A Q&A with a college student concerning first principles and basic assumptions in arguments with progressives (though this goes for any other ideological orientation).
This was a great read! But it brought up a few more questions that I had. If you would endevaour to answer them, it would be much appreciated! To start, let me share a relevant story:
It is narrated from Imam Malik ibn Anas رحمه الله , that a man from the people of desires used to walk behind him and say:
“O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me. O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me [just one] word! O Abu Abdullah! Hear from me a word!”
He would point with his hand saying: “No, not even half a word.”
He would say: “O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me, and if you overcome me then I will follow you, and I overcome you then you will follow me.”
The Imam, was sharp, intelligent, and wise. He turned to him and said: “And if a third man should come and overcome us?”
He said: “Then we will follow him.”
He said: “Is it that every time a man comes to us who is more skilled in debating than [another] man then we will leave that which Jibra’il brought to Muhammad?”
The first question is this: how can one ascertain the Truth, and come to know it? Al Ghazali talks about dhawq, and how we must come to experience knowledge to be certain of it. What then is there to be said about the people of other religions, who base their certainty of their religion on their 'spiritual experiences'?
The second question is this: I was once debating someone about morality, and I said "At least we both agree that morality is universal across time and space", but he disagreed. To me, this seems like an intuitive thing. What is the response to someone who disagrees?
Please let me know if you have any further comments or feedback. I appreciated the time you took to share your thoughts here and to ask the questions you did. Thank you so very much :)
This was a great read! But it brought up a few more questions that I had. If you would endevaour to answer them, it would be much appreciated! To start, let me share a relevant story:
It is narrated from Imam Malik ibn Anas رحمه الله , that a man from the people of desires used to walk behind him and say:
“O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me. O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me [just one] word! O Abu Abdullah! Hear from me a word!”
He would point with his hand saying: “No, not even half a word.”
He would say: “O Abu Abdullah! Debate with me, and if you overcome me then I will follow you, and I overcome you then you will follow me.”
The Imam, was sharp, intelligent, and wise. He turned to him and said: “And if a third man should come and overcome us?”
He said: “Then we will follow him.”
He said: “Is it that every time a man comes to us who is more skilled in debating than [another] man then we will leave that which Jibra’il brought to Muhammad?”
The first question is this: how can one ascertain the Truth, and come to know it? Al Ghazali talks about dhawq, and how we must come to experience knowledge to be certain of it. What then is there to be said about the people of other religions, who base their certainty of their religion on their 'spiritual experiences'?
The second question is this: I was once debating someone about morality, and I said "At least we both agree that morality is universal across time and space", but he disagreed. To me, this seems like an intuitive thing. What is the response to someone who disagrees?
Hi Dan! I wrote a comment here and then realized it was long enough to be its own essay. I hope you'll forgive me but I went ahead and published it here: https://open.substack.com/pub/somaliki/p/discussion-on-truth-spiritual-experiences?r=fze5n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Please let me know if you have any further comments or feedback. I appreciated the time you took to share your thoughts here and to ask the questions you did. Thank you so very much :)
That was more than I could ever have asked for - thanks!