Introduction

The story of the Argument from Causality may be one of the most remarkable stories in the history of philosophy. From the very beginning, this argument should have been used against the existence of the God of religion and the Day of Judgment. Instead, it was presented to followers of religion as an argument for the existence of a personal God. As a result, it created the impression that the personal God of religion was rationally defensible—not only among ordinary believers, but, to varying degrees, even among religious philosophers.

Some religious philosophers tried to show that the First Cause reached through the Argument from Causality—a cause that is unchanging, unlimited, and outside time—could somehow be reconciled with the human-like, changeable God of their religion. They reinterpreted the attributes given to their God in an effort to make him fit the First Cause of the Argument from Causality. Although these attempts never truly succeeded from a logical or philosophical point of view, believers were often willing to overlook their flaws. They praised the unsuccessful efforts of these religious thinkers and treated them as if they had succeeded.

On the one hand, religious believers loudly claimed that the Argument from Causality provided a solid mountain of rational support for their faith. On the other hand, some intellectuals feared that following philosophy and reason too far might take them beyond the boundaries of people's religious beliefs and expose them to accusations of heresy. Add to this the fact that most people had little interest in seriously engaging with philosophical questions, and the result was that the religious community largely failed to notice the striking differences between the God of religion and the First Cause. Believers also failed to take the next step in the argument: the rejection of the Day of Judgment. Or, when they did take that step, they tried somehow to patch over the enormous gap it revealed and keep themselves and others from seeing the damage that the Argument from Causality does to the idea of resurrection and judgment.

In this book, I decided to invite the reader to follow the two main characters as they examine the Argument from Causality once again, step by step. Instead of following some of the misleading paths that Muslim philosophers have laid before believers, I want the reader to follow the path that the argument itself naturally leads to, and to see its conclusions with their own eyes, away from the noise and excitement surrounding religious belief.

Before turning to the Argument from Causality itself, I present the weaknesses of the Argument from Design and the believers' view of the soul for the reader to judge.

Some concepts inherited from ancient philosophy seem meaningless or empty when examined in the light of modern physics. For this reason, I have tried to reconstruct the Argument from Causality using modern concepts and a modern understanding of existence and matter. I have restated some of its arguments in contemporary language. Where I found older arguments unproductive or ineffective, I replaced them with newer arguments expressed in simple terms. These changes do not alter the conclusions of the Argument from Causality. They simply make the argument easier for today's reader to understand and remove some of its weaknesses.

A major part of the debate between the book's two main characters is devoted to the problem of free will and determinism and its direct connection with causality.

Finally, I examine the two different ways in which Muslims approach the Quran: as both a miracle and something sacred. I critically examine the problems this creates for how the Quran is understood and evaluated. Throughout the book, I have tried to avoid taking sides. I leave it to the reader to judge how successful I have been in doing so.

Autumn 2016

N. Fakhr