As I mentioned in my book: “The original concept of God” , the problem with putting our whole faith in science is that science is a shifting foundation; new discoveries are made every day which negate previous theories.
Some of what we take as science is still theoretical. Even if we assume all science is proven and accurate, we still have a problem. Science nowadays gives all glory to the discoverer and ignores the originator.
For example – let’s say someone walks into a room and discovers a beautiful painting, very precisely executed, with unbelievable order and color symmetry, and then he walks out to tell people about it. Everybody is so impressed with the guy who discovered the painting that they forget to ask the more important question: ‘who painted it?’
This is what humans do; they are so impressed with scientific discoveries of the laws of nature and space that they forget the creativity of He who created the laws of gravity, centrifugal force, energy, matter and so on. All what scientists do is discover the laws. They didn’t originate these laws. The Creator did.
While science explains how, religion is needed to explain why.
Why the universe exists and who created the universe. Finding out how the universe works does not invalidate its Creator or the purpose behind its creation.
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going to?
Is this right or wrong?
What I read and love to share (1):
- Modern science tells us that light can be outside of time. But atheists don’t accept the idea that God can be outside of time.
- Science also tells us that particles with entanglement, even when separated over great distances, continue to interact instantaneously, however, some atheists laugh at the idea that God can be omnipresent; present with everyone simultaneously.
- Science as well tells us that our senses are limited. Infrared light cannot be seen and ultrasound cannot be heard, etc. Our senses also see things that do not physically exist, such as rainbows and mirages.
Because of a few very vocal contemporary atheists, science has somehow become associated with atheism.
This is a false association. In the Middle Ages, most sciences originated in the Muslim world and the world’s leading scientists were Muslim. The language of science for seven centuries was Arabic.
Muslims introduced the world to the experimental method on which scientific research is based today.
According to UNESCO, Muslims established the oldest university still in operation and the first libraries. Given all these contributions, would it have been acceptable to associate science with the belief in God or the Muslim faith?
There is a beautiful story of an American physicist who once came to visit our center.
He spent two hours in an argument with my colleagues at the library. It was all about proving the existence of God on a scientific basis in which he denied.
I was silently listening without interfering until my colleagues felt tired. He was overly argumentative.
They all left the library without reaching any result. After that, the visitor asked me if I could persuade him in a scientific way that God does exist, and asked If I have knowledge of physical science.
I smiled and said: Oh! I have a better knowledge; I know God!
He grumbled: No, no, please I insist that there is no God, but there is science.
I replied: You cannot just refute the author’s existence because you got to know the book. They are not alternatives. Science discovers the laws of the universe, but it did not create them, God did!
I continued: Anyway, forget about science for now and tell me. You want to convince me that there is no God. So, are you happy with this? Are you satisfied with yourself?
He surprised me admitting: Never, I have never felt happy in my life. I am miserable. I don’t know what to do, then he cried.
I replied: Do whatever makes you happy. Do you know the Law of attraction, the law that means you get what you expect?
He answered surprisingly: Do you believe in this law?
I said: I know it, but I don’t believe in it. I believe in a greater one which is “good thinking in God”.
We believe that God the Creator created us to have mercy on us, and not torture us. We believe that He prepared for us a Paradise whose width is the heavens and the earth, so we will get what we expect if we obey His orders.
However, you believe that you are nothing, came from nothing, and will end up with nothing. Thus, you will get maybe worse than what you expect. Do you accept (Nothing) as an answer from your son when you ask him what do you want to be when you grow up?
You will not tolerate this, and you will try every possible and impossible way to urge him to study, work and do his best to be a better, important, and valuable person in the future.
He said: I am lost.
I told him:
Many people go through a period of searching and doubt like you, before they find a path to the Creator, they are like a lost child searching for his mother. Once they start the relationship with God, they finally find peace.
I told him:
You will never find peace till you find this path to your Creator. He got tears and told me tell more about God!
This experience with this atheist gave me the ambition to read more about atheism.
According to Dr. Eyad Al-Qunaibi, atheist/materialistic scientists are guilty of a Stolen Concept Fallacy: They claim a materialistic point of view while relying on intelligent design assumptions to practice science (1).
According to him some of the most important resources for science are mind, innate truths, testimony (previous science) and observation.
- Mind: According to the materialistic philosophy, our mind is not built for truth, but for survival; it does not come from an intelligent source, but from inanimate matter. Such a mind cannot produce rational thought and there is no credibility for its reasoning or inference.
Therefore, to practice science, scientists must suspend their materialistic beliefs and assume their minds are built for truth and are therefore able to make rational judgments and reach conclusions.
- Innate truths: These are universal truths we are born with such as causality: every previously non-existence effect needs a cause to bring it into effect; a part is smaller than a whole; etc. Materialists tell us that things can come by without intent or cause and that innate truths are not absolute. Yet, in performing scientific research to address “why” and “what is the mechanism” type questions, scientists must rely on innate truths such as causality, borrowed from Creationism, because science itself is built on causality, laws, and order.
- Testimony/Previous Research/Citations/Cumulative Knowledge: Again, materialism assumes randomness and as such, the outcome of any experiment is not necessarily reproducible. Under such a philosophy, we cannot depend on previous research because the same set of conditions can produce different results.
Therefore, citations are meaningless, as are test outcomes. However, to practice science, scientists need to suspend their materialistic beliefs and assume that previous results are reproducible under the same conditions and that testimony is a reliable source of information (a concept borrowed from Creationism.)
- Observation: Materialism relies primarily on direct observation and empirical results. However, to identify things by studying their effects (e.g. gravity), one needs to believe that non-observable and nonphysical things can exist through their effects.
Therefore, materialists need to suspend their materialistic view and their requirements for physical proof and accept that non-observable things can exist through their effects: a concept borrowed from belief. God is not directly observable, but His effects are (1).
In summary, to perform science, we need to trust that our minds are built for truth, that causality is necessary, that results are reproducible and that non-observable and/or non-physical things can exist through their effects. In short, a definition of Creationism.
If scientists did not have faith that this world is understandable because it operates according to intelligence and order and that this order was made accessible to an intelligent rational human mind, they would not spend their lives researching the laws which control this order.
Can you think of any important invention which did not assume causality and design?
Can you think of any significant research based on randomness and chance?
Without God, His Universe, His laws and the minds He gave us, there would be nothing for scientists to study or for atheists to deny.
The Original Concept of God
(1) Atheism, a giant leap of faith
Dr. Raida Jarrar