Fikiria jioni moja unapokea simu kutoka kwa David, mmoja wa marafiki zako wa zamani wa shule ambaye mliwahi kukaa karibu darasani wakati wa masomo ya sayansi. Hamjazungumza kwa miaka mingi, lakini unakumbuka maswali ya ajabu ambayo alikuwa akiuliza. Ingawa ulimpata kuwa mtu mwema, hukuwa shabiki wa mawazo yake. Kwa shingo upande unapokea simu. Baada ya salamu fupi, anakualika mle chakula cha mchana pamoja. Unakubali mwaliko wake kwa nusu moyo. Wakati wa chakula anauliza, "Naweza kukuambia jambo?" Unamjibu kwa kukubali, naye anaanza kukueleza jambo ambalo hujawahi kulisikia: "Unajua, zamani, yaani mambo uliyofanya jana, mwaka jana, na hadi kurudi nyuma kabisa hadi siku ulipozaliwa, hayakuwahi kutokea kweli. Ni udanganyifu tu kichwani mwako. Kwa hiyo swali langu kwako ni je, unaamini kwamba zamani zipo?" Kama mtu mwenye busara, hukubaliani na madai yake, na unamjibu, "Una ushahidi gani wa kuthibitisha kwamba zamani hazipo?" Sasa rudisha nyuma mazungumzo, na fikiria ulitumia chakula chote kujaribu kuthibitisha kwamba zamani ni kitu kilichotokea kweli. Ni hali ipi kati ya hizi mbili unayoipendelea?

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?

Sababu ya wewe kupendelea hali ya kwanza ni kwamba—kama watu wengine wenye akili timamu—unaukubali uhalisia wa zamani kama ukweli wa wazi wenyewe. Kama ilivyo kwa kweli zote za wazi zenyewe, mtu anapozipinga, mzigo wa kuthibitisha unamwangukia yule aliyeziuliza. Sasa tuutumie wazo hili katika mazungumzo kati ya mwamini na asiyeamini.

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.

Mwalimu wa dini anamwalika rafiki yake asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu kwa chakula cha jioni, na wakati wa mlo, yule asiyeamini anasema, "Unajua, Mungu hayupo. Hakuna ushahidi wa kuwepo kwake." Yule anayeamini anajibu kwa mfululizo wa hoja mbalimbali za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu. Hata hivyo, je, mtu huyo anayeamini amechagua mkakati sahihi? Kabla ya kuwasilisha hoja chanya za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu, je, hatupaswi kuchunguza kwa nini kuhoji kuwepo kwa Mungu kunachukuliwa kuwa swali la msingi lililodhaniwa? Swali haliwezi kuwa: Je, Mungu yupo? Badala yake, swali linapaswa kuwa: Tuna sababu gani za kukataa kuwepo kwake? Usinielewe vibaya. Ninaamini kuwa tuna hoja nyingi nzuri zinazounga mkono imani kwa Mungu, na hizi zinajadiliwa katika kitabu hiki. Hoja ninayoitoa hapa ni kwamba, ikiwa hakuna hoja za kupinga kuwepo kwa Mungu, basi msimamo wa kimantiki wa msingi ni imani kwa Mungu. Vinginevyo, itakuwa sawa na kuhoji uhalisia wa zamani bila sababu yoyote nzuri ya kufanya hivyo. Kwa mtazamo huu, kutoamini Mungu ni jambo lisilo la kawaida.

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.

Ukweli dhahiri usiohitaji ushahidi.

Self-evident truths.

Tunachukulia imani nyingi kuwa ni kweli dhahiri. Hii ina maana kwamba imani hiyo inaweza kuelezwa kuwa ya asili au ya kweli kwa chaguo-msingi. Baadhi yake ni pamoja na:

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:

• Usawa wa maumbile.

• The uniformity of nature.

Sheria ya sababu na matokeo.

• The law of causality.

• Uhalisia wa zamani.

• The reality of the past.

• Uhalali wa hoja zetu.

• The validity of our reasoning.

• Uwepo wa akili nyingine.

• The existence of other minds.

• Kuwepo kwa ulimwengu wa nje.

• The existence of an external world.

Mtu anapohoji ukweli huu, hatukubali hitimisho lake kwa upofu, na kwa kawaida tunamjibu, "Una ushahidi gani wa kuzikataa?"

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

Ukweli huu uko wazi kwa sababu una sifa ya kuwa:

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

• Ulimwengu wote: Si zao la utamaduni fulani maalum; ni za kivuka tamaduni. Hii haimaanishi kwamba kila mtu anaamini ukweli huo, wala kwamba kuna makubaliano ya aina yoyote. Ukweli dhahiri hautokani na hali maalum za kijamii.

• 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.

• Asiyefundishwa: Si kitu kinachotokana na uhamishaji wa taarifa. Hazipatikani kupitia taarifa za nje ya tafakari na hisia zako. Kwa maneno mengine, hazipatikani kwa kujifunza kwa kupata maarifa.

• 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.

• Asili: Inayotokana na utendaji kazi wa kawaida wa akili ya binadamu.

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

• Angavu: Ufafanuzi rahisi na kamili zaidi wa ulimwengu.

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

Tutatumia vipengele vilivyotajwa hapo juu kwa imani kwamba yaliyopita ni halisi.

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

Ukweli wa yaliyopita ni kweli ya wazi kwa sababu ni ya ulimwengu wote, haikufundishwa, ni ya kiasili na ya kiintuitivu. Ni kweli ya ulimwengu wote kwa sababu tamaduni nyingi, kama si zote, zina imani kwamba yaliyopita yalikuwa wakati mmoja ya sasa. Hili linaonyesha wazi kwamba imani hii si matokeo ya hali maalum za kijamii. Imani katika yaliyopita pia haikufundishwa, kwa sababu mtu anapotambua kwa mara ya kwanza kwamba yaliyopita yalikuwa hali halisi ya mambo, hilo halitegemei mtu kumwambia au aina yoyote ya kujifunza. Hakuna mtu anayekua akiambiwa na wazazi wake kwamba yaliyopita yalikuwa ya kweli. Imani hii inapatikana kupitia uzoefu wao wenyewe. Ukweli wa yaliyopita pia ni wa kiasili. Watu wenye uwezo wa kawaida wa kufikiri wanakubaliana kwamba yaliyopita yanajumuisha mambo yaliyotokea.

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.

Mwishowe, imani kwamba yaliyopita yalitokea kweli ni tafsiri rahisi zaidi na kamilifu zaidi ya uzoefu wetu, na inatokana na ufahamu wa asili kuhusu ulimwengu. Kudai kwamba yaliyopita ni udanganyifu kunaleta matatizo mengi zaidi kuliko yanavyotatua. Haielezi kwa ukamilifu kumbukumbu zetu, hisia yetu ya kina cha wakati, wala historia iliyorekodiwa.

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.

Mungu: ukweli dhahiri wenyewe.

God: a self-evident truth.

Kama vile imani kwamba yaliyopita yalikuwa wakati fulani ya sasa, kuwepo kwa Mungu pia ni ukweli dhahiri. Kinachomaanishwa na 'Mungu' katika sura hii ni dhana ya msingi ya muumbaji, sababu isiyo ya kibinadamu yenye utu au mbunifu. Haimaanishi dhana fulani ya kidini ya mungu au Mungu. Mjadala unaofuata unaeleza kwa nini imani katika wazo hili la msingi la Mungu ni ya ulimwengu wote, isiyofundishwa, ya asili na ya kiintuitive. Tafadhali fahamu kwamba sura hii haikusudii kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu. Badala yake, inakusudia kuonyesha kwamba msimamo wa msingi wa imani katika muumbaji au sababu ya mwisho ni wa kimantiki zaidi kuliko msimamo wa wasioamini kuwepo kwa Mungu.

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.

Ulimwengu wote.

Universal.

Wazo la msingi la muumba, au chanzo cha kimungu kisicho cha kibinadamu cha ulimwengu, ni la tamaduni zote. Halitegemei utamaduni, bali linavuka mipaka yake, kama vile imani katika sababu na matokeo na kuwepo kwa akili nyingine. Kwa mfano, wazo kwamba watu wengine wana akili linapatikana katika tamaduni zote, imani ambayo watu wengi wenye busara wanaishikilia. Kuwepo kwa Mungu au chanzo cha kimungu ni imani inayoshikiliwa kwa ujumla kote duniani, wala si matokeo ya utamaduni fulani maalum. Dhana mbalimbali za Mungu zinashikiliwa katika tamaduni mbalimbali, lakini hilo halibatilishi wazo la msingi la muumba au sababu ya kibinafsi isiyo ya kibinadamu.

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.

Licha ya idadi ya wasioamini Mungu duniani, imani kwa Mungu ni ya ulimwengu mzima. Imani ya ulimwengu mzima haimaanishi kwamba kila mtu duniani lazima aamini hilo. Makubaliano ya tamaduni mbalimbali yanatosha kuthibitisha dai kwamba watu wanaamini kwa pamoja kuwepo kwa Mungu, na hivyo si kwa sababu ya hali maalum za kijamii. Ni dhahiri kwamba kuna waumini wengi zaidi kuliko wasioamini Mungu duniani, na hali hii imekuwepo tangu mwanzo wa historia iliyorekodiwa.

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.

Bila elimu.

Untaught.

Mambo ya dhahiri hayahitaji kufundishwa wala kujifunza. Kwa mfano, ili nijue spaghetti ni nini, ninahitaji taarifa kuhusu vyakula vya Magharibi na utamaduni wa Kiitaliano. Siwezi kujua spaghetti ni nini kwa kutafakari tu. Kinyume chake, hauhitaji taarifa yoyote, iwe ya kitamaduni au ya kielimu, ili kujua kwamba kuna muumba wa vitu. Hii huenda ndiyo sababu wanasosholojia na wanaanthropolojia wanasema kwamba hata watoto wasioamini Mungu wakitupwa kwenye kisiwa cha jangwani, wangeamini kwamba kuna kitu kilichokiumba kisiwa hicho.91 Uelewa wetu wa Mungu unatofautiana, lakini imani ya msingi katika sababu au muumba inatokana na tafakari zetu wenyewe.

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.

Baadhi ya wasioamini Mungu husema kwa kejeli, "Kuamini Mungu si tofauti na kuamini mnyama wa tambi." Pingamizi hili ni la uongo kwa wazi. Ukweli wa kujidhihirisha wenyewe hauhitaji taarifa za nje. Wazo kwamba wanyama wakubwa wa kutisha wapo, au hata kwamba tambi zipo, linahitaji kupokea taarifa. Hakuna anayepata ujuzi wa wanyama wa kutisha au tambi kwa hisia zake za ndani au kwa kujichunguza mwenyewe. Kwa hiyo mnyama wa tambi si ukweli wa kujidhihirisha wenyewe; hivyo ulinganisho wake na Mungu hauwezi kufanywa. Bila kuyaondoa macho yetu kwenye muktadha wa sura hii, pingamizi hili pia linashindwa, kwa kuwa kuna hoja nyingi nzuri za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu, na hakuna hoja nzuri za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa mnyama wa tambi.

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.

Asili

Natural.

Imani katika aina fulani ya mbunifu au chanzo cha ulimwengu isiyoonekana imejengwa juu ya utendaji wa asili wa akili ya mwanadamu. Watu kwa asili huona wazo la uchoraji usio na mchoraji, au jengo lisilo na mjenzi, kuwa la kipuuzi. Hali hii haitofautiani kwa ulimwengu wote. Wazo la kuwepo kwa Mungu kuwa jambo lililo wazi lenyewe limekuwa mada ya mjadala wa kitaaluma katika mapokeo ya kielimu ya Kiislamu. Mwanazuoni wa kale Ibn Taymiyya alieleza kwamba "kuthibitisha Muumba kumekita mizizi imara mioyoni mwa watu wote… ni miongoni mwa mahitaji ya kiumbe chao…." 92 Mwanazuoni wa karne ya 12 Al-Raghib al-Asfahani vilevile anasema kwamba ujuzi wa Mungu "umekita mizizi katika nafsi". 93 Kando ya msimamo wa Kiislamu, utafiti mwingi katika nyanja mbalimbali unaunga mkono hitimisho kwamba tunapaswa kuuona ulimwengu kama ulioumbwa na kubuniwa.

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.

Ushahidi wa kisaikolojia.

Psychological evidence.

Ο msomi Olivera Petrovich alifanya utafiti kuhusu asili ya vitu vya kimaumbile, kama mimea na wanyama, na akagundua kwamba watoto wa shule ya awali walikuwa karibu mara saba zaidi uwezekano wa kusema kwamba Mungu ndiye aliyeviumba kuliko binadamu.94 Katika mahojiano yake ya kiumma, pamoja na mawasiliano ya kibinafsi aliyonipa, Petrovich anahitimisha kwamba imani katika Mungu asiye na sura ya kibinadamu inaonekana kuwa ya kiasili, na kwamba kutokuamini Mungu ni msimamo wa kiakili uliopatikana baadaye.95 Petrovich amechapisha kitabu kiitwacho Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood, kinachofafanua zaidi suala hili. Mwanasaikolojia Paul Bloom anasema kwamba matokeo ya hivi karibuni katika saikolojia ya kiakili yanaonyesha kwamba mambo mawili muhimu ya imani ya kidini, yaani imani katika mbunifu na imani katika utengano wa roho na mwili, ni ya kiasili kwa watoto wadogo.96 Katika makala Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’?, Profesa Deborah Kelemen alichunguza utafiti uliopendekeza kwamba watoto wadogo wana mwelekeo wa kufikiri juu ya vitu vya kimaumbile kwa kuzingatia kusudi na nia. Ingawa utafiti zaidi unahitajika, na unapendekeza kwa tahadhari tu ushahidi unaounga mkono ‘uthiestiki wa kiintuitivu’, muhtasari wa Kelemen unaonyesha zaidi hitimisho tulilokuwa tukilijadili katika sura hii:

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:

Mapitio ya utafiti wa hivi karibuni wa maendeleo ya kiakili yanaonyesha kwamba kufikia umri wa takriban miaka 5, watoto wanaelewa vitu vya kiasili kuwa havikusababishwa na binadamu, wanaweza kufikiri juu ya hali za kiakili za mawakala wasio wa kiasili, na wanaonyesha uwezo wa kuona vitu kwa mtazamo wa usanifu. Mwisho, ushahidi kutoka kwa watoto wa miaka 6 hadi 10 unapendekeza kwamba jinsi watoto wanavyohusisha kusudi kwa maumbile inahusiana na mawazo yao kuhusu sababu zisizo za kibinadamu zenye nia. Kwa pamoja, matokeo haya ya utafiti yanaonyesha kwamba mbinu ya watoto ya kueleza mambo inaweza kuelezwa kwa usahihi kama uyakinifu wa Mungu wa kiasili (intuitive theism). Utafiti wa hivi karibuni wa Elisa Järnefelt, Caitlin F. Canfield na Deborah Kelemen, wenye kichwa "The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults", ulihitimisha kwamba kuna mwelekeo wa asili wa kuona maumbile kama yaliyoumbwa kwa kusudi.98 Hitimisho hili lilijengwa juu ya tafiti tatu. Utafiti wa 1 ulitegemea sampuli ya watu wazima 352 wa Amerika Kaskazini. Sampuli hiyo ilijumuisha washiriki wenye dini na wasio na dini. Mbinu iliyotumika ilikuwa kazi ya uumbaji wa haraka (speeded creation task), ambayo ilikuwa "mbinu inayotegemea picha iliyobuniwa kupima mwelekeo wa kiotomatiki na wa kutafakari wa watu wazima kukubali kwamba matukio ya kiasili yameumbwa kwa kusudi na kiumbe fulani"99. Washiriki walipangiwa kwa nasibu kufanya kazi chini ya hali ya haraka au ya kawaida. Washiriki wote waliwasilishwa picha 120 kwenye kompyuta. Kisha walipaswa kuamua kama "kiumbe fulani kiliumba kwa kusudi kitu kilicho kwenye picha" na kujibu ndiyo au hapana kwa kubonyeza vitufe vinavyofaa kwenye kibodi.100

“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:

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:

"Sawa na Utafiti wa 1 na Utafiti wa 2, Utafiti wa 3 ulionyesha kwamba washiriki wasio na dini katika Ufini ya Kaskazini, ambako kutokuwa na dini si suala la kawaida na ambako mazungumzo ya kitamaduni yanayohusu imani ya Mungu hayapo kwa namna yanavyopatikana Marekani, huwa na tabia ya kuona vitu hai na visivyo hai katika maumbile kama vilivyoundwa kwa kusudi maalum na kiumbe kisicho cha kibinadamu wanapokuwa wamezuiwa kufikiri kwa kina. Cha kushangaza, kulinganisha kati ya makundi mbalimbali ya washiriki wasio na dini katika tafiti zote tatu kulionyesha kwamba, licha ya kukosekana kwa mazungumzo maarufu ya kitamaduni yanayohusu imani ya Mungu, washiriki wasio na dini wa Ufini walikuwa na uwezekano mkubwa kuliko wasioamini Mungu wa Amerika Kaskazini kushindwa kudhibiti kiwango chao cha jumla cha kuamini uumbaji. Mwelekeo huu wa matokeo unaonyesha kwamba mazungumzo ya kitamaduni yanayoenea katika jamii si sababu pekee inayoeleza mwelekeo wa watu wa kuamini kwamba maumbile yameumbwa kwa kusudi."

“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.”.

Hitimisho la jumla la utafiti huu ni pamoja na ukweli kwamba matokeo "yanatoa uungwaji mkono wa kiujuzi kwa pendekezo kwamba kutoamini dini kunahitaji juhudi za kiakili",104 na kwamba "matokeo ya sasa yanaashiria kuwepo kwa mwelekeo wa asili uliokita mizizi wa kuiona maumbile kama yaliyoundwa kwa makusudi".105 Kwa maneno mengine, kutoamini ni jambo linalochosha kiakili, na kuona mambo kama yaliyoundwa kwa makusudi ni sehemu ya kile kinachotufanya kuwa binadamu. Utafiti unapendekeza kwamba imani ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni ya asili kwa mwanadamu. Hata hivyo, kama ilivyo kwa tafiti nyingi, "maswali mengi bado yanabaki kuhusu uhusiano unaowezekana kati ya mawazo haya ya awali ya usanifu yanayojitokeza mapema kwa binadamu".106

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.

Utafiti zaidi unahitajika katika saikolojia ya kiakili na ya maendeleo ili kufikia hitimisho lolote la uhakika. Hata hivyo, tafiti zilizotajwa hapo juu zinaunga mkono mtazamo kwamba imani kwa Mwenyezi Mungu ni ya kawaida kwa binadamu. Baadhi ya wapinzani wanaweza kutaja utafiti unaoonyesha kwamba watoto kutoka familia za kidini wana ugumu wa kutofautisha kati ya uhalisia na hadithi za kubuni wakiwa wadogo. Utafiti huu hauwezi kupinga hitimisho lililotajwa, kwa sababu tafiti hizo zilihusu tu simulizi za kidini na si dhana ya vitu vinavyohitaji mbuni au muumbaji.107 Hata hivyo, ukweli kwamba watoto wa kidini wanaweza kuwa na ugumu wa kutofautisha uhalisia na hadithi bado hauna upande katika suala la metafizikia, kwa sababu kusema kwamba unaunga mkono kutokuamini kuwepo kwa Mungu badala ya kuamini kwake kunadhani kwamba kutokuwepo kwa Mungu ndio ukweli na kuwepo kwake ni hadithi ya kubuni. Utafiti wa aina hiyo haungeweza kubatilisha matokeo yaliyotajwa hapo juu. Ni lazima ieleweke kwamba baadhi ya utafiti niliouwasilisha hapo juu una athari za kitamaduni mbalimbali, kumaanisha kwamba bila kujali asili ya washiriki, iwe ya kuamini au kutoamini Mungu, walikuwa na mwelekeo wa kuwa na hisia zinazofanana na za kuamini Mungu.

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.

Hoja nyingine inadai kwamba kwa kuwa baadhi ya tafiti zinaonyesha kuwa kutokuamini Mungu (uasi) kunahitaji juhudi za kiakili—jambo ambalo linamaanisha kuwa kunahitaji fikra zaidi—basi hiyo inaonyesha kuwa ndiyo msimamo wenye busara zaidi. Pingamizi hili limejengwa juu ya hitimisho lisilo sahihi. Ushahidi unaweza pia kuonyesha kuwa kutokuamini Mungu kunahitaji kuchukua dhana za uongo kuhusu ulimwengu wa kimwili (angalia Sura ya 12); hivyo basi kunakuwa mzigo mkubwa kiakili kama matokeo yake.

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.

Sijajumuisha utafiti wote husika hapa. Mijadala hii inaweza kuwa ngumu sana na ingawa kuna tafiti zinazopingana, kwa maoni yangu, hizo ni chache zisizo na hitimisho thabiti. Lengo kuu la mjadala huu ni kuonyesha mwelekeo unaoongezeka katika utafiti unaounga mkono mtazamo kwamba imani katika kuwepo kwa Mungu ni ya kawaida kwa binadamu.

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.

Ushahidi wa kijamii na kianthropolojia.

Sociological and anthropological evidence.

Profesa Justin Barrett katika utafiti wake, uliotolewa katika kitabu chake, *Born believers: the science of children's religious belief*, alichunguza tabia na madai ya watoto. Alihitimisha kwamba watoto waliamini katika kile anachokiita "dini ya asili". Hii ni dhana kwamba kuna Kiumbe cha kibinafsi kilichoumba ulimwengu wote. Kiumbe hicho hakiwezi kuwa binadamu—lazima kiwe cha kimungu, cha kiroho zaidi ya maumbile.

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:

Utafiti wa kisayansi kuhusu akili zinazokua za watoto na imani za kiungu unapendekeza kwamba watoto kwa kawaida na kwa haraka hupata akili zinazowezesha imani katika viumbe wa kiungu. Hasa katika mwaka wa kwanza baada ya kuzaliwa, watoto hutofautisha kati ya viumbe wenye uwezo wa kutenda na vitu visivyo na uwezo huo, wakielewa kwamba viumbe hujisogeza wenyewe kwa njia za kusudi ili kufikia malengo. Wana hamu kubwa ya kutafuta uwepo wa nia karibu nao, hata pale ushahidi ni mdogo. Muda mfupi baada ya siku yao ya kwanza ya kuzaliwa, watoto wachanga huonekana kuelewa kwamba viumbe, lakini si nguvu za asili wala vitu vya kawaida, wanaweza kuunda mpangilio kutoka kwenye machafuko… Mwelekeo huu wa kuona kazi na lengo, pamoja na uelewa kwamba lengo na mpangilio hutokana na viumbe wenye akili, huwafanya watoto kuona matukio ya kiasili kama yaliyoumbwa kwa makusudi. Muumba ni nani? Watoto wanajua kwamba watu si wagombea wazuri. Lazima ilikuwa mungu… watoto huzaliwa wakiwa waumini wa kile ninachokiita dini ya asili….108

“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

Angavu.

Intuitive.

Kuwepo kwa muumbaji ndiyo tafsiri inayoeleweka zaidi ya ulimwengu. Ni maelezo rahisi zaidi na yenye kueleza kila kitu kuhusu ulimwengu na kuwepo kwetu. Pia ni rahisi kuelewa bila maelekezo ya wazi. Binadamu wana mwelekeo wa kuhusisha vitu na sababu zake wakati wote, na ulimwengu wote ni mojawapo ya vitu hivyo (ona Sura ya 5 na 6). Si kila hisia ya awali ni ya kweli, lakini ushahidi unahitajika ili mtu aachane na hisia zake za awali kuhusu mambo. Kwa mfano, mtu anapoona usanifu na mpangilio katika ulimwengu, hitimisho la kawaida la hisia ni kwamba kuna mbunifu (ona Sura ya 8). Ili mtu huyo abadilishe mawazo yake, ushahidi halali unahitajika kuthibitisha mtazamo unaopingana na hisia hizo. Imani ya kuwepo kwa Mungu, muumbaji, mbunifu au sababu ya kiungu ni ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi. Ni ya ulimwengu wote, haikufundishwa, ni ya asili na ya kihisia. Kwa mtazamo huu, swali sahihi la kuuliza si: Je, Mungu yupo? Swali sahihi linapaswa kuwa: Kwa nini unakataa kuwepo kwa Mungu? Kwa njia hii utakuwa umegeuza meza, na kwa haki kabisa; kutokuamini Mungu ni kinyume cha maumbile. Mzigo wa kuthibitisha uko kwa yule anayepinga ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi. Mtu anapodai kwamba zamani ni udanganyifu au kwamba watu wengine hawana akili, ni yeye atakayelazimika kubeba mzigo wa kuthibitisha. Wasioamini Mungu si tofauti. Wanapaswa kuthibitisha kukataa kwao sababu au muumba wa ulimwengu.

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.

"Kwamba kutokuwepo kwa Mungu ni jambo lililo wazi lenyewe" Baadhi ya wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa Mungu (wasioamini) wanasema kuwa kutokuwepo kwa Mungu ni kweli kwa chaguo-msingi. Hata hivyo, kukataa kuwepo kwa sababu ya kwanza au kwa Muumba si jambo lililo wazi lenyewe. Ingawa msimamo wa kutokuamini Mungu sasa pia ni msimamo wa watu wengi duniani (na huenda umekuwepo tangu mwanzo wa historia iliyorekodiwa), ni jambo linalofundishwa, na linapingana na hisia za kawaida. Watu wanapaswa kujifunza kukataa dhana ya Muumba au ya sababu ya mambo yote. Kukataa Muumba wa ulimwengu si maelezo rahisi zaidi wala maelezo yaliyo kamili. Huenda likawa jepesi, lakini halitoi maelezo kamili. Kwa kweli linaleta matatizo mengi zaidi kuliko yale linalotatua. Kwa mfano, ulimwengu ungeweza vipi kuja kuwepo kutoka kwenye hakuna kitu (ona Sura ya 5)? Ulimwengu huu wa kutegemea wengine ungewezaje kuwa na uwepo usio na maelezo (ona Sura ya 6)? Mtu asiyeamini anaweza kujibu kwa kusema kuwa kuna maelezo mbadala kuhusu asili na hali ya ulimwengu. Hilo ni kweli. Hata hivyo, maelezo hayo si ya wazi lenyewe. Si chaguo-msingi; ni misimamo inayopatikana kwa kujifunza. Kama ilivyotajwa awali, ili kukataa kile kinachodhaniwa kuwa wazi lenyewe, mtu lazima atoe ushahidi. Mimi sipingi maelezo mbadala ya kuwepo kwa ulimwengu; ninaonyesha tu ni msimamo upi ulio chaguo-msingi. Kwa kuwa wazo la msingi la Muumba ni kweli kwa chaguo-msingi, swali la kwanza tunalopaswa kuuliza ni: Tuna ushahidi gani wa kukataa kuwepo kwa Muumba?

“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?.

Hali ya asili: fitrah.

The innate disposition: fitrah.

Mungu kama ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi unahusiana na dhana ya Kiislamu ya fitrah. Neno hili linatokana na mzizi wa Kiarabu wenye herufi tatu fa ṭa ra (ambao unahusiana na maneno kama fatrun na fatarahu), likimaanisha kitu kilichoumbwa au kilichotengenezwa. Kwa mtazamo wa kimaana, fitrah inarejelea kitu kilichoumbwa ndani yetu na Mungu. Kitheolojia, fitrah ni hali ya asili au mwelekeo wa kuzaliwa nao wa binadamu, ambao Mungu amemuumba nao, ukiwa na maarifa ya asili kumhusu Yeye na mwelekeo wa kumwabudu Muumba. Hili linatokana na kauli sahihi ya Mtume Muhammad ﷺ, isemayo: "Kila mtoto huzaliwa katika hali ya fitrah. Kisha wazazi wake humfanya kuwa Myahudi, Mkristo au Mmajusi...."110

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

Hadithi hii ya Mtume inafundisha kwamba kila binadamu ana tabia hii ya asili, lakini mambo ya nje kama malezi ya wazazi na, kwa kupanuka zaidi, jamii, humgeuza binadamu kuwa mtu anayekubali imani na desturi ambazo hazilingani na maarifa ya asili aliyonayo kuhusu Mungu. Kumekuwepo majadiliano mengi ya kielimu kuhusu dhana ya fitrah. Kwa mfano, mwanatheolojia Al-Ghazali wa karne ya 11 anasema kwamba fitrah ni njia ambayo watu hutumia kupata ukweli wa kuwepo kwa Mungu na kwamba Yeye ndiye anastahili kuabudiwa na sisi. Pia alishikilia kwamba maarifa ya Mungu ni kitu ambacho "kila binadamu anacho katika kina cha fahamu yake".111 Ibn Taymiyya, mwanachuoni wa karne ya 14, anaeleza tabia hii ya asili kuwa ni kitu ambacho Mungu aliumba ndani ya viumbe vyake, kinachobeba maarifa ya Mungu yaliyopandikizwa ndani yake.

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:

“…kuwepo kwa Muumba mkamilifu kunajulikana kutokana na fitra, na maarifa haya ni yaliyopandwa ndani ya nafsi, ya lazima, na yaliyo wazi.”112

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

Ingawa fitra ni hali ya asili, inaweza kufunikwa au kuharibiwa na mvuto wa nje. Mvuto huu, kama inavyoonyeshwa na hadithi ya Mtume iliyotajwa hapo juu, unaweza kujumuisha malezi ya wazazi, jamii, na shinikizo la marafiki. Mvuto huu unaweza kuufunika moyo wa fitra na kumzuia mtu kukiri ukweli. Ibn Taymiyya anasema kwamba pale hali ya asili inapofunikwa na mvuto mwingine, mtu huenda akahitaji ushahidi mwingine wa kuwepo kwa Mungu.

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:

"Kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Muumba na ukamilifu Wake ni jambo la asili na la lazima kwa mtu ambaye fitra yake ya asili bado iko salama, ingawa pamoja na uthibitisho huo kuna ushahidi mwingine mwingi unaothibitisha jambo hilo pia; na mara nyingi, fitra ya asili inapobadilishwa… watu wengi wanaweza kuhitaji ushahidi huo mwingine."

“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.”.

Hoja hizi zingine zinaweza kujumuisha hoja za kiakili. Ibn Taymiyya hakuwa mtetezi mkubwa wa hoja za kiakili za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu. Alishikilia kwamba fitrah ndiyo njia kuu ya kuthibitisha uwepo wa Mungu. Hata hivyo, hakuzikataa hoja sahihi za kiakili za kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Mungu.114 Pamoja na hayo, hoja hizi za kiakili lazima ziendane na elimu ya itikadi ya Kiislamu, wala zisichukue dhana (au mawazo ya awali) zinazopingana nayo. Kutokana na mtazamo wa elimu ya maarifa ya Kiislamu (epistemolojia ya Kiislamu), ni muhimu kufahamu kwamba imani ya kuwepo kwa Mungu haitokani tu na aina fulani ya ushahidi wa kiinduktivu, kidedukitivu, kifalsafa au kisayansi. Badala yake, ushahidi huu huamsha fitrah na kuondoa mawingu juu yake, ili mwanadamu aweze kutambua maarifa ya asili aliyozaliwa nayo kuhusu Mungu. Ukweli wa kuwepo kwa Mungu na ukweli kwamba Yeye anastahili kuabudiwa tayari unajulikana na fitrah. Hata hivyo, fitrah inaweza kufunikwa na malezi ya kijamii na mvuto mwingine wa nje. Kwa hiyo, jukumu la hoja za kiakili ni kutukumbusha ukweli ambao tayari tunaujua. Ili kufafanua jambo hili, fikiria kwamba ninasafisha dari ya nyumba ya mama yangu. Ninapohamisha mifuko ya zamani na kutupa vitu visivyohitajika, nakuta kichezeo changu nilichopenda, nilichokuwa nikicheza nacho nilipokuwa na miaka 5. Nakumbushwa jambo ambalo tayari nalifahamu. Akilini mwangu nawaza, "Ah, ndiyo. Nakumbuka kichezeo hiki. Kilikuwa changu nipendacho." Ukweli wa kuamini kwa Mungu na ukweli kwamba Yeye anastahili kuabudiwa si tofauti na hilo. Hoja za kiakili hutumika kama mwamko wa kiroho na kiakili wa kutambua maarifa yaliyomo katika fitrah yetu.

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.

Njia nyingine ambazo fitra inaweza kufanywa safi bila mawingu ni pamoja na kujichunguza, uzoefu wa kiroho, kutafakari na kuwaza kwa kina. Qur’an inahimiza kuuliza maswali na kufikiri kwa kina kuhusu mambo:

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

Hivyo ndivyo tunavyofafanua kwa kina ishara kwa watu wanaotafakari.115

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

"Hakika katika hayo kuna ishara kwa watu wanaofikiri."116

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

Je, wameumbwa bila kitu? Au wao ndio waumbaji? Au waliziumba mbingu na ardhi? Bali hawana yakini.117

“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

Elimu ya Kiislamu inaona hoja za kiakili kama njia na si kama lengo la mwisho. Hoja hizo hutumika kama njia ya kuamsha au kufuta mawingu yaliyo juu ya fitrah. Ndiyo maana ni muhimu sana kutambua kwamba uongofu unatoka kwa Mwenyezi Mungu peke yake, na hakuna kiasi chochote cha ushahidi wa kiakili kinachoweza kuushawishi moyo wa mtu kutambua ukweli wa Uislamu. Mwenyezi Mungu analieleza hili wazi: "Hakika wewe huwaongoi unaowapenda, lakini Mwenyezi Mungu humwongoa amtakaye. Naye ndiye Mjuzi zaidi wa walioongoka."118 Uongofu ni jambo la kiroho linalotegemea rehema, ujuzi na hekima ya Mwenyezi Mungu. Mwenyezi Mungu akitaka mtu aongoke kupitia hoja za kiakili, hakuna kitakachomzuia mtu huyo kukubali ukweli. Lakini Mwenyezi Mungu akiamua kwamba mtu hastahili uongofu, kwa hekima ya Kiungu, basi bila kujali hoja zenye nguvu zinazowasilishwa, mtu huyo hatakubali ukweli kamwe.

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.

Kwa kumalizia, imani ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi. Kama ilivyo kwa kila ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi, anapopinga mtu, ni yeye mwenye wajibu wa kuthibitisha hoja yake. Njia pekee ya kuivunja imani ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni kuwepo kwa ushahidi chanya wa kutokuwepo kwa Mungu. Hata hivyo, kama kitabu hiki kitakavyoonyesha, hoja chache ambazo wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa Mungu wanazo dhidi ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni dhaifu na za kifalsafa zisizo na msingi wa kina (tazama Sura ya 11 na 12). Ukweli usiohitaji ushahidi kuhusu Mungu ulishughulikiwa katika Qur'an zaidi ya miaka 1,400 iliyopita:

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:

Je, kunaweza kuwa na shaka kuhusu Mungu, Muumbaji wa mbingu na ardhi?119

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

Ili kumaliza sura hii, msomi wa Kiislamu Wesam Charkawi anaeleza kwa usahihi kwamba kuwepo kwa Mungu kunaendana na tabia yetu ya asili:

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

“Hakika, hisia ya kwanza katika kina cha mtu, anapotafakari ndani yake mwenyewe na katika ulimwengu unaomzunguka, ni hisia ya nguvu ya juu inayotawala ulimwengu kwa amri ya kuamua uhai na mauti, uumbaji na kufutika, mwendo na utulivu, na aina zote za mabadiliko makini yanayotokea ndani yake. Bila shaka, wanadamu huhisi uhalisia huu na kuuamini kwa kina, iwe mtu anaweza kutoa ushahidi wa kuthibitisha ukweli wa hisia hii au hawezi. Hii ni silika ya asili au umbile la asili la wanadamu, ambalo kwa hakika ni dalili sahihi na thabiti… Zaidi ya hayo, tunahisi ndani yetu uwepo wa huruma, upendo, chuki, kuhamasisha na kutopenda, lakini ni dalili gani inayothibitisha kuwepo kwake, hata wakati inapepea ndani yetu? Je, mtu anaweza kutoa ushahidi zaidi ya ile anayohisi na kuhisi, na bado ikawa halisi bila shaka? Mtu huhisi msisimko na kuhisi maumivu, lakini je, anashindwa kuthibitisha kwa ushahidi kuwepo kwake zaidi ya anachohisi? Bila shaka, hii ndiyo njia ya asili [fitrah] au silika ambayo wanadamu wameumbwa juu yake, na hizi ni hisia za kina zilizopandwa ndani yetu. Hazipo ndani yetu bila sababu wala bure, bali ni ukweli wa asili unaolingana na ulimwengu.”120

“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