Amina Inloes, Amina Inloes is originally from the US and has a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Exeter on Shi'a hadith. She is the program leader for the MA Islamic Studies program at the... Answer updated 1 year ago

The above answer is an excellent theological argument. Additional thoughts:

It is difficult to convince someone whose mind is already made up. If the prophets could not convince all people during their lifetimes, we can't have any hope of that! Sometimes the best thing you can do is just to try try or even just simply be an example with your faith and differing viewpoint.

It should be self-evident that the very fact that accidents can create order and beauty (such as in fractal geometry) itself requires a higher intelligence and some sort of plan.

I suspect that many astronomers/cosmologists who profess atheism and who reject religion actually don't wholly reject the idea that the universe could have a creative force, inherent meaning, or inherent purpose. I think it is near-impossible to study the heavens without having some sort of awe and sense of mystery. I think it is more common that they reject the form of organized religion they were exposed to growing up because it was unsophisticated, insufficient, or unhealthy. For instance, sometimes, in some places, children are given the mental picture of God as a bearded, angry white man. Or, they may have had negative experiences with provincialness or hypocrisy in a religious community. Religion may simply not have been discussed with a depth that was compelling. Of course this isn't everyone, but I think it happens more often than not. Otherwise, throughout most of history, science was associated with theism or some sort of religious/metaphysical belief. Certain, it was in the Islamic heritage.

Here is an interesting podcast about Jesuit astronomers. Of course, it is from a Christian perspective, but it discusses their work as a way of finding God in all things, and I am sure it is possible to compare and contrast issues with an Islamic perspective. Some interesting quotations from it:

* It’s only human beings that have this curiosity to understand: What’s that up in the sky? How do we fit into that? Who are we? Where do we come from? And this is a hunger that is as deep and as important as a hunger for food because if you starve a person in that sense, you’re depriving them of their humanity. And being able to feed this, being able to make a person more human or make them welcome into the great adventure of the human race for the 20th century — going to the moon, things like that — that was really important to them and really important to everybody I talked to. And suddenly — oh, that’s why we do this.

* Those classic scientists believed that understanding the natural world was the best way to understand the mind of its maker.

View 1 other response to this question