This is the story of an eminent British philosopher — a key champion of atheism for more than fifty years — who eventually came to believe that there really is a God, on account of the intelligent design of the universe and life forms.
Antony Flew, who became an atheist at 15, debated at Oxford in the 1950s. He promoted atheism through prestigious works such as his landmark 1984 book, The Presumption of Atheism.
His thesis was disarmingly simple: Most people assume that God exists, and therefore that the atheist must prove otherwise. Flew reversed the onus. He claimed that there is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, the religious believer must prove that there is a God.
Over time, Flew became a very successful atheist. Overall, he wrote ten books against belief in God, as well as many other works. His works were among the most widely reprinted in all of philosophy. One thing that helped him was that many people assumed, without really looking into it, that science evidence suggested that God does not exist.
So why did he change his mind when he was eighty-one years old? Not because he fears the eternal consequences of a lifetime spent promoting atheism. He insists that he still doesn’t believe in heaven or hell.
Rather, Flew was convinced by modern science findings. He was amazed by the language that is written into the DNA of every cell of each of our bodies. He said, “What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.”
Flew discovered that a number of scientists and philosophers believe that the universe and life forms show scientific evidence of intelligent design — this is called the intelligent design hypothesis. At any rate, Flew began to think seriously about intelligent design in 2000. By 2003, he was actively corresponding with other philosophers about it.
Darwinism or Design?
The alternative to intelligent design is Darwinian evolution or Darwinism. According to Darwinism, life forms develop from amoeba to man by chance mutations, without any design or any need for God.
Flew put all the design arguments to Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins, who is well known not only for his defence of Darwinism but for the promotion of atheism on account of Darwinism.
And, according to Flew, Dawkins—an expert in Darwinian evolution—was not able to answer his objections based on intelligent design. Finally, in early 2004, Flew admitted to American Christian philosopher Gary Habermas that there must be a God. His change of mind became public later in the year, as the result of an interview released by the philosophy journal Philosophia Christi.
Flew makes very clear that he has not become a religious believer in any conventional sense. He thinks that God “… could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” In reality, he believes only that God created the universe.
But let’s not discount the importance of that admission. It means that Flew’s life—and yours and mine—have a meaning and purpose that go beyond our own feelings at any given time. We are here because God intended us to be here. That makes a difference as we confront the tangled problems of our lives.
The best-known Muslim author who writes on this fiercely controversial topic is Dr. Harun Yahya. He has written several books that address divine design in nature, notably Evolution Deceit (Istanbul: Arastirma, 2002) and Signs of God: Design in Nature (Istanbul: Global Publishing, 2001). As Yahya notes in his works, modern science knows vastly more today than in past centuries about the intricate details of life. And the more we know, the less likely any atheistic explanation seems.
Atheism “Mere Irrationality and Ignorance”
Do you have enough faith to be an atheist? Can you look at the marvelous designs of nature and conclude that it all happened by chance? If so, you are part of a shrinking, if stubborn, minority. There has been a steep, widely reported, decline in atheism worldwide.
According to Paul M. Zulehner, a European sociologist of religion, “True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research.” And Europe, after all, is hardly noted for its piety. A key reason given is precisely the one that convinced Flew, the growing evidence from science that makes atheism unlikely.
Another reason he gives is that many people embraced atheism in the twentieth century because they hoped for a humanly-based system that would prevent the wrongs often done in the name of religion. But atheistic regimes like communism and Nazism outdid, in every category of wrong, the regimes where most rulers or leaders were religious.
Harun Yahya said United Press International, “Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years as ‘the ways of reason and science,’ is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance.” For example, evolution alone, without intelligence, can hardly account for the fact that “a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together” (Insight on the News, March 14, 2005).
Yahya even predicts, in Evolution Deceit, that “…the 21st century will be a historical-turning point when people will generally comprehend the divine realities and be led in crowds to God, the only Absolute Being” (p. 248).
Psycho Conflict Within Atheist Mind
There is a strong tendency in the current work on supernatural beliefs to suggest that religiosity is natural. Belief in a supernatural is a cognitive default. It’s a by-product of evolutionary adaptations for social cognition that are present in all humans.
In light of that, a group of four psychologists managed to study, investigate and analyze the relation between atheists and religion.
In its 2nd issue of Volume 24, the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion has published a research that examined whether atheists exhibit evidence of emotional arousal when they dare god to cause harm to themselves and their intimates.
The participants, 16 atheists and 13 religious individuals, read aloud 36 statements of three different types: God, offensive, and neutral. Then, the researchers included ten new stimulus statements in which a group of 19 atheists wished for negative events to occur.
The atheists didn’t think the God statements were as unpleasant as the religious participants did in their verbal reports.
However, the skin conductance level showed that asking God to do awful things was equally stressful to atheists and theists. Also, atheists were more affected by God statements than by wish or offensive statements.
The results imply that atheists’ attitudes toward God are ambivalent in that their explicit beliefs conflict with their affective response.
Several psychologists have argued that atheism is only skin deep. Whether or not people consider themselves to be atheists, their verbal self-description may have little bearing on their implicit supernatural beliefs.
Of course, no cognitive traits arise in a vacuum, and religiosity would not be possible without social learning as well. People learn about religion by actively assimilating the testimony of other people and discourse in their community.
Thus, religiosity also arises from socio-cultural habitat, not only from default intuitions. In any case, most people have grown up and lived with religious influences.
What Science Says
It is possible that atheists aren’t immune to these influences. Recent studies have shown that reminders of God increase prosocial behavior. Moreover, they reduce career-related effortful behavior and increase temptation resistance among both believers and atheists.
Because behavior is based on emotions and cognitions, it seems strange that atheists would change their behavior unless they have some emotional reactions to reminders of God—the focus of the present studies—or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural.
Another similar study was conducted in 2010. An analysis of vocal cues managed to detect whether atheists experienced increased levels of emotional arousal when daring God to do terrible things.
Both atheists and theists spoke with lower levels of intensity on God statements than on offensive statements or statements in which they dared Santa Claus instead of God. This indicated that the God statements were more emotionally arousing.
However, some of the other vocal parameters were difficult to interpret conclusively. Therefore, the psychologists of this study analyzed the atheists’ physiological stress reactions by skin conductance when they read aloud statements in which they asked God to do terrible things to themselves and their loved ones.
The four scientists hypothesized that atheists’ physiological reactions toward the statements should contradict their explicit attitudes towards them.
Meaning that saying the statements loudly should stress the atheists at least as much as saying other offensive statements loudly. Furthermore, saying the statements loudly should stress atheists as much as it would stress religious people.
Designed to Discover
First appeared at onereason.org.
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” [1]
This is an excerpt from a letter written in 1881 by Charles Darwin. What troubled him was the notion of trusting the human mind; if we evolved from lower life forms; if we can be reduced down to random, non-rational physical processes, how can our minds be rational?
Indeed, questions such as, “Can we trust our minds?”, “Can we reason to the truth?”, and, “Why and how have we acquired the ability to understand the universe?” have captured the minds of great thinkers throughout the ages. Our minds are truly fascinating; we have mental faculties which outshine all other creatures, and we seem to have cognitive abilities which surpass the requirements of natural selection.
Natural selection is not concerned with truth value but rather survival value. Both true, as well as false beliefs, can adequately result in survival. Take this as an analogy: John and Mark are asked to run across a busy highway blindfolded. John’s cognitive faculties are functioning perfectly; when he is asked to do this, he reasons to the conclusion that this would be extremely dangerous and declines the offer.
On the other hand, Mark’s cognitive faculties are impaired, which result in him believing that there is no traffic. At the same time, he holds the belief that someone has just glued his feet to the ground, which results in him not running across the road. This simple example illustrates that survival is not contingent on truth.
It isn’t only our minds which are amazing, we also live in a rational universe.
Again, if everything was simply a by-product of non-rational, blind, random physical processes, how have we ended up with a rationally ineligible universe? A universe governed by distinctive laws and one which is mathematically coherent. Many have been mesmerized by the rational nature and order of the universe; this is captured in the statement of Einstein, when he said, “What is inconceivable about the universe is that it is at all conceivable.”[2]
We live in an ordered rational universe! Order does not come from disorder; we wouldn’t expect scrabble pieces thrown into the air at random to land spelling a concise sentence. Rationality does not come from non-rationality; believing such a thing would be absurd. It would be the equivalent of claiming that something could arise from nothing.
As a race, humans have progressed in leaps and bounds in the sciences, yet the two fundamental requirements to do science—a rational mind and a rational universe—have gone unaccounted for. Having one without the other would render science non-existent. Both need to work uniquely together in a complementary way to make science possible. An analogy which comes to mind is of a lock and a key: the rational mind being the key which has the potential to unlock the rational universe.
Here arises another problem for atheism: how is it that we have a mind which can comprehend the order and rationality of the universe? Keys do not just fit locks by chance, they are designed to fit. This makes sense of God’s existence.
If rationality cannot come from non-rationality, and since we cannot trust our minds if they are just a result of blind, non-rational forces, then what best explains the fact that we do trust our minds and that rationality can only come from rationality? An All-Knowing and All-Wise being (God) that created the universe with the ability for sentient beings to have rational faculties is the best explanation for this.
In the Qur’an, seldom does God engage humanity in attempting to prove His existence. Instead, He takes us from His existence, which is self evidently true, to His worship. One way God does this is by directing us towards His creation; encouraging us to look into creation wherein lie His signs. It is through pondering and reflecting over these signs that we can appreciate His majesty and creative power, which naturally leads us to knowing and affirming that He deserves to be worshipped.
God says in the Qur’an: {Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.}[3]
We can draw a beautiful conclusion from this: God gave us a rational mind and a rational universe so we can reflect over this creation and through this, fulfill our purpose which is to worship God: the One who made us and gave us everything. Indeed, the One who made everything and gave us everything deserves to be worshipped.
_____________________
[1] Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William. 3 July 1881.
[2] Santillana, Giorgio de and Hertha von Dechend. Hamlet’s Mill: an Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time. Boston: Godine, 1977.
[3] The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 190
Leaning Upon Misconceptions about Muslim Women
Many years ago, before I came to a better, and well, more accurate understanding of Muslim women, it was hard to fathom why this group of ladies would cover themselves with so much cloth.
Their dress-code was a glaring image in one impressionable one that had been brought up in a society where it was not only normal for women not to cover, but for women to reveal, as part of a social status.
Women were paid to entertain, to have careers that flaunted their beauty, to behave in a primal fashion in public. So it was hard to understand why a group of women would dress so modestly, and in public to boost.
Confusing Misconceptions on Muslim Women
But that was a long time ago, and I crossed many horizons with my bewilderment as to why Muslim women behaved in a certain way. From staying at home, to raising many children, to putting their careers secondary to their families… What was with this culture that turned women into slaves of their families?
It has been a long time coming though, and that’s exactly what I am doing today; and Insha’ Allah, I am paving my path in the right direction. Stories abound of women finding Islam were certainly inspiring to me; as well as having many good Muslim friends and learning about their own journey to Islam, even as born Muslims. And in the process, many stereotypes were quickly abolished.
The diverse lifestyles of Muslim women, as long as they bode well with Islamic principles painted a landscape of understanding of Muslim women and there were stories abound of success in different measures.
But I still see the misconceptions, valiantly plaguing the media – the Muslim woman who is enslaved with children; the Muslim woman who is widowed forever, and has to barricade herself in her own home, for fear of causing temptations. These are still impressions galore.
At the end of the day, it’s easy to lean upon misconceptions; but we do it at a dangerous angle, taking big risks because leaning on misconceptions drowns out our inner fitrah, in listening and understanding what God has designed for us.
Media Role in Prevailing Misconceptions
It’s so easy to follow the route of the mainstream media that calls fouls upon Islam; that is so grossly maligned by groups of Muslims and non-Muslims who only have interest in defaming Islam.
Muslim women have been on the brunt of such abuse for the longest time ever; it normally starts with their outward appearance, of being covered from head to toe, save for their hands and faces. Of course, there are those who cover their faces too – and that calls for even more prejudice.
The real problem of the stereotypes lies in judging women on their outward appearance and not making an effort even to know them from the inside.
What are women’s thoughts of their own dress codes? Why do they believe in the way they dress? What are their names, aspirations, dreams? And what are their principles in life? What do they do in their free time, after working hours, or after their children are in bed? How did they meet their husbands? Where are their careers heading?
There is so much more to getting to know a group of people than reading headlines in the mainstream media, or shaping stereotypes based on a negative and biased story.
Simple stereotypes can be eradicated; if we learned more upon knowledge and make a conscious effort to debunk myths that we garner from those in power of the media.
And of course, there is always the Quran and Hadith to learn about Islam, Muslims, Muslim women in particular. It never hurts to take time to pick it up and take a read. It opens doors to belief with full understanding.
(From Discovering Islam’s archive.)
5 Reasons Why Muhammad Didn’t Die for Muslims’ Sins
Why did not Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) die for the sins of Muslims? Is not he the mercy to all?
Indeed, Prophet Muhammad is a mercy for all peoples; yet he did not die for anybody’s sin. The simple reason is that Islam does not recognize the concept of the original sin. The following points explains that further:
No “Original Sin” in Islam
First, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach a concept of “original sin”. Adam’s sin was his and his alone; and, according to the Quran[1], God forgave both Adam and Eve when they turned to God in repentance. Accordingly they were once again restored to divine mercy.
Hence there is no concept of Adam passing on to his progeny an original sin, and therefore no need for stipulating a redeemer for such sins.
Natural Innocence
Second, as there is no original sin, every one is born into a state of fitrah, a state of natural innocence. We acquire sin later by our own conscious and willful actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every child is born into a state of fitrah (or natural state of innocence).”
God Is All-Merciful
Third, Islam teaches that God is All-Compassionate and All-Merciful; He is not bound by the rule of a blood sacrifice in order to forgive His servants.
To assume that God can forgive only by accepting a blood sacrifice and therefore to state that Jesus or Muhammad died for our sins is not acceptable in Islam. Allah says:
{O My servants who have wronged against their souls! Do not despair of Allah’s mercy! For Allah forgives all sins; for He is indeed Forgiving, Compassionate.
Turn to your Lord repentant, and submit to Him before the torment overtakes you when you shall not be helped.} (Az-Zumar: 53-54)
Individual Responsibility
Fourth, Islam teaches that every individual is responsible for his/her own salvation. Not Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad can save us; they are only capable of saving themselves through God’s grace. In the words of the Quran:
{Whoever commits a sin commits it only against himself. Allah is Knowing, Wise.} (An-Nisa’: 111);
{Allah does not charge a soul with more than it can bear. It shall be requited for whatever good and whatever it has done.} (Al-Baqarah: 286);
{Each soul earns only on its own account, nor does any laden (soul) bear another’s load.} (Al-An`am: 164)
{He who is rightly guided, it is for himself; and he who goes astray, it is to his own detriment. No soul can bear another’s burden.} (Al-Isra’: 15)
No Intermediaries
Fifth, everyone, male or female, can directly approach God without any intermediary of a prophet, saint or priest. God is closer to us than our own jugular veins. Almighty Allah says in the Quran:
{We created man, and We know the promptings of his soul, and We are nearer to him than his own jugular vein.} (Qaf: 16)
{When My servants ask you about Me, tell them I am nigh, ready to answer the prayer of the suppliant when he/she prays to Me; therefore let them respond to Me and believe in Me, that they may be rightly guided.} (Al-Baqarah: 186)
So the entire concept of someone dying for our sins is inimical to the Islamic world-view or understanding of the natures of man and God. Islam beckons us all to respond to God’s message and receive His grace and salvation through faith, good works and leading a responsible moral and ethical life.
[1] For the Quranic narration of the story of Adam and Eve, see: the Quran: 2: 30-39; 7; 19; 17: 61; 18: 50; 20: 116-17, etc.)
* This article is from AboutIslam.net. Excerpted, with some modifications, from: www.muslims.ca
