Calcutechnician wrote:


Is there any epistemological difference between the belief that killing heathens will get you into heaven and the Golden Rule, if they are both taken on faith, given that faith is by definition belief without (communicable) evidence?

Nonblack Raven wrote:


This seems a fairly complete misunderstanding of Islam, as well as religious tradition in general. (I also think it is a misunderstanding of faith, but since that is more controversial, I will accept for the purposes of argument that faith is belief without evidence.)

To be a Muslim is not to believe anything you believe without evidence, or to say God says whatever you think God says. To be a Muslim is to accept the "There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet", which in turn implies that what one should do needs to be based on the Koran, and perhaps other traditions concerning the saying of the Prophet.

As a result, your two imagined Muslim do indeed have a common epistemology and a basis for debate. Both are forced into a discussion of whether their actions and beliefs can be justified in the light of the Koran. You may think this a bad basis for discussion, but once it is accepted, conclusions are not a matter of taste, or utterly arbitrary, or without agreement on epistemological foundations.

Neither of your imagined Muslims would agree with your characterization of their epistemology. Belief in Islam might be some kind of belief without evidence, but once that belief is accepted, further conclusions are based on well defined non-arbitrary epistemology. Agreement on epistemological first principles does not, of course, guarantee agreement about conclusions--whether among Muslims or among scientists.