This questions hangs on two others.
On the one hand, belief at its most basic is about discernment, and the classification of the World on the basis of arbitrary terminology such as good and bad, right and wrong. But it is that judgement call, however arbitrary, that forces the Believer to think.
Furthermore morality, which is the prime concern of Believers, is often framed as judgements based on consequence. Consequence is a distant subject for thought, dealing both with far reaching ramifications and futures. These are not easy subjects to converse on, let alone present arguments about.
Which after all is what the Believer has to do both for himself and for his fellows. For when you make that judgment call, you invite the contrary both in thought and deed, both in yourself and others. For that is the nature of man, who after all is but a child of Adam. And then once invited, you must muster argument to justify yourself.
And on the other hand belief at its most basic is opposed to ignorance. For a believer "knows" and trusts his belief. Whilst the admittance of ignorance is certainly a motor for the pursuit of knowledge, belief does not readily lend itself to that pursuit there.
But it is the field within which belief operates there that explains the dynamic between these two poles.
For belief as regards the Muslim nation is clearly defined as being of six parts, collected into three themes. These are GOD, His Oneness and attributes, the communication of knowledge of Him, and His Ways, from Himself to ourselves and then our ultimate return back to Him. They relate to things which are invisible, and hence immune to reasonable question.
And so whilst these are taken as a given, by the believer, they leave open the question of how those beliefs impact on our everyday concerns. And whilst a believer might muster arguments in regard to the moral consequence of action using his or her beliefs, these as a rule do not preclude him/her from further examination of those questions. And in some cases they only provide the bedrock for the further examination of consequence.
So for example for a materialist person all research using embryos might be just Science doing what Science does, but for the believer such questions might hinge on the cases where such research is desirable, permissible and then plain wrong.
The thought processes of such a believer are therefore the more complex than the equivalent materialist.
And since the believer might elucidate cases, in those cases each would need their own justification. A more complex process and definitely not a dumbing down.
Isn't this a far superior version of rational behaviour that what masquerades as such in our time: the championship of freedom of expression when it is just plain stupid. Much of that that masquerades as rational is just that, the lack of discernment and the championship of the plain. Even down to the plain silly notion that there is no division between life and non-life, consciousness and dumbness.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone