Episode Nine: Flesh Robots
The Concept of Free Will Between Innate Nature and Materialism
Islam states that among the innate nature which the Creator has instilled in humans is the feeling of free will in actions that fall under their choice. This free will is a divine justice, so that humans bear the consequences of their choices; Allah rewards them if they do good, and punishes them if they do wrong.
On the other hand, atheism says: there is no Creator, no innate nature, no soul, but we are merely matter, a collection of atoms. When atheists were asked, "How do you explain the fact that humans find within themselves the freedom to choose their actions? To buy or not to buy, to speak or not to speak, to write or not to write?" their answer was shocking.
Humans as "Flesh Robots"
The atoms that make up humans have no consciousness or choice; they only follow known biochemical laws. If what governs us is the materiality of these atoms, and if our actions are merely the result of genes and neural impulses created by chance, then we are nothing but robots programmed to perform specific tasks.
Have you ever seen a robot choose to do something other than what it was programmed to do? Similarly, according to materialism, we are "flesh robots" like metal robots. How do you explain free will after all this?
These are questions that atheists respond to with confusion and bewilderment. As usual, they escape the dilemma by denying obvious truths and contradicting the basics of reason. Many of them have denied the existence of free will, just as they previously denied intellectual necessities, the value of ethics, the tendency towards religiosity, and the feeling of a purpose in life.
Testimonies of Atheist Leaders
- Richard Dawkins: In his book "The River Out of Eden," he says, "The genetic code does not care or know, it is just that way, and we dance to its tune." Meaning, in other words: we are robots controlled by genes.
- Sam Harris: An atheist neuroscientist, wrote a book titled "Free Will," in which he says at the beginning, "Free will is an illusion," and describes humans as "biochemical puppets," which is also what the image on the cover of his book expresses.
- Jerry Coyne: A professor of ecology and evolution, wrote an article titled: "You Don't Have Free Will." This is indeed the view consistent with atheism and the materialist approach; that there should be no free will.
A Sea of Contradictions
But, did the atheists really escape the dilemma by denying this, or did they plunge themselves into a sea of contradictions and endless questions?
- If humans are indeed devoid of choice, and the generous, altruistic, and sacrificial person is forced to act, what is the justification for praising him?
- Isn't it strange that Sam Harris, who describes people as "biochemical puppets," is the same person who proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on Muslims to eliminate their evils?
- Isn't it strange that atheists are so keen on eliminating what they call the "illusion of God" while showing clear indifference to eliminating the other illusion in their view, which is the "illusion of free will," even though this illusion makes people punish criminals who are "poor" and forced to commit crimes?
- If there is no free will, and the believer is forced to believe and the atheist is forced to disbelieve, why do atheists get excited about calling for their atheism if humans do not have a real will with which they can change their beliefs?
The Futility of Writing and Learning
Isn't it amusing that atheists write books to convince us that there is no free will? Given that this means there is no rational act in their writing, but rather letters arranged by the pressure of biochemical interactions, and it is known that it is not on the agenda of these interactions to seek the truth, let alone achieve it.
What is the value of learning if humans lack the free will to choose the correct knowledge over falsehood? If they are driven against their will to specific results, regardless of whether they are true or false?
Free Thinkers!
Isn't it funny that after all this, atheists call themselves "free thinkers"? Given that under their denial of free will and denial of intellectual necessities, humans cannot be thinkers nor can they be free. Isn't it funny that they talk about human dignity, while their atheism means a human without reason, without morals, without purpose, and without free will, but rather a "chemical filth" moved by chance like a puppet.
Endless questions slap the faces of atheists who denied the soul and claimed that we are mere abstract matter. But there is another important question: when atheists failed to explain natural phenomena and attributed them to genes, do they have any scientific evidence for this alternative explanation? Or is it blind faith in a metaphysical issue with which they fill their cognitive gaps?
This is what we will know in the next episode, God willing. Peace be upon you.