Al-Huda
Foundation, NJ U. S. A
the Message Continues ... 8/134
Newsletter for October 2012
Article 1 - Article 2 - Article 3 - Article 4 - Article 5 - Article 6 - Article 7 - Article 8 - Article 9 - Article 10 - Article 11 - Article 12
Belief in
God
by the late Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi
(excerpted from his book: God, An Islamic Perspective.
1) Belief in God:
A Natural Instinct
Belief in God is as natural as any instinct can be. An atheist
asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq how could he convince him about the
existence of God. Coming to know that the man had gone several
times on sea voyages, Imam asked him “Have you ever been caught
in a fierce storm in middle of nowhere, your rudder gone, your
sails torn away, trying desperately to keep your boat afloat?”
The answer was `Yes'. Then Imam asked: “And sometimes perhaps
even that leaking boat went down leaving you exhausted and
helpless on the mercy of raging waves?”
The answer was again `Yes'. Then Imam asked: “Was not there, in
all that black despair, a glimmer of hope in your heart that
some unnamed and unknown power could still save you?” When he
agreed, Imam said: “That power is God.”
That atheist was intelligent. He knew the truth when he saw it.
2) To Be or Not To Be
We think about thousands and thousands of things. We imagine a
horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train and a book. We
see the pictures of these things displayed on the screen of our
imagination.
This is called `the existence in imagination' (wujud-i dhihni)
And also a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train or a
book has its own existence outside our imagination. That is
called 'existence outside imagination.' This is the real
existence (wujud-i khariji)
Sometimes, we imagine such ideas which can never be found
outside our imagination. We may imagine `2 + 2 = 5.' But can 2 +
2 be 5 in real existence? No. We may imagine that a thing exists
and also does not exist at the same place at the same time. But
can this happen in the world of reality? Certainly not.
Such imagined ideas which can never exist wujud -
Also we imagine a man walking at a certain time. Can this happen
in reality? Remove all other ideas from your mind. Just look at
the imagined picture of that man walking at a particular time.
Now say., is it necessary that that man in reality are called
`impossible' (mumtani'u'l) should be walking at that time? Or,
on the other side, is it impossible of him to be walking at that
time? The answer to both questions is `No'.
Why? Because it is neither essential nor impossible for any man
to walk at a given time. He may be walking; he may not be
walking. So far as the reason and logic is concerned both his
walking and not walking are possible - possible, but not
necessary.
Such imagined ideas which have equal relation called `mumkinul-wujud'
-Possible, or Transient. They may exist in reality; they may not
exist. There is nothing in their nature to demand this or that.
So far as their nature is concerned, `To be' and `Not to be'
both are equal to them.
So far we have seen two categories of relationship between an
imagined idea and its existence in reality with existence and
non-existence, are
1. Where that idea has equal relation with existence and
non-existence. It may exist; it may not exist. There is nothing
in its nature to prefer either side.
2. Where that idea can have absolutely no relation with
existence. It, by its very nature is non-existence.
It will appear from above classification that there should be a
third category which would be opposite of `Impossible' (mumtani`ul-wujud)
mentioned in (2) above.
This third category is of the idea which can have absolutely no
relation with non-existence. By its very definition, it is
self-existent. Such an idea is called (wajibu'l wujud)
`Essential Existence' or 'Absolute Existence'.
Now the picture is complete.
3) Beginning Point of the World
There is much conflict between the points of views of atheists
and those who believe in a Supreme-Being Who created the world.
Still, there is one important point where both are in complete
agreement. Both agree that the basic source or cause of the
universe is Eternal - has no beginning and no end; was always
and will remain for ever. In other words, it is 'self-existent'
or 'wajibu'l-wujud'. The reason for this idea is very simple: As
every thing in this universe falls under the category of `mumkinul-wujud'
` Transient,' it has equal relation with existence and
non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist;
sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature,
they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore,
there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to
terminate their existence.
And (it is the important point) that source or cause should not
itself be just a ` Transient'; otherwise it will itself need a
source or cause to bring into existence. And this chain of cause
and effect must stop on a cause which needs no outside source or
cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause
of bringing this universe into existence must be
'self-existent.' It is interesting to note that even the
atheists accept this point, because they say that nothing can
come out of nothing, and, therefore, the basic source of
existence must be eternal. It is from ever and will remain for
ever.
Now comes the first difference. The atheists say that that
eternal source of existence is `Matter.' The believers say that
that eternal source of existence is God. We will discuss it
afterwards. Here it is enough to establish a common ground of
belief, and that is the faith that the basic source or cause of
the existence of the universe is Eternal - without beginning and
without end.
4) Essential Qualities of the Eternal
A) By its very definition, Eternal is Self-existent, it could
never have been non-existent nor can it ever be terminated. In
other words, it has no beginning - because if we suppose for it
a beginning we must admit that it was non-existent before that
beginning. But we already know that it could never have been
non-existent. Therefore, we must accept that the Eternal has no
beginning - it is ever-existent.
B) By the same reason, it can have no end. It is ever-lasting,
because it can never be non-existent.
C) The Eternal must be self-sufficient. In other words it should
be above all needs; it should not be in need of anything.
Because, if it needs anything, it will be dependent upon that
thing. But by its very definition, . the Eternal does not depend
upon anything, as it is Self-existent. In other words, the
Eternal must have absolute perfection.
D) The Eternal can be neither compound nor mixture. A compound
or mixture depends for its existence upon its parts or
components. As we accept that Eternal is Self-existent, we
cannot admit that its existence depends upon its components or
parts. Moreover, look at any mixture or compound. You will find
that the components or parts existed before the resulting
mixture or compound. As the Eternal has no beginning, we cannot
say that anything preceded it in existence. Otherwise, we will
have to imagine a beginning point for the Eternal which is
admittedly wrong.
E) The Eternal can be neither a body nor a surface, neither a
line nor a point. A body, by its very nature, needs space to be
in. As we have already seen, the Eternal should not be in need
of anything. It follows that the Eternal cannot be a body. In
real existence, a surface needs a body; a line needs a surface;
a point needs a line. Eternal needs nothing. Therefore, the
Eternal is neither a surface, line nor a point.
Nor can it be anything which is found in a body, like dimension,
colour, smell, position, condition or other such things which
are called `incorporeal' (arad in philosophical language,
because such things depend on a substance or body for their
existence - they are not self-existent.
F) The Eternal should not be subject to any change, because if
that change be for better, it would mean that the Eternal before
that change was not perfect, that is, it was in need of
something. But we have already said that the Eternal cannot need
anything.
And if that change be for worse, it would mean that the Eternal
is now in need of something to make it perfect. And, as just
explained, it is not possible. And if that change is just to the
same level of perfection, then what is the need or use of such a
change?
In fact, the changes may occur either in a substance (body,
matter) or in its incorporeal qualities like colour, dimension
etc. But it has just been proved that the Eternal can be neither
a substance nor an incorporeal quality of another substance.
G) The Eternal must be a living being. Because it is agreed that
the Eternal is the source and cause of the existence of the
universe. And also it is agreed that nothing can come out of
nothing. Now, as we find abundance of life in the universe, we
have to admit that the source of all these living things must
itself be All-life. It could not bestow life if it had itself no
life.
H) The Eternal source of world must be all-knowing (Omniscient).
The intricate design of a single atom shows the perfect wisdom
embodied in it. The elaborate system and perfect design of
universe leaves no doubt that whoever or whatever is the source
or cause of the universe is all-knowing.
I) By the same reasoning the Eternal source or cause of the
universe must be allpoweful (Omnipotent).
5) Is Matter Eternal?
The atheists maintain that the matter is the Eternal source of
the universe. It needs no great intelligence to see that matter
does not possess any of the qualities of the Eternal mentioned
in the previous chapter. Matter has a body and as such it needs
space. It is divisible and as such it is made up of several
parts. It is constantly changing. But the atheists maintain that
matter has no beginning and no end; and therefore, it is
eternal.
But the recent theories challenge these two last stands of
atheism.
6) Matter begins and Ends
What is `matter'? It is “substance of which a physical thing is
made.” Or “anything which has the property of occupying space
and the attributes of gravity and inertia.” Before going further
it is necessary to point out one important thing. There are, in
every branch of science, certain ideas which have no existence
in reality. Yet they are assumed to exist in reality just to
make it easy for the beginners to understand the arguments of
that subject.
Take for example geometry. They teach the children that `point'
is a thing having neither length, breadth nor depth. Such a
thing has no physical existence. They teach that `line' is a
thing having only length, but neither breadth nor depth. This
also has no physical existence. In fact, it is only by taking a
body (which has all three dimensions - length, breadth and
depth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that we can understand
the conception of surface, line and point.
Still students of geometry are taught as though these things
have real physical existence.
It is done not to deceive the student, but to make it easier for
him to understand geometry.
Likewise, in chemistry, the student is taught that matter can
neither be created nor destroyed. But it is just a stepping
stone so that student can understand further arguments.
Also, it is for this reason that chemistry students are taught
separate conservation of matter and energy.
But read the following quotation carefully: “In classical
mechanics, mass and energy are considered to be conserved
separately; in atomic and nuclear reactions, matter can be
converted into energy and vice versa . . . So far as chemistry
is concerned, the law of conservation of matter, that is, matter
can neither be created nor, destroyed can be assumed to be
true.” So you see, the theory that matter is eternal (it is
neither created nor destroyed) is just an assumption for the
purpose of simplifying the subject for chemistry students. It is
a fact that matter changes into energy.
So it is not a thing ever-lasting nor is it a thing which does
not change. Thus, we see that matter does not pass the test of
eternity - it is not without end, and it is not without change.
And as it is supposed that energy can be changed into matter, it
is admitted that matter has a beginning. So it is not eternal -
it is not without beginning.
It is assumed that when the matter changes into energy, it
exists in that form, and, thus they try to prove that matter is
ever-lasting-But what is Energy? It is “Capacity of matter to
perform work as the result of its motion or its position in
relation to forces acting upon it.” So, the energy is not a
thing having independent existence. It is an incorporeal thing,
that is, it depends upon a matter or substance for its
existence. By its very definition, it cannot be found except in
a matter. As energy is a dependent thing, it cannot be an
eternal thing.
7) Two Suppositions
Now, it should be mentioned here that there are two hypotheses,
that is, tentative theories, in science about the creation or
beginning of the universe (Universe: All created or existing
things). First there is the evolutionary theory. This theory
says that all the material in the universe was formally
concentrated in a sort of `primeval' (that is, ancient) atom;
that the universe was created at one particular moment and that
it will eventually die. If this idea is correct then that
primitive atom cannot be said to be eternal. A thing which dies,
which comes to an end, cannot be said, by any stretch of
imagination, to be self-existence, ever-lasting or eternal.
The second hypothesis is called `Steady state' theory. It
maintains that the universe has always existed and will exist
for ever, and that fresh matter is continually being created.
Now the universe is a collection of matter; and they believe
that matter is continually being created. In other words, the
universe is a compound of created things. How can a collection
of created things be called “Eternal” (without beginning) is
beyond credulity.
Thus it is clear that, whatever view one takes matter cannot be
proved to be eternal ( without beginning and without end). Now,
that matter is believed to be constantly created afresh, is
known to change into energy, is known to need a shape and a
place, is subject to division and constant changes, can it be
said that matter is eternal when all its qualities are those of
Transient.
Five atheists had had a discussion with the Holy Prophet, at the
end of which the Holy Prophet told them “This universe is of
such a nature that some of its parts are dependent on some other
parts; they cannot exist without those other parts, just as some
parts of a structure depend upon other parts for their strength
and existence.
And that whole universe is, in this respect like that building.
Now, tell me, if that part (which is dependent upon other parts
for its strength and existence) is eternal in spite of its
dependence and need, then what would have been its quality had
it been just transient (possible, not eternal)?” Yes. Let the
atheists say what it would have been like if the matter were not
eternal?
8) Matter not the Source of Life
Now, we come to the last three qualities mentioned in chapter 4.
We have already accepted the atheists' notion that nothing comes
out of nothing. Now, we see in the universe a most intelligent
design and pattern and a most perfect coordination in this
unparalleled system. And we see it teeming with life. And,
admittedly, matter has no life, and hence no power or knowledge.
Had the matter been the cause or source of the universe, the
universe would have been without life; it would have been
without system and coordination, because it could not give to
universe what it did not possess itself. Is there still need to
emphasize in so many words that matter cannot be considered as
the source of universe?
9) Theism versus Atheism
Here I give the translation of the discussion of the Holy
Prophet with the atheists, a part of which has been mentioned
earlier: The Holy Prophet asked them: “What is the reason of
your belief that the universe has neither beginning nor end and
that these things are from ever and will remain for ever?”
Atheists: “We believe only what we see. As we have not seen the
beginning of the universe, therefore we say that it has always
existed, and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it
will remain for ever.”
Holy Prophet: “Well, have you seen that the universe is without
beginning and without end?”
Atheists: “No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor
have we seen its being without end.”
Holy Prophet: “Then how do you believe in its eternity? And why
should your view be preferred to the view of that person who
believes the universe to be transient because he has not seen it
being without beginning or without end?”
Then after some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: “Can you
tell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth
were finite (limited) or infinite (limitless) ? If you say that
the time which has passed so far was limitless, then how the
later time came in if the former did not pass away?
“And if you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will
have to admit that it is not eternal.”
Atheists: “Yes, it is finite.”
Holy Prophet: “Well, you were saying that universe is eternal,
not created nor finite. Do you realize what is the implication
of your admission that time is finite? What were you denying?
What have you admitted? ” Atheists accepted that their belief
was not correct.
Incidentally, this argument of the Holy Prophet shows that
`time' has unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could
not have introduced the element of time in the discussion about
matter. The beauty of this can best be appreciated by only those
who have studied the theory of Relativity.
10) Some Talks
The most simple arguments of ancients on this topics are still
valid, in spite of all the complexity of the modern science. An
old woman was spinning yarn. Someone asked her why she did
believe in God. She stopped her hand and the spindle stopped.
She said: “You see, a simple spindle needs a hand to make it
revolve. Can you think that this sun, this moon, these stars,
all this world moves without any guiding hand?”
Imam `Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) was asked for a
proof of the existence of the Almighty Designer. He replied:
“The faeces of camel and of donkey lead one to conclude that
such animals have passed that way. The traces of human feet
indicate a man's trek. Do not this magnificent universe, with
all its sublimity and this lowly point (the earth) with all its
solidity point to the existence of the Almighty Allah, the
Sublime and the Omniscient?” Once Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani (an
atheist) came to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (p.b.u.h.) and asked him
to guide him to the recognition of “my Supreme Lord.” The Imam
asked him to take his seat. There arrived a small child with an
egg in his hand.
The Imam, taking the egg from him, addressed Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani:
“Here is a mysterious fortress enclosed within a hard shell,
underneath which is a fine wrapping which covers molten silver
(the albumen of the egg) and some molten gold (the yellow yolk).
The molten gold does not get alloyed with the molten silver, nor
does the molten silver get mixed with the molten gold. (Yet both
are semifluid and they should have mixed together on jerking.)
They retain their separate states. No artist comes out of it to
say that he has made any changes therein, nor does any vitiating
agent enter it to tell of any vitiation therein. Nor is it known
whether it is designed to produce a male or a female. Pea-birds
of florid coloration issue there from. Do you think it has a
Designer (the Omniscient Creator)? Who has painted all this
inside it? And how did the chick come about? Who designed all
these variegated hues, the feathers, the limbs, the paintings,
the feet, the beak, the wings, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the
33 bowels, the crop, the joints, etc., etc. seeing that no one
entered it? ”
Abu Shakir, according to the narration, was absorbed in his
thoughts for sometime with his head downcast and then suddenly
proclaimed, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, the
one without peer, and I bear witness that Muhammad (peace be
upon him and his progeny) is His servant and prophet, and that
you are Imam and Proof of Allah for His creation, and I turn
away from my erstwhile attitude.”
11) Religion versus Darwinism
When Darwin first published his treatise Origin of Species in
1859, he stirred a thunderous opposition from religious groups.
The religious opposition was based, mainly, upon two factors:
1. Darwin asserted - with convincing proofs - that the universe
was not made in six days, as described in the Bible, but in a
very very long time with so many stages between the first state
and the present form; and
2. He denied - without any valid reason, of course - the need of
a Supreme Being ( God) in the scheme of the universe. The Jews
and Christians of that time believed in the six day-creation
quite literally; they could not swallow the idea of the pro
tracted creation easily. And so the conflict between
Christianity and Science reached its climax in the later half of
the 19th century. But what about the Muslims?
The Qur'an says that the skies and the earth were created in six
“ayyam ”.The word “ayyam” has two meanings: `days' and
`periods'. The Sunni commentators of Qur'an generally followed
Ka'bu'l-Ahbar, a former Jew converted to Islam in the days of
second Caliph. It was but natural for him to explain the verses
of Qur'an in the light of his previous learning. So he imported
every Jewish legend into Islam. Though the Qur'an was silent
about the details, the Muslims interpreted the `ayahs' in such a
way that every detail of Genesis (of the Bible) was incorporated
in the commentaries of Qur'an and thus became a part of Sunni
religious belief.
But the Shi'ahs commentators rejected the idea of
six-days-creation right from the early days of Islam. According
to them, `ayydm' in those verses meant `Periods' and not the
`days'. For instance, see the commentaries of Qur'an by `Ali ibn
Ibrahim al-Qummi (died sometime after 919 A. D.) and Muhsin Fayd
(d. 1680 A.D.). Also see the Dictionary of Qur'an and
Traditions, by ash-Shaykh Fakhru'd-Din at Tarihi (d. 1676 A.
D.). According to them the Qur'an says that the skies and the
earth were created in six periods. (Or should we say `in six
stages''. )
Therefore, we, the Shi'ahs, have nothing against the theory of
gradual Creation, which is embodied in the theory of evolution.
More than that, ours is not a belated attempt of reinterpreting
our religion - as Christians are doing now to cover the
Christianity's defeat by the science. We were thinking on this
line one thousand years before Darwin.
But it must be mentioned here that the acceptance of gradual
creation does not mean that we endorse the hypothesis of
evolution. Evolutionists claim that
1. Living things change from generation to generation producing
descendants with new characteristics;
2. This process has produced all the groups and kind of things
now living as well as others now extinct;
3. All these different living things are related to each other.
But, as was mentioned in Need of Religion there is not a single
fossil-evidence to show that a member of lower species developed
into a higher species. It is for this reason that Dr. T. N.
Tahmisian (a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission)
said: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact
of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be
the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have
one iota of fact. ” It is one thing to say, as we say (and the
fossils and scientific data support us) that God created this
universe in stages and created the things and living beings on
earth one after an other with time gaps in between; and quite
another, as the Darwinisms or neo-Darwinisms say (and have no
evidence to prove it) that the living things on this earth
developed from non-living matter and that unicellular organisms
developed stage by stage to become a human being.
12) Where The Darwinists Went Astray
So much about the first ground of the conflict between religion
and science. Now we come to the second ground of the conflict,
that is, the denial of God. Here we, the Shi`ahs, as well as
other religious (and many scientists of the present generation)
are totally against the Darwinism.
The whole deliberation on `evolution' attempts to answer the
question “How the universe came into being?” But it does not
touch the other big question: “By whom was it created?” But
Darwin and his followers said that as they could explain the
sequence of the creation and its working method, so it was
automatically proved that there was no God. It is just like
saying, “As I can explain the working of an automobile and can
guess the sequence of its manufacturing, so it is automatically
proved that there is no manufacturer of that car.” It may seem
absurd as I have put it on paper here. But the more you read
their denial of God the more you will be reminded of this
fallacy in their arguments.
Now let us look at one more fallacy of atheism. It has already
been mentioned in previous chapters. But here it is repeated to
com plete the picture. They assert that `thing' cannot come out
of `nothing'. Therefore, according to them, it is wrong to say
that God created the universe out of nothing. There must be a
source of every thing. So, they believe that the Matter is
eternal; and every thing is a development of the eternal Matter.
This line of argument goes straight until it reaches the stage
where begins the phenomenon called life'. Nobody has ever
succeeded in solving the mysteries of life. Nobody knows where
the life came from. Having rejected the belief in God, the
atheists are compelled to say “We do not know; but the life must
have come from the Matter.” Now, Matter is lifeless. If `thing'
cannot come from `nothing', how can the `life' come from
`lifeless'?
Not only this. Let us proceed further. As they say, there must
be a source for everything. And as everybody knows, the Matter
is a `thing'. What was the source of `Matter'? These phenomena
of the universe cannot be explained without stopping at a
certain point and believing that the universe began from it. The
atheist say that the Matter is that beginning point. But the
Matter is lifeless. So, the existence of life cannot be
explained by this theory. And the Matter is senseless. The
existence of Sense and Wisdom in the animals and human beings
cannot be explained by it.
Therefore, if we are to have a satisfactory theory for the
existence of the universe as a whole, we have to accept that
there is an Eternal Being Who is the Source of Existence, the
Source of Life and the Source of Wisdom. That Being is God.
13) Russell's “Arguments”]
Why I Am Not A Christian is a collection of Bertrand Russell's
essays and papers “on religion and related subjects.” Professor
Paul Edwards, the editor of the book, says that these essays are
“perhaps the most moving and the most graceful presentation of
the free-thinker's position since the days of Hume and
Voltaire.” This statement, coupled with the name of Russell, was
enough to compel one to study the book with high expectation of
scholarly and logical discourses on the subject of religion.
Whether those expectations were justified will be seen from a
few comments appended below:- The first thing which comes before
the eyes is the inconsistency of the arguments. Russell called
himself a free-thinker, and during a debate with Rev. F. C.
Copleston he said that he was not an atheist but an agnostic.
The position of atheists is that non-existence of God can be
proved. The agnostics, on the other hand, say that “man does not
and can not in the nature of things know anything about a
spiritual existence, either of God or man or of any after-death
state.” They assert that “man's only cognition can be of the
phenomenal world (that is, the world which may be perceived by
one of the five senses)”. According to them, it does not mean
that there may not be a noumenal entity (that is, an entity
known through intellectual institution only) or soul behind the
phenomenal world.
The agnostics repudiate even atheism or materialism on the
ground that these theories are dogmatic. They say that if you
cannot know a thing, you have no right to reject it. An
agnostic's one and only answer to all questions concerning soul,
God or spiritual existence is that “we do not know and there are
so far no reasonable grounds for believing that we shall ever
know. In other words, man, being finite, can never comprehend
Infinite.”
Rev. Copleston had asked Russell at the beginning of their
debate (in 1948): “Perhaps you would tell me if your position is
that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that
the non-existence of God can be proved?” Russell replied: “No, I
should not say that; my position is agnostic.”
If Russell believed in agnosticism, then his only answer about
all questions concerning God, or life after death should have
been “I do not know.” Instead, he declares right on the jacket
of the book, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing
of my ego will survive.” Another example: Russell says at the
beginning of the preface: “I think all the great religions of
the world -Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism
- both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic
that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be
true.” After this statement, one would expect him to look at
each of the above religions in turn to prove why even one of
them was not true. But he did not feel obliged in any of his
essays to bring this argument to its logical end. He just said
that, “since they disagree, not more than one of them can be
true,” and then arbitrarily concluded that not even one of them
was true!
This type of inconsistency goes on from essay to essay; and one
finishes the book with a feeling that if these essays would have
been written by a lesser being than Russell, the publishers
would not have designed to publish them.
The first article Why I Am Not A Christian was delivered as a
lecture in 1927; Russell has tried in this lecture to repudiate
the arguments of Church for the existence of God. He says:
“Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument
of the First Cause. (It is maintained that every thing we see in
this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of
causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God.)… I may say that
when I was a young man and was debating these questions very
seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of
the First Cause, until one day, at the age of 18, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography and I there found this sentence: `My
father taught me that the question, `Who made me?' cannot be
answered since it immediately suggests the further question,
`Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still
think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.”
Now, Russell has, perhaps unwittingly, misquoted the arguments
of believers. To refresh the memory, the reader is advised to
read again Chapter 2 and 3 of this book. There he will find,
inter alia, the following sentences: “As every thing in this
universe falls under the category of `mumkinu'l-wujud'
(Transient), it has equal relation with existence and
non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist;
sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature,
they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore,
there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to
terminate their existence.” And then comes the important point
which Russell has missed. The point is that that source or cause
should not itself be just Transient. Otherwise it will itself
need a source or cause to bring it into existence. And this
chain of cause and effect must stop on a cause which needs no
outside source or cause for its existence. It means that the
final source or cause of this universe must be 'Self-existent'.
If one compares the Islamic version of the argument of `The
First Cause' (as given in this book) with the version of the
Church as pre sented by Russell at the beginning, one finds two
important differences.
He said: “Everything we see in this world has a cause.” But he
should have said: “Everything we see in this world is transient
and as such must have a cause for its existence.” Again, he
said: “As you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause.” But he should have said:” You
must come to a Cause which is not transient, which is
Self-existent (whose very essence is the existence itself).”
Read his version with these amendments, and see how his
objections loose every weight. Russell thought it sufficient to
scoff at this argument off-handedly. “I can illustrate what
seems to me (the believers') fallacy. Every man who exists has a
mother and it seems to me (their) argument is that therefore the
human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race
hasn't a mother.”
It seems to me that it is Russell who is indulging in fallacy.
He has failed to note that the believers do not say that `every
transient thing has a transient cause, therefore, the whole
universe should have a transient cause.' Our argument is that,
as all the components of the universe are transient, and as a
collection of billions of transient things is still transient,
the whole universe is still transient, and as such must have an
external cause to bring it into existence. And that cause must
be Selfexistent. And as He is Self-existent, the question, `Who
made God?' doesn't arise.
14) Creation by Chance? Without a Creator?
Russel further wrote: “If there can be anything without a cause
it may just as well be the world as God.”
The reason why the world could not have existed or come into
being without a Cause, is that its components some times exist
and some times cease to exist. So there is nothing in their
essence, in their nature, to demand existence. If they exist, it
must be because of a hand which tilted the scale in favor of
existence; if they cease to exist it must be because that hand
has now tipped the scale towards nonexistence. Russell: “Nor
there is any reason why it (the world) should not have always
existed.” The claim that the world may have always existed is
refuted by all prevalent theories of science: This is quite
apart from the fact that a collection of transient things could
not exist ” always”.
The reader should read Chapter 7 again, where he will find that
whatever view one takes, matter cannot be proved to be eternal
(without beginning and without end).
Again he says: “There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause.”
Before commenting further on this sentence, let me quote his
words (from the same article) where he refutes the idea that
there is any “natural law”.
He writes: “There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw
dice you will get double sixes only once in thirty six times,
and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of dice is
regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came
every time, we should think that there was design.”
Here Russell admits that if events appeared in the same sequence
again and again it would be a proof that there was design. Now,
one wonders why he did not spare a few moments looking at the
well-planned and superbly-executed movements of the galaxies,
stars, planets and moons? Let us suppose that there is someone
in outer space who has never heard about earth or human beings.
Then one day he sees a space-ship streaking past and after some
time another one, and then another one. Of course, their paths
are not the same, and the gap between their appearances is not
systematic so that it might be measured and estimated in
advance. But he knows that each space-ship contains thousands of
parts which are well connected to each other and together they
form a superbly effecient apparatus.
What would Russel think of him if he were to declare that those
space-ships had come into being without a creator?
And how strongly would he have condemned the arrogance of that
inhabitant of outer space, if all the space-ships would have
been well regulated in their paths and frequency? And, remember
that those space-ships have no connection with each other.
Compare that with this universe of uncounted millions of
galaxies, each having millions of solar systems, each system
containing numerous planets, and the planets having their
various moons etc. And all of them “bound” together in the chain
of gravity, each influencing its neighbour, and in turn being
influenced by it. And then think that Mr. Russell says that it
was not proof of any design.
Frank Allen, former professor of Biophysics in University of
Manitoba, Canada, writes in his articles: The Origin of the
World: By Chance of Design: “If in the origin of life there was
no design, then living matter must have arisen by chance. Now
chance, or probability as it is termed, is a highly developed
mathematical theory which applies to that vast range of
knowledge that are beyond absolute certainty. This theory puts
us in possession of the soundest principles on which to
discriminate truth from error, and to calculate the likelihood
of the occurrence of and particular form of an event.
“Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells,
and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the
ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in Nature,
all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements
may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter
that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time
necessary to finish this task, can all be calculated. A Swiss
mathematician, Charles Eugen Guye[1], has made the computation
and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10 ^ 160
to 1, or only one chance in 10 160, that is, 10 multiplied by
itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in
words[2].
The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single
molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that
in the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would
require many, almost endless billions ( 10 243 ) of years[3].
“Proteins are made from long chains called amino acids. The way
those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way
they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J. B.
Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of
quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways
(10 48 ).[4]
It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to
build one molecule of protein.” But there are incalculable
billions of molecules of protein in only one human body, let
alone the whole earth. They are created systematically and still
Russell clings to his theory of chance Frank Allen goes on to
say: “But proteins as chemicals are without life. It is only
where the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only
Infinite Mind, that is God, could have foreseen that such a
molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it,
and made it live.”
Russell has endeavored to challenge this argument in these
words: “You all know the argument from design: everything in the
world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world,
and if the world was ever so little different we could not
manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It
sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is
argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to
shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It
is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark,
that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit
spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly
so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth
century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much
better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It
is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them,
but they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of
adaption. There is no evidence of design about it. ”
Let us suppose, for the time being, that the living creatures
adapted themselves to their environment. But was Russell really
blind to the fact that long long before the “living creatures”
came on this earth, this earth, its atmosphere, its whole
structure, together with its relations with sun and other
planets and moon had been “made” in such a way that the life
became possible at all. Does he want us to believe that the
living things, that is, the animals and man, before their own
existence, influenced the whole system of universe in general,
and that of this earth in particular, so that they might be born
here untold millions of year in future?
Frank Allen writes in the same article: “The adjustments of the
earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by
chance. First, the earth is a sphere freely poised in space in
daily rotation on its polar axis, giving the alternation of day
and night, and in yearly revolution around the sun. These
motions give stability to its orientation in space, and, coupled
with the inclination (23 degrees) of the polar axis to the place
of its revolution (the ecliptic), affords regularity to the
seasons, thus doubling the habitable area of the earth and
providing a greater diversity of plant life than a stationary
globe could sustain.
Secondly, the atmosphere of life-supporting gases is
sufficiently high (about 500 miles) and dense to blanket the
earth against the dead ly impact of twenty million meteors that
daily enter it at speeds of about thirty miles per second. Among
many other functions the atmosphere also maintains the
temperature within safe limits for life; and carries the vital
supply of fresh water-vapour far inland from the oceans to
irrigate the earth, without which it would become a lifeless
desert. Thus the oceans, with the atmosphere, are the
balancewheel of Nature.
“Four remarkable properties of water, its power of absorbing
vast quantities of oxygen at low temperatures, its maximum
density at 4 degrees `C' above freezing whereby lakes and rivers
remain liquid, the lesser density of ice than water so that it
remains on the surface, and the power of releasing great
quantities of heat as it freezes, preserve life in oceans, lakes
and rivers throughout the long winters. “The dry land is a
stable platform for much terrestrial life. The soil provides the
minerals which plant life assimilates and trans forms into
needful foods for animals. The presence of metals near the
surface renders the arts of civilization possible.
“The diminutive size of the earth compared with the immensity of
space is sometimes disparagingly referred to. If the earth were
as small as the moon, if one-fourth its present diameter, the
force of gravity (one sixth that of the earth) would fail to
hold both atmosphere and water, and temperatures would be
fatally extreme. If double its present diameter, the enlarged
earth would have four times its present surface and twice its
force of gravity, the atmosphere would be dangerously reduced in
height, and its pressure would be increased from 15 to 30 pounds
per square inch, with serious repercussions upon life. The
winter areas would be greatly increased and the regions of
habitability would be seriously diminished. Communities of
people would be isolated, travel and communication rendered
difficult or almost impossible.
“If our earth were of the size of the sun, but retaining its
density, gravity would be 150 times as great, the atmosphere
diminished to about four miles in height, evaporation of water
rendered imposssible, and pressures increased to over a ton per
square inch. A one-pound ani- mal would weigh 150 pounds, and
human beings reduced in size to that of say, a squirrel.
Intellectual life would be impossible to such creatures. “If the
earth were removed to double its present distance from the sun,
the heat received would be reduced to one-fourth of its present
amount, the orbital velocity would be only onehalf, the winter
season would be doubled in length and life would be frozen out.
If its solar distance were halved, the heat received would be
four times as great, the orbital velocity would be doubled,
seasons would be halved in length, if changes could even be
effected, and the planet would be too parched to sustain life.
In size and distance from the sun, and in orbital velocity, the
earth is able to sustain life, so that mankind can enjoy
physical, intellectual and spiritual life as it now prevails.”
15) The Safest Course for Agnostics
As was mentioned earlier, Russell claimed to be an agnostic. If
we take that claim on its face-value, then the best and safest
course for him would have been to believe in a Creator and Day
of Judgement.
Here is a tradition of Imam Ja'far as- Sadiq (p. b. u. h.)
Ibn Abi al-`Awja' and Ibn al-Mugaffa` were sitting in
Masjidu'l-haram at the time of pilgrimage, with some of their
fellow atheists. (They pretended to be Muslims just to save
their skins; but were always openly arguing against the belief
in God.) Ibn al-Mugaffa` said pointing towards the space around
Ka'bah: “Do you see this mob? There is none among them who may
be called human being except that old man (that is, Imam Ja'far
as-Sadiq - p.b.u.h.). As for the others, they are just tattles
and animals.” Ibn Abi al-`Awja' asked how could he say such a
thing?
Ibn al-Mugaffa` said: “Because I found with him (the virtues and
knowledge) which I did not find anywhere else.”
Ibn Abi al-`Awja' said: “Now it is necessary to test whether
what you say is true.” Ibn al-Mugaffa` tried to dissuade him
from it. But Ibn Abi al-`Awja' went to the Imam. lie came back
after sometime and said: “O' Ibn al Mugaffa`, he is not just
human being. If there were in this world a spiritual thing . . .
which becomes a body if wishes so, and turns into a spirit if
wants so, then it is he.”
Ibn al-Mugaffa` said: “How-come?” Ibn Abi al-`Awja' said: “I sat
near him. When all others went away, he started talking (
without my asking anything) and said ` If the fact is as they
believe and it is as they (that is, the pilgrims) say, then they
would be saved and you would be in trouble. And if the fact is
as you (atheists) say, and not as they say, then you and they
both would be equal (and no harm would come to anybody)' “I
said: `May Allah have mercy on you, what is it which we say and
what is it which they say? My belief and their belief is but
one.' “Imam said: `How could your belief and their belief be the
same ? They say that there is to be resurrection, and reward and
punishment; and they believe that there is a God.' ” (And you do
not believe it).
Imam meant that if there was in reality no God and no Day of
Judgement, as Ibn Abi al-`Awja' said, then the believers and non
believers will be in the same position after death. Both will
perish for ever and nobody would suffer for his belief or dis-belief.
On the other hand, if there is a God and a Day of Judgement, as
the believers say, then after death the believers would be saved
and would be blessed, while the atheists and non-believers would
have to suffer. Therefore, it is the dictate of wisdom to have
Faith and Belief in God and Day of Judgement, to save oneself
from the possibility of disgrace and eternal punishment. The
reader should also see the chapter “Pascal's Bet” in Need of
Religion.
16) Universe: Witness of One God
A unique pattern of the universe is emerging with the advent of
science. There was a time when the earth was considered to be
the centre of the universe; and the universe was confined within
nine skies. Our fifth Imam, Muhammad al-Baqir (p.b.u.h.)
explained to his companions that there were inumerable worlds
besides what they knew about. But, strangely, the Muslims
ignored his teachings and followed the pagan philosophers, like
Ptolemy, who thought and taught that the earth was stationary
and the heavenly bodies revolved around it. Consequently, the
gate of knowledge remained shut against them for more than one
thousand years. Then came a time when the people explored the
Solar system by the help of telescopes. So, they gave the Sun
the pride of place. Now we know that our Solar system is but an
insignificant family of Planets placed at the edge of the huge
galaxy which we call Milky Way.
We see the moon rotating around the earth, like a happy child
dancing brightly around its mother. There are eight other
planets, besides our earth, in the solar family; and five of
them have got satellites of their own. Mars and Neptune have two
moons each; Jupitor has twelve moons and satellites; Saturn has
nine and Uranus five moons. All the moons and satellites rotate
round their planets. And all these planets, in turn, rotate
round the sun, which may be called the Head of Family.
Now, let us trace back our steps, before going further.
All these stars, planets and satellites are made of atoms. And
atom itself is just a miniature solar system. Formerly it was
believed that atoms were immutable entities, that is, they could
not be divided. Now the atoms are known to have so many
particles; the belief in their indestructibility has been
shattered away. Atoms consist of a nucleus and a number of
electrons. The nucleus is built from simple particles: neutrons
and protons. The nucleus is located at the centre of the atom
and is surrounded by electrons.
It should be mentioned here, to make the picture more clear,
that the nucleus of an atom is a particle of very small radius,
but of exceedingly great density. In plain words, all the atomic
mass (except a negligible fraction) is concentrated in the
nucleus, while the size of the nucleus is less than one hundred
thousandth of the size of atom. And don't forget that more than
100,000,000 atoms can be put side by side in one centimeter.
Now, as we have stated earlier, the atom is a world in itself.
The Protons and Neutrons behave as though they were rotating
around their own axis, like rotating tops. Their spin suggests
the idea of an internal rotation.
Thus, we see that there is a single pattern of operation, right
from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the mighty solar
system. But this is not the end of the story. As we have known,
the sun, together with its family, is placed on the brink of the
Milky Way. “If we could view the Milky Way from a vast distance
and see it as a whole, we should observe a rather flat wheel of
stars with spiral arms -something like the sparks of a Catherine
wheel.” It consists of many millions separate stars like our
sun. This system of stars is physically connected by
gravitational forces and moves through space as a whole. It is
called a Galaxy. If we think that our solar system is a family
of stars, a galaxy may be called a very big tribe consisting of
millions and millions of such families.
The multitude of galaxies were unknown in the past. By about
1920 it was thought that there were at least 500,000 galaxies.
Now, with the advent of the powerful telescopes this number rose
to 100,000,000, and is being increased further day by day. So
far as the eyes of cameras and telescopes can see, there are
clusters and clusters of galaxies.
Human knowledge, at present, is in its infancy. Nobody knows
what is beyond these galaxies. Nor we know much about the nature
of their movement. Qur'an says that
“Allah has decorated the nearest sky with these lamps” (that is,
the stars) (67: 5).
So we know that until now, we have not seen the end of even the
first sky. And who knows what wonders are hidden beyond the
first sky!
“You have not been given knowledge but a little” ( Qur'an,
17:85)
So, let us confine our talks to the little we know about. We
know that the particles of atoms are rotating around their axis;
satellites are
rotating around
their planets; planets are rotating around their stars; and
stars along with their dependant families, are rotating in the
galaxies. Our faith in the Unity of God is the purest in the
world. We have given countless proofs I'm our belief in the last
fourteen centuries. Now the science has opened a new path,
which, also, leads to the belief in the Unity of God. It may be
described briefly, in these words: “The uniform pattern of the
universe is an indisputable proof that all this has been made by
one, and only one, Creator.”
When we see two identical watches, we need not be told that they
are made in the same factory. On the same ground, when we see
all the universe woven into a single entity; all its components
governed by the same laws, all its parts operated on the same
pattern, our natural instinct guides us to believe that it is
created, made and controlled by One and only One Creator.
And there is a great difference between the watches and the
universe. Watches may be imitated or duplicated by imposters and
forgerers. But, as the scientists say, “by definition there is
only one universe. One cannot repeat it or do experiments with
it.” So, we need not bother ourselves with thought of any
imitation-gods. If the universe - the thing made -cannot be more
than one, how Allah - the Maker - can be more than One?
Now we should have a look at living things. There also we see
the same uniformity of design in bone-structure. It is quite
amusing to see the atheists use this uniformity to prove that
there is no God. They say that “Because all the living beings
are developed systematically and because, for instance, the
skeletons of Gibbons, Orange, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and man are
quite similar in construction, it is proved that they have not
been made by any Creator.”
Suppose there had been no system in the universe nor in the
structure of living beings and they had used that lack of method
against the existence of any Creator, it could have made sense.
But astonishingly enough, they are using the unique and perfect
system of the universe and the living beings against the
Omniscient and Omnipotent God. Any body can see the absurdity of
this argument. Because the perfectness of the universe is an
irrefutable proof that it has not been made by a blind and
senseless nature. Ironically enough, they are using an argument
which is basically against their claim.
Darwinists may use this single and uniform pattern of Creation
against those who believe that different things were created by
different gods. They may use it against those who say that, for
instance, cow was created by a good-natured creator and snake
was made by another bad natured god. But how can they use it
against the belief of One Creator Who created all the things
according to His own systematic plan? It is quite obvious that
Darwin failed in drawing the conclusion. He could not see the
Eternal Truth, which his evidence was pointing at. The evidence,
gathered by him, is crying out loudly that all the universe,
living or without life, has been created by One and only One,
Allah, Who is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
17) Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
(This article of Mr. A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the
New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the Reader's
Digest [January 19481 ; then on recommendation of Professor C.
A. Coulson, F.R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford
University, was republished in the Reader's Digest [ Novermber,
1960]. It shows how the science compels the scientists to admit
the essential need of a Supreme Creator.)
We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every
increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an
intelligent Creator. In the ninety years since Darwin we have
made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific
humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching
even nearer to an awareness of God.
For myself, I count seven reasons for my faith:
First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our
universe was designed and executed by a great engineering
Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten,
into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take
them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each
time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that
your chance of first drawing number is one in ten; of drawing
one and two in succession, one in hundred; of drawing one, two
and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your
chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in
succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in
ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting
conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not
possibly exist in proper relation ship by chance.
The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if
it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights
would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then
burn up our vegetation during each long day while in the long
night any surviving sprout would freeze.
Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of
12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away
so that this “eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too
much! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation,
we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would
roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees,
gives us our seasons; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from
the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us
continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only fifty thousand
miles away instead of its actual distance our tides would be so
enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged;
even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of
the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no
oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a
few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been
absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere
had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by
the million every day, would be striking all parts of the earth,
starting fires everywhere.
Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one
chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.
Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is
a manifestation of all-pervading intelligence. What life itself
is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions,
but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life
has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements,
compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.
Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it
designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life
is a musician and has each bird sing its love songs, the insects
to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds.
Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices,
and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into
sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals
may have the breath of life. Behold an almost invisible drop of
protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion,
drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent
mist like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has
the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great
and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our
vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it.
Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt less
sea could not meet the necessary requirements. “Who, then, has
put it here?”
Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who
infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The
young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own
river, and travels up the very side of the river into which
flows the tributary where he was born. What brings him back so
precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary he will know
at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down
and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current
to finish his destiny more accurately.
Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These
amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers
everywhere those from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean
- all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they
breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of
knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water,
nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from
which their parents came but thence to the rivers, lakes or
little ponds so that each body of water is always populated with
eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no
European eel in American waters.
Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a
year or more to make up for its l onger journey. Where does the
directing impulse originate ?
A wasp overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting
the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not
die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved
meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her
children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect
on which they feed; to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother
then flies away and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the
wasp must have done all this right the first time and every
time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques
cannot be explained by adaption; they were bestowed.
Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct – the power
of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability
to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where
instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but
limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the
instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth
point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the
possibility that we are what we are only because we have
received a spark of universe intelligence.
Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which
we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the
wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if
all of them responsible for all living people in the world could
be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet
these ultramicroscopic genes and their companions, the
chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys
to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is
a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics
of two thousand million human beings. However, the facts are
beyond question. Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal
heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology
of each in such an infinitely small place? Here evolution really
begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes.
How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultramicroscopic gene,
can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound
cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative
Intelligence – no other hypothesis will serve.
Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that
only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such
astute husbandry.
Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a
protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the
cactus soon begun a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance
persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as
England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and
destroying their farms. Seeking a defense, the entomologists
scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which
exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else.
It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia.
So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has
retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the
insects enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks
and balances have been universally provided. Why have not
fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no
lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But
when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the
increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an
insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them
all in check.
If this physical check had not been provided, man could not
exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!
Seventh: The fact that man conceive the idea of God is in itself
a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine
faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the
faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can
find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens
up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected imagination becomes
a spiritual reality. He may discern in all the evidence of
design and purpose the great truth that heaven is wherever and
whatever is; that God is everywhere and in everything, but
nowhere so close as in our hearts. It is scientifically as well
as imaginatively true; in the words of the psalmist: “The
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His
handiwork.”
Notes:
[1] Quoted by V. H. Mottran in the organ Corporation, Liner,
April, 22nd 1948.)
[2] To write this number, you will have to add 160 zeros after
one.
[3] For this number, write 243 zeros after one!
[4] that is 48 zeros written after number 1.
courtesy:
www.al-islam.org
HOME - NEWSLETTERS - BOOKS - ARTICLES - CONTACT - FEEDBACK
DISCLAIMER:
All material published by Al-Huda.com / And the Message Continues is the sole responsibility of its author's).
The opinions and/or assertions contained therein do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of this site,
nor of Al-Huda and its officers.