One recent example of such phenomena is the Schrödinger equation that explains the behavior of matter at the atomic level. This relation just happens to work, and its derivation is intuitive rather than rational. It also has the simplest mathematical form among its possible competitors in terms of expressing nature.

We will now look at another example of such axiom-like relations that we usually ignore, although it is frequently encountered in our everyday life. Before revealing it as fully as we can, let us relate one situation where this effect is very apparent.

We usually move objects by pushing or pulling them. Suppose now we are on a motorboat and we have run out of gas in a place very close to the shore. We (the strong crew members) surely do not want to be carried away from the shore by the backwash from the waves. One of us has the brilliant idea to push on the sides of the boat until we reach harbor. What would you suggest? Some of us think that it is not a good idea because the boat is very heavy and our pushing will be negligible. It is true that the boat will not move. However, the failure has nothing to do with the weight of the boat. On the other hand, some other crew members suggest using oars, which will obviously work, but why? (Personally, with all my respect to other opinions, I would suggest using the phone to call the beach police to get some help; but this would distract us from our subject matter.)

Impulse, direction, and momentum

If you think about the “why” question above, you will guess that we are talking about impulse in the loose meaning of the word. In physics, impulse has a more precise definition. This definition arose from the need to describe an object’s ability to have an impact on other objects, but the idea is still vague: How do we quantify this ability in order to put some flesh on this notion? Let us try to figure out an answer to this question.

Now, let us consider a few possible ways of defining impulse that look reasonable. We may decide intuitively that an impact should be related to an object’s speed: the higher the speed the greater the impact. If you ever played marbles in your childhood, you will recall that the easiest way to dislodge the marbles in the targeted row is to cast your own marble as fast as you can. Impulse should also have a relation to mass. Certainly, the impact of as many as a thousand bullets aimed at a train will not move the train even a meter. These are some simple observations anyone can experience or have a feeling of from their daily life.

We also expect that this strange quantity should somehow be transferred by the interaction of two objects. One object colliding with another stationary object transfers something that causes the latter to travel in a direction. With this example, another important feature of our impulse idea emerges: direction. Those who like to play the game of American pool or billiards know this very well. (I am sure everyone does it for the noble reason to experiment the laws of physics.) It makes a significant difference in a collision of two masses if they hit each other at an angle.

Wait a minute! We have been talking about the effect of an object’s impact, but the object has something that it is carrying even before the impact, and this “something” is the reason why we have an impact in the first place. So, what is this “something”? Let us call it momentum so as not to violate the traditions of physics.

All this stuff so far is good, but we are not done yet: how should these ideas appear in our equations? Now, let us bring together all our findings. We know momentum manifests itself as the impact (P) of one object on another. From its effect (impulse), we understand that momentum is related to the mass (M) of the object and its velocity (V). We also know that momentum has a directionality, which is termed vectorial. Then, perhaps momentum is something like:

P = a x M + b x V

where a and b are constants. This seems acceptable since it satisfies our observation: the more the mass, the more the momentum. But for a stationary object (V=0), there is no point in talking about impulse; so the axM terms looks unnecessary. If there is no good reason for a physical quantity to appear in a physical equation, then the simplicity principle says it should be removed. Therefore, we look for a simpler alternative relation with only one term like below:

P = c x M2 x V5

where c is a constant. But this one is a highly non-linear relation with exponential terms, so it is really not looking good. Another problem with this equation is that it does not fit our daily experience very well. If we reconsider our train example, with a high velocity power term like this, even the very small bullets can have a considerable effect on a train, enough to move it in fact. As a simple example, let c be equal to 1, take 0.1 kg as the mass of a bullet and 105 kg (100 tons) as the mass of the train, and give 400 m/s velocity to the bullet. Assuming that the impulse of the bullet is transferred to the train (conservation of momentum), we roughly get:

Pbullet = c x m2 x Vb5 = 1011

Ptrain = c x M2 x Vt5 = 1010 Vt5

By equating both sides we roughly get, 1.6 m/s (5.7 km/h) for the train velocity.

A single bullet moving a big train at such speed? This is a very counter-intuitive result. However, we will not give up easily. How about if we try an expression which is more familiar?

P = d x MV2

where d is a constant. This relation also agrees with our intuition (i.e. it has mass and velocity terms proportional to P.) I can already hear some objections from those who are acquainted with physics saying “No! This is the energy formula of a body with mass M and velocity V.” Indeed, this equation is reserved for energy which is a non-vectorial quantity. As a matter of fact, none of the above is a correct description for momentum. The actual expression is, interestingly, the simplest of all possibilities:

P = MxV

So, why not the more complex ones but this, the simplest one? The rigorous answer is subtle and requires a thorough analysis of linearity and homogeneity of space, which could be the subject of another essay. But we repeat the remark that we made in the beginning: if there is a simpler and more beautiful way of describing a natural law, then that description often turns out to be the correct one in the end. In fact, for some giants of physics like Paul Dirac, the beauty of a theory is more important than its results and is a better indication of the theory’s correctness. There is more to it than that. There are whole theories like Dimensional Analysis which are implicitly based on the idea of writing down the equations in the simplest (and most beautiful) form.

So, the final point is that, like other fundamental relations in physics, the idea of impact or momentum is best described in the simplest and most intuitive way: P= MxV. And behold! This gives us exactly the relation that has passed all the scientific tests in the range of classical physics. This result implies that the beauties we see in nature can be explained in terms of the simplest possible physical relation. Pondering all these, one cannot help but ask how in the world a mindless, blind natural law could exhibit beauty based on simplicity.

A: Islam saved women who were exploited, enslaved, and regarded as second class in the darkness of the pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance from the position of a poor creature and elevated them to a new status as a blessed being. Islam freed women from being treated as a tool of pleasure and laid Paradise under their feet. If the essential sources of religion and the exemplary lives of the first two generations of Muslims who lived after God’s Messenger are carefully studied, it will be seen that Muslim women were absolutely not confined to their home and they were never oppressed. If those who come up with such claims are not prejudiced and are not making deliberate assertions, then these ideas stem from being ignorant of the essential principles the religion set on this matter and from attributing misconceptions and misapplications-which originate from interference of local customs-throughout history to Islam.

Islam is the only religion which has given women such extensive rights; when we look at the Qur’an, practices of the Prophet, and the history of Islam, except for some abuses caused by individuals’ mistakes, it will be seen that women gained the most exalted status in Muslim societies. Yes, women have a unique position in Islam, which can never be found in other systems. Even the societies considered as the most developed in our time are backward on this issue and they cannot be compared with Islam.

In these modern societies, even though women seem to have a certain freedom, it is rather a freedom to satisfy certain carnal desires, and such a freedom, whether for men or women, cannot be welcomed by primordial human nature and sound intellect; it cannot be acceptable in any divine religion. In recent centuries, the difficulties of making a living brought by bloody wars between states and the pressures of economic needs pushed women into the workforce and out of their homes. After this emergence, women started to earn their own livelihood and to some extent they gained economic freedom as individuals, but in many cases they were not saved from being exploited by capital holders, who wish to benefit particularly from their physical attractions. Unfortunately, especially in Western societies, women have found superficial and artificial love only at a particular moment of their lives in proportion to their contribution to the market, to material values, and to their serving men’s carnal desires. However, they have mostly lost the respect and love they previously experienced in social life as daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, and this can never be replaced by anything else. In the long run, under the guise of freedom this time, they got to be exploited on and on with modern techniques (!), they were deprived of most inalienable rights, and become a victim of abuse equivalent of the dark ages.

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women (such as their lack of civil and property rights and the absence of justice toward women in family law) a movement to claim women’s rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment. Nevertheless, the representatives of feminism, which now has different varieties, have pursued very different demands and the movement has frequently deviated from protecting the rights of women to the excess of trying to establish their dominance.

Two bodies, one soul

God has created woman as a partner to man, not as anything else. In this respect, he cannot be without her and she cannot be without him. According to Muhammed Lutfi Effendi, the Sufi scholar and poet (d. 1956), even though Adam was in Paradise, he lived in sorrow during the time when he was without Eve. Had Eve been created first, then at that time she would have lived in sorrow without Adam, since they could not do without one another with respect to their creation. They were like two bodies and a single soul and represented the two different faces of one truth. God has created women and men in relation to each other as He created the electron in relation to the proton, the negative pole in relation to the positive one, the female seed in relation to the male one. As He composed a whole from these pairs, He willed woman and man to make couples. Yes, as the positive is joined to the negative, the electron is joined to the proton, night is joined to day, summer is joined to winter, and the earth depends on the sky, to the same extent woman and man are created dependent on one another. God’s Messenger expressed this truth as follows: “Surely, women are the other half of men.”

In this respect, women and men are equal halves in terms of their humanity, but neither of them is ever the same as the other. They hold certain differences in their primordial nature, physical potentials, spiritual worlds, and psychological structures; but men are not a biologically mature form of women, nor are women a less or more developed form of man. Both are individual human creatures and they are in essential need of one another. In accordance with this balanced understanding, women were granted the lofty status they deserve at the time of the Prophet; they undertook responsibilities to suit their nature, and the vital position of women in society was reestablished. This great revolution took place at a dark period when the world was immersed in savagery and when it was being discussed whether women had a soul or not.

The place of women between extremes

Islam did not deprive women of anything; it just kindly granted them exemption from certain liabilities. For example, Islam does not hold women responsible for attending congregational prayers and sermons, fasting or praying at certain times, or undertaking paid work to support themselves or their family. However, Islam does not prevent any woman’s voluntary attendance at a congregational prayer, such as Friday Prayer. In the reference books on the sayings and life of the Prophet there are reports that women attended different congregational prayers including the prayer for rain.

Not making women liable for everything men are responsible for is an expression of Islam’s kind approach towards women. This manifestation of divine Mercy is based on the following essential: Women are generally more compassionate and merciful than men. As a compliment to her vast compassion, the All-Merciful Creator who is the sole owner of true mercy honored women with a different aspect of His blessings and freed her from certain liabilities.

According to Islam, women’s role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men’s mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples’ perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women’s rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women’s qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

The only rose of my fate, sweet musk-scented hair

My enshrouding sphere, You bestow abundantly,

Wings of the angel lay down for you on the way to the Lote-tree.¹

The Station of Two-Bows’ Length, the highest peak of all,

You are the breath of the original nature,² the cosmos’ lofty call.

You are the rain of mercy and compassion from the most Supreme,

You are the Master of existence, prior even to Adam.

O the Ocean of Light! Would your grace cascade from a fountain?

The myriads of hearts would each become for you a crystal pool.

Black Locks you must be called, O the Beloved,

I wonder if my cry can reach you, dull, enfeebled.

My troubles are far too many, and I myself possess no cures at all,

I spent summers in vain, and am left in poverty in the fall.

“Perhaps a hand will be extended,” I thought, “if I knock on your door,”

“Perhaps my Master could find a cure for this sinner.”

I am afraid to hear you say, “Who is he?”

Then, all abodes would become a dungeon for me.

You are a cure for troubles, let this heart burn,

O the Beloved of the Merciful; to ashes let it burn.

Moons split at your command,³

Nothing but a full moon is seen in your face.

Purest water pours down from your fingers quenching armies,⁴

The hardest hearts soften in rapture with your breath.

Your blessed saliva is a heavenly river and a salve for the wounded,

Every moment in your company is time spent in heaven.

Black Locks I say, for the color of the Hira cave

Is united in harmony with that of the Miraj night.

Hajar al-Asad⁵ is imbued in black,

Inspired by the black of your hair, O the Beloved with rosebud lips.

Black Locks I say, for the pitch black of the Ka‘ba,

Draining the color of your eyes, as if from Kawthar.

O Black Locks, come before laments are no longer of use,

O Black Locks, come before my life comes to a close.

O Black Locks, come before my love fades in my heart,

O Black Locks, come before the Angel descends to take this life away.

With sparkling light, bestow upon me the horizons of future,

May all the horror on the road change into glory.

Burying my face into your prints in the dust,

Burning in flames, crying your name “O Muhammad!”

I wish to reach the land beyond, thirsty and tired,

On my lips, may cries of “water” and “Lord” become entwined.

Perhaps my burning could be the lowest of mercy,

A kiss from an angel whispering “He” while touching.

O Black Locks, all my days roam in this way,

Each ordeal passes engulfed in longing for you.

Stop this pain, put an end to this longing,

Uproot and hurl away this torment of separation from my heart.

Hurl it away to the unknown or to extermination,

Burn this heart forever with your light of reunion.

________________________

1. sidrat al-muntaha: (the Lote-tree of the Boundary) a station which the Prophet was raised during his Ascension.

2. fitrat: the original state in which humans are created by God

3. One of the well known miracles of the Prophet was “splitting the moon.” Once, the most staunched idolaters of Mecca came and asked him to show them a miracle to prove his mission. The Prophet prayed and the moon split. One half of the moon appeared above a mountain while the other half appeared above another mountain. This miracle is confirmed by the following verse: The Hour has approached and the moon split (Qamar 54:1).

4. This verse refers to one of the Prophet’s miracles. The Prophet dipped his fingers into a pot of water and immediately after he took them out, from each water flowed like a fountain.

5. Hajar al-Asad is the black stone that is found in one of the corners of the Ka‘ba in Mecca. Pilgrims start circumambulation from the corner on which this stone is placed.

Once you realize these things about you and the life that you are living, then it really sounds outrageous when people think they have made a good work of art or they have great taste in art. Could it not be that all people have the same taste but only each individual’s perception is different, as opposed to all people having the same level of perception but different taste?

Most people think that taste is something subjective, that is, everybody has their own taste and that is the end of it. There is nothing more to discuss about taste. Hence, there is no such thing as good taste or bad. Everybody has things they like and things they do not, but no one can say that their taste is any better than someone else’s. Thus, we are all tempted to accept the unquestionable character of taste as the truth since almost everybody agrees on it. Although the majority view is often considered acceptable as a way of ascertaining the truth, there are quite a few examples that show that is just not correct. This article is about one of those examples.

If you are part of the big majority of people that thinks there is no such thing as good taste, you should also think that there is no such thing as good art. I can imagine if I was giving a talk about this article and presenting this exact same argument, there would be fifty hands going up objecting: “That can’t be true; there is Mona Lisa, there is Tortoise Trainer, there is this, and there is that.” But then, whoever did not like Mona Lisa or Tortoise Trainer would just have worse taste than yours, or anybody else who liked it might have better taste for that matter. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that if there is no good taste, then there is no good art. If we follow the argument further, then there is no good artist.

Suppose you are making a painting or writing a poem, what do you think would be guiding you throughout the whole process? The inevitable answer to this question must be “taste” because each stroke of your brush or each line you add is a decision made by you with the help of your taste. Every move you make is a result of your conscious or subconscious thought that it would make your piece better. But then, if you think that there is no place for a concept of being better in art, you should not be able to make any moves. Not only that, by the same token a brand new blank canvas would be just as good as the ceiling of the Hagia Sophia. What is more, by saving a lot of time and energy, you are doing even better with the blank canvas than the guy who painted the ceiling of Hagia Sophia.

Probably you are thinking that the author of these lines has really lost it now! And maybe, you are thinking that it is about time to move on to the next article. But hold on a second!

I think I may have a solution to this nonsense. If Da Vinci was in Robinson Crusoe’s place, he would still draw the Mona Lisa on that island, but surely, he would be happier if thousands of people came to see it every day. So, there is more to art than pure taste; art has people who appreciate it. It could be argued that an artist enjoys his piece for two possible reasons. First, just because he likes what he does; second, there is an audience who will appreciate what he does.

But before appreciation come attention and interest. People must pay attention or need to have an interest before they understand or even think about something. Only after that do they recognize something is beautiful, and after that comes the appreciation.

Attention and interest are two very broad terms. There are so many different things that attract my attention or interest me, often without me knowing it. Sometimes the rhyme of a poem is so soothing and pleasant that I do not even know, when I read it the first time, that I have actually fallen in love with it. I realize this when I figure out that I have learned the whole thing after a few recitations without expending any special effort to memorize it. It is as if, all of a sudden, I start hearing the constant relaxing whistle of a tall reed in my ears along with the wind. It is a great pleasure to fall asleep in the ambiance of that reed. The bed is no different than a throne for me at that moment.

Once I discover such a lone reed with a soothing melody, I visit her from time to time when I get really tired and need some rest. Then, on one of those visits, just before I fall asleep, I see a ray of a different color through the leaves of the reed; one which I had not noticed before. It is an irreplaceable touch. Surely the poet must have hidden it among the leaves and the branches only for his loyal visitors. Exhilarated by the discovery of this beauty, I start telling the fellows in the shade around me about it. I hear you saying now, “Oh! I thought you were alone under the tree.” No, no! That is impossible. If there is a reed, there will always be fellows under the shade, some for the whistle, some for the colors, some for something you do not know, but there will be always some people enjoying it.

I tell you the little story about me and the poet just to make a point about the type of art that intrigues us. Some art lies in the background quietly, some shakes our very souls and makes us tremble. Some gets carved into our brains immediately, whereas some types challenge our intelligence. In all of those different kinds of good art there is a very essential thing in common. It is the common things that the audience shares.

Although poetry is a type of art with a very broad audience, we can always imagine some people who would have no interest in it at all. Maybe a better example would be a type of beauty that would interest absolutely everybody in this world. Is there anything like that? There are tons of things like that. Who would not like a nightingale singing near dawn, or a warm breeze on the cheek, the harmony of different tones of green in a broad forest, human faces, and the like. Let us focus, for example, on that last one. All of us find human faces interesting, right? I believe that it is encoded in our DNA. A parallel to this is the obsessive compulsion of sculptors to make human faces all the time. Or, think about the number of people whose faces you know but not their names and vice versa. Which number is bigger do you think?

If you are not convinced by these arguments or think that maybe I am biased due to the conditions that I developed in, let us put the same question to babies, who are not biased, at least not just yet! Let us see what they have got to say about this. If you are worried that we cannot really understand what they are saying, there is some help from the psychologists. “In 1961, the psychologist Robert Fantz devised an ingenious method to find out about babies and faces. He designed a stand in which, on the bottom level, the baby lies on his back, looking up. A few feet above is a display area where the experimenter puts two large cards, each containing a design-a white circle, a yellow circle, a bull’s eye, or a simple sketch of face. The researcher, peering down through a tiny peephole, can watch the movement of the baby’s eyes and time how long they are directed at one or the other of each pair of patterns. Fantz found that at two months babies looked twice as long at a bull’s eye as at a circle of solid color, and twice as long at a sketch of a face as at a bull’s eye. Evidently, even a two-month-old can distinguish major differences and direct his gaze toward what he finds more interesting.”¹

With this in mind, we are compelled to acknowledge that the human face appeals to an innate common taste in all humans, either because it is beautiful in itself or because it contains most, if not all, of the things that are to “the common taste” of all humans. Then we can conclude that, as humans, our design is such that we are at least able to appreciate the same things.

Finally, we are in a position to define good art. Good art is such that it passes from its creator and reaches a lot of people who enjoy gazing upon it. Good art attracts attention and interest from a lot of people with different characteristics from different cultures and regardless of all their differences, the essential thing is they all have the same aptitude to enjoy the same thing in various different ways. In other words, good art is a manifestation of unity in multiplicity.

_______________________

1. Hunt, M., The Story of Psychology, pp. 366, Anchor Books, 1993

Vitamin basics

Vitamins and minerals are key nutrients that are essential in the regular functioning of the human body. They are needed in small amounts and are usually acquired from vegetables and fruits (Dobson 12). When acquired properly, vitamins can competently play the role assigned to them and they can observe their duties, such as to keep the immune system running, contribute to the structural integrity of the body, and strengthen the sensory systems. Their deficiency in the body leads to problems in these systems, which may result in lethal risks for health. For example, “lack of vitamin D damages immunity to cause cancers, diabetes and infections” (Mirkin).

Vitamins can be classified as water soluble and fat soluble. Generally, the vitamins that are soluble in water are absorbed by the body in the quantities that are needed. The excess is excreted in urine. Thus, it appears that abundant use of pills containing such vitamins produces nothing but expensive urine. As for the vitamins that are soluble in fat, their excess is stored in fat tissues and is retrieved in case of need (“Vitamins and Minerals”). This is an undesired effect, because it tires the body, which is otherwise a perfectly adjusted system.

Motivation for vitamin supplements

In the last century, a lot of research has been done to establish the amounts of vitamins and minerals needed for regular functioning of the body. With this knowledge, there is a growing concern among the public about their nutrition in recent years. People often think that the foods they are consuming do not contain necessary or sufficient amounts of vitamins and minerals.

It is not difficult to see that this concern has been formed by the artificial agendas of certain specialists. These specialists use methods that evoke feelings of anxiety, fear, desire, and the wish for perfection. The visual media and the press have certainly been the main and most effective means of propagating this agenda. Based on consultation with the specialists, vitamin-producing companies make promises to the consumers through advertisements that highlight how good vitamins are for children, adolescents and the elderly. They promise, for example, that if certain vitamins are used, people will feel better, improve their memory or remove aging effects. They claim that some of the vitamins they are selling have a healing or preventive power against diseases about which people are most concerned or fearful. Cancer, cardiovascular problems and obesity are among the most commonly emphasized such diseases. In the same way, abusing people’s desire for a long life, they claim that some vitamins increase life expectancy. For children, their inherent desire to be like adults is abused and they are promised that if they use certain vitamins they will be strong. These claims are reinforced with video clips in order to make them appear more realistic, and they are further supported by frequent repetition in the visual media.

Food supplements designed to meet the needs of the body are also put in “costumes” to allure the consumers. Product packaging uses big bullet points to present information about their extra vitamin content. In parallel to this, in the stores where these vitamins are sold, life-size pictures of famous or well-built people are displayed.

The Vitamin Market

As a result of all these efforts, many people think that a healthy life is not possible without vitamin pills. According to a survey by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) two decades ago, around fifty percent of the population from 19–50 takes a multivitamin pill every day. That survey showed a significant increase compared to another one performed five years earlier (Driskell). According to this trend, the vitamin supplement consumption is likely to have achieved much higher levels in our time.

Thus, an enormous market has formed for vitamin and mineral pills. It is estimated that this market amounts to an annual sales value between three and five billion dollars (Anderson, Wilken). With a drive to get a share of the sales, all supermarket chains have opened sections for vitamin pills and sell various kinds of vitamin supplements. Not only is the vitamin industry doing all these promotions for its own benefit, but media companies are also thriving on such advertisements. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a major reason for the media not to go after certain issues.

What is wrong?

Research shows that people get the correct quantity of vitamins and minerals if they consume a variety of natural foods and drinks. In countries with a high per capita income, some foods and drinks are even enriched with extra vitamins to ensure that vitamins are taken in sufficient amounts. As a result, for a person who is on a normal diet, a multivitamin pill is very likely to be excessive. With regard to these pills, nobody knows what amount is good for which person under what conditions. It is strange that the quantity of fruits and vegetables corresponding to the same amount of vitamin contained in a multivitamin pill is not revealed. Perhaps if this were calculated, the insanity of vitamin supplements would become evident. Do we really need to eat as many vegetables as a cow or a horse?

At the top of the direct vitamin intake options are vitamin pills. The majority of vitamin pills are marketed as a multivitamin-combinations of different vitamins and minerals. Supplying various combinations of vitamins in a single pill seems like a good idea at first. However, when we look at the production of vitamin pills, we see that the production process has not been standardized. Each company makes its own vitamin combinations and markets them. On top of their content, the daily consumption of synthetic vitamin pills is also variable based on the demands of the individual consumer. Although some companies include a recommendation on the packaging, in the end they say that their product can be consumed to the extent it is needed. For many vitamin pills, information about their solubility in water or fat is not present either. However, such pieces of information are of vital importance for their healthy consumption.

In recent times, with their wider use, these synthetic pills have been held responsible for health problems, contradicting expectations of health improvement, but so far they have not gained a bad reputation related to side-effect or harm. The prevailing view is that the more vitamins one takes, the better one’s health. This view might be true for natural vitamins; however, it is not so for synthetic vitamins. Generally, side-effects are associated with high dosages and undiluted intake, neither of which occurs in their natural counterparts.

Multivitamin pills are usually combined with minerals. Thus, while taking vitamin supplements, minerals are also taken, regardless of the need for them. However, similar to vitamins, minerals also are bad for human health when taken in excess. They interact with and counteract each other, and hence they disturb the body’s equilibrium.

In a study by Goran Bjelakovic and Christian Gluud, which was published in the journal of National Cancer Institute, it is stated that “Our diets typically contain safe levels of vitamins, but high-level antioxidant supplements could potentially upset an important physiological balance” (Bjelakovic, Gluud 742). They claim that antioxidant vitamins (A, C, E) do not provide any benefit when consumed in pills: if they are used as such, each results in certain forms of harm according to their function in the body. Bjelakovic and Gluud proved that such vitamin pills neither prevent nor cure cancer, that they do not protect the cardiovascular system, do not increase life expectancy nor alleviate the effects of aging. On the contrary, they showed that these antioxidant vitamin pills increase the risk of the diseases mentioned above. For example, a male person who is taking one multivitamin pill per day is doubling his risk for developing prostate cancer.

Some supplements can also have drug-like effects which present risks for people with certain medical conditions. A vitamin supplement brand was found to have potentially dangerous interactions with a number of prescription drugs (“‘Miracle’ Health Claims”).

At the very least, such side-effect-related cases call for a sound understanding of how these substances interact with the body. Can the human body convert synthetic vitamins to a usable form? Can they be stored and used later in case of vitamin deficiency? Are vitamin supplements, especially synthetic pills, as effective as natural vitamin sources, such as fruits and vegetables? What are the side effects associated with synthetic vitamins? What happens to vitamins in the case of overdose? Unless there are factual answers to these questions, vitamin pills should not be considered safe to use, and people should not use vitamin and mineral pills without consulting a doctor (“Vitamins and Minerals”).

Watch out for your health!

Here is the dilemma now: on the one hand, vitamin manufacturers are struggling to show the benefits of vitamin pills so that they make more profit; on the other hand, there is other research proving the detrimental effects of vitamin pills. At this point, it is nice to see a parallel dilemma in the fast-food market. If you go to a fast-food restaurant, their “nutrition facts” sheets show how healthy their food is. They even compare their food with other companies’ food in order to highlight their quality. However, there is a general consensus about unhealthiness of fast-food as demonstrated in the movie “Supersize Me”. Be it the food industry or the dietary supplement industry, there are claims from the producers which contradict the facts observed in real life. What to believe and who to trust are not clear.

One recourse in this ambivalence is the federal regulations or official advice from government scientists. In theory, health-care standards are established by either legislators or health organizations. However, in practice, there is a lack of institutes which can undertake the control of production of synthetic vitamin pills. In the US, for example, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s report, “Dietary supplements are not required to undergo government testing or review before they are marketed” (“Miracle’ Health Claims”). So, existing US health organizations, such as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), do not accept any responsibility.

The main reason for not checking the harm associated with vitamin pills is that their side effects emerge in the long run. Consumers do not have the means to prove their cases, and consumer associations do not have enough financial power to take legal action against the producer companies. Therefore, there is no legal or practical base to pursue allegations related to the use of vitamin supplements. Given all this, using vitamin and mineral supplements is not very different from gambling with our health.

The above discussion provides enough information to evoke questions in the mind of the reader. Protecting people from the harm caused by vitamin pills is not possible through financial or judicial means at present, but it may be possible in the future through their long term results appearing as people with severe health problems. Let us hope that the people who have control over these issues will act in consideration of everybody’s health as an invaluable trust granted to them.

Alper Bursali is a senior student at West Virginia University, Biology Department.

References

• Bjelakovic, Goran, and Christian Gluud. “Surviving Antioxidant Supplements.” Editorial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 May 2007:742-743.
• Dobson, Roger. “The A to Z of vitamins;” Independent Extra, 6 Mar. 2007. 25 June. 2007 http://web.lexis-nexis.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/universe/printdoc
• Driskell, Judy A. Vitamin-Mineral Supplements and Their Usage by Adults. 28 June 2007 http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/
• Nutritional_Supplements/supplements_usage_adults.htm
• Familydoctor.org 2004. Vitamins and Minerals: What You Should Know. Sept. 2004 http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/
• home/otc-center/otc-medicines/863.html
• Fogle, C., J. Anderson and K. Wilken. Mar. 2002. 29 June 2007 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/foodnut/09338.pdf.
• ‘Miracle’ Health Claims: Add a Dose of Skepticism. September 2001. Federal Trade Commission. 20 June 2007 http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/health/frdheal.shtm
• Mirkin, Gabe. Lack of Vitamin D causes Cancer. 5 Mar. 2007. 27 June 2007 http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/1337.html
• Sardi, Bill. Government/Scientific/Pharmaceutical/News Media Grip Over Dietary Supplements. 23 Jan. 2006. 27 June 2007 http://www.policestateplanning.com/dietary_supplements.htm

During the academic year of 1991-92, I had the opportunity to spend a sabbatical year in Paris. During that time, my wife Adele and I were surprised to notice intense activity, in the form of books, conferences, and symposia, on the theme of “Science and Faith,” with the purpose of bringing them together after a long time of separation and antagonism. Significantly, this attempt toward reconciliation was beginning in France, the country that so much contributed to the dichotomy between the two in the first place.

Three books figure prominently in my present discussion about science and faith. The first, the best-selling God and Science,¹ consists of a dialogue between J. Guitton, a highly respected Catholic philosopher and a well-known member of the French National Academy, and Grichka and Igor Bogdanov, young scientists whose fields of research are in astrophysics. In the dialogue between Guitton and the Bogdanov brothers, the scientists answer the questions posed by the philosopher about the laws governing the natural world. Intriguing questions are addressed: “Where the universe came from? What is real? What are the relationships between conscience and matter? Why does anything exist at all?” In every instance the philosopher, who is also a believer in God and in the Bible, finds that the answers he receives from science give him comfort and strength in his faith. He finds no contradiction between the two; on the contrary, everything he hears about science strengthens his faith.

A collection of essays edited by Jean Delumeau, Le Savant et la Foi,² presents a similar theme. It consists of nineteen contributions from scientists, some of them highly reputed, who explain, in often touching terms, how they reconcile their faith with their scientific research. One of the essays is the result of a collaboration among some twenty scientists affiliated with the University of Paris-Sud (Orsay, Gif, Saclay, etc.), who hold monthly meetings to discuss issues of science and faith in relationship to their research.

A third book that attests to this renewed interest in the relationship between science and faith is another collection of essays, Can Scientists Believe?,³ written by scientists from different religious traditions and edited by Sir Neville Mott, winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1977. In this book, Mott himself explains how he became a Christian at the age of fifty, when, as head of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, in England, he was invited by the vicar of the university church to join other leading scientists in contributing to a lecture series there about science and religion. Being agnostic, he felt a need to do some reading before discussing something about which he knew very little, and this was the beginning of his conversion.

In January 1992, the Catholic newspaper La Croix organized its second conference on “Science and Faith,” a day-long conference which took place in a theater in Paris and was widely attended. Among the participants were scientists, theologians, historians, and philosophers, representing all the major religious traditions, and it included atheists of good will, who were open to dialogue. Some of the participants were people of high professional standing, members of the French Academy. The opening addresses were delivered by Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and Professor Hubert Curien, minister in the French government for scientific research.

The recurrent theme of all the contributions at the conference was “Scientism is dead.” In order to understand the significance of that pronouncement in the context of our discussion of spirituality and postmodernism, we must consider the historical development of science.

Modern science and Determinism

In the ancient and medieval worlds, science and religion were part of the same cultural heritage; one was unthinkable without the other. What happened later to cause the schism between them?

The story is well-known. Modern science developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), in the aftermath of a great period, the Italian Renaissance, during which attention shifted from God to humankind, from the supernatural to the natural.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, which saw such technological advances as electricity and the steam engine, which made such a deep impact in the life of the Western world, confidence in science was unlimited. There was a general feeling that science would ultimately solve all the problems of society and the human condition. Suffering, diseases, poverty-all these evils would sooner or later be eliminated by science and technology. There was no place for God. Human reason could reach the ultimate truth without the need of a supernatural power.

In philosophy these ideas culminated in schools of thought such as logical positivism, in which there was no room for a transcendent superior being. All these schools of thought are usually referred to under the general name of “scientism.” When, therefore, H. Curien, and the other participants in the 1992 conference in Paris, boldly declared the “death of scientism,” they marked the end of a whole historical development and celebrated the present, post-modern period in science.

The new science: causality and probability

In the beginning of the twenty-first century we are more ready to recognize humbly that science has its own limitations and cannot cure all the evils of our human condition. This altered perception of science has been fostered by the advent of the so-called new science, which developed during the third decade of the last century. Quantum Mechanics has revolutionized the way people think about the natural world. In the atomic and nuclear realm the deterministic model, advanced by Laplace in his System of the World, was no longer valid. Certainty had to be replaced by the notion of probability; the whole principle of causality had to be questioned and revised. For example, the notion of “orbit,” perfectly valid when describing the motion of the earth around the sun, became meaningless in the new theory, which was designed to describe the properties of a negative electron moving around a positive nucleus. A well-defined trajectory was replaced by a “probability cloud.”

As these examples indicate, our ability to grasp reality is limited. Waves and particles are different descriptions of the same reality, which we are not able to define in absolute terms, as was once claimed by the deterministic science of the nineteenth century. At this point we realize that we must give up the idea of grasping “the thing in itself.” All this does not mean that the old, deterministic science was wrong, but only that it was correct under certain approximations, which are not valid in the micro-world of atoms and nuclei.

The healthy effect of this great revolution, brought about by the advent of the new science and Quantum Mechanics, has been to shake the arrogance of those who believed that everything could be predicted, once the initial conditions of the system were known, and to introduce an element of chance. We might say, in different words, that there is a place for God in the new scheme of ideas.

Einstein’s unenthusiastic response to Quantum Mechanics shows that he clearly perceived the “place for God” at the very heart of things. In the early stage of development of the new physics, he wrote to Niels Bohr: “Quantum Mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal, but hardly brings us close to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.”⁴

Einstein’s letters and essays are famous for their many references to God. Although he did not have a religious affiliation and shunned all forms of organized religion, Einstein the scientist had a firm belief in God. Forty years before the 1992 conference in Paris declared the “death of scientism,” Einstein had come to this same conclusion, as shown in a letter to his dear friend Solovine⁵:

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way… There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods, but also “bared the miracles.” Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the “miracle” without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it.”

As an example of the “new scientist,” Einstein rejects a science without faith, without belief in the “miracle” that remains “unapproachable” and “mysterious.” Perhaps the best description of Einstein’s attitude toward religion appears on the back of the dedication page in a recent biography: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,”⁶ as Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed.

Given the death of scientism, the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics, and the obvious connection between faith and science in the life and work of men like Einstein, it is now possible to write a revised history of western science based not on the split between religious belief and scientific research, but on their intimate connection. We can view science and religion as two approaches, different but complementary, to the same reality. In fact, there has never been a good reason for an opposition between science and religion; they are not incompatible in their views of the natural world.

Awe and excitement in science and religion

Many scientists, then, have been and are believers. The question then arises: what do science and religion have in common, so that realms previously thought to be mutually exclusive can now be seen as intimately linked? We may point to three elements common to both science and faith: the belief in things unseen, the awe and excitement of discovery, and the goal of service to others. First, the belief in things unseen. It is said of Einstein that he was a religious person… in the sense that he [had] no doubt of the significance of those super-personal goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. His was not a life of prayer or worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith […] that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and optimism are illuminated by his remark: “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.”⁷

One aspect that links science and religion, and characterizes a scientist’s spirituality, is the feeling of excitement, the thrill that both scientists and believers experience when confronted with a new facet of the truth that lies beyond the boundary presently accepted as the ultimate limit of their knowledge. As John Polkinghorne, a British professor of theoretical particle physics at Cambridge University and now an Anglican priest, one of the speakers at the 1992 conference, observes, “Part of the authentic experience of a scientist is the feeling of astonishment he or she experiences when contemplating the remarkable rational beauty of the physical world, as it unfolds in his/her research.”⁸

The eminent physicist, Isidor Isaac Rabi (1989-1991), who was honored with the Nobel Prize in 1944, bears witness to the religious dimension of this experience of astonishment: “When I discovered physics, I realized it transcended religion. It was the higher truth. It filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me close to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, “Will it bring you nearer to God?” They always understood what I meant.”⁹

At the time, Rabi himself had no particular religious affiliation, except for his background, which was strongly rooted in Orthodox Judaism. According to his own testimony, his upbringing in a household where the holy books of the Bible were familiar readings, gave him a definite spiritual formation that affected his attitude toward science: “To choose physics in the first place requires a certain direction of interest. In my case it was something that goes to my background, and that is religious in origin. Not religion in a secular way, but religion as the inspirer of a way of looking at things. Choosing physics means, in some way, you’re not going to choose trivialities. The whole idea of God, that’s real class… real drama. When you’re doing good physics, you are wrestling with the Champ. You have one life to do it, you don’t want to waste it.”¹⁰

Like Rabi, who moved “nearer to God” through scientific research and discovery, Xavier Le Pichon, a speaker in the 1992 conference and a professor of oceanography and geophysics at the prestigious Collège de France, speaks of his amazing encounters with the God of nature. A member of the French National Academy of Sciences, he has been exploring the bottom of the oceans for the past thirty years. Those underwater explorations have, as he says, awakened his “capacity for adoration”: “I have often experienced this capacity for adoration during my scientific explorations. I think in particular of my first descent in a submarine in the Rift Valley, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, at a depth of ten thousand feet… In our little boat, we are the first people to discover this scenery reminiscent of Genesis, the virgin crust, produced by the marriage between fire and earth. I had an appointment with the Earth so that I could make an offering to God.”¹¹

The same sentiments are expressed by another one of our speakers, Fr. George Coyne, Director of the Vatican Observatory in Castel Gandolfo and at the University of Arizona. I quote: “My scientific exploration and slow understanding of the universe is a prayer, and one that is drawing me into a deeper relationship with God. My understanding of the universe, with faith as a foundation of my life, is being drawn into the mystery of God. And this is why we’ll never fully understand our universe: while the scientific knowledge draws us on and on, the more we know, the less we know in many ways. The universe participates in the mystery of God.”¹²

Recently, in an article on the New York Times, the Dalai Lama, speaking about the convergence of science and spirituality, said, “Science could benefit from exploring issues usually left to the humanities. I believe that we must find a way to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. I am speaking of a secular ethics, which embraces compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers: they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.”

Those sentiments are echoed by Xavier Le Pichon, who said: “Science and technology are not only necessary, they are indeed the main tools needed to perfect the creation entrusted to humankind by God. To the extent we place the poor and the least ones at the center of our society, to the extent we ask them to inspire the civilization we are about to build, science and technology will appear as means offered in order to create a civilization of love.”¹³

So, perhaps, the “battle” between Science and Religious Faith is not so polarized as some of those at the extreme edges of the debate would have us to believe.

“In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual world views?”¹⁴

Dr. Francis Collins, author of the best selling book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and Director of the National Genome Research Institute, responded with a resounding “Yes” to this question, in his public lecture on February 20, 2007, at Purdue University.14 To an enthusiastic crowd of more than 1,100 participants, Dr. Collins stated that “The newfound power to read our own instruction book is no obstacle to faith in the existence of God.” Dr. Collins called for a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. “We need science if we are going to survive in a complicated world, and we need faith if we are going to keep ourselves in perspective. We must seek out the ways in which these world views can happily coexist, and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms, if we are really concerned about our own future in this world.” Everyone who questions how religious faith would be reconciled with scientific knowledge, and everyone interested in an open and sincere discussion of one of the most crucial issues of our time, will be greatly enlightened by Dr. Collins’ experience described in his book “The Language of God.”

Roberto Colella is a professor of physics at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Notes

1. Guitton, Jean, Grichka Bogdanov, and Igor Bogdanov. Dieu et la Science, Grasset. 1991.

2. Delumeau, Jean (edited by). Le Savant el La Foi, Champs-Flammarion, Paris 1989; p. 230 (translated from French by Roberto Colella).

3. Molt, Sir Nevill (edited by). Can Scientists Believe? James and James, London, 1991, p. 71.

4. Pais, Abraham. Niels Bohr’s Times, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, p. 318.

5. Einstein, Albert. Letters to Solovine, New York Philosophical Library, 1987, p. 131.

6. Einstein, Albert. “Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium.” 1941.

7. Pais, Abraham. Subtle is the Lord… The Science and Life of Albert Einstein, Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York, 1982, p. vi.

8. Lecture on “Science and Religious Faith,” Purdue University, February 27, 1997.

9. Ridgen, John S.. Rabi, Scientist and Citizen, Basic Books Publishers, New York, 1987, p. 82.

10. See Ref. 8, p.p. 73-79.

11. See Ref. 2, p. 166.

12. Public Lecture at Purdue University, April 2, 1998.

13. See Delumeau 1989, p. 168.

14. Collins, Francis, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, New York, London, 2006.

In this article I address four questions regarding the importance of mathematics in our lives:

1. Why is mathematical thinking significant to comprehend the universe and how it runs?

2. What are the problems in the new millennium and what solutions to these problems are expected from scientists?

3. How important a role does mathematics play in today’s world?

4. What is the relationship between defense industry and space research

In contemporary scientific research methodology, mathematics is the most objective tool which can be used to draw a general conclusion from outcomes obtained. Mathematics is considered to be an expression of the knowledge of the All-Knowing. This characteristic of mathematics recognized by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages was emphasized by well known scholars such as Ghazali, Al-Biruni, Nasiruddin Tusi, Al-Hujandi, and Al-Khwarizmi. Following in the path of Muslim scholars and being considered one of the pioneers of modern science, Galileo stated in his second book published in 1623, Il Saggiatore, that “it is impossible to understand the universe without learning the real logic of the universe and decoding its characters. The universe was created in mathematical logic and it is impossible for us as human beings to comprehend its words without mathematics.” Galileo’s statement points towards an important truth-that even though it is possible partially to explain the intricate perfection in the universe through the mathematics that has been developed so far, we are not skilled enough to produce or comprehend any mathematical systems or formulas that can express the whole universe despite the complexity of occurrences that go on in the universe.

In the history of science, the structure and the mechanism of the universe have been explained to some extent using mathematics. Physicists have developed equations to demonstrate the structure of matter and forces in nature. An engineer who designs an artificial heart considers the equation that governs the bloodstream in a vein. An astronaut at NASA utilizes equations that describe the motion of satellites or the orbit of a spacecraft. In our contemporary world, the crucial role of mathematics is the main reason why Landon Clay, a millionaire philanthropist and the founder of the Clay Mathematics Institute, came up with a list of seven “millennium problems” and promised seven million dollars to the first person who found the solution to each of them. They have not yet been solved.

Many of us remember traditional mathematics classes as boring because they were not apparently related to real life. Only once symbols and equations become meaningful and solutions are found, does mathematics become pleasurable. Despite the stress endured, true success is hidden in the process of writing the correct equation. An equation developed to solve a specific mathematics problem becomes an invention when it is practically used in life, for example, to build a spacecraft or design a medical device.

However; in order to make an invention, the correct equation for that invention needs to be developed, or a pre-developed equation that works for the invention needs to be determined. The next step is to solve it. Even if the solution to an equation cannot be found, an approximate solution can always be discovered and used to build an invention.

The equations for two of the millennium problems come from physics. One of the problems involves finding a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations governing fluid dynamics. These equations were first formulated in the 1820s to describe the motion of fluids and gasses. Examples include the flow of water around a boat, air over the wings of a plane, and blood pumped from the heart to the vessels. At first glance, the Navier-Stokes equations resemble equations taught at the undergraduate level in the fields of science and engineering. However, the way they look is deceptive because no one has ever come close to finding the general solution to these equations. Even though a general solution to these equations does not yet exist, the Navier-Stokes equations do help one comprehend the aforementioned problem. Therefore, they do not help naval architects to construct better marine vehicles, aerospace engineers to build better aircrafts and spacecrafts or biomedical engineers to build artificial organs.

Another millennium problem involves finding a solution to the set of equations formulated by Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills in 1954 that describe the fundamental forces of nature. This set of equations reveals the description of the raw material out of which everything in the universe has been created. None of these equations have been solved so far. Physicists have gained accurate results and made calculations tested in laboratories based on Yang-Mills equations that could be solved by using computers as in Navier-Stoke equations. Even though these kinds of equations provide physicists with almost all the necessary information, no one has ever been able to solve the Yang-Mills equations by known methods. What is important is not to solve equations; it is to figure out what the solution means instead. Using numbers and making calculations based upon these equations remain secondary despite their importance.

As a result of positivist and materialist approaches to knowledge and science, most people today are interested in science and technology for the sake of their own material wealth and comfort. If this degrading approach continues, worldwide degeneration cannot be prevented. However, mathematics is a universal language generated by mathematical thinking. This type of thinking is one of the qualities of the “inheritors of the earth.” In The Statue of Our Souls (2005), M. Fethullah Gulen says,

In the past the people in Central Asia and later on in the West achieved their renaissances by means of the laws of mathematical thinking. Man discovered and brought to light many uncertain and unknown things in the mysterious world of numbers. Without going to the extremes of the Hurufis,^[1] what we say is that without mathematics it is not possible to understand the relations of humanity and natural phenomena with one another. It illuminates our roads like light on the line that stretches from the universe to life; it indicates to us what is beyond the human horizon, even the depths of the world of contingencies, which is very difficult to think upon; and it makes us meet with our ideals.

On the other hand, being mathematical does not mean knowing everything related to mathematics. It is to think mathematically, to think within mathematical laws, and to be aware that it permeates everything from man’s thoughts to the depths of existence, from physics to metaphysics, from matter to energy; from body to soul, from law to Sufism. In order to comprehend existence completely, we have to accept a dual method of Sufi thinking and scientific research. The West essentially lacks essence, and has tried to compensate for this loss, as far as it can, by taking refuge in mysticism. In our world, which has been always intimate with the soul of Islam, there is no need to look for anything strange or foreign, or to take refuge in anything. We have all our sources of power within our system of thought and faith. That suffices as long as we comprehend that source and spirit with its original richness. Then we will see some of the mysterious relations in existence, how harmoniously such relations run, and reach a different knowledge of observing and taking pleasure in everything.

In short, being mathematical is necessary to describe the universe we live in and the principles of how it runs. This tool will be considered triumphant in as much as it can remove blockages from the individual’s eyes and exhibit the truth. Only if scientists who have attained the harmony of heart and mind penetrate into the secrets of existence, utilizing science and its fruits for the benefit of humanity, will justice be done to their profession.

The road, although not very long, took her back in time by a fast train of memories. She remembered how her newborn son had caught his dad’s finger in an unbreakable grip as he was whispering the call to prayer to his little ear. She saw her son waddling his first steps and her husband clapping his hands for joy. Every curve of the road took her to another stage. His first day in kindergarten was unforgettable. Seeing him walk in line behind the teacher had made hide her tears behind her husband. Separation, though a short one, had been hard to bear. Then she saw herself sitting on the sofa by her son’s side, teaching him how to read the Holy Book. She remembered her son’s excitement when she told him the prophetic tradition that the parents of those people who read the Qur’an a lot in this world would have shiny faces on the Day of Judgment. “Mommy,” he said, taking her face between his hands, “You and daddy will have the shiniest faces of all people, I promise.” Aisha had laughed at his genuine promise and kissed his head many times. One of the memories she cherished most was going on a bug hunt with him, to return home with a jar full of creepy crawlies for his science project. Her son had been fascinated to see all the different shapes and colors of life around him. She had reminded him to be respectful to every creature. She once overheard him pray to God to grant him a flying dinosaur in paradise. Aisha caught herself smiling in the rear-view mirror. “Life is a journey,” she thought. “My son reached the destination and he is waiting for us. O God, please reunite us in your paradise and give us patience meanwhile,” she prayed.

She parked the car in the graveyard’s little parking lot. Aisha took her copy of the Qur’an and got out, not minding the cold at all. “It is always so quiet here,” she thought. “I can even hear my own heartbeat.” She stopped by her son’s grave, bent over to touch the ground, and felt the knot in her chest tie up again. “Now, now, hold strong,” she ordered her heart. “It’s just a temporary separation. Just like in kindergarten, only a lot longer. O God, I am thankful for my faith in You. How would I have endured all this pain had I not known You will raise the dead and then everyone will be with their beloved forever. Thank you, thank you very much,” she whispered, feeling the knot loosen. She opened her copy of the Qur’an and started reading the chapter “The Merciful.” The first time she read it in this graveyard, it sounded as if it was being read from heaven. One verse repeated thirty-one times in this chapter had kept her from rebelling in her grief: “Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?” She had never understood its message better before. Aisha finished reading and opened her hands in prayer. “Our Lord, grant us bounties in this world and in the hereafter and save us from the torment of hell. Do not let us go astray once you have guided us to the truth and grant us mercy from Your Presence. Surely You are the Most Generous One. Amen.”

She rubbed her hands over her wet face and was preparing to go when she suddenly heard someone sobbing not too far from her. She turned to her right and saw a woman crying over a grave. Her black hair touched the ground and hid her face completely. Next to the grave, a big balloon was waving in the wind. Something was printed on it. Aisha read it and was stunned. The white letters materialized the pain of a mother’s heart: Happy birthday, son! “The grave is new. Her wound must be still bleeding,” Aisha thought to herself. “It took two years for mine to cover with a thin layer.”

Aisha went close enough for the woman to sense her presence. The woman stopped crying, looked up, and then tried to stand up, but her knees would not hold her. Aisha reached out her arm and kept the woman from falling. They looked at each other. It felt like looking in the mirror. The same tears formed traces in their faces resembling riverbeds in summer. The same longing to go back in time for one more chance to live the past could be read in every line and wrinkle. A small shiny pendant cross hanging below the woman’s chin caught Aisha’s eye. For a moment, neither spoke. Aisha looked at the cross, becoming aware that the woman was staring at her white scarf. After that short moment of bewilderment, Aisha spoke first.

“I’m Aisha. I just want to let you know that I understand how you feel.”

“You do?” asked the woman.

“Yes, I lost my only son two years ago.” Then with empathy, she added, “It’s OK to cry, and if you need a shoulder you can cry on mine.”

“But how can you…?” The woman could not finish her words as her eyes met the warmth of Aisha’s face. Then something wonderful happened that only angels witnessed. She hugged Aisha and both of them cried. The two women hugged for a long time despite the white scarf, despite the pendant cross. Had they met in a store or at gas station they might not have exchanged anything more than a wry smile, they might have thought that they belonged to different worlds. Yet here they had become indivisible in their maternal pain.

“This place helped me understand better not only my Holy Book,” thought Aisha, “but also my humanity. Praise is to you, God,” she whispered with the delight of someone who has just found a lost friend. The two women, leaning on each other, walked toward the parking lot, realizing with great surprise that the wind was not chilly anymore.

The heart is the home of God; purify it from whatever is other than Him
So that the All-Merciful may descend into His palace at night.

The word “Qalb” (heart) has two meanings. One denotes the body’s most vital organ, which is located on the left side of the chest. With respect to its structure and tissue, the heart is different from all other bodily parts: it has two auricles and two ventricles, is the origin of all arteries and veins, works by itself, like a motor, and, like a suction pump, moves blood through the system.

In Sufi terminology, the spiritual heart is the center of all emotions and (intellectual and spiritual) faculties, such as perception, consciousness, the senses, reasoning, and willpower. Sufis call it the “human truth”; philosophers call it the “speaking selfhood.” An individual’s real nature is found in the heart. With respect to this intellectual and spiritual aspect of existence, one is able to know, perceive, and understand. Spirit is the essence and inner dimension of this faculty; the biological spirit or the soul is its mount.

It is one’s heart that God addresses and it is this that undertakes responsibilities, suffers punishment or is rewarded, is elevated through true guidance or debased through deviation, and is honored or humiliated. The heart is also the “polished mirror” in which Divine knowledge is reflected.

The heart both perceives and is perceived. The believer uses it to penetrate his or her soul, corporeal existence and mind, for it is like the eye of the spirit. Insight may be regarded as its faculty of sight, reason as its spirit, and will as its inner dynamics.

The heart or spiritual intellect, if we may so call it, has an intrinsic connection with its biological counterpart. The nature of this connection has been discussed by philosophers and Muslim sages for centuries. Of whatever nature this connection may be, it is beyond doubt that there is a close connection between the biological heart and the “spiritual” one, which is a Divine faculty, the center of true humanity, and the source of all human feelings and emotions.

In the Qur’an, religious sciences, morals, literature, and Sufism, the word “heart” signifies the spiritual heart. Belief, knowledge and love of God, and spiritual delight are the objectives to be won through this Divine faculty. The heart is a luminous, precious ore with two aspects, one looking to the spiritual world and the other to the corporeal, material world. If an individual’s corporeal existence or physical body is directed by the spirit, the heart conveys to the body the spiritual effusions or the gifts it receives through the world of the spirit, and enables the body to breathe with peace and tranquility.

As stated above, God considers one’s heart. He treats men and women according to the quality of their hearts, as the heart is the stronghold of many elements vital to the believer’s spiritual life and humanity: reason, knowledge, knowledge of God, intention, belief, wisdom, and nearness to God Almighty. If the heart is alive, all of these elements and faculties are alive; if the heart is diseased, it is difficult for the elements and faculties mentioned to remain sound. The truthful and confirmed one, upon him be peace and blessings, declared: There is a fleshy part in the body. If it is healthy, then the whole of the body is healthy. If it is corrupted, then all the body is corrupted. Beware! That part is the heart. This saying shows the importance of the heart for one’s spiritual health.

The heart has another aspect or function, one that is actually more important than those already mentioned: The heart has points of reliance and the seeking of help ingrained in it, as well as in human nature, by which the heart enables the individual to perceive God as the All-Helping and All-Maintaining. That is, the heart always reminds one of God in terms of need, seeking help and protection. This is vividly expressed in a narrated Prophetic Tradition, which Ibrahim Haqqi relates as follows:

God said: “Neither the heavens nor the earth can contain Me.”

He is known and recognized as a “Treasure” hidden in the heart by the heart itself.

The individual’s body is the physical dimension of his or her existence, while one’s heart constitutes its spiritual dimension. For this reason, the heart is the direct, eloquent, most articulate, splendid, and truthful tongue of the knowledge of God. Therefore, it is regarded as more valuable and honored than the Ka‘ba, and accepted as the only exponent of the sublime truth expressed by the whole of creation to make God known.

The heart also is a fortress in which one can maintain sound reasoning and thinking, as well as a healthy spirit and body. As all human feelings and emotions take shelter and seek protection in this fortress, the heart must be protected and kept safe from infection. If the heart is infected, it will be very difficult to restore it; if it dies, it is almost impossible to revive it. The Qur’an, by advising us to pray: Our Lord! Do not cause our hearts to swerve after You have guided us (Al Imran 3:7), and our master, upon him be peace and blessings, by his supplication: O God, O Converter of hearts! Establish our hearts firmly on Your religion, remind us of the absolute need to preserve the heart.

Just as the heart can function as a bridge by which all good and blessings may reach the believer, it can also become a means by which Satanic and carnal temptations and vices can enter. When set on God and guided by Him, the heart resembles a projector that diffuses light to even the furthest, remotest, and darkest corners of the body. If it is commanded by the (inherently evil) self, it can become a target for Satan’s poisonous arrows. The heart is the native home of belief, worship, and perfect virtue; a river gushing with inspiration and radiation arising from the relationships among God, humanity, and the universe. Unfortunately, innumerable adversaries seek to destroy this home, to block this river or divert its course: hardness of heart (losing the ability to feel and believe), unbelief, conceit, arrogance, worldly ambition, greed, excessive lust, heedlessness, selfishness, and attachment to status.

Notes

1. Bukhari, Iman, 39; Muslim, Musaqat, 107.
2. Tirmidhi, Qadar, 7; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 6 vols. (Beirut, 1969), 6:302.

Optimality is defined as the “most favorable condition or greatest degree or amount possible under given circumstances.”¹ It denotes a general equilibrium in which no improvement in one part of a system is possible without a larger sacrifice in another part. Thus, optimality is not mere order; rather, it is the highest state of it. Every optimal state is also orderly, but every orderly situation does not have to be optimal. The houses that we live in are examples of this. It is quite clear that our houses are not the optimal design for a house, but they are still orderly, hence the result of intention and intelligence.

A common trend among today’s evolutionists is to consider apparent sub-optimality (or “poor design” as some put it) sufficient proof for the nonexistence of a designer (hence, God). Biologist Richard Dawkins, for example, contends that “evidence of telling imperfections” in design is important evidence that “no designer exists.”² However, there are serious problems with this argument. First, judgments about optimality require knowledge of the entire set of objectives and available means, whereas we have no complete knowledge of divine objectives as to the creation of anything. The Bible refers to this point in Job 38:4, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Similarly, the Qur’an states, “I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selfs” (Kahf 18:51). As we were not witnesses to the creation of the universe and human beings, we can never confidently say that something is “sub-optimal.” As one political scientist, George Tsebelis, has noted, cases of apparent sub-optimality are in fact cases of disagreement between “the actor” and “the observer”: “while the observer focuses attention on only one game, the actor is involved in a whole network of games”-what he calls nested games.³ What appears sub-optimal from the perspective of only one game is in fact optimal when the whole network of games is considered. Consequently, all conclusions about sub-optimality in the universe are unwarranted because as observers we have no comprehensive vision and understanding regarding God’s plans and objectives, which relate to multiple issues and platforms. Indeed, most sub-optimality arguments regarding creation are based on the assumed objectives of scientists, which do not necessarily correspond with the more complex and comprehensive objectives of God.

The sub-optimality arguments of evolutionists come in two forms: biological and theological. A famous example of the former is the “poor design” argument regarding the “inverted” arrangement of the vertebrate retina.⁴ Several neo-Darwinians have taken issue with the way retina is typically situated in vertebrates. The vertebrate retina is inverted in the sense that the photoreceptors sit at the back of the retina, so that light has to pass through a layer of neurons before it reaches them. Evolutionists have argued that this invertedness results in inefficiency in vertebrate vision, which is sufficient for them to conclude for the nonexistence of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. Yet, later research proved that in return for the above-mentioned negligible loss in vision, the current structure of the vertebrate retina is found to make possible better absorption of excess light⁵ and superior supply of blood to photoreceptors,⁶ both of which are essential for healthy vision. They are so essential that “[i]f the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way around,” concludes Peter Gurney, “the photoreceptors would be left in darkness.”⁷ This brings us to a verse in the Qur’an: “Were the truth to follow their lusts and fancies, the heavens and the earth and all those who live in them would certainly have gone to ruin” (Muminun 23:71).

A prominent example of the theological sub-optimality arguments of the evolutionists is the so-called “problem of evil,” which goes back to Darwin himself in the evolutionist tradition; Darwin had troubles with the apparently cruel acts in the animal world. Some of Darwin’s famous contemporary followers also take “the existence of human evil as well as of natural catastrophes and diseases” to mean that a benevolent God does not exist.⁸ For these evolutionists, the coexistence of evil and good is a sub-optimal situation and this is sufficient proof to reject the idea of a benevolent God. This argument suffers two ailments, though. The first and most ironic one is that the argument itself is more theology than science. From a scientific point of view, the question for which an answer is sought is whether the universe and everything inside it could have come into being by chance or not. The nature of God and how He ought to act are not questions that science seeks answers for. Second, these arguments stem from evolutionists’ own expectations regarding how the things should be, which are bounded by their strictly earthly considerations. When transcendental and other-worldly considerations are also taken into account, the problem almost evaporates into thin air. Throughout history the “problem of evil” (or theodicy) has been debated by hundreds of scholars in almost all religions. The reconciliation of worldly pains and sorrows with the mercy of a benevolent God has been one of the most challenging topics in the history of religion. Scholars of many religions have offered diverging explanations with varying degrees of consistency and persuasiveness. Some Christian explanations for human evil, for example, have rested on God’s wish to love and be loved out of free will. From this point of view, a genuine love requires a genuine free will, which results in evil actions as well good ones.⁹ Muslim scholars have also developed explanations that would account for all types of “evils.” First, similar to the previous Christian argument, human evil is argued to have been allowed for the realization of a genuine relationship between God and human beings. As for other “evils” such as natural catastrophes or diseases, most Muslim scholars do not view them as evils to start with. In the Muslim faith, everything that takes place happens out of a divine wisdom, which ultimately aims at the well-being of a believer in the afterlife. In this line of thinking, an adversity such as a disease can play three main possible divine roles. It is either a punishment for a believer’s sins or misbehavior in this world, which would replace a harsher punishment in the hereafter; or a test to be passed for spiritual development; or a tool to make a believer approach God by increasing his or her supplications meanwhile.¹⁰In each of these cases, the disease is given to the believer with a benevolent wisdom on the part of God. Moreover, some Muslim scholars have pointed out that sick people also remind other healthy people to give many thanks to God for their health, thereby channeling the whole community to the path of God. As such, what evolutionists claim as sub-optimalities are indeed essential parts of the divine plan, and they collectively function for the realization of the ultimate goal of creation. Thus, for Muslims, a disease is a gift of God with an evil face. As the Qur’an states, “it may well be that you dislike something while God has set in it much good” (Nisa 4:19). Again, a holistic view renders sub-optimality arguments unwarranted.

What these examples suggest is that most sub-optimality arguments are premature and assumptive. Proving a “poor design” argument requires more work than many evolutionists believe. Given our lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding the universe, it is safe to believe that we can never be sure whether something is ultimately sub-optimal. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily doom the study of optimality to a state of impasse. Although it is almost impossible to prove the theoretical optimality of things, we can assume tentative practical optimality in cases where we cannot suggest some practical means to improve on existing things. Thus, a practical test of optimality can be replacement of any purportedly sub-optimal thing in the universe with its artificial counterpart that is produced by human beings. If we can manage to replace any sub-optimal part with a better alternative without introducing new sub-optimalities elsewhere, then we might have a right to a tentative claim for sub-optimality. What is interesting is that all human attempts to improve on natural goods have failed so far. A prominent example to these failures is sugar substitutes. After the scientific discovery of the relationship between sugar consumption and certain health problems such as obesity and tooth decay, several scientists have advised that certain, if not all, people should refrain from or minimize sugar consumption. This resulted in a scientific interest in as well as a popular demand for sugar substitutes (or artificial sweeteners) that would give us the same sweet taste without sugar’s adverse effects. Surprisingly though, recent studies have demonstrated that sugar substitutes create more problems than they solve. Sugar-free sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin come with dozens of side effects, some of which are lethal.¹¹ Consequently, an increasing number of dietary experts advise us today to refrain from “diet” products, most of which include artificial sweeteners.¹² Thus, here we might be justified in claiming that natural sugar has practical optimality because it is proven to be superior to all other alternative sweeteners so far. Another prominent example is baby formulas. Despite all improvements in biochemistry, all baby formulas continue to come second after breast milk. Until human beings succeed in producing an infant formula that is overall more nutritious than breast milk and that is inexpensive enough to be produced in mass quantities, we are safe in saying that breast milk has practical optimality.

Finally, I should note that even if any sub-optimality does exist in the universe, it does not by itself provide any evidence for the absence of an all-powerful Creator. True, most believers believe in a God who is perfect in its self or essence and in its creation. Yet, this does not come to mean that any sub-optimality in the universe would necessarily negate the idea of God. From an Islamic point of view, for example, as everything in this life is part of a test, negligible sub-optimality might have also been purposefully included in God’s “design” as a test for human beings. If everything in the observed world was as perfect as each and every one of us would like it to be, there would be little room for disbelieving in God. However, the Qur’an states that this is not something God wished for human beings. Faith requires a struggle; and minimal sub-optimalities (if there are any) might be part of that struggle as well. If one in a thousand parts comes in seemingly sub-optimal character, it is not rational to conclude for the absence of intelligence or design.

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in Political science. He is freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

1. Wordnet Online dictionary: http://dict.die.net/

2. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), p. 91.

3. George Tsebelis, Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics (University of California Press, 1991), pp: 6-7.

4. Dawkins, pp. 93-4.

5. Juan Ramon Martinez-Morales, Isabel Rodrigo, and Paola Bovolenta, “Eye Development: A View from the Retina Pigmented Epithelium.” BioEssays. 26:766-777, 2003.

6. Helga Kolb, “How the Retina Works,” American Scientist, 91:28–35, 2003. 7. Peter W.V. Gurney, Technical Journal, 13(1):37–44, 1999.

8. Massimo Pigliucci, “Design Yes, Intelligent No.” Skeptical Inquirer, September 2001.

9. Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? (Oxford University Press, 1996). Also see, Casey Luskin, Good Theology and Bad Design or Bad Theology and Good Design? http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/722

10. Said Nursi, The Flashes, trans. S. Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 1996), pp: 26, 28, 334–336.

11. Janet Starr Hull, Sweet Poison (New Horizon Press, 1998). Visit author’s website www.sweetpoison.com for detailed information.

12. Michael F. Roizen and Mehmet Oz, You: The Owner’s Manual (Collins, 2005).