Atheism

The difference between how people view atheism varies in the world, in the west, Atheism is seen to be a normalised topic which is accepted by many people whereas in the East, heavily criticised. The openness in western societies with the spread of free secular materialistic thought occurred after the Enlightenment period, has pushed people towards the concept of atheism, especially in the younger generation. On the other hand, the East has much harsher rules when dealing with the influx of atheism where some countries believe death by execution is the solution. This pushed them to westernised way of thought where they began to fight Islamic beliefs, and of course under the support and protection of western regimes that they used as tools against Islam, many managed to flee their countries and go to the west as they consider that religion restricts and prevent them from achieving their goals, while atheism makes them free from all values and allows the achievement of freedom, without any restrictions. From here we see that the spread of Atheism in the Muslim countries stems from western atheism. It is thought that the increase of East atheism is due to cultural, intellectual, educational, psychological, political, social, and religious reasons and it is our duty as Muslims to find out why this is and how to solve it from the concept of Islamic beliefs the same way Imam Sadiq would by adopting a logical concept to convince the atheists during their theological debates and arguments. Due to their lack of evidence, it was not long before their theories were being disproved with one example being from the famous British philosopher Anthony flew was a strong advocator for atheism wrote a book called “Thereis a God” in the later days of his life.

If successful scientific inquiry is to be possible, there must be a world that is independent of how we believe it to be, and in which there are kinds and laws; and we must have the sensory apparatus to perceive particular things and events, and the capacity to represent them, to form generalized explanatory conjectures, and check how these conjectures stand up to further experience. Whether these preconditions are met is not a question the sciences can answer; it is specifically philosophical. This is why the myriad forms of scientistic philosophy in vogue today (neurophilosophy, experimental philosophy, naturalized metaphysics, evangelical-atheist reductionism, etc), are all hollow at the core. Does this mean we must return to the old, a priori analytic model? No! What is needed instead is scientific philosophy in the sense Peirce articulated more than a century ago: philosophy motivated by a genuine desire to discover the truth, and relying not solely on reason but also on experience—only not the special, recherché experience required by the sciences, but close attention to aspects of everyday experience so familiar we hardly notice them.