-
Life: A Test, A Joy Or Both?
Can the pursuit of happiness be the ultimate purpose of life, while religion claims that life is fundamentally a test?
If religion views life as a trial of moral responsibility, can a person still choose happiness as their primary goal without contradicting that religious worldview?
Is it possible for both “happiness” and “trial” to coexist as life purposes or must one submit to the other?
-
9 Replies
-
Life: A Test, A Joy Or Both?
updated 2 weeks ago
2 Members
·
9
Replies
-
To pursue happiness is natural. That is why God promises this happiness in Jannah in its complete sense. When we succeed in our trials and make good choices, it gives us happiness.
-
A non-religious philosopher once helped me realize what I now feel is the most profound and beautiful human experience the experience of true happiness.
He not only defined it but also showed me a way to approach it through understanding, learning, and self-awareness. When I followed his method, I began to see results in my thoughts and in my life.
On the other hand, when I look to religion for similar guidance, I often find no clear method for how to reach such understanding. It claims that life is a tes but I struggle to see what exactly is being tested, and how the test is supposed to be passed.
If a non-religious thinker could help me uncover such a meaningful truth about life, then what does religion offer that I couldn’t find through reason and experience?
What is the value of calling life “a test” if it doesn’t clearly show us the path, or if that path feels less real and transformative than the one I’ve already found?
-
-
Religion does not come to teach how to get happy or get successful in life, it does not come, for example, how to do business, or agriculture, or how to make scientific discoveries. It is frivolous if religion teaches the same as our intellect can teach us.
Religion, on the other hand, tells us why we are here and to what end we are heading. Human intellect, despite all its efforts of centuries, could not find the answers to these fundamental questions.
Take from religion what it offers. and take from others what they can offer.
-
What I understood from yoir answer is Religion adress some questions such as why we are here and where we are heading — then what kind of worldview should we adopt to live our everyday life? Should we now proceed with the thinking of philosophers then follow the guidance of religion in every aspect, or strike a balance between the two? In other words once the purpose of life is clear through religion, whose perspective should we rely on for living in this world the philosopher’s reasoning, religious teachings, or some other approach?
-
-
Human intellect guides us how to live a life here. So follow the human wisdom whatever you like. The religion’s concern is your moral being. You have to fulfill your moral duties in your capacity because you are answerable to God.
Religion doesn’t provide guidance for every aspect of life. However wherever it has given a guidance it must be followed. Religion guides only in the matter where human intellect cannot figure out a balanced solution related to humans’ purification. For example, in the matters of worship, marriage and divorce, inheritance etc we have to follow religion.
-
Okay, I understand your point that religion gives guidance in matters where reason cannot reach a conclusion. My question is,U said that to live life, one can follow any philosophy as long as it doesn’t harm their moral being. But if I adopt the philosophy of a thinker who never claimed that his knowledge came from God or was rooted in divine human nature (fitrah), then how can I, on my own, say that this knowledge is also from God? These two things don’t seem compatible. And in matters where, as you said, religion doesn’t guide but reason does — is it really true that religion has no role in worldly guidance? Because sometimes, even when reason can resolve an issue, religion also offers a view — so in such cases, whom should we prioritize? Is that an exception? And in future matters, will the same method apply: that religion deals with “why” and secular knowledge with “how”? Most importantly, what should our mindset be? Should we believe that this knowledge too is ultimately from Allah and we are living our life by following it? Or should we just treat it as a philosopher’s idea that we are accepting as a worldview?
-
-
Intellect is given to us By God. Now if a thinker gives a good idea one should accept it, no matter he claims it come from God.
Religious solution to some worldly affairs are logical which can be understood. For example, usury is prohibited or the principle for consultation is provided for collective affairs. One can judge these solutions with human solutions and can decide which one is better. I found religious solutions far superior and advanced in their reasoning.
-
I understand your point, but I want to explore something from the perspective of intellectual honesty. Suppose someone doesn’t claim to believe in God he may be an atheist or a free thinker,, yet his ideas are so profound, insightful, and practically useful that even many believers don’t possess such clarity or depth. I am saying this just as an example, not as a criticism.
In such a case, is it intellectually dishonest for a believer to adopt and appreciate the ideas of someone who fundamentally denies the existence of God? Even if those ideas are beneficial in the worldly or philosophical sense, does embracing them imply a contradiction or compromise in belief?
I am not trying to find fault here; rather, I am asking sincerely from a standpoint of intellectual integrity. Is this a valid perspective to reflect upon?
-
To benefit from other ideas, innovations, services etc, one doesn’t need to see whether they come from a believer or a non believer.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
