← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you, dear brothers. In this episode, we summarize the most important points of the nine episodes about the innate evidence for the existence of God within the series "Journey of Certainty," and we answer some of the objections that were raised about these episodes.
We explained that there is an innate nature present in humans and described some of the components of this innate nature, such as the tendency towards religiosity, intellectual axioms, the moral tendency, the feeling of a purpose in life, and the feeling of free will. We also explained the significance of each of these components in indicating the existence of God the Almighty, and how the Islamic stance towards each innate component is consistent and rational.
We explained that atheism, on the other hand, falls into a dilemma with each innate component, and that the basis of this dilemma is atheism's insistence on interpreting existence in a materialistic way that rejects the idea of a God who created humans with these innate components.
We saw how the atheistic stance is characterized by the following: denial of things that are necessarily known and evident in reality, contradiction and lack of consistency, arriving at results that instinctively repel the soul, devaluing the worth and dignity of humans, and undermining the credibility of their intellect and feelings.
We also explained that if atheism tries to escape from one of these problems, it inevitably falls into another problem. For example, if it tries to acknowledge intellectual axioms, it falls into contradiction with its materialistic view. If it tries to be consistent with its materialistic view, it denies intellectual axioms.
If atheism tries to escape from the amorality that it leads to, and if it wants to be consistent with the materialistic view, it inevitably leads to amoral results that instinctively repel the soul. Therefore, it is of no use for the atheist to say, "I reject the amoral statements made by some atheists," and "I reject their denial of intellectual principles such as causality." Because this rejection puts him in contradiction with his atheism.
Nevertheless, we often used the phrase, "Atheism does not have a problem with such and such" or "It is the morality of atheism to do such and such" and "Atheism says such and such" so that it would not be objected to us that not all atheists say this. The positions we mentioned are the expected results of atheism, even if some atheists do not say them.
We also explained in the series how atheism's denial of innate nature leads to the destruction of the slogans it raises. The slogans of atheists: "I respect my intellect," "I am humane - I believe in humans," "I believe in science." We explained in the fifth episode the insult of atheism to the intellect and its undermining of it. We explained in the sixth, seventh, and eighth episodes the insult of atheism to humans and their morals. We explained in the fifth, tenth, and eleventh episodes the insult of atheism to experimental science. It is a destruction of the slogans.
We also explained how atheists fall into the same things they criticize believers for with the existence of God. They criticize believers for believing in the unseen, while believers have evidence for this unseen, whereas atheists fall into believing in the unseen without evidence, such as their belief in materialistic explanations for innate components in the absence of evidence for them.
They criticize believers for saying, "We do not know why" as an answer to some questions, while it is a concession based on intellectual faith, whereas atheists say the same phrase, "We do not know why" as an answer to some questions, such as the question about the explanation of the existence of free will for humans contrary to what the materialistic atheistic view imposes.
Atheists claim that believers in God deceive themselves, whereas atheists are the ones who deceive themselves, as we explained in the episode: "Why are we here in this life?"
In conclusion, some Muslims have questions, doubts, and suspicions for which they have not found satisfactory answers, either because of their negligence in seeking answers from appropriate sources, or because they did not build their faith on solid foundations in the first place, or because of a major methodological flaw they have, which is that they do not refer the ambiguities to those solid foundations, meaning they do not explain the details that are hidden from them in the light of the great intellectual foundations that they have evidence for, so they remain in anxiety and confusion.
Such a person may accumulate doubts until they deny the existence of God and assume that when they become atheists, they will get out of these problems. They do not know that their denial of the existence of God is only the beginning of a continuous chain of denial that leads to nihilism and contradiction.
Under the atheistic conception that says that the existence of God is an illusion, this inevitably leads to the absence of all meaning and all value, where it will end up with the result that intellectual principles are an illusion, moral values are an illusion, the meaning of existence and its purpose are an illusion, human free will is an illusion, and even humans with their non-material spiritual components that form the truth of their humanity are just an illusion.
As the atheist William Provine, a professor of the history of biology at Cornell University, expressed: "The matter begins with giving up that there is an active God, then giving up hope for any life after death. When you give up these two ideas, the rest of the matters come in a relatively easy way, where you lose hope that there are absolute moral principles, and finally there is no free human will. There is no hope for the existence of any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we perish! We perish finally when we die!"
So know, O young man who has abandoned your religion and announced that to your friends, celebrating that you have gotten rid of the set of questions and doubts that were troubling you when you were a Muslim, know that you have entered a deep ocean with turbulent waves of doubts, questions, and contradictions, and you have left the firm handle to fall into a deep valley, and you will not find an escape from this reality except to turn a blind eye to it.
Now, brothers, let us answer some of the objections that were raised about the episodes.
First, I mentioned some verses in the episodes, and some objected that verses are not used to address the atheist. Initially, this series is not only for addressing the atheist and the doubter but also for the believer to increase his certainty, as I have explained. However, even in addressing the atheist, it is not wrong for us to cite these verses. If I mentioned them in the sense that: "O atheist, God says such and such; you must submit because God has said," it would be correct at that time to say that this is not rational because the atheist does not submit to the existence of a God in the first place.
But our citation of them is to show the consistency of the Islamic system and the coherence of what Islam attributes to the God that is believed in, the coherence of that with reality in contrast to the contradiction of atheism. Consistency is one of the proofs of truth, and contradiction is one of the proofs of falsehood, "And if it had been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much contradiction" [An-Nisa: 82].
And more importantly, brothers, it is not correct to say that the atheist is not addressed by the Quran in this general way, but many verses contain rational proofs that the atheist is addressed with, such as His saying, "Were they created from nothing, or are they the creators?" [At-Tur: 35]. We argue with the atheist with the rational proof that the verse contains, not that we obligate him with information just because the Quran came with it. We did not say, for example: "O atheist, the Quran says that God exists, so you must believe that God exists," we did not say this.
Second, some objected by saying, "You concluded from your discussions the existence of Allah, and 'Allah' is the name of God in the Islamic perspective," "while the most that the episodes prove is the existence of a god." "Your claim that you have proven the existence of the Islamic God - according to the objector's expression - is a leap to a conclusion that goes beyond the proven extent."
The answer, brothers, is that the episodes indicate both matters together: the existence of a creator who manages the universe, and some of the attributes of this creator that His creation indicates. And Islam is the only one that gives a correct conception of the attributes of this managing creator. In the corrupted books - such as the book called the Holy Book, for example - there is a description of this creator with what is not befitting, such as describing Him as wrestling with Jacob until Jacob almost wrestled Him, and that He rested after creating the heavens and the earth, and others... These are descriptions that do not suit the attributes of divine power and wisdom that we have spoken about in the series.
Also, I mention in the sixth episode, for example, that the existence of a god with absolute perfect attributes establishes the existence of moral values such as good and truth, and lays an absolute foundation for ethics. The proofs actually end with the fact that when proving the existence of a Lord, the Lord must be with the Islamic description that describes Him with what befits the manifestations of His power, knowledge, wisdom, and mercy, which necessitate His divinity, and that He is worthy of worship with these attributes. Therefore, mentioning the name of Allah is not a leap or an excess of the limit that has been proven.
Third, some objected by saying, "You are establishing the claim of the validity of Islam based on the invalidity of atheism," "while the invalidity of atheism does not necessarily imply the validity of Islam." The truth is that I did not claim that in these episodes; I did not establish the validity of Islam on the invalidity of atheism. The eleven past episodes are only the beginning of the series that will be lengthy - if God wills - and the amount that has been discussed is only the natural proofs of the existence of God with some benefits here and there. And the natural proofs are only part of the proofs of the existence of God. As for discussing the rest of the elements of the validity of Islam, such as the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and that the Quran is the word of God, and Islamic laws, all of this has not been discussed yet.
Fourth, some objected to mentioning some terms and quotations in the English language, and the truth, brothers, is that we had reasons for that, including: giving credibility to the accuracy of some quotations; there are quotations about atheists and Darwinists that are strange and shocking, to the point of being almost unbelievable, which may make some people think that the original text cannot be as we mentioned, but rather it is a behavior or a lack of accuracy in the translation, so we quoted the text as it is from its reference as an addition to documentation.
Sometimes, we mention the title of the reference in English to facilitate the follower's reference to it for verification and expansion if he wishes, especially since most of the mentioned references are not translated. Sometimes, we mention terms that do not have a familiar Arabic translation in the scientific community, so we mention them in their original form so that the follower understands what we are talking about.
Fifth, brothers, what is called Darwin's theory, I addressed a specific part related to it, which is: the moral consequences of Darwinian evolution and its interpretation of natural components and some behaviors. So, some thought that I was discussing the theory itself, and they defended it, trying to prove its validity, and expected me to respond to their speech... I would like to point out here that my methodology in this series is: determination, precision, and separating some matters from others. I have not yet discussed Darwinian evolution itself, but its scientific discussion in detail will come - if God wills - after discussing the rational proofs of the existence of God the Almighty.
This was the end of the natural proofs of the existence of God. We move after that to the rational proofs, in which there is much convincing and beneficial discussion by the permission of God the Almighty. Follow us, and peace be upon you and the mercy of God.