SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY
A Reaffirmation of God’s Existence
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’ (The Guardian, June 26, 2007):
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth―the universe
looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature
themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been
quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and
special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to
be necessary in order for life, and hence
conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of
them and the consequences would be lethal.”
The fundamental
challenge to account
for the impeccable
order in the universe
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.
He illustrates his point by citing the building
blocks of the universe. 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. Enquiry 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, 60th President of The
Royal Society (2005-2010), 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 mega-cosmic scale. He calls this the ‘multiverse’
system. According to these researches, our universe is a universe
which possesses biofriendly 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?
The fundamental challenge to account for the
impeccable order in the universe 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. Still, modern thinkers maintain that
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? Paul Davies concludes:
“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.”
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 created the universe, who
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. If the universe can exist without
a Creator, the existence of a Creator is also possible without Him being
created.
The Rational Stand
The question of the existence of God must be addressed in a purely
rational manner. No other stand except a rational stand can be adopted
or is practicable, as other approaches will fail to satisfy this question.
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. Paul Davies says, “the universe seems just right for life.” To support this
statement, he has given a scientific example of the atom’s structure.
Thus, order in the universe is considered as an established fact by both
the theists and the atheists.
As regards the rational stand, the concept of order or organization
cannot exist without the concept of an organizer. Wherever there is
organization, there certainly exists an organizer. Believing in order
and organization without believing in an organizer is rationally
impossible. The presence of organization leaves no room for refusing
to acknowledge the presence of an organizer. Failing to find an
explanation for the existence of an organizer is no logical pretext to
deny the existence of the organizer.
What has been stated by Mr Davies with
reference to atomic structure holds true also
for the macroworld. Each part of this world,
big or small, is so balanced, ordered and
proportionate that even the minutest change
in its structure could disturb the entire system
of nature.
Believing in
intelligent action
without believing in
an intelligent Creator
is like believing in
a complex machine
without believing in
its engineer.
For instance, the Earth’s gravity 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.
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. When the atom was split in the
age of Einstein, it was discovered that it was also a compound and not
a single unit.
Everything is scientifically studied in the modern age. 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 Prizewinning physicist, Dr Fred Hoyle, chose the title The Intelligent Universe
for a book he wrote on this subject.
This phenomenon of the universe provides
conclusive proof of God’s existence.
Intelligent design is clearly a proof of an
intelligent Creator. Logically, it is unthinkable
that intelligent action should exist without an
intelligent Creator.
If we deny the
existence of 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.
Believing in intelligent action 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. This is a baseless fear. After
the scientific acknowledgement of the intelligent Creator, history will
witness the return of the 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 entirely
on intelligent design. On the other hand, atheists claim 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 a 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.
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 the existence of 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 Choice before Us
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.
Types of Logical Argument
Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference
and demonstration. Logic is man’s greatest possession. It influences
every decision human beings make in their lives. It enables them 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. An 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.
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
would have to negate the existence of not only the universe but also
our own existence. Since we can negate the existence neither of the
universe nor our own, 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. Everyone believes in the existence of the faculty 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. The soundness of
this logic is quite apparent. 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’s 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 outdated argument in the age of modern science.
In the beginning of the 20th century, when the atom was smashed and
scientific knowledge embraced the subatomic world, it was brought to
light that, in this realm, everything was invisible.
Everything previously 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. Science and 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’.
