The questions on the creation of mankind and the inner workings of the universe have been the primary issues that have had a profound impact on both modern, secular philosophy and traditional religion. Our collective experiences in natural sciences and educational disciplines have taught us that certain models can be developed to help us comprehend the functioning of the universe.

One of the fundamental questions in this respect relates to how a great deal of orderliness and discipline is possible in the universe despite its immense scale. Exploring the potential of this orderliness encourages our curiosity to examine life at the most minuscule level, and some scientists aim to explain this perceived system within the universe via an idea called “the Computational Universe.” In this article we will discuss how this idea can be considered to support the perceptions of monotheistic belief. In scientific literature, the term “computational” refers to anything that possesses any relationship to complex calculations, as various disciplines such as physics, chemistry; the term is used even by the discipline of psychology.

Thanks to relatively recent developments and discoveries in science, we are able to better understand the events in our world and universe. To put it into perspective, humanity was deprived of certainty on the shape of the world up until several centuries ago. However, scientific developments, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries, formed the basis of the stunning technological developments that we live with today. Comparatively, it could be argued that what we know, comprehend, and understand about the universe that we live in is only a small fraction of what the universe actually contains. Continuous developments in science and technology help us understand more and more about the way the universe works. “Our science and applications to space technology have evolved by improving our abilities to measure, test, and analyze physical events and by developing their mathematical models” (Fontana 2005).

As humanity began to uncover some of the codes by which our universe is made to function, we have been using these rules to make our lives easier. This is common human behavior: we learn new things and try to use them to improve our lives. In fact, human technology has advanced so much that we now have machines that can move and function like a nano-universe. Basically, we are giving them a code, a sheet of rules to function in the way we desire. As a result, we are much less dependent on physical labor; for instance, we now can farm with high-tech machines instead of our hands.

New ideas are born with these emerging technologies and with more ease than they were back in the old days; thus we have had a progress at an exponential rate. Looking at all these historical aspects and experience , some scientists conclude that the universe we take part in might be a “mother computation” and all of these things that keep the universe well-oiled and functioning might be parts of codes and commands coming from this mother computation.

The argument does not end at whether we live in a computation or not though. From that point, people who believe that we live in a mother computation split sides, with some providing the explanation that we are real, and this is reality, but controlled by a mother computation. This group argues that everything that happens around us is part of reality, just like we are, but that they function via a code that was inserted into their cores in order for them to work the way their coder wants them to.

The other school of thought challenges the vast majority of conventional theological thought and logic. This argument agrees that we do live in a computation, however that this life is not reality. Events in the universe, including our lives are just a simulation, and we are test subjects.

“Several physicists, cosmologists and technologists are now happy to entertain the idea that we are all living inside a gigantic computer simulation… Our instincts rebel, of course. It all feels too real to be a simulation. The weight of the cup in my hand, the rich aroma of the coffee it contains, the sounds all around me – how can such richness of experience be faked?” (Ball 2016).

Though this idea of a computational universe appears to be new because of the fact that computers and digital simulations appeared only a few decades ago, its origins go back to antiquity. Some of history’s greatest minds, such as Plato and Descartes, have actually provided their views on this concept even without these technologies being present at the time. They questioned reality and dug deep into life and how we perceive everything around us, however their arguments were not widespread among their contemporaries because they had no proofs to support their controversial ideas that challenged everything that people believed.

So, is the universe a mother computer or a giant computer simulation?

It is widely accepted by almost all people that there are principles and rules by which the universe is governed and which we can observe on both the macro and micro levels. Events are considered supernatural or miraculous if they take place outside of these principles. Therefore, scientific findings may allow us to develop a deeper appreciation for the “computational” orderliness that can be found in our universe among the orbits of the planets down to the multitude of complex ecosystems that exist across our world in a variety of different biomes.

Religious traditions

From the perspective of monotheistic religions, it is believed that the Creator creates and pursues everything with an order in the universe, which allows the universe to keep working in a perfect balance. The universe’s orderliness, especially that which occurred during its creation, is stressed profoundly in the holy books. For example, it is stated in Genesis 1-2 that the creation of the entire universe occurred in “six days,” and this process was described day by day in the relevant verses. This implies a certain order in the development of events during the creation of the universe.

A certain orderliness is also clearly declared in the Qur’an: “He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth … has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination” (2:25). Today, the scientific community explains this order and design in the universe with concepts such as the “Anthropic Principle.” According to this principle, the universe possesses such perfect features that it could not have arisen by chance without purpose. The situation can be understood more thoroughly if major examples of design existing in the universe are briefly examined. Doing so, we will find out several aspects of this principle that we encounter in our daily lives, which in turn will lead us to further understand God’s complex creation of the universe.

Based upon the evidence that some scientists have shown that a starter leads off, like a coder writes codes, in order for the universe to function correctly and in a perfect continuity, the faithful of religious traditions might reasonably suggest that this entire universe is just like a computer created by the Creator who continuously controls it by constantly creating new every moment for it to function as the codes are based on His commands. This rationale is the essence of and consistent with not only monotheistic religions but also in many ways with other belief systems.

Overall, the concept of a “mother computation” placed on duty in the functioning of our universe is not just a singular subject but instead a comprehensive set of ideas people have focused deeper. While, according to some, there is indication for the universe being a reality and being controlled by a “computer,” according to others, there might also be indication for how the universe could also just be a simulation. A team of physicists working at the University of Bonn claim that they have come up with a measurable way of showing that our universe is indeed “simulated” (Yirka 2012). The main focus of their paper is that in order to create a simulation of our universe, there has to be a three-dimensional framework to represent real world objects and processes. But the problem is, this paper is based on only what we know of reality today. This means that an exact copy of our universe would be impossible to create until the end of time, when we have all the knowledge that the universe presents us with – the entire idea splits right at this point.

Religion also becomes a separate argument along with these two different beliefs. Monotheistic religions believe in an Almighty God, who creates ex nihilo and put things in order in a perfectly “computed” order. God, in these traditions, are also believed to sustain all the existence by constant governance; as a matter of fact, everything is an outcome of the manifestation of God’s names and attributes – nothing comes out outside of His Divine realm and authority.

With there being many more religious traditions and philosophical approaches in this world, many different ideas can emerge as possible theories. In regard to the idea of the world being a computation, scientific theoreticians cannot definitively know for sure whether we live in a computational or fundamental reality, and do not speculate on who might be the one who programs this computer that way. Religious traditions, however, take one more step and claim if there is a computation, then there must be an agent who makes it possible and wills the world to be as it is rather than something else. Otherwise, claiming the universe to be a mother computer on its own would be no different than believing in nature to be the creator of everything, as opposed to nature itself being a created being.

While the computational model seems to support the arguments of believers in terms of explaining that there is an established order in the universe and that this order operates within certain laws and rules created and maintained by a creator in a perfect continuity, thinkers and philosophers may come up with different explanations in their own words and formulations to understand creation and life as we know it.

The mysteries of the universe offer us an expansive space to bring about the best of our rational and spiritual capacities, so our existence in this life becomes a meaningful one.

References

• Giorgio Fontana. “Why we live in the Computational Universe,” https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511157.pdf.
• Philip Ball. 5 September “We might live in a computer program, but it may not matter” http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter.
• Bob Yirka. 2012. “Is it real? Physicists propose method to determine if the universe is a simulation,” Phys.org.

The single biggest problem regarding mathematics and the sciences is motivating younger students to study them.

While the United States excels at welcoming people from all over the world to travel to the U.S. and study science and math, the number of aspiring mathematicians at universities is decreasing. About only 2% of all students in America that pursue a bachelor’s degree are in the fields of mathematics or other physical sciences. On top of that, roughly 48% of students studying a STEM field in a bachelor’s program, and 69% of students pursuing an associate’s degree, changed majors or exited college before earning their degree [1]. One possible explanation for this is the reputation that math has for being boring, uninteresting, and complicated. However, there could hardly be a better time to become a mathematician.

I was watching a documentary about deserts with my 2 year old. At first, she found the documentary to be boring because the desert appeared to be bland and void of life. Then, the screen started showing the lively and colorful aspects of a desert including its oases, various cacti, and small creatures. She was shocked that the arid desert could possess so much color, life, and intrigue. It reminded me of my feelings towards mathematics. For some people, mathematics seems like a dry and dull subject that makes little sense. However, it too becomes full of life and color once one looks in the right places and from the correct perspective.

Ten years ago, the Wall Street Journal ranked jobs based upon a number of parameters such as salary, freedom, the possibility of promotion, and ease of employment. It may surprise you to find out that being a mathematician was ranked as the number one job in the world! [2] Career Cast, a company that started as a spin-off for this kind of ranking in 1988, also ranked mathematician as the number one job in 2014 [3].

In job advertisements, the definition of a mathematician is somebody who applies mathematical theories and formulas to teach or solve problems in a business, educational, or industrial setting. In other words, a mathematician is someone who insists on solving problems, which is what mathematics was invented for. However, a crucial point is missing from this description. There are mathematicians who not only teach or apply mathematics but do math, generate math, and change math.

If a mathematician is one of the best jobs in the world, how many mathematicians are there around the world? Thankfully, it is in the hundreds of thousands: almost 250,000, and it is growing every year, particularly in India and China [4]. These countries encourage their children to participate in STEM fields from a young age and place a very high emphasis upon education that can help foster a love for STEM careers at a young age.

Although mathematics is the science in which theorems last for a long time, it is also a field that is being renewed constantly. There are not many other subjects in which knowledge can last thousands of years and always remain both correct and relevant. For instance, the theorems of Euclid, a Greek mathematician who lived in the third century BC, are still accurate today. If we look at the modern applications of computer science and mathematics we see that people are still applying the contributions of Laplace about the central limit theorem, using the contributions of Shannon in sampling, and applying Fourier’s ideas about signal analysis and signal processing. Paradoxically, mathematics is ancient and contemporary at the same time.

In 2014, Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University gave a short speech about how he had collaborated with medical doctors and mathematicians, and used Fourier’s ideas in analysis and data processing, to drastically reduce the time needed to develop a scan [5]. His machine was a significant evolution for the medical field. In experiments, it was shown that to reconstruct images with the best accuracy, they need to have only 2% of the Fourier transform. Candes managed to reduce this time by a factor of eight by knowing only a very small portion of the Fourier transform. Netflix also uses this technology for reconstructing missing information and predicting the preferences of users for movies.

However, the life of a mathematician is not always full of success. The field is full of uncertainty, intense problem solving that can often take weeks or even months, and waiting. Most of a mathematician’s time as a researcher is spent in failure. That is an objective fact. A common motto is, “Every day is a failure. This is our life.” But when we look back on the amount of time that is spent solving these problems, everything pays off. Every year, the number of new theorems added in mathematics runs into the thousands. Failures are not actually failures, but merely bumps along the path of progress.

Another common problem that befalls mathematicians is that they will be expected to perfectly predict what will happen should their discovery work as intended. This is especially true of work done under the auspices of government agencies, since they will often not grant money without a very clear path towards a desired outcome. Things do not always go as planned, and thus it can be challenging to argue that a desired result will occur 100% of the time.

Despite these drawbacks, one of the most exciting aspects of mathematics is the potential to discover something revolutionary and groundbreaking. History has shown that the ideas and discoveries of one individual can make a tremendous difference in the world. By encouraging and enabling more and more students to study math and science, we thus increase the odds that more discoveries, be they groundbreaking or not, will continue to be made in the future.

Alan Turing was a mathematician who had an outsized impact on human history. He was instrumental in cracking the secret codes that were used by the Nazis during the Second World War. Some have argued that World War II would have lasted at least two more years without Turing’s intervention. In particular, the Normandy operation would have been impossible. What was Turing’s motivation? It was not patriotism, honor, or a strong duty to his country. It was simple: his main motivation was solving riddles and difficult problems. He lived for the thrill of solving his next big challenge.

Paul Erdos, a Hungarian, was the most productive mathematician of the 20th century. Erdos had no home, no car, no bank account, and no salary. He lived with just one suitcase and his ideas. He worked on theorems his entire life. When he got some money from some reward, he would always use part of it to put a reward on another theorem.

Leo Szilard was another revolutionary mathematician. He was the first person to understand the concept of chain reactions between atoms. His inspiration came from a public lecture, in which famed physicist Ernest Rutherford said, “It would be moonshine talking if you are willing to extract energy from the atom.” Rutherford acknowledged that energy existed within atoms but thought it was impossible to do anything with it. Szilard felt that Rutherford was wrong and decided to prove it. He worked and thought for days. And one day, while he was crossing a street in London, he was struck with an idea about the principle of chain reaction and exponential growth of atomic energy. This lead to him eventually meeting with Albert Einstein and the subsequent development of the Manhattan Project.

Steps in developing ideas

But how do scientists find those perfect ideas? What are the steps? Henri Poincare gives us some hints about how the ideas were coming to him. Poincare, who was always considered a genius, experienced many discoveries after working very hard on the problem and he had a lot of failures. He said: “Disgusted from my failure, I went to spend a few days near the sea thinking anything else. And one day, while walking on the cliff, the idea came to me. And as before, it was very brief, sudden, with immediate certainty, that arithmetic transforms of indefinite ternary quadratic forms are identical to those of non-Euclidean geometry.”

So, under which circumstances does a big idea come? In popular culture, we have those myths like Newton saw an apple falling down and changed the world. But in real life, it’s not the way it happens. For Poincare’s example, the cliff has nothing to do with quadratic forms. Poincare was saying that he worked very hard and then he decided to rest a little bit, and finally, he had the enlightening moment. What is important here is if the brain had not been prepared by hard work, the illuminating idea wouldn’t have struck.

So what is the process of discovery?

Of course, a publication will be the last step for the discovery of an idea. Because publication means that the idea is out and going to be seen and read by the world. But before that, we have many steps or ingredients which make our idea stand up on its feet.

1. Fecundation

The first step is fecundation. In other words, conversations and discussions you have with your colleagues. Your interaction has a potential to bring about a new phase, a new idea out of different projects. It may take months or years to decide what you want to prove.

2. Documentation

Documentation is built upon previous research and insights. We may need to document things from several centuries ago or from recent times. Nowadays, all information is stored in computers and the internet, which makes this step easier than before.

3. Motivation

Motivation is the most important ingredient when we pursue a discovery. Psychologists believe that childhood experiences play a big role. For instance, both Szilard and Turing’s lives were strongly influenced by a book they read before they found their ideas. In the case of Turing, the book Natural Wonders Every Child Should Know was his inspiration. When I was a child, I watched “Donald in Mathmagic Land” and thought it was fascinating. It might have played a big role in my choice to become a mathematician.

4. Ecosystem

A discovery or an idea never arrives on its own. A scientist is never alone and there is a whole ecosystem around them. For instance, at one point in history, Persepolis was the most innovative city in the world. Then it was Paris, and then Budapest. Today, we have the well-known Silicon Valley.

If you are working in a lab, you need to have an atmosphere where people can meet, discuss, and be creative. A good idea comes from teamwork.

5. Constraints

The next ingredient that you need for a good idea is constraints. Without constraints, discovering new ideas is not as likely as when there are. Rigorous findings come about mostly with constraints. One of the most famous problems in mathematics is the Riemann hypothesis, which was tested in thousands of experiments. After those experiments, the proof was only a set of logical rules with constraints. Constraints usually help generate authentic results and artistic quality as in rhyming poems.

6. Intuition

Intuition usually comes together with hard work, yet it is not easy to understand its process.

In addition to these six ingredients, whether one has good fortune or not also plays an important role. It is human condition that things may not come out as we like although we might have done everything necessary.

Henri Poincare says, “Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything.” Yet, a big idea might take years of work. Still, even after working so hard, our knowledge is like a tiny island in an ocean of unknown. We know almost nothing, but this is such a precious nothing, because that that knowledge came out of the richness of the thought of many people and their efforts. There are still so many ideas just waiting for us to discover them.

Mathematics, like many scientific fields, is an infinite universe with an infinite amount of problems waiting to be discovered and solved. Their applications within our world are endless, and the possibilities to use these results to create real change in our world are also endless. One tends to ask, is math a stand-alone, abstract concept while its vast horizons of knowledge explains the intricacies of our universe, or does it imply an infinitely bigger wisdom from which this abstract knowledge rises from and that relates to our existence? We must continue to motivate students to study math so that they may fall in love with it and continue to develop humanity.

References

1. United States, Congress, Chen, Xianglei, and Matthew Soldner. “STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.” STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields, National Center for Education Statistics, Nov. 2013. nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf.
2. Needleman, Sarah E. “Doing the Math to Find the Good Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 7 Jan. 2009, www.wsj.com/articles/SB123119236117055127.
3. “Jobs Rated 2014: Ranking 200 Jobs from Best To Worst.” CareerCast.com, CareerCast.com, 9 Mar. 2017, www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/jobs-rated-2014-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst.
4. “Mathematics Genealogy Project.” Welcome! – The Mathematics Genealogy Project, genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/
5. Emmanuel J. Candes. “Mathematics of sparsity (and a few other things), August 14, 2014, Seoul. ICM2014 VideoSeries PL3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-b4aDGsbJk

Quite obviously, divine humor is not by me, as the title and byline may imply. I also sense a few wrinkled brows among our readers. Can humor be divine? The question is not unreasonable: the prophets of our Lord certainly had little to laugh about. Moreover, religion has hardly been the stuff to engender a smile or a giggle.

Enter the Dalai Lama, who is seen to giggle a great deal. One wonders why. A plausible answer could be that His Royal Highness is exceedingly nervous in the face of an impossible world. Hence the giggle. I also have a delightful book on my shelves by one Christmas Humphries. It is all about Zen Buddhism. Mr. Humphries offers a dedication to his wife who, I quote, “laughed in all the right places.” Mr. Humphries informs us of the concept of the sound of one hand clapping and we are reminded of our own Queen Elizabeth who exercises the notion at all times as she waves regally to her subjects when out driving in her state carriage. She may be giving half measure, but her subjects respond with two hands in full.

But divine humor…? Why not? We are informed that God is the sponsor of all life and all endeavor; thus, why not, indeed, divine humor?

It has occurred to this writer that we may wish to consider divine charisma. Naturally, one cannot actually purchase divine charisma, and nor can one use magic to conjure it up! However, and please bear with me, I would suggest, nay insist, that one can be instrument in manifesting it.

My explanation may hopefully point to something we adults are happy to make – or at least bring on a smile.

I speak, here, of babies, and would contend that they could easily lead us to a point of enlightenment.

Being a parent is in reality about as high as you can consciously go. I say in reality because we are talking about involvement with another human being. This not about me; this is about we. This means you, the aspirant, and your baby, your spiritual teacher.

I’ve been thinking about Zen. Don’t worry, that was the cosmic giggle you just heard, too. Zen is about doing what you do. Am I right? George Bernard Shaw’s, “He who can does, he who cannot, teaches,” just about sums it up (not that you are supposed to sum things up, but even so…). Forget teachers and teaching. Shaw obviously didn’t mean them, or that. GBS was into Zen, but he didn’t know it. The Japanese Zen master, Dr. Suzuki, may have been enlightened but could not have put it better. On the other hand, Dr. Suzuki would probably not have bothered.

Please consider the advantage of transcending this world. Your baby could help.

Obedience is the keyword, but it will go against the grain. Nobody wants to be obedient. We figure that to have a life, we need an opinion; we need to call the shots. But if having babies is what you do, you need to rethink, maybe unthink, the rules.

Did you ever consider obeying your baby?

“What can he mean?” you will be forgiven for asking. But that’s the point. Your baby is already working on you and is getting you nicely softened and shaped. Already your brain is dissolving in a mental meltdown. Suddenly you are feeling about things. Thinking is sort of a long way away, like your thoughts are down a deep well. You are no longer really thinking at all. It’s suddenly all a ghost-like echo of things learned, and all pretty irrelevant at that. Congratulations! You have a head that is full, however, of awful awareness. The trick is to turn the awfulness into positive action.

You are suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Awareness. You watch your baby because, let’s be honest, you can’t drag your eyes away, anyway. And that goes for visitors, too. Everybody is suddenly on their best behavior when a baby is nigh. Ladies utter goo-goo stuff, waggling fingers. Men stand around in the background, awkwardly, looking worried, thinking about doing a second job. The baby is socking out waves of something or other that is indefinable but real. This is charisma of the highest order. The baby has caught your attention, has got you focused and it isn’t even trying. One lopsided toothless grin, and you are going to fall apart. Your baby has got God on his or her side.

Somebody once said, “The real children of God know not what they do.”

Here is the message. Imagine your baby carrying that kind of charisma right on into adulthood. Well, we have all probably countenanced the notion of never growing up. But could you accept the idea that babies are already grown up, and that we adults have sometimes (sorry about this) simply hung around, done maturity in reverse, and accumulated a lot of juvenile junk?

It goes like this. You are gazing at your baby and you hate the idea of your baby growing up and having all of those “experiences” that the experts tell you are necessary for someone to become old and adjusted. An old Hindi proverb puts it thus: “Living life through experience is the most bitter of ways.” It means you are constantly reaching back into the past to find answers for today. Come on, can you imagine your baby smoking a cigarette? Do you want your baby to experience hardship, divorce, anger, being overweight? Do you want your baby to use bad language, or become a neighborhood flirt, or a kid who steals cars?

As an aside, this is not just social criticism I’m putting out because I must quickly state that this writer is as guilty as the rest in respect of just about all of the areas of human misdemeanor mentioned above. I feel better already.

OK, you don’t want your baby to have or experience all of the crud that makes life difficult. You don’t want your baby to smoke a cigarette because the idea is appalling. This is your baby’s way of telling you to stop smoking. Moreover, the baby hasn’t uttered a word. Hey, if that isn’t Zen, what then? It is all because your baby is not communicating in the usual way. Your baby has touched your feelings, nay, even your conscience. Babies are holy, that’s all. But they don’t know that they are holy and that makes them even holier.

Babies make us aware of what is bad for us. One exchange with a mystic I read went like this: “Do you love humankind?” asked the mystic. “Indeed I do,” replied the aspirant. “Then why,” said the mystic, “do you treat yourself so badly?”

What is happening, if you go along with the idea, is that the baby is helping you to clean up your act. This, by any reckoning has to be good. But there is an ongoing issue at stake and it is extremely appealing. If you can clean up your act you won’t have to give your baby any crud, or unmanageable appetites, later.

Right! Obey your baby and get transcended. Your in-laws may hate you, but you will not be adding a jot of personal chaos to our world. Your baby will grow up loving you, even if you don’t deserve it.

One thing I would counsel: never, ever, try to let your baby know what you know. Your baby won’t get it because a baby’s outflow of charisma is not of his or her own volition. Pressed to converse (assuming your baby has acquired a language before leaving the cot), the retort would be, “Oh, this is simply what I do.”

It all means that charisma from the right source, and exercised in a natural—may I suggest baby-like—way, could be the stuff of salvation.

We are all aware of the danger of walking the thin line between satire and sarcasm. Much of what we call humor is of the mind. It is calculated and often alludes to, and takes advantage of, the failings of others. One senses the sly wink and nudge when allusion is used. The certainty that the recipient of humor is part of the act, is in collusion. In such a case we become allies in negativity.

To be honest, a baby may not definitely make us laugh, although they often do, but they can easily bring about the rosy warmth that we love, which is, of course, the result of love. We are no longer talking about a jokey existence, but we must agree that a baby can lighten our day. A baby can, even, make humor possible. Babies have that special something that soon, unfortunately, gets lost to adults. Moreover, and as already mentioned, they don’t know that they are doing it. It means that their charisma must be the benefit of grace.

With this realization, skepticism has the potential to become an inconvenience and, at its most extreme, a debilitating disorder of mammoth proportions. An example of the inconvenience of skepticism might look like this: Imagine you are looking to buy a new car from a car dealer you are unfamiliar with. The cars he sells all look to be in great condition, and the man himself seems honest enough. However, because of your skeptical nature you are not entirely sure about the quality of these cars and you ultimately decide not to buy one. Because of this, you end up missing an opportunity to own a great new car at an affordable price due to unwarranted suspicion, stemming from an overly skeptical worldview.

What does it mean to be “overly” skeptical? There are times when skepticism is warranted and even necessary. If you were to notice some odd or shifty behavior from the car salesman, for example, you would be prudent and wise to take a second to doubt the quality of the vehicles he is selling. However, problems arise when you are skeptical in the absence of any evidence to suggest that what you perceive is not in reality what one thinks it is. Is there a remedy for the soul who is afflicted with constant doubt about the world and the intentions of those in it? Is there a cure for the mind that is never satisfied with its ignorance, and wishes to know the truth and reality behind all events in the universe?

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, a twentieth-century Islamic scholar, answers in the Risale-i Nur with an affirmative “yes,” and says that having an idea of God in one’s life is sufficient to address the concerns of skepticism.

Born in 1877, in an Anatolian village in the city of Bitlis, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in Turkish history, witnessing the end of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the secular Turkish republic under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Nursi’s own life was equally tumultuous. Under the young republic’s Kemalist ideology, Nursi was routinely held by police, unjustly tried in court, and forced to live in states of exile. Despite these hardships, Nursi never deviated from his message of faith and peace, and managed to compile his incredibly influential Risale-i Nur collection.

What does Bediuzzaman Said Nursi have to say about skepticism? We should first look at Nursi’s attitude towards modern science. Said Nursi emphasized contemporary scientific achievements, and used religious and scientific terminologies together. This indicates that he supported and accepted the positive and metaphysical sciences. One of his fundamental ideas was how religious and modern scientific knowledge should complement and support each other, rather than come into conflict. In the following quote, we’ll see the importance he places on both sciences, and how skepticism is a result of a lack of the religious sciences:

“The light of the conscience is the religious sciences (ulum-u diniye). The light of the mind is the modern sciences (funun-u medeniye). Combining both manifests the truth. The student’s skills develop further with these two (sciences). When they are separated, the former breeds superstition and the latter breeds corruption and skepticism” (from Munazarat, in ibid., 2:1956).

To further the study, we will examine what Said Nursi says about the relationship between man and God. Nursi writes that belief, knowledge, and worship of God are the ultimate purpose of existence, and that these are our innate and original duties. Therefore, belief in God is the highest aim of creation. According to Nursi, because of these facts, which complement each other, human beings can only find true happiness and serenity through belief. This idea of finding inner peace through belief in God is a very important component of the Risale, and although Said Nursi does not speak to skepticism directly, this idea can address skeptical concerns about knowledge and the world. More specifically, it is when a person puts their full trust in God that he or she can stop worrying about their burdens in this world.

Said Nursi writes about putting one’s trust in God in the part of the Risale-i Nur known as The Words. He explains this concept in the Twenty-third Word, in the Third Point. Nursi writes that belief in God is both light and power, in that those who have true belief can be relieved from the pressure of events. Since they entrust their burdens to God’s Absolute Power, they travel through the world without fear and misery. Nursi writes that belief consists of affirming Divine Unity, which requires submitting to God. Submitting fully to God requires relying on Him, which will yield happiness in this world.

Nursi cautions that relying on God in this manner does not mean that one should ignore the relationship between cause and effect, but rather one should view cause and effect as veils covering Divine Power’s hand. For example, in order to earn a high score on a final exam for school, we shouldn’t only sit back and pray to God, but we should also study for the exam. He writes that observing the laws of cause and effect is actually a type of worship through seeking to comply with Divine Will. However, this kind of desire and seeking of results is not enough for us to get what we want. According to Nursi, we should understand that, with the right belief, the result we want can only be expected from God, because He is the sole producer of effects.

Said Nursi further explains this concept by use of an allegorical argument. The parable goes as follows: once, two people boarded a ship, each carrying heavy loads on their backs. One man immediately put his burden on the deck of the ship after boarding and sat on it to keep it safe. The other man refused to lay down his cargo, even after being told to do so. He feared that it might get lost, and felt that he was strong enough to carry it himself. His friend told him that the ship was stronger and could hold it better, and also that by holding onto his burden, his strength would eventually fail him. Additionally, if the captain of the ship would see him, he might think he was ungrateful or insane to be carrying that burden by himself. And so he was convinced to lay down his burden and he found relief at last. Said Nursi writes that putting trust in God delivers one from being fearful of things in life, similar to how the men in the boat put down their burdens and stopped worrying about them.

What does any of this have to do with skepticism? Let us recall the problems associated with living a life of skepticism. When a person has an unhealthy amount of skepticism, he or she can no longer be sure about things that should otherwise not concern them. This type of skepticism is like a kind of paranoia, a type of phobia. We saw earlier that Said Nursi views this sort of skepticism as a result of a lack of the religious sciences. By extension, this means that a lack of trust in a Benevolent and Wise God can be responsible for this skepticism. Completely trusting in God first requires one to believe that God has Absolute Power over cause and effect. If one believes that God controls cause and effect completely, and if one believes that everything God wills is for the best purpose and wisest reason, then one has no reason to worry about the things one cannot know for certain, because those matters are entrusted to God’s control.

Said Nursi also writes in the Twenty-Fifth Word, Second Station, about evil thoughts and involuntary suggestions that may come to people. He first quotes a verse from the Qur’an:

“O Lord, I take refuge in You from the evil suggestions of the satans, and I take refuge in You, O my Lord, lest they attend me” (23:97-98).

Nursi has this to say about involuntary evil thoughts: the person who is afflicted with these thoughts and fancies is in an unfortunate state. The more one thinks about them, the more they grow. If one ignores them, they will shrink away; but if one exaggerates them, they will loom large in one’s life. If one fears them, they will make one sick; but if one does not fear them, they will become hidden.

This approach is relevant with regards to skeptical worries. One can observe that the only people who tend to worry about whether we can ever have knowledge with 100 certainty are philosophers. Most people are free of this type of worry. Most people, for example, wouldn’t think to question whether they are awake or asleep at this moment in time. If we see a tomato, we shouldn’t worry about the fact that we cannot see every aspect of the tomato at once; this shouldn’t lead us to question whether what we see is in fact a tomato. Nursi’s advice to philosophers is that we should stop worrying about the 0.01 of knowledge we can never obtain, and instead put our full trust in God, Who has Absolute Knowledge, Wisdom, and control over the world. If God wills it, the tomato will turn out to be a tomato, and if not, it is not the end of the world. Nursi would probably also say not to worry about whether the car salesman is trying to rip you off. If it so happens that you bought a lemon, you should remember that God willed it to happen for a reason you may not yet understand.

On a final note, I can share a related story. About a year ago, I was playing paintball with some friends. We were at a park in the woods. The field was very large, and I went into a thick patch of brush and was quickly lost. After stumbling around for a bit, I emerged in a wide open area, and right in front of me I saw a strange sight: I had somehow ended up behind what I thought was the enemy team. I slowly crept forward, waiting until I was in a prime position to attack. I finally stopped, but I hesitated. And in that moment of hesitation I heard the whistle blow to end the match. I was dismayed at such a wasted opportunity. However, as I sulked back to my team, I soon realized that I had come perilously close to making a massive fool of myself. It turns out that I had bumbled onto an entirely different match with different teams. How differently I viewed the situation after just a few moments! In place of despair, I felt a huge wave of relief wash over me.

While it’s true that if I had taken the time to question my surroundings I might not have almost made myself look silly, in this case I would say there was a good reason for skepticism, which was the fact that I had gotten lost. If we have no reason to be skeptical about something we shouldn’t try to create reasons to be skeptical. This was the moment in my life where I clearly saw with my own eyes that sometimes things can happen that we may be upset about and appear to be bad for us, but in the long run they may actually turn out to be good. Because of this we should not worry too much about the outcomes of things out of our control, because they are all ultimately in God’s control.

These situations entail the psychology of morality-an intriguing and growing topic of study. Significant and insightful research has been completed in an attempt to understand more about morality from a psychological perspective. Many questions have been raised in the realm of morality and ethics, such as: How do people think about morality? What are people’s concepts of a moral person? How do people apply morality in conflict and their everyday lives?

In psychologists’ attempts to answer these questions, we learn more about mankind as a whole and about our own individual selves. This article will summarize some of the most prominent studies in the field of morality psychology and use these perspectives to help attain a better understanding of who a moral person is and what they do.

Exploring differences in moral foundations between political liberals and conservatives is one interesting area of research in the psychology of morality. Graham, et al. (2009) established a definition of a moral foundation as consisting of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The researchers found that political liberals were likely to chiefly judge a moral situation along the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity aspects, while conservatives were more likely to use all aspects equally. The results of this study seem to agree with the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. Considering that conservatives are less receptive to changes in political policies and culture, it makes sense that they would place a high value on the authority of a government, and also that they would give more weight to protecting their in-group from outside influences. This ideology may in turn stem from a Hobbesian worldview (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679) in that everyone is at the most basic level self-interested, and therefore they must protect their own interests from the interests of others.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to go against the authority of the government or in-group concerns if they felt a moral injustice was being committed. This may be one reason why conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of not being patriotic.

As for the purity/sanctity condition, there is some doubt as to whether it can really be considered a moral facet. Conservatives seem to think that this is the case, but liberals on the other hand give nearly zero consideration to aspects of purity during moral judgments, as it seems to be an unrelated concept. Additionally, this idea may explain why conservatives tend to be against gay marriage, while liberals are more likely to support gay relationships.

Before moving on, let me pose another question: which action is more moral, volunteering time in a soup kitchen or keeping your vow to your wife not to go to the racetrack and gamble on payday?

Now we turn our attention to an enlightening study by Janoff-Bulman, et al. (2009) that analyzed morality in a different way: by categorizing it into two distinctive types, prescriptive and proscriptive. Prescriptive morality has a commendatory and encouraging nature, and it is characterized by taking positive action and the question what one should do to be moral. Proscriptive morality is more commanding and punishing in its aspects, and it is characterized by preventing negative action and the question what one should not do to prevent immorality. The distinction between the two can be states as helping versus not harming.

The researchers provide evidence for these two different types of morality in their studies. For example, in one experiment, participants were asked to describe what they thought it meant to be-depending on the manipulation-either moral or immoral. They had correctly predicted that proscriptive morality tended to have more concrete and defined language, so as to assist its adherents in knowing exactly what actions are wrong. Prescriptive morality’s language was more abstract so as to include more possible right actions.

It was also found that people were more disapproving when someone committed forbidden acts as opposed to someone failing to perform righteous acts. This finding-that it is generally more objectionable to see an overtly immoral act than to see a failure to commit a positive act-is strong evidence for the prescriptive/proscriptive distinctions of morality.

There are many more questions about morality researchers are asking. For instance, what lies behind the rationalization of a racist behavior or attitude? How are people’s moral principles influenced by the particular identity of the individuals involved? Uhlmann, et al. (2009) examined these topics. Most of us tend to think of ourselves as having a relatively stable moral standing, but this study showed that for most people, this simply is not the case. People were presented with different moral dilemmas that measured if they would support either a consequentialist solution or a deontological solution to the dilemma. According to the researchers’ hypothesis, changing some details of the scenario could influence people’s preference for either consequentialism (the idea that it is permissible to commit an action that would normally be considered immoral for the benefit of the greater good) or deontology (the idea that there are some actions that are morally wrong under any and all circumstances); this is in fact what they observed.

They observed that political liberals were more likely to sacrifice a white man to save a black group of people and less likely to sacrifice a black man to save a white group. The reverse effect was observed for conservatives in that they were more willing to sacrifice a black man to save a white group and vice versa. They also found that conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of Iraqi civilians by American forces than the unintentional killing of American civilians by Iraqi armed forces.

These results provides a striking example of how people’s moral concepts can change when the specifics of those involved in the moral equation change, which in turn suggests that people value some lives more than others. Conservatives, in particular, seem to value people who are part of the in-group over people who are not. This study also suggests that liberals may actually devalue in-group members in an attempt to maintain a non-racist morality.

Another major question is how do religious concepts and the knowledge that one’s actions are being judged affect how people behave morally? The following study (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) asked participants to play a game that would measure their generosity towards total strangers. The researchers discovered that people who were primed with words relating to God and religion were more generous on average than those who received no priming. The researchers also found that priming people with secular concepts of moral institutions had the same effect.

These results provide strong evidence that people will try to act more morally if they have some idea in the back of their minds, whether conscious or not, about being judged in some manner for their moral actions. This does not have to apply exclusively to religious concepts, as the results of this study show. As a matter of fact, related research conducted by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) showed that just the indirect suggestion of being judged by other people was enough to reproduce this effect-an increase in moral behavior. Specifically, they saw a three-fold increase in the amount paid for drinks supplied on an honor system when the image associated with payment resembled human eyes versus a control image. Apparently, a pair of eyes is enough to trigger a conscious or subconscious idea of being watched and judged.

What is known about the neural activity of the brain itself with regards to moral judgments? What roles do cognitive and emotional processes in the brain play in thinking about morality? Greene et al. (2004) conducted detailed biological mapping of brain neuronal activity of individuals during their thought processes that went along with solving hypothetical moral dilemmas. It was observed that areas in the brain associated with abstract reasoning and cognitive control-regions noted included the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex-were found to be more active during very difficult moral judgments where utilitarian resolutions require violation of personal moral convictions. They concluded from their work that utilitarian moral judgments rely more on cognitive processes and abstract thinking, whilst more personal moral judgments relied primarily on social-emotional processes.

This is good evidence for two different types of moral processing-cognitive or more logical, and emotional or more personal. During this study, Greene and colleagues also considered the degree of personal relatedness of a scenario with the likelihood of utilitarian resolution, and therefore the associated cognitive processes and abstract-thinking brain regions. They looked at what happens when you alter the classic moral dilemma of the runaway trolley car (Thomson, 1986) by making it either more personal or less personal. It was observed that people were more likely to engage in utilitarian calculations when the harm was less personal-in the case, that involved pulling a lever to kill a person-as opposed to when harm was more personal, in the case requiring pushing someone off of a bridge.

Morality is often connected to religion and religious values, and a natural topic to investigate is the role that sacred values may play in moral psychology. Ginges et al. (2007) examined the Israeli-Palestine conflict in an attempt to answer the question of how sacred values are involved in the resolution of political conflicts. The researchers wanted to shed some light on several issues related to sacred values in political conflict – namely, how do instrumental incentives, such as monetary gain, affect compromise with sacred values?

Interestingly, they observed that adding instrumental incentives to hypothetical deals involving the forfeiting of some sacred value actually made the subjects who held sacred values more opposed to and outraged about compromise than if they simply offered the compromise on its own. They also found that these people were less opposed to compromise if the deal also stipulated that the opposing party would give up one of their own sacred rights.

These results are important in that they show how radically different sacred values are from instrumental values. Sacred values are, for the most part, non-negotiable, except in the cases mentioned above, and it seems as though the idea of offering something of instrumental value in an attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable only serves as an insult to those who hold these sacred values. It is only when some other sacred value is offered up that we see some willingness to compromise, suggesting that sacred values cannot be compared with instrumental values, but they can be compared to other sacred values. Because of this, one may wonder whether sacred values can really be considered truly uncontestable, as opposed to simply a different type of value that is not comparable with more material principles.

An important side of the psychology of morality concerns how people perceive the moral legitimacy of authority under different circumstances. More specifically, how much of a moral investment do the participants have in the moral issues. The researchers Skitka, et al. (2009) correlated an individual’s general degree of moral conviction with how much they either supported or agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted suicide in 2006 that prevented the Attorney General from prosecuting doctors in Oregon who operated under state law. It was discovered that the degree of moral investment a person had about this decision increased the variance of people’s perception of the legitimacy of authority. More specifically, people who supported the decision with high moral conviction more strongly supported the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction, and people against the decision with high moral conviction more strongly opposed the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction.

These results are strong evidence for the idea that our perceived legitimacy of authority is intimately tied with our moral conviction on the issues that matter most to us. In other words, if the government made a ruling that we did not agree with, but did not care much about (for example, the ruling that pizza is a vegetable), we wouldn’t have much reason to deny the legitimacy of the government. However, decisions made about issues we have a strong moral standing on tend to either strongly reinforce or strongly undermine the perceived legitimacy of authority in our attempt to reconcile our moral standing versus the decree of authority. Additionally, a study could be run to test the hypothesis that liberals would be more willing to deny the legitimacy of the government, and conservatives would be more willing to affirm the government’s power.

We believe it is moral to care about others and give charity, but what motivates the moral response of giving? Some psychologists are interested in this question. Olivola & Shafir (2011) found that people were willing to give more money to a charity if they were required to run a marathon as opposed to simply attending a picnic. This finding shows that associating donations with self-sacrifice or suffering activates people’s concepts of morality.

How could we measure if having concepts of justice and fairness cause people to strengthen their moral responses as well? An experiment might be set up in this manner: one group of participants would be told that they would be donating to a village in Africa that is suffering from a drought, and as a result, running low on food. The other group would be told that local rebels are constantly raiding the village and taking their food, thus depleting their food supplies. We would then measure how much people would be willing to donate to the village in each situation. The condition of need arising from a natural disaster should not activate concepts of justice and fairness; however, even if some people think suffering from droughts is an inherently unjust event, the second condition – need arising from a military-type attack – should greatly outweigh the first in terms of justice/fairness considerations. Based on the results of the Olivola & Shafir (2011) study, it is reasonable to expect that people would donate more money to the people being raided, since that condition should activate moral concepts such as justice and fairness.

What do these studies tell us about what a truly moral person is? Let’s first look at the five moral foundations again, from Graham, et al. (2009). It appears that a truly moral person bases their judgments primarily on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. This is because there can be situations where authority or in-group concerns can conflict with harm and fairness considerations, and in these situations the latter set of moral outlooks should prevail. One only needs to consider an example such as this: imagine you are asked to commit atrocities in the name of your country. It should be clear that these atrocities couldn’t be justified in this way. Based on the results of Skitka et al. (2009) such a request may even lead one to deny the legitimacy of whatever authority commanded this action-which is what a truly moral person would and should do in that situation. For reasons like these, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity should be on the forefront of one’s moral concerns.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are also probably closely related to each other, and in many situations, one moral concept is found with the other. Consider an instance where a person beats his wife in an act of drunken violence. It’s clear that harm/care are involved in this situation, but also consider that we could say that what he is doing is an injustice to his wife. Similarly, suppose an example where a banker swindles a client for thousands of dollars. It’s clear this has to do with fairness/reciprocity, but we could also consider this action as a way of harming somebody else in a non-physical manner.

Research further clarifies a truly moral person as one who leads a disciplined life that builds off of the proscriptive, preventing immorality, and subsequently the prescriptive, acting morally. Such a person must be a role model for everyone else to follow. For this reason, a truly moral person is careful not to commit proscribed acts. A person who performs many good deeds, but also many bad deeds, will appear insincere and hypocritical. In other words, a truly moral person does their best to not mix the good with the bad. Once a person has built a strong moral foundation of avoiding proscribed behaviors, he or she can branch out and help others with ever-increasing frequency. Furthermore, with regards to the study on the effects of being watched, a truly moral person acts in every situation as though he or she is being watched or will be judged later on, even if they know that they are alone. This is because they know that any action they do may have consequences at some point, either immediate or distant.

Work in the area of the psychology of morality sheds some light on how a moral person behaves, however an ideally moral person does what is right with 100% accuracy, and no matter what the circumstances. This is an ideal, and very few people can be considered to be ideal moral examples. Prophets are the only people who could be considered to be morally infallible. Prophets like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them, serve as examples of perfect moral conduct. Even though none of us can hope to attain the rank of a Prophet, every person ought to strive for this ideal and be the best person they can be. If we hope to have any positive impact on the world we must first start by changing ourselves for the better. Only then can we attempt to sincerely help other people around us, starting with our close family and friends, and later on, the larger world.

M. Tarik Ozgur is a graduate of Lehigh University Physiology Department in 2013.

References

• Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412-414.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B.A. Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5), 1029.
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
• Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537.
• Olivola, C. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a preference for martyrdom in altruism. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to Study of Charity, 49-62. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809.
• Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2009). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26).
• Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476-491.

There are many examples of inspirations in history. Sometimes it comes with a dream, as it happened to famous chemist, Friedrich Kekule (1829-1896), helping him to make one of the most amazing discoveries of his time. He saw atoms in his dream whirling, dancing and reassembling themselves in a snake-like motion, and the snake snapping its own tail. This dream provided him with the inspiration to discover the benzene ring. Benzene, a colorless and highly flammable liquid, is an important industrial solvent in the production of drugs, plastics, and dyes. Kekule is not the only person who found inspiration to an important question in his dream. For example, Otto Loewi, a famous German scientist, was inspired by a dream about an experiment that became the foundation for the theory of chemical transmission of the nervous impulse and led to a Nobel Prize. Once you contemplate on a question long enough, it becomes an important part of your life. You start seeing things in a different way, and everything becomes related to that question.

Ten years ago, a close friend of mine asked me a very interesting question. He said, “Did you ever read or witness any inspiration from Holy Scriptures, like the Qur’an, pointing to the Internet? After this question, I started to think deeply about the texts I had read, or the things I saw in my environment, and selected my readings more carefully. This helped me to capture more inspirations from my life.

It did not take long for me to relate many verses from scriptures to the question posed by my friend. It was an easy process to go backwards from the result to the possible starting ideas (verses). The hard thing about inspiration is that both the starting point and the result are unknown. Once we know the result that we wanted to achieve, it is easy to relate many things and find similarities around us that might get us to the same point. This can be either a scientific fact or a religious belief.

The relationship between science and religion, and inspirations from scriptures are the two most common controversial topics. Science and religion are the two strongest forces influencing humans. Some people use science to justify religious claims, while others start from religious information to reach unknown scientific points. Both approaches have many challenges, and may lead to consequences that conflict with one’s belief. Scriptures can help us think outside of the box, and provide many inspirations for science. However, it is important to keep the balance between both worlds, while working hard on understanding science and building our faith on a solid ground.

So, how did I find the verses that pointed to the idea of the Internet in the Scriptures? I started to think of the core properties that make up the Internet. What will be my first words if I wanted to define the Internet? Some of the key definitions or features of the Internet that came to my mind was “a world-wide network of computers,” “connecting people to each other,” “storing or accessing world of information,” “removing physical boundaries,” “easy and cheap communication,” or “freedom of speech.”

Which feature of the Internet would sound too intricate to ever exist a thousand years ago? Probably, the possibility of storing and accessing all the information available throughout the history of mankind would be the most challenging feature. We haven’t reached that point with the Internet yet, but so much ground has been covered towards this goal. Let’s see how much progress is made on this road of storage and retrieval.

Wikipedia, a free web-based multilingual encyclopedia project, has over 22 million articles (over four million in the English Wikipedia). There are roughly 40 million books in US libraries. Google is building the largest online library in the history of the world, and already scanned over 20 million books. ISI Web of Knowledge, an online scientific database, is a source for thousands of journals with millions of articles published from 1900s to present. Everything published in the last couple of centuries becoming available online from handwritten books to newspaper archives, magazines, and journals.

Chemistry databases list information (e.g. structures, spectra, reactions, syntheses, and thermo-physical data) for tens of millions of organic and inorganic compounds known to man that are used in various industries. Biological databases provide information (e.g. gene sequences, textual descriptions, attributes and ontology classifications, citations, and tabular data) for living and even extinct organisms.

Besides the published information, other types of data from various types of arts, music and picture libraries are becoming an important part of the Internet. More and more museums provide virtual galleries that make all paintings, sculptures and other art pieces accessible to remote users. E-government projects make personal records, health and financial data of all citizens available to related parties. More personal information is available online through personal blogs, image galleries, video sharing, and discussion forums.

Could you make a person, fifty years or even fourteen hundred years ago, believe that one day all the information would be available in a book, a box or a device? This was my starting point to find clues about the Internet in the scriptures. This journey led to many interesting ideas and understanding of my environment. In the middle of the search, the Holy Qur’an provided an important message to summarize this journey:

“With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may think and reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)

As an explanation to this verse, Ibn Mas`ud, the sixth person to embrace Islam, said “[Allah] made it clear that in this Qur’an there is complete knowledge of and about everything.” The Holy Qur’an contains many verses about events in the past and future, what is lawful and unlawful, and information about the religion, our life in this world, and our destiny in the afterlife. Divinely inspired Scriptures, Prophets, and laws were sent successively, in part as an assurance of the true knowledge.

Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim scholar, lists the types of knowledge and understanding as follows; “… that is based on beholding or actively seeing something, inner (comprehensive knowledge) or outer (description and measurement), implementation of the lesser understanding (technology) or of the spiritual understanding (contemplation and worship, which yield wisdom), learning and teaching, self-based or other-based, the learner’s or teacher’s belief in independence of action or being, and of the believer’s surrender and trust to the Creator …” [1]. We need to learn how to “read” the universe and scriptures consciously to acquire true understanding and wisdom.

My search for the inspiration for an idea of the Internet led me to find many verses from the Holy Qur’an. Here are some of the verses that I personally think is a starting point to inspire the idea of storing all the information known to mankind.

“… there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a clear record (to those who can read)” (Qur’an 6:59)

“… nor is hidden from the Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the smallest and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record” (Qur’an 10:61)

“… and there is nothing hidden, in heaven or earth, but is (recorded) in a clear record” (Quran 27:75)

These verses can be interpreted in different ways. Some scholars refer these verses to the knowledge of the All-Knowing God, or a book called Lawh al-Mahfuz that stores the information on the destiny of mankind. Actually relating these verses with the Internet, and the traditional interpretations have a very interesting connection. With ever-growing capacity and capabilities, the Internet is like a small book of destiny that stores our everyday life. However, it is far from storing every single event in the universe. This helps us to realize how mighty and vast the knowledge of the God is, and the capacity of Lawh al-Mahfuz.

When I recited the verses from Qur’an that related to the idea of the Internet, my friend was surprised. As in this example, scientific discoveries and inspirations can be connected with the verses from the Qur’an in many ways. It is important to make this connection for the greater good. Gülen says, “… Recent scientific discoveries have clarified certain Qur’anic verses. Such advances in knowledge occur successively, as the universe proceeds upon its decreed course and in the measure of understanding appointed for us. We must acknowledge and praise the efforts and achievements of researchers and scientists, but they should not lead us to ingratitude and insolence (the roots of unbelief). Rather, we should reaffirm our dependence upon the Creator for guidance both in our quest for and application of knowledge…” [1]. There is no doubt that the Qur’an drives us to deep thoughts, creativity, inspirations and great ideas.

Our further discussion raised another important question, “What is the purpose of reading scriptures?” To know why we read scriptures is as important as reading itself. The Qur’an explains the meaning of reading and draws attention to creation [2] by saying: “Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created” [Qur’an 96:1]. The Qur’an suggests us to observe the universe and learn from its laws and processes so we do not repeat the mistakes of the previous generations, and instead, build a better future.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced at MERGEOUS [3], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Halil I. Demir is an internet entrepreneur and freelance writer.

References

1. Gülen, Fethullah. Questions and Answers about Islam, NJ: The Light, Inc.
2. Gülen. Fethullah Religious Education of the Child, NJ: The Light, Inc.
3. Mergeous, http://www.mergeous.com

Fred (not his real name) is 21 years old, living in a university community. Last year, he did a project to “stretch into infinity”, i.e. he attempted suicide. Fortunately, his project failed. After his return to the normal life, he found an alternative way to infinity. I wanted to interview him as soon as I learned about his story, which he accepted.

“I am doing a double major in mathematics and biology. Unlike the regular biology students who are educated to think traditionally and memorize constantly, my way of thinking is rather mathematical and rational.”

I wanted to punch a hole in this super confident young boy’s claims about himself. “So, you never fell in love, but instead, rationally proved some girl to be the one meant for you?”

He chuckled. “I guess, I did fall in love, but suppressed my feelings since they were irrational.”

“Then you must have a strong will. How do you rationally explain the human will? I mean, we are talking about a young man whose hormones are keeping him at the verge of love. And how do you think your will fights against these molecules that pervade your body?”

“My thoughts on this are different now, but at the time, I was trying to express everything in terms of testable, concrete concepts. There is so much research on the effects of genes and the environmental conditions on human behavior. So, my will had to be some proteins synthesized from my DNA.”

“So do you think, or did you think that one day people could use love pills for keeping up their love for their partners, and to have compassion for their children?”

“Why not? Actually, it is not just that. I had many thoughts that engulfed my mind and motivated my actions, including my attempt to suicide. I couldn’t receive rationally satisfactory alternatives to my conclusions.”

Then Fred took me on a tour d’horizon of his view of life and people. There were many elements in his views that you could hear from other people, but this one was unique and noteworthy:

“This is a bit irrelevant, but I can tell you a funny one too. If the speeding tickets are issued not due to an actual harm but due to the increased risk of harm, then people who drink more than a minimal amount should be given drinking tickets. Statistically speaking, the number of crimes linked to speeding is nowhere close to the number of crimes linked to drinking. So, if I am getting a ticket for speeding, although I haven’t harmed anyone, then why isn’t my friend for whom I am the designated driver, getting a ticket for his increased potential to harm someone?”

Speechless, I tried to steer him back to his conclusions that led him to what he did.

“You know, I was never hospitalized for depression. Nobody thought that I was in deep trouble, including me. I was considered to be an intellectual, an extraordinary friend. I don’t know how it goes with other people, but when the idea came, it wasn’t like a freaky idea to entertain myself for a minute. It came as an irrefutable theory. It only made sense. Really.”

The idea of suicide making sense? That didn’t make sense to me! Seeing my blurred gaze at him, he picked up again.

“If motivation is essential to accomplish your ideals, how come things that bring motivation are considered harmful?”

He was talking about drugs.

“If success is all about hard work, then why is it forbidden to pave your way to success rather than leave it to luck?”

That is fortifying hard work through taking drugs.

“If my mental activity is nothing but complex dynamics of molecules in my brain, then shouldn’t I take drugs that are the embodiment of rejuvenating and exhilarating inspirations leading to innovations?”

After a second of pause, he concluded:

“If happiness is all about certain molecules in my body, then what is wrong about getting it directly rather than mining it through the thorny relationships with people?”

How would you answer these questions, knowing that they are asked by an individual in the making who is trying to make sense of life but who is bewildered by the discrepancies of the mature people?

“My line of thought and other people’s line of thought in this matter are similar to the graph of 1/x. We are both aiming for the same point, i.e. zero. But our distinct approaches take us to opposite directions. The two couldn’t be more divergent than this.”

In mathematical elegance, Fred was describing the state that nurtured his suicidal thoughts. He could not establish ties with the rest of us. With an intention to never come back, Fred used drugs to become a zero in our world, and to stretch into unknown infinity. Did he succeed?

“But you know, like a sad love story, 1/x never converges to zero. I failed, too, in that sense. The way I conceived it, death was going to be a culmination of motivation, success, and happiness. I aimed for it head on. According to my conviction, I was supposed to have achieved all of those. When I opened my eyes in the hospital, I realized that I had neither success nor happiness.”

You don’t have to be a sage in order to understand that suicide is not a key to success or happiness. But a brief journey to death made Fred a sage.

“It is possible in this life that one receives death while perfectly healthy. It is also possible that one can survive despite a miserable health. In other words, just like being healthy doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t die, there isn’t a mechanic relationship between being unhealthy and arriving at death. My own failure to die despite what happened to me is a living proof of this.”

I noted in my mind that this was a good example of learning from your failures.

“The moment I realized that death is given, just like life is, my suicide attempt transformed from being a story of failure to a story of success, because that’s when I started believing in the unseen.”

Believing in the unseen was a quality that Fred did not have before, but why and how had it been the elixir that changed his failure into success?

“It is so ironic and controversial. In the beginning, what I was missing was my acceptance of self-deficiency in grasping the existence. In the end, by admitting to be incomplete, I was becoming complete; being completed by God.”

Suicide is one of the most severe sins one can commit according to the monotheistic religions. Yet, this young man found God in the very sin that could throw him light years away from God.

“I don’t define myself anymore as an outstanding, perfect intellectual as my friends used to call me. Instead, I am a story in progress. No matter how severe the calamities or how satisfying the joys are, I don’t come to an end unless my author ends the story.”

Zeno of Elea was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher of southern Italy and a member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides. He argued that an object in motion can never pass from one position to another, because between the two there is always an “infinity” of other positions, however close, that must be successively traversed in the course of the motion, and this “infinity” can never be exhausted. David Hilbert is a German mathematician who postulated a hypothetical hotel with “countably infinitely” many rooms, all of which are occupied. Since the hotel has “infinitely” many rooms, we can move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3, and so on, and fit a newcomer into room 1. By repeating this procedure, it may be argued that it is possible to make room for any finite number of new guests, although every room of this hotel initially contains a guest.

The following two quotations from two contemporary authors may provide more substance about the nature of the problem:

On the other hand, involvement with the infinite brings with it a huge range of difficulties. In particular, there are the many puzzles and paradoxes that have been outlined in the pages of this book. Moreover, there are the many quite fundamental problems that arise for such apparently simple notions as counting, adding, maximizing, and so forth. Because we are so firmly wedded to limit notions-“best,” “first,” “greatest,” “maximum,” and so forth-that do not sit easily with the infinite, it is very hard to see how we can make our peace with the infinite.

The infinite has always been a slippery concept. Even the commonly accepted mathematical view, developed by Georg Cantor, may not have truly placed infinity on a rigorous foundation.

In the present article, we attempt to summarize Rene Guenon’s (1886-1951) alternative way of thinking on the idea of infinite from the perspective of the traditional metaphysical science. Much more detailed presentation of his perspective can be found in his (1886-1951) valuable study The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus from which we will extensively quote here.

Guenon considered mathematics as providing a particularly proper symbolism for the expression of metaphysical truths to the extent that they are expressible. However, he states that “in order for this to be so it is above all necessary that these sciences be rid of the various errors and confusions that have been introduced by the false views of the moderns.” To follow Guenon’s paradigm it is necessary to start with the metaphysical notion of the universal-All which comprehends all possibilities, the non-manifested as well as the manifested Universe, that is, the cosmos. The universal All leaves outside itself only the impossible that is a pure nothing. A determination is to define a certain domain of possibilities in relation to all the rest which is expressed by Spinoza (1632-1677) as omnis determinatio negatio est (all determination is a negation). The first of all determinations is Being itself. “Number is only a mode of quantity, and quantity itself only a category or special mode of being, not coextensive with it, or more precisely still, quantity is only a condition proper to one certain state of existence in the totality of universal existence.” Number, space, and time are all determined conditions.

The Infinite, understood in its true, metaphysical sense, has no limits since its opposite, finite is synonymous with limited. Therefore, according to Guenon,

… one cannot correctly apply this term to anything other than that which has absolutely no limits, that is to say the universal All. Furthermore, there can obviously be only one Infinite, for two supposedly distinct infinities would limit and therefore inevitably exclude one another.

He further states, “The Infinite, in its true sense, can have neither opposite nor complementarity.” The scholastic distinction between “the infinite in a certain respect” and “the absolute infinite” cannot be accepted. If a thing is not limited in a certain sense or in a certain respect than one can legitimately conclude that it is limited in no way at all, and since a determined thing does not include every possibility, as such it can only be finite.

Given any number, one can form the next by adding a unit gives the sequence of numbers to us. Therefore, we cannot actually reach its limits. However, the impossibility of reaching the limits of certain things in the manifested Universe should not cause the illusion that these determined things have no limits at all. In order to replace the false notion of “determined infinite,” Guenon introduces, the idea of the indefinite, which is precisely the idea of a development of possibilities the limits of which we cannot actually reach; and this is why we (Guenon) regard this distinction between the Infinite and the indefinite as fundamental to all questions in which the so-called mathematical infinite appears.

According to Descartes (1596-1650), the indefinite is that of which we do not perceive the limits, and which in reality could be infinite. On the contrary, Guenon affirms that

(T)he indefinite cannot be infinite because it always implies a certain determination, whether it is a question of extension, duration, divisibility, or some other possibility; in a word, whatever the indefinite may be, and according to whatever aspect it is considered, it is still of the finite and can only be of the finite.

The idea of an “infinite number” understood as “the greatest of all numbers,” or “the number of all numbers” is contradictory. The impossibility of an “infinite number” can be established by various arguments:

(T)o every whole number (integer) there corresponds another number equal to its double, such that one can make the two sequences correspond term by term, with the result that the number of terms must be the same in both; but there are obviously twice as many whole numbers as there are even, since even numbers alternate by twos in the sequence of whole numbers; one thus ends up with a manifested contradiction.

Guenon insists that number, despite its indefinitude, is by no means applicable to all that exists and the multitude of all numbers cannot constitute a number, which, moreover, is finally only an application of the incontestable truth that what limits a certain order of possibilities must necessarily be beyond and outside that which it limits.

On the other hand, the idea of multitude, contrary to that of number, is applicable to all that exists which allows one to speak of the multitude of divine attributes for example, or again of the multitude of angels, that is, of beings belonging to states that are not subject to quantity, where, consequently, there can be no question of number.

Number itself can also be regarded as a species of multitude, but on the added condition that it be a “multitude measured by the unit” according to the expression of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

The term “indefinite” consists of something unfinished. The “non-measured” is that which has not yet been defined, which is only incompletely realized within manifestation. The multitude of all numbers is “innumerable” or “non-measured,” which is not to say they are infinite, but merely that they are indefinite.

Guenon calls whole number as true number or pure number. He accepts that the numbers other than whole numbers can be considered as the extensions or generalizations of the idea of number. However, he adds that these extensions are also distortions. According to Guenon, numerical quantity has a discontinuous character, whereas spatial or temporal magnitudes, for example, are continuous quantities. “Between these two modes of quantity is a difference of nature such that a correspondence between the two cannot be perfectly established.” He distinguishes the arithmetical unit from the “units of measurement,” which are magnitudes of another sort than number, notably geometric magnitudes. He defines a continuous quantity as an extension-however small it might be that will always remain indefinitely divisible.

Guenon is against atomism, which necessarily implies the discontinuity of all things. He argues extension cannot be composed of indivisible elements, for these elements would have to be extensionless to be truly indivisible, and a sum of elements with no extension can no more constitute an extension than a sum of zeros can constitute a number, that is why points are not the elements or parts of a line; the true linear elements are always distances between points, which latter are only their extremities. Points multiplied by any quantity at all can never produce length, since, rigorously speaking, they are null with respect to length; the true elements of a magnitude must always be of the same nature as the magnitude, although incomparably less: this leaves no room for indivisibles.

Further,

The point, which, being indivisible, is by that very fact without extension, that is, spatially null, but which, as we (Guenon) have explained elsewhere, is nonetheless the very principle of all extension.

For Guenon, Zeno of Elea’s arguments are against atomism and indeed, they prove that without continuity there would be no possible motion.

It is this very conception of motion that is in error, for it amounts in short to regarding the continuous as if it were composed of points, or of final, indivisible elements, like the notion according to which bodies are composed of atoms; and this would amount to saying that in reality there is no continuity, for whether it is a question of points or atoms, these final elements can only be discontinuous.

And, “The possibility of motion presupposes the union, or rather the combination, of both temporal and spatial continuity.”

We consider Guenon as an important and prominent example of thinkers who tried to remind people of the traditional metaphysical ideas. This metaphysical perspective does not share the modern tendency to attribute more importance to the practical applications of science than to science itself. This perspective attempts to link science back to principles of a higher order so that a particular science can be used as a support for elevating oneself to a higher knowledge.

The scene depicts an ordinary day in a metropolitan city. People are crossing the streets, perhaps going to work. There are traffic lights and so on. However, it is just a simulation program; all the actions of the people and all the events in the environment were predetermined. We can imagine questions popping into Neo’s mind: “Is the universe really a kind of simulation? Does God interfere with the universe or does it operate like a machine?” and followed by “Is it possible to compute someone’s fate? Does free will exist?”

Neo would neither be the first nor the last to ask similar questions. Until the 1930s, the answers to these questions were sometimes influenced by the idea of scientific determinism which considered the universe like the one in The Matrix. A paradigm shift took place in 1930s when two brilliant scientists proposed their ground breaking studies on non-determinism. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle considered the phenomenal aspects of non-determinism in the universe. First, we will have a short journey through the idea of scientific determinism. Then, we will investigate non-determinism and its consequences.

The idea of scientific determinism

The term ‘scientific determinism’ is defined to be the computability of future states, given the current state and a computer that has sufficiently large computation capacity. Suppose we take a snapshot of the universe at a particular time, or press the pause key and freeze the universe such as the example from The Matrix. What scientific determinism says briefly in simple terms is that by looking at that entire picture of the moment, the picture of the next second can be calculated using the laws and formulas of physics. On a large scale and in the long term, this idea leads to an exact computation of a moment of the universe given the initial conditions and its governing laws at the time of its creation. This is the key point for some scientific determinists who exclude the Divine work in the universe; if God exists, He only sets the initial conditions and the physical laws of the universe. Then the universe works on its own like a machine.

The first modern idea of scientific determinism was articulated by Newton in 18th century. Newton believed that all the laws governing the universe could be deduced from formulas, and these formulas could be derived by following the scientific method. First of all, science requires consistency among all known formulas and theories. This led the German mathematician David Hilbert to tackle the problem of proving the consistency of arithmetic in 1900s. One way of showing the consistency of arithmetic was to prove or disprove infinite number of statements in arithmetic, which was practically impossible! Instead, a clever idea was to develop a methodology that will generate the proof or disproof of a given arbitrary statement in arithmetic. If that methodology existed and was shown to be correct, that would be the happy ending of the story. Motivated by this problem in 1913, Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell wrote their work, Principia Mathematica, a three-volume work on the foundations of mathematics. It was an attempt to derive all mathematical truths without the requirement of human intuition. They utilized symbolic logic, since it has a profound methodology for proving statements.

Later, this work would have played a fundamental role for proving the correctness / incorrectness of any statement in the universe. As an ultimate goal, by deducing all the information that belongs to a certain time of the universe, it would have been possible to compute the exact situation of the universe at an arbitrary time, which we mentioned before.

The fall of scientific determinism

At that time, Principia Mathematica left two questions open:

• Could a contradiction be derived from the Principia’s axioms (the question of inconsistency)?

• Does a mathematical statement which could neither be proved nor disproved in the system (the question of completeness) exist?

These questions were the heart of the discussion, and they had to be both answered as ‘no’ by Principia Mathematica to be deterministic. We have already explained the necessity of consistency before. On the other hand, some states cannot be calculated in an incomplete system which violates the determinism.

In 1931, Gödel published his famous article “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems.” This work claims to refute the claims of scientific determinists about deriving all mathematical truths from logical systems. In his article, Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem showed that sufficiently complex systems (such as the ones described in Principia Mathematica and the physical laws of the universe) could not be complete and consistent at the same time. Gödel proved his theorem using a genius idea, which was by showing that a similar statement to “This statement cannot be proved” can be expressed in any sufficiently complex logical systems. Hence, one who proves it will create an inconsistency in the formal system, or it will be considered as improvable, violating the completeness rule of the formal system.

Another stroke to scientific determinism came from Heisenberg in 1927 with his famous Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg asserted that both the velocity and the position of a particle cannot be accurately measured at the same time. Measurement requires interfering with the particle in terms of position or velocity. Observation becomes a part of the outcome which is in fact not known to be the real outcome. In short, uncertainty principle implies that the particle positions can only be calculated as a probability distribution.

One can object that this effect may be a result of our lack of the knowledge needed to find out the facts about particle position and velocity. However, Copenhagen’s interpretation of Quantum mechanics is commonly accepted, and it states that the problem of uncertainty is not epistemological but ontological; i.e., the problem is not due to the limits of scientific knowledge but depends on the constitution of the universe . From a mathematical aspect, Gödel’s theorem strongly asserts the same fact.

Consequences of non-determinism

Non-determinism in the Universe brought back earlier concepts categorized as meta-physical, such as ‘fate’ and ‘free will,’ into the debate about scientific knowledge for further investigation, and made a phenomenal change in the perspectives on the existence of God.

In The Matrix, remember the scene wherein Neo says “Deja vu” after he sees the black cat for the second time at the stairs of the apartment. Then Trinity tells him that it happened due to a change in the Matrix. The free will of Neo and his friends causes the failure of the deterministic nature of the Matrix; the Matrix cannot make exact calculation of their actions and foresee the future. Instead, it alters the simulation program based on their actions. Now, the concept of fate is not a predetermined destiny in the Matrix; it involves the human free will, hence nobody knows what will happen in the future, including the Matrix itself.

Free will requires the ability to make choices independent from deterministic constraints. A friend of yours offers you to take one of two identical apples, and you take one of them. If it was possible to rewind time and get back to the moment of the offer, this time you might choose the other apple. Note that the states are precisely the same; the entire history of the events in the universe is exactly the same as the one in previous scenario. This is the key point: in two equivalent states of the universe; i.e., all conditions are exactly the same, free will allows you to choose different options in these two states. This situation contrasts with a deterministic universe however well suits to a non-deterministic one.

Another major consequence is about the Creator’s role in the universe. As mentioned before, scientific determinism can reduce the concept of ‘God’ into the following statement [4, 6]:

• If there is a God, He created the universe, set the initial conditions and the laws, and left it the way it works. He doesn’t interfere with its execution.

By non-determinism, this statement can no longer be regarded as the absolute truth. Instead of clearly determined outcomes in the future time frames, Quantum mechanics introduced the notion of probabilities. In each decision point (i.e., quantum time frames or every single moment), there are many possible outcomes. That means either there is an entire ‘randomness’ or there is a Decision Maker that decides at these decision points and controls the flow of all actions in the universe. In case of randomness, it is always possible to reach a ‘failure state’. However, the universe has never failed for billions of years. Here, the failure state is not the ending of the universe or Armageddon, because these states are internally consistent. Failure state means to get the ‘blue screen’ as in Windows; suddenly everything stops or perishes. ‘Failure’ can be described as an unexpected error that leads unrecoverable / unhandled error which crushes the operating system. At this point, the universe needs to restart in order to start everything from the beginning. The idea of randomness in the course of actions is strongly opposed by Einstein as stated in his famous saying “God doesn’t play dice.”

So the question is “how can the concepts ‘God’, ‘fate’ and ‘free will’ be related to each other?” Now, we may say the following statements about fate: it is not computable, it is not random (due to the definition of fate), and free will is possible. In this case, we have two options:

• there is no free will – God controls all the events and free will is not involved in it,

• there is free will – God incorporates free will in his creation of the upcoming states

According to the second idea, we have been given the right to choose among limited amount of options and then God creates the chosen option. For instance, I would like to move my arm and show the tendency to move it. So, God creates necessary conditions such as the pulse from the brain that orders the arm to move, and the arm moves. Of course, He always preserves the right not to create the things according to my will. In that case, the arm doesn’t move – I might have a stroke or might not have sufficient strength or something else might happen.

Consequently, in case of free will, fate becomes all the outcomes of God’s will by including free will in the universe. But “God knows everything, everything that will be in the future. Then, doesn’t that mean the universe is deterministic?” As we mentioned above, determinism requires the computation of future states. However the Creator knows the fate with His infinite knowledge by overseeing the entire system but not computing. Here, computation and knowledge are two different concepts; knowledge may not be acquired by computation. If somebody shows us the result of a multiplication of two numbers, we learn the result by seeing it but not computing it.

Non-determinism in the universe might be considered as the beginning of a re-marriage between science and meta-physics. Non-determinism implies that it is not reasonable to absolutely reject Divine work in the operation of the universe and the idea of free will. The concepts that are considered to be currently meta-physical such as fate and free will need further investigation in the physical sciences.

Fatih Gelgi has a PhD in computer science. He is currently the computer coordinator of Accord AMSP team in Los Angeles.

References

[1] K. Devlin. “Kurt Gödel – Separating Truth from Proof in Mathematics,” Science, 298: 1899-2000, 2002.

[2] F. Gelgi. “Implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Artificial Intelligence vs. Mind,” The Fountain Magazine, 46, 2004.

[3] K. Gödel. “Uber formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I,” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38: 173-98, 1931.

[4] S. Hawking. Brief History of Time, Bantam Dell Publishing, Ed. 10, 1988.

[5] E. Nagel, J. R. Newman. Gödel’s Proof, New York University Press, 2001.

[6] C. Taslaman. Kuantum Teorisi Felsefe ve Tanri, Istanbul Yayinevi, 2008.

[7] Wikipedia, “Principia Mathematica,” retrieved on Feb 27, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica.

Notes

1. Interested reader may refer to [5] for the detailed and understandable explanation of Gödel’s proof.
2. For details see “Chapter 4: Uncertainty Principle” in [4].
3. Different interpretations of Quantum physics can be found in [6] or at: http://kuantum.gen.tr.

Many people think of supernatural phenomena as miracles or as divine signs. However, through his studies in biology, the immune system and DNA, Dr. Denis Alexander concludes that what is called natural is nothing less than miraculous. Dr. Alexander, a renowned molecular biologist, is constantly amazed by the extraordinariness of the human immune system. He explores the relationship between science and religion as the director of the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University. Dr. Alexander writes, lectures and broadcasts widely in the field of science and religion. Since 1992 he has been Editor of the journal Science and Christian Belief, and currently serves on the National Committee of Christians in Science and as a member of the International Society for Science and Religion.

M&B: Let’s talk a little bit about your research on the immune system and cancer. Specifically regarding regulatory T-Cells.

Actually, I’m working on the very early stages of T-cell development in the thymus. T-cells, which are the white blood cells that defend us against viruses and bacteria, all have to be “educated” in the thymus. They have this very strict program of education, and then only a very small percentage graduate, so only about 1 or 2 percent of all the T-cells will actually graduate. If you had that sort of system in our own educational system, I think we would look on it as not very successful. If 98 percent of all our undergraduates die, we wouldn’t think that was a very good system. But in the thymus it actually works very well. So what happens is your T-cells learn to only recognize foreign antigens like viruses and bacteria – things that are going to invade your body – and they won’t attack your own tissues. That’s the kind of education that the thymus gives. It’s really a wonderful, amazing system.

M&B: What is the specific role of the T-cells and how is it related to the functioning of other elements within the immune system?

Well, basically the whole immune system is highly complex, so T-cells are not the only cells around. You have B-cells, you have natural killer cells, you have whole sets of different types of cells, and they’re all doing different jobs. They all have to cooperate together.

Then you have killer cells, or K-cells. These natural killer cells are those which are involved in the immediate reaction of the immune system to antigens once they attack your body. So the body is set up so you have an immediate response system, whereby-it’s like mobilization of an army-you can mobilize small bits of your army in the first 24 hours. That’s the natural killer cells. They will give you immediate defense. You have helper T-cells that help the B-cells in order to develop and to make antibodies. B-cells give you your acquired immune system, which is the immune system that only comes into action after about 10 to 14 days. So, that’s the mobilization of the full resources of your army. Thinking of it in terms of a kind of defense system is actually quite useful. T-cells are involved in wiping out virally infected cells, and so they all coordinate together in a rather delicately controlled, complex balance, but they all have to coordinate with each other to make sure the system works properly. It’s amazing how it works; actually, I think, it’s remarkable.

M&B: The natural killer cells attack the cells which are not supposed to be there. But how can they recognize cells that are part of us, how do they define the “self.” Would you give us a parable about how the natural killer cells work?

In the natural killer cell system, there is also the idea of the missing self, which is the idea that when there’s a certain molecule which is not there, natural killer cells won’t attack. Therefore, they don’t recognize our own tissues. This is the idea of the missing self hypothesis. They will only attack things which they perceive to be foreign. It’s like the foreign thing is coming in and waving a flag which says, you know, I want to be attacked, I should be attacked. And that’s set up by a very carefully balanced system, between activating receptors and inhibiting receptors which operate together in order to bring that to pass. It’s quite a complex molecular system, in fact.

M&B: But it still doesn’t provide 100% support. Obviously we are not totally immune to disease.

Now, once the T-cells get out in the periphery, that’s to say the blood stream and the spleen and the other places, in the gut and so forth, then there are other mechanisms in place to keep them under control and to make sure that they don’t actually start attacking your own body. And of course, now and again, very sadly, that does happen. There are mistakes made, and so you get things like diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis and these sorts of auto-immune diseases, and that’s where the T-cells start attacking the tissues of your own body. It’s amazing, most of the time that doesn’t happen, and that’s all up to the thymus, since it educates the T-cells.

M&B: In what way do these cause cancer?

We’re actually working on a mouse model of the human cancer called Lymphoma. It happens when T-cells don’t stop dividing, and so if you look at all the immune cell types of cancers, they’re all very similar kinds of things. Certain cells of the immune system actually undergo errors in the early part of their development, and instead of moving on to the next stage of development they get stuck. Then, they carry on dividing and proliferating, filling up the whole of your bone marrow or your blood stream, and so you end up with white blood cell leukemia.

I could just tell you one example, the one that we’re working on. Basically, what happens is that when normal T-cells get DNA damage, they die. So as a program, when you get any kind of DNA damage, there’s a trigger that happens, and those cells will be wiped out by a process called apoptosis, which is programmed cell death. All of our cells, actually, have the ability to do that. But now and again something happens, an acrogenic change takes place, which is a change in a gene which causes cancer, and that prevents the cells from dying by apoptosis. And so, the cells that have this DNA damage are left to proliferate, and once you get DNA damage, then the chromosomes become unstable, and you get more DNA damage. It’s like a kind of downward spiral. Then all kinds of things happen that cause that cell to become a cancer cells, which will carry on dividing and dividing and eventually kill the mouse, or kill the patient. We’ve just recently identified one of the mechanisms whereby those cells that should die are kept alive, and it’s a very, very subtle mechanism, which is one particular protein, one particular stage of development to t-cells in the thymus.

M&B: We think that dying is a bad thing. But to give an example at the cellular molecular level, “not dying” is actually a bad thing.

Yes, I mean, death is built into our genomes, essentially. You know, we will die eventually because of all kinds of mechanisms, including the shortening of our chromosomes. The cells will only go through a certain number of divisions before they come to the end of their life. There’s a sort of internally clock. Now, of course, it’s possible that we can patch up all these things, we can use stem cells, we can use transplants. If someone needs a new heart or a liver, we give them a new heart or a liver. So clearly we can extend life by years, by decades, and that process is obviously already happening. In fact, I would say that the priority in that way is not to give wealthy people just a few more decades of life, but to try and help those people in lower income countries where what they need is better food and better water, a good water supply, basic medical care, and therefore their average life will then go from 35 up to 65 or 70 years old and so on. So, I slightly worry about this huge activity in the wealthy world to try and make ourselves immortal, and try to extend our life by another decade or so, when such big slices of the world’s population are still lacking even the very basic medical care that I think they should be given. We can extend life by potentially quite a lot, but to become immortal, I don’t think so. I think mortality is written into our genes.

M&B: As a scientist you study the immune system, as well as life and death. But as a person, what do you feel about them? Would you comment on the purpose behind of all these processes?

Well, I suppose that as someone who believes in God, I would see all of these processes that we describe as biologists, as scientists, as part of God’s processes, that part of His intentions is to bring about His own particular ends and purposes on this earth. And clearly, I think one of those purposes is transience. You know, if you have life and death, you have things in process, you also have transience. We’re not immortal-not in our present bodies at least-we don’t display the qualities of immortality. So therefore, I think that fits with the idea of a God who wants to bring in processes which involve life, and they also involve death, and they involve moving on. So we have dynamic systems. We’re not static, we’re not little puppets, you know, who always have the same kind of characteristics. We are in motion, we’re always changing, we’re always moving on. That’s what we see in human society as well as in the whole world of biological diversity. It’s a dynamic process of things, changing processes, which come into being and which go out again, and life and death go together. You know, you can’t have life without death.

M&B: But there is a sense of awe when you think about the tiniest T-cells getting educated. For some people, it would seem amazing and even miraculous as splitting the water with a simple rod, if you don’t mind me saying this.

It is amazing, and I’m constantly amazed and when I look at the immune system, and when I look at the way cells work, when I look at the way, indeed, biochemical signaling pathways operate together. I think that fact is quite remarkable, actually, and should arouse our awe and our wonder, and indeed many people look to God as a natural overall explanation. Not in the sense of replacing God in the gaps of our knowledge, but as our knowledge increases, then our understanding of God’s power and wisdom in creation increases along with that, and to me is real natural theology. Natural theology is not looking for the gaps in our knowledge, but as our knowledge increases coming to a greater appreciation of what God can do. It’s interesting. Actually, just a couple of days ago, I was listening to the account of a Chinese student in Cambridge in the UK, where I come from, and she was telling us about how she had come to have faith in God. What she said was that she was in her biochemistry lectures in the university, and the lecture was about how DNA in each cell, if you stretch it all out, it actually comes to two meters long. You know, if you take the DNA from any one cell, the packing of the DNA is so amazing that when you pull it out, it is two yards long. And she was so amazed by that, she suddenly thought, in the middle of the lecture, there’s got to be a God. There must be a God. It’s so wonderful, you know, she was amazed by this wonderful thing, and she’s moved to belief in God, and I thought that was really quite interesting.

M&B: Do you think arriving to this conclusion has to do with having an open mind, in many ways?

Yes, I think it does. I think the problem is that people brought up in a scientific culture can so often think that the scientific story is the only one that matters. They’re like people reading a book, but they see it and they only look at the black ink on the page, but when they look at the structure of the words they miss the whole message. And I think that’s always a danger in the reductionist approach. Now I’m a reductionist in the methods I use in analyzing the immune system or looking at cancer mechanisms, and that sort of reductionism is very important for us as a methodology we use in our science. But, of course, we shouldn’t then move from that into thinking that reductionism gives us the final story. It just gives us one slice of the story, one little layer of the overall story. I think we then have to take a step backwards and start looking at the message as a whole. That’s terribly important, and it’s always a temptation for people who are deeply imbedded in the scientific community or living in a scientific culture of some kind just to think the scientific story is the only one that matters, but clearly that’s not the case.

M&B: You talked about a sense of awe that surpasses the mind. But when we attribute unexplained things to God, some people tend to think that God is the God of mystery. God is the God of miracles, God of the unknown and the God of the gaps. Would you please comment on this idea?

I think the idea of the God of the gaps is a very unfortunate idea; that has a very long history. Actually, it goes back many centuries. I’m not quite sure when the idea first began. But I think it’s always been tempting as science got going, especially in the nineteenth century when science was less developed than it was now.. It was a temptation for people to try and locate their God within the present gaps of the scientific knowledge. So obviously, as the gaps are closed, so one’s understanding of God will shrink. God is then located in smaller and smaller mysteries.

Now, I think that’s very unfortunate from a theological point of view, because certainly as a Christian I believe in a God who is the author of creation, and who is the author of everything that exists. Therefore, the author writes everything, the author writes the whole book. And it would be very odd if you were looking in the book, if you went to chapter 9 and you went to the second paragraph and you said, “Ah-ha! Now I’ve located the mystery of the author in the second paragraph in chapter 9.” That would be a silly kind of argument. And I think that’s the same kind of argument that the God of the gaps people use. They try and locate bits of the book, forgetting that either the book has an author, or it doesn’t. There’s either someone who is writing the text or there isn’t. So, I think God is in charge of all the processes of the world, upholding and sustaining the whole of the book of creation, if you’d like to use that analogy. So whether we have current gaps in our knowledge now has no theological significance as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t matter. It’s of no particular interest, so theology has no hidden investments in gaps in our knowledge. It really doesn’t matter. It simply says we’re ignorant about many things. Which is good, because otherwise I would be out of a job.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond.