Introduction

Blasting The
Foundations
Of Atheism;
Its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason
Answering Richard Dawkins‟ (The God Delusion)
Volume I
Second Edition
Written by:
AbulFeda‟
2
“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

‘Introduction

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَانِ الرَّحِيمِ
الْحَمْدُ للهِ وَحْدَهُ..
وَالصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَى مَنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ..
أمَّا بَعْدُ..
All 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,
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
higher ends in this book, because to me it represents a conclusive example of all the damage that atheism and secularism have been doing to the world within the last century in particular, especially since Darwin turned this senseless belief into a philosophical doctrine of science! It gives a clear demonstration of how ultimately vacuous every atheist argument really is. It also portraits the dreams and ambitions of atheists, their views of morality and justice, what they are so desperately trying to create and propagate for the world to take in the place of religion, and their self-contradiction with regards to the way they think the world should be running with all those religions competing over the hearts and minds of men! Thus it appeared to me that it would be very convenient to destroy all the foundations of atheism and secular thought in our time, by means of tailoring a detailed response to the bestseller of a man who is currently considered to be the most effective and influential preacher of atheism in our times! It is – to my eyes - an ideal example to demonstrate to the world how inverse rationality and utter nonsense can be made into mainstream „science‟, not only so, but even start to wage ideological warfare against human reason and clear commonsense, in the name of “raising people‟s consciousness”, promoting science and defending proper reason against „superstition‟!
This book is not a literature of apologetics! Its object is clear from its title! There‟s too much fallacy taking radical dominion over modern thought and scientific academia in the Western world today that I decided it‟s about time somebody did something about it! Let the world see the depth of the fallacy, the magnitude of the loss and darkness, and the logarithmic descent on the curve of humanity, that mankind had gone through ever since they overthrew the leadership of the true wisdom of their creator! It‟s a pity that I had to respond to all sorts of uneducated and brainwashed bloggers, reporters and authors, who are enjoying the freedom to write and publish on religion even though they really do not know the first thing about Islam or about any religion for that matter, but that‟s the way it is in the world today, thanks to the circus of “freedom of nonsense”!
As I hope the reader will realize by the end of his long journey throughout this fat literature; it is not this large because I was having difficulty
11
explaining what I believe to be the right answer, no, but because I took my time in arguing forcefully and effectively against a great deal of fundamental fallacies that have become mainstream in our times, and I took great pleasure – I may add – in exposing in fair detail the irrationality and sheer emptiness of almost every fallacy that I came across as I read (The God Delusion)!
Thus I took liberty in quoting and commenting on so much of the professor‟s words, page by page, in a way I suppose my reader may have never seen in any western literature before, not because I needed to do so for the sake of proving that he stands upon nothing, but because I wanted to show the reader how empty, self-contradictory, inconsistent, anti-semiotic, anti-rational and even anti-scientific everybody who chooses to deny the undeniable will have to go in every claim that he makes in support of his position! This demonstration in itself was one of my goals for this book, and is one of the reasons why I chose (The God Delusion) in particular for my literary end. Sometimes I would find myself saying: “But my comment to this quotation will not add anything new to the main argument that I have already proven and demonstrated, so why bother make it?” but then I would find myself compelled to proceed with it for the sake of piling up further effective demonstrations of how fallacy only begets more fallacy. So as the reader approaches the conclusion of this book (Both of its volumes), he will have seen that it‟s not the building of the truth that took me so many pages; it‟s the demolition of the foundations of fallacy (along with many of its branches) that has become mainstream in a world of ideological chaos! He will see that he needs not be a biologist or a philosopher to accept the perfect and simple truth that has always been there before his eyes!
Here‟s an atheist biologist who believes that man needs a lot of “consciousness raising” to accept Darwinism and become a total liberalist! So let‟s see if it‟s really “consciousness raising” or “consciousness RAZING” that he‟s doing to his readers in the (The God Delusion)! Read through this literature and be the judge! So many are the ideas and theories that have been taken for granted within the last century that I know my reader will find the mere suggestion of challenging them or shaking them is
12
unthinkable! But I urge him to remember that some of the greatest breakthroughs in science itself were at one time “unthinkable”!
I appeal to your decency and self-respect my reader, to be brave! To have the courage to admit the truth as soon as it is revealed to you, no matter what people would think about you, no matter how many academics of your field may disregard you; the truth we are talking about here is no less than your own fate after death! This is a question of eternal fate; it is not the urge to consult a good doctor lest we get serious physical trouble for not doing so! It is a question of eternity!
You never know when you‟ll die! Death could come to take you any minute! And once you‟re there, there‟s no coming back! It will be too late! Too late indeed! So you really have to take this question seriously, very seriously, and be brave!
In a very popular video clip on Youtube, when asked a very simple question by a student: “What if you‟re wrong?” Professor Dawkins replies in clear scorn – not unexpectedly though – saying: ―Well, What if I‘m wrong, I mean anybody could be wrong! We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying tee-pot! ….‖ And after a short lecture making the point that every child is naturally brought up on the faith of his parents, he winds up in an even more pompous comment saying: ―You ask me what if I‘m wrong, What if you‘re wrong about the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea?‖
At that, the audience breaks in laughter and he rejoices in his answer, pretending that it doesn‟t concern him in the least that he could actually be wrong! While the question was plain and simple; the professor obviously hated to declare the clear and simple fact – a fact even to him - that if he is wrong, then he may - at least in what should be in his eyes a minute probability - meet with an unknown fate to him after his death; one that is determined by some of those many systems of faith he easily makes fun of, and could easily be that eternal inferno claimed by the three major religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity!
13
He does recognize the likeliness of it, doesn‟t he? Shouldn‟t it make him – at least – a bit more humble in his reply towards the magnitude of knowledge in question and the possible consequences of the choice he is talking about? So why reply in such a scornful and arrogant manner?
Of course he knows it‟s a possibility! Very little probability (according to his philosophical position and understanding), but still a possibility nonetheless!
Well, he simply couldn‟t find it in him to make that brave and straightforward admission! Instead he strikes it right back in the face of his interrogator as though she insulted him with the question! He was defending his position by dropping his opponent down to his level saying, ―so what? You could be wrong too! You being born Christian means you have to suffer the same probability yourself as well, because your being born on a certain faith does not by any means prove that faith itself to be the truth!‖ Well, you‟re right, it doesn‟t! So what if you‟re BOTH wrong? Suppose she asked the question this way: “What if we‟re both, you and I, Wrong?” Does this make the question more comfortable and more worthy of a straightforward and honest reply from you, professor?
One has no choice but to wonder then: as a scientist, is he not prepared to accept the natural „probability‟ that he might be wrong on this question, and take the responsibility for his choice and the choices of those who followed his teaching? It is not a falsifiable theory of science then that he is preaching! It is another doctrine of blind faith, one that he obviously takes great pride in holding, no matter how hard he tries to look and sound as skeptic about evolutionism as any natural scientist should really be!
I hope my reader is not that biased, not that proud in dealing with such a dangerous issue! I hope he does realize that it is evidence he is looking for and that he should accept it no matter where it comes from, or who it is that holds it!
Initially, this book was planned to be published as a single volume of a thousand pages! However, I was advised to split it in two volumes, for ease of publishing and reading. Thus I chose to assign „volume 1‟ to the
14
refutation of the core arguments in (The God Delusion) as presented by the professor in Chapters 3 and 4, hence making this Volume the core of the literature that may suffice for a reader who does not find ease in going through as much as a thousand pages! „Volume 2‟ included the discussion of the rest of the (The God Delusion), and the fundamental refutation of some basic misconceptions about Islam that the professor – unsurprisingly – regurgitated in his book, especially in the last few chapters.
I now place this First Volume in my reader‟s hands, hoping that by the time the second volume was published, he will be more than willing to read it…
May the Lord guide every honest truth seeker to the truth, and take him into His limitless grace and mercy …
Amen.