-
Importance Of Philosophy & Metaphysics When Countering Atheist Arguments
Ghamidi sb says philosophy and metaphysics are no longer useful except in social sciences but when engaging with strict materialists and atheists who reduce all reality to matter deny anything beyond the physical reject natural human disposition and try to disprove it through science or selective philosophy while relying on philosophical psychological and scientific frameworks to explain morality free will and consciousness how can we respond without using philosophy logic or metaphysics when even if philosophy does not always conclude results it still challenges materialists to revisit their assumptions by raising fundamental questions of why and what
-
4 Replies
-
Importance Of Philosophy & Metaphysics When Countering Atheist Arguments
updated 6 hours, 50 minutes ago
3 Members
·
4
Replies
-
The phenomena of source and origin of morality, consciousness and even life, cannot be explained by empirical science, no matter what. Because humans could not find a proven repeatable cause for the existence of these phenomena. All they have is explanation, not a tangible proof.
This explanation is in fact metaphysics of science that cannot be seen and experienced.
All you have to do to prove that the explanations do not qualified to be empirically scientific.
This void is filled by religion with a the news that God created them. All they have to do is to verify the source of news is authentic and the message of God came really from Him.
-
if we argue that science cannot explain certain realities and religion fills that gap does it not fall into the god of the gaps fallacy and when nietzschean philosophers or others reject morality and some modern thinkers treat gender and morality as mere social constructs then how can we respond to such views without using philosophy especially when they also reject the idea of natural disposition
-
All these discussion are within a peculiar epistemology that have background metaphysical assumptions. These are hugely motivated by general civilizational background , too. You can try to counter their postulates , but you wont get far as long as you are playing in their own playground . What is better is not to talk on the specifics but the larger framework within which discussion is happening. Most of the things you mentioned do not need elaborate intellectual paradigms to discuss; their reality is ‘felt’ by a common folk.
you can watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IhgaMEAtik
Here he is suggesting that ilm ul kalam shouldve been rejected in totality as quran was providing answers to the questions discussed there. When thinkers influenced by greek philosophy tried to synthesize religion and philosophy, they did not do service to religion; rather, formed an elaborate fictious system.
-
-
If we had only the claims which come from unverifiable sources then it is filling the gaps with speculations. But it is not the matter with Islam and Judaism. Their sources are verifiable. We can argue to establish that Qur’an is the word of God. When we establish it we accept the explanation of creation offered by the religion.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
