"It was, however, a musician of Turkish origin who fully established the Islamic tradition of rationalistic philosophy. Abu Nasr al-Farabi (d. 950) went further than al-Kindi in seeing philosophy as higher than revealed religion, which became, in his view, a mere expedient and a natural social necessity. Where al-Farabi differed from both the Greek rationalists and from Christian philosophers, however, was in the importance he gave to politics. He seems to have believed that the triumph of Islam had at last made it possible to build the rational society that Plato and Aristotle had only been able to dream about. Islam was a more reasonable doctrine than its predecessors. It had no illogical doctrines, such as the Trinity, and stressed the importance of law. Al-Farabi believed that Shii Islam, with its cult of the imam as the guide of the community, could prepare ordinary Muslims to live in a society ruled by a philosopher-king on rational principles. Plato had argued that a well-ordered society needed doctrines which the masses believed to be divinely inspired. Muhammad had brought a law, backed by such divine sanctions as hell, which would persuade the ignorant in a way that more logical arguments could not. Religion was thus a branch of political science, and should be studied and observed by a good Faylasuf, even though he would see further to the kernel of the faith than the average Muslim." p. 72-73
So, really, rationalism and logic is the way to go about life, but because not everyone is advanced enough to understand that, they need to be placed inside of a religious system. The system will give them morals and laws and something to be afraid of so that they will behave and obey the blessed leader because God chose them. I find it an interesting point of view.
It seems to be a common perspective. In my UU history class today, I learned that Universalists, alone of all religions, were barred from serving on juries at one point. It was just taken as an assumption that anyone who did not fear eternal punishment had no reason to behave morally and could not be trusted to make such important judgments! :D
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of that, the opinion of both the Unitarians and Universalists was that people did evil things because of the doctrines related to sin. They were taught that they were basically evil, and so could be expected to act badly and simply ask for forgiveness. The Unitarians and Universalists (this is back when they were separate groups), on the other hand, saw themselves as inherently good and so placed a high standard of behavior on themselves.
My teacher also pointed out that reading the list of sins in the Methodist book of discipline had such intriguing ideas. "I'd never thought of that as a possibility before! Let's go try that sin!" She was kidding, of course, but I thought I'd mention it to show the Us might not be so much more moral as less imaginative. :D
But who sets the standards of what is rational and logical? I have no problems saying God cannot be explained and that He might be beyond what is logically deduced by my brain. For me, this is rational. God is bigger than I can comprehend. But some people give the impression they have figured out God, the Trinity is "illogical" (to them) therefore it must be false.
ReplyDeleteSo aren't the standards of logic subjective? Ask any group of people what is logical to do and you might have a variety of answers.
I think our understanding is flawed quite often. That's why God's kingdom seems upside down to what humankind's kingdoms are. We don't say the greatest ones among us are the ones who serve. Otherwise the janitor would have the CEO's salary.
sanil,
ReplyDeleteIt really is. I find the attitude that people can't be moral without religion to be just weird. All you need to do is look at history and look at all the immoral things done in the name of faith or by supposedly religious people. *rolls eyes*
Hah! I like that. There are no inherently moral people. Just people who lack the proper imagination to sin creatively! :)
Susanne,
ReplyDeleteBut who sets the standards of what is rational and logical?
Me, of course. Why do you ask such silly questions? :D
That's part of the rub, though, isn't it? Everyone sees their point of view as rational. Crazy people think they're perfectly rational and that their reasoning is sound.
I personally find claims of rationality to be kind of pointless in matters of faith. Faith is not rational. It can't be.
I once read a book by Ibn Rushd / Averroes (or tried to read it - it was hard going) and this seemed to be his viewpoint too. It feels to me like intellectual snobbery, the idea that some people can't think and need to be told what to believe/do.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteHe was mentioned in this section as well. From what she said he did share this viewpoint.
It is intellectual snobbery, and of course the people who think these things up are always amongst the chosen and the clever. Thinking like this is where you get people who assume that anyone without a faith has no moral compass and is likely to start raping and murdering at the drop of a hat.
I usually hear this argument for the background for (organized) religion from atheists today.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes from people with a religious background I think it is incredibly snobbish.
The entire idea that people only behave morally if they have a religion to tell them to do so really go against everything I believe. Some of the most moral people I know aren't religious. Some of the most immoral people are. Having a religion doesn't make you a good person (or a bad person). Not having a religion doesn't make you a good person (or a bad person).
I do think organized religion can be used to control the masses though, especially when those masses are uneducated and unable to verify the message for themselves or to seek out other beliefs and interpretations.
from the title of this post I wanted to respond with, religion is a morale guide line.
ReplyDeleteChildren know right from wrong very early on.
I have witnessed 1 year olds that have just started to walk and be more mobile, rush for the tv. you tell them no, move them. then what do they do? the same thing rush there really quickly go to press the buttons, but they look around to see if anyone is looking, grin to themselves and push what ever they can as quickly as possible.
if people need religion to keep them in line I say, start teaching the children religion again in school. not religion as in just one religion. teach more about all religions. and show that they all have some form of guidelines be they 10 commandments or (sorry if I spell this incorrectly) hadiths (someone correct me if it is the wrong word).
if we all learnt about others from a younger age I am hoping alot of problems that face us in the UK, will make more people accept differences.
at work out of the 30ish ladies I work with, I would say 4 of us have a religion that is everyday. as in not just for weddings, christenings, funerals.
I would say, and Sarah interject where ever, that people of/who have religion are in the dwindling numbers now in the UK, (talking Christianity here). Hence so many churches are becoming houses.
Peoples new religion is shopping on a Sunday, the church replaced by the shopping centre. both have free parking I suppose...
Becky,
ReplyDeleteI think it's one of those things that was a stepping stone to a lot of attitudes. There's this idea, in some Protestant circles, that humanity is utterly depraved and that without religion people have no morals at all. Conversely, you get the atheists who use this argument to show that religion was an invention to control the masses.
I think morals are very heavily culturally influenced and based. For the most part, if a person is raised with an idea of right and wrong then they will be a moral person. Regardless of whether or not religion enters into the equation. There are always exceptions, of course. People who are not mentally 'normal', for example, or those who suffer horrible trauma may change their grasp on morals.
Organized religion can and has been used to control people since it was invented. But I think that's more a commentary on humanity than it is on religion. We all *want* to be a part of the group and many of us want to be told what to do. Religion or national pride or whatever - as long as it fills certain needs, we're there.
slice,
ReplyDeleteReligion can certainly be used to give us moral guidelines. It's one of its primary functions, to be sure.
Children *learn* right from wrong very quickly. But it's not inborn knowledge. Even in your example - the child is just running to the tv because it's a big shiny toy thing and kids are curious and want to imitate their parents. They don't understand the reasons behind being told 'no' and at that age they may even think that it's part of a game. They're taught, through repetition, that that behavior is 'wrong', and at a later age they will understand why - because it was potentially dangerous. But if you give two kids a toy a piece, chances are high that at least one of the children will happily steal the other kids toy. Kids come out completely amoral and we have to instill the morals in them.
I have witnessed 1 year olds that have just started to walk and be more mobile, rush for the tv. you tell them no, move them. then what do they do? the same thing rush there really quickly go to press the buttons, but they look around to see if anyone is looking, grin to themselves and push what ever they can as quickly as possible.
The thing is, I don't think that people need religion to keep them in line. Society - secular society - instills morals just as well. They may not be the same as the morals that religion imposes, but they are there. It's an entirely different argument over whether or not secular morals are right, or if they're offending God by being permissive of things that are sinful.
if we all learnt about others from a younger age I am hoping alot of problems that face us in the UK, will make more people accept differences.
That I totally agree with. We all need to be less insular and educate our children from a very young age about other cultures.
both have free parking I suppose...
*lol*