All human beings have similar organs, but each organ has qualities unique to itself and to the person it belongs to. Research has revealed that even some of the genes of monozygotic twins are different [1]. As opposed to the previous assumption that “when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially identical to every other cell,” it has been found that each cell has a DNA of its own [2]. This uniqueness originates from the fact that the order and number of molecules and proteins are different, which is valid for atoms and sub-atom particles as well. Having spent countless hours on microscopes and spectroscopes, a university professor of mine once said, “I witnessed different structures of iron atom each time I observed one. We even need to produce a separate periodic table for the iron element alone.”

We also witness that particles have been created uniquely, just like human beings are. From the micro universe (one millionth of a meter) down to femto universe (one quadrillionth of a meter), each particle is called a boson or fermion. When particles are examined to find out in what conditions they resemble each other in the femto universe, doors of a new world will be opened in terms of knowledge and contemplation. According to this new perspective, while the things and events are sometimes explained through mathematical equations and formulations, they are sometimes explained through experiments of thought trying to attain the truth behind them. Pauli exclusion principle is one such experiment.

Pauli Principle

There are around 380 sub-atomic particles [3]. In atomic and subatomic dimensions, two fermions (e.g. two electrons) of an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers. Wolfgang Pauli first explained this principle in 1925 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945 after experiments proved that the theory was correct. This theory has gone down in history as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The motion equations of subatomic particles are expressed by their magnetic states. Pauli said that none of the electrons of an atom can share the same quantum state at the same time. In other words, two electrons in the same atom cannot share the physical features such as magnetism, motion, position and velocity in the same state [2].

In addition to the three quantum numbers (principal, subordinate, and magnetic quantum numbers) described so far, Pauli defined a quantum number for the spin of a fermion (e.g. electron). The spin quantum number is related to the rotation of the electron around its axis because an electron rotates around its own axis as it rotates around the atomic nucleus. According to the Pauli Principle, if an orbit has an electron with a spin of 1/2, an electron with a spin of -1/2 can be placed in the same orbit. If we assume that the spin of an electron rotating clockwise is 1/2 the spin of an electron rotating counterclockwise will be -1/2. Thus, with Pauli’s contribution, four quantum numbers were defined for subatomic particles and it was stated that even if the other three quantum numbers were the same, electrons with different spin quantum numbers could circulate in the same orbit.

The Pauli Principle shows that atoms are not identical. This principle also applies to solid crystals, that is, the materials we use daily. The Principle is also able to explain the fact that the ores that make up the element are different, and the fact that there are different elements in the periodic table. With this principle, important properties of superconductors have been discovered.

In 1927, based on the Pauli Principle, German physicist Karl Werner Heisenberg showed that it is not possible to measure the physical properties of a particle, such as the position and momentum, at the same time and that these results can only be expressed with uncertain probability and statistics [5].

This uniqueness also manifests itself in the space we call the macro world. Stars consisting of only neutrons are called neutron stars. A neutron star is very dense: its mass is 2–3 times that of the Sun, but only about 10 km in diameter. A neutron star should theoretically collapse into a black hole, but this does not happen. The reason for this, it has been discovered, is that neutrons that cannot share the same position prevent collapse and that neutron stars remain in balance [6].

The universe has been created with balance, and everything, from the minutest particles to the stars in the outer space, follows their particular courses to maintain the order.

References

1. scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-exhibit-d/
2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131449.htm
3. lbl.gov/2017/listings/contents_listings.html
4. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli
5. phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
6. phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

Scientific psychology corroborates these truths and lays bare the inescapable responsibility to know and manage the self (C.G. Jung, 1957). Knowing and accepting realities about ourselves positively offers a platform for personal growth and development, and further permits cathartic motivations for transcending flaws. While religions approach the path to transcendence differently (e.g. based on organic time and place), each testifies to human dignity that is capable of finding safe passage through the contradictions of life without compromising the safety of others.

Religious and secular histories reveal tragic outcomes for humanity when these responsibilities are ignored. The current neoliberal, capitalist ideology, which was systemized by economic theorist Milton Friedman, externalizes, or factors out, human and environmental damage, for these interfere with the profit principle. His open defiance of social responsibility not only shows a separation between the rational mind and rational heart, but clears the way for nullification of the universal human rights principle and bows to nefarious economic warfare waged between groups.

Within earlier historical memory, power’s unwillingness to analyze the subjective and blame the objective played-out on the global stage with catastrophic consequences. Between 1914 and 1945, the world was at war with itself. Yet, national leaders and their people denied their own failed-policies, and chose to violently project responsibility onto others (Fromm’s, 1973). Analyses of Europe’s part in the atrocities of WWII illuminate a reoccurring historical fact: non-defensive wars are often complicated and motivated by un-dealt with personal projections of a nation’s leaders and its peoples. At the heart of humanity’s violent history lie legions of self-denials and self-failures, too colossal to list. Perhaps more ironic than the irresponsible projections themselves is the denial of responsibility, as expressed in the question: where was God?

With the beginning of the West’s wars in the Middle East, in 2003, human rights experts recognized that the topic of human rights was off the table, a frightening but conscious decision that reconfirms the warnings of sages and prophets: human history is a history of choice.

A catharsis for the events of 1914 – 1945 was the establishment of the Bretton Accords, which established international institutions aiming to prevent future crimes against humanity. The sets of principles laid out in the accords sought to mandate individual rights of vital protections, by humanizing finances, employment, and governance. Rights of human security were embedded within a constellation of personal, social, economic, and political rights. The United Nations, which signed the 1948 Convention on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to this universal principle, and applied it clearly to the subjugated children and women of the global patriarchy by creating the special conventions: Rights of the Child and The Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

While many nation-states embrace moral responsibility to ratify conventions for universal human rights, many UN representatives continue to face non-ratification resistance at home. While the new, global power-brokers of trade and finance systemically and tactically block universal human rights, the global under-privileged are taking their arguments to the streets. Taking responsibility to occupy their own policies is a response validated by scholar Noam Chomsky (Occupy, 2012, p.89) and reflects the Jeffersonian idea of democratic action. Taking possession of rights far exceeds passive verbalization.

A watershed of responsible self-action is being witnessed around the globe: workers are organizing to buy-back their closed factories; students organize to undermine dictatorships and corrupt governments; sexually exploited children are naming criminal-priests; women are fighting the slave-trade; independent journalists air photos of government backed genocides and externally organized coups; neighbors take video of real-time police brutality; independent filmmakers document corporate damages; veterans bow to their own shame and expose military atrocities; whistle-blowers expose mass government fraud; and high-ranking bank officials make tragic, but telling testimonies against system-exploitation by committing suicide. While these examples reflect an existing depth of global darkness, self-responsible action affirms our awareness of our right to live change and change living.

Considering our ever changing universe and the human capacity to re-imagine new life, it is possible to more clearly understand the discreteness of the great religions which direct responsibility to each individual. By means of self-awareness, self-responsibility and self-regulation, we each hold the best possibilities for peaceful co-existence and the preservation of human rights.

June Dayle Jelm, PhD in International Relations, is a Professional Mediator specializing in Domestic Violence in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The minimum work principle is the force used on deeper levels (the maximum economy principle in other words). According to this, every action in the book of the universe is completed in a fashion to cause minimal energy consumption in the present binding conditions. The term binding condition refers to conditions that are mandatory (forced) for the system here. For instance, the total energy of a gas in a container that is perfectly insulated from the external environment is constant and therefore when we are investigating this gas, we should not overlook the conservation of total energy as a binding condition. Therefore, even for tiny actions, from the swing of a tree leaf with the wind to the flight of a dust particle in the air, the lowest energy consumption is essential in terms of present binding conditions.

We can make the topic easier to understand via short cut events of circuit boards. The reason behind a short cut is the conduction of electrical charges by the route with the least consumed energy. If even multiple short cuts are designed to attract electrical charges in an electrical circuitry, these charges are conducted via the route that requires the lowest energy.

It is all right, but how do electrical charges know this route? It is possible to ask a similar question about the orbit a ball follows when we throw it forward in a horizontal direction. The thrown ball continues on the orbit with the lowest amount of energy consumption depending on the present binding conditions (such as wind direction, strength, and the ball’s geometry). This is all well and good, but how does the ball know it will exert more energy on another trajectory?

Light follows the path where it moves fastest in the environment. In physics, “Fermat’s principle” states that when light is passing from one environment to another, it will be refracted not in the shortest path, but in the fastest direction of travel in the new environment (Figure 2). Therefore Fermat’s principle is the projection of the minimum energy principle on optics. In other words, the least amount of energy is spent by light on the path in which it will move fastest. However, for light to determine the direction that will be fastest, does it not have to first display refraction in all angles to identify the fastest path?

For science historian James Gleick it is impossible for physicists to discuss the minimum energy principle without giving the ball some type of willpower; the ball seems to choose its own orbit, as if it has knowledge of all the possibilities ahead of time.

A nice example in the living world for the minimum work principle is the similarity of ant behavior to the maximum economy principle. When some groups of the ant colony set out to forage, they communicate with pheromone hormones amongst each other. An ant that has found food leaves pheromones on the ground – indicating the quantity and quality of food – to guide others.

Another ant that follows this pheromone trace reaches the food, and marks the surface on the path back to nest with the pheromone by assessing the amount and quantity. Pheromones in spots that are not renewed by the ants within a certain time frame evaporate. Upon investigation of the ant routes, they are always found to follow the shortest path in between the food and nest, and leave pheromone tracks accordingly. For instance, when an asymmetric obstacle is positioned on the ant route (Figure 1), ants after a certain time are able to locate the shortest route again.

However, a more interesting case is the movement of the ant species named Wasmannia auropunctata when they are passing from one environment to another (Figure 3). It’s based on Fermat’s principle.

Not only ants, but also humans display trends that follow Fermat’s principle. For example, an emergency worker trying to rescue a drowning swimmer adheres to the most suitable strategy to reach the person at sea: When the beach and sea are considered as two different environments, first the rescuer runs to the nearest point to the swimmer on the beach, then reaches swimmer by entering the sea. Since humans move at different speeds on sand and at sea, if rescuer tried to reach the swimmer by entering directly into sea, it would take longer to reach the swimmer.

As seen in the above principle, the natural order of the world is created with incredible wisdom, without wasting any energy. Each truth has different projections on each existence and event. However, this distance in between the events or existences feels very far to us, therefore it is necessary to look more carefully to notice this relation among different projections.

There are also projections of this minimum work principle in our personal lives too. During the position of prostration in prayer, which can be considered as the humblest state of being when one feels closest to the Divine, the head, the highest point of body, is brought down to the level of the feet to compose a potentially lower energy status. This, in terms of the physical sciences, is the situation with the lowest work achievement capability, and can be seen as a status in which human deficiency and weakness as opposed to the infinite power of the Almighty are declared.

The minimal work principle can also be adopted in shaping the methods and style of providing services to other people, especially in the service of faith. Humans are the sons of their ages. Each age can be defined as a different environment. Therefore, when humans interpret their experiences, the socio-cultural environment where one is born and the specifics of their period must be considered. The shortest cut to people’s hearts and minds with minimal work principle is possible when the conditions of the time are taken into consideration. Said Nursi once said if he were to live in the time of Rumi (13th century), he would have written the Mathnawi, rather than his magnum opus the Risale-i Nur, and Rumi would do the same if he lived during his time. The Mathnawi eight centuries ago was and the Risale-i Nur today is the safest, shortest, and widest public avenue of faith and reflected the zeitgeist of their respective periods in history, Nursi argued.

References

1. James Gleick, Genius, Richard Feynman and Modern Physics, Abacus, London, 1993.
2. Jan Oettler, Volker S. Schmid, Niko Zankl, Olivier Rey, Andreas Dress, Jurgen Heinze, Fermat’s Principle of Least Time Predicts Refraction of Ant Trails at Substrate Borders, PLoS ONE 8(3): e59739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059739

While wandering near a creek, have you ever seen bugs walking on the surface of the water? Have you felt any resistance when you hit the surface of the sea with your palm? Have you ever thought about what causes these to happen?

The two examples of events given above happen to be related to “surface tension.” This situation is described as the force per distance unit that is generated in the opposite direction of the direction of expansion between two different surfaces. It can take place in between two different liquid layers, as well as among liquid-gas and liquid-solid layers. For example, the surface tension of a liquid forms in the transitional region where liquid and gas molecules make contact. The source of this force generated on the liquid’s surface is the intermolecular attractions that hold the liquid molecules together. Each molecule in the liquid is pulled via opposite but equal forces by neighboring molecules, thus no single force is acting on the molecules. However, the molecules on the surface are only surrounded by one side, therefore they are pulled inwards with a net force (Figure 1), causing a tension similar to an inflated balloon on the surface of the liquid.

When we look carefully to a stagnant pool of water in a container, the surface of the water seems to be covered with a thin layer of film, resembling a stretched membrane. In order for a substance to enter or leave the body of water successfully, it must puncture this membrane. In other words it has to overcome this intermolecular force. If a steel blade is laid horizontally on the surface of the water slowly, it floats despite that it is made of denser steel because it cannot overcome this surface tension. Surface tension is the principle responsible for the trampoline-like behavior of liquid surfaces. Many insect species created for aqueous habitats can maintain their lives on the water via their adapted leg parts. The best example of this is the water strider. This insect lives on water by taking advantage of water surface tension. Though the surface tension principle is a requirement to be on the water, it is also necessary that the strider not to stick to the surface. Therefore, this insect is also equipped with a paddle made of waxy hairs at the end of their legs (Figure 2).

Forces of cohesion and adhesion

The intermolecular force of a liquid among the same kind of molecules is called the “cohesion force,” and intermolecular attraction between different types of liquid molecules is called the “adhesion force.” These forces of adhesion and cohesion determine the behavior of a liquid in a container. If some mercury is put in a glass tube, because the cohesive forces among the mercury atoms is greater than the adhesive forces in between the glass container and the mercury, the mercury assumes a convex shape. Here, mercury has a tendency to reduce its contact with the glass and does not wet it. In contrast to mercury, when water is put inside the tube, the surface layer between the water and air takes an inward concave shape. This is caused by the greater adhesion force between the water and glass compared to the intermolecular cohesion forces of water. Water wets the glass since it has a tendency to spread towards the greatest surface possible (Figure 3).

When there is a thin layer of water or tea left in between a tea glass and its plate, the adhesion force glues the glass and plate together. Since the adhesion force is greater than the weight of the plate, the glass cup can be lifted together with the plate. Contact lenses also stay in position on the eyes without falling through the help of adhesion forces. Tears strongly pull both cornea and the contact lens together, holding it in place.

The capillary effect

A liquid inside a thin vertical tube is pulled upwards by the inner surface of the tube until the adhesion force becomes balanced with the liquid weight. This event is called the capillary effect or capillarity. Liquids naturally rise in narrow channels if there is sufficient adhesion force. This effect is enhanced in narrow tubes due to the smaller volume of the liquid, but reduced in wider tubes because of gravity. Therefore, there is an inverse ratio between the channel diameter and liquid height in capillarity.

The reason a sponge absorbs water effectively is the easy rise of water in the capillary openings of the sponge. In a similar fashion, there are small openings found in paper napkins and towels. When a napkin makes contact with a wet surface, water is pulled inside the small openings with capillary action, thus removing the water from the surface. This is because the adhesion force in between the napkin tissue and water is greater than the cohesion force of the water molecules. This principle is also utilized while getting blood samples with capillary tubes. In addition, the removal of continuously excreted tears by the capillary ocular ducts that extend into the nasal cavity is another example of this wise law.

Capillary action is also important for the transportation of water molecules from humid parts towards drier areas in soil, providing for the spread of water. The same principle is also vital to nourishment of trees. Every part of a tree encompasses capillary channels, all the way from the tips of the roots to very ends of the branches. Water molecules are transported to the leaves against gravity when they enter the tips of these capillary channels at the roots. Even though the adhesion forces between the water molecules and the root’s tissues win the war against gravity, at a certain height, this force becomes equal to the gravitational pull, thus not allowing water molecules to climb higher. This is the ultimate height a tree reaches. Capillarity also affects internal water pressure of a tree, leaf size, photosynthesis, and other factors. This is why the leaves of a tree are usually bigger on lower branches compared to higher ones (Figure 4).

The surface tension of water is the highest among the known values of other liquids and this has very significant biological effects. If the surface tension of water was to be lower, like other liquids, it would not be able reach the higher parts of plants through capillary action, thus preventing the survival of taller plants. The vegetation waits patiently as nourishment is delivered to its roots. Water has been assigned a vital role in this service.

The water-dependent survival of plants is made possible through the capillarity and surface tension. Could this amazing phenomenon, in which the capillarity is on duty to water the leaves on the highest branches of the tallest trees to ensure the maintenance of life, take place via blind atomic interactions or accidental occurrences?

How do liquid droplets get their shape?

Objects with a wider surface will have a greater surface tension. Since the force of surface tension, acting on per unit distance, is equal to the surface energy per surface area, a wider surface requires greater accumulation of energy on the surface. All the matter in the universe tends to stay at a lowered energy level. Therefore, it is ideal for objects to reduce their surface area. When the surface area to volume ratio of the known geometric shapes is investigated, the smallest ratio is found to belong to a sphere. A small value of this ratio means the most reduced surface area per volume. Among enclosed containers of equal volume, a sphere is also the one with the smallest surface area. When two equal volume watermelons of spherical and cubical shape are peeled, the spherical one will produce the least amount of rinds.

Because of the reasons mentioned above, liquids take a droplet shape immediately when they fall, reducing their surface area. That is why a water droplet dripping from a faucet, a falling rain drop, and a droplet on a leaf are all in the shape of a sphere (Figure 5). It is the same principle that makes planets and other heavenly bodies resemble a globular form. This indeed points to an Almighty Power who plans the motions, positions, and assignments of all the objects, from particles to giants, managing and dispatching them as The Self-Existent One holding everything together.

Factors affecting surface tension

Temperature increase is directly proportional to a decrease in the surface tension in most liquids. When the temperature of a liquid rises, so does the kinetic energy of the particles in it, making these particles move faster. This leads to a weakened intermolecular attraction that binds molecules together. Since this change affects the particles at the surface, it decreases the tension. Improved soaking of hands and laundry can be achieved with warm water during cleaning because heat reduces the surface tension. This helps with better cleaning results in a shorter amount of time.

In a similar fashion, soap and detergents also reduce the surface tension of water. If a small soap bubble is placed on a water droplet, the droplet spreads away instantly. This indeed tells us that the soap bubble reduces surface tension.

If a substance dissolves in a pure material, surface tension is found to change depending on the solute and the solvent structure. For example, salt decreases the surface tension of water. Salt weakens the intermolecular bonds of the water molecules, and therefore reduces the cohesion and surface tension. That’s why sea waves foam when they hit shore.

Can surface tension be associated with the ability of unconscious and primitive atoms as the principle behind many functions and tasks in the lives of plants and animals? Do such wondrous events happen by chance? Isn’t this principle such a blessing of the One who easily provides what is necessary to all living things, nourishing them in time according to their needs?

Gómez-Valdés et al. Lack of Support for the Association between Facial Shape and Aggression: A Reappraisal Based on a Worldwide Population Genetics Perspective. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (1)

It is a common misconception that some people are profiled to be angry or aggressive because of their physical appearances, particularly their craniofacial shapes. In addition, there have been some studies suggesting that men with certain facial traits (round-shaped faces) are more likely to develop aggressive and unethical behavior. A new study using a sample of around 5000 individuals from 94 different countries has found no correlation between facial shape and aggressive/criminal behaviors. Researchers analyzed fWHRs (facial width-to-height ratio) and 2D/3D craniofacial landmark coordinates to estimate any possible correlation between skull shape and aggressive behaviors in men. First, they utilized the famous skull collection in Hallstatt/Austria to investigate any potential correlation between skull features and life history parameters of individuals, such as their overall fitness. Second, they analyzed the male prisoners convicted of crimes like inter-personal aggression (homicide, robbery etc.) from Mexico City Federal Penitentiary to see whether there is any relation between skull shape traits and aggressive crimes. Analyses of both databases have found no significant correlation between skull shape traits either with the fitness of males or with their aggressiveness. This study has very important social and political implications in today’s societies, as we unfortunately see many ethnical, racial and even physical prejudices. This comprehensive study has undoubtedly showed once more that physical traits cannot be a reliable predictor of complex human behaviors, which are mostly shaped by external factors such as education and socio-cultural practices.

Biggest Structure in the Universe Discovered

Clowe et al. A structure in the early Universe at z ∼ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, January 11, 2013

Throughout history, mankind has been trying to answer the questions of “how big” or “how far,” when looking into the vast expanse of the universe. As new technologies are developed, bigger discoveries and consequently bigger numbers are brought to light. An international team of astronomers recently discovered a collection of 73 quasars which form a single structure; the largest structure ever observed in the entire universe. A quasar, short for quasi-stellar object, is the luminous center of a galaxy that surrounds a super massive black hole. The distance of these newly large quasar groups to the earth is about 9 billion light years (1 light year is approximately 9.5 trillion kilometers). The size of these structures is simply mind-blowing. Even if we have a spacecraft that travels at the speed of light, it would still take about 4 billion years to cross. If we put this overwhelming size into perspective, the Milky Way—earth’s home galaxy—is only about 100,000 light-years wide and our neighbor galaxy Andromeda is only 2.5 million light-years away from the Milky Way. So these quasars are 1600 times larger than the distance from the Milky Way to Andromeda. This discovery seriously challenges the size calculations based on the widely accepted Cosmological Principle which assumes that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale. Cosmological Principle predicts that there should not be any structure in the universe larger than 1.2 billion light-years. A four billion light-years wide structure would obviously be an outlier when compared to other structures in the universe and it might contradict with the homogeneity of the universe. However, scientists think that such contradiction would not necessarily falsify the Cosmological Principle originally established by Albert Einstein. It might only change the assumptions of the theory that define at which scale the universe can sufficiently be viewed.

More Twists on Double Helix

Biffi et al. Quantitative visualization of DNA G-quadruplex structures in human cells. Nature Chemistry, 20 January 2013.

About 60 years ago, on April 25th 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a one-page paper where they described the “double helix” structure of the DNA, the molecule that carries genetic information from parent to offspring. This discovery not only revolutionized the biological sciences and medicine but also dramatically changed the way we perceive life, nature and most importantly ourselves. Yet, new findings on DNA structure keep surprising us. Scientists from Cambridge University discovered the first quadruple helix—a four-stranded DNA structure in human cells which they named “G-quadruplex.” These structures were previously observed in test tubes but they were never found in cells. The building blocks of DNA molecules consist of four different bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T). G-quadruplexes (G stands for Guanine) are formed by four guanine bases that forms a square DNA helix. Researchers found that these structures are enriched in rapidly-dividing cancer cells, specifically at the ends of chromosomes called telomeres. When researchers targeted and trapped these quadruple DNA structures with synthetic molecules, they found that DNA replication slows down and cell division is blocked. Researchers suspect that these quadruple DNA structures in telomeres of cancer cells could explain why cancer cells rapidly proliferate and divide. It is still not clear whether G-quadruplexes exist in healthy cells but targeting these structures in cancerous cells with pharmacology seems to be a promising method to stop the spread of cancer.

It is quite interesting to find that although Nursi clearly states the necessity of interfaith alliance in the Risale-i Nur, and consequently encourages his followers to practice dialogue to establish this alliance, he does not dedicate any section of the Risale-i Nur to the principles of this interfaith dialogue and alliance. In other words, Nursi never titled any part of his works “The Principles of Interfaith Dialogue and Alliance.” Hence, the present article inquires whether Nursi simply ignores the principles of interfaith dialogue and alliance or whether there are implicit interfaith principles in his works.

It is my claim that it is possible to find implicit interfaith principles in the works of Nursi, and that the Twentieth and Twenty-First Gleams and the Twenty-Second Letter are especially good sources for these principles. In these sections, Nursi mainly deals with the different reasons for conflict among Muslims and teaches them his conflict resolution principles to end these conflicts with peaceful alliance. Therefore, it is easy for us to extract the principles of interfaith dialogue and alliance from these sections by paraphrasing Nursi’s conflict resolution principles in the context of interfaith dialogue because most of the principles in these sections are not related specifically to Islam, but to human nature in general.

Before presenting the list of paraphrased conflict resolution principles in the context of interfaith dialogue and alliance, we would like to demonstrate an example of paraphrasing: For instance, in the Twentieth Gleam, Nursi advises the following principle to resolve a conflict between different Muslim groups: “Adopt the just rule of conduct that the follower of any right outlook has the right to say, “My outlook is true, or the best,” but not that “My outlook alone is true,” or that “My outlook alone is good,” thus implying the falsity or repugnance of all other outlooks.” Although the context of this principle is the interactions between Muslims, it is perfectly right to practice this principle in the interfaith context because it is not related to Islam, but to human nature in general. Consequently, we can paraphrase this principle as follows: In dialogue activities, as Muslims, we can believe or even say that Islam is the right religion or even preferable to that of other religions, but we do not have right to say that other religions have no right in them at all. Similarly, in dialogue activities, Christians can believe or even say that Christianity is the right religion or even preferable to that of other religions, but they do not have right to say that other religions have no right in them at all.

After introducing this example, we can list the paraphrased interfaith principles from Twentieth and Twenty-First Gleams and the Twenty-Second Letter:

1. In our dialogue activities, as Muslims, we should only aim for our Lord’s good pleasure, not the acceptance of the members of other religions because “if Almighty God is pleased, it is of no importance even should the whole world be displeased.”

2. God commands in the Qur’an (Baqara 2:41), …do not sell My Revelations for a trifling price (such as worldly gains, status, and renown). Therefore, in dialogue activities, we should not water down our religious rules and dignity.

3. Human self is prone to make mistakes and deviate from the right path. Therefore, while dialoging with others, we should not trust our selves but God and always seek his help and forgiveness:

Yet I do not claim my self free of error, for assuredly the human carnal soul always commands evil, except that my Lord has mercy (which saves us from committing evil acts). (Yusuf 12:53)

4. If we want to dialogue with the members of other religions, we should accept them in their position and not criticize their religious beliefs and practices. If we like to be respected in our own beliefs, we should respect the beliefs of others. Similarly, in dialogue meetings, we should not excite the envy of the members of other religions by displaying or implying superior virtues.

5. Our primary aim in dialogue activities is God’s good pleasure and his help. Faith alliance is our secondary aim. In other words, we seek faith alliance because it attracts God’s help and support to us. Therefore, if we cannot establish faith alliance with the members of other faiths after all of our sincere efforts, we should not be disappointed. For God is the helper of his sincere servants and no alliance can be superior to God’s alliance.

6. In dialogue events, our actions should always be based on positive motives. That is to say, what motivates our actions should be the love of our own outlook, not the enmity of others’ outlooks. We organize or participate in dialogue events to represent our outlook, not to diminish the outlook of others.

7. In dialogue activities, by focusing on commonalities such as a shared land, a shared language, our common humanity, universal needs and fears, and so on, we will recognize again that what we have in common far exceeds what sets us apart from each other.

8. Because we need unity and inclusion within Muslims and among the People of the Book far more than division and exclusion, let us for now leave aside discussion of the issues that divide us.

9. In our dialogue activities, we should keep in mind that unity among Muslims and the People of the Book attracts for us the help of our Creator against irreligion.

10. The aim of interfaith dialogue is not to argue with the members of other religions. In order to refrain from argumentation, we should know that one who prevails in an argument finds himself in a dangerous position in comparison with his partner, first because he might fall into arrogance in his heart, and second because he may learn nothing new from the discussion. On the other hand, his partner learns new knowledge and his heart is safe from arrogance.

11. In our dialogue activities, we should seek sincere religious people because the people who are sincere in their religion will most probably be sincere in their dialogue with us as well.

12. If we see any hostility from the people that we dialogue with, we should remember the following principle: “If you wish to defeat your enemy, respond to his evil with good. For if you respond with evil, enmity will increase, and even though he will be outwardly defeated, he will nurture hatred in his heart, and hostility will persist. But if you respond to him with good, he will repent and become your friend.”

13. While we dialogue we should keep in mind that people all have different characters and one bad character in a group does not mean that all the people of that group have a similar character. In other words, it would be wrong to generalize one person’s mistake to the whole community. The Qur’an says, …no soul, as bearer of burden, bears (and is made to bear) the burden of another.” (Fatir 35:18)

14. Similarly, one negative aspect of a person does not necessitate that the person is bad as whole.

15. In dialogue activities, all that we say should be true, but we should not say all that is true. For one of insincere intention may sometimes take unkindly to advice, and react to it unfavorably.

16. In times when evil actions prevail, what could we need more than unity, friendship, and inclusion?

17. In times of conflict of opinions, we should act in a positive way, not a negative one. That is to say, we should strive to promote and diffuse our own belief, not seeking to tear down and destroy that of the other, but rather to improve and reform it.

18. In dialogue activities, we should remember that insisting upon consensus in our methods and approaches after finding agreement upon our aims and goals might be a fruitless wish.

19. At every stage of a dialogue activity, the following principle must be our guide: Love for the sake of God, dislike for the sake of God, judge for the sake of God.

In conclusion, we could say that although Nursi does not state interfaith principles explicitly, it is possible to find them mentioned implicitly in The Risale-i Nur and the above list is a good enough source for carrying out any dialogue interaction in a fruitful way.

Suleyman Eris is the author of Islam: A Brief Guide – Belief and Practice.

Let me give you some everyday examples. For instance, most customer complaints (eighty percent) stem from a very few reasons (twenty percent). Eighty percent of problems in a company are caused by twenty percent of the employees. This idea is often applied to data such as sales figures: twenty percent of clients are responsible for eighty percent of sales volume. Eighty percent of our expenditure, stems from twenty percent of the items we buy. If we can differentiate cheap items from expensive items, then, we can develop ways to save on our shopping. We need to realize that we make eighty percent of our phone calls to the same twenty percent of our acquaintances. If we look at the clothes we wear, we realize that eighty percent of the time we wear the same twenty percent of them. We can also use this principle to plan our daily schedule and to order things according to their importance. For example, we may calculate the length of the time to do something and determine the importance of the thing we are to do. We calculate the percentages according to all the things waiting to be done. Later, with twenty percent of our time, we put our attention and energy into the things which carry eighty percent of the importance. We leave the things with twenty percent importance to later because those things require eighty percent of our time. What needs to be observed here is that quality is preferred over quantity. Some of us postpone tasks which can be done in a short time, due to the belief that we can somehow do it later. According to the Pareto Principle, it is not a good idea to delay things which are important in terms of quality even if they take a bit of our time to carry out.

Bediüzzaman used this rule very intelligently in his works in terms ofat explaining the wisdom behind seeming realities. manay-Ii harfi. For example, in the answer to the second question under the Twelfth Letter, Bediüzzaman uses the Pareto Principle persuasively as an answer to the following question: “As sending Prophets has caused many or even most people to become unbelievers because of Satan’s seduction, how can you say that creating evil things and acts is good, that raising Prophets is a mercy for humanity?”

In this answer, Bediüzzaman emphasizes the importance of quality over quantity. According to him, quantity has no importance in relation to quality. Moreover, Bediüzzaman shows that it is not an evil to lose atheists and hypocrites, who are many but less important in terms of quality, when you compare them with prophets, saints, and the righteous who are few, in terms of quantity. It is interesting that he uses a twenty percent to eighty percent ratio in each of his two examples:

“As quality is always far more important than quantity, we should consider only qualitative values in making our judgment. To cite an example: 100 date-stones are worth only 100 cents until they are planted and grow into palm trees. But if only 20 grow into trees and the remaining 80 rot because of over-watering, how can you say it is an evil to plant and water them? Everyone would agree that it is wholly good to have 20 trees at the expense of 80 date-stones, since 20 trees will give 20,000 date-stones.

Again, 100 peacock eggs are worth maybe 500 cents. But if she sits on the eggs and only 20 hatch, who can say it is an evil that 80 eggs were spoiled in return for 20 peacocks? On the contrary, it is wholly good to have 20 peacocks at the expense of 80 eggs, because the 20 peacocks will be worth far more than the eggs and will lay more eggs.”

In another example, Bediüzzaman explains why he remained distant from politics in the Thirteenth Letter as a response to the third question:

“…We are travelers in this world. Basing myself on the Qur’an’s light, I say that humanity has reached a marsh in this century. Whole caravans of humanity are trying, with great difficulty, to advance in this putrid marsh. A small minority follow a safe way and some have extricated themselves, but the majority continues to flail around in the dark. Although 20 percent of this majority seems quite happy with this struggle, mistaking its dirt and filth for musk and ambergris, whereas the other 80 percent knows that it is in a filthy marsh but cannot see the safe path (leading them out). We must bring that majority out of the marsh. To do so, we must use a mace to knock the 20 percent back to its senses or provide the 80 percent with a light to see a way to safety. I see that most people hold maces, but almost no one gives light to the helpless 80 percent. If some still have light, they are not trusted because they also carry maces. People are afraid of being beaten after being drawn to the light. Besides, the light may be extinguished

if the mace is broken.”

In this example, Bediüzzaman states that the first thing that needs to be done for those who have deviated from the right path is to show them the Qur’anic truths instead of helping them through politics which is associated with hitting someone on the head. Again it is interesting to see that Bediüzzaman used the Pareto Principle to explain the example. Bediüzzaman considers human beings to be walking in a dark swamp. Moreover, he believes that the priority is to enlighten most of the people’s road (eighty percent) with a small (twenty percent) effort, rather than to help a small number of people (twenty percent) with a large amount of political power (eighty percent of effort).

In the Twenty-Eighth Letter’s seventh matter, Bediüzzaman emphasizes that twenty percent of scholars surpasses the other eighty percent in terms of quality while he is examining how strong truths seem weak in the hands of weak people: “Eighty percent of mankind are not investigative scholars who can penetrate to reality, recognize reality as reality and accept it as such. They rather accept matters by way of imitation, which they hear from acceptable and reliable people, in consequence of their good opinions of them.”

Therefore, it is possible to say that Bediüzzaman, an investigative observer, found the Pareto Principle without using any contemporary methods such as surveys. Besides being known as an eminent Islamic Scholar and Saint of Islam admired by most of the people, Bediüzzaman use of mathematics, physics, astronomy, and sociology in the Risale-i Nur show us how to contemplate the universe using modern science.

Persuasion through Probability in the Risale-i Nur

Bediüzzaman often uses mathematical logic and probability in his works which were written to save the faith from evil (thought). For instance, under the section on the stratagems of Satan in the Twenty-Ninth Letter, Bediüzzaman states how harmful it can be if you use the feeling of fear against its purpose of creation. He gives an example of how he persuaded a person, who had to fear of drowning, to embark on a boat willingly without any fear through giving an excellent example of probability:

An important man (may God’s mercy be upon him) was afraid to travel by boat. One evening, we went to Galata bridge to take the ferry to Eyup.

He did not want to get on, saying that he feared he would drown. When I asked him how many boats were in the Golden Horn, he replied that there might be as many as one thousand. When I asked him how many boats sank each year, he replied usually one or two, and sometimes none.

I made this analogy: “Since a year has 365 days, your chance of drowning is 1:365,000. Why does such a small chance scare you?” I asked: “How much longer do you expect to live?” He answered: “Maybe 10 years; I am old already.” I contunied: “As there are 3,650 days in 10 years, your chance of dying today is 1:3,650. But since we do not know when we will die, you could die at any time. So repent and weep! Write your last will and testament!”

Seeing the truth in my words, he got on the boat even though trembling. On the boat, I told him: “God Almighty placed fear in our nature so that we might preserve our life, not ruin it. He did not give us fear to make life an unbearable burden full of pain and torment. If there is a risk of 1:2 or 1:3 or 1:4, or at most 1:5 or 6, it may be permissible and tolerable to fear and avoid the risk. But to fear a chance of 1:20, 1:30, or 1:40 is groundless suspicion, a sort of paranoia that changes life into a torment.”

Given the emphasis by the Qur’an on logical reasoning, it is understood that its audience (all of mankind) is expected to have a basic understanding of logical principles. It is our purpose in this article to go over a few basic principles of logic and give examples of how they are used in the Qur’an.

Logical principle 1: Proof by contradiction. An important aspect of logic concerns methods of proving or disproving statements. This is one of the basic principles of proving statements, and it is commonly used to prove mathematical statements. To show that a statement is true using this principle, suppose its negation is true, that is, that the statement itself is false. If you can then obtain a contradiction, something that is clearly false, this shows that the original statement is true. We shall illustrate this principle with an example. The reason we choose this example is that it is a classical result in mathematics, and the argument is beautiful. According to Hardy, this is an example of a first-class theorem about a significant mathematical fact (“a real mathematical theorem”) that is accessible to a general, educated audience (Hardy, 1967). There is a fundamental theorem in number theory which says that “there are infinitely many prime numbers.”1 There are many other proofs of this theorem but the most elementary and elegant proof is given by Euclid and it is by contradiction. Hardy claims that “both the statement and the proof can be mastered in an hour by an intelligent reader, however slender his mathematical equipment” (Hardy, 1967). Here is that proof: Suppose there is only a finite number of primes. Call them p1 , p2 , … pn. Now, consider the number N = p1 , p2 , … pn +1. Clearly, N is not equal to any of the primes in the list. Therefore, N itself is not a prime, and hence N must be divisible by one of the primes p1 , p2 , … pn (this is by “the fundamental theorem of arithmetic” which states that every integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers). However, that is not the case: when N is divided by each one of pi there is a remainder of 1. This is a contradiction, and it arises from the assumption that there are only finitely many primes. Hence, the assumption cannot be true, and we conclude that there are infinitely many primes.

Proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum in Latin, is one of the mathematician’s finest tools. There are many examples of theorems in mathematics where the simplest proof is by reductio ad absurdum. Another classical example is to show that &#8730; is not a rational number (Hardy, 1967).

Now, we would like to give examples from the Qur’an where this logical principle is used. Consider the verse: “Had there been in the heavens and the earth any deities other than God, both would certainly fallen into ruin” (Anbiya 21:22). Here the argument is: suppose there were gods other than God. Then the earth and the heaven could not maintain their order (because the powers and wills of different gods would interfere with each other). Since this is clearly not the case (because we see perfect order in the universe), this contradicts the logical consequence of the initial assumption. Therefore, the initial assumption (i.e., there are more than one god) is wrong.

For another example, let us consider the verse: “Do they not contemplate the Qur’an? Had it been from any other than God, they would surely have found in it much inconsistency” (Nisa 4:82). Here the statement to be proven is “The Qur’an is the word of God, and it is from God.” To prove this statement by reductio ad absurdum, suppose for a moment the opposite statement is true, that is, that the Qur’an is not from God. A logical consequence of this assumption would be it is the word of a human being, but then there would be inconsistencies in it because the Qur’an talks about such great matters that if a human being had written it he would have made mistakes and inconsistent statements (for more on this point see Unal, 2007, page 228, and Nursi). However, we see no such statements in the Qur’an, thus contradicting the initial assumption. Therefore the Qur’an is the word of God.

The final example we would like to give related to this principle is expressed in the verse: “If you are in doubt about the Divine authorship of what We have sent down our servant (Muhammad) then produce just a sura (chapter) like it and call for help to all your supporters” (Baqara 2:23). Here the statement to be proven is the same as the one in the previous example. The argument goes like this: If it was possible for anybody other than God to produce the Qur’an, you should be able to make something like it with all of your supporters, if not an entire book, just a chapter of it. The Qur’an presents disbelievers with a challenge. However, they have not been able to meet the challenge. They chose to fight with the sword because fighting with words was not possible. Therefore the assumption that “the Qur’an could have been written by a human” is wrong.

Logical principle 2: The next principle we would like to discuss is the equivalence of an implication to its contrapositive. A statement of the form “If P, then Q” is called an implication. In such an implication P is called the premise, or the hypothesis and Q is called the conclusion. Such a statement asserts that whenever P is true (or satisfied) then Q is guaranteed to be true. However, if/when P is not true, it does not say anything about the truth value of Q. An example of an implication from daily life is: “If it is rainy, then it is cloudy.” Here the premise is “it is rainy” and the conclusion is “it is cloudy.” Another example would be: “If you are in New York City, then you are in the US.” A mathematical example is: “if a number n is divisible by 6, then it is even.” An implication can also be read as “P implies Q,” or written “P => Q.” The contrapositive of an implication “if P then Q” is “if not Q then not P.” For example, the contrapositive of the first implication above is “if it is not cloudy then it is not rainy,” of the second one, “if you are not in the US, then you are not in NY city,” and of the third one, “if n is odd (not even) then n is not divisible by 6.”

Here are two examples from the Qur’an where we can apply this principle. The first one is the verse we discussed above: “If you are in doubt about the Divine authorship of what We have sent down our servant (Muhammad) then produce just a sura like it and call for help to all your supporters.” We can rephrase this statement as “if the Qur’an is not the word of God, then humans can produce a like of it,” and its contrapositive is “if humans cannot produce something similar to the Qur’an, then it is the word of God.” Remember that these two statements are logically equivalent. Now, we know that humans cannot produce anything comparable to the Qur’an despite much effort and motivation, therefore it follows that it is the word of God.

The second example we want to consider is the verse: “Say (to them, O Messenger) if you indeed love God, then follow me, so that God will love you and forgive your sins” (Al Imran 3:31). The contrapositive of this statement can be stated as (slightly simplified) “if you are not following his messenger, then you really do not love God.” So, we obtain a clear measure of whether one really loves God or not. Following the Prophet is a necessary condition to attain the love of God.

Logical principle 3: The final principle we discuss is false implies anything. This is actually a special case of an implication of the form “P implies Q.” Recall that such a statement asserts that whenever P is true, Q is also true, so P promises Q. However, if P is not true then it does not claim anything about Q; it may or may not be true. For example, if it is not rainy then it may or may not be cloudy. An implication is false when P is true yet Q is false. Intuitively, we can think of this as breaking a promise. The question arises as to what the truth value of an implication should be when the premise P is false. It is accepted that the implication will be true in this case, because when the premise is false, the conclusion is totally irrelevant. This is called “false implies anything.” One can make any conclusion whatsoever based on a false premise, but it really does not mean anything. For example, the statements “if 2+2=5, then there are only finitely many primes,” and “if the world is flat, then there are no wars in the world” are both true statements. These statements are true but they really do not have any substance. They are true by a convention in logic. The important point one needs to pay attention to is this: Once you believe a premise that is not true, it is possible to make any conclusion you want and the whole argument looks right. However, such an argument is quite meaningless. So one needs to examine very carefully what is being assumed in a logical argument.

One example we want to consider from the Qur’an related to this principle is the verse: “Those who deny Our Revelations and turn arrogantly from them-for them, the gates of Heaven will not be opened and they will not enter Paradise unless a camel can pass through the eye of a needle” (A’raf 7:40). With a little simplification, we can rephrase this verse as “if a camel passes through the eye of a needle, then disbelievers will enter Paradise.” Since the premise is false (obviously, a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle), this implication is true. However, this is not good news for disbelievers because the truth of this implication has nothing to do with the truth of its conclusion. This again shows the point: One needs to examine logical arguments carefully. What looks true or convincing formally and on the surface may not mean anything in reality if it is based on a false premise.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, in Ohio, USA.

Notes

1. A positive integer n that is greater than 1 is called a prime if its only positive divisors are 1 and n. 1 is not considered to be a prime. Thus the sequence of prime numbers is 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29…

References

• Hardy, G. H. A Mathematician’s Apology, Cambridge University Press, 1967.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. The Words (translation), The Twenty-Fifth Word, Available online at http://en.nurglobal.net/modules/mastop_publish/?tac=The_Twenty-Fifth_Word
• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, The Light Inc., 2007.

The rational attempt to combine philosophy and wisdom and the refutation of this possibility by human experience must have been matters that preoccupied Nursi’s thought for a long time. This must have prompted him to review his philosophical position and, consequently, reconsider the established view among Islamic philosophers that philosophy and wisdom are connected in an inclusive way, like siblings or in an associative way, like friends.

It is at this point in his life that the “New Said”² appeared. He shed his old philosophical guise and put on a new one, the robe of wisdom. Here we see the demise of Said the philosopher and the birth of the New Said. This radical transformation in the life of Said Nursi has two aspects; one critical and the other constructive. In this article, we will discuss the critical aspect. Said Nursi’s revolution and the criticism of the connection between philosophy and wisdom.

The critical aspect of this transformation can be seen in Nursi’s preoccupation with the criticism of the combination between philosophy and wisdom in its inclusive and associative forms. This was a triple criticism: logical, moral, and figural. This is not to be wondered at, because basically the sage does not stop at the logical criticism of views as does the philosopher. He goes beyond to the moral criticism of views, since he does not regard these views as abstract, but as linked to praxis and would thus re-evaluate them in accordance with their practical effects. He then goes a step further and examines the views from the point of view of their aesthetic value, thus producing a figural criticism.

We can start by showing how Nursi exercised such a triple criticism on the first connection between philosophy and wisdom (i.e., an inclusive connection). In the writings of Nursi, this inclusive connection is built on two basic principles: ¹) The Principle of Founding Tradition on Reason: this stipulates that tradition (i.e., transferred religious knowledge) should be interpreted on the basis of reason when it appears that it (i.e., tradition) contradicts reason. ²) The Principle of Using Reason in Tradition: this stipulates that rational concepts are means to the explanation of the facts of the tradition.

1. The criticism of the inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom

a) Logical criticism: Said Nursi holds the view that the founding of tradition on reason, on which the inclusive connection is based, is a baseless option because reason is no less in need of foundation than tradition. Such a foundation cannot come by way of reason itself as long as this reason consists one of “that which is circulating among the people”³ and is not a new kind of reason of which philosophy has no knowledge.⁴ Moreover, this principle leads to the interpretation of tradition in a manner that becomes distorted as the reason known among people does not have the scope, objectivity, or freedom that are required for the understanding of tradition.⁵

Nursi also believes that the principle of using the concepts of reason to explain the meanings of tradition, on which the first kind of connection between philosophy and wisdom is based, does not exalt tradition but, rather, denigrates it by creating the impression that the rational bases are deeper and more stable than the bases of tradition. Moreover, reason is useless in defeating opponents, because it remains confined to warding off objections in an abstract rational way acceptable by the opponents. Reason does not, however, rise to presenting the facts of tradition in a manner that combines the heart and the mind and which could characterize these truths.⁶ It may, indeed, lead to the full distortion of these truths.⁷

b) Moral criticism: Nursi stresses that the adoption by the philosopher of the foundation of tradition on reason makes the heart ache with ills that are surmounted by arrogance as the philosopher creates a criterion for measuring the Revelation with his defective and limited mind, that is, speech with boundless perfection.⁸ He also stresses that the use of philosophical concepts in Qur’anic studies-particularly natural and metaphysical ones-leads those who do so to the deification of nature and the abandonment of the deification of the Creator.

c) Figural criticism: For Nursi, the philosopher who advocates an inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom is like one who is walking through a tunnel or one who is seeking shelter in a cave,⁹ thus becoming a ghost who is invisible though his identity is known and his traces can be seen. He ends by suffocating in this tunnel before completing the journey. The standing of such a person, as defined in the Qur’an – the essence of wisdom – is that of the misguided.¹⁰

Hence, Nursi thinks that the two philosophers whom he frequently mentions, Al Farabi and Ibn Sina, are among those who are misguided,¹¹ because they advocated an inclusive link between philosophy and wisdom; a view similar to the sophistry of the Christians. Ibn Sina went further than Al Farabi¹² in enacting that view. Since Nursi was deceived by their cunning and believed that their view was true, he himself was on the verge of becoming misguided like them, but for the shining of God’s name Al-Hakim (the All-Wise) to guide him and correct his thoughts and deeds.

Acting on the principle of the inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom leads a person to become weak in faith and argument, to cling to appearances, to become conceited and misguided.

We turn now to the second mode of connection between philosophy and wisdom, the associative one, to see how Nursi exercised his triple criticism. This mode, as we said, is based on three principles: astonishment, questioning, and proof-finding.

The criticism of the associative connection between philosophy and wisdom.

a) Logical criticism: Regarding the principle of philosophical astonishment,¹³ what actually happens is that philosophy does not act upon a sense of the wondrous and miraculous, but rather on that of the strange and anomalous.¹⁴ There is a wide gap between the two feelings. The first stems from the perfection of creation in things, while the second emanates from the imperfection in those things. Most of philosophical knowledge is built on what is familiar and ordinary. However, when it speculates on what is miraculous or supernatural, philosophy still takes the familiar (maruf) as its basis.

As for the principle of philosophical questioning,¹³ it is uncontrolled in its objectives concerning beings, thus falling into confusion and dissipation in every direction. Such an approach does not attain the required answers, leading the questioner to excessive perplexity or even great torment.¹⁵

Concerning the principle of philosophical proof-finding,¹³ the proof is a series of propositions under perpetual threat of invalidation. If we wish to ward off that threat, we have to supply proof for each of these propositions through another series of propositions that are, in turn, open to invalidation and so on. We have barely warded off invalidation from one series of propositions when we have to bring many others to it, and this process continues incessantly.¹⁶

b) Moral criticism: Since philosophical astonishment fundamentally is a sense of the strange and is never a sense of wonder, it leads the philosopher to two pitfalls: One is “blocking off the extrapolation of lessons”; if philosophy does not wonder at the ordinary and familiar, then it does not enable the philosopher to extrapolate lessons and wisdom from what is ordinary and familiar. The other pitfall is “opening the path to the denial of God”; if philosophy throws a veil of familiarity on things, it prevents the realization of divine power and the acceptance of its infinite graces.

Since philosophical questioning is an uncontrolled process, it leads to two things, both of which are fatal deprivations. One is “that it loses the mystery of the oneness of God.” Raising too many questions without guiding objectives or satisfactory answers betrays the fact that the question is deprived from the mystery of the oneness of God. Were the philosopher aware of that mystery, his questions would revolve on set goals and he would attain the answers to them within the framework of those goals that are derived from the oneness of God.¹⁷ The second is “the loss of the feeling of happiness”, because the philosopher, failing to find answers to his various questions or to achieve responses for his various demands, will find himself in great misery.¹⁸

Since philosophical proof-finding is a chain of propositions that is open to invalidation, it leads to two things, both of which are great evils. One is “clinging to the created causes rather than Creator.” Philosophy confines its evidence-seeking to created beings rather than the Almighty Creator or, as Nursi puts it, philosophy examines at these beings as names and not as particles.¹⁹ Inevitably, such an approach leads the philosopher to the worship of natural causes.²⁰ Second, is “clinging to the self alone.” Just as the philosophizing person examines beings in their natural causes, he also looks at himself in the same way; i.e. as an object,²¹ thus falling into self-worship.²²

c) Figural Criticism: For Nursi, the philosopher who advocates an association between philosophy and wisdom is like one who walks in a vast desert, subjected to terrors on every side, such as the fury of the sea, the danger of storms, or the darkness of the sky. These will scatter his dismembered body along the road and his condition will be like that assigned in the Qur’an to those on whom God’s anger descends.²³

If we compare this figural criticism of the associative mode with the previous figural criticism of the inclusive mode, we will find that those who advocate figural criticism are worse off than those who propound the latter. The fact that the former walks on the face of the earth or under the sky – the symbol of Revelation – and the sun – the symbol of light – indicates that his challenge of the divinity of the All- Wise is far greater than the arrogance of the other philosopher who only seeks a path under the ground, where there is no sun and no sky. Also, the fact that the associative advocate”s dismembered body is thrown by the sea onto the side of the road indicates that his deed is like that of a Pharaoh and he, therefore, deserves the same fate in dying and becoming a lesson to others.²⁴ The other philosopher, the advocate of the inclusive mode, is only seen as a ghost. Hence, his body will not be left behind for people as a lesson, but only his traces will serve that function. Consequently, the great peripatetic philosopher, who is only sparingly mentioned by Nursi, Ibn Rushd, is counted by him among those who are an object of God”s wrath,²⁵ because he advocated an associative mode between philosophy and wisdom and acted accordingly. In this, Ibn Rushd became a renegade, like the rebelling Jews.²⁶ Nursi was also deceived by Ibn Rushd’s cunning and held his opinion to be true. Thus, he also was in danger of being exposed to God”s wrath but for the name of God the Merciful (Al Rahim) shining on him to guide him to the Straight Path. Acting on the principle of association between philosophy and wisdom leads to a person”s losing insight and awareness and failing to admit God”s graces. Such a person will neither be happy, nor saved.

* This is an abridged version of Prof Abdel Rahman’s article which was published in Hira (issues 3 and 4, 2006), a quarterly magazine in Arabic (www.hiramagazine.com).

Notes

1. . This study institutes a basic move in terminology: the word ‘philosophy’ is used to designate the knowledge posited by man, thus speaking of ‘human philosophy,’ but not employing the term ‘Qur’anic philosophy.’ On the other hand the term ‘wisdom’ is used here to designate knowledge revealed by God.
2. . Nursi was actively involved in the social and political life before World War I. After the war he perceived that a religious revival was possible only through an intellectual enlightenment using sciences and spiritual illumination through faith, worship, and good morality. He later called this change of perception as the transition from the Old Said to New Said.
3. . We find this description in the following passage: ‘I saw God”s laws as mountains hanging from the sky. Anyone who clings even to a part thereof will ascend and be happy. I say that anyone who goes against those laws, relying on the mind circulating among men in an attempt to reach the paths of heavens through earthly means, is a fool like the Pharaoh who wanted his minister Haman to build him a tower (of clay to reach the sky).’, The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 165.
4. . He says: ‘It is an established principle that if reason and tradition contradict one another, reason would be deemed the basis and the tradition would be interpreted accordingly. But for this to proceed, the reason should be a genuine one.’ The Polishing Stone of Islam, p. 29.
5. . He says: ‘Know you philosophizing person who upholds reason over tradition and who accordingly interprets the tradition that you distort the tradition as your mind, made rotten by vanity and the immersion in philosophical matters, was not capacious enough for the tradition… Your mind is your shackle and by tradition you are transported.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 190.
6. . He says: ‘In this way, they do not manage to give the true image of Islam conforming to that form of action. They graft the tree of Islam with the twigs of wisdom, which they think deep-rooted, as if they are thus strengthening Islam. But triumphing over the enemies through this mode of action is not of much weight. Also this mode implies some denigration of Islam. Therefore, I abandoned this method and actually demonstrated that Islam”s foundations are so profound and well-established that the deepest bases of philosophy cannot reach them, but must always remain superficial in comparison to them.’ Writings, pp. 569-570.
7. . The Polishing Stone of Islam, p. 35-36.
8. . He says: ‘How ignorant is he who grew vain with the philosophical arts rendering them the criterion for the sacred studies of the Qur’an.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 77. Elsewhere, he says: ‘I have witnessed the growth of the philosophical science in the growth of sickness and seen the growth of sickness in the increase of rational science. For the moral illnesses are conducive to rational sciences just as the latter breed illnesses of the heart.’ Ibid., p. 158.
9. . The symbol of the ‘cave’ in Said Nursi The Sage has the converse significance of the ‘cave’ in Plato and the ‘vault’ in Descartes. For Plato, those who descend into the cave are the ignorant who know only the shadow of things, compared to the philosopher who knows the essences of things themselves (The Republic. Book Seven) For Descartes, they are the blind people who live in utter darkness, compared to the philosopher who lives in bright light (An Essay in Method. Part Six). For Nursi, on the other hand, the one who seeks shelter in a cave is the philosopher himself, whom Plato deems as the truly knowledgeable person, and whom Descartes holds to be the truly insightful person.
10. . He says: ‘Thus, the first path is that of the misguided, described in the Qur’an as the ‘stray’. This is the path of those who fell to the idea of Nature and adopted the ideas of naturalists…’ Words, p. 650.
11. . He says: ‘This earth is “nature” and “natural philosophy”. The tunnel is the path taken by the people of philosophy with their ideas in a bid to reach the truth. The footprints I saw were those of famous philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. The voices I heard were those of cunning ones like Ibn Sina and Al Farabi… Yes, I found sayings and tenets by Ibn Sina in several places, but these voices totally ceased; in a sense he could not make progress. He suffocated.’ Words, p. 648.
12. . Signs of Miraculousness, p. 36.
13. . The ground for the view of associative connection between philosophy and wisdom is the belief that philosophy acts on three principles that are not found in wisdom: One, the Principle of Astonishment: the philosophical act has its origin in the feeling of astonishment vis A vis the effects left on the psyche or the things on the horizon. Two, the Principle of Questioning: the philosopher poses one series of questions after another series, looking for answers to them. Three, the Principle of Proof-finding: in proving its tenets, philosophy relies on intellectual evidence that may attain the highest degree of certainty.
14. . He says: ‘The philosophy reached by man veils the miracles of divine might and the marvels of the Almighty”s mercy by the curtain of uniformities, causing a failure to see the signs of (God”s) oneness under these regularities and these great blessings. It does not show them nor indicate them. However, if philosophy perceives some special peculiarities that depart from custom, it directs its attention and concern to them.’ Annexes, p. 358
15. . He says: ‘If that mind becomes confounded in the mire of misguidance and the denial of God, it becomes an instrument of torture and a cause for disturbance in its combination of the sad pains of the past and the terrible fears of the future.’, Illuminations, p. 19.
16. . He says: ‘The difference between my path in the distilling of benefit from the Qur’an and the method of thinkers and philosophers is that I dig wherever I am and water comes out. They, on the other hand, insist on laying pipes and ducts to bring the water from afar. They build long chains and ladders to the Throne above to bring down the water of life. As they rely on these causes, they have to place millions of proof-keepers all along these lengthy roads to preserve them from the destructiveness of the devils of illusions.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 170.
17. . He says: ‘With the secret of the oneness of God, the sealed secret of the perplexing questions is uncovered. From whence comes the flood of existing beings and the train of creatures? Whither is fate? Why did they come and what are they doing…’, Illuminations, p. 14.
18. . He says: ‘But for the oneness of God, man would have been the most wretched of creatures, the lowest of beings, the weakest of animals, and the saddest and most tortured and pained of sentiments. Illuminations, p. 18.
19. . He says: ‘The Qur’anic view of beings makes them like particles; i.e. they express a meaning that resides elsewhere. They express the epiphany of the Best Names and the Supreme Attributes of the Great Creator that are manifested in beings. On the other hand, the dead look of – materialistic – philosophy mostly views the beings as names [whose meaning resides in them] and its foot thereby slips into the slough of nature.’ Annexes, p. 90.
20. . He says: ‘As for philosophy, it looks at existing beings from the point of view of their aspects that regard their entities and their causes.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 77.
21. . Words, p. 646.
22. . He says: ‘The misguided people of this age ride on the “ego” that roams with them in the valleys of loss. The righteous people cannot serve the Truth except by abandoning the ego. Even if they are right and correct in their use of the ego, they have to leave it behind so that they will not look like the others, because then they would be, like them, suspected of self-worship.’ Writings, p. 549.
23. . He says: ‘The second path alluded to – ‘those who are the objects of God”s anger’ – is that of those who worship causes and consider that creation and creating are the acts of intermediaries, which alone, in their view, are effective. They want to reach the Truth of truths and God, the Exalted, through mind and thought alone like the peripatetic sages.’ Words, p. 650.
24. . This an illusion to the Qur’anic verse: ‘Today we save your body alone to make you a sign for those who come after us. Many are heedless of our signs.’ The Sura Yunus, verse 29.
25. . Nursi avoids mentioning Ibn Rushd by name – contrary to what he did with Al Arabi and Ibn Sina – but he refers to him by referring to the quality he was famous for; i.e. as ‘the Cynic’, since he is the greatest exegete of Aristotle. We do not wish to go into the reasons that led him to such circumspection here. It is enough to say that he may have done so in kindness to Ibn Rushd and as a gesture of politeness to his contemporary followers.
26. . The Signs of Miraculousness, p. 36.