An ordinary person has to make up to 35,000 trivial decisions every day. Two hundred twenty-seven of them are about food alone. If you make the wrong choice, it is not a significant event in your life if it comes to your coffee; you make a face and move on. What about your decision to choose your soul mate, health, or work? Errors in decision-making lead you in the wrong directions. Your choices can irreversibly impact not only that day but also the years after.

Some choices can be easier than others. Let’s say there is a bicycle behind one door and an expensive car behind the other. Before asking you which door you would choose, you also know which door the bicycle is behind and which door the car is behind. There is a bicycle at door A and the car door is B. Now let’s ask our question: Which door would you choose? A or B? The answer is pretty obvious: of course, you would choose door B. 

Let’s make the decision a little harder: things might not be as they seem. We have doors A and B again. There is a possibility that there is a bicycle behind door A and a car behind door B. There may or may not be a bicycle and a car behind doors. I don’t think your choice will change. In the end, the chance of them existing or not existing is the same, but because the car’s worth outweighs the bicycle’s worth, it is the most sensible decision.

We can prove what we said by calculating the expected value in probability. First considering door A: there is either a bicycle behind it or there is nothing. The chance of getting a bicycle is ½, and let’s say the bicycle is worth $100; the profit will be $100. If there is no bike behind door A, the probability of this happening is ½ again, but there is no profit this time. In statistics and probability analysis, the expected value is calculated by multiplying each of the possible outcomes by the likelihood each outcome will occur and then summing all of those values. So, expected value in this scenario is calculated as:

E(A) = $100 x (1/2) + $0 x (1/2) = $50.

The expected value of door A is $50. The expected value for door B is also considered and calculated in the same way. Let’s say the price of the car here is $100,000. From the same formula:

E(B) = $100,000 x (1/2) + $0 x (1/2) = $50,000.

The expected value of door B is a thousand times that of door A. If a choice is to be made between two doors, the wise choice will undoubtedly be door B.

Pascal’s stake is very similar to this game of chance. Blaise Pascal was a scientist and mathematician who lived in the 17^th century and developed his own theory of probability. His theory was quite successful. Using his own approach, he showed the existence of God and the necessity of believing in God. Instead of the door metaphor we used, he used two people, one who believed in God and one that didn’t believe in God. We assume that there is a fifty percent chance of God’s existence—that God either exists or he doesn’t. People that believe in God would pass through door B, similar to the example above. Under these conditions, if a person believes in God and God doesn’t exist, they lose or gain nothing. If God does exist, the believers go to Heaven and achieve infinite happiness. When we formulate this situation, we find out that the expected value of believing in God is infinite. We consider the probability of not believing in God is fifty percent, and there is no gain if it is true. On the other side, the existence of God is also fifty percent, and one gains infinity of happiness. Therefore, the expected value of believing in God, E(Believing), is calculated as above in the car/bicycle example:

E(Believing)= 0 x (1/2) + ∞ . (1/2) = ∞

Remember that half of infinity is also infinite.

So, even if God doesn’t exist, the faith that the believer has is priceless.

For those people who choose door A (not believing in God), there is nothing so beneficial for them. Even if they are correct, there is no gain for them in the end. If there is no God, then there is no afterlife. They receive finite pleasure from this life: choosing the bicycle still has some value but choosing the car is way more sensible. What if the other possibility happens? If a person does not believe in God and God exists, they will be deprived of all believers will get. When we think of the second option, that is door A, we formulate the expected value of not believing as:

E(not Believing)= 0 x (1/2) + (-∞) x (1/2) = -∞

Not believing in God also has infinite value but in the opposite way. You are in debt, bankrupt.

One of our choices is God existing, which is fifty percent. Someone may say that it is a high probability. So, despite all the evidence to believe in God, what if we reduce the probability of His existence to one in a thousand? Then the chance that God does not exist is 999/1000. In this case:

Probability of God not existing: 999/1000 and no gain.

Probability of God exists: 1/1000 and the gain is infinite.

E(Believing)= 0 x (999/1000) + (∞) x (1/1000) = ∞

As can be seen, the expected values do not change. Likewise, an atheist will get the same negative infinity. According to possibility calculations, belief in God means an infinite gain in any case. According to mathematics, believing in God, even if the likelihood is one in a googolplex, is still profitable. This topic leaves no room for choice. The chance to gain infinite value is infinite, and the value you lose is finite or, more likely, non-existent. There is no doubt that you have to give everything in this game of life that you are obliged to play. There is no other way to end it than to risk your finite life to win eternal life. Preferring the other option is like resigning from one’s mind.

On the other hand, you may say that the profit is uncertain, and everything is left to luck. But when considering the infinite distance between the certainty of the misery endured and the uncertainty of gain, it makes no sense to argue that the finite life we have should be used to endanger the infinite gain. Everyone who enters a game of chance tries their luck by putting in something sure, but it is always doubtful whether they will win. He puts something limited and negligible in danger without offending the mind. As Pascal states, “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

The following story is related to Pascal’s argument. Someone came to Ali, the Caliph. The man denied resurrection, reckoning in the hereafter, heaven, and hell. He asked Ali:

“Ali, you believe in hereafter; we don’t. You worship, spend a lot of money, and go through the trouble to be saved from hell and enter heaven. Is it worth it? And how do you know that there will be a resurrection after death?”

Ali (R.A.) listened to the man calmly, then gave him the following answer:

“Let’s first assume that what you say is true. If there is no afterlife, we are in the same situation as you. We are even, and there is no gain for you or us. In the meantime, our prayers, good deeds, good morals, and charity we give for the sake of God will not harm us. On the contrary, it will be beneficial for improving the community. But what if there is an afterlife, and what we say turns out to be true? What will you do?”

Your correspondent was musing just the other day. Enter one’s wife.

“Are you thinking, dear?” she asked.
“I am reflecting, receiving,” I replied.
“What about, then?” she asked anew.
“Atheists,” I replied, succinctly.
“Oh, Lord, must you?” she expostulated.

She is right, of course. Atheists and their reasons to be could be a matter of anxiety. The traditional three taboo themes at a gathering in Britain are politics, sex and religion, to which atheism has been seen to form a relationship. This quartet of human strife is what gets people all riled up, and the nicest party is likely to end up as a brawl unless etiquette prevails. I shall nevertheless attempt to give you the lowdown on those among us who would deny the existence of God. The real task, however, is to write a few thousand words without being rude.

First and foremost we must explain to one’s atheist acquaintances that the God they deny loves them. The species atheos, however, is a being sometimes relying on second-hand ideas and that because the thrust of his or her reasoning tends often to be about the mistakes made by other people! That is where they are coming from. Your average atheist is a creature possessing great guile and often a vast measure of sophistry. This may be sufficient for talking up a storm, but without the possibility of bringing other people and their errors into things there is a decided lack of acumen.

“See,” they will exclaim, “religion leads only to war. History proves it.”

To be fair, this reasoning does give credence to the cautionary advice to button up given by partying Brits. It means resting in faith and exercising an inability to leave each other alone. But there is no excuse! We have, indeed, and to our unmitigated shame, committed all of that mayhem. We often err, and after all, only God is good. The peoples of religion have sometimes reversed the dictum. To proclaim that war is justifiable because “God is on our side,” is otherwise to be understood if one were to suggest that we should, in fact, be on God’s side. One way is the way of submission and the other is expecting God to submit to us.

What is really of the essence is that we must provide for the atheists reasonable proof of the existence of God. Believers talk about God. But one seldom encounters someone who has offered a definition of the God some believe in or the God that some do not. Acceptance of our lack would require humility, which is closely related to submission and the guidance we seek.

One wonders at this point about blind faith and can only surmise that such people simply believe in ultimate goodness and they would be wonderful. One can’t really blame the atheist for his or her frustration. But on the other hand it is our atheist friend who would tell us that common sense and a rational attitude fostered by reason is sufficient unto the day. Criticism is of the past and if you have never made a mistake you are qualified to point a finger, accuse, belittle, denigrate, criticize and even kill. Thus personal responsibility is the name of the game.

Simplistic? Of course. It leaves little space for the philosopher, for those who would debate, for experts of all kinds.

Wind up and make an atheist go and he will speak and say lots of things that are curiously related to those uttered by those of the opposite persuasion. Nevertheless, we are concerned here with Who makes things and people and what keeps all of the universes up and running.

As an aside, one must add that both atheists and theists are often unable to resist playing to a crowd. A crowd has its own Eigendynamik and is prone to being rowdy. In other words, being a mob. Mobs are easily swayed. A clever speaker, one whose stream of consciousness is well under way, can wind up a mob and get a few laughs; but get a mob excited and it will be hard to contain. It is all about jumping from one verbal thrust to the next until a deep-rooted nastiness takes over. There is also something thrilling involved, which lacks any semblance of conscience.

But back to the Divine Spirit! Not only is the Divine Spirit the Who in this essay, it is also the prime mover, methinks, of every single aspect of human endeavor, and plenty more besides. God is, actually, and quite reasonably, a force that enables. We have been given free will, and even if we presume that God does not control us (some would say unfortunately) in the accepted sense of the word, He does enable us. By this reasoning it is God Who is instrument in permitting the atheist to say “I don’t believe there is a God.” To deny God thus means a denial of one’s own existence.

If one has ever countenanced the probability of a mystical experience one is at least showing an open mind. But mystical experience must be verifiable or the mystics will always be called liars. On the other hand, mystics seem generally unwilling to explain things and, anyway, don’t give a hoot about being called liars.

Atheists are unlikely to investigate anything that would appear to be unreasonable. Again, one can’t blame them, and true to the casting of the first stone story one shouldn’t blame them because they would be asked to admit a universal truth that places thought into a secondary position.

Contrary to common belief, mystics deal with absolute reality, which is perhaps why they are usually so reticent. Our mystics, the Prophets, told it like it is. The way it is can be what we are pleased to call our collective history, which is quite obviously an ongoing event. It is physically what Charles Darwin, a nice old gent who was misused by atheists and abused by theists, called evolution. The human mind, regardless of whether you accept it as biologically evolved or believe in its unique, unchanged state from the time of creation, has now become, you might say, uppity. It has seen itself to be the boss. Deep inner feeling, the whisper from the soul, as it is known within Islam, has become irrelevant. The ideal human would be one who is able to work, create, play one’s part in furthering the science of life for the common good – but with a feeling of patience, trust, and sincere submission.

If we can accept that there is a primal force that could be likened to the fuel of the universe, we must be prepared to be unable to describe it because it is not of a physical nature. One might say it would be like trying to describe the appearance of wind, which does not actually have an appearance, but we can see its effect, like bending trees, or helping sailors. It is the same with the primal force! You can’t see it, but you can see, feel and experience its effect.

One must, of course, be prepared to believe that the Spirit is not just a bunch of molecules. What some seekers have done has been to sit still and watch what happens. This does not necessarily imply meditation but prayer may arise as a spontaneous burst of hope.

Imagine having a mind in abeyance. A mind that is modest, a mind that is no longer the boss. My mind, my servant! What atheist could argue with that?

The monotheist prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, were appalled to see humans groveling before idols, bits of wood and stone constructs. They called for a return to the one universal common denominator we have; our life, our Spirit, our universal fuel, our dependence on life itself. I would ask you to please not confuse life with what people do. See life as that which enables people to do what they do. What they do with this life is a matter of personal capacity, and heaven help us!

It would be wishful thinking to suggest that atheists should investigate this unexplained, perhaps unexplainable energy. From a purely psychological point of view it is evident that humans “need to be right about something.” This “need” is likely to be fostered by the ego’s (self-esteem) fight against “losing,” which in turn could engender depression. Depression (if it has not become pathological) is fought against by the mind, and that in turn “strengthens” that which probably caused the depression in the first place. It could be worth remembering that any child leaving the womb brings genetic baggage that could – and history shows that the human condition has been pretty dismal – hinder the child from growing up well and healthy. In other words, the parents are to blame! Oh, dear, as it happens your correspondent has five children. And yet the parents are not really to blame because they are simply part of the chain. Thus, one could say that the best “laboratory” for research is the one you are living in, one’s self. After all, you don’t need lots of expensive equipment. You do not need an office or the need to commute. You are already there. But how is this relevant to prosocial behaviour following adverse experience? Well, in the pursuance of prosocial behaviour the participant feels “absolutely sure” that his or her attitude is correct. Experience fosters it. This “being sure” of something is of paramount importance to counter uncertainty, which is a large part of the human condition, and which leads to all kinds of often dubious endeavours. It is a widespread belief among most social groups that “doing right” is a good thing. It will make us acceptable; it will foster self-esteem. But above all the altruistic way will help one to feel right. We seem to need to prove a point about something, but actually it is all about how one feels. One wishes to feel good. One dreads feeling bad. People will go to many extremes in the pursuit of feeling good. The trouble is that the intellect tells some of us that we need a reason to feel good. There has to be an explanation. The ideal state, one may suppose, is to feel good for no reason whatsoever. That state of feeling good without reason could mean “no baggage.” But we know that having no baggage is not possible. We bring it with us into the world. Thus, genetic memory must be the point of investigation. An amusing take on altruism is about a person who has a deep feeling that money should be donated to a worthy cause. The mind switches in and argues that one is merely trying to placate one’s conscience. The deep feeling department struggles with the mind. Then, with a bit of luck, an even deeper deep feeling takes over and says “placate as much as you want, as long as you send the money.” Thus the ways of the Lord are indeed mysterious. The only real loss is to the value one places on one’s mind. This is a tricky business because one is then in the process of putting one’s mind back to where it belongs, as a servant and not a boss. It may be worth remembering that a new-born baby’s mind is anyhow in abeyance.

Carrying on and somehow making our way in life requires faith. The faith required is given through experience and that through something akin to basic research. (The world is our lab.) When learning to swim you must first experience the fact that water will support you. (You can do this in shallow water for starters.) Then having experienced the irrefutable fact that water will support you, you simply have to make a few movements to get somewhere. A slight problem is that one needs to place this knowledge into one’s memory bank, where it could be misconstrued and misused; but that is going a bit far at this stage. The second part of the need for faith through experience is when learning to live. To begin with, like the fact of learning to swim, we need to believe that life will support us, for it is made to do so. But believing that life will support us first needs irrefutable proof. This is difficult to attain. But one could simply plant a few potatoes and watch them grow into something edible. Common sense and a deep feeling for a possible answer to our existential dilemma could be given. It would, however, require a degree of modesty in respect of our needs.

The atheist would keep us earthbound. Not a bad place to start, but there is more that can be revealed within the human frame. Unfortunately, I can only offer an experience, of which I have no right to expect anyone to believe. I once waited at a large, noisy railway station for the arrival of a Muslim man of some mystic experience. The man and two others seemingly floated the length of the platform after leaving their train. I lurked behind a pillar and when they had passed me I hopped on behind their group. The moment I was within their proximity (a bubble-like zone surrounding them) the hectic noise and clamour of the railway station faded away (no shouts or whistles and all of the rest that make up the noisy experience of a London railway station). We were, indeed, in a bubble. Like a fool I could not resist dropping back to see what happened. Of course, the clamour returned.

The “message” was obvious: I needed to experience something I could not explain. Many of my spiritual doubts fell away. The experience was not to be denied. Here was a reality that I had previously not anticipated. I feel truly grateful for knowing that there really are such things unexplainable. Such as the peace that passeth (beyond) all understanding. Or being in the world but (literally) not of it.

If this essay is of any worth the quest for God is quite logically not really in our own hands, and as the railway-station mystic was once heard to utter, “Don’t try to go faster than God.”

Atheism or Theism: The Perspective of Said Nursi, Wipf & Stocks
By Hakan Gok
2018
9781532646799

The existence of God has been long debated in philosophical circles. Mankind doesn’t seem to have settled the question yet. Although scientific circles almost all agree on the assumption that the universe is not eternal and has a beginning, there seems to be no clear scientific explanation of the Big Bang. What was there before it? How did it happen? Is there a divine force behind it? Although theories such as the expansion of the universe are commonly agreed upon, there is still a major gap between the views on how life as we see it came into its current form.

Philosophers have gathered around two philosophical positions to explain the universe and human existence. Those who argue that the universe began with the Big Bang and life has come into existence as a result of some random events without any divine intervention are considered to be atheists. Others, who argue that the universe is the product of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity, are called theists. Arguably almost all thinking human beings are inclined towards one of these two positions, although the degrees and the specific philosophical positions are varied. While atheism had never been a trend almost until the seventeenth century, the theistic view, which was the mainstream thought, did not really concern itself much to bring evidence for the existence of God. Although there has been a very dynamic discussion on this topic in the last three centuries, one tends to accept belief in the existence of God as a matter of personal conviction rather than a result of empirical evidence.

Hakan Gok’s recent book is another fresh contribution to this everlasting debate. Gok explains the scene to the layman in his fairly extended introduction. It is, in a way, an executive summary of what has been said since the time of the Ancient Greeks. The book gives a special emphasis on the kalam version of the argument for the existence of God, in particular the views of Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, Al Ghazzali, and Ibn Rushd. Although the kalam arguments sound fairly similar to that of the Western tradition, the reader can feel the flavor of Islamization of these common arguments. It is clear in Gok’s writings that there is a close correlation between Western and Islamic ways of arguing in favor of theism. The book also shows how Muslim philosophers, particularly the ones mentioned above, were influenced by the Ancient Greek tradition.

What is unique in Gok’s book is the fact that it examines Said Nursi’s approach to atheism and theism, as Nursi extensively did in the Risale-i Nur (The Epistles of Light). Gok tries to demonstrate that, like many of his predecessors, Nursi employed main philosophical arguments to prove that there is God and the universe is not the product of chance. The teleological argument, or the argument from design, which is the offshoot of the cosmological argument, is Nursi’s main proof to demonstrate the existence of God. Gok breaks down Nursi’s design argument and scrutinizes it thoroughly. Arguments from religious experience and from revelation appear in two different chapters in Gok’s book. The book seems to be at pains to demonstrate how Nursi gives a twist to these two arguments by focusing intensely on Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Quran.

Gok’s book doesn’t only focus on proving that these two arguments make a compelling argument for believing in God, but also studies how Nursi answers the skeptical questions posed over time by many thinkers. It feels more like a defense of Nursi’s position than a systematic presentation of them as they appear in William Lane Craig and the like.

The moral argument is another Nursian way of proving the existence of God, as Gok’s book shows. Human beings are the best judges of any given situation. If all the philosophical arguments fail to convince them, their primordial conscience (wijdan) can lead them into believing in a creator-maintainer God. This, Gok claims, is what makes Nursi’s Risale-i Nur unique among many pieces written on the subject.

Gok’s book puts all the main theistic arguments, kalam arguments, and the atheist’s arguments into the same frame. Readers can clearly see all three positions and where Nursi sits on this spectrum. Gok does not only look at the historic arguments, but also analyzes recent ones. Specifically, he compares Nursi’s views in the Risale-i Nur with Richard Dawkins’s views in The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’s in God Is Not Great, and Daniel C Dennetts’s assessments in Consciousness Explained: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and Breaking the Spell. In a well-balanced and fairly objective way, Gok puts the arguments against each other and encourages the reader to form their own judgement.

Atheism and theism are two colossal schools of thought. One should not expect Gok to settle all the scores in 270 pages. His work is easy to read and easy to understand; it merely rekindles one’s interest in independently reading and scrutinizing these thoughts while also making the subject more digestible for those who have an interest in them. Gok sums up Nursi’s position in the Risale-i Nur with a degree of critical analysis.

Each of the Nursian arguments certainly deserve further scrutiny. Yet Gok works to avoid bogging readers down with too many specific philosophical details. Among many books which have been published on the subject, Gok’s makes the subject more enjoyable and digestible for the general readership. It is a fresh contribution to the literature written on Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur and the subject of theism and atheism.

A: Atheism means denying God’s existence, rejecting His commandments, avoiding religious reflection and seriousness, and considering oneself independent of Him. As such beliefs negate the concept of sin, people imagine that they can live as they please and thus begin to corrupt their hearts and minds. Atheism spreads because education is misused, young people are neglected, and schools defend and foster it.

Ignorance about the essentials of faith and religion is the primary cause of atheism. People whose minds, hearts, and souls are not directed toward the truth become vulnerable. Only God’s help and grace can save them. If a community does not counter this trend, its members’ hearts and minds open to deviation.

Atheism first manifests itself as a lack of interest in the principles of faith. Such people say this is a positive attitude, for it represents a desire for the mind’s independence and freedom of thought. As the demands of faith are strenuous, indifference turns toward what is easier. Seeking to avoid honest and serious reflection, it easily falls into neglect and then heedlessness, atheism, and even contempt for religion. Given this, atheism is not the result of sound reasoning, intuition or experience, or scientific truth, but of a lazy yet sometimes active and militant mood of not caring and of rebellion.

God’s countless manifestations testify that there is only One Creator and Governor who administers, directs, and sustains this universe. We may think of each manifestation as a letter or book from God to us, reflecting His Divine Attributes in a comprehensible way. These Attributes are seen everywhere in creation. However, some who do not understand these things correctly present nature, as well as it principles and relationships, in ways designed to make many people (especially the young) abandon true faith.

Does Science Support Atheism?

Much has been said and written about the natural world’s delicate balance and innumerable subtle harmonies. Such an order can be attributed only to the All-Mighty. Planets and stars move within an interrelated complexity of drifts and orbits that are infinitely more precise than anything we can design or make. If what we make is accepted as evidence of intelligent design, why is the far more vast and complicated universe considered an exception?

Nature resembles a huge factory of enormous generative power. Its working principles are astonishingly subtle and supple, yet firmly established in reassuring patterns and rhythms. From where does nature get these operating rules? Claims that nature is self-created are not convincing. Of course one of the operating rules is a measure of self-organizing power. But what is the origin of this rule?

Principles are non-essential attributes of a thing or being and, as such, are secondary and dependent on substance and essence. Attributes cannot exist before or independently of the compound or organism of which they are attributes. Thus if a plant demonstrates some self-organizing power by seeking light, moisture, and nutrients for its growth, it means that a limited self-organizing power has been embedded in its seed. Similarly, the principle of attraction in physics operates in and through existent masses, distances, and forces. To claim that such principles are the origin or source of existent things or beings is untenable. Just as untenable is the confidence with which such claims are asserted. To claim that this extraordinarily subtle and ordered universe is the outcome of haphazard coincidences is absurd, contradictory, and quite unscientific, for no evidence supports this claim.

As the result of long experiments and reflection, Muller declared that reason could not explain the origin of life.1 He established, on behalf of science and scientists, the absurdity of coincidence as a possible explanation. Similarly, after a 22-year series of studies, the Soviet Institute of Chemistry, under the chairmanship of Aleksandr Oparin, proved that the laws of chemistry and chemical reactions shed no light on the origin of life, and that science still has no answer to this question.(2)

When these scientists acknowledged the limitations to human inquiry, they did so on behalf of all science and scientists. Yet such work has not undone the damage done by earlier, less careful scientists, who offered guesses as reliable scientific theory. Unfortunately, general attitudes and values continue to be shaped by such guesses instead of the realities established by better scientists.

For example, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to present Darwin’s theory of evolution as fact instead of theory. Meanwhile, a growing number of scientists, particularly evolutionists, argue that Darwin’s theoryis not a truly scientific theory. Many critics admit that we still have no idea how this evolution took place. While scientists and other experts have produced various ideas about probable causes and the actual process, the general public and less-informed scientists continue to believe in this theory.

Research projects and published studies cast doubt on evolution and seek to give a truer picture of nature as creation and our place in it. Works like Why Do We Believe in God? help those who considered non-believers in evolution as rather odd people reconsider their opinion and reflect more wisely on the matter.

Given the fact that a sound, reliable understanding of the natural world leads to belief in a single, universal Creator, atheism has more to do with obstinacy, prejudice, and a refusal to give up illusions than with the mind’s independence or freedom of thought. Young people remain vulnerable, for they do not fully understand their behavior’s nature and consequences, their spiritual being and their resulting deep-seated spiritual needs, and the balance between material and non-material values that characterizes a total human existence. Thus they are easily deceived by outdated concepts presented as scientific truths, although scientists know (and have said) that they are no more than theories. This is why teaching and learning about the truth are more important today than other duties and obligations.

If this vital task is not taken up, we may be unable to rectify the situation later on. Some of those evil consequences are with us already. We, this unlucky generation, are deprived of good teachers teachers possessing inner unity and harmony of mind and heart, self-knowledge in their deepest thoughts and feelings, a desire to teach others, and a willingness to suffer to promote others’ happiness and welfare. We hope such noble-minded teachers will arise to rescue people from their current moral and spiritual suffering.

If this can be done, present and future generations will acquire the necessary stability in their thinking and reasoning about life’s great questions. They will be able to resist the lure of false beliefs and illusions, and thereby be saved from the anxiety of constantly doubting the nature and purpose of their lives. They will be immunized, at least partially, against atheism and its attendant self-centered and neurotic behaviors. Atheism is caused by a lack of knowledge and learning, an inability to synthesize one’s inner and outer life, and is the result of an undernourished heart and soul. People cling to what they know, and resist what they do not knowor at least try to remain uninterested and unconcerned.

External Influences

The mass media continually presents ideas, lifestyles, and character types that encourage self-indulgence and self-abandonment. Such messages encourage young people to become punks or whatever the latest craze is; to seek immediate gratification and pleasure; and to prefer triviality and banality, loudness and vulgarity to cultivating their minds. People quickly adopt ways considered exciting and attractive. What they do not know becomes even more strange and alien, and eventually a matter of total indifference. Thus we have to find effective ways of introducing young people to the deeper ways of religious life, ways that lead toward tranquillity and light, and away from anxiety and darkness. Young people are excitable and susceptible. They crave limitless freedom and have countless unsatisfied appetites and desires. Their overly generous hearts and minds cause imbalance and disharmony, which can lead them toward atheism. They prefer immediate pleasure, however slight or brief, to the misery and distress that come in the wake of indulgence. They jump at the pleasures and enjoyments that Satan displays to them, and so prepare their own calamity. They fly to the fire of atheism just as moths are drawn to light. While ignorance and unfed hearts and souls increase, materialism and carnality gradually subvert the desire for truth and annul any nobility of purpose. This is what happened with Faust.3

This man, who desired extraordinary powers to do whatever he wished for a limited period, sold his soul cheaply to Mephistopheles, Satan’s agent. He then wasted these powers by pursuing trivial pleasures instead of serving humanity. When the soul is dead, the heart dies, compassion disappears, and the mind and reason become so confused that people become helpless victims of their own whims or current fads. Those who indulge in carnal and sensual passions will suffer crises and change direction continually, applaud every new fashion in thought as if it were the truth, and swing from one ideology to another from confusion to doubt and back again. Faith, a steady sense of duty, or a patient and enduring heart will not attract them. Nor will they find any merit in moral education, self-discipline, contemplation, the soul’s improvement, or strengthening their morals and manners. Wholly addicted to triviality and self-indulgence, they will deny our ancestors’ achievement and remain willfully ignorant of what real culture and civilization can make possible: a balance between spirituality and sanity, between virtue and happiness.

As not everyone can be saved, we should focus on educating those young people who have not yet been overtaken by the worst habits. We must teach them the fundamental principles of the system upon which we depend and to which our existence belongs. We must lead them to a systematic, straight, and honest way of thinking. If we cannot, we will see our community or nation continue to sink into moral and spiritual corruption. An additional cause of atheism is the deliberate rejection of all constraints and prohibitions. This tendency entered Muslim societies from western Europe via a degenerate form of existentialism (mainly French) that replaced traditional values and formal religious education with absolute individual freedom. The theory was that the individual would (and could) mature and develop into a noble, moral being through personal experience. This theory has never produced sane, caring, and compassionate people. All it has done is intensify misery and selfishness by isolating individuals from their families, traditions, and their selves. Its adherents cultivate no morals or tastes and do not try to find the truth, for all they are interested in is their own shallow private life.

In short, they simply survive from moment to moment in the illusory hope of one day finding happiness. These few reflections do not cover the whole subject. Yet I hope that future guides, teachers, and leaders with discernment and foresight will consider them when trying to stop the spread of deviation and atheism. I have presented a brief insight, with the prayer that some people may be alerted to the truth, conquer the self, and regain the means to do what is good.

Footnotes

1. Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (d. 1980): Russian biochemist noted for his studies on the origin of life from chemical matter. By drawing on the insights of chemistry, he extended the Darwinian theory of evolution backward in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might have combined into complex organic compounds and how the latter might have formed the primordial organism. (www.britannica.com)
2. Hermann Joseph Muller (d. 1967): American geneticist best remembered for his demonstration that mutations and hereditary changes can be caused by X rays striking the genes and chromosomes of living cells. His discovery of artificially induced mutations in genes had far-reaching consequences, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1946. (www.britannica.com)
3. Written by Goethe (d. 1832), this classic work is the story of a person’s spiritual journey and self-discovery.