2008

This should be my last blog of 2008, as tonight I will be going away.

All praise be to Allah and peace and blessings be upon his final messenger, Muhammad and his family and his noble companions.

I would like to thank Allah for this year, for having let me seen this year. I thank him for having eaten well, slept well, for having gone on one or two trips abroad. I thank him that I have my health and so do my family too. I know that he is the most merciful, and the most kind and that his word is true. He, the most high, has said that if we thank him, he will give us more.

2008 has been an interesting year.

We have seen oil prices go up and up, and now recently we have seen them decrease dramatically.

We have seen the world’s most powerful country elect their first president, Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama for me has many Kennedyesque (to coin a term) qualities and whilst Jack Kennedy represents a story of unfufilled potential, perhaps Obama can be different in that he can serve his term in its entirety and preside over a period of change and improvement.

Whatever happens, the election of Obama is a monumental landmark in the history of the United States and the world generation, and there are some who would covet us for being witness to such an event.

We have seen a recession starting and continuing all over the world.

We have seen the continuing rise of China even manifested in their great success in this year’s Olympics.

We have seen the Russian bear once again reasserting its strength in its war with Georgia.

We have seen the Albanian eagle soar into the clouds and into the skies with joy as Kosova takes its rightful place in the family of nations after years of suffering.

We have seen bloodshed in the middle east, south asia and many other parts of the world.

We have seen jobs being lost, houses being repossessed and lives affected severely in Europe and America.

We have seen many things, but we hope that we will continue to see, to continue to hear, to breathe and to be on this earth. We thank Allah for once again having seen another year and that we may yet again see the year to come, and to improve ourselves and to use the very short amount of time alloted to us on this earth wisely and in a better way and for us to truly realize our potentials as his creatures.

Thank you for taking time out to read this, I wish you and your family and friends all the best for the next 12 months.

- Faatih.

Gratitude in Islam.

Gratitude in Islam

Gratitude in Islam is one of the most fundamental aspects of this religion. A Muslim is not merely one cognisant of the fact that the creator of the universe is one and is responsible for everything he has in this life i.e. his consciousness, his health, his family, his sanity and his wealth but also realizes that it is his obligation to express gratitude to his lord.

The Arabic word for gratitude is “shukr” and the opposite of gratitude is “kufr”, which also happens to be the word for disbelief. So rejection of Allah and his religion is intimately connected to ungratefulness.

Why is life so difficult?

Many of us focus on our problems and difficulties and say in despair “why is life so difficult?”. This is natural, but it is not something a Muslim should do as he should be stronger in character. There are different reasons why people say “why is life so difficult?”.

Someone may have all the basic necessities of life but want something else. This may be caused by different reasons. It may just be caused by pure greed, a desire for sensual fulfillment or by the sort of people they mix with. A rich kid may want a ferrari for his 18th birthday and fails to get it, and is then filled with frustration and anger. The question then we have to ask ourselves, the thing which we desire and cannot attain, do we really need it? If we do really need it can’t we wait for longer? If we can’t wait and we are impatient this highlights the fact that we are impatient. Patience is something key to the Muslim character and is something developed upon during the month of Ramadan when we fast from dawn to dusk.

Many of us today are compared to the people of the past or of poorer countries, greedier, more impatient and more frivilous. I will try to illustrate this by giving an extreme example.

The Menendez brothers were two brothers in the United states from a wealthy family who murdered their parents in cold blood born in 1968 and 1971 In 1988 the two brothers who had grown up in wealth and apparently stole $100,000. They were saved from going to jail by their father paying heavy amounts of money to a top lawyer. The following year the Menendez brothers repaid their father by murdering him.

Lyle Menendez, who murdered his mother and father.

After murdering both of their parents and using a lawyer to try to somehow claim that they had been deprived and abused by their parents, a false claim belied by the fact that the two went on a spending spree including expensive watches, travel abroad, fancy cars and so forth. The rules of life, which some call “karma”, which Islamically is something we have in our own religious texts to, eventually led to these two to being imprisoned where they still are to this very day.

This is a very extreme example, however though none of us are as bad as these two murderers, we in our own way have a Menendez brothers streak in us, in our own impatience, lack of gratitude and complaining. Whilst these two were eager and impatient to live a materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle even if it meant murdering their parents, our eagerness and impatience to get what we want can often lead to us complaining about how “unfair” life is.

In comparison to us, the Menendez brothers lived in luxury, how could they be so ungrateful we ask? However in comparison to others we ourselves with our comfortable homes, computers, relatively free and peaceful societies live in great wealth. The relationship between us and people in some poorer countries is in some ways like the relationship between us and the Menendez brothers.

Two boys in Argentina, far poorer than the Menendez brothers.

Examples of poverty from Argentina.

Just as the Menendez brothers, Kyle and Erik, who obviously knew many people were far worse off than them, we also know many others are worse off us. However that does not give us the mental strength, resilience or gratefulness to desist from complaining.

Life is beautiful.

Life is beautiful. Every breath we take is a gift. If one of our beloved ones is close to death it is then we start to appreciate life more. The thought of them not surviving brings to the fore how precious life is. Let us look at what Islam says about gratitude:

“And He subjected for you the sun and the moon, continuous [in orbit], and subjected for you the night and the day. And He gave you from all you asked of Him. And if you should count the favor [i.e., blessings] of Allaah, you could not enumerate them. Indeed, mankind is [generally] most unjust and ungrateful.” (Quran, 14th Surah, verse 32.34)

Allah also said in the Quran:

“‘If you are grateful, I will surely give you more and more” (14th Surah, verse 7)

It is this which is the most important message which I am saying here.

Modern studies have shown that if we look at the glass as half full rather than half empty, and if we always focus on what we have, make light of our difficulties – which in no way means not trying to resolve them or accepting injustice – then that positivity attracts positivity. Statements are like du’a (supplication). We have to be careful what we say, because words have power, words are not “just words” but something far greater. If a man were to say every day of his life for one year “I’m going to break my leg, I’m going to break my leg, I’m going to break it”, then there is a good chance that this will happen. For words can be self-fulfilling prophecies. Islam tells us to be careful with what we say, and to try to speak good. Islam also tells us to be optimistic in what we hope for the future, but realistic in our assessment of the present.

We will have difficulties, we will have problems. We may lose loved ones. We may ask “Why? Why me? Why is this happening to me?” However this indicates a lack of understanding. For though we cry and lament and it is only human we should accept that this is part of life. Let us take a look at the life of the prophet peace be upon him.

- He was essentially an orphan and never saw his parents.

- He was beaten and physically assaulted whilst giving his message. He is the beloved of Allah and the best of creation, yet he was stoned by young children with blood dripping so much till his sandals were stuck to his feet. This was in Taif.

- He and his followers were boycotted by nearly all of his tribe, ostracized with them having to live in a relatively isolated valley.

- His beloved wife Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) died during this period of boycott.

- The prophet’s only son, Ibrahim, died when he was 18 months old.

As Egyptian writer Hakal says:

“His (the prophet peace be upon him) heart was torn apart by the new tragedy, and his face mirrored his inner pain. Choking with sorrow, he said to his son, “O Ibrahim, against the judgement of God, we cannot avail you a thing,” and then fell silent. Tears flowed from his eyes. The child lapsed gradually, and his mother and aunt watched and cried loudly and incessantly, but the Prophet never ordered them to stop. As Ibrahim surrendered to death, Muhammad’s hope which had consoled him for a brief while completely crumbled. With tears in his eyes he talked once more to the dead child: “O Ibrahim, were the truth not certain that the last of us will join the first, .we would have mourned you even more than we do now.” A moment later he said: “The eyes send their tears and the heart is saddened, but we do not say anything except that which pleases our Lord. Indeed, O Ibrahim, we are bereaved by your departure from us.”

- The prophet did not lead a wealthy life. In the last ten years of his life he never ate wheat three days in a row. He used to sleep on a mate made out of date palm leaves.

So this is the beloved of Allah, the best human ever and the messenger of God and this is how he lived and what he had to experience, and yet we find people today complaining about things far smaller or questioning.

In Islam we are told that we should always look at those who are far worse off than us, and not those who who are better off than us. It is highly important that we cultivate patience, because lack of patience can turn us into animals, can make us aggressive, eager for material pleasure. Patience however humanizes us and makes us better people. Complaining too can also be evil and it is said “Complaining is from the Shaytan”. If we have problems, instead of speaking to our friend for 1 hour, we should at least make du’a to Allah for 1/3 an hour. For he is the one who has power of all things, whilst our friends do not. He is always there, whilst friendship comes and goes. He understands fully, even better than we do, whereas our friends may not truly understand what we are going through.

If we are sad and despondent we should try to read Surah Yusuf, a Surah which gives happiness and which was revealed to the prophet peace be upon him during “The year of sadness”, the year when his beloved wife Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) and his uncle, Abu Talib both died. I myself personally whilst living in Syria was going through difficult times, living in a foreign land and having lost my job. I was advised to read this Surah and after doing so I changed and inexplicably started to feel much happier.

When we are experiencing difficult times, we need to think of those around us who are worse off than us, or those before us or elsewhere who have suffered extraordinary pain or trials, and we need to focus on those things which we have. When we start to focus on what we have and are grateful for them, we shall see that they will start to multiply. When you are grateful, Allah will give you more. When you give to others, Allah will give even more to you.

So here is a recommendation. Everyday after Fajr (the morning prayer) please take 3 minutes or more out and mentally say to yourself all the good things you have in your life. Make them twenty, even if it is just that you have eyes whilst others are blind, or that you have limbs, or that all of your children are there, or that in your life you were fortunate enough to travel to Paris, or some city. I want you to thank Allah for all he has given you.

Do the same before you go to bed, make it twenty things, and then maybe if you wish to increase them with time. You will see that you become a more positive person, and that when you thank Allah he will give you more.

“‘If you are grateful, I will surely give you more and more” (Quran, 14:7)

Positivity brings positive outcomes, gratitude and abundance bring more abundance.

How to pray Fajr on time.

How to pray Fajr on time.

As we all know a Muslim is required to pray 5 times a day, at different times. First before sunrise, second at noon, third at mid afternoon, fourth at sunset and fifth and final at night time. The first of these prayers which is to be performed before sunrise is called “Fajr”. Fajr time varies through out the year but it can be times such as 4, 5, or 6 am.

Many of us find it difficult to wake up on time to perform this prayer even if we have an alarm clock.

The prayer in Islam is called “as-salat” and for one to be consistent with it, it is better that they fully appreciate what it is. The prayer is a time where the Muslim, the servant of Allah, suspends his focus on the world and turns his attention to his master, the supreme creator of the heavens and the earth. The one who gave him life, who gave him the limbs with which to work, the eyes with which to see and who gives him his sustenance. The Muslim mentally. verbally and physically focuses on his lord. He stands up, sits and also prostrates in a manifest sign of complete and utter submission. The prayer is such a beautiful thing, for the creator has said that we do not need to go through any intermediary to address him, nor are we so lowly and impure that he will not let us address him. After the prayer the Muslim then raises his hands in du’a (supplication) with his eyes at times looking at the heavens and may ask his master for whatever he wishes or needs, be it help with an affair, a good job, for forgiveness, a partner and anything that is permitted.

The prayer helps to give us strength, forebearance and energy in a difficult world full of challenges.

The Fajr prayer is difficult for many due to the early time at which it must be done. There are different ways of overcoming this. One way is to focus on the benefits and reward of this prayer.

Hadith: ““One who performs `Isha’ prayer in congregation, is as if he has performed Salat for half of the night. And one who performs the Fajr prayer in congregation, is as if he has performed Salat the whole night.”

(Reported in Sahih Muslim).

In addition to this there are ahadith which mention how the one who prays Fajr is under’s Allah protection.

Praying this prayer on time will bring extra blessings and reward in your life. If we were to be told that we could do something which would result in a huge pay rise, or that every morning we would have a sumptuous breakfast then our motivation would definitely increase greatly. So is the case with the Fajr prayer. The problems, difficulties we face in life are often the results of things that we do, sins that we commit and we must look inwards to see things that we are doing wrong and can improve. Fajr is a beautiful time, a time of fresh air. I remember sometimes having woken up and started walking outside, the environment is much different and there is a feeling of serenity, a feeling that we are on the verge of a new day, a new fresh start.

A mosque during Fajr time.

Let us now turn to what we can do to help us pray Fajr on time.

1. Buy an alarm clock. Many of us already do this, then one piece of advice is to keep the alarm clock as far away from you as possible so that you cannot just turn it off.

2. Sleep early. Modern science shows us that sleeping early is beneficial for us and more in tune with nature and producing the best form us both physically and mentally.

3. Recite the last 4 verses of Surah Kahf, the 18th surah of the Quran, before you go to sleep.

4. You can also pray 2 rakahs and then sincerely ask Allah to wake you up for Fajr.

5. Tell your mind strongly and confidently that you will wake up for Fajr.

6. Upon hearing the alarm clock, and then waking up remember Allah or try to say his name whether it be just Allah, or Allahu Akbar or Subahanallah.

“Abu Hurairah reported that Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “The Satan knots three knots on the nape of the head of every one of you when he goes to sleep. On every knot he utters, ‘There is a long night for you. So sleep.’ If he gets up and remembers Allah, one knot is loosened; when he performs ablution another knot is loosened and when he observes prayer the third knot is also loosened and he gets up in the morning in an active and delightful mood. But if he does not do so, he gets up in the morning as spiteful and lazy.” (Hadith reported in Bukhari).

7. Wake up an hour or two earlier than Fajr if possible and use your time constructively in that period until Fajr itself, be it in performing Tahajjud (the late night prayer) reading Quran or Islamic literature, or even something related to your studies or secular interests.

Try these things and may Allah give you and me success in this matter, and in this world and the hereafter.

- Faatih.

Why do many scientists disbelieve in God?

Why do many scientists and others disbelieve in God?

 Scientists are held in respect by society, the average layman consciously or unconsciously believes that the world we live in now with all its material and technological achievements and the relatively comfortable life we live now is as a result of these people. He has a trust and respect for these people. However many lay people mistakenly think that all scientists are atheists, when in fact many if not most believe in the existence of God, something many have concluded through scientific study.

 

The question now is why do many including scientists disbelieve in God and not only that, why are they so dismissive of belief in the divine as opposed to accepting it as a legitimate stance?

 

Materialism, naturalism.

 

Many people irrespective of their background, religion of their society, education through out the world believe that the only thing exists is what we can see and observe. For them something which we cannot see, touch, feel, smell or taste does not exist. From their viewpoint if they were sitting in a room with another person and there was nothing there besides two chairs, a table, the carpet, a window and the two people themselves, that is all that exists. If one of these two people said “There is another being in this room, one whom you cannot see” then they would dismiss this as absurd, and something hallucinatory. I have used this example since this is something which we could all relate to including theists and which would probably cause religious people themselves to be sceptical or dismissive of the person saying there was a third invisible person in the room.

 

This in a very simplified form is the way many atheistic or secular people view religion. Something almost hallucinatory and delusional. For them all that exists is the tangible, the material, that which we can see and touch. I will call this position “Materialism” or “Naturalism”. Some people just grow up with an inherit disposition to rejecting anything beyond the material (5 senses) world and some of these people become scientists and carry this prejudice into the field of science.

 

Science is in reality a method. It is to discover more about reality through an organized, systematic and empirical manner. As such science which is conducted by limited, human beings with the limited resources at their disposal is itself limited and cannot study that which is beyond the 5 senses, the tangible, material world.

 

Atheists contend that not believing in God is philosophically or logically the default position and the onus of proof lies with theists. However upon closer inspection this is not actually correct even according to the principles of logic and philosophy.

 

Let me quote an academic from New Zealand.

 

“Dr. Cooke is correct in noting that the theist who makes a positive claim regarding God’s existence is obliged to give reasons in support of that contention. This, however, does not mean that atheism is the default position unless sound arguments for theism exist, since atheism too is a positive claim about the nature of reality. “Atheism,” writes Jeaneane Fowler, “is clearly naturalism versus supernaturalism.”[5] And so, it is, as Madalyn Murray O’Hair explains, “based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.”[6] This is quite a remarkable claim! Since theist and atheist make positive claims about the nature of reality (unlike the agnostic who suspends judgement), the burden of proof is on them both to substantiate their respective positions of supernaturalism and naturalism.

It is important to bear in mind the central point of contention between Dr. Cooke and myself. As William Rowe observes, “[p]erhaps the best way to understand the struggle between atheism and theism is to note theism’s insistence on an agent explanation of various natural phenomena, including the existence of the universe.”[7] In my opening argument, I sketched out considerations that give us plausible reasons for thinking that God exists, such as the origins of the universe, its fine-tuning, etc. That is, these facts about the universe only find a plausible account through agent explanation (i.e. the existence of God). Dr. Cooke denies all of this. He thinks, presumably, that there is a perfectly fine naturalistic account–a “Grand Story” (as Craig and Moreland call it)–that will explain the facts of the universe and our existence in it.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_cooke/cooke-aijaz/aijaz2.html

 

Thus both theism and atheism are positions on how the world came into existence and atheism is not the default position. From a scientific and logical viewpoint then, the objective scientist should not assert either of these positions to be true (he can personally believe or favour one, but not to publicly assert it to laypeople as correct). However many atheist scientists  have a prejudice, i.e. a pre-formed opinion on something against theism and thus “intelligent design”. This has even led to the loss of objectivity in the way they conduct science. Principles and ideas which they would normally not accept, are used by them in their quest to disprove the existence of God at any costs. What the mainstream media do not tell the public is that there is at the very least difference in the scientific community about the existence of an intelligent creator i.e. God, and what is also not known is many atheist scientists too have their own agenda, based on their own ideology and wish to try to twist science to proving them right. Examples have been given on other articles here on this site.

Whether the supreme, all-knowing entity that we call God exists is something which has been covered in other articles. However let us go back to the original example in this article about the two people in the room with just two chairs, a carpet and a window. There are other things in this world that exist between the 5 senses. Even man’s 5 senses are limited. We cannot with our naked eye see ultraviolet light properly. Are there things beyond the 5 senses?

Telepathy and intuition: Cambridge scientist Dr Rupert Sheldrake has stated through scientific study that telepathy exists. All of us in our own personal lives have thought or spoken of someone and then almost miraculously they contacted us there and then. Also it is widely known the sort of mental connection that many twins have, also the maternal connection between a mother and her child. Females have a stronger sense of intuition (since the right side of their brain, the part which deals with that is bigger) than men. How many females have had a gut feeling, a sense of intuition and were correct?

 

 

 

Dr Rupert Sheldrake of Cambridge University.

 

This sort of phenomena which does not fall within any of the 5 sense and is beyond them has thus been labelled “extra-sensory perception”, many of us call it 6th sense, intuition and so forth.

Dreams: Many of us have had dreams that have come true. Neither does this fall into the 5 senses. I will coin an adjective for that relating to the 5 senses and call it “pensensory”, pen being the Roman prefix denoting 5 as in the word “pentagon”.

Telekinesis: Dr Daryl J Bem of Cornell University published an article which spoke of experiments indicating the existence of telekinesis. It can be read here: http://dbem.ws/psi_world.html

 

The doctor also made some interesting comments about the subjective nature of scientific “proof” in that article, as certain sceptics and atheists are very resistant to any scientific research which challenges their pre-formed ideas and dogma.

One can also read http://www.metapsychique.org/Does-Psi-Exist-Replicable-Evidence.html.

 

I would call those things which are not perceived or explained by our 5 senses as “extra-material” (outside the material, tangible) or “supernatural”.

 

There are other things which can also be pointed to. The world that we exist in is not just composed of those things which we limited human beings can see with our 5 senses. The human being is not merely a collection of meat, bones, nerve wires and organs all clumped together whose distant ancestors were algae, fish and amphibians and who lives on this earth for no purpose, and who will die and whose very consciousness will cease to exist and disappear into a void of nothingness.

 

 

 

 Amphibian, many evolutionists believe that humans evolved from algae to fish to amphibians.

 

 The human being is so much more than that. He feels pain, he feels anger, despair and a so many other things in the vast spectra of human emotions. Throughout human civilization there has been continuous testimony of that beyond the material, of that beyond the pensensory world. The human experience is a vast one encompassing many things. To deny things such as intuition, the telepathic bond that a mother may have with her child and so many other things is to deny part of the human experience. Writers, poets and others in addressing our emotions, our imagination addressed something far beyond the material. The human being has a soul. He appreciates beauty in all its forms be it aesthetic, literary, and so forth.

 

 Art admirers in a gallery.

His appreciation of beauty is not a superficial one purely formed by his environment and other external factors, but comes from deeper, internal factors, it is at times a sense of awe and wonder when he encounters something truly impressive, immense and breathtaking. Not only are his nerve wires touched but so is his emotional, his spiritual side. The human being is not a robot composed of meat, bones and skin he is something special, and part of a universe which itself something truly special, something amazing and which continuously astounds scientists with its sheer complexity, intricacy and sophistication. He sees, smells, hears, tastes, touches but so also does he think, dream, ponder, revere. He is composed of both his body and his soul, the material and the extra-material.

 

To deny this is to deny an aspect of humanity and to never be able to completely appreciate the human experience, to live it fully and to make the most of it.

 

- Faatih

 

Scientists and the Quran.

Reprinted from another source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/219/

The following are some comments of scientists[1]  on the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran.  All of these comments have been taken from the videotape entitled This is the Truth.  In this videotape, you can see and hear the scientists while they are giving the following comments.  (To view the RealPlayer video of a comment, click on the link at the end of that comment.  For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.)

1)    Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.  There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years.  He is well-known in his field.  He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers.  In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  When he was asked about the scientific miracles in the Quran which he has researched, he stated the following:

“The way it was explained to me is that Muhammad was a very ordinary man.  He could not read, didn’t know [how] to write. In fact, he was an illiterate.  And we’re talking about twelve [actually about fourteen] hundred years ago.  You have someone illiterate making profound pronouncements and statements and that are amazingly accurate about scientific nature.  And I personally can’t see how this could be a mere chance.  There are too many accuracies and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Professor Persaud has included some Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, in some of his books.  He has also presented these verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad at several conferences.

2)    Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.  Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.  He was also the President of the American Fertility Society.  He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992.  Professor Simpson studied the following two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad:

“In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days…”[2]

“If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones….”[3]

He studied these two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad extensively, noting that the first forty days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo-genesis.  He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.  Then, during one conference, he gave the following opinion:

“So that the two hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) that have been noted provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before forty days.  Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . . . . It follows, I think, that not only there is no conflict between genetics and religion but, in fact, religion can guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches, that there exist statements in the Quran shown centuries later to be valid, which support knowledge in the Quran having been derived from God.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Dr Simpson, now at Florida

3)    Dr. E. Marshall Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.  There, for 22 years he was Professor of Anatomy, the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute.  He was also the President of the Teratology Society.  He has authored more than 200 publications.  In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Johnson said in the presentation of his research paper:

“Summary: The Quran describes not only the development of external form, but emphasizes also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Also he said: “As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see.  I can understand embryology and developmental biology.  I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Quran.  As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I knew today and describing things, I could not describe the things which were described.  I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place.  So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.”[4]  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

4)    Dr. William W. Hay is a well-known marine scientist.  He is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.  He was formerly the Dean of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.  After a discussion with Professor Hay about the Quran’s mention of recently discovered facts on seas, he said:

“I find it very interesting that this sort of information is in the ancient scriptures of the Holy Quran, and I have no way of knowing where they would come from, but I think it is extremely interesting that they are there and that this work is going on to discover it, the meaning of some of the passages.”  And when he was asked about the source of the Quran, he replied: “Well, I would think it must be the divine being.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

5)    Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer is Course Director and Associate Professor of Medical Embryology at the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.  During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Goeringer stated the following in the presentation of his research paper:

“In a relatively few aayahs (Quranic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development from the time of commingling of the gametes through organogenesis.  No such distinct and complete record of human development, such as classification, terminology, and description, existed previously.  In most, if not all, instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

6)    Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.  He said:

“I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in [the] Quran, and for us the modern astronomers have been studying very small pieces of the universe.  We’ve concentrated our efforts for understanding of [a] very small part.  Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts [of] the sky without thinking [about the] whole universe.  So, by reading [the] Quran and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

7)    Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.  Previously, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same university.  During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Tejasen stood up and said:

“During the last three years, I became interested in the Quran . . . . From my study and what I have learned from this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Quran fourteen hundred years ago must be the truth, that can be proved by the scientific means.  Since the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, Muhammad must be a messenger who relayed this truth, which was revealed to him as an enlightenment by the one who is eligible [as the] creator.  This creator must be God.  Therefore, I think this is the time to say La ilaha illa Allah, there is no god to worship except Allah (God), Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, Muhammad is Messenger (Prophet) of Allah (God).  Lastly, I must congratulate for the excellent and highly successful arrangement for this conference . . . . I have gained not only from the scientific point of view and religious point of view but also the great chance of meeting many well-known scientists and making many new friends among the participants.  The most precious thing of all that I have gained by coming to this place is La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, and to have become a Muslim.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

After all these examples we have seen about the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran and all these scientists’ comments on this, let us ask ourselves these questions:

·        Could it be a coincidence that all this recently discovered scientific information from different fields was mentioned in the Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago?

·        Could this Quran have been authored by Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, or by any other human being?

The only possible answer is that this Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Note: The occupations of all the scientists mentioned in this web site were last updated in 1997.

[2] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim #2643, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari #3208.

Note: What is between these special brackets {…} in this guide is a translation of what the Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, said.  Also note that this symbol # used in the footnotes, indicates the number of the hadeeth.  A hadeeth is a reliably transmitted report by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of.

[3] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim #2645.

[4] The Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, was illiterate.  He could not read nor write, but he dictated the Quran to his Companions and commanded some of them to write it down

* * * * * *

This is one example of the scientific miracles of the Quran.

In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

“We created man from an extract of clay.  Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed.  Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…” (Quran 23:12-14)

 

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two[1]  as we can see in figure 1.  Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.[2]

Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others.  Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)

 

The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.”  This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)

 

Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother.  The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)

 

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.”  We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot.  This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage[3]  (see figure 4).  Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.[4]  Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

 

 

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage.  The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)

 

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage.  The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.”  If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance.  This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”[5] (see figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old).  The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance.  The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)

 

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.

A)        Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage.  We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

B)        Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.

 

How could Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?  Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad).  They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.[6]

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore[7]  is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages.  This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person.  Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.  There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy.  In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development.  It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later.  This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”[8] (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here).

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?”  He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”[9]

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “….Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said, did, or approved of).  The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.  The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D.  Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages.  As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century.  For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century.  The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God.  He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”[10] (View the RealPlayer video of this comment).

---

Footnotes:

[1] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.

[2] Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 36.

[3] Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, pp. 37-38.

[4] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 65.

[5] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.

[6] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 9.

[7] Note: The occupations of all the scientists mentioned in this web site were last updated in 1997.

[8] The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape).  For a copy of this videotape, please visit www.islam-guide.com/truth.htm

[9] This is the Truth (videotape).

[10] This is the Truth (videotape).  For a copy, see footnote no. 9.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/216/

Happy Eid

In the name of Allah the most beneficient, the most merciful.

I would like to wish everyone a happy Eid. Please have a wonderful Eid with your families and please keep in  mind the many suffering people in the world and perhaps after this Eid we can all do something in our own individual ways to help those less fortunate than us and make the world a better place.

“You will not attain righteousness, unless you give of that which you love” (Translation of the Holy Quran, 3:92)

“None of you truly believes until you love for your  brother, what you love for yourself.” (Hadith i.e. saying of the prophet peace be upon him).

“Anyone who looks after and works for a widow and a poor person is like a warrior fighting for Allah’s cause, or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all night” (Hadith of the prophet, peace be upon him, reported in Bukhari)None”

“If any Muslim plants something or sows seed from which a man, a bird or an animal eats, it counts as a charity for him. ”(Hadith of the prophet, peace be upon him, from Bukhari)ou will truly belie” (3:92)

Many of us constantly focus on what we do not have and our “problems” but we never think of those far worse off than us. What did we ever do for them? We – including myself first and foremost – should recognize how greedy and selfish we can be and realize that we should spend more time trying to help others whether that be through money or action. Have a great Eid and please resolve to become a better person and a better Muslim.

- Faatih.

 

 

Famous “atheist” declares that God exists.

“As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done.” (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Antony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher.  The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950.  In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles.  In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation.  Flew realized, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

“Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”[1]

“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”[2]

“I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.”[3]

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation.  The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design.  Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.[4]

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs.[5]  Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

“What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex.  It’s like it was designed… There’s a huge intelligence there.”[6]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws.  Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.  All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.[7]

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew’s acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings.  In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them.  The final turning point in that process was a discussion organized by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003.  Professor Flew participated in the discussion together with the author, Roy Abraham Varghese, a physicist, and the molecular biologist, Gerald Schroeder.  Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favor of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents’ arguments and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion.  In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder’s book “The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth” and Varghese’s book “The Wonderful World.”[8]  During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind,[9]  and also on the video “Has Science Discovered God?”  he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The “Intelligence Pervading the Universe” and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Anthony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse which atheism is being subjected to Modern science has revealed the existence of an “intelligence pervading the universe,” thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book “The Hidden Face of God,” Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe.  The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom.  In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter.  Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.[10]

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom.  There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that designed the universe at all levels is Almighty God.  God reveals these truths in many verses of the Quran.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004; (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm.)

[2] Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,” Philosophy Now; (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm.)

[3] Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, “Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all,” The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004; (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html)

[4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88

[5] John Whitfield, “Physicists plunder life’s tool chest”, 24 April 2003; (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)

[6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001

[7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79

[8] Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,” Philosophy Now; (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm.)

[9] “Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew;” (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm.)

[10] Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, Touchstone, New York, 2001, p. xi.

Physics and God’s existence.

This is an article written by another author, many thanks to him for his effort in producing this. Whether God exists or not is not as such, part of the subject matter of any empirical science, natural or social.  But the facts or what are sometimes assumed to be the facts of the natural sciences, especially physics and biology, are often interpreted to support one view or the other.  This is not therefore a paper about physics, but about the relationship between physics and the question of the existence of God.  More specifically, it is mainly an Islamic rational critique of the ways modern atheists attempts to meet the challenge posed by the Big Bang theory.  It does not deal with positive proofs for the existence of the Creator; it only proves the invalidity of the arguments used to buttress atheism. One of the main arguments invoked in support of some form or other of atheism has always been the claim that the world, or some part of it, is eternal and, as such, needs no creator.  Thus, some Greek thinkers believed that the heavenly bodies, especially the sun, were eternal.  The main argument of one of them, Galen, was, according to Al-Ghazali, that it has had the same size for continued for eons and eons,a fact which shows that it is not perishable, for if it were, it would have shown signs of decay, which it doesn’t.  Al-Ghazali says that this is not a good argument because: First…we do not grant him that a thing cannot perish except by decaying; decaying is only one way of perishing; but it is not improbable for something to perish suddenly while it is in its complete form.  Second, even if we grant him that there is no perishing without decay, whence does he know that it does not suffer any decay?  His reference to observation posts is not acceptable, because their quantities [the quantities known by them] are known only approximately.  So if the sun, which is said to be a hundred and seventy times or more the size of the earth[1], were to diminish by amounts the size of mountains, that would not be apparent to the senses.  So it might be decaying, and might have decreased by amounts the size of mountains or more, but the senses cannot perceive this …” (Al-Ghazali, 126) Al-Ghazali’s guess that the size of the sun might be diminishing was, as we can now see, a rare prescience of what science would prove.  Scientists now tell us that the sun does indeed decay, but much more than he thought, and that it will ultimately perish. The amount of energy released by the sun is such that the mass of the sun is decreasing at the rate of 4.3 billion kilograms per second.  Yet this is such a small fraction of the sun’s mass that the change is hardly noticeable… Our sun is believed to be about 4.5 billion years old, and will probably continue its present activity for another 4.5 billion years. (Wheeler, 596) If the heavenly bodies are not eternal, what is it then that is eternal, the substances from which those bodies are made?  But physicists have discovered that these are made of molecules.  Is it then the molecules that are eternal?  No, because these are made up of atoms.  What about the atoms?  It was once believed that they were indivisible, and were, as such, the immutable matter from which all kinds of transient forms of material things are made.  This seemed, at last, to be the solid foundation on which to erect modern atheism. Science continued to advance however, and contented in its advancement to embarrass the atheists.  It was soon discovered that atoms were not the immutable solid ultimate eternal constituents of matter that they were believed to be for a time.  Like everything else, they are also divisible; they are constituted of subatomic particles, which are in turn divisible in yet smaller constituents.  Is there an end to this divisibility?  No one knows; but even if there was, that would not be of any help to the atheists, for science has not only shown atoms and their constituents to be divisible, it has obliterated the division between matter and energy.  Thus, every piece of matter, however small, is not only theoretically but also practically changeable into energy, and vice versa.  The end result is that there is no longer any actual existent to which one can point and say with any assurance: this has always been like as it is now, and will continue forever to be. That discovery should by itself have sufficed to dash any hope of anchoring atheism on the eternity of matter.  If it did not, the Big Bang theory certainly did.  It was this theory which dealt the final death blow to the eternity of any part of the universe.  Why? Cosmologists believe that the big bang represents not just the appearance of matter and energy in a preexisting void, but the creation of space and time too.  The universe was not created in space and time; space and time are part of the created universe. (Davies, 123) The biggest misunderstanding about the big bang is that it began as a lump of matter somewhere in the void of space.  It was not just matter that was created during the big bang.  It was space and time that were created.  So in the sense that time has a beginning, space also has a beginning.” (Boslouh, 46.) In the beginning there was nothing, neither time nor space, neither stars nor planets, neither rocks nor plants, neither animals nor human beings.  Everything came out of the void. (Fritzch, 3) The question of the existence or non-existence of God is not, as we said, the concern of any empirical science.  But scientists are human beings.  They cannot help thinking about the non-scientific yet vital implications of their sciences.  They cannot even help having feelings towards those implications. Jasrow says about Einstein: He was disturbed by the idea of a universe that blows up, because it implied that the world had a beginning.  In a letter to De Sitter, Einstein wrote, “This circumstance of an expanding universe irritates me.” … This is curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas.  I suppose that the idea of a beginning in time annoyed Einstein because of its theological implications. (Jasrow, 29.) Gastro quotes similar reactions by other scientists, like Eddington who says that “the notion of a beginning is repugnant” to him (122), and attributes this emotional reaction to the fact that they do not “bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained”[2]  and comments on such reactions of scientists by saying that they provide:   … an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – supposedly a very objective mind – when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to conflict with the articles of faith in our profession.  It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.  We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. (Jasrow, 15-16.)   If matter, time and space all had a beginning, the question that naturally comes to mind is: How did they come to be?  The Quran tells us that if a person does not believe in God, then he cannot explain the coming into being of anything except by one of three untenable explanations: a.     either he says that it was created by nothing, i.e. that it just appeared out of nothing? b.     Or that it created itself, c.     Or that it was created by something that is itself created. Addressing the atheists the Quran says: “Were they created by nothing?  Or were they themselves the creators (of themselves)?  Or did they create heaven and earth?  Nay, but they are not sure.” (Quran 52:35-36) The Quran is not saying that the Arabs whom it addressed actually believed that things were created by nothing, or that they created themselves.  They certainly did not claim that they were the creators of the heavens and earth; no sane person would.  The Quran then, is only making clear to the atheists the absurdity of their position. After a careful study of some of the arguments of many Western atheistic philosophers and scientists, I have found that they do indeed fall into these three untenable categories.  Why untenable? Was it created out of nothing? Suppose that you told someone that there was nothing, nothing at all in a certain region, and then lo! a duck appeared alive and kicking.  Why wouldn’t he believe you however much you assure him that that was indeed the case?  Not only because he knows that ducks don’t come into being in that way, as some might suppose, but because believing this violates an essential principle of his rationality.  Thus his attitude would be the same even if the thing that he was told to have come from nothing was something that he never heard of before.  It is because we believe that nothing comes out of nothing, that we keep looking for causes by which we explain the occurrence of events in the natural, social or psychological world.  It is because of this rational principle that science was possible.  Without it, not only our science, but our very rationality will be in jeopardy.  Moreover, the idea of causation is essential even to the very identity of things, as it was observed by the Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes): It is self-evident that things have identities, and they have qualities in virtue of which every existent has its actions, and in virtue of which things have different identities, names and definitions.  If it were not the case that every individual thing had an action peculiar to, it would not have had a na­ture that is peculiar to it; and if it did not have a special na­ture, it would not have had a special name or definition. (Tahafut Attahafut, 782-3) Did it create itself? The absurdity of the idea of something creating itself is even clearer.  For something to create, it must be already existing; but for it to be created, it must be nonexistent.  The idea of something creating itself is thus self-contradictory. Was it created by something that is itself created? Can the cause of a temporal thing be itself temporal?  Yes, if we are talking about immediate, incomplete causes like eating and nourishment, water and germination, fire and burning, etc.  But these causes are incomplete causes.  First, because none of them is by itself sufficient to produce the effect we attribute to it; every such temporal cause depends for its efficacy on a host of other positive and negative conditions.  Second, because being temporal, they need to be caused, and cannot therefore be the ultimate causes of the coming into being of anything.  Suppose the following to be a series of temporal effects and causes: C1, C2, C3, C4… Cn, such that C1 is caused by C2, C2 by C3, and so on.  Such temporal causes are real causes, and useful ones, especially for practical purposes and for incomplete explanations; but if we are looking for the ultimate cause of the coming into being of, say, C1, then C2 is certainly not that cause, since it is itself caused by C3.  The same can be said about C3, and so on.  So even if we have an infinite series of such temporal causes, still that will not give us an ultimate explanation of the coming into being of C1.  Let us put this in other words: when does C1 come into being?  Only after C2 has come into being.  When does C2 come into being?  Only after C3 has come into being, and so on until Cn.  Therefore C1 will not come into being until Cn has come into being.  The same problem will persist even if we go further than Cn, even if we go to infinity.  This means that if C1 depended for its coming into being on such temporal causes, it would never have come to exist.  There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah[3]  explained.  The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes; it must be an eternal, and therefore, uncaused cause. When someone, whether scientist or nonscientist, insists on his erroneous beliefs in the face of all the evidence, there can be no way for him to support those beliefs except by resorting to dubious arguments, because no falsehood can be supported by a valid argument.  This has been the case with all atheistic scientists and philosophers who believe in the Big Bang theory. Some claimed unabashedly that the original matter of the universe came out of nothing.  Thus Fred Hoyle, who advocated the steady state theory, which was for sometime considered to be a credible rival to the big bang theory, but which, like its rival, necessitates the coming into being of new matter– used to say[4]: The most obvious question to ask about continuous creation is this: Where does the created material come from?  It does not come from anywhere.  Material simply appears – it is created.  At one time the various atoms composing the material do not exist, and at a later time they do.  This may seem a very strange idea and I agree that it is, but in science it does not matter how strange an idea may seem so long as it works – that is to say, since the idea can be expressed in a precise form and so long as its consequences are in agreement with observation. (Hoyle, 112) When Hoyle said this, there was an uproar against him.  He was accused of violating a main principle of science, namely that nothing comes out of nothing, and was thus ‘opening the flood gates of religion’ as one philosopher of science put it.  Thus Mario Bunge said about it: [T]his theory involves the hypothesis of the continuous creation of matter ex nihilo.  And this is not precisely what is usually meant by respecting scientific determinism even in its widest sense, for the concept of emergence out of nothing is characteristically theological or magical even if clothed in mathematical form. (Bunge) That the hypothesis of creation ex nihilo is not a scientific one, is true, but the claim that it is characteristically theological is wide off the mark.  Theistic religions do not say that things come out of absolute nothing because that contradicts the basic religious claim that they are created by God.  All that many religious people say is that God creates things out of nothing, and there is the whole difference in the world between the two notions. If creation out of nothing was earlier considered by atheists to be an unscientific and theological principle, it is now claimed by some to have a scientific status and is used to discredit religion. For the first time a unified description of all creation could be within our grasp.  No scientific problem is more fundamental or more daunting than the puzzle of how the universe came into being.  Could this have happened without any supernatural input?  Quantum mechanics seems to provide a loophole in the age-old assumption that ‘you can’t get something for nothing’.  Physicists are now talking about ‘the self creating universe’: a cosmos that erupts into existence spontaneously, much as a sub nuclear particle pops out of nowhere in certain high energy processes.  The question of whether the details of this theory are right or wrong is not important.  What matters is that it is now possible to conceive of a scientific explanation of all creation. (Jastrow, viii) What kind of explanation is this?  Do you really even start to explain anything by saying that it pops out of nowhere?  Do scientists really believe that the sub nuclear particle referred to pops out of nowhere, in the sense that it really comes out of nothing, and has no relation whatsoever to anything that precedes it?  Commenting on what Davies claimed, one scientist had this to say: “This, in any case, is an event that occurs in space and time, within a domain bathed in matter and radiation.  ‘Nothing’ is nowhere to be seen in this situation.“[5] This same fallacious idea is repeated in a later book by another atheistic scientist, Taylor: As such, there is a non-zero probability of, say, a particle such as an electron appearing out of the vacuum.  In fact a vacuum is full of possibilities, one of which is the appearance of the Universe itself.  It had been created from nothing, as it were. (Taylor, 22) What kind of vacuum is Taylor talking about?  If he is using the word in its technical scientific sense, then he can indeed speak of its being full of possibilities, or of an electron appearing out of it, because this vacuum is in fact a non-empty region.  This surely, however, is not the nothingness that is referred to by the big bang theory.  There is therefore not even an analogy between the appearance of a particle in a vacuum and the appearance of a Universe out of absolute nothing.

 

 

The idea that something is not created by anything, that it comes out of nothing, is very different from the idea that it creates itself.  It is strange therefore to find some scientists speaking about them as if they are one and the same thing.  It is not only Davies who confused these two notions as we can see in the quotation just cited, but others also.  Taylor tells us that electrons can create themselves out of nothing in the manner Baron Munchausen saved himself from sinking into a bog by pulling himself up by his bootstraps. It is as if these particles special particles are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (which in their case are the forces between them) to create themselves from nothing as Baron Munchausen saves himself without visible means of support…This bootstrapping has been proposed as a scientifically respectable scenario for creating a highly specialized Universe from nothing. (Taylor, 46) Is it science or science fiction that we are being told here?  Taylor knows and says that Munchausen’s is only a story; what he claimed to have done is in fact something that is physically impossible to do.  In spite of this, Taylor wants to explain by his idea something that is not only real, but is of the utmost importance, and thus ends up saying something that is more absurd than Munchausen’s fictitious story of saving himself by pulling up his bootstrap.  At least Munchausen was talking about things that were already in existence.  But Taylor’s special particles act even before they are created!  They “pull themselves by their own bootstraps… to create themselves from nothing.”! False Gods The third alternative to attributing the creation of things to the true God, is to attribute them to false gods.  Thus many atheists try to attribute the creation of temporal things to other things which are themselves temporal (as we said before). Davies says: The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics.  While one may concede, (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in God.  It may be closed into a loop.  For example, four events, or objects, or systems, E1, E2, E3, E4, may have the following dependence on each other: (Davies, 47)     But this is a clear example of a very vicious circle.  Take any one of these supposed events or objects or systems.  Let it be E1, and ask how it came about .  The answer is: it was caused by E4, which preceded it; but what is the cause of E4?  It is E3; and the cause of E3 is E2, and of E2 is E1.  So the cause of E4 is E1 because it is the cause of its causes.  Therefore E4 is the cause of E1 and E1 is the cause of E4 which means that each one of them precedes and is preceded by the other.  Does that make any sense?  If these events, etc.  are actual existents, then their coming into being could not have been caused by them the way Davies supposes it to be.  Their ultimate cause must lie outside this vicious circle. And the philosopher Passmore advises us to: Compare the following: (1)  every event has a cause; (2)  to know that an event has happened one must know how it came about. The first simply tells us that if we are interested in the cause of an event, there will always be such a cause for us to discover.  But it leaves us free to start and stop at any point we choose in the search for causes; we can, if we want to, go on to look for the cause of the cause and so on ad infinitum , but we need not do so; if we have found a cause, we have found a cause, whatever its cause may be.  The second assertion, however, would never allow us to assert that we know that an event has happened …  For if we cannot know that an event has taken place unless we know the event that is its cause, then equally we cannot know that the cause-event has taken place unless we know its cause, and so on ad infinitum.  In short, if the theory is to fulfill its promise, the series must stop somewhere, and yet the theory is such that the series cannot stop anywhere – unless, that is, a claim of privilege is sustained for a certain kind of event, e.g. the creation of the Universe. (Pasture, 29) If you think about it, there is no real difference between these two series as Ibn Taymiyyah clearly explained a long time ago (Ibn Taymiyyah, 436-83).  One can put the first series like this: for an event to happen, its cause must happen.  Now if the cause is itself caused, then the event will not happen unless its cause event happens, and so on, ad infinitum.  We will not therefore have a series of events that actually happened, but a series of no events.  And because we know that there are events, we conclude that their real ultimate cause could not have been any temporal thing or series of temporal things whether finite or infinite.  The ultimate cause must be of a nature that is different from that of temporal things; it must be eternal.  Why do I say ‘ultimate’?  Because, as I said earlier, events can be viewed as real causes of other events, so long as we acknowledge them to be the incomplete and dependent causes they are, and as such not the causes that explain the coming into being of something in any absolute sense, which is to say that they cannot take the place of God. What is the relevance of this talk about chains after all?  There might have been some excuse for it before the advent of the Big Bang, but it should have been clear to Davies in particular that there is no place for it at all in the world-view of a person who believes that the universe had an absolute beginning. The fact that every thing around us is temporal and that it could not have been created except by an eternal Creator has been known to human beings since the dawn of their creation, and it is still the belief of the overwhelming majority of people all over the world.[6]  It would, therefore, be a mistake to get from this paper the impression that it hinges the existence of God upon the truth of the Big Bang theory.  That certainly is not my belief; neither was it the purpose of this paper.  The main thrust of the paper has rather been that if an atheist believes in the big bang theory, then he cannot avoid admitting that the Universe was created by God.  This, in fact, is what some scientists frankly admitted, and what others hesitantly intimated to. There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action.  For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? …  It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo, Divine will constituting nature from nothingness. (Jastro,122) As to the first cause of the universe in the context of expansion, that is left to the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him. (Jasrow,122) This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time.  It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. (Hawking,127) References Al Ghazali, Abu Hamid, Tahafut al Falasifa, edited by Sulayman Dunya, Dar al Ma’arif, Cairo, 1374 (1955) Berman, David, A History of Atheism in Britain, London and New York, Routledge, 1990. Boslough, John, Stephen Hawking’s Universe: an Introduction to the most remarkable Scientist of our Time,  Avon Books, New York, 1985. Bunge, Mario, Causality: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science, The world publication Co. New York, 1963 Carter, Stephen L. The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. Basic Books, Harper Collins, 1993. Concise  Science Dictionary,  Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984 Davies, Paul, (1) The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe, Simon & Schuster Inc, London, 1989. (2) God & The New Physics, The Touchstone Book, New York, 1983. Fritzsch, Harald, The Creation of Matter: The Universe From Beginning to End, Basic Books Inc Publishers, New York, 1984. Ibn Rushd, al Qadi Abu al Walid Muhammad Ibn Rush, Tahafut at-Tahafut, edited by Sulayman Dunya, Dar al Ma’arif , Cairo, 1388  (1968.) Ibn Taymiya, Abu al Abbas Taqiyuddin Ahmad Ibn  Abd al Halim, Minhaj al Sunna al Nabawiya , edited by Dr. Rashad Salim, Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyad,  AH 1406 (1986) Jastrow, Robert, God And The Astronomers, Warner Books, New York, 1978. Hawking, Stephen,  A Brief History of Time, Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe, Mentor Books, New York, 1955.  Kirkpatrick, Larry D. and Wheeler, Gerald F. Physics, A World View, New York, Saunders College Publishing, 1992. Newton, Sir Isaac, Optics, Dover Publications Inc. New York, 1952. Pasture, J. A,  Philosophical Reasoning, New York, 1961. Taylor, John, When the Clock Struck Zero: Science’s Ultimate Limits, Picador, London, 1993 Footnotes:   [1] We now know that it is definitely more. The mass of the sun is 333, 000 times that of the earth, and its radius is 109 times the earth’s radius. [2] Gastro would have been more accurate if he said, “a phenomenon that cannot be naturally explained.”, since Divine creation is an explanation, and the only one in such cases. [3] Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328), an Islamic scholar born in Harran, now modern day Syria. [4] Later on he changed his mind, not only about this, but about the whole theory. [5] This is what my friend,  Professor Mahjoob Obeid,  the famous Sudanese physicist wrote to  me in a personal  communication. [6] “…the first published avowal of speculative atheism appeared in 1770 on the Continent, and in 1782 in Britain.” (Russell, Atheism. 3). “The most recent Gallop data indicate that 96 per cent of Americans say they believe in God… “ , (Carter, Culture, 278).  The percentage must surely be greater in the non Western world.

Religion and scientists.

Written by another author, may he be rewarded for his effort. The attributes of the universe which have hitherto been discovered by science point to the existence of God.  Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge.  It is religion that shows us the way in knowing God.  It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion.  Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand.  In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God.  They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions. As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent.  Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God.  The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries. Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion.  The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance.  As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science.  The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue: “For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. … But the science of Darwin’s time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning.  As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them.” (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, “The Messianic Legacy”, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.) As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological.  Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context.  The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them.  In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the “steady-state theory” or the “chaos theory”.  However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in other articles. Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God.  The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution: “If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation”, Nature, no. 124, p. 233) What Watson means by “special creation” is God’s creation.  As acknowledged, this scientist finds this “unacceptable”.  But why does he?  Is it because science says so?  Actually it does not.  On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation.  The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God.  All other evolutionists take the same stand. Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy.  A geneticist, and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth: “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28) On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God’s existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him.  Some trends developing in the USA such as “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.

 

This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion.  The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources.  However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God.  Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God.  The following verse of the Quran addresses this issue: “Do they not look at the sky above them?  How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein?  And the earth – We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs).  An insight and a Reminder for every slave who turns to God.  And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops.  And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another.” (Quran 50:6-10) As the above verses imply, the Quran always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live.  This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one’s world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe.  Prominent German physicist Max Planck said: “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith.  It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.) All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences.  Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality.  The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admirations for its flawless order become.  Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way. The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century.  David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred.  Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it. Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books.  The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists. In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws.  Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws.  He said: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.  This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion.  He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” (“Principia”) As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle-Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point.  The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books where he wrote: “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, p. 51) The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who established thermo-dynamics on a formal scientific basis, was also a Christian who believed in God.  He had strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution and totally rejected it.  In 1903, short before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, “With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power.” (David Darling, Deep Time, Delacorte Press, 1989, New York.) One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Mattheus states the same fact in his book published in 1992 where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God.  Mattheus says that all these stages proceed in a perfect harmony from a single cell to a living baby, then to a little child, and finally to an adolescent.  All these events can be explained only by a miracle, just as in all the other stages of biology.  Mattheus asks how such a perfect and complex organism can emerge from such a simple and tiny cell and how a glorious human is created from a cell even smaller than the dot on the letter ‘I’.  He finally concludes that this is nothing short of a miracle. (Robert Matthews, Unraveling the Mind of God, London Bridge, July, 1995, p.8) Some other scientists who admit that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are: Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry) Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy) Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times) Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics) Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism) John Dalton (the father of atomic theory) Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians) John Ray (the most important name in British natural history) Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratigrapher who investigated earth layers) Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification) Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy) Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography) Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

The concept of Agnosticism.

An article by American opthalmologist, Dr Laurence Brown on agnosticism. “We cannot swing up a rope that is attached to our own belt.” –William Ernest Hocking The issue of Agnosticism is of integral importance to any theological discussion, because agnosticism complacently coexists with the broad spectrum of religions, rather than assuming a separate or opposing theological position.  Thomas Henry Huxley, the originator of the term in the year 1869 CE,[1]  clearly stated, “Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle…Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations.  And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”[2] The word itself, as Huxley appears to have intended it, does not define a set of religious beliefs, but rather demands a rational approach to all knowledge, including that claimed of religion.  The word ‘Agnosticism,’ however, has since become one of the most misapplied terms in metaphysics, having enjoyed a diversity of applications. At varying times this term has been applied to a variety of individuals or subgroups, differing greatly in degrees of piety and sincerity of religious purpose.  On one extreme there are the sincere seekers who have not yet encountered substantiated truth in the religions of their exposure.  Most often, however, the religiously unmotivated utilize the term to excuse personal disinterest, attempting thereby to legitimize escapism from the responsibility of serious investigation into religious evidences. The modern definition of ‘Agnostic,’ as found in the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, is not strictly faithful to Huxley’s explanation of the term; however, it does represent the most common modern understanding and usage of the word, which is that an Agnostic is a “person who believes that the existence of God is not provable.”[3]  By this definition, the Agnostic view of God can be variously applied to such hypothetical entities as gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, mental telepathy, headaches, hunger, the sex drive, and the human soul – entities which cannot be seen with the eye or held with the hand, but which nonetheless appear to be real and evident.  Clearly, not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence.  The religious argue that the existence of God is one such reality, whereas the Agnostic defends the right to such belief, just so long as proof is not claimed. As an aside, the philosophy that nothing can be proven absolutely appears to take origin from Pyrrho of Elis, a Greek court philosopher to Alexander the Great, commonly acknowledged to be the ‘father of skepticism.’  Although a certain degree of skepticism is healthy, protective even, the extreme position adopted by Pyrrho of Elis is somewhat problematic.  Why?  Because the confirmed Pyrrhonist logically stimulates the skeptic of skepticism (i.e. the normally thinking person) to question, “You claim that nothing can be known with certainty…how, then, can you be so sure?”  The enemies of logic can create a great deal of confusion by such compilation of paradox and philosophical compost.  One great danger is to seduce an abandonment of logic, in favor of decision by desire.  Another danger is to allow immersion in intellectual contortionism to stifle common sense. Humanity should recognize that if common sense prevails, stubborn detractors begin to look a tad daft when the apple has fallen on their heads a few too many times.  After a point, those with the common sense to accept vanishingly small confidence intervals (or ‘P’ values, as they are known in the field of statistical analysis) begin to hope for bigger, higher, and harder apples to either convince the academically defiant Pyrrhonists or simply remove them from the equation. So, by common sense (and common experience), most people accept whatever theories appear most reasonable, whether proven in an absolute sense or not.  Hence most people accept the theories of gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, the hunger drive, an author’s headache and a reader’s eyestrain — and well they should.  These things make sense.  In the opinion of those of religion, all mankind should also accept the existence of God and of the human spirit, for the overwhelming evidence witnessed in the many miracles of creation support the reality of The Creator to the point where the confidence level approaches infinity and the ‘P’ value diminishes to something smaller and more elusive than the last digit of Pi. With regard to T. H. Huxley’s invention of the term ‘agnostic,’ he was quoted a having explained, “Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there (the Metaphysical Society), and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were –ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions.  So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic.’”[4] According to the above, individuals who identify with the label of ‘Agnostic’ should recognize that the term is a modern invention which arose from one individual’s identity crisis in a circle of metaphysicians.  The one who coined this term identifies himself as a man without a label, analogous to a fox without a tail — both of which imply the self-perception of a certain degree of personal inadequacy.  What part of this man’s pride did he leave behind in the jaws of a spring-loaded religious enigma?  Fairly obviously, Huxley, like many prominent metaphysicians and theologians throughout history, was unable to find a doctrinal pigeonhole to suit his concept of God. Regardless of the above considerations, even if a person were to argue that Huxley did nothing more than attach a label to a previously un-named but ancient theology, the two word question “So what?”  jumps the synapses of consciousness once again.  Labeling a theology does not imply validation or, more importantly, value.  If there were value to the concept, a person would suspect that it would have been voiced earlier — like 1800 years earlier and in the teachings of a prophet like Jesus.  Yet the prophets, Christ Jesus included, seemed to have a very different message, the point of which was the reward of faith in the absence of absolute proof, despite the inability to view the reality of God with one’s own eyes.

 

“According to Huxley, the word was designed as antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of early church history, and was intended to be opposed not simply to theism and Christianity, but also to atheism and pantheism.  He meant the word to cover with a mantle of respectability not so much ignorance about God but the strong conviction that the problem of His existence is insoluble.”[5] The tail-less fox searching for a “mantle of respectability?”  So it would seem, but who could blame him?  It was a difficult and confusing time — given the setting, many intellectuals must have been pretty frustrated and imagined themselves to be short not just a tail, but both hindquarters as well.  In a time and place where, as Huxley describes, the choice, in a practical sense, was Christianity or nothing, anybody who pondered the theological difficulties would have been forced to reconsider the oath of membership to any of the exclusive Christian clubs.  Invention of the label of ‘Agnosticism’ was no doubt born of the frustration of having had to deal with those whose doctrines could easily be discredited by men and women of intellect, but in a theological void where an acceptable alternative was not yet presented to the English-speaking world.  What could a person who believed in God, but who did not believe in the religions of his or her exposure do?  Escape was the only alternative, and that, so it appears, is exactly what Huxley did.  Huxley coined a term which encapsulated an ages-old concept which afforded all who claimed allegiance an escape route from the overheated, overcrowded room of religious discussion, and into the private den of personal convictions. Yet, although the term afforded a popular relief valve for those who evaded the pressure of serious religious discussion in the time of Huxley, the question arises, “Does the term have value in the present day?”  The truth of the concept remains, but the question is not whether there is truth in the concept, but whether there is value in the truth.  A rock has truth, but what is its value?  Very little, under normal circumstances. So on one hand, the ‘So what?’ factor remains.  Encapsulating the ages-old concept of the non-provable issue of God sounds so neat and practical, but does the concept of non-provability change anybody’s belief in God?  A person can embrace any of the myriad belief/disbelief systems while at the same time admitting that the truth of God cannot be proven.  Yet such an admission does not change the depth of conviction each person holds in his or her heart and mind. And most people know this. Few devotees believe they can support their religion or the existence of God with absolute and irrefutable proof.  Growing challenges by increasingly intelligent and well-informed laity have placed an impossible burden of proof on the clergy of the Judaic and Christian faiths, in specific.  Questions and challenges, which in previous ages would have brought charges of heresy as a practical measure for the suppression of sedition are now commonplace, and deserving of answers.  The fact that Church responses to such queries defy logic and human experience has resulted in clergy often having no other resort than to reverse the challenge upon the questioner, in the form of asserting, “It’s a mystery of God, you just have to have faith.”   The questioner may respond, “but I do have faith – I have faith that God can reveal a religion which would answer all my questions,” only to be counseled further, “Well, in that case, you just have to have more faith.”  In other words, a person has to stop asking questions and be satisfied with the party line.  Even when it doesn’t make sense, and even when the foundational scriptures teach otherwise. Hence, over the past few centuries the hierarchy of the many Judeo-Christian sects have been driven back on their heels by God-given logic to a teetering, bowed-back, arm-spinning posture of Gnostic ideology, which in the early (i.e. the period of those who knew best) history of Christianity was regarded as a no-holds barred, no doubt about it, ‘gather-the-firewood-and-plant-the-stake’ heretical sect.   The scenario is bizarre; it is like saying, “Sure, that oven was last year’s model.  The prototypes didn’t work.  In fact they exploded and everyone who used one burned to death, but we’re bringing it back anyway because we need the money.  But we promise you, if you believe — I mean really believe — then we promise you’ll be OK.  And if it does explode in your face, don’t blame us.  You just didn’t believe enough.”  The sad thing is, lots of people are not only buying it, they’re setting one aside for each of their kids. The overall scheme of things is one in which clergy considered Christian faith to be founded upon knowledge up until the educated laity came to know better.  For many centuries laity were not allowed to own Bibles, with the punishment of possession in more than a few cases having been death.  Only with suppression of this law, manufacture of paper in Europe (14th century), invention of the printing press (mid-15th century), and translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages (16th century) did Bibles become readily available and readable by the common literate man.  Hence, for the first time, laity became able to read the Bible (where available – publication and distribution remained limited for many decades) and present rational challenges to established doctrines based upon personal analysis of the foundational scriptures.  When such challenges defeated the arguments of the Church apologists, most Christian sects did an amazing thing — they disavowed the nearly 2,000 year-old claim that doctrine should be based upon knowledge, and instituted instead the concept of salvation through spiritual guidance and justification by faith.  Particular emphasis was placed on the alleged virtue of blind, unthinking (and hence unquestioning) commitment. The modern ‘spiritual’ defenses which sprung from the new church orientation mimic the heretical ‘mystic exclusivity’ of the ancient Gnostics, all echoing familiar sentiments such as, “You just don’t understand, you don’t have the Holy Spirit inside you like I do,” or “You just need to follow your guiding light — mine is leveled, laser-straight and Xenon bright, but yours is flickering and dim” or “Jesus doesn’t live inside you as he does inside me.”  No doubt such assertions appeal to each speaker’s ‘aren’t I special’ personal ego inventory, but if someone insists on belief in spiritually exclusive pathways, then no doubt others will insist on a discussion of the difference between delusion and reality.  T.H. Huxley, no doubt, would have been happy to chair the debate. The problem is that claiming mystical exclusivity as the key to guidance and/or salvation is to claim that God has arbitrarily abandoned the ‘un-saved’ of creation — hardly a God-like scenario.  Does it not make infinitely more sense for God to have given all of humankind equal chance to recognize the truth of His teachings?  Then those who submit to His evidences would deserve reward, while those who deny would be blameworthy for failing to give acknowledgement, credit, and worship where due. But unfortunately, the nature of delusion is that the ones who are deluded rarely are capable of recognizing the errors of their misunderstanding; the nature of the Gnostics is similar in that they typically are too enamored with their self-satisfying, self-serving philosophy to realize the falsehood of their foundation.  And indeed, it is hard to believe the waiter has spat in the soup when the restaurant is rated five-star, the service refined, the presentation impeccable.  Appearance and taste may be so good as to defy reality.  But it is the patron who regards the bearer of truth as an inconvenient kill-joy rather than as a sincere benefactor who is going to wear the sicknesses of the server home.

 

So why the contemporary return to heresy-slash-Gnosticism, with the official sanction of so many religious institutions?  Well, it is understandable.  Since no logical defense of modern day Judaism or Christianity withstands the pressure of present day scriptural analysis, this ‘mystical exclusivity’ is a last ditch defense of a rapidly crumbling doctrinal status quo.  Significant attrition has occurred in numerous Judeo-Christian sects already.  The remaining faithful are largely forced into ‘believing agnosticism,’ holding personal faith in the existence of God and a specific doctrine as the approach to Him, while at the same time recognizing that such beliefs cannot be objectively proven. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy of the Unconditioned (1829), and Herbert Spencer’s Principles (1862) laid the cellulose foundation of the concept, and T.H. Huxley packaged and popularized it. So, does the concept of Agnosticism have value?  Returning to the rock, which only has value to those in need of one, Agnosticism has practicality for those who feel the need of a theological defense system.  Those who are satisfied with such theology end religious discussions by deflecting the threat of rational argument off the shield of Agnostic defenses.  To all others, it is just a rock.  It doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t do anything.  It just sits there like the impotent and self-evident lump it is, occupying metaphysical space. Examination of the Islamic religion fosters an interesting thought, in this regard.  The teachings of Islam were not available in the English language until Andre du Ryer’s French translation of the meaning of the Holy Quran was rendered into English by Alexander Ross in 1649 CE.  This first translation into the English language being notably of hostile intent and filled with inaccuracies, it fell hugely shy of inviting objective analysis of the Islamic religion.  As the translator stated in his address ‘to the Christian Reader,’ “There being so many sects and heresies banded together against the truth (by which the author refers to Christianity), finding that of Mahomet wanting to the muster, I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou maist the better prepare to encounter, and I hope overcome them….Thou shalt find it of so rude, and incongruous a composure, so farced with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables…Such as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only to translate it out of French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson (poison), that hath infected a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an antidote, to confirme in thee the health of Christianity” The translator’s prejudice clearly evident, a person should hardly be surprised to find the translation fraught with error, and inclined to exert little positive impact on Western consciousness.  George Sale, having been unimpressed, picked up the torch and attempted a new translation of meaning, criticizing Ross as follows: “The English version is no other than a translation of Du Ryer’s, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous.”[6] Not until George Sale’s translation of meaning into the English language in 1734 did the Western world begin to receive teachings of the Holy Quran in an accurate, though all the same ill-intentioned, exposure. George Sale’s perspective is evident in the first few pages of his address to the reader, with such statements as, “They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery….But whatever use an impartial version of the Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture…” and, “The Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow.” The translation of Reverend J. M. Rodwell, first published in 1861, coincided with the nineteenth century rise of oriental studies in the scientific meaning of the term.  And it was during this period of dawning Islamic consciousness in Western Europe that Huxley presented his proposal of Agnosticism. Many Muslims might wonder, had Huxley lived in the present ‘information’ age of ease of travel, broad cosmopolitan exposure to people, cultures and religions, complete with accurate and objective information on the Islamic religion, would his choice have been any different?  It is an interesting thought.  What would a man have done who, as previously quoted, stated, “I protest that if some great Power would agree to make me always think what is true and do what is right, on condition of being turned into a sort of clock and wound up every morning before I got out of bed, I should instantly close with the offer.”[7]  To such a man, the comprehensive canon of Islam may have been not only appealing, but welcome. This section began with the assertion that Agnosticism coexists with most religions of established doctrine.  Doctrinal adherents can be divided into functional sub-categories on this basis.  For example, the Theistic (Orthodox) Christians who conceive the reality of God to be provable, the Gnostic Christians who conceive knowledge of the truth of God to be reserved for the spiritual elite, and the Agnostic Christians, who maintain faith while admitting inability to prove the reality of God.  The distinguishing difference between these various subgroups exists not in the presence, but in attempts at justification, of faith. Similarly, most religions can be sub-divided by the manner in which individual adherents attempt to justify faith within the confines of doctrine.  At the end of the day, however, these divisions are of academic interest only, for the how or why of belief does not alter the presence of belief any more than the how or why of God alters His existence.

 

To return to Francis Bacon, he once opined, “They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.”[8]  Believers would offer advice to Atheists and Agnostics alike that God exists, whether seen or not, whether desired or not, whether considered proven or not.  Argument to the contrary is just a distraction from a reality which will unfold as undeniable truth on a future day of joy for some, deep regret and horror for others. A great many people need not await the Day of Judgement to entertain such a conclusion, for all people faced with insurmountable trials find themselves drawn to belief, for when faced with desperate circumstances, Who else do people instinctively call upon other than God?  Although few make good on the promises of fidelity made at such moments of desperate appeal, the evidence of the oath remains long after the promises to God are cast aside to lie neglected in the gutters of the memory. Can anybody help the insincere?  Very likely not.  The concept of recognizing God and living in satisfaction of His commandments only when, and for as long as, it suits one’s purpose, demonstrates an unwillingness to submit on God’s terms.  Take, for example, St. Augustine’s pathetic prayer, “Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo.  (Give me chastity and continency—but not yet!)”[9]  Here’s the prayer of a ‘Saint?’ who on one hand was praying to God, and on the other hand wasn’t ready to leave the houses of prostitution, to the compromise of his sexual incontinency.  Compare this with the exemplary lives of the disciples of Jesus, who are reported to have deserted infinitely more honorable pursuits when called to follow Christ Jesus.   These men left their worldly priorities, such as their livelihood of fishing and their obligation of burying the dead, when the truth came to them, without delay to a time of greater personal convenience.  The religious might be inclined to comment, “Wow!  Those are my kind of guys!”  The more important understanding, however, is that those appear to be God’s ‘kind of guys.’ Of course, that was then and this is now.  In the present age prophets walk on water, heal lepers, and bid mankind to follow only in the imaginations of those with a view to history.  All the same, a lot of people still seek the truth of God and, once recognized, will follow immediately, regardless of the sacrifice required.  But first, they must know the truth with certainty. So what’s the problem?  Simply this: information has never been so readily available, and yet (on the surface at least) never so confusing and religiously obstructive.  Most people have been raised with the intellectual tools to root out and identify the inconsistencies and fallacies of the religions predominant within their exposure.  Sincere seekers log a certain depth of experience in discrediting various faiths, a few of which are truly twitty cults, but the majority of which are sects claiming to be based upon some version of the Old or New Testaments, but in fact diverging from the balanced and fundamental teachings found therein.  After a while, one sect begins to look very much like the others, many times with only shallow doctrinal differences, and almost always with the same questionable foundation.  Most such sects have evolved to a modern conglomerate of truths, half-truths (or in other words, half-lies) and solid unadulterated deception.  The problem is, mixing truth with falsehood is like mixing beauty with ugliness — it doesn’t work.  Any one particular religion is either entirely truthful or to some degree impure.  And since God doesn’t error — not even once — if people can’t trust one element of that which is presented as revelation, how can they know which teachings can be trusted?  Furthermore, many of the religious have difficulty conceiving that God would leave humankind to hang the hereafter on an impure understanding of Him. The problem screams in the doctrine-stuffed ears of man that a person cannot mix truth with falsehood and continue to consider the blend to originate from God any more than a person can mix loveliness and ugliness and continue to win beauty pageants.  Place a single, hairy, multilobulated mole (not a beauty mark, but a true ugly mark) smack dab in the middle of any picture of facial perfection and what does a person get?  Pure, unadulterated ‘Angelic’ beauty?  On the contrary, the end result is the all too human reality of beauty marred. Place the tiniest of falsehoods in a religion, which is reported to be from a perfect and flawless God, and what is the result?  A lot of sincere people walking, for one.  But for those who wish to hang on to the canon of a flawed belief system, apologists assume the role of religious cosmetic surgeons.  These apologists may succeed in smoothing the uneven surface of scripture by way of doctrinal dermabrasion, but anybody with depth of insight recognizes that the foundational genetics remain faulty.  Consequently, while some see straight through the lame attempts at excusing the absurd, many follow anyway. Amongst those who do choose to embrace a faith, many arrive at their choice by throwing up their hands in frustration and chosing whatever religion suits best or, at the very minimum, offends least.  Some file a telepathic communiqué with God to the effect that they are doing the best they can, others rest comfortably on insecure conclusions.  Many become Agnostic with regard to all doctrinal faiths, pursuing an internal, personal faith for lack of exposure to a doctrinal belief which is pure and consistently Godly. Refusal to compromise belief in a perfect and infallible God for a ‘settle for’ religion possessing shaky foundation and demonstrable doctrinal weaknesses is understandable – respectable even.  After generations of distracting family traditions, centuries of confounding cultural misdirection, and a lifetime of prejudiced propaganda, many Westerners have become spiritually immobilized.  On one hand the concept of a pristine, pure religion devoid of adulteration, corruption and, in short, the grimy and fallible hand of religion-engineering man is much sought after, but elusive to Western consciousness.  On the other hand, many see too clearly the inconsistencies of any present day religion founded on that with which the West is most familiar—namely the Jewish and Christian Bibles.  Some may remain trapped within the narrow confine defined by the horn-tips of this dilemma.  Others look deeply into Biblical scriptures and recognize that as the Old Testament predicted the coming of John the Baptist, Christ Jesus and one remaining prophet, so did Christ Jesus predict a prophet to follow himself—one who would bring a message of truth to make all things clear. Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and a variety of other Christian sects claim to fulfill this prophecy with the founder of their flavor of belief.  Many others are skeptical and still searching.  It is for the latter that this book has been written.   Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown—used by permission. The author’s website is www.leveltruth.com. He is the author of The Eighth Scroll—the modern-day religious murder mystery described in Booksurge’s marketing copy as “bar none, the most exciting journey of 2007.” His other works include two books of comparative religion entitled MisGod’ed and God’ed, and the Islamic primer, Bearing True Witness. Footnotes: [1] Meagher, Paul Kevin et al.  Vol. 1, p. 77. [2] Huxley, Thomas Henry.  Agnosticism.  1889. [3] Thompson, Della.  p. 16. [4] Huxley, T. H.  Collected Essays.  v.  Agnosticism. [5] Meagher, Paul Kevin et al.  Vol. 1, p. 77. [6] Sale, George. [7] Huxley, Thomas H.  Discourse Touching The Method of Using One’s Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific Truth. [8] Bacon, Francis.  Advancement of Learning.  I.vii.5. [9] St. Augustine, Confessions, bk. viii, ch. 7