Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Top Menu

  • About US
  • Join US
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Comment
  • Question and Answer
  • Watch us Live

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Viewpoint
  • Islamic Culture
  • Da’wah
  • Media
  • People
    • Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabahani (Founder)
    • Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum (Successor)
    • Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta (Ameer)
    • Abdul Wahid
    • Abu Yusuf
    • Jamal Harwood
    • Taji Mustafa
  • Books
  • Youth
  • Covid-19
  • About US
  • Join US
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Comment
  • Question and Answer
  • Watch us Live

logo

Header Banner

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

  • Home
  • Viewpoint
    • Making Sense of Pakistan

      April 16, 2022
      0
    • How Should We View the War in Ukraine?

      March 30, 2022
      0
    • The India Hijab Issue from an Islamic Perspective

      March 24, 2022
      0
    • DEEP DIVE: The Weaponisation and Politicisation of British Citizenship Laws

      March 12, 2022
      0
    • Our Role in the Ukraine war is to Expose the Propaganda

      March 2, 2022
      0
    • Muslims Should Rejoice Over the Islamic Ruling System

      January 21, 2022
      0
    • Another Warmonger Honoured for Serving the British Elite

      January 2, 2022
      0
    • The Golden Jubilee of Bangladesh Victory Day (Bijoy Dibos): a cause for ...

      December 13, 2021
      0
    • Playing Politics with the Uygher Muslims

      December 2, 2021
      0
  • Islamic Culture
    • Reading Quran

      The story of the man who was told to “Enter Paradise” and ...

      January 24, 2022
      0
    • Significance of Rabi’ul-Awwal

      October 10, 2021
      0
    • Virtues of the Month of Muharram

      August 10, 2021
      0
    • The significance of first 10 days of Dhul Hijjah

      July 10, 2021
      0
    • The Honour of the Prophets

      April 30, 2021
      0
    • A to Z of Ramadan

      April 19, 2021
      0
    • The Dawah to Allah (swt)

      December 29, 2020
      0
    • Miracle of the Quran

      Q & A - Compilation of The Holy Quran During the Reign ...

      December 27, 2020
      0
    • Imam Bukhari: A Role Model for the ‘Ulema and Da’wah Carriers to ...

      November 17, 2020
      0
  • Da’wah
    • Public Demonstration - Independence Not Intervention

      April 22, 2022
      0
    • VIDEO : [LIVESTREAMED] Pakistan in Crisis: The Players, Politics, and People

      April 20, 2022
      0
    • Ramadan Message: The World Needs Islam - We Must Work for the ...

      April 1, 2022
      0
    • The India Hijab Issue from an Islamic Perspective

      March 24, 2022
      0
    • Ramadhan event: Kyiv to Kabul: The World Needs Islam

      March 20, 2022
      0
    • Obituary of a Dawah Carrier Dr. Youssef Haj Youssef

      December 30, 2021
      0
    • Open Letter to Imams and Muslim Leaders

      September 28, 2021
      0
    • Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Sends Delegation to Chinese Embassy Condemning the Inhumane Treatment ...

      June 30, 2021
      0
    • Jahangir Raja: Obituary of a Da’wah Carrier

      June 28, 2021
      0
  • Media
  • People
    • Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabahani (Founder)
    • Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum (Successor)
    • Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta (Ameer)
    • Abdul Wahid
    • Abu Yusuf
    • Jamal Harwood
    • Taji Mustafa
  • Books
  • Youth
  • Covid-19
National Da'wahNews Watch
Home›Da'wah›National Da'wah›Rationality, religion and atheism

Rationality, religion and atheism

By Press Editor
January 5, 2011
2570
2
Share:

Religious teaching, insofar as it seeks to influence the political sphere, should be subject to rational scrutiny, argues Russell Blackford.

For those of us cultured upon the understanding that all teachings must be subject to rational scrutiny this may not be a ground-breaking thesis. It is nevertheless an argument increasingly made by advocates of a ‘new’ atheism.

Applying scrutiny to the argument itself however reveals that behind the innocent promotion of rationality lie many cobwebs that betray such an advocacy.

All truth-claims, religious or otherwise, should be subject to rational scrutiny. Rationality in its true broad sense, not in the narrow self-serving sense all too common from atheist circles.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, for example, defines atheism as: “the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

This definition makes the conflation, intentionally or ignorantly, between rational evidence and scientific evidence, such that the former is restricted to the latter. In reality scientific (empirical) evidence is one type of rational evidence, but not the only type. Other types include the likes of logic, reports and conceptual analysis.

Logical syllogisms based on sound premises and a valid structure are entirely rational. The proposition that all men are mortal combined with the observation that Tom is a man establishes rationally and necessarily that Tom is mortal.

Numerous unrelated people informing Dick that they’ve been to Canada and that it’s a wonderful place proves rationally even for him (who has never sensorially-perceived the existence of Canada) that it exists.

Our acceptance of the concept that human beings are the product of a mother and father, allows us to establish, on analysis of this concept and its rational extension, that Harry had a great great grandfather.

None of these conclusions are scientific, for they do not involve the application of the scientific method. Yet all of them are rational.

So why do atheists persist in wanting scientific evidence for theist assertions? It seems the convenience of a straw man is appealing. Theists, by and large, readily admit that science cannot prove the existence of God. Not because it requires ‘faith’ (unless you’re an adherent of fideism, an untenable position in our view) but because of the limitations of the scientific method itself.

As for rational evidence for the existence of God, that has been furnished, debated, refined and presented centuries ago. Arguments based on logic and conceptual analysis go as far back as Aristotle and Plato, through the Muslim scholastic theologians such as al-Ghazali and al-Razi, and to Western Christian thinkers of medieval Europe such as Aquinas and Bonaventure as well as Enlightenment thinkers such as Leibniz and Clarke.

The Kalam Cosmological argument for example – the strongest proof in our estimation – was developed by Muslim scholars as early as the 11th century CE.

The argument is profound yet simple: the material world we sense around us comprises of temporal phenomena that depend for their existence on other temporal phenomena and so forth. Such a series cannot continue to infinity, for if it did no one thing would satisfy its dependence and nothing would exist. The fact that things do exist necessarily implies a finite series and, in turn, the existence of a being who determined both the existence of this series and the specific attributes or properties that define it.

By rational extension, this being must be eternal and without beginning, otherwise it is temporal and forms part of the series. It must also be sentient for a timeless cause producing a temporal effect requires an independent will. Finally, effecting so grand a creation as the universe and all that it contains necessitates knowledge and power.

Thus, by use of reason alone – no reference to scripture, ‘leaps of faith’ or assumptions – we deduce the existence of an eternal, necessary and transcendent being attributed with knowledge, power and sentience, otherwise known in the English language as ‘God’.

There are of course various objections to arguments like the above. Interested parties can navigate the hundred pages in the recently published Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology devoted to the presentation of a simplified variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument together with all objections, responses and counter-arguments.

It is not the intent of this piece to assess any of these, but merely to show that rational arguments do exist, have existed for a long time, and are the subject of serious scholarly debate and discussion.

The problem with the atheist approach is that it refuses to recognise that rational arguments exist in the first instance. When presented, the mere raising of some objections or doubt is assumed sufficient to somehow negate the argument.

Such a search for certainty in the proofs of opponents coming from the heralds of science has a touch, a good dose rather, of irony about it. Perhaps they don’t know that science at its essence employs inductive reasoning and more often than not substantiates its conclusions in terms of probability and confidence?

Deeper epistemological considerations such as the varying strengths of different types of proofs, deductive v inductive reasoning, the structure, sources and limits of different types of knowledge are certainly missing from the populist atheist characterisation of ‘science v religion’. A characterisation fit for a children’s comic, but not for serious and sincere public discourse.

The result, at any rate, is a posturing that is anything but rational. The militant atheist bandwagon – driven by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett – continues to paint their theist opposition as irrational simpletons who favour superstition and myth over reason and science.

Worse still, the atheist approach fails to apply the rational scrutiny it calls for upon its own assertions.

Even as a negating proposition atheism makes numerous assertions, implicit if not explicit, that need to be substantiated.

Is the universe eternal? Can an infinite regress of temporal causes actually exist? Where does that leave the bulk of modern astrophysical evidence that points to a beginning of the universe?

If the universe is not eternal and had a beginning, this implies that something came from nothing. Can something come from nothing? An absurd proposition, surely?

And if the case is simply one of science not having yet answered the key questions about the origins of the universe, then is not a reasonable explanation (if not certain in the atheist view) better than no explanation? Are scientific explanations ever certain in the first place?

Further, the denial of God leaves atheists with little room but to subscribe to secular humanism, leading to more assertions that need substantiation.

Why should church be separate from state? Why should religion be singled out for exclusion from influencing public affairs? Religion is after all one worldview from amongst many.

The reality is that secularism is taken for granted to be the best way whilst it is at its core irrational. It is the result of a compromise solution for a geographically, historically, and contextually specific problem, that of pre-Enlightenment Europe. The centuries-old oppression of the Church was sought to be repelled by advocating the separation of religion from state. But this represents a classical flaw of jumping from a particular case to a universal conclusion.

An analogous case would be our arguing that because George Bush’s capitalist, liberal regime in America was oppressive, capitalism and liberalism should have no influence in society.

Devoid of a rational argument for secularism (compromise solutions are never strictly rational), advocates resort to a rather romanticised view of it as a neutral system which allows for a pluralist society where everyone is free to practice their individual beliefs. Yet secularism is built on a specific worldview and is no more neutral than any other ideology. It disallows those parts of other worldviews which contradict with it, just as they would.

We then also have assertions such as the espousal of human reason as a basis for morality. But how can the human mind determine good and evil? It will surely lead to a subjective morality? How is an objective morality and, in turn, moral obligation to be established? What is the ontological basis of morality?

These are just some of the core questions that need definitive answers for atheism and its sister ideologies to substantiate themselves. Mere criticism of opposing views, as aggressive as it may be, will not cover for holes in reason, or be a substitute for rigorous validation.

Perhaps when atheists start applying rational scrutiny to their own beliefs they’ll realise that ‘new atheism’ is little more than a novel product of modern and post-modern thought, and a manifestation of all their deficiencies, inclusive of bells and whistles.

In any case, our response to the call for rational scrutiny of religious teaching is, quite simply, bring it on.

Uthman Badar is the media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, the local chapter of the largest global Islamic political party.

ABC

Previous Article

New Look for Mecca: Gargantuan and Gaudy

Next Article

Hizbut Tahrir organises demonstration

0
Shares
  • 0
  • +
  • 0

Related articles More from author

  • News Watch

    Kashmir teen shot dead during anti-Israel protests

    July 20, 2014
    By Editor
  • News Watch

    Republicans promote paranoia over sharia threat

    May 12, 2011
    By Press Editor
  • News Watch

    Anger simmers in Pakistani army over bin Laden raid

    May 20, 2011
    By Editor
  • News Watch

    Egypt’s liberals seek to ban political Islamists from power

    July 22, 2013
    By Press Editor
  • News Watch

    Prince Harry: I’ve killed in Afghanistan. But Dad wants me to act like a prince

    January 22, 2013
    By Press Editor
  • National Da'wah

    Luton Muslims address Pakistan flood crisis and call for political change

    September 6, 2010
    By Editor

2 comments

  1. IbnDarwish 7 January, 2011 at 07:21 Reply

    Believe in God, with reason, is so within reach that one can put his or her finger on it. It doesn’t take much thinking to see the simple reality that not only God exists, but that His existence is also necessary for the existence of everything.

    When a nomad, who wandered the desert at night, was asked by an atheist – by way of negation – to prove the existence of God, he was really shocked that there is an actual conscience being that can be blind enough by not seeing this simple truth and would ask such a silly question. This nomad – who did not go to Harvard, or Princeton or Yale – simply replied:

    “Dung indicates that a camel passed by; foot prints indicate that a walker walked by. A heaven of constellations, earth of mountain passes and oceans of waves, do not all of these indicate the existence of God!?”

    In other words, where did everything come from!? There must be a God who created everything.

    • Shawn Davis 17 January, 2011 at 03:30 Reply

      Who knows. Man certainly doesn’t — thought science is showing us more and more about our universe (or ‘universes’ as current science is suggesting that we are only one of many universes in a giant multi-verse of many Big Bangs.) The religious texts from the Bronze age — Bible, Koran, etc, are VERY poor at describing our universe at all. Science seems much better. So, if there is a God, then science and logical thought might give us a clue (as the author was trying to demonstrate) but certainly not by consulting old religions from bygone days.

      Religion isn’t about rationality though — most aren’t really about God either. It’s more about ancestor worship I think and tribalism. To insult a man’s religion is, to many groups — Islam particularly, to affront the person and their fathers (ancestors.) After all, the Islamic faith holds non-Muslims in very little regard (with the supposed exception to ‘people of the book’). 4.5 billion people disowned –…

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Liberate Al Aqsa

Join US on Telegram

Podcast

Latest Posts

Press Releases

Protest in London Says No To More Democracy, Yes to the Khilafah

Members of Hizb ut Tahrir in Britain, alongside supporters from the Muslim community, gathered on Saturday 7th May 2022 at the Pakistan High Commission in London to protest against US ...
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain to Protest American Interference in Pakistan’s Politics

    By Yahya Nisbet
    May 1, 2022
  • Public Demonstration – Independence Not Intervention

    By Editor
    April 22, 2022
  • VIDEO : [LIVESTREAMED] Pakistan in Crisis: The Players, Politics, and People

    By Editor
    April 20, 2022
  • The Geopolitics of Badr

    By Editor
    April 17, 2022
  • Making Sense of Pakistan

    By Editor
    April 16, 2022
  • Muslims in Britain Should Speak Out Against the Pakistani Leadership’s Surrender of Kashmir

    By Yahya Nisbet
    April 15, 2022
  • Muslims in Britain should support the call for the Khilafah in Pakistan

    By Yahya Nisbet
    April 12, 2022
  • Press Centre