Religious people
often justify their belief in God as follows:-
This Universe
displays a remarkable vista of order and consistency. We can observe, for
example, the great regularity with which the celestial bodies follow precise
orbits, and marvel at the way in which water from the seas is brought to the
land by wind-driven clouds, which are in turn formed by the evaporation of
water. Without this replenishment, life would be impossible. Consider the
intricacy of the human body, and the balance between the various Constants of
nature..... and so on.
But whereas the
argument from design may convince some people, it has been countered by some
logicians, philosophers and scientists as follows:-
(1) We know that
when we see a watch that it must be made by a watch-maker. But this is because
we know that watch makers make watches and no watches exist which were not made
by watchmakers. We know no such thing about the Universe. Therefore, the
argument does not hold.
This argument
can be countered as follows:-
We know that
birds are natural organisms. We know that they make nests. Therefore, we know
that the nests they make are also natural and arise from their nature.
Therefore, we know that in nature there is certainly a relationship between
creator and created. It is also a built-in necessity of thought that all things
must have a cause. But it follows from this that ultimately something must be
self-existing and self-caused.
This leads to
the question: If something must be self-existing, then why not the Universe.
The answer to
this is that we now know that the Universe had a beginning and must, therefore,
have a cause outside it. If, however, we define the Universe as everything that
exists and has existed and will exist, then there can be no external cause, and
all causes are within it. This is defined as an Intention. In fact, we now have
a concept of God.
(2) Not only do
we see order and regularity in the Universe but also chaos and random events.
The weather, the winds and rain etc. are not predictable in the same way as the
orbits of planets. In fact, the distinction between heaven and earth was made
since ancient days based on the observable order in heaven and the disorder on
earth. The desire to establish heaven on earth dates from ancient Egypt.
Chaos causes uncertainty and destruction whereas order creates security,
predictability and controllability. This is why one is avoided and the other
sought.
To continue the
argument:- It is possible that order comes spontaneously out of disorder by
averaging out all the different tendencies and by accumulation of chance
events. Or given a great number of possibilities all of them could be
actualised in different places. It so happens that things are suitable in this part
of the Universe and on this planet, for life and human beings to arise and
think about this. If things had not been suitable they would not have arisen to
think so. Things may not be suitable for human beings to arise and think in an
infinite number of other places in the Universe. Perhaps other creatures could
arise in these other places and suppose that things were made just so that they
can arise. In fact, they have arisen because things happened to be suitable and
not the other way round. Thus the argument does not hold.
The
counter-argument to this could be something as follows:-
If things are
completely random then there cannot be a direction of development. Every design
constructed by accident would become deconstructed by accident. The fact that
there are regularities implies that there are laws, which restrict complete
randomness. These laws cannot arise from randomness.
Suppose, we
throw dice with six sides, the chance that it will land with any particular
number uppermost is 1 in 6. No matter how many times we throw the dice the
chances will be the same. The chance of any number coming up top out of 600
throws is 100. Now if a particular number should come up less or more than
these by a considerable margin say 150 or 50, then we would suspect a cause for
this. In other words a "Cause" is a departure from
"Chance". If the dice had 8 sides, then the chances of a particular
side coming up uppermost would be 1 in 8. If the number of sides were infinite
e.g. the dice was a ball, then the chances are 1 in infinite. It follows that
the dice or particles in the universe cannot have infinite sides but that these
are restricted. This, too, needs explanation. It is a restriction.
An interesting
thought arises from the above - If Existence, before the Universe was created
had infinite time, Eternity, then it may have developed intelligence by chance,
and this intelligence then took control of any further development. The
Universe is the result of that. Since serial time counts only from when the
Universe was created, there is no serial time before that. We cannot,
therefore, speak about development before the Universe was created. In other
words we first make a hypothesis and then deny it. Existence before Time was
created must be taken as a single unit, which is simply self-existent and
self-modifying.
The direction of
Time is given by the second law of Thermodynamics - i.e. all things degenerate
- order collapses into disorder and no order arises spontaneously from
disorder. If energy is concentrated in a place (e.g. something is hot) then the
tendency is for it to disperse until uniformity is reached. Energy does not
spontaneously gather together (things do not heat up by themselves). The
reverse is evolution, the increase in order.
But we have just
shown that a "cause" is needed to explain things that happen more or
less times than chance allows. Degeneration implies that things move from a
position of low probability to a position of high probability. Here "high
probability" is a position of pure chance as seen from the point of view
of science, which does not admit a Creator. Evolution is a motion from high
probability to low probability (as seen by science). This is possible locally
due to causes, but only if the total disorder of the Universe increases.
Consider the
Universe. It is supposed to have arisen from a Big Bang when all matter was
concentrated in a small space, and it has been expanding ever since. It must
have been originally in a state of minimum probability (as seen by science).
This is impossible. What do we call things that have minimum probability? They
are called Miracles or Mysteries? And do we have an explanation for these? Yes.
We attribute them to God. We do this in the same way as Newton does in his Laws of Motion - The
change of motion is due to a force. We define the original creative force as
the Will or Command of Allah and regard it as the source of all other forces.
Islam does not
admit Chance or Determinism - everything is caused by the Will or Command of
Allah. Nor is there an absolute difference between consciousness, mind and
matter - they are all phenomena. The distinction between mind and matter is a
recent development and never existed in the past. This is why minds moulded by
modern thoughts cannot understand the thinking of the past. There is no
justification for this division and it creates an irreconcilable duality in the
Universe. Consciousness certainly exists and it is not only part of existence
but we cannot know anything without it. We are certainly physical beings looked
at from outside, but we are also conscious when we look within.
When, for
example, I look into my garden and see birds building their complex nests,
laying eggs, sitting on these until they hatch and then the parents using
enormous efforts to gather food to feed the young, and then someone tells me it
is all because of inert matter, chance and mechanical forces, then I cannot
help but look at him with incredulity. Either his view of what matter and
energy are is more comprehensive than he has admitted or some other factor has
been left out of account. In no book of biology can one find any explanation
how these chemical substances and electronic forces can lead to the behaviour
mentioned above, or to the internalized thought processes and consciousness
within ourselves. On the contrary it is these inner thought processes which are
responsible for the sciences and the world-we-see. And it is responsible for
the whole culture and civilization and the transformation of the world itself.
(3) The existence
of Consciousness is put forward as another proof of God. The difference between
physical phenomena and consciousness can be illustrated by the following
example:- We experience the colour red. Investigation shows that this
experience corresponds to a certain frequency of electromagnetic radiation. It
is supposed that this physical phenomenon creates the conscious one. But how?
There is an enormous difference between these phenomena. Indeed, the discovery
of this physical phenomenon is itself an experience which is inexplicable. What
is electromagnetism? It is a pattern of fluctuations in space-time.
Atheists try to
explain consciousness as an “emergent phenomena”. This can be illustrated by
the following example:- When we set light to something it produces a flame.
This consists of hot luminous gases, which are burning owing to combination
with oxygen. This chemical reaction produces heat which causes some more
burning. So we have a self-maintaining cycle until the fuel or oxygen runs out.
The flame is an emergent phenomenon. Life and consciousness are regarded as
similar to this.
The point is
that these “emergent phenomena” are real phenomena, and the name merely hides a
mystery. They exist as potentialities in the very fabric of nature, which must
have been there from the very beginning. If consciousness is connected with the
pattern of electrical activity of the brain, then the Universe itself has
patterns of electrical activity.
There are levels
of existence. A study of Physical forces alone does not lead to the prediction
of chemical substances and their reactions. Chemistry is a separate study
requiring its own concepts. If it were to be reduced to physics we would have
too much complexity for our minds to deal with. Similarly, a study of chemistry
does not lead to the prediction of the various life forms and their behaviour.
Biology is a separate subject with its own concepts. We cannot reduce biology
to chemistry. Psychology cannot be reduced to Biology and Sociology cannot be
reduced to Psychology. The concepts used become more abstract but nevertheless
refer to something real. Theology could be regarded as an extension of this
series having its own concepts.
Much depends on
how we look at the world. There are at least three ways of looking at it:-
(a) All
phenomena are seen in isolation from one another. Things simply happen without
any kind of order or predictability. But experiences in some environments cause
associations between different objects and events to various degrees of
permanence. The familiarity, so created, also allow habits of thought and
action to be formed. This allows us to live in adjustment to the local
environment. Environments differ from one another by the frequency, quality and
relationship between events. The Universe may be regarded as a system, which
contains sub-systems, which also contain further subsystems and so on. All
parts of each system interact directly or indirectly. This causes each to
adjust to the whole. If intelligence is defined as adaptability, then this is found
throughout nature to different degrees.
(b) Scientists
and others try to look beyond the superficial in order to find what is constant
behind changes and the unity behind multiplicity. They try to find the
regularities, rules or laws. This may be taken to several levels until a single
theory X is found which will explain all phenomena. But this will itself remain
unexplained.
(c) Things can
be seen as forming systems in which all parts have a function with respect to
the whole and arise because of it. Systems form parts of greater systems and
contain subsystems. There is then an ultimate Absolute System to which all
things must ultimately adjust. There are no linear causes but all parts have to
adjust to each other owing to feed back mechanisms and these require some kind
of sensitivity and recognition. Here Purpose and Cause are identical and need
to be redefined. Intelligence can be defined as the ability to adjust.
One could argue
that if we can explain the phenomena of the Universe through our intelligence,
then the Universe must be at least as intelligent as we are. But there is much
of it which is not explicable by our intelligence and much lies beyond it –
e.g. that which lies below the smallest quantum unit measurable; that which
lies beyond the observable Universe in space and time; most of the so called
“missing matter” which is required to account for the Gravity which holds the
Galaxies together; much that lies beyond the small spectrum visible to us and
our instruments; and all that which is too complex for us to calculate.
In fact, it is
not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God by purely logical
methods. The reason for this is:-
(a) That every
logical argument begins with certain premises, which are assumed and not
proved. These have to be obtained from observation and experience. This in its
turn depends on whether a person has the capacity for such experiences.
(b) Logical
arguments are certain only if they proceed from the whole to the parts. It is
only if we know the nature of the whole, then we can say something about the
parts. Knowledge is limited. Knowing parts a, b, c, d etc. does not guarantee
that other parts do not exist.
(c) The whole is
always more than the sum of the parts owing to the pattern or the forces that hold
it together. It is not, therefore, possible by examination of the parts to
establish the nature of the whole. But the whole must exist because the parts
affect each other. If they did not affect each other then the others are
non-existent with respect to each.
It follows that the only way proof of God can
be obtained is through three methods:-
(a) The scientific
method of observation and experiment and this requires the development of
appropriate instruments.
(b) Also as in
science, undertaking the correct procedures. If you want to prove for yourself
what a scientist says then you will have to follow the procedures he has
undertaken under the conditions stated. This not only refers to the experiments
but also to the calculations and this requires that you have undergone a
similar training and possess the same conceptual system and mode of
interpretation. Similarly, in religion, you will have to undertake the
appropriate disciplines.
(c) The
development of human capacities for perception. You cannot see something if you
do not have the equipment with which to see, or if it is defective or has
filters on it, or if you do not look, or do not know how or where to look, or
are unable to correctly interpret what you see.
The Islamic
position is that the Spirit of God is within you and that this gives you the
capacity to see, hear and feel, and the awareness of God. Though this capacity
has atrophied owing to attachment to things through desires such as greed,
lust, egotism, prejudice, it can be regenerated through appropriate spiritual
techniques. In fact, this should be done for own sake. This is because we
cannot adjust to Reality without objective knowledge. And if we do not then the
contradiction or conflict between ourselves and Reality, so caused, inevitably
causes our suffering and destruction.
"We will show them Our signs on the
horizons (in the Universe) and within themselves (in their own souls), until it
become manifest unto them that it is the truth. Is not your Lord sufficient,
since He is Witness over all things?" Quran 41:53