4 ms·
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 arbitra
by 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 agoThey 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 agoBut 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 agoIMHO 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.