← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you. What does the statement "An atheist does not produce knowledge while being an atheist" mean? Alright, I can give you a long list of atheist or materialist scientists who have made beneficial discoveries.
The important thing, dear brothers, is not what this scientist says about himself with his tongue. The important thing is, when he produces beneficial knowledge, does he produce it from materialistic premises or from faith-based premises, and does he know it or not? If a group of people criticize a computer program day and night, calling it useless, and then we prove that they rely completely on this program in their calculations, knowing or not knowing, can we say that the program has no relation to their calculations because they deny it with their tongues?
Similarly, the materialist scientist, does he run a materialistic operating system or a faith-based one in himself to be able to produce beneficial knowledge? We have shown in the previous episode that the four sources of experimental science have no value except in the methodology of faith in the Creator, and that these sources collapse in materialism.
Therefore, the materialist researcher is like saying: I will exclude the existence of the Creator from my scientific activity, and I will start from reason - which has no value except with the existence of the Creator - and from assumptions like causality - which has no value except with the existence of the Creator - and from fixed cosmic laws, a system, and laws - which cannot be assumed except with the existence of the Creator - and a sense that includes observing the effects of things, which indicates the greatest indication of the existence of the Creator.
And thus, the materialist researcher needs to shed his materialism, whether he feels it or not, and to start from faith-based foundations in order to be able to produce any beneficial knowledge, meaning he has activated the operating system of the believer in the Creator within himself, not the virus of materialism that he speaks with his tongue. Therefore, it does not matter to us what this researcher says about himself and his convictions as long as all his premises are from the methodology of faith in the Creator, whether he feels it or not.
And in this episode, we do not need to differentiate between the materialist atheist who denies the existence of the Creator and the materialist who does not deny His existence but says about the randomness of the universe and life, and the exclusion of the Creator from their interpretation; our disagreement with them is one.
The materialist researcher thinks or claims that experimental science dispenses with the belief in a Creator, meaning that there is no need for a Creator in the interpretation of the universe and life. Do you know, dear ones, what this materialist does? He commits two fallacies:
The first fallacy is called the "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept," which is defined as the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of the foundations on which this concept is based.
I searched a lot to find you an example that illustrates this fallacy, and I did not find a clearer example than what the materialist researcher does. When he discovers the universe, searching for the causes of phenomena, confident in his reason, taking causality as an assumption he does not doubt, confident in the existence of a system and laws, inferring things by observing their effects, all these premises gain their value from the existence of a Creator. He was forced to steal them from the methodology of faith in the Creator, whether he realized it or not.
Let's go back to the definition... The fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of the foundations on which this concept is based. The materialist used these premises while denying the foundation on which these premises are based, which is the belief in the Creator.
Even if this researcher knows the causes of phenomena, he falls into another fallacy, saying: I know the cause, so there is no need for a Creator in the interpretation of the universe and life. He makes the causes a substitute for the first cause, which cannot be dispensed with by the rational proof that prevents the sequence of causes to infinity, as we explained in the episode "Why Must There Be a Creator."
This materialist is practically saying in conclusion: There is no Creator because there must be a Creator! His premises are based on the existence of a Creator, then he used the result of his exploration to deny the existence of a Creator.
Therefore, when materialists argue with you based on the proportion of atheist and materialist researchers, it is wrong to argue with them in return based on the proportion of believers in a Creator, or to say to them: The proportion of scientists who believe in the Creator and have won the Nobel Prize is such and such... Come on, what do we have to do with these numbers?
The correct way is to search for the real premises of science from which any beneficial research has started, whether in the materialist person or the person who acknowledges the Creator. At that point, you will find that the proportion is 100% from the methodology of acknowledging the Creator, no matter what the researchers say with their tongues.
Perhaps you still feel that we are exaggerating when we say that all the foundations of science come from the methodology of belief in the Creator, and that materialism is a virus that produces nothing? Alright, give us one discovery that originated from what materialism necessitates: the negation of the value of reason, logical necessities, the claim of randomness, chaos, and the negation of inferring things from their effects. Give us one invention, one discovery built on these foundations.
If a materialistic researcher conducts an experiment and the results contradict what dozens of previous studies affirm, and he confirms that the conditions of his experiment are the same as those of previous experiments, he will not say, "Well then, there is no system in the universe"; rather, he will say, "There is a flaw in the experiment." He will not attribute the problem to the random nature of the universe according to his materialistic principles.
When the space shuttle Challenger exploded, the conclusion was not that the universe has no laws to rely on, and they did not stop launching shuttles into space after that. Instead, they were certain that there was a flaw in its design, and a committee was formed to find out the cause. The same is true if any airplane crashes. All of this, my brothers, is a practical acknowledgment that this universe operates with a strict system and discipline, and this does not happen by blind chance as materialism necessitates.
Someone might say, "How do you claim that materialism negates the value of reason and negates the dependence on the existence of a system for the universe? Materialistic scientists do not say that, nor do they negate reason but rather sanctify it, and they do not negate laws but rather discover them and proceed from them."
Ah, so you still don't understand me! You have not yet distinguished between materialism as a principle and those who claim to be materialists. What I am saying simply is that the materialist who respects reason and believes in the system of the universe has renounced his materialism; whether he realizes it or not, whether he practices it unconsciously or is one of those to whom the verse applies: "And they denied them (these signs) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof" (27:14).
Imagine someone telling you: "There are doctors who smoke and there are doctors who do not smoke, and this indicates that smoking has no relation to diseases. If it did, these doctors would not smoke." We would tell him: "These people simply do not act according to their convictions." Similarly, materialistic researchers are not necessarily in agreement with their principles. What we are proving here is that experimental science cannot do without the methodology of creationism. As for whether people agree with their convictions and principles or not, that is another matter that depends on people, their integrity, and the diseases of their hearts.
If a materialistic researcher tries to agree with the principles of materialism, he will be forced to doubt the premises and tell you that the mind is not designed to know the truth, and thus he will destroy the foundations of experimental science, as we saw in the previous episode.
Therefore, when an atheist says to you, "Do not argue with me using the words of Dawkins, Krauss, and their likes," tell him that these people only represent themselves. Atheism has no holy book or references. You, as believers, have strange sayings from your scholars, and I can gather them for you. So tell him: "The sayings that we gather for the materialists are the natural product of their materialism. They are not an aberration from their methodology but rather an embodiment of it. While what you gather for me from the sayings of some of those affiliated with the [faith-based] methodology is an aberration from this methodology, representing them but not the faith-based methodology."
There is no escape for materialism, my brothers, from one of these two choices: either to renounce their materialism to produce beneficial science, or to try to agree with materialism and reach these sayings that destroy science from its foundation.
Imagine, dear friends, after all this, the absurdity when someone not only wants to prove to you that belief in creationism has nothing to do with experimental science, but also wants to prove to you that belief in creationism is the cause of backwardness in experimental sciences! So, he comes to us as Muslims and says: Islam is the cause of Muslims' backwardness in experimental sciences, as evidence that most of the scientists in the world today are non-Muslims. This is another case of confusing methodology with individuals.
This speaker, if he had lived in the era when Muslims were the leaders in experimental science, would have been obliged - by his own logic - to say at that time: Islam is the cause of progress in experimental sciences, as evidence that most of the scientists are Muslims.
Okay, a question: When did revelation end and Islam was completed? Fourteen centuries ago. The situation stabilized for Muslims who were busy with conquests, internal strife, receiving sciences, translating them, and absorbing them. After things settled in some cities, the minds began to produce, and the golden age of experimental sciences came at the hands of Muslims; it lasted for many long centuries, then the gradual decline began to the era we live in now.
Question: Did new verses come down after the golden age of experimental sciences that changed reality; so that Islam became a cause of backwardness after it was a cause of progress? Is there two Islams: the Islam of the Middle Ages, which is the cause of progress in experimental science, and then the current Islam, which is the cause of backwardness in experimental science? Or is Islam the same, and people move away from it or get closer to it; so they fall behind or progress.
You see, brothers, the poverty and naivety of this argument based on individuals! Instead of arguing from the true principles of science that they started from. Of course, some of the sons of Muslims, due to the extent to which their minds have been washed, may think that the dominance of Muslims over material sciences for centuries is not a fact, but an exaggeration by some scholars.
Let us listen to some information that our brother Dr. Hatem Talat, the doctor and researcher, conveys from international organizations such as UNESCO, and British newspapers; The Guardian and The Telegraph.
Dr. Hatem Talat: [Peace be upon you, the oldest university still operating according to UNESCO is the University of Al-Qarawiyyin, which the Muslims established in the third century AH (245 AH). The oldest library in the world that still exists, containing books and scientific references dating back to the ninth century AD, is an Islamic library. For seven full centuries (700 years), the international language of science in the world was the Arabic language, and Baghdad was a center of culture, science, experimentation, laboratories, physics, and astronomy.]
Many of the sons of Muslims do not know that the American National Library of Medicine "National Library of Medicine" is the most famous electronic library, which I and many researchers use to obtain sciences and publish research in its branches such as Pub Med "Pub Med". This library has a special section under the title: Islamic Medical Manuscripts "Islamic Medical Manuscripts". If you enter it, you will find manuscripts in various sciences such as medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, space sciences, and others.
Write: "nlm.nih.gov" then in the search engine: then choose Catalog "Catalogue", then browse the manuscripts of Islamic civilization, which the Western civilization benefited from, built upon, until it reached what it has reached now.
Have you heard of the exhibition "One Thousand Inventions and Innovations" that tours the countries of the world, which displays the discoveries of Islamic civilization, and how experimental sciences and contemporary discoveries were built upon them? It was founded by Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Manchester, Salim Al-Hassani, who also founded a website under the title: Muslim Heritage "Muslim Heritage". Browse the site and see the history of Islamic civilization.
Dr. Robert Breevo, an expert in anthropology "Anthropology," says in his book The Making of Humanity: What we call science "Science" emerged in Europe as a result of a new spirit of questioning, using new methods of research, using the method of experimentation, observation, observation, measurement, and developing calculations in a way unknown to the Greeks. This spirit and these methods were introduced to the European world through the Arabs.
And Dr. Sami Al-Amiri in his book Evidence of Prophethood, the chapter of experimental science, conveys similar testimonies from George Sarton "George Sarton," who is considered the founder of the history of science, as well as the scholar of textual studies Herfk Herrish Field "Herfic Herrish Field," and the atheist physicist philosopher Victor Stinger "Victor Stinger."
Professor of the History of Natural Sciences previously at the University of Frankfurt Fuat Sezgin "Fuat Sezgin" has great works of importance in which he explains the contributions of Muslims. He was the founder and director of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Sciences in Frankfurt, Germany, which displays hundreds of samples of inventions and models by Muslim scientists. Then he founded a museum in Istanbul with the same idea, and he died last year.
Your history has been stolen, young people! Your history has been completely stolen, just as there is intellectual theft from the methodology of creationism. Muslims are the ones who founded experimental science, and they were its leaders and the ones who set the rules upon which what you see now was built. If the school curricula in the countries of Muslims do not mention anything of that, it is because they were simply not created to educate our generations! They were not created to educate our generations but to make them ignorant, while the student and his parents think that it teaches something.
The contribution of Muslims is not only in the past, but also in the present. Among the most repeated phrases by the psychologically defeated is the defeatist: You criticize materialists while they have made everything for you, even the internet that you use to spread your ideas.
Okay, what do you think if you knew that one of the most important contributors to this internet is the Muslim scientist Dr. Hatem Zaghul, who contributed to the production of the technology upon which Wi-Fi "Wi-Fi" and another technology that contributed to 4G "4G" were built. He has many published patents and research that has been referenced thousands of times, and he has received many awards.
Dr. Hatem Zaghloul believes in Allah and is proud of his faith: [I mean, all praise is due to Allah, my entire life has been committed. Religion has been the true constant in my life. I mean, one travels, changes countries, changes the environment, changes many things, but he continues to pray, continues to attend Friday prayers, and all these things. Secondly, with economic and social progress for me, I started to try to give back to the Muslim community in Canada and the Canadian community in general. This, of course, gives one mental comfort, you feel like you are giving back to what you are taking from the community. And may Allah grant me success, I was the president of the Islamic community in Calgary for a long time].
This is one example of the marginalized examples of the awareness of our youth and our brothers, the Muslim researchers, who have a list of contemporary Muslim scholars among us, and a brief about each of them, and their achievements. And with all of this, I did not mention this information to prove the need for experimental science for faith.
I mention this information only to learn that there are those who deliberately marginalize the bright side of Islamic civilization and the achievements of contemporary Muslims, and then say to you: Look how Muslims are backward in material sciences, so Islam is the cause of backwardness! "Darkness upon darkness" [The Light:40] Ignorance of history, ignorance of reality, misguidance in reasoning, and accumulation of logical fallacies.
Otherwise, our argument that we hold on to and boast about is proving that all the sources on which experimental science is based are based on belief in creation. Those who today argue for the material progress of the West on the correctness of their declared material method are practicing the fallacy of Pharaoh, for he argued with material progress on the correctness of his claim and said: "Is not the kingdom of Egypt mine, and these rivers flow beneath me? Do you not see?" [Al-Zukhruf:51].
Alright, what makes materialistic researchers not notice, nor do those around them notice, that they are operating from faith-based premises? The explanation, my brothers, is that these faith-based premises are ingrained in their nature, as we have explained in the episodes about fitrah (natural disposition). These faith-based premises are the operating system inherently present in their minds. Materialism resembles a virus exactly as we explained in "The Hostage" (a previous episode). Whoever looks at this researcher infected with the virus of materialism and hears him speaking with materialistic ideas may assume that the knowledge produced by this researcher is merely a product of the materialistic virus. In reality, it is the product of the methodology of acknowledging the Creator, which is inherently ingrained in the minds.
In conclusion, dear esteemed audience, due to what has been mentioned; an atheist does not produce knowledge while being an atheist, nor does a materialist produce knowledge while being a materialist. He must, consciously or unconsciously, shed his atheism or materialism to produce anything beneficial. All the premises of knowledge are from the methodology of acknowledging the Creator, whether he likes it or not. After that, he can say whatever he wants with his tongue.
Take heed, my brothers, did I say in this episode "an atheist does not produce knowledge" meaning that most scientists believe in a Creator who created the universe and life, and atheists or materialists are a small minority? No; I did not say that, and the proportions do not matter to us. Nevertheless, you will see some atheists deceiving their gullible audience with the title of the episode, confident that their audience does not scrutinize or verify.
In the upcoming episode, we will explain the fallacy of a statement that is repeated even by some of those affiliated with Islamic thought, unfortunately, which is the statement: "Experimental science is neutral; it neither proves the existence of God nor denies the existence of God." This is one of the most important episodes, so stay tuned. Peace be upon you and the mercy of God.