← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
The atheist physicist Stephen Hawking says: "The human race is just a chemical accident on a minor planet." The question is: Is this a personal opinion or an exaggeration by Hawking? Or is it the inevitable result of atheism? Does man have moral value without the existence of God? Do morals have any value without the existence of God?
We will answer these questions in today's episode and see frightening models of moral decline that atheism leads to. All praise is due to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah.
Imagine that you received a message on your cell phone from your brother saying, "You are invited for lunch." Does this message have meaning? Of course. Is it true or an illusion? It is true. Does it have value? Yes. Do you act on it? Yes, you tell your wife and children: "We are invited for lunch at my brother's house, then you will not prepare food," and so on.
Imagine, on the other hand, that you forgot your cell phone open in your pocket with your house keys, so the keys tapped on the keypad of the device as you went back and forth, stood up, and sat down. After hours, you took out your device to make a call and saw thousands of random characters, and in the middle of them, the sentence "You are invited for lunch." Does this sentence have an author who knows what he is doing? No. Does it have value? No. Do you act on it? No, either; because even if something meaningful appears in this mess, it will not gain value.
For the one who denies the existence of God, all the moral values that man feels are, in their origin, like these random characters, having no value or meaning, so he does not act on them. They came, according to his belief, from randomness that does not know what it does or promises anything, and does not commit to anything.
In atheism, which explains the universe and its existence in a purely materialistic way, there is no place for moral values at all, no right or wrong, no good or evil. These are moral values that matter does not explain. And when man is a son of matter, nothing but matter, there is no meaning for mercy, truth, loyalty, or honoring parents. The feeling of all this is only the result of random genetic mutations, like the random characters of the cell phone.
In Islam, there is a Creator with perfect attributes who commanded His servants with morals that are consistent with His attributes. This Creator is just, He forbade injustice upon Himself, so it is logical that He forbids it upon His servants and said: "O My servants, I have forbidden injustice upon Myself and have made it forbidden among you, so do not oppress one another" (Sahih Muslim). He is merciful and commanded His servants to be merciful to one another.
The Creator has created man with a natural inclination to love these values and hate what opposes them, such as evil and injustice. Human desires and the love of domination may cover this natural inclination, but this does not contradict that the sound natural inclination is the original state. Therefore, in Islam, the existence of these values is explained, their value is explained, man's love for them and his hatred for their opposites are explained. The explanation for all this is the existence of God.
When man denies the existence of God, he enters into a series of miserable atheist confusion, as we saw in the previous episode about the intellectual axioms of the atheist. No creator, no perfect attributes, nothing but nature that created man, and this nature is materialistic, it has no perfect moral attributes, so it cannot be described as just or wise, for example. Therefore, there is no place for moral values in a man who is generated from this nature.
But what about man's feeling of love for good and hatred for evil? According to atheism, these are random genetic mutations that made him imagine that there is good, and he loves this imaginary good, and that there is evil, and he hates this imaginary evil.
One of the prominent atheists, Richard Dawkins, was asked in the end: Is your belief that rape is wrong, a completely arbitrary matter? Like the fact that we evolved with five fingers instead of six? He said, yes, you can say that. It could have been that the blind chance they claim could have taken another course, resulting in man feeling that there is no wrong in rape. The matter is completely arbitrary, so it is not possible to describe any of the two feelings that rape is wrong or acceptable, as right or wrong, this feeling is only the product of random chance.
Therefore, the moral tendency of the one who denies the existence of God does not know its source, and it cannot be described as right or wrong, and it is not consistent with the attributes of a higher being, and there is no hereafter accountability for it, so it is not absolute, meaning that it is not possible to describe any character as absolutely praiseworthy or absolutely blameworthy.
Where have the atheists reached as a result of this? Come, let us see models from the words of their celebrities and theorists.
In a debate titled: (Islam and Atheism, Which is More Logical?), Professor Lawrence Krauss was asked about the reason why incest is wrong, from his atheist perspective. That is, Krauss, if you do not rely on absolute values based on the existence of God, then on what basis do you consider incest wrong, for example? So what was his answer? Let us see: So he says to you: It is not clear to me that it is wrong.
Dawkins commented in a tweet about what happened to Lawrence Krauss in that debate, saying: "One of the Muslims asked: Why is incest wrong? Lawrence Krauss tried to use logic in his answer, logic? The pearl is cast before a pig." So Krauss's logic became a pearl in Dawkins' view, but his problem: the one who despises it is a pig who did not appreciate the value of this logic.
This Dawkins is the same one who said in his book (The God Delusion, Chapter: The Morality of the Age of Reason): "We do not cheat, we do not kill, we do not commit incest." So he sees the issue of incest as relative, his personal choice: not to practice this adultery, but he defends his colleague Krauss's point of view and considers it logic.
Come, let us see other models of the moral decline of atheists, collected by brother Rashad al-Qarni in the program (Return to Your Origin). With more audacity and impudence, Professor Greve demands that incest not be criminalized, but rather, the article that punishes it be deleted from the law. And do not be surprised if you know that one of the European countries has gone further to discuss the legalization of incest within the parliament. Misguidance! And how the father will be able to procreate from his daughter in a way that the law punishes! All praise is due to Allah for the blessing of Islam.
Indeed, atheists drive morality towards the abyss. For instance, the atheist Dr. Dan Barker says that rape can be a moral act if the situation calls for it. As for the atheist Professor Peter Singer, he is another story and a farce! He sees no real objection to bestiality, saying, "Humans and animals can establish a sexual relationship satisfying to both parties."
This is in addition to Sam Harris's defense of rape and his consideration of it as part of the evolutionary strategy. And Dawkins' defense of marital infidelity and his rejection of calling it infidelity at all, on the grounds that neither spouse can claim exclusive ownership of the other's body.
Professor Peter Singer also supports killing newborns with disabilities if it is in their best interest and the best interest of their parents. David Silverman, the president of the American Atheists, stated in a debate that all moral values are relative, and there are no absolute moral values. He was told: Based on that, torturing and eating children is not a mistake in itself but is for a specific person, right? Silverman agreed. Meaning, one can torture a child, mutilate him alive, eat him, and not be wrong.
Silverman knows that if he says that this is absolutely wrong, it requires him to acknowledge the existence of absolute meanings, which in turn necessitates the existence of God, as we have explained.
Atheism leads to the idea that random genetic mutations can produce people who are genetically different, and consequently, their feelings towards a single behavior, such as rape or torture, are very different. The reason is purely material. And it is not possible to describe any of their positions as right or wrong. Therefore, it is not possible to criminalize or blame a person, no matter how immoral his action may be; because he can say: it is immoral to you but moral to me.
There are people in our Muslim societies who use relative phrases in the field of ethics, and that there is no place for absolute truth, and they think that even the clear religious texts in the field of ethics and values are all subject to dispute and there are no certainties. Some of them may be disgusted by the statements of the atheists we mentioned, but they do not realize that they are the natural result of the idea of moral relativism that they talk about. If values are not based on the light of revelation, then it is lost! "And whoever Allah does not give light to - he will not have any light." [An-Nur:40].
Atheists raised the following question: How can good and evil and virtuous moral values be determined without belief in a god? Their question is a logical fallacy; because without a god, there are no moral values, no good, no evil, no virtue, and no vice. But they evaded this truth because they know that neither man nor societies can live without morals.
Nevertheless, they began to write books to answer their wrong question from the beginning, including the book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" and the book "The Science of Good and Evil" and many other books. But they are all futile attempts; because with their pure materialism and their evasion of the fact that there is no place for moral values without a god, it is as if they are saying: What is the appropriate laboratory interaction to know good from evil and justice from injustice?
Perhaps it has become clear from this presentation that when Stephen Hawking said, "The human species is just a chemical mess on a medium-sized planet," he was consistent with his atheism and relieved himself of the search for morals for this mess. Compare that to the saying of Allah the Almighty: "And certainly We have honored the children of Adam" [Al-Isra:70]. He honored them to be worthy of the status of worshiping a perfect God.
In this episode, we have explained the implication of the moral tendency on the existence of Allah the Almighty and that there is no basis for morals in the shadow of denying His existence, glorified and exalted be He. But this is not all, for in the next episode, we will explain that atheism does not leave its followers neutral towards morals, but puts them at a crossroads: either they choose some good morals and contradict themselves and betray their atheism and Darwinism, or they agree with their atheism and Darwinism and adopt the worst morals and the most criminal. Important shocking facts, so follow us, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.