Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.
Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.
This is correct. But one is not born a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, one must determine which is correct. In order to choose you have to view the other options and determine they are incorrect or just blindly pick one. So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”
What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others,
in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
Really, it’s backing up words with action, and as humans, it’s what we expect to see from anyone making a claim, whether is religion, politics, or new Whizzo floor polish, with added spiff molecules for that deep-down clean!
Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?
c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.
In regards to these experiences, how do you know it is a divine presence and not just your mind playing tricks on you?
That’s a very specific question, and would need to be asked to each individual, over each instance of supposed spiritual intervention. And it is hard to answer. Some occurrences really may be coincidence, or the mind playing tricks. Others… may be something metaphysical. But to take a wider view, it will also depend on how credulous or skeptical the individual is.
For example, a particular person may hear a click, once, during a phone conversation, and exclaim, “The phones are bugged! The Government is monitoring me!” Another person may notice a black van, driven by two men with earpieces, which seems to be driving three cars behind them everywhere they go for six months, and say, “Wow, what an extraordinary series of coincidences.”
Two extreme examples, at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have met both kinds of people, with regard to views on spiritual intervention, or miracles. Or aliens. Or ghosts.
In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain
That is my perception of reality, yes. I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more
likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
As to the other point, and reference to the Matrix, it is actually a common question and theme running through most philosophy – the definition of “reality”. Buddhist thought speculates on life as a dream, and asks, “Who is dreaming us now?” French philosopher Rene Descartes pursued the concept of existence, and found that the material world was insufficiently reliable, and that the only undeniable truth he could claim was Cogito Ergo Sum, or, I think, therefore I am. And, as used here, The Matrix is a modern exploration of the fluid nature of reality, and our perceptions of it. It is a theme which strikes a chord with many, as we see numerous examples of it, perhaps most recently with Inception.
This world may indeed be no more than what we encounter in it. Then again, this material universe may only be one layer of something deeper. Of course, neither you nor I
expect giant mutant ants, but if there really is more to this existence than meets the eye, when the outside breaks in, or we break out, we are going to be rather surprised by what we did not expect.
“I was born ready.”
