How to Compare Religions

Basic Principles of Logic

Among Philosophy Schools and Religions

The Purpose of This Manuscript:

The ideological conflicts between philosophy schools and religions have lately intensified, where each one of them claims its correctness, and also the fallacy of others. Among the professional debates (or arguments) based on evidence and justifications, there are biased arguments based on incorrect psychological and cognitive standards. Moreover, many people seem to be influenced by these incorrect standards that have caused them to be lost in these times, "the time tribulations". The aim of this manuscript is to comment on these standards and test their accuracy, and point to some of the issues related to the investigations between these ideological schools.

I. Introduction (1):
People tend to think about issues regarding their future: such as going to university, building a career, buying a house, getting married, having a family, traveling, having money etc. We think about these issues because we know that, sooner or later, we will definitely face them. In order to succeed in any of these areas of your life, you know you need preparation.

Q: How is your life going to be without success in these issues? We know that problems have to be faced in order to solve them. Even though we dont like having these problems, if we avoid thinking and avoid preparing for them it will only make them worse. For example, being dismissed from university, losing a job, having your house burnt, being divorced, having a car accident, permanent disability, being deaf, being broke, failing a large investment, etc. Q: How to deal with these problems? Is it by planning to solve them? Or by ignoring them?

Similarly, death is also an issue regarding our future, and so it should be thought about for a while for the same reasons. Human beings like and want to live forever with all possible comfort. Usually, people consider and believe that when they die, life stops and their dream of living longer has not been fulfilled. But just think if there is another life after you die

*The Relevance: Philosophy schools and religions fall into two categories based on their explanations on this issue: 1. Nothing after we die. 2. Another possible life.

Any of the previously-indicated "predictions" can be true. That is, before "testing" these two beliefs, no one can claim the truth/fallacy of one of them over the other. Any one of them is equally probable to be true. Moreover, if it has been proven that "there is actually another life after death", the second category (of philosophy schools and religions) makes immortality definite for you. However, after all of this "optimistic" arguments, someone could be wondering: arent religions merely imaginations and beliefs inside our minds? Or are they real and telling facts?

Q: Do religions include facts in addition to beliefs?

*What is a fact? A fact is anything that can be true, to exist or to happen.

Question: Can one fact be numerous and distinct at the same time? Or can it only be one thing?

*Examples for Clarification: 1. Bob is in his room right now. This can be a fact. - Bob is not in his room right now. This also can be a fact.

However, can both of them be true at the same time?!

2. -One day in the future, the helium of the sun will deplete completely and the sun will no longer be bright. This can be a fact. -The helium in the sun will not run out, that is, the brightness of the sun is permanent. This can be a fact.

But, can both of them happen?

3. -The origin of human beings on the Earth was via bacteria. (a fact) -Mankind originated from another planet. (a fact)

However, only one of them is what actually happened.

Conclusion:
Every phenomenon, every thing that happens or exists is factual and any particular fact can be only one thing. Moreover, as a convention in all sciences, facts can be determined according to certain methods: evidence and observations.

*What About Religions:

Each religion consists of its own:

(history, present, future, invisible beings and rules)

History, present, future and invisible beings that religions describe cannot be distinct and also right at the same time.

*Examples for Clarification (Only read some of them until clear):

1. similar to example 2 indicated previously:

- one religion tells that the brightness of the sun is temporary. - another religion tells that it is permanent. Can both of what these two religions say be right?

2. -one religion believes the Earth is flat. -another religion says that the Earth is not flat. Can both of them be right?

3. -people initially started with one language. -people initially started with different languages. -people initially started with no language.

Can all of them be factual at the same time?!

4. -The moon was cut into two halves one day in the past. -This didnt happen. The same question?

5. -There is a life after death. -There is no life after death. Whatever the fact is, can there be there is a life & there is no life at the same time?!

6. -There is a Judgment Day. -There is nothing called Judgment Day. The same question?

7. -one religion believes that there is a hell. -the other religion believes there is no hell. The same question?!

8. -one religion believes that there is a paradise. -the other religion believes there is no paradise. The same question?!!

9. -There is God in our life. -There is no God in our life.

Can both of them be factual??!

10. -There are angels in our life. -There is nothing called angels in this life.

Whatever the fact is, can it be two different things?!! 11. -There will be someone called The Savior who will come in the future. This can happen. -There will be no one like that.

But, Only one of them is possible.

12etc.

*Conclusion:
In addition to its rules and laws, religions are also facts. People commonly think that "religion" is only rules that people follow and certain ceremonies that they do. Even though these rules and laws are a part of this religion, they are not the main beliefs, concepts, events in history and the future (the facts) that this religion is grounded on. Therefore, among all of these distinct/diverse beliefs and facts that religions on the globe tell, only "one fact" of these is the reality. Therefore, if it was only possible for one belief to be the truth, then the religion that holds this belief is the right religion.

If what a particular religion tells is factual and actually the reality

Therefore

This religion is the right religion

Then

Its rules should be followed

II. Introduction (2):

This research requires a common principle in all sciences, that is:

Observations, evidence, coherence Conclusion

In Science, no matter how large the number of observations, evidence or phenomena is, if all of them lead to one result, we can therefore conclude this result. Philosophy also depends on evidence. However, in terms of philosophy, when the amount of evidence becomes larger, people start considering philosophy as Too much thinking and philosophers as people who live in another world even though the evidence is each individually correct and coherent. Similarly, when a physicist starts introducing a really complex theory he or she explains their observations, evidence, and how they came to that conclusion. if you are new to this field, you wouldnt understand a single word, even though you believe this physicist is talking about a factual phenomenon in our life.

*Lets use a simple example to demonstrate this principle and its relevance:
Boiling Water water boils at a temperature of 100oC. the container of the water is too hot. the thermometer is reading 100oC. vapor bubbles are rising from the base of the container. e. water vapor is rising from the surface of the water. a. b. c. d.
a b c d e

Einsteins Theory: General Relativity and Special Relativity

The Theory of Relativity The Entropy of Black Holes

etc.

Q: is the water boiling? F. the water is boiling.

Even though it is so complex, have physicists said, Oh, this is so complicated, this is too much thinking, lets stop here; what we are doing is a waste of time and useless?! 7

Conclusion:
*If all of the components are correct, the conclusion for sure is correct regardless of how complicated it seems to us. *As long as it is worthwhile and important to think about something, we have to think about it Furthermore

Q: Is understanding your life less important than understanding other things??

III. Issues and Standards in Determining Religions:

1) Facts & Rules:
Suppose there are two distinct religions and they both have distinct beliefs, concepts, different rules and different details:

f a c t s
r u l e s

Religion 1 *what happened in the past was R *the creator of the universe is called Y *what happens after we die is X

Religion 2 *what happened in the past was Q *the creator of the universe is called W *what happens after we die is Z

* people should not do a *it is good for people to have c *it is necessary to do q for other people

* people should do a *it is not good for people to have c *it is not necessary to do q for others.

As discussed previously, (R, Y, X) & (Q, W, Z) cannot be both right at the same time. *suppose that (R, Y, X) are actually the reality, then: Q: should people do a or they shouldnt? Q: is it good for people to have c or it is not? Q: is it necessary to do q? Clearly, if (R, Y, X) are the reality, then its rules should be followed:

Rules are dependent

Therefore Q: is it reasonable to say, Religion 1 is right but its rules are not right?! Q: is it reasonable or even convincing to start arguing about the rules OR to ask whether the major concepts are realistic or fake? If (R, Y, X) are right, then the rules are right whether we understand why they were given by the right religion or we dont. Have we understood everything in this world yet?.

*Only an assumption: even though the following is impossible, assume that it has
been proven that the concepts of religion 1 are right but the rules of religion 2 are right!

Religion1
f a c t s r u l e s

Religion2

correct
------------------

------------------

correct

Q: Which is actually more convincing: the main concepts or the details?!

(Remember: this was only an assumption to demonstrate that arguing about rules is not as important and reasonable as the main facts, beliefs and concepts). The aim here was mainly to demonstrate this rule; for this reason, no names were mentioned, that is, people in our daily life always keep asking about the rules of any particular religion, even though these rules are dependent on other things and are not

sufficient to be convincing, and they (people) dont inquire about the main factual beliefs.

What is meant here is not that rules are not arguable and have no point; but they are not the place where we should start.

2) The Right Religion & Your Family:

People normally tend to have the same beliefs as their families; thats because believing in something else has an indirect meaning or a connotation to the family what you, my parents, believe is wrong! All people in the globe have these feelings toward their families.

Suppose that you have some close friends and relatives who have different religions (the same as their families).

Your Friend

Your Cousin

Your Mother

Your Sister

You

religion 1

religion 2

religion 3

religion 4

religion 5

What happens after death is

What happens after death is

What happens after death is

What happens after death is

What happens after death is

With all respect to the warm emotions and relationship with your family, Q: Do these emotions make all of these (X, Y, Z, W, R, etc.) possible at the same time? Therefore, is it reasonable to think, My religion is right because my parents and my whole family believe in it?!

10

3) The Number of Followers of Religions:

As indicated above, religions are judged and determined by the facts they tell. However, many people think that the number of followers of any particular religion indicates its correctness.

Q: Do facts, from religions or other sources of knowledge, change or vary when the numbers of people who believe in them change? *In the past, people around the globe believed with no doubt that the Earth is flat and surrounded by unlimited water and oceans.

Q: Did these large numbers of people change the fact that the Earth is spherical?!

*People believed that the sun revolves around the Earth. Then, the number of people believing in that was changing throughout the history.

Q: Has the variation of the number of these people influenced the nature and the fact?? Therefore, is it reasonable to say, This religion seems to be right because the number of its followers is so large?

4) What We Hope:
Examples: *Death is a fact but you hope there is no death; you hope that your living in this life is permanent; you hope that you will not die like other people! Q: If you hope and keep hoping; if you dont hope; if you like death; if you dont like death; etc.

11

-Does your hope stop the fact of death?! the fact.

Realistically, No, your hope doesnt change

*If a car accident caused you a permanent disability and you have lost one of your organs: leg, eye, tongue, ear, what happened to you is factual in reality. You hope this fact is not real and you hope it is only a nightmare that you will wake up from. But unfortunately, this is what actually happened; you and all people around you feel sad and sorry about that; you dont like being in this situationBut Q: Does what you hope make the factual accident unrealistic?

*You work in a branch of a particular company. Your life is great, comfortable and you are very rich and you like your job. In the summer, you traveled to another country for a holiday. During your break, the company closed the branch you work in and fired all of the employees working there. Later in the vacation when you were in the beach, one of your friends called you to ask, Have you found another job? And he told you that you have been fired; you were shocked and during this time and before you check with the company, you hope (it is only hoping) none of this happened; you hope your friend has been kidding. Q: Is what you hope what actually happened??

"Hope" doesn't equal "Reality"

**Only an assumption:
Only assume for now that There is A Great Beautiful Paradise that people go to after they die.

(only assume this paradise is factual and real) Because it is real, people, including you, will go to this paradise with no doubts. Moreover

12

Q: Does the existence of this paradise depend on -Whether you believe in it or you dont believe in it? -Whether you like it or you dont like it? -Whether 70% of people believe in it, or 80%, or 60%, etc? Therefore, does the correctness of the religion that informs about this real paradise depend on our belief, hope, like, etc? If something is a fact, it cannot change according to what we feel or what we like.

Conclusion:
Suppose you have a particular belief and you are in a particular religion. What will happen after death is X. If you change to another religion; you are, for example, Christian and then you change to Buddhism, you are Jewish and then you change to Islam, or you became atheist, etc. Q: will what happens after death change?

5) Convenience & Difficulty:

Among the distinct philosophy schools and religions, there is only one right way (as discussed). Suppose this right way is a religion called Y; there are many different beliefs and anticipations of what will happen after we die but what will actually happen is well stated by this religion.

13

Then, if what religion Y tells us is factual and real, Q: Does this tell us that religion Y is righteous and anticipating realistic events?

Q: If people deny what will actually happen after we die (which is told by the right religion Y), is their denial going to change what will happen after death? (Suppose, all people deny that the Earth is spherical!!)

Furthermore
Q: If religion Y is the right one among all philosophy schools and religions, but it has some hard and undesirable rules that dont suit your mood, does this change what religion Y tells you?? Or does this make it incorrect?!

religion A what will happen after death is W religion B what will happen after death is Q

a f t e r y o u d i e

You
religion Y what will happen after death is X religion Z what will happen after death is R

X will not change, regardless of what we desire, think or hope, or if the majority of people believe in it, you deny it, etc.

However, some people say, I will not even bother to think about other religions because it has some rules that I dont like to follow, or they are hard to me, etc. Q: Is it reasonable to say, This religion is wrong and what it tells will not happen because it is difficult for me to follow?

14

Q: Is it reasonable to say, My religion is right because it has much easier rules and laws? Q: Is it reasonable to say, These events, that religion says have happened or will happen, are not desirable to me, therefore, they didnt happened or they will not happen, (because I dont like them)?!

6) Generalization & The Correctness of Religions:

Any religion is represented by its schools, religious scholars and beliefs. Some people generalize the behavior of some groups of followers of some religions which contaminates the perspective other people have about these particular religions; for example: Some followers of Christianity are racists. Some followers of Islam are terrorists. Some followers of atheism are murderers.

Q: Can we conclude that:

Christianity = Racism & Islam = Terrorism & Atheism = Criminality ?

Q: Does this generalization mean that a particular religion is not the right one because some people, who claim they are its followers while they are not legitimate representatives, are outlaws?!

15

*Generalization of One School on an Entire Religion: Suppose there is a religion called Y which includes two main schools.

Religion Y School (A) . *People are equal, they have to live in peace regardless of their . belief and they have to respect each other . with a great kindness. And you can only . fight, if you are being invaded . to protect people from the danger of the invasion. . . Q: Can we say, Religion Y cannot be the right one because it allows starting war and fighting with people who live in peace?

School (B) *invading another country which is living in peace is legitimate and justified by the excuse that religion Y should spread in a larger region and have a larger number of followers.

Conclusion:
Generalization is not a logical or even a convincing rule; some people use it to convince themselves that the other religion is not the correct one.

7) The Source of Reality:

Many people have prejudices and impressions that dont have any relevance to reality about other religions because their sources of information are not a source of reality. Lets begin with an example to demonstrate what is meant by The Source of Reality. *As simple as this:

16

If you are in love with a girl passionately; then, one day, you want to get married to her. You also have spent a really long time and huge effort in order to be a good man and fully capable of handling this responsibility. You've done all of this in order to have a wonderful life with her and a loving relationship. However, her father and her family dont know you personally and they have never met you before, therefore, the family initially refused and asked you to wait for a short time because they want the best for her To Show The Relevance Suppose there are two persons: Person A (he is your close friend and the one whom you spend most of the time with) & Person B (he is your enemy or your opponent and you dont have a good relationship with him: he doesnt like you). Q: Would it be fair for her father to go to only Person B and ask him about you? Q: Would the description of Person B about your personality be realistic? Q: Or would it be fair, realistic, reasonable and even convincing if he asked Person A, Person B, and asked you yourself ?? . You in the above example is the correct religion. Person B & Person A are the followers of other religions. The father is your mind. The girl is yourself, and for sure you want the best for yourself. .

Conclusion:
The most convincing way to know the reality about any particular religion (that you already have some ideas about) is to go to the real followers of this religion and ask them 17

What do you believe in? Do you actually believe in that? Why do you think what you believe is right and factual?

8) The Hierarchy for Deriving Facts:

Most of the facts that philosophy schools and religions rely on to claim their correctness, and the beliefs that a particular religion is famous for, are merely "facts" that were "concluded" from other simplistic information. Hence, the truth or fallacy of these beliefs is dependent on the truth or fallacy of the given knowledge used to derive them. .Primary Givens/Simple Observations. a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s
therefore therefore therefore therefore

First Stage t _______ . Second Stage _______ Third Stage _______ Fourth Stage

Introduction (N)

Introduction (K)
therefore

Evidence (*)
therefore

Note (#)

First Conclusion
therefore

Second Conclusion

The Derived Fact (The belief that this religion believes in) The truth of this belief depends on the correctness of the first conclusion & the second conclusion. And the correctness of the first conclusion, as an example, depends on the correctness of introduction (N) & introduction (K). And the correctness of introduction (N) depends on the correctness of the givens (a, b, c, d, e).

Q: Therefore, is it reasonable to investigate about how correct "the first conclusion is", before investigating about the introductions used to derived it ??? OR.. Q: Is it logical to start arguing about the truth/fallacy of the belief without arguing about the basis of primary givens, introductions and conclusions that the religion is grounded on?

18

That is, in our daily life and in the field of introducing and debating about beliefs and thoughts among the followers of different religions, we find that most of them start debating/arguing about "derived information" in the second stage of derivation without doing so with the primary observations/givens; or they think about the third stage before testing the information in the second stage!!

For example, only to clarify this concept: Islam tells that it is required from each individual to pray everyday during the noon time in a particular manner So, in order to test how correct this instruction is, we have to test how correct the hierarchy and the inferring root this religion used to claim it, starting from the first stage.

The root the Islam uses to proof the correctness of the Islamic instructions
The Islamic belief that the existence has a cause/ a creator, like anything else The match between the estimated characteristics of this creator, with the Islamic "description" of God The sciences, logic, language and coherence of the Islamic "holy" book cannot be innovated by mankind The Islamic "holy" book cannot be modified/altered
The lack of contradiction between the Islamic beliefs and the real-life phenomena. They are even probable and their fallacy has not been proven The match between several Islamic beliefs and scientific theories

The Islamic belief that there is a purpose behind this life, which is logical for all other things in life. So it cannot be true that the entire life has no purpose in its turn. That is, death is not a merely pointless end

Therefore Islam is a correct religion and was not innovated by an ordinary being

We have to believe in the "Islamic Divine Book": Qur'an

This Qur'an tells that Mohammad is a rightful prophet who is to be obeyed in his comments, instructions, actions, and followed in his behavior. It has been proven through historical analysis and narrations that this man (Mohammad) said that this "noon prayer" should be performed in a specific manner.

Therefore, we have to perform this prayer

19

Q: Is it, therefore, reasonable when seeing a Muslim individual performing this "noon prayer" to say, "This obligation seems to be pointless and it is obvious that we do not have to do such a thing" before knowing the evidence used to conclude it by this religion.

Q: Or is it even logical to say, "This instructed deed is not compulsory because this religion doesn't seem to be a correct religion" before completing the reasoning behind its fallacy, and the introductions for its initial proofs?

Conclusion: The truth/fallacy of a dependent knowledge depends on the truth/fallacy on the introductions and primary information used to proof it. Therefore in order to test the truth of a belief, we have to test the introductions that this religion uses to prove it.

9) What to Criticize? & What to Inquire About?!

If someone has used (a, b, c, d) of information to derive the truth of the belief "z" Q: Is it reasonable to say, " ( z ) is false because of the fallacy of ( k ) " ?!!!

And what does "k" have to do with the derivation of "z"?!! Or has this person used "k" to derive "z" so that it can be used to criticize the truth of "z"?!

Therefore, in order to prove the fallacy of "z", we have to proof the fallacy of (a), (b), (c) or (d) as we discussed above since they are what this person used to derive "z". Even if "k" is somehow related to the topic, if its fallacy or truth doesn't affect the truth of "z", then it is irrelevant to use it against the derivation of "z").

For example, only to clarify this concept: Someone could say, "The manner of the Islamic prayers benefits the health of the human body because large amounts of blood are pumped to the brain while prostrating therefore, this proves that the Islamic prayer is recommended/compulsory"

20

Q: Yes, the position of prostration in the Islamic prayer benefits the brain, but is this the piece of information that Islam uses to justify this instruction?!! *Someone else could say, "Doing these prayers frequently teaches an individual to be managed in time therefore, this proves that these prayers are really

recommended/compulsory"! Q: Yes, if someone could manage his time to perform these prayers, he will develop a better skill in time management, but was this the piece of information that Islam uses to justify this instruction?! No, therefore, the fallacy or truth of these pieces of information about the Islamic prayer doesn't affect their fallacy/truth. Hence, why would someone use them in a debate? Yes, there are some natural consequences (psychological and physical ones) that result from believing in a particular belief or another, or doing some deeds or others, some which might "seem" to be positive or negative. However, as long as this religion (any religion) or philosophy school didnt rely on those consequences in the derivation, no one has the right to use them to criticize the belief. Furthermore, even if you were searching for the righteous path for your own good (not for the purpose of debating), you shouldn't use a piece of information that a religion doesn't consider. Rather, we test the hierarchy of evidence used for this particular belief or another. *For example, can someone use the following justification against Islam (in this particular topic): The absolute purpose of this life is to enjoy it
Islam prohibits sexual relations without marriage. And it also prohibits drinking wine and eating some types of food

Therefore, the Islamic instructions contradicts with the purpose of life

Therefore, Islam cannot be a rightful religion

21

Q: However, does Islam claim that this is the purpose of life, in the first place?

If Islam, for example, claimed that "the purpose of life is to enjoy it" and at the same time "we have to confine sexual relations", then in this case, there is a contradiction between the claims. This makes the conclusion that "Islamic instructions correspond with the purpose of life" a false conclusion. However

Q: Is it reasonable or even fair to claim the fallacy of a religion/philosophy school by using a piece of information that this religion doesn't believe in?

The absolute purpose of this life is to test human beings in their faith and patience

Islam prohibits sexual relations without marriage. And it also prohibits drinking wine and eating some types of food

Therefore, the Islamic instructions don't contradict with the purpose of life that it believes in

Conclusion:
Regardless of the truth or fallacy of a religion or another, and regardless of our own opinion or tendencies, we can carry out investigating beliefs through the logical hierarchy of deriving beliefs, but investigating about a piece of information that this belief doesn't rely on, wouldn't lead us to any conclusion regarding the fallacy or truth of this belief.

22

10) Goodness of Successive Religions & Righteousness:

In addition to their claim of their correctness, some religions consider some other religions to be "right". If a particular religion is the right and legitimate religion in the globe, it will have, for sure, the best concepts, beliefs, rules, laws, beauty, ethics and morals.

*Suppose there are four religions that came in succession throughout history.

D
Lets assume the following in order to clarify this rule:
Religion D was right and came first. Then, after several centuries, it was followed by religion C. Religion C is right but it also tells that religion D was righteous and good and it has, with no doubts, right beliefs and concepts.

C B

In addition, people have a spiritual comfort when they believe in a right religion and they feel and see its beauty and goodness. For this reason, they think that other religions are not right. However, even though it is a fact that religion D is beautiful and has greatness, Q: Does this mean that religion C, which tells that religion D itself is right, is not right?

(You can apply this rule on the beauty righteousness of religion C and religion B)

23

IV) A Questioning Conclusion:

Is religion factual and real, or it is a choice like an entertainment activity? Why are you now in this particular religion, or why do you have these particular beliefs? Why do you believe that other religions are not right?

V) Important Applications:
1) There are three religions A, B & C:
Religion A Religion B Religion C

*The existence has a purpose. *The origin of mankind was Adam and Eve. *After this life, there is a Judgment Day: Paradise & Hell *There was a nation in the past called Y killed by floods. *People will be judged according to goodness and evil they do. *There are angels and spirits in this life. *There is one God. *A human has a body & a soul. *Prophethood ended with prophet R. *People should not do a, b and c. And it is good to do e, f & g *It is obligatory to give a large portion of your own money, if you are rich, to poor people.

*The existence has a purpose. *The origin of mankind was Adam and Eve. *After this life, there is a Paradise. *There was a nation in the past called Y killed by storms. *People will not be judged according to evil they do. *There are only angels. *More than one God. *A human has a body & a soul. *Prophethood ended with prophet Y. *People should do a, b and c. And it is not good to do e, f & g *It is very recommended when you are rich but not obligatory.

*The existence has no purpose. *The origin of mankind is bacteria. *The body just disintegrates. *There was no nation called Y. *People will not be judged at all. *There are neither angels nor spirits in the universe. *No God. *A human has only a body. *There were no prophets. *No specific rule: neither recommendation nor prohibition. *No specific rule.

24

25

Q: If you were initially a follower of religion B, then you say, Oh, religion C seems to have easier rules; Ill change from B to C or Many people believe in religion A, Ill change from religion B to A *Does this change what will actually happen after our death (whatever it is)? *Does this change the fact of the existence of God (whatever it is)? *Does this change what the origin of mankind was (whatever it was)? *Suppose your initial belief (in religion B) is in the existence of angels without spirits, then if you convert to "religion A" will this create spirits in life? *Suppose there are actually souls in our bodies, then if you convert to "religion C", are these souls going to suddenly disappear?!! *Or should it be the case that our beliefs should be based on reality and facts? To demonstrate, let's assume there is a God therefore, we should believe in this God. There are angels (for example) I should believe there are actually angels. There are no spirits Then I should believe there are no spirits. There is a Judgment Day I should believe in the truth of this day, etc.

The Rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Conclusion:
The accuracy of these facts doesnt depend on you. You are the one who should follow these facts; they affect you and you dont affect them. The correctness of the correct religion is determined by evidences (because facts can be determined by evidences and observations) 2) Keeping in mind the previous rules, think about the following:
25

Question: Is there a creator for this universe?

The immediate answer of someone who believes there is no god is No, of course, there is no god. However, Q: Do scientists disagree with an opinion, a hypothesis, a theory or a fact before thinking about it? This person immediately answered negatively because s/he doesnt like the fact of having a god, or her/his family used to believe there is no god, people in her/his country believe in that, or it is easier for her/him, etc.

Q: is there a creator?
These are not standards that can be used in determining the accuracy of facts
Observations and/or Evidence Is it an easy way or difficult? Matches with what my family believes What I hope What I desire
Do many people believe in it or a few people?

What other people say

The Fact There are two methods to determine a fact: either observation, evidence, or both of them. A. Observation: If there is a creator for this existence and you want to investigate the accuracy of this fact, you, your mind, your senses, your abilities and every thing in this universe (if there is a creator,) are included in this created universe, therefore, this creator created them. Therefore, they are clearly less sophisticated than their creator. Q: Can they observe the creator (if there is a creator in the first place) for this universe?? (What is meant here is even if there is a creator, you may not observe the creator) 26

B. Evidence:

The existence of any thing, including you, is attributed to one of four reasons: (This is applicable for everything: what created life? What set the laws of science?? etc.) you either 1. No cause of my existence:
Q: Is it possible to have something with no cause? The scientific laboratory in modern and even classic sciences is entirely based on the principle of Cause & Effect At any university, in any lecture, the professor asked, Why do we have this thing or this phenomenon? e.g. In biology (a disease), geology (an elevation), astronomy (supernova), climatology (trade winds), physics (waves), chemistry (heat), economy (shortage), etc. and you answered the professor, it just happened!! (no comment)

or

or

or 3. I was created from something else:

I was created from organs, cells (substances, atoms, electrons, etc.), bacteria, other people, the entire existence, any thing, etc. This thing is just like you in its creation: The same two questions: Q: It has to exist before its creation in order to create itself, so it already has existed. Therefore, how could it create itself at the moment of creation?! Q: If it didnt exist before, it wasnt anything, so, how could it create itself?!

2. I created myself:

4. A Creator:

If you created yourself, you had the choice of your life: the place of birth, how you look (your length, your color, etc.), your family, your initial financial condition, the level of your intelligence, the length of your life. If you created yourself, you had the choice of these things. However Q: Did you have the choice of these things? Moreover, if I am the one who created me, why do I die? And in order to create myself, I must have been alive before so that I create myself! Therefore, Q: If I existed before my creation in order to create myself, I already had existed; therefore, how could I be the one who created me?! Q: If I didnt exist before, I wasnt anything: no abilities & no thinking, etc. So, how was I able to create myself? and how could I take the decision of my creation?!

All of our characteristics are things (just like other things), so they are included in this universe and created as well. Therefore, they cannot be applied to their creator, who created them, that is: Characteristics: The creator has different characteristics that we cannot observe by our senses & abilities: any knowledge we have is something in this universe which was created by its creator. Therefore, you cannot even imagine your creator. Knowledge: The creator created these things (knowledge), therefore, the creator has all knowledge. Therefore, the creator of the universe knows everything in this universe. Power: The creator created the power that anything in the existence has, therefore, the creator has the greatest power.

27

VI) Why Should We Investigate from the First Place?

Someone could say, "Why would I search about the truth of religions?" "What difference would it make?!!" "And would the proof of one religion's correctness over the others, or my transfer among religions, affect (what will happen to me after death)?" because as we discussed in rule (4), the accuracy of what happens after death does not rely on us. However, if one of us woke up in this life and found that all religions and philosophy schools tell that there is nothing after death, or that they all agree that what is after death is a paradise for all human beings, or a hell for all of them etc. Then, yes; what would it change if I transfer from one religion to another, or believing in the first belief, or the fourth, or even the tenth one?!! But if one of us woke up in this life and found that religions don't agree in one common belief, and they are distinct and they inform about contradictory "facts", and some of them even claims that "A human being should believe in me, so that he/she gets rewarded after death, otherwise gets punished." Then How can I make sure that what a religion tells me is false or true? Or how can I make sure that I will be safe after my death, and what these religions claim is not real? Or how can I make sure that what a particular religion tells about rewarding, punishment, conditions, obedience, etc. are all "unreal", and I don't have to believe in them or even worry about them? Or they are true and I should believe in them, in order to escape from that "real" punishment? Q: How can we ensure that these beliefs are "real/unreal" without investigating, searching and thinking? Based on these reasons, "Determining the truth of what these religions claim" becomes a necessity.

28

VII) The Lack of Permanence:

Someone else could say, "Why should I worry/search about the truth among religions while they are related to the issue of "death", and which will only occur after a "tremendously long time"?
************************************************************************************************************

Usually people avoid thinking about death and related topics because they have a natural fear of death, and they start thinking about doom and scary conceptions once death is mentioned. Nevertheless, we are in this life, so we are meant to live in it, develop it, and enjoy it. The thing is, we have to take death and the temporality of life into our accounts and think more realistically about our life and its purpose. That is, life with death and life without death are not the same thing; they are two different things. Death is an issue that we have to solve and understand (Refer to section VI page 28). Solving such an issue will make immortality and the permanent comfort possible for you.
************************************************************************************************************

As discussed previously, the significance of Religions is attributed to the lack of permanence of this life, where they inform us that this life is not the main purpose and explain its temporality. That is, people consider the period of time, since the commencement of the universe until now, an incredibly long period of time. Everyone wishes that he/she has this duration of living life. However, even though it has been an extremely long period, it eventually reached its end, like any other thing ( its end is these days, isnt it ?! ). In addition, the thing, that allowed these eras to end, will continue functioning in a similar manner to consume our days. Being able to see the world only at the time you live in it, doesnt mean the existence is only about these ~80 years you are living which are insignificant in the real time scale. Time started since the commencement of the existence, and has been, is still and will continue running. Similar to what we think, all people in the past thought their lives were very long and the whole point of this existence is the years they were living. However, Q: Where are these people now?? Q: Can you see even one of them still alive?? People these days have the same mentality that past people had. However, Q: Did what they believe correspond with reality?? we are exactly in the same position nowQ: Where are we after ~100 years?

Q: Is this life long enough, so that it has no end ?? 29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam http://www.al-islam.org/index.php?sid=196651478&t=80&cat=80

Index:
I. Introduction (1): The Factualness of Religions .P1 P2 II. Introduction (2): Observations, Evidence, Coherence Conclusion ...P7 P7 III. Issues and Standards in Determining Religions: ...P8 P8 1) Facts & Rules ......P8 P8 2) The Righteous Religion & Your Family ........P10 P10 3) The Number of Followers of Religions ..P10 P10 4) What We Hope ....P11 P11 5) Convenience & Difficulty .P13 P13 6) Generalization & The Righteousness of Religions.P15 P15 7) The Source of Reality.P16 P16 8) The Hierarchy for Deriving Facts P18 9) What to Criticize? And What to Inquire About?...................................................... P20 10) Goodness of Successive Religions & Righteousness.. P21 IV. A Questioning Conclusion ...P18 P24 V. Important Applications ..P19 P24 1) The Independence of the Factualness & The Righteousness P19 P24 2) Is There a Creator? .......P21 P26

VI. Why Should We Investigate from the First Place?.............................................. P28 VII. The Lack of Permanence ....................... P29

The Author.

ahmed_cpp@hotmail.com 30