people who believe that science leads to atheism they really hold a non-scientific
assumption what is that non-scientific assumption it's the philosophical worldview of philosophical
naturalism it's not scientific what's philosophical naturalism philosophical
naturalism is based on three things number one the belief that there is no divine the assertion
that there's no divine number two the assertion that all physical phenomena can be explained all
phenomena can be explained by physical processes and number three there is no afterlife which
is similar to the idea of that there's no divine sowhat's for the sufferer core naturalism there's
no divine no hereafter and all phenomena in the universe can be explained by physical processes
now what's the problem with that if these are the lenses that you put on your eyes to see the world
then what are you going to see you're just going to see the denial of the divine because these
are your lenses right say you go to optometrists and you buy some glasses Calvin Klein the atheist
edition you put it on your face what you're gonna see you ain't gonna see God no where you'll see
no divine power right that's it and that's what you have the likes of many scientists that you
know will respect for their scientific endeavors but frankly you know they had the wrong lenses on
and they were they had non-scientific assumptions on their faces as lenses which was Calvin Klein
atheist edition right and so if you adopt that false philosophical assumption that basically is
literally based on blind faith in my view then all you're gonna see is the deny of the divine because
you started with that premise you put those lenses on and even the Atheist himself professor Michael
ruse a very honest atheist philosopher he says if you want a concession I've always said that
naturalism philosophical naturalism is an act of faith faith and that's why when you discuss
with people don't discuss the site discuss the assumptions that people are holding and you have
a more fruitful discussion the next part of this assumption is a methodological naturalism now
this is not a problem for theists especially the Islamic tradition now what logical naturalism it's
basically the assertion that for any scientific conclusion of theory to be scientific it cannot
refer to the divine power or creativity that's what it's saying it doesn't say God doesn't
exist it's just it just says for your science to be science for your conclusion to be scientific
for your theory to be scientific just don't refer to God's power or divine wisdom or creativity and
this is not a problem for the Muslim because the Muslim believes that the whole universe is
made up of physical causes and these are as bad in Arabic these are causes that God has used to
manifest his divine will that's not a problem for the Muslim but what some people do is they
conflate methodological naturalism and they think it means for the Safa cone a chiral ism no because
you could be a methodological naturalist that when you do science you don't refer to God's divine
power creativity but you can still be atheist that believes in God of course you can there's
no contradiction because your philosophy could be what those physical causes are a manifestation
of the Divine Will no problem so they conflate methodological naturalism with with philosophical
naturalism and that's why evolutionary biologist Scott C Todd he said of course the scientist as
an individual is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism methodological naturalism in
this case so does science d-28 ism no we've taken the full force assumptions we've broken them down
so therefore we can conclude in an intellectually healthy way that science does not lead to atheism