SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY
PROFESSOR Paul Davies, a well-known English physicist and author, is the Director of BEYOND, a research centre of the Arizona State University. He has several books to his credit, notably ‘The Goldilocks Enigma’. He states in one of his articles, ‘Flaw in Creationists’ Arguments’ (Guardian Newspapers, 2007):
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth— that the universe is based on very firm laws. Scientists have been investigating physical laws for 40 years. This research is pointing towards a conscious being behind the universe. If even one of these underlying laws were changed, the result would be lethal. The universe is so organized that even a minor change in its present structure would be sufficient to completely disturb the whole universe.”
The concept of the universe presented by religion and modern science appeals to an agency outside the universe to explain its law-like order.
For example, the entire universe is made up of atoms, atoms which are a combination of neutrons, protons and electrons. A neutron is a little heavier than a proton. This proportion is extremely important. If it were the other way round, that protons were heavier than neutrons, then according to known laws, the atom could not exist. And when there are no protons, there can be no atomic nuclei and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.
This example shows that science today is facing unanswerable questions. For instance, what is the origin of the present laws of physics? Why do they take their present form? How is it that they are so well-established, etc.? Traditionally, scientists supposed that these laws were an integral part of the universe, that they were imprinted on the universe at its birth and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin of nature and of its laws was not regarded as a proper part of science. But now these questions are vexing the scientists.
The Cambridge cosmologist, Martin Rees, President of The Royal Society, suggests that the laws of physics are not absolute and universal, but are more akin to local by-laws varying from place to place on a megacosmic scale. He calls this the ‘multiverse’ system. According to these researches, our universe is a universe which possesses bio-friendly laws. That is why we find ourselves in a universe, which, in meeting all of our exact requirements, is apparently customized for habitation. Had this not been so, our existence would have been impossible. What is the origin of these absolute and universal laws, which are controlling the universe in a highly organized manner?
If a universe can exist without a Creator, the existence of a Creator is also possible without a Creator.
The root cause of all the difficulty, according to modern thinkers, is that the concept of the universe presented by religion and modern science appeals to an agency outside the universe to explain its law-like order. However, accepting a designer who exists before the existence of the Universe is not an explanation of this problem. For this explanation of the Universe immediately begs the question: if the designer designed the universe, who designed the designer?
“If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, and not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.” (Paul Davies)
The Explanation
In the matter of theology the modern mind is in grave confusion. As we find from this article written by Paul Davies, the atheist philosophers and physicists have frequently asked, “If God has created the Universe according to religious belief, who has created God?” But this question is totally illogical. It is sheer negation of logic. Furthermore, this objection is based on a clear contradiction. Those who believe in a universe without a Creator are not ready to believe in a Creator without a Creator. Therefore, if a universe can exist without a Creator, the existence of a Creator is also possible without a Creator.
The Rational Stand
The issue of the existence of God must only be dealt with in a purely rational manner. No other stand except a rational stand can be adopted or is practicable.
It is an established fact that there is order in the Universe in an absolutely perfect sense. This order is apparent to everyone’s observation. To support this, the writer has given a scientific example of the atom’s structure; so far, order in the universe is considered as an established fact by both the theists and the atheists.
As regards the rational stand, the other important point is that the concept of order or organization cannot exist without the concept of an organiser. Wherever there is organisation, there certainly exists an organiser. The conception of organisation without an organiser is rationally impossible. The presence of organisation creates a compulsive logic, that is to say, that they are no longer left with any excuse for refusing to acknowledge the presence of an organiser. If someone fails to find an explanation for the existence of an organiser, it does not provide any logical pretext to deny the existence of the organiser.
The concept of order or organization cannot exist without the concept of an organiser.
What has been said by the writer with reference to atomic structure holds true also for this world. Each part of this world, whether big or small, is so immutable and proportionate that even the minutest change in its structure could disturb the entire system of nature.
For instance, the gravity in the earth is exactly in accordance with our needs. If the force of gravity were to be doubled, or halved, either way the survival of human civilization on the planet earth would become impossible. As we know, we have two immediate neighbours in space — the sun and the moon. If the sun were replaced by the moon and the moon by the sun, let alone human life on earth, the entire earth would burn to ashes.
On our earth everything travels downwards, but the tree is an exception to this rule. Its roots go downwards into the earth and its trunks go upwards. If the tree did not have this two-sided feature, our earth would become bereft of lush green trees. There would be little chance of human survival on Planet earth without them producing copious quantities of oxygen.
Intelligent Universe
There are innumerable things in the universe and everything is in the form of a compound. Formerly, the atom was regarded as an indivisible unit and not a compound. But when the atom was split in the age of Einstein, it was discovered that it was also a compound and not a single unit.
If someone fails to find an explanation for the existence of an organiser, it does not provide any logical pretext to deny the existence of the organiser.
Everything has been scientifically studied in the modern age. This study shows that all the things consisting of certain compounds have many options about the form they take. But science tells us that nature inevitably opts for the one form—out of the many possible forms that they could take—which is exactly in accordance with the overall scheme of the universe. This is why, in this world, everything is in its perfect and ultimate form.
This principle prevailing in the universe may be termed an intelligent selection. There are billions and trillions of things in the Universe. But everything, without exception, is an example of this intelligent selection. This principle is so common that a British Nobel prize–winning physicist, Dr. Fred Hoyle, chose the title 'The Intelligent Universe' for the 250-page book he wrote on this subject (London, 1983).
This phenomenon of the universe provides conclusive proof of God’s existence. Intelligent creation is clearly a proof of an Intelligent Creator. Logically, it is unthinkable that, here, intelligent action should exist without an intelligent Creator. Both are interdependent.
Believing in intelligent creation without believing in an intelligent Creator is like believing in a complex machine without believing in its engineer.
Dr. Fred Hoyle explains in his book, that in the initial stages of scientific discovery, the violent reaction of the Christian church against the scientists still lingers in human memory. People fear that if proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator behind the universe is declared, there will be a resurgence of the religious extremism of former times.
But this is a baseless fear. After the scientific acknowledgement of the Intelligent Creator, history will witness the return of a true divine religion.
Two Options
We have two explanations for the extraordinary order and proportion existing in the universe. One is that the universe is its own designer. Yet all the research conducted on the universe refutes this, because the order discovered by science in the universe is clearly based on an entirely intelligent design; on the other hand, science also tells us that there is everything in the universe except what is called ‘intelligence’. We are then asked to believe that the universe discovered by science is totally designed, but that at the same time, it is totally non-intelligent. In such a state of affairs if we believe that the universe is the designer of its own design, it is like believing that a stone statue is a self-created being and has moulded itself into a meaningful design. Given this situation we are left with only one option to explain the universe. And that is to accept some agency outside the universe as being responsible for its underlying design. We have no other choice besides this one.
Denying God’s existence because of His being invisible is an anachronistic argument in the age of modern science.
In reality, the choice does not lie between the universe without God and the universe with God; but rather between the universe with God and no universe at all. That is to say, if we deny God, we shall have to deny the existence of the universe as well. Since we cannot refute the existence of the universe, we are compelled to accept the existence of God.
The Only Option
One of the principles of rationality is that in such circumstances as leave us practically a solitary option; we are faced with a compulsive situation. That is, we are compelled to accept that option. Going against that is possible only when there is more than one choice. But when there is no other choice available, it becomes incumbent upon us to accept that single course of action. In this context, this single option means to accept the existence of God as a fact, for no other choice is available except for the acceptance of the existence of God.
Logical Argument
Logic is the greatest system of thought man possesses: it enables him to understand concepts at the rational level. Through logic, ideas are made rationally understandable. There are two major kinds of logic — optional logic and compulsive logic. Both of these methods of logic are equally dependable methods. When either of these logical methods is applied to prove any point, the result will be accepted as established.
Optional Logic
Optional logic is that which allows the possibility of accepting either of two propositions. By applying certain methods, we can make a reasoned choice. For instance, take sunlight. When we look at sunlight with the naked eye, it appears to be of a single colour. But on seeing sunlight through a prism, this same light is divided into seven colours. This leaves us with two options regarding the colour of sunlight. Now, thanks to advances in science, it becomes possible for us to see which option carries more logical weight. That is why the seven-colour option has come to be accepted as a reality. It has been upheld by a superior logic.
Compulsive logic
The case of compulsive logic differs in that only one option presents itself. One is compelled to accept that option and no other, for no other option is available. As regards compulsive logic, man has to accept it, there being no other alternative.
One obvious example of compulsive logic is that of acknowledging the identity of one’s mother. Everyone believes one particular woman to be his mother. Despite not having seen himself being born, he is compelled to accept this as a fact, and clings to it as a matter of conviction. His belief results from compulsive logic. He maintains this belief because, in this matter, his position is that he has no other option but to accept one particular woman as his mother.
Intelligent creation is clearly proof of an Intelligent Creator.
Belief in the existence of God pertains to this same kind of compulsive logic. On the question of God’s existence, the actual point is that we have no option in this matter. We are compelled to believe in the existence of God. For if we did not believe in the existence of God, we should have to negate the existence of the universe as well as our own existence. Since we can negate neither the existence of the universe nor our own existence, we cannot logically deny the existence of God.
Man’s existence is the proof of God’s existence
In the vastness of the universe, it is man alone who denies the existence of God, in spite of the fact that man’s own existence is the greatest proof of God’s existence. If a being like man exists, then a being like God, too, certainly exists. All the qualities which we envisage existing in God in a perfect form, exist in man in an imperfect form. If an imperfect being exists, a perfect being can certainly exist. Believing in one and denying the other is such a contradiction in logic that no one endowed with any reason can afford it.
Rene Descartes, the famous French philosopher (1596–1650), was also faced with the question: ‘If man exists, what is the rational proof of his existence? ‘After long reflection, he gave this answer:
‘I think, therefore I exist.’
The answer he gave is entirely sound in terms of logic. But this logic, which proves the existence of man, proves something far greater, and that is, rational proof of the existence of God. In the light of this logical principle, we would be right in saying:
‘Thinking exists, therefore God exists.’
Those who deny God, deny Him because He appears to them as abstract and therefore incomprehensible. They find it difficult to believe in something which has no material existence. But human beings are thinking creatures. And everyone believes in the existence of thinking on the basis of his own experience, even though thinking is totally an abstract activity, with no material existence.
Now, if man believes in the existence of one kind of abstract concept, then there is no reason why he should not accept the existence of another kind of abstract concept — that of God’s existence. Everyone will agree with the soundness of this logic. If the existence of thinking — which is an integral part of everyone’s experience — is denied, then, certainly, man shall have to deny his own existence. And no one can deny his own existence. That is why it is not logically possible for anyone to deny the existence of God.
God being invisible is not a sufficient reason for denying His existence.
The truth is that denying God’s existence because of His being invisible is an anachronistic argument in the age of modern science. In the age of Einstein (d. 1955), when the atom was smashed and scientific knowledge embraced the sub-atomic world, it was brought to light, that in this realm, everything was invisible.
Everything which had previously been perceived to be palpably solid was shown to be made up of components which were invisible. This being so, taking the stand that God’s existence may be denied on the grounds of invisibility has come to be regarded as unscientific.
The following two books provide details on this subject:
1. The Unseen World by Sir Arthur Eddington.
2. Human Knowledge by Bertrand Russell
Therefore, we can say that:
The option that we have is not between a ‘universe with God’ or a ‘universe without God’. The only option we have is between a ‘universe with God’ or ‘no universe at all’.
...To be continued
No short-cuts
There is no doubting the fact that failure in life usually results from the quest for immediate success.
The word 'short-cut' may be applicable to the world of roads and footpaths, but there are no short-cuts in the struggles of life.
This fact frequently evinces itself in untoward ways.
