Islamic arguments about God

[Franklin]

I am reading about Islamic theology and it raises some very interesting questions. I am basically a practical person with no interest in philosophy for its own sake, but when philosophy or theology affect people's behavior, then I get interested. And this is clearly the case with the questions I want to discuss.

The general pattern of Western cultures is that they begin with innocence and rise, then they influenced by Plato which causes an Enlightenment followed by a collapse. This happened with Athens, Rome, Judaism (sort of), Islam, and is now happening with Christianity.

In Islam, the confrontation was clearest. The advocates of Plato were called the Mu'tazila, and they produced an Enlightened period in the Abbasid Caliphate which was followed by liberalism, feminism, and then collapse. But unlike other cultures, the collapse was partial, not complete, because Islam had a response to the Mu'tazila. This is relevant to Christianity because if Christianity fails to have a coherent response to Plato, then Christianity will fail.

Plato teaches that there is absolute truth, and that truth is knowable through deductive reason. This means that one can deductively reason about how the world must be. And this includes the god(s) of any religion. In Islam, the Mu'tazila used reason to figure out the nature of God. As always seems to be the case with human reason, this begins with common sense and then devolves into insanity. They began by asserting that God must be good and then based on philosophical arguments from ethics, used this to assert other things that God must do. This eventually led to liberalism. The reaction against the Mu'tazila came from the Ash'arites who argued that God is simply God and we cannot apply human reason to God. Since God is omnipotent, God can choose to be good or bad or whatever He wants. People have no business telling God what to do. But the Ash'arites had their own flaws and basically insist (without admitting it) that God is irrational as a response to Mu'tazila insisting that God is rational. This is actually inconsistent with their own core point, and is the reason why the Islamic world is a mess today.

So now I would like to know the Christian view of this. Can one use deductive reason to reach conclusions about God? Can one assert any clear statement about God? For example, traditional Christianity insists on God being a trinity. Does God have the power to reorganize himself into some other non-trinitarian structure? These may seem like odd questions, but they get to the root of the fate of Christianity. I believe that any religion that allows deductive reasoning about God will be destroyed by Plato. And this is what I see happening in modern Christianity.

I follow the Old Testament which is quite clear on this point. Exodus 3:14 is often translated "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM" but in fact the Hebrew is closer to "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE". This clearly eliminates all attempts to define God or use deductive reasoning to reach conclusions about God. My background is as an atheist who followed science and science takes exactly the same position about reality, namely that any conclusion about reality reached with deductive reasoning is nothing more than a hypothesis until it has been verified against the real world. Only then is it accepted as likely to be true. So the Old Testament, current Islam, and science all reject deductive reasoning as a source of truth. But Talmudic Judaism and modern secular culture accept deductive reasoning as a source of truth. What is Christianity's position?

[temporal1]

Aren't you using purely deductive reasoning to predict the fall of Christianity?
In my (small) experience, God regularly turns purely deductive reasoning (aka, the best of human reasoning) on its head.

[Franklin]

Aren't you using purely deductive reasoning to predict the fall of Christianity?

No, I am using inductive reasoning. I am basing my conclusion on history, not on the nonsense that comes from inside my head.

In my (small) experience, God regularly turns purely deductive reasoning (aka, the best of human reasoning) on its head.

Yes, that's the point. And in fact science and math do this too (quantum mechanics and Godel's incompleteness theorem).

[temporal1]

Aren't you using purely deductive reasoning to predict the fall of Christianity?

No, I am using inductive reasoning. I am basing my conclusion on history, not on the nonsense that comes from inside my head.

In my (small) experience, God regularly turns purely deductive reasoning (aka, the best of human reasoning) on its head.

Yes, that's the point. And in fact science and math do this too (quantum mechanics and Godel's incompleteness theorem).

thank you.
haven't you answered your own question?

[Bootstrap]

Here's a simple presentation of what Plato taught in the Parable of the Cave:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA

Here's another relatively simple take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUKJIMge4

I think most Christians can easily relate to this - we think we've seen the sun, and we can't even explain it to most of the people around us. We see them imprisoned and in darkness, but they stubbornly cling to the illusions of this world, refusing to be freed or to see the light. I think that's one of the reasons that Plato and Aristotle were so highly honored by medieval theologians.

Plato teaches that there is absolute truth, and that truth is knowable through deductive reason.

Do you think Plato's Theory of Forms is about deductive reasoning? I don't think so. I think it's more like this: if we focus on trying to understand what the purest, best form of each thing is, we can let that guide us into truth. That's actually quite a bit like looking at what Jesus said and did, or looking at the attributes of God, then asking what it would be like for us to live that out in our own lives.

Paul tells us that the clues are there to be seen:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

And like Plato, Christians should be aware that our knowledge is partial, a reflection of something we cannot yet see:

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

That passage rhymes with Plato's Theory of Forms. On earth, even love is a dim reflection of a more perfect love. Our speaking and reasoning is a very pale reflection of truth. What philosophers call epistemological humility is important for Christians too - not that we always do well at it.

Plato's approach to teaching is not deductive logic, and certainly not deductive logic that forces someone to accept your inescapable conclusion. Plato is very aware that this makes people very, very uncomfortable, the light hurts their eyes, they are so comfortable with their shackles and with the darkness of the cave, they don't want to change. He suggests that trying to force them to change with deductive logic will just raise their defenses.

Plato's ideal teacher is Socrates, who often starts by assuming that none of us really knows much, then asks one question after another to help people realize that maybe they don't know all those things they think they know, that there are holes in their understanding that point to a greater truth. They have to reach the answer themselves, the process is more inductive than deductive, a process of helping them notice things that they hadn't really been thinking about, and slowly realizing one thing after another until they see that their old understanding just doesn't work and there is a new way of seeing things that is much better.

Personally, I think Christians could learn a lot about evangelism from Socrates. And I am definitely someone who could learn a lot from Socrates ...

[MaxPC]

Greek philosophy and sophistry aside, I will share what several Imams and Islamic scholars have shared with me during ecumenical discussions.

Mohammed saw a a disarray of tribal wars among the desert dwelling people who were his relatives. Scholarship existed but it often devolved into rivalries and there was little or no system to preserve that knowledge.

They also had a pantheon of deities they worshipped and would often get into battles about which deities were to be worshipped. Likewise there was no moral code that promoted the peace among these people.

Using Jewish and Christian writings, Mohammed created a systematized faith practice in one deity (Allah), that promoted a moral code as well as a "university" structure to preserve knowledge.(Subsequently their scholars became known for advanced mathematics that are still used in part today).

For awhile Mohammed's efforts did much to unify his people but as with any culture factions developed and now there are several versions of Islam based upon those factions.

[Franklin]

I think most Christians can easily relate to this [Plato]

This is very depressing for me.

Do you think Plato's Theory of Forms is about deductive reasoning? I don't think so. I think it's more like this: if we focus on trying to understand what the purest, best form of each thing is, we can let that guide us into truth.

For Plato, the forms are absolute truth and deductive reasoning is the way of seeing them.

Imperfection is the truth about the real world. One can classify things, but the ideal form of a classification is just an illusion.

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

This is fine, it is what Islam would say.

And like Plato, Christians should be aware that our knowledge is partial, a reflection of something we cannot yet see:

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

This also sounds more like Islam than like Plato. The "perfect" mentioned here I assume is God, not ideal forms.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, I disagree with all of it, but I don't think philosophical debate is useful here. I don't want to debate, I just want to see if Christianity recognizes the problem that Islam recognized, and apparently it does not, and so I assume Christianity is doomed. This is why Christianity cannot survive in the cities without being corrupted, while Islam can.

[Bootstrap]

For Plato, the forms are absolute truth and deductive reasoning is the way of seeing them.

Ah, we need a handful of real philosophers here to discuss various understandings of the Theory of Forms. I am certainly no expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there's more than one understanding.

How are you using the term "absolute truth" here?

This is very depressing for me.

Sorry!

[temporal1]

Franklin,
i can follow you pretty well, up to the points of your conclusions, which are, as well-educated and experienced as they are, they seem to leave out room for God's Will.

(to me) Jesus came to earth to replace Plato, Socrates, all false gods and beliefs, along with the OT.

i understand about "appearances."
there are abundant appearances of Christian fail. in cities, and elsewhere. in my heart!

but, God is greater-than all those appearances combined. He will prevail. He has prevailed.

meanwhile, have you studied John 20:28?
http://biblehub.com/john/20-28.htm

.. 27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands.
Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”

29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.”…

from what you are sharing, Franklin (fwiw, i sense) you-are-there.

[RZehr]

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

The "perfect" mentioned here I assume is God, not ideal forms.

Perhaps I'm bunny trailing, but I understand the perfect here to mean something like completion, not God. Can anyone confirm or correct me?