Blasting The Foundations of Atheism Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism; Its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason Answering Richard Dawkins‟ (The God Delusion) Volume I Second Edition Written by: AbulFeda‟ 1 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism “Have you seen that which you plant and cultivate? Is it you who grow it from seeds, or are We (plural of majesty) the Fosterer? If We so willed, We verily could make it but wreckage, then would you cease not to exclaim: Oh! we are laden with debt! Oh! We are so deprived!” (Translation of The Quran 56:64-67) ―I do not think an atheist can actually prove his own existence!‖ ―The art of making up fallacy, compiling it, believing it, and passing it on to next generations; is indeed the easiest of human crafts!‖ ―Death is not a failure! Decay, pain and disease are not a defect in ths system! It is obviously and indisputably perfect, and this negative component is obviously an essential part of the perfect way it is made to work! So why does there have to be negative? You can never answer that on your own! You need to know the exact purpose of its making, and that can only come from He who created!‖ AbulFeda‘ 2 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism 3 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism Introduction نيحرلا ىاوحرلا الله نست .. ٍدحو لله دوحلا .. ٍدعت يثً لا يه ىلع ملاسلاو جلاصلاو .. دعت اهأ A ll praise be to Allah, Lord of all that exists.. Lord of those who accept the truth, and those who do not! Lord of those who see it for what it really is, and those who see not! Keeper and sustainer of those who praise Him, and those who praise Him not! It‟s been said that: ―Wisdom is the treasure of a Muslim; wherever it may be found, he‘s entitled to it‖ This is exactly what this book is about: Wisdom. As a Muslim, I am not searching for wisdom; I believe that what I already have and am about to exhibit here: IS wisdom. This is why Elder sages of Islam, students of the disciples (Salaf) never condoned or approved of the Greek practice of philosophy when it came to issues that have already been answered soundly and consistently by the scripture of Islam. Most of the philosophers of Greece lacked knowledge of the deity; they knew none other than those pagan gods that were by nature, highly questionable to every sane self-respecting man at the time! So to obtain the ultimate truth; I do not have to be a philosopher! Only those who lack wisdom and sound consistent answers to the largest questions of life would stick to theories of philosophers! I do not need to study philosophy or logic to be capable of thinking properly! I am not a philosopher or a logician, I never was and I never will call myself a philosopher! And the same goes to Richard Dawkins, author of (The God Delusion)! Perhaps he takes pride in studying some philosophy, 4 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism searching for the truth in that literature the way he does, I - on the other hand - do not! And I may easily tell him: “Sorry to disappoint you professor, but you‟ve been searching in all the wrong places!” Some people think that rational thinking has to be guided or governed by the theories of logicians and philosophers! Well, it doesn‟t! Rational thinking – as deep as it takes to examine a philosopher‟s argument – is not a practice that only a philosopher can do! It was not discovered or devised by a logician! And although the majority of arguments that professor Dawkins puts forth in his book are arguments tackled in the western society basically by philosophers of science and theologians, he was never held back from offering his own views on them by the fact that he is a professor of zoology not of philosophy or theology! He is simply a man who specialized in a certain field of human knowledge that – I must say – was for the most part founded on a philosophical stance that drove him – out of his own personal experience with rationale - to the position he is now adopting towards what he calls faith and religion! The problem now is that he thinks he is using science to make his case here, when indeed he is not, as I shall come to demonstrate! He is only applying fundamentally corrupt philosophical assumptions, supporting them with a radically false application of the scientific method! The rational issue of what “natural science” is, and what it is all about, is an issue that I addressed repeatedly on the course of this book, but let‟s just say for now that agreeing on a proper definition of science; its purpose, its limits, the nature of its tools and the way it operates, will certainly help us put the subject matter of this book in its correct discipline of human knowledge, and choose the correct tool of human reason to approach it! I should not go to the lab in search for answer to a question that CANNOT be answered by the tools and the means of “analytic chemistry” as a discipline of human knowledge, should I? A medical doctor is not in a place of authority to apply medicine for the sake of solving an economical problem, is he? But then again, all humans HAVE to contemplate in those 5 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism major questions and obtain their correct answers! Those questions about God, life, death, the purpose of life, and so forth! Now, in order for them to do that (to simply think properly); do they have to confine themselves to the postulates and theories produced by other humanly limited minds like their own? This would only be unfair wouldn‟t it? Those are people who knew not, and who only had their shots and attempts by postulating what they only hoped would be the truth! Should you my reader be confined in any way to the means they took, or the arguments they held in so doing? Do you have to follow the lead of this or that philosopher or this or that theologian only to learn how to apply axiomatic reason? What if his choices were all wrong? In fact this is exactly why disciplines of human knowledge would usually rejoice in the advent of a new theory that would bravely dig deep enough in the foundations of a previously adopted one, and prove the inconsistency inherent in its postulates! This is what made Einstein – for example - the champion of human knowledge that he is viewed to be! It takes bravery to question the foundations of a certain epistemic doctrine, a lot of bravery indeed; and it takes even more courage to put forth a totally different platform in its place! It is amazing though, that as revered as those icons of human knowledge are in the eyes of atheists, they would still hold fast to the platform they have chosen for their process of reasoning as though it is the only humanly acceptable rationale for the question in hand! Einstein did what he did only because he dared to break loose from the platform of the Newtonian conception of the universe! He said to himself: “This is only a model of the universe proposed by a man like myself; I‟m not forced by any authority to follow it as though it was unquestionable!” He was brave enough to challenge it – as foundational as it was to the field of theoretical physics in his time – and bring forth a different model! Atheists never had any problem with that “revolution”, did they? So why not be at ease with someone who does something similar with the Darwinian conception of life? Well, they may easily praise a new Darwin 6 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism that may one day come to offer them a better theory (of philosophy actually not of science), only as long as it includes no deity or metaphysical agency whatsoever! Only as long as his theory is confined to the same platform of thought and reason they have chosen to stand upon and to call „science‟, will it be granted approval in their eyes, and will it then rise to the magnitude of the advent of the theory of natural selection itself in their consideration! What a pity indeed! Should they for once succeed in taking off the dark, thick shades they put on their eyes, they would easily see that they are actually no different from any ministry of faith that defends and actually fights for its beliefs no matter how questionable they may be, except in the fact that those guys would call it theory of science, while priests would call it tenet or doctrine of faith! The meaning of faith and the meaning of theory in addition to the question of what science is, are questions that I will have to address throughout this book to a certain depth – for necessity of the arguments I will establish - , as I answer to Dr. Dawkins‟ arguments, not according to this or that philosopher; but according to a free mind that bears – because of its education in ultimate wisdom; the God-given knowledge of the truth - no submission whatsoever to any manmade hypothesis or postulate of any form! It will thus be only out of sheer coincidence that any of my arguments may come in resemblance to those of a particular philosopher or a theologian, and you can rest assured that I did not take him for reference or influence! I follow strictly the teaching of this magnificent verse of the Quran, and the knowledge that follows it in the Wisdom of Sunnah: ((Say Bring forth your evidence if you were telling the truth)) Translation (2|111) This is the basic axiom of reasoning that every Muslim who is well established in his faith, stands upon! For the sake of comprehending the arguments I put in this work, my reader will not need any previous education in philosophy or philosophical Jargon. One only has to have a mind that is capable of running properly, and 7 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism examining every argument of reason in an evidently correct manner, free from all bias, pride and prejudice, to see the truth for what it is! As for theorization of philosophy on the subject matter; this is merely a mental asylum of wishful thinking to those who know not, on the hope that perhaps one day, one of them would eventually come up with a convenient answer that may fill this monumental gap! Learning faith- along with its evident understanding – from its evidently divine source (scripture) is one thing, and postulating theory of philosophy is another! It‟s the difference between obtaining the answer from its only authoritative source; and – to put it simply - GUESSING it! Although this notion regarding the approach to understanding scripture may appear to be irrelevant to the purpose of “science”, it is actually far more relevant than many scientists may think, as will be explained in this literature! A sharp line of distinction has to be drawn clearly between what people propose to be the truth, and what is evidently the truth; between theory and indisputable fact, between what people like to call evidence, even if it does not meet the first rational criteria of what may be called evidence at all, and what is indeed irrefutable evidence and proof; between what is truly a question of science, and what some may insist on calling “a question of science” even as it is obviously not within the tool of science or its end purpose to begin with! This line of distinction, I declare, comes from the only correct understanding of the only true scripture rightly ascribed to the only true creator of the universe, as I shall come to demonstrate within this book. It is people like professor Dawkins that have to be addressed by this notion concerning the interpretation of scripture, to a certain level, as they attempt in many sections of their arguments against religion to raise the claim that dispute upon explanation of scriptures makes it easy for any holder of any false faith to find an easy way out of the charge, and claim that this is not the correct interpretation of those texts! This is a famous error of logic that he keeps making over and over throughout his argument against religion! The 8 Blasting The Foundations of Atheism fact that people differed in interpreting a certain text, does not disprove the authenticity of that text, neither does it render it obsolete! The fact that a certain volume of scripture has been proven inconsistent, does not prove that there is not a single statement of truth anywhere in its midst! The fact that a certain religion has been proven corrupt does not prove that all religions on Earth are nonsense, not to mention disprove the existence of God Himself! Those – my kind reader - are but a few examples of a barrage of scandalous logical errors and irrationalities underlying the arguments made by the professor throughout his book, as shall be elaborated in detail in this volume. As I pointed out earlier, it is not science we are going to be discussing here for the most part; it is the underlying philosophy that constitutes the western secular understanding of what science itself is and what it is about, in the first place! One of the signs any sane man should identify for the truth about the meaning of life – even before he examines it – when it is taken from any scripture, is that it should be by definition: Quite simple! You do not have to hold a PHD in philosophy to understand – as a human – what your creator is addressing to you! It is inherently unfair that only the most intelligent of men could understand it! If indeed the Lord creator is the source of this bulk of knowledge that you people – from any faith - ascribe to Him, then it must be comprehensible and easily accessible to every healthy human mind: and at that; you will never need to practice philosophy in attempt to explain it or understand it! Once you‟re sufficiently educated in the language of scripture, you should only have to use the clearest, the simplest and the most profound axioms of human reason to understand it, the way those people who were originally addressed by it did! Otherwise, what wisdom would there be in a God that chooses to teach meaningless riddles or irrational claims to humanity? Now, let me tell you what this book is not. This book is not about the refutation of (The God Delusion). It certainly doesn‟t take two volumes spanning over a thousand pages to refute (The God Delusion)! I chose (The God Delusion) in particular to achieve my 9