Tag Archives: atheism

The Household Impact On Our Children’s Islam

Posted on by

One of the greatest fears of a parent is the tragedy of a child forsaking their dīn (religion) and thereby becoming an apostate. In the noble Qurʾān we find the narrative of the wise man Luqmān عليه السلام and his advice to his son:

“O my dear son! Establish prayer, encourage what is good and forbid what is evil, and endure patiently whatever befalls you. Surely this is a resolve to aspire to. And do not turn your nose up to people, nor walk pridefully upon the earth. Surely Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful. Be moderate in your pace. And lower your voice, for the ugliest of all voices is certainly the braying of donkeys.”

Qurʾān 31:17-19, The Clear Qurʾān by Dr. Mustafa Khattab

Increases in the acceptance of cultural ideals which do not cohere with the ethics of Islām are quickly becoming flashpoints of conflict in the home. Mitigation strategies need to be employed by parents and these strategies need to be taught across the board to the point it becomes commonplace within the Ummah. Unless we as an Ummah acknowledge and identify that there are issues when it comes to tarbiyah (the way in which we raise our children), then we are effectively ignoring a growing problem. There are two factors we will consider today, the first is one of the predictors of apostasy:

People who grew up in a home with relatively little credible displays of faith are more likely to be atheists, according to new research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. The study indicates that cultural transmission — or the lack thereof — is a stronger predictor of religious disbelief than other factors, such as heightened analytic thinking.

New psychology research identifies a robust predictor of atheism in adulthood – PsyPost

Here we see the advice of Luqmān عليه السلام in the noble Qurʾān clearly being demonstrated in the aforementioned study:

The researchers found evidence that a lack of exposure to credibility-enhancing displays of religious faith was a key predictor of atheism. In other words, those with caregivers who faithfully modeled their religious beliefs, such as going to religious services or acting fairly to others because their religion taught them so, were less likely to be atheists.

Ibid

In other words, if we teach our children that Islām is true because it is good and beneficial, but in the home we don’t practise Islām (the daily prayers, fasting, giving charity) but rather find constant conflict (quarrels, hypocrisy, dishonesty, lying) then the child genuinely has no reason to think Islām is benefitting his family. It’s at that point Islām becomes an impediment to what is good and this beautiful dīn becomes associated with the negative attributes of their family. It makes sense as to why a child would want to create that disassociation from Islām, to create a disassociation from chaos, stress, and toxicity.

Imagine a scenario where we teach our children that Islām teaches us to have good etiquette towards those we disagree with, but then they see their father and mother constantly quarrelling, and using insults towards each other. Imagine a scenario where we take them to the masjid for the Friday prayer but we fail to pray any other prayer. The example we set literally has a moral effect on our children, they observe and remember everything, consciously or otherwise. The Qurʾān effectively teaches us this in a very poignant way:

“As for those who believe and whose descendants follow them in faith, We will elevate their descendants to their rank, never discounting anything ˹of the reward˺ of their deeds. Every person will reap only what they sowed.”

Qurʾān 52:21, The Clear Qurʾān by Dr. Mustafa Khattab

The consequence of being a hypocrite therefore has an everlasting effect in this life and in the next:

“Allah has promised the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers an everlasting stay in the Fire of Hell—it is sufficient for them. Allah has condemned them, and they will suffer a never-ending punishment.”

Qurʾān 9:68, The Clear Qurʾān by Dr. Mustafa Khattab

The second factor that we must look at is known as maternal education (as it relates to mental and spiritual resilience). It is a duty in Islam that our Muslim sisters are indeed given the time and consideration of becoming educated. The Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

طَلَبُ الْعِلْمِ فَرِيضَةٌ عَلَى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ

Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim.

Sunan Ibn Majah 224, Grade: Hasan

Education is for all Muslims, not only for men. Maternal education refers to the level of education which a mother has and its long term effects on a child’s intellectual development. Low maternal education is recognized as a marker of low resilience (the ability to adapt to difficult or trying circumstances), as well as a marker of lesser educational success. In the peer-reviewed journal, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, we learn quite a few important details from the article, “Increases in Maternal Education and Young Children’s Language Skills.” The article states on page 319 that:

“Children of more highly educated parents enter school with higher levels of academic skills and continue to perform better than other children (Entwisle & Alexander, 1993; Lee & Burkham, 2002).”

Increases in Maternal Education and Young Children’s Language Skills, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3

Furthermore on page 343 it states:

“Improvements in mothers’ education are associated with concurrent improvements in young children’s language development and the quality of children’s home environments, particularly the provision of learning materials and mothers’ responsiveness.”

Ibid

In a traditional Islāmic household the primary caregiver of a child tends to be the mother, the research therefore elicits the fact that the primary caregiver’s level of education and intelligence has a direct developmental effect on a child’s ability to learn. If the mothers of our children aren’t educated then we are effectively limiting the intellectual development of our children. This can and does directly affect their (our children’s) ability to reasonably think through trying circumstances (emotional regulation during distress). In the book The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles by two PhD psychologist scholars, Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatté, they state that:

“Resilience is of vital importance when making quick and tough decisions in moments of chaos. What’s more, it grants you the ability to do so with grace, humor, and optimism. Resilience transforms. It transforms hardship into challenge, failure into success, helplessness into power. Resilience turns victims into survivors and allows survivors to thrive. Resilient people are loath to allow even major setbacks to push them from their life course.”

The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles, p 11.

From this, we know then that a higher level of education for the mother of a child, directly impacts their resilience, and as children grow they need a robust thinking style to navigate challenges, intellectually and spiritually. The book qualifies this point by explaining the impact and efficacy of a robust thinking style:

“Their work indicates that the process that determines our resilience as adults is a dynamic one—a complex interaction between elements of a child’s external and internal worlds. Many of the early external pressures on resilience—low birthweight due to poor maternal nutrition, childhood poverty, divorce, or physical abuse —can themselves never be reversed. They are in the past. But some of the internal causes of low resilience, such as thinking styles, can be modified, even counteracted. And, more important, once your thinking style has changed, you can use it to undo the ongoing negative consequences that stemmed from events in your childhood that were outside your control.”

The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles, p 24.

The link between resilience (mental, emotional, and spiritual), maternal education and an unstable family structure is established (emphasis mine own):

“When we hear such stories of deprivation in the early years, we know intuitively that these children are disadvantaged—they are at high risk of failing to achieve later in life. Research has isolated many of the childhood circumstances that present the greatest threat to resilience: Low birthweight, low socioeconomic status, low maternal education, unstable family structure, and maltreatment put any child at risk for underachievement. But how is it that these characteristics of the world outside the child come to exert their influence on the internal life of the child, on her motivation, achievement, and on her resilience?”

The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles, p 26.

In conclusion, as Muslims we need to practise our faith consistently, as well as educate both parents, and in focusing on these two areas, the likelihood of our children remaining Muslims while being successful in navigating life (especially spiritual challenges) seems to be fairly attainable.

There are many classes that Muslims can attend for free, I recommend the i3 Institute as one of them.

and Allāh knows best.

Millennials, Religion, and Corporate Marketing

Posted on by Leave a comment

Millennials are traditionally thought of as those born between the years 1980 and 2000. The generation just before that, is known as Generation X and features those born between the years 1960 and 1980. Baby Boomers are said to be born between the years 1940 and the mid-1960’s. One of the hallmarks of the millennial generation is their tendency to be religiously unaffiliated (i.e. they tend to prefer no religion, or are agnostic about God altogether).

According to statistics from the Pew Forum, younger millennials in the US are 36% religiously unaffiliated, while those from Generation X are 23% religiously unaffiliated and of the Baby Boomers only 17% are religiously unaffiliated. Religion is often seen as an archaic relic of the past, that it tends to harm more than the benefit it provides. Yet, if we were to abstract this central form of reasoning, that the reason religion is to be ditched is because it harms more than it benefits, then what about the paradox of millennials being loyal to corporate brands that feature advertising which is considered ethical and ‘feel-good’ while at the same time rejecting traditional religious beliefs, often for the very same reasons.

The irony here is that while millennials may think corporations produce less harm than religious groups, we do need to keep in mind that corporations hold sway over our politics ,our wars and even our religions. One may say that religious wars are significantly worse than any war a corporation may have been involved in, but truthfully let us consider this claim in its entirety. The then US Vice President, Dick Cheney did find himself in controversy given that the company which he was the CEO of before becoming Vice President, (that is to say) Haliburton, profited greatly from the war itself. One Private Military Contractor (PMC) that financially benefited but which also was accused of multiple war crimes, Blackwater, also played a significant role in the Iraq war. Its successor under Erik Price, the founder of Blackwater, is also complicit in crimes against Chinese Muslims. Even the change of government in Libya was associated with corporate interests. Let’s also be sure to mention the fact that companies functioning in Latin America received permission and help to overthrow governments they disliked.

It is therefore still quite strange that the one group less susceptible to fake news (i.e. millennials), is the same group susceptible to corporate marketing which features ethical messaging. Consider that corporations only exist to make money, to make a profit, they don’t exist to generally make our lives better. Religions on the other hand do not exist solely to make money (though the Prosperity Gospel movement is an outlier), though that is not to say that most religions don’t feature money management as an aspect of their teaching in some way (for Muslims it’s Zakaat and Sadaqah, for Christians it’s tithing). The main point which still presents itself though, is that should millennials take a serious look at mainstream religion, they will in one way or the other come to see religions as distinct from corporations. Furthermore, they should see at some level that religion provides benefits that corporations cannot, and should they seriously consider the ways in which both benefit society, there can truly only be one clear winner: religion.

and Allah knows best.

Has Evangelist Ravi Zacharias Lied About His Credentials?

Posted on by 3 comments

The following is a guest post by three individuals who have taken it upon themselves to investigate the academic credentials of Ravi Zacharias. They have included their names, and their own academic qualifications and can be contacted by commenting on the post. Any comments or questions posted, will be sent to them.

cc-2015-rzimnabeel

HAS EVANGELIST RAVI ZACHARIAS LIED ABOUT HIS CREDENTIALS?

WHO WE ARE

We are two atheists and a Christian who are concerned that a prominent evangelist, Mr. Ravi Zacharias, has engaged in misconduct that undermines academic integrity and that tends seriously to mislead the public at large.   We issue this Press Release with two primary goals in mind. First, we wish to draw attention to what we believe are the dishonest practices of Ravi Zacharias.  Second, we hope the facts presented here will prompt professional journalists and investigators to continue the work we have started.

  • Steve Baughman is an attorney and part time philosophy student at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA.  He holds a Masters Degree in Asian Studies from University of California at Berkeley. He is the creator of the YouTube channel Friendly Banjo Atheist, which first presented the matter of Mr. Zacharias’ credentials to the public.

  • Tom Lunal has a B.S. in Mathematics from U.C. Santa Barbara and an M.S. in Computer Science from USC. He worked for Microsoft before moving to a position at New York Life.

  • Andy Norman is a professor of philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). He has a PhD from Northwestern University and has published widely on the norms of responsible discourse.

ABOUT RAVI ZACHARIAS

Ravi Zacharias is a world renowned Christian evangelist who has written over a dozen books. Former White House counsel, Chuck Colson, called him “the great apologist of our time.”  Mr. Zacharias maintains a busy travel schedule lecturing all over the world. He resides in Atlanta, Georgia, where his ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), is headquartered. RZIM has numerous overseas offices and maintains a staff of over 100 people.  According to Mr. Zacharias’ website, his weekly radio program, “Let My People Think”, airs on over 2,000 outlets worldwide.

A. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

THE CAMBRIDGE CLAIM

Ravi Zacharias has claimed for many years that he was a “visiting scholar at Cambridge University.”  He presents this claim prominently in his press bios and in his memoirs.  He makes frequent mention of it in his public appearances (in about 90% of his youtube videos). It is by far the most impressive item in his academic portfolio.

The claim is absolutely false.  The University of Cambridge press office has confirmed the same to us.

We recently contacted Mr. Zacharias and informed him of our belief that he has misrepresented having been a “visiting scholar at Cambridge University.” We informed him of our intent to go public with this information and we asked him for a response. None came.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Zacharias deleted the claim from his official website bio.

B. THE DETAILS OF MR. ZACHARIAS’ MISREPRESENTATIONS

THE CAMBRIDGE CLAIM

In his memoirs Mr. Zacharias states the following:  “By 1990, the load of ministry had gotten so heavy that I decided to take a sabbatical for the first time since I had started in the ministry. I spent part of that year at Cambridge University in England with my family, and it was a very special time for us.”

He also writes “I was invited to be a visiting scholar, and I decided to focus my studies on the Romantic writers and moralist philosophers.” (Walking from East to West, at p. 205.)

Until several weeks ago, Mr. Zacharias’ website bio at RZIM.org stated, “Dr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University.” Mr. Zacharias is frequently introduced at his university appearances as having been “a visiting scholar at Cambridge University.” The President of Liberty University said “Ravi was a visiting scholar at Cambridge university” when awarding him an honorary doctorate recently. The claim also appears on the jacket of his book, The Real Face of Atheism and a few of his books claim in the back cover that he was educated at Cambridge University.

A Google search of [“Ravi Zacharias” “visiting scholar at Cambridge University”] reveals thousands of pages in which the claim is repeated.

The claim is false as mentioned earlier, and Mr. Zacharias withdrew it shortly after we asked him for a response to our concern that he has misrepresented his Cambridge visiting scholar status.

How do we know it is false? We contacted the University of Cambridge Office of External Affairs and Communications and asked whether Mr. Ravi Zacharias was ever a visiting scholar at their university.  We were told in writing the following:

 1. “We can confirm that Mr. Zacharias spent a sabbatical term at Ridley Hall in the city of Cambridge.” He was there for a mere 12 weeks (1 term).

2. “Ridley Hall is independent from Cambridge University and trains people for effective work in the Church of England”.

3. “Attending lectures and classes at the University of Cambridge whilst on sabbatical at Ridley Hall would not confer University of Cambridge Visiting Scholar status on a student. Ridley Hall is not and has never been a constituent part of the University of Cambridge and has different criteria for granting Visiting Scholar status.”

4. “All student and visitors to Ridley Hall know the difference between Ridley hall and Cambridge University and to equate this is plainly false.”
Insofar as it is exclusively the province of the University of Cambridge to decide who constitutes a “visiting scholar” at their institution, we believe it to be established beyond dispute that Mr. Zacharias’ visiting scholar claim is false.  
We sincerely ask that you contact Cambridge University and Ridley Hall independently and verify this information.
 

FIRST ANTICIPATED DEFENSE FROM RAVI ZACHARIAS

1. The close connection between the University of Cambridge and Ridley Hall justifies the claim. 

No it does not.  We note that his website was recently changed to state that “Dr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge (then affiliated with Cambridge University, now more recently allied with Cambridge and affiliated with Durham University) where he studied moralist philosophers and literature of the Romantic era.) This is totally false. It makes it seem as if Ridley Hall was a constituent Hall of Cambridge University back when he was there. The officials at Cambridge University and Ridley Hall confirmed that it has never has that affiliation. Ridley Hall has always been an independent clergy training school and never part of Cambridge University.

However, we acknowledge the close affiliation between the University of Cambridge and Ridley Hall.  Both are in the town of Cambridge, and both are part of the Cambridge Theological Federation (CTF). There are various institutions that are a part of the Cambridge Theological Federation and the students and others are allowed to utilized the facilities, libraries at these various schools. They are also able to take a few Cambridge, Durham etc. accredited courses. That’s it, no more, no less. No one can ever claim that being at one equals to being at the other as Ravi Zacharias might claim.

We believe it to be a misleading practice to claim to have been a “visiting scholar” at one institution by virtue of one’s doing a sabbatical at a different “affiliated” institution.  We note that Mr. Zacharias’ supervisor at Ridley, Dr. Jeremy Begbie, who taught at both Ridley and Cambridge University, draws a very clear distinction in his own Curriculum Vitae between Ridley Hall and Cambridge University. (See https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/jeremy-begbie ).
SECOND ANTICIPATED RESPONSE FROM RAVI ZACHARIAS
2.  The “visiting scholar at Cambridge University” claim is accurate because Mr. Zacharias attended classes and lectures at Cambridge University while on Sabbatical at Ridley
Again, the University of Cambridge has told us in writing that ““Attending lectures and classes at the University of Cambridge whilst on sabbatical at Ridley Hall would not confer University of Cambridge Visiting Scholar status on a student.” The Director of Programs at Ridley Hall actually said “that such a claim might be made for personal benefit but would be absolutely false. If you want to study at Ridley, you would apply to Ridley and if you want to study at Cambridge University, you would apply to Cambridge University.” There is absolutely no justification for making any of the claims that Ravi Zacharias has made even if he took a few classes at Cambridge. Seeing that he was there foronly 12 weeks, just how many classes would he have taken anyway?
Additionally, just think about it. Even if we, for the sake of argument grant that he was indeed a visiting scholar at Cambridge University (which he clearly was not!), does it justify the marketing and publicizing he has done for years trying to pass as a Cambridge scholar. His book, DVDs, CDs, public talks, sermons, speech bios etc. are full of references to being a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, making it look like he spent years doing research at that fine institution. The actual fact of the matter is that he was never a visiting scholar at Cambridge University but was on a sabbatical at Ridley Hall.
THIRD ANTICIPATED RESPONSE FROM RAVI ZACHARIAS
3. The vagueness of the term “visiting scholar” justifies Mr. Zacharias’ use of it:

Now we move to the designation of visiting scholar status. The official record at Ridley Hall says that he was on Sabbatical for one term (12 weeks). You can check it out independently. Just call them! We acknowledge that the term “visiting scholar” is used both formally and informally.  In its formal sense it carries great prestige, especially at respected institutions like Cambridge University. In its informal sense, it can mean nothing more than attending lectures and classes for a short period  while on sabbatical at a given institution.However, the informal designation cannot be utilized for official purposes. For instance, if I go to Cambridge and do some research for a few months and interact with faculty/students, I could unofficially call myself a visiting scholar but unless the university has officially invited me I cannot claim so in official documents. This, however, is precisely what Ravi Zacharias has done. His official records show that he was on sabbatical at Ridley Hall but he claims that he was visiting scholar at Cambridge University. He writes in his autobiography that he was “invited by Cambridge University.” This is not a case of stretching the truth, its a case of telling an absolute lie.

Mr. Zacharias clearly intends us to understand his “visiting scholar at Cambridge University” claim in the formal, prestigious sense.  It is, quite simply, the crown jewel of his otherwise very unremarkable academic history.  It is a claim he has trumpeted loudly and widely.

To be sure, Mr. Zacharias may now urge as his defense that he intended the claim to be understood informally (perhaps as nothing more than him attending lectures and classes at Cambridge while he was at Ridley.)  But the more Mr. Zacharias drifts from the formal/prestigious conception of the term “visiting scholar,” the more the public will be justified in feeling deceived. Why make such a big issue of it in the press materials (books, videos, CDs, speech bios etc.) if it was an informal arrangement involving nothing more than “attending lectures and classes”?

REMAINING CONCERNS:

We believe that Mr. Zacharias’ deception is clearly established. Nevertheless, we believe that we might gain greater clarity as to the depth of that deception if several outstanding questions be answered.

CONCERN 1:
Who invited Mr. Zacharias to be a “visiting scholar at Cambridge”? Which office at Cambridge University invited him? They have absolutely no record of him being there.  Did Mr. Zacharias formally take classes at Cambridge? Or did he merely audit? Were these graduate classes? (See p. 205-206 of Walking From East to West where Mr. Zacharias specifically claims to have been invited to be a visiting scholar at Cambridge University.)  

We hope others will be more successful than we have been in obtaining information from Mr. Zacharias about these significant matters of concern.   
CONCERN 2:
The website at RZIM claims that “He has been honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees, including a Doctor of Laws and a Doctor of Sacred Theology.” Please notice the wording. This makes it look like he earned these doctorates, especially to the person in the pew. What it should say clearly is that “He has been conferred six honorary doctoral degrees, including a Doctor of Laws and a Doctor of Sacred Theology.” Again, there is always this need for Mr. Zacharias to boost his credentials by either telling a lie or by making things unclear.

CONCERN 3:

Mr. Zacharias claims to have “lectured at the world’s most prestigious universities.” (See for example the jacket of his book The Real Face of Atheism.  In his autobiography he states, “I have spoken on almost every major campus – Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell, you name it.  If we haven’t been to a major school it is more often than not because we haven’t had the time to accommodate the request.” Walking from East to West, p. 209.

We are concerned about the extent to which Mr. Zacharias’ claim implies that his appearances at such universities have been pursuant to invitations from the faculty or the institutions.  It is our understanding that Mr. Zacharias’ appearance at prestigious universities has been primarily, if not exclusively, pursuant to invitations from student clubs and Christian evangelical organizations or local churches. For instance, many of Mr. Zacharias’ appearances at prestigious universities have been sponsored by the Veritas Forum, a Christian campus ministry that promotes discussion “about life’s hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life.”  Mr. Zacharias is closely connected to the organization, appearing in their promo video and writing the preface to the Veritas founder’s book. http://veritas.org/about/#link1. He has never been invited by Harvard, Yale or Princeton universities i.e., officially by the universities for any lectures. However, he often refers to his lectureships at various leading universities in the world. Misleading at best and false at worst. None of the schools he mentions, like Harvard, Yale or Princeton have officially invited him to give a lecture. He was just on their campus at the sponsorship of the Christian organization, the Veritas Forum.

CONCERN 4:
It is an open question whether Ravi Zacharias qualifies as any kind of scholar at all.  Not only has he no doctoral degree, to our knowledge he has published nothing in scholarly journals, done no peer-reviewed research, and his academic qualifications are limited to his having a Masters of Divinity and having held the chair of evangelism and contemporary thought at a missionary training school, Alliance Theological Seminary in Nyack, NY.  He is a great speaker and communicator but no scholar. If he really is a foremost thinker and philosopher, has he ever delivered a paper at the American Philosophical Association, The Society of Christian Philosophers, The American Academy of Religion, The Evangelical Philosophical Society, The Evangelical Theological Society or any other academic forums? the answer is NO.
CONCLUSION:
1. His claim about being a visiting scholar at Cambridge University is absolutely false.
2. Cambridge University as well as Ridley Hall have given us written statements that this claim is false.
3. He was officially on a sabbatical at Ridley Hall in the city of Cambridge for a term (12 weeks)
4. He continues to project the false impression that his doctorates are earned.
5. He continues to project the false impression that he is a scholar lecturing at leading universities like Harvard and Yale. A claim that is absolutely false. None of these universities recognize him as an academic or intellectual.
6. He is a great speaker and communicator but not a scholar in any way. His false projection is not fair to those who are actual scholars.
7. All that Ravi and RZIM need to do is to present an official letter from Cambridge University that he was a “visiting scholar” at their institution and the inquiries and investigations will end. Neither he nor RZIM are undertaking any efforts to get this done because you cannot substantiate a lie.
Thanks,
Tom, Steve and Andy

Is an Afterlife Rationally Conceivable?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Viktor Frankl an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist says in his book, A Man’s Search for Meaning:

After a while I proceeded to another question, this time addressing myself to the whole group. The question was whether an ape which was being used to develop poliomyelitis serum, and for this reason punctured again and again, would ever be able to grasp the meaning of its suffering. Unanimously, the group replied that of course it would not; with its limited intelligence, it could not enter into the world of man, i.e., the only world in which the meaning of its suffering would be understandable.

Then I pushed forward with the following question: “And what about man? Are you sure that the human world is a terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos? Is it not conceivable that there is still another dimension, a world beyond man’s world; a world in which the question of an ultimate meaning of human suffering would find an answer?”

Is it not cynical for man to think that he is the pinnacle of intelligent life? That the human world is an end point, the boundary of existence? Surely, if an ape can experience the world around them with all their senses and still be veiled from higher reasoning, can we too not conceive that perhaps we are also veiled?

Or, perhaps it is that some wish for this boundary to exist willingly at the cost of their own bravado…..

cc-2014-mancoveringeyes

 

and Allah knows best.

Atheism: Belief in the Inconsistent.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In light of modern militant atheism, let’s take a logical, analytical and methodological approach towards understanding their position for the purpose of coming to a common understanding to develop our da’wah. To begin with, we must first comprehend what atheism is and is not, that is to define it.

Theism – the belief (ism) in a God (theos).
Atheism – the disbelief in (a) God(s) or the negation (denial) of belief in (a) God(s).

The “a” is a negation of the statement, just as would find in:

Gnostic – a knower.
Agnostic – one who does not know.

It is as this point I’d like to introduce the basis for atheism, the cardinal belief of the atheist:

“God(s) do(es) not exist, because their exists no evidence for this (these) God(s).”

The typical response to such a statement, is usually to create arguments, premises, statements that in someway try to present God or the existence of God as a logical position. This is problematic because the statement of the atheist is by innate nature, inherently flawed. That is to say, their position is flawed, the question is flawed, so the answer will definitely have flaws. Therefore, the response to such a statement should not be an attempt to refute it, as the atheist has already concluded their position:

(If) there is no proof for God => (then, this implies that) God does not exist.

This is called a logical implication, taking the form (if) A (then) => B.

The proper response to such a statement, should be to question their “if”. What does this atheist mean, by “evidence”?

Do they mean philosophical? Super natural? Empirical? All of the above?

Usually, atheists have to create philosophical arguments to defend their empirical reasoning. Meaning, the evidence they seek is empirical. Empirical evidences is defined as that which can be seen, touched, heard, smelled and tasted. More or less, it has to be something which one can directly interact with, in a physical sense.

At this point, as a Muslim, I have to categorically dismiss such a notion of God. This atheist, believes in the disbelief of a God that Islam neither condones nor promotes. Muslims believe in Allaah, who is more or less described as being a non-physical, incomparable being, of which we cannot comprehend, because this Allaah is unlike anything we know and our minds can only generate concepts which are relative to what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste because we as humans function by these mechanical attributes in this world. So the atheist, is disbelieving in a concept of God that we as Muslims also hold to be irrational.

I am not condoning the belief of the atheist, but it is as this occasion, we can begin to understand what form our da’wah has to take towards them. Let them know, that their concept of God, is greatly flawed and thus their arguments towards such a God we wholly reject.

They may then pose the question, if God is all seeing, should God not have 1000 eyes?

Taking my advice from above, why should God need eyes to see? Eyes are built to function in this world, for which we are limited in numerous ways. The eyes of the Christian God only saw the Israelite kingdoms while being tempted by Satan. In this regard, we accept that human vision is greatly limited, which ever being has a human eye, cannot be all seeing, or in this regard, all knowing, as the eye is not meant to function as such.

So then the question presents itself, if you don’t know the nature of this God, how can you know that this God exists. If God is not a physical being, then what is God? How would one be assured that what you don’t see, feel, hear, taste or smell, exists?

I’d like to say that that’s also an inherently flawed question, which we will answer by using the age old method of proof by contradiction through analytical deduction by way of conversing their statements through an analogy:

“How do we know that Alexander the Great (insert any historical figure here) existed?”

None of us, have ever touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted Alexander. So the erroneous concept of the onus on being on theists to present such a case to suit empiricist concepts is out of the window. If you believe that a historical figure existed without fulfilling the above criteria, then you cannot demand that the only evidence to prove God’s existence should be that which you also cannot use to substantiate your belief.

So what do we rely on to confirm that Alexander the Great existed? Why, the historical record of historians, reliant upon numerous narrations of his conquests, victories and losses. The vast amount of testification to this person’s existence or any other historical person’s existence, really depends upon the mass flow of historical information from the people at his time and after his time, attesting to his existence. Therefore, with that logic, we must also confirm that God exists, just as the reasoning for Alexander’s existence is used to confirm his. The testification of thousands at their specific time in existence to God’s works throughout our history, is testament to His existence. We simply use the same method that we used to substantiate the existence of Kingdom’s, historical figures, or events.

If the atheist presupposes that we cannot use the same method, then we must question their objective integrity. Are they questioning to understand, or questioning to display their character flaw of hypocrisy? What is good for you, is it not also good for me?

wa Allaahu Alam.