MODERN ATHEISM: AN ANALYSIS
INTELLECTUALLY, human history can be divided into two major periods: the pre-scientific era and the post-scientific era. In the pre-scientific era, religion served as a primary framework through which people interpreted the world. However, the rise of modern science fundamentally altered this dynamic, establishing science as the new trendsetter in human understanding. Importantly, science, as a discipline, does not inherently support or oppose religion; its findings are neutral. Nonetheless, science’s insights have contributed to the prevalence of atheism in intellectual circles. This article explores why this shift occurred.
For thousands of years, humans have observed natural phenomena— the rising of the sun, rainfall, and wind—as acts directly governed by divine forces. This worldview became almost an intuitive truth, shared by people of all faiths, who accepted that such phenomena pointed to a divine causation. During this period, the idea of causality, or a link between Creator and creation, did not exist in the structured way we understand it today.
The advent of modern science brought about a profound change in this perspective. Discoveries by scientists like Sir Isaac Newton demonstrated that there is often a material cause preceding every effect. For example, Newton observed an apple falling from a tree and questioned why it fell downward rather than upward. Through this observation, he eventually formulated the concept of gravity, a force that draws objects toward the earth. This insight laid the foundation for the scientific principle of causation, which posits that every observable event has a preceding cause. This principle expanded to encompass all intellectual activities, gradually displacing divine explanations with empirical reasoning.
Initially, this principle of causation was intended to explain only physical events. The shift from divine to natural explanations did not necessitate the denial of God. However, atheistic thinkers—rather than scientists— leveraged this scientific framework to advocate for the rejection of God, thus initiating the doctrine we now call “modern atheism.”
Modern atheists argue that the existence of natural causes negates the need for supernatural explanations, implying that belief in God is unnecessary for understanding the world. However, this argument contains a critical logical flaw: the existence of a natural cause does not preclude the need for an ultimate explanation. Even if science identifies a cause for every event, this does not address why these causes themselves exist. Thus, while causation offers a framework for understanding events, it leaves the question of ultimate origins unanswered.
In short, causes themselves require explanation, and causation alone cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of existence. This insight suggests that modern atheism, in attributing everything solely to material causation, may overlook a fundamental layer of inquiry—the search for an ultimate reason behind causes themselves.
According to Islam, men and
women are different in role,
but equal in respect.
