The Science Atheists Rely on Testifies to the Corruption of Their Beliefs and Claims, AIRA Secretary-General
In the 19th episode of his program “Toward Proper Understanding,” broadcast on the AIRA official webpage, Secretary-General of the Islamic Research Academy (AIRA), Dr. Nazir Ayyad, continues his talk about the tools necessary for those who want to refute atheists’ fallacies.
AIRA Secretary-General discussed, in the previous episode, how to criticize the phenomenon of atheism constructively, and indicated that the goals of constructive criticism could be achieved in many ways, the most important of which is not to play the role of a defender all the time, since those skeptics attack the fundamentals of our creed and Sharia. Thus, the confrontation has to be defensive at times and offensive at other times. If we attack the foundations that they rely on, we can easily expose the defects of their fallacies.
To give an example, Ayyad clarified that it suffices to refer to their claim about evil, which negates the care of God in this world, and their claim that this world is the outcome of coincidence, which contradicts the simplest rules of logic because all people believe that anything created must have a creator.
He continued that this constructive criticism cannot achieve its goals except through knowledge and scientific methods. Those who confront atheistic thought should be equipped with science and its basics, especially because the science that atheists rely on is a witness to the corruption of their beliefs. In addition, the debater should be aware of the historical background of the issue at hand, and must be familiar with the types of evidence and how to make use of them.
Constructive criticism entails that the debater know the language in which he should address others, and take into account the diverse intellectual levels of people, Ayyad indicated.
This is what Muslim scholars have been aware of through the ages, so they made use of rational, cosmic, innate, transmission, persuasive, rhetorical, and demonstrative types of evidence. Each of these types is appropriate for a certain level and differs according to the addressee. If we take into account all of this, the confrontation process will be positive and achieve its intended purpose.