Introduction
There can be no doubt as to the fact that in his article “Rational Monotheism”, Edip Yüksel comes up with a variety of logically substantiated arguments that are meant to undermine the conceptual soundness of just about any religious belief, based on irrational faith. Therefore, I can only agree with the author when he says: “Another way to differentiate “belief” or “faith” from “knowledge” is to check whether the subject of faith or knowledge is examinable by others.
A belief that is not subject to verification or falsification is personal and the holder of such a belief has no reasonable grounds to invite others to share his or her belief” (Yüksel). Nevertheless, it could not escape my attention that, despite the article’s overall intellectual validity, it still contains many logical fallacies, which point out to the fact that, during working on “Rational Monotheism”, Yüksel was never able to free himself from “perceptional theism”, even while criticizing the deepest metaphysical tenets of a religious worldview.
For example, throughout his article, Yüksel makes numerous references to the notion of “rational belief”, without understanding that the concepts of “belief” and “rationale” can be hardly combined, due to their diametrically opposite semantic essence: “While on one hand, I cannot provide a rational explanation for freedom of will, I believe in the existence of freedom of will based on my rational belief in God and His proven word” (Yüksel).
Once we gain an ontological knowledge of a natural phenomenon, which provides us with dialectical insight into such phenomenon’s nature, we no longer need to assess this phenomenon’s different emanations through the lenses of irrational belief. Therefore, the fact that people do not possess complete information as to God’s possible existence or non-existence does not necessarily mean that they have a good enough reason to indulge in agnosticism.
The view on religion
We can argue long and hard about the probable essence of divinity, but there are absolutely no good reasons for us to associate the concept of divinity with the concept of religion, even when this religion appears as being “rational” on the outside. And the reason for this is simple – nowadays, the continuous existence of just about any religion is nothing but “evolutional anachronism”. Charles Darwin had proven long ago that a religious worldview is not “existentially innate” within human beings.
The members of primitive tribes that had failed to evolve beyond the Stone Age are not religious. Alternatively, the overwhelming majority of representatives of a race that, up until recently, remained on the cutting edge of biological evolution, are not religious either, even though that they might still be attending Church, once a week, to ritualize their otherwise mechanistic existence. What does it indicate? It indicates the fact that homo sapience is not the final product of evolution, but rather an intermediary link between the ape and the super-man.
Whereas apes do not need religion yet, supermen do not need religion already. Therefore, we need to refer to religion as to what it is – a psychological sublimation of homo sapience’s longing to gain a state of higher consciousness, while continuously developing, in the biological sense of this word. The value of every religion corresponds to its ability to set religious people on the path of discovering God within themselves – in other words, religion must continuously undergo a doctrinal transformation because its transformation indicates that people that profess this religion continue to develop.
For example, White people have been continuously striving to re-interpret the “good book”, to adjust it to the realities of modern living. Modern Protestantism had almost entirely freed itself of the original spirit of Christianity while serving White folks as another practical tool of achieving existential comfort. The innermost religious “belief” of Protestants can be formulated as follows: if you cannot help yourself, God will not help you either.
On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of faithful Muslims continue to force women wearing black cloaks, over their faces, with the thought that such practice is utterly inappropriate, within a context of 21st-century realities, never even occurring to them. It is namely the overwhelmingly young Muslims, who bend on their knees to pray Allah, five times a day, regardless of where the “time for prayer” finds them. What does it mean? It means that Islam prevents Arabs, as a culturally racial community, from qualifying for the next evolutional jump (men-supermen).
Therefore, I have a hard time understanding Yüksel’s claims that he is simultaneously both: an intellectual, who revere rational thinking, and also the adherent of Islam: “I have many reasons to believe that one God exists. Here are just some of the keywords for such a conviction: singularity, big bang, existence, the exact amount of energy in the universe, the structure of an atom… accuracy of Quranic verses about various sciences, code 19, and profound personal experiences” (Yüksel).
In his article, the author extensively quotes from Quran, while trying to convince readers in essentially rational essence of Islam: “You shall not follow any information that you do not know about it. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them” (17:36). Unfortunately, Yuksel has failed to mention other Quranic verses, which encourage Muslims to kill as many “infidels” as possible, as deed particularly pleasing to “rational” Allah. As Jesus once said – it is by savoring tree’s fruits that you can tell whether this tree is poisonous or not.
The history of two religions
It only takes one brief look at the history of Islam or Christianity, to get rid of any illusions, whatsoever, as to the “rational essence” of both religions, because Christianity and Islam derive out of an intolerant Semitic mentality. For example, ancient Greeks believed in many gods, but they thought of them as essentially human beings, in possession of divine powers, which is why Greeks never feared their Gods (they thought of them rather as friends) and never tried to appease these Gods by offering them bloody sacrifices, as adherents of Semitic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity do.
This also explains why in ancient Greece, religion never opposed science, as it continues to be the case in countries where Semitic religions dominate. What are the most characteristic historical traits of monotheism, as a religious worldview? Intolerance, bloodthirstiness, cruelty, obscenity, retrogradeness, etc.
Therefore, I will dare to disagree with Yüksel, who implies that it is only rational monotheism, which represents some sort of “progressive religious worldview”: “Yes, I assert that belief in one God can be rational, and I further assert that it should be rational. Rational Monotheism is not an oxymoron, as some might think, but it is an idea that liberates the person from illusions and satisfies both the intellect and emotions” (Yüksel). If monotheism is capable of liberating anyone of anything, it would be a liberating individual of its sense of aesthetics, its intellect, its biological destiny, and ultimately – of its basic humanity.
The God
God can be neither rational nor irrational because God is energy, which is being unevenly distributed throughout the universe. In its turn, this explains why it is not only that God cannot be emotional, but he/she/it also cannot be “omnipotent” or “ever-present”. The reason why Polytheism makes a better scientific sense, as opposed to Monotheism, is simple – whereas, world’s monotheistic religions are the religions of “morality”, the world’s polytheistic religions are the religions of “force” or “potency”.
In other words, the adherents of polytheistic religions remain in closer touch with the divine, as compared to monotheistic “experts on divinity” – Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. This is why Yüksel’s extensive analysis of particularities of religious rationality and irrationality is best described as quite irrelevant.
I could not care less of whether people’s belief in monotheistic God can be referred to as “rational” or “irrational” – the very fact that they associate themselves with a monotheistic religious worldview, automatically makes me feel like not arguing with them, in the first place, simply because, during the course discussing just any topic, they would eventually end up sounding irrational. As “Goodwin’s Internet Law” states – the probability for an individual to be compared to Hitler while discussing a particular topic on Internet, is geometrically proportionate to the discussion’s duration.
Conclusion
Despite his openly professed affiliation with “rational” Islam, Yüksel sounds like a Christian Creationist, without understanding that the very concept of Scientific Creationism signifies the last convulsions of religion on its deathbed, simply because it points out to the fact that it is always religion, which resorts to science, to substantiate its doctrinal validity and not vice versa. Science might not have answers to all the questions yet, but the answers it has are indisputable; whereas, religion (specifically Islam) does not provide people with even a single answer of any practical value to just about any question they might have.
However, as I have mentioned earlier, Yüksel’s article brings up many valid points, which is why I am far from disregarding it in its entirety. The author deserves to be given a credit for his article’s analytical finesse. I do not doubt that he does consider himself being an open-minded individual. However, while trying to undermine the theoretical soundness of the concept of “blind belief”, as such, that pleases God, Yüksel had proven himself incapable of intellectually breaking beyond the shell of a monotheistic worldview. As a result, his article ended up on “Allah Akbar” kind of a note.