— A Rational Analysis of Common Objections —
This article analyzes the objections raised against religion, particularly those attempting to demonstrate a fundamental difference between faith in religion and trust in science. Critics often claim that belief in science is rational, while belief in religion is irrational. The purpose of this article is to clarify the fallacies in such reasoning.
Atheists frequently argue that religious believers accept everything a Prophet says simply because of their belief in his truthfulness—an approach they deem irrational.
However, if one asks such critics, "On what basis do you believe that your father is indeed your biological father?" they often respond, "We can verify it through a DNA test." But this reasoning is also flawed because:
DNA testing involves collecting blood samples, which are processed under the supervision of experts using specialized instruments. However, one must completely trust the accuracy of these instruments and the integrity of the experts.
There is no personal verification of whether the blood sample was genuinely tested. One merely receives a report.
There remains the possibility that someone else’s report was mistakenly or intentionally given to you, or that the report is forged.
Genetics and related scientific theories are probabilistic, not absolute. New theories constantly emerge, and to claim that one particular theory is definitively true is itself a form of faith.
Even if we accept that DNA testing can confirm paternity, how would one verify the grandfather or maternal grandfather’s identity? In such cases, faith is inevitably required.
Atheists themselves place trust in scientific processes and experts to establish their lineage. Therefore, the objection against religious believers for trusting in the Prophet’s truthfulness is unfounded.
A significant portion of human life is lived by trusting others and institutions. The claim that modern humans make every decision based solely on scientific evidence is far from reality.
• Using Medicine:
One buys medicine from a pharmacy, checks its expiry date, and consumes it without any lab testing. Why? Because of trust in the company and the pharmacist.
• Ordering Food:
Food is ordered from a restaurant and eaten without inspection. Why? Due to trust in the restaurant.
• Packaged Food:
Grocery items are consumed without testing. Why? Because of trust in the company.
• Using Public Transport:
One boards a bus without verifying the driver’s license authenticity. Why? Due to trust in the system.
In 95% of daily life, people rely on trust—whether in companies, institutions, or individuals.
Some claim that scientific knowledge is more rational because it can be verified by everyone. However, in reality, most people cannot verify scientific findings and must rely on the scientists themselves.
• Specialized Fields of Scientists:
Scientific research occurs within specific fields, and even experts in one domain cannot easily understand others. Publicly available explanations pass through several layers of simplification.
• Public Trust:
99.99% of people cannot understand or verify the foundational principles of science. Their confidence in science is based entirely on trust in scientists and their claims.
Is this trust fundamentally different from the believer’s trust in the Prophet?
When it’s argued that scientific claims also involve trust, atheists often respond that science can be verified by anyone, unlike revelation. However, this claim has several logical flaws:
Scientists work within their specialized fields. Knowledge from other fields is also a matter of trust for them.
There has never been a human being who has verified all scientific knowledge through direct experimentation.
The claim that all scientific knowledge is verifiable is itself an unproven assumption.
Even the greatest scientists cannot learn without trusting the work of other scientists.
The assertion that “all scientific claims are verifiable” is itself an irrational and unscientific assumption.
The method of verifying knowledge depends on the nature of that knowledge.
• Past Events:
Verified through transmitted reports.
• Prophetic Information:
Assessed based on the Prophet’s character, truthfulness, and rational soundness of his claims.
• Scientific Claims:
Also require trust—whether in instruments, experts, or reports.
The claim that belief in science is rational and belief in religion is irrational is a weak assertion. In truth, trust plays a central role in both. The only distinction is:
→ Scientific trust is confined to a narrow elite group.
→ Religious claims are affirmed by the testimony and truthfulness of countless individuals.
✿ Introduction
This article analyzes the objections raised against religion, particularly those attempting to demonstrate a fundamental difference between faith in religion and trust in science. Critics often claim that belief in science is rational, while belief in religion is irrational. The purpose of this article is to clarify the fallacies in such reasoning.
◈ Objection Against Religious Belief: "Irrational Trust in Prophets"
Atheists frequently argue that religious believers accept everything a Prophet says simply because of their belief in his truthfulness—an approach they deem irrational.
However, if one asks such critics, "On what basis do you believe that your father is indeed your biological father?" they often respond, "We can verify it through a DNA test." But this reasoning is also flawed because:
➊ Complete Reliance on DNA Testing
DNA testing involves collecting blood samples, which are processed under the supervision of experts using specialized instruments. However, one must completely trust the accuracy of these instruments and the integrity of the experts.
There is no personal verification of whether the blood sample was genuinely tested. One merely receives a report.
➋ Authenticity of the Report
There remains the possibility that someone else’s report was mistakenly or intentionally given to you, or that the report is forged.
➌ The Conjectural Nature of Medical Science
Genetics and related scientific theories are probabilistic, not absolute. New theories constantly emerge, and to claim that one particular theory is definitively true is itself a form of faith.
➍ Ancestral Lineage Dilemma
Even if we accept that DNA testing can confirm paternity, how would one verify the grandfather or maternal grandfather’s identity? In such cases, faith is inevitably required.
✔ Conclusion
Atheists themselves place trust in scientific processes and experts to establish their lineage. Therefore, the objection against religious believers for trusting in the Prophet’s truthfulness is unfounded.
❀ Everyday Reliance on Trust
A significant portion of human life is lived by trusting others and institutions. The claim that modern humans make every decision based solely on scientific evidence is far from reality.
✦ Common Examples:
• Using Medicine:
One buys medicine from a pharmacy, checks its expiry date, and consumes it without any lab testing. Why? Because of trust in the company and the pharmacist.
• Ordering Food:
Food is ordered from a restaurant and eaten without inspection. Why? Due to trust in the restaurant.
• Packaged Food:
Grocery items are consumed without testing. Why? Because of trust in the company.
• Using Public Transport:
One boards a bus without verifying the driver’s license authenticity. Why? Due to trust in the system.
✔ Conclusion
In 95% of daily life, people rely on trust—whether in companies, institutions, or individuals.
✿ Trust in Scientific Knowledge
Some claim that scientific knowledge is more rational because it can be verified by everyone. However, in reality, most people cannot verify scientific findings and must rely on the scientists themselves.
✦ Key Points:
• Specialized Fields of Scientists:
Scientific research occurs within specific fields, and even experts in one domain cannot easily understand others. Publicly available explanations pass through several layers of simplification.
• Public Trust:
99.99% of people cannot understand or verify the foundational principles of science. Their confidence in science is based entirely on trust in scientists and their claims.
✦ Critical Question:
Is this trust fundamentally different from the believer’s trust in the Prophet?
❀ Objection: “Science Can Be Verified by Everyone”
When it’s argued that scientific claims also involve trust, atheists often respond that science can be verified by anyone, unlike revelation. However, this claim has several logical flaws:
➊ No Scientist Can Verify All Knowledge
Scientists work within their specialized fields. Knowledge from other fields is also a matter of trust for them.
There has never been a human being who has verified all scientific knowledge through direct experimentation.
➋ Unrealistic Verification Claim
The claim that all scientific knowledge is verifiable is itself an unproven assumption.
➌ Practical Limitations
Even the greatest scientists cannot learn without trusting the work of other scientists.
✔ Conclusion
The assertion that “all scientific claims are verifiable” is itself an irrational and unscientific assumption.
❀ The Real Difference Between Religious and Scientific Trust
The method of verifying knowledge depends on the nature of that knowledge.
• Past Events:
Verified through transmitted reports.
• Prophetic Information:
Assessed based on the Prophet’s character, truthfulness, and rational soundness of his claims.
• Scientific Claims:
Also require trust—whether in instruments, experts, or reports.
✿ Summary
The claim that belief in science is rational and belief in religion is irrational is a weak assertion. In truth, trust plays a central role in both. The only distinction is:
→ Scientific trust is confined to a narrow elite group.
→ Religious claims are affirmed by the testimony and truthfulness of countless individuals.
