is there any particular context or philosophical thought you're referring to?

@Mahdii An argument I have seen among theists is that faith verifies itself. Faith (i.e., metaphysics) is itself ‘science’ and ‘reason’; therefore, according to the argument, one must not rely on empiricism, observation, physics, etc. to help one discern truth(s) about the universe, ethics, morality, and so on. Each realm is a world unto itself. One is either not permitted to use a source that does not derive from from faith or is to ignore it. To illustrate: there are ‘creationists’ who say that, even if evidence were to support evolution, they would trust the Bible because the Bible. The evidence must fit the conclusion, not vice versa.

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

It does not follow why faith in God (professing an ultimate metaphysical existence, however you want to define it) is a necessary prerequisite for knowing whether something in our physical reality, if anything, is true or false.

^ Theists have presented this line of argument. They claim that we cannot rely on physicality (including sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and so on) to uncover truths about ethics, morality, etc. There are theists who claim that physicality cannot tell us about Reality either.

On 10/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Mahdii said:

Why cannot the existence of God be proven?

We cannot measure, observe, or use tools (i.e., the senses) to demonstrate the existence of God. We can only conclude that evidence might suggest or point to His existence. One can rely on metaphysics (i.e., the realm of the ‘spirit‘) to do so. Metaphysics, according to theists, can tell us about ethics and morality, while one cannot use physics, chemistry, biology, etc. to do so, even as aids or complements to understanding.

[Northwest]

On 9/23/2025 at 11:28 PM, Silas said:

For purposes of conversation and debate, could we say the following?:

Pauline Christianity does not assert that Jesus is one with God, but rather a blessed intermediary for humanity (a great prophet)?

there are passages in the epistles which *suggest* Jesus is Messiah and God, and others which make a clear distinction between God the Father and the "Lord" Jesus

@Silas Paul’s epistles defy any attempt to discern their meaning, given their incoherence. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul, illustrating 1 Corinthians 6:12 (“all things are lawful...”), permits believers to eat idol-offerings (breaking the promise he made to the Jerusalem elders in Acts 15:20), provided they know that the idol lacks an existence, i.e., a reality. Yet in 1 Corinthians 6:13 he commands his followers not to engage in fornication, contradicting his laxity elsewhere, e.g., idol-offerings; he thus also contradicts (cf. Romans 6:15, 7:7–8,12,14) his approach to the dichotomy between “Law” (i.e., “works”) and “grace”, whereby man cannot earn the favor of God on his own merits, thus nullifying the efficacy of the Law (cf. Romans 8:3). Maybe he refers to a certain spirit, illustrated in the life of Jesus, by which one may fulfill the Law, so that its precepts become ingrained in one‘s personality; but I do not know.

[Silas]

On 12/9/2025 at 5:50 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas Paul’s epistles defy any attempt to discern their meaning, given their incoherence. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul, illustrating 1 Corinthians 6:12 (“all things are lawful...”), permits believers to eat idol-offerings (breaking the promise he made to the Jerusalem elders in Acts 15:20), provided they know that the idol lacks an existence, i.e., a reality. Yet in 1 Corinthians 6:13 he commands his followers not to engage in fornication, contradicting his laxity elsewhere, e.g., idol-offerings; he thus also contradicts (cf. Romans 6:15, 7:7–8,12,14) his approach to the dichotomy between “Law” (i.e., “works”) and “grace”, whereby man cannot earn the favor of God on his own merits, thus nullifying the efficacy of the Law (cf. Romans 8:3). Maybe he refers to a certain spirit, illustrated in the life of Jesus, by which one may fulfill the Law, so that its precepts become ingrained in one‘s personality; but I do not know.

The passage in Acts 15:20 regards James, not Paul. James emphasized keeping in accordance with Mosaic law, while Paul rejected works-based-salvation and emphasized 
"Christ's Law", which fulfills and supplants the Mosaic. 

but another interesting aspect to all of this, is that fact that the Noahidic Law is seldom referenced. Noah's son Japheth traveled north from the Levant, and was the ancestor of the Greeks, Indo-Europeans, etc. --he was never under the Mosaic Law. So when Jesus says he has fulfilled the law, is he talking about both laws or only the Mosaic.

I have no idea lol

 

[Silas]

On 12/9/2025 at 5:50 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas Paul’s epistles defy any attempt to discern their meaning, given their incoherence. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul, illustrating 1 Corinthians 6:12 (“all things are lawful...”), permits believers to eat idol-offerings (breaking the promise he made to the Jerusalem elders in Acts 15:20), provided they know that the idol lacks an existence, i.e., a reality. Yet in 1 Corinthians 6:13 he commands his followers not to engage in fornication, contradicting his laxity elsewhere, e.g., idol-offerings; he thus also contradicts (cf. Romans 6:15, 7:7–8,12,14) his approach to the dichotomy between “Law” (i.e., “works”) and “grace”, whereby man cannot earn the favor of God on his own merits, thus nullifying the efficacy of the Law (cf. Romans 8:3). Maybe he refers to a certain spirit, illustrated in the life of Jesus, by which one may fulfill the Law, so that its precepts become ingrained in one‘s personality; but I do not know.

The passage in Acts 15:20 regards James, not Paul. James emphasized keeping in accordance with Mosaic law, while Paul rejected works-based-salvation and emphasized 
"Christ's Law", which fulfills and supplants the Mosaic. 

but another interesting aspect to all of this, is that fact that the Noahidic Law is seldom referenced. Noah's son Japheth traveled north from the Levant, and was the ancestor of the Greeks, Indo-Europeans, etc. --he was never under the Mosaic Law. So when Jesus says he has fulfilled the law, is he talking about both laws or only the Mosaic.

I have no idea lol

 

[Northwest]

11 hours ago, Silas said:

The passage in Acts 15:20 regards James, not Paul.

@Silas Acts 15 refers to a deal between their followers, reconciling the two wings of the church (cf. Acts 15:1–2,7–10,24). V. 20 shows that the Gentiles agreed to follow a version of the Laws of Noah rather than the Torah in its entirety. The Gentiles are bidden not to consume idol-offerings, engage in fornication, or eat food that retains blood or has been strangled. The context shows that Paul, like James, was a party to the agreement. Yet in 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul seems to hedge a bit, if not break the deal, by permitting Gentiles to eat idol-offerings, under the condition that they do not encourage idol-worship itself (i.e., they recognize the unreality of the idols themselves); Paul also seems to do so elsewhere, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 6:12, 8:7, 10:25–6, by declaring that all kinds of food may be eaten.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

James emphasized keeping in accordance with Mosaic law, while Paul rejected works-based-salvation and emphasized "Christ's Law", which fulfills and supplants the Mosaic.

But Paul mainly addressed Gentiles, so the Torah in toto, rather than the Laws of Noah, would not have applied, per the Jerusalem agreement. Gentiles did not need to circumcise themselves or follow all the rituals of the Jews, but would instead adhere to a part of the Torah. (At any rate, Paul also stresses works, i.e., in 1 Corinthians 6:13, where he tells Gentiles not to fornicate. [If his followers could not but sin, then Paul would not have imposed such a demand.] My point is that he seems to contradict himself at times, by alternately discarding and following the Laws of Noah.)

11 hours ago, Silas said:

but another interesting aspect to all of this, is that fact that the Noahidic Law is seldom referenced. Noah's son Japheth traveled north from the Levant, and was the ancestor of the Greeks, Indo-Europeans, etc. --he was never under the Mosaic Law. So when Jesus says he has fulfilled the law, is he talking about both laws or only the Mosaic.

The Laws of Noah did form a part of the Torah, but the Torah in its entirety was revealed to Moses. So they harmonize, a fact that Jesus alluded to.

[Northwest]

I am still awaiting a response to the issue(s) I have raised re: the epistemology a faith-based worldview resorts to (and defends), highlighting similarity between religion and secularism.

• Trinity: a Platonic mystery existing in the realm of the spirit, a world governed by its own rules (that we cannot grasp)
• LBGTQ+I/transgender construct: the ‘self’, including sexuality, is rooted in something beyond physicality (i.e., biology)
• Theist: physicality can tell us nothing about religious truth(s), which are only accessed via the realm of the spirit/‘soul’*

*At least some theists make this argument.

I see a theme running through all three of these: that we must appeal to metaphysics rather than physics for facts about the universe, including truth(s). Why can we not incorporate the sciences?

If we did, would we end up with more rationality, and a diminution in belief-systems such as Trinitarian Christianity or gender ideology?

[Silas]

On 12/16/2025 at 9:15 AM, Northwest said:

I am still awaiting a response to the issue(s) I have raised re: the epistemology a faith-based worldview resorts to (and defends), highlighting similarity between religion and secularism.

• Trinity: a Platonic mystery existing in the realm of the spirit, a world governed by its own rules (that we cannot grasp)
• LBGTQ+I/transgender construct: the ‘self’, including sexuality, is rooted in something beyond physicality (i.e., biology)
• Theist: physicality can tell us nothing about religious truth(s), which are only accessed via the realm of the spirit/‘soul’*

*At least some theists make this argument.

I see a theme running through all three of these: that we must appeal to metaphysics rather than physics for facts about the universe, including truth(s). Why can we not incorporate the sciences?

If we did, would we end up with more rationality, and a diminution in belief-systems such as Trinitarian Christianity or gender ideology?

I think a lot depends on the philosophical and theological foundations of theism as properly understood. 

In Islamic and Christian tradition, classical hylomorphism was used to define the reality of being, and this connects to the divine.

Working from Aristotle, Ibn Sina (Avincenna) claimed that all substances are comprised of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). Aquinas took this further and made the connection between the form and the soul --with God as the architect of forms. There isn't a hard separation between the spiritual and the material --the material is a reflection and realization of the material. 

Classical Islamic and Christian scholars and theologians were philosophical realists. As Dr. Gholani remarks:

"Realism and Truth in Islamic Philosophy means that truth or reality is something that has an independent existence outside of the human mind. In this view, truth means that a belief or statement is true if it matches or corresponds with what exists in reality."

And this connects to ideologically-driven claims made about reality. When a person claims that he is not "male" because his "inner-self" or being is somehow female, he is making a kind of spiritual claim, but that doesn't match with his material form, and contradicts realism and logic. In Christian (at least Catholic) theology, the soul is not at odds with the body.

metaphysics property understood simply means "above physics" --not in some immaterial way, but as a nexus between human thought, physical reality, etc. We understand the abstract connections between the arts and sciences through metaphysics, just as we understand our presence in the universe. 

The idea that we subjugate science under theology in order to verify metaphysical claims is a talking point of atheists. No serious Islamic or Christian scholar claimed that everything around us "isn't real" or that the laws of nature were arbitrary, and that sacred texts were the only thing we can rely on. God gave us a mind and body for reason, the universe is real. 

Now when we discuss Platonism or the Trinity, this gets more complicated --there are connections and differences between Aristotle, Plato, the Neo-Platonists, etc. --but that is a much bigger discussion 

 

[Northwest]

19 hours ago, Silas said:

I think a lot depends on the philosophical and theological foundations of theism as properly understood. 

In Islamic and Christian tradition, classical hylomorphism was used to define the reality of being, and this connects to the divine.

Working from Aristotle, Ibn Sina (Avincenna) claimed that all substances are comprised of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). Aquinas took this further and made the connection between the form and the soul --with God as the architect of forms. There isn't a hard separation between the spiritual and the material --the material is a reflection and realization of the material.

@Silas If so, then I do not understand why *some* theists seem to disown science (i.e., observation of the universe) as an aid to understanding or confirming the truths of the spirit/‘soul’ etc.

My point is that the layman does not rely on the reasoning that motivates the scholar. The level of intellect that defined the men you mention has never gained a foothold among the laity. The masses tend to mistrust realism and thus succumb to approaches that place ideology (i.e., a kind of metaphysics that sets itself above and against realism) above all else. Another issue is that some of the realists, i.e., Aquinas, did not apply their realism to all matters, as the doctrine of the Trinity illustrates. The very concept of the Trinity implies a distinction between the rules of the spirit (where logic breaks down) and those of the world, unless the doctrine were held to describe a non-literal relationship.

19 hours ago, Silas said:

Classical Islamic and Christian scholars and theologians were philosophical realists. As Dr. Gholani remarks:

"Realism and Truth in Islamic Philosophy means that truth or reality is something that has an independent existence outside of the human mind. In this view, truth means that a belief or statement is true if it matches or corresponds with what exists in reality."

I, being familiar with this, regard philosophical realism as a branch of rationalism, given the fact that reason mediates between the mind and the rest of the universe. But, as I stated before, the layman does not, as a rule, resort to this approach. And some theists, like Aquinas, did not maintain their realism, as the Trinity shows.

19 hours ago, Silas said:

And this connects to ideologically-driven claims made about reality. When a person claims that he is not "male" because his "inner-self" or being is somehow female, he is making a kind of spiritual claim, but that doesn't match with his material form, and contradicts realism and logic. In Christian (at least Catholic) theology, the soul is not at odds with the body.

Yes, I am arguing that some theists and gender theorists share the same affinity. They demarcate the ‘spirit’/‘soul’ (or essence) from physicality, declaring the former to hold sway, in effect marginalizing the latter. The former also operates by rules other than those that the latter abides by, to the extent that even logic may not apply. The concept of the Trinity relies on some of the premises that seem to underlie gender ideology. The Trinity is supposed to represent the ‘soul’ or form of the Godhead, though, if applied to our realm, would oppose the ‘body’ of logic that encapsulates the universe. The Trinity, with its traces of Platonism, introduces elements of dualism into Christianity, thereby diluting its philosophical realism. Gender ideology is but an extension of this into the realm of secularism.

And theists who disclaim the utility of science do exist, like the creationist who declared that, even if science—i.e., evidence—were to support evolution (I, personally, do not think that it does to the extent the Establishment thinks), he would take the Bible at face value, thereby asserting, in effect, that the claims of theology stand apart from physicality and either cannot or should not be verified using the tools of science. Gender ideologues and Trinitarian theologians also must resort to the same standpoint, for relying on reason to any extent would undermine their ‘metaphysics’. My experience has told me that many people almost seem to detest reason, without giving an explanation whose coherence stands up to scrutiny (which lends an air of mystery to their viewpoint[s]).

19 hours ago, Silas said:

metaphysics property understood simply means "above physics" --not in some immaterial way, but as a nexus between human thought, physical reality, etc. We understand the abstract connections between the arts and sciences through metaphysics, just as we understand our presence in the universe.

You should probably tell this to the theists who say that one cannot rely on science (i.e., observation of the physical world) to oppose constructs such as, say, transgender ideology.

19 hours ago, Silas said:

The idea that we subjugate science under theology in order to verify metaphysical claims is a talking point of atheists.

It certainly seems to apply to *some* theists as well as their equivalents (i.e., ideologues) in the sphere of secularism.

19 hours ago, Silas said:

No serious Islamic or Christian scholar claimed that everything around us "isn't real" or that the laws of nature were arbitrary, and that sacred texts were the only thing we can rely on.

This is a straw man that I never brought up. I never claimed that these men posited an illusory universe, but that instead theists, at least as individuals, have tended to draw a line of separation between the truths that govern each realm, such that the universe, though ‘real’, cannot tell us anything of value (i.e., truth about metaphysics, religion, or ethics).

19 hours ago, Silas said:

God gave us a mind and body for reason, the universe is real.

Then why do not more people operate on this premise? Why is there a shortage of philosophical realism and its byproduct, reason-based ethics?

[Ashvazdanghe]

20 hours ago, Northwest said:

some theists, like Aquinas, did not maintain their realism, as the Trinity shows.

Salam i think it can be beneficial or you .

Tabataba'i's Footnote to Mulla Sadra's Proof of the Sincere
Muhammad Legenhausen

Quote

'Allamah Tabataba'i's Footnote to Mulla Sadra's Proof of the Sincere
Philosophy
Existence of God
Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i
Molla Sadra Shirazi

This text is a note that 'Allamah Tabataba'i wrote about Mulla Sadra's Asfar pertaining to a proof for the existence of God, called the burhan al-siddiqin (proof of the sincere). The paper begins with an examination of 'Allamah's footnote; and then considers how the basic idea could be defended against some hypothetical criticisms.

https://al-islam.org/allamah-tabatabais-footnote-mulla-sadras-proof-sincere-muhammad-legenhausen

Quine and 'Allamah on Reality
Reality Realism

Quote

1.0 Reality is described in part by every true proposition.
2.0 Whatever is described in part by a true proposition is real.
3.0 Suppose reality is not real.
4.0 Then, the proposition that there is no reality is true.
5.0 Hence, the proposition that there is no reality describes reality.
6.0 So, reality is described in part by a true proposition.
7.0 Reality is real.
8.0 Reality is real and reality is not real (by assumption 3).
9.0 Therefore, it is not the case that reality is not real.
10.0. Reality is real.

Instead of this indirect proof, a simpler direct proof could also be formulated:

1.1 Reality is described in part by every true proposition.
2.1 Whatever is described in part by a true proposition is real.
3.1 There are true propositions.
4.1 Reality is described in part by a true proposition.
5.1 Reality is real.

https://al-islam.org/allamah-tabatabais-footnote-mulla-sadras-proof-sincere-muhammad-legenhausen/allamah-tabatabais#quine-and-allamah-reality

Existence And The Survival Of Fittest
Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i
Qur'anic Exegesis (Tafsir)
10 minutes
read

https://al-islam.org/articles/struggle-existence-and-survival-fittest-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-tabatabai

Religious Thought in Islam
Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i

https://al-islam.org/message-thaqalayn/vol2-no1/methods-religious-thought-islam-tabatabai

Man And Universe

Murtadha Mutahhari

Chapter 8: Realistic Conception Of The World

https://al-islam.org/man-and-universe-murtadha-mutahhari/chapter-8-realistic-conception-world

 

The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism | Summary of Article 1 [What is Philosophy?]

The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism (Usul-i falsafeh va ravesh-i ri’alism) is one of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s most important works. It is a result of several private discussion circles organized by ‘Allāmah himself where numerous scholars from different backgrounds would attend. In total, the work is a collection of 14 different articles that ‘Allāmah would initially write out himself and then present it to the students, subsequently opening up discussions on pertinent matters. Later, an extensive commentary was written on each of these articles by Shahīd Muṭahharī and the work was published.

https://iqraonline.net/the-principles-of-philosophy-and-the-method-of-realism-summary-of-article-1-what-is-philosophy/

Quote

The author, Allamah Tabatabai, firstly, does not restrict philosophy to Islam or the East, and secondly, he seems to have a special understanding of the interpretation of realism and interpret it as clear-sightedness, seeking the right and surrendering to the truth, which is innate in human. In fact, with this collection, Allamah Tabatabai wanted to call free, truth-seeking people to think, reflect, debate and accompany.

https://everything.explained.today/The_Principles_of_Philosophy_and_the_Method_of_Realism/

https://tahoor.com/en/Article/View/118994

 

[Silas]

On 12/22/2025 at 5:17 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas If so, then I do not understand why *some* theists seem to disown science (i.e., observation of the universe) as an aid to understanding or confirming the truths of the spirit/‘soul’ etc.

My point is that the layman does not rely on the reasoning that motivates the scholar. The level of intellect that defined the men you mention has never gained a foothold among the laity. The masses tend to mistrust realism and thus succumb to approaches that place ideology (i.e., a kind of metaphysics that sets itself above and against realism) above all else. Another issue is that some of the realists, i.e., Aquinas, did not apply their realism to all matters, as the doctrine of the Trinity illustrates. The very concept of the Trinity implies a distinction between the rules of the spirit (where logic breaks down) and those of the world, unless the doctrine were held to describe a non-literal relationship.

I, being familiar with this, regard philosophical realism as a branch of rationalism, given the fact that reason mediates between the mind and the rest of the universe. But, as I stated before, the layman does not, as a rule, resort to this approach. And some theists, like Aquinas, did not maintain their realism, as the Trinity shows.

Yes, I am arguing that some theists and gender theorists share the same affinity. They demarcate the ‘spirit’/‘soul’ (or essence) from physicality, declaring the former to hold sway, in effect marginalizing the latter. The former also operates by rules other than those that the latter abides by, to the extent that even logic may not apply. The concept of the Trinity relies on some of the premises that seem to underlie gender ideology. The Trinity is supposed to represent the ‘soul’ or form of the Godhead, though, if applied to our realm, would oppose the ‘body’ of logic that encapsulates the universe. The Trinity, with its traces of Platonism, introduces elements of dualism into Christianity, thereby diluting its philosophical realism. Gender ideology is but an extension of this into the realm of secularism.

And theists who disclaim the utility of science do exist, like the creationist who declared that, even if science—i.e., evidence—were to support evolution (I, personally, do not think that it does to the extent the Establishment thinks), he would take the Bible at face value, thereby asserting, in effect, that the claims of theology stand apart from physicality and either cannot or should not be verified using the tools of science. Gender ideologues and Trinitarian theologians also must resort to the same standpoint, for relying on reason to any extent would undermine their ‘metaphysics’. My experience has told me that many people almost seem to detest reason, without giving an explanation whose coherence stands up to scrutiny (which lends an air of mystery to their viewpoint[s]).

You should probably tell this to the theists who say that one cannot rely on science (i.e., observation of the physical world) to oppose constructs such as, say, transgender ideology.

It certainly seems to apply to *some* theists as well as their equivalents (i.e., ideologues) in the sphere of secularism.

This is a straw man that I never brought up. I never claimed that these men posited an illusory universe, but that instead theists, at least as individuals, have tended to draw a line of separation between the truths that govern each realm, such that the universe, though ‘real’, cannot tell us anything of value (i.e., truth about metaphysics, religion, or ethics).

Then why do not more people operate on this premise? Why is there a shortage of philosophical realism and its byproduct, reason-based ethics?

Lots to unpack here, but let me start with a book recommendation

Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages by Etienne Gilson.

Gilson tackles the issue between reason/rationality/philosophy and the rejection of these things in favor of pure revelation in the early church (and this connects to Islam as well). There was a tension and dispute between the "Tertullian School" which rejected classical philosophy ("What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"), some of the Neo-Platonics, and the later Scholastics who synthesized and harmonized Aristotle with scripture. The Scholastics and Islamic scholars like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd "won" this battle for the most part, although Augustine still holds a prominent position in the Catholic Church. 

gender theorists may share some ideas with the Tertullian School and Neo-Platonics, but I reject the idea that they have anything in common with the Scholastics or philosophical realists. Asserting that a spiritual realm exists which is outside of space and time as we understand it, does not mean we subjugate human knowledge to those things which are unknowable or ineffable.

Now the atheist will deny outright that the spirit/soul exists, and that God exists. They will also claim to follow "reason-based ethics", but such ethics is simply based on power and preference, without any regard to transcendent, absolute principles, or even first principles. Cold logic and reason may dictate that we enslave populations, engage in eugenics, or even kill scores of people in order to create a perfect society for the people who make the rules. There are no "human rights" without reference to a transcendent and absolute principle --you are entitled to nothing in such a world. 

Now it is very true that the layman does not understand the finer points of any of this, and may erroneously reject "science" in favor of scripture, or engage in superstition. This is why the Catholic Church stressed the need for a highly educated clerical class (priests, bishops, etc.) to maintain doctrinal and theological standards and guide the flock. Islam does the same thing with Imams. 

I am not sure what "relying on science" even means, because human ethics and society are based on culture, values, religious belief, and all kinds of things that are not reducible to science. One is reminded of the distinction between "problem" and "mystery" in the philosophy of Marcel:

[Northwest]

On 12/23/2025 at 4:36 PM, Silas said:

gender theorists may share some ideas with the Tertullian School and Neo-Platonics, but I reject the idea that they have anything in common with the Scholastics or philosophical realists. Asserting that a spiritual realm exists which is outside of space and time as we understand it, does not mean we subjugate human knowledge to those things which are unknowable or ineffable.

@Silas I am referring mainly to Catholic Scholasticism concerning concepts such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and substitution-atonement. Catholic realists such as Aquinas conceded, as Gilson admits, that human reason could not be applied to these ideas. One could not use reason to demonstrate the veracity of any of these claims, but rather a predetermined theological (i.e., metaphysical) commitment. In these cases Catholic Scholasticism or ‘realism’ did indeed discard philosophy, including ‘science‘, in favor of spiritual claims that could not be proved or conceived. So, yes, there does seem to be a shared worldview that underlies gender theory and, in part, Catholic Scholasticism.

On 12/23/2025 at 4:36 PM, Silas said:

Cold logic and reason may dictate that we enslave populations, engage in eugenics, or even kill scores of people in order to create a perfect society for the people who make the rules. There are no "human rights" without reference to a transcendent and absolute principle --you are entitled to nothing in such a world.

You are supposing that ‘cold logic‘ and ‘reason’, in some cases, should be discarded, given that they might support inhumane policies. This notion presupposes that logic and reason might endorse (unreasonable) practices contrary to well-being, a self-refuting conclusion. Also, you mention slavery and eugenics, things that men have practiced throughout history; you must realize that neither Christianity nor Islam condemned either of these, while reformers of the Enlightenment, i.e., secularism, took steps to outlaw them. (Eugenics need not be a form of racial totalitarianism as seen in the 20th century and can be applied to physiology as a whole.) So your argument founders a bit here.

On 12/23/2025 at 4:36 PM, Silas said:

Now it is very true that the layman does not understand the finer points of any of this, and may erroneously reject "science" in favor of scripture, or engage in superstition.

The problem is that appeal of mystery supersedes, for many, the need for science, along with the fact that the clergy can err as well (as the Trinity shows). If the experts fail, then there is no one to check them and guide the masses.

On 12/23/2025 at 4:36 PM, Silas said:

I am not sure what "relying on science" even means, because human ethics and society are based on culture, values, religious belief, and all kinds of things that are not reducible to science.

You are putting those things on one side and ‘science’ on the other, as though there were no medium between them. Shouldn’t there be more of a link between immaterial artifacts and material facts?

[Silas]

On 1/2/2026 at 5:34 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas I am referring mainly to Catholic Scholasticism concerning concepts such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and substitution-atonement. Catholic realists such as Aquinas conceded, as Gilson admits, that human reason could not be applied to these ideas. One could not use reason to demonstrate the veracity of any of these claims, but rather a predetermined theological (i.e., metaphysical) commitment. In these cases Catholic Scholasticism or ‘realism’ did indeed discard philosophy, including ‘science‘, in favor of spiritual claims that could not be proved or conceived. So, yes, there does seem to be a shared worldview that underlies gender theory and, in part, Catholic Scholasticism.

You are supposing that ‘cold logic‘ and ‘reason’, in some cases, should be discarded, given that they might support inhumane policies. This notion presupposes that logic and reason might endorse (unreasonable) practices contrary to well-being, a self-refuting conclusion. Also, you mention slavery and eugenics, things that men have practiced throughout history; you must realize that neither Christianity nor Islam condemned either of these, while reformers of the Enlightenment, i.e., secularism, took steps to outlaw them. (Eugenics need not be a form of racial totalitarianism as seen in the 20th century and can be applied to physiology as a whole.) So your argument founders a bit here.

The problem is that appeal of mystery supersedes, for many, the need for science, along with the fact that the clergy can err as well (as the Trinity shows). If the experts fail, then there is no one to check them and guide the masses.

You are putting those things on one side and ‘science’ on the other, as though there were no medium between them. Shouldn’t there be more of a link between immaterial artifacts and material facts?

Abolitionism in the west was driven by Christians for the most part. There were some secular humanists involved with the project, but most Christians were against slavery. The Epistles of Paul and Book of Revelation (18:13) condemn slavery. And while Islam permits slavery, it encourages emancipation. 

My point is simply this: without transcendent ethics and commandments regarding the conduct of human beings, morality and ethics simply become a matter of debate, and relativism rules the day. Even my atheist friend admits this --without the "book" we have the capricious opinions of men.

I think you over-estimate the nature of man, and the altruistic impulse of those without religion. This is common among atheists and agnostics who imagine a world of philosopher kings and a citizenry motivated by some complex ethic system. The reality is a world of power struggles, selfishness, cynicism, and flawed people. 

 

[Northwest]

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

Abolitionism in the west was driven by Christians for the most part.

@Silas Most Westerners were at least nominal Christians, out of conformity if not belief, and there were believing slaveholders as well; one need only look at the antebellum elite in the Southern U.S., the colonial elite in Latin America, etc. At any rate, the mere fact that abolitionists, or anyone else, professed Christianity says little about the Bible itself on this matter. And for a long time ‘Christian’ abolitionists such as Wilberforce, Stowe, and others struggled to get much support or interest from their respective societies. In the end only bribery (the U.K. banning slavery in exchange for compensation) or war (hence the 13th Amendment) succeeded in forcing society to realize that slavery was ‘wrong’, because objecting would no longer be ‘politically correct’ to the intellectual and political castes.

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

There were some secular humanists involved with the project, but most Christians were against slavery.

Statistically, I believe most Western Christians opposed abolitionism as well, while expressing distaste for slavery as an abstract state or concept (i.e., as something they would not prefer for themselves or their posterity, though other people[s] might be another matter). Before the Civil War most Americans definitely seem to have objected to abolitionism, preferring that either a) slaveholders be allowed to dispose of their property (which was constitutionally protected, incidentally) as they saw fit or b) gradual, voluntary manumission be effected over time. If ‘most (Western) Christians’ opposed slavery, their opposition was rather conditional or lukewarm.

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

The Epistles of Paul and Book of Revelation (18:13) condemn slavery.

There are many NT verses in the Pauline corpus that not only endorse slavery, but also commend slaves for heeding their masters, e.g., Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22,4:1, Titus 2:9, and 1 Peter 2:18. (Incidentally, these are in line with the principle laid down in Romans 13:1.) Other parts of the NT, such as Philemon, for instance, presuppose slavery as a given, and Jesus himself never issued a ban on slavery. Further, Revelation 18:13 does not pronounce on slavery as such, but mentions slaves as among the possessions showing the wealth of ‘Babylon’ (Revelation 18 highlights the downfall of this world-system and shows how stark the Divine judgment is).

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

And while Islam permits slavery, it encourages emancipation.

The fact that it allows slavery is enough to prove my point. Re: emancipation, I think there is some debate about the meaning of the passage in the Quran. At most it seems to refer to the freeing of a person from the slavery or oppression of unbelief, a notion expressed at many points in the Quran. A Muslim master could express his gratefulness toward a slave-convert by granting him freedom, but by no means does this seem to have been a requirement. Emancipation as a central aim does not seem to have been the motive of most Muslim elites or polities historically, although slavery was not equally as prevalent in each Muslim area. So slavery seems to have been subordinated to other concerns, including the eternal scheme of things.

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

My point is simply this: without transcendent ethics and commandments regarding the conduct of human beings, morality and ethics simply become a matter of debate, and relativism rules the day. Even my atheist friend admits this--without the "book" we have the capricious opinions of men.

This is true, but the mere fact of its veracity does not resolve a) how fallible—and very flawed—men could use earthly means to test the validity of something beyond ‘science’ and b) which faith is the closest to expressing the ineffable Reality. Then we go back to square one: 1) absolutist secularism posing as skepticism or irreligion vs. 2) absolute (religious) faith posing as ‘reasonable’ or ‘scientific’, even as it ultimately rejects the use of either reason or empiricism insofar as it can offer insight as to the realm of faith.

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

I think you over-estimate the nature of man, and the altruistic impulse of those without religion.

And other people tell me I am too cynical and pessimistic about mankind...so I am surprised to hear someone accuse me of having a Rousseau complex, in which the uncivilized ‘noble-savage’ (as people without a belief in a personal God would be, according to the paradigm you propose) atheists and agnostics appear to understand human nature ‘better’ than anyone else. As my profile shows, I consider myself closes to a Deist, so your implication that I am agnostic or atheist comes across as a bit offensive, even if this was not your intention.

My point is that even traditional-minded and/or religious people are subconsciously influenced by modernistic, secular notions as well as incorrect ideas about (or recollections of) history, so they end up perceiving controversial issues through humanistic lenses. So they are constantly on the defensive, having to ‘prove’ that their faith also, like secular dogma, holds slavery, eugenics, or women’s subordination/dependency to be ‘bad’. (Moreover, it involves an assumption that any of these things always involves harm or abuse, which may or may not be the case in each circumstance.)

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

This is common among atheists and agnostics who imagine a world of philosopher kings and a citizenry motivated by some complex ethic system.

The distinction between ruler and laity would remain under many religious systems, such as classical Catholicism and Islam. The difference is that religion would rely on a transcendent source of order and morality (however defined), whereas secularism would find a substitute that takes on ‘religious’ trappings (i.e., occupies an identical position, relies on similar methods, and involves the same prerogatives as a religion, even if atheistic). At any rate, human nature would be a constant, unless one believes in something like an infallible human being—and then the question arises as to whether its existence would be provable, given the evidence of history, ‘science’, etc.

On 1/11/2026 at 2:01 AM, Silas said:

The reality is a world of power struggles, selfishness, cynicism, and flawed people.

So how do you expect that people would develop the capability to choose the true or right belief, even if the means to determine it were available?