Table Of ContentBlasting The Foundations of Atheism
Blasting The
Foundations
Of Atheism;
Its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason
Answering Richard Dawkins‟ (The God Delusion)
Volume I
Second Edition
Written by:
AbulFeda‟
1
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
“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‘
2
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
3
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
Introduction
نيحرلا ىاوحرلا الله نست
.. ٍدحو لله دوحلا
.. ٍدعت يثً لا يه ىلع ملاسلاو جلاصلاو
.. دعت اهأ
A
ll 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,
4
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
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
5
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
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
6
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
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
7
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
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
8
Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
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
9
