the Critique of the Atheist Employment of the Data of Science

the Critique of the Atheist Employment of the Data of Science Atheism today employs quantum physics in a way that is not devoid of an ideological purpose; where this tendency cuts the hypothesis of coincidence of existence, claiming the negation of the system, to the negation of divinity. In short, this is the methodical approach that is engaged by the latest atheistic thought today claiming to be aware of the data of science and the creator of its currents, although it employs these data in a way that did not even occur to its creators! This atheistic attitude forgets that in the nineteenth century atheisticism with Laplace and Marx ... was based on physical determinism in order to confirm its atheism, so that when Napoleon asked him about the place of God in his physical order with a regular clock, he said, I need not, because the universe is internally self-regulating! This contradiction is sufficient in my estimation to expose ideological employment; the atheistic question is not an expression of an awareness of the developments of science, but merely an employment to document a pre-existing position of belief. Otherwise, this complete contradiction would not have occurred in the use of science (i.e., contradiction: inferring the system of existence from its dispensation of any external force (theism) with Laplace; and today inferring chaos and chance in the physics of the quent (theism) of existence. Between this and that, I want in this article to direct thinking towards the epistemology of science (2) to consider its methodological foundations, and the extent of its ability to answer the question of the meaning of existence religious answer or atheistic answer: –1– Philosophers define the teleological significance of science as a mental activity aimed at understanding nature. In this sense, it is clear that scientific thinking is based on a pre-principled idea of believing in the sensibility of nature, otherwise it would not be subject to the process of understanding and reason. This assumption within the scientific mind is a starting point for scientific practice; so I want to point out that the logical perception is equal to the other types of thinking in containing unproven assumptions, where they take the starting points to prove others and not themselves. This is what we find confirmed in the logical theory, where Kurt G del showed the impossibility of proving a cognitive system on all his issues, and therefore the cognitive patterns must contain a primary. Epistemology of Science. How does science relate to natural existence? Nature is a set of things and phenomena governed by evolution, and to mentally grasp this moving natural existence science had to fabricate tools and means to enable it to perceive the universe. One of the most important of these is concepts. The extension of objects and phenomena is likened to the concept of space; the process of existence, i.e., its movement, is like the concept of time... The sequence of phenomena one after the other has made science fabricate the concept of causal/inevitable relation to the rationality of this process. Classical Western science since its inception in the seventeenth century, taking advantage of the Arab-Islamic cultural balance, has been based on this concept, namely, the regularity of nature and its ability to formulate and quantize athletes. But the developments that have occurred since the beginning of the twentieth century have eased the fallacy of this inevitable perception of natural existence, and introduced a new factor is chance, where it was found that existence is not enterable in all its phenomena and fields within these frameworks and mental categories adopted by scientific consciousness. –2– Quantum physics holds that the subatomic field is not as causal and deterministic as the physical field we are familiar with in our day-to-day dealings. Heisenberg therefore establishes the law of “indeterminism” or “non-determinism” as a necessary methodological approach to understanding the internal structure of an atom. In fact, before Heisenberg, beginning with Max Planck’s research, it was no longer enough to study the cosmological phenomenon by relying on Newton and Maxwell, but rather to move to a new paradigm of knowledge that transcends the concepts of causality and determinism. By revealing the subatomic field to scientific and philosophical consciousness, quantum physics has opened up new questions about the nature of existence: Is it really an orderly existence, or is chance an essential part of its composition? If we say the existence of chance, does this mean the absence of causality that regulates existence, and therefore the absence of a rational will (the divinity in the religious sense) that organized it? Before considering the quality of the physical answer circulating today on the question of chance, I want to ask a preliminary question that I see as an entry to reconsider and reflect on the nature of the research of the physics of Quanta: Does the subatomic world really reveal chaos? Or is this chaos merely the product of the weakness of our scientific tools and means of measurement? The thematic field of atomic physics is the heart of many postulates, concepts, and methods. Even within logic, the region has argued that Aristotelian formal logic should be replaced because it is based on a dualist value vision (summarized by the third raised principle), and is thus incapable of containing this new and surprising existential phenomenon. In the face of this supernatural phenomenon of classical scientific thinking and its logical pattern in its approach to existence, rationalism had no choice but to take a position on three possible positions, as Roger Moscheli says: Either the coincidence observed in some phenomena of nature is the product of our ignorance of the laws of these phenomena and their causes. This is indeed what Poincar expresses by saying: "The coincidence is only the measure of our ignorance." The second hypothesis is that chance is the product of the intersection of two or more chains of independent causes and this is the famous definition developed by Cornu. The third hypothesis can be taken from Bergson’s definition of the meaning of chance,5 which he set out to illustrate with his example: “A strong wind cut a roof of bricks and fell on a man who was passing by on the way and died.” Bergson concludes from this example that it is important to note that we describe chance only when there is a human interest involved. Thus, chance is a kind of human interpretation of deterministic phenomena. –3– Looking at the research on the problem of quantum physics, we see that some of the philosophical interpretations advanced by physicists tend to say that chance is existential rather than cognitive. In other words, subatomic existence is a supernatural existence of causal regularity! The failure to disclose the causes and forms of its regularity is not the product of the weakness of our means of knowledge, but rather the product of the nature of subatomic existence itself. But is there really a scientific possibility of such a scenario? Does the physicist working in the atomic field have systematic tools that allow him to make definite determinations about this precise existential field in which he works? I am inclined to think that this conception of existence which is due to chance is lacking in deterministic reasoning, it is only a hypothesis. Here I invoke Jacques Hartonck, one of the leading specialists in the calculation of probability, who distinguishes between what he calls a fragile objective coincidence, and a solid objective coincidence; the first is due to the weakness of the instruments of knowledge, the second is an ontological coincidence that occurs because of the very nature of existence, from which chance does not exist. I see in Hartonk a confirmation of the relativity of human cognitive ability, and standing at its limited awareness of existence. He says a great deal of the touch of science and the wisdom of scientists, and if the advocates of atheistic thought today had some of this wisdom, they would not have facilitated this ideological employment of science and its data. But on the other hand, many of our preachers fall into the same chute and see them in the name of the scientific miracle they cut a few cognitive information broadcast by science, so they rush to establish on them matches in the necks of the Quranic and modern texts, in a way that neither science nor the Sharia text itself allows. We should know that the transcendence of the total reality of existence makes every cognitive approach to it doomed to first realize that this fact is a belief that must be put into submission. We as Muslims believe in our Qur’an do not feel the largest scientific mind I do not know, nor the smallest atheist contradicts the statements of science without understanding its origins, if not, because we know that every cognitive system – whether scientific or non-scientific – must exist. And every object to reduce this fact - on its hour and depth - rationally claims trust and comprehensiveness, so - in our view - behavior is not cognitive; because it results from ignorance of the truth of the mind itself and its limited epistemological potential by its formative nature, and not only by its cognitive portable. (1) Text of the phrase in French Ne me faut pas de cette hypoth se Epistemology is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, method, and field of knowledge, and the ontology branch of philosophy comes as the study of the existence and being of things. Godel's first incompleteness proof (4) Antony Augustin Cournot, The Creative Power of Chance, p13. (5) Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, p233–234. - Dr. Al-Tayeb Bu Azza — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2014-08-05 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/في-نقد-التوظيف-الإلحادي-لمعطيات-العلم