• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Doubt and why it can blind to the right path.

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Doubt can lead you to ask questions that can lead you to better answers. Doubt allows you to understand that you don't know everything, and maybe can't. Doubt can lead you to the awareness that you are not perfect, and maybe there's stuff about which you know less than you think -- and that therefore it's likely that other people know less than they claim.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt leads to searching for better answers, rather than just accepting that somebody has been reliably "informed by God" that they need more money to buy a jet plane.

Doubt will keep more of your money in your bank account, rather than in the accounts of charlatans.

Embrace your doubt.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
And you're mischaracterizing atheists again. It's not, "I don't believe it and so anyone who disagrees with me must be blindly accepting it."

Most often in this forum this is the case. Just that, as a Muslim would reject your accusation, you are rejecting the accusation with the same dismissal. Both seem to be very religiously dogmatic.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Doubt can lead you to ask questions that can lead you to better answers. Doubt allows you to understand that you don't know everything, and maybe can't. Doubt can lead you to the awareness that you are not perfect, and maybe there's stuff about which you know less than you think -- and that therefore it's likely that other people know less than they claim.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt leads to searching for better answers, rather than just accepting that somebody has been reliably "informed by God" that they need more money to buy a jet plane.

Doubt will keep more of your money in your bank account, rather than in the accounts of charlatans.

Embrace your doubt.

You are interpreting doubt in a different way. You are mixing doubt with critical thinking. Maybe even with questioning and hacking or reverse engineering.

In arabic, there are many words people would use that translated to English would be doubt but have different meanings in its original tongue. Even the word doubt can be read in very different ways in my opinion. I doubt my husband can easily mean I dont trust him. Sometimes people dont trust others because they can't trust themselves.

Raiba in arabic îs often used as La Raiba or "no doubt" to say "very sure". So the word Raiba in isolation would mean "not so sure". Maybe you would relate with that in your representation of the word Doubt.

But words like Miraa has quite a different meaning like an eternal state of doubt. Sometimes you could use this word to say "objection" depending on the usage.

So if someone is saying "I doubt reason" and eternally doubts reason, will never accept any of your reasoning. Are you saying that is a good thing? Well, I "doubt" that's what you mean.

There are those who doubt theists simply because of them being theists. In this very forum I have understood enough and more atheists to simply doubt theists as in "never accept what they analyse as true, valid or even scientific simply because they are theists". There are atheists who have said directly "he is a Christian so his research invalid". Do you think this kind of doubt is great? Embrace it? Nope. What you mean is when someone presents a research, weigh it in. Question it. Go to the roots to find out if its valid. Not be a bigot. Same goes for theists who simply can be bigoted toward an atheist.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You are interpreting doubt in a different way. You are mixing doubt with critical thinking. Maybe even with questioning and hacking or reverse engineering.

In arabic, there are many words people would use that translated to English would be doubt but have different meanings in its original tongue. Even the word doubt can be read in very different ways in my opinion. I doubt my husband can easily mean I dont trust him. Sometimes people dont trust others because they can't trust themselves.

Raiba in arabic îs often used as La Raiba or "no doubt" to say "very sure". So the word Raiba in isolation would mean "not so sure". Maybe you would relate with that in your representation of the word Doubt.

But words like Miraa has quite a different meaning like an eternal state of doubt. Sometimes you could use this word to say "objection" depending on the usage.

So if someone is saying "I doubt reason" and eternally doubts reason, will never accept any of your reasoning. Are you saying that is a good thing? Well, I "doubt" that's what you mean.

There are those who doubt theists simply because of them being theists. In this very forum I have understood enough and more atheists to simply doubt theists as in "never accept what they analyse as true, valid or even scientific simply because they are theists". There are atheists who have said directly "he is a Christian so his research invalid". Do you think this kind of doubt is great? Embrace it? Nope. What you mean is when someone presents a research, weigh it in. Question it. Go to the roots to find out if its valid. Not be a bigot. Same goes for theists who simply can be bigoted toward an atheist.
Critical thinking can as easily be applied to magical statements. And for the record, if somebody tells me that they are doing "research" into an actual deity or spiritual realm outside of this, I include those, because while you can research what other humans have thought and said about such things, you cannot "research" those things directly yourself.

So such claims, for me, are always very, very much in doubt.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Doubt can lead you to ask questions that can lead you to better answers. Doubt allows you to understand that you don't know everything, and maybe can't. Doubt can lead you to the awareness that you are not perfect, and maybe there's stuff about which you know less than you think -- and that therefore it's likely that other people know less than they claim.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt leads to searching for better answers, rather than just accepting that somebody has been reliably "informed by God" that they need more money to buy a jet plane.

Doubt will keep more of your money in your bank account, rather than in the accounts of charlatans.

Embrace your doubt.

Doubt is healthy sometimes, but it has to know when to stop doubting. If it doubts things it be certain of, there will be a problem. You will mix what you shouldn't doubt with what you should.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Critical thinking can as easily be applied to magical statements. And for the record, if somebody tells me that they are doing "research" into an actual deity or spiritual realm outside of this, I include those, because while you can research what other humans have thought and said about such things, you cannot "research" those things directly yourself.

So such claims, for me, are always very, very much in doubt.

Thats your prerogative. But that's not relevant to what I tried to explain to you.

And when I said research done by a Christian, I didnt talk about deity and directly researching deity. Maybe you assumed like that because I said "Christian" and maybe you also have that idea that Christians are unable to research anything else.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Doubt is healthy sometimes, but it has to know when to stop doubting. If it doubts things it be certain of, there will be a problem. You will mix what you shouldn't doubt with what you should.
Where in what I wrote did I say "never stop doubting?" There are many things about which I have no doubt at all. I will die one day -- that and taxes are certainties. Pi is an irrational number, as are the square roots of many numbers. No doubt whatever. But in 1980, when Bill Gates (who knows a thing or two about computers) said "640K (of memory) ought to be enough for anybody," I doubted him.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Most often in this forum this is the case. Just that, as a Muslim would reject your accusation, you are rejecting the accusation with the same dismissal. Both seem to be very religiously dogmatic.

Based on my experience, the distinction I see is:

Atheist: "I disagree with your points because I've considered the explanations for your claims, and they have logical fallacies and/or can't be demonstrated to be likely true."
Theist: "I disagree with you criticisms because I have been repeatedly told to believe my doctrine, and that I must not question or doubt my beliefs or else I will be violently punished."

Maybe you don't see it this way. Maybe you think I have it all backwards. Surely I'm straw manning some subset of theists. Still, this is my very clear impression of the underlying "dogmatism of both sides."

I'm literally open to questioning and being convinced of anything if it meets the evidentiary standards for everything else I believe, and the other side is telling me "I believe it because it's true because it says it's true and it says I can't question whether it's true." Come on, man.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Atheist: "I disagree with your points because I've considered the explanations for your claims, and they have logical fallacies and/or can't be demonstrated to be likely true."
Theist: "I disagree with you criticisms because I have been repeatedly told to believe my doctrine, and that I must not question or doubt my beliefs or else I will be violently punished."

Thats a genetic fallacy.

This too is one of my observations in this forum. There have been many atheists who have directly said that by default, a theist is stupid, unscientific, and has no capacity of reasonable research or reason.

You have displayed exactly one or two of those same sentiments.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Thats a genetic fallacy.

This too is one of my observations in this forum. There have been many atheists who have directly said that by default, a theist is stupid, unscientific, and has no capacity of reasonable research or reason.

You have displayed exactly one or two of those same sentiments.

Thanks for the reply. I never said theists are stupid, unscientific, or irrational. I think that some of their epistemologies are, but not the theists. In fact, a big reason I argue with theists is because I'm optimistic about their capacity to reason and be reasonable.

My comment was not a genetic fallacy. From Wikipedia:

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit."
The "genesis" of theistic arguments that I was criticizing was their fallacious nature, specifically their circular reasoning. I am saying any circular argument does not warrant belief, no matter its source. This directly assesses the claim on its merits. Claiming that an argument is invalid because it is fallacious is not a genetic fallacy.

If you disagree, feel free to explain why.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Thats a genetic fallacy.

This too is one of my observations in this forum. There have been many atheists who have directly said that by default, a theist is stupid, unscientific, and has no capacity of reasonable research or reason.

You have displayed exactly one or two of those same sentiments.
@AlexanderG most assuredly did nothing of the kind! That was a very reasonable and quite friendly post.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Doubt is healthy sometimes, but it has to know when to stop doubting. If it doubts things it be certain of, there will be a problem. You will mix what you shouldn't doubt with what you should.

What would this look like in practice concerning things that aren't related to the supernatural?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thanks for the reply. I never said theists are stupid, unscientific, or irrational. I think that some of their epistemologies are, but not the theists. In fact, a big reason I argue with theists is because I'm optimistic about their capacity to reason and be reasonable.

My comment was not a genetic fallacy. From Wikipedia:

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit."
The "genesis" of theistic arguments that I was criticizing was their fallacious nature, specifically their circular reasoning. I am saying any circular argument does not warrant belief, no matter its source. This directly assesses the claim on its merits. Claiming that an argument is invalid because it is fallacious is not a genetic fallacy.

If you disagree, feel free to explain why.

What is the genesis of the theistic arguments? Please explain. And what is the source of these arguments?

Did you pick the most profound argument, or have you decided nothing is profound, or did you pick up very basic arguments?

The genetic fallacy is to generalise to the source.

Atheist: "I disagree with your points because I've considered the explanations for your claims, and they have logical fallacies and/or can't be demonstrated to be likely true."
Theist: "I disagree with you criticisms because I have been repeatedly told to believe my doctrine, and that I must not question or doubt my beliefs or else I will be violently punished."


Which theist made this argument? Is that the best?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Imam Ali (a) is reported in Nahjul balagha to have said:

Doubt is named doubt (al-shubhah) because it resembles truth. As for lovers of Allah, their conviction serves them as light and the direction of the right path (itself) serves as their guide; while the enemies of Allah, in time of doubt call to misguidance in the darkness of doubt and their guide is blindness. One who fears death cannot escape it nor can one who loves eternal life secure it.



I'm going to go with this a bit. Let us divert ourselves from the good old Atheist vs Theist debate for a second.

A person is shown that a verse says this and that, and it's clear, but often, we see disbelief takes on the form of:

"Well I myself don't accept it, a lot of people don't accept it, so it must be unclear and God could've said something else (more clear), and God if he wanted us to follow this and that, would've said it a more clear way."

The problem that occurred with Mohammad (s) is that his signs were very bright in form of miracles, but they would say, why isn't he given the like of Messengers before, despite the fact, he was given miracles and signs, and they accused him of sorcery. In other words, no matter what sign he brought, to them, the past miracles were always better, even though his signs were often even bigger signs than of the Prophets (a) of the past.

Going back to debate between Theists and Atheists, often, an atheist makes in the form of:

"Well I myself doubt if I have objective value, I don't see it clearly like you, therefore, you must be believing it on blind faith in some way or otherwise I would see it like you"

This is a terrible problem with humans, when they take their blindness as proof that a proof is not clear.

Mohammad's (s) people, all the miracles they were shown, often, would say (some believed, most did not), why aren't you given signs like those before you and would accuse his signs of being works of sorcery. This was not due to his signs being less in greatness then those before him and less bright, nor due to genuine sincere doubt of the people opposing to it.

Similarly, I believe Ahlulbayt (a) position is often clarified clearly in Quran and Sunnah, but people take their disbelief and blindness as proof it's not proven.

This is a vicious circle.
Perhaps faith is the vicious circle, not doubt?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Imam Ali (a) is reported in Nahjul balagha to have said:

Doubt is named doubt (al-shubhah) because it resembles truth. As for lovers of Allah, their conviction serves them as light and the direction of the right path (itself) serves as their guide; while the enemies of Allah, in time of doubt call to misguidance in the darkness of doubt and their guide is blindness. One who fears death cannot escape it nor can one who loves eternal life secure it.



I'm going to go with this a bit. Let us divert ourselves from the good old Atheist vs Theist debate for a second.

A person is shown that a verse says this and that, and it's clear, but often, we see disbelief takes on the form of:

"Well I myself don't accept it, a lot of people don't accept it, so it must be unclear and God could've said something else (more clear), and God if he wanted us to follow this and that, would've said it a more clear way."

The problem that occurred with Mohammad (s) is that his signs were very bright in form of miracles, but they would say, why isn't he given the like of Messengers before, despite the fact, he was given miracles and signs, and they accused him of sorcery. In other words, no matter what sign he brought, to them, the past miracles were always better, even though his signs were often even bigger signs than of the Prophets (a) of the past.

Going back to debate between Theists and Atheists, often, an atheist makes in the form of:

"Well I myself doubt if I have objective value, I don't see it clearly like you, therefore, you must be believing it on blind faith in some way or otherwise I would see it like you"

This is a terrible problem with humans, when they take their blindness as proof that a proof is not clear.

Mohammad's (s) people, all the miracles they were shown, often, would say (some believed, most did not), why aren't you given signs like those before you and would accuse his signs of being works of sorcery. This was not due to his signs being less in greatness then those before him and less bright, nor due to genuine sincere doubt of the people opposing to it.

Similarly, I believe Ahlulbayt (a) position is often clarified clearly in Quran and Sunnah, but people take their disbelief and blindness as proof it's not proven.

This is a vicious circle.
I believe it is healthy to investigate our own faith, to ask critical questions on our own spiritual path, but to end the critique of others as much as possible.
It is through our own practice we can end doubt, and when doubt are removed the vail of uncertenty will also be removed from our eyes.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Doubt is named doubt (al-shubhah) because it resembles truth. As for lovers of Allah, their conviction serves them as light and the direction of the right path (itself) serves as their guide; while the enemies of Allah, in time of doubt call to misguidance in the darkness of doubt and their guide is blindness. One who fears death cannot escape it nor can one who loves eternal life secure it.
Doubt and questioning and self-questioning are all essential if one's aim is to be able to make accurate statements about reality.

The first thing the con-man tells you is not to doubt.
often, we see disbelief takes on the form of:

"Well I myself don't accept it, a lot of people don't accept it, so it must be unclear and God could've said something else (more clear), and God if he wanted us to follow this and that, would've said it a more clear way."
This is very unclear without a sample question to illustrate it.
The problem that occurred with Mohammad (s) is that his signs were very bright in form of miracles
Let's get a miracle into the lab where we can examine it and find out how miracles work, then.
often, an atheist makes in the form of:

"Well I myself doubt if I have objective value, I don't see it clearly like you, therefore, you must be believing it on blind faith in some way or otherwise I would see it like you"
But "value" is entirely a human judgment, a quality that only a human can attribute to any thing or state of affairs. Thus there's no such absolute thing as "objective value", there's only human judgment.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We agree doubt can be healthy at times and situations it's beneficial, but the OP post and quote from Imam Ali (a) is about when it becomes to determent of a person. They take their blindness as a proof of something not being proven.
 
Top