Ultimately, there must be one or more fundamental brute facts without deeper explanation, but apart from that, what examples did you have in mind?
No; its just that natural science has its limits.
I'm not sure 'a bit of a miracle' is a meaningful concept. if something is possible within natural laws, I would suggest it's occurrence should not be considered miraculous - amazing and improbable, perhaps, but not miraculous (except in the vernacular).
I'm using the term to mean sign or wonder - not a literal bracch of natural law.
They pretty much all say that... which to believe? And which is more likely, that one of the thousands of religions/gods happens to be 'right', or that they're all cultural fictions?
Fair point. I think that Islam is the only faith which equates harmful things, including inner stress and discord, with sin. An aim is to reduce such sin, and therefore one is "protected" and "made tranquil".
It may be the case with other faiths, but I've never seen it so explicitly put.
So, if evil is avoided by the faithful, and evil is physically or spiritually harmful, then those who indulge in it will OTOH be weakened and harmed - it stands to logical reason.
I think the legitimacy for hell, or part of it is that a sinner even by some secular standards of well being indulges in "self harm" either directly or by "fighting Gods plan". A plan or plot which protects it.
The issue is whether it is a superlative plan.
There is some evidence that people are predisposed to superstitious and supernatural beliefs, but I don't think that's a particularly good reason to embrace them. If you think picking the easiest option is the way to go, I hope it works for you.
If that were it, then you'd have a good point. But see my last comments, on reducing harm etc.
I find some of the original texts on achieving peace of mind and equanimity very useful - it's interesting that they're as applicable today as they were back then.
Ive practiced meditation, and there is a similarity to "Islamic peace" too.
To give you an idea of the perspective. There is a prophetic (saws) saying:
"In the body there is a morsel of flesh which, if it be sound, all the body is sound and which, if it be diseased, all the body is diseased. This part of the body is the heart"
As I said, I find Hume, like many philosophers, informative. As for moral claims, my scepticism depends on the claim in question.
Ok, I thought you were a "die hard" Humean.
My first thought would probably be that I was alive, in a dream state, and suffering from some medical condition. But if the whole Heaven & Hell schtick was 'real', I would consider God immoral by my standards for creating Hell at all (and the rest, including an elitist Heaven
).
Actually I was chatting to a Shia and he said its an opinion that the majority of people in heaven are from the ignorant unbelievers!
I'm not a Shia, nor am I really qualified to form an opinion on exactly who goes where.
I don't know, you'd have to ask one. But if you were really interested, you could have looked it up -
Hume on the Problem of Evil. My view is that, judging by the amount written about it, it does appear to be a significant problem for many believers - and theologians.
Th eissue for me is Hume seems inconsistent. Hes saying "we cant go fron is to ought" and then hes saying "God ought to behave differently, its immoral (i.e. evil) to do this and that".
I think Clifford has a point, but overstates it; Clifford's Principle has an impossibly Kantian imperative. Clifford's Other Principle (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to ignore evidence that is relevant to his beliefs, or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way.”) makes an equally important but over-imperative point. Pragmatically, these are aspirations rather than imperatives. William James's "The Will to Believe" has a more moderate tone.
But I don't see how you're relating that to the is-ought problem - care to explain?
If the is - ought issue undermined all ethical endeavour then by deductive inference any "ethics of belief" is a priori flawed conceptually.
No. Atheists are 'meant' not to believe in a god or gods; that's the only thing atheists 'as a whole' have in common. You must be thinking of something else.
Ok accepted, but that doesn't stop atheists from often presupposing themselves to be the champions of reason. It seems to be the case from anecdotal experience online anyway. One of their buzzwords being "raitonal", another "irrational".
That doesn't answer the question - in what sense is the plot of unbelievers weakened, and what is the evidence for this?
Ok, from a secular perspective valuing and promoting community health is a good, or a strengthening and sustaining thing. Islam is very similar, but we have angels and God too.
If you can appreciate how a community of unhealthy people would be (all else equal) out stripped by the healthy, then you have an insight into Islamic logic (afaik).
The major issue - I think - is: do supernatural claims and faith in them A) make things worse for the believers, or B) not?
That doesn't answer the question - what do you see as the epistemic strength of supernatural claims?
In isolation they're weak, but considered as part of a whole, of a lifestyle, they can be appealing.
There is the "defending health" aspect of Islam which from a secular perspective is a decent ethic. Its at least defensible.
And then, there is the
means to this end. Afaik, no secularist has had the organising skill of Islam. If I am to "defend health" and that is a good, but pure secular
ism is inadequate (for me at least) in its assistance; then, for 'holistic health' then am I not entitled to make my faith at least a pragmatic good, and make Islamic epitstemology a pragmatic virtue - because its part of its function is health bringing?
Ok, that's pragmatism. The moon is made from cheee if it floats your boat, you may add? If not you, certainly some would look with scorn on "pragmatic epistemology". But, I don't actually see so many moon cheese boats-a-floating. Therefore, the apparent equivalence is illusory.
In fact, for Muslims the (wayning crescent) moon is compared not to cheese, but a withered date stem.
Apparently this imagery is inspired, and it will therefore float more boats than cheese...
Koran 39.39: "And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old dried curved date stalk."
Ya Sin-39, Surah Ya Sin Verse-39 / The Noble Quran (Read Quran in English, Listen Quran)
