Category Archives: Atheism

Contemporary Physicists and God’s Existence

[By Jaafar Shaikh Idris]

The Eternalness of Matter

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  (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.),  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  sub-atomic  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  pre-existing  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” (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.)  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.)

A Series of Causes
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  non-existent.  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 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  non-scientist,  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:

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.“ (This  is  what  my  friend,  Professor  Mahjoob  Obeid,  the  famous Sudanese  physicist  wrote  to  me in  a  personal  communication).

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.

Room for God

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.  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  Rushd,  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

Advertisements

Islamic Refutation of Communism (Marxism)

Compiled By Suranimala

(Source: Dr. Abdallah Omar Naseef; Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud)

Islam does not instinctively respond to Communism (Marxism) nor accept its ideology. Communism does not have a place in the lives of Muslims. Islam is, basically, in such a headlong collision with Communism that the two ideologies never meet. The most significant reason for Muslims’ rejection of Communism is that all Muslims believe in Almighty God, the Angels, the divinely revealed Books, God’s apostles and the Day of Judgment. Such a strong belief is neither marginal nor accidental. It is true and deep-rooted, unique, genuine and distinctive, a belief which constitutes the dynamic and propelling force of a Muslim’s life and projects itself in all matters of life and living, significant and insignificant alike.

The second reason for our rejection of Communism lies in the fact that Islam is a comprehensive religion in the sense that it is not only concerned with life after death, the spiritual or the metaphysics. Islam embraces life in the Here and the Hereafter, the body and the soul, the natural and the supernatural.

The third reason why Muslims reject Communism is that Islam provides far better solutions for all problems and ambiguities of life and living, be they political, social, economic, ideological etc than all other solutions artificially worked out by Communism or any other doctrine.

Communism is in the sense a product of European intellectual reaction to the rigidly narrow interpretation of life and nature that the Christian Church in the Middle Ages had imposed on people. In the midst of acute and irreconcilable conflicts in medieval Europe, things were not harmonized and balanced, and naturally they did not lead to stable results. Europe was in a state of reaction to an existing aberration, and consequently was carried to the opposite extreme. The Church imposed so many restrictions on the mind and all intellectual freedom. The result was an insatiable desire to exercise man’s intellectual power paying no heed to the benefit of mankind. The Church waged a severe war against science with the inevitable result that there grew among the people an insatiable hunger for acquisition of knowledge and the accumulation of scientific information so much so that science far exceeded its limited scope and significance and was turned into a man-made god worshiped by many scientists and knowledge seekers. The Church condemned all worldly pleasures and instigated people to live only for the life to come. In response to the Church’s overdose of spirituality there was a great thirst for the physical pleasures of life on earth and an obvious neglect and indifference to the Hereafter. The Church belittled and denied the physical aspect of life for the sake of spiritual purification. The inevitable result was an ardent adoration of the matter and a derogatory deprecation of the spirit. Thus Europe began to take long but gradual strides towards overall materialism which was later maximized in communist dialectic materialism.

The Buddhist society is no different from the extremist experience undergone by the European. Present day Buddhism teaches that to attain eternal redemption (Nirwana) it is imperative to give up ALL desires. One may well question the logic in this as we are taught by Buddhism to give up ALL desires to fulfill the desire to attain Nibbana. As a result desire is not annihilated and the desire to attain Nibbana yet remains.

All Buddhists would agree that Buddha’s development from infancy through childhood and adolescence to adulthood to the age of 29 to be precise was abnormal. In fact, he is the only person, perhaps in the whole history of mankind, who was deliberately kept away from the fact of suffering until he was 29 years of age. He was kept away from the view of old age, sickness, death and asceticism. And, to make matters worse, this abnormality was supplemented with another abnormality. He was fed up to his throat, so to say, with joys of this world-dancing and singing girls, good food and drink, luxurious clothes, joyful sports, and as pleasant and beautiful an abode and environment as the royal purse could afford. He was, in fact, confined in a cage of happiness! According to the Anguttara Nikaya, a canonical text from the sutta pitaka, Buddha himself is reported to have said later about his upbringing.

“Bhikkus (monks), I was delicately nurtured, exceedingly delicately nurtured, delicately nurtured beyond measure. In my father’s residence lotus ponds were made; one of blue lotuses, one of red and another of white lotuses, just for my sake…. Of kasi cloth was my turban made; of Kasi my jacket, my tunic and my cloak… I had three palaces; one for winter, one for summer and one for the rainy season. Bhikkus, in the rainy season palace, during the four months of the rains, entertained only by female musicians, I did not come down from the palace”.

At the age of 29 he came in contact with the real world-with the fact of suffering which he never knew before, and, what is just as important, with the temporary nature of the joys and happiness which he, up till then, believed to be real and permanent. It was only natural that this should give rise to an abnormal impact of the reality of suffering and the unreality of happiness on the mind of the disillusioned young man. I believe this to be the fundamental psychological explanation for the over emphasis on suffering on which Buddha founded his religion! Buddhism teaches that ‘all is suffering’ and to be redeemed one has to give up all desires as enumerated above. We would like you to visualize the scenario of whole of or a major portion of mankind choosing to attain salvation (Nibbana) through this method. If the whole of mankind choose this method, the life will come to a stand still and the human race will be wiped off from the face of the earth completely within about 100 years, as no human reproduction will take place from the time of choosing this path, due to annihilation of desire. From these extremist teachings we are observing a very sensuous, atheistic society emerging, having very scant respect for moral values and rejecting all such unnatural and abnormal precepts. Concepts similar to Marxism could easily breed under these circumstances.

In theory and practice, Communism is based on a cluster of hypotheses which are not truly scientifically proven though Communism assumes that it is the first doctrine based on scientific data. The first hypothesis in the Communist theory is that matter is everlasting and imperishable. Communism assumes that matter preceded thought and that thought is but a product of matter. Matter, Communism alleges, is the maker which made everything including man, and that the laws of matter apply to human life. Secondly, there is a certain determinism which Communists believe governs human life: materialistic, economic and historical determinism which is epitomized in dialectic and materialistic interpretation of history. Thirdly, there is the Communist assumption that individual ownership is inconsistent with basic distinctive human nature and that it is, basically and solely, the cause of all conflicts in human life. In order that human life be stabilized and human conflicts be wiped out from the earth, individual ownership should be abolished. Fourthly, Communism predicts that a day will come when people will do without the state and live like angels on the earth only when they fully apply the principle of “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need”.

Let us now discuss briefly each and every hypothesis upon which Communism (Marxism) is based in order to find out how it can fit in genuine scientific thinking.

Communists assume that matter had always been in existence and that it is imperishable. Therefore, they attribute everything to matter on the assumption that the laws of matter are unalterably permanent, stable and inevitable.

From the purely scientific point of view, geologists and physicists are unanimously in agreement that the physical universe has a specific and a definite date of birth. They may disagree on the accurate and precise date on which the universe, in its physical sense, was created. But they unanimously agree that the universe did really exist at a certain time and did not exist before. Geologists and physicists, out of sheer courtesy to the data of science itself, cannot precisely predict anything about the future-and cannot say definitely the matter is imperishable. If this hypothesis disintegrates and collapses, all dependent hypotheses, theories and applications will inevitably collapse.

Dialectical materialism and materialistic interpretation of history are both based on the concept of determinism which combines materialistic, economic and historical determinism. In the light of and in consistency with this concept, human history falls into five inevitable stages: 1. Early tribal partnership, 2. Slavery, 3. Feudalism, 4. Capitalism and, 5. Communism. Each one of these five stages is inspired by specific material causes. It has its unique economic and social aspects, its own institutions which convey and reflect its basic concepts and ideologies. For Communists, no idea or convictions can be built on non-materialistic, non-economic basis. Ideas and convictions are inextricably linked to the materialistic and economic environment of which they are but faithful reflections. The prevailing ideas and beliefs are always those of the economically dominating social class. These are always sectarian in nature confined to the specific class which has inspired them. The ideas and beliefs will never change unless some material or economic changes take place. To round off these three-dimensioned concept of determinism and Communist philosophy asserts that the world will for ever live in class conflicts until Communism comes along and rids it of inter-class conflicts by the extermination of all classes with the exception of one class only, the proletariat.

We would take up much time and space if we discussed in greater detail these entire concepts one after the other. Let us deal with one case which will, I am sure, blow up at once this collective mass of Communist ideas. The emergence of Islam and its dissemination across vast territorial stretches in the course of centuries will undoubtedly refute all allegations provided by the Communist philosophy with regard to man and matter. We shall then pose the following questions and queries to be answered by the Communist ideology.

Communism asserts that historical changes are determined solely by material and economical factors. Dialectical materialism and the materialistic interpretation of history spring mainly from the materialistic concept of man. But the emergence of Islam was not conditioned by certain traceable economic or material changes in the Arabian Peninsula. Islam carried with it a group of beliefs, ideas, principles and economic, social, political and moral disciplines completely inconsistent with those prevailing in pre-Islamic Arabia and in the whole world at that time. Islam is still distinguished from most of the currently existing disciplines in the world.

What was the material or economic changes that led mankind to the belief in the existence of One God, the Maker and Sustainer of all creation? Islam emerged and flourished in Arabia which was distressingly torn between heathenism, atheism, agnosticism. Even Christianity and Judaism which are still incapable of working out a decisive, unambiguous and clearly intelligible concept of monotheism similar to what Islam presents.

What were the material and economic changes which led to the emergence of a religion that divested the rulers from their long sustained holiness and re-established them as servants of the One and Indivisible God whom people should all worship irrespective of class, colour or race? The religion of Islam ordained that the assumed holiness with which rulers had been invested should no longer exist on both the secular and religious planes. Rulers should not be authorized to fundamentally legislate for their subjects. In fact all mankind are, from the Islamic point of view, unauthorized to devise their legislations. Allah alone, the Lord of the Worlds, is the divine legislator and Law-giver for all mankind and all people are equal before His Law. Allah organizes their rights and duties and enjoins on everyone to abide by them. Islamic law does not permit social distinctions. The entire mankind is a composite body of individuals. Each individual is independent, unique and self-responsible. But all individuals combine into one self-contained, self-sustained, harmonious, loving and compassionate community.

No material or economic change could lead to the emergence of a religion which called for the freeing of slaves either by manumission or ‘Mukatabat’. Islam allows a contract to be signed by the slave and his master according to which a certain sum of money is paid by the former to the latter within a limited period of time. When such a contract is signed the slave is allowed full freedom to do business with whomsoever he likes. If at the expiration of the assigned period the slave could pay the amount of money to his master as agreed upon in the contract signed by them, he should gain his freedom. This procedure is what is called ‘Makatabat’ in Islam. Islam abolished all sources of slavery that existed on earth with its divine teachings. Slavery by birth, slavery by race, slavery by colour, slavery by poverty……etc.

No material or economic changes could ostensibly or logically lead to the emergence of a religion which called for the immediate emancipation of women in Arabia where they were looked down upon and maltreated in pre-Islam times. Islam equalized the relations between man and woman in human rights and allowed woman the right to learn, own and sell her property. Islam gave woman the right to approve or disapprove of her marriage and claim divorce if she is not justly, decently and humanely treated by her husband. Islam gave woman other rights which non-Muslim women did not possess except only during the last two centuries after a series of feminist movements and rebellions in which women as well as morals were victimized.

More than one thousand years before the emergence of capitalism, no natural or economic changes could bring fourth a religion forbidding usury and monopoly which were the instruments of enforcing social injustice, human bondage and deprivation. No material or economic change could inspire a religion which bases all human relations: social, political and economic, on moral principles to which the poor and the rich, men and women are equally committed. Muslims, in their relations with their brother Muslims, are fully committed to these moral principles. Also in their relations with non-Muslims, Muslims abide by these moral principles in war and peace. Islam was not revealed for a particular class of people. Islamic concepts, beliefs and morals were not confined to one specific people or class. Islam was revealed to all mankind.

Therefore, we defy all Communist thoughts implied in the second hypothesis to interpret the emergence of Islam in terms of dialectical materialism. Communist determinism, material, economic and historical will inevitably fail to provide a sufficiently convincing and logical interpretation for the emergence of Islam with all its beliefs, concepts, values, principles and social, economic and moral disciplines. Islam thus emerges triumphant over all the determinism of dialectical materialism because it is a God-given religion.

They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allah’s Light (with which Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has been sent-Islamic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kafirun (disbelievers) hate it.

It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammed sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Musrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). (Quran 9: 32, 33)

“Invite (all) to the Way of your Rabb (Only God, Cherisher and Sustainer) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious, for your Rabb knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance” (Qur’an 16:125)

“You are the best of people chosen for mankind because you command righteousness, forbid evil and believe in Allah” Qur’an 3: 110.

Communists (Marxists) assume that individual ownership is not a natural instinct but an accidental novelty in human life attributed solely to material and economic complexities in contemporary life. Early humanity, Communists allege, lived happily in a state of collective ownership and hence suffered no conflicts. When individual ownership appeared inter-personal and inter-class conflicts prevailed in the form of slavery, feudalism and capitalism. The Communism is only a return to the healthy and early life where collective ownership replaces individual ownership. All conflicts based on individual ownership are eliminated in an attempt to achieve the promised (or lost) paradise on earth. Neither science nor experiment can prove the validity or durability of this hypothesis.

In this context I would like to discuss four main points:

· a). There is no evidence that these primitive tribes did not suffer from any conflict, personal or tribal, and that sexual freedom was prevalent among all males and females. It has been proved that conflicts arose sometimes among the young men of the same tribe for the possession of a certain woman who was more beautiful, attractive and sexually appealing to some of them. Conflicts occasionally arose for the leadership of the tribe.

· b). These tribes were in a constant state of war amongst themselves. Tribal wars and invasions were launched for the usurpation of land, arms, women or all. If we contend that individual ownership did not exist among the members of these tribes, inter-tribal wars arose for the possession of land, property, arms, women…..etc. Instead of the individual or the class in recent history, the tribe constituted the unit which owned and fought for sovereignty.

· c). The existence of collective ownership within the tribe is not sufficient proof that the spirit of individual ownership did not exist among the members of the tribe. The apparent non-existence of individual ownership may be ascribed to the absence of anything to owned or destined to be owned by the individual. But with the emergence of something that can be owned by the individual, individual ownership arose. Communists admit that individual ownership arose with the discovery of agriculture. Individual ownership had been latent in the tribal community. It appeared when circumstances became favourable for its emergence.

· d). Practical experiment proved that collective ownership failed to replace individual ownership as incentive to work. The continuous decrease in the production of wheat in the old Soviet Union is an example in point. Russia, prior to Bolshevik revolution, which used to export wheat, began to import from USA, despite the fact that the richest wheat fields in the world are found in the Ukraine in USSR. Wheat production has always been decreasing. This has led Russia to change its agricultural policy and allow a reasonable portion of individual ownership as an incentive to encourage more production of wheat.

With the abolition of individual ownership which Communists believe is the principal and only cause of all conflicts, the Communist block is continually exposed to ideological and political conflicts. Between Trotsky and Lenin, Stalin and Beria, Khrushchev and the members of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau, there were eternal conflicts. Even after the establishment of collective leadership there arose a conflict in which one of their leaders was ousted. Afterwards, emerged a serious conflict between Russia and China for the ideological leadership of the Communist world. Communism thrives on conflicts and is a root cause of all conflicts.

After Gorbachev, emerged a new economic order in Russia and we are witnessing a rapid growth and prosperity due to the open economic policy implemented successfully. China gradually stepped in to the open economic policy of private ownership and has proved to be a tremendous success after years of setbacks. Communism is part of history and does not appear to be a valid currency in any social setup.

Marx gave a public statement about religion when he said that, “Religion is the opium of peoples”, Marx may have referred to a particular reality which Europe has witnessed when feudal lords and capitalists used to provoke in the minds and hearts of the working masses a long-desired dream for eternal bliss in the Hereafter to make up for the humiliation and repression inflicted upon them in this world.

Marx made a public statement about religion in general and in all circumstances. We need not discuss Marxian concept of religion but we only mention this fact, that Communism, which considers religion as an intoxicant and opium to all people, is now using more serious intoxicants to divert the minds of the working class into acceptance of hardship, humiliation, suppression and dehumanization.

Now Communists promise unrealizable dreams. They create a dream land to divert the masses from expressing their dissatisfaction with the bitter living conditions they face. From the very outset, Communists used to attract the masses by stimulating and provoking class conflicts among them. They hate religion because it endeavours to eliminate hatred, envy and anger among all people. Communists used to promise the downtrodden working masses that once Communism became a reality, workers will own their factories and farmers will take possession of their land and capitalism and feudalism will be completely wiped out.

Collective ownership proved to be a big fallacy. No one owns anything in fact, nor does anyone feel this ownership. All are but humiliated slaves. The state is the only master. The state authorities particularly the party leaders, political bureau, central committee, have all the power in their hands. They live in villas, palaces and own luxurious and expensive cars, whereas the proletariats, the working class, in whose name the state authorities rule, have to toil and work. The working masses are mere cogs in the huge state machinery. They live in poor houses, wear uncomfortable clothes and eat indecent food. In such worsened living conditions, Communism had to use intoxicants to extinguish the flames of rebellion among the working masses, to make the masses tolerate and put up with the social and economic afflictions imposed upon them. Communists assume that the working masses suffer hardship because national production is relatively insufficient to meet the local requirements. If production increases the law of “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” will be fully applied. Communists assume that they live under the heavy pressure of the state and in the tight grip of espionage circles because they have to confront their enemies. Once they crush their enemies, Communists will form a unified universal government which will uphold and spread justice among all peoples and put an end to all forms of humiliation and oppression. Not only that, eventually the day will come when government will not have to exercise its functions. People will live as angels with no conflicts, disputes, prisons, police force, or suppression among them. What a ridiculous dream, what a utopian expectation. With such foolish illogical assumptions and fabrications, Communism appeals to young men and women inside and outside the Communist camp to believe in Marxist philosophy. When they are caught into the net of Communism they will not be able to escape. History tells us that the Hungarians and Czechoslovakians were crushed under Communist tanks when they tried to break off the Communist orbit and regain their freedom. Communist Russia gave Hungarians and Czechoslovakians an unforgettable lesson so that they would never claim their freedom.

Communism states unequivocally that one who owns is one who rules. Hence one rules for his own interests and those of the class to which he belongs. Therefore, he devises and originates all the concepts and beliefs which are compatible with his own interests and the interests of his class. This unmistakably applies to the laws and legislations conceived and introduced throughout the ages. In the age of feudalism feudal lords owned large stretches of land and exercised their own power on the land serfs. They ruled against the interests of the “people” who were but the masses of the land serfs. Capitalists did the same thing. They possessed everything and ruled for their own interests and not for the interests of the working class. Communists raise up a big fallacy when they assume that they are an exception to the rule. They say that Communism has been introduced to fight and defeat all forms of oppression, social, economical, or ideological. The proletariat rule and own everything. Its supremacy is mainly directed to safeguard its own interests against “none” for it will have dissolved and liquidated all other social classes. The proletariats do not rule in the true sense of the word. A group of individuals rule in the name of the proletariat. They crush, oppress and subjugate the proletariat in their capacity as individuals or as the “state” which own, rule and suppress all others. As long as the rulers devise and apply their own legislations, oppression on earth will remain and humanity will remain divided into masters and slaves into the powerful and the powerless into the rich and the poor.

In one case only this rule does not apply. Injustice will be uprooted from the face of the earth if people do not devise and implement their own basic legislations. When the Divine Law of God replaces the man-made law all owners and non owners, the rulers and the ruled will be subject to the God given Law and all forms of injustice will be ruled out from the earth. This is ISLAM.

Islam is not merely a set of beliefs rooted in the hearts of Muslims though faith constitutes a basic and an indivisible part of it. Islam is a Divine comprehensive system of life in all its aspects, political, economical, social, ideological and moral. Therefore it is the only religion which actively responds to the requirements of the human body and soul and of life at large. Faith in God is indispensable for man. Man is naturally and instinctively a worshipper. The difference between one man and another does not lie in that this man is a worshipper and that one is not. The difference lies in that one man worships God Almighty and the other worships something else, an idol, a star, a human being, or even nature. Man may worship his own self, the state, the leader, the political party, an ideology, materials of production, the dollar, or even science, or intellect or the base human instincts. All these are stray forms of worship which will lead man into all indecencies and divert him from his honourable decent human nature. The real worth of man is inspired by the god he worships. If he worships the true God, man will be duly honoured and respected. Allah says in the Holy Quran: “We have honoured the sons of Adam, provided them with transport on land and sea, given them for sustenance things good and pure and conferred on them special favours above a great part of Our Creation” )Chapter 17:Verse 70). If man worships another god, he will degenerate himself with his own man-made god and sink into the lowest of the low.

There can be no doubt that Marx founded his theory on the backward industrial situation of the nineteenth century. Workers were in the main manual; they toiled for bread, were greatly exploited and suffered endlessly. Marx could never have anticipated the changes brought about by the scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century. Workers today enjoy the luxury of sitting at panels with push-button switches, factories are run by computers, and instead of an army of tired workmen, we see comfortable employees protected by many trade unions and social insurance laws (against disability, old age and illness) and having every chance of education and medical treatment. Marx could never have foreseen the flexibility of capitalism and its capacity for developing a new industrial situation in which workers have stakes in the capital, as has happened in many Japanese, Italian, French and British firms. Hence the dissociation of Marxist thought from the reality of our century. Indeed, in the prevailing conditions of today, Marxism may be regarded as reactionary.

All Marx’s predictions, based on his dialectical method have proved to be wrong.

Marx has predicted that the Communist Revolution would break out not in a backward society but in an advanced, capitalist, industrial one, such as the British or the German. He was wrong: Communism struck root in a backward, agricultural society, as happened in Russia and China.

He had predicted that the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in capitalist states would consistently grow and that the situation would deteriorate so much that a revolution would break out to destroy the entire capitalist system. In fact the reverse of this actually occurred in capitalist countries: thanks to a series of reforms and trade unionist activity the gap has narrowed and class differences have diminished, while it is in Communist states that a conflict has broken out and intensified.

Marx had predicted that capitalism would lead to more concentration of money in colossal monopolies, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. What actually happened was that capital has tended to split up through the establishment of joint stock companies and that through inheritance, land ownership also tended to split up naturally.

Marx has predicted that a devastating economic crisis would practically crush the capitalist system following an imbalance between supply and demand, (namely that as a result of extreme poverty the rate of demand and purchasing power of workers would be too low for ever-rising levels of production). However all economic crises in capitalist countries have so far been temporary. Furthermore, according to Marx’s theory of ‘surplus value’ workers’ wages in capitalist countries should merely fulfill their minimum living requirements, but, thanks to new legislation, trade unionist activity and capitalist self-modification, workers’ wages in many European countries rose to remarkable levels of affluence, thus entirely refuting Marx’s theory.

The most serious flaw in Marxism is, perhaps, that it insists on being a comprehensive system of thought which has an answer to every question and a solution to every problem. He who does not accept this comprehensiveness has no claim to Marxism. Indeed, Marxists believe their worst enemies to be the eclectic-those who accept (or reject it) partially. This rigidity is the weakest aspect of Marxism. In contrast, there is an obvious intellectual flexibility in capitalist states, as well as an ability to absorb the ideas of their opponents and benefit by them regardless of ideology. Many capitalist states have adopted nationalization in an attempt to defeat the evils of exploitation and monopoly.

For all its ideological fanaticism, Marxism has not been comprehensively applied anywhere. Whenever it came to actual application, ‘comprehensive’ Marxism has always been rejected, the reason being a basic weakness in Marxism which we may term ‘methodological arbitration’.

Such arbitrariness of method as is found in historical materialism, may be illustrated by its very dialectic, based as it is on the idea of a single factor in operation down human history, namely the economic factor, which Marx regards as the root cause of all historical phenomena. This mode of thought has come to be rejected as unscientific. The accepted view today is that we cannot interpret social phenomena in terms of a sole, independent and externally isolable factor; we cannot even regard one factor as principal and another as secondary or subordinate in as much as the relation between ’cause’ and ‘effect’ is complex and changing. Instead, we may mark out numerous factors which affect one another and observe the changes in this dynamic process, for what may seem principal today may prove to be secondary tomorrow and so on.

The economic factor cannot be regarded as primum mobile, there are national, psychological, racial and ideological factors which may play an even greater part in shaping history than the economic.

Because Marx did not found his theory on the evidence of the entire history of man but on that of a few, carefully selected historical stages, the laws which he deduced cannot be valid for a reading of all history; indeed, they cannot be regarded strictly as laws. His materialistic interpretation of history, namely that it had always been production methods and employer-worker relationships that built up the social superstructure (including art and thought and religion), constituted a naïve simplification of many interconnected and highly complex processes. Any modern theory is ineluctably based on multiple factors and the principle of reciprocal causality, so that a given factor may be seen as both cause and effect at once. Thought and invention are likely to introduce changes in methods of production and worker-employer relations but the latter two can hardly produce any system of thought; religion can change social relations while social relations cannot create a religion, as amply evidenced by the birth of ISLAM itself.

Islam was not the creation of a class-based community. It was neither a reactionary religion designed to protect the property of tyrants and oppressors nor a drug to induce the poor to accept their poverty. It called on people to enjoy life in moderation and to fight all forms of oppression and exploitation. Nor was it the result of a revolution in the methods of production and worker-employer relations in Quraish. It was a super structural phenomenon independent of environmental factors. From the start Islam established the principles of equal opportunities for all, a guaranteed and adequate level of income for each citizen and an economic balance between the individual and society. It also introduced a system of private ownership, public ownership, and a guided but free economy. All this was introduced in the Arabian Peninsula at a time when neither production conditions nor employer-worker relations called for any change. Consequently, Islam cannot be seen to have sprung out of a particular economic situation. Thus the historical logic of Marxism is defeated and the materialistic theory that a revolution in the production system and worker-employer relations is followed by a political revolution is utterly defeated.

One of the worst excesses of Marxism is its bestowal of a mythical aura of purity and virtue on the proletariat (the working class), as though they were the ‘chosen people’ or an alien race of Martians. Today, as a result of a discrepancy in income between skilled and unskilled labour, this class has itself split into two opposed ones. It is not surprising, therefore, that in view of such obvious gaps in the theory and practice of Marxism many writers and politicians who had once adopted it have now turned away from it. Disenchanted with it, many old socialists today criticize and even oppose it. To state in this context that we belong neither to capitalist ‘right’ nor to Marxist ‘left’ is not to imply that ours is an ideological mean between the two extremes. Ours is an independent contribution to political thought – all our own. We have rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat and substituted a method based on the alliance of the working forces of the population, covering all sectors and classes. We do not regard religion as a reactionary force but as a moving force, as a constructive energy and as a progressive thought – more progressive than all available theories.

Science Can Not Disprove GOD’s existence.

There is actually no scientific basis that can tell you that God does not exist. It is not science’s domain to test whether there is God or not. Science is simply a tool to test what is empirically true. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observations. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can’t find. So how can Science disprove something which they can’t see and will never be able to. As GOD cannot be seen for sure. Because from Qur’an we know that GOD is unlike His creation [See Qur’an 42:11]. And, No vision can grasp Him  [see Qur’an 6:103]. Moreover, How can a Creator be a part of His Creation?

It is totally unreasonable for one to think in a scientific framework to put God as an extra element. Within scientific framework, it is true that an extra element is not needed, since we already made the assumption that everything is contained and confined within the universe and nothing can be lost. But this does not mean that science denies the existence of God. There is no reason to think that way. People has a distorted view of Science. Because some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. As Freeman Dyson says and I quote, “The public has a distorted view of Science because Children are taught in schools that science is a collection of firmly established  truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is continuing exploration of mysteries.”

There is no reason to consider God’s actions in a scientific framework and in the same time, there is no reason to consider that God does not exist based on scientific deduction. Scientific theories only propose that which is falsifiable. That means the scientific method can’t answer any questions but only shows what is a false answer out of innumerable possibilities. We should not try to apply science outside of the fields for which it is meant. Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption scientism. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. In this case, ”GOD’s existence”. There are many more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!  Science is not deficient in any way; but it’s just not the right way to find few particular kinds of truths. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

I really do not understand why a scientist and let alone a non-scientist would have to throw away their religious identity over a scientific theory, which cannot be proven in a universal way. Of course if someone wants to become atheist it is their choice, but don’t ever think religious people are inferior. Religious people could be smarter than an atheist person, and religious people could cleverly manage their life so they can achieve many things without losing their religious identity.

And one more thing I wanna say that if any non-scientist reading this article of mine I would like to advice them that, before you ever accept or even think about a scientific result, try to think like a scientist for a while, in the correct way, not in the way that the atheistic propaganda wants you to think. Then make your decision based on your own thought, not theirs. They are also human, so they can be wrong and so can I.

The Quranic Argument for God’s Existence

[By Brother Hamza Tzortzis]

“No question is more sublime  than why there is a universe: why  there is anything rather than  nothing.” [1]

When we reflect upon our own  existence we will come to the  realisation, that at some point in  time, we began to exist. Since we  were once non-existent and are  now in existence, it follows that  we must have had a beginning. In  light of this, the Qur’an raises  some profound questions: were  we created by nothing? Did we  create ourselves? Or did we  create the universe?

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of  themselves)? Or did they create  heavens and earth? Rather, they  are not certain.” [Quran 52:35-36]
These questions can be  addressed to the existence of  everything temporal, in other words the entire universe. Therefore, the exegetical  implications of these verses can be logically formulated in the  following way: Things that began  to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being  from nothing

2. Self caused or self created

3. Created or brought into being  by something else that began to exist

4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Before we proceed, the first pre-supposition has to be  subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur’an’s argument  for the existence of God. This first  assumption is that the universe  began to exist.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the  universe began to exist we can  bring into our discussion a  plethora of philosophical and  inductive arguments:

1. The  second  law  of  thermodynamics

2. The  absurdity  of  an  infinite  history of  past  events

3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was  introduced to explain the  direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how  evenly energy is distributed in a  system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). 

Take the following illustration of  a container with gas, when the  partition is removed, the gas in  one end of the container will spread to the whole of the  container, going from a state of  low entropy (higher temperature  or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second  law of thermodynamics,  processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of  thermodynamics to the universe  we will conclude that it must  have began to exist. Since the  universe is a closed system, with  enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or  thermodynamic equilibrium. 

When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they  cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only  increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand  it will eventually become cold and  dead. 

However this raises a question, if  the universe never began to exist  it would imply that the universe  has existed for an infinite amount  of time. If this is true then why  isn’t the universe already in a  state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must  have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.

2.  The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the  universe is eternal, meaning it  has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about  this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the  universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite  history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real  world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite  cannot be exported into the real  world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make  sense. Let’s take the following  examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite  number of balls, if I take 2 balls  away, how many do you have  left? Infinity. Does that make  sense? Well, there should be two  less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count  how many balls you have. But  this is impossible, because the  infinite is just an idea and  doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David  Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be  found in reality. It neither exists  in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational  thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely  that of an idea.” [2]

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready  to fire a gun, but before you  shoot you have to ask permission  for the soldier behind you, but he  has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever  shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events too. Therefore, there  cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two  points, one may argue that you  can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in  reality the infinit is potential and  can never be actualised. Similarly  the ancient Greek Philosopher  Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that  can be taken always surpasses  any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite  history of past events we can  conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the  number of past events cannot be  infinite. Therefore the universe  must be finite, in other words the  cosmos had a beginning.

3.  Astrophysical  evidence 

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing  theory in cosmology. It was first  formulated by the aid of some  observations made by an  American Astronomer called  Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was  trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed  immensely luminous stars called  Cepheid Variables and noticed  something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were  further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour  was slightly changed, shifting  towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were  able conclude that everything  seems to be moving away from  each other, in other words the  universe is effectively expanding.  As time moves on the universe  continues to expand, but if time  is reversed, the theory is that  everything starts to coalesce and  come together. Coupled with the  discovery of cosmic  microwave  background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of  the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other  words the universe began at a  cataclysmic event which created  space-time and all matter in the  universe. The physicist P. C. W.  Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction  to its extreme, we reach a point  when all distances in the universe  have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore  forms a past temporal extremity  to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime,  through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On  this view the big bang represents  the creation event; the creation  not only of all the matter and  energy in the universe, but also  of space-time itself.” [4]

Although our understanding of  what happened 10-43 seconds  after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly  speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the  aftermath of the emergence and  expansion of space-time, which occurred  approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an  astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

“…the discovery of the century, in  cosmology at least, was without  doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the  Universe is not eternal, static,  and unchanging.” [5]

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model  describes our universe as having  a beginning a finite time ago. As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists,  writes,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men  and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable  man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide  behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the  problem of a cosmic beginning.” [6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite  universe, for instance P.C.W.  Davies questions,

“What caused the big bang? . . .  One might consider some  supernatural force, some agency  beyond space and time as being  responsible for the big bang, or  one might prefer to regard the  big bang as an event without a  cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the  physical world…or…an event  without a cause.” [7]

These models include the  oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models. These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the  universe, in other words they are  non-infinitely extendable into the  past. Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational  pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of  its expansion, then the expansion  could be changed into a cosmic  contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and  then into a new expansion, with  the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

1. Firstly, there is nothing  available in modern physics that  would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a  new expanding universe.

2. Secondly, the mean mass density of the universe, derived  from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required  gravitational force to stop and  reverse the expansion of the universe.

3. Thirdly, the second law of  thermodynamics (as discussed  above) implies the finitude of the  universe. According to the  oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of  the various oscillations of  expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

Since we have presented good  evidence that the universe began  to exist. We can now address the  logically possible explanations  the Qur’an presents as rationalisations of the origins of  the universe.

Created or brought into being  from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t  have come out of nothing,  because out of nothing, nothing  comes! This is an undeniable  philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About  Time explains,

“If there is anything we find  inconceivable it is that  something could arise from nothing.” [8]

A significant point to raise here  is that nothingness should not  be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the  absence of anything physical, in  other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there  was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which  lis why  physicists have explained the  universe as having a space-time  boundary.

However, nothingness as defined  by some physicists relates to the  quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum  is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy  pervading the whole of the  universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of  science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a  structured and highly active entity.” [9]

So, in context of some of the  physicists’ definition, the universe  could not have come from  absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It  is a sea of fluctuating energy,  which is still part of the cosmos  and it did not pre-exist the  universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible  explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe  couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that  something can exist and not  exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!
Recently, the world renowned  physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self  create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…” [10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled  with the quantum vacuum, which  is part of the universe. In essence  Hawking is telling us that the  universe can create itself, but it  has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical  equation that describes nature.  This law is part of the universe,  which can also be described as a  force of attraction between  material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe? To  assert that the universe created  itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for  something to create itself it would need to exist before it  existed!

Created or brought into being by  something else that began to  exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the  universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal  physical existence. To maintain  such an explanation would be  equivalent of expanding the  boundaries of the universe, as all  things which have a temporal beginning exist within the  universe. Also, if temporal  physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical  existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t  explain anything. Rather it  highlights the absurdity of an  infinite regress, and that there  has to be a beginning to the  temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical  state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1,  followed another temporal cause  U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went  on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have  the universe U1 in the first place.  Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only  after U2 has come into being.  When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming  into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher  and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,
“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of  non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah  explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around  us; therefore, their ultimate cause  must be something other than  temporal causes.” [11]

Created or brought into being by  a non-created or un-caused entity
Since something cannot come  from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the  aforementioned explanation,  then the universe being created or brought into existence by an  uncaused entity is the best  explanation. This concept is intuitive but also agrees with  reality: whatever begins to exist  has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of  an infinite regress, in other words  an indefinite chain of causes. To  illustrate this better, if the cause  of the universe had a cause and  that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be  a universe to talk about in the  first place (something we have  already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock  Exchange was not able to buy or  sell his stocks or bonds before  asking permission from the  investor, and then this investor  had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In  similar light if we apply this to  the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The  Qur’an confirms the  uncreatedness of the creator,  God,

“He neither begets nor is born.”   [Qur’an 112:3]

The cause or creator for the  universe must be a single cause  for several reasons. An attractive  argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the  rational principle called Occam’s  razor. In philosophical terms the  principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically  means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create  more questions than it answers.  In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence  to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the  creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.”   [Qur’an 112:1]

However some philosophers and  scientists claim: why doesn’t the  cause be the universe itself? Why  can’t the cause stop at the  universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would  imply that the universe created  itself, which we have already  discussed, is absurd. Additionally,  we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe  because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or  creator must be non contingent  meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself.  If it were contingent it would be  one more effect in the chain of  causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all)  creatures.” [Qur’an 3:97]

The cause or creator must also be  transcendent, this means that the  cause of the universe must exist  outside of and apart from the  universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be  non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him,  and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” [Qur’an 42:11]

This cause must have the power  to create the universe, without  this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to  God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” [Qur’an 2:20]

This cause must have a will,  because it wouldn’t be able to  create the universe without one. What this means is that it must  have a will so the power to create  could be acted on. The Qur’an  refers to God as having a will in  many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills  to a straight path.” [Qur’an  2:213]

In summary, we have concluded  what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one,  has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption –  whatever begins to exist has a  cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the  quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some  events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at  all is impossible to prove  conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous  sub-atomic events. For instance  in the 1950s David Bohm showed  there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting  on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are  particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as  Sir Isaac Newton himself might  have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the  whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it  influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of  the particles in just such a way as  to induce the experimentally  observed probabilistic effects.” [13]

What this means is that the  apparent indeterminism present  at the quantum level can be  explained deterministically by  this hidden wave that produces  observed indeterministic or  probabilistic effects.

However, since these two  interpretations of quantum  theory are empirically equivalent  the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision  but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical  objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical  perspective it is extremely  difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of  causality we will not have the mental framework to understand  our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out  there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the  pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn.  Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the  boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you  would not have been able to  make the distinction that some  experiences are ordered by  yourself and others are ordered  independently, unless we had the  concept of causality. In absence  of causality our experience would be very different from the way it  is. It would be a single sequence  of experiences only: one thing  after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would  be tantamount of denying our own experience!

References

[1]  Derek Parfit, “Why Anything?  Why This?” London Review of  Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998),  page 24.

[2]  David Hilbert. On the Infinite,  in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed.  with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, page151.

[3]  Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html)

[4]  P.C.W. Davies, “Space-time  Singularities in Cosmology,” in  The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag,  1978), pages 78–79.

[5]  John Gribbin, In the  Beginning: The Birth of the  Living Universe (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1993),  page  19.

[6]  Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in  One: The Search for Other  Universe. Hill and Wang. 2006,  page 176.

[7]  Paul Davies, “The Birth of the  Cosmos,” in God, Cosmos, Nature  and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready  (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic  Press, 1995), pages. 8-9.

[8]  P. J. Zwart, About Time  (Amsterdam and Oxford: North  Holland Publishing Co.,1976), pages 117-19

[9]  John Polkinghorne and  Nicholas Beale. Questions of  Truth. 2009, page 41

[10]  Stephen Hawking and  Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand  Design. 2011, page 180.

[11]  http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Books/physicists.htm  accessed 1 October 2011,  10:32AM.

[12]  See D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe. Routledge, 1993.

[13] John Polkinghorne. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. SPCK. 2011, page 39