It is possible to find cities without walls, kings, wealth, manners, or theaters, but man has never seen a city without a temple.
(Plutarch)
In a study by a psychologist and a specialist in religious perception at the University of Oxford, "Jston Barrett", his assistant, Emma Burdett, conducted an interview with an English mother and her five-year-old son, to remember that, while the mother declared her atheism, the little boy was answering questions Studying in a way that filled his mother with amazement as she heard her son deny from God the possibility of death, after he recognized the inevitability of his existence as the creator of things, and then his ability to know what the sealed biscuit box contains - according to the experience questions - to the last answers that highlighted the child's firm belief in the existence of God, even He uttered explicitly after asking his mother, "Do you believe in the existence of a god?"
Saying, "Well .. of course, mom."
Burdett suggested that the mother share the same test with her son, to answer through questions - after an initial objection to participating - that she does not believe in the existence of God and does not believe in the validity of what her son said, so that the little boy would surprise her, rolling on the ground towards her, and mocking her answers: “Oh Mom! Why do you answer "No" ?! The answer should be yes "[1].
From this result, and other dense results, "Barrett", through his book "The Innateness of Faith", reached the truth that a person, first born, is able to assimilate divine faith through receptors in mental perception, in addition to a set of inferential premises that It qualifies him to believe in the inevitability of the existence of a maker of this universe.
In this context, the researcher “Saud Al-Arifi” discusses the significance of what he called “instinct” in this regard, and believes that “the evidence of innateness, although not mental, takes a form of various mental inference, such as probing, dividing and measuring the first [a] ... except that Innate knowledge is the root and foundation of mental evidence ";
This is because, according to his description, it "deals with the axiomatic sciences implanted in every soul, which does not lack an inference, but returns to it every reasoning, and is the subject of agreement between all rational people," such as the two extremes not meeting, the whole containing the part, and that the accident must have an update etc.
Likewise, because it - that is, innate knowledge - possesses “that power inherent in the soul, which requires the truth, its will, its request and its preference for the falsehood, and it is known to every human being with a normal instinct” [2].
Hence, religious sentiment, as Rida Zaidan [3] adds, was present in the hearts of most people.
This is in agreement with the famous saying of the psychologist, "Eric Fromm", that "there is no existence of a human being without a religious need, a need to have a framework for guidance and an object for worship" [4].
To be human, as Mercha Eliadeh [5] concludes, means to be religious.
Humanity and religion show a syndrome that has been dealt with by many thinkers and philosophers, such as “Sylvan Persia” who saw religion as the ideal aspect of human life [6], and “Abd al-Wahhab al-Messiri” who stated that instead of converting to man through faith, he converted to God on behalf of The path of human understanding [7].
This is agreed by "Sami Amri" when he says that "belief in a person, in what he is, is the conjunction of faith in God in what is sacrificed, because between the two beliefs there is a correlation between the two, and one of them is not fully realized without the other."
Therefore, from the previous introductions, and as a result of many standard experiences and intellectual extrapolations, we can approach the issue of faith from an angle that a number of researchers consider to be rooted in the human soul, in an attempt to understand its pillars and controversies, and then address the objections based on it and the opposite response that adheres to the innate significance Belief in God as an established fact.
On Waqq Island, the Andalusian philosopher "Ibn Tufail" narrated the events of his famous story "Hayy Bin Yaqzan", which revolves around a human infant who grew in the forest under the eyes of a doe that had nurtured and nursed him.
With the passage of years, the infant grows up to discover his capabilities, the world and the differentiation of beings, which alerts him to the peculiarity of his body and its desire to cover it with leaves and develop means of protection and communication within this world on its own.
Then the events proceed until the doe dies in its seventh year, which prompted him to ask about death, and then try to autopsy it to discover his secret.
Then the narrative continues with a set of reflections, with which he discovers himself, and then proceeds from his sense to his mind, exploring, which prompted him to contemplate the universe and the structures around it, until he realized that this universe must have a maker, so he knew necessarily that every event must have a modernizer, to end with it The case for knowing God [9].
Then, with the same pattern, "Juston Barrett" [1] - away from philosophical literature - takes us on an exploratory tour to monitor Hayy Bin Yaqzan companions from the young in their real reality, researching the factors of faith inherent in their instincts, and analyzing the results of his experiments. Or the experiences of those who transferred them.
Psychologist, and specialist in religious perception at the University of Oxford, "Jston Barrett" (networking sites)
Barrett conveys in the beginning of his treatise on the philosopher Robert McCoyley, his distinction between two types of innate knowledge of the child. The first was called the maturity innate, while the second was termed the training, or expert, innate, which expresses the sum of the knowledge and skills that he acquires The child is trained by it or learning it from others, but it is the site of instinct because it is easy to practice it without any complications, such as reading with automatic ease - for example - after learning the letters.
While he defined maturity as the knowledge and skills that a child acquires once it grows, which means that its seeds lie in it and its fruits do not need more than days, and its fungal soil is kept away from pollutants, to reach the desired result.
Just like walking, perceiving things, knowing what to hold, and so on.
McCoyley expressed the two knowledge as innate, "because they are both easy, automatic and smooth" [1].
In this regard, Barrett saw that many of the basic religious ideas and practices fall within the scope of the natural instinct, while for adults they are classified within the instinctive experiences, and therefore we can say that belief in God is an innate matter;
For the soul to contain innate preparations that proceed, in the natural conditions of the world without any obstacles, to crystallize after a cognitive experience into a belief that coats a solid foundation of innateness.
To discuss his hypothesis, he quotes the experience of psychologist René Bellargue and her colleagues [10], where a group of children, at the age of two and a half months, was placed in front of a scene of a cylinder rolling on a slope until it collides with small objects and drops it.
The experiment was repeated until the children became bored, and they turned their eyes away from it, so that the researchers surprised them by placing a doll next to the small bodies, except that it did not fall when the cylinder collided with it, and here the children stared a lot until they absorbed this change, to the researchers conclude that children in their first year are able to understand the physical intuitions and surprise Whoever violates it, and then realizes that there are active factors (making and influencing) and other emotional factors (affected).
For a more precise distinction, the study of the hat and the bell by developmental psychologists [11] leads us to monitor children's perception, beginning at the age of six months, of the ability of agents to move / make things without physical contact with passive factors.
Meaning that if you put a hat with a bell on your head, the child will choose one of two ways to activate the work of the bell: Either he asks you to move your head, or he will shake your shoulders to get the same result.
Whereas if we put the hat on a ball, the child will choose one way to hear the bell: move the ball, aware that asking it to vibrate would be pointless.
That is, he will distinguish between (who) this and (what) this.
From here, children realize that the actors are able to move themselves and others, in addition to their belief in the finality of their actions, that is, they do things for an intended purpose.
This is evidenced by the experience of "Georgi Girjali" [12], where the children sit in front of a cartoon show of a small ring that rolls on its way to touch a larger ring, and as soon as an obstacle encounters it in the road, it jumps to avoid it. By repeating the matter, the children stopped watching, until the obstacle disappeared and they found that the ring The little girl is still jumping over its previous position, so they re-stared at the scene with amazement. "Girgly" explains that children always expect that actions have a purpose for their occurrence, which explains why the unexplained jump of the ring was something amazing.
Barrett concludes that, at an early age, children see tangible signs as evidence of something worthwhile.
In the context, too, the experiment of the fuzz ball seems to have another distinctive significance [13], as it was found that the children, when their reactions to three types of the ball were tested, were interacting with two patterns and ignoring the third, so the ball in its first pattern emitted sounds and lights upon movement / hum The child, while in the second mode it did the same thing in addition to containing human features, while the children showed complete disregard for the ball of the last pattern, lacking features, which was making sounds and light randomly without harmony with the children's actions.
With this experience, "Barrett" concludes that, at an early age, children are not only able to distinguish the active factors and their intent, but rather they consider the tangible signs - the simultaneous sound and light of the ball - evidence of the existence of something that deserves attention, which means that the active factor is not limited to humans The visible only, and that there are indications that alert us to the existence of an invisible actor capable of making events.
This innate characteristic may seem sufficient to think about God, through contemplation of creation, but another feature makes faith more close to our instinct, which is our determination - since childhood - to discover purpose and determination in the surrounding world.
In his book “The Phenomenon of Criticism of Religion in Modern Western Thought,” the researcher “Sultan Al-Amiri” rooting for faith as an innate mental necessity, and from this it leads - through direct intuition and inference - to the belief of the teleology of the universe and the accuracy of its system and its non-randomness. Looking at his exact system.
From here emerges the research on the source of this intuition and its connection with instinct, and what causes our children to rejoice when we know the real reason for the elephant's hose or the goal of surrounding the rose with thorns.
To explain the matter, developmental psychologist Deborah Kilmen tells us, through her experiences, that children possess a kind of passion called a passion for indiscriminate teleology. By this, she means that children find the purpose of the existence of things with the least amount of evidence, while adults argue in an image. More stubborn.
In one of her experiments [14], children were placed before a dispute between two imagined people, one of whom saw that the existence of tigers, mountains, and seas existed for a specific purpose, just as jeans are made for a known purpose, while the second argued that their existence has no purpose.
By asking the children, it turned out that three-quarters of them supported the first person, although their parents - the Americans - were not interested in teaching them the goals of natural beings, just as they cared about teaching them the goals of made things. Rather, the children - the study sample - showed a great tendency to explain things in a functional way (the rock They are pointed so that animals do not sit on and destroy them (at the expense of physical explanations) they are pointed because parts of materials have been stacked on top of each other for a period of time), which means that their belief in the teleology of things is innate and independent of the indoctrination of adults.
In another experiment by the scientist of the same development, "George Newman" [15], another type of childish perception was discovered. In a cartoon show - in front of children - one of the balls was thrown with a paddle towards a number of blocks, which led to their falling, but the ball returned again to repeat The arrangement of the building blocks showed the exclamation features on the children's features, which are the features that were dissipated when the experiment was repeated with drawing human features on the ball, which indicates the children's belief that natural / silent factors can destroy things, while the rearrangement - or the orderly manufacture - only comes about. By the action of rational people with goals from their actions.
From all this, we can say that the children show what can be called an "innate response" to the organized conversations, referring them to a wise actor, in addition to what was proven by the study of "Oliveira Petrovich" [16] on a group of British children, when I showed them pictures of animals, plants and artifacts. Wooden toys and toys in the form of animals, asking them about any of these things that humans can make, and the children's answers were ideal in the proportion of inanimate objects - only - to the manufacture of humans, which Barrett comments on, saying, "Children are aware of the limited capabilities of humans to make They seem more willing to believe in God as the Maker of the world. "
However, "Petrovitch" does not leave us to guess and the possibilities, so it repeats the experiment with three choices that close the circle of answers: (God made it? Made by humans? Nobody knows?) The result is that seven out of eight children see that God is the one who created the living creatures.
Likewise, "Kilemin" and "Di Yanni" posed similar questions to children aged 6-7 years, so they asked them openly at the beginning about the origin of some natural phenomenon - a tornado, for example - or a natural object such as a mountain, or a living animal, so the children's answers were that God had created Something natural, double their answer that it was made by humans, while the percentage was two and a half times in the event of the natural phenomenon, and twenty-five times when the question related to the creation of animals.
It should be noted that "Oliveira Petrovich" mentioned that her Japanese assistants disagreed with her opinion about the authenticity of faith in children, claiming that the Japanese differ from others in this regard. She commented in a press interview that she conducted her same experiments on Japanese and British children, and the result was the same, and she added that despite From the control of the Shinto religion in Japan, which does not recognize a deity, the children when faced with the three aforementioned options chose “God made them”, which she considered the greatest discovery in her research;
Because it proves that the environment does not influence this innate belief [8], which negates the objection that children's answers are the result of their society's indoctrination.
As for "the abilities of God", the children in Professor "Bart" [1] were seeing something interesting, when a closed box of biscuits containing stones instead of candy was placed on a table for children of 3-4 years old, they answered - By asking them about its content - that it contained the biscuit, then the question was reformulated, after its content was revealed: Do you think that God knows what the box contains of stones?
The answer would be yes, just as they answered the same question by switching the mother / father instead of God. Piaget [1] returns the explanation here because children at this age do not realize the difference between their knowledge and the knowledge of others, as they see that every truth they discover is necessarily Known to others.
Whereas children from the age of 5 years and over, that is, at the age of distinguishing between what they know and what others know, have declared that God will know the contents of the box, while any other human will be surprised by its content as it happened to them.
The same experiment was conducted by "Nicolas Knight" [17] with the children of one of the Maya tribes, because they owe a mixed belief between the Maya and the Catholic beliefs, to find that the children attribute the knowledge of the hidden thing to the god who is close to the celestial Catholic god, without their other gods. Barrett said that children’s belief in God, the Wise, the All-Knowing, innately, is not a difficult thing, consistent with the results of the research published in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, “Children are born believers in God” [18].
"Taking your Lord of the sons of Adam from their backs and their descendants Ohhdhm themselves not your Lord said Yes, we have seen that you say the Day of Judgment, we were about this unwary"
[Usages: 172]
With a simple paradox of the context, and to widen the circle of the question, we can ask: Does the human being - in all its stages - carry that strong - innate tendency to believe in God?
In the course of the answer, “Sami Amiri” defines the instinct as “what is absent or superior to the concept of a human being by his absence” [8].
Mortada Faraj believes that the research on the instinctive belief is followed by the search for three phenomena: the search for God in the human race in every time and place, the existence of the constant awareness of the presence of God in the soul, in addition to the self-driven orientation towards the Creator with a sense of need and lack [19] .
According to this trilogy, the theologian Augustus Sabatier says: “Why am I religious? I did not turn my lips with this question once unless he showed me a marketer to answer it with this answer, which is: I am religious because I can not otherwise, because religiosity is an essential part of my self. Lee: This is one of the effects of genetics, parenting, or mood, so I say to them: I have objected to myself a lot with this same objection, but I found it complicating the issue and not solving it. ”[20]
Hence the famous saying "Voltaire": "If God had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent it" [21].
In the same context, a study by a group of researchers at the University of "British Columbia" came to confirm that the volunteers' thinking about death was making them more acceptable to say that this existence was created with wisdom and wisdom [22].
And this is what she says about, in a way, "Elizabeth King" in her article in "The Washington Post" "I am an atheist, so why can I not distract God from me?", And she says: "It is frustrating to feel that there is something in which you do not believe ... Even though I am still constant Not believing, but I also feel that I have no choice but to accept that I am an atheist with a tendency to God ”[23].
Did it sound strange?
A five-year-old child thinks that visualizing the universe without God is funny, and the theologian discovers that denying the instinctive belief is pure nonsense, and an atheist journalist does not imagine her completely rid of the tendency to God.
Why is all this happening?
Here is the answer of Mr. John Calvin, who explains this by saying that there is a feeling, which he calls the divine feeling, that gives a person knowledge of God and is attracted to the meaning of deism, which makes the existence of an atheist purely an illusion, as the passion of the heart for the truth transcending the substance is a genuine passion for the soul, and the matter It is only necessary - as the philosopher "Plantinga" believes that there is a contact between the nature of belief in God (inherent in the soul) and the external world, in order for this faith to be stimulated out of the realm of power into the realm of action [8].
Sami Amiri says that the Qur’anic formulation is closer to an empirical discourse than to an abstract discourse
Here, researchers often prefer to recall the hadith of the Prophet narrated by Al-Bukhari: “No one is born but born on instinct and his family is either Jewish, Christian, or appealing to him.” In this, Abu Hajar al-Asqalani, in his explanation of al-Bukhari, quotes “al-Tibi” who The fitrah is interpreted here as “the ability of people to be guided in the origin of mountainousness and to prepare for the acceptance of religion. If a person is left to it, he would continue to be necessary, and he would not leave it to others, because the sense of this religion is fixed in the souls, but it is modified from it to a plague of human scourges such as imitation.”
Belief in God “is not just an information or an idea, but rather a need and a direction” [24].
In this manner, Amiri says that the Qur’anic formulation is closer to an empirical discourse than to an abstract discourse, as it commands a person to return to himself in order to discover in it the jewel of faith attached to the endocardium, which is close to the saying of “Begovitch” in “Islam between East and West” about The Qur’anic discourse calls for nature, by contemplating it, and then converting to its Creator, which are analyzes based on the Qur’anic verse: “
We shall show them our verses in the horizons and in their
souls
until it becomes clear to them that it is clear
: 53.”
The researcher, “Abdullah Al-Ajiri” in his book “The Candles of the Day” believes that a person cannot be an atheist altogether because this would require - by extension - the denial of all matters that are transcendent - such as morals - and the denial of innate intuitions - such as the lack of meeting of the two extremes -, because atheism is based primarily on criticism The two concepts: transcendent metaphysics, and intuitive inferences about the existence of God.
This prompted the researcher, Nuri Vitachi, to write an article entitled: “Scientists have discovered that there may be no atheist, and this is not a joke” [25], in which he quotes an atheist writer as saying: “Atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way people think.” .
And in a paper published in "Cognition" magazine under the title "Why is this happening to me?"
The "atheist" gave similar answers to the answers of the believers about the traumas or important events that they went through, as the majority of the first team went to meet with the believers, as both sides saw that what happened to them was a wisdom resulting from determination not blind randomness [26].
However, the most prominent atheistic contradiction, as Amiri explains, appears in the revolution of the atheist man against God, especially in the case of major calamities.
Because it contradicts the origin of his atheism, which believes that the universe is random, and that “meaning has no meaning in the absence of meaning” [8]. Atheism in the most extreme manifestation of his revolution and his rejection of God is an expression of the conflict of faith in God with the rejected reality.
This is because a sane person cannot revolt against nothingness.
Likewise, as the atheist researcher Abdullah al-Shehri sees [24], many do not realize that the atheist’s assumption of concepts such as self-experience and instinct is an assumption based on a false understanding of the mind itself.
He claims that our subjective experiences belong to something outside it, while the correct perception of this is that the demands of emotion and the directions of the conscience are embedded in the work of the mind and the decision-making process, and this means that when an atheist takes an atheist decision, he will have responded to a thinking that is led by an emotional demand, and not to pure logic or Pure thought.
This is what was confirmed by the neuroscientist, "Antonio Damasio" [24] when he said that there is no such thing as thought without an emotional basis, which coincides - according to "Shahri" - with the Quranic prophetic perception of the mind, as he sees it as greater than its seizure in the brain, and that it is an outcome. Because a person is connected to all his demands, so Al-Shehri continues, saying: “I claim that the innateness question returns again with the complete conception of the mind, and I claim that when an atheist makes a decision to atheism, he does so after neutralizing the dictates of the emotional component in his mind to allow what he perceives to be pure thought.”
The greatest evidence for this - he adds - is the return of many atheists to the faith, comparing it with "Juston Barrett" in his defense against those who see faith at a young age as an extension of the myths that children believe, such as the existence of monsters or Santa Claus etc., as he says, "Barrett" If that were true, then why do all myths disappear from our minds with age and do not disappear faith?
Which prompts us to bring up the "monthly" question about those returning from atheism to faith, so we say to his saying: Do you think that the returnees had eradicated the reason for innateness with the decision of their first atheism?
Or did they return to the faith as a result of lifting the prohibition of deviation from it and contacting the instinctive again?
—————————————————————————————-
Margins:
A - sounding and dividing: they are methods of deducing the illness from the legal text in order to use it in the jurisprudential analogy.
And sounding: is the test of the description in its validity for the explanation or not, while the division: is the enumeration of the possible descriptions of the explanation to choose the cause from among them.
B- The report has benefited from studies contained in the book “The Innate Faith by Juston Barrett,” and from some sources and studies of my book “Proofs for the Existence of God” by Sami Amiri, and “Human Consensus” by “Reda Zaidan”.