The Human Dilemma: One of the Problems of Atheism

The Human Dilemma: One of the Problems of Atheism The atheistic view faces several problems and dilemmas that put it in the field of weakness and inability to explain and reasoning, including these dilemmas of the bones (human dilemma) in all its ramifications and ramifications, and Mr. Abdul Wahab Al-Masiri has expressed God's mercy in most of his writings on this dilemma, calling it the word (human being transcendent) and means the human being who exceeded the limits of his material and the ability to explain his behavior and thought purely material explanation Mind. Physical (experimental) science studies phenomena on a deconstructive basis so that the material divides the basis of research into small parts to put it under experiment and study the content of its nature and the relationships that govern it. Science from this perspective is limited to the perception of faculties and linking them to their ends, and from this point of view rely on it (to draw the outlines of experience and human purpose) is considered a point of view in this science itself. In this sense, the study of the mind is one of the most important studies that show the ability of man to transcend physical reality and build frameworks to govern it (it is an organism that is able to develop moral systems that do not stem from the natural/material program that governs its body, material needs and instincts and is able to adhere to and violate them, and it is the only organism that has developed a system of internal meanings and symbols through which it perceives reality).[2] Here we have the right to ask: where does man develop these moral systems? And what gene or cell is responsible for these actions? For example, Begovic wonders (if someone tried to save a child from the rubble and returned this man, and the child is dead and the man is about to perish, why do we value this act and make its owner a hero)[3] Although the physical reality on the whole physical level is damage Why make his work valuable? Here comes the role of the mind and its wonderful innate system that shows the transcendence of the material reality of man. Scientists have lost the understanding of the essence of the mind and chose the doctrine of atheist (material) restrict its meaning in the brain and deny any spiritual aspect that helps this activity, so they made the whole mind is: interactions in the brain cells is a biochemical reaction issued by human actions and thoughts and behavior. Here Engels says: "The tangible physical world to which we ourselves belong is the only truth; our consciousness and our thinking, however sensitive they may seem, are the product of matter, the bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not the product of thought, but the idea itself is only the highest product of matter."[4] The New Atheist monks did not disagree with this concept, as Sam Harris says: "A scientific understanding of the relationship between intentions, human relationships, and human happiness conditions will have a profound effect on knowing the nature of good and evil, and on knowing the appropriate answer to the moral outrages of others. It is clear from his words that he is trying to link mental moral judgments with natural scientific understanding! Based on the previous assumption that the mind is a group of biochemical cells that interact specifically to produce thought and behavior, I will put a set of problems and obligations to the followers of the physical methodology: To accept this definition, which determines that human action, behavior and thought are a group of cells (what if we can control this group of cells)? The obligation of this problem is that: if we can control these cells, the will and free will of man will disappear, or as the Messiri calls it (the end of man), the judgments will be annulled and we can by manipulating these cells change the concept of rape from a dirty act, for example, to a toxic act! Assuming we accept that it is the cells that produce thought and its behavior, we ask the question: is man in control or is he aware of the movement of these cells? The obligation of this problem is: Since we now recognize that we do not see the movement of these cells or their interactions, they are outside the cognitive space for us and are outside our control, and therefore any action issued by man will be negligent also because the movement of these cells and their interactions are outside of his will and perception and this obligation entails negating any judgment of good or evil from any human action because the intention is to abstain with these cells unconsciously controlling human actions and behavior! To refute this view from a material scientific point of view as well, we convey the opinion of the famous neuroscientist Banfield, who drew the mechanisms of the senses in the brain and this is his experience: "Touching the area of speech in the brain leads to a temporary loss of speech ability (jail) in the patient, and due to the lack of sensation in the brain, the patient does not realize that he is suffering from aphasia only when he tries to speak or understand speech and is unable to do so! Banfield tells what happened once: (While one of my assistants shows the patient a picture of a butterfly was drawn to the electrode (elector) on the cortex of the pronunciation and the patient remained silent moment. I was not able to pronounce the word (butterfly) so I tried to pronounce the word (a moth) which is similar to the butterfly and finally the patient concluded that the patient is unable to speak the name of the butterfly! Then he says (the man with his mind understood the picture shown on the screen and asked his brain to speak the word that corresponds to the same concept in his mind) And when the word is not identical with the mind, but directed from him, the words are tools On words from the mechanism of speech when presenting concepts and we can replace the conscience of the absent in this process of introspection with the word mind, the work of the mind is not a mechanical work." Banfield found similar results in areas of the brain that control movements: when I got a patient to move his hand by putting the electrode on the motor cortex in one of his hemispheres, I repeatedly asked him about it, and he always replied, “I didn’t move my hand, but you moved it.” As a result of observing hundreds of patients in this way, Banfield concludes that the mind of the patient observing the situation in such isolation and monetary fashion must be something else that is completely different from the action of the involuntary nerves. He draws another conclusion: “There is nowhere in the cortex of the brain where electrical stimulation can make the patient think or decide something, and electrodes can evoke sensations and memories, but they cannot make the patient make up the logical analogy, or solve problems in algebra, but they cannot make in the mind the simplest elements of logical thought and electrodes can make the patient’s body move, but they cannot make him want to move. “Throughout my scientific career, I, like other scientists, have striven to prove that the brain explains the mind.” The two writers who quoted his experiences in their books (Science from its New Perspective) comment: "He began armed with all the assumptions of the old view, but the evidence eventually led him to conclude that human reason and human will are immaterial truths." Banfield declares: "What an interesting thing, then, to reveal that the world can in turn truly believe in the existence of the soul if reason and will are immaterial."[6] By the end of this article, the physical view of the mind has been refuted philosophically and scientifically, and the underlying meaning remains the origin through which the mind can build its moral system and transcend its physical reality, although we do not deny the necessity of brain activity to think, but it is an imperfect condition needs a soul to enable it to control and this is expressed by Masri in his dialogues when he said: When you close your eyes to reach the structure, you see because man has a physical sense of the nature of things and eyes. [1] Abu al-Fida, from Makhazi, Priests of Atheism; Modern Science nullifies free will, Journal of Monotheism, Issue XIII. [2] Material Philosophy and the Dismantling of Man, Dr. Abdulwahab Al-Masiri, House of Thought 2007. [3] Islam between East and West, Ali Izet Begovi , Dar al-Shorouk. [4] Marx and Engels, anthology, translated by Elias Shaheen, Progress House, Russia. [5] Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, (2005) [6] Robert M. Agros and George Nstancio, Science from its New Perspective, translated by Dr. Kamal Halili, 1989. [7] Abd al-Wahab al-Mesiri, Culture and Curriculum Dialogues, Thought House 2009. Ammar Suleiman — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2014-02-03 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/philosophy/المعضلة-الإنسانية-إحدى-إشكالات-النظرة-الإلحادية