From my understanding, fitrah is a body of knowledge every human being is born with. This knowledge doesn't need to be proven, we know it's true immediately (its like inate). It includes things like The existence of one God. However the fitrah can be "corrupted" by what the child is taught. So, in this model, every person is born a monotheist but it's the parents that either corrupt or guard their fitrah.
Now, i am having trouble accepting this. On the one hand it comes off as almost a cop-out since you can avoid providing proofs for your claims and just claim that your view is supported by the "fitrah" (i have seen it used in this sense). It's also kinda dangerous since you can accuse everyone that disagrees with you of their fitrah being "corrupt".
But it also makes sense in a way since there are truths humans accept but that can't really be proven (like fundamental laws of logic, existence of causal connections, etc. So maybe these are like in the fitrah). So, since we accept our "intuition" here, i can't see why it can't be accepted in religion as well. What I am trying to say here is that i am not against the existence of a body of knowledge that is so self evident that it doesn't require any proof/reflection.
Because of these two conflicting views, am kinda stuck on what to do. So, My first question to you is do you agree with fitrah being used like this (proofs for God aren't needed because of fitrah for example)? And my second question is How would you respond to my other point (it being a cop-out)
Now, i am having trouble accepting this. On the one hand it comes off as almost a cop-out since you can avoid providing proofs for your claims and just claim that your view is supported by the "fitrah" (i have seen it used in this sense). It's also kinda dangerous since you can accuse everyone that disagrees with you of their fitrah being "corrupt".
But it also makes sense in a way since there are truths humans accept but that can't really be proven (like fundamental laws of logic, existence of causal connections, etc. So maybe these are like in the fitrah). So, since we accept our "intuition" here, i can't see why it can't be accepted in religion as well. What I am trying to say here is that i am not against the existence of a body of knowledge that is so self evident that it doesn't require any proof/reflection.
Because of these two conflicting views, am kinda stuck on what to do. So, My first question to you is do you agree with fitrah being used like this (proofs for God aren't needed because of fitrah for example)? And my second question is How would you respond to my other point (it being a cop-out)