Much Ado about Nothing: Problems with Logical Reasoning in Theism-Atheism Debate

Abstract

Atheists feel there is no reason for religious beliefs and that they should only believe things that can be proven logically or by experiments, while theists believe they have enough reason to believe. At some point, the arguments and counterarguments keep going on without coming to a conclusion. This situation always arises when people on opposing sides of a theological dispute employ logical reasoning to establish who is right. In this paper, I argue that proving faith issues through logic is logically flawed, and that faith and reason are linked to different levels of human cognitive faculty. Both the theists and atheists’ arguments concentrate on the second level of human consciousness, where reason operates. At this level, both hypotheses can be supported by reason, so there is no conclusion. Based on the above fact, I suggest that the hypothesis for the theistic-atheistic debate should be human dependence as a religious narrative and human independence as a secular narrative to push the debate forward.

1. Introduction

The net of science embraces the empirical universe: what is it made of fact and why does it work this way? Religion’s sphere of influence includes discussions of right and wrong. You will not find any crossover between these two magnolias (Gould 1997, pp. 16–22). This simply demonstrates the methodological error being made in the theism-atheism debate, as well as the distinction between the realms of faith and reason. Theism and atheism touch the human soul when it is in a condition of complete innocence, and are therefore incomparable to reason. At the core is the idea that there are two types of atheism: emotional (atheism that affects human awareness at the most basic level) and logical (atheism that necessitates discussion and inference). The same is true with theism, as it could be divided to emotional and logical states of believing. The term “emotional theism or atheism” refers to a set of emotional sensations or psychological emotions associated with a first-stage understanding of the truth.

2. Thesis Statement

In the past, many scholars who tried to deal with theism and atheism adopted approaches that made this topic more complicated and perplexing, since scholars argue them through logical reasoning. In arguments between theists and atheists (about whether God “exists” and similar questions), people do not agree on the starting point for any argument, and attempting to argue to a starting point is logically circular. We argue only from a starting point, and where there is disagreement about starting points, each side asserts its chosen starting point through presumption or inference when people continue to argue. When this becomes apparent, the argument typically shifts from logic to other forms of persuasion. In this paper I explain why comparing faith with reason does not make sense, and what the proper way to approach faith issues is. Is it conceivable to compare theism and atheism with regard to logic? Has a competent method been utilized to investigate the reasons for theism? How do the holy scriptures address atheism? What comes next in the debate between theism and atheism?

3. Research Methodology

Applying a descriptive-analytical methodology, this paper examines several approaches to studying the aspects of faith and atheism through the lens of prior research in the field of theology in order to develop a new way of thinking about the debate between believers and nonbelievers that will aid in resolving methodological issues in the contemporary interfaith debates.

4. Theoretical Framework

People have tried to prove or disprove the concept of faith based on their logical reasoning, as evidenced by religious and secular literature, and they utilized the same methods to address this problem. Atheists used reasoning to demonstrate the absence of evidence for God’s presence, while theists used logic to demonstrate God’s existence. For atheists, it entails the rule of probability, as argued by Cliford when he declared that believing anything based on insufficient evidence is incorrect always, everywhere, and for everyone (Clifford 2014, p. 33). Cliford’s position is to assume that there is no God, and he places the burden of proof on those who believe in God. According to Cangelosi, keeping in mind the law of probability, in order to prove that there is a God we need to have good reason to believe that this is the case. We have no reason to believe until and unless such reasons are produced; in that case, the only viewpoint that makes sense is either the position of the negative atheist or the position of the agnostic (Corlett and Cangelosi 2015, pp. 91–106).

However, theists continue to utilize the same line of reasoning as they did in the original cause argument, which argued that all things have causes and that the universe itself must have originated from something. Atheists reacted skeptically, asking, “What caused the cause of God?” and other similar lines of questioning. Since God didn’t require a cause, the argument could continue that the universe did not either. If God was perfect before he created the universe, then why bother? For his part, what advantage did he derive from it? The question is why he would act in such a way, and if the universe was made, was God the only possible designer? Thus, arguments and counterarguments persist without a resolution. The ancient Greek philosophers who believed that everything is God followed the same line of reasoning. They advanced the plot by arguing that the gods were integral to the process, rather than remote manipulators (Petrescu 2014, pp. 199–203). In this light, evolutionary theory as we know it now is just a rehash of old atheist arguments against religious belief. According to Richard Dawkins, Darwin paves the way for atheist intellectual satisfaction (Lamoureux 2012, p. 108).

Using the same logic, Stephen Jay Gould claims that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through evolution without recourse to a higher power. He says that there is no spirit that watches over nature with love (although Newton’s god who wound clocks may have set up the mechanism at the beginning of time and then let it run). There are no vital forces that drive evolutionary change. No matter what we think about God, natural things do not show that he exists (Gould 1989, pp. 6–7). In relative philosophy, for example, some philosophers say that religious language is meaningless and that questioning whether or not God exists is pointless. They believe that if we keep using logic in the same way, we will find more reasons to reject the idea of God (Taliaferro 2019). On top of that, logical positivism attempted to verify the concept of God in the same way that other objects are verified. According to Schreiber (1968), the conclusion that a sentence is factually important to a person if and only if that person knows how to check the proposition it claims to express, that is, if that person knows what observations would lead him, under certain circumstances, to accept the proposition as true or reject it as false (Kalinowski 1970). Putting it in another way, we can say that atheists made an attempt to apply the laws of physics to something that cannot be achieved in the material world. This is an utterly confusing approach that has no place in the world of theology. Some of them are psychologists who used logic to explain religious issues and made up a story that has nothing to do with God. In this context, Freud talks about a system of teachings and promises that, on the one hand, explains to the common man the mysteries of this world with enviable completeness and, on the other hand, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and make up for any frustrations he feels here in a future life (Freud and Strachey 1961, pp. 7–11).

The psychological foundation of faith is based on human emotions, such as the need to be protected from the world’s worries and to have a father figure to protect them from this terrifying world and to give their life meaning and purpose. These religious beliefs are deeply held because they help people cope with some of their most fundamental worries. Atheists believe that because religion is only a psychological fantasy, mankind should abandon it in order to develop proper answers to deal with reality.

Freud studied religion in depth and had a number of opinions on the subject. One of his beliefs was that religion arose from a person’s experience of being a helpless baby who was completely reliant on its parents.

Freud uses the example of a baby who thinks her parents are all-powerful beings who shower it with love and meet all of its needs to explain what faith is. This very similar to how other people talk about their relationship with God. Freud said that people’s early life experiences give them very complicated feelings about their parents and themselves, and that religion and religious rituals are a good way to work these feelings out. He also said that religion was a group delusion that changed reality to promise happiness and protect people from sadness (Cherry 2020). This causes some individuals to assume that God serves a sociological purpose in human civilization rather than being the outcome of God’s existence. Religion, according to Ludwig Feuerbach, is simply a human being’s awareness of the infinite, and human notions about God are only the projection of humanity’s ideas about man onto an imaginary supernatural person.

Relatively, Durkheim held the view that religion was entirely man-made, and hence had no connection to the supernatural. Since social pressure affects people in spiritual ways, it inevitably leads them to believe that they are dependent on one or more morals and also powerful forces outside of themselves (he argues that religious force is nothing but the collective and anonymous force of the clan, and that religious rituals do nothing but strengthen the beliefs of the group taking part and the collective consciousness) (Durkheim 1999, pp. 125–30). He goes on to suggest that things could gain hallowed status not as a result of any inherent supernatural resonance, but rather as a result of a community attaching its own ‘collective values’ to them and elevating those items to a higher status than they would have otherwise been accorded (Alatas and Sinha 2017, p. 67). One can raise an objection by asking where these commonly held values originated. What exactly were people seeking for when they accepted these ideas into their minds in the first place? This is not a question that can be argued on purely logical basis. Marx explained the faith on the material basis, when he argued that religion was a tool used by the capitalists to keep the working class under control. He suggested that the illusory happiness provided by religion should be eliminated by putting right the economic conditions that caused people to need this illusion to make their lives bearable. He continues that religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feelings of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people (Pedersen 2015, pp. 354–87).

Not only did these philosophers dismiss religious discourse as pointless, but they also dismissed much of philosophical discourse, including metaphysics, as irrelevant. The questions of what it means to say “God” and whether or not God actually exists have brought this philosophical theory back into the limelight (Ekstrom 2021, p. 17).

5. Discussion

However, as we already observed, it is not the question of God’s existence that renders the debate useless, but rather the incorrect method used to investigate God’s character. In the following paragraphs, we shall look at the methodological issues that exist in the various philosophies of theism and atheism mentioned above.

6. What Is Wrong with the Ongoing Debate?

This brief literature review demonstrates how both theists and atheists have historically relied on logical reasoning to support or refute their respective positions on many theological topics. However, a closer look indicates that addressing faith through logic is logically flawed, because faith and reason are on distinct levels of human awareness. Faith is associated with the early stages of human awareness, when the brain embraces new concepts irrationally and without cause. In philosophical literature, these initial concepts are regularly cited using precise terminologies like “world pictures” or “frame of reference”, etc. Reason comes later to assess these world pictures which have already been built at the first level. In this stage, both theism and atheism can be defended using logical arguments, and this has been the case in the theism–atheism debate for a long time, as both sides have created different types of arguments over time and continue to do so without reaching a conclusion.

This demonstrates that religious concepts evolve naturally in the pre-rational stages of human life. Theism and atheism should not be debated on the basis of theological questions. Whether or not God exists is not a logical question; rather, it is one of the world pictures that has been ingrained in human nature from the very beginning. The question should be whether or not man can live without the help of God. This claim rests only on psychological research into the effects of external stimuli on human behavior (Nasir 2019, p. 3). Since ancient man had limited awareness of the natural principles of the universe, he held an ontological premise of need and dependence that was more compatible with religion at the time. On the other hand, the ontological presupposition of the potential of human sovereignty was undoubtedly there as a rival story, as we are aware that atheism is an ancient viewpoint that was not held by the majority of the human population. (Viney 2012, pp. 63–79). As for modern man, he appreciates the enormous scientific tools that enable him to comprehend the conditions of existence. With the aid of the numerous logical disciplines, the concept of human sovereignty can be understood as developed by the atheists today (Monzavi et al. 2016, pp. 1183–95).

For instance, it becomes clear that both theism and atheism can only be rationally argued at the post rational stage of human lives, where reason becomes operative. The comparison is not between faith and reason, but between the presuppositions that precede reason—that a person is in need or has a choice. At this level theism and atheism become reasonable positions that are based on two already established world pictures. As a result, the true debate must be about the extent to which these two world pictures are compatible with man’s conscious resources, existential state, and psychological needs (Nasir 2019, p. 5).

• How the reason works?

In order to function, human reason requires some existential assumptions. It is a frame of reference in which argumentation and inference stop at a point that man accepts simply and without any rational reason. It is the inability and limits of human consciousness that are unavoidable in any circumstance, and thus the entire process of reasoning is subject to this irrational assumption and cannot go beyond it. This is the point made by the well-known philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who stated unequivocally that questioning and doubting can only take place within a ‘frame of reference’, which he also refers to as a “world picture”, that is not itself questioned or doubted; that is, a framework in which arguments have their life. which stands firm and serves as the basis for all my inquiries and assertions, the pivot on which the questions we raise and our doubts rest (O’Mahony et al. 2020).

These world pictures serve as a foundation for the mind’s functioning in the logical reasoning process, as well as a guidance for the mind as it struggles to organize mental forms and determine their interrelationships. It corrects human thought’s defects and ensures that it is free of errors. Logical propositions must be interrelated like distinct components of a machine, one of which goes from one to the other, then the third part moves automatically, and upon inference, each premise must entail the premise that follows it. Without this link, the entire argument is rendered invalid. So, here we might conclude that satisfying this strong logical condition of inference without the existence of these world pictures is impossible. A logical argument also needs a lot of other compromises, such as exclusion, probability, and gap filling. There are many ways to connect the two things, and sometimes leaving out some of those ways is an important part of making a logical argument. This is called “exclusion”, and most of the time it is done based on world pictures. In logical reasoning, we are also often forced to accept probable premises when there are no certain premises. Without world pictures that have already been established, the probabilistic scenario cannot be used as a basis for a logical argument. Above it, if there is a gap in the evidence that supports the hypothesis, the gap is also filled using the world pictures that have already been assumed. A common example is the popular explanation of biological evolution, which excludes the possibility of intentional creation in order to explain evolution. In order to activate the principle of exclusion, scientists have not taken into account the possibility of the existence of a Creator while proving evolution. Aside from that, while the general conclusion that every type of species is, in fact, a product of evolution is not deterministic, but rather probable, it is the world picture that has established evolution as a scientific fact for biologists. On the other hand, the available evidence for evolution were supplemented in term of gap filling in light of the same world picture. Hence, one could argue that the rational inference of this entire theory would be impossible without exclusion, probability, and gap filling, all of which are performed by the world pictures in the process (Nasir 2019, pp. 7–8).

This example demonstrates that the formation of a logical argument cannot be completed based solely on the principles of logic (Mantiq); rather, it requires these previously assumed world pictures to be valid in order to fix a particular logical problem. This example also shows the flaws in the process of constructing a logical argument. To support our argument for evolution, we have dismissed the concept of creation, which is a popular narrative for explaining the origin of species. We have also viewed each species as a possible evolution product without finding a missing link, and the gaps in the available evidences for evolution were filled by applying the world picture, which is another flaw in this argument. As a result, we might conclude that while logical thinking is not always correct, it is a likely way to investigate reality (Nasir 2019, pp. 9–10).

It is evident from this analysis that it is futile to attempt a rational explanation of belief or non-belief. Comparing things on different levels, like faith and reason, is a logical fallacy in the light of the logic itself. The comparison is not between faith and reason, but rather between the presuppositions made before reason is applied to the question of whether or not man is dependent or independent. It is fair to say that one can hold the reasonable position of either belief or disbelief, depending on the underlying existential assumptions one adopts. The real question is which existential hypothesis is most consistent with man’s intelligence, his existence, and his psychological requirements. Is it easier to make a logical case for the existence or nonexistence of God, or for the dependence or independence of humans? Which one is more in line with the emotional, spiritual, and social needs of humans? It would be quite logical to redirect the debate to other topics that are more acceptable to both sides, easier to argue about, and more convenient for the audience. These other themes could be things like ethics, the future of humanity, evolution, creation, etc.

7. Faith in the Holy Scriptures

Given the nature and limitations of the reason, it is easy to see why the holy texts did not exclusively teach using logical reasoning. Religious beliefs, according to the scriptures, are the result of revelation and were initially accepted by human consciousness at an intuitive level. As a result, humans spontaneously adopted these worldviews for no apparent reason. The reason is offered only to rationally support them at the third level. Those who share this viewpoint think that the ultimate goal of the divine messages is to inspire people to faith, and that faith speaks directly to the heart (the term “heart” here refers to any area of the brain that is more closely related with emotion than reason) because the heart is the seat of all our emotions, inherent awareness, and gratitude for God Almighty’s bounties. However, another unpleasant occurrence may shake and affect religious beliefs at any time. If another negative mood overpowers this natural sense, the mind begins to look for reasons to justify its attitude of ingratitude and disrespect for the Lord of the Worlds. Even if this circumstance develops, it cannot be resolved through logical reasoning, since mental arguments or conversations, as seen in interfaith debates, have a big part in stimulating opponents’ egoism.

The definition of our hearts can be found throughout the entirety of the Bible, not simply in a single verse. The kind of faith that God requires comes from the heart, according to the Bible: our faith is not based on rational thought. We can question God’s word in our minds while trusting it with all of our hearts. Equally, we might intellectually assent to something (agree with it in our thoughts) without emotionally accepting it. Your words are a sign as to what you genuinely believe; they provide an indication of whether your actions are based on emotions (which are not from the heart) or on the faith that is in your heart (Mathew 12:34). Similarly, in another chapter, the Bible reiterates the importance of the heart in matters of faith, saying: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your hearts”. (Jeremiah, 29:13). In the same way, the book of Samuel says a lot about the connection between faith and the heart. For example, in verse 16:7, which talks about the nature of faith, it says: “But the lord said to Samuel: “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel, 16:7 NIV). Additionally, the Bible reveals that the human heart is not a distinct organ. Instead, our hearts are made up of the most essential portion of our spirit and our conscience, as well as our soul and our emotions. It emphasizes the need of listening to the issues of the faith by attributing the role of the mind to the heart, saying: “And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts?”

The scribes were engaged in memory processing when the Lord Jesus questioned them why they were pondering such things. This demonstrates how the mind is intrinsically linked to the emotional center of our being (Boyer and Bloch 2016).

In the same way it says in the Acts: “Who, when he arrived and saw the grace of God, rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain with the Lord with purpose of heart”.

It is obvious that when we have a strong desire to do something, we exercise our will. This verse demonstrates that our will is a component of our heart.

The verses above demonstrate that the human heart is capable of far more than we ever imagined. The heart is not only a sensor for our emotional lives; it also processes information, makes decisions, and has an intuitive grasp of good and evil.

In this context, the Qur’an argues that the goal of religious belief is not so much intellectual reasoning as it is cleansing of one’s inner spirit. Religious truth is difficult to comprehend because of barriers that prohibit the self from being drawn to or accepting it. According to the holy scriptures, these barriers could be the sense of superiority of having knowledge, pride and egoism etc. According to the Qur’an, the basic barriers for accepting faith are the sense of “freedom” and “centrality”, which cannot be addressed just by logical reasoning, because they arise at a very fundamental level of human consciousness. For this issue, the Qur’an offers an alternative answer, which reads as follows:

Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah. From what stuff hath He created him? From a sperm-drop. He had created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions.

(Abasa, 17–19)

This could be further understood within the Qur’anic attitude toward atheism which is based on the recognition of the beginning of a basic, eternal truth that the human soul is innate and made to know its Creator by the sound nature on which it was created, which is the instinct of religious belief, and that this instinct is eternal and does not change. This is the point where the Holy Qur’an began its response to atheism. Every child is born in a position of innocence, but their parents convert them to Judaism, Christianity, or paganism (Bukhari 2013, p. 405).

Because there are some things your heart knows and accepts that your mind tries to figure out but cannot, the Qur’an says that natural instinct is the best way to figure out religious questions. The mind is limited by how little it can reason, and it is sometimes reluctant to let go of what it knows in order to grow. It does not know about anything outside of itself and cannot get to more complex knowledge, like instinct. The Qur’an used a reasonable approach to explain and consolidate confidence in the faith, which is consistent and harmonious with the basic human inclination (Khaki and Habibabad 2020, p. 2632). It is not limited to merely stating God’s existence, lordship, and oneness in various verses, but rather establishes rational proofs and clear and conclusive logical arguments with no ambiguity or confusion while addressing atheists and asking them a question for which they have nothing but recognition and submission. The first issue they raise is their denial of God’s existence, but in response to their denial, the Qur’an interrogates them, saying, “Or were they created from nothing, or were they the creators, or did they create the heavens and the earth?” (Tur, 33). Do they have the audacity to pretend that they discovered it by chance?! Do they dare to declare that they are the universe’s creators? When they couldn’t claim any of it, the Qur’an addressed them, stating, “Is there a doubt about Allah, The Creator of the heavens and the earth?” (Abraham, 13).

8. Qur’an Addresses the Soul

That faith is based on one’s inherent nature is what the Qur’an deems a cradle of faith, and that the absence or corruption of this fundamental nature results in the demise and corruption of faith. Natural disposition is seen as one of God’s greatest gifts to man, whom he has chosen from among all other creatures to bear his responsibility. As every living creature senses itself, its surroundings, and the future, it is essential that man’s soul and sense of responsibility be greater in order to feel his great duties in the renovation of the earth and to be aware of his status in existence among the creatures and more inspired by what benefits he brings to those around him (Idris 1990, pp. 99–110).

The heart, which is the locus of feeling, is considered a cradle of religious belief in the Qur’an where belief is negated by human innate nature’s corruption. The Qur’an has admonished ingratitude-prone people about their misconceptions regarding money and children as acceleration that is good for them and that they deserve. As a result, the Qur’an refuted that theory, deeming it an impractical notion originating from the distortion of its fundamental essence, and states: “Do they think that because We have granted them abundance of wealth and sons, We would hasten them on in every good? Nay, they do not understand” (Mu’minoon, 55–56). In another place, while arguing with the hypocrites, the Qur’an refers to the lack of faith in them tas a lack of their conscious and states: “Would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realize (it) not! (Baqara, 8). Since the realization is something related to human feelings, this argument from the Qur’an makes a lot of sense, considering that faith originates in the heart and not the head. Many people have come to faith in God through meditative or reflective practice, or as a result of an emotionally or physically stressful experience. Then, they tried to figure it out in their minds. In the same context Qur’an says: “When it is said to them: “Make not mischief on the earth,” they say: “Why, we only Want to make peace!” Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realize (it) not (Baqara, 12).

In another verse it is argued as the following:

“Those whom they invoke besides Allah create nothing and are themselves created. They are (things) dead, lifeless: nor do they know when they will be raised up” (Al-Nahl, 20–21). The same style is maintained while addressing the polytheists: “Others they keep away from it, and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls, and they perceive it not” (al-An’aam, 26). In another place, while discussing the disbelievers, the Qur’an uses the same method and considers the deviance of the people form the right path to the lack of conscious and says: “Thus have We placed leaders in every town, its wicked men, to plot (and burrow) therein: but they only plot against their own souls, and they perceive it not” (al-An’aam, 123). While discussing the general divine law regarding God’s blessings and punishment, the Qur’an refers the issue of lack of religious belief to the lack of conscious and says: “Whenever We sent a prophet to a town, We took up its people in suffering and adversity, in order that they might learn humility” (al-A’raf, 94–95). In some places the Qur’an refers the functionality of the mind to the soul just to make it clear the importance of soul in the issues of faith. The following verse is one of the examples on that:

“Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts may thus learn wisdom and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts”.

(al-Hajj, 46)

Reason and thinking are attributed to the heart rather than the mind in this verse, emphasizing the importance of soul, much as blindness is attributed to the hearts rather than the eyes in this verse, emphasizing the importance of the heart as a nursery of faith. The heart is regarded as a tool for reasoning in the first verse, particularly when it comes to walking on the earth and reflecting on the evidence of God in the universe. The verse calls for a walk on the earth to meditate and search for phenomena, and that is the reality of creation and its majesty through witnessing the Creator, is a clear and explicit point of convergence between the mind and the heart. The heart, according to the verse, is the tool that will make sense of it, which means that the mind’s action has been allocated to the heart, with reference to a particular meaning: After that the speech continues as: “Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts” (al-Hajj, 46).

In another verse the “reflection”, which is a function of human mind, is attributed to the heart to emphasize the importance of the heart in the issue of faith. The Qur’an says: “Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur’an, or are their hearts locked up by them” (Muhammad, 24).

This verse from the Qur’an illustrates the correlation between our feelings and our innate behavior. The mind demonstrates the logical analysis of data by drawing a straight line. It makes use of its stored information, acquired knowledge, and creative faculties. Talking about revelation, the Qur’an says:

“Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. With it came down the spirit of Faith and Truth. To thy heart, that thou may admonish”.

(al-Sh’ara, 193–95)

The heart, not the mind, is the recipient of divine messages in this verse of the Qur’an. This exemplifies the fact that faith is more closely connected to the emotional center of one’s being than it is to the rational cortex. The Qur’an refers faith to the heart in this verse due to the fact that the heart is instinctive and can sense things that the head cannot.

There is a significant difference between how the heart and mind function. This is why deciding what to do in life can be difficult. The heart can only go in one direction. The mind, on the other hand, takes a different path. One of the most difficult tasks we face in life is determining what each of these forces means, what makes them up, and how to bring them together in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of each component. It is a genuine energetic equation that awakens our higher instinct and strengthens our ability to receive the benefits of mind frequencies that are only available when this unity occurs.

Given the Qur’anic references mentioned above, it is reasonable to infer that the heart and mind are connected, and there is evidence to back up this assertion.

Knowledge: The heart has been associated with knowledge in many verses, including the following:

“Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts (and minds) may thus learn wisdom and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts”.

(al-Hajj, 46)

“Allah hath set a seal (31) on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

(Baqara, 7)

The purpose of these verses is to insist on role of heart as the source for divine knowledge by deafening the ears (one of the senses that connect the heart), along with stopping the processes of contemplation and reflection, that is, the realization of knowledge. These verses came to clarify that disbelief or lack of religious faith stands between knowledge and the heart, which is why such verses are carried in the Qur’an with expressions like Ghashawa (clouding), Akinn’ah (veil), Khatm (seal), Tab’a (impression), and Iqfal (occlusion) on the hearts, all of which are barriers that prevent the heart from conciliation in science and knowledge. The word heart implies that the heart is a fundamental faculty for faith-related knowledge (Saged et al. 2018).

Remembrance: Remembrance is attributed to the heart in many of the Verses, including the following:

“No obey any whose heart We have permitted to neglect the remembrance of Us, one who follows his own desires.

(Kahf, 28)

“Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding”.

(Qaf, 37)

Here, the heart is a perceptive intellect that senses, feels, preaches, considers, stirs the human conscience, and raises consciousness of cosmic realities. Here, memory is once again associated with the heart to circle the importance of heart in exploration of truth.

The following verse is more proof that the word heart is used as a synonym for the word intellect:

“Behold! Abraham said: “My Lord! Show me how you give life to the dead.” He said: “Do you not then believe?” He said: “Yea! but to satisfy My own understanding”.

(Baqara, 260)

Prophet Abraham asked for verifiable proof. He wanted to know how God Almighty brings people back from the dead. We can see that giving proof is linked to heart reassurance rather than mind reassurance. This means that proofs are received by the heart. The word heart is used as the frame for faith where religious belief is born and receives its life. It further continues:

“The desert Arabs say: “We believe”. Say, “You have no faith; but you (only)say, We have submitted our wills to Allah, for not yet has Faith entered your hearts”.

(Ali 2009, pp. 366–67)

According to some religious analysts, the phrase “the heart is all that matters” is one of the foundations of religion, because it explains that faith begins in our hearts (Gill 2022, pp. 200–2002). The heart considered to be the container for the divine knowledge as in the following Qura’nic statement:

“Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. With it came down the spirit of Faith and Truth. To thy heart and mind, that you may admonish” (Hujurat, 14). This statement clearly considers the heart to be the landing point for divine knowledge that comes through revelation.

To conclude, we can notice in the above discussion that the heart in the Holy Qur’an is a world unto itself, uniting intellectual and divine understanding. It has a window to the outside and its means, the senses and perceptions, on the one hand, and a window to the inside, where divine knowledge explodes through revelation and inspiration, as Ghazali says:

“The true believer, before whom the veils are lifted, and he can see with the eye of insight, what he cannot see with the naked eye, transcends the material reality to the realization of the Creator’s ability, the wisdom of creation, and the reality of infinite existence, knowledge overflows as a light on the mind, and the outlets of knowledge are integrated.”.

(Ghazzali 2005, pp. 303–7)

9. The Significance of Soul in Divine Laws

Due to the importance of the soul in faith issues, the Qur’an considers it with great attention in the Islamic legislation. The Qur’an says that a person’s corrupt behavior is a direct result of their corrupted heart. As a result, the Islamic legal system places a high value on the soul and stresses the importance of maintaining and reforming it, as gwell as the grave consequences of ignoring or otherwise abandoning it. According to Ghazali, “The duty of the body has to follow what is in the heart.” (Ghazzali 2005, pp. 56–60). Similarly, Qurtubi contends that humans will be judged by their intentions and punished or rewarded accordingly (Qurtubi 2008, p. 86). Many pieces of evidence from the Quran point to the individual being accused for his intentions. In the Sur’ah Isra Qur’an says:

“And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).

(al-Isra, 36)

It is clear from the verse’s conclusion that a person who is guilty in his or her heart would face the same punishment as someone who commits a sin through their ears or sight, and this punishment is unforgivable in Islamic law. In another chapter it concludes:

“Those who love (to see) scandal published broadcast among the Believers, will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not”.

(al-Nur, 19)

This passage implies that the servant will be held accountable for his desire to sow immorality among believers. Since this love originates from the heart, it follows that the servant will be held accountable for the contents of his heart. It further states:

“Eschew all sin, open or secret: those who earn sin will get due recompense for their earnings”.

(al-An’am, 120)

The point I want to make with this verse is that God told us to give up the inner sin, which is the sin of the heart. So, the outer sin is the action of the limbs, and the inner sin is the action of the heart, which is driven by pride, envy, bad intention, etc. (Saud 2019). In the same way, Abi Bukrah says that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “When two Muslims fight with their swords, both the killer and the killed will go to Hell”. I told him, “That’s true for the killer, but what about the person who was killed?” He said: “In fact, he was intent on killing his partner” (Bukhari 2013, p. 301).

This prophetic saying makes it clear that the person chose to go to Hell, even though he was killed unfairly. Instead, the person is responsible for everything that is up to him or her to decide, and the one’s action always comes from the one’s intentions.

Throughout these passages, we see a clear link between the intentions of one’s heart and the deeds one performs. This means that in terms of law, the Qur’an places a high value on people’s intentions.

10. The Qur’anic Attitude toward Atheism

In the Quran, the word “atheism” has many different meanings, such as corruption (al-Hajj, 25) distortion, (Fussil’at, 40) denial (al-Nahl, 103) and disobedience (al-Araf, 142).

The Qur’an makes no clear arguments in favor of theism, because belief in the existence of a divine being is necessary, axiomatic, and self-evident and goes beyond reasoning. The concept of atheism contradicts human nature. This is because additional debates are inextricably linked to a slew of other difficulties that humans confront, not the least of which is rectifying erroneous views about God in general. So, here is what the Qur’an says regarding the basic causes of atheism:

• Deviation from common sense

According to the Qur’an, belief in the existence of an all-powerful God is a basic human nature:

“Such as fear not the meeting with Us (for Judgment) say: “Why are not the angels sent down to us, or (why) do we not see our Lord?” Indeed, they have an arrogant conceit of themselves, and mighty is the insolence of their impiety!.

(Ali 2009, pp. 342–43)

Here Qur’an maintains that only arrogance could have led them to believe that the life of this world is everything, and that there is nothing but nothingness behind it (Zuḥaylī 2002, p. 77).

• Empiricism:

Pharaohs’ denial of God is another case mentioned in the Qur’an. In the next verse, the Qur’an slams this approach, calling it a flawed method used by pharos to reach the God of Moses:

“Pharaoh said: “O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the Allah of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!” Thus, was made alluring, in Pharaoh’s eyes, the evil of his deeds, and he was hindered from the Path; and the plot of Pharaoh led to nothing but perdition (for him)”.

(Ghafir, 36–37)

In this verse, the Qur’an says that Pharaoh went down the wrong path because he turned away from the right path that leads to God (Zuḥaylī 2002, pp. 254–55).

The Quran registers the Pharoh narrative in another place, and regards it as a false narrative that is based on no logic:

“Pharaoh said: “O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!”.

(Ghafir, 36–37)

In these two verses, the Qur’an deems Pharaoh’s concept of God to be incorrect, as it is founded on empiricism, and hence it is impossible for Pharaoh to reach God of Moses using empirical instruments and human senses (Allen 1989). Because God’s nature is transcendent, it extends beyond natural rules as well as sensory perception. Furthermore, in the above verse, the Qur’an criticizes the Pharaoh narrative by deeming it as fiction that lacks certainty and accuracy because the word “ظن”, which means to speculate, and conjecture is used. There is no proof or evidence to support this narrative, thus it is simply a guess.

Finally, a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) could sum up our discussion by emphasizing that faith resides in the heart rather than the mind:

“The rewards of deeds are determined by intentions, and a person will receive the reward that he intended.”.

(Bukhari 2013, pp. 404–5)

11. Conclusions

The theism—atheism debate is always held on improper methodology because the discussion is always based on the topic of God’s existence, and uses logical and sometimes experimental tools to explore God’s nature. The importance of human instinctual nature, common sense, and other rational faculties in understanding faith issues has been overlooked. Despite the various flaws in the logical argumentation processes, only logical reasoning is used. In the understanding of faith issues, less attention has been paid to the religious narrative. Therefore, it is time to adopt a comprehensive, mixed methodology to understand faith issues using all of the tools of knowledge, and giving the Bible and Qur’an a chance to end this debate forever. Because humans are a sophisticated layering of sentience, intelligence, creative impulse, and feeling, not just one clump of consciousness, what is true is to be humble. Our minds do not possess all of the information. The society that we live in is not privy to all of the information. Ghazali, Kindi, Freud, and Durkheim and all other greatest minds are all trapped in the same boat of humanity as the rest of us, and they, too, are the product of the flow of ideas that circulate around them. Therefore, a very excellent way is to let our hearts guide us in our search and use our minds to integrate everything that we find.