← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you.
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, and that 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.
Atheism says: There is no Creator, no innate nature, no soul, but we are merely matter, a collection of atoms.
Atheists were asked: How do you explain the fact that humans find within themselves the freedom to choose their actions? They buy or do not buy, they speak or do not speak, they write or do not write? The atoms that make up humans have no consciousness or choice, but follow known chemical and biological laws.
If what governs us is the materiality of these atoms, if our actions are purely the result of genes and nerve cell impulses created by chance, then we are nothing but robots programmed to perform specific tasks. Have you ever seen a robot choose an action other than the one it was programmed for? Similarly, we - according to your materialism - are robots of flesh like metal robots. How do you explain free will after all this?
These are among the questions that atheists answer with confusion and bewilderment. As in this interview with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, where Dawkins admits that this question frightens him, and that his materialistic intellectual convictions of the non-existence of free will, contradict his strong personal impression of its existence.
And as usual, atheists... escape from the dilemma by denying obvious facts and contradicting the self-evident truths of reason. Many of them denied the existence of free will, just as they previously denied the necessities of reason, the value of ethics, the tendency towards religiosity, and the feeling of a purpose in life.
So you see Dawkins says in his book "River out of Eden": The genetic code does not care or know, it is just that, and we dance to its tune! Meaning, in other words: We are robots controlled by genes.
And you see the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris writes a book titled: Free Will, in which he says at the beginning: Free will is an illusion. And he describes humans as: (Biochemical puppet), meaning: a biochemical puppet, which is also what the image on the cover of his book expresses. Yet, he boasts on the cover that he is the author of one of the best-selling books titled: (The End of Faith). This great achievement, which the enlightened atheists have published, is convincing their followers that there is no God, and that they are merely moving puppets.
And you see the professor of environment and evolution Jerry Coyne writes an article titled: You Do Not Possess Free Will. This is indeed the vision consistent with atheism and the materialist method, that there should be no free will.
But... did the atheists really escape from 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, what is the justification for punishing them if they commit crimes, kill, steal, rape, torture, and commit all kinds of atrocities? Why do we punish them... when they are victims of their genes that drive them against their will? And if the generous, altruistic, and sacrificial person is forced into their actions, what is the justification for praising them?
Then, 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 get rid of their evils? Isn't it also strange, the atheists' strong insistence on eradicating what they call: "The illusion of God" from existence, while showing clear indifference to removing the other illusion in their view, the illusion of human free will? Even though this illusion makes people punish the poor criminals who are forced to commit crimes!
Then, if there is no free will, if the believer is forced into his belief, and the atheist is forced into his atheism, why do atheists enthusiastically advocate for their atheism? If humans do not have a real will with which they can change their beliefs.
Isn't it very amusing that atheists write books to convince us through them that there is no free will? Even though that means that there is no rational act in their writing this, but rather letters that were written, by the pressure of biochemical reactions. And it is known that it is not in the agenda of these reactions to seek the truth, let alone achieve it.
And what is the value of learning? If humans lack free will, which they choose correct knowledge through, as opposed to falsehood. If they are driven against their will to certain results, regardless of whether they are correct or false! Isn't it known that the origin of the word (reason) in the Arabic language is: (prevention)? So human reason prevents them from following anything like cattle. Wouldn't atheists then be without reason? Because by denying free will, they are driven to what they do, without anything holding them back!
Isn't it funny after all this that atheists call themselves free thinkers? While under their denial of free will, and their denial of intellectual premises - as we explained in the fifth episode - humans cannot be thinkers nor can they be free. Isn't it funny that atheists talk about human dignity, while their atheism means a human without reason, without morals, without purpose, without free will, but a mere chemical waste, moved by chance like a puppet!
Endless questions that slap the faces of atheists who denied free will and denied the soul, and claimed that we are mere matter, and that our genes are the ones that control us.
But here is another important question: When atheists failed to explain non-material innate phenomena, such as the tendency towards religiosity, the moral tendency, and free will, and escaped their indication of the existence of the Creator, and instead explained them by genes. Do they have any scientific evidence for this alternative explanation? Or is it blind faith in a metaphysical issue with no evidence? An illusion with which they fill their cognitive gaps? Are atheist scientists scientific in this explanation? Or are they deceiving themselves and others?
This is what we will know in the next episode, God willing. And peace be upon you.