The Divine Reality: God, Islam & the Mirage of Atheism

by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Later in life, I learnt that this was a form of solipsism, which is the view that you can only be certain that your mind exists.

I felt that not searching for the truth was tantamount to lying to myself, or accepting a lie. Therefore, the search for truth was a means of trying to be more sincere with my own existence, as I would be seeking to establish the truth of this life and my place within it. For me, holding on to the sceptical view of the truth, which argues that there is no truth, was self-defeating. This is because the concept that there is no truth is actually a claim itself, so how could I claim that scepticism is true but everything else is not? This is the inconsistency of the sceptical view; a sceptic would claim the truth of scepticism but would deny all other truths. Consequently, no matter what position I held, I still had to accept a truth.

Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? In this sense, an atheist is someone who makes a knowledge claim—that there is no God. Nevertheless, such a claim requires justification. The claim is a positive assertion, and it requires some sort of argument to back it up. Therefore, this type of atheist must provide evidence for their position.

Misotheism: hatred of God

Known as misotheism, coming from the Greek misos, meaning hatred, and theos meaning God,

“The situation is different for the misotheist. To him, the incompatibility of widespread evil with the image of a benevolent God is a real problem, not merely a case of hair-splitting theological arguments. Misotheists are genuine accusers of God, and they will hold him accountable for random evil and undeserved suffering. Thus, atheists and misotheists come to the question of God’s role in human suffering from opposed directions: the unbeliever would say that the misotheist makes an invalid claim based on fiction. To the misotheist himself, precisely because he is a believer, God is not a scapegoat but an accomplice or an instigator of evil.”

atheists and misotheists alike suffer from a veiled type of egocentrism. This means they make special effort not to see the world from any perspective other than through their own eyes. However, in doing so, they commit a type of emotional—or spiritual—fallacy.

They anthropomorphise God and turn Him into a limited man. They assume that God must see things the way we see things, and therefore He should stop the evil. If He allows it to continue, He must be questioned and rejected.

Comparing man with God exposes their inability to understand things holistically. The misotheist would probably at this point exclaim that this means man has more compassion than God. This further highlights their inability to see things from beyond their perspective, and reveals their failure to fathom that God’s actions and will are in line with a Divin...

God does not stop these things from happening because He sees something we do not, not because He is content with evil and suffering to continue. God h...

Understanding this facilitates spiritual and intellectual tranquillity because the believer understands that ultimately all that occurs in the world is in line with a superior Divine wisdom that is based on superior Divine goodness. Refusing to accept this is actually where the misotheist falls into the quagmire of arrogance, egocentrism and ultimately, despair. He has failed the test, and his hatred of ...

Philosophical naturalism is the view that all phenomena within the universe can be explained via physical processes.

These physical processes are blind and non-rational. Philosophical naturalists reject all supernatural claims and some argue that if there is anything ‘outside’ the universe it does not interfere with it. Atheists, according to Professor Richard Dawkins, are philosophical naturalists. As stated by Dawkins, an atheist “believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world”.

The traditional Islamic term for atheism is ilhaad, which literally means ‘deviation’, best translated as ‘godlessness’. The term ilhaad comes from the Arabic word lahad, which is used to describe a type of Islamic grave where a hole is dug and a side pocket is made for the deceased. In this sense the lahad is a deviation from the main hole that is dug.

Qur’an affirms that those who reject a creator “are not certain”[12] and describes those who reject monotheism as “fools”[13], which implies that polytheists and by extension atheists are irrational, imprudent and unwise.

In summary, the Islamic description of atheism is that it is an unnatural worldview based on uncertainty and irrationality.

In Islamic history Atheism was not a major social and intellectual threat until the emergence of the 8th century Dahriyya. These thinkers were empiricists who believed that all knowledge could only be acquired via the empirical method. They believed that the cosmos was eternal and composed of four qualities, which were responsible for everything that existed. They argued that everything had always existed and did not require any creator or maker.

The Islamic history of atheism clearly shows an environment of intellectual discussion and debate, which could only have been facilitated by mutual respect and tolerance. The Qur’an makes it absolutely clear that having myriad beliefs is part of God’s will, and that there should never be any form of compulsion but mutual respect and tolerance: “And had your Lord willed, those on Earth would have believed—all of them entirely. Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers?”[17] “There is no compulsion in the religion.”

The Islamic thinker and scholar, Dr. Jaafar Idris, aptly summarises Islam’s stance on other beliefs: “Existing peacefully with non-Islamic beliefs is an essential Islamic principle that is clearly stated in many Qur’anic verses, and that has been practiced by Muslims throughout their history. It is not something that Muslims impose on their religion or something that they have to resort to because of exceptional external circumstances. It is a requirement demanded by the nature of the religion….”[19]

In 1689 the Polish thinker Kazimierz Lyszczynski denied the existence of God is his De non existential dei. Lyszczynski maintained that God is a creation of man and that humans created the concept of God to oppress others. In 1674 Matthias Knutzen, who had a large following across Europe, produced writings in support of atheism. In the 1700s the likes of David Hume and Voltaire presented arguments and ideas that would provide the necessary intellectual seeds for atheism to take root.

Voltaire argued for deism, which is a philosophical and theological position which asserts that a single creator exists, but rejects the role of revelation and the authority of religious knowledge.

David Hume wrote a corpus of material on the issue of God and religion. He argued that the idea of God was incomprehensible. He also contended the idea of God’s necessary existence, and attempted to expose the weakness and limitations of the argument from design (see Chapter 8). Hume argued that the exis...

Echoing the ancient philosophers, his argument did not deny God; it did, however, question the degree of evil and our inability to justify it fr...

These include the ‘Big Bang’, which postulates a cosmic beginning to the universe. This was a departure from conventional thinking that postulated the universe was static and eternal, needing no creator (see Chapter 5). In the 1970s cosmologists discovered the intriguing phenomenon of fine-tuning, which explicitly demonstrated that the universe’s laws and arrangement seemed designed and fine-tuned so that complex conscious life, like human beings, could exist (see Chapter 8). Near the beginning of the 20th century we had an utterly inadequate understanding of biology’s nuts and bolts.

thought cells—the building blocks of organisms—were just homogenous blobs of protoplasm. In 1953, however, James Watson and Francis Crick demonstrated the double helix structure of DNA, the information-storage device of the cell.

Crick (an atheist himself) was so impressed with the universality of the genetic code that he became convinced that this could not have happened by chance, and argued that some sort of extra-terrestrial intervention was involved.

The prominent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse exclaimed, “I think Dawkins is ignorant of just about every aspect of philosophy and theology and it shows.”

Ruse does not hold back in assessing the success of the new atheists’ strategies in addressing intelligent design and Christianity, describing them as: “…absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design—we are losing this battle… what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues—neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas—it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims—more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simple alienate everyone of good will.”

most atheists are philosophical naturalists who hold that there is no supernatural and everything in the universe can be explained in reference to physical processes. Atheism combined with philosophical naturalism is a recipe for existential disaster. The formula is simple: no God, which includes the associated concepts of Divine accountability, equals no ultimate hope, value and purpose.

According to atheism, however, our pains are as meaningless as our pleasure. The immense sacrifices of the virtuous and the distress of the victim are falling dominoes in an indifferent world. They occur for no greater good and no higher purpose.

The Qur’an alludes to this hopelessness. It argues that a believer cannot despair; there will always be hope, and hope is connected to God’s mercy, and God’s mercy will manifest itself in this life and the hereafter: “Certainly no one despairs of God’s Mercy, except the people who disbelieve.”

Under atheism, ultimate justice is an unachievable goal—a mirage in the desert of life. Since there is no afterlife, any expectation of people being held to account is futile. Consider Nazi Germany in the 1940s. An innocent Jewish lady who just saw her husband and children murdered in front of her has no hope for justice when she is waiting for her turn to be cast into the gas chamber. Although the Nazis were eventually defeated, this justice occurred after her death. Under atheism she is now nothing, just another rearrangement of matter, and you cannot give reprieve to something that is lifeless. Islam, however, gives everyone hope for pure Divine, ultimate justice. No one will be treated unfairly and everyone shall be taken to account:

“On that Day, people will come forward in separate groups to be shown their deeds: whoever has done an atom’s weight of good will see it, but whoever has done an atom’s weight of evil will see that.”[43] “God created the heavens and the Earth for a true purpose: ...

Life, from the perspective of philosophical naturalism, is like a mother giving her child a toy and then taking it back for no reason. Life, without a doubt, is a wonderful gift. Yet any pleasure, joy and love we have experienced will be taken away from us and lost forever. Since the atheist denies the Divine and the hereafter, it means that the pleasures we have experienced in life will disappear. There is no hope of a continuation of happiness, pleasure, love and joy.

However, under Islam, these positive experiences are enhanced and continued after our worldly life: “They will have therein whatever they desire and We have more than that for them.”[45] “The people who lived a pious life will have a good reward and more….”[46] “Verily, the dwellers of Paradise that Day, will be busy in joyful things… (It will be said to them): ‘Salamun’ (Peace be on you), a Word from the Lord, Most Merciful.”[47]

This disposition is called the fitrah in Islamic thought (see Chapter 4). Our claim of ultimate value is justified because God created us with a profound purpose, and preferred us to most of His creation. We have value because the One who created us has given us value. “Now, indeed, We have conferred dignity on the children of Adam… and favoured them far above most of Our creation.”[48] “Our Lord! You have not created all this without purpose.”[49]

“Then is one who was a believer like one who was defiantly disobedient? They are not equal.”[50]

The abode of the good is eternal bliss and the abode of the evil is Divine alienation. This alienation is a consequence of consciously denying God’s mercy and guidance, which inevitably results in spiritual anguish and torment.

under atheism, value cannot be rationally justified except as an illusion in our heads.

Why does God give us ultimate value? The answer is simple. God created and transcends the universe, and He has unlimited knowledge and wisdom. His names include The-Knowing and The-Wise. Therefore, what He values is universal and objective. Another way of looking at it is by understanding that God is the maximally perfect Being, which means He is free from any deficiency and flaw. Therefore, it follows that what He values will be objective and ultimate, because this objectivity is a feature of His perfection.

The classical scholar Ibn Kathir states that God has the totality of wisdom and knowledge; we have its particulars. In other words: God has the picture, we merely have a pixel.

“Before speaking of human responsibilities or rights, one must answer the basic religious and philosophical question, ‘What does it mean to be human?’ In today’s world everyone speaks of human rights and the sacred character of human life, and many secularists even claim that they are true champions of human rights as against those who accept various religious worldviews. But strangely enough, often those same champions of humanity believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms and ultimately from various compounds of molecules. If the human being is nothing but the result of ‘blind forces’ acting upon the original cosmic soup of molecules, then is not the very statement of the sacredness of human life intellectually meaningless and nothing but a hollow sentimental expression? Is not human dignity nothing more than a conveniently contrived notion without basis in reality? And if we are nothing but highly organized inanimate particles, what is the basis for claims to ‘human rights’? These basic questions know no geographic boundaries and are asked by thinking people everywhere.”

We have value, but what value does the world have?

If I were to put you in a room with all your favourite games, gadgets, friends, loved ones, food and drink, but you knew that in five minutes you, the world and everything in it would be destroyed, what value would your possessions have? They wouldn’t have any at all. However, what is five minutes or 657,000 hours (equivalent to 75 years)? It is mere time. Just because we may live for 75 years does not make a difference. In the atheist worldview it will all be destroyed and forgotten. This is also true for Islam. Everything will be annihilated. So in reality the world intrinsically has no value; it is ephemeral, transient and short-lived.

Nonetheless, from an Islamic perspective the world has value because it is an abode for getting close to God, good deeds and worship, which lead to eternal paradise. So it is not all doom and gloom. We are not on a sinking ship. If we do the right thing, we can gain God’s forgiveness and approval. “There is terrible punishment in the next ...

You are probably reading this book sitting on a chair, and you are wearing some clothes. So I would like to ask you a question: For what purpose? Why are you wearing the clothes, and what purpose does the chair have? The answers to these questions are obvious. The chair’s purpose is to allow us to sit down by supporting our weight, and our clothes fulfil the purpose of keeping us warm, hiding our nakedness and of course making us look aesthetically pleasing. Our clothes and the chair are lifeless objects with no emotional or mental abilities, and we attribute purpose to these. Yet some of us do not believe we have a purpose for our own existence. Naturally, this seems absurd and counter-intuitive.

Having an ultimate purpose for our lives implies that there is a reason for our existence—in other words, some kind of intention and objective. Without an ultimate purpose we have no reason to exist, and we lack a profound meaning for our lives. This is the perspective of naturalism. It dictates that we merely spring from prior physical processes. These are blind, random and non-rational. The logical conclusion of this indifferent view on our existence is that we are riding on a sinking ship.

This metaphorical ship is our universe because, according to scientists, this universe is heading towards its inevitable demise and will suffer what they call a ‘heat death’. Human life will be destroyed prior to this heat death as the Sun will eventually obliterate the Earth.[55] Therefore, if this ship is going to sink, I ask you, what is the point of reshuffling the deck chairs or giving a glass of milk to the old lady? The Qur’an re...

Even Richard Dawkins appreciates the logical implications of naturalism. He argues that under naturalism, everything is meaningless and based on pitiless indifference: “On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[64]

Both Muslims and atheists assume that they have the ability to reason. This means that we are able to form mental or rational insights. We “see” our way to a conclusion in our minds. Our minds take premises or statements and “drive” them to a mental destination; in other words, a logical conclusion. This is a key feature of a rational mind.