Imagine one evening you receive a call from David, one of your old school friends you used to sit next to during science lessons. You haven’t spoken to him for years, but you remember the weird questions he used to ask you. Although you found him pleasant, you were not a fan of his ideas. Reluctantly you answer the phone. After a brief exchange of greetings, he invites you to have lunch with him. You half-heartedly accept his invitation. During lunch he asks, “Can I tell you something?” You reply positively, and he begins to express to you something that you haven’t heard before: “You know, the past— like what you did yesterday, last year, and all the way back to your birth—didn’t really happen. It’s just an illusion in your head. So, my question to you is do you believe the past exists?” As a rational person you do not agree with his assertion and you reply, “What evidence do you have to prove that the past does not exist?” Now rewind the conversation, and imagine you spent the whole meal trying to prove that the past is something that really happened. Which scenario do you prefer?

The reason you prefer the first scenario is because you—like the rest of the reasonable people out there—regard the reality of the past as a self-evident truth. As with all self-evident truths, if someone challenges them, the burden of proof is on the one who has questioned them. Now let’s apply this to a theist-atheist dialogue.

A theist invites his atheist friend for dinner, and during the meal the atheist asserts, “You know, God does not exist. There’s no evidence for his existence.” The theist replies with a barrage of different arguments for God’s existence. However, has the theist adopted the right strategy? Before we present a positive case for God’s existence, shouldn’t we be probing why questioning God’s existence is the assumed default question? It shouldn’t be: Does God exist? Rather, it should be: What reasons do we have to reject His existence? Now, do not get me wrong. I believe we have many good arguments that support a belief in God, and these are discussed in this book. The point I am raising here is that if there are no arguments against God’s existence, then the rational default position is the belief in the Divine. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to questioning the reality of the past without any good reason to do so. From this perspective atheism is unnatural.

Self-evident truths.

We consider many beliefs to be self-evidently true. This means the belief can be described as natural or true by default. Some of them include:

• The uniformity of nature.

• The law of causality.

• The reality of the past.

• The validity of our reasoning.

• The existence of other minds.

• The existence of an external world.

When someone questions these truths, we do not blindly accept their conclusions, and we usually reply, “What evidence do you have to reject them?”.

These truths are self-evident because they are characterised by being:

• Universal: Not a product of a specific culture, they are cross-cultural. This doesn’t imply that everyone believes in the truth, or that there is some kind of consensus. The self-evident truth is not born out of specific social conditions.

• Untaught: Not based on information transfer. They are not acquired via information external to your introspection and senses. In other words, they are not learnt via acquiring knowledge.

• Natural: Formed due to the natural functioning of the human psyche.

• Intuitive: The simplest and most comprehensive interpretation of the world.

Let’s apply the above features to the belief that the past is real.

The reality of the past is a self-evident truth because it is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive. It is a universal truth because most—if not all—cultures have a belief in the past, from a point of view that the past was once the present. This clearly shows that the belief is not a result of specific social circumstances. The belief in the past is also untaught, because when someone first realises that the past was an actual state of affairs, it is not based on someone telling them or any type of learning. No one grows up being told by his or her parents that the past was real. This belief is acquired via their own experience. The reality of the past is also natural. People with normal rational faculties agree that the past consists of things that happened.

Finally, the belief that the past once happened is the simplest and most comprehensive interpretation of our experiences, and it is based on an innate understanding of the world. To claim that the past is an illusion raises more problems than it solves. It doesn’t comprehensively explain our memories, our experience of temporal depth and recorded history.

God: a self-evident truth.

Just like the belief that the past was once the present, the existence of God is also a self-evident truth. What is meant by ‘God’ in this chapter is the basic concept of a creator, a nonhuman personal cause or designer. It does not refer to a particular religious conception of a deity or God. The following discussion explains why the belief in this basic idea of God is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive. Please note, this chapter does not aim to prove God’s existence. Rather, it aims to highlight that the default position of a belief in a creator or an ultimate cause is more coherent than the atheist’s position.

Universal.

The basic underlying idea of a creator, or a supernatural cause for the universe, is cross-cultural. It is not contingent on culture, but transcends it, like the belief in causality and the existence of other minds. For example, the idea of other people having minds exists in all cultures, a belief held by most rational people. The existence of God or a supernatural cause is a universally held belief and not the product of one specific culture. Different conceptions of God are held in various cultures, but this does not negate the basic idea of a creator or nonhuman personal cause.

In spite of the number of atheists in the world, the belief in God is universal. A universal belief does not mean every single person on the planet must believe in it. A cross-cultural consensus is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that people universally believe in God’s existence, and therefore, it is not due to specific social conditions. Evidently, there are many more theists than atheists in the world, and this has been the case from the beginning of recorded history.

Untaught.

Self-evident truths do not need to be taught or learnt. For example, for me to know what spaghetti is, I require information of western cuisine and Italian culture. I cannot know what spaghetti is merely by reflecting on it. By contrast, you do not require any information, whether from culture or education, to know a creator for things exists. This may be the reason why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the island.91 Our understanding of God differs, but the underlying belief in a cause or creator is based on our own reflections.

Some atheists exclaim, “Believing in God is no different than believing in the spaghetti monster”. This objection is obviously false. Self-evident truths do not require external information. The idea that monsters exist, or even that spaghetti exists, requires information transfer. No one acquires knowledge of monsters or spaghetti by their own intuitions or introspection. Therefore, the spaghetti monster is not a self-evident truth; thus, the comparison with God cannot be made. Diverting our attention from the context of this chapter, this objection also fails, as there are many good arguments for God’s existence and no good arguments for the existence of a spaghetti monster.

Natural.

Belief in some type of supernatural designer or cause is based on the natural functioning of the human psyche. People naturally find the idea of a painting without a painter or a building without a builder absurd. This is no different for the entire cosmos. The concept of God’s self-evident existence has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the Islamic intellectual tradition. The classical scholar Ibn Taymiyya explained that “affirmation of a Maker is firmly-rooted in the hearts of all men… it is from the binding necessities of their creation….” 92 The 12th century scholar Al-Raghib al-Asfahani similarly asserts that knowledge of God “is firmly-rooted in the soul”.93 As well as the Islamic position, a wealth of research in various fields supports the conclusion that we are meant to see the world as created and designed.

Psychological evidence.

The academic Olivera Petrovich conducted research concerning the origins of natural things, such as plants and animals, and she found that pre-schoolers were about seven times more likely to say God created them rather than humans.94 In her popular interviews, including private correspondence I have had with her, Petrovich concludes that the belief in a non-anthropomorphic God seems to be natural, and that atheism is an acquired cognitive position.95 Petrovich has published a book called Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood that elaborates further on this issue. Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that recent findings in cognitive psychology indicate that two key aspects of religious belief—belief in a designer, and belief in mind-body dualism—are natural to young children.96 In the article Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Professor Deborah Kelemen explored research that suggested young children have a propensity to think about natural objects in terms of purpose and intention. Although more research is required, and it only tentatively suggests evidence to support ‘intuitive theism’, Kelemen’s summary further indicates the conclusions we have been discussing in this chapter:

“A review of recent cognitive developmental research reveals that by around 5 years of age, children understand natural objects as not humanly caused, can reason about non-natural agents’ mental states, and demonstrate the capacity to view objects in terms of design. Finally, evidence from 6- to 10- year-olds suggests that children’s assignments of purpose to nature relate to their ideas concerning intentional nonhuman causation. Together, these research findings suggest that children’s explanatory approach may be accurately described as intuitive theism.” Recent research by Elisa Järnefelt, Caitlin F. Canfield and Deborah Kelemen, titled The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults, concluded that there is a natural propensity to see nature as designed.98 This conclusion was grounded in three studies. Study 1 was based on a sample of 352 North American adults. The sample included religious and non-religious participants. The procedure involved a speeded creation task which was “a picture-based procedure devised to measure adults’ automatic and reflective tendencies to endorse natural phenomena as purposefully made by some being”99. The participants were randomly assigned either to a speeded or an unspeeded condition. All of the participants were presented with 120 pictures on a computer. They were then to judge whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture” and respond yes or no by pressing the relevant keys on a keyboard.100

Study 2 was based on 148 North American adults “who were recruited via the email lists of atheist and other explicitly non-religious associations and organizations”101. The same speeded creation task of Study 1 was given to the participants in Study 2. Study 3 was based on 151 Finnish atheist adults “recruited via the email lists of student associations and organizations all around Finland”102. This group was given a similar speeded created task. The results were fascinating. In their discussion the academics conclude that atheists saw things as purposefully made:

“Consistent with Study 1 and Study 2, Study 3 revealed that non-religious participants in Nordic Finland, where non-religiosity is not an issue and where theistic cultural discourse is not present in the way it is in the United States, default to viewing both living and non-living natural phenomena as purposefully made by a non-human being when their processing is restricted. Interestingly, comparisons across the different groups of non-religious participants in all three studies showed that, despite the absence of prominent theistic cultural discourse, non-religious Finnish participants were more likely than North American atheists to fail in suppressing their overall level of creation endorsement. This pattern of results shows that ambient theistic cultural discourse is therefore not the only factor that explains people’s tendency to endorse purposeful creation in nature.”.

The general conclusions of this research include the fact that the results “lend empirical support to the proposal that religious non-belief is cognitively effortful”104 and that “the current findings suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed”.105. In other words, non-belief is intellectually exhausting, and seeing things as designed is part of what makes us human. The study suggests that theism is innate. However, as with most research, “many questions remain regarding possible connections between these early developing design intuitions”.106.

Much more research is required in both cognitive and developmental psychology to form any definitive conclusions. However, the above studies support the view that the belief in God is natural. Some objectors may cite research that suggests that children from religious backgrounds have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy at a young age. This research cannot undermine the aforementioned conclusions, because the studies only focused on religious narratives and not the concept of things requiring a designer or creator.107 Even so, the fact that religious children may have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fiction is still metaphysically neutral, because to suggest that it supports atheism rather than theism assumes that atheism is true and theism is fiction. Such research would not invalidate the findings mentioned above. It must be pointed out that some of the research I have presented above has cross-cultural implications, which means that regardless of the participants’ theist and atheist backgrounds, they had a tendency to have theist-like intuitions.

Another contention includes that since some of the research shows that atheism is cognitively effortful—which implies that more thought is required—then it indicates that it is the most rational position. This objection is based on a false inference. The evidence can also suggest that atheism requires adopting false assumptions about the physical world (see Chapter 12); hence it becomes mentally taxing as a result.

I have not included all of the relevant research here. The discussions can be quite complex and although there are contradictory studies, they are—in my view—less conclusive. The main objective of this discussion is to show a growing trend in the research that supports the view that the belief in God’s existence is natural.

Sociological and anthropological evidence.

Professor Justin Barrett’s research in his book, Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief, looked at the behaviour and claims of children. He concluded that the children believed in what he calls “natural religion”. This is the idea that there is a personal Being that created the entire universe. That Being cannot be human—it must be divine, supernatural:

“Scientific research on children’s developing minds and supernatural beliefs suggests that children normally and rapidly acquire minds that facilitate belief in supernatural agents. Particularly in the first year after birth, children distinguish between agents and non-agents, understanding agents as able to move themselves in purposeful ways to pursue goals. They are keen to find agency around them, even given scant evidence. Not long after their first birthday, babies appear to understand that agents, but not natural forces or ordinary objects, can create order out of disorder… This tendency to see function and purpose, plus an understanding that purpose and order come from minded beings, makes children likely to see natural phenomena as intentionally created. Who is the Creator? Children know people are not good candidates. It must have been a god… children are born believers of what I call natural religion….”108

Intuitive.

The existence of a creator is the most intuitive interpretation of the world. It is the simplest and most comprehensive explanation of the universe and our existence. It is also easy to understand without explicit instruction. Human beings have an affinity to attribute causes to things all the time, and the entire cosmos is one of those things (see Chapters 5 and 6). Not all intuitions are true, but evidence is required to make someone depart from their initial intuitions about things. For example, when someone perceives design and order in the universe, the intuitive conclusion is that there is a designer (see Chapter 8). To make that person change their mind, valid evidence is required to justify the counter-intuitive view. The belief in a God, creator, designer or supernatural cause is a self-evident truth. It is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive. In this light, the right question to ask is not: Does God exist? The right question should be: Why do you reject God’s existence? This way you will have turned the tables and rightly so; atheism is unnatural. The onus of proof is on someone who challenges a self-evident truth. When someone claims that the past is an illusion or that other people do not have minds, he or she would have to shoulder the burden of proof. Atheists are no different. They have to justify their rejection of a cause or creator for the universe.

“Atheism is self-evidently true” Some atheists argue that atheism is true by default. However, the rejection of a cause or a creator is not self-evident. Although atheism is now also a universal position (and may have been since the beginning of recorded history), it is taught and is counter-intuitive. People have to learn to reject the concept of a creator or cause for things. Denying a creator for the universe is not the simplest and most comprehensive explanation. It may be simple, but it does not provide a comprehensive explanation. It actually creates far more problems than it solves. For instance, how could the universe come into existence from nothing (see Chapter 5)? How could this contingent universe have no explanation for its existence (see Chapter 6)? The atheist may respond by saying that there are alternative explanations for the origins and nature of the universe. This is true. However, these explanations are not self-evident. They are not the default; they are acquired positions. As mentioned previously, in order to reject what is considered self-evident, one must provide evidence. I am not dismissing alternative explanations for the existence of the cosmos, I am merely pointing out what is the default position. Since the basic idea of a creator is true by default, the first question we should ask is: What evidence do we have to reject the existence of a creator?.

The innate disposition: fitrah.

God as a self-evident truth relates to the Islamic theological concept concerning the fitrah. The word comes from the Arabic trilateral stem fa ṭa ra ( which relates to words such as fatrun and fatarahu), meaning a created or made thing. From a lexical point of view, the fitrah refers to something that has been created within us by God. Theologically, the fitrah is the natural state or the innate disposition of the human being that has been created by God with innate knowledge of Him and with the affinity to worship the Divine.109 This is based on the authentic statement of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم which states, “every child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian….”110

This Prophetic tradition teaches that every human being has this innate disposition, but external influences such as parenting and by extension society—change the human being into someone who adopts beliefs and practices that are not in line with the innate knowledge of God. There have been numerous scholarly discussions on the concept of the fitrah. For example, the 11th century theologian Al-Ghazali argues that the fitrah is a means that people use to acquire the truth of God’s existence and that He is entitled to our worship. He also maintained that knowledge of God is something “every human being has in the depths of his consciousness”.111 Ibn Taymiyya, the 14th century scholar, describes the innate disposition as something God created within His creation that contains ingrained knowledge of God:

“…the existence of a perfect Creator is known from the fitrah, and this knowledge is ingrained, necessary, and obvious.”112

In spite of the fact that the fitrah is a natural state, it can be ‘veiled’ or ‘spoiled’ by external influences. These influences, as indicated by the above Prophetic tradition, can include parenting, society and peer pressure. These influences can cloud the fitrah and prevent someone from acknowledging the truth. Ibn Taymiyya argues that when the natural state is clouded with other influences, the person may require other evidences for God’s existence:

“Affirmation of a Creator and His perfection is innate and necessary with respect to one whose innate disposition remains intact, even though alongside such an affirmation it has many other evidences for it as well, and often when the innate disposition is altered… many people may be in need of such other evidences.”.

These other evidences can include rational arguments. Ibn Taymiyya was not a strong advocate of rational arguments for God’s existence. He maintained that the fitrah was the main way of affirming the Divine. However, he did not dismiss sound rational proofs for God’s existence.114 Nevertheless, these rational arguments must conform to Islamic theology and not adopt premises (or assumptions) that contradict it. From the perspective of Islamic epistemology, it is important to know that conviction in the existence of God is not solely inferred from some type of inductive, deductive, philosophical or scientific evidence. Instead, these evidences awaken and uncloud the fitrah so the human being can recognise the innate knowledge of God. The truth of God’s existence and the fact that He is worthy of our worship is already known by the fitrah. However, the fitrah can be clouded by socialisation and other external influences. Therefore, the role of rational arguments is to ‘remind’ us of the truth that we already know. To illustrate this point, imagine I am cleaning my mother’s loft. As I move old bags around and throw away unwanted objects, I find my favourite toy that I used to play with when I was 5 years old. I am reminded about something that I already have knowledge of. In my mind I think, “Oh yeah. I remember this toy. It was my favourite.” The truth of believing in God and the fact that He is worthy of our worship is no different. Rational arguments serve as spiritual and intellectual awakenings to realise the knowledge that is contained in our fitrah.

Other ways the fitrah can be unclouded include introspection, spiritual experiences, reflection and pondering. The Qur’an promotes questioning and thinking deeply about things:

“Thus do We explain in detail the signs for who give thought.”115

“Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.”116

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the Earth? Rather, they are not certain.”117

Islamic epistemology views rational arguments as means and not ends. They serve as a way of awakening or unclouding the fitrah. This is why it is very important to note that guidance only comes from God, and no amount of rational evidence can convince one’s heart to realise the truth of Islam. God makes this very clear: “Indeed, you do not guide whom you like, but God guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided.”118 Guidance is a spiritual matter that is based on God’s mercy, knowledge and wisdom. If God wills that someone is guided through rational arguments, then nothing will stop that person from accepting the truth. However, if God decides that someone does not deserve guidance—based on a Divine wisdom— then regardless of how many cogent arguments that are presented, that person will never accept the truth.

To conclude, the belief in God’s existence is a self-evident truth. As with all self-evident truths, when someone challenges them, the onus of proof is on them. The only way the belief in God can be undermined is if there is any positive evidence for the non-existence of the Divine. However, as this book will show, the few arguments that atheists have against the existence of God are weak and philosophically shallow (see Chapters 11 and 12). The self-evident truth of God was addressed in the Qur’an over 1,400 years ago:

“Can there be doubt about God, Creator of the heavens and Earth?”119

To end this chapter, Islamic scholar Wesam Charkawi aptly explains that God’s existence is in line with our natural disposition:

“Indeed, the first sense in the depth of a person if he contemplates within himself and in the world around him is the sense of a higher power that reigns over the world with the command to dispose over life and death, creation and annihilation, motion and stillness and all the different types of meticulous changes that occur in it. Unequivocally, mankind senses this reality and believes in it deeply, regardless of whether one is able to produce evidence to verify the truth of this feeling or is unable. This is a natural instinct or the natural disposition of mankind, which is indeed a precise and exact evidence… In addition, we feel in ourselves the presence of compassion, love, hate, encouragement and dislike, though what is the proof that it exists, even while it flutters within us? Is one able to bring forth evidence more than that which he feels and senses, and yet it is real without doubt? One feels excitement and senses pain, yet is one unable to establish evidence to prove it exists with more than what he feels? Without doubt, this is the natural way [fitrah] or instinct on which mankind has been created, and these are the deep feelings that have been embedded within us. They are not within us for no reason or in vain, rather it is a natural truth that corresponds to the world.”120