4 ms·

You can rationalize all you want, but you can't reason religious people out of things they didn't reason themselves into. If these people can be convinced that

by jhgb 5y ago

You can rationalize all you want, but you can't reason religious people out of things they didn't reason themselves into. If these people can be convinced that they shouldn't be doing thing XYZ on the order of an omnipotent being that nobody has ever seen, chances seem to be even between them accepting exceptions from this order and them rejecting these exceptions. After all, you see other people rejecting/ignoring other parts of their own religion all the time.

fortran77 5y ago
> reason religious people out of things they didn't reason themselves into. Please don't presume things about religious people, especially since you're not one yourself.
- jhgb 5y ago
  That is not a presumption -- it's a statement of fact.
mardifoufs 5y ago
It's not rationalization, I know some religions have a pretty rigid structure that you need to rationalize your way around when it comes to medical exceptions to religious rules but... Islam is not one of them. Maybe some folk belief might be a source of hesitation in this case but in islam the jurisprudence is very clear and no scholar would really argue otherwise. Just to give an example, even ISIS allowed alcohol to be used for medical reasons if prescribed by a doctor! I'm Muslim and have a pretty good grasp of the beliefs of the different islamic branches/sects/schools and I've rarely came across an example of restrictions not being waived for medical reasons, though it's very possible I've missed some examples.
- jhgb 5y ago
  But you're still arguing about perfectly following a set of arbitrary rules. The very fact that they're arbitrary means you'll get people who'll make up arbitrary religious rules for themselves (and they will perfectly follow those) and the "beliefs of the different islamic branches/sects/schools" will be no more relevant for the beliefs of an individual than a codified national language is for some people's idiolects.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    They are not arbitrary though. Historic, perhaps. E.g. pork was disallowed as far as I know due to the spread of diseases from bad conservation techniques at the time.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      But that's one of the differences between faith and knowledge, namely justification. You'd be correct to claim that it's non-arbitrary if you happen to know that this justification was how it was arrived at. Randomly arriving even at a correct belief without justification would not AFAIK constitute knowledge.
      - sharno 5y ago
        IMHO this is human arrogance. It's the belief that as a human you are able to know and justify anything and everything with science and rationale, which is mostly wrong if you look at history.
roywiggins 5y ago
It's not unknown for religions to explicitly set the preservation of life above other rules, eg in Judaism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

by jhgb 5y ago

fortran77 5y ago

> reason religious people out of things they didn't reason themselves into. Please don't presume things about religious people, especially since you're not one yourself.

jhgb 5y ago
That is not a presumption -- it's a statement of fact.

mardifoufs 5y ago

It's not rationalization, I know some religions have a pretty rigid structure that you need to rationalize your way around when it comes to medical exceptions to religious rules but... Islam is not one of them. Maybe some folk belief might be a source of hesitation in this case but in islam the jurisprudence is very clear and no scholar would really argue otherwise. Just to give an example, even ISIS allowed alcohol to be used for medical reasons if prescribed by a doctor! I'm Muslim and have a pretty good grasp of the beliefs of the different islamic branches/sects/schools and I've rarely came across an example of restrictions not being waived for medical reasons, though it's very possible I've missed some examples.

jhgb 5y ago
But you're still arguing about perfectly following a set of arbitrary rules. The very fact that they're arbitrary means you'll get people who'll make up arbitrary religious rules for themselves (and they will perfectly follow those) and the "beliefs of the different islamic branches/sects/schools" will be no more relevant for the beliefs of an individual than a codified national language is for some people's idiolects.
- kaba0 5y ago
  They are not arbitrary though. Historic, perhaps. E.g. pork was disallowed as far as I know due to the spread of diseases from bad conservation techniques at the time.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    But that's one of the differences between faith and knowledge, namely justification. You'd be correct to claim that it's non-arbitrary if you happen to know that this justification was how it was arrived at. Randomly arriving even at a correct belief without justification would not AFAIK constitute knowledge.
    - sharno 5y ago
      IMHO this is human arrogance. It's the belief that as a human you are able to know and justify anything and everything with science and rationale, which is mostly wrong if you look at history.

roywiggins 5y ago

It's not unknown for religions to explicitly set the preservation of life above other rules, eg in Judaism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh