Looking at the Reality from a Blind-Spot
This article text is part of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
For English Section Main Page Click Here (Other Articles, Utterly Different Experience Visual/Interactive Books and Training Program Presentations)
In fact, the issue gets stacked always at the same point over the thin line between faith and denial. It can be said that the eye of the one who doesn’t want to accept, with obstinacy, the Creator and a conscious creation is looking at the reality from a blind point of view. All the art, wisdom and blessings, which can indeed be recognized even by a person of average mind, are hidden in that blind spot where he is looking.
“Yes, the one whose eyes are sick denies the light of the sun; and those whose mouth is bitter, claims it is the water that is bitter” In other words, our problem is not solely related with logical. It does not start or end just with logic and rationality. After all, the matter at hand is something that can’t have hundred percent certainty. But, you have to make a conclusion in accordance with the evidence that you see, with the existing situation and make a decision. Hence, as a result of our detailed investigations, it becomes obvious that atheists make their preference for the other option due to sickness in their heart.
 This sentence is quoted from the work entitled “İşaratü’l İcaz” of Risale-i Nur Collection. It means that nonbelievers’ doubts come from the defects of in their nature and in their hearts.
However, wouldn’t the beauty of an object, its artfulness and usefulness show that it is done with a will and for a certain purpose?
We want you to give the answer to that question by continuing our journey in the land of miracles.
How couldn’t be possible not to see the acts of blessings in this delicious food, sent just according to our needs and in unexpected ways? And not to seek for the One who is a blessing?
A mind which cannot deduce the act of beautification from the Beauty and the act of giving blessings from blessings, couldn’t see the One who is beautifying and blessing and could not accept His existence.
The one who can’t see a work which is done, of course can’t see the One who does that work. Well, how can a work and the meaning it has for us could be seen? As we have mentioned before, this is not something that can be seen with our eyes and held with our hands. Now, let us imagine that you poured water in a glass and treated somebody with it. Is this not the act of treating? But, what is done is just extending our hand and giving the glass. But this has a meaning. Since we are humans, with a heart and a mind, and since we are not machines and just don’t act only with what we see. What is that meaning? An abstract concept: the act of treatment! How can this be seen? For Allah’s sake, you tell this. We have already given a clue. Can it be seen with eyes. No, it can’t. How can it be seen or let’s say, appreciated? The answer: It is appreciated with mind and heart. Not anything else. That action is seen by the eye, and its meaning is appreciated by mind and heart! Therefore, we have to have a sensitive heart which can feel it. Therefore, we have to have a working mind, so that we can make these conclusions. It is a famous dictum in Risale-i Nur, “Those who look for everything in the matter/objects have their mind in their eyes. And the eye is blind when it comes to the matters of faith.” It can’t see non-material connections and abstract things.
 Risale-i Nur Letters, From the Seeds of the Truth
Since, the ability to deduce the existence of an action from a work; and by looking at that action recognizing that there is somebody who carries out that action is a completely abstract concept that can only be seen and appreciated by mind and heart; and it has a much different meaning than knowing the existence of something that can be seen with naked eye and held in our hands, believing is a matter of ordainment.
Allah ordains the light of faith and the gem of the true path only for those who use their will in the right way. But, since believing in something invisible (iman-ı bilgayb) is the basis of the faith, it is possible to deny the truth as it is not something that is visible and tactile, albeit the evidence being very strong.
In any case, the proposal made by the religion and the characteristics of the trial of the human being depends on the fact that the truths of faith do not have such a clarity and certainty that everybody is not in a position to accept it involuntarily. In other words, the evidence of the reality of the truth should not transcend the point where they are so much compelling that the willpower becomes irrelevant.
The scientific righteousness, the acceptability of the truth of faith can be shown and they have such a consistency that it can be concluded: “Yes, this should certainly be this way, it can’t be otherwise” and they are supported by evidence opening the door for the mind. However, since they are abstract truths based on logical deductions, the willpower, the freedom of choice is not taken away.
If there were evidence and miracles that are so much compelling so that everybody would have to accept them, then the secret of the trial would be spoiled.
And the difference between the spirits which are like diamond and those like coal would not be revealed.
A great truth is brought closer to our comprehension like the example of the sun and the glass parts given in Risale-i Nur, then it becomes easier and possible to see the truth more clearly through the window opened by that example and to reason. It is claimed that everything in this universe came into existence naturally on its own. It is told that nature is the source of all the great works of divine knowledge, will, wisdom and power, whose existence is known with their work and effects on the matter/object.
Although it is visible to the material eye that nature is incapable of doing its work by knowing, seeing and thinking and the existence of the One who has real effecting power and the Real Handler is visible to the eye of the mind. But, the existence of the Creator is denied and because He can’t be seen by the material eye!
Whereas such a denial and this kind of claim necessitate that, this nature and the natural forces should have such a great power that it could see, know, think everything about everything and decide and manage everything by planning all of these things and to create the universe.
So to speak, if the thought that the flashes seen over the water drops and the pieces of glass floating over a river are coming from the sun, is denied and claimed that the source of that light is these pieces of glass and the water itself, then it would be necessary to accept that each piece of glass and water drop contains a minute sun with its own heat and light; in a similar way, with the denial of the fact that the matter/object are created by God and claim that instead they are done by nature, it would become necessary to accept that the qualities that are necessary to make these objects, which are in fact only attributable to a Creator, should also exist in each and every part of the nature.
If you understand the reality shown by this example, you can find out everything. And every corner of our issue could be enlightened. This example which is repeated in many places in Risale-i Nur is a simple but profound example. Indeed, it is a special and scientific example. It is as simple as something that could be understood by anyone and as profound as something that would surprise a professor. A child could understand it, but it is also such a wonderful and excellent story that a professor also would say: “That is it! This matter could be told best in this way.” You will better understand what we mean with the metaphor of the flashes seen over the pieces of glass floating over the river by watching this two-minute video, “The Magnificent Dance of Nature” from BBC Motion Gallery. (To open the video, Please click on here or below)
We would like to refer to your foresight about the seriousness in search for truth of somebody who do not accept the path that could be easily accepted by mind, just because of obstinacy and intention, and who insists on going on the difficult path but also when it comes to become a serious customer of that road, (to pay what is necessary) who refrains from thinking by closing his eyes to the reality.
We have to make a clear determination that explaining the formation of the mater/objects with a creator is more compatible with scientific thought and more logical; a reasonable and acceptable way, an alternative possibility comprising many facilities, almost at the level of certainty, if there is a model worth being accepted as scientific, this model deserves more being accepted as scientific than any other.
At that point, we need to clarify some concepts. What do we understand when we say “proving”? What does “proving” mean? What does it mean if a claim has conclusive evidence? What is the difference between mental evidence and the concrete reality?
First of all, even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it could still be possible to prove it with logical evidence. “Proving” means showing crystal clear the trueness of a claim by giving evidence.
Now, in matters related to the existence of a creator, there is no such evidence that can be held in your hands and seen by your eyes. Nevertheless, it would be a great injustice to reality and a wrong judgment to say that these matters are not rational and that there are no accurate logical evidences just because this is the case.
The example we will be giving here is a well-known one. However, it is very useful in understanding the essence of the matter and its basic logic. That’s why we think that it should be highlighted.
Now imagine this: a painter is working behind a curtain and we can just see his brush. How can we know that this painter has painted that picture?
Should we think that, the picture is done by the paint and brush just because the painter is out of our sight?
However, if we examine carefully, we see that these paints and the brush do not have the capacity to process and make art. Hence, this situation makes us look for a painter with an ability to make art and it makes us accept his existence as if we have seen him.
Let us ask you this: According to this example, is it possible to have a visual and material evidence of the existence of the painter? Of course, it is not and It can’t be.
Because there is someone who is influencing/affecting and he is out of your area of observation and experimentation. But, just because this is the case, accepting that the work is done by objects which are visible but which do not have the capability to do that work is not more scientific than accepting that there is a dexterous painter behind the curtain, who is capable of doing artistic work.
The art over the matter/objects is a nonmaterial abstract reality, which is invisible to the eye but can only be known and appreciated by the heart.
Even though we do not have material and visual evidence, the existence of the piece of art seen by our material eye is a strong and definite enough evidence for the existence of the painter. And seeing the existence of the work, that is, the piece of art, as a “scientific evidence” for the trueness of the existence of the painter and using that in evidencing the existence of the painter are acceptable logical evidence whose truth can be seen by the eye of the mind.
As you see, the rational evidence about the existence of a creator, which is formed on the basis of “the transition (making an inference) from the piece of art to the existence of its Artist/Master” have the same characteristics. They are both very strong and their consistency with mind and logic is absolute; they also have the quality of proving at the level of certainty. This is what we say and claim. The truths of religion are basically theoretical, but in terms of their results, they are conclusive realities, which have logical and theoretical evidence, giving support to each other and with their soundness not giving any possibility to opposite ideas.
In our opinion, the appropriateness of inductive logical inferences related to the existence of a creator with scientific thinking and their inclination to scientific evidencing are beyond any doubt.