Introduction: How Atheism Undermines the Foundation of Reason?
Peace be upon you, dear ones. In the previous episode, we explained that when an atheist denies the existence of the Creator, it leads him to strip away the reliability of the innate components that a human finds within himself. We will see in this episode how this denial leads to a series of regressions: denying intellectual axioms, morals, questioning the purpose, and free will.
Why can't the atheist deny the Creator and still hold onto these axioms that he finds within himself? Why is he forced to enter this series of stubbornness and confusion? This is what we will discuss in detail, starting with intellectual necessities. We will explore their indication of the existence of God, how atheism undermines the experimental method, and whether atheism respects reason or destroys it? We will also discuss the contradiction of atheists and the statement "truth is relative."
The Faithful Perspective vs. The Atheist Perspective
First, faith establishes everything on the existence of God the Almighty. In the faithful perspective, God created the heavens and the earth in truth, and by His wisdom, He set fixed laws, and He created man with an innate nature that produces necessary intellectual axioms, from which the mind launches to discover the truths of things. God the Almighty says: {Indeed, We have created man in the best of stature}, and this is a form of guidance, where this innate nature resembles the "operating system" of a computer.
In the atheist perspective, man is a product of chance and randomness, not by wisdom, and there is nothing called innate nature. Here, the question arises: how do you explain the existence of intellectual axioms? Those axioms like: "the whole is greater than the part," "1+1=2," "contradictions do not coexist," and "every event has a cause." These are rules on which man builds his knowledge, and they are not built on anything before them, so there must be someone who deposited them in the soul.
The Atheist's Confusion in Explaining Reason
Atheists began by trying to explain these rules through "sensory inputs" and the tool of induction. They claimed that when a man sees an apple joining another, he forms a mathematical rule. However, the atheist thereby reversed the issue; he made the inputs shape the rules, which is similar to saying that the abundance of data entered into an Excel program is what creates the programming equations capable of analyzing it!
Even if the data increased to millions, the inputs cannot create an analysis system. Atheists realized this problem, but they insisted on fleeing from the idea of "pre-programming" (innate nature) because it implies the existence of a "programmer" who deposited it in the soul.
Denying the Principle of Causality and Undermining Experimental Science
When atheists were confronted with the principle of causality (that every event has a cause), they found themselves facing the inevitability of the existence of a cause for this universe. Here, some of them had to say that the conclusions of the mind are not absolute truths but "incomplete inductions." They claimed that causality works within the limits of our observations only, and it does not prevent something from happening in a corner of the universe without a cause!
They went so far as to deny intellectual necessities altogether, claiming that what we see as "causes and effects" is merely "concomitance of events" that occurred without a real relationship between them. They did this to justify the idea of a "universe from nothing" or that the universe "created itself."
This talk, even if it is adorned with the names of great scientists, undermines "experimental science" from its foundation. Science is based on observing causal relationships; if we deny causality, the search for a cure for a disease becomes futile, because the disease, according to their logic, may be without a cause, just like the universe!
The Practical Contradiction of the Atheist
The atheist who theoretically denies causality cannot apply that practically. If someone were to hit another's car, the atheist would not accept the statement: "The collision of my car with yours is not the cause of the damage, but they are two events that occurred concomitantly only!" Atheists practice the recognition of intellectual principles in their daily lives, but they only deny them when the issue concerns the great truth: the existence of the Creator.
Doubting the Credibility of the Human Mind
When the atheist is cornered with the question: "How do you explain the agreement of all people on intellectual necessities and your work with them in reality?" the atheist perspective resorts to "Darwinian evolution." They say: since man is the result of random mutations and natural selection whose goal is "survival" not "truth," what guarantees that our minds have developed the ability to reach the truths of things?
Here, atheism takes its adherent beyond denying axioms; it reaches the point of doubting the reliability of the human mind itself. If your mind can mislead or deceive you with mere illusions to achieve your survival, how can you trust your atheistic conclusions in the first place? You rely on the mind to deny the Creator, while your atheism undermines the credibility of this mind!
It is very strange that atheists claim to "respect the mind" and accuse the religious of neglecting it, while the truth is that atheism ultimately leads to undermining the reliability of the mind. The atheist believes his mind, whose ability to indicate truth is questionable, simply because his mind told him: "Trust me."
The Dilemma of "Relative Truth" and Nihilism
How did atheism get out of the dilemma of relying on a mind that may mislead? They answered by denying the existence of "absolute truths" altogether! They said: things do not have truths in themselves, but they are merely readings of human senses, and every person sees the truth in his own color, and there is no way for anyone to be wrong about the other.
Here, we must distinguish between absolute truth and relative truth:
- Absolute Truth: is the thing in itself (like the drawn line being one line, so whoever says it is two is certainly wrong).
- Relative Truth: is what differs with the difference of persons (like this line being understood by the Japanese and not understood by others).
Unfortunately, some Muslim youth repeat the phrase "truth is relative" thinking that it is the pinnacle of openness, and they do not know its implications. If one of them says: "No one possesses absolute truth," we ask him: "Is your statement an absolute truth?" If he says "yes," he has contradicted his statement, and if he says "no," it is just a personal opinion that does not obligate us.
This relativism and nihilism created a suitable environment for the idea of the "open text" in dealing with revelation, where it is claimed that religious texts do not have one truth that God intended, but understanding is relative and all understandings are correct, which undermines religion from within.
Conclusion: Knowledge of God is the Origin of All Knowledge
The consequences of atheism appear when it denies the key statements on which the faithful perspective is based: (God, creation, wisdom, fixed laws, innate nature, intellectual axioms, reliable reason, truth, absolute truths). For the atheist, everything falls apart, so there is no truth nor reliable science that can be generalized.
It becomes clear to us that no truth can stand without faith in the existence of God the Almighty, who possesses absolute perfection. From here, we understand the profound statement of the scholars: "Knowledge of God is the origin of knowledge of all known things." He who does not perceive the existence of God cannot, by argument, establish a coherent epistemological theory.
As Ibn Qayyim, may God have mercy on him, said: "Denying the Creator of the universe and rejecting Him in the minds and innate nature is like denying science and rejecting it; there is no difference between them." Indeed, the indication of the Creator to the creature in wise minds is clearer than the opposite.
This is why the highest value in Islam is "truth," and through it, we understand the depth of His saying, may God be pleased with him: {Have you not considered those who dispute about the signs of Allah how they are turned away?} This was a discussion of the indication of the innate programming of intellectual axioms, and in the coming episodes, we will discuss other innate indications, God willing.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His blessings.