Epistemology Of Religion
As I see it. Atheism bases its arguments on the presumption that they are rational and Theism is not. They are unable to differentiate between myth and divinity, between corporeal knowledge and sacred knowledge. They indulge in discourse fallacies, where they defend their conclusion to be right through logic and deduction and do not impart the plausibility of the opposite side to reach a different conclusion through the same process. Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins both don’t support the learning of the philosophy of science because it will make us depressed. The reason is that science also uses assumptions and presumptions to get to a conclusion. It is the same method used by religion. Science will only get you so far as to the hopelessness and uselessness of life with no accountability or justice. The other issue is judging others as intellectually inferior which in itself is abhoring ethics.
Nadeem sahab I did not say absolute irrefutabe proofs. I’m not sure if such a thing even exists, other than in the world of mathematics. Even my belief in my own existence requires drawing inferences from my own experiences. Similarly, Quran provides us with evidence for God that we can infer from leading us to the highest level of certainty that’s humanly possible. Belief in God does not require any assumptions or presumptions. To be clear, my definition of assumption is drawing conclusions without fully considering missing information along the way, while that of presumption is to consider something true before we even begin to investigate a matter.