← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you. We return to you, dear ones, to continue our journey of certainty.
The next main station is a discussion on the origin of man: evolution, development, or direct creation? Before reaching this station, we will present episodes that summarize some important concepts, beneficial for followers from the beginning, and for new joiners to the journey of certainty. It will help you understand the deep relationship between science, (Science), faith, and the unseen, and answer worrying inquiries for many.
We will publish these focused episodes in a sequential manner, then apply them to the origin of man as a case study, God willing. Today's episode is a discussion of a common saying, summarized as do not mix faith with (Science). Faith is based on supernatural convictions, while (Science) is based on material sciences.
Let us discuss these statements. Is (Science) indeed material, and should it not be mixed with faith? Therefore, in today's episode, we attempt to draw the relationship between faith in the Creator, materialism, and (Science).
Let us first define the terms.
Let us see what (Science) depends on, then see if these things it depends on are present in the methodology of faith in the Creator or in materialism. We will judge the statements we mentioned.
First, there is no doubt that (Science) depends on the mind, which analyzes information, deduces, predicts, connects, formulates hypotheses, and judges things as true or false.
Second, (Science) depends on axioms, self-evident truths: matters that reasonable people do not disagree on. These self-evident truths are what the mind uses for connection, prediction, and deduction; therefore, they are called intellectual necessities or intellectual primaries.
For example, the principle of causality: that everything that happens has a cause. Every time you see in (Science) the word (why?), you are looking for the cause. That is, (what is the cause of such and such happening?) Every time you see the word mechanism (mechanism); it is a description of the cause.
In the field of medicine, for example - which is my original field - what are the uses of a particular drug? We know them if we find that this drug was the cause of healing in these uses and diseases. Okay, how does this drug work? What is the mechanism of its action (the mechanism)? Here we search for how this drug caused healing? Why do certain side effects occur from this drug? We search for the cause to avoid these symptoms. Why do these drugs interact with other drugs (interactions)? We search for the mechanism - that is, the cause - of this interaction.
In general, science is a search for causal relationships, and we start from a prior conviction, a self-evident truth, an axiom, that everything in this universe, everything that happens, must have a cause. We laugh if it is said to us in answer to any of these questions: "It happened without a cause." Rather, we are convinced that there is a cause and we strive to discover it.
Third, (Science) depends on the accumulation of knowledge; that is, on what previous researchers inform us of their research results and discoveries. It is not possible for any researcher to start everything from scratch. He does not have to rediscover what has been discovered, but rather builds on the information of previous researchers about their results, taking into account mechanisms to ensure the reliability of this information - that is, these results - and that they are (reproducible), that is, reproducible again.
Any new scientific research builds on a review of what has been published (literature review) to show where (science) has reached; what did the previous researchers inform us of? He builds on it and benefits from it. Then he may show what missing information has not been tried or researched by others for this new research to try and add to the cognitive structure.
Fourth, (Science) depends on sensation, which introduces inputs into this cognitive system. Sensation may observe things and may observe their effects. From the interaction of sensation with the mind and self-evident truths, man deduces the existence of these things from their effects, even if they are not observed in themselves.
Question, dear ones: until now, is there a reasonable person who disagrees with what we have mentioned? Is there a reasonable person who denies that (Science) depends on these four things? Therefore, let us call them the sources of (Science): the mind, axiomatic assumptions such as that everything in the universe (everything that happens) has a cause, experience: that is, previous research, and sensation, which includes observing things or observing their effects. (Science), experimental science, is the product of the interaction of these four elements.
Are these four sources that (Science) depends on present in the methodology of faith in the Creator or in materialism? Let us see.
Firstly, regarding the mind, the belief in creation: This means believing that the universe, life, and humans are creations of a Creator with perfect attributes, who created them with knowledge and wisdom, and gave humans a reliable mind prepared to discover truths. Therefore, this mind can be relied upon for analysis, inference, and judgment of things as being correct or incorrect. It can be used to produce science.
On the other hand, materialism rejects this premise (that the universe, life, and humans are creations of a Creator) and assumes an alternative: that they are the result of chance. For example, in this paper about the history of Western science, which has the title: Assumptions of Western Science Throughout Its Historical Development, it mentions among these assumptions that the material world is a random collection from the smallest physical unit in it to the largest compositions and relationships.
Therefore, according to materialism, the brain and tools of perception came by chance, and consequently, the mind came by chance without any intention from anyone. So, how can I trust a mind that came by chance to guide me to the truths? How can I trust its inferences, analyses, and understanding if it came by chance and was not prepared to discover the truths of things? It was not designed or created with any intention at all! This question alone is sufficient to prove the complete break between materialism and science.
And allow me to focus on this point because it is sufficient to show the triviality of materialism. Firstly, you might be surprised to know that Darwin himself doubted the credibility of the mind. He said in his correspondence with William Graham: "I am always haunted by a terrible doubt as to whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the minds of lower animals, have any value or deserve any credence." You will find this statement of his in the appendix of his book (The Origin of Species, Ontario Edition: Broadview), where he describes the human mind as having evolved from a mind like that of a lower animal, and therefore he doubts its credibility.
Of course, when you hear this statement from Darwin, you will imagine that he was being sincere with himself, expressing his confusion to people in pursuit of the truth. In reality, Darwin was saying these statements to deny that the universe and life have a Creator. He says: "If man looks at the universe and living beings, his mind cannot but acknowledge that they must have a Creator, and it is impossible for the mind that all this came by chance. But why should we believe our minds, which have evolved by chance from the minds of lower creatures?" So, Darwin, why do you doubt the truthfulness of the mind when it guides you to the existence of the Creator? Why do you not doubt your mind when it comes up with your scenarios about blind, random evolution? If your mind is not reliable, do not believe it in anything. You cannot believe it in one thing and deny it in another.
Someone might say: What does this have to do with me and Darwin and Darwin's old sayings. It has been about a century and a half since Darwin's death. Well, what if you knew that many of the prominent materialists after him have stated the same conclusion, that the mind cannot be trusted to know the truth. I will bring you documented excerpts from a lecture by Dr. Sami Al-Amri (Is Darwinism an Argument for Atheism or Against It?). [Do you know Francis Crick (Francis Crick)? The very famous biologist, and the very famous atheist, and he is a Nobel Prize winner. This man is one of the most extreme atheists. He says in his book (The Astonishing Hypothesis) word for word: "Our highly advanced brains did not evolve under pressure to discover scientific truths but only to enable us to be smart enough to survive."]
Let's see what scientists from the top materialists who are still alive say. The philosopher John Gray "John Gray" says with this statement: "If Darwin's theory of natural selection is correct, then the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." And the atheist psychologist Steven Pinker "Steven Pinker" in his book (How the Mind Works). He says: "Our brains are shaped for fitness," - meaning on the principle of survival of the fittest or most adapted to nature - "not for truth." "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." Meaning, during our evolution from lower creatures, our minds evolved to reveal the truth sometimes and help with survival. And sometimes, illusions arose in us that helped us adapt to nature. Illusions contrary to the truth, but they remained in our minds because they achieved survival for us. This is also confirmed by Dawkins in his session with Krauss "Krauss" as they try to convince people that the universe created itself from nothing.
So, in simple terms, Dawkins wants to tell you: if you find our talk about a universe that created itself from nothing and the like conflicting with your mind, 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 whose minds have evolved to a degree that allows them to understand what you do not understand from theories, and thus they conclude about the universe and life what you consider madness or conflicting with the mind.
One of the promoters of atheism, Matt Dillahunty, was asked how you can trust your mind when you believe it came by chance without design? Do you trust your mind just because this mind that came by chance told you to trust it? Look at the confusion and evasion in the answer of this atheist, which we will put for you in the comments.
One of the materialists might say, what does this have to do with me and all of them? I am not obligated by their words, and they do not represent me. I am a materialist, and yet I respect the mind and trust it. Ah. We bring the words of these people because they declare what necessarily results from materialism, and the exception of the existence of a Creator who created the mind with wisdom. This is what materialism will inevitably lead to. These materialists simply tried to harmonize with their materialistic foundations and came out with these results that negate the mind. When you say I am a materialist and yet I trust the mind, I trust my mind and do not accept the words of these people, you are simply denying your materialism and not harmonizing with it. Your trust in your mind has no basis. You had to steal this trust from the method of believing in creation.
So, the one who says he is a materialist is faced with one of two choices: either to adhere to his materialistic foundations and thus reach the same conclusion that these people reached, that his mind has no value, or to deny his materialism so that he can use his mind and trust it. Do you imagine what this means? Do you imagine how poor and collapsed the materialistic proposition is from its foundation? Meaning, when anyone starts with you with the premise that he: except for the existence of a Creator, we are talking about science. Tell him: on what basis will you discuss with me? He will say: the mind. Tell him: how did this mind come? Since he has no Creator, he will say: by chance, random mutations, and blind selection. Tell him: how will you trust this mind then? This mind has no value, nor do its judgments, inferences, analyses, or interpretations. An unreliable mind is not worth discussing.
Imagine that you have accepted the idea that an airplane was formed by a collection of coincidences without anyone intending to create it. Would you then be ready to fly in it? And we hear how even the slightest flaw in the manufacturing of the airplane can lead to its crash and destruction. Can you then imagine, esteemed audience, what it means to have a mind formed by coincidence without intention? And thus, negating the value of the mind in indicating the truth.
Therefore, materialism that excludes the existence of an All-Knowing, Wise Creator from the explanation of the universe and life completely undermines the value of the mind and its credibility. Consequently, it undermines the value of the conclusions, reflections, and analyses that the mind engages in to produce science. This alone is sufficient to prove that science can never be described as materialistic, for it requires the mind, which has no value except in the methodology of believing in creation. It is quite amusing that science is then described as materialistic.
Is this amount sufficient? No. Let us continue and discuss the second source of (Science): self-evident axioms, such as the fact that everything in the universe and life has a cause. In (Science), the mind analyzes sensory inputs based on self-evident axioms, and then derives results. Do you want to know the cause of a certain cancer? You can take samples from some patients suffering from this cancer, analyze them, and discover forms of malfunction within them. However, it is not necessary that all these malfunctions caused the cancer to occur; because correlation does not imply causation, as we have mentioned. So, what do you do? You design experiments where you induce one of these malfunctions individually, for example, and see which one is the cause, and so on, and we use our minds in all of this. But why do we assume in the first place that cancer has a cause? No, this is a self-evident axiom; a necessity from which the mind starts, just like the mathematical axioms that 1 + 1 = 2. These are not things that the mind proves, but they are necessary self-evident premises from which the mind starts.
Okay, let's see. In the methodology of belief in creationism, these self-evident axioms are from the creation of a wise, all-knowing Creator who gave everything its creation and then guided it. These axioms are reliable and are relied upon. Regardless of whether you consider them part of the mind, part of innate nature, or part of innate reason as some call it. The important thing is that they are part of the composition of every sane, non-insane human being.
Okay, in materialism, are these self-evident truths reliable and can be relied upon? No; because they are the belief of a human being that came as a result of chance, his belief in them came as a result of chance, random changes, and blind selection. Even those who say that they are the result of induction of sensory inputs, this induction is done by the mind which is not relied upon in knowing the truth according to materialism, and it is also an incomplete induction. Dawkins says about the idea that the universe created itself from nothing: and Professor Richard Lewontin, who said in summary that our commitment to materialism forces us to accept claims that seem ridiculous and contradictory to self-evident truths; because we must not allow any divine foot to enter through the door. That is, the idea of a Creator must be excluded from (Science), even if it leads to statements that contradict self-evident truths, as we have shown in the episode (The God of the Gaps of Atheists).
With this logic that we mentioned for materialists, the door of science is closed, and any question about the cause and mechanism can be answered with: this disease happened without a cause, this interaction has no mechanism. And we have shown in the episode (How Atheism Destroys the Mind and Science) where the denial of mental necessities led to, and how it led to the claim that there are no objective truths for things. That is, even the phrase "scientific facts" no longer has any value by denying mental necessities. And thus, we saw how the second source of (Science), which is mental necessities, collapses completely in materialism, and is only saved by acknowledging creationism.
The third source of (Science) is the news of other researchers. In the methodology of belief in creationism, news is considered after verifying its accuracy through appropriate means. If the news of previous researchers converges on a certain result, making lying or error in it unlikely, then this result is relied upon, and we can build upon it and use it to discover a new addition to (Science).
But wait, even if the result is true and accurate, why should I rely on it? Isn't it possible that I conduct the same experiment exactly, under the same conditions, and get a different result because there are no laws, no system, no regularity? The answer is no; because the wise, all-knowing Creator made the universe run according to cosmic regularities and fixed laws, so that things behave similarly if placed in the same circumstances, and thus I benefit from the sciences of others and build upon them, and it becomes foolish to doubt them and start everything from scratch before adding a new addition.
As for materialism, one can only believe in what is directly sensed. Since I did not conduct these experiments myself, I cannot rely on the news of others, but I must conduct them and see the results myself. Of course, this is not what the scientific community actually does; some important experiments may be relayed by thousands of researches, refer to them, and cite them even though those who conducted them themselves are one, two, or three.
Also, according to materialism, there is no guarantee of the stability of regularities, their consistency, and the existence of laws as long as the universe and life are the result of chance from the smallest thing in them to the largest thing as materialism assumes. Therefore, if you conduct an experiment and get an observation, your observations and experiments do not concern me and cannot be benefited from or built upon. What guarantees me that if I repeat your experiment, I will get the same observations? This claim assumes that there are regularities, laws, consistency, and materialistic chance does not lead to any of this. Therefore, the news of others about their experiments and observations has no value no matter how reliable they are and no matter how much their observations were repeated. Therefore, there is no scope for the accumulation of knowledge nor any meaning to referring to previous researches (citations), and the list of references (references) at the bottom of every research.
You will say: but this is not what materialistic scientists do, but they acknowledge the existence of laws and system. Once again, the inevitable result of materialism is the absence of system and laws, for chance, randomness, and blindness are far from system and laws. The materialist who believes in the existence of system and laws is only saying with his tongue that he is materialistic, then he contradicts himself in practice and is forced to steal from the methodology of belief in creationism. Therefore, we saw how materialism cancels the third source of (Science), which is news, and has no value.
The fourth source of (Science) is perception. We said that perception observes things and their effects, and through the interaction of perception with other sources of (Science), humans can be certain of the existence of things even if they do not see them. If you see a person holding the end of a wire and getting electrocuted and falling dead, I can be certain that there is electricity in the wire from its effect even if I do not see it. When I see the movement of tree leaves and can breathe, I infer the existence of air even if I do not see it; for if this air were absent, I would suffocate. Electromagnetic waves have been used in communications even though we do not see them, but we are convinced of their existence from their effects. Heat, atomic particles, the chemical composition of materials that we infer from the behavior of these materials even if we do not see them, but from their effects in reactions, analyses, and many other things.
As for the method of believing in the Creator, the greatest thing that can be inferred from its effects is the existence of the Creator, which the universe and life indicate, and some of His attributes. As for materialism, you may think that this source of (Science) remains intact for it. What we hear is that materialism is based on belief in sensory perceptions; so, perception must have value in materialism. Materialism will stand with perception before one of two choices:
The first choice - to reject the belief in the existence of things from their effects and say: I only believe in what I see, hear, and touch. At that point, it will nullify all (Science) based on the effects of things. More importantly, materialism has invalidated other sources of (Science), so perception has no value; because (Science) is not produced merely by seeing, hearing, and touching things. Humans are not just scanning machines or cameras that capture images and that's it. Rather, the mind must be engaged afterward according to intellectual necessities to produce (Science).
The second choice for materialism with perception - to accept the inference of things from their effects, as is the true scientific practice. At that point, what is the true intellectual justification for denying that the entire universe and all life are indicative effects of the existence of an All-Knowing, Wise Creator?
Based on the above, dear audience, it is never valid to describe (Science) as materialistic; this is a very funny description. There is no such thing as materialistic sciences in reality. If you mean that they are sciences based on material foundations that exclude the unseen, then materialism only leads to nihilism; because it nullifies the sources of knowledge. The common factors between scientific research are: intellectual inference and analysis, starting from intellectual necessities, observing causal relationships, relying on the news of others after verifying their credibility based on their research, assuming that everything proceeds in an orderly manner, perception, experimentation, inferring the existence of things from observing their effects, and all of these have no value except in the method of believing in the Creator, which accepts these sources of (Science) and harmonizes them with each other.
Therefore, the statement "Do not mix faith with (Science)" is a laughable statement due to its extreme ignorance. (Science) is the son of faith and can never do without it. We often repeat, "Faith does not contradict experimental sciences, faith calls for seeking experimental sciences," but dear brothers, the relationship between (Science) and faith is much deeper than that. Experimental sciences would not exist at all if not for the sources of knowledge based on faith in the Creator.
Therefore, dear beloved, one of the most important points we have proven today is that materialism nullifies the value of the mind, and that experimental science (Science) depends on what it depends on, the news of other researchers after verifying its accuracy. And that (Science) is the son of faith in the Creator. But how can we claim that when many contemporary scientists are atheists or materialists? And we blame materialism for excluding the unseen from the interpretation of the universe and life, meaning, do you want us to answer any scientific question by saying that this is what the Creator willed and that's it? There is no need for research and exploration?
Notice, dear audience, what is expected from these episodes is to represent an intellectual revolution that frees us from blurred concepts and false beliefs, and replaces them with a solid, organized, and evidence-based intellectual foundation. Therefore, you will notice that it will raise many questions for you in the beginning. We will adopt the style of one idea per episode, and you will notice that these questions will be answered gradually with conviction, God willing. And we will start in the next episode with the first of these questions, so stay tuned. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.