Theological Instructions

LESSON THIRTEEN: RESOLVING SEVERAL SPURIOUS DOUBTS

Believing in an intangible existence

One of the simplest doubts in the field of theology (knowing God) is how can one believe in the existence of an existent, which is not perceivable?

This doubt is held by the simpleton who finds it hard to grasp the concept of there being an intangible reality. However one will also find reflective thinkers who base their thinking upon the principle of sense perception, and also deny the possibility of an intangible existence, hence they are also influenced by this doubt.

The answer to this spurious argument is that the perceptions of the senses are due to an outcome of coherence between bodily parts and bodies or substances etc, which is attained by virtue of corporeality. Each one of our senses perceives a particular material form, which is proportional for that sense with defined conditions. In the same way, one cannot expect the eyes to have the sense of sound, or the ears to have the sense of sight and ability to see colours, hence one must not expect our senses to perceive each and every existent.

On the basis of the following reasons we will establish that we cannot perceive all existents through our outward senses:

Firstly, among the material existents, there are things, which are not competent of being perceived through our senses such as: electrical waves or ultra-violet rays.

Secondly, we perceive many realities through other than the means of our outward senses and we confidently believe in their existence. For example, the states of love and fear, or of conscious intentions are psychological stations just as the spirit is not perceivable by the (bodily) senses. Essentially perception itself is immaterial and imperceptible (through the senses).

Therefore just because a thing cannot be perceived through bodily senses, does not invalidate its existence and should not be the reason for such a thing being improbable and remote to the mind.

a. The role of fear and ignorance in belief in God

Another spurious doubt asserted by the sociologist is that belief in God is an outcome of fear, especially of the dangers of natural disasters such as earthquakes, lightening etc. They believe that man in order to calm his mind has imagined an imaginary existence and named it God and started to worship it. Due to this reason, belief in God becomes subsequently weaker as the causes of, and safety precautions against such disasters are known.

Many Marxist’s in their books grandiloquently regard this as an accomplishment of the science of sociology and use this as a means for deceiving many immature people.

In order to answer their allegations we would say:

Firstly, the bases of this argument are suppositions made by some sociologists and they do not have any logical ground for validity.

Secondly, in the present century itself there were and indeed are many great thinkers aware of the causes behind these phenomena, and who at the same time have a firm belief in God. Belief in God is thus not an outcome of fear or ignorance.

Thirdly, if the fear of some natural phenomenon, or being ignorant of the causes becomes the motive to focus upon God, then it does not mean that God is an outcome of the fear or ignorance of man. Many psychological instincts such as pleasure seeking or lustfulness become the impetus for philosophical, scientific, and technical investigations but do not negatively affect their authenticity.

Fourthly, if people recognise God as the originator of that phenomenon, whose causes are unknown and if with the discovery of their natural causes their faith becomes weak, then surely it is their view and faith, which is weak. This does not provide us with a valid reason to disbelieve in God, because the reality is that the Divine causation with regards to the occurrences in the universe is from the source of the efficacy of natural causes. These causes are not parallel to the Divine causation but rather the Divine causation is transcendental to every material or immaterial cause.

Furthermore the recognition and unrecognition of natural causes will have no efficacy in establishing or not establishing the existence of God.

b. Is the principle of causation, one universal concept?

Yet another spurious argument put forward by some of the Western thinkers is that if the causal nexus (asl al -‘illiyyah) is universal, then God must also have a cause. To accept a God without cause is thus a defect in the principle of causation. If we do not accept this rule to be universal then we would not be able to prove necessary existence through this principle, because it is possible that someone could state that the origin of matter or energy was by itself, and through its mutation things originated.

This argument, as indicated earlier in lesson seven is due to the improper interpretation of the principle of causation. It has been recognised as ‘every existence needs a cause’ but the reality of the matter is that ‘every possible existence or every existent that is dependent or needy requires a cause,’ and this rule is universal, essential, and unexceptional.

However, accepting the origin of matter or energy without a cause, and its mutation as the basis for the origination of the world has several controversies, and will be discussed in future lessons.

c. Achievements of sociology

Some believe that the belief in the Creator of man and universe does not correspond to the accomplishments of modern sociology. For example, it has been proven in chemistry that a certain amount of matter and energy is always subsisting. On this basis, it is not possible for any manifestation to come into existence from nothing and no existent can be completely destroyed. Those who believe in God believe that God has brought creation from non-existence into existence.

They claim that this same argument has been proven in biology. A living creature has evolved from non-living matter and gradually mutated and

reached perfection when it attained the position of man. Those who believe in God believe that God created human beings separately.

We will now aim to answer these controversies:

Firstly, the principle of the continual subsistence of energy and matter is a scientific rule and can only be regarded and applied to those concrete perceptible things. On this basis, philosophical issues such as whether matter and energy are eternal and pre- eternal are not resolved.

Secondly, the subsistence of energy and matter does not imply that one is needless of the Creator, but with the ageing of the universe the more need it has for a creator, because every effect requires a cause. Possibility and dependency are the essence of a possible existent (an effect), rather than it being accidental or temporal.

In other words, matter and energy form as a material cause (‘illah māddiyyah) for the appearance of the universe, and as opposed to being an active cause, is itself in need of an active cause.

Thirdly, the subsistence of certain matter and energy does not obligate the coming into being of a new creation, its growth and reduction. Entities like spirit, life, sense and will etc, are not from matter and energy until their growth and reduction would contradict with the rule.

Fourthly, the presumption of evolution - despite it being scientifically unauthentic and disproved by several great thinkers - does not contradict the belief in God. At its highest level it proves the supportive causation between the living existents. It does not neglect the relationship between them and the necessary existent. It is probably because of this reason that several supporters of this thought believe in God.

Questions:

  1. Explain the controversies for denying intangible reality and sense perception.

  2. How can one criticise the opinion of sociologists who assert, that belief in God is out of fear and ignorance?

  3. Does belief in God contradict the principle of causation? Why?

  4. Is the rule of the subsistence of matter and energy incompatible with belief in a creator? Why?

  5. Does the presumption of evolution nullify belief in God? Why?