Author: Mahmudur Rafei (Page 2 of 9)

The topic of my Annointed Bibliography was “Why Do People Deny A Creator?” I was interested in this topic for quite some time because I used to interact with people of different faiths. When this ideology of denying a creator came up it felt intimidating but after doing this research I have been able to solidify my stance on there being a Creator and also better understand why others deny a Creator, their reasons and the arguments against them. My inspiration for this research was Imran Hussain who explained that there is no need to feel intimidated by such an ideology and the burden of proof is upon the ones who deny a Creator as they have to argue against a self evident truth which is belief in a Creator.
In my research I tried my best not to delve into philosophical concepts as its rhetoric is complicated and requires an in depth explanation. I tried to convey the research I conducted in a simple manner so that the regular public can grasp and comprehend what I have to convey. I decided to write in this genre so that both theists and atheists can understand the reasons why people deny a Creator and some of the main arguments they bring forth. I chose this audience because that is how the most of the population is divided, people who either believe in a higher power or they do not. For my research I used one argument for each paragraph and convey how athiests and theists respond to those arguments, I used this strategy because that is how many atheists disbelieve in a Creator, they bring up these arguments and state them as their reason for disbelief in a Creator. The pupose of my piece is to allow atheists to reflect on their position about a Creator and also inform the theists of the arguments against a Creator and how they could respond to them.
The genre I chose to condense my research of 4000 plus words is a non-written document, a video. I chose this genre because of the digital era we live in where many people prefer to watch videos instead of reading a long article. Also I felt that this is the best way to explain such a complex topic, the explanation is done by credible people who have studied this topic in depth and explain them in the best manner. I hope that I can present my research in a complete manner without leaving out any key points and at the same time keep it interesting.
The research topic was interesting and it was definitely worth spending my time conducting this research. Although I had difficulty finding more material from the atheists side and I hope I did not misrepresent their position. I feel that I have been able to explain such a complicated topic about which there are many debates and discussions held throughout the year in a simple manner that does not get the audience confused. I feel there are many things that could have been done in a different manner and it would help to give a wholistic understanding of the concept. I could have used more sources from the atheist’s side, but that would be difficult as many of them use philosophical language which is hard for the masses to comprehend. Also if I could organize my research in a cohesive manner that would be better and the audience would not get distracted while reading my research.

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.

Conclusion

The research question was “Why do people deny a Creator?” Throughout the research I explored different reasons for people rejecting in a creator. The reasons I found out are as follows: The problem of evil, no empirical evidence for a Creator, atheism is self-evident and science has disproved God. I wanted to present the perspectives of both sides, so I chose sources from atheists, theists and sources where both parties discuss their positions. So far what surprised me is that, atheists do not have any solid reason for disbelieving in a Creator. Most of the time, the reasons are emotional or they are based on the understanding of a certain faith. Sometimes it is because of studying arguments against the existence of a Creator which leads to atheism. I used to think that there was only one argument against atheists which was the creation of the universe, can something come out of nothing? After my research I found that there are many counterarguments to the contentions of atheist. The understanding of my question has deepened because now I know the arguments both for and against denying a Creator. Also I was able to understand some of the counterarguments presented by theists. Everything I learned is very important for me personally because I enjoy interacting with people of different faiths and ideologies, so this was something I was very curious about. I felt that the majority of people have this belief in a creator, but there were certain people who defected from this belief, they consisted of academics and regular people who used big words and presented complicated philosophical concepts. This made me more eager to study this ideology and understand whether it is worth adopting. The first people who need to know about this research are the atheists themselves, so that they can be exposed to a different perspective and provide more information and counterarguments from their side for denying a creator. It can also help them take an educated decision where they are aware of the implications of their ideology and also the perspective of theists, the reasons why they believe in a Creator. The next group of people that need to know about this are theists themselves, they should understand what atheism entails and why there are people who deny the divine, this will help in producing beneficial discussions to the most important question, which is the purpose of life.