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

by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

So why is atheism like a taxi-driver with a blindfold on? Most forms of atheism imply philosophical naturalism, which demands that reason (and everything else) must only be explained via blind, non-rational physical processes. However, just as you cannot drive passengers to their office with a blindfold on, physical processes that are blind can never “drive” any premises in our minds to a mental destination. Therefore, atheism is in effect equivalent to rejecting reason itself, because it invalidates its own assumption.

Our ability to reason simply does not fit within the naturalistic worldview, because rationality cannot come from blind...

To maintain that it can is the same as believing that something can come from nothing. From this perspective atheism is irrational. Atheism invalidates the thin...

So why is Islamic theism like a taxi-driver who can see? Our ability to form mental insights fits within Islamic theism because this ability makes sense (i.e. is explained adequately) if it was given to us by the Creator Who is All-Seeing, The-Knowing and The-Wise. A thing cannot give rise to something if it does not c...

In other words, rationality can only come from rationality. This is why our ability to form mental insig...

Atheist: “There is no evidence for the existence of God. Belief in God is irrational.” Muslim: “That’s an interesting assertion. Before we continue, can I ask you, do you believe that you have rational faculties? In other words, do you believe you can reason?” Atheist: “Obviously. Any rational person would deny God. There’s simply no evidence.”

Muslim: “Okay, great. So can I ask, how do you explain your rational faculties under atheism?” Atheist: “What do you mean?” Muslim: “Well, do you believe all phenomena can be explained via physical stuff? And do you believe that there is no supernatural?” Atheist: “Sure.”

Muslim: “Physical stuff is just blind and non-rational. So how can rationality come from non-rationality? How can anything arise from something that does not contain it or have the potential to give rise to it? How can we form rational insights based on blind physical processes? In this light, how can you explain your ability to reason?” Atheist: “Well, we have a brain that has evolved.” Muslim: “Okay, and according to atheism an evolved brain is based on physical stuff too, no?” Atheist: ...

Muslim: “That’s not true; holding non-rational beliefs about the world can lead to survival too.” Atheist: “So what? We both assume reason to be true, so it’s not an issue.” Muslim: “Well, for me it isn’t. But under atheism your ability to reason does not make sense. Atheism has invalidated the very assumption that it claims to use to deny God. So it is absurd to be an atheist since atheism nullifies reason itself.” Atheist: “No, you have to prove God to me first.” Muslim: “That’s a cop-out, because your use of the word ‘proof’ assumes your ability to reason. However, you are not justified in making such an assumption because rationality is nullified under atheism. Rationality cannot come from non-rationality. From this perspective, atheism is irratio...

What is reason? In the context of this argument, reason refers to the fact that we have rational faculties. We can acquire truth, we desire to disco...

A significant aspect of our rational faculties is the ability to come to a logically valid conclusion. When we reason logically, our conclusions will be based on our rational insight that is occurring in our minds; we see that the conclusion follows. Technically speaking, the conclusions we make are based on the logical relations between the premises of a logical argument. We see that the conclusion follows based on these relations. This “seeing” cannot be ...

In summary, when we reason logically we have a mental insight that the conclusion follows logically; it is logically c...

Deductive arguments are a good example to explain our rational insights. Deductive arguments are where the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. It is sound...

Consider the following deductive argument: All bachelors are unmarried men. John is a bachelor. Therefore, John is an unmarried man. We know that (3) necessarily follows from (1) and (2) based on our insight. Nothing in the physical world can prove why (3) is connected to the previous premises; in other words, why it logically follows. The conclusion doesn’t only necessarily follow by virtue of the meaning of the words in the premises[65], it does so due to the relations occurring between them.[66] The connection between the conclusion and the logical...

These relations cannot be explained using physical or empirical evidence. Our minds have directed and driven our insight (in other words, established these logical relations) to conclude that (3) must follow from (1) and (2). Our minds have taken premises (1) and (2) and driven or directed our insight to conclude (3). However, being driven or directed to a mental destination or endpoint is not a characteristic of a physical process. Physical processes are blind, random and have no intentional force directing them anywhere. This means that we cannot use physical processes to account for our ability to achieve an insight into a conclusion.

The human practice of science rests on the assumption that we can reason. This means that the existence of reason cannot be fully accounted for by any type of scientific explanation. For example, when a scientist attempts to address a testable hypothesis or an answerable question, there is an assumption that the results can be rationalised. Scientists also accept that they have the ability to assess the logical validity of a scientific explanation. This obviously assumes that the scientist can use her reason before she performs any science.

Attempting to demonstrate how reason emerged via some physical process does nothing to explain its transcendent dimension. This includes the ability to come to a logically valid conclusion that is determined by an insight in one’s mind. This is why relying solely on a scientific explanation is inadequate: it fails to account for the fact that we see the conclusion in our minds. We have the ability to make a logical conclusion based on the relations between premises.

We can also do this without the key words in the premises being based on anything we can understand or verify empirically. Science can only deal with what can be observed in some way; logical relations between premises cannot be observed. Since science requires reason in order to begin to explain reason, to argue that it can somehow justify our ability to reason would be tantamount to arguing in a circle. Science is a useful tool to help us understand the world, but it has many limitations (see Chapter 12).

Under atheism we cannot justify our rational faculties Most atheists are philosophical naturalists; naturalism asserts that there is no supernatural, and that physical processes can explain all phenomena.

The ability to take premises and “drive” them towards a mental destination is invalidated if one postulates that the ability comes from blind, non-rational physical processes. A thing cannot give rise to something if it does not contain it, or if it does not have the ability (or the potential) to give rise to it. For example, I cannot give you $500 if I do not have the money, and I cannot raise the amount if I am jobless with bad credit (this principle will be used throughout this book). Likewise, if physical processes do not contain rationality, then how do they give rise to it?

Physical processes by definition do not contain rationality, and they do not have “insight”.

They cannot see the conclusion that follows from an argument. Physical processes are not purposefully or intentionally driven or directed. Therefore, to even suggest that rationality can come from non-rational physical processes is exac...

imagine there are two bus-drivers. The first has good eyesight and is an experienced driver. The second bus-driver is blind and inexperienced. The first driver starts his journey and picks up two people called “Premise 1” and “Premise 2”. Their final destination is “Conclusion”. He sees the destination on his map and as the journey is coming to an end he clearly observes the final stop. The second driver is escorted to his bus at the bus station. Waiting on the bus are “Premise 1” and “Premise 2”. Their destination is the same as in the first scenario. The driver manages to start the bus. However, do you think he will reach the destination? Just like the taxi-driver with the blindfold, he will never reach the final destination. Physical processes suffer the same problem. They are blind. They cannot explain reason because a feature of rationality is the ability to derive insight or reach a conclusion, and one cannot obtain insight from something that is blind.

To assert such a thing is the equivalent of saying something can arise from nothing. From this perspective, atheism—because of its naturalistic perspective—is not only irrational, but an adversary of reason. It invalidates the thing that is required to make any claim about God: reason itself. Since rationality cannot come from non-rationality, it follows that naturalism cannot explain our ability to reason.

Human rationality involves the ability to establish meaningful conclusions. The very fact that we can question the implications or the meaning of a conclusion (even if we do not know its meaning, as in the case of the modifus above) indicates that human rationality involves meaningful insights. Computer programmes do not have these meaningful insights. In actual fact, a computer system is based on syntactical rules (the manipulation of symbols), not on semantics (meaning).

Even Charles Darwin himself had his doubts about this matter. He understood that our ability to acquire truth could not be accounted for if it had only evolved from lower life-forms. He wrote in a letter in 1881: “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[68]

Firstly, our ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood is not a requirement for survival. Secondly, achieving mental insights is also not a requirement for our continual existence. Evolution is about the ability to survive, not about the ability to make logically valid conclusions. Finally, our ability and desire to discover—which is a necessary feature of a rational mind—is often detrimental to our survival.

So how can we explain our desire to discover, resulting in activities that are detrimental to survival? The answer is, we cannot. These desires do not make sense if one adopts naturalistic evolution. In conclusion, our higher levels of rationality and desire to learn often lead us to spend time in ‘superfluous’ activities which do not aid survival and reproduction, such as art, spirituality, philosophy or designing novel contraceptive techniques. Natural selection should have eliminated all of these, because such behaviours have no adaptive benefits. Because the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism explains only “survival and reproduction”, it cannot account for our ability to reason, nor for its most conspicuous characteristic: the desire to discover.

It should be clear from these two problems that the Darwinian theory of evolution, which is geared towards survival, not truth, is an inadequate explanation of our ability to reason and desire to discover. Academics have recognised these problems and have made some startling remarks. Biologist John Gray states:

“If the human mind has evolved in obedience to the imperatives of survival, what reason is there for thinking that it can acquire knowledge of reality, when all that is required in order to reproduce the species is that its errors and illusions are not fatal? A purely naturalisti...

DNA discoverer Francis Crick said, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendants.”[71] Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker wrote, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”[72] Although Sam Harris, outspoken atheist and neuroscientist, believes that science will eventually give us answers, he admits that “…our logical, mathematical, and physical intuitions have not been designed by natural selection to track the Truth.”[73]

In summary, when atheists claim to have used their rational faculties to prove that God does not exist, it is a form of intellectual hypocrisy. To account for the fact that they have a rational mind, they have to deny atheism or deny reason itself. The intellectual irony is that their ability to reason is best explained by the existence of God.

I could not give you a loaf of bread if I did not have one in the first place or if I did not have the ability to obtain or make one. This is based on the following rational principle: A thing cannot give rise to something else if it does not contain it, or if it does not have the ability to give rise to it. For instance, non-rational forces cannot give rise to rationality, as they do not contain it in the first place. Physical processes are non-rational because they do not have any “insight”. They cannot see a conclusion following from previous premises.

God makes sense of the fact that we have rational minds, because rationality can come from the Creator Who is All-Seeing, The-Knowing and The-Wise.

If in the beginning of the universe there had been only non-rational, blind, random, physical matter and processes, then no matter how they were arranged they could not give rise to rationality. However, if in the beginning there was a creator with the names and attributes mentioned above, it follows that the universe can contain conscious beings with the ability to reason. From this perspective, atheists actually need God to account for their rational faculties. Therefore, the existence of a Creator Who is ...

This brings to mind a beautiful verse of the Qur’an: God says, “We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within their own selves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is over all things a Witness?”[74] God continuously encourages us to ponder, to use our minds: “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?”[75] “So will you not reason?”[76]

These verses signify that we have the ability to reason and ponder on the natural world to attain truth. God also says in the Qur’an: “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the Earth and in the alternation of the night and the day are signs for the people of understanding.”[77] From this we can draw a comprehensive conclusion. God gave us rational minds and the desire to discover so that we can use our rational faculties to understand the universe in all its beauty, which in turn leads us to worship the One Who created it (see Chapter 15

God of the gaps The “god of the gaps” objection asserts that a gap in scientific knowledge about a particular phenomenon should not give rise to belief in God’s existence, or reference to Divine activity, because science will eventually progress far enough to provide an explanation. This objection cannot be applied to the argument presented in this chapter because it does not address a gap within scientific knowledge; it addresses the foundations of science. The ability to reason is required before any science can take place. To argue that science will eventually explain its own assumptions is tantamount to arguing in a circle. This discussion is beyond the realm of science, as we are discussing the foundational assumptions of science itself. Hence the “god of the gaps” objection is in this case misplaced.

Computer programmes are based on the manipulation of symbols, not meanings.

William Hasker explains, “Computers function as they do because they have been endowed with rational insight. A computer, in other words, is merely an extension of the rationality of its designers and users; it is no more an independent source of rational insight than a television set is an independent source of news entertainment.”[85]

Atheism does not—and cannot—have a monopoly on reason. It is a shame that there is a growing perception that atheists are rational and that atheism is based on reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. Blind, random physical processes cannot account for our ability to reason. This is why atheism invalidates the very thing it claims to use to reject the Divine.

However, according to Islamic theism, we live in a rational universe created by the All-Seeing, The-Wise and The-Knowing Creator, who gave us the ability to reason. This is coherent and accounts fully for our rational faculties; nothing else will (indeed, nothing else can). Maintaining that blind, random physi...

Those who persist in this thinking are in fact adversaries of reason. They are no different from a taxi-driver putting on a blindfold and insisting that he ca...

The reason you prefer the first scenario is because you—like the rest of the reasonable people out there—regard the reality of the past as a self-evident truth. As with all self-evident truths, if someone challenges them, the burden of proof is on the one who has questioned them.

A theist invites his atheist friend for dinner, and during the meal the atheist asserts, “You know, God does not exist. There’s no evidence for his existence.”

The theist replies with a barrage of different arguments for God’s existence. However, has the theist adopted the right strategy? Before we present a positive case for God’s existence, shouldn’t we be probing why questioning God’s existence is the assumed default question? It shouldn’t be: Does God exist? Rather, it should be: What reasons do we have to reject His existence?

Now, do not get me wrong. I believe we have many good arguments that support a belief in God, and these are discussed in this book. The point I am raising here is that if there are no arguments against God’s existence, the...

Self-evident truths We consider many beliefs to be self-evidently true. This means the belief can be described as natural or true by default. Some of them include: The uniformity of nature The law of causality The reality of the past The validity of our reasoning The existence of other minds The existence of an external world When someone questions these truths, we do not blindly accept their conclusions, and we usually reply, “What evidence do you have to reject them?”

These truths are self-evident because they are characterised by being: Universal: Not a product of a specific culture, they are cross-cultural. This doesn’t imply that everyone believes in the truth, or that there is some kind of consensus. The self-evident truth is not born out of specific social conditions. Untaught: Not based on information transfer. They are not acquired via information external to your introspection and senses. In other words, they are not learnt via acquiring knowledge. Natural: Formed due to the natural functioning of the human psyche. Intuitive: The simplest and most comprehensive interpretation of the world. Let’s apply the above features to the belief that the past is real.

God: a self-evident truth Just like the belief that the past was once the present, the existence of God is also a self-evident truth. What is meant by ‘God’ in this chapter is the basic concept of a creator, a nonhuman personal cause or designer. It does not refer to a particular religious conception of a deity or God. The following discussion explains why the belief in this basic idea of God is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive.