✦ Faith and Atheism: A Critical Analysis of Reason and Existential Presumptions ✦
✍ Exploring the Foundations of Human Consciousness and Epistemic Frameworks
In contemporary discourse, especially within Western philosophical traditions, the debate between faith and atheism is often presented as a clash between faith and reason.
However, this framing is logically flawed, because faith and reason belong to distinct levels of human consciousness.
✔ Both faith and atheism stem from foundational existential assumptions—the pre-rational intuitions about being and existence.
✔ Reason (ʿAql) begins its operation after these assumptions are already in place and functions within their boundaries.
Whether one adheres to the theory of creation or the theory of evolution, the initial existential framework defines the direction and limits of reason.
Based on differing existential presumptions, both faith and atheism can be logically argued, but their rationality is conditional, not absolute.
➤ Religious assumption:
Man is inherently dependent, needy, and contingent. His reality lies in his servitude.
➤ Modern assumption:
Man is self-sufficient, autonomous, and in full control of his destiny.
This worldview accepts a God who does not interfere, but rejects a God who demands submission and accountability.
The choice between dependence (faith) or autonomy (atheism) does not emerge from pure reason, but from a psychological condition influenced by:
✔ One’s existential experiences
✔ One’s awareness of power or knowledge
🕰 Pre-modern man:
Limited understanding of natural laws led to an intuitive sense of dependence, making the soul fertile ground for faith.
⚙ Modern man:
Consciousness of scientific laws and control over nature fostered the illusion of self-sufficiency, undermining the space for submission and reverence.
✔ Reason operates after existential assumptions are made.
✔ Both faith and atheism are rational positions, but built upon pre-rational existential stances.
The central question is not: “Which is more logical—faith or atheism?”
But rather: “Which existential assumption aligns better with human consciousness, psychological needs, and the lived human condition?”
Existential assumptions:
➤ Provide the foundation for rational function
➤ Shape the organization of knowledge
➤ Guide the resolution of complex problems
They are not products of reasoning—they are the preconditions of reasoning.
① Restricting possibilities:
When multiple explanations exist for a phenomenon, existential presumptions help in eliminating the less plausible ones.
② Probability-based judgments:
In many cases, certainty is not attainable, so conclusions are drawn based on likelihood, informed by foundational assumptions.
③ Filling epistemic gaps:
Wherever there are gaps in empirical evidence or logical progression, existential assumptions fill in the interpretive voids.
In evolutionary theory:
✔ The possibility of intentional creation is pre-emptively excluded.
✔ General evidence of adaptation is stretched to validate macro-evolutionary claims.
✔ Interpretive gaps are filled through assumptions, not definitive proof.
Thus, the coherence of evolutionary theory relies on unverified existential presumptions, not on unassailable logic.
Reason operates under the rules of logic, but without existential premises, its movement is aimless.
✔ Existential assumptions are not weaknesses in argumentation—they are preconditions for human consciousness and rational function.
The comparison between faith and reason is inherently flawed, as they belong to different levels of human cognition.
The real debate lies between existential assumptions:
Is man dependent or self-sufficient?
Is the human condition grounded in submission or autonomy?
✔ Rational discourse can proceed within either framework, but it can never substitute the existential leap required to choose between them.
✿ Only when we examine our existential assumptions critically, can we begin to understand the real meaning of belief and disbelief.
✍ Exploring the Foundations of Human Consciousness and Epistemic Frameworks
❖ Faith vs. Reason? A Misleading Comparison
In contemporary discourse, especially within Western philosophical traditions, the debate between faith and atheism is often presented as a clash between faith and reason.
However, this framing is logically flawed, because faith and reason belong to distinct levels of human consciousness.
❖ Faith and Atheism Operate on Existential Presumptions
✔ Both faith and atheism stem from foundational existential assumptions—the pre-rational intuitions about being and existence.
✔ Reason (ʿAql) begins its operation after these assumptions are already in place and functions within their boundaries.
Whether one adheres to the theory of creation or the theory of evolution, the initial existential framework defines the direction and limits of reason. Based on differing existential presumptions, both faith and atheism can be logically argued, but their rationality is conditional, not absolute.❖ Religious vs. Modern Conception of Man
➤ Religious assumption:
Man is inherently dependent, needy, and contingent. His reality lies in his servitude.
➤ Modern assumption:
Man is self-sufficient, autonomous, and in full control of his destiny.
This worldview accepts a God who does not interfere, but rejects a God who demands submission and accountability.
❖ Existential Assumptions and Psychological States
The choice between dependence (faith) or autonomy (atheism) does not emerge from pure reason, but from a psychological condition influenced by:
✔ One’s existential experiences
✔ One’s awareness of power or knowledge
❖ Pre-modern vs. Modern Man: A Paradigm Shift
🕰 Pre-modern man:
Limited understanding of natural laws led to an intuitive sense of dependence, making the soul fertile ground for faith.
⚙ Modern man:
Consciousness of scientific laws and control over nature fostered the illusion of self-sufficiency, undermining the space for submission and reverence.
❖ Faith, Atheism, and the Boundaries of Reason
✔ Reason operates after existential assumptions are made.
✔ Both faith and atheism are rational positions, but built upon pre-rational existential stances.
The central question is not: “Which is more logical—faith or atheism?” But rather: “Which existential assumption aligns better with human consciousness, psychological needs, and the lived human condition?”❖ Importance of Existential Presumptions
Existential assumptions:
➤ Provide the foundation for rational function
➤ Shape the organization of knowledge
➤ Guide the resolution of complex problems
They are not products of reasoning—they are the preconditions of reasoning.
❖ Role of Existential Assumptions in Reasoning
① Restricting possibilities:
When multiple explanations exist for a phenomenon, existential presumptions help in eliminating the less plausible ones.
② Probability-based judgments:
In many cases, certainty is not attainable, so conclusions are drawn based on likelihood, informed by foundational assumptions.
③ Filling epistemic gaps:
Wherever there are gaps in empirical evidence or logical progression, existential assumptions fill in the interpretive voids.
❖ Example: Theory of Evolution
In evolutionary theory:✔ The possibility of intentional creation is pre-emptively excluded.
✔ General evidence of adaptation is stretched to validate macro-evolutionary claims.
✔ Interpretive gaps are filled through assumptions, not definitive proof.
Thus, the coherence of evolutionary theory relies on unverified existential presumptions, not on unassailable logic.
❖ The Limits of Reason
Reason operates under the rules of logic, but without existential premises, its movement is aimless.
✔ Existential assumptions are not weaknesses in argumentation—they are preconditions for human consciousness and rational function.
❖ Summary
The comparison between faith and reason is inherently flawed, as they belong to different levels of human cognition.
The real debate lies between existential assumptions:
Is man dependent or self-sufficient? Is the human condition grounded in submission or autonomy?✔ Rational discourse can proceed within either framework, but it can never substitute the existential leap required to choose between them.
✿ Only when we examine our existential assumptions critically, can we begin to understand the real meaning of belief and disbelief.
