Unit #2 assn.

Mahmudur R. Rafei
My interest in this topic began when I first interacted with an atheist face to face. I always perceived belief in a creator as a self evident truth and something every single person believes in. In the beginning, this ideology felt somewhat intimidating because when you interact with people of other faiths you have similarities between them and your religion, the most apparent similarity is the belief in a Creator, of course, by leaving aside the characteristics of that Creator. When interacting with atheists it seemed that you did not have much to talk about or to relate to because they deny the main premise that a God exists. So that is when my interest in studying the atheist worldview began. I haven’t completely delved into to this topic and I hope to learn more through this research with the research question being “Why do people deny a Creator?”
By conducting my research I expect to find arguments from both sides about denying and affirming that a Creator exists. Also to be fair in analyzing what both parties have to say. I also expect to find counterarguments from both sides and observe how they respond to each other’s arguments. I hope to find out what other ideologies do atheists subscribe to and what do they feel their purpose in life is. Is it just to life life to the fullest or they have some other goals to pursue? I also hope to reach a certain conclusion by conducting this research and not merely presenting views from both sides.
I am open to everything that challenges my assumption of belief in a Creator being a self evident truth. If I find information that goes against this assumption I will definitely challenge it and will research further into this matter.
In the digital era, genres like Youtube and internet forums might be very helpful and there are many debates between both sides on these platforms. Although there is a downside which is that anyone could write whatever they want on internet forums without having any credibility but I will still try to use good sources. In regards to Youtube I have seen some prominent Athiest figures have debates and discussion with theists and hope I can find accurate information from this platform. Of course, books and articles are a top priority and I hope to gain accurate information from them in order to craft a successful research paper.

Rowe, William L. “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND SOME VARIETIES OF ATHEISM.” University of Illinois Press on Behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications, Oct. 1979.
Throughout this article the author explains the argument for atheism based on the existence of evil. He considers this a strong argument for atheism. The author lays down the principles of the argument and explains that intense suffering exists which could be prevented by an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. This being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering. Since it does not, there does not exist an an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. The author somewhat provides us with arguments from the theist’s perspective. He ends off his article by writing about “friendly atheism” which is a concept that an atheist believes that some theists are rational in their justification of a God.

I do not deny what the author says in his argument for disbelief in a creator only because he has limited the attributes of a Creator to omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good. The author states “By a”theist” in the narrow sense I mean someone who believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, supremely good being that created the world”. If he characterizes God as such, then i do not deny his reasoning, but i believe there are some additional characteristic to God which is that he is All Wise. If we accept this characteristic then we know that there is divine wisdom behind why God ordains some suffering.

The author has made a good point in his argument when he gave an example of a dead tree in a forest being struck by lightning, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, burned and lies in terrible pain for many days after which death relieves it of its suffering. The question I have is why would God do such a thing to its harmless creation? What is the outcome of putting an animal through such suffering? What I don’t understand after reading this article is when the author presented the argument of theists he presented it in a complicated manner which makes it difficult to understand the theist point of view and the atheist rebuttal. I need to look up other arguments by theists against the problem of evil in order to better understand this article, also atheist rebuttals will be a bonus. I would commend the author of this article because he has tried to be fair in reasoning and providing views from both sides. Although it would be better if he explained the theists’ position much clearly. This document tells me that the problem of evil is one of the main arguments for denying a creator, as the author felt that this is a strong argument for atheism. The author has presented his article in a manner that is easy to grasp and has provided examples for his arguments, although I recommend that he should have provided some details for the theists’ point of view. He also supports “friendly atheism” which is the concept of believing that theists’ can rationally justify their position, which allows the audience to feel that the author is not anti-religion and crafts his arguments in a gentle manner. This author is a credible author as he was a professor of philosophy at Purdue University and he has written many books on philosophy.
One of the quotes of the author that I agree and disagree with at the same time is when he decribes how intense suffering could lead to a greater good. In Page 335 he states, “Of course, if the intense suffering leads to some greater good, a good we could not have obtained without undergoing the suffering in question, we might conclude that the suffering is justified, but it remains an evil nevertheless.”

Ahmed, Subboor, et al., directors. Call in Live – Is Atheism Rational? 2.0 | Hamza Tzortzis, Mohammed Hijab , Imran &Subboor, 10 June 2020, m.youtube.com/watch?v=R41KwQs0S44.
The video is titled “Is Atheism Rational?”, the format of the discussion is that 3 speakers will speak on this topic for twenty minutes and then for the rest hour and ten minutes callers can call in, ask questions and further discuss their stance on rejecting a creator. In the first twenty minutes the speakers discuss briefly about atheism leading to Nihilism and how atheism is irrational. The topics discussed by the callers and speakers were as follows: finding meaning in life, reasons for denying a Creator, suffering in life, having faith and empirical evidence for God. The main point of the discussion is that atheism doesn’t make any sense and there are many contradictions in this worldview, the most important points were responses to the questions the callers had which was about having a purpose in their lives, why people suffer? And is there empirical evidence for God.
Throughout the whole discussion, the speakers thoroughly broke down the arguments brought forth by the callers for their disbelief in a Creator. They analyzed the questions and tried to evoke curiousity within the callers to rethink their stances and whether their questions are a justification of their disbelief in a Creator. I agree with the views of the three speakers because of how they responded to the questions put forth by the atheist callers. For example one of the discussions about empirical evidence for God went like this: Karlos Jeffers: “I consider myself an atheist because I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence for a God… I think for me empirical data is definitely the most reliable method we have at getting at reality and getting at the truth for the natural world.” Subboor Ahmed: “You said the most important type of evidence to you is empirical, but that is very problematic because obviously you value truth and you came here and you want to know the truth but there is no empirical verification for truth, that’s actually a value judgement that has nothing to do with empirical data.” Yusuf Ponders: “There is just a really quick example for the issue of asking empirical evidence for God, so imagine you create a computer game and there is intelligent life and they live in this virtual world and one of them asks for evidence that they were created by something but they are demanding that the only evidence that you give them is stuff found within the computer game, how will they find the one that made the computer game within the computer?… There is an issue with the assumption that if there is a creator of the universe the evidence would necessarily have to be empirical.”
What I don’t understand is why do atheist reject a creator and the resons they provide are not worthy of being reasons to deny a Creator. While I was doing research for a second source most of the videos I came across had atheists denying God because of emotional reasons or because of what their faith teaches to them, I couldn’t find atheists that had a problem with believing in a Creator without alluding to certain practices of their religion. I wish I could find a source that says “belief in a Creator is unnatural” or a study done on children who do not believe in a Creator from their birth onwards and live that way in denial of a creator. This livestream footage from Youtube tells me that people do deny a Creator and the reasons are that they have been let down by God at some point and time, they need clear cut evidence for a Creator or they have suffered in life and this should not happen to them because a the Creator should not let them suffer. Also the source tells me that there are responses to these questions and sometimes there are rebuttals sometimes there aren’t any. The genre is an educational one where neither side is attacking the other side, but each side is presenting their point of view on wheter a creator exists or not. This is a good genre for presenting both the theists and atheists viewpoints because everyone can share their thought after each point is made. Whereas in debates the other side might avoid answering certain questions. The only issue with the source is that someone could argue that the atheist callers are random people or lay atheists who have not studied atheism or philosophy and are not credible people on the subject. The credentials of the speakers are as follows: Yusuf Ponders: 1st class BA in Philosophy
Subboor Ahmed: MA Philosophy, PHD Candidate
Hamza Tzortzis: MRes,MA and a PgCert in Philosophy
One of the quotes that exemplified the whole discussion was “This is why in my view, atheism by its default is something that will always contradict itself.”~Hamza Tzortzis. This is what the speakers were trying to do throughout the discussion, which was to point out contradictions in the concept that the universe did not have a creator.

Tzortzis, Hamza Andreas. The Divine Reality: God, Islam & the Mirage of Atheism. Lion Rock Publishing, 2019.
In the fourth chapter of this book titled, Self-Evident – Why Atheism Is Unnatural the author writes about why belief in a Creator is self evident and disbelief in a Creator is unnatural. He starts by giving an example of a person who disbelieves in the past, he compares reality of a past to belief in a Creator. He outlines characteristics of self evident truths, explains them and connects them with belief in a Creator. He also explores the counterargument of atheism being a self evident truth. He finishes the chapter by delving into Islamic beliefs about God being self evident. The main point of the chapter was to prove that belief in a Creator is self evident and rooted in every person. The most important points were when the author connected the four characteristics of self-evident truths which are universal, untaught, natural and intuitive to belief in a Creator. The author expands on these characteristics and provides evidence to support his claim. The author uses the following studies to support his claim: Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Professor Deborah Kelemen, research by Elisa Järnefelt, Caitlin F. Canfield and Deborah Kelemen, titled The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults and Justin Barrett’s research in his book, Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief. The author uses evidence from these studies and explains that belief in a creator is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive. Hence he concludes that belief in a Creator is self-evident and natural.
The evidence the author presents is thoroughly explained and he successfully points out the similarities between belief in a Creator and a self-evident truth. I agree with everything the author has to say as he does not hold this belief on mere assumption but also provides evidences for it. For example when explaining that belief in a Creator is natural the author uses a study done by Justin Barrett who has done looked at the behavior and claims of children. The author quotes from his book Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief, “This tendency to see function and purpose, plus an understanding that purpose and order come from minded beings, makes children likely to see natural phenomena as intentionally created. Who is the Creator? Children know people are not good candidates. It must have been a God… children are born believers of what I call natural religion…” The question I have after reading the chapter is, what responses do atheists have when presented with these evidences? This chapter has been clear and concise in explaining how belief in a Creator is self evident. If I could say something to the author it would be to provide arguments from the atheists about the claims the author makes and the evidences he has brought forth.
When the author presented the atheists’ perspective he states “Some atheists argue that atheism is true by default. However, the rejection of a cause or a creator is not self-evident. Although atheism is now also a universal position (and may have been since the beginning of recorded history), it is taught and is counter-intuitive. People have to learn to reject the concept of a creator or cause for things” the author did not delve very deep into the atheists claim that atheism is self-evidently true, but he just scratched the surface and explained that people need information transfer to deny a creator. This document establishes that atheists deny a Creator for different reasons but not by being born into disbelieving in a Creator, they have to learn in order to disbelieve in a Creator. The author is appealing to both theists and atheists, he aims to educate both parties on how the belief in a Creator is self evident. He provides examples and evidences while explaining his position. He also provides reasoning and shows the similarities between the characteristics of self-evident truth and belief in a Creator. The author has MRes,MA and a PgCert in Philosophy. He has also debated prominent atheists like Lawrence Krauss, Professor Peter Simons, Dan Barker and Professor Simon Blackburn.
This quote statement by the author exemplifies the documents claims that belief in a creator is something that is self-evident and disbelieve in a Creator is a position that is taken up later on because of further information acquired by a person.“The atheist may respond by saying that there are alternative explanations for the origins and nature of the universe. This is true. However, these explanations are not self-evident. They are not the default; they are acquired positions. As mentioned previously, in order to reject what is considered self-evident, one must provide evidence. I am not dismissing alternative explanations for the existence of the cosmos, I am merely pointing out what is the default position. Since the basic idea of a creator is true by default, the first question we should ask is: What evidence do we have to reject the existence of a creator?” (Page 91)

Ahmad, Subboor,director. Does Science Disprove God? Sapience Institute,23 July 2020, Sapienceinstitute.org
In this webinar, the presenter covers five main topics. The first two are about science being the only method to render the truth about the world and reality and science leads to certainty. The third topic covers response to the objection that science works so it must be true. The last two topics are about science from an Islamic perspective. The main point is that science is not the only way to find truth. The most important points are that there are different ways to reach conclusions, science cannot account for morality, science cannot prove history and science is not absolute. To strengthen his claims, the author uses quotes from philosophers of science like Samir Okasha and Elliot Sober. He provides examples for all the things that science cannot account for. He provides examples of scientific theories to explain his arguments. He uses these evidences to arrive at the conclusion that science is not the only way to find the truth and science has not disproved the existence of a Creator.
The presenter breaks down every single point and explains them in detail leaving no room for objections to his claims. I agree with what the speaker presented because the proofs are very clear. When the speaker says that science is ahistorical he asks a question, “Did Genghis Khan exist?” he then goes on to explain that the existence of Genghis Khan cannot be proven by science. The speaker states “People have observed his existence once and told us, good, but them telling us over the centuries is not scientific evidence, its historical evidence, its testimonial evidence. Testimony is how we know the majority of the things we know.” This shows that science cannot account for historical events.
He presents the argument of atheists’ which is that “Science is the only way to render the truth about the world and reality, Science cannot render the truth about God, therefore God doesn’t exist.” Throughout his presentation he provides evidences for his claims by explaining that Science cannot account for testimonial evidence and that science is Amoral. The speaker states “You see a child, that is poor that is neglected and has no one to take care of them… you are a billionaire that could give this child a comfortable life… from a scientific perspective, when you are looking at that, can you see any moral obligation?” The speaker uses this argument to prove that even moral instincts cannot be proven by science. The questions I have, is to understand how do atheists, who believe that science has disproved God, respond to these claims? Do they believe in history or do they disbelieve in history because it cannot be scientifically proven? Will they change their stance after being presented with these arguments and believe in a Creator? I need to look up the atheists’ perspective on whether science leads to disbelief in a Creator. If I could say something to the author it would be to provide more arguments from the atheists’ side to better understand their stance. This document tells me about my research question that there are atheists who disbelieve in a creator because they feel that science has the answer to everything in the modern world. This genre was to educate people and throughout the webinar the speaker asked questions to his audience in order to bring in some views that are contrary to what he is presenting. The author is a public speaker, debater and researcher at IERA(Islamic Education and Research Academy). He specializes in the philosophy of science with a focus on Darwin’s theory of evolution. He has a MA and PgCert in Philosophy. He is a PhD candidate specializing in the philosophy of biology.
The speaker really exemplifies the claims of his webinar lecture by stating that “The second premise which is that science cannot prove God’s existence, now technically this is true, however, science not being able to prove God’s existence does not go an inch towards the conclusion that there is no God. Science cannot prove the existence of morals, that does not mean morals do not exist, science cannot prove to us the world is real, that does not mean the world is not real.” I totally agree with this statement, the author applies the logic of attributing science to disprove God’s existence to other fields like morals and the world. This shows how this logic of searching for truth through science is not consistent.