The Science Between Faith and Atheism: Towards a Deeper Analysis of Atheist Claims

The Science Between Faith and Atheism: Towards a Deeper Analysis of Atheist Claims Before you start... Let's imagine together a young science-loving researcher who filled his heart with admiration for the car engine and wanted to stand on the secret of his work (to give this young man the name X), where the young man (X) collected a sum of money and actually bought an engine from one of the engineering exhibitions and spent all his time to dismantle its parts part until he finally reached to understand how to work and operate it and now: This position of young man (X) will be the focus of examples with us in this subject, God willing. 1- Meaning of science: Knowledge in the Arabic language is the full knowledge of the thing and its truth and faculties and parts, which is greater than the concept of knowledge of the thing, which is limited to partial or simple perception of it, the relationship of young (x) engine, for example, before examining and standing on the secret of all its parts is described as knowledge, but after taking note of all these details It has become knowledge, so Allah is always described by the qualities of knowledge. We know that God is omniscient and that He is omniscient and omniscient. It is worth mentioning here that the word science in this Arabic and Islamic concept is bigger than the word (Science) in English and wider than the comprehensive and surrounding, so the closest to its meaning is the word (knowledge) although the English use it a lot as a synonym for the meaning of knowledge!! Therefore we find the word scientist in our Arabic is more widely used in its meaning and religious and secular diversities than the word (Scientist), which is relatively modern in English and means only specialist in the natural sciences. Human research into causes and causes: There is no doubt that man's knowledge of something and his knowledge of it will be achieved only by looking at its causes and causes to reach a comprehensive vision of it and a complete understanding of it, a journey that starts from observation, research and experimentation in describing the thing and indicating how it works, and ends if we can answer for the purpose or why it exists or occurs? The cause of the actor: is to find out the description of the object and how it works and its occurrence - like the coroner who studies the crime and describes its circumstances accurately - it requires that the object or its physical effects are already in the study and monitored before the researcher. But does not require the knowledge of the actor or the manufacturer himself in the study, and we have seen that the young (x) in the detection of how the engine works by the creator and not. Also the validity of research does not depend on the belief or religion or doctrine of life. The teleological cause: it is to find out the purpose of the actor of the thing and why, such as the policeman detective who reveals the character of the criminal and his motives and so on, and this cause - contrary to the cause of the actor - is related to the search for the absent of the five human senses; hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch, which is the non-existent actor or his non-material motives. It can be represented in the case of the young person (x) by knowing the character of the engine maker or his motives to make the engine for the first time. If we come to explain the purpose or why the earthquake occurred at this particular time or this place is damaged - such as the destruction of houses and swallowing and the death of people - or it is useful - such as the appearance of some of the earth's treasures or important fossils -? When we first came to the conclusion that there was a difference between faith and knowledge, when we found the answer to each of these problems, such as the earthquake, we saw the atheist deliberately deducting the error from the words of the believer to make people believe that it is the only answer he has to explain the earthquake, and that it is, of course, an unscientific answer because it cannot be observed or verified experimentally. The Limits of Natural Science and the Limits of Religion From the previous explanation, we see that the limits of natural science, which is the consideration of assets around humans, are limited to searching for the causes that are effective in things, for the purpose of understanding, interpreting and extracting their rules and laws, either to avoid their harms or to adapt their benefits, as well as to satisfy scientific curiosity, and the tools of natural science in this are the human senses that are driven by his mind to analyze their data and inputs and design their experiments, and then write down their observations to finally come up with results, explanations, theories or laws. Natural science thus has two parts, an experimental physical part relating to the senses and observation, and a purely mental parting in observation, inference, measurement, induction and deduction, and then deduction and generalization of the hypothesis or law. Religions, which are generally guided by belief in a Creator, include the limits of material assets and make them a mental tool and a function of them, and then it is beyond them to the formation of a wanted actor and goals, and in this way it exceeds the limits of human senses to pour in his use of (mind) analyst thinking in all things and relations around him, to reach general qualities certain of the Creator or the maker, and prove his presence and ability in existence. Then the messages of the apostles come to tell us what the Creator wants from us, and how he wants us to live on it and act to achieve his will in us - which can not be reached by our research in the effective causes or in the natural sciences or the senses of man alone, as we have said - and so we can represent natural science in a larger circle, which is religion and does not conflict with it, but we can not reverse the position of the two circles where natural science can not only be used for the purposes of religion. For example, when we come to a particular biological reaction within a living cell and ask natural scientists to study it, analyze it and work on it, we expect reports from them that translate to us each of them specialize in some aspect of the material in front of him or its effects. We expect reports, for example, for chemists on the interactions of particles of materials and their atoms, and reports for physicists on the particles inside of these atoms, and reports for biologists on the details of what happened inside this living cell as a whole! If we understand this: the second alleged disagreement between science and faith, which was portrayed by the atheists in the form of the non-submission of all religion to natural and experimental science and conflict with it, where we have now seen that the problem is in trying to bring the tools of the search for the effective cause of nature and the universe - such as the senses - to search us in the teleological cause, which is the Creator and his will and the occult religion, and even the matter of that size of the universe will be more complicated than the search in the young man's. Natural science cannot solve the absolute mystery of nature, because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of nature, and therefore part of the mystery we are trying to solve. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Therefore, the rule of natural science over religion consists only in searching and ascertaining the texts of mental and natural cosmology, to judge the truth of this religion or lie, and not to deny the occult altogether just because it is not subject to the tools of his material research! If the facts of certainty discovered in natural science conflict with the rationality and texts of a religion, it gives an indication to the wiser to rule out this religion and that it is not the Creator's right for all of this universe and what is in it. H. Taylor: "A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery, there is no contradiction between science and religion, our knowledge of God becomes greater with every discovery we discover about the world." A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world When does science become a conflict between faith and atheism? We have just seen how the search for the effective cause does not depend on the belief of the researcher or his religion or even his atheism, unlike the search for the cause of the teleology, which is often affected by the researcher's prior vision resulting from his belief, religion or atheism. Hence: No scientific discovery or research, no matter how powerful it may be to change our understanding of nature and the universe, will bring about a conflict between faith and atheism unless it comes into contact with the limits of purpose and why of both believers and atheists. The discovery (electricity, electromagnetism, radiation, atoms, nuclei, electrons, DNA, etc.) all made coups and breakthroughs in the view of scientists and people to nature and the universe, but did not cause major differences between religion and atheism only when its interpretations related to the starting point of the universe or existence and the beginning of man, where we see the atheist then exceeds the limits of his scientific research to give explanations of his inclinations and vision of the creator of these important existential stations are fatal! This indicates that the atheist, like the believer, enters the laboratories of the natural and experimental sciences with a prior outcome of motives or ends and non-physical visions, which will inevitably move its results between its limits, no matter how contrary to them, and as long as it was like the believer in that - in the presence of prior visions - can we look at who his visions are the healthiest mind and truer with the self? The believer is wiser and more truthful than the atheist himself: One of the greatest mysteries of atheists in their encounter with believers in the name of science, is their failed attempt to show the similarity of the character of what is on the senses only, and the limitation of the means of perception of man, which God loved only on the five senses, forgetting that the closest means of perception are mathematical axioms that do not need external proof (such as our saying 1 1 2 or that 4 is smaller than 7), and then explaining the mental aximate that does not need in the mind. Measure, extrapolate, and so on), and then eventually linger the human senses that might deceive him (like seeing a mirage in the desert as water). Therefore, all the discoveries of natural science are based only on these mental intuitions in their researches, deductions and proofs of the existence of things, by looking only at their effects and without the need to observe those things themselves! Therefore we say to this type of atheism and who believes him or falls into the nets of his deception and words: You have contradicted at least three times your physical atheism and its relation to natural science and they are: Your assumption before entering your lab that the universe (objective) is studyable and understandable, and this is a mental assumption prior to any experiment and not supported by the five senses, which is contrary to the principles of purely material atheism that you are trying to represent, contrary to faith - or religion - which does not find in such assumption any problem, especially with its negation of absurdity and ignorance of the Creator and his wise will. Otherwise, imagine if the young man (X) was told about the engine that it was just a random assembly or a small child assembly, do you think he would have spent time or money on it to study and understand it?! 2- Your assumption of the regularity of the behavior of things (consistency) and the consistency of laws (Persistency) and the effectiveness of mathematical relations (Efficacy) to express facts and inferences in such a way that the same results are generalized to all other cases in the same context, although not yet seen! All this is indispensable for the continuity of dependence on natural science and acceptance of its results and work in all the same field, and the expectation of cosmic and natural uniformity is inherent to man! 3- Your behavior, O atheist, to the same steps of natural and experimental scientific research based on observation, then planning, assumption and experimentation, and then (mental) inference to prove the existence of things from the mere observation of their effects only, but accept you to describe things and dress their distinctive names without the need to identify the essence or what they are and the truth itself! So here is the world in his laboratory - whether the believer or the atheist - speaks for sure about the existence of gravity certainty and he did not observe them and did not see the two senses and measurements only effects, while they remain unknown to him until the moment, as well as talking about the electron and photon and other subatomic particles and he did not see them with his own naked eye until now, but deals with the distribution of the possibilities of movement and the position of the uncer as they move at their speeds. So the believer is wiser and more honest with himself than the atheist who contradicts his claims publicly at every moment when he stands in his laboratory and between his tools and in the arms of his records and his notes. God knows that when a man gathers proofs of the existence of something and until he is sure of its existence, it is called knowledge, and when he falls and passes by the plane and sees it, it is the eye of certainty, but when he descends into it, he has reached the strongest levels of certainty. The Agnostic Forced Into the Unseen World: The unbridled desire to touch the unseen and to try to decipher its secrets and break away from the limits of the visible and the observed is an inherent desire in the human mind and its scientific curiosity, so to speak, it is very similar to a human being trapped inside a small prison, knowing that his kinetic abilities far exceed this limited space. With such an urgent need, we find the atheist world is not limited by the speed of this prison of natural science, which is limited by the two sides of time, such ignorance before the Big Bang. It is a real prison for those who know, a prison in which the atheist world suffers psychologically and is helpless at those natural limits, if he sees the comparison of people between him and religious scholars and the world believers, and who find in their religions answers to the pre- and post-creation of the universe, space and time, and from here - so that the rug does not withdraw from under his feet - we will never find him satisfied with such defeats, but to invent for himself a void of knowledge. Hence, the atheist never shy away from people talking about, for example, the existence of the Big Bang and its singularity, despite the complete ignorance of science before the time of Planck! or even talk about the existence of dark energy or dark matter, which can not be observed physically, but it is supposed to solve the mystery of the great expansion of the universe! (Multiverse) Although it cannot be observed theoretically because of the limited distance from the particles carrying information about the universe or the so-called particle horizon! Now, can any brave atheist compare all these metaphysical atheistic metaphysical beliefs with his ready-made accusations of intelligent design theory, for example, which he marketed to negate its connotation of the existence of the Creator, saying as we hear and read from them a lot: intelligent design theory is not a science because it deals with entities that can not be observed or tried! No wonder, then, that the famous cosmologist George Ellis’s critical scientific article on the absurdity of the unprovable multiverse hypothesis, which, according to atheist Stephen Hawking, his former co-creator of cosmological writing, amounts to 10 to 500 possibilities! If we understand this blatant contradiction, we see science leaning in the balance of faith from total atheism, as faith was characterized first by the truthfulness of its hypotheses consistent with the spirit of science and its regularity, and secondly by the reasonableness of its inferences about the existence of the unseen from its physical effects in nature and the observable universe. Between the “God of Knowledge Gaps,” Causality and Probability! There is no doubt that the concept of the religious "god of knowledge gaps" has now fallen from the points we have explained above, and even curiously, it has been replaced by another but atheist knowledge gaps God, where we see the atheist blocking his natural scientific way to add metaphysical explanations of him to remove the wear of atheism, away from the religious explanation that is always closer to the real time of the scientific mind, and reminds us of the list of the German Darwinian evolutionary scientist Its existence as evidence of the remnants of the evolution of organisms from each other to man! He mentioned the appendix as well as the endocrine glands that were unknown function before the discovery of hormones and many others, which translates to us how prejudices affect the thinking of the atheist in the development of atheistic interpretations of every unknown scientific. In this previous example – as they also claim the eternity of the universe that science has dropped, as well as the scrap genes and others – we can use the same atheistic expressions they use against religions to expose the god of their knowledge gaps, perhaps the most famous of which is saying: “The more science advances step .. the less the role of God and decline”! They point out that there were religious interpretations of natural phenomena of unknown cause at the time, the believers were content to attribute their hour to God, but once the causes of the phenomenon were revealed, the role of God in the believers declines, I say: The belief of the believers that God is the main cause of any phenomenon is a false belief, whether they know the reason for the thing - such as the reason for the rain - or not, but this will not prevent them in both cases from returning because of the first descent to the Creator, either by his voluntary control of the possibilities of the effective cause, or by his cause as a want and the first cause of the rain as we explained before, just as if we imagined the young (x) is powerless in front of a small piece of the engine. Move. We see this in the Qur’an. And it is He who sends down Al-Ghaith after they have been overthrown and spreads His mercy, and He is the Praiseworthy Guardian. This is the cause of his desire to spread his mercy through the water of the rain to make people thirst for it, but if we look at the same event from the point of view of the active cause, we see it clearly and unambiguously: And He it is Who sends the winds as a human being in the hands of His mercy, so that when I take a heavy cloud, which we bring to a dead country, we bring down water with it, and bring forth with it all the fruits; thus do we bring forth the dead that you may remember. Here - and after the fall of this other dispute between science and religion - let's go along with the imagination of atheist scientists in the very things they wish to control in the course of nature, and take for example the phenomenon of rain and the related interactions of wind and particles of air and electricity, etc., and to be closer to the above verses we say: The atheist imagines that if he can control such and such and such access to the smallest components of matter and atom, he will finally be able to control everything in nature around him! However, we want to shock the atheist with a fact that only specialists stand to look at it with pity: That the smallest components of matter and atom, particles of quantum physics, never follow determinism in their behavior and behavior, but follow the possibilities! Thus, the dream of the atheist commits suicide in the hands of the Creator Almighty at every moment of choice ruled by God and every possibility desired by His Majesty, which was shown to us by the famous German physicist and mathematician (Max Born), Nobel Prize winner 1945, because of his research in quantum physics! At the end of this point, we say that it is such thinking that has given us an irreligion like Einstein's in his reverence for the laws that drive the universe and make it content with believing in a particular or a personable God, where he likened the determinism that Einstein thought governs the world with what the atheists imagine in their ability to control one day the causes of everything, so he was famous for a phrase he repeated in more than one forum and meeting, namely: "God does not rule the world." God doesn't play dice with the world...[10] Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice [11]. But all this conceited vision is destroyed by hundreds of diverse mathematical possibilities that can be drawn out for scenarios of major stations in the universe - such as its origin and end ... etc. - So what about the smallest of them such as the rain or some earthquake here or there?! Is there anything that prevents naturalists and experimental scientists from believing in God? At the end of this brief and modest study, it is worth asking a valid and realistic question away from the horrors and deliberate distortions of the face of science, unfortunately: Throughout history, especially with the modern scientific renaissance at the hands of Muslims, is there anything that actually prevents naturalists and experimental scientists from believing in God or a Creator God they have not seen? And the answer can be extracted easily from the previous points, where we saw that there is never a conflict between the experimental natural science that examines the assets, and the inference of the wise and scientists and extract from it what shows them to the Creator and the wise maker of the knowledge of the Almighty, those qualities can be deduced without even the need for inspiration - because there are qualities we know only by inspiration from the Creator himself and his messengers. We see in the Qur’an that the fear of Allah is not the same as the fear of Allah, but it is the fear of Allah that Allah is All-Mighty, Most Forgiving. And indeed, here they are, the founders of the same experimental method, the Muslims, led by Jabir ibn Hayyan, Al-Khawarizmi-Algorismi, Al-Razi-Rhazes and Ibn al-Haytham. Al-Haytham-AlHacen, Ibn Al-Nafis, Al-Kindi-Kindus and Abbas Ibn Firnas-Armen Firman have dazzled the world in all natural sciences. Any conflict or any obstacle between the research in the universe and assets and the belief in a creator evidenced by everything from his creatures, where they excelled, for example, in various sciences of chemistry, medicine, surgery, anesthesia, anatomy, plant and animal sciences, astronomy, cryptography, self-management and mechanics.. And many others that are difficult to count[12], but can identify some of its features from the site of a thousand inventions and inventions. It was originally an exhibition in Manchester, Britain, to introduce the best of Muslims and their inventions that changed the face of the world today, and then moved to many cities of the world. Perhaps this is what Roger Bacon inherited to strengthen his belief in God, although he is considered in the eye of the West - falsely and Bhatna - the founder of the experimental method [13] [14], while he was in fact only a carrier of Muslim scholars [15] [16] [17] who contacted them and learned from them how the world believes in God in his laboratory to record his observations and prepare his experiments and test the validity of his hypotheses away from the most famous Robert facts and preconceive views "Roger Bacon studied Arabic language and Arabic science at the Oxford School by the successors of Arab Muslim teachers in Spain, and neither Roger Bacon nor his successors have the right to be credited with inventing the experimental method. It was under their successors at Oxford School (that is, successors to the Muslims of Spain) that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic Sciences. Neither Roger Bacon nor later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of apostles of Muslim Science and Method to Christian Europe [18] And so the famous scientists who changed the face of modern science, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Maxwell, were never among the people of atheism, nor denying the Creator for a moment, but going back to the wonderful quotes of the famous physicist Max Planck from his book "Where Science Go" "There can never be any contradiction between religion and science, but rather each is complementary to the other, and I think that anyone who is serious and honest realizes this, because the element of faith in its nature will inevitably appear if all the forces of itself are united and integrated together in balance and consistency, and it is not a coincidence that the greatest thinkers of all times were souls of great faith." If we leave out the misleading statistics that atheists show about the proportion of atheist scholars in such an association or institute, etc., which are often subjective to the submission of most of these associations and institutes and scientists for official considerations related to the funding of research and material support, we find that the most winners of the Nobel Prize are people of religions, whether natural sciences or others, such as literature and so on! We read from the title of the book "100 Years of Nobel Prizes" 4%, and then eventually 15% of all nonreligious people – a general description that includes atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. Even if we let the great scientists who wrote and did well in the statement of the relation of science to faith, such as John C. Lennox's most remarkable book Has Science Buried God, we see that there are some atheist scientists who have been removed from their blinding eyes to find out the truth of the mental deception in which they were, where instead of the existence of the Creator being the a priori axioms asserted by science and reason and conscience together, they are asking for an example. Some middle-aged people, such as Francis Collins, on the truths of morality and matter's failure to explain existence, but rather on the fascinating facts in his biochemical and genetic discipline about the astonishing and miraculous complexity of DNA and cell, where Collins is the pioneer of the human genome project, have only written a remarkable book to prove the existence of the Creator, the book "Language of God: Evidence of Belief."[22] Some of them, such as Sir Anthony Flew, who spent more than half a century publishing Atheism in his 30 books, saw himself as finally being true to himself and acknowledging the astonishing miracle of scientific figures in the precision of the creation of the universe and that there is a beginning, not an eternal one, as well as the facts of DNA that are impossible only to be a wise and knowledgeable leader. They are like men who have believed and followed the messages of Allah, so they believed and answered the call of their Lord: “O you who believe, fear Allah and be with the truthful.” Max Planck, the most famous German theoretical physicist and one of the most important scientists of the 20th century, is considered the founder of quantum theory and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. [2] Max Planck. (1932). Where is Science Going? New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Joseph Hutton Taylor, American physicist and astronomer, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the first binary pulsar. [4] Taylor, as cited in Brown 2002 One of the most important principles in quantum theory, formulated by the German physicist Heisenberg in 1927, states that two measured properties of a quantum sentence can be determined only within certain limits of accuracy, i.e. that determining one property with great accuracy (or with little certainty) entails a great deal of uncertainty in measuring the other, and that determining the position and velocity of an object is one of the most common cases of application of this principle. [6] Ellis, George F. R. (August 1, 2011). "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?". Scientific American (New York: (Nature Publishing Group) 305 (2): 38–43 [7] Stephen W. Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow. (2010). The Theory of Everything. In; The Grand Design (pp. 188-189) New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group. [8] Wiedersheim, R. (1893) The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History. Second Edition Translated by H. and M. Bernard. London: Macmillan and Co. 1895. Max Born is one of the most important founders of modern quantum theory with other scientists such as Niels Bohr and Heisenberg, the author of the interpretation of the wave function and the founder of matrix mechanics, and the part related to his distinction between causality and determinism in the quantum world is from the second chapter of his famous book: NATURAL PHILOSOPHY OF CAUSE AND CHANCE [10] William Hermanns. (1983).Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man Paperback (pp. 58) Brookline Village, MA: Branden Press [11] Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7 [12] Many of these details can be further explored by watching the German Channel 2 documentary RTL (The Hidden Science of Islam). [13] James S. Ackerman (1978). "Leonardo's Eye" 41. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. p. 119 [14] John Maxson Stillman (2003) [1924]. Story of Alchemy and Early Chemistry. Kessinger Publishing. p. 271. ISBN 978-0-7661-3230-6 [15] Mark Smith (1996). Ptolemy's theory of visual perception: an English translation of the Optics. American Philosophical Society. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-87169-862-9 [16] Nader El-Bizri, "A Philosophical Perspective on Alhazen's Optics", Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, Vol. 15, Issue 2 (2005), pp. 189-218 (Cambridge University Press) [17] Hub Zwart (2008). Understanding Nature: Case Studies in Comparative Epistemology. Springer. p. 236. ISBN 978-1-4020-6491-3 [18] Robert Briffault. (1919). Making of Humanity. (pp. 200) London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd [19] Planck, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig. (1932). Where is Science Going? (pp. 168). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc [20] Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, pp.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. [21] God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, John C. Lennox, Lion UK, Updated edition (September 1, 2009)| 224 p | ISBN 0-7459-5371-9 [22] Collins, Francis (4 September 2008). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781847396150. [23] Flew, Antony (2007), There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, New York: Harper One. Ahmed Hassan — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2014-08-06 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/العلم-بين-الإيمان-والإلحاد-نحو-تحليل-أعمق-للادعاءات-الإلحادية