← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Is it not fair to acknowledge that, although the materialist approach excludes the existence of God from the explanation of the universe and life, it has brought great benefit to humanity through science (experimental science) and various discoveries? If so, is our need to acknowledge the existence of the Creator simply to satisfy our spiritual needs, regulate our social relationships, and reform our hereafter?
If we prove that most scientists at a certain time are materialistic in their explanations, does this indicate that acknowledging the existence of a Creator of the universe is not necessary for achieving progress in science and discoveries? Didn't the Westerners advance after they marginalized religion in their lives? This indicates that religion in general hinders progress in science. Or is there a fundamental flaw in all these ideas, with a big lie that we have absorbed without realizing it? These and many other questions, we will answer in this episode, so stay with us.
Peace be upon you. We are sitting in the safety of Allah, and then we hear noise. We turn towards the source of the noise, and we see this scene: a beautiful boy named "Science," his face smeared with black. He is being held by a masked person who wants to escape with him, claiming to be the boy's father, and another person accusing the masked one of kidnapping the boy from him. We listened to both of them, and we felt that the voice of the masked one was familiar to us, but we did not know who he was at first.
In this episode, we conduct our investigations to correct the lineage to return the boy to his real father, remove the mask from the masked one, and learn his identity. Come, let's conduct a DNA test to know who is truthful and who is lying.
So, there are two claimants to the fatherhood of Science.
The first one is named (The Theistic Approach), the approach that acknowledges that the universe and life must have a Creator who is needed by everything, while He is not in need of anything else. We took a sample from the theistic approach and found that knowledge in it is based on four rules, similar to the nitrogenous bases in genetic material. These rules are: innate disposition (fitrah), reason, revelation, and sense perception. The theistic approach explains the universe and life based on these four rules, and these explanations include what they encompass of the unseen, which indicates the validity of these rules.
We turned to the masked one before examining his genetic material. We asked him: Who are you? He said: My name is the materialistic approach, and sometimes they call me the naturalistic approach. What do you mean by material or naturalistic? He said: I mean that I do not acknowledge anything other than the perceptible in explaining the universe and life. Rather, I attribute everything to matter, and I explain the universe and life based on it without anything else. And thanks to that, I was able to give birth to my son Science, so you can say that I am the father of Science or his mother as Manbendra N. Roy says: "The materialistic concept of the origin and evolution of the universe is the mother of science."
Wait! You do not acknowledge the unseen, so you are an atheist? He said: No, whose atheist! I have nothing to do with atheism, nor do I have anything to do with the ongoing conflict between religion and atheism. Rather, I will judge everything objectively. Atheism is a preconceived ideological position, but I do not have preconceived positions. But you said that you start from not acknowledging the unseen, is this not an ideological position? He said to us: No no, I excluded the unseen because this is what science has shown me. Science has proven to me that there is no need for the unseen.
Hey man! You said that you gave birth to science when you excluded the unseen from the explanation of the universe and life, and now you say that you excluded the unseen because this is what science has shown you. Let's understand, is science a premise or a result? Is it a result of the exclusion of the unseen, or did it produce this exclusion? Is it the father and you the son, or the opposite? The masked one said: Rather, I and science are one thing, as is the conviction of many scientists. It seems that we are facing another trinity.. You are the father, science is the son, and the opposite, and both of you are one thing. Do you not notice, O masked one, your confusion in determining your relationship with science?
The masked one said to us: You can say that I and science have common origins, I go with science wherever it goes, and if science shows me something new, I will accept it no matter what, as in this modern paper in 2018 titled (Naturalism of Science). Do you not have preconceived judgments? He said: Yes! Are you ready to change according to what science shows you? He said: Yes! Are you sure? He said: Of course! That's why they call me: scientific experimental materialism, for I and science are one thing.
The masked one said to us to show his neutrality and objectivity: My task is not to deny or prove the existence of God, this topic does not concern me because science does not allow itself to take this topic into consideration at all, as Dr. Todd Scott C. Todd said in the journal Nature. The important thing is that I do not acknowledge theism, I do not acknowledge that there must be a Creator who created the universe and life, who sustains His creation and manages their affairs, but I will give you an independent explanation of the universe and life, as we saw in the words of Dr. Franklin Harold when he said: "Let me make it clear without any ambiguity that I, like the vast majority of contemporary scientists, see the living world as a product exclusively of natural causes."
The masked one said: I will give you a proven explanation as no one else can, and that is through my son science, and then if you want to resort to religion to satisfy your psychological and what you call spiritual needs, you are free. Knowing that I am on the way to solving problems, including psychological ones, through controlling the biochemistry of the brain. Will you give us, O masked one, an independent explanation that does not need the existence of a Creator? Yes! Are you sure? Of course!
The masked one did not know that we were recording these statements and promises. Remember them well, brothers, we will come back to them one by one.
Just as we did with the theistic approach when we took a sample and found it based on four rules, we took a sample from the masked one, examined it to see his ability to reproduce, and were surprised by what we saw.
First: the exclusion of the unseen led to the exclusion of innate disposition, not acknowledging it or questioning its reliability, because the existence of a reliable innate disposition means the existence of a Creator who endowed people with it, as we explained in the fifth episode, and this is unseen that the masked one does not acknowledge, and thus we lost in the sample of the masked one - meaning the materialistic approach - the first element present in the theistic approach, which is innate disposition.
Second: Fitrah (innate disposition) is the basis for mental axioms, such as the acceptance that everything that happens has a cause. These axioms are what we usually build our rational evidence upon in our discussions when we start from axioms and reach rational conclusions. If there is no fitrah, then there are no mental axioms as absolute truths, and this undermines rational evidence.
Similarly, as we have seen repeatedly, when materialism tried to fill the gap of the unseen (ghaib) that it denied, it came up with myths that contradict the simplest axioms and assumptions that reasonable people agree upon. It tried to convince people that the flaw is not in its myths but in their minds and what they consider axioms, as did Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss in their session where they justify the idea of the universe arising automatically from nothing. Dawkins says: "So, they diminish the role of sound logic, a term that has no precise agreed-upon definition, but comes in contexts meaning axioms, what reasonable people agree upon." So Dawkins tells you about the automatic origin of the universe from nothing: "This actually contradicts sound logic, but as I said earlier, you cannot rely on sound logic. If you could do things with sound logic, we wouldn't need physicists."
The same logic as Professor Richard Lewontin when he justified accepting scientific claims that contradict sound logic, no matter how absurd they seem, and when he said: "We are driven by our prior commitment to material causes to fabricate a universe consistent with those causes, no matter how absurd the constructs may be." So their logic is: materialism and science are inseparable, science is sacred, science contradicts mental axioms, everything that contradicts science must be discarded. Therefore, let the mental axioms be discarded.
Also, according to the materialist method based on evolution in explaining the origin of living beings, the human mind evolves by a series of random chances, so there is no guarantee that it will be guided to the truth. This is what Darwin expressed his concern about when he said: "I am always filled with a terrible doubt as to whether the convictions of a man's mind, which has itself developed from the mind of lower animals, have any value or deserve any trust." This is also confirmed by Dawkins when he says: "So he tells you: Of course, mental axioms came from what was necessary for our survival in Africa, they had to live, know how to hunt bison, how to find a water source, how to climb a tree when faced with a lion or something like that, and therefore, natural selection never formed our minds to understand quantum theory or the theory of relativity, and it is a truly amazing achievement of the human mind that some people are at least able to understand it."
So simply, he wants to tell you: if you see our talk about a universe from nothing and the like, contradicts your mind and its axioms, this is because your mind has only evolved to the extent that allows you to survive like other animals, not to perceive the truths, so you should trust those who have evolved their minds to a degree that allows them to understand what you do not understand from theories, and thus conclude about the universe and life what you think is madness or contradicts the axioms of the mind. And Krauss supports him in that. Their attitude: do not read the book of the Holy Quran, you are not qualified to understand it, we are smarter than you and we will read it on your behalf.
Therefore, do not be surprised when we say that materialism negates the mind and rational evidence, for it has three dilemmas with the mind: there is no basis for mental axioms as long as materialism denies fitrah. Mental axioms prevent the acceptance of explanations that materialism uses to fill the gap of the unseen. And the mind has no credibility as long as it evolved by chance and randomness and was not designed to know the truth. We have explained important details of this point in the fifth episode of the series titled: "How Atheism Destroys the Mind and Science" and we highly recommend reviewing the episode. Thus, we have lost in materialism the second source of knowledge, which is present in the method of affirming the Creator, namely the mind and rational evidence.
Third: The materialist's fever of denial and skepticism has reached the news, the third source of knowledge. People's observations and experiences have value if we accept that the universe and life are in a state of order governed by fixed laws and norms. If we accept that there is order in behavior (consistency) and stability in laws, which allows us to generalize the results of a single experiment or observation to all other cases in the same context despite not having observed them yet, then human experiences are built cumulatively.
While our materialist friend, when he denied the unseen, was forced to say that the universe came by chance, as in the book: The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew. Where its author Dr. Alan Lightman says: "So he tells you: this entire universe came by chance, and how can randomness and chance establish fixed norms or a system or laws. Therefore, if you conduct an experiment and come up with an observation, your observation and experiments do not concern me, for what guarantees that if I conduct and repeat your experiment, I will come up with the same observations? This claim assumes that there are norms, laws, a system... and materialist chance does not lead to any of these, and therefore, other people's news about their experiences and observations have no value no matter how trustworthy they are and no matter how many times their observations were repeated, and therefore, there is no room for the accumulation of knowledge. Therefore, when you hear a materialist say I do not accept until I see it myself, he is trying to align with his materialism.
But wait! The expectation of cosmic order is an innate disposition in humans and even in animals, and this can be clearly observed in both avoiding places of harm as soon as they encounter them even if only once. So how does materialism imply disorder? Innate disposition? Did we not tell you that materialism does not accept the unseen in the first place because it is unseen.
Also, materialism disrupts the element of true news because moral values such as honesty and scientific integrity have no value in the absence of the Creator from the explanation of the universe and life, as there is no laboratory experiment on material bases that proves that honesty is a good trait to be sought, and therefore, there is no non-material motive for materialist researchers to be honest in what they claim as results of their research, and this poisons the wells of scientific research. Thus, we have lost in the method of the materialist, the third element present in the method of the Creator, namely narrative evidence.
You might say: So, you only found perception? And this aligns with the materialist's own labeling as materialism. I say to you: Perception is not limited to sensing things, but also their effects. Many physicists say that what we see and sense of matter and energy constitutes only 4% of the universe's matter, and that 96% of the physical truth of the universe is unknown in the truest sense, and they call it dark matter and dark energy. You haven't seen it? Okay, why do they consider the claim of its existence science? They say: From its effects, what we see of the behavior of sensible things necessitates the existence of this matter. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and this must have an energy we call dark energy. As in this clip from the physicist Harry Cliff.
So he says to you: When you hear the word (dark) in physics, you should be very skeptical because it may mean that we do not know what we are talking about. They know nothing about it, and yet they believe in it from its effects, regardless of the reality of the existence or non-existence of this matter or energy. But what concerns us here is that the scientific community fully accepts the conviction of the existence of something from its effects.
While our materialist, when he started from the exception of the existence of a Creator of the universe, despite everything indicating it, it is as if he is saying to us: The effects are not considered by me, I must see the thing itself, I must sense it directly. On the other hand, when the materialist came to fill the void of the unseen that he created, he began to tell us about extraterrestrial beings who seeded life on Earth, and about multiple universes that explain fine-tuning, and other things. He has come to us with what no one has sensed and has no effect, contradicting the rules and definition of sound perception. Materialism contradicts the definition of perception that humanity has known as the sensation of the thing or its effects, and instead comes with illusions that collide with perception. And thus, we have lost in the materialist's sample the fourth and final generator of knowledge, present in the creative method, which is sensory evidence.
And thus, we have not found in the materialist's sample any generator of knowledge, but we have found it completely barren, unable to produce this beautiful child: Science, which this materialist claims to be its father.
So, we have examined both the creative method and the materialist. Before we issue our final judgment, let's take a DNA sample from the child: Science and see which features of the claimants are present in it.
So far, we have called it "Science" in the foreign name as an abbreviation, because its translation is not in one word, it is "experimental observational science", and this science existed before the term Science was coined, and by a nation other than the one that coined this term, as we will see. So whether we say from now on Science or experimental science, we are talking about the same thing.
We took a sample of Science, and we asked ourselves: What is Science? The British Council for Science, after a year of work on formulating a definition, came out with a definition that it said might be the first official definition of Science to be published in history. What is this definition? They said: Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world through the pursuit of a systematic methodology based on evidence. Knowledge, understanding, evidence, all concepts dependent on the mind, and the mind has no reliability according to materialist foundations.
The British biologist Thomas Huxley, who was called (Darwin's bulldog), meaning Darwin's bulldog for his zeal and allegiance to Darwin. How did he define Science? He said: Science is simply sound logic at its best, meaning it is precise in observation, and merciless with logical fallacy. Sound logic, which we saw how they ended up rejecting. As for logical fallacies, we have seen how the myth of materialistic evolution is the best example of a myth that gathers all forms of logical fallacies, knowing that we have not yet finished the list, in which we have reached the thirteenth fallacy.
Experimental science formulates hypotheses and establishes laws and theories, as said by Dominique Lecourt in the philosophy of science. Theories, what is the definition of a scientific theory? Let's see its definition according to the American National Academy of Sciences. "In Science, a theory is an evidence-supported explanation for some aspect of the natural world, which integrates facts, laws, inferences, and testable hypotheses.
Quick stops with the definition: "The theory is an evidence-supported explanation" Here, the mind must be used to know that it is evidence, "for some aspect of the natural world which integrates facts" and we have explained in the episode (How Atheism Destroys the Mind and Science) that there is no absolute truth except by acknowledging the existence of a Creator, and its denial leads to the claim of the relativity of truth and the non-existence of absolute truth, "and laws", which assume a state of order, and cosmic constants, which do not exist in randomness and chance, "and inferences", which require the use of the mind, as well as the indication of the sensible effect on the non-sensible, "and testable hypotheses", whose results we know by evidentiary evidence from researchers who have tested them. A definition charged with innate nature, mind, experience, and perception with its comprehensive definition of the effect of the non-sensible.
So that our discussion does not remain theoretical, brothers, let us examine a model of experimental science. As we review it, let us observe the face of this young man. Will we find in him the features of the method prescribed by the Creator, or the materialistic method?
In 2007, I began with colleagues in Jordan a research journey in the field of wound healing. It started with a study of the molecular composition of two substances. Wait a minute! Did we or others see the molecular composition of these two substances with our own eyes? No, but the molecular composition of a substance is deduced from its perceptible effects, even if the substance itself is not perceptible. This is done through analytical and organic chemistry tests.
Well, several studies indicated the ability of these two substances to aid in wound healing. Due to the scarcity of published research on one of them, we verified this property ourselves, following a strict methodology in an animal model, and published our results in an international scientific journal. We noticed, through the interaction of sense and reason, a common part between the two compounds. We deduced with our minds that this part might be the cause of aiding wound healing. Because we believe in the natural principle of causality: that the Creator has made a cause for every event. We deduced with our minds that other compounds containing this common part would also have the property of aiding wound healing. Some of them might have other properties that disrupt or weaken this property. True... but the existence of this part makes these compounds more worthy of experimentation.
We used a program to determine the three-dimensional shape of the compounds. We entered about forty drugs into it, and it ranked them according to their proximity to the common part that we noticed in the first two compounds. We began experimenting with the compounds according to their priority on wounds that we had created in animals. The chemical, microscopic, and mechanical tests that we used in all of this, what made us aware of their benefit? Experiments by those before us. Since the universe operates according to fixed laws, we can predict their benefit in our case, so we build upon them and knowledge accumulates. After a long journey, we proved that two of these compounds actually help improve the quality of healed wounds. We published these results in an American journal and obtained two patents for them.
But wait... why do journals publish results of such experiments? What do these results mean for humanity? Because all journals operate on the principle of the consistent behavior of things (consistency) and the stability of laws, so that others can build on the results of the experiment and benefit from them. Otherwise, the reference to previous research (citation) and the list of references (references) at the bottom of every scientific research is of no value if there is no consistency in the laws, and if the anecdotal evidence (from then on) is questionable in its benefit as materialism requires.
Every genuine scientific research is based on observing causal relationships between entities or their effects, based on the conviction that there are truths and laws in this universe and relying on the news of other researchers after correcting what is necessary from them, and using reason in all of this... causality, natural instinct, reason, news, verification of the news, fixed laws, sense, sensory effect, experiment. Did you see in all of this the features of the method prescribed by the Creator? Or the materialistic method?
Therefore, the verdict was issued to restore the kidnapped son, science, experimental science, from the deceiver named materialism, and to return him to his true father, to the method prescribed by the Creator. We did this after four steps: after we explained the sources of knowledge in the method prescribed by the Creator, then we explained the confusion of materialism in explaining its relationship with science, then we explained the malfunction of the sources of knowledge in materialism, then we explained the complete dependence of science on the sources of knowledge in the method of the Creator.
But wait... how was the deceiver able to deceive many people and convince them, despite his sterility, that he is the true father of science? You will know the answer if you look at what highly similar entities do to him, namely viruses. The pathogenic virus does not provide any benefit, and it does not have reasons for survival and reproduction. It is, away from living bodies, not classified among living organisms. What does it do to reproduce? It hacks into living cells, meaning it works as a hacker, injecting its genetic material into the living cell. This material produces something like a copy that inserts itself into the cell's genetic material. The readers of the genetic material come and are deceived by the viral copy and read it as they read the cell's genetic material. They produce more of this virus, which launches into other cells to invade them, corrupt them, and provide them with no benefit.
Thus, the materialistic method exactly! When we confronted it with the premise from which it started, which is the denial of the unseen, all its knowledge generators collapsed and it remained hanging in the air. It had to hack into a complete method. The virus of materialism injected its harmful genetic material into the minds of humanity. These minds are like cells, and the method of the Creator is the original genetic material in these cells along with the necessary readers that translate the genetic material into proteins. The minds are equipped with the method of the Creator by their nature, they have this natural acknowledgment from the beginning of their nature. The virus of materialism inserted its genetic material in a deceptive way into these minds. The readers came and read the genetic material containing the knowledge generators in these minds, along with the material of the virus, the virus of materialism. The result came out mixed between beneficial proteins and new harmful copies of the virus.
When the naive among people looked at the one infected with the virus of materialism, they saw him producing beneficial science and thought it was the product of the virus, especially since his science is mixed with materialistic delusion, mixed with the product of viruses with the original genetic material in the cell. While upon investigation, you will find that the infected with the virus of materialism does not produce any good except by the method of the Creator that exists originally in him, while his evil and corruption are from the virus of materialism. Any theory or discovery that is beneficial cannot be based on materialism, but what is beneficial is based on the practical application contrary to materialism, meaning on stealing from the method of acknowledging the Creator.
It is not a scientific method to come to me with the names of materialistic scientists, so I respond to you with the names of Muslim scientists and non-Muslims who believed in the Creator, such as (Bacon), (Galileo), (Kepler), (Newton), (Maxwell), and (Max Planck). Rather, the correct research is to search for the generators of beneficial science whether in the materialistic person or the one who acknowledges the Creator. Bring me one beneficial research that started from the conviction of the randomness of the universe and the absence of laws in it. Bring me a discovery whose credit goes to the denial of natural principles and mental axioms.
You might say: "Yes! The Westerners progressed because they liberated themselves from religion." I say to you: from which religion? They liberated themselves from false superstitions that oppose reason and nature, and transmitted by unreliable news. They liberated themselves from the shackling of reason by falsehood. They liberated themselves from the method of the god of gaps that the church used to employ. This liberation indeed helped them, but they started after this liberation from natural axioms and mental premises that are from the method of the Creator, even if they denied it with their tongues, and built on the achievements of previous scientists from the centuries who were immune to the virus of materialism.
People, my brothers, are vessels into which many inputs enter and a product comes out. These inputs may contradict each other. You may find someone who declares their materialism, yet all their scientific exploration practices oppose materialism and its implications, such as the rejection of innate nature and reason. They may be active in observation and experimentation. But if the final output is a discovery or an achievement, can this achievement be attributed to the materialism they claim with their tongue, while their scientific behavior denies it?
Imagine if a researcher presented a study saying, "After investigating the most prominent biologists, I found that most of them lie in their daily lives, and this indicates that lying leads to success and scientific excellence." Is this scientific logic? Or is it absurd? Only with materialism does absurdity become science, where people are deceived and their perception is assassinated, making them think in a naive, superficial manner. We do not say that experimental science is the product of scientists who affirm the Creator, nor do we care about tracking the ratio of affirmers to deniers. But we say that beneficial science in any field is the product of their commitment in their research to the sources of knowledge in the method of affirming the Creator, whether they acknowledge this commitment or deny it, notice it or not.
Imagine if the naive person who says, "Most scientists are materialists, which indicates that materialism is the cause of progress in science!" Imagine if he lived in those centuries when Muslims were the leaders of science, while Europe was drowning in ignorance and backwardness. What would our friend say? What would he say if he read Robert Briffault's refutation in his book "The Making of Humanity," which claims that Bacon laid the foundations of experimental science? Briffault says, "Roger Bacon studied Arabic and Arabic science at Oxford School" "under the successors of the Arab Muslim teachers in Spain" "and neither Roger Bacon nor his successor, Seymour, has the right to be credited" "with the invention of the experimental method." "Roger Bacon was only a messenger of the experimental science and methodology" "of the Muslims to Christian Europe."
In this episode, our work was not to attribute science to people but to the method of affirming the Creator, which is inherently present in the souls of these people, even if the virus of materialism has affected them to the point of making them speak nonsense. You might say to me, "Why do you gather strange statements from the words of Lewontin, Dawkins, Krauss, and their likes?" "You believers also have strange statements from your scholars, and I can gather them for you!" I would say to you, these statements we gather from materialists are the natural product of their materialism; they are not an aberration from their materialism but an embodiment of it. While what you gather for me from the statements of some adherents to the faith-based method are aberrations from this method, representing them but not the method. Similarly, if one of the materialist scientists says to us, "I do not deny the intellectual axioms and do not doubt the reliability of reason," we would say to him, "Beautiful, but admit that this is a contradiction with your materialistic rules, which inevitably lead to the denial of all this.
We have thus seen how the deceiver was able to deceive people into believing that experimental science is his child, biting like a virus, and to increase the deception, he smeared the face of the child and blackened it with soot to hide his true features, so that people would believe the false claim of fatherhood. Therefore, you see them frequently use expressions that mix the facts of science with materialistic fabrications, as if they were one and the same. In this paper, for example, you find them mention within the assumptions of Western experimental science that the universe is formed by chance from the smallest to the largest composition in it, through natural laws that can be discovered. A statement whose end negates its beginning... Formation by chance is the delusion of materialism. While the discoverable laws are from experimental science and the product of the method that affirms the Creator, which believes in the Sunnah and stability.
For all this, my brothers, the materialistic method is nothing but a great lie. And what I have been calling a "method" until now is only a concession, for it is not a method and does not have an independent entity, but the accurate description of it is "the virus of materialism." The virus of materialism has not brought anything to science except as harmful viruses do. It has corrupted the integrity of many materialistic researchers to the point that they presented us with fabricated results, costing humanity lives, time, and effort, and corrupted the interpretation of scientific results to serve its pre-determined goal of denying the correct unseen. We have seen striking examples of this in the episode "Science Fraud, Sexual Deviance as an Example" and in the models of pseudoscience that we have reviewed so far in the series. Then, the virus of materialism exploited part of science for destruction and aggression. Nothing was safe from the virus of materialism, not even the senses, as it did not prohibit what is forbidden nor permit what is permissible. People indulged in intoxicants, drugs, and hallucinogens, seeing and hearing illusions and fantasies. There was no safety under materialism for religion, innate nature, reason, experience, senses, experimentation, nor a consistent method with which they deal with existence. All bonds were loosened for them.
After all this, turn to the great verse so that your heart may drink it word by word: "And do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance, who follows his desire and whose affair is ever [in] excess" [Al-Kahf: 28].
Therefore, all the claims of our deceptive friend were lies. He did not produce science, nor did science produce him and point to him, nor are they one and the same, nor do they share common origins. He is not part of science in any way, nor is science part of him, nor can he explain the universe and life independently of any other method, as he claimed to us at the beginning. And you, my brother, can conduct this experiment yourself. Ask any "materialist" about the nature of the relationship between materialism and experimental science, and see the lies or confusion, and how these people fail to distinguish between the materialism virus that has affected them and the genetic material of the method of affirming the Creator concentrated in their souls.
After separating experimental science from materialism, after reclaiming the beautiful child from his deceptive abductor, we still have to remove the mask from the deceiver.
You, the deceiver, claimed that you started from denying the unseen. Why then do we see you arriving at assumed, stupid supernatural beliefs to fill the gap of the true unseen? Why do we see you talking about extraterrestrial beings who planted the seed of life, about the existence of mind and will in microbes, about infinite, shell-like universes that explain the precise regulation of our universe, and about the universe creating itself by itself? And another joke: "The beginning does not indicate the existence of a god" "It is so, if the first premise is correct" "What exists must have a cause for its existence" "But the cause does not have to be God" "Remember I mentioned an argument that that cause is not temporal
You claimed at the beginning that you are objective and neutral, that you have no preconceived notions, but rather you follow where science leads. So, what do you think about acknowledging the existence of the Creator, which science and the generators of science point to? Here, the pretender shuddered and shook so much that he dropped the mask, revealing his true face. And he said in the words of Lewontin: "We must not allow any divine foot to enter through the door." And he said in the words of Harold: "We must reject, as a matter of principle, the choice of intelligent design as an alternative to chance." And he said in the words of Todd: "Even if all the evidence pointed to the existence of an intelligent designer, this hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not part of nature." And he said in the words of Daniel Dennett: "I adopt what appears to be a dogmatic position that we must avoid acknowledging dualism, meaning the existence of non-material facts, at any cost! Literally, at any cost!"
Ah! The true face has finally appeared. So, you, the pretender, are nothing but atheism. We kicked you out the door, and you returned to us through the window, disguised and placing the kidnapped child on your face to beautify your ugliness. And the claims of neutrality and not engaging in the conflict between religion and atheism, all of this was a lie covering your true nature. You, the pretender, believed in false invisibles and disbelieved in the true invisible, so you are among those whom Allah said about: "And those who believe in falsehood and disbelieve in Allah - those are the losers" [Al-Ankabut:52].
You, the pretender, denied innate nature, stabbed at reason, denied the obvious, lied about the natural laws, and disabled the indication of the sensible effect, all of this, in order to deny the Creator. We knew you from the beginning by your voice, but we gave you time and lured you until you testified against yourself: "And you will surely recognize them by the tone of their speech" [Muhammad:30]. Yes, materialism is nothing but a recycling of atheism.
Therefore, in this episode - brothers - we have presented very important facts: We corrected the attribution of science and judged it for its true father, for the methodology of acknowledging the Creator, which depends in building knowledge on both innate nature, reason, experience, and sensation. And we discovered that the proportion of experimental science to the materialistic methodology is a great lie. Indeed, the materialistic methodology itself is a great lie. It is a disguised atheism that does not stand on its own and offers no benefit, but is a virus that hacks the methodology of acknowledging the Creator.
Now that we have discovered all of this, there are many procedures that need to be taken to correct the situation. These procedures to correct the situation, we will leave for the next episode, which is also an important task. So, stay tuned with us. Peace be upon you.