Innate Human Nature Revisited

Innate Human Nature Revisited Atheism was never a behavior that was compatible with nature.[1] It is a perceptive behavior, and there is no evidence of its reluctance and dissonance to the instinct that it is a conscious decision made by man late in life. Faith is a need that expresses the whole human being, not only a knowledge component, that humans enjoy and then cancel out of their role as we do when we reformulate the hard drive. In other words: belief in the Creator is not just a knowledge or an idea. To say that faith is a need and a necessary branch of the self-poverty of man as opposed to the self-richness of his Creator, and between our awareness of both sides of this ratio is born our awareness of the meaning of slavery on the part of the slave and the livestock on the part of the creator. Since faith is for us a need or a direction, the aim of what the atheist does is to direct this energy towards himself or dissipate it in other directions, and thus, as the philosopher Paul Tillich pointed out. Voltaire says: "If God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him"; Voltaire, by the way, is a great speaker of the West, and his epistemology is often used to imply atheism or the correctness of the choice of atheism itself, which is not true. He is neither an atheist nor a atheist. Voltaire wants to tell us that belief in the Creator and others, as I have already mentioned, is not only the result of a logical Aristicist-style practice, or even mathematical reasoning. Not many realize that this assumption by the atheist is based on a false understanding of the mind itself. The correct perception of the mind requires that the demands of emotion and attitudes of conscience are embedded in the work of the mind and the decision-making process. Lately, the West has realized that the mind has both emotional and intellectual foundations, and is guided by ethical tendencies. This has been confirmed by a group of scientists and researchers such as George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Antonio Damasio, and others. What does this mean? It means that when an atheist makes a decision about his atheism, he has responded to a thought driven by some emotional demand, not to “pure logic” or “pure thought,” because, according to neuroscientist and consciousnessist Antonio Damasio, there is no such thing as “thought” without an “emotional” foundation. Therefore, Lakoff and Johnson argue that the modern conception of the mind is a challenge to the Western dictum, which is influenced by the Greek philosophical concept, and then the Cartesian concept of the mind. We further argue that the new conception of the mind is fully consistent with the prophetic Qur’anic conception of the mind, it is not trapped in the brain but in the middle of the psyche and connected to the brain, but it is, as Damasio decides, the result of his connection with the demands of the whole organism. Impressionism as well as its abolition, but practicing what is known in psychology as "displacement" or "rejection", or "suppression", and the greatest evidence that this is the reality is that many agnostics who thought that they had made the decision of their atheism based on the dictates of the right mind - in their perception - returned to believe in the Creator, is it possible that they returned after they eradicated the reason of injunction of their first atheism? [1] Sanderson, S. K. (2008) Adaptation, Evolution, and Religion, Religion, 38: 141-156. [2] Smith, Huston (1990) Postmodernism's Impact on the Study of Religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 659. - Dr. Abdullah bin Saeed Al Shehri — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2014-02-01 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/philosophy/الفطرة-من-جديد