O you who believe! Turn to God in true, sincere repentance. (66:8)

Philosophers and scientists have long mulled over the faculties that govern our actions and thoughts. They have identified these in different ways, and there is still endless debate over these tangible and intangible faculties. There seem to be conflicting forces within us – an “evil-commanding” carnal self and a “regulatory” conscience. These have been caricatured as the devil and angel on our shoulders. Freud called this phenomenon the id and the super-ego within us: i.e. the instinctual drive and the moralizing conscience. Unrestricted drives can lead to destruction, so moral laws and society impose certain rules and consequences for such actions.

An important tool that aids this self-regulation is the feeling of guilt. However, the conscience can easily be manipulated and with some effort a rationale that justifies most actions can be found. A troubled conscience cannot be escaped forever. Non-conformity to established moral norms can be the greatest source of anxiety and guilt, and the cause of drastic internal conflicts.

In any case, everyone has something that they hold to be right and wrong, whether induced by society, revelation, or both.

For immigrants, such moral questions have an amplified effect. Living in a society that can have different moral norms to that of their cultural upbringing, which itself has variations from the religious moral values that they hold dear, can cause a turbulence of internal conflicts. “Who I am today,” and, “what made me this way?” are answered by a cohort of forces which are in perpetual conflict with one another. An immigrant realizes that their so-called innate urges, and even personality traits, are simply a set of influences that they need to learn to grow conscious of in order to truly find inner peace. During this process, however, they may develop a deep sense of guilt which they are not able to escape. The only way out could be to appeal to a higher being.

Projecting this situation onto myself, an idea came to me while I was contemplating why I am not able to get rid of my feeling of guilt. After I perceive myself to have sinned, I repent and feel sorrow for my sins, but then I repeat that sin. Why is it that I cannot stop this cycle? Is it possible, I thought, that deep in my subliminal mind, I feel at ease when I realize my weakness and inferiority before God because it is only then that I am able to truly connect with Him? If I stopped sinning, would the relief and comfort corrupt me and distance me from God?

My first reaction, of course, was that this idea must be a waswasa (a satanic whispering). Surely one’s connection to God is not merely one of embarrassment or fear, but involves qualities such as awe, gratitude, love, and rida (a satisfied resignation and submission). Also, how could I assume that I could attain a state of sinlessness when even the purest of the pure Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, felt the need to repent seventy or a hundred times a day?

What I repent for and what the Prophet repented for could not have been the same. So, I must have a misconception of what constitutes a sin. Sinning cannot simply be a case of misbehaviour or non-compliance with an order. One can make the following deduction: since sinning is unpleasant because it is accompanied by guilt (a troubled conscience), and since heartfelt guilt is as a result of immorality, then feelings of guilt can be treated as an inner motivation for repenting. Our troubled conscience is a result of a more expanded meaning of sinning, which included not just merely acting immorally but also entails things such as: lack of right action, vanity, being heedless, or even having unpleasant thoughts.

The example of Prophet David’s (peace be upon him) startling state of anguish seems to prove this point: “One day he asks God Almighty: ‘O Lord. How can I be thankful to You, since thanking You is another favour that requires thankfulness?’ The Almighty responded: ‘Just now you have done it.’”

It seems then that an extraordinary level of self-regulation and a true understanding of the meaning of repentance brings the conscious ones to bend down in modesty. They are greater sinners in their own eyes than I perceive myself to be. Alas, the only way to free myself from my deviations is to be sincere and resolute in growing conscious of my sins and to focus my attention on re-assessing my position in the face of God. At the end of the day, being conscious that God is seeing me, even at times when nobody else is, may be the only way of abstaining from sin. It is only then that I will realize there is so much more to my relationship with God than my fear and shame.

For a balanced and healthy state of mind, I have since realized that I must enrich and diversify my relationship with God. I can develop different areas of connection, for instance, through contemplating the manifestation of His names in His creation by studying the sciences; and then my astonishment of His might will be aroused and this will lead me to further gratefulness; and by turning to His word, I can establish a direct conversation with him and lend an ear to what He has to say to me. The benefits of having a concerned conscience need to be further discussed, but something is clear: if the feeling of heartfelt concern dies out and is replaced by vanity, then that is cause for serious concern.

Once I could see God in one thing – even though it was the vastest, most mysterious, and perhaps most obvious example in creation – I was able to see God in almost anything.

Before, there was no meaning. There was no cohesion. There was no contentment. Instead, there was sorrow. There was an endless search for pleasure. There was a fear of death, but also a fear of life. And there were questions. There were always questions. And the answers I found only made me ask more and more questions. I was under the impression that there was no certainty, no order, no higher meaning – that I was asking questions that were not meant to be asked.

To put it another way, during this time in my life, I had the perception that knowledge and belief were incompatible – a relatively common idea, as I have found. Many will say that science goes against religion. Some will choose religion; I chose science, because in many ways, it appeared to be the more difficult one to dismiss. In retrospect, I know that my conception of religion was simply wrong, that the two really can be, and are, compatible. After all, not only did God give us intellectual capacities for a reason, but also, the book of divine revelation cannot contradict the book of creation. Would that not undermine God’s wisdom? Regardless, at the time, my belief had melted away due to my increasing awareness not only of science, but also that scientific accuracy was lacking in my faith. As a result, a never-ending barrage of questions ceaselessly entered my head.

To me, life had no real meaning. Everyone at some point asks, “Why am I here?” Before, my answer to this question was, “To make myself happy.” Therefore, my life was centered on myself – I was the center of the universe. No one else mattered. All of my time was spent on seeking pleasure – physical pleasure, material pleasure, intellectual pleasure. I was focused on finding happiness, and I thought this happiness would be found in gaining the acceptance of others, in having many possessions, in being well liked, in indulging in worldly pleasures. In my career path, I did not desire to make a difference in the world nor was I concerned with earning lots of money, strangely enough – I simply wanted a job that I adored: a job that made me happy. Mind you, what this job was, I did not know, but this was my goal and my primary concern.

I did not know the meaning of life, nor did I know why or how I got here, so seemingly, the only reasonable solution was to enjoy the life that I had. Why I had this life was of little import. So, I set off on a journey in search of lasting, worldly happiness, but I did not find it. Instead, I found that this abstract entity was very elusive. When it seemed I had found real and genuine happiness, I would lose it. The pleasures I partook in on this journey were only transitory, so when the contentment I found in them was gone, there was only pain. This left me still feeling empty, feeling that there was no real deep and lasting contentment to be had in this world. It was akin, in a way, to an addiction. I was always trying to get my “fix,” and over time, it became increasingly difficult to satisfy myself, to hide the pain – pain that resulted from wanting, from desiring even, to live a life of higher meaning, all the while not knowing how to attain it.

Regardless of the fact that, initially, it was knowledge and questioning that caused my belief to wither, during this time, I was not at all interested in increasing my knowledge – not in reading or in learning. I was simply apathetic; perhaps I had become burnt out due to knowledge causing me to ask questions that seemed unanswerable. Pondering frustrating existential questions was not pleasurable, nor was it, seemingly, a path to happiness, so I just ignored my thirst for knowledge and answers. In lieu, I spent my time on shallow frivolities, but this got very old, very fast.

Despite my pulling away from intellectual endeavors and from belief, there were still some topics that occasionally caught my interest. It was my seemingly innate fascination with space, with the universe, that made me reconsider my belief in God. I could not look at the order and perfection inherent there and think that it was all just a random occurrence. This was simply impossible to me. There are innumerable examples, but for one, if the earth were any closer to the sun, it would be too hot to sustain life, and gravity would be too strong. If it were any further away, the opposite would be true – it would be too cold and gravity would be too weak. As I see it, the earth’s distance from the sun could not have been a mere coincidence. In the words of Nursi, the universe is a “macro Qur’an,” and I was able to discern this even before my personal beliefs were solidified; I could clearly see that the universe is brimming with God’s signs, and that the sheer vastness of it is a testament to His infinity and oneness.

Once I could see God in one thing – even though it was the vastest, most mysterious, and perhaps most obvious example in creation – I was able to see God in almost anything: the tides of the ocean, the composition of the atmosphere, a seed sprouting into a small tree, the uniqueness of a fingerprint, the utter complexity inherent in an atom, despite its size, or even the varieties of difference – and remarkable similarity – between people. To emphasize this, God repeats over and over, “Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?” And it had thus become clear – I cannot deny any of them because all of creation is a reflection of its Creator.

At this realization – that God does indeed exist, for He manifests Himself everywhere – my thirst for knowledge made a swift resurgence, but first I had to forget everything I had previously known about my beliefs, my desires, my goals, my life’s purpose – I even had to forget everything I knew about myself. I had to gain a new mindset and refine my worldview. I had to reevaluate my own personal motto. I had to change even the minutest aspects of my daily routine. There was so incredibly much to learn, as there had been so much time that I had wasted. The turnaround seemed hasty or even abrupt, but it had been in the works, covertly, for a long, long time. Those times when I pushed aside my questions? They were the final moments of calm before my life would be flipped upside down, losing every last bit of resemblance to my previous life.

Now, I feel guilt if I waste too much time. I have, seemingly, almost a compulsion to learn something new every single day. I read – constantly – about anything and everything. My desire for knowledge is no longer in a vacuum, as it was before, because now I know that knowledge could be used to increase faith and belief, and faith and belief could be used to increase knowledge. For every question of faith or of the nature of life that knowledge led me to ponder, belief gave me answers – answers that satisfied me. The satisfaction was in seeing how knowledge and faith were not only compatible – they were intertwined. I could see the perfect order in everything created by God, and I could see all of the problems inherent in the society created by man – materialism, narcissism, and a lack of faith. But these problems were not only on the macro scale of society; on the micro scale, they had been my problems. They had been the obstacles to my happiness and contentment. I had life, and I had knowledge. Faith was the missing piece.

I still partake in worldly pleasures – I am not an ascetic, nor do I claim to be. These pleasures, however, are not the means to happiness. Belief is the means to happiness. Worldly pleasure is a gift from God, and so I experience pleasure for what it gives me – temporary pleasure. I no longer expect it to give me lasting contentment. Faith gives me that. Life for me is no longer this endless search for worldly satisfaction because happiness cannot be found among things of this world; it can only be found through certainty of belief. With certainty of belief, I now know that even pain and suffering has a greater purpose – everything has a greater purpose.

Before, I wanted happiness at any cost. That was my motto. Now, I focus on increasing my belief and my faith. I study, read, and reason since exercising my intellectual capacities is a way to do that and because I must not waste the gifts I have been given. My life has a different purpose now – to contribute to the greater good, to use my free will responsibly, to live rationally and reasonably, and to remember God in everything I do. One can always strive for this and never tire of it because there are infinite rewards and there is infinite room for improvement. So now, the motto that I live by is “knowledge to increase faith, faith to increase contentment.” Now, I have found all of the missing pieces.

Muslim friends told me about his hard work, his impeccable character, and his innumerable virtues. Ironically, the more they spoke of his perfection, the more I resisted. It reminded me too much of the fervor of Christians regarding Jesus, peace be upon him. Risk comes with excessive praise

inadvertently a wonderful prophet can be raised to a status higher than a mortal man. Like many current and former Christians, I would not believe that Jesus was God, and I was scared of language which elevated any prophet too highly.

So every time I read about the Prophet, I prayed for protection from my own misconceptions, my own cultural prejudices. Then one day, I came upon a lovely story about the infant Prophet being nursed by a Bedouin. While he lived with the tribe, they enjoyed bountiful harvests and animals full of milk. The Bedouins soon became convinced this particular baby was very special. I had seen God looking out for the children in my life and providing for them inexplicably at particularly difficult times. So, by the grace of God, the Bedouin’s story opened a door for me.

Slowly, with more reading, the walls around my heart began to disintegrate. Polygamy was acceptable among Muslims, Jews, Christians, and polytheists at the time. But the Prophet had many wives, and non-Muslims eagerly cited this as evidence of perversion. What was the rational truth? First, he was loyal to one wife for 20 years, until her death, though she was his elder by 15 years. After her death, he married two women within a few years-one the elderly, destitute widow of an old friend, and the other the beloved daughter of his best friend and staunchest supporter. The latter, the lovely Aisha (may God be pleased with her) was a bright, beautiful, young woman he had known since her birth. She was one of the first converts to Islam and remained one of his most loyal confidantes throughout his life, as well as being a gifted historian. Having the option to marry only her, why wouldn’t he have done so? She was surely everything he could desire, physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually, and he chose her company on his deathbed. Yet he married others later, relative strangers, women from different cultures, age groups, physical attributes, and social positions-most bringing several children to add to his responsibilities, and most destined to a life of destitution as widows without the mercy of his offer. His marriages formed alliances between previously disparate peoples-Egyptian Copts, Jews, warring Arab tribes, and Africans-and shattered the roots of racism and social repression. Simultaneously, his home became the first school of Islam, as his wives and their children became ambassadors among their own peoples, thereby increasing both the acceptance and the reach of Islam. It is simply illogical to think that a man in his 50s and 60s, with a perfect young wife already, would seek to complicate his life by adding more people to his household, including many offspring of other men, just to satisfy his sexual needs. Clearly, his complex home life was part of his calling and in no way reflected deviance on his part.

The image of the Prophet as a warrior was another point of contention which I found myself debating with my own Christian relatives. For after extensive reading, my conclusion was that he was simply a man with an opinion far different from the prevalent viewpoint, and this is never easy in any place at any time. He fought to defend himself and his community, and to protect the right of himself and others to profess their faith. He did it superbly, but excellence is hardly something to hold against someone. A simple and factual look at his choices tells it best. He could have been at home quietly with a few children and grandchildren, in comfort and peace. Instead, he was on the battlefield with rocks strapped to his stomach to fade the feeling of hunger, washing his body with sand. He did not become rich, nor did he retire to a leisurely life. Instead, he remained poor, tired, harassed, and threatened. He did not become the object of worship for anyone-proof is in the fact that Muslims celebrate his birth, death, and calling simply as days of reflection and prayer. The Muslim high holidays relate strictly to the message of Islam-the submission to one God-and not to the man. If he were really a megalomaniac, as those strongly opposed to Islam argue, why didn’t he “invent” verses of the Qur’an to compel Muslims to recognize him as better than all the prophets and make himself the object of all prayers? Instead, he is respectfully referred to in the Qur’an as a beautiful example of humanity, an illiterate among his own people, and a simple messenger. The message is always clear-all praise is due to God, not the Prophet.

Yet in a further assault on his character, non-Muslims then and now insist that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was fed all his information by other people and simply “rehearsed tales of the ancients.” Yet this is illogical. First of all, the Prophet spent most of his time prior to his calling with salesmen, not scholars. These caravan merchants knew “a little about a lot,” having traveled extensively, but they could hardly be expected to know worldly subjects deeply. Most of them were illiterate themselves, with an education suited strictly to trade. Yet the Qur’an contains extensive details about past communities and religious doctrines, and about geological and human history. The depth of the knowledge conveyed is too great to be simply hearsay gleaned at a fireside chat among tradesmen. This knowledge requires full-time scholarship to acquire even today, never mind 1,400 years ago when there were few texts and scientific instruments, and even fewer translations. When do his opponents suppose he would have acquired so much knowledge anyhow? This would have required daily conversations with sages in the middle of numerous battles, an incredibly busy family life, countless daily prayers, and his own mission to deliver the message to others. Yet he was never seen with any mortal teacher, and even his enemies have never suggested that he had one.

In fact, some fervent opponents insist that the Prophet Muhammad was delusional-receiving inspiration from his own insanity. But if this were true, how could he simultaneously administer a massive, complex household with many wives and children, an intricate administration composed of alliances between peoples of different religious, socio-cultural, political, and economic backgrounds, and also strategize the stability of the Islamic empire for both the present and the future? The Prophet’s military and political savvy are enshrined in the historical record, in volumes upon volumes published by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And the basic reality is that he cannot have been insane and infinitely pragmatic at the same time. Besides, if his only goal had been to manipulate people, why didn’t he have more commonly accepted tactics? Magic, for example, is easy to learn. Yet the Prophet’s record, even as quoted by non-believers, is devoid of cheap illusions.

And what of the “new knowledge” contained in the Qur’an-the scientific revelations about the rotation of the earth, speed of light, layers of the atmosphere, creation of stars, separation of the oceans, types of rocks, origin of the rain, gender of plants, composition of human tissue, formation of the embryo, origin of iron, and so on? Of all the sacred books around the world, only the Qur’an contains verifiable scientific data. What mortal source could have imparted such things to the Prophet? None. And to what end? Since these facts could not be verified until very recently, what benefit were they in convincing anyone in his time? None. If the Prophet intended to persuade people with some sort of self-contrived document, why put in a lot of material that wouldn’t make sense to anyone for another 1,000 years or more?

Truthfully, if he simply hoped for personal gain, for an easier life for himself, he would have been better off to just keep quiet and forget about the Qur’an completely. I see how my own life would have been much smoother with my relatives if I hadn’t converted to Islam. The Prophet Muhammad had already lost his father, mother, and guardian grandfather. Why wouldn’t he want to please and protect the only family he had left, his beloved uncle, and adhere to polytheism? Why wouldn’t he have wanted to simply retire comfortably in Meccan society as a prosperous husband, good father, and prominent member of the community?

The fact is that the Prophet Muhammad was a hard-working, brilliant, courageous, and spiritually profound man who gave everything he had in this life to argue the faith of Islam amid tremendous opposition, sacrificing his wealth, his family, his health, and his personal comfort. His only purpose was to convince anyone who would listen to worship one God, not himself. In less time than most people spend getting a basic education, he engineered the first welfare system in the world, installed a national health policy of cleanliness, good diet, and preventative care that is still valid today; he abolished slavery, eliminated female infanticide, and gender discrimination in family life and inheritance, overthrew racism, inclined millions upon millions of potent, passionate people towards sexual conservatism, and he convinced entire nations and generations after them to abstain from alcohol. What is more, he is personally responsible for the fact that over a billion people around the world pray daily in constant remembrance of one God. With painstaking precision, he related a divine message, some of which-the scientific truths-meant no sense to anyone at the time. The Prophet was competent in all fields of existence and achieved more than anyone who has ever lived. What is more, his accomplishments are historical facts easily substantiated by any person with the inclination to read, in any library around the world. Thus we can understand why Muslims embrace the Prophet Muhammad so completely-because his life has been and will always be the light which makes the path to what is right more visible and more achievable.

Kathleen St.Onge is the author of Bridge to Light: Spiritual Wayfaring Towards Islam.

Fallacy one: Literalism

A critical fallacy in the arguments of “scientific crusaders” is that their understanding of religions relies on the most primitive way of approaching a text: literalism. Any serious and “scientific” inquiry into a text requires asking certain questions such as “Who wrote this text?” “To whom was it written?” “In which context was it written?” and “Why was it written?” Yet we rarely see the aforementioned scientists using this method when they approach religious texts. Samuel Harris, for example, simply takes certain verses in the Qur’an about killing certain non-Muslims at face value and pays no attention either to the context in which these verses were revealed or to the gigantic Islamic literature on the exegesis of these verses. As such, he simply turns a blind eye to all developments in hermeneutics and uses the most primitive method of text-reading.

Samuel Harris might not be interested in finding out what Muslim scholars have thought about killing innocent people; however, he has to be aware of the fact that it is not the individuals’ own interpretations but mostly scholars’ interpretations that have shaped Muslims’ opinions on any issue. An interesting point is that there is no precedent whatsoever for suicidal terrorism in traditional Islam before the late twentieth century. There has been a solid consensus among Muslim scholars for fourteen centuries on the sanctity of human life, because the Qur’an declares unequivocally that killing an innocent person unjustly is like killing all of mankind (Maidah 5:32). Thus, the critical question becomes: if something (such as terrorism) is “inherent” in a religion (such as Islam), why did that religion not encourage that thing for fourteen centuries but suddenly started to encourage it later? Unfortunately, scientific crusaders do not seem to be very interested in this kind of question.

Fallacy two: Crime against empirics

A second fallacy of scientist crusaders is that their understanding of religion’s influence on society is highly impressionistic and lacks any credible scientific inquiry or understanding. Samuel Harris’ argument about the violent nature of European Muslim youth and Richard Dawkins’ argument regarding oppression of women in Islamic societies are purely impressionistic inferences because they totally ignore other potential factors that can also influence juvenile violence and gender discrimination. The fact that Muslim youth in Europe are also disproportionately poorer and less educated than many other groups does not seem to undermine Harris’ sense of cognitive comfort. Yet any scientist with a basic knowledge of quantitative methods knows that we cannot analyze the influence of one factor on a dependent variable independent of other related factors. Statistics tells us that we will have nothing but biased results in such control-free analysis. Indeed, Scott Atran reports a study that reveals that “religious education is a negative predictor of Muslims entering European prisons.” ⁴ If a Muslim’s becoming more religious decreases the likelihood of his or her involvement in violence, then religion is a peaceful element. If this is the case, then the root causes of violence may be a combination of the very things which Harris avoids studying.

Dawkins’ argument about oppression of women in Muslim societies suffers from the same problem. He commits the same methodological error as Harris by excluding other potential explanatory factors from his analysis. Thus, his study cannot tell us whether it is Islam or something else (such as tradition, poverty, education, etc.) that distinguishes Muslim societies from the Western Christian societies regarding the oppression of women. Fortunately, we have some other (and more scientific) studies to examine the issue. A report by UNICEF in 2000 revealed that average domestic violence is essentially no different in Christian and Muslim societies. Below is the table from this report that gives the details about domestic violence rates in different Christian and Muslim countries. According to these survey results, average domestic violence against women was 25.5% in Western Christian societies (Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States); 30% in Muslim societies (Egypt, Israeli Arabs, and Tajikistan); and 38.3% in African Christian societies (Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe). The survey results indicate that domestic violence rates in Muslim societies were higher than they were in certain Christian societies but lower than they were in other Christian societies. As such, these figures solidly refute Dawkins’ impressionistic argument and rather suggest that something other than Islam is the root cause of domestic violence in Muslim societies.

Here, Dawkins can respond, “These data do not refute my arguments entirely, only the argument that Islam encourages more domestic violence than Christianity. But the argument that both of these religions encourage domestic violence remains valid and sound.” Yet, is this really the case? If one accepts Dawkins’ argument, one must also argue that increasing religiosity of a married Muslim or Christian man should increase domestic violence in his home. It is easy to check this. We can simply ask a random sample of large numbers of married Muslim and Christian women first to grade the religiosity of their husbands on a scale of 0–10, and then ask them how often their husbands behave violently at home. Although we do not have such a study on Muslims yet, to our surprise (and to Dawkins’ shame), we already have one study on Christians, which used exactly this method. In a study of nearly 1,000 New Zealand families, Fergusson et al. (1986) found that the self-reported religious attendance of parents (both fathers and mothers) is inversely related to their self-reported perpetration of domestic assaults. They reported a graded pattern: men and women who attend services once a month or more are least likely to report being involved in domestic violence, followed by those who attend less than monthly. On the other hand, men and women who never attend religious services are much more likely than their more religious counterparts to be involved in domestic violence.⁵The findings of this earlier study were later supported by another one, which employed a more objective measure of religiosity, on American couples as well. ⁶ (Although we have yet to prove it, this relationship between religiosity and domestic violence is very likely to hold for Muslim men as well. After all, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, “The best of you is the one who treats his wife in the best manner.” ⁷) Once again, contrary to Dawkins and Harris, we find that religion is an element of peace, not violence.

It is also worth mentioning that much less crime has been reported in religious schools (imam-hatip) than in secular schools in Turkey. Naci Akay, former Istanbul Head of National Education, said there have never been any activities reported in these schools that pose a threat to public safety. Likewise, Ibrahim Solmaz and Ahmet Gundogdu, chairmen of ONDER and Egitim-Bir-Sen respectively (two civil educational organizations) said parents prefer these schools mainly because they do not have high crime rates and students are much less likely to develop bad habits like drug abuse, alcoholism, or gambling. ⁸

The holy month of Ramadan in which Muslims observe day-long fast and additional devotion, is also a time of security for the entire Muslim world: crime rates plummet in this month, and sometimes fall to zero.

Fallacy three: Avoiding the literature

Another major problem for the crusaders of science is that they completely ignore the literature on the root causes of conflict and violence. None of the major theories on domestic or international conflict emphasize religion as a central factor, let alone singling it out as the root cause of violence. The major theories explain violence as resulting from peoples’ ambition for power, from liberalism with its inevitable conflict of interests and peoples’ inability to solve them in cooperative ways, and from class conflicts. To the subscribers to any of these theories, the argument that we could minimize or eliminate violence in this world if we could substitute scientific inquiry for religious faith is simply laughable. For them, religion is at most a secondary factor and therefore its elimination does not help to address the root causes of violence. As such, scientific crusaders’ emphasis on religion as a cause of violence is misleading and unhelpful because it moves our attention away from other more influential factors which could be more successfully addressed. In this respect, the anti-religion arguments of Harris, Dawkins, and the like resemble the wishful thinking of the nineteenth-century positivists. Ironically, ignoring the real forces at work neither makes the world more peaceful nor serves these scientists’ very goal of converting people to “scientism”. The new rise of religious faith since the second half of the twentieth century indicates that science and reason alone have failed to provide sufficient answers to peoples’ metaphysical questions or solutions to their moral problems. Hence, the return to religion!

Fallacy four: Imbalanced sheet

Last but not least, we have been taught since elementary school that we should never come to a judgment on any issue without first evaluating its pros and cons. What we see in the books of Dawkins and Harris, however, are only questionably negative aspects of religions and religious people. We see no appreciation whatsoever of the virtues of religions and their positive influences on their adherents. To start with one of the most obvious, is it not intriguing enough a question for Darwinian Dawkins to ask what prevented the Muslim Moors of Spain from following the “survival of the fittest” rule and simply annihilating the Jews and Christians of the Iberian Peninsula? How rational or scientific is it to simply avoid studies that have found that “teens from intact families with frequent religious attendance were the least likely to have ever shoplifted,” ⁹ “adolescents’ religiosity was related to a decreased likelihood of delinquent behavior,” ¹⁰ “increasing individual religiosity decreased tax fraud acceptability,” ¹¹ and “regular religious attendance was inversely associated with the perpetration of domestic violence,” ¹² to name but a few? Interestingly, the books of scientific crusaders have no place for such virtuous consequences of believing in God. It seems not only religious people have dogmas!

To conclude, certain scientists’ arguments against religions in general and Islam in particular lack scientific basis and thus do not merit much scholarly attention. There might be some valid grounds to criticize religions and their adherents as they are, but, believers or not, we all deserve more holistic, more scientific, and less hostile evaluations of religions. If atheist scientists want to wage a crusade against dogma, their own would be a good place to start.

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

Notes

1. Author of The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

2. Author of The End of Faith, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.

3. http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#harris.

4. http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran.

5. Ferguson, David M., L. John Horwood, Kathryn L. Kershaw and Frederick T. Shannon (1986). “Factors Associated with Reports of Wife Assault in New Zealand.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46: 663–70.

6. Ellison, Christopher G. and Kristin L. Anderson (2001). “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(2):269–86.

7. Ibn Maja, Section: Marriage, Hadith # 50.

8. http://www.yenisafak.com.tr/arsiv/2004/mayis/31/g01.html

9. Fagan, Patrick (2006). A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

10. Regnerus, Mark D. (2003). “Linked Lives, Faith and Behavior: Intergenerational Religious Influence on Adolescent Delinquency.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2): 189–203.

11. Steven Stack and Augustine Kposowa (2006). “The Effect of Religiosity on Tax Fraud Acceptability: A Cross-National Analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3):325–51.

12. See note 7.