Atheism or Theism: The Perspective of Said Nursi, Wipf & Stocks
By Hakan Gok
2018
9781532646799

The existence of God has been long debated in philosophical circles. Mankind doesn’t seem to have settled the question yet. Although scientific circles almost all agree on the assumption that the universe is not eternal and has a beginning, there seems to be no clear scientific explanation of the Big Bang. What was there before it? How did it happen? Is there a divine force behind it? Although theories such as the expansion of the universe are commonly agreed upon, there is still a major gap between the views on how life as we see it came into its current form.

Philosophers have gathered around two philosophical positions to explain the universe and human existence. Those who argue that the universe began with the Big Bang and life has come into existence as a result of some random events without any divine intervention are considered to be atheists. Others, who argue that the universe is the product of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity, are called theists. Arguably almost all thinking human beings are inclined towards one of these two positions, although the degrees and the specific philosophical positions are varied. While atheism had never been a trend almost until the seventeenth century, the theistic view, which was the mainstream thought, did not really concern itself much to bring evidence for the existence of God. Although there has been a very dynamic discussion on this topic in the last three centuries, one tends to accept belief in the existence of God as a matter of personal conviction rather than a result of empirical evidence.

Hakan Gok’s recent book is another fresh contribution to this everlasting debate. Gok explains the scene to the layman in his fairly extended introduction. It is, in a way, an executive summary of what has been said since the time of the Ancient Greeks. The book gives a special emphasis on the kalam version of the argument for the existence of God, in particular the views of Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, Al Ghazzali, and Ibn Rushd. Although the kalam arguments sound fairly similar to that of the Western tradition, the reader can feel the flavor of Islamization of these common arguments. It is clear in Gok’s writings that there is a close correlation between Western and Islamic ways of arguing in favor of theism. The book also shows how Muslim philosophers, particularly the ones mentioned above, were influenced by the Ancient Greek tradition.

What is unique in Gok’s book is the fact that it examines Said Nursi’s approach to atheism and theism, as Nursi extensively did in the Risale-i Nur (The Epistles of Light). Gok tries to demonstrate that, like many of his predecessors, Nursi employed main philosophical arguments to prove that there is God and the universe is not the product of chance. The teleological argument, or the argument from design, which is the offshoot of the cosmological argument, is Nursi’s main proof to demonstrate the existence of God. Gok breaks down Nursi’s design argument and scrutinizes it thoroughly. Arguments from religious experience and from revelation appear in two different chapters in Gok’s book. The book seems to be at pains to demonstrate how Nursi gives a twist to these two arguments by focusing intensely on Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Quran.

Gok’s book doesn’t only focus on proving that these two arguments make a compelling argument for believing in God, but also studies how Nursi answers the skeptical questions posed over time by many thinkers. It feels more like a defense of Nursi’s position than a systematic presentation of them as they appear in William Lane Craig and the like.

The moral argument is another Nursian way of proving the existence of God, as Gok’s book shows. Human beings are the best judges of any given situation. If all the philosophical arguments fail to convince them, their primordial conscience (wijdan) can lead them into believing in a creator-maintainer God. This, Gok claims, is what makes Nursi’s Risale-i Nur unique among many pieces written on the subject.

Gok’s book puts all the main theistic arguments, kalam arguments, and the atheist’s arguments into the same frame. Readers can clearly see all three positions and where Nursi sits on this spectrum. Gok does not only look at the historic arguments, but also analyzes recent ones. Specifically, he compares Nursi’s views in the Risale-i Nur with Richard Dawkins’s views in The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’s in God Is Not Great, and Daniel C Dennetts’s assessments in Consciousness Explained: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and Breaking the Spell. In a well-balanced and fairly objective way, Gok puts the arguments against each other and encourages the reader to form their own judgement.

Atheism and theism are two colossal schools of thought. One should not expect Gok to settle all the scores in 270 pages. His work is easy to read and easy to understand; it merely rekindles one’s interest in independently reading and scrutinizing these thoughts while also making the subject more digestible for those who have an interest in them. Gok sums up Nursi’s position in the Risale-i Nur with a degree of critical analysis.

Each of the Nursian arguments certainly deserve further scrutiny. Yet Gok works to avoid bogging readers down with too many specific philosophical details. Among many books which have been published on the subject, Gok’s makes the subject more enjoyable and digestible for the general readership. It is a fresh contribution to the literature written on Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur and the subject of theism and atheism.

Under the influence of these developments, it is highly likely that there will be collective transformations in convictions, ideas, and , scientific thought. When we look back at the recent past, we see that so many things have changed. Just yesterday, commonly accepted “immutable” facts, such as Galileo’s understanding of the cosmos or Newton’s universal gravitation, have been exchanged for relativity and become defunct theories. The view of taking matter as the basis for everything has been doubted for a long time. Today we see that researchers in different fields, particularly quantum physics, are concerned with the non-material world just as much as the material world. It seems that in the near future not just matter or atoms, but anti-matter will become a common subject of research for circles of science; metaphysics will be mentioned wherever physics is considered.

Science tries to explain the realities of our perceptions in the light of results obtained through experience. It does not give credit to knowledge which is not perceived and verified by the senses until their reality is proven through scientific methodology. For example, nobody doubts the reality of those things that we can see, regardless of their nature. Likewise, we can say the same for things we hear, touch or experience with other things perceptible through our sense organs. As for magnetic or electronic fields that we cannot perceive with our sense organs, we detect them with compasses or other tools. Science is able to perceive this much with the means it presently has, but is as yet unable to go further beyond “electrical,” “magnetic,” and “gravitational” fields. As relevant tools and devices that can prove the existence and nature of other fields are invented, scientific research will then be able to start exploring beyond these fields. In this respect, claiming that science encompasses everything and that it has reached its ultimate limits is surely a great mistake and is blind to what the history of science has shown us. As a matter of fact, if we look into the discoveries and inventions science has produced, we realize that what we know is almost nothing in comparison to what we do not know.

Not only does claiming that we know everything contradict reality, it is also a regressive behavior which lacks any zeal for further progress and is about being content with the present achievements. In every era, those who deem the achievements reached by contemporary science as the ultimate limits of progress, have blocked the way to further scientific discoveries and reduced the intellectual life to misery. Therefore, we see it as an obligation to reconsider what we have learned so far with a critical perspective, our previous knowledge needs to be reevaluated in the light of new discoveries, both in terms of correcting our mistakes and finding a way out of today’s dead ends. This includes a thorough study of the outer space and the earth, their relation to one another, night and day flowing in regular cycles, the special conditions of living or non-living beings in their own world, as well as human and animal organisms’ motion, function and purposes. Likewise soil, water, their composition, and their relationship with living beings, all must absolutely be reevaluated and analyzed with modern methods. Only in this way will it be possible to correct those theories that have not been proven according to scientific research methods, and those mistaken rules which are based on wrong judgments.

The dignity of science requires research to be conducted with an appropriate methodology. Those who busy scientific centers with unproven theories both deceive the masses and violate the dignity of science. Scientific methodology in its plainest form consists of: first, scientists determine their subject and clearly define what they want to learn; then they revise the results of previous research related to that subject; and then they determine the results to be derived from the data that they have collected. In order to test the reliability of the previously obtained results properly, a set of new tests is applied. If the new tests do not prove the suggested theory, scientists go back to the drawing board for further research. They collect new data, and by combining it with previous findings, they give new shape to their theory. Thus, they record the experimentally proven findings and then they consider whether the particular fact that they would like to define as an established principle can be generalized or not. If it can be generalized, then they evaluate the relationship with similar phenomena and see the whole of the picture. This method of research, also adopted by modern methodology, is an objective one for scientific evaluation. Therefore, it is absolutely not scientific to claim that something is definitely true or is established without using such scientific methodology, and to object or deny what contradicts that assumption. Suppositions and estimations asserted as established ideas are nothing but suggested theories and the universal principles that are derived from these suggestions are nothing but deception. Scientific conclusions cannot be drawn from such suppositions and estimations, nor can such suppositions be used to reject knowledge affirmed by testimony and reliable reports or proven through proper methodologies.

The twisted grammar of the naturalistic fallacy

In assuming nature to be uniquely real, a naturalist proposes that “reality” (or “existence”) means “natural being” and nothing more. Instead of saying, “nature is real,” (or “nature exists,”) a naturalist prefers to says, “reality (or existence) is nature.” Such an utterance has an odd syntax, with the subject and predicate being strangely exchanged, thus twisting the grammar and invalidating it. It is not vague, but rather nonsensical. Such nonsense originates from the awful mistake of reducing a group (here, “beings”) into a member (“natural beings”), or, to use logical terms, equating a universal (here, “reality” or “existence”) to a particular (“natural reality” or “natural existence”). What a naturalist attempts here is to narrow the meaning of reality; this can be called “naturalistic fallacy,” borrowing G. E. Moore’s phrase. It is with this attempt that naturalism becomes unreasonable. Namely, as it is reasonable to conceive of “unnatural” beings, that is, any entities outside the world observed, it is thus unreasonable to assume nature as being unique in reality. In other words, the “world observed” is not equal to (nor does it consume the meaning of) the world of reality. The phrase “natural existence” is a necessary reference to-at least the possibility of-“unnatural existence.” Indeed, against this immediate inquiry of justification, naturalistic discourse does nothing but recede from a logical base. As the famous naturalist Kai Nielsen states, naturalism is nothing but an idea without any idea of foundation. That is to say, naturalism remains as arbitrary as any fantastic speculations about an alien world, as both share the same status of justification.

Hetoric divorced from logic

(a) “Naturalism is the view that only natural objects, kinds, and properties are real.”

As “natural” here is used to mean “of the world observed,” then the use of “only” means that “real” cannot be the proper predicate for the sentence. This statement is odd. To perceive the oddity, imagine (if possible) a man who understands the concept of “color” but is unable to perceive anything except red objects. Had such man said, “Only red is a color,” this is then equal to “All color is red.” Similarly, a naturalist suggests imagining reality as “comprising” (not “including”) nature. Can you imagine yourself answering this question: “Do you know why birds are eagles?”

(b) “Naturalism is the belief that the world is a single system of things or events, every one of which is bound to every other in a network of relations and laws, and outside this natural order there is nothing.”

If one were to ask a naturalist what convinced them to view the world as a single system that excludes unnatural things, they would answer, “The fact that I haven’t seen such things.” Responding thus, they admit the possibility of unnatural realities, which fulfills the meaning of the phrase “outside this natural order” in the statement. If a child asks this naturalist what might happen outside the natural order, how meaningful it is if they reply: “I have no idea” and how meaningless if they reply: “Nothing.” Such a conversation would demonstrate that it is impossible to place nature into “space” as a concept of physics, and that it is certainly not a childish attempt to try to squeeze reality into nature.

Groundless denial of supernatural

(c) “Naturalists reject all such notions of spirits, disembodied souls, non-material personal gods, and more-than-natural agencies. The grounds for the rejection of these notions are a lack of evidence adequate to support these notions.”

Ideas of spirits or souls are referred to as “supernatural” in that they are “ordinarily” not subject to the world observed. This means that they might be subject to the world of phenomena or of experience. There may be (reportedly, are) many experiences regarding supernatural phenomena, like spirits, angels, inspirations, revelations, etc. If this is the case then it would be unreasonable to reject all the relevant human traditions. Just as a momentary sighting of a peculiar insect is sufficient reason for the conviction that there is such a species on earth, the same is true for more peculiar entities. This indicates, as William R. Dennes clearly puts, that naturalists may have no reason to exclude intelligible reference to supernatural. Had a child reported to a naturalist that he had certainly seen a ghost, or that his dead grandfather had related a secret to him in dream, but the naturalist denies the child’s claims, accusing him of lying or dreaming, then the child’s rejection, in turn, of all the stories told and all the advice given by the naturalist that are based on experience would be meaningful.

(d) “Naturalism denies that there are any supernatural or spiritual realities. There are no purely mental substances and there are no supernatural realities beyond nature or transcendent to the world or anything of the sort, or at least we have no sound reasons for believing that there are such realities or perhaps even that there can be such realities. Physical realities, or perhaps as well realities dependent on physical realities, are the only kind of realities there are.”

The problem in the above statement is that the non-existence of supernatural entities cannot be reasonably claimed, let alone proven. Common sense commands that we not deny any possibility unless logically necessary. In logic, the denial of possibility is one of the two greatest mistakes; the other is the refusal of necessity. It seems that a naturalist cannot maintain such mistakes forever as they would necessarily encounter some form of supernatural experience, just as other fellow humans are. In other words, conjectures die away whenever phenomena manifest themselves. A naturalist then cannot be serious in his materialistic position, in denying the most manifest supernatural phenomenon, the soul, the factual manifestation of which is consciousness and the conscience. Therefore, rejecting any “purely mental substance” is a sophistic proposition. The immutable duality of “subject” and “object” always warrants the fact that “soul” is the constant interference of the supernatural into natural. Namely, if “nature” is the object that is observed, “I” am the subject that observes. Here we infer that a naturalist can only pretend to become a materialist at the expense of their own self. As Schopenhauer once wrote, materialism is the philosophy of the “subject” that forgets to give account of himself.

A pointless appeal to natural science

(e) “Naturalism is the recognition that it is within science itself, and not in some prior philosophy, that reality is to be identified and described.”

If science is claimed, in this approach, to identify reality, that is, to assign by observation what is real and what is not, then science itself is at stake as the objective study of natural reality, merely because it is the concept of reality that justifies observation. Plainly speaking, it is the sense of “real” that qualifies observation, not the opposite. This is why it is meaningful to say, “What we observe is real.” It is impossible to identify anything without having a “prior” conception of reality. In Kant’s dictionary, it is a priori concepts, the most prior of which is “reality,” that ensure all a posteriori notions, which all scientific terms are subject to. Now, upon this logical structure it is meaningful for a child to ask: “Aren’t ghosts real?” as well as for a naturalist to reply: “Certainly, not!” Similarly, natural science asks: “How is natural reality?” and answers: “It is in accordance with observation.” Thus, science admits that the reality of nature needs to be identified by a prior philosophy, a metaphysical notion. This means that natural science normally denounces (scientists must denounce) the awful illusion of scientism, the claim that science is uniquely eligible to identify the reality of the world; it is in regard with this that Wittgenstein warns that “the whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.” What the philosopher means is that a scientist is no wiser about nature than anyone else when he steps out of his laboratory.

A final word

One may gather from this brief analysis that naturalism, in its absolute form, is destined to struggle forever, if not pass away, with the irremovable fallacy of reductionism. A naturalist may understand that to avoid from this destiny they must abandon the vacuous attempt to “invent” a logic for the world, rather maintaining the language on the grammar of possibility when assuming metaphysics, by stating, for instance, “Nature may be autonomous; who knows?” Such normalization turns naturalism, as Kai Nielsen states, into a game that might be called “fallibilism” and must be played without any confidence or hope. As a result, for anybody who wants to take metaphysics seriously for their ultimate concerns, as Michael C. Rea emphasizes, there is no such an option as naturalism.

Erkan Mazhar Kurt has a PhD in theology. He is an executive member of The Institute of Interfaith Dialog, Houston, Texas.

Notes

1. See, William Ray Dennes, Some Dilemmas of Naturalism, Columbia University Press, New York 1960, p. 80.

2. Kai Nielsen, Naturalism without Foundations, Prometheus Books, New York 1996, p. 35.

3. See, Michael C. Rea, World without Design: The Ontological Consequences

of Naturalism, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2002, p. 56. (These and the following emphases are mine for attention at conceptual relations.)

4. See, ibid, p. 55.

5. Cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (tr. D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1961, p. 149.

6. Sterling P. Lamprecht, The Metaphysics of Naturalism, Meredith Publishing

Company, New York 1967, p. 209.

7. Dennes, ibid, p. 21.

8. Nielsen, ibid, p. 25.

9. Cf. Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology, Cambridge University Press, New York 2000, p. 14.

10. Cf. A. D. Smith, “Non-Reductive Physicalism?” in Objections to Physicalism

(ed. Howard Robinson), Oxford 1993, p. 225.

11. Cf. Ralph Walker, “Transcendental Arguments against Physicalism” in Objections to Physicalism (ed. Howard Robinson), Oxford 1993, p. 78.

12. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation (tr. E. F. J. Payne), Massachusetts 1958, II, 313.

13. See, Rea, ibid, p. 42.

14. Cf. Dallas Willard, “Knowledge and Naturalism” in Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (ed. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland), Routledge, New York 2000, p. 30.

15. See, Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (tr. J. M. D. Meiklejohn), Prometheus Books, Buffalo 1990, p. 7.

16. Wittgenstein, ibid, p. 143.

17. Cf. Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, HarperSanFrancisco, New York 1997, p. 87.

18. Nielsen, ibid, p. 26.

19. Rea, ibid, p. 59.

M&B: Your life story is very interesting. You started your journey as a scientist. How did you become interested in science?

As a young boy, I was very good at mathematics; for me it was a very exciting subject. So I went to study mathematics at Cambridge University. And during my undergraduate years, I became very interested in the fact that you can use mathematics to understand the physical world. So when it came time to do a PhD, I did it in theoretical physics, working, in fact, with a very distinguished theoretical physicist, AbdusSalam, who later won the Nobel Prize. That led to a 25-year career working in theoretical elementary particle physics; that is, using mathematics to try and understand the behavior of the smallest bits of matter. It was a very enjoyable, interesting life.

M&B: You chose the study of elementary particles in physics; what was it that fascinated you?

Elementary particle physics, obviously, is a very fundamental branch; it is the study of the constituents out of which the physical world is made. When I entered the subject, it was at a very exciting stage. New experimental material was appearing and the theorists were puzzled at what was being discovered at first. During the 25 years I spent on the subject, we moved from thinking of protons and neutrons as being the constituents of matter to recognizing that they themselves were made up of yet smaller constituents, which are called quarks and gluons; the latter are what make them stick together. It was a very exciting and interesting time to be involved in the subject.

M&B: Why did you resign your position at Cambridge and leave physics?

I don’t think you get better as you get older in mathematically-based subjects. It requires a certain flexibility of mind rather than a depth of experience. You probably don’t do your best work before you’re 25, but almost certainly before you’re 45. I recognized that; I’ve seen it happen with senior colleagues, and I had thought for a long time that I wouldn’t stay in theoretical physics all my life. I had done my bit for it and probably the time had now come to do something else.

M&B: Was there one particular event that triggered your transition from being a professor at the university to being an Anglican priest?

In no way did I leave physics because I was disillusioned with it. I enjoyed it and I still took a keen interest in it. My transition from being a professor to a priest was partly conditioned by the fact that I’d reached that stage in my life where I felt I’d done my bit for physics. Also, the subject was changing. The quantum theory had become very established, the dust had settled, so to speak, on what we call the standard model. Physics was changing its character. String theory was appearing and everything was becoming much more speculative, using a different sort of mathematics; I didn’t know this so well, so it was quite a good time for a change.

That’s why I did it. There was no heavenly voice telling me, John, give up physics and do something else. It was just a natural transition to make. At least leaving physics was. Becoming an Anglican priest was a rather special choice for a further career, but that was influenced by the fact that Christianity had always been central to my life, and I wanted to serve the church.

M&B: If one were to compare scientific inquiry and religious thinking, what are the limits of scientific inquiry?

Well, science is very successful, but its success is the result of the modesty of its ambition. It doesn’t try to ask and answer every question. Essentially, it asks how things happen. Science doesn’t concern itself with a question of why things are happening, whether there is a meaning, or purpose to what’s going on. It considers a limited range of experience and essentially treats the world as an object, as an “it,” something to be kicked around, pulled apart to find out what it’s made of, manipulated. And that gives science, of course, its secret weapon, which is the experimental method. If you don’t believe it, try it for yourself, you can do it again and again and again. We all know, of course, that there is a very wide range of human experience which is quite different from that in which you encounter reality; that is not as an “it,” if you like, not as an object, but as a person, or in the richest case, the transpersonal reality of God. And that regime, which is very central to human life and fulfillment, has to give way to trusting. There’s a different way of finding the truth. So while science is great, it doesn’t tell you the whole story. It needs to be supplemented by other forms of insight.

M&B: There is an understanding that science is based on testing and religion is based on trusting. But do you think there is testing in religion too, and that there is trusting in science?

To a degree that’s true. There is trust in science, in the sense that scientists commit themselves to a belief that the world is intelligible. They will be able to understand it. It may be difficult to find that understanding, there may be a lot of labor involved, but they believe that there is a story to be found and to be told. And we wouldn’t do science unless we had committed ourselves to the expectation that we will find an intelligible structure beneath it.

Equally, in religion, we don’t really have experiments. We can’t put the Lord, your God, through a test, but we do have experiences. We have our own realistic experience, and also we have the record and the foundational religious experiences that lie behind the traditions of different faiths. So there is a motivated belief that arises from experience in religion and there is a commitment to a point of view in science. In that sense, the two are not completely different from each other. They have a certain cousinly relationship to each other.

M&B: You obviously have had religious experiences in your life. Could you give us some examples in order to better understand the difference between experience and experiment?

I think religion has an experiential aspect. I wouldn’t say it has an experimental aspect; an experiment is when you figure out what you think ought to happen and you induce the circumstances in which you think it’s going to happen; then you see whether it does or not. You can’t do that with God. But the outcome is going to be more open and much more flexible in its character. Take a very simple example. Suppose somebody is gravely ill, and their community prays for that person. They’re praying for God to heal that person’s life. Now the word healing comes from the root hale which means wholeness. The people who are praying may be hoping that wholeness will find its expression in terms of some form of remarkable physical recovery. It may, but equally it may not. The wholeness may come; it may come in the form of that person being able to accept the imminent destiny of death in a peaceful and trusting way. So there’s a sort of range of possible outcomes. You can’t lay them down beforehand in the same way that you can in science, and that makes religious experience valid, true, supportive. We have experiences of worship, we feel the presence of God in that sort of way; we have experiences of commitment. Looking back on our lives, I think we can often see what we believe to be the guiding hand of God leading us in a particular direction; I can see that myself, for example, in my change from being a physicists to being a priest. But I didn’t hear a heavenly voice telling me to do that at the time; it seemed more like my own exploration. Looking back, I see God’s hand in it as well. So there’s a richness and a sort of ambiguity, in a way, of religious experience. It makes religion a much more complex, and also, in a sense, a much more satisfying and fulfilling form of human activity.

M&B: Now that we have heard your story, let’s examine with the cosmic story. What are the scientific and religious perspectives behind the story of the universe?

When we think about the history of the universe, we know that it started out very, very small. 13.7 billion years ago it was just an expanding ball of energy, about the simplest thing you could imagine. Now it’s become very rich and complicated; the home of saints and scientists. And that extraordinary story in itself might suggest that something has been going on in what’s been happening with the world. It has not just been one thing after another. There’s some sort of unfolding purpose that’s being fulfilled.

M&B: And human beings also play an important role in the cosmic story.

I think one of the most astonishing things which has happened in the history of the universe that we know about is actually the coming to be of human life and human consciousness here on earth. Something really new emerged in the world with that, because we are able to be aware of ourselves, we are able to understand the world. In human nature, the universe, so to speak, became aware of itself. That was a new development. Obviously on the scale of the universe, we are very tiny creatures, and we inhabit a planet that is just a speck of dust in the great universe, but we are greater than all the stars because we know them and ourselves, and they know nothing. So, I do think there’s a particular value and a particular significance in human life. Scientific ability is part of that; our religious ability, I think, to encounter the reality of God reflects another unique aspect of human nature. So, as small as we are, I think we are a very significant part of what’s going on in the world. Science tells us that story, but I think religion interprets the same story and says, yes indeed, there is something going on. There is a purpose behind the universe. It’s the purpose of the Creator, and it’s not an accident that human beings who are aware of God have emerged; indeed, it was God’s purpose to bring that about.

M&B: That brings us to life after death, to questions about our purpose. As a physicist, what does the cosmic story tell you?

Every story that science can tell ends, eventually, in totality, transience and decay. As far as human life is concerned, obviously, we’re all going to die. It’s even true of the universe itself, although on much greater time scales. Not tomorrow, not for billions and billions of years, but eventually the universe itself is going to end in futility, most likely by becoming progressively colder and colder, more and more dilute. Carbon-based life, wherever it is in the universe, will eventually prove to be just a transient episode in history. That’s all that science can say. It’s the third law of thermodynamics; in the end, chaos always wins over order.

M&B: But there are also conservation laws in science. Do you think conservation laws offer some kind of hope scientifically?

Science certainly knows that some things don’t get lost, the conservation of energy for example. Energy is conserved yes, but what thermodynamics tells us is that energy becomes less and less useful. It transforms into heat and things like that which can’t be used to do footwork or create further forms of order. So that says the universe does run down. Of course, there are bits of the universe that swim against the tide, so to speak; but the emergence of humans, conscious beings, is different from that. But we are going to get caught up in that eventual decay in the end. So I think within what science can say, although there is no conservation of real fulfillment, in the end it is condemned to futility.

You might think, what’s the point of it? It’s going to end in that sort of way. But of course, the scientific story is not the only story to tell. There’s a religious story, so to speak; a vertical story to compliment the horizontal story of science. And the religious story is that God is faithful and God will not allow things of value to simply disappear. And I believe that there is for human beings, both individually, and for the universe as a whole, a destiny beyond our deaths. This is not a story that science can tell, because it depends entirely on the faithfulness of God. But I believe God is faithful, and so I believe that human beings will have a destiny beyond their death, and that our destiny will be linked with the destiny of the universe; the whole of creation matters to its Creator. That’s a big, big story, a story of hope and of fulfillment; science poses the question of eventual futility, but only religion, I think, can provide a satisfying answer to it.

The big issue is, is the universe truly a cast off? Does it truly make sense? It makes a lot of sense now. Science explores that and the wonderful order of the world. But does it everlastingly make sense, or in the end does it signify nothing? I think to a religious point of view it is a cosmos and not a chaos. But it is my religious belief that tells me this, not my scientific understanding.

M&B: As limited as we are, we can somehow strangely relate to that concept of everlasting life. What is the role of human conscious in transcending itself?

Human life is very rich and complex. It operates at a great many levels. There are all sorts of human intuitions, some of which we are not really consciously aware of, but which are a very important part of our humanity. Here’s one way of thinking about it. Suppose a child wakes up in the middle of the night frightened by some dream it has had. The parent goes to comfort the child. What the parent says to the child is: it’s all right. Now stop for a minute and think what that might mean. Is that parent really telling a lie to the child? We live in a world of cancer and concentration camps; we live in a world in which we know we’re all going to die. Is it really all right? On the face of it, you might think the answer is no, but nevertheless, there’s a deep intuition that in the end, all will be well. There’s a deep human intuition of hope that although there is death, there is more than death.

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

I began my research by reading all the Turkish material I could find on the subject. Most of the works I found were Turkish translations of European travelers’ reports about Ottoman life. Of course, it was necessary to separate fact from fiction, because many travelers, males in particular, described aspects of Ottoman life they had never personally seen-the inside of the harem, for example. But in spite of this, I was able to glean a fairly accurate description of Ottoman women and the harem from a number of different travelers (mostly women) who can be considered as eye witnesses to harem life. The portrait of Ottoman women that emerged reflected a very feminine appearance and demeanor, refined manners and decorum, and a pious and chaste character. Their domestic roles of wife and mother further reinforced this strongly feminine image.

The portrait of Ottoman women I found from my reading was a far cry from the Orientalists’ exotic stereotype. I learned that only approximately ten percent of the young slave girls in the imperial harem were actually royal concubines, and this number included concubines to the princes as well as to the sultan. The rest were groomed and trained for service to the royal family by means of the administrative hierarchy in the imperial harem. Even the belly dance, which is always associated with slave girls in the harem, apparently did not even exist in the imperial harem. That is what we are told by Leyla Saz Hanýmefendi who grew up in the palace from the age of four and who was closely associated with the royal family during the reign of six different sultans during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Armed with the information and knowledge I had gained from many travelers’ reports and secondary sources, I felt ready to challenge the sensationalist myth of the harem. Little did I know at the time, however, that an even greater discovery regarding Ottoman women awaited me in future research.

By a quirk of fate, I found myself spending a year with my daughter who was studying for a master’s degree in Islamic studies at a leading North American university. One of the courses she took was related to the Muslim qadi or judge and Ottoman court records. Much to my amazement I learned that throughout the duration of the Ottoman state (six centuries) women had many significant legal rights, more perhaps during that time than any other women in the world. This was a point that had been somehow overlooked in the many sensationalist books on the harem! Investigating this point further, I learned that Ottoman women had legal agency or, in other words, they could sue and be sued in court independent of their husbands. They could enter into legal contracts like marriage contracts with their husbands, or into business contracts with others. They had the right to own property and to inherit it. They had the right to initiate divorce. They had full control over their own income and property and could do with it as they wished. Ottoman women also had the right to be guardian of their children in case of the death of or divorce from their husband. European women, on the other hand, gained these rights much later, and today in some parts of the world women are still struggling to obtain them. British women, for example, did not have these rights until 1882. Previous to that time they had to turn over any property, inheritance or income to their husband upon marriage. Women did not have legal agency nor were they able to make legal contracts independently. Also they were unable to defend themselves in divorce cases and they could not get legal guardianship of their own children.

Furthermore, I learned that not only did Ottoman women have these legal rights, but that they actively pursued their rights as well. There are thousands of court records that attest to this. By no means were legal rights enjoyed just by a privileged few. They were accorded to Ottoman women of all social and economic strata. For example, one of my favorite cases was taken from early seventeenth-century Kayseri court records. It involves a woman named Teslime who was working on her land when her neighbor’s donkey strayed onto her property. When she seized the animal, her neighbor, who was a man, cursed her. Teslime immediately filed a complaint with the local qadi. Two witnesses were found to support her complaint and she won her case. While reading her case, I could not help but wonder how many women today would take a man to court for cursing them; and if they did so, how many would be taken seriously? There are countless recorded cases of Ottoman women who turned to the courts to get redress for injustices perpetrated against them. Upon review of such cases a different image of the Ottoman woman in the legal arena emerged: a strong and courageous woman who put Haqq (Truth and Justice) above everything else.

It was the discovery of this side of Ottoman women that really clenched my respect and admiration for them, because it enlightened me in regard to how Muslim women should be. They were not only very feminine and refined, but they were also strong defenders of Haqq. Their feminine and masculine natures were amazingly well balanced. As a Muslim convert, I have found the female model I was looking for. Whenever I get into trouble, I first ask myself, “What would an Ottoman woman do?”

Furthermore, I discovered that the spiritual nature of women was honored in Ottoman society.

Ottoman women were honored in the harem, not imprisoned there. Unfortunately, this way of perceiving women has all but been lost today. Much of the time women are perceived mainly as physical beings and, in its lowest form, as sex objects. They are often valued to the degree that they can rival the accomplishments of men. Ottoman women, however, were honored and valued as women.

I wanted to share these discoveries with others. I began lecturing on the subject of Ottoman women in Turkey, and these lectures eventually led to a small book in Turkish entitled, “Osmanlý Toplumunda Kadýn ve Aile (Women and Family in Ottoman Society).” Later on I began thinking about writing a book on Ottoman women in English-not an academic work, but a book giving a general overview that would appeal to any Western reader interested in the subject of women. Again, I rolled up my sleeves and set to work. As the book took form, so did my concept of how the book should be illustrated. I wanted it to reflect the spirit of the Ottoman woman-the beauty and harmony and refinement of her life. Once Tughra Books (formerly The Light, Inc.) agreed to publish the book and the design concept was agreed upon, members of their graphics design department did an extraordinary job that eventually led to the book being a finalist for the 2008 PMA Benjamin Franklin Award in the category of cover design/large format.

My book was published under the title “Ottoman Women: Myth and Reality” at the end of 2007. In the spring of 2008 I went on a book promotion tour in some major US cities: Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Pittsburg, Rochester and Newark. The people I met and spoke to-men and women, young and old, American and Turkish, Muslim and non-Muslim-all responded positively to the book. Many were surprised to learn about the high social status of Ottoman women, particularly about their legal rights. Some, young Turks in particular, were thankful that the myth of the harem was finally being challenged. Almost all commented on the beautiful design of the book. The highlight of the tour occurred on the evening of the annual PMA publishing awards dinner in Los Angeles. That night my long journey of discovery in regard to Ottoman women was crowned when my book won the PMA Benjamin Franklin publishing award in the category of history/politics.

As a final comment, I would like to mention the great contribution to the book of my now deceased son, Sahin Sancar. He was with me every step of the way, from the signing of the contract with my publisher to the final touches in the design. He was a beautiful person and he contributed greatly to the beauty of the book. May he live eternally in beauty and light.

In our essay, we will briefly introduce Wach’s basic understanding of each of the four concepts, namely teacher, student, master, and disciple, and then elaborate, examining in detail some of the perspectives. At the same time, we will try to look at some different aspects of the subject upon which Joachim Wach did not focus.

According to Wach, the teacher is the possessor of certain crafts, for example, knowledge in a certain subject or of a skill, and he teaches what he knows or possesses to his students. Therefore, he it is not his person itself that is respected by the student, rather it is his knowledge or skill. On the other hand, the very character and participation of the master are crucial in the learning process; therefore, it is not his knowledge or skill that is admired and esteemed by the disciple, but rather his very essence and individuality. Consequently, while the teacher is considered as a replaceable object in the educational process, the master is regarded as an essential component.

The teacher provides only knowledge, ability, or a definite subject matter, and his merit consists in his willingness to give freely. On the other hand, to give is also a kind of merit for the master, but he gives something different to his disciples from what the teacher gives to his students. The master gives himself to his disciples and consumes himself. However, the teacher lives for a certain task and gives a certain craft; consequently, he is consumed by his task.

The student respects the teacher as a body of knowledge and the teacher-student relationship exists in the common interest that is the subject matter. The disciple is interested in the personality of the master rather than his knowledge. For that reason, the master-disciple relationship survives in different interests; that is to say, while the master’s interest is the student himself, the student’s concern is the master’s very existence. On that ground, the master and disciple have an irreplaceable value for one another, while in the teacher-student relationship, both components are replaceable.

When the student opens himself to the teacher, he makes himself dear, and his value depends on his success or failure in the subject. The sharpness and intelligence of the student stimulates the praise of the teacher. On the other hand, for the master, the sharp eye or the intellect of the disciple makes no difference. Moreover, being a disciple is not based on personal worth, but is rather a relationship in which a fellowship of destiny is predominant.

After introducing the main nuances of the teacher-student and the master-disciple relationships, as Wach perceives them, let us elaborate on some points that are given only a brief mention in Wach’s paper.

One of the points that Wach explores concerning comparison between teacher and master is time. Wach asserts that the teacher is worried about time, especially its passing, while the master’s concern focuses on the moment. The teacher has much to teach and wants to have completed his task at the end of the course. He wants his students to graduate so that they can go out and teach what they have been taught. However, the master has no concern about when his disciples will complete his course, because the right time for the matriculation of the disciple cannot be determined in advance. In other words, the right time can be at any moment. Consequently, each moment is a treasure for both the master and the disciple in this learning process; the right knowledge or the gnosis-in the Sufi sense-can be given and obtained at any moment.

Moreover, the teacher teaches a certain type of knowledge or skill; therefore, his course must end at a certain time period. However, the master teaches of himself and provides knowledge of life; therefore, this teaching phase may last for a life time.

Approached from a different angle, time is a valuable concept in the teacher-student relationship only when the teacher teaches, as this relationship is based on teaching and learning. On the other hand, time is a valuable component in the master-disciple relationship, because even the master’s silence or a look can be a great method of teaching. In other words, the master-disciple relationship is not based solely on certain actions.

When we look at the issue from the perspective of the student and the disciple, we can determine that students plan that they will give a certain time period to their teacher, but the disciples are ready to sacrifice their whole life to their master. The students are worried about the passing of the time; this is not a fault. Yet, the disciples do not worry about time; if they do worry, it means that they feel a great need to spend much time with their master.

Another issue that Wach raises in his paper is about the future of students and disciples. He asserts that the student will become a teacher, but the disciple will never become a master. Wach states that as the master’s existence is irreplaceable, the disciple can never take the place of his master. On the other hand, the teacher is not unique; therefore, the student can replace him. Agreeing with Wach about this specific idea, we also would like to say that although the disciple cannot replace his master, he certainly can become a master and there are many examples of this in the history of the master-disciple relationship. For instance, one of the famous Sufi masters, Abdussalam b. Mashish, had only one disciple during his whole life, Shazili, through whom he gained fame. This was because Shazili, after his master Ibn Mashish, also became a great master and founded the Shazili Sufi order. As the example shows, the disciple can never be his master, but he can be a master who carries on the tradition.

One of the distinctions between discipleship and studentship that Wach makes is that while discipleship drives the disciples to envy and jealousy, studentship is usually a base for mutual love. This stems from the fact that in the master-disciple relationship, the master’s very existence is the sole interest of all the disciples; therefore, they are unable to share him. On the other hand, in the teacher-student relationship, the common interest of the students is the subject matter; therefore, students usually do not experience any problem in terms of sharing. Agreeing with these contentions of Wach, we also would like to add that although discipleship usually becomes a base for jealousy, the masters do not desire that their disciples feel jealousy towards each other.

One of the great masters was Said Nursi, who lived in Turkey and died in 1960. He had a very different approach to the disciple-master relationship. Nursi’s significance rests in the very core of his teachings. In his teaching, he creates a completely new concept called fana fi’l-ikhwan and according to this concept, disciples must annihilate themselves in their fellow disciples instead of annihilating themselves in the character of the master. This mutual annihilation that occurs between disciples is called tafani and both these concepts, fana fi’l-ikhwan and tafani are fundamental in the teachings of Nursi.

One of the points that Wach should have dealt with more clearly in his paper is the emotional nature of the master-disciple relationship. For us, the master-student relationship is a relationship of compassion-love. As Wach points out, the master’s very concern is humanity; it is through his sacred knowledge that the master can perceive the ability of humanity to live cheerfully and painlessly. Therefore, the master willingly takes on the role of savior and bravely says ‘Yes’ to his destiny. His soul is willing to be sacrificed. Apparently, the main emotion that rests in the soul that accepts sacrifice is compassion; the master’s group of disciples is a small sample of humanity, so therefore, the master is always compassionate to his disciples. He cares for them deeply; lives and dies for them. On the other hand, the disciple returns this compassion with his deep love.

To elaborate on the compassion of the master, we can say that the master’s compassion toward his disciples, thereby, toward humanity, contains three main emotions: protection, endurance, and sacrifice. The relationship of the master to his disciples is like that of a mother to her children. Therefore, the master is always worried about the security of his disciples. The security that we talk about here is generally not a physical one. Since the master is aware that the life of humanity is generally cheerful and painless, he wants to protect his disciples from this type of life style. The master knows and deeply believes that such an easy life is a dead and void life.

The master’s heart burns to protect his disciples, in particular the young disciples who are usually not aware of the great dangers that await them. It is due to this unawareness that they are sometimes unable to display obedience to the advice of the master. When this happens, the master’s position becomes a very heavy burden to bear, but his compassion towards the disciples provides for him the endurance that he needs.

The last main nuance of the master’s compassion is his saying “Yes” to his destiny. As soon as the master obtains his sacred knowledge, he becomes aware of his sacrificial destiny. He knows that his task is very difficult and this task may even drive him to his death. There is no other choice for him but to say “Yes” to his death. He is able to do this because of his incomprehensible compassion. At this point, although Wach sees death as the greatest sacrifice of the master, we disagree; perceiving rather that living for the sake of humanity and enduring the difficulties of the task is a greater sacrifice for the master than the acceptance of death. The difficulties that the master accepts and bears throughout his life are heavier than death itself. It is for this reason that Mawlana Jalaladdin Rumi and many others call death Shab-i Arus, “the wedding night.” It is on this night that the lover meets his beloved and the master meets his Lord; for the master, death is the end of suffering.

While the master’s compassion contains protection, endurance, and sacrifice, the love of the disciples contains respect and obedience. The following quote from Ibn Arabi symbolizes the respect of the disciples toward their master: “When I would sit before him [Abu Ya’qub al-Qumi] or before others of my Shaykhs, I would tremble like a leaf in the wind, my voice would become weak and my limbs would shake.” The respect that the disciples display for their master stems from their deep love. The other main reflection of that deep love is obedience. Although the disciples are aware of the benefits of obeying their master, these benefits are not the main reason for their obedience. Rather, such obedience arises out of their love.

Regarding this obedience, in Sufism the disciple is considered to be as a corpse in the hands of the person washing the body in preparation for burial.

In conclusion, the subject that Wach deals with in his paper is a complicated subject, and there may well be many other aspects that need to be discussed, yet it should be stated that Wach seems to have accomplished much in this field. A university professor, Wach, if not a master, certainly stands at the boundary between the realms of the master and the teacher realms.

This work by M. Fethullah Gulen is a continuation of a long tradition of books and articles promoting the cause of serving society through the advancement of universal education. Fethullah Gulen is a widely known and respected Turkish scholar, religious leader, educator, and social reformer, whose values stem from his Islamic faith, and whose overriding interest is in the well-being of Muslims as well as all of mankind. Fethullah Gulen’s many life experiences including a teaching post in Edirne Turkey, and those acquired throughout his life within his faith, have contributed to his understanding of the role of education in shaping the world we live in. His corresponding beliefs that tyranny can be eliminated and justice achieved through education for all mankind are copiously illustrated in this and all of his former works.

Readers in the United States and other western countries will discover many comments, shaped by Fethullah Gulen’s wealth of knowledge and experience that are colored by the filter of his own education, culture, religious beliefs, and national origin. These readers can best benefit from his breathtaking perspective, and depth of understanding, by exercising tolerance and acceptance of his background and life experiences. Indeed, Fethullah Gulen has much wisdom to offer those who are truly willing to contemplate his message.

Obvious to any reader familiar with the works of Fethullah Gulen, the overall intent of this book is to both inform and guide readers in their daily lives Some chapters of this book are titled; The Spiritual Life; The Personal Life; Family; Society; Social Interaction. Fethullah Gulen divides each chapter into several subject areas, and in each subject area he provides several short and to-the-point comments (pearls) designed to provoke thought and shape the understanding, and resultant actions, of his readers.

For an example related to politics; in chapter seven, “Government”, in the subject area of “Republic”, Fethullah Gulen writes: “The Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, did not claim kingship, and his four immediate political successors followed his example. Kingship appeared when people grew remote from the Islamic spirit, and eventually this digression became a vehicle for oppression and despotism.” This is indeed an interesting pearl, for it contains wise commentary regarding the his- torical development of politics in the Islamic world, and helps us understand the root cause of many of the problems faced by modern day Muslims. It may also help guide some modern day Islamic countries in developing policies and practices that will lead them out of the political, economic, and cultural quagmires they may be experiencing at this time.

Another example, this time related to the science of metaphysics, can be found in chapter nine, “Ideal People”, in the subject area of “Pearls of Wisdom”: “Matter has no comprehension, consciousness, feeling, or will. It is comprised only of some laws and particles (used to form things). What an embarrassing mistake it is to count it as the essence of existence.” Fascinating insight that encourages us to critically examine the values we and our cultures have adopted regarding the worth and value of property and objects.

In Pearls of Wisdom Fethullah Gulen has assembled an awesome collection of wise thoughts and arranged them in logical subject areas in order that we can use them to examine our lives and benefit from his wisdom. There are literally hundreds of pearls in this book, and every one of them requires our immediate attention.

What is reality? What is illusion? Do we have free will, or is our life somehow preprogrammed? Such questions have vexed humanity from the beginning. Technology has added another wrinkle: virtual reality. Now that we can create reality, how do we know that what we consider reality is really real? Might we be in somebody elses virtual reality program?

External Reality

Nobody remembers being born. By learning about ourselves, we learn things from our surroundings and people, and how to experience events on our own. If our senses function normally, we begin to wonder about our sense-related experiences and seek meaningfulness: Who am I? How were I and the world created? Why am I here?

Each normal person is aware of himself or herself and the external world. We learn how to distinguish colors and shapes through sight and touch. But how would blindness or an impaired sense of touch alter our perception and understanding? Perhaps we would ask: Is the red that I see, the roundness that I see and touch, inside or outside of me?

No one can explain what red is. Yet we know what it is because people tell us that a ripe tomato is red, or that beaming the 620 to 740 nanometers wavelength into our eyes lets us experience redness. In both cases, someone else causes us to see red. Redness is also in the mind, for we can see it behind closed eyes. This is true for the other senses as well.

Recent brain studies reveal that neither light nor sound reaches our brain. Rather, it receives electrical stimuli produced by our senses and then processes them into meaningful sense impressions.(1) As the brain cannot distinguish between a real and an artificial electrical stimulus, we can make it see and respond to imaginary pictures as if they were real. When we see a red apple, what do we really see? What does its reality mean? Is it outside of us, are our senses tricking us, or is the world presented to us in another way?

What Is Virtual Reality?

Scientists and philosophers traditionally considered space and time absolute, as defined by Aristotle and formulized by Newton.(2) In other words, the space we inhabit existed before us and will exist after us, and time flows over and through it at a uniform rate. Modern science, particularly Einsteins theory of relativity, undermines this assumption.(3) Time and space are not absolute; they exist with us, partly because we invest them with reality and meaning. If we define real by what we feel, smell, taste, hear, and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by our brain. The world may exist as part of a neural-interactive simulation, meaning that we might be living in a dream world.

Virtual reality is defined as a cartoon that we can enter; an interactive computer system so fast and intuitive that the computer disappears from our mind and leaves its generated environment as reality; and a computer-synthesized, 3-D environment in which more than one person can engage and manipulate simulated physical elements and interact with human representations or invented creatures.(4) Essentially, it is a hardware system that uses headgear, gloves, and other items to make us feel that we are in a computer program. Its core is a simulation system based on a programmed process that handles all interactions, scripted object actions, simulations of physical laws (real or imaginary), and determines the worlds status. This simulation is a discrete process that is iterated once for each time step or frame. Several systems can be coordinated to create a smooth virtual world.

Is Virtual Reality Possible?

As we are conscious beings, our senses gather data and transmit it to our brain for processing. But we cannot consider this data processing, which is a computers main task. We experience things; computers process data.

Virtual reality appears to go a step further because it creates a reality. Miniature screens in goggles, stereophonic sound in headphones, and a pressure-sensitive glove can create an illusory immersion in another 3-D space. But such informatic technologies still depend upon our sense organs to have any effect. Virtual-reality goggles display moving imagery to the retina, but that information must be transported along the optic nerve to the brains visual cortex. Only the brain can render this bio-information into conscious experience.

Theoretically, a computer can create a desired reality via an electrical stimulation of nerve fibers. The brain can be manipulated to see red by stimulating nerves in our retina, feel tension in our shoulders, and so on. Some say scientists can construct a virtual world that is just as real as the real world. Others disagree, citing two objections: the direct mind“body connection, and the necessity of simulating the entire universe.

The Direct Mind Body Connection: Pressing a finger causes a sensation in that fingera specific, visible location in 3-D spacenot in the brain or mind. But if we swing a numb leg, we feel a tingling sensation along it. This numbness and tingling is caused by a compressed nerve further up the leg, maybe in the knee, while the sensations paradoxically seem to be spread toward the foot. Apparently, the brain receives signals from a particular nerve fiber and imaginatively projects the resulting sensation back to the nerve ending. Since the brain receives only a bundle of nerve fibers bearing pulsed signals from the leg, and no information about where these signals originated, it assumes that they originated in the leg’s nerve endings and projects the sensation to that site. As the mind can be fooled, we can say that it creates a complete, subjective body image and then assigns all bodily sensations to specific locations. Do we press our physical or body-image finger? We press our body-image finger, for this is the finger recognized by the brain. Some people say that such feelings as love and toge-therness cannot be simulated. But they can, for the world we experience exists inside the mind and is projected onto the physical world. Seeing love in a spouse’s eyes is the result of light reflected from his or her eyes, focused onto our eyes’ retinas, and coded electrical signals transmitted from the eyeballs to the brain. Thus the only connection is one mediated by electrical (albeit biological) signals. Whether we have bionic or normal eyes is irrelevant, for what matters is the person behind the eyes, not the eyes’ mere visual apprehension. If a couple is immersed in virtual reality, they can still look into each others’ eyes in exactly the same manner. The same is true for togetherness and other feelings, as well as what our five senses experience. Simulating the Universe: This argument overlooks two points: First, we focus on certain things, relegating everything else to the background. Our optic nerve can be stimulated to ignore what we consider un-important. Second, as our sight and hearing are limited to a narrow spectrum of light and sound, the computer only has to focus on that particular spectrum.

An Interesting Experiment

A Ph.D. project in Manchester involves communicating with a robot located 40 miles from the lab.(6) Sensors in its hand read temperature, pressure, and humidity. When wired to a fast communication net, it sends collected data to a glove worn by an operator in the lab so that he or she can feel what the robot feels. This two-way communication system enables the operator to command the robot to move its hand and touch nearby objects by moving the glove. In one test, the hand touched a hot object and the operator’s hand felt the burn. The operator sees what the robot sees, thanks to two video cameras in the latter’s eyes.

What Would Happen If ? (7)

We can simulate a world. A normal brain stores at least 1018 bits and processes information at about 1015 bits per second.(8) Thus we can make an hour seem like a year. The subject will see changing seasons, solar and lunar movements, and lengthening and shrinking shadows. We know that our program causes these effects, but he believes cause and effect to be operative: Have you not seen how your Lord spread the shadowif He willed He could have made it still thus We have made the sun its guide (25:45). This verse indicates that the sun rises toward noon, and that shadows shrink and then begin to lengthen as the sun declines. The subject is limited by the program. For example, he appears to throw a stone, but only if the computer generates the necessary images and sensations. His action is virtual, as in: You killed them not, but God killed them. You threw them not when you threw, but God threw, that He might test the believers by a fair trial from Him (8:17). Let’s send in a virtual messenger to inform the subject of the programmer’s rules. If he does not obey, he will be punished. For example, we could easily rewrite the program to exclude sunlight. After terminating the program, the programmer could explain and demonstrate the truth of the virtual messenger’s words. The subject would have to accept the programmer’s control of, and his lack of influence upon, his life. This is a lesson for those who struggle with their perception of the physical world and the reality of the unseen spiritual world. Two Qur’anic verses show that such speculations are not so different from the subject’s virtual world: Say: Tell me, if God made night perpetual for you until the Day of Resurrection, who is a god beside God who could bring you light? Will you not then pay heed? (28:71), and: How can you reject faith in God? Seeing that you were without life and He gave you life; then He will cause you to die and will bring you again to life; and to Him you will return? (2:28)

Conclusion

For believers, such advances bring one question to mind: Are we living in a virtual world created by God? Most religions answer yes. Although their goals or understandings may differ, the main point is the same: Our life in this world is only a prelude of what is to come.

Footnotes

1. The Brain Tumor Foundation of Canada. Online at: www.oncolink.upenn.edu.
2. Online at: http://eserver.org/ philosophy and www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history, respectively.
3. The Virtual Reality Store. Online at: www.thevrstore.com.
4. http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca.
5. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam consider this world a testing ground for the eternal life. Buddhism and Hinduism consider it an illusion that must be penetrated to achieve enlightenment.
6. Osman Kocak, Virtual Reality in Medicine (Ph.D. diss., Salford University [Manchester, UK], 1996).
7. Adapted from H. Baki, Virtual Reality (Ph.D. diss., Newcastle University [Newcastle, UK], 1997).
8. Ibid.

Also, there is an infinite degree of differentiation and compounding within infinite profusion. For example, while seeds and roots exist under earth in extremely confused position, they are amazingly distinguished in growth, and like the particles of food entering the body in confusion being separated and shared out among organs and tissues with perfect measure and wisdom, the particles going into trees in confusion are distinguished and distributed among leaves, flowers and fruits. This shows the necessity of the existence of that absolutely Wise, Knowing and Powerful One and His Unity and the perfection of His Power. Also, it demonstrates the grandeur and perfection of His Lordship that, making the world of particles into a boundless, vast field, He sows and harvests it every moment with perfect wisdom and obtains fresh crops of different worlds from it, and causes those unconscious, powerless and ignorant particles to perform innumerable, systematic functions just as if they were extremely learned, conscious and capable.

Thus a large window is opened onto knowledge of God through these four ways, and they display the All-Wise Maker to the mind on a large scale.

Now you unhappy, heedless one! If you do not want to see Him in this way and recognize Him, free yourself of your reason so as to become like an animal and be saved!

The testimony of all the Prophets, upon them be peace, who are those with luminous spirits among mankind, based on their manifest and evident miracles, the testimony of all the saints, who are those distinguished with their illumined hearts, relying on their wonder-making and spiritual discoveries, and the testimony of all the purified scholars, who with their enlightened minds rely on their researches and quests for truth, to tie necessary existence and Unity of One, the Creator of all things, and the perfection of His Power, form a truly vast and enlightening window, through which the position of His Lordship shows itself continually.

O you helpless denier! Who do you rely on so that you do not heed those people? Or, by closing your eyes in the daytime, do you imagine the world to be in darkness?

The worship performed by all beings in the universe evidently demonstrates an Absolutely- Worshipped One. Those who penetrate the world of spirits and the inner dimension of things and meet with the angels and spirit beings, testify that all spirit beings and angels worship an Eternally- Worshipped One in perfect obedience, and all living beings are observed to be performing duties in perfect order in a manner resembling worship, and all inanimate things evidently render services with perfect submission in a like manner. As all this shows the necessary existence and Unity of a True Object of Worship, so too the true knowledge of all gnostics, which bears the weight of consensus, and the fruitful thanks of all the thankful, and the blessed recitations of all those who recite God’s Names, and the praises, which cause the increase of Divine bounties, of all those who praise God, and the pronouncements and descriptions of Divine Unity, based on decisive proofs, of all those who believe in it, and the true love of all lovers of God, and the true will and desires of all those who seek Him, and the earnest searching and inclinations of all those who turn to Him, all demonstrate the necessary existence and Unity of that Eternally-Worshipped One, the One Who is Recognized, Mentioned, Praised, One Beloved, Desired and Sought, and the perfection of His Lordship.

Also, the acceptable worship and supplications of perfected people, and the spiritual radiance, visions and illuminations resulting from them, again demonstrate the necessary existence and Unity of that Everlasting and Eternally-Worshipped One and the perfection of His Lordship.

Thus these three aspects open up a broad, light-giving window onto Divine Unity.

And He sends down water from the heaven and brings forth with it crops and fruits as provision for you, and He has made subject to you the ships so that they sail through the sea by His command, and He has made the rivers subject to you; and He has made subject to you the sun and the moon, both pursuing their courses, and He has made subject to you the night and the day; and He gives you of all that you ask Him. If you were to count God’s bounties, you could not enumerate them.

The mutual helping and solidarity of beings in the universe and the fact that they respond to one another’s call for assistance show that all creatures are trained by a single Instructor, are administered by a single Director, are at the disposal of a single Disposer, and are the servants of a single Master. For through a universal law of mutual helping, the sun cooks the things necessary for the lives of living beings on the earth by the command of the Lord, and the moon acts as a calendar, and light, air, water and sustenance hasten to the assistance of animate beings, and plants hasten to the assistance of animals, and animals and plants together hasten to the assistance of human beings, and even the members of the body hasten to the assistance of one another, and the particles of provision hasten to the assistance of the cells of the body. This most wise and generous mutual assistance among those unconscious beings, and their responding to one another’s needs and their supporting one another under a law of munificence and grace, a law of compassion and care and a principle of mercy, demonstrate, clearly and evidently, that they are the servants, officers, and creatures of a unique One of Unity, a peerless, Eternally- Besought-of-All, an Absolutely Powerful, Absolutely Knowledgeable, Absolutely Merciful and Compassionate, Absolutely Generous and Munificent, Necessarly-Existent One. So, 0 you who are bankrupt of good reasoning and sound judgement because of materialistic philosophy and scientism! How do you respond in the face of this mighty window? Can chance have a hand in this?

Also, there is an infinite degree of differentiation and compounding within infinite profusion. For example, while seeds and roots exist under earth in extremely confused position, they are amazingly distinguished in growth, and like the particles of food entering the body in confusion being separated and shared out among organs and tissues with perfect measure and wisdom, the particles going into trees in confusion are distinguished and distributed among leaves, flowers and fruits. This shows the necessity of the existence of that absolutely Wise, Knowing and Powerful One and His Unity and the perfection of His Power. Also, it demonstrates the grandeur and perfection of His Lordship that, making the world of particles into a boundless, vast field, He sows and harvests it every moment with perfect wisdom and obtains fresh crops of different worlds from it, and causes those unconscious, powerless and ignorant particles to perform innumerable, systematic functions just as if they were extremely learned, conscious and capable.

Thus a large window is opened onto knowledge of God through these four ways, and they display the All-Wise Maker to the mind on a large scale.

Now you unhappy, heedless one! If you do not want to see Him in this way and recognize Him, free yourself of your reason so as to become like an animal and be saved!

The testimony of all the Prophets, upon them be peace, who are those with luminous spirits among mankind, based on their manifest and evident miracles, the testimony of all the saints, who are those distinguished with their illumined hearts, relying on their wonder-making and spiritual discoveries, and the testimony of all the purified scholars, who with their enlightened minds rely on their researches and quests for truth, to the necessary existence and Unity of One, the Creator of all things, and the perfection of His Power, form a truly vast and enlightening window, through which the position of His Lordship shows itself continually.

O you helpless denier! Who do you rely on so that you do not heed those people? Or, by closing your eyes in the daytime, do you imagine the world to be in darkness?

The worship performed by all beings in the universe evidently demonstrates an Absolutely- Worshipped One. Those who penetrate the world of spirits and the inner dimension of things and meet with the angels and spirit beings, testify that all spirit beings and angels worship an Eternally- Worshipped One in perfect obedience, and all living beings are observed to be performing duties in perfect order in a manner resembling worship, and all inanimate things evidently render services with perfect submission in a like manner. As all this shows the necessary existence and Unity of a True Object of Worship, so too the true knowledge of all gnostics, which bears the weight of consensus, and the fruitful thanks of all the thankful, and the blessed recitations of all those who recite God’s Names, and the praises, which cause the increase of Divine bounties, of all those who praise God, and the pronouncements and descriptions of Divine Unity, based on decisive proofs, of all those who believe in it, and the true love of all lovers of God, and the true will and desires of all those who seek Him, and the earnest searching and inclinations of all those who turn to Him, all demonstrate the necessary existence and Unity of that Eternally-Worshipped One, the One Who is Recognized, Mentioned, Praised, One Beloved, Desired and Sought, and the perfection of His Lordship.

Also, the acceptable worship and supplications of perfected people, and the spiritual radiance, visions and illuminations resulting from them, again demonstrate the necessary existence and Unity of that Everlasting and Eternally-Worshipped One and the perfection of His Lordship.

Thus these three aspects open up a broad, light-giving window onto Divine Unity.

And He sends down water from the heaven and brings forth with it crops and fruits as provision for you, and He has made subject to you the ships so that they sail through the sea by His command, and He has made the rivers subject to you; and He has made subject to you the sun and the moon, both pursuing their courses, and He has made subject to you the night and the day; and He gives you of all that you ask Him. If you were to count God’s bounties, you could not enumerate them.

The mutual helping and solidarity of beings in the universe and the fact that they respond to one another’s call for assistance show that all creatures are trained by a single Instructor, are administered by a single Director, are at the disposal of a single Disposer, and are the servants of a single Master. For through a universal law of mutual helping, the sun cooks the things necessary for the lives of living beings on the earth by the command of the Lord, and the moon acts as a calendar, and light, air, water and sustenance hasten to the assistance of animate beings, and plants hasten to the assistance of animals, and animals and plants together hasten to the assistance of human beings, and even the members of the body hasten to the assistance of one another, and the particles of provision hasten to the assistance of the cells of the body. This most wise and generous mutual assistance among those unconscious beings, and their responding to one another’s needs and their supporting one another under a law of munificence and grace, a law of compassion and care and a principle of mercy, demonstrate, clearly and evidently, that they are the servants, officers, and creatures of a unique One of Unity, a peerless, Eternally- Besought-of-All, an Absolutely Powerful, Absolutely Knowledgeable, Absolutely Merciful and Compassionate, Absolutely Generous and Munificent, Necessarly-Existent One. So, 0 you who are bankrupt of good reasoning and sound judgement because of materialistic philosophy and scientism! How do you respond in the face of this mighty window? Can chance have a hand in this?