Some critics of logical arguments used by some religious people, say that when one starts with a firm belief in God then tries to use logical arguments to prove that God does exist, he is actually committing a logical fallacy such as Affirming the Consequent or Circular Reasoning.
I think that what could have been overlooked or misunderstood by some critics, and unfortunately by some believers as well, is that any type of rationalizing about deep religious concepts was not how the belief system started. The original belief system was based on a mystical experience that did not involve a shred of logical argumentation, rather was pure sight, vision, or experience.
Logical Attempts
Logical endeavors to rationalize the belief system came much later, probably in an attempt to make the belief system more approachable to ordinary people or people who have doubts or do not believe.
The point I am driving at is that any errors in such rationalizing attempts have nothing to do with the original message. It is my opinion that such errors have nothing to do also with the understanding of several quite knowledgeable scholars. They did not depend on a logical approach to "see it". They saw it first, and only afterwards they have honestly tried to explain what basically cannot be fully and satisfactorily explained with words or gestures. Since they have known that too, it is my understanding that all they had hoped for, was to point to a direction in hope that for some people such an approach might be what clicks the right button for a window to pop up (we are in the information age, aren't we? :) ). It is clicking that button, starting that engine, opening that door, or whatever the expression that tries to describe that experience, that is sought, and nothing else. Means are only trying to prepare one for the leap of awareness. It is that leap of awareness that deserves attention, not how it is prompted. Because means on their own, will always be deficient to take one's awareness through that leap. That leap happens only when the time is right and only when one has exerted all the efforts one can exert. It happens because one becomes eligible to be showered by His Mercy and Grace. I think endeavors in this regard might be better understood if one keeps the goal in mind while studying the approaches and the procedures trying to lead to that goal.
A related point is how some studies on religions describe changes that religious rationalizing goes through historically as evolution in original religious concepts. I think that what is seen as evolution can also be viewed as attempts by scholars who were merely trying to restate or rephrase the explanations of the same original Divine Message (pointing at or referring to concepts that are irrelevant to space-time points and again possible to 'see' but not simple to express in convenient constructs for most people) using a terminology and a style more reachable to people of the time. In other words, I think the evolution appears to be that of presentation and not of the core Message of a religion itself.
Yet another related point is that of 'borrowing concepts' from other religions. I think basically it is the terminology that is borrowed. That borrowing appears to be based on an implicit acknowledgment that such terminology can help express original religious concepts.
Anyway, despite the sincerity of people who adopted logical means in matters of religion, many Mystics did not think it was a good idea. Sufis encourage getting a grasp on the original mystical message. That is why some of them were prompt in noting the shortcomings and the eventual dead end of trying to 'philosophize it' instead of simply 'seeing it'.
Limits of Logic
The limits of Logic only reflect insurmountable human limits. Man can perceive and figure out about phenomena, but it does not seem to be possible for that perception to be perfect and for knowledge about a phenomenon to be complete. I don't know of any estimation of how well do we know existence. In fact, I some times really wonder how different, in this regard, are we in this age from people who lived thousands of years ago? How big the difference in knowledge is, compared to what we do not yet know about existence?
Logic came after knowledge. Knowledge came first. Trying to rationalize that knowledge came later. For instance, man's affinity for mathematics is ancient. Perception of mathematics, beholding its beauty and using it, came first. Trying to find logical basis for it came a lot later. How much difference would it have made in the progress of science, had their been no Logicism? In the same way, how different does knowledge of philosophy of language makes, in a poet's creative poetry?
I believe it is ok to try to find some philosophical and logical explanations for mathematics, as long as such philosophical and logical means do not become ends in themselves or get in the way of seeing the original concepts they were set out to explain. As far as I understand, a complete and a total explanation has not so far been realized, whether in mathematical logic or in quantum physics or in any other field of science. That is why the need to resort to arbitrary assumptions at some points, when trying to build logical or philosophical frameworks.
Notations, axioms and theorems help us get a glimpse of a body, of a system, that is there, everywhere, underlies everything, so beautiful, far more intricate than anyone can ever imagine. Some mystics describe it as a blueprint that determines how things are supposed to be, or a set of molds based on which things are molded as they appear into existence and have their time on the stage then disappear, or a complete and exhaustive set of laws, leaving nothing to chance, governing how things are, the way they are, and where they are going in existence. Given such a view, the teleological nature of existence, is probably just so "natural".
It seems that Mathematics is a sort of a magic window to the system. That is probably why, some mystics showed a certain fondness for math. It has its mundane uses for sure, but I think perceiving mathematics as just a set of useful tools and excessive concentration on philosophizing things can hinder the ability to experience the system. I think one can find examples of thinkers who had unfavorable opinions concerning mysticism and at the same time were quite involved in finding logical basis for math. Was it a coincidence? I think, excessive philosophizing, if not done carefully, can have a negative effect. For instance, it could lead to a possibility, for someone to build a logical house around himself then convince himself that there is no way out of it, when it is totally up to him to rethink the logical system and consider a different design.
In the Quran, Abraham said to his people: "Worship ye that which ye have (yourselves) carved? But God created you and your handiwork!" (37:95-96)
Personally, I think it is perfectly ok to use notations and theorems, not to be worshiped or glorified but to be used for what they are good for. Let's improve on what we have, just let us never forget the bigger picture. And from time to time, if possible, maybe one should stop, take a deep breath and try to see the wholeness of the body, the full-blown system as it is, not as notations and theorems try to portray it. Is it possible? Could it be totally different what is sensed or perceived then?
Philosophizing, whether in the stone age or in any age, will always come short of perceiving reality as it is. That is what mystics mean when they say philosophizing it, is a dead end. It is a dead end if one thinks it is eventually possible to really "know it" through logical means. Even when we have so many PhDs, research centers and huge sums of R&D money, as it has so obviously been the case for a considerable time until now, and with all due respect for talents and efforts, it still appears that reality as it is, keeps eluding anyone's grasp. Yet mystics insist, a much deeper realization about reality, that goes way beyond what can be immediately sensed, is not impossible, but not through the way a scientific minded person thinks how he should go about realizing it.
Could an alternative, suggested by different branches of human experience, since ancient times, be a better approach? Could developing a few basic personal traits like genuine acceptance of one's inherent and humanly insurmountable weaknesses, utter silence (no urge whatsoever to assume, postulate or theorize), and perception, awakened and ready (numerous prescriptions for that, and apparently not there incidentally), be of any help in gaining precious insight? Is it true, as some mystics have indicated, that it is an insight that quenches the thirst to know, relieves the mind, and possibly makes one realize that many opinions, questions and doubts one may have had, were not even relevant?
Perspective, once more
I would like to be clear here that I do not mean disrespect towards scientists or try to belittle the efforts that have been exerted by fine and dedicated people. I do not think that philosophizing is a totally useless thing, or something to be avoided or used as less as possible. The efforts of scientists, as they are, are to be cherished and noted with high respect.
I have been trying to explain that science and mysticism do not oppose each other. One does not have to replace one's scientific background in order to become a mystic. Mysticism and science each has its important role. It is when the spiritual aspect of existence is completely ignored, and a scientific view based on purely physical measures is forced to be regarded as the only possible way to view things, that I feel there is a need to point out that that might not be the best perspective available to man.
Mysticism and religious contemplation can provide deep precious insight into worldly matters. But insight alone does not do much. It is through philosophizing (whether elaborately planned or simple and instinctive) that anything useful in man's life can practically be implemented. Insight, regardless of how deep, represents a vision. Philosophizing helps put that vision in a working and a deliverable plan of what to do in one's life and how to do it. Insight is the ultimate source of working ideas, philosophizing is what turns them into theories and applications of theories for the betterment of life for human beings. The philosophizing and theorizing part is essential and it complements insight.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ("An Idealist View of Life", chapter 5) said something to the effect that major breakthroughs in science could only have happened after a mystical insight, whether knowingly or unknowingly. A person with a clean consciousness and a sincere desire to help others, can be a candidate to receive such an insight.
So, theorizing, philosophizing, science and the educational system we have, are to succeed, evolve and get better by all means. There is no question about it. All I am trying to say is to see through the process and not to be blinded by it. I think it is good and required that one should try to perceive how to keep the process healthy and under control, it is being overwhelmed by the process and to let it control one's perception that may not be the best way to manage things.
I don't think it is wise to underestimate the importance of philosophizing, but maybe we should not overestimate it either.
