In his book, Flew states, “I should point out, moreover, that this is not the first time I changed my mind on a fundamental issue. Among other things, readers who are familiar with my vigorous defense of free markets may be surprised to learn that I was once a Marxist …” Flew in fact consistently mentions throughout his book that it is not actually the first time he changed his mind. These statements may disappoint those readers who want to hear more reliable arguments on the question of God. However, as a philosopher, Flew is confident in his decision and leaves it to readers to decide how to deal with his reasons for changing his mind. Given the possibility of progress in philosophy, Flew considers it a principle to follow the argument wherever it may lead him. Therefore, before reading this book, one should keep in mind that the book has a philosophical perspective rather than a religious one. Philosophical thought is inherently unbiased (or unguided) and quite evolutionary as opposed to any given religion (say Christianity, Islam or Judaism), which usually has its own well-defined and self-consistent structure.

It is not possible in this short article to summarize all of the reasons which led Flew to believe in God in the later stage of his life. Below, we mainly discuss how Flew’s decision was influenced by the origin of the laws of physics. We also show how his final thoughts compare with modern Muslim scholars Nursi and Gülen, who have roots in revelations rather than philosophy. Then we explain why we believe Flew’s methodology is not safe as long as it stays within the territories of traditional philosophy.

Laws of physics and “mind of God”

When Flew discusses the origin of the laws of physics (or undeniable design in the universe), he gives statements from the founders of quantum physics, all of whom connect the laws of nature with the “Mind of God,” as described by Einstein. He refers to Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac. Below, we only quote Schrodinger’s statement:

“The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a capital ‘G.’ Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow, if personally cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind?”

Nursi and Gülen, two great scholars of our modern times, have the following views on this. According to Nursi [2,3], only through the light of faith in God and His Divine Revelation, can humans understand their true essence, the universe that they reside within, their past, present, and their future. Otherwise, things and events surrounding them would be highly difficult to comprehend, because the only mechanism that would remain to interpret the purpose behind would be the ego equipped with limited knowledge and experience, which is too subjective to rely on and far from being convincing. Most of the time, the ego misguides people into the darkness and heedlessness. However, with the light of faith, believers do not fall into such catastrophes. Believers better understand and appreciate the universe and do not suffer as unbelievers do; rather they enjoy the whispering galleries in the universe and beyond.

Gülen’s perspective [2,4,5] is similar to Nursi. Although it might be possible for some brilliant scientists to discover how things work at the most fundamental levels of particles, it is impossible to fully comprehend how these particles actually constitute the whole in such a perfect harmony. This is because there is infinite knowledge of the Omniscient behind the scenes. Those who deny the existence of the Omniscient are shocked by the incredible harmony in nature and yet attribute it all to the creatures themselves. These limited, shortsighted perspectives and prejudices leave so many gaps in the quest for existence that the systems developed based on them cannot convince anyone, but rather open up greater questions in the heart, mind, and soul, all waiting to be answered. However, a person equipped with the former perspective can reach more conclusive results in very short times with much less efforts compared to those unbelievers who consume their lives to understand existence. Believers feel the signs of God in everything they explore and live their days as if in the avenues of Paradise. If the reason is integrated with the revelation, only then can it elevate us to the realms of the unreachable. It opens the doors to the true universe, which is otherwise hidden in darkness and chaos. With revelation, the universe turns into a great book of existence, telling about its Creator on every page. Then those struggling in emptiness and tyranny are awakened to humanistic ideals and the truth.

On the different pages of his book, Flew reminds the reader that scientists like Paul Davies and John Barrow have received the Templeton Prize for further developing the insights of Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists into theories of the relationship between the rationality of nature and the Mind of God. Flew draws attention to the existence of natural laws and cites Paul Davies, who says, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us.” The critical question Flew asks is, “whose laws?”

Flew thinks, no matter what, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. He says, “the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” Once the physical laws are set correctly, one can think of our resultant universe; however, the question that needs to be answered is ‘who set the laws and why did they set them this way?'”

Flew also reminds the reader of the following question related to the origin of life, a question that has not been answered: “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and coded chemistry?” He quotes from Paul Davies again, “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.” Flew makes an important distinction between this question and what is being addressed by “evolution.” He says that the latter is dealing with the interaction of chemicals, whereas the above question is interrogating how something (chemicals) can be intrinsically purpose driven.

Nursi explains this as follows [6]:

“If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato’s to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle’s worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over!”

Here Nursi argues that the intelligence and consciousness that are exhibited in the universe can only be understood by the existence of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One. He guides these mindless particles toward a Divine Determining and in accordance with the law. Nursi also draws attention to a subtle point which is missing in the philosophers’ question above. The particles and the law they are bound to are created so intelligently and consciously that they do not only give rise to the sustenance of the current universe, but we can tailor them for our future sustenance and well being. To give an example, consider a 10 billion year old particle, an electron. How did this particle lead to today’s electronic revolution? How did it know it could function one day as part of a flowing current in a computer chip?

Pilgrimage of reason is not safe

In his book, Flew considers three evidences which require an Intelligence explaining not only its own existence but also that of the world. These are the laws of nature, life, and the existence of the universe. Flew admits that the journey to his discovery of God has so far been a pilgrimage of reason. He has followed the argument where it has led him. The arguments led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being.

Although it’s quite impressive what Flew has gone through and he put forward reasonable arguments, no one can actually guarantee that his arguments will ultimately lead to Truth, since they can be neither proved nor disproved. Worse, a smarter philosopher or scientist may well appear in the future and challenge him. Then, how can we actually make sure that Flew is actually right in his arguments?

The answer is, “we can never be.” There is a need for a strong “point of support,” since science and philosophy alone, by definition, as admitted in Schrodinger’s statement above, cannot provide absolutely convincing arguments. If God exists and wants man to know Him, there is a need for a clear message immune from any kind of ambiguity and understandable by virtually anyone. Nothing would be clearer than direct revelations from God. Interestingly, there are, in fact, many verses in the Quran [7], for example, which draw attention to such clarity in God’s messages:

• “A.L.R. These are the Ayats of Revelation, of a Quran that makes things clear.” (The Rocky Tract 1)
• “We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, an illustration from (the story of) people who passed away before you, and an admonition for those who fear (Allah).” (The Light 34)
• “Thus we have sent down Clear Signs; and verily Allah guides whom He will!” (The Pilgrimage 16)
• “We have sent down to you Manifest Signs; and none reject them but those who are perverse.” (The Heifer 99)
• “A.L.R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail, from One Who is Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things):” (The Prophet Hud 1)
• “A Sura which we have sent down and which We have ordained: in it We have sent down Clear Signs, in order that you may receive admonition.” (The Light 1)
• “This is the Way of your Lord, leading straight: We have detailed the Signs for those who receive admonition.” (The Cattle 126)

Revealing the Message of God

Flew finishes his book with a very beautiful analogy of a satellite phone discovered by an island tribe. The sage in the tribe suggests that the phone is a medium of contact with other humans. After some investigation, the tribe confirms that the phone is connected to a network which transmits the voices of intelligent beings that exist. They go even further and decipher the patterns and rhythms and their whole world changes. Similarly the discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature-the communications network in this parable–has led the thinkers to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Although Flew summarizes his pilgrimage in a very beautiful fashion with such a parable, we should agree, however, that the direct revelation of God through his messengers is the integral part of this communication network. Even Flew subconsciously acknowledges the role of the “sage” in his parable.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced in Mergeous [8], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought. The longer and live version of the article [9] is also available in Mergeous for interested readers.

References

1. A. Flew, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” HarperCollins Publishers (New York, 2007).

2. Kainata Imanla Bakis, http://www.mergeous.com/projectcon.asp?aid=21

3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler, Sayfa 281-299 (risaleinurenstitusu.org).

4. M. F. Gülen, “Islam’in engin ufku,” Yagmur, Sayi 30, Ocak-Mart 2006.

5. M. F. Gülen, “Marifet, Muhabbet ve Medyuniyet,” Kirik Testi, http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/?article_id=7978

6. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Flashes, pg. 237 (translated by Sukran Vahide).

7. A. Y. Ali, The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. (New York 2004).

8. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com

9. There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew (Review), http://www.mergeous.com/articlecon.asp?aid=16

Faith, especially in the form of religion, refers to a heavenly-inspired system that leads people to goodness, but on the condition that they believe wilfully.

Religion is a divine system or a corpus consisting of systems. The most eminent feature differentiating it from human systems is that it is ordained by God, based on scripture, the good example of the Messenger that it was revealed to, and on how scholars have interpreted both. Arriving at goodness by means of religion is an absolute blessing by God; yet every human contributes to it by his or her choices.

Wisdom, on the other hand, has been decribed in many forms. In the case of Islam, the Qur’an states that wisdom has been bestowed to the Prophet in addition to the Book.1 Because of this fact, many interpreters have said that wisdom and the Book are not one and the same. It is decreed in another ayah that, “whoever is granted the Wisdom has indeed been granted much good.”2 Since the Prophet’s sunnah – his traditions, including his words and silent approvals – specifies the general issues of the Book, generalizes the specific points, and restricts its absolute topics by particular conditions and clauses, it is a great and abundant fountain of goodness. Therefore, some hadith scholars thought it was the Sunnah that “Wisdom” was actually refering to. Besides, the details of daily prayers, fasting, and hajj were determined by the Sunnah.

At the same time, as pointed out by Bediuzzaman, wisdom has been interpreted as the attainment of certain truths of faith and the universe, which have been concealed behind material veils, through spiritual inspiration and discoveries. All we see are a door, some windows, and four walls around us; however, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, decrees that, “I see what you do not see, and hear what you do not hear. The sky has resonated in such a way that you would laugh less and cry more if you saw what I see and knew what I know.” In this regard, reaching the veiled knowledge about the realm behind the physical world has also been considered wisdom.

This cognisance may take place through intuition or an expansion of the imagination, or through divination or direct witness. Whatever we know through rational deduction and certainty of knowledge (ilm al-yaqin) is endorsed by seekers of truth – first inwardly, in their consciences, and then outwardly, in their practices. This is another sign of abundance of goodness.

However, some have heaped the meaning of philosophy upon wisdom. There is a conflictual history between Islamic scholars and positivist philosophers. The struggle of Islamic scholars like Imam Ghazzali against philosophical deviance has become legend. Scholars like Ghazzali and Bediuzzaman used reason, logic, and other methods of philosophy to contest philosophers; so, if their efforts will be considered a part of philosophy, then it is certainly within the domain of wisdom.

One dimension of this conflict had to do with the literalists who interpreted all commandments exclusively and conducted them without question, even though this may have led to contradictions with other rules. Philosophers reacted to this movement, yet drifted to another extreme, where they went so far as to deny the essentials of faith. What we consider “wisdom” would be one that embraces rationality and logic in accordance with positive sciences and humanities, but is also in line with the overall message of the scripture as understood and practiced by the Messenger.

Searching for an accord between laws in nature and the regulations and laws of human life, and sensing and eliciting the concordance between the divine message and universe, are also considered within the territories of wisdom. Such a search for harmony between these dynamics is a key for success and serenity, both in this world and in the life to come after death. The science of jurisprudence in Islam and its applicative branches may be regarded as a vital manifestation of this correspondence and union. This science has been successful because it has been open to analogical reasoning and interpretation. Under current conditions, where such reasoning is missing, it is impossible to govern even the smallest district in any country.

After religion and wisdom, comes power. Unless the laws of wisdom and principles of faith and state are equipped with power, everything shall remain on paper and cannot evoke any sort of influence on people. Without power, how can the wisdom in minds and souls, and the piles of books in the libraries, transform into daily practice? As a matter of fact, we have been witnessing that it is not transformed, since those representatives of brute force who have turned their backs on scientific knowledge and absolute truth, and believe that they can sort out everything by power, have not let it be so; and it seems that they will not, either. In this regard, if a nation does not attach as much importance to power as as it does to wisdom, much of the performance of that nation in the name of national and religious values shall be uncertain. Besides, all three elements of religion, wisdom, and power must work together and in alliance. Otherwise, power not guided by faith and wisdom shall be a mere tool of cruelty and suppression; wisdom without faith shall be a wheel of intrigue; and faith not supported by legitimate power shall become just a mere “issue of conscience.” That is, the raison d’etre of faith and communicating it to people shall not be fully realized.

Notes

1. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/129, 151, 231; Surah Âl-i Imrân, 3/164; Surah An-Nisâ, 4/113; Surah Al-Jumu’ah, 62/2.
2. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/269.

As planets have been moving like whirling dervishes around the sun for millions of years, the Milky Way and billions of galaxies in the universe constantly keep turning in space, whose boundaries we are unable to define, in a realm of ether. As the world completes rotating around its own axis in 24 hours, it orbits around the sun with a speed of 30 km/hr and it does not even make a second’s delay in completing its yearly tour. A crowded family formed by the other nearby worlds and their satellites are travelling toward the Vega system with a speed of 220 km/second. Thanks to this rhythmic order, the orbits of planets and their positions at a given date, the times for lunar and solar eclipses, and changes with the length of days and nights, can be predicted years in advance, or calculated for historical times. The repetitive nature of these movements and continuity of the present order, for millions of years, show that everything depends on a certain plan and law, and that nothing acts on its own. There is no place for coincidence when things happen within a frame of laws, where order and rhythm exist.

The continuity of existence depends on the repetition of existing motions within a certain period – namely, on rhythmical motion. The cessation of motion in the cosmos would mean the non-existence of rhythm. It is not possible to talk about rhythm without motion and activity. This movement in existence must have a meaning and purpose. It is exceedingly difficult to explain, with physical laws, why existence came to be and the purpose in this motion. In addition, why this motion began and how long it will last, cannot solely be explained with physical laws. However, there is great meaning in this harmonious turning; an unbroken bond in existence, and a unity. Everything uses a silent language to give a meaningful message to insightful hearts. Then, how is this message supposed to be read and understood?

As we understand from holy scriptures, existence is made subservient to humanity. Existence stands as a means for human comprehension of the meaning within. A person who can view existence with eyes of wisdom and manages to hear creation’s silent melody becomes enraptured with this rhythm and feels like a whirling dervish awed by the Divine.

Rhythm in nature

There exists a balance in nature and a meaningful bond between beings. As everything runs in harmony, beings both help and compensate for one another. The sun, the earth’s source of energy and light, and essential for the continuity of life, is made dependent on a certain order with its rhythmical motion; the world and other planets move in accordance with this main rhythm. Day and night happen by the earth’s spinning around its axis, which is another rhythmical and constant occurrence. An absence of rhythm causes uncertainty and the situation is defined as chaos. If the future is completely uncertain, it gives way to utter chaos and life on earth cannot continue.

The holistic and integrated nature of beings is reflected in human biology, as it is in all living beings. Humans can always perceive, in daily life, that the motions in the universe are in a rhythmical order. As a person comes to this world connected with these rhythms; one can feel their effect in every stage of life and in one’s own body. The circular motion that occurs with the periodical repetition of minutes, hours, days, seasons, and years influences us. The inner rhythm we call our “biorhythm” is adjusted in accordance with the order outside, and there is a 24-hour periodical rhythm in daily life. Every individual has an innately given, peculiar, and distinctive bio rhythm special to the person’s biological and spiritual structure. As in human beings, a periodical rhythm is observable in many living things’ metabolism, heartbeat, and bodily functions, like respiration and sleep; this is known as the circadian rhythm. If the rhythms of living beings are upset, their biological balance is also upset, a situation which can sometimes cause death.

There is no place for coincidence in the universe; everything runs in a regular order established by the One of infinite wisdom. What brings order to life is the existence of rhythmical motion and the continuity of this order, which gives people a sense of security and makes life easier. One can make daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly plans. For example, the fact that the sun’s motion depends on certain physical laws that can be defined with mathematical formulas, and that we see it rising at a certain hour from the same direction every day, gives a sense of comfort to our mind and feelings. Most people do not even worry whether the sun will rise the next day. A person with sound reason does not fall into contradictions while observing occurrences and looks to future with trust. Thanks to periodical occurrences, a person finds a beauty in one’s memories and feelings by remembering the past. These recurring seasons can help us to remember things that, otherwise, might be forgotten.

As an inherent quality of human nature, a person wishes to see an order to social life and expects consistent behavior from others. People with consistent behavior are more preferable as friends and inspire trust in those around them. The order formed as a consequence of individuals’ living in harmony can be seen as social rhythm. Just as a social life that respects others’ rights, and acting in accordance with the existing order, is peaceful and harmonious, a social life that runs counter to the idea of order and trust can lead to chaos and unrest.

Arts

Laws prevalent in existence can also be expressed with arithmetical equations. Mathematical curves, fractals, number series, and many other things reflect a rhythmical pattern and a plan. For example, works executed with the proportions of Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio give aesthetic pleasure to viewers. The eye perceives numerous patterns and motifs formed by ranges of colors, and the ear perceives all melodies and sounds as rhythm. For a person who views creation with eyes of wisdom, the positions of leaves on a tree, a soaring bird, a flowing river, and all of spring’s colorful blossoms are causes of admiration and enthusiasm. Beauty appeals to human nature. And what lies in the essence of all art is aesthetic beauty and harmony, which evoke this feeling of admiration. The human reason, spirit, and emotions have their share from the mysterious activities observed in creation; they express these through art. An artist is essentially inspired by this order and harmony in the universe. If art is the name for sensing this rhythm and harmony in the universe, then the artist is a person who expresses this rhythm in one’s works. Those who grasp this fine meaning and aesthetic beauty in creation can be said to have caught the true spirit in art.

Music is the art where rhythm is sensed best. The patterns and harmony in music perfectly agree with the harmony in nature. Perhaps, how music appeals human feelings and gives us delight is a consequence of such a correspondence. A person’s recognition of this harmony and rhythm in the universe makes one conform to it and become unified with existence.

To conclude, humans have not been left to run wild in this world; an order is needed for their material and spiritual life. The balance, harmony, and beauties existing in creation are reflected in human nature as well. Without a rhythmically working order, the balance of life will be upset, chaos will begin, and maybe the world will come to an end!

Can an apple move the earth? Physics says it can. The power that gave an apple the ability to move the world, also gave us humans the capacity to make use of the natural laws and be a true vicegerent on the earth.

In a universal arrangement of objects, from the smallest to the largest, in terms of length, time, and mass, where is the human located? In between the diameter of an atomic nucleus (10-14 meters) and the distance of the farthest galaxy from the earth (1026 meters), the human being occupies a zone between one and three meters. The human lifetime can be measured to be around 109 seconds in temporal length, to the duration of a ray of light passing through a proton (10-24 seconds), to the age of the universe (1017 seconds). And the human mass is located around a 102 kg zone, on a scale from the mass of an electron (10-31 kg), to the mass of the Milky Way galaxy (1041 kg).

Based on this data, understanding the human that is trapped in this enormous universe is crucial. Humans are just a speck, jammed between mote and sphere, living in a frail state of weakness and poverty. “Do not strut about the earth in haughty self-conceit; for you can never split the earth (no matter how hard you stamp your foot), nor can you stretch to the mountains in height (no matter how strenuously you seek to impress)” (Qur’an 17:37).

Humans, who need a vast amount of grace and support, are in search of answers to improve themselves. “Who am I?” they often ask; “where am I?” As scientists and researchers discover the excellence of the universe’s artistry, we begin to comprehend just how blessed humans are. Within the laws of science lie the answers to our questions. Laws are relative principles that operate according to the constants wisely built into the universe. These laws are veils to the majesty of creation. Each law is created anew every moment, thus we perceive them as if they are eternal patterns. For example, the human body gravitates to the center of the earth with a force equivalent to their mass multiplied by the average gravitational velocity of the earth, which is 9.8 m/s2. The law of gravity is created every moment in such fine measures that it is possible for us to walk on the ground.

It helps to remember Newton’s three laws in physics. The first is the principle of inertia, which states that unless there is an external force, or if the sum of all forces cancel each other out in direction and size, then an object is either at rest or moves at a constant velocity. The second law is that force equals the mass of an object multiplied with its acceleration. And the third is the action-reaction principle, which states that when a force is applied to an object, the object exerts a force in opposite direction, equal in magnitude. This means that when an apple is thrown into the air, and the apple accelerates in opposition to gravity, the earth is distanced from the apple with the same amount of force. Similarly, when the apple falls down because of gravity, the apple is also pulling the earth with the same magnitude. If this was to repeat constantly, theoretically a movement like the one made by a yo-yo should have happened between the apple and the earth. Because of its huge mass, the earth’s acceleration is very small, thus this yo-yo movement would not be felt. An object as small as an apple actually moves an object the size of the planet. This means that the power that gave an apple the ability to move the world, also gave us humans the capacity to make use of the natural laws and be a true vicegerent on the earth.

Nothing in the universe has been created in vain – all phenomena occur because of a purpose they are assigned to fulfill. In a universe in which everything is bound by a complicated web of laws that are created without a moment’s lapse, humankind surely has a significant role to play in the unique position with which they are graced. This position undoubtedly requires a sense of humility in the face of all the grandeur around us, yet also being aware of our given capacities, which enable us to master over all existence.

Science is the systematic study of the behavior of certain phenomena (that is, regularities, uniformities) in the physical universe. Scientific study is based on observation, experimentation, measurement, and the formulation of universal laws that describe these facts and phenomena in general terms and enable prediction.

The process of describing regularities (i.e. things that happen in a particular way) is incomplete and never exhaustive because regularities are not exact and deterministic. There is actually quite a lot of approximation and simplification involved in this process. If an exact equation is desired, then these scientific laws, which are useful for prediction, must be formulated in mathematical terms; this represents the whole business of science.

The huge popularity of science is due to its practical results, such as the previous technological examples stated previously. Science is about studying regularities in the material world and describing those regularities in order to make predictions and to make possible the technology that we use daily possible.

It is important to stress that describing and making use of science is not about explaining, but rather using it to make sense of something; here, description is not to be confused with explanation. Therefore, science is about describing, not explaining. The moment a scientist talks about the meaning behind a law or regularity in nature and our ability to benefit from it, he is no longer talking science and he is venturing into the realm of metaphysics and the philosophy of science. Just because someone is a great scientist, it does not mean that he has a deeper insight into the meaning of the laws of the physical world and universe.

What science seeks to explain

Science does not answer questions of meaning or questions of agency (like, who is doing what for what reason? What is responsible for a given regularity?) and we cannot criticize science for not dealing with these questions. They may be important questions but it’s not the responsibility of the field of science to answer these questions. For example, consider the Law of Gravity. We drop a pen and it falls. Why did it fall? Because of gravity.

We observe that, without exception, the pen always falls when we lift it and drop it. Then we call the conjunction between performing an action and its regularity the law of gravity. This means that the law of gravity is simply the name we have given to this regularity; however, it does not mean that the pen is falling because of gravity. Gravity is the name given to the process, not an explanation for it, but in our minds both the name and the explanation for the phenomenon have become one and the same.

The question arises: Is it logically justified to explain an experience through a causal law that is derived through the same experience?

In the beginning, when scientists started asking these questions, it was unclear what the difference was between description and explanation. For a long time science was thought to be a venture competing with religion in providing answers for life.

Regarding natural laws, 19th century American philosopher Charles Peirce stresses on the point that natural laws serve as a description of natural events, not as explanations of these very events: “no law of nature makes a stone fall, or a Leyden jar to discharge, or a steam engine to work.”¹

A law of nature left to its self would be quite analogous to a court without a sheriff. A court in that predicament might probably be able to induce some citizen to act as sheriff; but until it had so provided itself with an officer who, unlike itself, could not discourse authoritatively but who could put forth the strong arm, its law might be the perfection of human reason but would remain mere fireworks. Just so, let a law of nature – say the law of gravitation – remain a mere uniformity – a mere formula establishing a relation between terms – and what in the world would induce a stone, which is not a term nor a concept but just a plain thing, to act in conformity to that uniformity?²

The law of gravity is just a formula, just a name. It cannot make a stone act in accordance to it.

It is important to note that the notion of law is closely related to issues of agency and also to the affinity of the human mind to perceive natural phenomena and the possibility of finding patterns in nature beyond science (i.e. how is it that we are so in tune to what is happening in the world that we can pick up all these regularities?). These issues announce the “greatness” of science. When it comes to the affinity of the human mind to realize recurrent patterns in the universe, Peirce says:

. . . the mind of man is strongly adapted to the comprehension of the world; at least, so far as this goes, that certain conceptions, highly important for such a comprehension, naturally arise in the mind; and, without such a tendency, the mind could never have had any development at all.³

Therefore, there would be no science if one could not grasp the regularities.

In our scientific inquiry, it is reasonable for us to be searching out these regularities and hoping that they will remain stable, but we cannot assume that we have explained how or why such regularities or laws are in effect. It may also be reasonable to say that there are regularities and we hope that these regularities and so-called universal laws will come into effect in the future so that technology can be made from predictions. There can only be hope, and not certainty, because science is based on observation and there may be some instances where the same observation may not occur.Even though science is based on exactitude, there is still a measure of hope and faith involved.

A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature. How do we come to the conclusion that we have a scientific law? Several events occur, (not just to the researcher) that hold to certain regularities, according to a certain pattern, and a generalized statement is formed. The process of generalization from a limited number of observations to form a universal statement or law is called the process of induction, or looking at a certain number of events and saying that things are going to happen all the time. The assumption under the process of induction is that the more observations made about a particular phenomenon, the more it will reinforce the law.

There is only one way for such an assumption to be true, and it has nothing to do with the number of observations. We assume a relationship or connection between the object and what occurs, the cause and effect. The assumption is that there is a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. One must be able to explain this connection in a logical way, not as something that depends solely on observation but something that necessitates the event. If this is unable to be done, if it is only based on observations, then induction is a problem. In formulating a scientific law, generalizations made through the method of induction are problematic.

Because of induction, the basic application of our inductive reasoning is twofold: firstly we think we can describe what we have seen by the use of universal laws, and secondly, that we can use these established laws in predicting what we will see. There is, however, a problem with the mechanics of the inductive process. Are we justified in formulating these universal laws simply on the basis of a discrete number of past observations that have been made?

For example, based on the scientific observation of planetary motion, we could suggest that “the sun will rise every day.” However, just because the sun has risen in the past, it does not mean that it will continue to do so either tomorrow or the next day. So the induction based on the number of occurrences of a particular phenomenon is illogical. There is no guarantee that we will ever see the sun rise again. The sense of faith we have in the scientific laws of planetary motions is based on the supposition that some kind of necessity has caused the sun to rise in the past and will therefore continue to cause the sun to rise in the future. We assume that the connection between the cause and the effect are necessarily related. To use another common example, everyone in Europe thought the statement “All swans are white” was true because every swan that they had ever seen was white. However, when travelers came back from Australia and New Zealand, they reported having seen black swans, thus providing a real life example of how induction can falter. This observation negated the previous generalizations.This brings us to the issue of causality.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. In relation to one another, induction only has to work sometimes whereas causality always has to work. It has little to do with the number of occurrences; it has to work for each cause-effect relationship. The consequence of this model of the world is that empirical knowledge is connected to the causal relations between objects and events. According to this view, the logic of scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, it infers universal laws from particular statements.

The logic of induction proceeds as follows: First, it conjectures that induction is valid, and then concludes that causation is true. Whereas, from the point of view of logic, it is just the other way around; induction can be justified only by proving that causation is logically valid i.e., that the relation between cause and effect is necessary. Induction is therefore logically not a justified method to attain universality. As the Australian-British philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper observes, scientific induction is “logically inadmissible,” that scientific “theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable.”⁴

Can we count on the laws of nature? It depends. We can have faith in them; we can hope that they will continue to hold in the future but there exists no logical certainty. But we cannot prove that they will remain true because we cannot observe something that will occur in the future (the dogma of the experiment).

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell calls the dogma of induction, the “biggest scandal of philosophy.” He provides the example of a farmer and his chicken. The chicken notices that the farmer comes every day to feed it. It predicts that the farmer would continue to bring food every day. According to the principle of induction, each feeding event added justification to its prediction. Then one day the farmer came and wrung the chicken’s neck. Russell’s point is that induction cannot justify any conclusions!

Critical problems with the method of induction have been in discussion long before the more recent debates, and are often connected with the concept of causality. The same issue was also at the center of a heated debate among Muslim philosophers and theologians as early as the 12th century. This critical problem with the method of induction was also pointed out earlier by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume stated that when we observe two events to be causally related, say a seed (a) resulting in the growth of a shoot or tree (b), what we in fact observe is only a contingent conjunction of two events. That is, the causation that we think we perceive is not actually “out there in the world” for us to observe. When we see two events and judge them to be causally related, it is merely through a habit of the mind, something we project onto the world. A necessary causal link, as such, is not guaranteed. Hume writes:

Were any object presented to us, and were we required to pronounce concerning the effect, which will result from it, without consulting past observation; after what manner, I beseech you, must the mind proceed in this operation? It must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it.⁵

This means that causal laws of nature are not true logically and there is no concrete evidence that these will continue to hold in the future. We simply cannot postulate universal laws that tell us the way the world irrefutably is and will always be unless we have some good reason to trust such generalizations. And even if we could trust such universal laws as “the sun will always rise,” it is not clear how many times we would need to see the sun rise in order to justify proposing this law. Scientific observation, although detailed and informative, has no claim to being the irrefutable truth of the matter.

The solution

Sir Karl Popper offered a potential solution to this problem by thinking about the way we do science in a new light. Popper turned science on its head by claiming that we are looking at science in the wrong way. Instead of looking to science to provide us with theories that are definitive and true, Popper said that we should be looking to science to provide us with theories that we have failed to prove false for a very long time. This approach to science is referred to as “Falsificationism.” Less of a solution and more of a shortcut, it is a tool which we are allowed to use in the game of science. He describes the Falsification approach by noting that for the scientific method to be rational, it must make claims to knowledge that is logically sound. That is, science is not about making grand universal laws, but about the examination of individual observations. According to the model of falsification, science is concerned with evaluating and refining. What we commonly think of as scientific claims to knowledge, are only hypotheses that we accept till they are proved wrong.

Fundamentally, Popper accepts that science can never provide us with complete 100% certainty, but he claims that this is not really a problem because it is not actually science’s job. The purpose of science is to provide us with a theory that is likely to be true based on the fact that we haven’t yet managed to prove it wrong. One unfortunate consequence of this, however, is that you can only ever be certain of the things that you have proved wrong. We know, for example, that the world definitely is not flat. The problem with this fact is that, although certain, it is not particularly useful to know that something is definitely false. For Popper, the best we can hope for is that a given claim is corroborated at one instance in time and if we presume otherwise, we are begging the question of the uniformity of nature: that what has always been, will (for apparently no good reason) continue to be.

To recapitulate, science does not deal with explanation; this is the realm of metaphysics. How we explain things depends on our beliefs and world view.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

Footnotes

1. Online Past Masters text, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (University of Virginia E-text Center), 1.323. (The online texts is drawn from The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958).
2. Ibid., 5.48.
3. Ibid., 6. 417.
4. Popper, Karl. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published in 1935).
5. Hume, David. (1772). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Co.

Paul Davies, a British-born cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and bestselling author, conducts inter-disciplinary research in the areas of physics, cosmology, and biology. Dr. Davies is the director of a new research center at Arizona State University called Beyond. The mission of the center is to explore the great questions of our existence, the origin of our universe and life, the nature of consciousness, and the mathematical laws that underpin the universe. He is particularly interested in the Big Bang Theory, one of the most influential theories of our time concerning the origins of our universe.

Matter&Beyond: You are a cosmologist and the topic obviously is fascinating. But what is the root of our connection with space? What is the root of our human fascination with the sky and stars?

It’s very interesting to speculate if human beings had developed on a planet that was totally covered in cloud and had no awareness of the sky and astronomical bodies, whether society would’ve developed very differently. It’s quite clear when you look back at human history that the “heavens,” as they used to be called, had a very major role to play in all early civilizations. We can see evidence of astronomical observatories, thousands of years ago, long before the invention of telescopes. There are monuments, for example, pyramids that were built or Stonehenge in England, which are clearly astronomical monuments of some sort. And then we think of the world’s great religions and they all have an astronomical component. Think of the role of the new moon in Islam, for example, or the Star of Bethlehem in Christianity. … I think we can trace this preoccupation with the sky and the heavens to the early days of the development of agriculture because it became really important for people to know when to plant their crops and when to harvest them and the different seasons and so on. We can imagine that, say 10,000 years ago, people studied the sky very, very carefully and they became familiar with the movement of the objects and they invented complicated mathematical formulas to chart them.

M&B: How did our fascination with space change after industrialization?

What I would say has happened in the last three or four hundred years is that actually most people have become less aware of space. We live in cities that are polluted so we don’t see outer space. We’re too busy looking at televisions or driving home from work so we never look up and see this wonderland above our heads. How many people, for example, could name even the major constellations of stars if they were ever taken outside of their cities to somewhere where they could see the dark night sky? And so astronomy has become in a way less and less significant in people’s lives.

M&B: But today astronomy and cosmology is making a comeback. There are a lot of bestseller popular science books written on space and time.

I think during the 1970s and ‘80s people became very antiscientific, perhaps as a result of a reaction to the Vietnam War. Astronomy somehow remained aloof from that. It was perceived as a subject that wasn’t dangerous, that we could study the stars, they were a long way away using benign equipment like telescopes and astronomers weren’t going to threaten anybody. And so I think exploring the universe has been seen in many ways as a sort of untainted glorious enterprise that doesn’t have this sort of threatening aspect to it. It’s still, of course, immensely popular. People still want to go to planetariums and they read books on astronomy and they like television productions on astronomical things. But I think it’s shifted now from those early days where people’s lives really revolved around the stars in a very literal sense, and those days are now gone.

M&B: You are a cosmologist, but based on the wide range of research areas at the center Beyond, I would say that you look more like a modern seeker of old times.

Since the dawn of human history people have asked the great questions of existence, how did the universe come to exist? What is the role of human beings in the great cosmic scheme of things? How will the universe end? What is it made of? Now for the greater part of human history, these questions were addressed by priests and philosophers. But in recent years, science has made progress as well. So scientists find themselves now asking those same age-old questions of existence. In my career, I have covered topics like the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the nature of time, the nature of consciousness, and the underlying laws of the universe. Inevitably these topics trespass on territory which was previously almost exclusively philosophy or religion’s. Now science has a story to tell about these great issues.

M&B: If you have to pick the most interesting question modern science is trying to answer, what would be your choice?

I suppose the most interesting thing modern science is telling us about is how the universe came into existence. When I was a student, the Big Bang Theory was just one of many ideas about the origin of the universe. But over the past 30 years it’s become much more secure so that not only do we know that there was a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, but we know a great deal about the details including the conditions that prevailed in the universe back to as little as one-trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. So we’re now able to reconstruct precisely how the universe went bang and how it developed over the subsequent billions of years into what we see today. So I think that the scientific story of the genesis of a universe is fascinating—its origin, its explosive outbursts, and the long period of enrichment and complexification of matter leading eventually to the emergence of life and beings like ourselves who could look back and reflect on it all.

M&B: The Big Bang Theory is well established. Yet it’s still open to commentaries and interpretations.

It’s often said that science deals with “how?” questions and religion deals with “why?” questions and so you don’t normally go to a scientist to find meaning or purpose in the universe. Nevertheless it is clear that because science is now able to fill in so many details about the big picture, that scientists are inevitably asked to make pronouncements about meaning and purpose. As they do so, they divide about equally into two groups. One group who says, “Well, the universe is beautiful, it’s so ingenious that it looks as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator but in fact it hasn’t.” There is no meaning, no purpose in the universe. The famous quote by Steven Weinberg, the American cosmologist, goes: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Then the other half of cosmologists look at this same set of facts and they agree about the facts but they interpret them differently. They will say, “Well, it does suggest that there is a grand scheme of things, it does suggest that the universe is about something. This grand and wonderful scheme, which is so ingeniously constructed, does suggest that there is something deeper to it all.”

M&B: We find more and more scientists thinking and writing about these topics on both sides.

Human beings usually are not happy just to have a technical description of how the universe works, and in particular people always want to ask the question what happened before the Big Bang? What made the Big Bang go bang? Why is there a universe in the first place, and why is the universe as it is and not something different? And these are questions right on the edge of science because science really can only deal with things that can be measured and observed. They can deal with the facts of the world, the things before us. When we come to questions about why does the world exist at all or why are there laws and where do those laws come from, it’s very difficult for science to make a contribution. Nevertheless, in the last ten or twenty years more and more scientists have been addressing those questions. The nature of physical laws is a very good example… When I was a student, you were simply told the laws of physics are what they are, we don’t know why, maybe there isn’t any reason why—that’s just the way it is. It was not the job of the scientists to ask why those laws of physics exist. The job of the scientist was to discover what the laws are and then apply them. But that has changed. There is now a feeling that maybe the nature of physical laws is something that is a proper, legitimate subject for scientific inquiry. And so there’s a whole bunch of physicists who are looking at alternative laws.

M&B: How do they theorize alternative laws?

Supposing we stipulate a different law of gravitation and see what the consequences would be. We can work out using mathematics what it would be like if gravity differed a little bit from the observed law. And then we can do the same with the other forces of nature and other features of the world. What would it be like if we lived in the universe with 23 space dimensions instead of three? We can work that out. Partly that’s a recreational exercise—it would be fun to know what it would be like in a universe with different dimensions or different forces—but also we would like to know is there anything special about the particular laws of this particular universe.

M&B: What is the result of such experiments?

There is something special and that special thing is that the particular laws that we observe in this universe are very strangely conducive to the emergence of life. They’re highly suited to life, even suspiciously so. It’s almost as if these laws have been fine-tuned for life, and so at that point disagreement sets in and some scientists say, “Well, it’s just a lucky coincidence that that is the case,” and others say, “No, there must be some other explanation for it.” But it is certainly the case that the universe we observe and the laws that underpin it, which used to just be regarded as given, as not a proper subject for inquiry, are now being studied as one set among a vast variety of possible sets, and it’s generally agreed that the particular laws that we observe are very special in their relation to the ability to bring forth life.

M&B: And you call this a “cosmic jackpot.”

My book, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life, examines a very specific problem, the problem of why the universe seems to be just right for life. When we look at the fundamental laws of physics and the way that the universe originated in the Big Bang, there are many features that appear to be coincidences or the happy arrangement of different aspects of physical laws without which there would be no life and no observers like ourselves. And the question is, What are we to make of that? Some people say, “Well, it looks like the whole thing is a fix, it looks like the universe is being created by an Intelligent Designer.” Well, obviously all the scientists aren’t going to believe that. So instead they come up with other explanations.

M&B: There is the theory of multiverses.

According to that theory, there are many universes each of which has its own set of laws and these laws are just randomly distributed across these universes. So here and there, just by chance, the laws are going to come out just right for life. It’s no surprise that we find ourselves living in a universe where conditions are just right for life because we could hardly live in a universe which had laws of physics that did not permit life. It’s like a gigantic cosmic lottery with all of these different universes and we’ve just hit the cosmic jackpot because we’re winners of this vast lottery. So that is the popular view as to how we explain that the universe is just right for life. I think that view is progressive but I think it falls far short of providing a complete explanation of existence. I take life seriously and I take the mind seriously so I don’t think that these are just incidental phenomena in the great cosmic scheme of things. I think they’re fundamental to the workings of the universe as a whole and so what I’m trying to do here is to go beyond the rather startled debate between science and religion that’s existed for the last 30 years about the ultimate source of reality.

M&B: It just seems to me, just based on intuition, that we’re not alone here. The universe is so vast, there’s just got to be life somewhere. Does mathematics and statistics support this intuition?

A lot of people make that mistake by saying, statistically, there has to be life elsewhere, the universe is so vast, so many stars out there. It would be incredible if this was the only planet with life. It’s just simply not true. The probability of forming even the simplest enzyme, the simplest protein in known life, if you did it just by shuffling the building blocks, the amino acids that make up for that, is infinitesimal. If you took the entire volume of the universe and filled it with an amino acid soup and just kept shuffling and shuffling and shuffling, you would simply not make it. If it’s happened once, we’re it. It would not happen anywhere else. So the probability of life forming in that way by chance is twice as infinitesimal. So if that’s the way life happened, the fact we live in a vast universe makes no different whatsoever.

M&B: People who are not scientists may think that scientists are the smartest of all of us so they must be figuring out everything, they’re the smartest ones who bring the technology. They look at scientists as natural guides. Do you see a danger here?

Scientists are human beings like everybody else, and I think it’s a mistake to see scientists as generally cold, hard, soulless people who don’t care about the consequences of their work. Scientists are very passionate people and they feel passionately not only about their work but about other aspects of human life. It is also a mistake to think that scientists have any special moral authority over questions of general relevance to human beings. The vast majority of problems that we confront in the world really are only related obliquely, if at all, to science. We struggle with things like the ruin of our environment or international disputes or family concerns or education concerns. These sort of day-to-day things loom very large in people’s lives, but I’m not sure that scientists make a contribution. Science is obviously relevant to some of these things, for example, if we could find a better source of energy that doesn’t heat the planet, that would be good. So science can play a role, but individual scientists, I don’t think are any better than anybody else as moral judges.

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.

Everywhere I look, I see citizens polluting, communities mistreating and nations exploiting the earth.

I watch them as they misuse and abuse this sacred place, as if it was theirs.

What they fail to remember is that this earth is the same earth the first man and woman called home. It is the same earth countless prophets, saints, and scholars called home. It is the same earth my Ottoman ancestors called home. It is the same earth my country’s natives, the Aboriginal people, called home.

But I could almost see this earth diminish before my eyes. My heart aches with uncertainty of what lies ahead.

What have we left to offer the future generations? What have we done? What have we become?

Divine cleanliness

Everything God created in this world and beyond has perfect order and balance, for He is the Most Powerful and All Wise. So it cannot be He who is responsible for the world’s current state of affairs.

This earth is like a hotel, a guesthouse which is continually filled and emptied by the living and dead. Despite this constant entry and exit, this guesthouse remains totally pure and clean. There is nothing unnecessary, nothing exists without having any benefit or purpose, and not a random piece is put out of place.

If it was not for this remarkable cleaning, in a short amount of time, thousands of animal and plant species would have been suffocated on the face of the earth.

God’s orderliness is everywhere the eye reaches.

Carnivorous animal species clean the seas by gathering up the corpses of other sea-creatures that die every day by the millions, preventing the sea from becoming polluted.

Ants collect the corpses of tiny creatures and small particles and fragments of bounty, preserving them from waste and uselessness.

Flies clean away poisonous substances and microbes which breed diseases that are invisible to the naked human eye, thus preventing the spread of many contagious diseases.

His command is obeyed everywhere by everything, from eyelids cleaning the eye and flies brushing their wings.

Therefore, there is magnificence and harmony in every creation in every corner of the world. With varieties of beauty spread in a myriad of colors and forms, it is so splendid that imaginations are pushed to the limit when trying to imagine anything more beautiful.

It is such a pity that this wonderful world, which God has bestowed upon humans to observe and study free of charge, is no longer given any more care than is given to a heap of junk.

“How deplorably and awkwardly we have treated plains and residential places, which we have changed into deserts and heaps of ruin. How deplorably and gracelessly we have treated seas and rivers, which we have polluted. Again, how deplorably and awkwardly we have treated air and water, and fields, forests, and gardens, which we have made unfavorable to any life. Truly, by changing this Paradise-like world to a hell, how deplorably and awkwardly we have treated ourselves!”

In our eagerness to “progress” and “develop,” we have lost sight of the finite and delicate nature of our world and of humanity’s place in it. So it is when humans improve the condition of this world whose order they have destroyed and polluted, and restore it to its prior balance and beauty, only then will they be able to live a healthier and happier lifestyle.

Guardians of the Earth

The origins of global environmental problems lie in humankind’s deliberate rejection of the physical laws governing environmental management and a persistent disobedience to God’s spiritual laws.

“And do good as God has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, God does not like corruptors.” (Quran 28:77)

The Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, contain instructions to assist humanity in preserving its environment. In the Quran God declares, “It is He who has appointed you viceroys (guardians) in the earth” (6:165). Through this verse it becomes evident that humans have a special place in God’s scheme. They are more than friends of the Earth; they are its guardians.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, lived up to this verse best as a guardian of the earth. He was an “environmental pioneer” who lived with the philosophy that there is a fundamental link and interdependency between all natural elements and that if humans abuse one element, the natural world as a whole will suffer the direct consequences.

For instance, the Prophet pointed out the many benefits in planting trees which he said will last until the Day of Judgment. He said, “If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot to plant in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action.”

Furthermore, the Prophet recommended and warned that shaded spots where people could rest and spaces under fruit trees should not be dirtied. He also emphasized that there should be no spitting on roads and places of worship, and objects that could injure people should be removed from the roads and put to one side. All of these principles are essential for every person to implement in ensuring a healthy environment and in respect to protecting and keeping the environment clean.

The Quran also emphasizes not harming other living creatures on earth. God declares, “And there is no creature on or within the earth or a bird that flies with its wings except that they are nations (communities) like you.” (6:38)

Recent statistics show that over 60,000 animal species have gone extinct, over 4 million hectares of forests are lost, around 1.8 billion liters of water are used up, and around 10 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into our environment by industries each year. These are massive amounts of waste and destruction that humans have brought upon themselves.

The environmental devastation encapsulating this planet is thus a direct result of these physical laws being broken. These statistics illustrate the results of our law-breaking catching up with us.

The Ottomans: Sultans of Sympathy

The Ottoman era was a period during which an extreme emphasis was placed on the regulation and protection of the environment, such that had legally enforceable consequences. This meant that there was zero tolerance towards any misuse of the environment.

It is possible to see the value, importance, and respect given to the environment by the Islamic world during fifteenth century through the will of the great Ottoman Sultan Mehmet, Fatih the Conqueror. The will reads:

“I, the conqueror of Istanbul, humble servant Fatih Sultan Mehmet, donate 136 shops which I personally and rightfully own in Taslik suburb of Istanbul with the following conditions:

I have assigned two persons for every street in Istanbul to be paid from the profit earned from these shops. These persons are to walk along these streets at specific times of the day with a bucket in their hands which contains limestone and coal powder. They are to conceal any spit found on the streets with these powders and be paid 20 akçe (Ottoman currency) per day.

Furthermore, I have assigned 10 surgeons, 10 doctors, and 3 nurses. They are to walk through the streets of Istanbul on certain days of each month, knock on each and every door and find out whether there are any sick people in that household. If there are, they are to treat them. If this is not possible at the time, they are to be transferred to Darülaceze (nursing homes/hospitals) and be treated there.

Additionally, the families of the soldiers who are fallen martyrs and the poor people of Istanbul are to be fed in the soup kitchen which I have built. However, those who are not able to personally come and eat there or collect their food will be provided with alternative service. Their food is to be sent to their homes in concealed containers after sunset without it being seen by others.”

Another royal document regarding environmental care comes from sixteenth century Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent titled Nisan-i Hümayun. Some important points to note in this document include:

“All homes, shops, and their surroundings are to be kept clean or to get cleaned. Those in charge should identify citizens who litter and get those who are responsible to clean their own litter.

Owners of oxcarts should not disturb local residents by leaving their animals near houses or courtyards. They are to collect and dispose of the dung from their animals to appropriate places outside of the city. People are to be prevented from throwing the carcasses of horses, sheep, etc. onto the streets. Those who refuse to comply with this rule are to be punished publicly.

Used water containing detergent and soap are not to be thrown out onto the streets. No individual has the right to prevent these rules from being implemented and will closely be monitored by law enforcement agencies.”

It is clearly evident that in royal documents like those mentioned above, the leaders took necessary precautions and showed sensitivity towards the implementation of the matters regarding the protection of spiritual and physical wellbeing of the people and the cleanliness of public places.

Animal rights are a contemporary issue that came to public attention only quite recently. Unfortunately, in today’s society, many governments are still struggling with human rights issues, let alone dealing with animal rights.

Ottoman sultans implemented legal measures on the protection and the treatment of animals. In doing so, the care and proper treatment of animals were bound by legal measures and are not left to the individuals’ own judgment.

The Ottoman Empire was known for its vakýf, or foundations, which were first set up to meet the needs of certain groups of people within society but later became an integral part of the Ottoman lifestyle. The most interesting of these vakýf were those dedicated to animals. These foundations were places where generous people would donate certain amounts of money to bakeries and butchers so that they could provide bread and meat for street animals.

Moreover, the sultans did not just stop at providing food for animals, they also made sure that if these animals fell ill, there were specialized hospitals for them to be treated in and looked after.

Ricaut, a British clerk who worked at the British embassy in Istanbul during the Ottoman period (d. 1700) said how impressed he was by the respect and value the Ottoman people had given animals and the importance they had shown towards their nutrition and protection.

“There were not only people, but also cats and dogs that ate from the soup kitchens. In some cities buildings were made for cats, foundations were established for their nutrition, and expenses were paid for the allocation of servants to meet the needs of these animals.”

Aboriginals: The Key to Land Management

Until quite recently the human race, whether in small self-governing native communities or vast empires, functioned instinctively within natural, unwritten boundaries. When these old civilizations died, the forest and natural environment just grew over them. They left no rubbish, pollutants, or waste.

Similarly, Aboriginal tribes of Australia moved around their land for tracking shifts in the availability of important resources. Their respect for the native flora and fauna meant using techniques to ensure their survival.

They actively managed their land through prescribed burning regimes handed down from their ancestors. Aboriginal people burnt to hunt, to promote new grass, to make their land easier to travel through, to clear their land of spiritual pollution left after a death, to create firebreaks for later in the dry season, and for a variety of other reasons whose sole aim was to “bring the land alive again.”

They also had such deep respect for the animals on their land that, for instance, they would slaughter a kangaroo to eat only if the total number of kangaroos in a specific area had reached a certain amount. So until then, they could not touch the kangaroos even if it meant staying hungry and finding something else to eat. Their overall respect for the plants and animals of their land is one that was extremely sacred, one they felt liable to take care of and pass on in good condition to the generations to come.

Conclusion

Today, however, man has much more to offer the world, intellectually and technologically, when compared to the past. Despite having the upper hand in areas such as science and technology, the environment is still struggling and suffering. Who has control over whom? Why is it that tribes, clans, and empires in the past with little advancements had more control over the environment, and today with all the technological breakthroughs, people are still struggling?

Sadly, the harmony that the Prophet promoted between man and his environment has been lost. As we face the effects of chemical pollution caused by industrial wastes, visual pollution caused by rubbish dumping; noise pollution caused by unnecessary sounds, and thought pollution caused by pointless and disorganized overflow of information, it is perhaps time for the world community as a whole, regardless of faith or background, to look into Prophet’s teachings and address the current environmental crisis wisely.

The fundamental solution to these crises lies in humankind respecting the physical laws and embracing the spiritual laws designed by God.

Only then can there be true health, happiness, and healing.

Notes

• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. 2008. The Gleams, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 429.
• Gulen, Fethullah. 1996. “The Nature We Have Destroyed,” The Fountain, No. 15.
• Hadith Musnad.
• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 406.
• Muslim Book 004, Number 1126.
• Worldometers, “World Statistics updated in real time,” http://www.worldometers.info/, Accessed 1 June 2009.
• Özdemir, Ibrahim. “Osmanlý Toplumunda Çevre Anlayisi” Türkler, edt. H.C. Güzel and K. Çiçek, Ankara: Yeni Turkiye Yayýnlarý, c. 10. http://www.ibrahimozdemir.com/Makaleler/Osmanl%C4%B1ToplumundaCevre.pdf, Accessed 21 May 2009.
• Northern Land Council: Caring for the country, “Land Management” http://www.nlc.org.au/html/care_fire.html, Accessed 1 June 2009.

In this issue we discuss not the theological arguments concerning the Day of Judgment, but some scientific speculations on how it might happen. Some say global warming followed by an ice age will bring life on Earth to an end and may trigger the Apocalypse. Expounding on some Qur’anic verses, Dr. Cakmak speculates on how Divine Predestination could operate on the physical world in the folding and collection of light. He suggests, “The events depicted in the verses, by the will of the Creator, may be dependent on the gravitational power of black holes.” Dr. Polatoz argues that apocalyptic events will take place within the sphere of physical laws which will destroy the world, but these laws will not apply after a certain stage following resurrection. These arguments are certainly personal deductions and only God knows what is to come. Dr. Kurtoglu reminds us about the perfect balance established in our universe with a fascinating article on phytoplankton and the critical role these microorganisms hold in the food chain. He makes us realize the horrible destruction we cause in our beautiful world. So, now the question is: Are we preparing our own end?

The Reverend Kip Gilts’ article on “Levels of Tolerance” provides inspirational guidelines for volunteers in interfaith dialogue on how to promote understanding of others who are not like “us.” We learn from his short essay that tolerance is not a compromise, but a love-filled path of sharing the same world.

The Fountain

Let me remind you that the broad circle of our readers are not interested much in Islamic dogma, but rather in everyday realities, which sometimes are tragic. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not Orthodox (from the Greek “orthos,” meaning correct and “doxa” meaning opinion), but rather Orthopracsic (from the Greek “pracsis,” meaning practice or activity). The latter means that in Islam not only are there postulated specific, and quite clear concrete, dogmas of faith, but there are also obligations that all Muslims must follow in their everyday life; these are the norms of behavior as prescribed by Islam. Fifteen hundred years of staunch Islamic belief and its practical implementation in everyday life and politics have ensured, to a larger extent, the stable development of Islamic civilization and contributed in particular into putting an end to the shameful yoke of colonialism for humanity.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century and more specifically at the turn of the millennium, and in connection with the activated radical-and sometimes extremist-tendencies in the Islamic world, voices can be heard-more often in the media than in science-that claim that Islam is an almost ideal ground for the military and political conflicts and for its extreme form of personal terrorism, under the guise of martyrdom, jihad, etc.

The current collection reveals in full and in detail the concept of incompatibility and non-acceptance for a faithful Islamic believer, from the position of the Holy Qur’an, to attempt to take away the highest gift of the Almighty, a human life. For the first time, a mass readership is able to acquaint itself with the five ultimate values of perfect Islam: Faith, life, family, mind, and property. The comparison made within the collection between the perceptions envisaged in the Qur’an and the Bible (made with a scientific basis and provable via the holy texts of the Qur’an and the Bible) is one of the assets of the work.

In the same balanced and dialectic way (based on the Qur’an and the hadith) the thesis concerning the idea that suicide is an act of revenge on the “infidels” is rebuffed; this is shown to be a product of profanity, propagated by child-killers and outcasts without faith and honor. The authors being Muslim, and reputable scholars themselves, support the principle idea that life is exclusively in the Hands of God, contrary to the belief of kamikaze terrorists, and underline the fact that murder is unacceptable for a true Muslim believer. Those who hide behind the name of God and deprive others of life, in particular children, women, elderly people, as well as themselves, arbitrarily assume the responsibility of the Creator. But indeed, “God does not love those who trespass the limits” (Baqara 2:190). A terrorist commits five sins: Against God, humanity, the specific victims, regardless of their religion, to themselves and their family.

The published articles written by the well-known Turkish experts in the matters of religion, sociology and psychology are of value not only due to a complex description of the prime postulates, but to the very aura of care for humanity, life, and our civilization, which is adherent to those who are truly elated and caring about the integrity of our world scientists and preachers.

Several decades of our research have revealed the existing link between the self-organization of the Earth and the external management of outer space. Our common home, the Earth is a dynamic system that is managed by the universal laws of nature. In the framework of this brief introduction, it does not seem proper to discuss the place of God in this system. It is important to point out that the reason for all kinds of criticism and conflict situations in today’s society, including the very phenomena that has upset the balance of the stable development of the world, a imbalance that comprises the misunderstanding of the essence of Islam with the extremism that is the terrorism of those who feel that they can speak on behalf of the whole of Islam, is a lack of correspondence between the decisions and programs with the laws of nature and the Almighty.

Independently from each other, we and our Turkish colleagues have been involved in natural and scientific research; we have all come to the same conclusion about the absolute necessity to follow the universal laws of nature for the benefit of the stable development of humanity. The authors have proved that an ugly and dangerous distortion of God’s Will and the natural laws, as revealed in the present work, are rebuffed by the Almighty and contradict the fundamental principles of existence.

Merhaba and thank you to the authors and editors of this useful work. I wish mutual understanding, peace, and harmony for all readers.

*Oleg L. Kuznetsov holds a Ph.D. on Technical Sciences and currently teaches at the Moscow State University. He is the President of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Rector of the International University of Man, Nature and the “Dubna” society, President of the UNEP/UN Russian Committee.