Since October 7 Hamas’s reaction to 75 years of Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine there have been numerous student protests at Canadian and American university campuses to end the savage bombing of Gaza. The students are not alone, their protest is also supported by a handful of academics, particularly by those who teach the history of the conflict. In response to these protests, the university administration has expelled a number of students and professors for their pro-Palestinian stands. The students and faculty members are being silenced by the university, accused of promoting violence against Jewish students, supporting terrorism, and above all are labelled as antisemitic. These ridiculous allegations are frequently attached to the critics of Israel when so many of them are of Jewish background, some are even children of Holocaust survivors. A case in point is Professor Norman Finkelstein, an American academic and fierce critic of Israel who was unceremoniously kicked out of Hunter College and later denied tenure at DePaul University in Chicago over a decade ago for his unsparing criticism of Israel, exposing the West’s double standards and sheer hypocrisy of the Israeli narrative.
More Canadian and American professors and graduate students are now experiencing what Norman Finkelstein has been experiencing. They are labelled anti-Semites, and painted as pro-Islamist extremists. Their academic freedom is ignored, precisely because their research, teachings, and publications are incompatible with the Israeli account of the 75-year-old conflict between Palestine and Israel.
Prof. Jasmin Zine, a distinguished sociologist at the University of Wilfrid Laurier, argues that Islamophobia has turned into an effective industry with countless online influencers promoting anti-Islamic sentiment around the world. Her research indicates that the current anti-Islamic sentiments are far worse than post-September 11, 2001. Adding that the post-9/11 propaganda of the War on Terror has laid the groundwork that has made it so easy to collectively label all Muslims around the world as a bunch of violent religious fanatical terrorists who are threatening democracy and the stability of the civilized world. The pushed one-sided narrative collectively toasts all Middle Easterners, particularly Palestinians and Iranians. Moreover, she adds that this racist narrative paved the way for the Palestinian genocide. If and when the narrative is challenged by some well-informed academics and scholars who oppose the Israeli and American accounts, then they too are immediately accused of being anti-Semitic, glorifying violence and promoting terrorism. In addition to the importance of academic freedom for professors to teach, she also emphasizes on the importance of academic freedom for students to learn. Critical thinking ought to be encouraged and kept apart from indoctrination.
Prof. M. Muhammad Ayyash of Mount Royal University in Calgary exposes the underlying Zionist strategy of silencing opposing voices and suppressing academic speech which is detrimental to the fabricated Zionist narrative of the settler-colonial agenda. The agenda which its purpose is the Palestinian genocide. He stresses for anyone, academic or non-academic who disagrees with the pro-Israeli narrative, there should be no fear of reprisal and getting fired for criticizing blatant Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. The crucial point is, that these academics are not hired to teach maths or science. They are hired to teach what has been happening in Palestine and are doing their job impartially with a clear conscience. Unlike Salman Rushdie, what they write is not novel or fiction, it is based on empirical research findings. Yet, the former is praised as the freedom of expression, the latter is not even allowed. Weaponizing antisemitism would lead to taking sides, censorship and a significant drop in the quality of higher education.
One cannot disagree with these professors and blindly accept the imposed bogus definition of antisemitism, equated with the condemnation of murdering children, and defending the BDS with criticism of Judaism. Ironically enough, this ridiculous and hypocritical discourse is taking place in Western countries where the freedom of speech is a matter of national pride, and supposedly a constitutional right often used to criticize adversarial countries like Russia and China. There is nothing controversial said or done on the university campuses based on cherished Western democratic values. Israel has no impunity from being criticized. How can a genuine advocate of justice be selective, and vocal about what is happening in Ukraine, but be silent when it comes to the annihilation of the Palestinian population? Justice is indivisible with no geographical boundaries. Indeed, in the case of Palestine, framing advocacy for justice as defending terrorism is a slippery slope, using mendacious standards not applied fairly and wholistically. The tide is turning, Israel is losing its grip on public opinion. Truth is exposed, people can no longer be easily fooled or bullied.
However, having said that one always has to be mindful of hidden agendas. The Zionist regime is a master of deception. They have always managed to divert the public attention from the core issues at hand to trivialities and distractions, and possess the required apparatus to do so. The root of the Israel-Palestine conflict is occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The progressive activists ought to be mindful, as I am sure they are, not to fall into the Zionist trap. While their outcry is indeed very legitimate and worthy, they must be of utmost careful not to allow the real debate to drift from genocide to academic freedom on university campuses. The main issue and discourse is what Israel is doing in an illegally confiscated land, not the politics on Canadian and American university campuses. Israeli’s smoke screen is designed and used very cleverly to shift attention from occupation, de-Arabization of the Palestinian territories and murdering the Palestinian children to academic freedom. In the past, they always sidetracked the main discourse to, for instance, a fictional threat of Iran’s nuclear program with the sole intention of wiping Israel off the map. Likewise, once again they would happily rather that the public attention and activism be focused on academic freedom than halting genocide and the carpet bombing of Gaza.
Inevitably, those who value freedom most, must sometimes choose to lose it for taking the just course of action. Resisting occupation is not terrorism, and supporting the freedom fighters is not antisemitism.
Falsely accusing the critics of Israel as ‘antisemite’, will change the disgusting concept that is depicted by this word. It will turn ‘antisemitism’ into a very respectful term which ultimately makes one to declare, that if condemnation of settler colonialism, genocidal expansion and killing children makes me an ‘antisemite’, then I am very proud to be one.
Installed and nurtured by the U.S. and U.K., the two “monarchs” of the Pahlavi dynasty ruled over Iran from 1925 to 1979 for slightly over a half-century. What happened in Iran during the 1979 uprising fits the classical definition of revolution. The Iranian revolution from Marxist and Islamic perspectives was predictable and unavoidable. However, the outcome was not. Surprisingly, the long-fought-for change did not improve the social and economic conditions of the majority of Iranians. In fact, they got even much worse than in the pre-revolution era. The standard of living by any measure, dropped rapidly and drastically with the rise of untethered inflation and mismanagement. The Iranian currency devalued from 60 Rials per Dollar to 48,500 Rials nowadays. The U.S. hostage crisis was the beginning of long economic sanctions against Iran, intended to punish and paralyze the regime. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets were illegally confiscated. The country went into isolation, jilted by the “international community” for its uncompromizing anti-American and pro-Palestinian stands.
Given the gloomy socio-economic situation, Iran further experienced a devastating brain drain, as well as wealthy business magnates and entrepreneurs left the country with their assets packed on their backs.
The fear of a copycat Iranian revolution frightened the entire Arab world from Iraq to Morocco. Supported by the West and the Arab League with the exception of Syria, Iran was invaded by its next-door neighbour, a war that lasted for almost 9 years resulting in the destruction of the entire infrastructure and petroleum industry.
Other hostile countries like Israel, consider the post-revolution Iran as a popped-up military and ideological menace to its apartheid existence. To confront the perceived threat, Israel, Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands, each has been continuously launching 24/7 satellite TV networks, radio stations, and online journals in the Persian language to promote Western values, atheism, feminism, and ethnic separatism. The goal of this is to control the narrative, promote an inferiority complex among Iranians and provoke them to rise against the Islamic Republic. To further demonize the Islamic Republic, each antagonist state finances and supports a particular Iranian “dissident” disguised as a human rights or socio-political activist. All these groomed puppets have a certain agenda to please their edacious foreign employer. The old colonial and imperial policy of divide and conquer is still in effect. The ultimate objective is the Balkanization of Iran, or alternatively regime change of a non-complying “rogue state” to the type that is weak and totally subservient to the globalists’ whims.
Last fall, the regime’s most vociferous critics and oppositions boldly predicted that the unrest after Mahsa Amini’s murder is the final nail in the Islamic Republic’s coffin. However, the Mullahs managed to effectively neutralize the widespread street protests which rocked the country, and regain full control of the turbulence. Some opponents of the regime are disillusioned by the infertility of such a high-gear impetus to the point that have given up activism and hope of ever seeing the regime’s downfall.
The Iranian revolution resembles very much what George Orwell elegantly depicted in his famous polemical novel Animal Farm. If an extemporaneous revolution is hijacked by conniving opportunist pigs, indeed one should then sooner or later see a subsequent revolution followed by their demise. A dictator is a dictator by the manner in which he rules, be it labeled the Imperial Majesty the “Shah”, the King of kings, or His Holiness the “Grand Ayatollah”. Both enjoy the lecherous lust for absolute power, yet are preposterously unwilling to carry the associated responsibility that comes along with power. As former U.S. president, Franklin Roosevelt famously quipped, a cruel despot may be “a son of a bitch”, but a certain dictatorship seems to be admissible as long as, i.e. “he is our son of a bitch”, referring to Anastasio Somoza Garcia the puppet military ruler of Nicaragua. Thus, tyranny all boils down to and depends on whose interests “a son of a bitch” is serving or halting.
The million-dollar question is, if oppression and poverty stir revolt, if the masses are no longer willing to be ruled by incompetent and detested leaders, if unrest is a concomitant result of brutal dictatorship, then how on earth the Mullah’s regime with such an abysmal track record has managed to survive 44 years against all odds, and still going strong with no sign of foreseeable collapse. On the contrary, Iran a one-time “client state”, under imposed unilateral sanctions with “maximum pressure” climbed away to be a militarily strong and self-sufficient regional hegemon. The same country that could not produce desperately needed barbed wire during the Iran-Iraq war, excelled to become an exporter of modern weapons capable of mass manufacturing ballistic missiles, and modern drones to supply Russia in its war against Ukraine. The Islamic Republic further became a worthy economic and military partner with Russia and China against NATO.
Posolutely, there must be practical reasons behind the regime’s staggering survival techniques and its evolution under adverse conditions.
There are several competing hypotheses, the best is perhaps the lack of a better and unfeigned alternative to the regime. The fact is, there is none. All of the regime’s current oppositions are in essence more dogmatic, more incompetent, more pretentious, more hypocritical, more autocratical and far more brutal than the Mullahs. A bunch of distressed extremists with a common ingrained deficiency, that is being politically illiterate. The irreconcilable oppositions which compete with one another in licking the rear end of the heads of a violent global system of exploitation to put them in power, could never enjoy genuine public support.
Tehran’s regime may not be popular in the West, but it is very much favoured in a region where Western outright hypocrisy, deceitful schemes and jingoistic attitudes are deeply resented. For thoughtful partakers, a wolf in a suit and tie, or in high heels holding a placard advocating human rights is never a better alternative than any exposed predators with visible red teeth and claws dripping the blood of their victims. As such a change from one dictatorship to another is futile. A mere cosmetic “change” hardly changes anything substantial. The circle of iron will continue one way or another.
The character of Ibrahim or Abraham as described in the Quran is indeed fascinating. A remarkable man of reason and logic, raised in a crude polytheistic community where everyone was worshiping nothing but manmade idols who at a young age came to the realization that whatever is made by man’s own hands is not worthy of worship. Yet, for a genuine Truth-seeker, there is still a long way from rejecting a multiplicity of falsehoods to discovering the ultimate Truth. Ibrahim took this rough journey out of the wilderness of superstitions to reach certainty in his belief in God.
In the middle of the total darkness of nightfall, in an unpolluted atmosphere, looking at the starry sky is indeed an enrapturing experience. In search for the Truth, when he looked at the sky witnessing millions of bright stars, he proclaimed: This is my Lord, but when it set, he said I do not love things that set. Then when he saw the moon rising in splendor, he was impressed and proclaimed, no this one is my Lord. But when the moon disappeared, he said to himself that cannot be. Then when he saw the life-giving sun shining in majesty, he said, yes this must be my Lord. It is the biggest and brightest of all! But at sunset, he was disappointed and said again that too cannot be my Lord. He concluded I ought to turn my face towards the One that originated the heavens and the earth, who has the power to make the stars, the moon and the sun to rise and set. Surely, nothing else is worthy of man’s devotion.
Ibrahim by process of elimination used that which he knew, and arrived inductively and deductively at that which he did not know. By observing the universe, his conclusion was that the cause and originator of the universe cannot be within the universe itself. It ought to be outside the universe. Ibrahim’s idea of devotion to an unseen God was indeed the most revolutionary idea of his time, that the First Cause cannot be a tangible entity on display. This was the beginning of the paradigm shift from anthropomorphic polytheism to monotheism and the Necessary Being.
Since his time, over 4000 years have passed and mankind has tragically reinstated yet polished and upgraded models of old ludicrous idols, i.e. “gravity did it”, “natural selection did it”, “the laws of physics did it”, and so on. Unlike Ibrahim the postmodern idolaters cannot turn their faces to the originator of the laws of physics or probe into where gravity or natural selection comes from, proposing a fancy tautology, that the universe created the universe. What they propose to be the cause of the universe is indeed like the stars, the moon and the sun are all a part of this universe.
Just like in ancient times, they seek a tangible god that can be quantified and empirically observed in a controlled setting.
We often favour one species over another due to its look or function in the ecosystem. Our lack of objectivity and emotional attachment to adorable-looking animals results in interference with the inherent laws of nature. Natural laws, if interfered could cause the collapse of the whole delicate, balanced and interconnected web of life.
Consider the below commonly occurring case: A group of enthusiastic schoolchildren forms a human shield to provide a safe passage for baby turtles to the sea. Like the seagulls in the sky is the Pharaoh’s furious invading army. The interference is taught as a heroic and benevolent act of human kindness to the underage victims against evil predators. As if the sea turtle is an endangered species in need of protection. As if nature is paralyzed to preserve itself and requires conservation management. As if the relationship between a predator and prey is cruel and unjust. Therefore, it “demands” NATO’s style of “humanitarian” intervention. Let’s bomb the creophagous seabirds in Operation Beach Rescue.
There is no conflict here, in the state of nature one species is in no way inferior or superior to another. The self-appointed interventionists are violating the seagulls’ inherent rights to have turtle soup and depriving them of access to decent meals already prescribed to them by “mother nature”. We do not have the right to arrogantly get in their way and cause scarcity. Are the hungry seabird chicks not worthy of equal sympathy? Our thoughtless actions lead to the destruction of habitat.
Imagine a group of animal-loving advocates constructing multiple bridges over the Mara River in Kenya for the safe passage of wildebeests and zebras to protect the migrating animals from hungry crocodiles in the water. Such a myopic action would cause the overpopulation of several species and the extinction of another. This would no doubt be a prelude to an environmental catastrophe in the region and beyond, to which humans would not be immune from.
The point is the whole universe, including nature is well-stabilized and self-sufficient. It is intelligently designed and maintained. As long as ecological balances in nature are uninterrupted, there will be no need for nature’s preservation. Nature takes care of itself through balancing processes the basis of which is conservation. Conservation is a phenomenon inherent in nature. The ultimate death of each living organism in one way or another is a part of this harmonious and self-sustaining process.
If mankind wishes to help baby turtles and so many other marine species, the best course of action would be not to treat their habitats, the world’s indispensable oceans and beaches as dump sites.
During the 1979 “Islamic Revolution” in Iran, hardly any of the partakers in the revolution paid attention to how Islamic is this so-called Islamic reform. An uprising that involved the participation of the entire country against U.S. imperialism and its despot puppet, the Shah, consisted of university students, trade unionists, socialists, Marxist feminists, Muslims, ethnic and religious minorities was subtly hijacked by power-hunger clergies. The end result was nothing short of what George Orwell elegantly depicted in his satirical novel Animal Farm. 43 years later, once again Iranians are about to make the same rudimentary mistake. What appears to be a legitimate gender equality movement is nothing but a conning plot for a prescribed regime change.
The leading pseudo-Muslim avengers of 1979 are replaced by a bunch of pseudo-feminist cheerleaders like Masih Alinejad, a U.S. citizen and a recruited mouthpiece of the CIA advocating women’s rights in Iran by military intervention and crippling sanctions. Her campaign has resulted in a new generation of disenchanted young boys and girls jamming on the streets. So intoxicated by overdoes of endorphins obtained by a thrilling ride taken on a bandwagon, their senses are totally numbed to an illusion of freedom manufactured by people who are no friends of Iranians. Not realizing the movement is being led by imperial feminism financed by CIA et al. Hardly anyone is questioning, if and how this movement is going to empower women. Or, is this just another cosmetic change, replacing one falsehood with another, under the pretext of liberty by the regime change industry only to favour the U.S. global hegemony?
In 1979, anyone who dared to warn the protesters to get out of the muddy water and avoid floating on a diverted stream would have been ostracized and labeled “counterrevolutionary”. Consimilarly, these days anyone attempting to warn the revolting crowd to think twice before embarking on in vain course of action, or watch out for opportunists and wolves in sheep’s clothing is immediately attacked and labeled as a “pro-regime apologist” or “stooge”. Tragically in such a contaminated climate, it is then not surprising to see, as Harvard philosophy professor George Santayana puts it: a nation that fails to learn from its history is condemned to repeat its mistakes.
The death of Mahsa Amini in custody, who was arrested for not wearing her headscarf in accordance with government standards, quickly sparked an unprecedented worldwide protest. For a long Hijab has been obtruded by orientalists as a symbol of women’s oppression, a woman who is wearing it, ought to be oppressed, suppressed and depressed gasping for a breath of freedom. The irony is while the Western media disproportionately is covering stories of a portion of Iranian women who resent observing the Hijab in the context of coercive misogyny, it is important to stress that currently, far more so-called democratic societies have outlawed the Hijab than theocratic regimes that have mandated it. For example, in France, in the Province of Quebec in Canada, in Bosnia and in Hindu-dominated regions of India, it is illegal to wear a Hijab. The banning of the Hijab has been upheld by courts and legislative bodies, stripping Muslim and Jewish women of their freedom of choice and rights to cover their hair and neck. The elective observance of the Hijab results in fines, job dismissal, refusal of access to education, athletic activities, Government services, etc.
Compulsory veiling laws and veiling bans are both equal ways of the state dictating to women what is appropriate or inappropriate attire. It is intriguing to see, that Femperialists object to covering where and when it suits them, yet are totally indifferent to the imposed regulation to uncover, like the former is all about controlling women, but the latter is not. Where is the feminists’ outcry for those women who are forced to uncover? A person who is vociferous with respect to one, whichever of the two, but is utterly lips-sealed with respect to the other has zero credibility and is indeed an outright hypocrite. Most such critics are too dim even to notice the similarity. One’s concerns for women’s rights, if truly genuine, cannot be so selective and bonded by geography and politics.
In the West, no feminist cares about Iranian women when they are oppressed by multilateral sanctions that are intended to cause maximum pain[1], but everyone is heartbroken when their hair is veiled. What kind of women’s rights activists can be silent about the tainted socio-economic and well-being of Iranian women, but outraged about compulsory veiling?
If the issue at hand is the tragic death of an innocent girl who died during detention, where is the outcry for countless women who have died or been beaten while in detention by Israeli and Western security forces? The deceased Iranian girl overnight became the darling of the West while no one has heard of, remembers or cares about Rachel Corrie an American protestor who was bulldozed to death by Israeli forces in bright daylight.
Consistency is the measure of validity in all claims. Selective amnesia is always the favorite gizmo of deceitful establishments. Lack of consistency gives the advantage to score a point by focusing on deplorable cases, while blithely concealing and ignoring the unfavorable cases detrimental to one’s position. For example, the use of excessive force during an arrest and the death of a detainee is far more widespread in Western countries than in any banana republic. A genuine feminist would consistently object to all identical cases which equally violate human rights be it for men or women.
To obtain the best turnover in marketing an idea or product is to predominantly concentrate on women. This approach always guarantees the best market share and the highest attention grab.[2] Particularly in political campaigns, thus, the slogan “Woman, Life, Liberty” is a marketing gimmick created and widely endorsed by Western feminists and Hollywood celebrities in support of Iranian women. Subtle mass persuasion techniques and controlling narratives to shape public opinion are the utmost undemocratic acts the advocates of “democracy” constantly engage in, to achieve their goals. The slogan that went viral in this fashion is in fact completely contrary to feminist basic tenets. What happened to feminists’ gender-neutral nouns and pronouns argument? While the 2SLGBTQIA+ acronym is getting bigger and bigger, here somehow one gender is totally excluded through the significance of language with impact in both theory and practice. All-inclusive concerns are narrowed down. As George Orwell warns, in no time one subgroup can become “more equal than others”. The proper slogan that should have been used is: “People, Life, Liberty”, but of course, having done so would have never attracted this much attention. Those who never cared about Iranian women who have been sanctioned to death by Western regimes are suddenly more catholic than the Pope. The induced crocodile tears shed have manufactured a flood on its intended passage.
Opposing the adopted slogan is not merely a linguistic objection. The injustice that Iranians are going through is not gender or ethnic-exclusive; it involves all walks of life across the board. In fact, there are far more male political prisoners, male dissidents, male strikers and far more men on the streets in Iranian cities protesting the regime than there are women. However, this movement is ridiculously presented as a women’s revolution.
There is no liberty whatsoever when colonialist and imperialist powers decide for you who your leaders ought to be. When these criminal neoconservatives instigate a wave of anti-government protests using their powerful propaganda machine, it never brings liberty or improves the quality of life for either of the two sexes. Imperial feminism is profoundly entrenched in the appropriation of women’s rights in the service of the U.S. hegemony and particularly has been utilized in justifying devious Anglo-American exploitation of the Middle East. Just as always a Western-sponsored regime change only serves their own vested interests. Exploitive interventionists and merchants of death always depict themselves as liberators and champions of human rights. One has to be overly skeptical of their intentions, and wary of their disgusting crocodile tears.
References:
1) Nephew, Richard (2018), The Art of Sanctions: A View from the Field, Columbia University Press, New York.
2) Curtis, Adam (2002), The Century of the Self, A 4-part Television Series, Episode 2: “The Engineering of Consent”, BBC Documentary.
It was Gottfried Leibniz, the German Enlightenment philosopher who vehemently argued that God has created the best of all possible worlds. This was Leibniz’s proposed response to the so-called problem of evil where man is in the midst of the trials of life, experiencing both pain and pleasure. Leibniz believed there is no pointless suffering in God’s creation.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins expresses a somewhat similar sentiment, he believes not God, but natural selection puts up the greatest show on earth. Dawkins’ view clearly extends the greatness of life on earth, beyond the human sphere and applies it to the entirety of nature. Interestingly both antagonistic views give a rosy picture of the world that overall, everything is fine and dandy. However, would the fellow non-human cohabitants of this planet agree with these outlooks, if they could vocalize their concerns?
A cynical skeptic could argue that nature may appear to be peaceful to the human observer who is on the very top of the food-chain, but for every single being out in the wild, life is anything but peaceful. Existence is a constant running, hiding, fighting, or engaging in a precarious hit-or-miss bluff. For all animals, life is an ongoing struggle for survival. In this struggle living beings behave like gladiators. Animals must kill and constantly be vigilant to avoid being targeted. They cannot even have a sip of water or urinate in peace. All predators are involved in a relentless round of stalking, hunting, trapping, biting, devouring, tearing prey into pieces, gulping down, and swallowing their flesh. These vicious combatants do not know the meaning of mercy. Often consuming their prey, while the victim is still alive, a newborn or pregnant.
What am I, a living creature or a food stand? It seems that your lunch is always on the house!
This, on the surface, would seem so cruel to some judicious observers. Indeed, far from being the ideal utopia that Leibniz and Dawkins have encapsulated, it is a hellish dystopia. Recent studies indicate that even if a prey survives an attack, a near-death experience can cause long-lasting effects on the prey with post-traumatic stress disorder similar to what soldiers experience when they return from battlefields. The chronic stress from living in the same neighbourhood as multiple serial killers change the brain’s chemistry, with an impact on diet, sleep and reproduction, the end result is shortened life expectancy.[1] The worse part is, there is nothing that the conscripted prey can do to change their mandated living conditions.
One could ask, is this deadly system fair to unequal participants, that is to say, are some animals favoured to have more rights than others? If not, can a prey file a grievance in the matter of arbitration against whoever is responsible: be it God or Evolution at the highest cosmic judicial review for systematic abuse, emotional distress, bodily harm, and demand to be compensated? A personal injury lawyer may argue that the system of the interdependency of nature is cruel and unfair to his clients, who did not sign up for a cannibalistic death. In a collective lawsuit, the plaintiff’s lawyer would submit that the prey’s existence as such is an imposition, one is created, primarily to suffer in this unchangeable cycle without one’s consent. Therefore, one would rather not be a part of it, and demand to be compensated for the damages incurred. In short, does the victim have a valid argument to complain?
The opponent’s lawyer on the opposite side of the aisle would submit: “NO”, for the following reasons:
Exhibit A:
Nature demonstrates the highest state of law and order. The interaction between prey and predators is all fair game. Each prey is equipped with enough tools, innate skills, and habitat complexity to adequately deal with approaching predators. This is how the ecosystem operates and has been able to meticulously maintain harmony and balance in nature for over 4 billion years. Harmony and balance cannot be the end result of an unjust system of exploitation. Cruelty is a subjective social construct, deplored by human ethics. However, it is an unfit notion in a non-human world. The narrow manmade concept of rights, i.e. “not to be molested” does not need to be arbitrarily extended to the animal world, which could recklessly jeopardize a healthy economy of nature.[2] Predators play a major role in keeping the dynamics of predation at an optimal and balanced level. An overpopulated species can easily destroy its own habitat, leading to its own destruction and the entire natural resources. Thus, it is fair to consider a predator as a vital service provider to the prey, not as a mere nuisance “enemy”.
Exhibit B:
In the natural world, every “oppressed” species is also an “oppressor”. Consider the case below, which illustrates this point brilliantly:
In the above clip, a “predator” approaches a “prey” with the intention to take an innocent life for her own survival. In so doing, ironically the real prey turns out to be a more sophisticated predator having outsmarted its prey for the very same reason. The “victim” or rather the instigator pays the ultimate price for what was supposed to be an enjoyable meal under sunny skies. Enticed by appearance, a fatal mistake turns the picnic into one’s own funeral. The victim’s desire of growing up, and having offspring, suddenly shatters, yet life taken contributes to the survival of another fellow co-habitant. In the court of Nature, the bird can have absolutely no argument to grieve and complain. Caught in action with her hand in the cookie jar, the bird is just as “guilty” as the snake. She had no issues taking the life of an innocuous insect, why should the snake have an issue taking the life of a bird? Even that snake is not immune from the same fate. Such a scenario is overwhelming in nature. For instance, victims of anglerfish who get duped while on an offensive move.
In all of Nature’s case laws, the complainants, even if herbivores, are seemingly “guilty”. After all, we know now that floras are also sentient beings.[3] Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant are both perpetrators of the same “criminal act”. The victim is exposed to be likewise another cold-blooded serial killer disguised as a harmless cuddly doll. Sympathy with the prey is outright speciesism. Speciesism has no place in Nature.
Moreover, cruelty is not a theme of the universe like the law of conservation of matter and energy which applies to all bodies at all times everywhere across the universe. Its notion is subjective and relative. The devouring of a helpless wildebeest by a pack of hyenas would certainly seem cruel to our sentiment. We cannot say it is not. Our emotional reaction and sympathy with prey are understandable, perhaps we are wired to feel as such. We cannot be indifferent to what is happening, cannot deny hoping that prey could somehow getaway. However, the course of action taken is not cruel from the predators’ perspective. We have all these biased thoughts while we enjoy very much having a scrumptious non-vegan meal. Just like the rest of nature we too are a part of the food-chain and need to survive individually and collectively.
Furthermore, the notion of anything that is subjective and relative i.e., cruelty, needs to be continuously re-evaluated. It should never be assessed in isolation, out of an all-inclusive context. Is the way by which a wildebeest leaves this world any worse than a patient who dies in a palliative care unit due to cancer or progressive dementia? At least, the wildebeest’s death is not senseless, it serves an important purpose in the cycle of life and death. It maintains the functionality of a grand recycling system, as well as the preservation of a self-replenishing food-chain.
What is intriguing is that the battle between predator and prey is always detached, void of holding grudges. There is a predator and prey accord in effect. The code of conduct is impersonal. While the struggle for life to the last breath is the normal practice, the acceptance of a dreadful final outcome is inherent. The prey too is seemingly indifferent to the fact that, if it manages to escape from the predator’s claws, its success may result in the predator’s death from starvation. In the end, for both participants, it is what it is. The loser submits to his “ill-fortune”. We are not privy to the details of the predator and prey contract, nor do we know the totality of reality: why things are the way they are. Who knows, there could indeed be compensation included for the prey? Under both possibilities, no evidence for a breach of contract exists, thus the sentimental grievance envisioned is dismissible.
References:
1] Levy, Sharon (2021), “Near-Death Experiences Can Scar Animals for Life”, The Atlantic, August.
The video clip below captures a young wildebeest during migration crossing the Mara River in Kenya. A young inexperienced traveller is suddenly confronted with a huge hungry crocodile. The wildebeest notices the approaching predator and has a split second to make a vital life or death decision. He makes his move and fails. With a swift 2000 kilos of bite force, the result is an easy checkmate for a Grandmaster predator.
On the surface, it appears that a clueless wildebeest with no foresight is totally oblivious to the danger ahead. Once confronted with a superior predator, the wildebeest commits a few fatal mistakes in his risk assessment and the adopted defense strategy. The following comments have been made on social media that he appears to have:
Failed to factor in the impact of the wet surrounding of a flowing river, compared with the usual hard flat land.
Failed to recognize that his defensive tools are not effective against all enemies in diverse circumstances.
Failed to recognize and correctly identify the approaching predator, the hunting skills and the advanced offensive armaments in his possession.
Failed to properly evaluate the disadvantages of a stretched-out battle that is, having entered deep into the enemy’s treacherous territory makes a big difference in winning or losing.
Failed to be proactive and recognize that due to a changing environment and different adversaries, his defense mechanism ought to be changed as well. Under a new circumstance, his available defensive weapon is not as effective as it normally could be. In a one-on-one situation in Nile crocodile-infested waters, his inadequate tools are of no use to him. One “needs a bigger boat,” so to speak.
Tries to achieve a challenging task, while being unprepared using an obsolete traditional approach.
According to the above analysis, the prey appears to be a certified lunatic on a suicide mission and deserves to pay the ultimate price for his stupidity, yet such cases are abundant in the natural world. Thereby one may conclude, as Darwin has, that in Nature there is no room for those who are doomed to be obtuse and frail. The species whose individuals are strong will survive; others become extinct. Nature favours and preserves the strong ones in the struggle for life.
Darwin arrived at this conclusion by looking into nature through a pair of lenses manufactured in the Victorian era of growing laissez-faire capitalism, where the haughty British echelon had the upper hand over the working class people and exploited African, Asian and South American masses by the colonial policies implemented by the Europeans. From these observations, Darwin made his notorious conclusion of the survival of the fittest, where the mighty one innately rules over the weak.
Further, the dismay resulting from this subjective interpretation is that it was erroneously classified as science, which in turn gave justification and rise to materialism and socio-political Darwinism with undue ramifications. That is to further argue that the human socio-political arena is just as ruthless and cruel as the rest of Nature. The powerful individuals, races or countries intrinsically compete for their own interests like they are in a gladiator’s contest. Such an outrageous socio-political philosophy confuses Nurture with Nature, and once dominates the political establishment; dictates wrong social norms and greedy values. Its propagation is a crime against humanity. Ironically despite being refuted and built on an unscientific foundation, it is still present in the 21st century.
To debunk political Darwinism, perhaps one needs first to debunk Darwin’s perception, assumptions and interpretation of Nature, then his concomitant conclusion of the way the natural world functions. One can accuse Darwin that his class and racial privileges had utterly blinded him to see nature neutrally. Certainly, the cooperation among species, the complex interconnectivity between flora and fauna went totally unnoticed by him.
Let’s get back to the above clip: Was the wildebeest’s “erroneous” reaction at fault for his doomed destiny? Is the crocodile favoured by Nature in any shape or form? I do not think so. Nature’s way is always perfect and optimal. Man has nothing in his disposal to criticize Nature which is ahead of us by millions of years of research and development.
In general, when a prey is approached by a predator, there are only two choices to be made: fight or flight. The correct reaction is instinctual, win or lose usually depends on the individual fitness of the prey and the predator. An old, injured or exhausted prey or predator has a much lower success rate than one in his peck. The environmental contingencies also play a major role in the outcome. For instance, in a stampede situation, a separated calf from his mother, has a much higher vulnerability than a wildebeest in the middle of the herd. In the above clip, the sign of inherent intelligence at work is overwhelming:
The wildebeest correctly recognizes that despite the danger involved, he has a better chance of survival by crossing the river than staying behind.
The wildebeest correctly identified that he has no adequate swimming skills. Thus, flight while being chased by a 12-foot crocodile will not pay off. This was indeed an instantaneous correct recognition.
Having quickly ruled out Option One, he went for Option Two: Fight with what you have, not with what you can order on Amazon.com. He jumped for his gun and fired at the utmost optimal moment to maximize the damage.
The hit was on the target, but in this case, lack of space to pick up momentum for a hard blow and his underdeveloped horns were of no use to him, insufficient to face off a ferocious predator like a crocodile. Every predator has a Kryptonite. The most vulnerable part of a crocodile’s body is its eyes, to protect the eyes during an attack; they tend to close them completely which then provides the opportunity for the prey to escape[1]. The almighty blind Natural Selection has somehow bestowed the knowledge of the exploitable weakness of each predator to its prey. This may indeed be the reason for his overt confidence in taking on the croc.
To maximize the chance of succeeding, the herd crosses the river in a packed group and as fast as possible, to the extent that often some crocodiles get run over by the incoming wave of zebras and wildebeests particularly in shallow waters. Being separated from his mother and the herd may not have been his shortcoming.
Attention is not solely focused on a submerged predator in the water, the herd is mindful of lions patrolling the riverbank. While still in the water, they must be watchful of what awaits on the other side of the river as well as what is in the water.
Sends an encrypted message via body language to the predator, that this may indeed be your territory, but note I too have the right to cross it. The “back off or else,” is a bluffing strategy often used in the animal world.
In short, the wildebeest is not as dumb and oblivious as it seems. Let’s not overlook that year after year millions like him manage to cross the river successfully — only a small number are ripped apart by crocodiles.
Furthermore, the notion of “strong” needs to be revisited. One can vehemently argue that the strength is in the ability to migrate on foot for thousands of miles through hazardous land. There is nothing great about being a motionless bozo, sunbathing on the river bank all year long, waiting for one’s food to be delivered at one’s doorstep. If we use the ability to travel long distances as the standard for measuring strength, then the weak is the species which cannot walk more than a few meters without running out of breath, being desperate in need of a four-wheel walker.
As a wise person on a similar issue quipped: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
The predator and prey face-off is always a fair game. Nature has equipped both with sufficient means to maintain the continuity of life, the survival of all species, and the preservation of the overall balance of Nature. In the process, the evidence of embedded intelligence at work based on cooperation is overwhelming[2]. Suppose that the wildebeests and zebras had evolved or were created with an IQ of over 200 and were capable of building bridges over the river for a safe passage. Consequently, their migration would have had zero casualties. This in turn would have resulted in the collapse of the entire intertwined ecosystem and their own demise. This would be an unintelligent design without due consideration for the other participants in the ecosystem. The interconnectivity of Nature should never be overlooked. In Nature, there are neither bozos nor retards. Every species, from a tiny insect to a giant mammal play an equal role in the delicate balance of Nature. Everything that happens, happens for a reason. For instance, the massacre of wildebeests gives life to everything else in and around the Mara River. It is a facilitative task performed by crocodiles. They function as terminators in the ecosystem, killing machines to control the population of several other species as well as to provide food for others. They cannot be domesticated or conditioned for a different purpose. In Nature, some species do not look adorable and cuddly for a reason. On the other hand, some species are nothing but food sources for other species. A dead wildebeest fulfills its most useful purpose.
If Darwin had not overlooked the interconnectivity and cooperation among species, the subsequent social Darwinists would perhaps have had a different socio-political outlook of Nature and Man. Our socio-political ideas derived from nature would have been based on harmony, cooperation and the oneness of the entire global family.
Acknowledging harmony, cooperation and the apparent wisdom in design opens a can of worms which materialists would like to avoid: to whom or to what should this intelligence be attributed? Furthermore, if the notion of competition in Nature is replaced by cooperation, then the idea of plundering this planet and subjugating people in the 3rd world is no longer justifiable. A plutocratic violent global system of exploitation with a long history of colonialism, imperialism and expansionism finds Darwinism quite compatible with its tenets. Social Darwinism is used to rationalize social inequality, racial supremacy, extermination, genocide, coerced sterilization, infanticide, “predatory business model”, military and economic hegemony by dominant powers. Thus, in subtle ways Darwinism is preserved and propagated by organized white-collar transgressors.
Further publicity surrounding Darwin’s farfetched theory and the fact that it is still alive, has a lot to do with his nationality, as the British would very much like to dominate the intellectual discourse on the origin of life without much substance to offer. Paley, Darwin or Dawkins, the trophy must be kept in Britain at the expense of compromising the truth. “The survival of the fittest”, or “complicated organisms in nature give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, are sheer personal opinions, but are treated as the foundation of modern biology. The made in Britain facts would appeal to the British sense of nationalism. It leaves behind a cherished legacy which overshadows the truth. Undoubtedly, if Darwin was from the Middle East, no one would have heard of him or his theory. Case in point, hardly anybody knows that Muslim thinkers of the Golden Age were among the first who suggested both the argument from design and the evolution by design.
I acknowledge that I and all other skeptics can too be equally criticized for looking into Nature anthropocentrically, being unconsciously influenced by our own biases. The accusation is fair enough. However, I would argue that why Darwinian elucidation is classified as valid science, but his critics’ assertions as subjective interpretations, if the truth is not in the eye of the beholder. After all the methodology for arriving at a conclusion is the same: observational studies.
Both outlooks discussed here have socio-political implications. Which of the two: ruthless “Nature, red in tooth and claw” or sensible “Nature, intertwined and cooperative” have a healthier impact on Man’s attitude towards the environment and one another?
References:
[1] BBC Documentary: Inside the Perfect Predator, 2010
[2] Augros, Robert & Stanciu, George (1988) The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature, New Science Library Shambhala, Boston.
Wohlleben, Peter (2019) The Secret Wisdom of Nature: Trees, Animals and the Extraordinary Balance of All Living Things, Greystone Books, Vancouver.
Many of us are often late when commuting between home and work. The usual reason is multiple accidents on the highway. Despite improved highway designs and advanced automobile sensor systems with automatic emergency braking and blind-spot warning system, deadly accidents still occur regularly. Cars moving bumper to bumper may collide and pileup while attempting to change lanes for no reason other than the driver being distracted for a fraction of a second, for poor judgment or for lack of having sufficient driving skills to handle a vehicle in distress.
Moreover, it is not just on highways, when it comes to speed, maneuverability, control and synchronization, Man certainly has some clear limitations.
Even walking slowly could lead to a catastrophe if the participating crowd of people is too dense. For instance, year after year, so many pilgrims are crushed to death in the Hajj stampede as chaos breaks out.
However, flocks of hundreds of thousands of tiny dunlins, sandpipers and starlings can put up an amazing aerial parade, travelling with a speed relatively faster than cars on the highway. With an astonishing degree of coordination, none would ever bump into one another. The same artistic communal pattern can also be seen among some ocean fish. The whole flock appears to be thinking collectively. They twist, turn and suddenly change direction in a split second without notice. It is indeed breathtaking to witness one of nature’s most mesmerizing and poetic displays by a beautiful miniature species, and not to be amazed. The sound of starling murmurations is just as mesmerizing as the sight of it. The two go incredibly well together. The performance is indeed poetry in motion.
Man pride himself in his abilities and developed technology. Yet our competence and know-how are mediocre compared to this tiny bird. We still have not fully understood why do they do it, let alone how do they do it. One dominant theory is that murmurations offer safety in high numbers; protecting them from predators like peregrine falcons that are attracted by the sheer number of starlings. That may be so, but they are seen to murmur in stunning formations even when there are no predators in sight.
With the computer-generated simulation of a flock of birds, scientists are trying to learn more about the mechanism of synchronization and flight patterns. Much is still a mystery about murmurations just like countless other things in nature. However, we know one thing for sure, while man engages in a deadly dance of speed, starlings enjoy their spectacles dance of life.
Such superb choreographic abilities performed by small birds and fish surely deserve to boisterously proclaim: “Glory be to Natural Selection”. The almighty blind Natural Selection, which out of nowhere, for no reason, with no foresight has created the most dazzling show in nature, just for the heck of it.
Oppressed masses entangled in a capitalistic system operating on an orgy of greed and lust for power, where a few psychopaths systematically control all national and international affairs will eventually reach the boiling point to rise up against tyranny. The ruling class unwilling to relinquish the illegitimately seized power under the pretext of “democracy” would hold onto their throne by any means necessary. Those who dare to rise up against them are brutally crushed.
One particular group which for centuries has been subjugated to mental and physical slavery in a violent system of global exploitation is the community of African descent. Historically they have raised numerously against institutionalized racism and systematic injustices, but each time the uprising has been sidetracked and diverted on a detour to nowhere. All empires rest on hypocrisy, deceit as well as violence. Thus, the usual employed strategy is the use of force as well as giving a few meaningless, but highly inflated concessions. In this strategy, language plays a crucial role. The end result is that the unwary settles for a change which is always cosmetic, not real and substantive. Case in point, at the peak of the civil rights movement in the U.S. the word Negro changed to Black and then to African-American. Nevertheless, the so-called African-Americans continuously experienced the same human rights violations and were subjugated to worse Police brutality. The U.S. Police’s violent and coward reaction to George Floyd peaceful protesters has made Saudi Arabia looks like a human rights paradise. So much for “the land of the free and home of the brave”.
The real change occurs when victims of prejudice keep the same stained term, but change the mindset, attitude, social perception and stigma attached to the term. In the last century, African-Americans repeatedly took the bait. In comparison, the Gay community was much smarter. Members of this community proudly continued to refer to themselves as queers, but aimed to change the social perception and the attitude of people and legislators towards their community. Unlike Negro, queer was a derogatory term intended to insult and belittle homosexuals, while the root meaning of Negro in Latin refers to things of black colour with no negative connotation. There is nothing offensive about Rio Negro, a river located in Northern Brazil which its water is black due to the high concentration of organic constituents of soil, minerals and vegetation. Why should it be different, when the same term is used in a descriptive way to refer to a particular human “race”? The fact is that using the term Negro was how most black Americans comfortably described themselves. The civil rights movement somehow diverted as though the racial tension in the USA was a semantic issue, not a human rights issue. If it was the latter, human rights violations are resolved when victims enjoy the same rights as everyone else in society and are treated equally in the eyes of the law. The term Negro was often used unequivocally by civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. They did not settle with hypocritical trivialities. They knew better: respect in a form of lip service is worthless.
The African-Americans are being manipulated again by more subtle diversions, cosmetic changes and worthless concessions. For instance, reducing the “Black Power Movement” to controversial “Black Lives Matter”, the former is a struggle for equality in all aspects of the sociopolitical sphere, the latter is “don’t shoot me” or “allow me to breath”. Thereby, moving away from having the power to focusing on begging to have some basic rights. Furthermore, of course black lives matter, but so too the Indigenous lives, the Latinos and all others who have been systematically oppressed or have not. In pursuit of justice and combating racism, why should the American Spring be racially exclusive? This would no doubt, will provoke a swift backlash, i.e. “All lives matter”, “Blue lives matter”, etc. Although some slogans are launched by members of the black community, it is the corporate media that gets to choose which ones ought to be publicized and which should be buried.
Consider, the temporary removal of the 1939 Oscar-winning movie: Gone with the Wind from HBO streaming service due to its upbeat depiction of slavery. After two weeks, the movie returned with an added disclaimer, like the new insertion to an old movie is a huge amelioration to the current social conditions of the black community. Further concessions given are in changing the name of some sports clubs and supermarket products as well as discontinuing biased TV series: “Cops”, or by re-naming some streets to “Black Lives Matter”, as if by changing the name of a street, the neighborhood will suddenly turn into black utopia. We can observe none of such changes came with a change in police conducts towards the black community. On the contrary, it has gotten far worse. What is really achieved when police brutality against blacks occurs on Black Lives Matter Avenue?
To retire brands or changing the product name is a common corporate strategy. Like changing Marlboro to Philip Morris, at times it is a necessary business move for their own corporate vested interests, not for the good of the black community. Under the current climate when sales are going down, the change made is de rigueur. The move is not an indication of being supportive of a sociopolitical cause. Acknowledging reality for what it is, is what matters.
Over the past century, the civil rights of blacks in America did not improve despite having many high-ranking black politicians, black senators in Congress and having a black President for 8 years. Inequality, displacement, exclusion, segregation and mistreatment by law enforcement agencies and the judiciary continuously persist. This demonstrates that the solution is not within the upper leadership, but within the whole global system of exploitation where foreign and domestic policies are intertwined. America’s hawkish domination of the world’s resources and jingoistic violation of other nations’ rights contributes to the domestic brutality at home. One cannot have contradictory ethical standards, behave like a demon abroad, while pretending to be an angel at home, particularly when one’s priorities are set on the accumulation of wealth.
America needs a foundational change to resolve its race problem; any other remedy is nothing short of an ineffective band-aid approach. Unless the entire global power structure, the culture of greed changes, nothing substantially will ever result. Race or nationhood is a human construct, not a way of nature. There is no such a thing as racial supremacy or the chosen people in the state of nature which gives undeserved economic privileges to some, but not to all.
Atheists propose that complex life is self-created just the same way a sand dune is self-created. The dune is said to be an example of a non-designed marvelous and symmetric creation, totally based on random chance. Elements such as complexity, mathematical order, harmony and beauty are fortuitously there without any intelligent agent being involved. The other common example provided is that of driftwood, untouched by human hands, washed away to the shore and randomly piled up together. These examples are presented to assert that inanimate objects collectively, with no external guidance, demonstrate three qualities: self-designed, self-organization and then self-creation. The conclusion aimed for is that, the universe was created in the same fashion without a conscious Designer.
Does this assertion hold water? For the sake of argument, the creation of a sand dune or driftwood, even if it happens to be totally self-created, its creation is not independent of the universe which hosts it. It is “self-created” in a well-ordered created universe of cause and effect. There are no sand dunes in the state of “Nothingness”. There would be no sand dune without the universe of matter and energy.
Furthermore, atheists as always overlook that, if we were to take away the laws of physics that act as various parameters, i.e. gravity, wind, lack of rain, size, weight, shapes of sands and existence of a natural barrier, then we would not have sand dunes forming at all, with or without beautiful patterns. The pre-existing physical laws of nature mold the rules of movement for each grain of sand which systematically pileup on top of each other.
The sign of intelligence involved appears undeniable when it was discovered that dunes use turbulence as a buffer to prevent collisions. Obviously, a pile of sands has no intelligence of its own to act in such an insightful way. Their movement is well-orchestrated. The dunes are like a circus, constantly moving from one location to another. But never move around randomly. The movement and formation of dunes are location-specific, both continentally and locally. Why there is no sand dune formation in the middle of a deciduous forest or a wetland? These skeptics always ignore that we live in a universe of cause and effect, where nothing happens haphazardly, even a grain of sand abides by the laws of physics, where purpose and interconnectivity apply to every component of organic and inorganic systems. The creation of a dune is no different than the creation of the whole web of life. To have a phenomenon of self-organization, atheists need to invoke new laws of physics and create a different universe, which even then the role of the First Cause is not eliminated. The atheist argument could make sense, if and only if one skips the vital question of where did the constructal law and the prerequisite conditions, which govern the evolving patterns in the living organisms and inanimate systems come from, and why they are there in the first place.
Far from being a random production, the creation of sand dunes is not without a purpose and foresight. Sand dunes are important in protecting the land against potential ravages by storm waves from the sea. In addition, dunes provide habitats for many specialized plants and animals like sandfish which cannot live anywhere else. Likewise, driftwood plays an important role in sustaining and reshaping the ecosystems. In the earth’s diverse web of life, each inanimate system is imperatively connected to the sustenance of countless organic systems.
Furthermore, there is the usual double-standard in atheists’ stand. Why is it that we conclusively deduce that sandcastles or the sand patterns in small sand jars sold in gift shops have a designer and creator, but the more complex dunes in Sahara are products of a blind chance? How could a blind process, devoid of intelligence, in and of itself, designs fabulous artworks, engineering wonders and mathematical precision, that staggers the human imagination, is left unexplained
While natural selection is generally credited with the emergence of order and complexity in all living systems, the same courtesy cannot be extended to any non-living systems. Inanimate processes and structures in nature do not mutate, have no mind, have no survival instinct or are self-conscious. Needless to say, that which is mindless cannot be self-organizing. Attributes like: self-designed, self-organization, self-creation, self-maintenance, self-regulating and self-repair cannot justifiably be applied to a fine-tuned collective interactions and deserve the full thrust of rational abnegation. The out of nowhere, popped-in out of the blue, law-abiding, crash-free autopilot processes being reified as possessing the attributes of intellect exist only in the befuddled human mind, not out there in reality; hence in this sense, “self-organization” is a phantom and non-existent.
“Rationality rules”. Many would concur with this declarative statement. But, does that make all those who profess and claim to promote rationality, rational? Is mere utterance of sentential confabulation proof? From Dawkins to no-frills bloggers, a common feature among all atheists that I have ever read or heard is the arrogant and pretentious attitude of having a rational approach in analyzing the causality of the universe, as though their argument is sound and supported by the scientific endeavour, while in reality their own narrow perspective is no different than that of a faith-based born-again Bible-thumping evangelical Christian. It is indeed intriguing how easily an advocate of reason and science appears to be out-reasoned by the fascination of reason. Such individuals intoxicated by an overdose of synthetic or quasi-reason, often overlook that the repeated usage of terms like science, rationality, debunked and reason in one’s presentation does not make the user even one bit rational. Consider the following dissertation:
(A)
The watch is complex
The watch had a designer
The universe is complex
Therefore, the universe had a designer
(B)
The watch is complex
The watch was invented in the 15th century
The universe is complex
Therefore, the universe was invented in the 15th century
There are multiple components involved in (A) and (B), some of which are extraneous to one other. (A), to say the least is a possibility worthy of consideration. (B) on the other hand, is a case of logical impossibility. Nevertheless, they are juxtaposed to demonstrate that since (B) cannot be true, (A) must also be intrinsically impossible, henceforth “debunked”! Not so. Paley’s argument is an example of a valid analogy and indispensable, unless one proves that all analogical arguments are inherently fallacious. No logician has ever made such an assertion.
In an analogical argument, where the two compared things share one feature in common, one commonality does not necessarily entail that they ought to, or could have other qualities in common. Vice versa, just because two things have an infinite number of qualities in common, does not mean that they cannot have many or at least a single uncommon feature. The problem with the above allegations against the watchmaker analogy is the flawed line of reasoning, not the analogy. One can never conflate (A) to (B) as being of the same hue. (A) is not problematic, (B) is. (A) is derived from the observable Book of the Universe. It is empirical knowledge. (B) is illogical, and cannot even fit a contorted imagination. The proposed conclusion is utterly unobtainable. One is hard-pressed to see where rationality rules here!
A case in point, in response to Paley, it is ubiquitously brought up by atheists, including the above presenter, that complexity can be created without a designer. A notorious example frequently provided is sandstones or sand dunes, an example which very much constitutes as an analogical argument. Let’s analyze the counterargument, in the same manner, it is proposed in the above video:
Sand dune has no designer
Sand dune is formed by wind
The universe has no designer
Therefore, the universe is formed by wind
The obsequiousness of this absurd “logic” is self-evident, but it seems that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. One would expect a braggart critic of Paley to practice what he preaches, and not to commit the same fallacy that he, left and right, accuses theists to have committed. His lack of consistency and delinquent reasoning is embarrassingly flawed and devoid of even a modicum of rationality. What is troublesome here is the degree of arrogance displayed. Shooting blanks, is not like shooting silver bullets; the acoustics and damage is not the same.
Another example that the unwary should be alerted to: consider the following hypothetical proclamation: natural selection creates complexity, a premise which is applauded by all neo-atheists since Darwin. A watch is complex; therefore, natural selection creates watches. The watch was invented in the 15th century; therefore, the natural selection came to exist in the 15th century. We all would agree that this line of reasoning is absurd and cannot be proposed. While there is a certain causal relationship between complexity and some constructural laws, there is no relationship between complexity and the 15th century. A “Rationality Rules” concealed red herring argument is a dexterous distraction, and yet it is totally unconvincing.
On “false cause fallacy” the watchmaker argument or in essence, the teleological argument is presumably refuted, because “it completely ignores evolution by natural selection.” What is the difference between this supposedly “rational” argument, and a creationist who rejects evolution by natural selection, on the merit that it completely ignores Biblical creationism? The materialist exposition here is equally flawed. What they both offer is merely a description of the state of affairs, describing two mutually opposing views. The materialist view is not even a probable explanation, let alone a proof that establishes natural selection without an intelligent agent can be the truth. On occasion, it is conveniently ignored that an explanation is not necessarily a proof.
Moreover, in a reductionist fashion, Paley’s argument is summarized as “complexity requires a designer”. The watch and the watchmaker argument or other versions of it, such as the South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore analogy is an argument against the chance hypothesis, that creation requires a conscious creator, whose creation has an intended purpose. Any creation, complex or not, which is goal-directed must have an intelligent designer. A simple pocket watch cannot be self-created, or be a product of chance. It is intentionally designed for a specific purpose. Hence, the same must be true of a far more sophisticated intertwined system with foresight. Complexity is not the key issue here. There is no such a thing in the universe that is non-complex. While some things are more complex than others, complexity in general prevails. The whole universe and everything in it is complex. From a minuscule speck of dust to the most sophisticated apparatus: i.e. the human brain, everything in this universe is astonishingly complex and interrelated. The central issue is the existence of intelligence with the intent behind life. Even if atheists cannot get over birth deformities and vestigial organs, the so-called “problem of evil”, and the improprieties of priests, and conclude that this creator is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, and has done a sloppy job of creation, nonetheless, they ought to accept that a bad design is still a design and a reckless designer is still a designer. Strangely enough, when it comes to the miracle of life, with its implausible complexity, the credit is always given to natural selection. Yet, surprisingly when it comes to “suboptimal design”, it is never the case that they take their grievances to natural selection.
The notion that any creation requires a creator is inescapable, even for atheists. The difference between a theist and an atheist with respect to the slogan “Rationality Rules” is that the latter attributes the creation of the universe to a blind watchmaker, to the Almighty Natural Selection. Thus, like many religious zealots, the atheist is defending one factious god over another. The burning question of “who did it”, is extinguished by: “a blind watchmaker did it.” Evidently, Paley’s argument is a valid analogy, and hence compelling, which has led atheist apologists to conclude that complex organisms and order in nature are created by natural selection. However, like a typical atheist, the presenter then skips the unavoidable subsequent question: who is the Programmer of the process: chance or intelligence? The difference between a theist and an atheist all boils down to the attributes of this watchmaker. For an atheist, the watchmaker is blind with no foresight, a compulsive gambler who is a superstar champion of never-ending luck. For a theist, it is an intelligent watchmaker with purpose in mind.
What in essence, needs to be settled here is: Are complex organisms in nature genuinely designed, or as Dawkins and his followers postulate, they merely have an “appearance of design”? This question is very easy to answer. The notion of “appearance of design” is not science, but a mere opinion based on interpretation of certain data. Where is the scientific proof leading to the “illusion of appearance”? The neo-evolutionists cannot demonstrate the “illusion of design”, they assume that to be the case. However, this wishful thinking falls apart, when we spend millions of dollars every year in research and development to study biomimicry. In achieving better efficiency, to improve human technology and productivity, we constantly copy from nature and then turn around and patent it as a designed novelty, while evolutionists insist there is no design in nature. This is inconsistent and a double standard. A double standard and inconsistency imply falsehood.
Indeed, the Emperor has no clothes. We are expected to believe in the name of science and logic, that since the universe was not invented in the 15th century, thus this stingray has no designer. The incontrovertible design with all its complex details is said to be illusive and self-arranged.
The degree of the presenter’s fundamentalist approach can be detected when he erroneously claims that “Natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms. We know, for a fact, nature can, does, and has produced remarkable complex organisms without a conscious and intelligent hand behind it.” “We have zero examples of watches being made without a designer. However, in contrast, we have zero examples of life being created by a designer and literally millions of examples of natural selection producing complex life.” His argument cannot get more fallacious than this, as he uses his conclusion as his premise. Evolution is treated as “a proven fact”, responsible for the complexity of nature. Well, is it? If evolution is an established fact, then there would be no debate about it. On the contrary, far from being “a proven fact”, the whole theory of evolution and its proposed mechanism is a contentious issue dismissed by many scientists with equally credible credentials.[1] Yes, scientists, not theologians, some of whom are agnostics or even atheists. The era that the opponents of Darwinism were only the creationists is long behind us. In fact, as more advancement is made in genetics research the notion of evolution by natural selection has been knocked out by ever-mounting evidence and is now in the corner being urged on by its trainer to get into the ring, only to be knocked out again. Natural selection has reached a situation where it has no evidentiary or explanatory power to explain the giant steps required for macroevolution. This is now just a plain fact. It is now only being clung onto by false propaganda in atheistic academia and in videos such as these as a desperate last attempt to salvage it as a beacon for delusional atheists such as this presenter. Natural selection as a mechanism is indeed to be consigned into the dustbin of failed ideas such as phlogiston, which was used to explain combustion. I guess that natural selection was naturally selected for such a fate!
It is the zenith of dogmatism to assume a sugar-coated summary presentation of evolution means proof for evolution and dismissal of its critics. So much so for rational objections, which supposedly each “single-handedly defeats the watchmaker argument”.
Further, it is vacuously blurted out that: “We already know that a watch was designed by a designer, because we know it has a creator”, like, if I had not heard of Peter Heinlein and found a watch in the heath, I would have then thought that it must have plopped out the rear end of a four-legged animal, or that it is perennially part of the landscape.
On ex nihilo (creation from nothing), it is objected that the watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing. No, he doesn’t! It is acknowledged that a watch is the clever rearrangement of energy and matter that already exists. The ex nihilo fallacy applies to evolutionists who argue that natural selection created complexity from nothing, wherefrom nonexistence, matter, energy, time, space and a developmental program magically popped out into existence. If the universe can be self-created or accidentally created from “Nothing” without a designer, why would atheists all of a sudden have a problem accepting that the Divine Watchmaker is unable to perform the same task of creating something from nothing?
It is said: “The watchmaker argument does not support theism. Even if it were accepted as a sound argument, it would only prove that a universe had a universe designer – and that’s it. It would not prove a particular religion to be true.” No kidding! Of course, the argument does not prove a particular religion to be true, but it certainly supports theism. As for what is the message and attributes of the Entity responsible for the origination of life, that is a different discourse altogether. In contrast, if natural selection (for argument’s sake) was responsible for the deep order and complexity in nature, it would not disprove the Divine Designer, as He could be the intelligent Programmer behind the evolutionary processes.
If atheists wish to believe that matter, energy, time and space all came out of nothing, and then mindlessly gave birth to every complex living organism, they can go ahead believing in such a childish and paganistic fantasy, under the deadly illusion of hubristic “science” fiction. Atheists are free to insist in the process, somehow improbable sequences rightly evolved miraculously, such as DNA with its double-helical structure, comprised of chemical bases’ arranged in approximately three billion precise sequences, and with astonishing complexity has produced marvels like the human brain with 1.1 trillion cells and 100 billion neurons, capable of conducting ceaseless and countless calculations. Inexplicably, they expect rational beings to accept, that all these are the products of an unconscious process. If an atheist would like to persist in such a diatribe of intellectual incoherency and feels “intellectually fulfilled”, by all means, be my guest! But, please drop the pretentious attitude of rationality and do not act as if those who do not share atheistic dogma are intellectually inferior to atheists. The arrogant display of “intellectualism” does not give credibility to one’s argument; it just makes one look foolish.
Indeed, it is not surprising to see that those who cannot read the Book of the Universe and are unable to distinguish between design and the illusion of design, are also unable to distinguish between rationality and the illusion of rationalism. Verily, the caliber of a rational argument is not determined by the stage name which one adopts, but by what one advocates, and in this and only this vein, can it be claimed that rationality rules.
Footnotes: [1] Behe, Michael, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution, HarperOne, 2019.
Berlinski, David, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, Discovery Institute Press, 2009.
Denton, Michael, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Discovery Institute Press, 2016.
Nagel, Thomas, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, Oxford University Press, 2012.
If you ever wondered, how public sentiment and opinion can be so easily manipulated for profit, you need to do no more than pay a little attention to this prime case in point. Toronto has erupted over its local basketball team winning the NBA title. Over a million people poured into the streets on a working day to celebrate the Raptors’ victory. The city is proudly overjoyed by the achievement of a basketball team which ironically has no local player or coaching staff on the team. Yet, it is puzzling, what the Torontonians are actually celebrating. Is there anything worthy of mass celebration? Perhaps a better question would be: how do the Raptors represent the city of Toronto? Indeed, what is the connection between Raptors and Toronto, if any?
In addition, the MLSE owns Scotiabank Arena (originally named Air Canada Centre), the home arena of the Maple Leafs and Raptors, the OVO Athletic Centre, which is the practice facility for the Raptors. The MLSE also manages and has invested in several other sports facilities including BMO Field, home of Toronto FC and the Toronto Argonauts; Coca-Cola Coliseum, home of the Marlies; MasterCard Centre, the practice facility of the Maple Leafs and Marlies; the BMO Training Ground practice facility for Toronto FC and home of Toronto FC II and the TFC Academy; and Lamport Stadium, practice facility for the Argonauts. The total equity of the MLSE is estimated to be between $1.66 to $2.00 billion dollars. The MLSE is owned by Rogers Communications (37.5%), Bell Canada Enterprises Inc. (37.5%) and the current chairman of the MLSE, Lawrence Tanenbaum (25%) who promised to take the team, among all places, to Israel if they win the NBA championship.
It is not difficult to control the public sentiment, if two of the co-owners hold multiple sports TV channels and news networks. They certainly have the right tools to generate excitement and bombard the public with propaganda that, it is all about our community. For example, the “Let’s go Raptors” is a meme that purportedly refers to the based community inspiring to be on the top.
Apart from the usual idolization of players, another subtle strategy used to promote the team and to sell merchandize is by false appeal to a hollow sense of nationalism: “We the North” flag-waving, although there are no Canadian representations anywhere to be found on the team. Furthermore, the MLSE targets racial minorities in Canada under the banner of Canadian diversity united. The unwary public may very well be united, but all united behind one hidden cause, and that is to increase the wealth of the billionaire owners. The goal is disguised as communitarianism and “history in the making”. The illusion of a communal success, which supposedly one is a part, not apart makes people feel euphoric. As long as one feels as such, one is always ready to bend over on a cue, ready to be exploited. Certainly, if the real goal is not disguised, the average devotee on the street would never celebrate the financial prosperity of a corporate conglomerate in which one is always apart, not a part. No private corporation should be allowed to exploit Canada’s name for personal profit, and brainwash the masses to support them.
The fact is professional sports teams competing in major leagues is a lucrative business. All teams are corporate giants, competing for a bigger market share. The actual trophy is not a chrome cup, but rather to make the highest level of profit. The huge profit involved is privatized. Thus, the competition between professional sports teams against one another is no different than competition between corporations in a free market economy. Then, what is the excitement here? Why does anyone care as who the winner is in a competition between Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola or IBM vs. Microsoft? Here, only a handful of people and shareholders benefit. And, those who laugh all the way to the bank, share nothing with the rest of us. So, what is there for the general public? Even if one of the competitive corporations happens to be based in Canada, competing against a foreign-owned company, i.e. Bombardier vs. Boeing, there is nothing for the Canadian public if Bombardier dominates the market and gets richer and richer. In this climate of dollars and cents, why should anybody treat and support an incorporated entity as if it is a national team, competing in an international tournament such as the Olympics. Unlike the Olympics, there is no national pride involved in major or minor leagues. NBA is not a tournament which is meant to bring nations together, nor does it promote peace and unity within the global community through the medium of sports. The difference between the two contests is enormous, yet hardly realized. The NBA itself is a typical money-grubbing corporation, void of culture and history.
One would make a fortune when one sells patented bubbles of air to this fervid crowd
If we understand group psychology and subtle factors involved in marketing techniques, we can then understand how the public sentiment is prepared in favour of frivolous pursuits. These pursuits are a function of prescribed erroneous priorities, which lead to following the crowd blindly. Devotion to a corporate logo is not a result of an inherent natural self-organized phenomenon. It is a product of deliberate systematic brainwashing void of any reflection and critical thinking. It should not be considered as a harmless inconsequential pastime. When frivolous pastimes are aggrandized to the level of tribal frenzy, no matter what the event, people or subject is, the pattern of such behaviour is frighteningly symptomatic of rationality being bypassed at the core of the psyche. Such behavior becomes both a model, dry-run and technique for mass brainwashing and social control, be it for pushing the masses into an unjust war or normalizing the ‘imbibing’ of wicked, indecent acts, a means of social control whose benefit is the same: more profit and power for the few at the naive expense of the so many. Perhaps if one sees such a Corporate Logo, it should be detected as a Corporate No-go! The No-go can effectively distract us from the realization of what ought to have our utmost attention in life, and allows the blood-sucking tycoons to take us for a never-ending ride.
Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) was a Swiss psychiatrist well-known for developing a projective technique coined as the Rorschach inkblot test. Rorschach was trying to relate human perception to personality characteristics. He believed the way subjects describe ambiguous inkblots can provide valuable clues to their basic inner feelings, personality traits, or could even diagnose mental illness, as each individual sees a given inkblot card based on his or her perception and personality. Psychologists then can deduce from the described images, if the subject is a lover, fighter, hatemonger or schizophrenic. Rorschach’s approach is meant to reveal how a person unconsciously processes information.
Our understanding of external reality could be similar to our interpretation of mishmash inkblots. We tend to project what we cherish to what is before us. If one is obdurate and does not engage in constant re-examination, an error in judgment is inevitable.
For example, there is one particular group of scientists who adhere and promote militant atheism. The members of this group constantly look into the seemingly mother of all ambiguous cards: living organisms. Apparently, these ubiquitous natural cards are so deceptive which makes it very hard for an average layman to correctly tell what they could possibly entail. To this group, by analyzing the entire universe, the only thing that one can detect with absolute certainty is that each prodigious card is uncaused, unguided, unplanned, the end result of an undirected mindless material process that has randomly evolved out of nowhere with no purpose, no intent. All organisms in nature individually and collectively may look intelligently designed, but they are not. The illusion of design can fool unwary observers. Any other inference is nothing, but dogmatic religious interpretation. One is indeed stupid, and a pathetic loser if one thinks otherwise.
No doubt, such a card reading can tell plenty about the psychological makeup of the individual.
Ironically, ardent atheist scientists presuppose their own interpretation is not a subjective construct, but hardcore science. This is a sign of sheer arrogance and cynical overconfidence. The likes of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss would like us to think that it is the science which leads them to atheism. But, is it? As it happened for one ex-atheist: Antony Flew, it was precisely science which led him to steer from atheism to theism. These supercilious scientists are so impressed with their own narcissistic interpretation; always think of themselves as being so rational, geniuses, rare prodigies that appear once in a millennium, who boldly would go where only reason and evidence point to.
On the other hand, if any dissenting scientists, advocate intelligence behind complex designs, it is none other than their religious inclination which leads them to conclude there must be an Intelligent Designer involved. The conflict in visions between the atheists and the so-called “believers” is said to be due to the immaculate scientific objectivity of one group, versus the obtuse religious subjectivity of the other group, even though both groups are scientists by profession, with similar academic credentials, and products of the same educational system. One is apparently a weak slave of religious indoctrination; the other a strong champion of truth-seeking freethinkers humanist society. Why is there such a preposterous double-standard? Why should we assume the likes of Dawkins and Krauss are saints, that they cannot be dogmatically influenced by their very own atheism, influenced by their secular Godless religion, or perhaps by temptations for fame and wealth? One could be the world’s greatest scientist in biology or physics, but still have a dogmatic mind.
The most bizarre aspect of the Dawkinsian interpretation of nature’s “inkblots” is the attempt to universalize it, as though it is a proven fact, that there is only one valid causal explanation for the universe, and that is the naturalistic account. Everyone has to interpret inkblots the way neo-atheists do.
To maintain the naturalistic conformity, the neo-atheists shoot down any alternative explanation at the infancy by appealing to ad hominem attacks, character assignation, name-calling, and condescension to regularly stigmatize and discredit their opponents, a deplorable approach in what purports to be an impartial scientific investigation. This is indeed a disgustingly low strategy to win a debate.
After all, is it not possible that organisms look like they are designed, simply because they are precisely designed for a purpose? The implication of such a possibility should not be bothersome for genuine lovers of truth. To say the least, the question deserves a fair and equal consideration. Yet, in the midst of conflicting opinions, who would most likely be in error, the one who is intolerant and displays arrogance or the one who humbly submits to the Grand Designer?
“It wasn’t me, it was my hand, blame it on the sleeve which controls the hand” is a famous poetic story in Persian children’s literature that all Iranian children are well familiar with. It is a story about a naughty little girl named Saba who frequently misbehaves and when is questioned by her parents, she starts to lie and come up with ridiculous defenses to get away from punishment for her mischief. Her notorious defense is that: “I didn’t do that, it was my hand!” She goes on to say the hand was under the control of the sleeve, and the sleeve, in turn, was controlled by the jacket. Nonetheless, I was wearing my brother’s jacket. Therefore, go blame my brother. A child may think that offering such an explanation may wash off her hands from any responsibilities for her wrongdoings. But, that is the expectation of an immature child growing up. Unlike a child, the grown-up heads of states cannot be so naïve as to live in a child’s world.
The ludicrous explanation offered by the Saudi regime for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi resembles very much the above childlike mentality. It further demonstrates the degree of sub-asinine-ness of the Saudi regime which expects the world to believe their nonsensical defense. After two weeks of flat denial, the Saudi mobsters start to gradually suggest that the slain journalist was somehow accidentally killed in a fistfight. We are expected to believe that an overweight 59-year-old entered the Saudi Consulate to engage in a fistfight like Bruce Lee, but ended up losing. Ironically, it all happened while the pious and innocent Saudi elites were kept in dark. The official Saudi position is that the so-called “King” and “Crown Prince” had no connections with this incident. Certain rogue elements orchestrated the murder without Riyadh’s knowledge. How convenient! Supposedly, the authorities in Riyadh learned about this incident when it became international headline news. This foolish damage control is an insult to human intellect. It is impossible, even for feeble brains to believe in such dribble. How do you accidentally butcher a high-profile critic of the regime in a consulate? And then a minor detail: where is the body?The more ridiculous part of this saga is when the United States President accepts the bizarre explanation as if it is plausible. He seems to be more upset with the mediocre level of the Saudi operation and their subsequent sloppy cover up, than the actual crime itself. Did they not drink enough coffee to stay awake in the “Cover-up 101” training sessions offered by the U.S. Intelligence Services? Trump is upset because after many years of costly PR campaign the true face of MBS, the darling of the West is finally exposed, a fake visionary reformer with hands soaked in blood. This phony presidential puppet is upset, because the international focus is rightly shifted from Iran to Saudi Arabia, a cordial ally of the United States. He is upset, because this gruesome political assassination has received more attention than the devastating silent war in Yemen, which raises the question of why is the U.S. selling so many weapons to the murderous Saudis to prolong their aggression. This episode clearly exposes the utterly sick relationship the Western nations have had and have continued to foster for hundreds of years with the Middle Eastern nations that even the dumbest jingoist in the West is now questioning.
There are two different accounts of what happened at the consulate reported by Turkish and Saudi authorities. The Turkish account indicates that the crime was premeditated and the victim was lured into the consulate to be killed. The Saudi version is that certain Saudi diplomats acted on their own without any authorization from Riyadh.
To identify the responsible party involved, there is no need to focus on the specific flaws in the provided alibi. No need exists to focus on the compiled evidence which are found to be contrary to what is said by the Saudis. No need exists to press them for countless unanswered questions, such as how the top Saudi autopsy specialist equipped with a bone saw ended up being Johnny-on-the-spot at the consulate. Or, how and where the dismembered body was disposed of?
Let’s suppose we have a foggy case of “he said, she said”. Nevertheless, it is not hard to determine who the culprit is and identify those who are primarily responsible in this grotesque crime. The Saudi provided argument can still be easily debunked in principle. The dastardly MBS and his decrepit daddy conveniently ignore a key material fact in this case. Since when, has ignorance become an acceptable defense in any tribunal setting? “We did not know” can never be an excuse or in this case even be a remote possibility. A head of state is always in control, is always in command, particularly in an autocracy where the ruler is obsessed with power. In an autocratic system, only the one on the top gives orders, be that the Caesar, the Pharaoh, the Supreme leader, the Emperor or the King of the Kings. He solely possesses absolute power. Everything else in this system is merely decor. In this system, the ruler can no longer put the blame on subordinates for the concomitant disastrous outcomes of his mandated actions. Here, a dictator cannot eat his cake and have it too. With absolute power comes absolute responsibility. Therefore, in this system, when shit hits the fan, the ruler cannot blame the powerless sleeves for unintended consequences. The responsibility for the mess created is squarely on him. Sleeves have only been following the doomed orders of the wearer of the sleeves.The rank hypocrisy is that the U.S. is supporting Arab dictators and their horrendous crime in Yemen. As always, the American administration lacks a basic moral compass, and chooses profit over principle, profit earned at the cost of innocent lives destroyed.
It appears that the Saudi’s may have introduced a new word in the English language: to get Khashoggied: that is “to enter into an establishment in peace, but end up being butchered.” His last blog has literally been written in blood and guts, and is proving to be the most effective one, as another nail in the coffin of the perverse symbiosis between the greedy West and the corrupt governments of the Middle East has been laid bare.
In early August, the Canadian public woke up to the news in which hell had broken loose, as diplomatic and economic relationships between Canada and Saudi Arabia suddenly went sour. In a surprise move, the Saudi regime harshly overreacted to a meaningless tweet made by Canada’s Minister of External Affairs criticizing Saudis for human rights abuses. What follows in the political scene resembled a silly daytime soap opera not worthy of being aired for the second season.
In essence, the spat between the two countries is a clash between two hypocrites who are concerned over their image as opposed to the substance of their policies. The two are indeed guilty of hypocrisy and public deception. Canada supposedly values human rights and Saudis under the leadership of a young “Crown Prince”, as claimed aim for social reform and modernization.
The Canadian politicians like to maintain Canada’s pretentious peace-keeping image. Canada is purported to be a vociferous champion of human rights and democracy. For example, the previous Canadian government in a PR stunt severed all diplomatic ties with Iran and imposed sanctions for that country’s violation of human rights. However, Canada’s ongoing egregious hypocrisy is in criticizing human rights abuses by another regime that the entire Western world including Canada arms to the teeth. Saudi Arabia is the favorite arms export market for the global system of exploitation and violence. Canada sells arms to the despotic Saudi regime, knowing so well they would use the purchased military equipment against innocent civilians, to brutally crackdown on dissents and political oppositions. It then, turns around and hypocritically criticizes a client state for mistreating her own citizens, as though the arms sold to Saudis would play no role in human rights abuses. Why is there a double-standard in supposedly identical cases of Iran and Saudi Arabia? However, as Noam Chomsky asserts “Iran compared to Saudi Arabia is a civil rights paradise.” Yet, Canada chooses to have relationships and do business with the Saudis, which undoubtedly is the most repressive regime in the world.
The crucial question here would be: why is a supposed democracy and human rights-loving Canada selling arms to a Stone Age autocratic regime? In fact, a country that prides itself in being a champion of human rights, woman’s rights, democracy and pro-peace should not at all be in the business of arms manufacturing. It is like advocating abstinence in the consumption of alcohol while at the same time fostering a thriving alcohol industry. Clearly, there is an antithetical incongruity between the ideal-self, Canada as a peacekeeper versus the real-self, Canada as an arms dealer.
Moreover, if Canada truly cares about human rights as she claims, she should be utmost critical of the apartheid Israel for its violent treatment of Palestinians. Far from that, Canada has always supported Israel while others have criticized the Zionist crimes. At the U.N., Canada defends Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, opposes self-determination for Palestinians, regularly votes against resolutions that condemn Israel, then turns around and sheds ugly crocodile tears for Saudi women and jailed bloggers. The truth is, even breaking diplomatic ties with Iran had nothing to do with Iran’s records on human rights, but had everything to do with supporting the mother of all human rights abusers, the greatest violator of United Nations resolutions and international law: Israel.
Another example of indifference and disregard for human rights is the case of the Rohingya people, who have fled from the brutal Myanmar Regime. Canada does not even want to use the word Genocide to refer to atrocities committed.
On the other hand, the Saudis who are busy with exterior remodeling and image makeover, claim that Canada’s position exerts an overt and blatant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The single tweet that was cast is seen as a breach of the most basic international norms and all charters governing relations between states. Look who is talking here, the position of the Saudi regime cannot be more hypocritical. A regime that owes its core existence to the British interference to put the Al Saud family in charge of oil wells in the Arabian Peninsula is upset about foreign interference. The same regime which interferes in the internal affairs of Yemen by waging a war, has been directly involved in the internal affairs of Bahrain by sending troops there, has interfered in the domestic affairs of Iran, Iraq and Syria by financing terrorist activities. The impetuous regime which had the audacity to kidnap the Lebanese Prime Minister in bright daylight cannot tolerate a frivolous tweet intended for domestic consumption.
The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, a well-known warmongering thug who turned into a “Prince” by a neocolonial kiss to the proverbial frog gets offended by the tweet. His Majesty is so insulted that he decides to teach Canada a lesson by halting all trade and imposing sanctions against Canada. These imbecilic Saudi thugs still have not learned anything from their last year disastrous Qatar venture. Bullying Qatar via boycotts and sanctions were so ineffective that Qataris have not yet stopped laughing. Indeed, only fools make the same mistake twice. In halting trade with Canada, for every dollar Canada loses, the Saudis lose much more. The Saudis are notorious in shooting themselves in the foot and scoring an own-goal.
A case in point is in the Saudis suspending their state-owned airline flights to Canada. For the past several years Saudi Airlines had regular flights between Toronto and Jeddah. Here is a case that the Government of Canada had allowed a foreign carrier to operate in Canada and make a huge profit. The Saudis suspended all flights, surely Air Canada and other carriers are more than happy to pick up the Saudi market share.
Consider abruptly pulling out Saudi students from Canadian universities just before the start of a new school year. In a time-consuming process, these squeezed students must first apply at other foreign universities elsewhere, then apply for student visas. They would lose so much, both financially as well as academically as other universities would not give them full credit for what they have taken at Canadian institutions.
Taking spiteful actions against those who superficially stand by rights activists will neither help Saudi Arabia’s image makeover nor attract foreign investment into the country. It only demonstrates their level of intolerance, and results in further isolation of this autocratic state.
This shambolic soap opera shows how much nefarious politics and hypocrisy are intertwined, while in essence, the interconnectivity should be between politics and ethics. Cultural and socio-political superiority do not reside in what one preaches, but in how one conducts one’s affairs consistently across the board.
One of the common criticisms made against Islam by orientalists and neo-atheists is that, Islam is a religion which was spread by the sword. The Prophet of Islam is painted as a blood-thirsty warlord, an expansionist villain with a voracious taste for power. The Quranic position with respect to the use of violence is clear: interested parties can easily check it out. Violence can only be used as self-defense. In fact, Islam instructs its followers not to answer injustice with injustice and recommends that it is better to forgive (Quran 5:8 & 5:3). Ironically, those who make such a devious criticism against Islam seem to have no problem with spreading “democracy” by bombs. Why is there a double standard?
The neo-atheists, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have continuously criticized Islam as a perilous ideology which had expanded from Indonesia to Spain by the use of violence. By providing some random and out of the context quotations from the Quran their assertion is insidiously sold to the credulous audience. Yet, these three peace-loving pacifists had no problem in supporting the Gulf War. Their message is clear. Islam is a supreme threat, not to atheism, but to the entire “free world”. How so? Violence is dreadful, Muslims are violent and they are out to convert us by force. Their goal is to replace the Constitution with Sharia law, and establish a radical Islamist caliphate.
On the other hand, when it comes to the Occident, the perspective drastically changes. Thanks to a systematic brainwashing campaign, the American public overwhelmingly believes in the use of violence to bring peace, stability, democracy and restoration of human rights. They believe that one can achieve such a soothing goal by bombing nations into annihilation. Violence against defenseless people is suddenly altruistic. The democracy and human rights loving West is the philanthropic crusader, fighting for the best welfare of the oppressed Arabs and Afghans. “War on Terror” is a humanitarian approach to free the enslaved primitive masses from tyranny.
Needless to say, such an endeavor can only be implemented by a cunning system which is founded and operates on fabricated pretexts, mendacious lies and hypocrisy, immune from shame with no trace of inner guilt.
For example, the invasion of Iraq and Libya was portrayed like it was all about liberating Iraqis and Libyans, as if their B-52 bombers were dropping ballot boxes. While, in essence, it is about destabilizing the region, pilfering their national resources and protecting Israeli hegemony in the region. The question worth asking is: who is indeed the inheritor of a culture of violence: the vile Muslims or the magnanimous Imperialist West?
Violence is pervasive in American culture and this pervasiveness is not limited to their jingoistic military approach outside of their borders. It also consumes its own flesh from within. It manifests itself in their love for guns, in popular sports and entertainments. Even their conflict resolution approach lacks diplomacy and is based on violence. The preemptive strike is always the preferred course of action. The U.S. has the highest rate of homicide among industrial countries. Repeated tragic mass shootings in American schools and public arenas are one of the side effects of this violent gun culture. Mass shootings have become a fact of life and a nightmare for every parent in America, with no effective remedy in sight. Why is the U.S. unlike other industrial nations suffers so much from this plague? As Malcolm X commented on JFK’s assassination, chickens always come home to roost, meaning that violence is the concomitant result of the climate of hate and violence. Such an outcome is indeed an inevitable consequence of the social web of cause and effect. If you constantly speak in the language of violence, you are promoting this language indiscriminately.
To embark upon this appalling problem, the sought out remedy is to arm the school teachers to protect students. Evidently, the proposed solution to tackle gun violence is based on violence, just the same way as liberal democracy is supposedly exported at gunpoint. All essential perquisites and the social web of cause and effect are seemingly unrecognized or deliberately ignored. Indeed, the proposed solution of arming teachers with guns is not out of concerns for saving innocent lives. Those who put profits above Iraqi lives cannot suddenly feel pity and put American lives above profit. One cannot expect any other solution from war profiteers. In fact, the proposed solution is an evil genius approach to double the profit margin for NRA, while looking concerned and proactive. The militarization of schools cannot avoid carnage; it makes further horrible tragedies inevitable. The American politicians including the President have no power on their own, they are a mere front. All are subservient to a global system of violence and exploitation. Their actions are not about finding a viable solution for our social ills, but to protect corporate profits. Agendas are set; policies are dictated by the elites, private financial institutions and corporations behind the scene. Western “democracy” is nothing but disguised dictatorship, a flawed hypocritical system, no better off than totalitarianism.
Until America espouses global justice and extends its circle of compassion and fairness to the entire international community, and all living beings, they will not find peace at home. As Malcolm X prudently pointed out, the two are unavoidably intertwined.
The most unpleasant part of my daily duties at work is when I have to attend a medical emergency at the gate when a flight arrives with a passenger on board in a critical condition. At airports, police and border officers are part of the emergency responders who are required to attend the scene. My presence has the least priority among all who quickly show up. Thus, I stay out of the way and observe the situation. My involvement all depends on the outcome of the situation and what may transpire.
In my career, I have witnessed numerous situations where a passenger actually died during the flight or shortly after arrival. Usually witnessing this sad situation makes me psychologically dysfunctional for a few days.
The ubiquitous observation witnessed is that the paramedic team acts like a bunch of butterflies hovering over flower nectar. They are all over the patient trying to bring him/her back to life. One is engaged in CPR, another is measuring the vital signs, etc. Often every moment counts and could determine life or death. The paramedic team has no idea who the passenger is. What his or her religion, ethnicity or social status is, has no bearing on the task that ought to be performed. Yet, they act relentlessly like it is their own loved one before them. The efforts they make are indeed commendable. Their arduous actions are loud and clear, life is valuable and must be saved: “Don’t you die on me”. Other secondary participants like me are staying aside observing with a grim look on our faces.
In many cases, the observer can tell the efforts of the medical team are not going too well, vital signs are dropping, and the patient is still unconscious and unresponsive. This is the moment that I always feel that to be a human is inadequate, and earnestly wish I was an angel with supernatural powers, could with the permission of the Divine heal and send off the revived person to his/her family. No doubt I am not the only one who feels that way. Who wouldn’t? It is the nature of human beings to help those who are in need, and we innately feel good when we do. That is indeed why many crooks and charlatans often con their victims by appealing to pity. Man is in essence noble with the potential to do evil. One can be a philanthropist, just as one could choose to be a con artist. Honourable or dishonourable actions are willful choices that one makes.
The 13th century Persian poet and philosopher Saadi of Shiraz, has a famous saying which is inscribed at the entrance of the United Nations building in New York:
Of One Essence is the Human Race, Thusly has Creation put the Base. One Limb impacted is sufficient, For all Others to feel the Mace. The Unconcerned with Others’ Plight, Are but Brutes with Human Face.
Saadi noted this trademark characteristic of human beings so well, that he continuously emphasized its importance through his poetry. But, was Saadi unable to see the dark side of human beings? That, we far from helping one another, often maliciously cause, contribute or capitalize on the misery of those who are in pain. There are other cases of reaction to emergency situations by different emergency responders that do the opposite. They severely injure a healthy and unarmed person, or as it is very prevailing in the United States and Israel nowadays, where the subject is instantly shot dead. The ambulance crew shows up last only to pick up the dead body. Contrary to the airport cases, here, their despicable actions demonstrate that human life has no value whatsoever. Race, ethnicity, or social status usually plays a major role. Taking life and putting the blame on the victim is the institutionalized state policy, so long as the officers involved can articulate the rationale behind their actions in accordance with the policy.
Saadi’s position on the interconnectivity of the human community is clear. Collectively or individually, in uniform or out of uniform, if you are indifferent and have no sympathy for the pain and suffering of others, you are then unworthy to be called a human being. If we adopt his demarcation, what do we then call those who never show mercy, overwhelmed by hatred and greed who thrive on the misery of humanity, like the ethnic cleansers, the occupiers, the terrorists by profession disguised as good guys, the warmongers and war profiteers? All those who have no regard for the sanctity of life.
Being human is given, but keeping our humanity is a personal choice. So it is that one may see no sign of humanity where there are so many humans. If one repeatedly acts in a cruel manner or lacks compassion and apathy, having a mere exterior of human form would not necessarily establish his or her humanity. No human carnage can be justified by “following orders” or “sanctioned UN resolutions”. No heartless inhumane behaviour, masquerading by international laws which results in the destruction of the environment, properties and human life, can ever be legitimized as mere “collateral damage”.
Interestingly, in making one of the two choices, being human comes naturally, on the contrary, being inhuman takes a lot of effort. It is like swimming against the current.
It is reported that once a group of specialized promotional consultants from an advertising agency had just finished their presentation of a market survey to the board of governors of a client firm. The findings have appeared to be so conclusive, showing that the prior policies which were followed by the firm would only lead to unproductive and disappointing outcomes. Despite the clear facts given during the presentation, the CEO of the client company had no desire to change the business strategy which had been previously implemented by him. At the meeting, he adamantly replied: “My mind is already made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” This is a classic textbook example of willful ignorance, when one is fully aware of existing facts or lack of them, yet refuses to accept the apparent conclusion. It is ignorance of the highest level, when a reckless wishful thinker assumes that facts start to vanish because they are ignored, or speculations and theories are true because one likes them to be.
This precarious attitude of ignoring facts and blind devotion to a cherished belief is notoriously prevailing in our society. Existing facts or lack of them seem to have no implications to many. Selfishness and vested interests often impair one’s judgments. Veteran journalist Ted Koppel during a recent interview with Fox News brought our attention to this predicament. He confronts his opinionated host that adherence to an ideology should not outweigh facts:
Koppel was short of reminding his conniving host that one’s political convictions ought to be based on facts, otherwise why should any rational person adopt and be loyal to a baseless and fictitious ideology.
On the political scene, the United States political establishment prefers putting the blame for their socio-economic misfortune on Mexicans, Muslims and bogymen than ruthless capitalism, as though, over a century of U.S. imperial domination of the world has nothing to do with the subjugating nations resisting the U.S. military hegemony. “Make America great again!” is a myopic and flawed sloganistic ideology, arrogantly propagated to divert a nation’s attention from hideously insane and inane policies under the hidden agenda of the global elite.
In scientific discourse, evolutionary biologist: Richard Dawkins, the founder of Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science launched a national campaign to promote atheism, an ideology which has nothing to do with science or reason. Dawkins abandons scientific objectivity and evidence-based ruling in favor of a preferred ideology. For months, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” appeared on UK buses.
Note “probably”. Indeed, since when has science started to operate on probability as the basis of its foundational principles? When did ever science or any other school of thought establish that the belief in a caused universe is sadomasochistic, inconvenient and at odds with the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of life? On the other hand, on what grounds has atheism foisted itself as being synonymous with the joy of life? The campaign makes it seem like one may perhaps win a lottery and live happily ever after, if one disbelieves in a caused universe. Dawkins’ campaign aims to give the impression that an uncaused or self-created universe is a scientific fact. Anything otherwise is unscientific, resulting in an unhappy life. It further neglects that there are far more important things in life than seeking enjoyment and “happiness”.
However, a closer analysis shows that a group of determined atheist academics are masquerading their personal opinion as science, and pretend that there are facts to support their assertions.
Society has become biased, unaccustomed to critical thinking, more fascinated by ambiguous ideologies than clarities, and less compliant to objective facts. This is certainly a disturbing trend, and it is clear to all those who are truly rational, and rely on evidence. But “probably” few will realize this.
Have you ever looked up at the starlit sky one night and wondered about the magnificent order in the Universe?
Perhaps you are a biologist and are struck by the remarkable complexity of even the smallest microbe.
Perhaps you are a beekeeper and are amazed by how flower nectar turns into a sweet nutritious liquid.
Perhaps you are a mother and are intrigued by the contrasting impact of an infant’s cries and laughs on your cognition.
Perhaps you are a farmer and are impressed by the harmony and order in nature.
Perhaps then, you might have wondered that given the astonishing complexity of the structure of the universe, its laws and all that is within, that there surely must be a Creator who has put this master scheme into effect.
Perhaps then, like the entire cosmos, you too might be in submission to His laws.
Perhaps then, you might be a Muslim.
Warning: Please stop wondering any further, you are on the verge of being labeled a terrorist, and deemed inadmissible to the United States of America where critical thinking and questioning convention are strictly prohibited.
I must have been 3 or 4 years old. After half a century, the memory of that day is still vividly fresh in my mind with so many details. It was my mother who came to me the day before and told me that tomorrow is “take kids to work day”. With her innate caring charm, she asked if I would like to have fun by allowing my father to take me to his work. She got me excited and I replied “yes”, with so much enthusiasm. My father was a civil engineer working on construction sites in the suburbs surrounded by natural beauties. I went to bed that night and looked forward to having fun the next day by running around in the prairie.
In the morning, my mother dressed me up with nice clothes and made me wear clean underwear. She told me: “today your dad is working at the hospital.” I knew my father also had a second job in the local hospital in our hometown. I was disappointed about not being able to be in nature, but still was excited about the opportunity to get out of the house.
On our way to his work, my father tried to explain his job, working as a radiologist at the Department of Medical Imaging. It was my first trip to a hospital and I did not find anything exciting about the hospital environment. I recall, I spent most of the day waiting in the waiting area full of sick people, or around the garden at the front entrance of the hospital smelling violets and daffodils. By mid-day, I was getting restless and bored, told my father that I wanted to go home. My father then introduced me to a nurse colleague and said she can show me an operation room before heading home. The nurse holding my hand took me alone inside, straight to an operating room. She asked if I wanted to play the game of “doctor and patient” and I would be the patient being operated on. I agreed. She put me on the operation bed. The next thing I knew I was surrounded by a few doctors and nurses. I thought it was all a game, until a male doctor removed my pants and started to touch my private part. Even at such an early age I recognized that to be ungentlemanly conduct, felt very uncomfortable being exposed and helpless. I had no idea what they were all up to. So, broke into tears. I remember too well another doctor with an unpersuasive smile put a black rubber on my nose and I quickly went into a deep sleep.
The next thing I recall, I woke up at home in my room, being slightly in pain, wearing a loose skirt with bloodstains, surrounded by boxes of sweets and pastries, and a couple of new toys at my bedside.
It took me a few more years to learn what happened to me that day was a simple medical procedure called circumcision, which all my peers have gone through. I do not recall either one of my parents ever lied to me again, not even a white lie. Despite that haunting experience, in my book, my parents never lost their credibility or my respect.
While growing up, for years I kept asking myself, why did my parents lie and set me up? Were they at fault? Would there not have been a better alternative than deception to handle what was coming to me? Foremost, how would I have reacted to any other possible approaches?
I suppose another option would have been for my parents to tell the truth at the outset and allow me to make that decision for myself, after all as the civil libertarians advocate, it is my penis. My father could have come to me saying: Son, Piaget the renowned Swiss developmental psychologist argues that you can handle the truth at any age. I see it in you, you will grow up to study philosophy and logic. You will be a man of reason and rationality. So, let’s talk man to man, let me give it to you straight: Your Mom and I are concerned about your hygiene. We are committed to preventing you from having penile problems, such as having a decreased risk of urinary tract infections. More so, when you grow up, we like you to have a decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. We would like to avoid, you suffering from phimosis, which is an inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis. Beware that the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract. By being more hygienic as such, this helps your future wife to reduce the risk of having cervical cancer.
Relax and do not confuse this simple medical procedure with a form of cruel barbaric genital mutilation or allow yourself to suffer from a Freudian notion of castration anxiety. The doctor involved is the best surgeon in this field. Trust him. He is going to cut just the top skin, not the whole thing. It is recommended that this surgery to be done at an early age. I assure you that the idea is safe. It has been practiced for thousands of years by all Muslims, Jews and boys from certain aboriginal tribes in Africa and Australia. Despite what you may hear later from secularists and atheists, we are not trying to indoctrinate you or subjugate you to a cruel religious ritual. If you don’t believe me, I offer you a Popperian falsification, go ahead make my day, consult with the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP). I take it you understand everything. So what do you say, do you agree to a prepucectomy? If so, please sign the consent form after consulting this matter with your lawyer.
Regardless of how smart a kid may be, even a genius 3-year-old is still a 3-year-old child. In retrospect, when I think of it; my parents indeed handled this in the best possible way. They unconditionally served my best interest with no appeal to cruelty or indoctrination. The reason for their lie was to eliminate the fear factor for a 3-year old child. My experience was void of any imposed religious or cultural flavour. In fact, I would not have known what happened that day, if the medical team had acted more diligently, by putting me under anesthesia first before starting the operation. Far from child abuse, my parents’ actions were no different than when Western parents tell stories about the tooth fairy to a child who is about to lose a tooth. How is the former considered as indoctrination but the latter is not? Why is it that parents like mine must be “ashamed”, are accused of cruelty motivated by religious dogma, having indoctrinated their children like a cult leader?
From Hitchens’s point of view, circumcising a little boy is a “shameful” and “inhumane” act. However, Hitchens had no problem supporting the invasion of Iraq which resulted in the death of over 200,000 innocent Iraqis, most of whom were children. Is this not a case of hypocrisy, or perhaps a convoluted perspective on what is “humane” and “inhumane”? He blatantly ignores researched data which disagrees with his position.
The other opponents of the practice of circumcision are the far-right anti-immigrant groups in Europe and North America, who think in Rome, immigrants should only do what Romans do. They take an offense, if the penis of an immigrant does not look consimilar to theirs. Similar to opposing to Halal/Kosher dietary practices or observing dress codes, circumcision is also under attack. Its practice seems taken as a big threat to Western values, values which are supposedly built on Judo-Christian heritage, and loudly broadcast tolerance and pluralism.
Like atheists, this group is also arrogantly attacking the practice of circumcision under the pretense of intellectualism blended with a self-acclaimed superior sense of morality and concerns for children’s welfare. In reality, their campaign to demonize and ban circumcision is nothing short of racism and xenophobia.
What motivates me to write this article is because I am getting sick of seeing how secularists like Hitchens, Dawkins and Krauss elevate themselves intellectually and morally high by painting their opponents as being stupid and barbaric. The current anti-theist movement revolves around a campaign that we the atheists are rational, objective; believe in science, and the theists are barbaric and close-minded. For Nothingness sake, for the love of natural selection, in defense of atheistic view, at least say something rational, objective and scientific.
A number of years ago my eyes were badly injured during a recreational soccer game. As a result of this injury, I was temporarily blinded for a few weeks. At the time, I had no idea if I could ever see again. Although this was a traumatic and frightening experience, it was not without its rewards. The whole ordeal was a lesson in blindness. It taught me how I took my vision for granted all along. It taught me empirically what it means to be deprived of one of the most precious senses. Above all, it taught me how easy it is for one to suddenly lose his vision. When I recovered, I began to cherish my eyes and used my sense of vision with a great deal of joy, care and appreciation.
Not long after this ordeal, I found the opportunity to work as a graduate intern at the UNHCR Head Office in Ankara, Turkey. I was responsible to interview asylum seekers and screen them according to the UNHCR’s refugee determination criteria.
This experience was similar to my eye injury, although it was very depressing, it was nonetheless very rewarding. It brought me close enough to witness the plight of those refugees who were in serious financial, psychological and even physical pain. The uniqueness of such an experience is the realization of the same ubiquitous reality that one witnesses night after night on the television screen, but this time perception of this reality is aided with more than one sense. The focus of this perception is on displaced people who are human beings like everyone of us with flesh, feelings and hopes, but are dehumanized by having been turned into file numbers. One of the most unforgettable incidents, while I was there, took place during an early morning interview. A middle-aged asylum seeker was just admitted to the office for his first interview. Although the man appeared healthy, he was under so much stress that as soon as he started to reveal his grounds for asylum he collapsed with a heart attack. He died in the office, right in front of the legal officer and an interpreter. I was told later that this was “nothing,” incidents such as someone burning himself in front of the UNHCR building or somebody throwing his sick child in front of a vehicle to relieve the child of the pain were common incidents there. The situation at the UNHCR camps was far worse than the Head Office.
My daily experiences were particularly depressing for a new employee who had to face the misery of destitute and then make a yes or no “moral” decision. Indeed, reading Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Kant and all other theoretical writings on ethics meant nothing when it came to a real-life situation. It was striking to see that the permanent employees were very accustomed to this operational ennui. It frightened me to think that the same thing could have happened to me if I had stayed there a little longer. There, in the legal unit of the UNHCR, legal officers are involved in making decisions on the future of these applicants. They act like quality control inspectors on an assembly line filtering out unwanted goods. The irony in this process is that the needless determine the fate of the needy in accordance with ethical values which are relative and culturally biased. Being involved in this pedagogical process was indeed my greatest difficulty, especially when the system is known to be deficient from experiences elsewhere.
As one of the consequences of the U.S.’s rampant jingoistic military intervention in the Persian Gulf, the majority of the refugees coming into Turkey were Iraqis, who were fleeing the severe economic hardship imposed on them by Western economic embargos. The distinction between a convention refugee and a migrant worker is clear in the UNHCR Determination Handbook, and of course “the UNHCR does not act as travel agency” in population movements. Thus, those who do not fit the convention definition are doomed to be rejected. None of the asylum seekers get any benefit from the UN, unless they are first recognized as a convention refugee. The result is tantamount to a disappointing brush-off for a great number of those who seek asylum.
The standard and ubiquitous cliche: “We regret to inform you that …, thank you for your interest in UNHCR, we hope that you are successful elsewhere in your future objectives” appears in the only correspondence that a refugee receives from the UNHCR. Indirectly, the rejectees are treated as though they are guilty of committing an embarrassing crime like shoplifting or plagiarizing an essay, while their only “misdeed” is trying to provide better living conditions for their family. “You migrant worker, how dare you to impersonate a convention refugee.” A “crime” that without any hesitation anyone of us would commit being in their position. Often both the needless and the needy are where they are due to an accident of birth and fate. The needless, seemingly immune from displacement, are indifferent to the needs of the needy. The needless never think that they too may easily become one of the needy, just as we hardly ever consider that we may lose our precious eyesight.
The rejectees often remain in Turkey illegally, hoping to reach their destination through smugglers. The smugglers, who can hardly be trusted, often prey ruthlessly on the vulnerability of these desperate people. They charge as much as U.S.$10,000 to provide them with a forged passport and an airline ticket. While in Turkey, if they are caught, they are subject to prosecution and deportation by the Turkish authorities.
As a result of this obviously faulty process, many NGOs and refugee rights advocates have campaigned for broadening the 1951 UN definition of a refugee. Although concerned for human rights, I personally never favoured the idea of keep changing the “outdated” definition of a convention refugee in order to accommodate the larger number of asylum seekers of the 1990s and onwards. That is simply because we should always seek an optimal solution as opposed to a band-aid approach and false comfort. Therefore, we must handle any problems at the foundational level, to see what has caused the cracks in the structure in the first place. Thus, we ought to remove the sources which have generated the defects, rather than just dealing with symptoms. Furthermore, if we try to revise the 1951 definition of refugee in order to accommodate the current situation, then what are we going to do in the next few decades when the 1990s or 2010s definition is once again outdated? We have already tried this approach once in the 1960s through the added rights implemented by the 1967 Protocol and that soon after deemed to be insufficient.
Therefore, it seems that changing the definition every once in a while is far from being an optimal solution or a foundational approach. The curing solution does not lie in allowing more refugees to settle in the West. Our attention, if genuine, ought to be in eradicating the problem from its root, which is indeed viable if our priorities are just and correctly focused. For example, in the case of Iraqi refugees, if the UN enforced economic blockade against Iraq was never imposed, then many of these refugees whom I met in Turkey would not have abandoned their homeland, possessions, culture, way of life, family and beg for membership in a foreign and often hostile society. Why should Western powers punish Iraqi children by putting a ban on the exportation of medicine and baby formula? The Iraqi refugees are the victims of the so-called “New World Order”, which evidently breathes disorder.
Three decades have passed; Turkey is once again a major gathering place of refugees from the Middle East. However, this time, they are not the downcast non-convention refugees who are escaping poverty. They are the genuine convention refugees, consisting of Syrians and Iraqis fleeing war zones, an internal war composed and conducted by Western powers.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen are the regional nations that one by one are being destroyed primarily for their natural resources or for their vital strategic location. The Middle East is deliberately destabilized by state sponsors of terrorism run by a bunch of well-groomed psychopathic warmongering criminals to ensure the survival of Israel and cheap oil shipped to the West.
The democracy-loving, human rights loving and freedom-loving Neocons have turned the Middle East into an eerie graveyard where the masked scavengers feast. Destruction of properties, environment and human life, nothing seems to stop the perpetrators of these insidious crimes. The heartless imperialist strategy of divide and conquer in the form of “sectarian violence” is in effect to tear apart the Middle East, while cunningly pinpointing the collaborators of this tragedy as the people’s own “antiquated backward” religion. The crisis is painted to look like Arabs are victims of a domestic self-inflicted misery. Seemingly, it has nothing to do with the dreadful Western intervention and piracy.
History attests that so long as the causative and interconnected factors for human displacement are left loose, the plight of refugees around the world will continue to persist. So long as there is profit in war and money is the be-all and end-all of human existence, there will never be peace on Earth. In essence, so long as Man refuses to humble himself and does not realize his unique place in the universe, there will always be wars and human misery. Surely, there is no other solution for our interrelated social ills.
Revised and expanded, a shorter version of this article was published in: Refuge, Vol. 13, No. 8, January 1994, pp. 25-26
How many times have neo-atheists like Lawrence Krauss vociferously stated: “We [the scientists] don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans”? In an attempt to refute the notion of the First Cause, Krauss ubiquitously refers to the Big Bang Originator as a “supernatural shenanigan”, hoping to convince his audience that it is the science which leads to disbelief in a caused universe.
Krauss is not the only atheist scientist who appeals to gimmicks to score his point. Like Richard Dawkins, he claims not to believe in “supernatural shenanigans” because he is a man of science. I suppose a man with a hidden agenda has no choice but to appeal to deceitful tricks, when he tries to promote an unscientific personal opinion disguised as a research-based academic exposition. Indeed, it boggles the mind as to why would a scientist, if he were truly objective, inordinately adopt unscientific language to brag about what he does not believe?
The term “supernatural”, particularly when paired with “shenanigans” unconsciously conjures up the image of a mystical fairytale, magic, spook or superstition. Whatever is labeled “supernatural”, connotes it being a relic of the past, an outdated pre-scientific thinking, sitting right next to the paranormal. A “supernatural being” sounds like a fictitious mythological character that does not exist, i.e. Zeus, Vishnu, Superman or Santa Claus. By using such a term the neo-atheists are trying to make their opponents look like idiots before even the debate begins. Krauss is trying to shape the reader’s attitudes towards what caused the universe before he even presents his case, by implying that belief in “God” for lack of a better word is stupid, and the one who adopts such a belief is at the zenith of stupidity.
An example of a genuine supernatural shenanigan: the claim that one can levitate by meditation. Belief in the First Cause is put in the same category and then debunked by erroneous association.
Another example of this crafty scheme can be seen in the employment of the term “Brights” by atheists, who commonly use it to refer to themselves. I suppose, if you label yourself “Bright”, you are then perceived as rational and enlightened, subsequently, your opponents must all be dim, blindly following a credulous belief.
Psychologically, people have a great aversion to being branded with terms that have a negative import. No one would wish to be stigmatized as having an antiquated belief. No one wants to have a negative title bestowed upon one, especially when it is often closely associated with some outlooks which indeed are primitive, superstitious, irrational or fanatical. This insidious attempt is deliberately used to disadvantage the other side at the very outset, by placing a negative label on them. This is nothing short of straw man labelization.
The strategy implies that whoever adopts a belief in the “supernatural” is dogmatic. However, this type of stigmatization, in essence, is a typical textbook case of cheap ad hominem attack and name-calling, devoid of any substantiative arguments.
But, is the Entity which caused the universe supernatural? It all depends on the definition and our point of reference. Nothing is universally natural across the board. For instance, is it natural to be able to fly? For reptiles is not, for birds it certainly is. Is it natural to swim underwater? For fish it is, for the cockroach it is not. Is it natural, to be uncaused, to be immortal outside of time and space dimensions, and not to have a face or physical body? For earthy beings, it is not, but for the Big Bang Originator, the Creator of time and space it is. Who said that the Creator of the laws of physics must be subject to the laws of physics, and ought to be empirically verifiable? In fact, the Creator of the laws of physics cannot be subject to them. Hence, impossible to verify the existence of the Imperceptible by perception or empirical means. That should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a modicum of logic. The Creator and creation cannot be of the same essence, not even close. One must be totally different than the other! How absurd to determine what is natural, unnatural or supernatural from a reductionistic self-centered point of view. Krauss ignores the limits of conceptualization of human understanding, and acts like he knows it all. For him what is universally natural, is what he perceives to be natural, anything outside of the limited realm of human perception is considered unnatural; therefore anything of such a unique attribute is categorized as nonsense. However, I guess revealing all of that information to the readers would have undercut Krauss’ attempt to dogmatize monotheistic theism.
Furthermore, note how Krauss subtly uses his academic status and the like-minded scientists to bolster the claim that God does not exist, even though the existence or non-existence of God falls completely outside the jurisdiction of science, the way modern scientists define science. This is a fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority” – we are supposed to believe the proposition just because someone who is supposedly an expert says so. However, it is Krauss the atheist, not Krauss the physicist who is stating his own opinion, and his personal opinion on God carries no more weight than the opinion of a hairstylist. Just as cutting hair in a barbershop does not lead to atheism, likewise working in a science lab does not lead to atheism. Surely, the opinion of another scientist could be diametrically at odds with his. Therefore, the appropriate thing for Kruss to say is that “We the atheists don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans”, to which a thoughtful theist could rightly reply: Big Deal! We, who acknowledge the universe is caused, don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans either.
But why should we be listening to Krauss? Do we know if he is trustworthy? Is he stating a fact, or merely his own slanted atheistic opinion? Indeed, why would a truly objective scientist assume that the universe is causeless, and degrade the theistic position as a “supernatural shenanigans”? If one is truly a man of science, then he does not need to appeal to these kinds of cheap tricks. Atheists repeatedly use these tricks because they know well it is effective. The inappropriate usage of the term supernatural is now frequently picked up by the believers themselves to describe their faith.
If Krauss says that we the scientists don’t believe in the Uncaused cause, we believe that the universe is self-created, he would then have a hard time defending his position without looking dim-witted. For one, he is in no position to speak for all scientists. Prominent scientists, past and present like Isaac Newton, and all the Muslim scientists of the Golden Age who introduced science and scientific investigations to the Europeans, emphatically believed in the Uncaused cause. They openly believed in the existence of a Grand Designer.
Does Krauss the scientist believe in a rudimentary deductive logic and a priori reasoning? He should if he is truly objective. We now know that the universe had a beginning. Time, space, matter and energy suddenly came into existence from oblivious nonexistence. An Entity, call it God or what have you, must have triggered the creation of the universe. This God far from being “supernatural” the way it is suggested, is the Necessary Being, which is impossible not to exist. By Its nature, such a Being ought to be uncaused, singular, intelligent and powerful. His “Godly” nature is natural for what this Being is – as natural as water being wet. When atheists question: who created God, it is erroneously assumed that God is subject to creation, a concept which applies to everything, except to the Necessary Being.
What Krauss does not wish to acknowledge is that the alternative so-called “scientific” theories posed to refute the Uncaused cause seem more shenaniganic than any pre-historic religious dogma. For example, the multiverse theory operating on unguided automated natural selection, Dawkins’ postulation that complex organisms in nature are not designed, but have the illusion of design. Or Stephen Hawking’s assertion of the chance hypothesis that the creation of the universe was “the ultimate free lunch”. All these are implausible loopy theories nicely packaged as scientific facts. The truth is the atheist scientists indeed believe in the ultimate supernatural shenanigan, they believe that out of “Nowhere”, for no reason, “Nothing” caused a massive explosion. Out of this explosion, everything somehow arranged itself in an orderly fashion, and then without any purpose a complex interrelated self-supporting web of life with an astonishing degree of diversity spontaneously came into existence. I suppose, atheist apologists feel they can believe and promote sheer nonsense, if it is labeled “science”. The truth of the matter is atheists’ creation story, any version of it, is far more unscientific and hard to swallow than the Biblical account.
Neo-atheists have hijacked science, turned it into a right-wing industry for manipulating public opinion, rather than appealing to objective rational judgments, and the sincere and noble pursuit of the truth. The industry’s whole aim is to market a peculiar Godless religion in order to make a fast buck. These atheist evangelists have made a lucrative career ironically revolving around the “nonsense” of what they themselves purport they could not have cared less about.
We live on a wonderful self-sufficient planet filled with endless beauty and bewildering complexity, complexity in the interconnectivity of all elements involved in a life-sustaining system, complexity in the structural design of each organism. The efficiency of nature’s superb design has been the focus of cutting-edge research and development in technology. Researchers look into nature for inspiration to come up with innovative hi-tech designs to be nature-like in conserving energy, cutting waste materials and to increase productivity. In fact, the entire universe is so intelligently designed that it makes a humble person to spontaneously bow down to the Mastermind and the Power who put the universe together. Consider the complexity of a single cell which develops into a fully functioning human body with hi-tech apparatus like eyes, heart, brain, etc. Can complexity, order, harmony and beauty arise from chance? Or, indeed it ought to be intelligently designed. Human experience firmly attests that systematic order cannot be caused by chance.
Yet, to deny the reality of a Caused universe, many atheists not only do not feel humble enough to acknowledge the beauty and intelligence behind the creation, but they also try so hard to find flaws in the system. They nag like a spoiled nit-picking child making excuses to have it his or her way; they stretch their imagination to find “defects” in this magnificent life-sustaining system. From their perspective, the entire universe far from being impressive is ill-designed with no thought behind it, in particular when it comes to human anatomy. They have coined the term “dysteleology”, meaning living organisms have many weak features that make them suboptimal. Therefore, life cannot be a product of an Intelligent Designer.
The most common example cited is the pharynx, a single passage shared for three essential functions—the respiratory, digestive and communicative. To atheists no competent engineer would design such a “poor” system that could possibly make one to choke while simultaneously eating, talking and breathing through one single pipe.
Another example is our private part which is concurrently used as the means to discharge bodily waste, as well as for sexual gratification and reproduction. To atheists, we have “an entertainment complex built in the middle of a sewage system”. How awful!
An additional example given is that of our teeth, which is said to be “too many” for our jaws to accommodate, asserted that is why some people have crooked teeth. Or the birth canal is too narrow to allow a safe passage for a newborn’s birth, endangering the life of the mother and her baby. These are all examples of presumed incompetence and the dysfunctional design of the human anatomy. From these premises, it is concluded the entire universe is uncaused.
Let’s assume they have a point. Are we now expected to overlook the marvel of DNA Double Helix structure comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences, or the astonishing complexity of the human brain with 1.1 trillion cells and 100 billion neurons capable of conducting countless calculations, and adopt atheism? All because we use the same organ to have intercourse and urinate. Is this supposed to be an argument? Does the assertion made fall anywhere in the realm of science?
It seems that ironically, these examples are sufficient enough for the likes of Francisco Ayala to declare that I am a lousy defect, yet smart enough to figure out that there could be no Intelligent Designer for my being. Like Richard Dawkins, his attitude is that it is a bad design if one is going to conclude there is an Intelligent Designer involved, but it is a marvellous design if the credit is going to be given to evolution. Surely, he thinks evolution deserves the credit for his nut-cracking cognitive capacity.
If the atheist scientists truly think scientifically, they would not then make such an embarrassing blunder. For instance, if all sewage systems could be turned into a popular entertainment center, would that not be an ultimate achievement in the preservation of the environment, a triumph of the reduce, reuse, and recycle principle? To have a popular entertainment system in the middle of sewage is not at all a bad design; it is indeed an excellent design. Indubitably, there is a lot of talent and creativity involved in such an operation which is simultaneously a sewage treatment plant as well as a fun theme park.
Multi-tools are not at all bad design. Consider a handy Swiss army knife or a popular iPhone. iPhone, is one small gadget which is an audio and video communication device with TV, radio, camera, GPS, calculator, scanner, watch, alarm clock, notepad, calendar, books, photo album, mirror, compass, flashlight, measurement tape, magnifying lens and many more all in one. Is this a bad design?
Let’s examine the natural selection’s resume in comparison to the Intelligent Designer. Consider the evolution of elephant’s versatile trunk, a multi-functional device which is a hand, nose, straw, utensils, a telescope in fork upraised to sniff the breeze as it approaches a waterhole, forklift, water cannon, snorkel, an extra arm, an instrument used for inspection and communication. Is this an example of a bad design or a marvelous design? Why do atheists always give A+ to natural selection, but F to “God” for a similar hallmark?
Atheists should put their money where their mouth is. These fellows are smart scientists; they should enlighten us, and tell us, for example, what a better design for human anatomy is. Where is the best location, both internally and externally for a human genital to be? Is it better to have it on the forehead, center of the palm, chest, back of the neck, or perhaps on front of the neck where it could also be used as a permanent necktie? How many openings should there be on the human body to amend the aforementioned “deficiencies”? Viruses get into our system through the mouth, nose and genital. Would additional openings not expose us to further risks, and diminish the beauty and symmetry of the human body?
Birth deaths have nothing to do with the diameter of the birth canal as the canal has a great elasticity feature. This feature is common among all mammals. Are all mammals ill-designed? Is there a better alternative? Ayala may prefer to see an expanded birth canal by 0.5 cm, have sex with a partner with an enlarged canal, and then tell us how satisfying that would be.
If indeed nature is a collection of poorly designed organisms, why do researchers persistently look into nature for perfection and inspiration? The fact is the best sustainable designs that researchers ever came up with were directly plagiarized from nature. Some then have the nerve to act like nature is stupid and we, the plagiarizers are smarter than the plagiarizee.
Let’s examine the track record of what at the time was perceived to be the best manmade design produced by competent multi-discipline engineering teams.
The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, but sunk on its first journey. The ship was in service only for five days.
The Concorde was at one point regarded by experts as an icon in aerospace engineering, but despite numerous costly upgrades the whole supersonic program was dismantled and declared to be a failure.
In January of 1986, the $5.5 billion NASA space shuttle Challenger, a marvel of human engineering, the most complex spacecraft ever designed exploded just 72 seconds into its flight. All seven crew members on board died instantly in an explosion in front of millions of television viewers around the world. The explosion was blamed in part on the inadequate design of solid rocket boosters to function under unexpected freezing temperatures. After 10 successful missions, having travelled 42,000,000 km in space, the manufacturers learned the inadequacy of their design in a tragic way.
The Challenger’s deficiencies were corrected in the spacecraft Columbia. Columbia had 28 successful missions, having travelled 202,000,000 km in space. Yet, once again in February 2003 at the end of its last mission, the world was stunned to view another disaster due to an unforeseen technological failure. As one expert put it, these accidents were planned by human hands at the moment of the project’s conception. We like to think we got all the variables involved, identified and tamed. Evidently, we are unable to.
There are indeed countless examples of blunders in human engineering design. In fact, there is not a day that goes by, that the manufacturers of certain products in a variety of different industries do not recall a product due to a flawed design. There are countless court cases of class action lawsuits filed against manufacturers of bad designs by consumers.
The point here is with such a track record, mankind is not qualified to declare what appropriate or inappropriate anatomical design is. The above examples confirm the nature of limited human knowledge. Man can never know the totality of reality, and must not be ashamed of its limitation. The problem occurs when he refuses to accept this and acts like he knows all there is to know, when he plays God. This arrogant attitude is well manifested in the bold claims that atheists so frequently make here and there and follow upon that which they are not certain of. Without pondering on what justifiable criteria should we be using to deem a multi-functional apparatus a defect or suboptimal. What criteria do we use to deem an alternative design a better design? What constitutes a “better” anatomical design? Having eyes at the back of the head, being able to swim under the water and fly like a bird, with a life expectancy of 1000 years maintenance-free?
German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz believed God has created the best of all possible worlds, whether it is the optimal or suboptimal world is a different matter. But regardless of how one comes to evaluate the degree of optimality, even a suboptimal design is still a design. The universe relentlessly displays evidence that it is designed by an Entity with power and intelligence. This is an unchangeable fact whether one likes it or not.
Moreover, in order to answer the question of what is optimal or not, one has to know the purpose of a thing. If the purpose or goal is uncertain, then one cannot determine if a thing is optimal. Could it not be that the universe itself is optimally designed for a purpose – the purpose being who regards it as optimal, and who arrogantly refuses to acknowledge its intended purpose and design: a test to see who falls into the dysteleological trap?
For years the Greek philosophers in ancient Greece were debating which part of our daily food actually feeds us and turns into energy, and which part is useless and purged after digestion. To end the debate, one Greek intellectual came up with the assertion that the part that feeds us is “the nutritious faculty of the food.” His seemingly fancy assertion was an interesting explanation, but it did not offer anything new. The subsequent question which immediately comes to mind is: which part of the food we eat is “the nutritious faculty of the food.” What was proposed, only begged the question. The offered explanation is tautological. It is like saying, the part that feeds us, is the part that feeds us.
If you think perhaps this was the characteristic of scientific inquiry in ancient time, not of the modern era on more vital issues, you are mistaken. This approach is still prevailing today in scientific inquires. Consider the following case:
From the early dawn of civilization, the oldest existential question ever asked by Mankind is that why is there ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. Some consider this basic question philosophical, others think it is scientific, a few think it is inherently theological. The fact of the matter is, this is a simple commonsensical question, naturally occupying Man’s mind worthy of serious inquiry. Indeed, why is there ‘something’ when there could be ‘nothing’? The ‘something’ refers to an entire universe with bewildering complexity intelligently fine-tuned where the earth and the whole of mankind is only an insignificant speck of dust in the grand scheme of creation. A delicate sequential creation which gradually evolved from the moment of inception of time, space, matter and energy to the present state of nature. Indeed, what is the underlying cause of the universe’s marvelous rhythms and regularities?
Each group has proposed a solution for this deep-seated enigma. However, the solution offered by the scientists is continuously nothing short of begging the question. Indeed, from physicists, cosmologists to biologists, their explanation of why is there ‘something’, as opposed to ‘nothing’, is anything, but satisfactory. The theologians and philosophers who attribute creation to an anthropomorphic cause are not in a better predicament.
Some ardent scientists would like us to think that they have unlocked the secrets of the universe and have totally eliminated the role of the First Cause or the Prime Mover. The creation of the universe is attributed to the existence of gravity, quantum particles, Higgs boson, laws of physics, natural selection and so on. Some scientists attack ancient fairytales, yet propose modern fairytales like “multiverse”, or to say the least push a weak theory as though it is an established fact.
Like the above-mentioned ancient Greek thinker, these scientists do not seem to understand this rudimentary question too well and clearly have nothing to offer. Stephen Hawking for example states that “One cannot prove that God does not exist, but science makes God unnecessary… The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a Creator.” Really! Indeed, what an incredibly petulant and tautological argument coming from an eminent scientist! Similar to Richard Dawkins who asserts that natural selection did it, Hawkins’ reductionistic solution is that gravity did it all. In his revolutionary contribution, Hawking takes the liberty to avoid elaborating, I suppose from his perspective, on a minor issue: where did the laws of physics come from? Once again we see another scientist who looks for the cause of the universe within the already created universe. More so, he neglects to explain why the universe is programmed to gravitate. Is gravity self-created? How is it that gravity is acting up with an intended goal?
The drawer of this drawing is not in the drawing, likewise the cause of the universe cannot be within the universe
In answering the question, why is there ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’, any proposed mechanism for what caused the universe and how it came to be is still an invalid remedy. For one would still ask why is there, for example gravity, where there could be no gravity. Where did the precise required laws of physics come from? Why is there natural selection as opposed to unnatural rejection? Their utter inability to tackle this and other similar questions have forced them to declare that all “Why” questions are silly questions unworthy of pursuit. To cover up the irrationality of their position and to silence their critic, they do their best to belittle philosophy. Ironically, in so doing, they give philosophical arguments to elevate science above philosophy.
The reason for the inability of science to answer this fundamental question emanates from the fact that existential questions are not at all scientific questions, the way empirical science defines itself, i.e. the process of observation, experimentation, quantification, falsification, prediction and empirical verification. Thereby, any proposed explanation offered by any scientist is unscientific and a matter of personal opinion, particularly when such a scientist steps into the realm of non-science and metaphysics such as the debate on if there is or there is not a “God”. In this regard, an opinion of a scientist is no more valuable than an opinion of a chef or an auto mechanic. Is there any relationship between the validity of an opinion on metaphysics with what the person who expresses it does for a living? What is the connection between cooking and the proclamation that there is, or there is not a God? Absolutely nothing. Likewise, what is the connection between science and atheism? If all the chefs in the world claim to be atheists, does this make the idea of God and cooking mutually exclusive, incompatible with one another? Scientists like Dawkins and Krauss have built a career outside of their respective fields and would like us to think that their opinion on why there is ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’ is more valuable than the opinion of the community of auto mechanics or chefs. Undoubtedly, their opinion is not the only possible explanation, or the best explanation.
These evangelical atheists have hijacked science and conveniently use their authority in biology and physics to give Fatwa in an area that they have no expertise in, i.e. existence or non-existence of a Creator. There is nothing scientific about the proclamation that there is no God. Where is the scientific objectivity here? No one would take these two scientists seriously if they ever give a Fatwa on economic matters, since neither one knows anything about the economy. So why would anyone think that their atheism is anything more than their personal opinion emanating from their inner desires or personal agenda? Dawkins’ denunciatory book: The God Delusion is not a book on science, or based on science. It is a book on theology written by a biologist with no expertise in theology or philosophy.
Atheist scientists claim that they go where the evidence leads them. While there is plenty of evidence against religious dogmatism, there is nothing via science to conclude atheism. They project their own subjective opinion on the non-existence of a Creator as though it is a fact of logic derived from science, while painting the belief on the First Cause as though it is fact of psychology derived from gullibility and insecure emotions, like it cannot be the other way around.
Modern scientists can have a better understanding of the universe if they do not narrowly compartmentalize human knowledge into science and non-science, and not easily dismiss anything, which cannot be subject of empirical verification. The existence of the First Cause does not require empirical verification in a science lab. For lovers of the truth, the ultimate criteria should be the usage of reason in its fullest sense and the overarching law of non-contradiction, to examine all claims, be they deductive or inductive in order to assess the possibility of existence or non-existence of anything.
There is a famous Persian proverb about a curious little fish who confronted his father with a burning question: “Dad, what is this thing called water?” The young fish asked inquisitively. His father helplessly replied, “Son, I heard about it too, but to tell you the truth, I have absolutely no idea, no one has ever encountered water.”
The intended message behind this proverb is that while any question may seem valid to pose, one ought to be equipped with sufficient brainpower to comprehend the answer. Reality has to be accessible to the observer’s intellect and conceptualization is the key to understanding. While our brain can absorb many things, it certainly cannot conceptualize and absorb everything, simply because it does not have the capacity to comprehend the nature of all that exists.
One of the most frequent questions posed by atheists is that, if everything has a beginning and cause, then who caused the First Cause; that is to say where did the Originator of the Big Bang come from, and who created Him.
As a theist, I find this ubiquitous reductionistic approach unworthy of analysis, merely fitting for tabloids and gossip magazines. The question posed is irrelevant and totally unnecessary to put forth. For one, the Creator’s “personal life” does not really interest me, nor do I think I am equipped with enough cognitive capacity to understand His infinite uncaused nature. For mortal beings like us, trapped in a finite universe of cause and effect, it may seem difficult to envision that there could be an uncaused cause outside time and space dimensions who is not bounded by the laws of cause and effect. However, what I can easily grasp which matters most, is that I am here, did not need to be here, was not here at one point, and will not be here further down in time. While I am busy making sense of my own existence, I have no interest to dwell on the nature of the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. Deductive logic and inductive extrapolative evidence sufficiently attest to the existence of an intelligent conscious Being outside of this universe; indeed, without Him the universe could not have existed. What is known to our intellect is enough to establish His existence; thus what do we need to know His “biography” for, which is inaccessible to our cognitive apparatus?
Atheists believe that nothing exists beyond the natural world. They make an incorrect assumption that outside of this caused universe, there could not be an Uncaused Entity, and that the Causer of the universe must also be caused, subject to His own laws. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the First Cause of the universe was caused by a bigger cause than Himself, if so, then who caused the “First Cause”, and so on. This erroneous approach would obviously lead to an infinite regression and unsettled conclusion, thus dismissible at the outset, yet it is continuously brought up by the likes of Richard Dawkins. These atheists fail to understand that the cause of the universe cannot be within this universe, subject of the very laws of physics within the universe. That which creates cause and effect cannot be the subject of cause and effect. That which creates time and space cannot be the subject of time and space. That which creates time must be timeless. That which is timeless and eternal must be Uncaused.
It is now well established that the universe and time have had a beginning some 14 billion years ago. In discussing the origin of this created universe, what becomes inescapable is that causality has to be attributed to something, i.e. to mythological gods, a stroke of cosmic luck, blind processes of cosmic natural selection, a self-created universe aimlessly fashioned out of nothing, extraterrestrial more advanced than us, or to a Singular Uncaused Cause. It is our task to explore all explanations and determine which explanation is rational and makes more sense.
By way of analogy, while fish do not have the capacity to deductively or inductively comprehend the existence of water, the existence of fish alone is a sufficient proof for the existence of water, whether a fish comprehends water and its dependence on it, or blatantly denies the existence of water. There are infinite signs within the furthest horizons and within ourselves. Often, all it takes is simply to look within oneself for the answer. Yet atheists ignore both internal and external signs. They feel content with attributing the existence of 28,000 different stunning species of fish, each playing a role in the intricate balance of the ecosystem to a keeper of an aquarium. The keeper being natural selection, laws of physics, mindlessness, etc. without articulating where did they come from. Thereby, blatantly committing the notorious fallacy of passing the buck.
A myopic examination of external signs leads them to overlook the emphatic internal signs.
During the repressive totalitarian Soviet era, the Russian people were known to be among the most informed people in the world. Not that they had a better access to the news, on the contrary, their access to the real news was utterly restricted. However, Russians knew well that whatever their state-controlled media propaganda machine was feeding them, was not true and the truth would most probably be the opposite of what was being constantly broadcasted.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the people in the West where the most coercive form of tyranny has been in effect inconspicuously, where the gullible masses are kept ignorant. Particularly in North America to preserve governance, masses are constantly distracted by trivialities, spoon-fed with lies, and consequently kept in darkness. In this polluted atmosphere, deliberately manufactured endarkenment is considered as enlightenment, and an actual enlightenment is considered as dogma. Insisting on the truthfulness of the Truth is considered as radicalization. Unlike Russians, very few people in the West question, the contents of the corporate media or are able to distinguish between news and propaganda, hypnotism and entertainment, indoctrination and education. For the overwhelming majority, even if the truth is somehow leaked, it does not really matter to them that they were lied to all along. This bizarre indifferent attitude can only be the result of a premeditated systematic conditioning and desensitization.
Indeed, the most coercive form of tyranny is not that of the former Eastern Block system with KGB spies and surveillance cameras being present everywhere, but it is the one that prevents people from seeing the truth and removes the awareness of other possibilities. It is the one that makes it seem inconceivable that perhaps there are much better ways and viable socio-economic and political solutions. It is the one that removes the sense that there is a better world beyond our manufactured mental borders. It is the one that makes the people illusively think that they are in charge to govern their own affairs, yet they are being easily governed. It is the one that conditions people to erroneously feel liberated and well-versed freethinkers while they are actually in bondage. And above all, it is the one that makes the Truth look like a lethal idea and those who advocate it are monstrous fanatics to be feared.
Malcolm X believed, the media is the most powerful entity on earth: “The media has the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent,” thereby, well capable to control the minds of the masses. Not surprisingly, he was labeled a radical rabble-rouser and was assassinated in a country that prides itself as a free polarized society. He realized that media is the prime working tool for the elite to subjugate the masses. Their prime goal has always been to create fear and divert attention from real accomplices of the crimes committed. Politics of demagoguery thrive on the omnipresent fear factors, hence dictates that bogymen ought to be created and constantly demonized.
St. Augustine narrates the story of a pirate captured by the warmonger lunatic Alexander, pathetically tilted “the Great”, who asked him “how dare he molest the sea”. The pirate boldly replied: “How dare you molest the whole world”. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you are doing the same thing with a great navy, yet are called an Emperor”. Nothing has changed from those days other than the Emperor and pirate. The pirate is always to be feared, while the Emperor is supposedly the benevolent protector, a champion for democracy and human rights.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the scapegoat changed from the communist party to Islam. The religion that literally means peace, stands for justice and equality has been presented as one of the most violent and feared ideologies to combat. Deranged thugs and dictators who have never read the Quran are presented as faithful adherers of this religion, despite the fact that their conducts are at odds with the very basic tenets of Islam. But, why are there so many biases and double standards in the media and policies when it comes to Islam? Why does Islam have so many internal and external enemies? Is it possible that the spread of Islam could pose a serious threat to the vested interests of certain groups? The answer is a most definite “yes”. Islam is no exception to rule and has many hostile enemies who cannot tolerate or afford its growth. Therefore, for example, could the atrocities committed in the name of Islam by the so-called Muslims, like the Charlie Hebdo attack or 9/11 not simply be a false flag operation to demonize Muslims and ostracise Islam. It is not like the Western governments never engaged in covert operations or appealed to deception before. Their track records prove otherwise.
Hardly anybody in the West questions why the upper echelons that own the media resent Islam, and falsely portray this worldview in such a harsh manner. The simple reason is that it is due to the blatant fact that Islam, a comprehensive socio-political system, poses a deadly threat to the existing oligarchical structure of most parasitic and corrupt societies. For assuredly:
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate the present unjust socio-economic setup that sustains the current unfair system of distribution of wealth and resources.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate any move towards a control of the world resources, economies and political systems by a cabal of power-hungry elites.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate any system which would continuously piles-up a massive amount of arms and arsenal for its own profit and protection, while leaving its own grandmothers and grandfathers, begging homelessly on decrepit streets.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate any banking system that would callously and unjustly force a dispossession of one’s property, because of missed mortgage payments.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate any economic system which makes a huge profit by the degradation and destruction of the environment in various ways.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate the pharmaceutical industry in which its goal is blatantly set on repeat customers rather than curing the patient.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate a colossal alcohol industry that, like a vampire, drains the life-blood by providing a habituative obnoxious fluid to society at the expense of the predominant health, family and social complications.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate an industry which strips women off their clothes and dignity, and perpetuates promiscuity, immorality and family breakdown in society in order to inflate the wallets of executive pimps.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate a multi-billion dollar cosmetic and fashion industry, which replaces the intrinsic values of women with instrumental values, since its lifeline depends upon spreading illusory images to brainwash women to market themselves for disguised licentious men.
If Islam arises, it would neither allow nor tolerate an educational system which produces regurgitative automatonic relativists, who conform to machine-like systems and are blind to all of the above problems from cradle to grave.
Islam is a nuisance to the voracious interrelated conglomerates who own the world. Therefore, it would indeed be an exceedingly naive presumption that in this system anything good will ever be said about Islam, an ideology with many common enemies.
Voltaire, the famous French satirical polemicist, recognized the dubious socio-political system imposed by undemocratic established institutions of the day; he suggested that to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
The answer will be clear to anyone who chooses to accept the truth unequivocally, that is one who does not have any vested interests, other than to know the reality of who is trying to run the show.
Law enforcement officers around the world are required to successfully complete an intense use of force training. The objectives of the training are to enable officers to optimally react in real-life situations, where an officer ought to physically control, disarm, or arrest a hostile aggressor, or a high-risk assaultive criminal. The intent of the course is to be able to diligently keep the assailant restrained in compliance with the law, keep the public safe until backup arrives. Henceforth, the subject is safely transported to a secure environment. The training is not intended to make tough sharpshooters, but rather make law enforcement officers safe, more perceptive, reactive and proactive. The mechanism by which an officer can successfully achieve the intended goal is to develop the ability to identify the threat cues, read body language, always expect the unexpected, make sound risk assessments, and in time, respond appropriately to what suddenly unfolds.
The accurate recognition of signs, body language and threat cues can indeed distinguish a dangerous hostile subject from a cooperative subject. In so doing, one’s mind has to be always 100% alert. Officers cannot afford daydreaming on the job, or be impaired. One wrong move could be unforgiving. The failure to be vigilant could be lethal to the officer, his/her partner(s), innocent bystanders or the subject.
Officers are provided with essential tools required for the task: a pair of handcuffs, defensive baton, OC spray, handgun and a communication device for which they are duly accountable for, to use or not to use. Prior to completion of the training, officers are given scenarios where they enter into a hypothetical situation, ought to successfully assess the situation and demonstrate their acquired skills. To pass they must be able to accurately absorb all the threat cues, assess the risks involved and appropriately intervene to the given dynamic situation at hand. Pass or fail depends on the decision made by the officer. The decision made has to be effective, having implemented a balanced use of force. Lastly, they ought to be able to rationally articulate the rationale behind their decision, and the subsequent intervention made. Once on the job, the same requirements go for each real situation that the officer is deployed to, the articulation will be made to either a supervisor, or in a judicial tribunal.
Undoubtedly, the most crucial part of the training is the recognition of the signs and act accordingly. In the above clip, the dispatched officer to the scene made an initial poor risk assessment by entering into subject’s house without his partner. Furthermore, he failed to recognize that subject’s right hand in his pocket could mean that he is holding a weapon. Tragically, such a mistake cost him his life.
The hypothetical scenarios and real-life situations are indeed miniature models of the reality of our existence on this planet. In a lifetime of dancing on earth, every observer is like an officer, witnessing countless signs and indicators, where each sign would indubitably display a message. At our disposal, we are equipped with the necessary tools, such as our senses to collect information, and a complex brain to process the collected data for intervention. We have learned that universe did not exist 13.7 billion years ago, prior to the Big Bang, that suddenly, matter, energy, time and space were brought into existence from oblivious non-existence. What would this fact alone indicate? According to Roger Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence by accident were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the 123 to 1. This means 1 followed by 10 to 123 zeros. After the Big Bang, if the rate of the expansion of the universe were as different as 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, life on earth would not have evolved the way it is. What would this cue lead us to conclude? When we study the enormous complexity of the DNA Double Helix structure, we learn that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences without which life would not be possible. What would this fact alone dictate?
The amazing fractal pattern of Romanesco broccoli, rich in vitamins and dietary fiber: Is this a sign of chance creation or intelligent design?
All signs indicate that the universe is remarkably created to host life, not just a life, but a life to be probed and enjoyed. Life is to be enjoyed whether one is having a meal, hearing symphonies played by birds and insects, seeing marvelous colours combination displayed in nature, in the starry night, the smell of a rose, holding a loved one in one’s arms; all have a profound message to each participant. The ubiquitous message is that the universe is caused intelligently and is pursuing an intention. Indeed, what all these decisive cues that we process during our lifetime are telling us? Having observed such signs, what is the proper judgement and concomitant reaction one ought to take? How is it possible for one to miss all these indicators one after another, and yet articulate one’s decision for no mental or physical intervention?
An officer thinking like Richard Dawkins would be dead on his first day of the job if he assumes that a confronted assailant with a knife in his hand is only an illusion of a dangerous assailant. And the knife is not a real knife, but has only the appearance of a knife designed to kill. The assailant’s attacking posture and verbal assaults are only an illusion of hostility. In his articulation, a Dawkinsist would like to assert that now, when science can explain how the knife is manufactured and got in there, we would then need not to worry about its implications.
Officer Peter Atkins would assume that only a man with a lazy mind would interpret that an assailant charging at one with an aimed knife is an indication of hostility. According to him there are no compelling cues worthy of consideration for intervention.
Officer Sigmund Freud would interpret a pointed knife as wishful thinking, man’s oldest desire for emotional comfort. The appropriate course of action according to him would be an inhibited sexual freedom from childhood.
Officer Karl Marx would interpret a pointed knife as the opium of the mind, his intervention would be the creation of a classless society governed by the social justice-loving working class.
Officer David Hume would state, in his articulation, spout that a career criminal with extensive criminal convictions of armed robbery entering a bank with a shotgun, face mask and a getaway car parked in front of the bank does not necessarily entail that a bank robbery is in process. Hume’s intervention according to his philosophy, is to walk away from the crime scene as we are only psychologically conditioned to expect a felony that the armed man will run out of the bank with bags of cash in his hands.
Like Hume, Officer Stephen Fry walks away from the crime scene with no intervention made. Fry articulates that he sees no threat cues because there are so many children on hospital beds unjustly suffering from cancer.
On the other hand, there are others who would go to the opposite extreme and wrongfully interpret circumstantial cues often displayed inadvertently as a sign of hostility and react inappropriately with excessive use of force. For example, Abubakr Al-Baghdadi of the so-called ISIS may pull out his machine gun and shoot several times at a passive resisting social activist with no criminal history or intent, giving a horrible name to the agency that he claims to represent. Like Dawkins, Al-Baghdadi is guilty of misreading the cues. Other extremists like Benjamin Netanyahu would deliberately bomb a country and annihilate an entire defenseless population for a non-existing threat. In his articulation, Netanyahu proudly asserts that his actions are only a result of self-defense.
Do we have a ground to stand on for any wrong intervention or rather total lack of it? In a universe engulfed with zillions of improbable order and harmony, can we articulate that it is self-created, accidental or purposeless? What happens if, at the end of life’s journey, we do have to articulate our decisions made to the Entity that caused the universe, be that Natural Selection or what have you. Indeed, it will be too late to make an optimal reaction to the omnipresent cues of the cosmos when the scenario is over.
In March of 1993, unknown South African photojournalist Kevin Carter, while covering the famine in southern Sudan took a photo of a dreadful reality which made the world weep. The infamous photo is of a hooded vulture preying upon an emaciated starving Sudanese toddler near the devastated village of Ayod. The dying child was crawling toward the UN feeding center for help. By his own admission, Carter waited about 20 minutes, hoping that the vulture would spread its wings and make a move on the child. It did not, Carter snapped the haunting photograph, chased the vulture away, then left the scene. At the time, the parents of the little girl were busy collecting food brought over by the same UN plane that Carter took to Ayod.
The photograph was soon after sold to the New York Times where it appeared for the first time on the 26th of March 1993 as a “metaphor for Africa’s despair”. The photo immediately reappeared in many other newspapers around the world. It is reported that overnight thousands of people contacted the New York Times to inquire whether the child had survived or not, leading the newspaper to run an unusual special editor’s note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but her ultimate fate was unknown. Journalists in Sudan were told not to touch the famine victims, because of the risk of transmitting disease.
Carter eventually won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for this iconic photo, but could not enjoy the prize and the overnight fame earned for what he captured in his photo. Carter also faced harsh criticism for not helping the abandoned little girl, but rather heartlessly concentrating on taking an ideal picture for his self-interest. In the wild, many animals such as buffalos do risk their lives to save their own kind when attacked by predators. Elephants and monkeys are known to help their young ones in trouble. Should less be expected of humans? What were this man’s priorities, to remain unhelpful being only a few feet away from his fellow human child in misery? “The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene,” as one critic blatantly put it. “I’m really, really sorry I did not pick the child up,” he confessed to a friend. A year later, Carter fell into the abyss of depressive disorder and substance abuse, consumed with the violence he witnessed during his career, and haunted by the questions as to the little girl’s fate, he committed suicide. On July 27th 1994, Kevin Carter drove away to Parkmore, a suburb of Johannesburg, taped one end of a hose to his pickup truck’s exhaust pipe, running the other end to the driver’s side window. He tragically ended his own life at the age of 33 by carbon monoxide poisoning. In a note he left in his car, he said: “…. the pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist.”
The legacy of Kevin Carter’s revealing iconic photo is that he resiliently rejuvenated the centuries-old philosophical discourse on the so-called “problem of evil”. How could the good loving God allow this innocent child to suffer and be eaten by a bird of prey? Why did God not intervene to save her? Why would He allow a young professional photographer to be overwhelmed by depression for impartially doing his job?
Many theists have become convinced of atheism based on the fact that bad things regularly do happen to good people. Particularly, when their prayers for help seemed unanswered. I acknowledge that this is a very emotionally charged issue, and people’s experiences of pain and suffering are real, and often long-lasting. I too have deeply entertained these questions in my mind and heart. Yet, I did not allow my frustration, subjectivism and lack of sufficient knowledge to blur my vision, at least not for long. One ought to be mindful that the disheartening emotional weight attached to one’s reasoning, cannot compensate for the deficiency of rationality in one’s conclusion.
Pain and suffering are not unique to humans, in nature every species experiences pain, be that nature created for a purpose, or uncreated with no purpose and goal. This is exactly what maintains the balance of nature, and ecology in check.
Thus, why should pain and suffering pose a problem only for the theists, but not for the devotees of natural selection? If there is no First Cause, the issue of the “problem of evil” is still on the table, for natural selection has to explain why among all options it favours the strong and allows the weak to vanish. Why it allows innocent children to suffer, i.e. be born with genetic birth defects, etc. In fact, the “problem of evil” is more problematic in the materialistic ideology than in the theistic, since a believer in the Divine is aware that his belief in the Almighty does not give one special immunity from life’s usual ups and downs and one will be tested by the Divine in one way or another. Nor does being good 24/7 shield one from natural disasters and sickness; a believer is required to be steadfast and mindful of the Hereafter. Yet, in a naturalistic world suffering makes no sense, particularly in the absence of the Hereafter an atheist has nothing to console within a temporal earthly life.
Let’s analyze Carter’s powerful picture and see what it really tells and tells not.
One cannot even for a second blame the Divine for this child’s death or the circumstances leading to her death. To depreciatively ask “Where is God?” when adversities such as famine strike is a false comfort to cover up the most pivotal question which ought to be asked: Where is Man? We presuppose that in the state of existence, it is the Divine who is on trial, not man, and the Divine is subject to Man’s judgment for approval. Further, there is an underlying assumption that man has no individual and collective responsibilities while freely walking on this planet.
Calamites are either natural or manmade. Civil wars, population displacement and food scarcities are manmade phenomena. We assume that deviation from natural laws has no socio-environmental consequences and is indifferent to the concomitant effects of interrupting the inherent balance of nature which leads to famine. Centuries of hegemonic socio-economic policies, unjust trade rules and mismanagements have devastating tolls that are gradually surfacing: drought, global warming, hurricanes, etc. Man is often a victim of his own transgression, individually or collectively. We wipe out an entire rainforest to use the land for cattle farming as though the forest is there merely as a decorative functionless item. The hell with all other “redundant low-cast” species that are destroyed, we are the chosen species, and certain elite groups within the chosen species are the chosen class that must rule the world. Nature must be subservient to the elite. Over 80% of the world’s resources are being consumed by less than 20% of the world’s population in the Northern Hemisphere at the expense of all other human and non-human cohabitants of this shared planet. Even so, still all of earth’s renewable resources seem not enough to satisfy their never-ending insatiable appetite.
Man is the only species with responsibilities and free will. And when he exercises his free will the possibilities can be endless. The course of reckless action taken may result in the destruction of life, properties and the natural environment. Nevertheless, as one engages in an act of senseless destruction, others have the obligation to stop him and prevent annihilation. Sadly, the world often turns a blind eye to atrocities and genocide committed by a single man or by one nation to another, leading to tragedies, one after another. And when calamity strikes, many stand facing the sky blaming the Divine. We live in the universe of cause and effect, everything in this universe obeys this law and nothing can deviate from this principle. When natural laws and basic manmade social laws are tampered with, what kind of logic dictates that the Originator of the universe ought to intervene like Superman, particularly when despite all early warning signs, the optimally balanced natural laws set in motion, as well as the rudimentary moral laws and justice are arrogantly violated?
The confused and disillusioned atheist philosophers selectively focus on the “problem of evil” to argue that there can be no “God”. Their anthropomorphic concept of “God” in this context resembles more like a celestial Superman, Santa Claus or Genie leading to ill-conceived expectations and conclusions. Even, if there is any validity in their line of reasoning, then they should not be ignoring the existence of good, which causes the “problem of the good” for the atheists. The atheists totally miss that according to their own logic the overwhelming existence of good, love and pleasure ought to lead them to the opposite conclusion. For example, the existence of countless healthy, happy, well-fed growing children demonstrates that there is a Merciful Divine.
It is puzzling that one keeps on insisting that the universe is uncreated or self-created because of pain and suffering, while our experiences of joy, laughter, love, and beauty outweigh pain and suffering. Where are consistency and fairness in this assessment? Clear thinking should indeed lead everyone to the opposite conclusion made by Kevin Carter that “…. the joy of life truly overrides the pain to the point that pain does not exist.”
The famous Chinese Taoist Master Chuang Tzu once dreamed that he was a butterfly fluttering around colourful flowers. While dreaming, his dream appeared so real to him, void of any awareness of his humanhood and his own individuality. In the dream, the entire world was just a garden and he was a tiny butterfly in that garden. In the middle of the dream, Tzu suddenly woke up and found himself lying in bed, being once again a human. Tzu was perplexed by this dream and questioned his own existence: “Was I before a man who dreamed about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?”
This anecdote is the naissance of philosophical skepticism spread from ancient times to the modern era, advocated by Western thinkers like David Hume further giving rise to radical skepticism in philosophy and science where it is legitimate to pathologically doubt the most obvious notions.
For an honest-thinking individual, the possibility of anyone actually being a butterfly, dreaming to be a human being is so ridiculously absurd, not worthy of serious discussion, let alone up for philosophical analysis. While between a man and a butterfly indisputably, there is a necessary and well-defined distinction, surprisingly for some, between reality and illusion there seems to be no distinction.
Consider skepticism offered by atheists against arguments for the Caused universe and fine-tuning. Lawrence Krauss postulates that the universe was created on its own from “nothing”. Richard Dawkins, argues that in this self-created universe what appears to be complex biological design is only an illusion of design. For ardent Darwinian atheists, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and even tastes like a duck, one cannot still accept that it is a duck. Over three millenniums have passed and these two distinguished scientists are so engulfed in pathological skepticism, that are seemingly like Tzu paralyzed to discern between dream and reality. Dawkins severely suffers from Tzu syndrome unable to tell apart an intelligently designed organism with its sustaining orderly system from mere illusion, in the determination of which one is really which.
The two have managed to influence a great number of people. Yet, they do not realize, that firstly an explanation of an alternative theory is not a proof to validate the theory. Secondly, pathological skepticism is not a rational argument and cannot refute what it intends to refute. Such proposals are the result of a deliberate effort to create confusion and cast doubt on the obvious and self-evident Truth. Radical skeptics in science often promote the existence of farfetched possibilities that are usually hard to define and impossible to verify by observation or empirical experimentation, where the mere postulation of such theories is socio-politically motivated, planned to cast doubt on concrete and ubiquitous facts that have undesirable implications. Multiverse theory and self-directed evolution by natural selection are a few typical cases in point.
Furthermore, pathological skepticism is an exercise in sheer futility. It is a self-refuting proposition, for it can equally be used against pathological skepticism. If one wants to doubt and question everything, one should also be doubtful of doubting, and be skeptical of one’s own skeptical initiatives and cognition. Thus, where and how does one begin to walk on a solid path? Seemingly, the whole intention of pathological skeptics along with their relativist counterparts is to undermine the solidity of Reality.
The 19th century French mathematician and philosopher of science Henri Poincare had a very balanced epistemological approach. He reminded us that: “To doubt everything and to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both free us from the necessity of reflection.”
To testify in a court of law, the witness is obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To arrive objectively at the truth, it is essential that all these three components go together hand in hand. One has to first tell the truth, not concocted fabrications. While disclosing the truth, one has to tell the whole truth, not just half of the truth and be selective to bits and pieces of what is desirable and what is not. Often, while much has been said, is there anything, which has been left unsaid? If so, the concealed information once revealed may force completely a different conclusion. In this respect, half of the truth is as effective as half a parachute. Lastly, in the process of telling the truth, the witness ought not to contaminate the truth with added impurities. Only through the employment of such a fact-finding process can a valid judgement be made.
This is how things are in a court of law, but how should things be in the trial of life? What could one testify with certainty in a lifetime of interactions in this universe? Can we ever ascertain if the universe is created by an external Agent, or is the universe the creator itself?
In analyzing popular discourse between atheists and theists from a Judeo-Christian background, it could be noticed that both sides do not follow this basic tribunal requirement. Both sides vigorously engage in only telling the truth. Yet, both sides with the intention to be triumphant in the debate deliberately ignore the two other concomitant requirements, that is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as if there is such a thing as half reality. Thus, committing the notorious crime of perjury. Both groups need to be reminded that those who jump with half a parachute are not going to have a safe landing.
What is the truth that both sides constantly broadcast? The truth is the outright flaws in their opponent’s view, hoping by embarrassing their opponent, they would score a point to rest their own case. What is left out to say, is the lack of evidence in their own view presented in form of faith, or presented in the name of science having nothing to do with reality.
For example, Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis, John Lennox, Richard Swinburne, John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga are a few among many theists who confront the atheist camp with the weapon of scientific truth, the truth about the inescapable implications of fine-tuning. They, so well demonstrate that the universe must have a cause and the cause of the universe is not within the universe. Yet, they never mention that there are blatant scientific errors in the Bible, the countless inconsistencies and historical blunders in that which is claimed to be a perfect divine revelation. What is further added to the truth is the baseless claim that the cause of the universe is an anthropomorphic Entity. Is there a shred of evidence in this universe to attest to this claim? While there are compelling reasons to believe in the First Cause, there are no compelling reasons to believe that the entire Bible is word by word dictated by the First Cause.
On the other hand, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens rightly argue that religious teachings have been used by the elite to control the masses. Organized religion discourages free inquiry and stands at odds with scientific facts. What they do not say is that, this dreadful state of affairs is utterly contrary to the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, neither one had any interest in wealth or power. It is a historical fact that all these three men went head-on with the atrocious regime of their time to liberate their community from mental and physical slavery. It is a historical fact that all these three men taught mankind to use reason and expand their knowledge. What Dawkins and Hitchens do not say, is abuses and crimes committed in the name of religion do not disprove the Divine causality. In fact, when a crime is committed, it is irrelevant in what name it is committed, be that in the name of “religion”, “western values”, “self-defense”, etc. What they do go ahead to falsely add is that science has buried the idea of a created universe, and what science discovers about the origin and functioning of the universe would have no implications beyond science.
Such a misleading presentation offered by the two sides often causes confusion among unwary audiences, leading many to agnosticism that the truth cannot be knowable, or it is relative. Thus, one can never be certain about the nature of reality. When it comes to causality, the state of human knowledge is ever inconclusive.
In discovering the truth about the universe and human existence, one has to detach oneself from personal desire and all socio-cultural beliefs without any affinity to or pressure from the external sources. Then tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. If one abides by this simple principle of fact-finding, one can easily arrive at the ultimate reality about the origin of the universe.
The fact is, one may not be able to figure out what is beyond death, or if there is heaven and hell. One cannot know what is the nature of this Entity who caused the universe and how It came to be. But by observing the universe, there are countless assertions that one is indeed able to attest with certainty. The prime evidence of nature is before every man and woman. Nature’s immediacy and simple language are timeless and universal. Our own existence alone testifies to a cause. We know better that nothing can be spontaneously created out of nothing. There is no case in point to falsify this assertion. Everything in the universe is evidently designed and functions based on specific defined laws. From a tiny atom to the most complex celestial system, everything follows a certain order. The idea of a perfectly functioning accidental universe with no beginning or end is impossible and improbable, thus it is irrational to advocate such a position. It is so absurd as well as dishonest to argue that this incredibly complex web of life in the vast space is a result of random chance. One should know better that chance is not a cause. Even chance requires some pre-requisites. The alternative explanations such as the materialist explanations are inadequate. The existence of consciousness and free-will refute the materialist position on causality. All exhibits confirm that the universe is somehow created and is pursuing a goal. The creation of the universe is not by accident, but is by intention.
Judging by the ubiquitous effects, the Causer of the universe is evidently infinitely powerful, creative and intelligent. Even most atheists do not dispute these attributes; however, they rather ascribe these attributes to “Mother Nature”, “Natural Selection” or pure chance. From this single assertion one can autonomously extrapolate that the Entity who is intelligent must necessarily be compassionate, merciful and just or He is not intelligent at all. His degree of compassion ought to be proportionate to His power and intelligence. Furthermore, the Causer of the universe must be singular, eternal and there can be nothing like Him.
To say the very least, in the trial of life, one should be able to bear witness that the universe is caused by this Entity for a purpose.
Bertrand Russell, the outspoken British atheist once made the assertion that: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Russell ironically advocates uncertainty in human knowledge with certainty. Is the human mind not capable of achieving certainty, and if it ever does, would it then mean that once an objective freethinker is certain, he has reached the point of fanaticism? Is certainty an unobtainable task for the human brain, the most complicated object in the known universe?
For Russell, in order to prevent being a fanatic, an intelligent man out to be a full-time skeptic who can never trust anything and always ought to be doubtful of everything. There can never be a universal standard to determine right and wrong. There is no such a thing as absolute Truth, everything is mere conjecture.
However, every denunciation implies an employed value judgement at work; yet one cannot have a reliable value judgement, if all propositions are doubtful, uncertain or meaningless. Russell undermines his own mind; he does not pause for a second to realize that he is on a collision course with himself. His assertion is a pseudo-philosophical claim, a pretense of significant truth, totally void of substance. It falls on its own premise and is nothing short of a self-refuting paradox.
One should ask Russell, if he is certain about his own proclaimed belief, to which, if he says yes, then according to his own statement he is nothing but a tiresome fool and an outright fanatic. Subsequently, he has committed the cardinal sin of being certain in a pluralistic world of competing ideas. If he says, “No I am not so certain about what I profess”, then he is better not to make a universal truth claim, if he is doubtful of the validity of what he is promoting. It is ridiculous to make a universal judgement and then admit that it may not be true at all. If one wants to doubt everything, then one has to doubt doubting, which is a total non-starter in a rational discourse, leading one into the state of perpetual limbo, if not outright paranoia.
Life-long examination, contemplation and critical thinking, may lead one to conclude with absolute certainty that an Intelligent Power designed and created this universe. Subsequently, anyone engaged in such a repast would have absolutely no doubt that this universe is pursuing a meaningful intention. I suppose according to Russell that makes such an individual a fool, guilty of being certain in a world that ought to operate on relativism and uncertainty. In parallel, a life-long of examination may lead a skeptic to the conclusion of agnosticism, that is, one can never know the Truth, or the Truth is solely via humanism. Who is it to say that the former is a fanatic and the latter is open-minded? Atheists arrogantly like to attribute their own belief to objectivity and relegate theistic belief to psychological delusion and fanaticism. It was Henri Poincare the French mathematician and physicist who sharply pointed out: “To doubt everything and to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both free us from the necessity of reflection.” On this issue, Poincare seems to have taken a much wiser stand than Russell.Bertrand Russell further declares with certainty, that science is the only source of valid knowledge, “what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.” The existence of the First Cause cannot be established by scientific inquiry; therefore “God” hypothesis cannot be scientific and true. Once again Russell shoots himself in the foot. The question that arises is: How did Russell acquire this particular knowledge? Is this proposition which is certainly not a scientific discovery duplicable in a lab exempt from the proposed universal rule? It seems so. Thus, it contradicts itself and fails miserably to establish what it aims to establish, which is the denial of the Uncaused Cause. Atheists like Russell, Dawkins et al. hijacked science to serve their atheistic agenda. Their defense of atheism severely suffers from the classic glasshouse syndrome, where arguments used against others would equally apply to one’s own position and arguments in defense of one’s own position are also equally applicable to one’s opponent’s position. Furthermore, they tend to scientifically elucidate the incredible complexity in the universe, and how the natural world functions. They then attribute the complexity and order involved to random cosmic chance. While their elaboration of the mechanism of the laws of physics may be scientific, their concomitant conclusion that there is no external Agent involved is a matter of pure unsubstantiated opinion. The opinion expressed has nothing to do with science or logic. The atheist scientists would like us to respect their subjective opinion outside the realm of science more than our own.
Likewise, Carl Sagan addressing theists asserted that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Fine, agreed. First and foremost, this claim itself is extraordinary; thus requires extraordinary validation. Is Sagan the scientist providing any scientific evidence for his non-scientific proposition? For atheists, it seems to be an extraordinary claim that there is an Uncaused Powerful Deity who created this vast universe for a purpose. They boisterously demand: where is the evidence for such a claim? However, every counter-argument presented by the atheists seems if not more, to be an equally extraordinary claim, without even a modicum of support. For instance, where is the evidence for a self-created universe, uncaused universe, multiverse, unguided evolution by natural selection, etc.? If something in itself is astronomically improbable, do we or do we not require compelling evidence before we accept it? Is it not far more extraordinary to claim that everything there is in the universe is all a result of random products of matter, time plus blind chance? Further, what would qualify as an extraordinary claim or extraordinary evidence? Are atheists not being selective of what is extraordinary and what is not, to support their untenable position?
Perhaps Russell’s famous statement needs to be amended to: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics always ignore the evidence, but wiser people attain certainty through it”. Further, if there is one thing that is more extraordinary than the universe, is the obtuse denial that it logically must have an Intelligent cause behind its creation.
Virtually all of us are products of an education system that primarily focuses on teaching students how to make a living, rather than on how to live. We are products of an education system, which has missed out the whole purpose of education. It is a bankrupt system that impoverishes the inquisitive souls of students, and has turned the love of wisdom into the hatred of wisdom. In many academic settings the discovery of knowledge is replaced by the concealment of knowledge. As pointed by some critics, the promotion and communal openness to the notion of relativism at academic institutions has led paradoxically to the great closing of once inquiring minds (Allan Bloom, 1987, The Closing of the American Mind). We are products of such an education system that has successfully killed the sense of wonder in observing marvelous natural phenomena and the beauties of nature. In this system, by the time one graduates, the inborn feeling of awe and admiration in witnessing the glories of this vast universe is systematically suppressed in each graduate. How should we expect a biology student to cognitively react to the complex nature of a living cell, when the field of biology is defined as “the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose” (Richard Dawkins, 1987, The Blind Watchmaker)? We are taught in school that complexity, diversity, design and purpose are all mere deceptive appearances having no meaningful implications. Any natural wonder that one experiences or witnesses is the end result of chance. How do we expect a physics student to react to the notion of an infinite universe, an edgeless universe that never comes to an end, when infinity is conveniently viewed as just a mathematical concept?
Too busy with the hustle and bustle of the everyday life, humanity has lost interest in studying the Book of the Universe and its most fascinating and persuasive chapter: the Book of Nature. Living in concrete jungles engulfed with an insatiable appetite for material consumption, mankind has become totally alienated and amputated from nature. A city dweller may hardly experience the tranquility of nature, or witness the glorious and serenity of the sunrise and sunset, let alone seeing the wonders of an undisturbed natural world far away from home. Case in point, when a massive power outage struck southern California in the 1990s, many Los Angeles residents reportedly called 911 to express concerns about strange clouds hovering over in sky; the callers were seeing the Milky Way for the first time. The innate impulse to ponder and connect is severely frowned upon. Mankind’s self-imposed ignorance of the Book of Nature is the underlying reason for his continual demise. Historically, any manmade socio-political, economical, engineering or environmental policies that were implemented in violation of the parameters imposed by the Book of Nature were doomed at its inception, or along the way. It should not come as a surprise when world leaders and corporate executives ratify policies in boardrooms that result in the destruction of nature. Nature is something totally foreign to their psyche.
Life is a grand research project to probe into the ubiquitous wonders, to understand the who, the where and the why of Man’s existence, of our raison d’etre. In conducting such research to seek the answer to the most fundamental and inescapable existential questions of life, what is a better book to read than the Book of Nature? Nature indeed is the best guiding mentor for those who genuinely observe, hear and reflect on the all-telling signs that are omnipresent to convey a deeper message. When one explores nature, one is then truly gaining real education. I have been keenly studying the Book of Nature for many years, attracted to its majestic beauty and endless colourful diversity. As Plato puts it, beauty is the splendor of the Truth, meaning that which is beautiful has the hallmark of the Truth. Therefore, to study nature is to study the Truth and to move on the right path to discover the Ultimate Truth. Good research at times requires one to take field trips far away from libraries, cyberspace and inept learning institutions. To pursue this goal, I decided to go far away from the distractions of this worldly life and spend three months deep in the untamed wilderness of Africa’s bushes and natural landscape. There is nothing quite like studying the Book of Nature; it generates elicit feelings of jaw-dropping awe, it makes one humble and contemplates the idea of a Higher Power. In the hope of being drawn to an endless sense of wonder, in the hope of learning from the non-human inhabitants of this unique planet, that one would encounter in such a journey, I eagerly traveled to Africa’s wild heart: the Great Rift Valley known as the animal kingdom.
It took me 8 hours to fly from Toronto to Amsterdam and 11 hours from Amsterdam to Johannesburg. During my long tiresome flights, I could not stop pondering how minute creatures like the monarch butterfly, or a 25-gram northern wheatear songbird would take such a long journey twice a year on their own tiny wings. I was sitting on a comfortable armchair reading a book, sipping coffee with snacks, or napping, but many migratory animals have to take arduous and often treacherous treks without any assistance or rest. A tiny shorebird called the bar-tailed godwit, holds the record for the longest non-stop flight across the Pacific Ocean over a distance of 11,000 km in nine days. Their migration is guided by an inbuilt flawless GPS system.
I started my journey from South Africa. More accurately from Kruger, then to Cape Town and traveled north approximately 17,000 km, having passed the equator, having checked out almost every National Park, conservation area and game reserves on my way, packed with diverse animals and flora. I picked Africa for its diverse wildlife and multitude of ecosystems like the lush forest, savannah, montane, tropical rainforest, wetland, woodland, mountains, desert and rich coastal marine life.
The interesting thing about nature in Africa is that opposing worlds live together side by side in an interconnected web of life. Stunning diverse life forms come and go, yet none could have come and gone without the existence of other necessary conditions.
I wanted to see the pristine nature with my own eyes rather than through television programs written and produced by neo-Darwinists, distorted by their ideological biases. I sought to closely examine the arguments often posed by materialists and ardent atheists that the universe far from being finely tuned by an Intelligent Designer is in fact full of flaws and created without any intelligent thoughts behind it. One frequently cited flaw according to them is that since animals in nature have many wild predators, they live under tremendous stress. Therefore, no Benevolent or Intelligent Creator could be behind the creation of stressful life on earth, and from this, they assert that no Creator exists. I never understood why when something is supposedly going wrong in nature, all fingers are conveniently pointed at “God”, but when credit is due, it is always given to the almighty: Mr. “Natural Selection”.
Regardless of who is to be blamed, this petty and illogical argument is theoretically invalid and can easily be dismissed. If animals in their natural settings are under stress due to the presence of predators that means animals in captivity should enjoy a stress-free life and ought to be always happy. Captive animals are fully protected, provided and cared for. That is to say, they are in actuality experiencing an all-inclusive paid vacation for life, not having to be worried about their day-to-day needs, free room and board, with free healthcare that many humans would be envious of. Yet we know, on the contrary, that animals in captivity are depressed and have a much shorter life expectancy. They have the zest to be free in their natural environment. Secondly, the fear of predators being around would not apply to all animals at all geographical locations; for instance, it would not apply to animals in ecological niches such as the Galapagos Islands, where animals have no predators. It would not apply to those animals on the upper part of the food chain. Despite what is said above, I still decided to put the proposed argument under observational study, to see if zebras, wildebeests, impalas or fish are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Where could be a better place to study this allegation than in a confined park-like Ngorongoro crater in Tanzania?
My observations at Ngorongoro convinced me that both predators and prey do indeed live together in harmony and enjoy life to its fullest. Ngorongoro crater is a 260 sq. km conservation area where animals are surrounded by the crater’s wall which is about 610 meters high functioning similar to the Great Wall of China. Seemingly, escape from predators in this confined environment is not an option for the prey. On the other hand, the predators cannot ambush the prey in an open treeless field. Both sides can equally utilize their confined environment to their advantage.
Due to this natural physical barrier, animals there cannot leave the crater and their community cannot take any new immigrants from outside. The animals there are literally trapped for life as if they are in Alcatraz. Yet this isolated ecological niche is completely self-sufficient, self-regulated, vibrant and has a balanced ratio between predators and prey. If there were just a few more lions, leopards or hyenas in the crater, the population of the prey would then be totally wiped out in no time. If there were a few less, then there would be an overpopulation of wildebeests and zebras; consequently, the ecology of the crater would collapse. The existence of a perfect ecological balance is indicative of good health. Needless to say, that which is healthy cannot be an outcome of stress.
Far from being under stress, all organisms co-exist in perfect harmony with their surrounding environment rather than struggling with it. There is no malice or remorse in killing to survive. This basic principle in nature is well understood by all participants. Indeed, all animals in Ngorongoro live together in an observable harmony, since the predators do not engage in senseless killing or act out of greed. To quote the British zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris, there is indeed a respected “Animal Contract” (1990) in existence between the predators and prey. Unlike humans, the predators never betray the terms and conditions of this contract in the quest for more wants beyond their basic needs, leaving the vulnerable party at peace. The crater looks more like a school playground in a verdant paradise; I detected absolutely no sign of any species being under stress.
Furthermore, consider the following brilliant BBC documentary – Inside the Perfect Predator, an excellent documentary focused on the marvelous design of four superb predators designed to kill.
On the other hand, the prey is not without advanced defense technology. In nature, it is all a fair game. In viewing this documentary, a fascinating point to note is that in order to maintain the balance of nature, each predator is also intentionally designed with a specific limitation, which prevents it from being successful in each and every hunting attempt. For example, a cheetah can reach the speed of 120 km per hour in a split second to chase its prey, but it can only run for a maximum of 15 to 17 seconds, before exhausting all its energy. A crocodile has powerful hydraulic jaws that can easily crush any bones, but when it ambushes a prey, that is during the process of lunging at the prey this hunter is deprived of its eyesight. To protect the eyes, it must shut them. Thus, frequently missing the intended target.
These limitations are indeed an indication of the insightful knowledge of the Grand Designer of the whole of nature. A random process with no insight cannot be mindful of fine and crucial details across the board, without which the whole system would collapse in short order. The predators are not designed to be superior flawless killing machines, always-victorious warriors. The objective of design is not on the mere survivability of the fittest as suggested by neo-Darwinian evolutionists; it is all on the preservation of a well-established ecological balance. For some other evolutionists, the elegant multifunctional designs used in nature are indicators of purpose, wisdom and a deliberate subordination of means to a greater end (Augros, Robert and Stanciu, George, 1986, The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature), and biological evolution is nothing but a directed process (Denton, Michael, 1998, Nature’s Destiny).
Genius designs employed in nature are the envy of the best biotechnology engineers who study biomimicry to advance their careers. For instance, consider the optimal design used in the body of a frog, hippo or crocodile. The design perfectly allows them to completely submerge their entire body underwater except for their eyes and nostrils. These species are dependent on this essential feature in order to hide and watch for predators and prey. The U.S. military uses the same concept to design amphibious armored vehicles.
Consider the wisdom behind the multifunctional zebra stripes: when a lion attacks zebras, the whole herd consciously runs together. As such the predator is unable to discern a single zebra from the herd, unless one gets separated or falls behind. Zebra’s stripes also act as camouflage, this feature allows zebras to hide in the tall grass and deadwood of an African savanna. The other function of the stripes is in thermoregulation. In summer, zebras grow more white hairs, thus the white stripes are wider than the black stripes. Conversely, when it is cold, they grow more black hair, thus the black stripes are wider than the white stripes, consequently absorbing more heat from the sun. Stripes also function as barcodes which zebras alone are able to scan for identification. The latest study suggests that the stripes further keep flies away.
Have you ever pondered the structure of elephant feet? Walking on a rough surface for a land creature of that size and weight would be impossible or extremely painful without a shock absorber installed on each foot. The cushions used in their feet allow these giants to walk very comfortably and quietly for miles. On the other hand, for another giant land mammal, the camel, why do its feet not require shock absorbers? The answer is obvious: the camel walks on a smooth surface. Camel’s feet are made wide enough to allow the animal to walk on soft sand very easily without sinking into it. They do however require something that elephants do not need: pads. The pads used in their feet enable them to walk on the hot surface without feeling much heat. Who truly deserves the credit for compatibility or adaptability between each species and its environment? Is it blind chance or intelligence? What kind of idiotic exercise is this to attribute the intelligence and wisdom behind the genius designs in nature to a cosmic accident, to random chance, to imaginary concepts like “mother nature”, “mother earth” or to a mindless process called natural selection? This is indeed a sheer exercise in self-deception to the extreme. Design implies a designer, purpose and intents. Evolutionary developments cannot exclude the role of the Prime Evolver who sets the law for things to evolve in a particular fashion.
Another argument often presented by atheists to debunk the notion of the intelligent design behind nature is the example of sand dunes formation. It is proposed that the universe was created just the same way a sand dune is created, a marvelous creation totally based on random chance. The elements such as harmony, mathematical order and beauty are there without any creator’s involvement. In Namibia, I had the opportunity to walk in a hot sandy desert and observe the stunning beauty of countless sand dunes formations. While climbing one of the tallest dunes at sunrise, I could not stop thinking, if we were to take the laws of physics away that form various parameters, i.e. gravity, wind, lack of rain, size, weight and shapes of sands, then would we still see sand dunes forming at all, with or without beautiful patterns. The dunes are like a circus, constantly moving from one location to another. However, the movement and formation are location-specific. Why aren’t there any sand dunes formation in the middle of a deciduous forest or a wetland? Do these skeptics not know that we live in a universe of cause and effect, where nothing is haphazard, even a grain of sand abides by the laws of physics? The atheist argument makes sense if and only if one skips the vital question of where did the constructal law and the prerequisite conditions, which govern the evolving patterns in animate and inanimate nature come from. Furthermore, why is it that we conclusively deduce that sandcastles or the sand patterns in small sand jars sold in gift shops have a designer and creator, but the more complex dunes in Namibia are products of a blind chance? How can a blind process, devoid of intelligence, in and of itself, design fabulous artworks, engineering wonders and mathematical precision?
To refute the existence of a Divine Creator, atheists strive in finding flaws in the universe. Another vacuous argument presented by them is that the entire universe is inhospitable to life, including the most regions of the planet earth, which is either frozen or too hot and dry. Thus, such a universe cannot be the handy work of an Omniscient Creator. I spent a few days at the heart of the Namibian desert hiking. Each day I drank at least 5 liters of water without passing a drop. Surely, the desert is inhospitable to Man’s liking and preferred lifestyle, however, even in this harsh barren desert under excruciating heat, life thrives. The “wasteland” is noticeably home sweet home for many species. The desert ecosystem system remarkably sustains life and plays a major role in the overall ecology and climate of the entire planet.
I must admit, the best and the most enjoyable part of my trip was witnessing some very common observations. The daily experience of watching the sunrise and sunset for 90 days, observing phenomenal rainfalls with frequently spotting a multitude of colourful rainbows in the sky, can put one in deep thoughts. With each rain, the dry land blooms with perfusion of diverse life. Day after day, seeing the life-giving sun going down in style and several hours later reappearing precisely at 180 degrees in the opposite direction can shake down one’s belief in naturalism. There is indeed something majestic about sunrise and sunset. It is a profoundly moving and thought-provoking experience to witness this natural panoramic show every day. Each day, I was reminded of the famous saying of the prominent 14th-century Persian poet Hafez who had this to say about sunrise: “Even after all this time, the sun never says to the earth, you owe me.” It keeps on shining to sustain life on earth unconditionally.
When the sun retires, countless stars gradually become visible turning all heads face up. Looking at the starry sky under the moonlight while listening to the symphonies of tiny insects on the background all night, followed by the predawn performance of various singing birds is a wonder that cannot be expressed by pen and paper or words. It ought to be experienced. At some locations like Etosha and Serengeti, the usual night recitalists had a few guest performers in their orchestra. The nearby insects chirping all night accompanied by the loud sound of lions roaring from kilometers away. Lions were not the only distant performers, there were hyenas and zebras as well. While daytime animals were resting, there were evidently a lot of intense activities throughout the night. The night we camped at Maun, the gateway to the Okavango Delta in Botswana. I could say without exaggeration or reservation that there were millions of insects in the vicinity that were so busy singing tirelessly all night long. Their sheer number of singing together amplified their sound like tens of thousands of fans in a soccer stadium cheering together for the home team. I stayed up all night listening to this mesmerizing music, enjoying reading another euphoric page of the Book of Nature, thinking about the Composer and Conductor of this impressive symphony of life, trying to connect to this infinitely talented Entity in charge of “the greatest show on earth”. Here is a fundamental difference between the likes of me and the likes of Dawkins. I acknowledge this Entity and am an admirer of His work and further seek to know Him better. Dawkins is a denier of this Entity and an admirer of chance mutation in an accidental universe. No doubt, one of us is most certainly dead wrong.
A few weeks after the start of my trip while resting at a campsite in Namibia, I noticed that it was time to clip my fingernails. I went to an isolated corner in the shade and started to clip my nails one by one. By the time I clipped the 10th finger I noticed ants gathered on the ground below my feet taking all my nails like they were candies. I followed them to their nest; other ants soon joined them to help. I was not surprised at all to see ants having an appetite for my nails. After all, these little creatures are the ones that will consume my entire body when I am dead. I was rather intrigued and fascinated by their superior organizational level and how soon they spotted food and collectively acted upon it. A few weeks later, I was in Malawi and it was time to clip my fingernails again. It was not hard to find an ant colony. In the name of science, I ignored the given directive of not to feed the animals. I approached a populated large colony feeling very philanthropic, thinking that their lunch today is going to be literally on me. I clipped my nails and one by one put them at the entrance of a high-traffic gate to their colony. To my surprise, they were not at all interested in my offerings. I stood there for 30 minutes; it seems that I just littered the gateway to their colony. It then occurred to me, of course, that these were different species of ants than the ones I saw in Namibia – different species in a different niche. There are about 15000 different species of ants across the world, and each species has its own unique diet. Where we camped in Malawi, was not as hot and dry as in Namibia. This country is situated mostly in the tropics and receives good rainfall. These particular ants had far better food choices to make than the ants in the barren Namibian desert. I suppose like humans when you have the option to go for the finest French cuisine, you are not going to settle with McDonald’s.
The following morning we left the camp and moved on before the sunrise. I packed my tent in total darkness. In the afternoon, we reached a new campsite some 600 km away. As I was trying to pitch my tent, I noticed that there were about 200 ants on the roof of the tent carried over from the previous site. I gently brushed off the ants to the ground, but they were very quick to move up again. I cleaned the tent several times, but each time all the ants moved back to the roof of the tent. It seemed that these ants were being introduced to a new environment that they did not belong to. Reluctantly, I carried these ants with the tent for several days and they never landed until they all gradually died. Right there, there was a strong argument to be made against ecotourism. I became aware that my careless presence there cannot be without consequences, which could lead to environmental disasters similar to the introduction of cane toads in Australia, goats in the Galapagos and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes of North America. The lesson to learn from these cases is that the balance of nature should not be tampered with, and to determine the answer to a deeper question of how such a finely tuned balance was set in the first place?
Walking through a jungle is like walking through a pharmacy, as each tree and vegetation has certain medicinal qualities. It is further like walking through an architectural exhibition, as one observes different technologies and intricate designs used in animal-constructed housing complexes, from various birds’ nests to beehives and ever-present termite mounds. It is amazing to see tiny species possess extraordinary abilities similar to that of human beings.
It is further like walking through an immense and perfect recycling plant, with absolutely 0% wastage, at zero dollar operation cost.
During my daily hikes in jungles, canyons, deserts and beaches, I developed a habit of collecting small rocks, shells, sands, leaves and feathers. I brought with me many samples to Toronto to study them under a microscope and X-ray. A rock displays millions of years of geological history. Have you ever looked at the astonishing symmetrical precision in a seashell under X-ray, or the stem of a flower?
The geometric shape of a single grain of sand is beyond belief. It is mind-boggling to see the fine details of how a feather is designed and woven together to allow a bird to fly. A feather ought to be light, yet strong, and must keep the bird protected from cold and warm temperatures, not to mention to be attractive to the opposite of sex. It is more astonishing to compare the differences in structure between the feathers of a bird of prey like a fish eagle and an ostrich, a bird that is not designed to fly. The feathers of the former are all aerodynamic, essential for flying, allowing the fish eagle to fly swiftly with maximum efficiency at minimum fuel cost. However, the ostrich feathers are only decorative and perfect for insulation. The magnified cross-section of a leaf reveals marvels in high-tech engineering. Each leaf is equipped with solar panels, thus always facing towards the sun to absorb the sun’s maximum energy. During each hike or game drive, I could not be more perplexed about how on earth anybody could think that all these amazing complex phenomena are fashioned by a “blind watchmaker” as Dawkins et al. arrogantly suggest. The denial of design in the name of “science” is only a dogmatic patronage to a failed ideology. Such a refusal to accept the obvious is so absurd and so unfair. It displays a great deal of arrogance and ungratefulness.
We drove through Tanzania’s amazing Baobab valley, a forest full of mighty Baobab trees, each one of these giant trees is a state-of-the-art water pump and air purification system which functions up to 6000 years, putting the best civil engineers to shame. What is utmost intriguing here, is that the knowledge and materials required to build this versatile monolithic structure were entirely stored in one tiny seed, something far more advanced than the best available human biometric technology.
I was in Serengeti just before the start of an epic animal migration. I would estimate that at the time of my visit, there were about 2 million wildebeests along with zebras in Serengeti getting ready for their annual exodus. How do all these animals get together in such an organized fashion? What governs their well-regulated move, year after year? How do they find the promised land flowing with milk and honey?
Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro was tough, yet not without its rewards, seeing sunset and sunrise when one is above the clouds is a unique experience. From the starting base to the top of the mountain one can experience all of nature’s four seasons at different altitudes. On my way down I was mostly alone with a guide who was ahead of me. Unlike going up, while coming down, the weather was great and the surrounding panoramic view was breathtaking. The overarching peaceful silence was pushing me to think about the Great Author of the Book of Nature, mostly on the fact that during all my trips across this dynamic planet, I have not met a living being whose sustenance did not depend upon the Author of the Book of Nature. And I did not come across a living being that is immortal, independent of the cycle of birth and death. As a human being, I may be more sophisticated than the rest of the cohabitants of this planet, but I too, am a part of this Book not apart from it, just a passive reader. In studying and reviewing the Book of Nature, it seems that I am actually studying and understanding my own mortal existence, a basic task for all sense-making creatures.
The Book of Nature is a book to be thoroughly read; yet it is totally ignored. Indeed true literacy means being able to read and comprehend the Book of Nature. This is the only Book written in a language that is easily understood by all; its message is universal and transcends time and culture. Its breathtaking beauty is the manifestation of Divine origin, in no uncertain terms for those whose eyes, ears and minds are alert and wide open. As one passionately reads this infinitely edifying Book, one becomes deeply stimulated to reflect on the Book’s origin and authorship. No book is ever written without an author(s). Why would anyone think that the Book of Nature could have been written without an Author? Yet, many dreadfully do.
Certainly, in the origination and design of this resplendent universe, in the continuous revolving succession of night and day, infinite evidence exists for those whose minds are alive, who are able to connect and remember their Originator, whilst standing, sitting or sidereally reclined, contemplating on the Book of Nature and Its Author. Only such people are drawn to the logical and profound conclusion, that the integrated laws of physics and biology certainly reveal purpose in the universe. The universe was not originated without a meaningful purpose, or a purposeful meaning, and in this realization do they extol their limitless Originator and Evolver.
The best defense laid out for the consumption of alcohol is the proposed “drink in moderation”. This seemingly harmless approach is emphatically adopted by both the alcohol industry as well as a segment of the healthcare sector adhering to the “harm reduction” model. In this comprehensive book, the author attempts to debunk this inept and deceptive approach by providing 23 different arguments to refute the endorsed solution to combat alcoholism and its social ills. He concludes that “moderation” cannot be defined, or prescribed to defend the consumption of alcohol.
You can view or download this book in PDF format at the link below.
Politicians, like professional athletes who change clubs, often change political parties when it better suits their careers. And just like athletes, they too may often move to the rival group. In Canada, Jean Charest was once a prominent member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada who then became a Liberal, a move that paved his way to finally become the Premier of Quebec. Bob Rae, once the provincial leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and the first social democrat Premier of Ontario, moved to the Liberal Party of Canada. In 2011, he became the interim federal leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a position which he held until early 2013. There are no ideological components involved in changing sides, it is all a matter of political games, career moves and “what is best for me”. Politicians are never shy about making antithetical adjustments and party realignments.
A similar pattern can also be seen in philosophical, theological and scientific settings. The British novelist and poet, C.S. Lewis, was once a vocal atheist who later became a staunch Christian. His fellow countryman, Alister McGrath, used to be a typical atheist scientist who then became a devoted Christian. Anthony Flew, the staunch atheist crusader, became a deist. Malcolm Muggeridge, once an agnostic journalist committed to hedonism, became a radical Roman Catholic. Likewise, the American celebrated geneticist Francis Collins was once an atheist scientist who became a born-again Christian.
On the other side of the spectrum, people like Charles Templeton, Seth Andrews, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, Matt Dillahunty and John W. Loftus were all once fundamentalist Christian apologists. They were in the business of propagating the message of the Bible to the world. However, their gradual disappointment with Christianity made them to lose “faith” and move to atheism. These individuals did not just change their worldview, indeed like a professional athlete switching clubs; they changed alliances and continued preaching a different faith-based ideology to make a living. The aforementioned are among the top pioneers of the atheistic movement in the United States today.
The fact of the matter is that a crossover move from these two extreme sides is very common. Many proclaimed “believers” very regularly become “non-believers”, and vice versa many “non-believers” regularly become “believers”. The very first thing that both groups like to emphasize is that they used to believe in “A” and now they believe in non-“A”, like subjective experience is a compelling argument. Having just switched sides, the new convert continues to play the same game of throwing mud at the opposite side.
Is there any explanation for this interesting phenomenon? I believe there is – it is due to a lack of serious concern for what the Truth is, combined with a severe emotional backlash for blindly following falsehood for so long. Many former Christians openly acknowledge that they became angry with God for not having their personal prayers answered.
The people who make such a move fail to realize that while the opposite of the Truth is certainly falsehood, the opposite of falsehood may not necessarily be the Truth. When it comes to the Divine, there is only one single Truth and an unlimited number of false ideas. Thereby, the opposite of falsehood “A” could be a different version of falsehood. Comparatively speaking, it may even be a drastically worse form of falsehood.
There are common features among all these converts regardless of what transition they have made. For example, they are very well capable of providing elaborate reasons for rejecting what they used to believe. However, they are totally unable to justify that which they have subsequently adhered to. Their new picked-up belief is equally irrational, selected based on blind faith and unfinished thoughts. The crossover move to a new team is not at all based on intellectual edification; it is based on psychological satisfaction.
For a materialist atheist who at one point used to deny the Causality and purpose, the acceptance of an anthropomorphic God as the Cause of the Big Bang is not the product of a sincere intellectual inquiry. These are converts who at one point could not be convinced that every effect has a cause, that every design, complex or not has a designer. These are the individuals who used to believe that the entire universe is self-created and has evolved to be what it is by pure chance. These individuals now somehow come to believe that after all, there is a creator who in fact has a “son” and engages in a wrestling match with Jacob. A “personal God” who is one in three, who literally died on the cross to pay for our sins and after his death, resurrected himself from his supposed death. But why would this creator do such a thing? It is because the Bible supposedly says that in order for mankind to be saved, God has to sacrifice himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself. Is this supposed to be an upgraded ideology derived from higher reasoning?
Likewise, for the “awakened” man who finally comes to comprehend the incomprehensibility of the Trinity, the rejection of theism is not a move towards rationality and reason. Here is a man who has taken a reverse journey at the end of which he concludes that the Christian God is mythological, therefore there can be no God at all. For him, the blind process of Natural Selection is regarded as the object of ultimate praise. By rejecting the Causality he is actually throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How is it rational to assert the realization that one has been following a wrong god would subsequently lead one to conclude that there is no Causality?
If one is raised to accept ideas based on “faith” and has a long socio-cultural history of embracing belief systems based on “faith” and subjectivity, one can then easily embrace any alternative substitute. In the absence of objectivity and concerns for what is true, rejection of one worldview over another would ultimately have to be based on personal interpretation and preferences. In this process, the only thing that really changes is a newly acquired taste where any flavor seems just as practical as another. Many of these converts are not interested in seeking the Truth for the sake of the Truth. The question of the Truth is totally missing in their cognitive analysis. Truth is presupposed to be relative and in the eye of the beholder. Many converts are like the athletes or politicians just making a better career move in the business of selling or accepting nicer enlightenment packages, and being part of a more fulfilling community. In a world that is saturated with pluralism, why would any genuine Truth-seeker fall for false polarization and feel limited to conclude that the ultimate Truth ought to be in either Christianity or atheism?
In the spring of 2000, Audrey Kishline, the founder of “Moderation Management,” one of the pioneers of the “harm reduction” movement to battle alcoholism was involved in an automobile accident having a blood alcohol level of 0.26, which is three times more than the legal limit. The defender of “controlled drinking” and an avid opponent of the “abstinence model,” being totally intoxicated drove the wrong way on a Washington State highway and smashed her car into an incoming vehicle, killing the other driver and his 12-year-old daughter. State troopers found her unconscious with a half-empty bottle of vodka by her side. Kishline was charged with vehicular homicide and sentenced to 54 months in jail. After this tragic incident, she was at least honest enough to admit in prison that her “moderation management program” is a “program for alcoholics covering up their own alcoholism.” The question is: Did she not know prior to this tragedy that her proposed moderation treatment is ineffective?
Drubwang Konchok Norbu Rinpoche the famous Tibetan Yogi Master, at his old age cut his hair in a ritual preparation of his death. However, his “Holiness” the Dalai Lama advised him that his presence in this world is still needed. He ought to live longer to preserve the Tibetan teachings and help his people. Rinpoche agreed, allowed his hair to grow again and decided to stay alive until the age of 100 to help his people.
It may be important to let the disciples and faithfuls to think that a Master has some control over the timing of one’s own death; however, the Master himself would know better that he has no power over his death or others. Contrary to the proclamation made, Rinpoche died in 2007 at the age of 85. Did Rinpoche and his “Holiness” the Dalai Lama not know what it means to be a mortal being?
Charles Templeton was once a prominent and successful Canadian evangelist. For 20 years Templeton played an active role in the propagation of Christianity. While in public he gave the impression that he fully adheres to his Presbyterian faith, in private he actually wrestled with the core tenets of the Christian faith. He and his fellow evangelist Billy Graham traveled together across North America and Europe to preach the word of God to thousands of enthusiasts gathered in sports arenas. Templeton gradually started to drift away from Billy Graham ideologically. In 1957, after a long struggle with doubt, Templeton finally declared himself an agnostic. In two of his post-Christian books: An Anecdotal Memoir (1983) and Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith (1995), Templeton admitted to having had great difficulties with the Biblical account of creation, the authenticity of the Bible and the nature of God. In essence, he found what he was preaching to be an incomprehensible theology.
According to a 2010 study conducted by Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, there are many active clergies similar to Templeton whom on the condition of anonymity have confessed to the researchers not to actually believe in the Christian God. What prevents these clergies from coming out of the closet is the economic consequences i.e. losing their job.
On the other side of the spectrum, Anthony Flew, a long-time notorious champion of atheism, struggled to keep justifying an accidental universe despite all odds, something that his long academic career was based on. In early 2004, he abruptly abandoned his disbelief in God and converted to Deism. The dramatic change of mind was based on scientific findings, while in the past he habitually used science to debunk theism. The structure of the DNA double helix made Flew to finally bow down to the Design Argument. This makes one seriously wonder where he obtained the conviction and confidence in atheism, and whether he was ever doubtful of the very beliefs that he was urging others to adhere to all along.
These examples show that Mankind often plays embarrassing games with his own mind. In deceiving others, he first must work hard to deceive himself, as a result often ending up being the first who pays the price of deception. Thus, not surprisingly cognitive dissonance is one of the most extensively studied areas in social psychology where there is an ongoing conflict between one’s vested interests, desires and the inner voice.
What is the psychological state of a man who builds a career on obtuse ideas that are indefensible and contrary to basic common sense, ideas that there is no shred of evidence to support them? For instance, have you ever heard of anything more ludicrous than a claim, which stipulates that complex design aimlessly happens, rather than being planned ahead by an intelligent designer? Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss advocate that this vast universe was created out of nothing with no primary cause, and then finely tuned by sheer luck, resulting in endless complex life forms with conscious awareness. “The Greatest Show on Earth” evolved randomly with no external guidance, but by a blind, unconscious automatic process. Forces of nature and natural selection at work are the given explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, itself having no purpose at all. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. “It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” The zenith of such an absurdity is that this belief is shamelessly presented in a prestigious package labeled as modern science with one primary goal: to exclude God the First Cause and to counter the intelligent design argument advocated by theist scientists and philosophers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Paley and the Islamic scientists of the Golden Age.
Below is a picture of the inside of a Rolex watch, which is intelligently designed and manufactured by Swiss engineers for a specific purpose. Is there any doubt that this watch has a designer and maker?
The photograph below is a magnified picture of supposedly not designed tights joints of Issus, a planthopper insect, one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. What kind of logic would justify the claim that it is made by random mutation with no purpose or foresight? The components in the machinery below are much finer and more complex than a Rolex watch. It requires greater precision and engineering expertise. It is a living machine with consciousness, yet atheists are resistant to acknowledge that the organism is designed because of the inevitable implications.
How did atheists manage to pass premature conjectures as science and get away with it so easily? They use subtle techniques that obscure the line between persuasion and deception. At first, they deviously changed the most fundamental and natural question in Man’s mind from time immemorial: How did the universe come to be, is it caused or uncaused, to the nonsensical question of: Are “science” and “religion” inherently incompatible with each other? Having successfully interjected blurry concepts like “science”, “religion” and “God”, their subsequent common campaign strategy has been to be vociferous and vigorously popularize their own atheistic agenda. They claim to be standing on the rational side and wrap their ideas in a nice attractive package labeled modern science. They keep using words such as reason, logic, rationality, science, knowledge, open-mind and free-thinkers, regardless of how preposterous their overall claim sounds like. Conversely, they stigmatize their opponents as religious, irrational and close-minded creationists and even frequently demonize them as fanatically dangerous, etc. They pretend that their atheistic view is a product of rationality and a scientific approach, but theism is a product of psychological need and desperation. In their research, case studies and television documentaries they are selective to that, which is supportive to their argument, i.e. to dismiss the notion of “God” they only concentrate on cracked pot figures. They repeatedly make inconclusive and circumstantial claims, then get a few of their like-minded colleagues to say: “Yes, he is right.” From that they make a circuitous conclusion which has nothing to do with science, for example, Darwin forces us to reject the belief in a Benevolent Grand Planner.
In debates, they are very choosy about who do they debate with. They dodge tough questions, constantly interrupt their opponents or the interviewer, repeatedly speak over them and spread misinformation. They appeal to fear-mongering, misrepresent their opponents’ position, for example, if one disagrees with the mechanism of Natural Selection, he is then painted as “anti-evolution”, “anti-science” or “history-denier”. They make giant bluffs and hope that no one would catch their bluff, i.e. Darwin blew away the Teleological Argument, a self-created universe from nothing or Multiverse. They maintain a tight grip over a favoured scientific paradigm in academic settings where the preferred ideas are institutionalized as truth. Subsequently, many of these atheists in the process have gradually come to believe their own lies.
Academic science is a profession just like all other professions. Indeed, in a material world where crooks can be found even among federal judges, police chiefs and heads of states, it is erroneous to assume that there are no crooks and opportunists among atheists, professors and scientists, and that they are immune from the alluring temptations of wealth and power.
Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth (2009) claims that life is not only the greatest show on earth, but it may very well be the greatest show in the entire universe. What is being great in this show, is, of course, the Darwinian evolution, the idea that life evolved from non-life by random processes of Natural Selection with no external guidance, the end result of which is the astounding variety and complexity of the interconnected web of life. Dawkins metaphorically refers to the tapestry of life as a show; the lushness of the natural world has made this show the greatest of all. Of course, for a Darwinian materialist, the Oscar for this great performance indisputably goes to none but Natural Selection for its unparalleled creative achievement and hard work.
Let us continue using Dawkins’ own metaphor. A typical low budget show in the movie industry requires a crew that consists of: Investors and financiers, executive producer, assistant producer, director, first assistant director, second assistant director, unit director, line producer, production manager, unit manager, writer, screenwriter, dialogue editor, cast, production coordinator, post-production supervisor, production assistant, script supervisor, subject consultants, stunts, stunt coordinator, extras, casting director, location manager, assistant location manager, location scout, location assistant, location production assistant, legal counsels, animation director, accountant, insurance broker, system administrator, production designer, creative director, art director, assistant art director, illustrator, artistic producer, Best-Boy (grip), set designer, set decorator, set dresser, stereographer, make-up artists, prosthetic make-up artist, hairdressers, intimacy coordinator, cameraman, assistant cameraman, rigger, gaffer, cinematographer or director of photography, film loader, digital imaging technician, negative cutter, lighting technician, sound engineer, mixer, re-recording mixer, construction coordinator, head carpenter, weapons master, animal trainers, costume designer, costume supervisor, art finisher, propmaster, texturing artist, choreographer, graphic designer, special effects supervisor, continuity supervisor, visual effects producer, film editor, colourist, composer, compositor, talent handler/wrangler, paint & rotoscopy artist, Foley artist, accent trainer, onsite catering team, security personnel, motion control technician/operator, publicist, promoters, advertising team and distributors. Each with specific prescribed duties to fulfill set-aside objectives.
There were over 700 people involved in the production of a 2003 not so great movie: The Matrix Revolutions. An estimated $110,000,000.00 was spent on this below-average Hollywood production. Can we imagine the size of the crew, the amount of preparation involved, the essential resources and the creative talent required for the greatest show of cosmic proportion? It ought to be unimaginably an enormous project. However, according to Dawkins this greatest show on earth somehow required no producer, no director, no planning, no designer, no budget, no production, no foresight or self-awareness. It is totally a self-made chance production, popped out of nowhere without any guiding intelligence, yet managed to claim the Cosmic Oscar in every category.
In light of the fact that no show was ever made the way Dawkins suggests, let alone being the greatest ever on earth. In light of the fact that no watch or anything resembling a watch was ever made by a “blind watchmaker”, if there is one at all. Would it then not be natural at least to be a bit curious about Natural Selection’s origin? Selection, natural or otherwise, cannot be autonomous or independent from the general creative processes operating within our universe of cause and effect with set physical laws. One would expect Dawkins to elaborate if there is indeed no Lawgiver involved, how did Natural Selection acquire its extraordinary know-how and successfully got involved in show business or watch manufacturing? Does it act based on its own volition, or is it programed to function within defined parameters? What is always missing in Dawkins’s writings, is exactly what all fundamentalist Darwinian evolutionists have been unable to explain all along.
One strategy employed by militant materialist scientists to debunk the notion of the First Cause is to establish flaws in the creation and operation of the universe. The perceived flaws from “natural catastrophes” to “imperfection”, “oddities” and “redundant complexity” in various organisms are loudly broadcasted supposedly to make a point, namely that an Intelligent Designer cannot come up with a suboptimal design. Stephen Jay Gould was the one who, for instance, argued that the human chin serves no purpose at all; it is a superfluous byproduct of the evolutionary process. He further argued that a panda’s tiny thumb is totally redundant having no purpose at all.
Richard Dawkins and his team butchered a poor giraffe in front of the camera to demonstrate a similar point, the point being that the pathway of the laryngeal nerve of giraffe is “completely illogical”:
It is of course illogical from an atheist subjective point of view, not from a general overall point of view of objective science. Dawkins does not seem to have learned a lesson from the “junk DNA” experience. Some evolutionary geneticists made similar accusations against certain human DNA, calling them “junk DNA” and thinking that they serve no purpose. Yet, further research confirmed in no time that far from being useless about 98 percent of human DNA that does not encode instructions for making proteins plays a significant role in controlling cell development. A fallible being should never assume that he knows the totality of reality or that his opinion is absolute.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson confuses a science lecture with standup comedy, when he gives examples of “Stupid Design” in the universe. This learned man argues that the idea of eating, drinking, talking, and breathing through one outlet is an example of “Stupid Design”. He further belittles human anatomy by questioning how our sexual organs could be concurrently used as the means to discharge bodily waste. To him “what’s between our legs is an entertainment complex built in the middle of a sewage system”, a premise provided to demonstrate that a Divine Planner cannot be responsible for such stupidity.
According to Tyson, it seems that iPhone and Swiss Army knife are examples of “Stupid Design” for being multifunctional. This smart scientist fails to notice the obvious, that multitasking is a paragon of intelligent design in industrial technology. Can you imagine a face or a body with numerous holes for each separate function? Microorganisms and viruses enter the human body through the mouth, nose, eyes, genitals, or through open wounds. Having more body orifices means, we would be more susceptible to diseases. Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson may prefer to have a unitool genital uniquely located on his forehead, but on what ground does he think that this is a better design than the existing one? What is the criterion, “looking really cool”? For many critics talking is cheap; Mr. DeGrasse Tyson should perhaps put his money where his mouth is. Being the smart scientist he is, he should go to the drawing board and give us a better design of how human anatomy ought to function. He further has to prove that his construct is far better than nature’s design.
These audacious materialists lack basic training in logic. They are so eager to discredit God that they fail to reflect for a minute on what they are actually saying. The atheists attempt to convince us that everything in the universe including ourselves is terribly designed. If that is so, then how can we trust judgment made by this defective product. That is to say, if Man is badly designed, could this inadequacy not include his brain? Therefore, his cognitive functioning, i.e. perception of intelligent or stupid design is likely to be faulty.
Furthermore, even a well-established “sub-optimal” design does not refute or diminish the design argument. A bad design, relatively speaking, may be a poor functioning and inefficient apparatus, but nonetheless, it is still designed. Consider the following example: The vehicle below is certainly a substandard means of transportation in the automobile industry, perhaps the worst possible design that one can think of for a car. It may not at all be a marketable idea. Nevertheless, it is certainly designed by a designer who in fact appears in the picture. The vehicle is not a product of mindless random mutation.
In essence, one can argue that the designer of this vehicle is a genius using the best of what is available to him to create a fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicle which elegantly serves his purpose. His design was not intended to put Mercedes out of business or to qualify for Formula One races.
The arguments presented by materialists are not based on science, but on opinion. I have been under the impression that the job of a scientist is to avoid giving a subjective opinion, but present facts. Further, the opinion given in cited cases is a very bad one. For example, the chin is the external part of the human lower jaw. No scientist would argue that jaws serve no purpose. Even as an external part, jaws serve an important function. It is a facial feature and plays an important role in the distinction of one individual apart from others.
Materialist scientists arrogantly think that they know the totality of reality and thus pass judgment on what is stupid or intelligent design. Regardless of what or who really created this universe, whether it was Juju at the bottom of the sea, Zeus, Krishna, Ganesh, Natural Selection or the God of Abraham, one thing that we can tell for sure is that this Entity has infinite wisdom and knows His job. There must be a reason for the way things are. Have we not seen enough cases? For example, Gould’s myopic view on panda’s thumbs was later on totally dismissed by other scientists who carefully studied panda’s behaviour in the wild. They discovered that the panda’s thumb gives a greater dexterity to the panda to handle bamboo branches (Hideki Endo, et al., “Role of the giant panda’s pseudo-thumb,” Nature, Vol: 347: pp. 309-310, January 28, 1999).
As it happens millions of dollars are spent on research in biomimicry to discover and implement nature’s genius in order to advance human efficiency, something that the likes of Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are either blind to see or dishonest to acknowledge.
Foolishness is indeed laughable particularly when it is displayed by the members of the “intellectual elite”.
An illiterate desert Bedouin of early history walking on a path with his companion inferred that this path must be a frequent passage for camels. The companion curiously asked him how he could be so certain given that there are no camels in sight. The Bedouin wisely replied: look at the trail, all you see here is camel droppings and camel footprints.
The Bedouin did not have any formal education, but he certainly used solid scientific methodology to arrive objectively at his conclusion, which is the usage of observation, information gathering, analysis of empirical evidence, inductive reasoning, and so on. At his disposal, he had all the essential tools that freethinkers require to make a valid inference. What other possible conclusions can any skeptic make from the available data under identical circumstances? I believe there is absolutely none. Nevertheless, so many would not give up trying and be cynical at the conclusion made by the Bedouin. For example, there are those who could vigorously argue:
1) The droppings are not really camel droppings, they have the appearance and odour of camel droppings. However, the real thinking individual would not be fooled by the appearance, only those who have a lazy mind would think that the aforementioned signs would mean that a camel must have passed by. (Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins)
2) There are so many different animal droppings and footprints in the world. How do we know that these are camel droppings, but not of a polar bear or fish? (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker)
3) No camel ever passed over the trail; the camel droppings have created themselves out of nothing. (Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss)
4) No camel ever passed over the trail; the camel droppings have always been there from eternity to eternity with no primary cause. (Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi)
5) If camels do indeed regularly pass through this passage, how come there is so much pain and suffering in the world? (Epicurus, Sam Harris, Dan Barker)
6) Camel and camel droppings do not exist. They are illusions, the idea is totally unfounded, an ancient fairytale. It is wishful thinking, a manifestation of humankind’s oldest inner desire to achieve emotional comfort. (David Hume, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche)
7) People who use teleological arguments in favour of camel droppings and camel droppings-maker are people of faith; religious zealots with a certain fundamentalist agenda disguised as freethinkers. (The Skeptics Society, Atheist Alliance of America, American Atheists Association)
8) Camel droppings on the path evolved and branched out independently from droppings of other species by blind processes of natural selection. Thanks to science, the camel is no longer needed to produce camel droppings. Natural selection should suffice as an explanation for the existence of camel droppings without recourse to an actual camel. (Richard Dawkins speaking for Charles Darwin)
9) The only reason that one believes that a camel has passed by is all because one is raised in a culture where everyone believes that a camel has actually passed by. If one were raised in a culture where everyone believed that the great Juju at the bottom of the Sea left those droppings behind, one would then adhere to that tribal belief. (Richard Dawkins)
10) The camel is not great; the belief in the existence of the camel having passed the path is a man-made idea to control the masses. I do not want to live in a universe where one is obligated to acknowledge the existence of a ruthless camel that drops waste. (Christopher Hitchens)
11) Even if one observes on a daily basis that numerous camel caravans routinely pass by here, the existing droppings and footprints on the trail do not entail that they belong to a camel, which has passed by. One cannot generalize from specific and move from “is” to “ought”. (David Hume)
12) There were no camel droppings until we observed them. The camel-dropping particles exist due to the wave function collapse brought about by our observation. (Neils Bohr et al)
13) The belief that camel droppings and footprints are indicative of a camel in the vicinity is based on blind faith. The Bedouin’s assertion is founded on religious dogma. His conclusion does not constitute an inference from scientific data. Faith is a vice pretending to be a virtue. I cannot believe people in the 21st century still believe that a camel drops waste on its path. You Intelligent Design people must be ashamed of yourself for thinking order, complexity and fine-tuning mean anything. Aren’t you embarrassed to believe in pseudoscience? (PZ Myers)
14) Today real scientists no longer believe that we need a camel to end up having camel droppings; biologists can easily create camel droppings in the lab without a supernatural cause. One may not be able to prove that a camel actually did not pass through the trail, but science makes the necessity of a camel passing through unnecessary. The laws of physics can explain in detail what the droppings are made of without the need for a camel. Thus, science has buried the camel and its droppings. (Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking)
At times, it may seem that modern scientists are inadvertently not employing the principle of Occam’s razor, that is, not complicating explanation beyond necessity. However, a careful examination reveals that avoiding the simplest explanation is their career goal as many of them are heavily into atheism and are more concerned about defending a particular ideology than scientific discoveries. Nevertheless, when science deviates from common sense, it is no longer science; it is no longer the pursuit of truth. It is then no wonder why the most inevitable conclusion on the most fundamental question in life is so often missed by scientists.
A glance at the history of science can provide a good insight into its short-lived dominant positions with respect to every scientific discipline. Sometimes the paradigm shifts were gradual; sometimes the new ideas were revolutionary and spread exponentially like wildfire, having a concomitant effect on every other branch of natural and social sciences.
For instance, in cosmology throughout the centuries the scientific position moved from Aristotelian celestial motion to the Ptolemaic system. The Ptolemaic geocentric model was then replaced by the Copernican Heliocentric universe, a revolutionary idea which lasted until Johanne Kepler and Isaac Newton arrived at the scene. Subsequently, the Newtonian world was superseded by the general relativity theory of Einstein. Then came the era of the static universe of Fred Hoyle which later was demolished by the Big Bang expanding universe. The Big Bang universe is now facing a few new challengers: the Multiverse Theory, String Theory, Parallel Universes, M Theory, the 11th dimensions, etc. Every time we think that we finally unveiled the secrets of the universe, we soon after come to realize that no we did not.
Needless to say human knowledge in every discipline is not static, but dynamic. We understand the universe better every time we discover something new and should never feel obligated to be loyal to mistaken ideas. This is how human knowledge truly grows. Nevertheless, while the self-correction of science is commendable, the arrogance and ostentatious attitude displayed by many scientists today are not. Many scientists have adopted a mindset that they are the elite, that they know better than everyone else, that they alone can lead and we ought to follow them. Yet the perplexing question is: In this atmosphere of dominant ideas constantly being labeled as obsolete, where scientific theories merely go in and out of fashion, how did the arrogant mindset that science knows it all develop among many scientists? The often-skipped question is, when science is unable to obtain certainty in the scientific dominion, how could it so boldly proclaim certainty in non-scientific dominion, particularly by the scientists who use scientific “certitude” to bash any ideology that allows the notion of the First Cause at its core.
If the question, who speaks for God is justified, likewise the similar question of who really speaks for science is equally valid and must be addressed.
At the turn of the 20th century, it was Sigmund Freud who came with a pretentious aristocratic attitude and a sense of superiority that his bizarre ideas on human psychology are scientific and superior to every other competing theory. He supposedly used “science” to validate psychoanalysis. Using this new school of thought he subsequently tried to refute everything he disliked in psychology, sociology, anthropology and theology. Yet, it did not take very long for his psychoanalysis to be dumped in the trashcan of discarded ideas. After all, there was nothing scientific about his methodology of arriving at ideas such as “Penis Envy”, “Oedipus Complex”, interpretation of dreams or other bold claims he made in his popular books: “The Future of an Illusion”, “Civilization and its Discontents” and “Totem and Taboo”. It was Karl Popper who argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience based on faith, since its claims are neither testable nor can they be falsified. Today, psychology textbooks refer to Freud, the atheist who once dominated the field of psychology just as an average Joe among many figures in the history of psychology.
From the 1920s to 1960s, it was the era of logical positivism; a radical tradition asserting that all metaphysical and subjective a posteriori arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. Truth can only be determined by repeatable experimentation. The notion of the First Cause is not subject to empirical experimentation; therefore, as such God cannot exist. Hence, science rules. Everything else is of no value. The logical positivists never took a moment to reflect on their self-refuting proposal, which was not based on science, but based on a non-scientific philosophical outlook, thus having no value.
A century after Freud, comes Richard Dawkins, a new Johnny the snake-oil salesman. Dawkins, a biologist with an annoying habit of getting of out the biology lab to use science as a pillar of atheism in order to refute issues in philosophy, theology, morality and sociology. Teamed with a group of like-minded atheist academics like Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins et al define what science is and is not. They all speak as scientists but then repeatedly get into the realm of non-science, mostly religion and the existence or non-existence of “God”. Using the premises adopted by logical positivism, they claim that the standard of proof in science is solely based on evidence not “faith” or one’s opinion, however, just like Freud their supposedly scientific belief is nothing short of their own opinion far away from any evidence i.e. random mutation, the Multiverse theory.
Using Darwinian evolution as the weapon of choice, these materialists make grand claims completely outside the territory of science. Any question that they are paralyzed to clarify is considered as “silly question”. They add that the issues which science today has no explanation for i.e. the origin of life could someday be adequately explained. These scientists think they are authorized to write rain-checks on behalf of science, and expect us to value their promissory notes given their abysmal credit history. Let’s say that someday science may come up with an explanation of ideas that are unexplainable today: Does this not sound like the atheism-of-the-gaps, and is it any different than the much ridiculed God-of-the-gaps?
Today atheist scientists claim with certainty that time and space, matter and energy are created out of nothing without any external agent, then sustainably evolved by blind processes with no intelligent guidance to create complex life with stunning precision and order that defies comprehension. They claim with utmost certainty that God the Creator does not exist. Yet it is puzzling as to, how can they be so certain about their theological claim when they are unable to achieve certainty in their own scientific field?
How can anyone arrive at certainty in the proposed world of infinite universes with infinite possibilities on how life was created out of non-life, where the laws of physics and biology are arbitrary and randomly surface out of nowhere, in the universe that is created out of nothing, where anything that can happen does happen? In this world, any possible explanation is just as good as another. The adhered explanation is a matter of preference; that is to say, the explanation that “God” created the universe is thus no different than “nothing” created the universe. The God-of-the-gaps is as viable as the atheism-of-the-gaps.
My contention is not at all with science, but with arrogant scientists and their unsubstantiated claims; it is not with evolution but with the extremely improbable Darwinian dice. Some scientists today are so eager to have their name inducted in the Science Hall of Fame next to the likes of Galileo, Avicenna, Newton, Darwin that they completely forget the goals and objectives of science. These scientists should learn to be humble and stop pushing unproven ideas; otherwise, like Freud they too will end up being the future inductees of the Science Hall of Shame.
In the last couple of decades, the entertainment industry and the public have developed an appealing taste for prank comedy. As the nature of this type of show dictates, someone is always set up to perceive a situation that is not what it seems and then acts upon his/her false perception. Viewers are then expected to laugh at the subject’s reaction to the given stimuli.
Prank comedies often remind me of Stanley Milgram’s famous social psychology experiment on obedience to authority figures; however, unlike prank comedy, there was nothing amusing in Milgram’s case to make anyone laugh at how the subjects reacted. We learned valuable lessons on the dark side of human psychology from Milgram’s experimental study. Although in Milgram’s study most subjects continued to apply what appeared to be real lethal electric shocks to a person who seemed hurt and in pain, some stood firm and refused to carry on with the faked torture experiment. The latter was a promising sign on the bright side of human nature, that not everyone is a passive mindless comatose following directions given by scientists. Similar extrapolations can be made on prank comedies with controlled variables. Leaving the humor part aside, prank comedies can always be viewed as a mini-experiment on human psychology. They often demonstrate something about the subject as well as those who put the idea together to produce the show, and even the social norms and values.
Subsequently, this leads me to ponder, if our surrounding environment tells “A” while our own senses and experiences tell us the situation at hand ought to be “B”, how should we react? Do we react that reality is “A” or “B”? Can anyone doubt the information collected by all senses and processed by the brain and then avoid an obvious conclusion? At last, whom can we trust for assistance, should we follow a clueless “expert”? For instance, view the following prank:
This prank is an example of willful blindness. Wilful blindness would be much more humorous when it is spotted in real life when some people constantly ignore what is right underneath their noses. Who are such silly people? I submit that atheists are one prime example of people engaging in the act of self-deception. To demonstrate this, let’s change the question from where is the Olympic Stadium to a more crucial enquiring issue, i.e. the creation of the universe. The question posed could be the most basic and fundamental question for Mankind the sense-making species: Is the creation of the universe result of a blind chance or is there an intelligence behind it? Let’s expand the site from Montreal Olympic Park to the entire planet full of multifarious signs pointing to the correct answer, let’s even go beyond our planet into the vastness of the universe. Seriously, is it really not funny and ridiculous to see those who exercise willful blindness to avoid the immeasurable ever-present signs of intelligence in Nature? For example, viewing Chris Packham’s fascinating documentary on the annual miracle of the temperate forest would mesmerize any thinking individual, and one would rightly be amazed to see those who deny the wisdom behind the astounding variety and complex interconnectivity involved in the forest.
Secrets of our Living Planet: The Magical Forest
Unlike the above prank, we are not just standing in front of the evidence, we are the evidence, we are the living sign, we are the living the proof that it is intelligence. There are infinite signs within ourselves and within the furthest horizon categorically telling us that the universe is created by an Intelligent Power. So how is it that materialists choose to claim that “No”, the universe is a sheer product of blind chance? Indeed, when everything in the universe points to one inevitable conclusion that is there is a God, not seeing the evidence for design is a mere fact of psychology and not of logic.
If one works so hard not to see the obvious, then no evidence can be convincing. Therefore, there is no point to have a discourse or debate with such people. What is the point of shouting when ears are deft, eyes are deliberately closed and minds are shut down? Hence one never sees what one does not wish to see. There are so much efforts being made to avoid all these ubiquitous signs; nevertheless, it is still hard for them to maintain willful blindness of ignoring what is right in front of their eyes.
Indeed, many atheists only see what they want to see. Take the example of PZ Myers’s lecture below, a biologist and the author of Happy Atheist. For likes of PZ Myers, life is an accidental prank, no amount of invariable complexity and precision means anything to them, the least of which is intelligent design:
For sake of argument, let’s pretend that loads of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator is not there; let’s pretend that we cannot see them. Let’s pretend that those atheists who come out of nowhere claiming it is all due to chance should be listened to, let’s pretend that science proves that the signs are inconclusive. Let’s pretend and justify our denials that all those who recognize the evidence for intelligence are religious freaks, but we cannot pretend that life is a prank.
Atheists need to be reminded to avoid the avoidance of the obvious fact of Intelligent creation, to look around and see the grand universal stadium where we are all a player in an ongoing match. Those cosmic tourists, who wilfully want to deny the signs pointing to an Intelligent Constructor of this stadium, will, no doubt, face a loss of Olympic proportions.
Richard Dawkins often tends to speak for Charles Darwin. He continuously uses Darwinian evolution to justify his militant atheistic agenda. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins postulates that the unaided laws of physics, the laws according to which things have happened since the Big Bang, could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic the deliberate design. He conveniently redefines biology: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” He argues that the illusion of design is so successful, that it convinces many unwary biologists to believe that if a heart or an eye looks designed, it is sufficient enough to deduce that it is designed. From this assertion, Dawkins, the perpetual disgruntled critic of theism, concludes to have easily refuted the role of God as the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, God the Creator, the Fashioner, the Orchestrator of the evolutionary processes, the Designer of the astounding variety and complexity of elegant life. Having discredited the divine Watchmaker, he then hands over the credit to a blind watchmaker that unconsciously operates without any purpose in mind. It is indeed mind-boggling to see while physicists and mathematicians have discovered a higher-order behind what appears to be “chaos”, Mr. Dawkins denies the apparent order and design in nature, how can one explain this. The avoidance of this emerging conclusion by Dawkins seems rather perplexing!
Let us examine Dawkins’ argument on the illusion of design. First and foremost, is it not possible that organisms look like they are designed, simply because they are actually designed? If not, as Dawkins adamantly suggests, then how can we tell the difference between something which has the mere illusion of design, from something which is deliberately designed for a particular purpose? That is to say, how can we be confident that our own perception does not fool us, and be able to distinguish between the illusion of design from an intentional design?
Secondly, let’s assume Dawkins’ assertion is valid. Nevertheless, one could argue that the appearance of design is not an accidental byproduct of the evolutionary processes, but may very well be itself a part of the design, that is to say, it is intentionally designed to have the appearance of design. Furthermore, for the illusion to appear illusory, it necessitates having certain prerequisites and laws in effect to facilitate an illusory perception. In fact, an illusive design is far more complex than a non-illusive design, that is because in addition to its required functionality to fulfill its intended purpose, it further ought to appear that it mimics a deliberate design. Thus, in this case, the issue of who is the Designer and Lawmaker of such a tricky multiplex system is still on the table and left unanswered.
To say that a bird’s aerodynamic body with its wings has the appearance of the design, but is not designed, suggests a form of optical illusion being involved in our understanding of the apparatus. In the first place, why is there a double standard with respect to the illusion of design? Dawkins does not make the same inference when he refers to an aircraft, which is actually designed after in-depth studies of the anatomy of birds. If the original model is not designed, how is it that the copycat manmade creation is considered as a feat of engineering supremacy? What criterion do we use to distinguish between what has the appearance of design with that which is purposefully designed? Is the criterion employed arbitrary, conventional, philosophical or scientific? In the last couple of decades, engineers of various disciplines have been paying special attention to nature; they have adopted a biomimetic approach in design for increased productivity, efficiency, sustainability and optimality. In short, they plagiarized designs from nature and then present them as human novelties.
Secondly, in actuality, the theist’s view of a designed apparatus leading to the conclusion of an Intelligent Designer has nothing to do with the mere appearance of the apparatus. It has everything to do with the ingenuity and functionality at both micro and macro levels. For example, I have no illusion that my car key is thoughtfully designed by Toyota engineers to unlock and then ignite the engine of my automobile at my will. There is the certainty that my car key is specifically designed to perform this task only on my automobile: a Toyota RAV4 2010 Sport Model VIN: 2T3RKDV1AW017290. Further, my car key is not designed to perform the same task on any other automobile. I doubt if Dawkins would disagree with me on this issue. So why is this simple logic abandoned when it is extended to the ubiquitous examples in the universe and nature, if the unavoidable conclusion may hint at the existence of a Designer? Teeth are designed to chew food, the heart is designed to pump blood, sexual organs are designed for reproduction, the kidney is designed to function as a filter to remove wastes and excess fluid from our body, etc. How could the whole remarkable interconnected order in the universe and the infinite intelligence behind it all be a grand illusion?
Isaac Newton is reported to have stated that when he first dissected an eyeball of a bull, he immediately realized that all principles of reflection and refraction of light are fully employed in the design of the bull’s eyes. Newton was astonished by this discovery; he proclaimed that, “whoever designed this eyeball knew all the laws involved in optics.” For Newton, it was not an illusion of design, but rather it was a solid proof for the existence of God, the “Mechanic” who is responsible for the whole of creation. Dawkins would like to think that it is Natural Selection which is cognizant of the behaviour and properties of light when it passes through lenses, or just pretends that it does to give the impression of the design. All this goes to show us is that the atheistic stance is not based on reason, but a blanket emotional reaction to the word “God”, which leads to the most ludicrous conclusions being passed off as scientific and the bastions of rationality.
Moreover, apart from the improbability and impossibility of any unaided and unconscious processes to create anything meaningful, Dawkins’ assertion is also irrational and fallacious in eliminating the role of a Designer.
Indeed, what is an illusion but a misinterpretation of physical reality by our senses? An illusion is when we perceive a physical reality to be anything other than what it actually is, when we become deluded using our own senses of things that are not really true.
There are a few good examples of how our senses can fool us. A prime illustration is the Adelson checkerboard, an incredible optical illusion designed by a Professor of Vision Science at MIT. Edward H. Adelson designed and produced a perplexing checker shadow illusion in 1995.
At the time, we may not even suspect the veracity of what our senses are telling us, that things could be unreal, unless the illusion is broken up. For example, if we slightly relocate the position of the spotlight, the size or the position of the green cylinder, increase natural light in the room or switch the position of gray squares with white squares, there would then be no optical illusion. The size of the board and the cylinder ought to be proportionate to one another. Furthermore, most checkerboards are black and white; however, Adelson could not have picked any other colour, but gray and white. There would be no illusion involved if the colours were bright pink and yellow.
For a colourblind or visually impaired person, if instead of contrasting gray and white squares the checkerboard had smooth and rough bumpy squares, the human vision would be totally useless. In this case, the subject would need to use an entirely different sense, namely touch. Therefore, there would be no illusion once you touch the board.
The crucial question is, does an illusion mean there can be no designer? Dawkins has taken the liberty to assume that is so. When someone’s entire career objective becomes justifying atheism and debunking the notion of intelligence in design, it is no wonder that one often makes hasty and inaccurate conclusions.
Optical Illusion Carpet
Real face or a mask over her face?
Pictures below are of a brand new automobile designed to look old and rusted. From the illusion involved, we cannot deduce that this car has no designer. It has, the designer is Clyde’s Wraps.
What is most interesting is that for every argument that atheists put forward to eliminate the notion of intelligence in design, there is a much stronger counterpunch that slaps them in the face. Dawkins fails to comprehend that even when it comes to illusions, there are purposes involved in the design; that is, it has to be intelligently designed to have an illusive effect. Ask any well-known magicians like David Copperfield or the great Harry Houdini. They would admit that what they do for a living is to create grand illusions, such as making the Statue of Liberty disappear, levitating over the Grand Canyon or walking through the Great Wall of China. The illusionists never do anything impossible contrary to the laws of physics, rather they just cleverly seem to make us think that this is exactly what they are capable of doing. For all their tricks there is indeed great thought and preparation made behind the scenes and the individuals involved have a superb talent for gimmickry. The important point to be made is that even illusions are so meticulously designed to be illusory. They do not just happen by random mutation. If Dawkins thinks otherwise he should then consult with Edward H. Adelson or David Copperfield.
Dawkins’ bogus contribution to this discourse emanates from his inability to explain intelligent design, which has led him to deny the intelligence in design and natural processes. The central inescapable dilemma of atheists is that all elements of nature possess harmonious order and laws. Since order and laws imply arrangement, then the issue of the “how” of arrangement leads to the “who” arranged it, because the probability of chance arrangement is zero, taken cumulatively. This is why if these atheists try to shift the attention of those who rationally conclude that nature implies order, which implies arrangement and hence design and a Designer to it being all an illusion, they cannot escape the fact of arrangement no matter how hard they try. This is like trying to escape the gravity of earth by jumping up; it is an impossibility. Rather, Dawkins and his atheistic henchmen create an illusion of rationality by their baseless suppositions. If after all, he is right that there is no God and all designs in nature are a pure illusion, then the million-dollar question to ask would be: who is the magician who came up with the trick and created the illusion of design? Using his line of reasoning, he should, to say the least, come to conclude that the unique Designer of the evolutionary processes in nature, whatever the nature of this Entity might be, is indeed the one who is the greatest Magician or Illusionist of all time.
Dawkins likes to think his so-called scientific argument has resolved the issue once for all. However, his shaky assertion is not at all based on science, but is merely his own personal opinion. For many other scientists like Newton, Michael Denton, Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer, there are no illusions about the designs in nature. For them, if it looks designed i.e., serves a purpose, it is designed. The only detectable illusion is that of Dawkins, the stubborn atheist Emperor who refuses to accept that he is naked – who accepts the illusion of being fully clothed.
Those who adhere to science and logic take a strong position against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They protest as to how on earth can 1+1+1 be equal to 1, and consequently hold that the nature of God in Christianity is totally incomprehensible and inaccessible to the human intellect. They further argue: how can a being be both human and God, mortal and immortal, finite and infinite, fallible and infallible, contingent and incontingent, caused and uncaused, possessing these attributes simultaneously or consecutively? How can God be in human flesh, and further, how can the Divine God have a human son? These critics have argued for centuries, that the notion of Trinity cannot be rationally possible, since if God has a son, His son then must have the same nature as his Father, otherwise he cannot really be his Son. If so, how could the Son have the same nature as his Father, when the nature of the Father is that he has no Son or Father and no one gave him life? After all, He is the God that begets not, nor was He ever begotten.
Trinity is so blatantly irrational, that many well-known Christian thinkers such as Joseph Priestley, John Locke, Isaac Newton, and Ralph Waldo Emerson openly rejected it and adopted the Biblical Unitarian version of Christianity that regards Jesus as just a human being. Historically, the classical response from Christian theologians has been anything but satisfactory. Many Christians today continue to struggle with the perennially irreconcilable notion of a triune God.
Trinity is commonly defended by employing four different strategies, all of which are invalid. Trinitarians blatantly bypass the basic law of non-contradiction through the usage of these techniques, either separately or combined.
Firstly, the argument by analogy. Analogies are frequently provided to explain complex and indefensible concepts; often the analogy used is fallacious and is nothing close to the concept being defended. In defense of Trinity, an analogy of egg is provided to explain this indigestible concept, claiming that Trinity is just like an egg having three layers. The shell, white, and yoke are all parts of one egg, but at the same time they are all separate components of an egg. God is like an egg in that He is 3-in-1, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This analogy is expected to clarify how divinity and humanity can be the unified characteristic of a single entity, forgetting at the outset that an explanation is not a proof. The approach employed leaves further questions unanswered such as: why is the nature of Divine like an egg, but not for instance like an onion unsettled. Can Trinity be truly the Divine nature of the Big Bang Originator?
Secondly, the irrationality of the proposed concept is covered up by clouds of worthless terminology and convoluted language. The Christian God is claimed to be a “Hypostatic Union” between man and God, an invented terminology by the First Council of Ephesus held in the year 431, a fancy term that conveys absolutely no meaning but pontifical gobbledygook.
Consider the following example, through natural processes, a silkworm can turn into a beautiful butterfly, but once it becomes a butterfly it can no longer return to being a worm again. Metamorphosis is a unidirectional process. Such a species cannot be both worm and butterfly at the same time. If God becomes a man in every sense of the word, He then loses His power to become God again. If He is still able to regain His divinity, then He never was truly a man.
Thirdly, Trinity is a mystery that has to be accepted based on blind faith; it is a matter of personal belief. Faith excuses evidence. A thing that cannot be subject of rational scrutiny could still be justified since the good Lord can do anything. How many times have we heard Christian theologians claim that “you cannot question everything”? They come up with disingenuous vocalizations and slogans such as: God is love, the love of God can overcome mystery and irrationality; when we meet the Lord in the heaven He will eventually explain His mysterious nature to us. In explaining the Biblical causation to the scientific community, the Trinitarian position is that “Jesus did it”, “the Holy Spirit did it”, and the anthropomorphic “God the Father, the old man up in sky did it.” Then they look surprised why scientists dismiss the Biblical account of creation.
Fourthly, when clergies are confronted with an unanswerable question, they use the same technique commonly used by trained politicians on how to dodge a difficult question by answering a different question so brilliantly. They never write off the point raised and always acknowledge that the issue raised is justified and deserves scrutiny. The technique requires manipulation of the audience, by first creating a little distraction to sideline the questioned issue and then gradually moving on to a different topic that is easy to handle, the position taken is something which everyone would agree with. At the end, if the unsuspecting questioner feels the issue is still unclear to him, he may conclude that he is just too unintelligent to understand the issue well explained to him.
Ravi Zacharias on the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Trinity
Needless to say, none of the above approaches would quench the thirst of truly rational individuals, all those who seem to have had enough of the Christian dogma and long for a little bit of a breeze of rationality. Many scientists, as well as philosophers, claim to be among this group. However, they too have equally abandoned rationality and throw the baby out with the bathwater. They reject God the First Cause with the notion of Trinity, Christianity, all manmade and altered religions. The illogical Christian theological doctrine has given the excuse to the rise of atheistic science. Their first error is that, since the existence of God is not subject to empirical analysis, it must be excluded from science. Thus, in looking for an alternative Godless worldview, scientists fail dreadfully. Their solution is no different than that of Christianity and they ultimately fall into the same pitfall.
At first atheist scientists, came up with the idea of the Steady State universe. They argued against theists that if God has no creator and has always been there, why not the same be true about the universe, that the universe had no cause, and has always been there. If God is said to be eternal, why not to say that the universe is eternal. Furthermore, with respect to the notion of the fine-tuning of the universe and the astounding variety and complexity of life, materialists proposed “Natural Selection” to rebut William Paley’s notion of Watchmaker. However, after the discovery of the Big Bang, the dominant Steady State universe could no longer be defended. The Big Bang confirmation established that the universe had a beginning and a beginning universe suggests that there ought to be a creator. Further discovery of the Double Helix geometric shape of DNA, the molecule of life comprized of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences made the defense of atheism a silly attempt. Atheists suddenly found themselves in trouble and started looking for a remedy, ideas such as Multiverse, parallel universes, M theory, String Theory and other dimensions, etc. started to develop without any inductive supports, contrary to the very basic tenet of empirical science. None of these theories have arised based on evidential discoveries; on the contrary, they all have been developed with a specific objective, which is to eliminate the need for a Creator in explaining the causality. Furthermore, each proposed theory begs the question. For instance, where did this magical multiverse-generating machine come from?
To an impartial objective observer, the similarities between the two views presented by respected atheist physicists and Trinitarian Christians are evident: both are unsupported, illogical and based on faith that is blind faith. The Christians rather believe in the trinity of God, than in the unity of one God. The atheist scientists rather believe in an absurdity of a self-made accidental universe, or in a more bizarre idea of an infinite number of undetectable self-created universes than believe in a single Creator of all that there is. If this belief is not based on blind faith, I then wonder what is. The atheist scientists confused science with science fiction, have coined terms such as Multiverse for a fictional concept, then like Christians, appeal to a faulty analogy to justify their pseudo-science. For example, claiming that the whole of existence is like a mug of beer full of bubbles. A beer mug being a vast hyperspace, the mother of all universes and the individual bubbles are like the individual universes popping into existence. Subsequently concluding, not all universes would be conducive to complex life; we were just the lucky ones to live in the universe that hosts life. We are the winners of the jackpot of a cosmic lottery. Really! How practical? Isn’t that nice, winning the ultimate prize without even buying a ticket?
Indeed, what a useless and dogmatic effort by atheists. The idea of the Multiverse cannot exclude the role of God the Creator. Not only does the Multiverse theory not eliminate the need for God the creator or the First Cause: rather, it makes the matter even somewhat more complicated. As if having to explain one origin and one causation is not hard enough, now multiply that by infinite causes. Let’s suppose that the Multiverse theory is accurate, the question of who created the hyperspace, the mother of all universes and then set the physical laws to govern it, still remains blatantly unanswered. Did the Multiverse not have an initial cause? Who said that God cannot create a Multiverse? How does the notion of the Multiverse lead one to conclude atheism is warranted? The atheists’ position on the creation of the Multiverse is no different than that of the creation of the universe. They defend the irrationality of their belief by claims such as, “Nothing did it” (Lawrence Krauss); “It did itself”; “The universe created itself” (Daniel Dennett), “Mother nature did it”, “Natural Selection did it”, “The Selfish Gene did it”, “a blind watchmaker did it” (Richard Dawkins).
It is true by relying on science we can learn so much about the universe, the proposed Darwinian explanation on how A evolved to B, may be satisfactory to those who are only concerned about the origin of B, but not A. But, why stop at B? Why be only concerned about where and how the bubbles in the beer come from? The more important question is where did the mug that holds the beer come from. How did the whole of the grand existence begin?
Furthermore, the atheist scientists seem to forget something rather pivotal to their field here. This forgetfulness is that explanation is not a proof. An explanation is not an argument and cannot be taken as justification or proof. Why on earth should the Multiverse be like beer and not like water, totally flat and bubbleless? Did the atheist scientists forget what really gave birth to backlash against religious institutions? Did they forget their own arguments against faith-based beliefs, and what distinguishes science from religious belief in fairytales? What must be considered is a religious man who believes in the notion of Trinity, is painted by scientists to be closed-minded, an obtuse religious fanatic, as Richard Dawkins describes it: “an enemy of reason”. If this is who he is, then in a way he is licensed to believe in Bronze Age superstition and nonsense. However, how can an academic man of science, a lover of reason and rationality, a graduate of a prestigious university and author of numerous books come up with a similar argument and invalid conclusion as a religious fool? Why are the lovers of truth using the same techniques to dodge questions which their proposed science is paralyzed to answer?
What is strikingly shocking is to see blind faith arguments coming from scientists, those who have already criticized the faulty analogy of Trinity and further unfairly picked on William Paley’s Watchmaker analogy.
Practically in every textbook or website on logic and science when the fallacy of faulty analogy is discussed, the example of Paley’s argument is cited as a typical fallacy of faulty analogy, arguing that this analogy does not demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider the following diatribe,
“…the analogy doesn’t succeed because of faulty comparison. In false analogy, the constructiveness of the argument gives way to deceptiveness and triviality, where the falseness in the analogy can be understood by the absurd construction of the argument. This can be best understood by the ‘watchmaker analogy’, which is used as an argument for the existence of God. According to this particular analogy, the complexity of the universe is similar to the complexity of a watch. Since every watch has a watchmaker, so the universe too must have a maker or designer, in short God. This analogy falls flat, because of the fatuousness of the comparison and is, today, considered to be the best example of false analogy. This will become clear when the argument is given an absurd turn. It can be accepted that the universe is as complex as a watch. But while the watch can be taken around in the pocket, the universe cannot be. Thus, an analogy becomes false when there are many characteristics that highlight the differences between the comparisons.” (Reference)
Using this logic, that the universe and a watch are not the same things, I suppose one can comfortably argue that the comparison of Multiverse with a mug of beer is likewise unwarranted; thereby the Multiverse cannot exist, simply because unlike a mug of beer, you cannot drink the Multiverse.
The atheist scientists erroneously think that scientific inaccuracies in the Bible are a good proof that there can be no God. They conclude from the fact that the followers of each religion claim that their religion is the Truth with capital T, therefore there can be no such a thing as absolute Truth. They deduce from the fact that there are so many different concepts of god, therefore there can be no God. How unscientific? It is a pity to see such conclusions are made by those who are systematically trained to discover the truth by the process of elimination, those who are trained to separate fact from competing theories.
The fallaciousness of scientism is well exposed and counter-attacked by Christians who were bashed relentlessly by scientists for the last couple of centuries. However, Christians should be reminded that it was the dogmatic outlook of Christianity in the very first place and its hostile attitude towards knowledge that gave rise to atheism. Christians among all people are in no position to complain about why scientists have an aversion towards religion, and should know better why people are driven in droves towards the abyss of relativism and atheism.
The debate between atheism and Christianity has turned into a boring dispute between the pot and the kettle, both sides calling each other black, each side guilty of the very fault identified in the other side, both sides being guilty of mixing sense with nonsense.
Atheism is not a modern concept emerging with the progression of scientific knowledge. Despite what atheists repeatedly claim, atheism is an ancient belief, if not older; it is just as old as theism. Ancient but always marginal, it was never able to enjoy taking over the hearts and minds of people. Atheism will never succeed to replace theism of any kind. Throughout history, there were many powerful regimes that dictated and enforced this ideology to the masses, but failed miserably to propagate and preserve it. Citizens were obligated to participate in the government-orchestrated ceremonies, but in private many of them believed in God. And, as soon as they had the first opportunity, like a stretched rubber band when the applied force is removed, they openly abandoned the imposed belief at once and returned to their natural state of belief in God. One explanation for the historical abysmal failure of atheism is because of its core stand, which is contrary to human nature. From the moment we are born we are curious sense-making and sense-demanding machines. As we grow older, we ponder deeply on larger existential questions on life and death. We are psychologically hardwired to look for the ultimate meaning and purpose for our existence, to seek our Creator and worship Him. Humankind is a worshiping species. If we fail to achieve this task successfully, we will end up moving towards worshiping a wrong object of devotion, be that fame, wealth, glory, Manchester United FC, Elvis Presley, idols, various founding gurus, or scientism.
Considering human nature, it should not come as a surprise, out of the blue yonder, that cults still emerge in the so-called age of reason. Some cults visibly have all cultish characteristics of a closed-minded religious group, yet they still successfully manage to attract many followers from all walks of life: from weak and vulnerable individuals to literate and financially established citizens. A notorious case in point is the cult founded by Rajneesh Bhagwan, a creepy messianic pimp from the 70s and 80s era. Osho Rajneesh Bhagwan was a popular controversial “spiritual leader”, very skillful in psychological manipulation, a master of mind control and sexual exploitation. He is dead now and with his death the movement died out as well.
Rajneesh may have been a genius in his illicit field, but his employed techniques to recruit people were outmost elementary. With a simple message of there is no God, let’s have tantric sex; this charismatic con artist managed to attract a huge number of simple-minded followers mainly from North America, Europe and Australia, promising them a guaranteed shortcut to the Utopia. By promoting the “pleasure principle” i.e. ecstatic dancing (he called it meditation), wild orgies and recreational drug use, Rajneesh gained so much popularity and wealth beyond imagination. The man became internationally famous for having 198 Rolls-Royces. His followers were all dressed in red or reddish hues and resided with him in a large isolated ranch in the eastern part of Oregon, U.S.A.
Life on the Rancho Rajneesh in Oregon
Ironically, it seemed that no one learned a lesson from the horrific Jonestown massacre back in November 1978. Rajneesh’s naïve disciples did not know that their beloved guru had extensive criminal records. In 1985 when he was deported from the U.S. for multiple felonies, no country but India, his country of birth, allowed him entry. All his fanatical disciples still refused to accept the truth and followed Rajneesh like a herd of sheep to India. The group re-settled in Poona Ashram. Later on after his death in 1990, many of his devotees gradually left the cult and spoke against their former outlawed idol; some of them openly said that they could not believe how “stupid” they were to fall for this charlatan’s phony charm.
Not surprisingly, the movement with some makeover under a new leadership is now resurfacing once again in the U.S.A, Germany, India, Mexico and among all places in Iran. Why humanity never learns from its own mistakes is beyond anybody and boggles the mind. Sadly, there will never be a shortage of crooks and airheads in this world. There are so many of them around and come from all walks of life, constantly seeking one another to form a symbiotic relationship. Mindlessness and emptiness are the usual factors to drive people to mystical cults. Greed and financial exploitation are the driving factors for the gurus to target the potential followers. It is puzzling how people easily give up their precious functioning mind and confuse endarkenment with enlightenment. I suppose, if one enters the state of total mindlessness via drug use or self-hypnoses, there will be no demarcation between illusion and reality; one can then easily believe in anything. It further helps when a self-appointed authority puts the seal of approval that says that: “You are OK to hold on to your adhered belief and lifestyle.” “Happiness” can then be instantly achieved. The particularized harmful behavior then finds a justification in a quasi-belief structure, and is maintained at all costs, whereas a sound justifiable belief should be the result of continuous confirmation through evidence.
Although not to the victims, but to many it was so clear at the outset that Rajneesh was a greedy opportunist preying on the vulnerability of his victims. His cult had all the classic textbook features of a notorious cult heavily into Eastern Mysticism. The question which comes to the mind is: Is it not possible to be engulfed in a less conspicuous cult which keeps on pumping its followers with an illusion that they are critical thinkers, that they are rationally using their mind and reason, but in reality it is quite the opposite? There are many societies in the world that their citizens are under a similar illusion, for instance, the illusion that their country is founded on democratic principles and being run by the will of the people. They erroneously believe that all citizens are free and equal. However, the reality is to the contrary. This misconception is deliberately manufactured and injected into the psyche of the masses in a most subtle way. If they are made to think that they are governing, they will then be easily governed. Likewise, isn’t there a cult which from the outside, appears to be a circle of progressive freethinkers with a prestigious and exclusive academic image geared more towards the upper white-collar and green-collar segments of the society? However, from inside it is nothing but an odorous circle of fanatical zealots, i.e. a cult of “scientism”, equally irrational as the mystical cults. Are all people immune to fall for the Wolf-in-Sheep-Clothing syndrome or ploy?
I believe it is possible, but such a cult may be much harder to detect, since it appears to have the opposite image, to the extent that no one would dare to classify the group as a cult. On the surface, it clearly portrays itself as distinct from religions and mystical cults. In fact, no one even considers them as a group, but a new universal scientific and philosophical movement on the rise as saviours of humankind for the 21st century, engulfed in the darkness and superstitious hogwash of religions, small or large. They are portrayed as knights in shining armour, slaying the dragon of irrationality with the glistening excaliber or atheism. The followers mostly seem to be well-educated elite, supposedly following empirical reasoning no matter where it leads them. How could this essential mandate lead rational researchers to an error of any kind? It very well can, if the mandate is just a decorative motto framed on the wall.
There are many pretentious individuals, who like to look open-minded and intelligent, cultured and tolerant, attracted to arts, literature, classical music, etc. They arrogantly consider themselves as intellectually superior to others. Nevertheless, their attitude and belief show loud and clear that they are not what they appear to be. When one examines their belief closely, one does not really find much difference with that of Rajneeshi blue-collar cult. The common element is, both groups fail to think on their own and personally examine all the relevant evidence. They wrongfully put their trust in a leader who is taken to be the ultimate authority. Appeal to popular scientific authorities could be as improper as an appeal to religious authorities. How many times have we seen atheists erroneously dismissing William Paley’s notion of natural theology, an assertion which is made not based on empirical evidence, but based on a FATWA given by the Grand Ayatollah Richard Dawkins? The common criterion used for being selected as the authority in a pseudo-rational cult is based on the number of publications of the contenders and the number of copies sold worldwide. Is this a rational criterion?
The cult of scientism appears to promote science and reason, yet they seem to be totally out-reasoned by their supposed fascination of reason. They follow the group founder(s) as their prophet(s) no matter what he said or says. The founder or leader, knows all useful PR schemes, would never look as creepy as Rajneesh, but debonair and sophisticated, lucid and coherent, cool and full of confidence in what he delivers. He always looks smart and presentable, has many academic titles attached to his name. That gives him the license to preach, that he knows it all. Even within this school of thought, both leaders and followers are closed-minded and intolerant of their opponents, and what is more, equally believe in irrational unsupported dogmas based on blind faith, without any shred of empirical evidence that they always demand from all others. For instance, they believe in the multiverse (infinite meta-universes), or the belief that despite the incredible complexity of life and its astounding variety, life is the product of a chance mutation and all organisms, despite looking they are intelligently designed, they are not. They believe in the notion that nothing is something, and that something creates itself out of nothing, then that nothing created everything. They then justify this belief by absurd speculations and analogies posing as facts, which in itself is extremely bizarre! What can be more dogmatic than the belief, which stipulates that everything in nature has mere appearance of design formed spontaneously by mindless atoms unguidedly coming together? What is more mindless than the belief that chance mutation would give rise to incredible complexities in an “accidental life-supporting universe”? The zenith of this dogmatic outlook is when it is packaged as a scientific conclusion. Far from being a scientific conclusion, it is a departure from sanity into the realm of irrationality. Further, their lack of honestly is well displayed when data opposing to their position are dismissed and buried. Their campaign strategies are based on propaganda: leave the bronze-age belief on a Single Creator introduced by uneducated shepherds, come and join us, we are the sophisticated intelligentsia. They promote belief in a modern fairytale god, i.e. “Mother Nature”, “Natural Selection”, etc. The modern fairytales are no different than old ones like Zeus and Hera. Lack of critical thinking, peer pressure and blind following of an elevated leader are not exclusive traits of fundamentalist religious circles. Secular humanists too can be influenced by similar social factors, become mesmerized by their prophets and accept unconfirmed ideas because they are consoling to their psyche.
By first creating a need and then extensively marketing it, the secular gurus make millions of dollars in book and documentary sales, speaking fees and research grants on top of already gained fame and popularity. Although these gurus are often successful in their personal business endeavors, the irrationality and fakeness of their belief and the applied campaign strategy are the underlying reason for the overall failure of the proposed ideology, which is vigorously being promoted. But who cares about the distant future? The bottom line is mainly dollars and cents gained today. Their effort to make their adhered ideas look modern and fashionable will not really help them. It is a recipe for future backlash and failure. They always tend to create a simplistic polarization, and no third way to perceive the world. They create this illusion of polarization. It is either atheism or your mystical religions. But what if the whole truth is neither? By special pleading this third way is kept hidden. Through self-brainwashing many of these gurus may themselves come to believe in this false polarization and then are bent on its universal projection.
The pretentious atheism, sugarcoated with science is incompatible with human nature. It is a doomed idea destined to be cast into oblivion, hoisted by its own petard of arrogance. Rationality is an ongoing process in thoughts, not an emphasis on a particular favoured conclusion forced upon masses. Rationality is a consistent harmonious, continuous process of thought that is based on physical, biological, psychological, social and ecological foundations.
My final point is poetically illustrated in this clip titled: “Be Happy: It’s an Order” or be scientific, it’s an order, or be rational, it’s an order. Similar to the message in this clip, a group which arrogantly thinks that its view of reality is superior, rational and scientific and ought to be adopted by all those who are perceived as irrational and backwards would most likely miss the very obvious. The obvious is a lack of realization that the “backward” people are already using rationality and have a belief very much compatible with established scientific facts.
Often, when the notion of the Creator is brought into scientific discussions, particularly in the context of teleology, many scientists and some philosophers become immediately apprehensive because of the past and present records of many dogmatic religious institutions. A plausible explanation that God must have designed an incredible biological phenomenon is tossed out or not even considered. The trend is, there is no room for “God” in the 21st-century science. Atheism is the only possible acceptable paradigm in the post-Darwin scientific community.
In this disposition, what is often overlooked, is first the problematic defense of atheism with all its serious scientific flaws and fallacies, as well as the problematic refutation of theism. The fallacious approach to this issue arises from two faulty ill-perceived notions of: “God” and the nature of “Belief”. These have both led to primitively worthless judgments. Let us analyze both notions.
“God”
The profound common mistake in any atheistic, theological, philosophical and scientific discussions involving the notion of “God” is to ignore that there are various concepts of “God”,[1] just as there are various concepts of ethics and rights. What kind of god is believed or disbelieved? There is the henotheistic concept, the polytheistic concept, the dualistic concept, the monotheistic concept, the Trinitarian concept, the panpsychism concept, the pantheistic concept, the kathenotheistic concept, the anthropomorphic human-like concept, the demi-god concept, the God-incarnate concept, the fatherly-figure concept, the goddess concept, the family god concept, warring god concept, the totemic god concept, the god of the new age movement and so on interminably. It is often pointed out by atheists that the lack of belief in each above-mentioned notion of gods would qualify the unbeliever as an atheist. Therefore, the theists themselves are at odds with each other, having historically fought many wars against one another and committed so many atrocities in the name of their gods.
Furthermore, atheists always assume that any theism must be of a version of an anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian cosmology. Or a pantheistic Hindu like explanation of how the cosmos was created. They fail to recognize that proving the irrationality of a particular concept about “God” and how this “God” created the universe is not at all the same thing as refuting the existence of a rational concept of “God”. For instance, such as a Singular Intelligence as the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, the Immovable Mover, the Necessary Being, the Designer, the Creator of matter and energy, the Originator of time and space dimensions, the Sustainer and Cherisher of the universe who is not subject to gender, plurality, culture, personification, and time and space continuum. There are many atheists who would still refute this rational definition of “God”. Their primary attack is not to debunk this rational concept of God, but is totally based on exposing the hypocrisies and dogma of many religious institutions that claim to adhere to this notion of God, and exposing their dismal track records. To refute God as the First Cause, they argue that organized religion is no different than organized crime and religious leaders are conniving, no different than Mafia bosses. Religions of all sorts, in general, have no credibility and must be dismissed. Thus, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, rejecting the most essential along with the inessential. They conclude because of, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, “the suicide bombing community”, or Jewish settlers who kill the rightful owners of a land to steal their land, now this universe does not have a Creator. After all, each radical group claims that God is with them and crimes committed, are committed in the divine name of their almighty God.
The irony of their argument is that they always claim to be using the rational methodology of scientific inquiry to reach their conclusion while they are not. Whilst there are many religions that continue to cash in the gullibility of the masses, this act of thievery does not have anything to do with the teachings of their founders. This approach is a general rule for atheists to discourage people to believe in God.
Radicalism is not the exclusive property of religious ideologies; radicals and extremists are to be found everywhere. There are radical feminists, radical environmentalists, radical libertarians, radical social democrats and radical secularist humanists. There have been so many horrible crimes committed in the name of democracy by the democracy and human rights-loving world leaders. How is the crime committed in the name of God any worse than the crime committed in the name of liberation and freedom? How could hypocrisy and religious warfare cast doubts on the existence of the Big Bang Originator?
“Belief”
Another barrier involved in belief in God as the Originator is the erroneous nature of “belief” itself. There is an old atheistic adage, purporting that God did not create man, but rather man created God. This idea has been around for more than a couple of centuries and was supported by many famous materialist philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists. Among them were Hume, Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and the current modern day atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins and Sam Harris. Subsequently, many have been influenced into thinking that this idea is true, because it was pointed out by the above-mentioned array of clangourous philosophers and academics. This assertion holds that the concept of God, as a powerful Deity, being responsible for the creation of this vast universe, is merely wishful thinking. It is utterly a product of the human imagination. Man, a helpless mortal creature who is terrified by the incomprehensible forces of nature and hardships of life seeks emotional comfort, consolation and protection. Therefore, he invents God. God is man’s oldest and the most urgent need for a strong supernatural and compassionate being, residing in the wonderful imaginary world called heaven, who responds to the outcries of his helpless troubled creatures in misery and misfortune. Thus, this imaginary concept of God is merely the hope of the hopeless, a help for the helpless. In a nutshell, God is invented to be used as a means to a psychological end. Thereby, the rational conclusion in the Uncaused Cause of the universe is painted as a cultish diatribe of the hopeless.
However, there are several serious flaws in this myopic outlook that are puzzling, not the least of which is how it could have been in vogue for all these years and still be used. The fallacy arises from the erroneous notion of “belief”, which in turn has led to primitively counterproductive conclusions. The atheists subtly project their own dis“belief” in God as a product of logic, but “belief” in God is a product of psychology, as if it cannot be the other way around.
All of the above theoreticians basically argue that the concept of God as such is a human fabrication, a form of placebo. A placebo is an unmedicated preparation, an inactive substance that has absolutely no physiological effect, but may affect the relief of pain in someone who is set-up to believe that he is actually being easily treated. Its psychological effect, however, solely depends on the person’s expectations. The expectation is the causal factor and plays a decisive role in the treatment.
For a placebo to be effective, the patient is made to think that he is taking the wonder drug. However, a man who is sexually dysfunctional cannot benefit if he already knows that the supposed medication given to him is not Viagra, but only TicTac. Consequently, this would obviously entail that no patient can prescribe himself a placebo. If there is no proper set-up involved, no amount of will to believe can improve his condition.
Similarly, a prospective and thoughtful individual, as well as a gullible fool, even in the most frightening and unfortunate circumstance, cannot take up a fraudulent belief and false hopes, based on a self-invented notion of God and paradise, when he knows better that the whole idea is illusory and mendaciously unfounded, simply due to its inherent dysfunctional nature. Illusions, myths, false hopes and manufactured reality will remain psychologically deceptive, so long as one mistakes them for reality. Once the truth is revealed, though, the placebo effect is no longer operative, by then taking a sugar pill defeats the purpose.
Consequently, a man in a total state of darkness, who denies reality is either a fool, crazy, confused or is knowingly following his selfish desires and vested interests. One cannot manufacture reality and then confidently believe it, just as one cannot knowingly give oneself a placebo pill and expect it to work. One could only accept it, but cannot truly believe it, because it is utterly impossible to believe a manufactured reality once it is realized that it is manufactured. No one has ever believed in his own self-manufactured lies, and then acted accordingly. Therefore, belief per se, can never produce conviction. No amount of staunch belief can produce facts. Belief and conviction are two distinct yet interconnected components. The former is a concomitant result of the latter. That is because, real belief — the result of conviction — can only arise out of understanding; understanding requires justification, justification requires proof, and proof demands evidence; evidence means digging something from reality. Belief without evidence is nothing but self-hypnosis. It is submission to blindness. The security of conviction is that which arises from certainty and verification, which in turn can only be realized, if and only if, one has used reason and examined the evidence yielding conclusions free from all types of inconsistencies. Only then, one can acquire tranquillity and peace of mind. Peace of mind is a product of this process. It comes only after there are no internal and external contradictions. It comes only when paradoxes and ambiguities are eliminated.
It may be argued that a few charlatans who wanted to control the naive uneducated masses for their own vested interests invented and propagated the concept of God. Thus, they prescribed the laymen with placebo of God. That may be very well true. Nevertheless, once the patient finds out that his given medication was only a sugar pill and the man who prescribed it was no doctor, but a crook, then the placebo effect would disappear. Furthermore, atheists seem to assume that only theism produces charlatans—as if atheism does not. Likewise, atheists should be reminded that atheism also provides a manmade consolation, a false comfort zone for the atheists that one can freely do as one likes, and at the end not be accountable for one’s own values, behaviour and choices made in life.
However, when we deal with the concept of God as unique, outside space-time, indeed the very Originator of space-time, such a placebo argument for every ideology collapses, because according to this non-anthropomorphic concept of God, this God may or may not answer man’s prayer, all depending on His infinite wisdom as to what is best for the individual. To be discouraged and lose faith, it is enough to ask this God once or twice for some favours and protection which the turnouts are not propitious. For this primitive man, the gap between hope and optimism versus fear and despair is only a tin line.
The Big Bang Originator concept of God is not like an action hero i.e. “Superman” or the Genie in the bottle, who answers to every demand that man makes. Therefore, the confirmatory belief in a cosmic Originator who is not subject to push-button demands, cannot be a placeboic belief, “an opiate for the masses”, just as a prescribed placebo of the type in which an acknowledgement is made at the outset to the patient, that it may or may not cure him, has no effect and is no longer a placebo.
Anthropologists assert that in almost all notions of God, which exist in different cultures, God does never unconditionally sign blank cheques to his creatures. That is to say, God is all-powerful and compassionate, yet he also has a “temper” when his “expectations” are not met. Just as there is a notion of divine intervention and heaven, there is also the notion of divine chastisement and hell, commonly described as eternal punishment in the fire. Let’s assume that paradise could be a manmade wishful thinking, what about hell? Where did hellfire come from? Is the fire from an erupted volcano that the primitive man was running away from more fearful than the eternal hellfire? Therefore, how comforting is it to have the feeling of protection coming from this entity, yet not considering his wrath and anger which is far worse than erupting volcano. The end of time is viewed in many religions to be apocalyptic. Christopher Hitchens accuses God to be a celestial dictator, because of the apocalyptic end, torture chambers in the abyss of the hellfire and the fact that God is said to be persecuting man for thought crime. But this God, if created out of human imagination cannot be both placeboic and dictatorial. He cannot be both, as the two concepts are mutually exclusive, yet He is often described by atheists as being both. If one is taken the placebo pill with the knowledge that far from being cured, the pill could actually make one more sick or kill him/her, one would never obtain any psychological benefits from this false medication. What kind of helpless man would manufacture such a notion of God, which is so counterproductive? In the Freudian language, man may urge for an Oedipus complex, but the desire results in him having unwanted castration anxiety.
Furthermore, if we are dealing with a concept of a benevolent God, within a common ideology, where He may even respond favourably to the prayer of the disloyals and the unbelievers, then benefits are not exclusive to the members of the believing club. So, why should I then believe and follow a “rigid decree”, when I too, equally have a chance of getting what I want if I am still disloyal?
For those who imbibe in the opiate of atheism, until the proper concept of belief is seen as being based purely on rationality and evidences, it will not be understood that the non-anthropomorphic Big Bang Creator cannot logically be a placebo.
[1] Jordan, Michael (1992), The Encyclopedia of Gods, Jordan provides approximately 2500 different names and concepts of ‘divine deity’ collected from different cultures and eras.
The modern science of oceanography has revealed that in places where two different seas meet, there is an implicit natural impassible barrier between them described as a halocline. Halocline is a wall made of water between two different bodies of water. This indissoluble aquatic partition divides the two seas where each sea has its own temperature, salinity, oxygen concentration, composition and density. Just like oil and vinegar the two bodies of water are totally immiscible. A case in point is at the Strait of Gibraltar where the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean intersect. The two seas, in essence, are distinct from each other. In the Mediterranean Sea, water is moderately warm, saline and less dense compared to the water in the Atlantic Ocean. When the Mediterranean Sea water enters the Atlantic Ocean over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warmth, saline and less dense characteristics, thereby forming a horizontal halocline. Despite large waves, tides and strong underwater currents, the flow of the incoming stream from the Mediterranean Sea keeps on traveling most of its way across the Atlantic Ocean intact and undiluted. Haloclines also occur in estuaries or underground river systems, as well as in flowing surface rivers. Yucatan Peninsula in the southern part of Mexico has many popular halocline diving sites where underwater explorers and cave divers pass through one body of water into another.
Pictures below show another extraordinary example, a rare vertical barrier in the Alaskan coastal area as well as in Skagen, Denmark resembling the Great Wall of China. Skagen is the northernmost point of Denmark, where the Baltic Sea and the North Sea meet. The two opposing tides in this place cannot merge that is because they have different densities and chemistry. As it is said, a picture speaks a thousand words: the following tapestry of images conveys those words of this fabulous oceanographic phenomenon:
The pictures below show the area where the Rio Negro and the White River (Amazon River) face off in Brazil. Amazon River is silty, while Rio Negro looks like strong dark tea due to the high concentration of organic constituents of soil, minerals and vegetation.
The confluence of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers in Lytton, British Columbia, Canada.
The confluence of the Mosel and Rhine rivers in Koblenz, Germany.
The confluence of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers in Devpryag, India.
The confluence of the Green and Colorado rivers in the Canyonlands National Park, UT, USA.
Aerial view of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers in Cairo, IL, USA.
Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers meeting in Pittsburgh
Consider the following verses in the Quran which were revealed to Prophet Mohammed:
“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together. Between them is a barrier which they do not transgress. So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?” Quran (55: 19-21)
“And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltiness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.” Quran (25:53)
“And not alike are the two bodies of water. One is fresh and sweet, palatable for drinking, and one is salty and bitter. And from each, you eat tender meat and extract ornaments which you wear, and you see the ships plowing through [them] that you might seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be grateful.” Quran (35:12)
“Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.” Quran (27:61)
It seems like after all not all religions are incompatible with science as the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claims.
Indeed a thinking mind should be perplexed when a high-profile 21st-century scientist like Richard Dawkins seems to be totally ignorant about this fact, but how an illiterate Bedouin desert-dweller in the early 7th century (C.E.), born and raised in the desert, in one of the most primitive and backward societies on earth, who never experienced sea travel nor did any scuba diving, knew about this modern fact of oceanography and oceanographic water chemistry. As proof of its divine origin, the Quran is indeed full of information on a variety of different topics, which were not known to mankind at the beginning of the 7th century. What would be the possible explanation for Prophet Mohammad’s source of information and the origin of the Quran?
A: Heard it from someone who knew about this phenomenon and felt like including it in the Quran. B: Good wild guess and he decided to put it in the Quran. C: Received authentic revelation from the Creator of all that exists. D: None of the above, the verses in the Quran are inaccurate. As Dawkins states, saltwater and freshwater can be mixed.
Abstract: In a series of articles, the author tries to impress the reader with nature’s superiority, beyond biomimicry and her advanced technological supremacy. He argues that we can equally learn a lot from nature in the area of sociopolitical dynamics. He attempts to stimulate the reader to ponder whether the amazing nature is a product of aimless chance or superb intelligence.
Throughout human history, individuals and nations have continuously waged senseless wars against the perceived enemy. Some such conflagrations have been for sheer power and domination, some for access to natural resources, some for “glory”, some for “honour”, and some supposedly for love. For humankind, cross-culturally it seems that, when interests are at odds, there is no better solution, but to drop the gloves and appeal to violence. Murder and war have always been the most common solution for conflict resolution among the human species. A typical correctional facility in any country is tightly packed with individuals who find murder as the only viable solution for conflict resolution and have no qualms in using this gruesome approach. The same jingoistic approach is the strategy of choice for “civilized” governments that easily go to war as soon as a conflict surfaces. From ancient times to the modern era, the mere basic elementary weapons have evolved into horrific super-sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. This prehistoric annihilistic form of conflict resolution has been intact and seems forever unchangeable.
Consider the following mindless case: legend has it that in ancient Greece, the Prince of Troy falls in love with the Queen of Sparta. The Prince steals the Queen from her husband, King Menelaus. The devastating consequence of that was, the two nations descended into a ferocious war that lasted for 10 years and resulted in the death of thousands of innocent people and the destruction of natural and manmade environments. In the end, the city of Troy was burnt to ashes, all for the sake of one man’s odious obsession with desiring a piece of flesh, fixated upon the lust of another man’s rightful wife.
From the ancient era, the use of violence, the rise of aggression and the use of conquest as a remedy have continued up to the 21st century. In the 20th century alone, we experienced two devastating World Wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Arab and Israeli war, the India and Pakistan war, the Falklands/Malvinas war, the Iran and Iraq war, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the 1st Persian Gulf war, the Balkan war and several other regional conflicts in the Far East Asia, Africa and South America, each with enormous casualties. It is estimated that about 170 million people died and an incalculable trillions of dollars spent on wars during the 20th century. A shameful report card of recklessness and absolute lack of concern for human life and properties, yet humanity is still unwilling to learn and accept the crucial lesson to find an alternative non-violent approach to settle its differences. We know one thing for sure: that the high economic, environmental, psychological and human costs of this faulty and quixotic conflict resolution strategy reverberates for many years to come, yet we are still adamantly addicted to use murder and war as a practical strategy. It is hard to fathom that the remarkable complexity and evolution of the human brain which self-servingly distinguishes and prides itself from the rest of creation by the gift of reason should often forsakes reason and allow to be governed by emotion, greed and the paltrification of short-lived desires. Desires that blind him to realize that there is nothing poetic and glorious about killing and destruction.
Compare this human approach of conflict resolution with that of other social species, like birds. Birds use only diplomacy to resolve their differences, yet they are superfluously considered by humans as one of the dumbest creatures on earth. Thereby, derogatory terms such as “birdbrain” and “featherhead” are coined to refer to unintelligent individuals. Far from being unintelligent, birds employ the most effective form of conflict resolution in the animal kingdom that deserves to bring shame to homosapiens — a swift blood-free approach. When it comes to communication, birds are classy and eloquent, for they communicate with each other and to other species in magnificent style. Among most birds, singing a musical song is the weapon of choice to resolve, for instance, a territorial dispute or mating rights. A bird by singing, first and foremost establishes his presence in the area, which alone can favorably influence the outcome of a potential situation. He likes his neighbours to know that he is rightfully in charge of his domain and that ought to be respected. Some birds have large repertoires, where each song is performed for a different purpose or performing a particular song that members of a particular species would only recognize. In their songs, birds pass on encrypted messages to their opponents, i.e. “take a good look at my physical fitness, strength and beauty”, “go away”, “keep out”, “no trespassing”, “do not get any closer”, “back off” or “come in”, “stay with me”. A dragged standoff only results in a prolonged musical complexity between the two challengers. Some birds can play as many as 50 different notes: in both high and low pitches. They can sing solo, duets or harmoniously with other birds in what could resemble an orchestra. The music masterfully played has structure and identifiable rhythm, indeed they never sing out of tune.
In a highly competitive courtship pursuit, their musical performance is often accompanied by an extravagant visual display similar to a stunning fashion show and/or to a bodybuilding competition, as birds show off their beautiful vibrant feathers to exhibit their wide array of accomplishments. If that is not effective enough, most birds’ techniques of persuasion also include extraordinary dancing rituals.
Whether birds are conscious of it or not, there is an in-depth therapeutic connection between music and peace, between beauty and peace, between art and peace. All three elements are conspicuously used in birds’ diplomacy. Their life comprises of constant beautiful musical and artistic presentations, followed by a mating act in the background of a lavish green forest with a blue sky above and the constant breeze of clean refreshing air, living in a niche with plenty of renewable resources available, with the ultimate reward of raising a family. Thus, the objective of their existence, the continuation of life seems to be satisfyingly achievable, then why be greedy and create conflicts.
It certainly seems to the eye, that bird singing is motivated and generated by some form of inner pleasure, as there is no sign of anger — while singing to resolve a dispute with a rival. This innate attitude is indeed what should make birds the envy of all, over and above their sheer physical and vocal beauties. The stark fact is that throughout a dispute they maintain their cool temperament, and consciously respect and submit to the laws of nature. It is perhaps for these characteristics that birds symbolize freedom, love and peace, a joyful species that is never discontent, seems always too busy to celebrate life, while humans oftentimes are languishing in the doldrums of an empty purposeless existence rolling in their own self-created mess.
The exotic South American macaw parrot, a social bird that hardly stays quiet
Singing bird of Prairie
Likewise some primates such as the Siamang gibbon extant in the rainforests of Malaysia and Sumatra appeal to the same strategy — singing as opposed to a bloody duel. The Siamang gibbon has a large throat sac that is used to amplify sound, which can be heard from miles away. Their throat functions just like an air sac of a bagpipe. Howling melodiously is their stunning form of effective tactical communication to an intruder in order to avoid the situation unnecessarily escalating to the use of force and aggression causing bodily harm. The message being communicated is similar to that of birds.
Siamang Gibbon howling, male and female pairs call in unison
In the same manner, during the night, the boisterous yet rhythmic sound of many insects fills the air like a unique orchestra with cicada and crickets chirping, and the choirs of colourful frogs and toads continue to be heard until dawn, carrying the same messages to others. The loudness and frequency of each call made are indications of the male’s stamina and versatility. A tiny male cricket can produce a loud sound by rubbing together certain parts of his body such as his wings. The message being broadcast is that “I am the lord of this block”.
A tropical rainforest is indeed such an acoustically noisy place like a concert hall, an opera house or a cathedral. There are always countless musical symphonies being performed by various species. Musical echoes that constantly resolve conflicts, not the sound of bombs and bullets being fired and dropped. Unlike the human approach, the conflict resolution approach employed by birds and chimpanzees enhances the environment, rather than harming it. Their battlefield is nothing short of a popular musical venue in an everlasting festival of life.
In nature, there are firm rules of conduct that are well established for all the participants and are not subject of deviation. Based on these rules, inter and intra species disputes are settled in an efficacious and expedited manner. The costs and benefits to the overall balance of the ecosystem is the sole criterion to be considered. The interesting point in any dispute is that there are no judges or juries, no mitigation or litigation, no bargaining or appeals allowed to determine the fate of a dispute. There are no enforcers to enforce the verdict either. The participants are the judges themselves. In the absence of arrogance and egoism, “defeat” for lack of a better word, is accepted graciously. There are no cases in nature that a dispute results in the destruction of habitats or the decimation of species, quite to the contrary, it contributes to sustainability. Nature’s model is all about conflict prevention at the root, for so-called “Mother Nature” knows that prevention is better than the cure. Nature creates conditions that are conducive to life, not to destruction. Senseless killing is not a practice of nature, not even between predators and prey. For example, zebras have no fear of a pride of lions in close proximity if they know that the lions have already had their lunch. A parasite could, but would not kill its host, since he knows that he would then have nowhere to go. Any blood that occasionally sheds between “adversaries” is for the maintenance of the overall equilibrium not domination of one over another. Nothing is farther from the truth than misperceiving nature, as being an ad-hoc system of manipulative domination that disrupts equilibrium; rather, nature’s conflict resolution strategy has always managed to effectively keep the ratio of predator and prey in balance and the fragile ecological equilibrium at bay for the past 4 billion years, confirming its practical results and value. Indeed, where Nature’s laws rule, it is the most truly civilized and trouble-free part of the world, as all resources are guaranteed to be distributed justly to all the inhabitants.
However, there is only one area where nature’s diplomacy fails, and that is when a species’ interests are at odds with that of the human species. Here, for the egotistically selfish Man, right is always equal to might. When humans betray their own fellow species in the quest for more profits under lies and false-propaganda, which always accompanies the onset of mass violence, respect for other co-habitants of this planet is never in the picture and is consigned to the black-hole of ignominy. Nature’s natural way is always violated for the sake of the protection of Man’s interests, even if it results in the extinction and the endangerment of myriad species and habitats.
Why are there so much differences between the human and non-human approaches in the distribution of justice and consequently in their conflict resolution strategies? Can the gap ever be closed? Most probably not. Let’s have no illusion here or be overtly romantic, although nature’s model of conflict resolution is far superior to the best that humanity can ever construct, it will never be emulated by the self-serving Man. The only way humans can implement a preventive conflict model like nature, is if resources are fairly distributed, thereby eliminating scarcity, tension and suffering. Such a model will never be emulated, as long as 40% of global assets are owned by 1% of the world’s population, as long as 50% of the world’s population owns only 1% of global assets, as long as 20% of the world’s population continues to consume 80% of the world’s resources, the human model of conflict resolution will remain what it has been for millennia. Conflicts and wars on a massive scale that could be avoided would continue to be generated under the name of spreading democracy, freedom, religion, protecting minority rights and other such obtuse and false pretexts for usurping the wealth and resources of other less militaristically powerful nations, rather than through mutual trading and co-operation, where disputes can and ought to be settled amicably for overall peace, stability and fairness. “By way of deception, Thou Shalt Do War” is the philosophical outlook of warmongers. Conflicts and wars have deliberately become a profitable business venture for the elite 1%. It first and foremost sustains their power and domination. Furthermore, for corporate war profiteers, peace means recession leading to an inevitable bankruptcy.
This egocentric and criminal business model, however, is symptomatic of a deeper problem: the total disconnection of reckless Man from understanding the deepest and most basic principles of nature and what lessons we ought to learn from them. This is the lesson that every bird, cricket and frog keep on melodiously chirping into our ears day after day, but we are too deaf to hear it, drowned as we are by the louder reverberating sounds of the war drums, beckoning us to yet another avoidable battlefield of destruction.
A bird does not have a conscious choice to resolve a conflict in any other fashion contrary to the bird’s designed nature. However, the human species does have a choice — the choice and propensity to go for avoidance, tolerance, compromise, reconciliation, cooperation, sharing and love as they should all be available options on the table and are a much better alternative to war. To quote Rodney King: “We can all get along together”. The choice to live in harmony with nature and humbly submit to its life sustaining laws like every other species, or conversely to walk on earth with arrogance in pursuit of our insatiable whims and self-indulgence. Sadly, humankind in general has chosen the latter, to be an injurious parasite, that out of greed would rather kill and destroy its host, the whole planet earth, than to preserve the dynamic balance of life for an endless future benefit for the entire global family.
Mehran Banaei is a freelance writer with a Masters Degree in Social Philosophy from York University. His area of interest is to follow Nature’s path, identify endeavors that the animal kingdom has marvelously succeeded where humankind has failed terribly. This article was published in the Scientific God Journal in May 2012, Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 213-218.
Abstract: Nature is remarkably ahead of humankind by over four billion years in research and development; however, nature’s wisdom can easily be plagiarized by humans at zero cost. By observing how nature operates, humankind can immensely benefit beyond biomimicry, in the area of socio-political dynamics.[1] In this article, as the title suggests the authors dwell on a universal foundation for animal and ecological rights derived from nature itself, where the implemented laws are not relative or socio-culturally biased. The authors further argue that the proper use of nature requires that one must be aware that animals and the rest of ecology do indeed possess inherent rights, and that these rights must be upheld. We can arrive at this universal conclusion for the existence of inherent rights and see that such rights stem from first principles, using our mind and the signs in the universe, endowments that are readily accessible to any human being, anywhere on this planet, at any given time.
Every weekend at a zoo in the city of Sari, in northern Iran, a living and breathing old donkey is thrown into a cage containing a pack of lions. In front of hundreds of salivating spectators, the poor, petrified and defenseless creature having nowhere to run, is immediately ripped apart by the talons of voracious hungry lions.[2] The donkey, an obedient domestic animal that all his life worked so hard for free to enrich his selfish proprietor, now that has he reached the age of retirement his pension package is a brutal death sentence. In his short remaining life, he is no longer economically viable; nevertheless, his death could still generate a few more dollars for his cruel and heartless owner which serves to entertain an insensitive crowd too busy not to miss an excellent photo-taking opportunity. Sadly, such a cruel act is not limited to this zoo in Iran. In most zoos and safari parks around China, feeding live goats and cows to lions and tigers is a popular hourly show for tourists.[3] The show is considered as family entertainment. But to some, this cruel feat is nothing, but outrageous and an outright criminal act. Caged predators have no hunting experience; consequently, it would take them a very long time to kill a live defenseless prey. The barbaric act committed is a crime because unlike as it is in wild nature, the prey has no means to defend itself and suffers from a prolonged painful death. For example, when a lion goes after a zebra in the savannah, the zebra can either run as fast as he can, blend in with other zebras to confuse the lion, or directly defend himself by kicking the lion while on the run. Neither of these options is available in a confined man-made environment. In fact, in the wild, a zebra first and foremost tries consciously to avoid all predators. In nature, it is all fair game. Nevertheless, when a zebra is caught by a lion, the lion immediately chokes the zebra to death. The zebra is dead in just a few minutes before the pack devours the prey. The horrible crime committed in Chinese Safari parks is then proudly videotaped by the accomplice tourists and put on YouTube as the trophy of their exploitive expedition to witness nature in a truly disturbing and unnatural setting.
Tigers are not a social species; in the wild they are solitary hunters and only ambush their prey
Please get up even if your back is broken or you will be thrown to the lions
Every day thousands of animals of all kinds are being brutally sentenced to abuse, deprivation and driven to extinction, due to the insensitive activities of humankind. Indeed, the very ecosystems which serve as the basis of life are being devastated as never before. Yet, in this atmosphere, although there is a great deal of ‘lovey-dovey mumbo-jumbo’ talks about “saving the planet”, it appears that more than passing sentiments are going to be necessary to make effective amends. A proper attitudinal shift is required so that our attentions are translated into the performance of the most useful kinds of actions possible. The sincere emotional concern is not sufficient. What needs to be examined is our attitude towards how we ought to relate to nature as human beings. Indeed, what is needed is the realization of a globally beneficial and integrated worldview.
The obvious question which comes to mind, in connection with such issues is that of the concept of rights. Does the donkey in the above picture have any rights? Is it justified to kidnap wild animals from their natural habitats and cage them in a confined space in order to generate income? Are we human beings justified in categorizing ourselves as the “chosen species”, given the fact that animals existed long before even the first homo-sapiens ever set foot on the earth? Do we possess the autonomous authority to override animals and nature for the fulfillment of our egocentric whims? Or are we, on the contrary, violating the rights of animals, together with the rest of nature?
What is this bleeding bull trying to convey to this Matador?
The opponents, and even many of the proponents of animal rights assume that the concept of rights is a subjective human construct and originates in the minds of human beings. They presume that these rights are not absolute, but rather, arbitrary. According to this view, all rights extendable to animals, by humans, are relative determined by vested interests and socio-cultural factors. There is no such thing as an absolute right. On the contrary, what needs to be pointed out is that the very assumption that the source of all rights is an institution of human beings, is itself fallacious: it is, indeed, just another anthropocentric (human-centered) notion as to where rights emanate from. In fact, this premise is a prime example of a faulty argument known as the fallacy of dubious assumption or the fallacy of problematic premise.[4] This fallacy surfaces when the foundation of one’s argument is based on a premise or on a set of premises, which are not validated and are open to question. Therefore, what we should ask in the first place is: Is it indeed legitimate to assume that all rights are conventional?
John Locke, the seventeenth-century thinker was among those over the centuries who noticed this erroneous form of argumentation. Locke argued for natural rights discoverable by reason, as opposed to those imposed by the changing institutions of social convention. He asserted that the state of nature is the state of liberty, not of license and that therefore, the state of nature has the law of nature to govern it. These laws are absolute and independent of governmental legislation. This led to the view that the rights derived from recognition of these laws, are neither relative nor the products of human convention: everything is unnatural about the captivity of wild animals, just as everything is natural about their inborn freedom in the state of nature.
The State of Nature
In the natural domain, when the relationship between members of the same species and coexisting participants is examined, we realize that within such interspecies’ and intraspecies’ interactions, the prevalence of rights is associated with their behavioural patterns. Many mammals, birds and even some fish are highly territorial as they explicitly mark off the extent of their boundaries. In the event that the markings are missed, any unwelcome visitors would be immediately chased out. The defense of a territory does not usually involve fighting. Most often, for example, the invader respects the displays of a resident bird’s vociferous squawks or threat displays. Such communicative objections are usually sufficient to cause the invader to withdraw peacefully. The explicit unwritten right here is tantamount to: This is my tree – keep off! Another example, is of hyenas abruptly terminating the chase of a promising prey animal as soon as they reach the border of neighbouring hyena territory, even though no other predators are in sight.[5]
Some mammals such as the dominant bull elephant seal, and the sea lion, are highly possessive of the females in their polygynous entourage. The dominant male fights off any rival male who approaches his females, making sure that the intruder understands that he alone has the right to mate with the females. The message being conveyed in this case, is equivalent to: Stay away from my relations!
It can also be observed, that in some specific instances, hyenas and wild dogs give up their hard-earned kill without even putting up a fight, as soon as a lion approaches the carcass. There is a social ranking among the various species which have gathered while the lions feast. When they have consumed enough, the attendant species proceed one by one in a specific order towards the remaining flesh. The sequential order of approach is as follows: firstly the hyenas, followed by the wild dogs, then the jackals, the vultures and lastly the insects and worms.[6] All of this suggests the existence of well-established relational ranking among species: the lions appear to have a priority, in this instance at least, over the meal, than their ravenous audience. This ‘power’ and priority in nature is directly linked to the sustenance of equilibrium, however, and not to greed.
Competition or Cooperation?
There are various perspectives in ethology, on whether there is cooperation or competition among animals. Some of those who posit that animal interactions are all purely cooperative, state that because the above-cited examples of animal behaviour are mistakenly held as being competitive, it is then assumed that rights automatically exist (because only when there is competition in the human world are there rights associated with competition). Such cooperationists feel that when the proponents of competition theory refer to such observations, they are anthropocentrically equating rights with the competition. In fact, some of these radical cooperationists hold that there is no actual competition among wild animals and that therefore one cannot even talk about rights when it comes to the wilderness.
Although the above-mentioned observations may not be sufficient to conclude the presence of competition among species, they are nonetheless an indication of territorial ownership. Whether the behavioural patterns exhibit competition or cooperation is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant here, since even in the case of cooperation, there are associated constraints. After all, cooperation does not exclude respect for mutual ownership. Indeed, we cannot escape the fact that cooperation itself includes the fulfillment of the respective functions contractually or verbally assigned to mutually cooperating parties. This fulfillment is an expectant right of the mutually opposite members of the same cooperative unit.
Animals, in actuality, appear to be engaged in more than our simplistic anthropocentric notions of either cooperation or competition. Each species conducts itself by rules, within myriad infrastructures and dwellings which are optimally suited to their own particular needs. Indeed each species is in total submission to something higher. The universe certainly exhibits higher and novel design principles that are beyond the wildest imaginations of the best of what the top scientists can conjure up. Each design is an optimal solution to a problem, which would have been intractable where this solution were to have absent.
Animal species also engage in various forms of communication,[7] in what could best be described as communities.[8] In order to flourish, any community, be it human or non-human requires a set of regulatory principles based on just natural law, which ensure the collective stability of social order taken as an ensemble. Indeed, examples of such animal behaviour are profuse. Animals themselves never came up with any individual preventative strategy or technology to make the best of their environment. Their needs were provided. Is it not fair to raise the question: by whom?
The Source of All Rights
By reflecting on the expanding universe, and the diversity of life forms within it, we certainly observe a panoramic display of remarkable order and consistency. Such harmonious order is maintained throughout, by the structure of the extremely delicate balances in the physical universe, as for instance in the ecological realm of existence, where plants and animals have been designed to be ingeniously adapted to their respective niches. There is indeed a fragile equilibrium within nature’s economy; even a minute change would disrupt the balances in this dynamically interrelated scheme of existence.
Consider a notorious case of human folly, which occurred in Australia. Not too long ago, a famous movie star appeared a number of times on camera, wearing an outfit made of snakeskin. As a result of this blatant exposition, the outfit became the prevailing fashion of the day. To keep up with an increasing market demand, the suppliers raided the bushes, killing as many snakes as possible, not realizing that the snake has a function in the food web. It preys on rats. Since the inherent property of this physical universe rules that every cause is followed by effects, and that for every action there is a concomitant reaction, the subsequent callous mass slaughter of snakes, resulted in an explosion in rat population. The prairies were destroyed, as the multitudinous rats consumed all their favourite crops. This culminated in a man-made food shortage in parts of Australia and further led to increased habitat destruction through the continuation of ecosystemical dislocations. These were induced by none other than a network of cause and effect interdependencies. The example just cited, is not simply an isolated case; indeed, the world is plagued at present by the elimination or reduction of many species, interconnected to the precious web of life by similar or worse catastrophes.[9]
In fact, this disastrous episode graphically reveals that in order to maintain the balances in nature, the snake has the inherent right to remain unmolested and free in its natural setting. This right is not derived by an arbitrary or selected social convention; rather, it is the snake’s natural right, as defined by the universality of cause and effect relations, manifested in the equilibrating checks and balances within the countless structures and processes in the universe. Universal laws of cause and effect dictate natural rights with well-defined parameters. In fact, in some cases the natural laws would themselves dictate that the animal in question should have more rights than the human, in order for the system to move toward the restoration of the natural balance. For example, if the human and the animal shared a common food resource and there was a shortage of supply, the animal would have precedence over the human, in the consumption of that resource, for the human would have many alternatives, whereas the animal would be tightly bound by its niche. Take the case of the Galapagos Islands and various other national parks around the world where inherent natural rights based on the conservation of the balance of nature are fully recognized and upheld by the international and local governmental institutions. The pristine ecosystem has to be preserved and untouched. In the Galapagos, as bizarre as it sounds, animals, no matter what species have more rights than the wealthiest humans. All natural inhabitants of the Islands enjoy the rights not to be disturbed, while animals from the outside have no rights even to enter the Islands (brought in). The question is: Why should this sound policy be limited to just a few places on Earth?
With this kind of an overview, it is observable that it should not be humans who should invent this right. Rather, it should be we, who should recognize these unique rights, by observing the interrelationships within the processes inherent in the universe on earth. We should therefore choose to interconnect these discoveries within the communities in nature, be those communities human or non-human, as naturally integral components of already pre-existing universal laws. In a sense then, it is nature which projects the realization of these rights onto the sense of the human, if the human is observant of those very balances in nature in the first place. These rights are not relative, but absolute, as they are founded upon and originate from the equilibrium of nature.
Given all these factors, an obvious thought which comes to mind, however, is that so-called “Mother Nature” is not in itself a conscious entity, and one could still pose the logical and legitimate question: What exactly is the real source of the originated laws and the natural rights derived therefrom? Many scientists and researchers are averse to attribute the indisputable wisdom behind nature because of undesired teleological implications. However, the fact is that nature’s components have been designed. This is an inescapable conclusion. For instance, it would be highly contradictory for atheist biologists to be applying for a design patent after having copied nature and then not ascribing design to the very object they are copying. They give credit to the personification of nature, processes and laws that are captured in the notion of “Mother Nature”, “Self Organization” or “Natural Selection”, but it is interesting to see that “intelligence” and “will” are projected into these catch notions in the sense that for example, selection, particularly a wise or optimal one, implies an optimizing selector which implies intentionality, which in turn implies intelligence and consciousness, of unsurpassable wisdom. Indeed, how can atoms or energy be conscious or wise? Atoms and energy do not choose. They cannot choose but just be existent and unconsciously follow prescribed or designed laws!
The realization of natural laws on all levels, then, is diametrically opposed to the concept of the human’s own manufactured notions of rights derived by social convention. In fact, social conventions must be in complete congruence with natural universal laws in order for the whole system to function beneficently. For if man-made conventions traverse against the natural flow of the universal laws, they cause crippling dysfunctionalities which ultimately lead to an inevitable collapse of the integral systems of life. For example, take the case of governmental policies regarding deforestation: clear-cutting in the Amazon and elsewhere around the world, has led to the death of forests, destroying their roles as the harbingers and maintainers of the crucial life support systems of our biosphere. The fact is, that not much regard had been paid to their complex ecological characteristics. Now, more attention, though certainly not enough, is indeed being paid due to a clear-cut realization of the adverse affect of such devastating conventional policies on the various creatures and their ecological niches. Any disruption in this natural order is not only harmful for florae and faunae, but also devastating for man. After all, man is not apart from nature, but a part of nature. When lakes and rivers dry out due to human actions in a particular country, all co-habitants of earth nearby and far away pay the price of human caprice.
A Worldview with Co-Integrated Rights
It has been discussed as to where rights should in actuality emanate from. However, if the term ‘rights’ in connection with animals and nature still conjures up a perception which appears incongruous for many, it is because humans have unnaturally disconnected themselves from the realization of the proper interconnectivity between the entities in nature and human society. For in essence, the issue of animal rights, and by extension, the ecosystems, boils down to how we ought to treat them. Let us therefore look beyond — to the core of the issue. Let us delve deeper and remember that if our concern here is truly about animal welfare, including the plight of the whole ecosystem and the future of humanity, then let us not get bogged down by some trivial semantic objections as to what it really means to give rights to animals and the rest of nature. Let us look to the essence of things. We could, for example, substitute the word treatment policy or simply treatment for rights, for this is the very basis of what anything of value converges to.
Any human society is based on a particular worldview, which, perceptibly or imperceptibly, moulds the attitudes governing the treatment of things within its space. The present tragic state of affairs is stark living, or in fact dying proof that most human societies around the world have lost touch with the balance. However, if a society were to be comprised of individuals who would base their outlook on the reality of the principle of balances, from which all laws at any level could be deducible, their society would necessarily evolve to a stage where it would promulgate not only a balanced Charter of Human Rights, but also a co-integrated Charter of Animal-Ecological Rights. As established, the balances in nature put a limit to the extent of human rights, so that they are not utilized at the expense of animal and ecological rights. That is to say, human beings have no right to harm an animal for ostentatious personal luxuries or financial gains. In fact, individuals in such a society would recognize such rights within the very framework of their own governing constitution and would naturally implement any such inherent rights. This implementation would be the result of the realization that the human being is not at the centre of the universe, but anything in the natural world is at the centre of the universal concern, whenever the balances impinging upon it are threatened. With this worldview nothing of significance, whether it be in the universe or on the earth, be it large or small, would be looked upon with neglect or disdain. For in such an atmosphere, any entrenched anthropocentric view would be superseded by a teleocentric view which would include a deep concern and sensitivity for every living and non-living element within its embrace. With this concern, it would be realized that everything has a purpose and that there is indeed no redundancy in biodiversity.
Human beings, in such an evolved society, would form an integral part of this natural legislative process. They would be cognizant that humans are the only uniquely reasoning multi-adaptive carbon-based creatures on the face of the earth and would be responsible for their myriad interactions. Such individuals would, in actuality, be the only ones who would not be blinded by the beasts within; rather, they would realize the existence of such rights with wholesome sensitivity. No doubt, they would deeply understand that, so far as is known, this is the only planet where the interface of fate between the global community of humankind, and that of the established communities of animals in the rest of nature is necessarily interlocked in a state of mutual dependency.
In the final assessment, it is only as a direct result of this development, that can a sustainable and enhancing future for all humans, animals and their ecological/environmental niches be assured, on the singular global niche of our precious planet Earth. Yet, how long will the plea of the earth go unheeded, as a solitary cry in the midst of depleting wilderness? This plea will go unheeded until we all recognize with due cognizance and diligence that we, like the dynamic atoms of this universe, must also acknowledge that there is a law Giver who alone is worthy of the credit of the wondrous panoply of the entirety of existence.
References:
1. Banaei, Mehran (2012), Being Ant-worthy, Scientific God Journal, February 2012, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 213- 216.
Banaei, Mehran (2012), Conflict Resolution strategies: Lessons from Nature, Scientific God Journal, May 2012, Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 409-414.
One of the greatest philosophical conflicts in the dynamic vistas of human dialectical thought, is that of the perceived incompatibility between science and religion. In the last few decades, a spate of books, articles and television documentaries have arisen, dealing with this issue as circumscribed by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yet it appears strikingly odd and intriguingly compelling, that the general debate on such a universal theme has turned overwhelmingly into an exclusive debate between science and the Biblical account of the creation of the universe and its multifarious processes. This has no doubt contributed to highlighting the existing variances between scientific facts and the Bible, in turn leading many people to dismiss religion in general, whilst concomitantly fostering the growth of atheism and agnosticism. It seems even more odd, that such a discussion, by default, usually excludes all religions except the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yet, once this tradition is conclusively shown to be incommensurate with science, all religions, including the initially excluded ones, are brought back into the fold of discussion and summarily tainted with the stain of scientific incompatibility. This is indeed a most bizarre state of affairs, especially when it emanates from those who advocate the scientific method of discovery — the very group that claims to value accuracy and objectivity.
One of these often excluded worldviews is that of Islam, and its claimed revelatory foundation — the Quran. Muslims, however, claim that no dichotomy or chasm exists between science and the Quranic belief in monotheism. In fact, Muslims acknowledge that any book that claims to describe the creation of the universe ought to accurately reflect the essence of the universe in both principles and processes. It would therefore be most intriguing for the interested and contending parties to examine whether the Quranic model casts some light or indeed fresh new insights into this ongoing epistemological divide. Yet in the West, it is felt that Islam, far from being compatible with modern science, must be the underlying reason that has directly had something to do with fomenting retrogressiveness, intolerance and fundamentalism. In fact, in this discourse on science and religion, Islam seems to have become unfairly excluded, since it has been misperceived to be an exclusive religion of the Arabs, emanating from a primitive and outmoded culture. However, it is not generally known that the word Islam is absolutely non-exclusive, universal and timeless, since, unlike most religions, it is not tied to a culture, nationality, race, region, personality or somebody’s personal belief; rather, it is a description of a state of mind and action, linguistically denoting voluntary peaceful submission to the singular Creator, where one flows in concordance with the universal natural order of cosmic scheme (22:18). A Muslim is anyone, anywhere, at any time, who chooses to follow such ubiquitous natural laws in the realm of existence.
Yet despite this misunderstanding, evolving incipiently, side by side with the resultant inordinate rejection of Islam, is an ever-growing realization among many Muslims, as well as some non-Muslim academics, that the Quran appears to be addressing this age and the coming 21st Century and beyond, over and above the contents and approach found in many other scriptures.
Scientific Correlations
In the 20th Century, perhaps the greatest realization or discovery has been that the universe has evolved from a singularity — commonly referred to as the Big Bang. Indeed, it has been admitted by leading atheists, such as philosopher Antony Flew, that this point has become their nemesis. This is because an origin implies that there was once ‘no thing’ — whatever that may mean — and that such a rude beginning borders on the now taboo or embarrassing question of “God” or a Creator. This is not to say that many scientists have not tried to escape the dreaded ‘beginning’ by postulating an accidental universe; however, their solutions themselves have been highly problematic, unprovable or wildly speculative, such as: imaginary time, quantum fluctuation, multiple-universes, self-created universe, infinitely cyclical universes, etc. In fact, it appears that all the purported solutions to escape the singularity problem are haunted by the growing awareness that there appears to be intelligence embedded within the processes of the universe. This line of thought, under the right conditions, would naturally lead to the logical question as to whether there is some connected overall purpose to the universe and, concomitantly, a species such as the human being. Interestingly enough, but not surprising, towards the end of his life Anthony Flew abandoned atheism and arrived at the conclusion that there must be an Intelligent Creator behind the Big Bang and the complexity of nature.
The verifiable fact about the Quran in this whole debate on origins, is that unlike other scriptures, in the Quran — during the depths of the Dark Ages, 1,400 years ago — it has been unequivocally recounted that the whole universe and the earth therein, were once, one piece and that the Creator ripped them apart and made every living thing from water (Quran: chapter 21, verse 30), that the Creator is continuously expanding the universe (Arabic word used for expanding is musiuna, 51:47), and that the universe has evolved to form celestial systems and the earth, from the coalescence of dust and gas (41:11). These concepts were not realized until the 20th century, particularly after the discovery of galactic recession by red shift by Edwin Hubblein 1925.
Yet another branch of knowledge, among a myriad, where the Quran’s correlation with science has been startling, is in the area of embryology. Although it was linguistically clear as to what was being said in the Quran, about human development before birth, by Arabic linguists, many of the verses on embryology were unconceptualizable to them, owing to a lack of specialized education in the subject. One of these intriguing verses which was queried, stated: “Read in the name of your Sustainer and Lord, who created the human from a thing which clings (alaqa)” (96:1-2). The “clinging thing” alaqa is also the root word for the derivative meaning of alaqa which is “a leech-like structure”. This is a pristinely accurate visual-cum-structural description of the embryo from day 7 to 24 when the zygote clings to the endometrium of the uterus much like a leech clinging to the skin. The University of Toronto embryologist, Professor Keith Moore, who was approached by linguists on these verses, explained, in the 1980s, that just as the leech sucks blood from its host, so too does the human embryo withdraw blood from the pregnant endometrium. By the 23rd to 24th day, the embryo has a strong physical and functional resemblance to a leech. The root meaning of the word for clinging is alaqa, which, unfortunately, has been mistranslated into English incorrectly, as “blood clot”, in many translations of the Quran.
Yet another verse states that: There is a stage before birth when the human being is like a “chewed lump” (mudghah, verse: 23:14). The “chewed lump” verse was explained dramatically by Moore as follows: He made a plasticine shape resembling the 28-day-old embryo and then had it bitten into. When juxtaposed, the resemblance between the special plasticine model and the actual microscopically enhanced picture of the 28-day-old embryo, is strikingly similar, for one can observe that the structures on the embryo are the somites, which are the early stages of vertebrae; they do indeed resemble bead-like teeth marks imprinted on the plasticine model and hence the appropriate description of this stage as resembling that of a “chewed lump” — the mudghah. The staging of pre-natal human development was first described in 1941 by Streeter, and a more accurate system was proposed by O’Rahilly in 1972.
Another area that the Quran covers, most accurately, is geology. As geologist Z.R. El-Naggar points out concisely, “…the Quran consistently describes mountains as stabilizers for the Earth, that hold its outer surface firmly lest it should shake with us, and as pickets (or pegs) which hold that surface downwardly as a means of fixation. So simply stated, the Quran describes the outward protrusion of mountains from the earth’s surface, and emphasizes their downward extensions within the Earth’s lithosphere, as well as their exact role as stabilizers and as a means of fixation for such a lithosphere.” Some of the verses pertaining to these geological phenomena are: 78:6-7; 15:19; 16:15. The notion of mountains having roots was first hypothesized in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and their role in connection with providing stability to the dynamics of the lithosphere, through plate tectonics, has only begun to be comprehended since the late 1960s.
Nature of Belief in the Quran
Given these considerations, one might be led to question how these verses ended up appearing in the Quran. Historically, it must be pointed out that the undeveloped paganistic Arabic society in the 6th Century had no 20th Century notions of the Big Bang, the expanding universe, plate tectonics and embryology, for the Quran was revealed to an illiterate Muhammad by God in the Dark Ages, and that the inductive aspect of the scientific method sprung up after the Quranic period. Several centuries prior to the advent of the Quran, superstitions, mysticism and a non-scientific way of explaining nature had gained a hold in most societies on earth. In this abysmal atmosphere, the Quran led untutored desert nomads and the people they came into contact with, to look into the nature of the universe in order to fathom things, which led to a scientific revolution that helped foster the Renaissance and the Enlightenment periods in Europe. Indeed, the Muslims had learned and then further developed the thought heritages of the Ancients, and in so doing, evolved the conduction of science to new and novel heights. As medieval historian Thomas Goldstein has remarked in his book, The Dawn of Modern Science: From the Arabs to Leonardo Da Vinci: “Every single specialized science in the West owes its origins to the Islamic impulse — or at least its direction from that time onwards.”
Methodologically and inspirationally, it was the Quran itself that led to the “Islamic impulse” that Goldstein refers to. To understand exactly why, we need to delve deeper into an analysis of the Quran itself. The Arabic word Quran literally means a book “to be read”. It claims to be the complete and absolutely unaltered communication from the single intelligence that has originated and developed the entire universe. The Muslims’ claim is that if this assertion is true, then the Quran must be able to withstand, at least, the following tests: Firstly, there should be no internal inconsistencies and contradictions within its contents. Secondly, it should not contain statements that are contrary to known facts, regarding, for example, the structure and function of the universe. Thirdly, it must be linguistically clear, unambiguous, and precise. All these tests are necessary so that its contents can be objectively confirmed or refuted. Passing these tests, successfully, would indeed establish the credibility of the Quranic claim of its ‘divine’ origin. On the other hand, if inconsistencies and ambiguities do indeed exist, then the book in question is either entirely man-made, or might have originated from the Originator, but was subsequently corrupted by human beings. In a nutshell, this would mean that the book is not credible.
The analysis of any book, which claims to be a revelation, ought to include the most important resource accessible to us — the human intellect. It is only through the human intellect that we can confirm or negate the presence of contradictions and thereby substantiate or invalidate claims. Surprisingly, the Quran itself emphasizes that the reader subject its contents to rigorous analytical scrutiny with an objective and honest intent, in order to ascertain if there are indeed any internal or external inconsistencies (4:82). In this way, the Quran boldly and confidently challenges its readers not to take its claim of divine origin at face value, but to examine the book and always remain alert for any kind of inaccuracy, a challenge which is unequivocally open to all skeptics and those with a keen interest in scientific investigation, particularly in the area of the compatibility or incompatibility between science and religion. The claim of the challenge, even after 1400 years, has still not been deposed, even by those who are no friends of the Muslims. More interestingly, from a scientific perspective, the Quranic proposition to find internal or external incongruity within its contents, as a way to dismiss its claim, is tantamount to a truly scientific method of falsifying invalid ideas and concepts.
In general, the aforementioned criteria may be used to test any claimed revelation. Contemporary Islamic thinkers point out that if the information contained in this book was unknown 1,400 years ago, one would perhaps be led to question its presence in so ancient a document. They ask: Does the Quran indeed withstand the tests of precision, consistency and non-contradiction? And if so, is the structurer of the Quran also the structurer of the universe?
One certainly needs to question, where such scientific verses came from? However, one thing is certain: If Muhammad did indeed write the Quran, expositing his own ideas and mindset, he would have had to have gained 20th Century knowledge regarding: embryology, cosmology, geology, ecology, archaeology, biology, sociology, anthropology, history, atmospheric sciences and cognitive sciences, whilst being deprived of libraries, laptop computers, telescopes, microscopes, universities, the internet and sophisticated databases. Even if they were somehow miraculously available, of what use would they be to an illiterate man. However, be that as it may, the central question remains: Whether one believes that Muhammad procured his knowledge from earthly or possible extraterrestrial sources, as opposed to from a Creator who is independent of our space and time conceptions, what exactly is the thrust and the message of this widely possessed, though seldom analytically studied book?
To fully understand the Quranically inspired re-genesis of knowledge in the Dark Ages, its multiplier-effects over the ages and the import of the Quranic view of science, we must understand that the Quran unequivocally rejects belief based upon blind faith. However, many people tend to look upon the Quran from a Eurocentric perspective on the nature of religion, and tend to thereby color Islam as just another dogmatic belief system. For example, even the word for “belief” in Arabic does not mean “belief” construed as “blind faith”, as it has evolved to mean in Christianity and many other belief systems. In fact, this blind-faith notion is echoed in the authoritative proclamation of St. Augustine: “Credo quia abserdum est” – “I believe, because it is incredible”. In stark contradistinction, the word for “belief” or “faith” that is used in the Quran, is iman, which has, at its root amana. This word means to confirm or verify things. Therefore a real Muslim is one who confirms ideas and statements, and is not given to accepting ideas without proof and evidence. There is no room for a leap of faith at any stage. The fact that many profess to adhere to Islam, but do not in fact follow its pristinely laid out Quranic methodology, in no way diminishes Islam’s pre-eminent position towards evidence and proof (e.g. see 2:44; 3:190,191; 16:90; 8:22; 28:49; 23:17; 67:10). It was, after all, the Quran, which wrought a revolution in science by its emphasis on intellection. Through the influence of the Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes’) writings and that of others, the European Averroists in the Middle Ages set the trend for rationally criticizing authority based on mystical doctrines. Since the Quran fostered such a transformation of the West itself, it is in reality, a neglected part of the Western legacy, and is a document that is vitally worthy of scrutiny. This is because the Quran invites self-examination and proof at the crux of its fundamental framework.
The Quranic approach is proof-seeking and teleological, that is, it is purpose, intention and design-based, being identical in many respects with Unitarian beliefs, which had many well-known adherents such as Voltaire, Newton, John Locke, Milton and Joseph Priestly. The message of the Quran is that of Unitarianism, albeit an advanced and completed version of it, as the sample verses on embryology, geology and evolutionary cosmology illustrate. If one recollects, these Unitarians within Christendom, like the true Muslims, denounced mysticism, believed in rationality, and did not regard Jesus as divine or semi-divine.
Socio-Environmental Implications
Given the consistent rational stance of Islam, the laws of nature are seen to collectively form the primary revelation. The exposition of splendid artistry and remarkable engineering contrivance in divine creation overflows on almost every page of the Quran. Indeed, the quintessence of the Quranic outlook, is that by reflecting on the universe, and the diversity of life forms within it, we certainly observe a panoramic display of remarkable order and consistency. Such harmonious order is maintained throughout, by the structure of the extremely delicate dynamic balances in the physical universe. The Quranic outlook emphasizes that nature’s equilibrium is itself comprised of interlocking and interdependent structures and processes. These processes by their very design have particular functions and boundaries that are not arbitrary or ad hoc. Therefore, the usage of the elements of nature, whether in the ecological or social spheres, have their usufruct limited to ensuring that they are not used in a manner in which their structure or function causes instability and disequilibrium, internally or in the wider domain.
This parameter of universal utility is discernable by examining structure and function and the context in which structure and function are embedded or operate. In other words, human-made designs extracted from natural designs must be part of the balance which gives rise to absolute social and environmental principles based on: not upsetting absolute cause and effect relationships that maintain the dynamic equilibrium. In this discernment of nature, social and ecological rights are not ethnocentrically conventionalized or man-made synthetic constructs; therefore they cannot possibly be relative or biased. Such absolute rights encapsulated by the full recognition of reality are to be upheld under the auspices of a beneficent Creator, who is the ultimate Owner and Inheritor of the universe, and to whom all creation will eventually return (22:64 and 67:15). Indeed, all dominion belongs to the Creator, and not Man, who oftentimes attempts to be the arrogant opportunistic usurper. Man must maintain the balance dynamically inherent in natural order (55:7-9), and be ultimately accountable to the peerless God, for every action, large or small in the socio-ecological realm.
Perfect “Convergence”
In the globally united vision exposited by the Quran, non-contradiction and teleology are intricately interconnected, as much as dominant present-day indeterminacy and relativism are inextricably intertwined with the notion of a blind chance-based universe. These two roads — one of intelligence, the other of chance — tend to lead individual thought and socio-environmental structuring into diametrically opposite destinations.
Taking the route of intelligence, rather than that of chance, if humanity realizes that the Quran is nature’s precise reflector, to be used as a prescriptive guide and motivator to prevent or cure our mounting socio-environmental problems, there would be an eventual dissolution of the artificial boundary between the sacred and the profane, science and divinity, through a natural rapprochement based on the correlation between causality in nature and pristine revelation. Inevitably, such a rapprochement would further set the stage for transforming human thought towards a unitary understanding of the whole purpose of creation and man’s role within the vastness of cosmic order. In fact, anyone imbued with such an outlook would not be searching for a pristine revelation to act as a bridge between science and religion. That which is one, needs not to be bridged. Indeed, in this vein of reality, it can certainly be proclaimed that science is truly religion and religion truly science and there is no dichotomy in knowledge.
If these ideas of verifiable unity are eventually realized, then the whole of humanity would indubitably reap the benefits of a perfectly complementary relation between the usage of scientific reasoning and the usage of revelation, where each one symbiotically reinforces the value of the other, for the enhancement of both humanity and the rest of nature, whilst simultaneously pointing to the very same ultimate providence.
This article was published in The Quranic Horizons, Quarterly Journal of the Quran Academy, in the April-September Issue of 2000.
A legendary story of the fourteenth century Turko-Persian conqueror Tamerlane (Timur-Lang or Timur the Lame) of Samarkand recounts that when Timur’s army was severely defeated in one of his early expansionist campaigns he was on the run. In a desperate attempt to hide from his relentless pursuers he hid in an abandoned building. As he sat there all alone, consigned to meet his inevitable and invidious fate, he noticed an ant carrying a large piece of food several times bigger than her own size. Timur watched with keen interest as the ant repeatedly tried to carry the food up and over a wall, only to have it fall down each time. The undeterred ant would tenaciously pick up the food and try again and again. Timur counted ten, twenty, thirty, …attempts, but each time the weight of the food proved to be stronger than the little ant. It is said that finally, on about the seventieth try, the tireless ant managed to push the food over the wall into the nest.
So inspired by this display of perseverance was he, that he was led to proclaim: “If an ant can do it, so can I! I am by no means inferior to an ant, arise Timur and get back to work.” And, as history attests, he certainly did do it. He regrouped his army, redoubled his efforts and ended up routing his initially implacable foes. The point here is that we should never cease to look into nature for inspiration. Apart from perseverance, patience and determination, we humans have a lot to learn from a tiny insect like ant and other species, and apply object lessons from nature to our personal lives and workplace environments, in order to achieve efficiency, harmony, order, fairness and peace.
A workplace environment is no different than the natural environment. In the natural environment the behaviour of all species is interconnectively goal-oriented. Millions of species work on day shift, millions of others on night shift, while some are migrant or seasonal workers. In nature’s economy no one is jobless. Everyone involved plays a vital role in the interactive operation of a vigorous ecosystem that is in a natural scheme of dynamical equipoise. Everyone involved knows his or her finely tuned role and submits to the perspicaciously designed laws of nature without any transgression. The complex system employed in nature always allows the best to evolve, the greatest good for the greatest number. It operates on cooperation and an overall equilibrium-maintaining-competition, rather than senseless, fraudulent, greedy and exploitive competition. It allows for the maximization of productivity in a most harmonious atmosphere, the end result being increased efficiency, optimality and above all, a total elimination of wastage in the grand recycling system of nature.
The resplendent teamwork involved in daily complex operations of an ant, bees or a termite colony is indeed a marvel of operational fastidiousness. Every single member of the colony is a dedicated high-performer and self-disciplined “Employee of the Month”. Well-established division of labour for all castes and both sexes exists, with resources being shared equitably; they all operate in the best interests of the group with absolutely no supervision. Indeed, all members of each colony work together as a single unit in a highly organized manner with no central control. The governing laws are never subject of deviation or negotiation. Workers never go on strike or cut corners; the queen never takes advantage of workers and soldiers. The queen does not see herself as above the team and everyone else being subservient to her majesty, but as an integral part of the team. They know fully well, be it through a level of reasoning and/or instinct, that the survival of the colony depends on efficacious teamwork.
The success of this massive operation requires an effective communication and information sharing system which is achieved by releasing different pheromones, thereby passing on quick messages to one another, or to alarm the entire team, as well as to warn the intruders. Their communication and organizational skills combined with their superb sense of prioritization have made ants one of the most successful species in the ecological market. Despite their size, ants are a super-organism in nature’s vibrant economy.
The interesting observation is that the best part of it in this workplace environment is that it is not even unionized, for there is no need for “protection” and neither are there any lay-offs, wrongful dismissals or awkward office politics. Lifetime job security with full benefits is inherently guaranteed. Just imagine a human workplace environment functioning like a termite or ant colony. The productivity would be at its highest level. Such a workplace would indeed be so peaceful and such a joyous environment to work in.
There are more than a million tiny magnetic termites that work around the clock in each colony
An amazing display of teamwork from a tiny ingenious creature
Take example of this remarkable hardworking social insect, have you ever considered a bee for instance. A bee colony must collect nectar from over 2 million flowers to make approximately one pound jar of honey. Bees are truly model citizens of this unique planet with superb work ethics; anything a bee eats is clean, anything he drops is sweet, any branch he sits upon does not break, and that which he produces never spoils. To be like a bee in a workplace environment is not to cut corners, not to be jealous of co-workers, to avoid bullying, backbiting, and gossiping about fellow workers — in short doing your job effectively and going home.
Here is a further example of harmonious behaviour: anthropological studies show that predators like spotted hyenas are very adept at cooperation and problem solving in their hunting strategies. Hyenas are well organized and follow a specific plan. The common strategy is to isolate the prey, and go for the kill when the prey is outnumbered and completely surrounded. If the pack runs out of energy and gets exhausted before the prey, the hunt is off. To avoid failure, the plan oversees initial risk assessment. Their strategic thinking is based on the existing circumstance, i.e. the type of prey and their numbers, presence of other predators, number of hyenas in the pack, etc. The pack always follows the lead of the dominant male or female, the one who possesses the best leadership skills. As a group they learn from trial and error and always hinge on the experiences of the older hyenas. For instance, anthropologists have learned that when a young hyena unfamiliar with the hunting task was paired with a dominant experienced one, the pack always succeeded in hunting with a minimal effort. This is indeed the best model there is. This holistic model can be implemented at human workplace environment.
Likewise, the lessons from animal kingdom have been adopted in succession planning in workplace. The idea is to build and maintain a diverse workplace environment free from unproductiveness, transgression, discrimination, harassment and stress. HR professionals argue that it is indeed essential to create a workplace environment that operates on cooperation, where staff can harmoniously learn from one another. Managers are encouraged to promote teamwork and collaboration among co-workers, where both veterans and rookies can be teachers to one another. An efficient and cohesive workplace is all about building the morale and productivity of employees and minimizing complaints, grievances, absenteeism, disruptions and legal wrangles, whereby everyone can get on with their work in a healthy and creative manner. The intrinsic feelings that motivate an employee to be creative, responsible, and eager, with a sense of being part of a team would be integral factors in the formulation of an unbeatable concatenation of ‘environmental attributes’ that would facilitate peace, happiness, satisfaction and useful productivity, for all and not just “top management”. This way of conducting work has been incipiently creeping up on capitalistic employers over the last few decades who have been, behind the façade of magnanimity to the public, ensconced in solely the ‘profit motive’, so oblivious to humane, humanitarian and environmental considerations. Yet, once again, even in this area, it certainly looks like the design in nature has beaten the best human minds in optimal environmental workplace engineering, by four billion years! Perhaps one has to think like an ant to know this and if so, let’s be an ant.
To identify best practices and to maximize performance in our workplace environment we can learn far more from humble tiny insects than from top paid management consultants. In this perspicuous way of looking into the natural world, by possessing and inculcating within ourselves the approach of the ants, being conscious of all our capabilities and limitations, the possibilities of tremendous improvements in all human endeavors are endless.
Mehran Banaei is a freelance writer with a Masters Degree in Social Philosophy from York University. His area of interest is to make sense out of life. This article was published in the Scientific God Journal, in February 2012, Issue 2, Vol. 3, pp. 213-216.
Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion perceives the God of the three Abrahamic religions as a monster with psychopathic tendencies. He says:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
His fellow British atheist Christopher Hitchens sees God as a “celestial dictator” who “punishes man for eternity for thought crime.” He has expressed the following view repeatedly both in prints as well as in his lectures and debates:
“Do I think I’m going to Paradise? Of course not. I wouldn’t go if I was asked. I don’t want to live in some F***ing celestial North Korea for one thing, where all I get to do is praise the dear Leader from dawn to dusk.”
There are a few parts of the Old Testament in which God is portrayed in a distasteful manner, however, to extend this image of God to all religions and scriptures is a giant erroneous generalization.
In assessing the atheist’s argument there can be only three possibilities. The first is that God does not exist. The second is that God exists and He is not a dictator. Third is what Dawkins and Hitchens suggest: if God exists, He is indeed a fascist dictator. This is a bizarre and absurd idea on the rise gaining popularity day by day. The following section below is the analysis of the atheist argument in light of each possibility.
1. God does not exist
It suffices to say, that which does not exist, is not worthy of preoccupation. It is puzzling as to why atheists go outside the domains of their expertise to declare an entity, which they claim to know for sure does not exist, insisting publicly and vociferously that it does not really exist. This is perhaps the only movement in the world that identifies itself with what its followers do not believe, rather with what they actually believe. We agree that it would be silly and a waste of time to propagate a universal belief in denial of a fire-breathing dragon with wings. The same can be said about denial of any other imaginary concept i.e. “God”. Indeed, what is the point of such obsessive and over-the-top activism? It is more ridiculous to see them audaciously painting a negative image for an entity that is claimed to be nonexistent and fictional, in order to demonstrate that it is non-existent!
2. God exists and He is not a dictator
All dictators enjoy the support of a superpower. Or, they form a coalition or treaty with other like-minded dictators without which they cannot last very long. Who is the higher power behind the scene supporting this “celestial dictator”? Unlike the authoritarian Saudi ruling family who unjustifiably claims that everything in their country belongs to them, (even they named the country after their family) everything in the universe rightfully belongs to God. Everything including mankind. His rulership over the universe and ownership over mankind are legitimate.
Moreover, the universe does not indicate that God is a dictator. On the contrary, everything in the universe indicates that God is a Merciful Provider. Life is a joyful experience. The earth is a hospitable place with plenty of renewable resources freely available for our consumption. Regular expression of appreciation to the Provider for what is provided is not a sign of bondage. We can never thank Him enough.
Furthermore, everything in the universe indicates that the Creator of this universe is powerful and intelligent. The Being who is powerful and intelligent must necessarily be unequivocally just, loving and forgiving or He is not intelligent at all. So long as one does not engage in overwhelming acts of transgression, and believes in this non-dictatorial Creator but testing Entity, one is assured everlasting peace after death. What could be a better gift given by this most generous Philanthropist?
Therefore, on what grounds this Ruler is perceived to be a dictator? Is anybody here overtaxed, overworked, underpaid, beaten up, raped, chastised, ostracized, persecuted or detained? Does one feel that one lives under divine imperialism where one is oppressed, suppressed or depressed? If so, is it God who is responsible for one’s miserable life, or is it because of the ungratefulness, arrogance, irrationality and rebelliousness from His specified correct path as advised peacefully by the prophets and sages over the ages that mankind is suffering without self-reflection?
3. God exists and He is a dictator
If an atheist claims that God is a dictator, then it seems that the issue at hand is not whether there is a God or not. One gets the impression that these atheists already believe that there is a God, but they just do not wish to submit to this God, because they do not like Him. Hitchens in his book: God is Not Great, as the title suggests, presents arguments not against God’s existence, but against God Himself. He refuses to bow down to Him. To a believer in the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, this is a choice made out of arrogance, not out of logic. Further, it is a choice made out of hypocrisy and not intelligence. Many of these individuals who adamantly claim not to believe in God, whenever they find themselves or their loved one in a life-threatening situation, they suddenly start to pray to the rejected God. However, as soon as they reach safety, they quickly retrogress to their normal routine. If that is so, then they are not atheists, a new terminology is needed to refer to the individuals who believe there is God but hate Him and refuse to acknowledge Him as their Lord. ‘Anti-theist’ would perhaps be a more appropriate term to refer to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.
A dictator is a person who has no legitimacy to the power, but manages to hang on to it by fear-mongering, threats, use of violence, detentions and mass killings. For sake of argument let us seriously assume that the atheist anthropomorphic view of God, as expressed above by Dawkins and Hitchens is indeed correct. It seems that rather than an old man reclining up there in the clouds, we have a dictator in a military uniform up in the clouds, watching over our daily conduct with surveillance cameras. Let us further assume that God is a “celestial dictator” and we are all trapped in an Orwellian forced labour camp on earth to worship Him. I suppose, the subjugation of human beings must be vital in the preservation of this divine totalitarian regime, or his divine economy will soon collapse.
“Can he call you back? He’s with the decorator…”
What are our options to end this egotistical tyranny? A question that I would like to put to our smart anti-theists and seek their guidance is: What is the proper course of action we ought to take in order to bring down “celestial dictatorship” and gain our freedom? Talk is cheap, but actions are priceless.
A) Can we go somewhere else to be free and immune from His reach, for instance, to seek asylum and protection? No, we cannot apply for refugee status in a different universe. There is no such place; everywhere is under the sphere of His influence and control.
B) The most frequently attempted method of changing a regime is a coup d’état. Is there any possibility of regime change in Heaven by a coup d’état? No, there are no competent or worthy oppositions in the autocratic celestial system. If the idea was feasible, the Devil who is the most elite rebel against God’s regime would have plotted this a long time ago. If the Devil is not up to the task, there is no chance for the atheist materialists and anti-theists. Furthermore, the study of military coups illustrates that in every single case of a coup, nothing actually changes, as one bully manages to replace another bully. Therefore, what is the point of such a change? No coup d’état ever gave birth to the institutionalization of a durable democratic system, just take a glance at the political history of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.
C) Then, are we going to fight Him? What are anti-theists particularly going to do about this “celestial dictatorship”? Can they show us some leadership?
Let us assume that atheism expands from a philosophical ideology into a political ideology. Atheists now from passive observers of the universe change to active revolutionary freedom fighters who are mobilizing the people to resist and fight this unjust dictator. A movement led by contemporary atheists, the four horsemen of atheism: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett.
Realistically, how do we fight this dictator, and if we find a practical way, can we win it? His power seems endless. If God is a “celestial dictator”, it seems that resistance is futile. Let us be positive and assume that, we can win this fight, and eventually we will.
One hopeful scenario would be that these revolutionary pioneers would be able to educate and unite the masses and successfully get everyone to revolt against God. Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and secular humanists together form a formidable coalition against God. Boycotts and civil disobedience are the first things to do. No one should engage in acts of worship or attend places of worship. The movement gets hot and popular, and subsequently starts to spread like a wildfire. There will be secular Jihadists ready to give up their lives for a noble cause: Man’s freedom and unholy secular values. After sacrificing the blood of many humanist martyrs, at the end, humanity triumphs. God loses His throne. He is at last overthrown by humanity. Mankind is finally free from Divine subjugation. Individualism prevails, no more “Dos” and “Don’ts”. Envision a world without boundaries, imagine having a lifestyle when you can act as you like, when you are free to follow all your inner desires, when religious decrees can no longer spoil your enjoyments, when you are no longer judged or held accountable, when you are no longer required to pray, fast, go for pilgrimage or pay charitable taxes. Is this humanist idea of utopia worth fighting for?
D) Where is God’s headquarters in this endless universe? Where does He reside? Where can we find Him? Where is heaven, if He is there, how do we get there to arrest Him and bring Him down to justice?
Let us suppose that God is somehow arrested during a routine traffic stop, and charged with planning and conspiracy to engage in the continuous act of Divine terrorism, using weapons of mass destruction i.e. tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcano eruptions and plagues. He is charged with the killing of innocent children by injecting them with cancerous cells and viruses. Further charged with failure to help victims of medical complications resulting in death or bodily harm. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that He is a fake “Mr. Nice Guy”, He had the power to intervene and stop evil, but He chose not to.
The deposed God is brought on live television, interviewed by a panel of wily humanists. He confesses to His crime and is put on a fair trial. His trial is televised like O.J. Simpson’s trial. He is found guilty by a very objective judge and competent jury in the International Court at The Hague for crimes against humanity.
E) What is the next rational step? Are we going to execute Him? The answer should be very obvious: We cannot. This dictator, unlike all other dictators, is immortal. He has no beginning and no end. He has no head to hang, nobody to shoot at. He cannot be electrocuted or terminated by needle injection.
F) If the death penalty is not an option, can He be sentenced to life in prison without parole? Once again the answer is no, this dictator’s life expectancy is eternal and never-ending. Furthermore, what if He escapes from prison and tries to regain His throne? For this detainee, the cost of His eternal everlasting escape-proof detention ought to be infinite.
G) Are we going to throw Him out of His domain and send Him off into exile somewhere far away? We cannot. Where to? Everywhere is His domain. That is a serious dilemma. What shall we do with a convicted God? Let us say he is kept in Guantanamo indefinitely until a solution is found. Meanwhile, maybe He will go on a hunger strike and die out of starvation and depression.
I suppose, we shall not be content with our achievement so far on this planet and would like to free the rest of the universe. We shall export our democratic revolution of “by the people, for the people and of the people” to other galaxies to free all other enslaved creatures as soon as we overcome the minor problem of attaining warp speed. I suppose, it would free them up and help other lifeforms/extraterrestrials just as it did help the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and tons of other places.
H) Let us say that this guilty God voluntarily gives up His power and somehow wipes Himself out of existence into the realm of Nothingness. Let us suppose when He disappears, His creation will not disappear with Him. What is next? Who is going to take over and manage the universe now? Richard Dawkins? Or perhaps the ambitious Lawrence Krauss, or maybe Daniel Dennett since he has more experience. Let us assume there will be no back-stabbing and rivalry among these intelligent men of science for humanity’s intellectual and political leadership and there will never be divisions in this forever-cohesive political movement. But, are there any guarantees that the future leaders are not going to turn into another dictator? I think, human history can convincingly answer this question that power corrupts. In particular, some of the worst dictators in human history were atheist revolutionaries, cruel Godless absolutists like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Mugabe. In most human revolutions, the new clique turned out to be more ruthless and more ambitious than the old one, to the extent that soon after the regime change the masses started to regret the loss of the old ruler.
Thus, if all the above options are not a workable solution to deal with a “celestial dictator”, what would be a workable solution? If one somehow rationally comes to this conclusion that God is truly a dictator, this person should also objectively come to the subsequent conclusion that resisting this powerful dictator is futile and suicidal. So, get used to it, this is one dictator that you do not want to mess with. Therefore, the best sound thing for this individual to do is to submit to God as all other options are dead-end. And, if one really wants to gain favors and impresses this “celestial dictator”, it is best to “praise the dear Leader from dawn to dusk” and start reading this Dictator’s handbook on how to gain His favours. This is the only “dictator” worthy of adoration and worship. Hence, it pays off to conform and be submissive, than to be a defiant loser. Particularly, when we know even the most brutal dictators are very loving and caring to their own family and entourage.
When you think of it, to surrender to this so-called “dictator” wholeheartedly may indeed be a very liberating experience. Is this not what many believers in God voluntarily do with so much pleasure? For example, Muslims willingly submit to Allah from dawn to dusk by not separating “profane” from “mundane”, “sacred” from “secular”. They do not believe the Sustainer of the universe is a ruthless “dictator”.
Can the Creator of the Universe be a “Dictator”?
Of course, a violent psychotic god is not worthy of worship, but the All-Beneficient God is. The approach to rejecting God by painting Him with psychoneuroticism is absurd. By looking at the universe there are two things that one can ascertain about its Originator with absolute certainty. One is that the Creator of the universe is Powerful. The one who is truly Powerful lacks no self-esteem, has no need to be admired or acknowledged. His might is self-evident and speaks volumes. Thus, He has no need for a military parade to show off His power, to glorify Himself and yearn for human subjugation, otherwise, His power is hallowed and fake. This is a necessary truth and irrefutable.
The second is that He is Intelligent. The one who is Intelligent must by nature be just, compassionate and merciful, otherwise, He is not really Intelligent. This too is a necessary truth and irrefutable. Dictatorship and divinity are mutually exclusive.
In conclusion, the obtuse and appalling idea of a “celestial dictatorship” seems to be deeply flawed and void of basic common sense. One cannot be a dictator in one’s own domain where everything rightfully belongs to one.
I always wondered what would be the differences in brain activities during sleep, or the quality of sleep between two contrasting occasions: A) When one goes to sleep at night and has to catch a flight at 6:00 a.m. the next morning in order to start an exotic vacation. B) When one goes to sleep and has to face a firing squad at 6:00 a.m. on the following day. As far back as I can remember my position on mind and body relationship was that, I always assumed in case of “A”, one has to be obviously at peace. In the case of “B” one has to be in so much agony, sick to death, or to say the least psychosomatically disturbed.
Last night I was the person described in scenario “A”, as I went to bed early and wondered how pleasant my sleep going to be. Since it was the night before my long-anticipated journey. I was hoping to be the consummate purveyor of sweet dreams on top of a good night’s sleep. However, sadly I admit it was not the case at all. Far from being relaxed, I was not even able to sleep for a minute. My anxiety level was so high, plagued by worries about unexpected things that could go wrong. I was tossing and turning all night long like a ship in a perfect storm. In the morning I was so surprised to learn that one of my oldest assumptions was shattered into pieces when it was actually tested. Well, no big deal; I have been proven to be wrong before, and this incorrect assumption was not on a fundamental issue. Nevertheless, it is always better to be corrected than remain in error. For comparison, I hope I don’t ever get to experience “B”; although you never know, in the case of “B”, I may be surprised to find myself to be so relaxed and smiling while standing before my erstwhile executioners.
I cannot stop thinking about where else I could be wrong and not knowing. For a man who is obsessed with certainty this is bothersome. Yet, the last night’s experience turned out to inadvertently confirm another cherished belief of mine, that is, Man has to constantly put his faith to the test. Yes, relentless confirmation and re-confirmation, this is exactly what I am about to do again. While absolute certainty is obtainable, one should always remain wide open to challenge it. Even if one does not find any flaws, constant confirmation makes one feel more secure. Several times in my life I deleted everything I believed from my mind and started from scratch to re-investigate the Truth without any affinity to what I previously believed. If there is ever going to be a “paradigm shift” in our human understanding of the objective reality, I want to be among the first people who realize it. I am not looking for a prize, just do not want to have a wrong belief, not even for a minute. The last three times I engaged in this exercise I came to the same conclusion, the last of which was during 2011/2012.
Here I am waiting at the Miami airport for my next flight to Lima, Peru to fulfill this enduring mission. Going away to South America for a month. I am on my way to destinations high up on the top of the Andes, and then further deep into the heart of the virgin Amazon rainforest, and finally will follow the footsteps of Charles Darwin and will sail to the volcanic Islands of Galapagos in the Pacific Ocean. The last stop is surely the cream of the pie. Galapagos is one of those rare beautiful groups of nearby islands in the world besides of course Kish & Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, that once in there, one does not get distracted by heedless semi-naked girls wearing dental floss for cover. Unlike Cancun or popular destinations in the Caribbean, it is not enticing to average sunseekers and young beach party lovers. The beaches there are crowded with giant fully naked sea lions, tortoises, various species of land and marine iguanas, countless sally lightfoot crabs, penguins and albatross, etc. all reclining in a majestic landscape. Truly, a pristine beauty to be witnessed at a close encounter. Galapagos archipelago is a protected area with a unique and phenomenal wildlife. I picked this spot particularly because; it is said to be the microcosm of life on earth, a complex and delicate ecology that evolved over some million years on a solidified volcanic lava piled up from the bottom of the ocean. Right there on these islands diverse multifaceted life started from zero in total isolation.
Nowhere on earth such an abundance of life can be found packed together. Another of its uniqueness is that most Galapagos animals are known to be fearless and approachable.
The trip will provide me with the opportunity to gaze in wonder. I am taking with me a small telescope, a microscope, my scuba diving gear and a newly purchased underwater camera. I am taking this trip alone to think and reflect, more so than mere sightseeing, to reflect on the whole of the universe and Man’s place in it. To reflect upon the incredible complexity and miracle of life, to continue reflecting about life and death, about joy and pain, to reflect upon my own frustrations and failures here and there, to reflect about all my unanswered “Why” questions and so on. To seek meaning and purpose for my own worthless existence. I am not depressed or suicidal, but just being realistic. As Omar Khayyam poetically puts it in his Rubaiyat, the same goes for each one of us considering the overall scheme of things: “My personal existence brought no benefit to the universe, nor does my demise diminishes its majesty and glory”.
Secondly, I would like to probe into how such an experience as claimed by some British naturalists and explorers would possibly lead one to atheism. How can anyone deduce atheism from nature is beyond me? I often hear that the belief in God was acceptable until Darwin discovered evolution. Darwin’s discovery demolished the need for a Divine Planner for the creation of life. I kick my own head to figure out how the theory that one species could have evolved to another would eliminate the role of the Creator and justifies atheism or agnosticism. For instance, David Attenborough, despite his incomparable global firsthand experience in nature is a self-proclaimed agnostic. Mind you, I like Attenborough very much, but never had much respect for agnostics in general, that is those who neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a Deity. What do you mean you neither believe nor disbelieve? How could that be? No offense, if I may I be so blunt as to enquire: Are you so unintelligent that after a lifetime of living in time and space dimensions and possessing a fully functioning brain you still cannot figure out what to believe on this most basic issue? When do you think you are going to figure it out Sir/Madam?
For Attenborough after all that he has seen, the stumbling block to believe in God is the so-called “Problem of Evil”. [And I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who is full of mercy.” I never felt that this sort of emotional and psychological argument can pose any logical challenge to the existence of God; nor do I really think the view expressed here is an intelligent one. Its flaw is that the premise does not support the conclusion. Attenborough is basically saying, if there is a merciful loving God, the infected child should not get infected and lose an eye. He expects the law of consequences to be inconsequential because God is merciful. Living in the universe of cause and effect, the infected child consequently loses an eye; Attenborough then becomes unsure now if the universe has a Creator. Thus according to him, maybe there is no God. Thereby, he is now an agnostic and does not know what is going on.
There are so many others who formulate similar erroneous arguments arriving at the same conclusion, just using slightly different premises. For example:
If there is a merciful loving God, He would then respond favorably to my sincere outcry. He did not respond to my persistent prayers and left me alone in my difficult time of need. Therefore, there is no God.
If there is a merciful loving God, my wonderful mother did not have to die from cancer. My mother has passed away, and suffered so much from a long painful disease. She did not deserve this. Therefore, there is no God.
If there is a merciful loving God, my teenage daughter would not have to die in a horrific traffic accident, my beloved daughter the nicest person on the earth is now gone forever. Therefore, there is no God. All you need to disprove the existence of God is to walk into a children’s hospital.
If there is a merciful loving God, I would not have to go through an unfair painful divorce experience. After working so hard all my life, I lost everything, my family, my wealth, and my health. Where is justice? Life sucks. Therefore, there is no God.
If there is a merciful loving God, “He would make that gorgeous chick next door to fall in love with me. Is this too much to ask for from someone who claims to be your best friend?” She is not in love with me, does not even notice me, and is too busy to watch The America’s Next Top Model. Therefore, there is no God. “Where is this God when you need him?”
If there is a merciful loving God, He would have prevented, me from losing my wallet with my hard-earned paycheck in it. I lost my wallet, can’t find it. Therefore, there is no God.
If there is a merciful loving God, He would not allow slavery and human exploitation to permeate. Therefore, there is no God.
If there is a merciful loving God, and He is as powerful as claimed with foreseeable knowledge, 9/11 should have been prevented. If I had known this is what was going to happen that morning, I would have alarmed the authorities. Wouldn’t you? Therefore, there is no God. And the list goes on.
I am not trying to be cute here; these statements are actually what I have personally heard people saying, some of who are well-known scientists and philosophers. It seems that if one’s expectation is not fulfilled then atheism is warranted. Why do we fail to see that in the everyday ups and downs of life, it is the man who is on trial, not God? These arguments are all fallacious, and are known as invalid modus ponens or the fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is a profound problem with this line of reasoning. Allow me to explain:
It is like saying: If my husband really loves me, he would then bring me flowers. He does not bring me flowers. Therefore, he does not love me. Or the reverse: if my husband loves me, he would bring me flowers. He does regularly bring me flowers, therefore he loves me. In either case, the conclusion made is invalid, what if the husband in question orders for flowers delivered to his wife from his mistress’s apartment, or buys inexpensive flowers for his wife, but gives very expensive diamond jewelry to his mistress. Or, maybe a devoted loving husband is just too busy to earn a living in order to provide a comfortable lifestyle for his wife. The point here is giving or not giving flowers cannot be a rational criterion for love.
Another example, if Mehran Banaei wrote the “Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse”, then Mehran is a superb writer. Mehran is a superb writer. Therefore, Mehran wrote the “Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse”. Not so, Mehran did not write the “Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse” nor is he a skilful writer in either English or Persian. Mehran does not even speak French or has ever claimed to have written “Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse”. Further, we know for a fact that “Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse” is written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The above reasoning is flawed.
Apart from doing a biopsy and autopsy on the above ill-posed arguments to determine structural validity, I would like to ask Mr. Attenborough: Have you not seen enough wonders to overcome your fixation over a tiny parasitic worm? Be fair. That is the way nature operates – let’s accept it. One species thrives on another one for its survival, Attenborough knows this well. He would not be complaining about God’s mercy when he is on the driver’s seat having his chicken soup and fish & chips.
A believer in God, however, who loses an eye for whatever reason, is taught to peacefully accept and submit to the bitter reality that he cannot change. What is done is done. He knows that the belief in God, first and foremost, does not give the believer a special status, i.e. a privileged one such as diplomatic immunity against misfortunes and adversaries. Life goes on regardless. Further, he is also taught the prevention and science of cure, which he must always be mindful of or pay the price. Furthermore, in the above case God is so merciful to the worm. Isn’t He? This worm is also a part of His creation. What’s ecological diversity without worms? How is this case any different than when a monstrous crocodile devours a defenseless Thomson’s gazelle in one move? Is the gazelle not as “innocent” as the child whom Attenborough refers to? The hunt is good for the crocodile and bad for the unsuspecting thirsty gazelle, depending on your perspective, yet that keeps the whole ecosystem in balance. Is this not what Darwin called the survival of the fittest? Was it not Darwin who introduced the brutality of Nature, “Nature, red in tooth and claw”?
Wait a minute Mr. Attenborough, why are you holding grudge against God? You are agnostic and a Darwinian evolutionist, why as an evolutionist you are assuming one species (man) has more moral and intrinsic value and more rights to life than another species (worm)? This is not a scientific postulation, yet alone a Darwinian one. Darwinism or any other disciple in science cannot by any means imply that humans are more important and relevant in the grand scheme of things than worms. Further, if this case really bothers you, should you not be addressing your objection to “Natural Selection”? After all, it is Natural Selection’s fault, which favoured the worm over man. Why double standards? Why when credit is due, it is given to “Natural Selection”, but the perceived problems are attributed to God?
Pessimism and despondency obscure one’s judgment. Among atheist philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was notorious in this regard. He believed that every life history is the history of suffering. Schopenhauer acknowledged: “In my 17th year, I was gripped by the misery of life, as Buddha had been in his youth when he saw sickness, old age, pain and death. The truth was that this world could not have been the work of an all-loving Being, but rather that of a devil, who had brought creatures into existence in order to delight in the suffering.” The proponents of the “Problem of Evil” often confuse God with Superman or Genie, and expect Hollywood-style intervention. The best of their arguments cannot establish that there is no God, but “Natural Selection”. At most, it can only suggest that the Creator is like the universe which is neither benign nor hostile. He is indifferent to all His creation: both large and small, organic and inorganic, living or inanimate, etc. However, this deistic view too, has its own share of predicaments that I will not elaborate here.
I think having experiences such as that of David Attenborough should indeed lead one swiftly to the opposite conclusion. The famous French oceanic explorer, Jacques Cousteau, the Sorbonne University Prof./explorer/Egyptologist/M.D., Maurice Bucaille, the American astrophysicist George Smoot, and his fellow countryman astronomer Owen Gingerich the author of God’s Universe (2006), Australian Biochemist Michael Denton author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) and Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (1998) are just a few among many who would have fully agreed with me. We just don’t hear much about what they have to say, as much as we constantly hear from Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins.
Cousteau in his last book titled: The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus said: “The glory of nature provides evidence that God exists; those who show no respect for nature show no respect for God.” The statement here resembles numerous verses in the Quran. Interestingly enough Cousteau candidly acknowledges this Quranic point. The first part of the above quote is also exactly similar to what William Paley said 50 years before Darwin. Elsewhere in his book he says: “Faith after faith exhorts its followers to open their eyes to nature as a reflection of God’s grandeur.” What a contrast between Attenborough and Cousteau? Gingerich believes we live in a designed universe of purpose and intention. Smoot said “looking into the cosmos is like looking at God.” I say, looking at a minute speck of dust is like looking at God. Do you have any idea how complex a microscopic dust particle is, and the beauty & order it displays? Have you ever marveled at the complexity and beauty of a valueless grain of sand or a bird’s feather? I urge you to check it out:
Household dust magnified 22 million times, consists of long hairs, cat fur, twisted synthetic, woollen fibers, serrated insect scales, a pollen grain, plant and insect remains
A magnified view of a red-tailed hawk feather, looks like a hand-knitted fabric
Mud cracking during drought
I have been indeed privileged to witness wonders far beyond dust particles and so grateful, indeed so grateful to comprehend the implications. Having experienced a week deep in the Brazilian part of Amazon, and visited the breathtaking Iguazu Falls in Argentina and Patagonia back in 1999 with my sisters, I recall I felt much closer to my Creator than when I was circling the Kabba in Feb. 2000. Ironically, it was my South American experience, seeing a natural and delicate ecological order in the lavish Amazon rainforest and watching a countless number of bright stars at night which motivated me to take the subsequent trip to Mecca.
I just got back from the Middle East having performed my 2ndHajj (pilgrimage) some 13 years later. The end result was not as fulfilling as I was hoping to be. I was yearning to feel that “Allah is indeed closer to [me], than [my] jugular vein” (Quran 50:16). I had an enormous zest to experience what Moses experienced when he went up to Mount Sinai, and I didn’t. I suppose, there may very well be a problem with my expectation, after all I am not Moses or anyone special, nor is Hajj supposed to be a rendezvous with the Divine, but a mere acknowledgment of one’s submission to the Divine. German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler, a key figure in the 17th-century science had a similar sense of inquisitiveness. He is reported to have said: “There is nothing I want to find out and yearn to know with greater urgency than this: Can I find God, whom I can almost grasp with my own hands in looking at the universe as well as in myself?” It was this strong sense of curiosity that led him to pursue science, a means to reach at the Divine.
For me after a lifetime of contemplation, the debate on Causality has reached the level that I would say, I can prove the existence of the First Cause just the same way one proves the Pythagorean theorem, both deductively and somewhat inductively; the clear objective signs are overwhelming. I am hoping to add some personal subjective components to an objective conviction, adding a personal touch to a linear verification process, that this is not all belief in abstraction; one can indeed experience it too. I want to experience that which reason dictates. Subsequently, this experience can be kept fresh in my own mind as a reminder for as long as I am alive. I wish to understand the nature of the Divine and His mind, if I may, if I am capable to comprehend this Reality. Or, is it all beyond my comprehension, totally inaccessible to my limited intellect? Is my quest quixotic or supremely rational?
In Mecca, I felt I was in the presence of an Entity that knows my past, present and future. It really felt like, there is no point to put up my best side, this Entity knows me so well and can see straight through me. I kept telling myself, “so Mehran just be who you really are.” When I entered the Harram (sanctuary), at the beginning I was a bit fearful, fearing: is the Almighty pleased with me or displeased and is perhaps going to get me for all my wrong-doings? However, my fear very soon disappeared, for I felt that despite all my past shortcomings, I was invited and welcomed there. For weeks I entered the two historic Mosques in Madina and Mecca, made never-ending supplications and was so sure that the Incomparable Master of the universe would hear me. However, Just like Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), I wanted to see or hear a reply that can be certain it is directly from Him. An individual customized message addressed to me, a message in a bottle, flung from eternity to me. So far I have not, or have been unable to decode His envisioned communication to me. “Patience is a virtue”, that is what I keep telling myself. It will come, it will come. I should know better, the importance of patience is the first thing one learns in reading Aristotle as well as Persian poetry.
A scene in the Ten Commandments movie had a tremendous effect on me. That is the part when an Egyptian soldier kills an old Hebrew slave in a mud field. Moses grabs the man and tries to comfort him in his dying moments. The man not knowing who Moses is, tells Moses that he has no fear of death nor has any regrets; his only disappointment in life is that God never answered his prayer. Moses curiously asks him: what was your prayer old man? The man replies all my life I prayed that before I die I get to see the “Deliverer”. How ironic it is that, the man then dies in peace in Moses’ arms. I would not be so impressed with this probably fictional scene if I could not personally relate to it. The lesson here is that we too often just don’t see the obvious, or if we see it, we tend to easily forget it. I keep asking myself, what kind of a message would really convince you Mehran that the message is directly from the Divine? What convinces you that He is indeed closer to you than your jugular vein? Honestly, I have absolutely no idea and don’t really know. I guess, I would know when I receive it.
So on this trip to South America, I would try to decode or should say remind myself of His general message, where the objective is to get closer to Him. Furthermore, I intend to test one more time which of my two back to back, dissimilar Truth/soul searching trips, would drastically increase my Taghwa (God-consciousness) and brings me near to the Most Merciful. Mecca in a hot barren desert or the lavish Galapagos? Although I already know the more one is in contact with nature, the more one sees the glorious signs of the Big Bang Originator. There is a famous and profound saying of Prophet Mohammed that “An hour of contemplation on the work of the Creator is better than seventy years of prayer.” This saying makes a lot of sense. If you have the proper perspective and are well-focused, being in nature is like having a one on one dialogue with the Creator. By observing signs in nature, you can easily become aware of many of His attributes. This approach is more logical than going to a retreat in an isolated cave, meditating for a number of years with the sound of one hand clapping, or travelling to India or Tibet to meet the famous Yogis or Dalai Lamas, asking them to show me a mystical path to Nirvana. I have no interest in shopping for a new manmade organized religion; to me organized religion is no different than organized crime. All religions have turned into a moneymaking business and a means to control the masses. However, unlike atheists I would never negate the Deity for the crimes constantly committed in His name. I have no interest in following a “spiritual leader”, for they are all crooks. I trust my own brain more than someone else’s, and that which I do not know yet, is no obscured secret; it can be acquired. Reality should not be mysterious and inaccessible to one’s intellect, understood and preached by the supposed “chosen few”.
When I observe the inherent behavior of any species in its natural habitat, I feel like I am observing a proper behavior of a truly upright monotheist who is in total submission to Allah. I even sense that this bird, or ant or a tree is acting as a TA (Teaching assistant), purposely trying to lead me to something, teaching me a 101 course on how to drop my human arrogance, selfishness and be in harmony with the rest of nature. Telling me, if you really want to be free you must be in submission to none, but the Master. To have this dialogue with the Divine you must tune your reception on the proper frequency in order to receive the ubiquitous Divine signals. The signals given have a message for all attentive individuals whose radio receiver is left on. The message is: nothing is random, the universe is designed; it follows certain laws and is perusing an intention. The universe is not created in vain. Everything in the universe points to an Intelligent Designer and a Programmer.
“Indeed, in the origination and design of the universe, and in the alternating succession of night and day, evidence indeed exists for those who use their minds, who remember their Creator, while standing, sitting and reclining on their sides, and contemplate on the creation of the universe, exclaiming: “Our Sustainer! You have not created all this without a meaningful purpose. Glory be to You!” Quran (3:190-191)
Fast-forward the evolutionary processes of the creation of the Galapagos in your mind. From when the lava surfaced and cooled off to the paradise that it is now and then tell me, if it can be all due to an unguided process of “Natural Selection”. Take one step back; just the same way imagine the processes involved in the creation of the earth from some 4 billion years ago to the present. Take one more step back; visualize the creation of the universe from the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago to the present. Although many atheist evolutionists do not wish to use the term “accident”, but according to them, it all seems that we had a long sequential chain of favourable accidents one after another in order to be here. This is utterly impossible, accepting it is a sheer exercise in self-deception and outright stupidity.
“Have they never cast a glance at the firmament above? How We have set it up and decked it out! And how there are no rifts in it. And the earth ¾ We have spread it out; have cast forth stabilizing mountains and caused to grow on it, in complementary pairs, all kinds of palatable vegetation. All these signs merit deep reflection and reminiscence by every penitent votary.” (Quran 50: 6-8)
“He created seven universes in layers. You do not see any imperfection in the creation by the Most Gracious. Keep looking; do you see any flaws? Look again and again; your eyes will come back stumped and overstrained.” Quran (67: 3-4)
In response to William Paley’s elegant argument, watch (life) and the Watchmaker (God), Dawkins in his book: The Blind Watchmaker argues that the blind forces of physics are responsible for all that exists, referring to “Natural Selection” as a sightless process having no intent. He says: “A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.” … “It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” The conclusion of his book is, thanks to “Natural Selection” anything in nature which does look designed is not really designed, only appears to be designed. Wow, what a load of sugarcoated crap coming from someone whom the world regards as one of its most eminent scientists. Please pardon my English, I honestly cannot express my true feelings any differently. Note how far a naked Emperor goes to deny the obvious.
Am I supposed to accept that i.e. the rampant Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio in nature/cosmos are an outcome of a blind purposeless process? Am I supposed to accept the Double Helix geometric shape of DNA, the molecule of life is an outcome of a blind process having no thoughtful origin? Each human DNA molecule is comprized of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences, which Dawkins claims, is all work of blind forces of nature, I guess having nothing better to do for leisure. Is Mr. Dawkins cognizant of how much mathematical computation being processed so spontaneously in our brain, when the brain commands a simple task to our body like to lift a cup of coffee or to start walking? Am I supposed to ignore that if the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported carbon-based lifeforms? For example, if the rate of expansion of the universe from the Big Bang to the present time was as small as 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 different (either above or below the cosmic constant), then the universe as we know it would not be here today. Subsequently, life on earth could not have evolved. Blind watchmaker eh! If this alone is not a proof for the existence of a Designer and a Creator, then I wonder what is. Whenever my belief and confidence weakens or I fail a trial, all I need to do is to remind myself of the above facts, or think of the complexity and beauty of a grain of sand or dust particles. I am swiftly rejuvenated and able to re-focus and overcome distractions.
Just a couple of days before I left Toronto, I went to see a friend of mine who was in the hospital. The poor soul suffers from a number of serious medical complications and has been regularly in and out of the hospital for the past 10 years. Some of his vital organs are either already removed or are not fully functioning. His last operation lasted 8 hours. When I saw him unconscious in the recovery room, he was connected to so many equipments, each piece was doing the task of an organ that he has lost or is impaired. There was a nurse seated next to him around the clock to monitor his condition. All those equipment that were connected to his body to keep him alive each one of us possesses a small portable one in our body, made of the best technology there is. In the hospital I praised the Creator and prayed for his recovery, and thought only an arrogant fool would deny purpose and design. Why when an artificial heart or a kidney dialysis machine is manufactured by GE, Siemens or Philips, it is considered designed to serve a function, but a natural heart or kidney is not? How is it that teeth are not designed to chew food, but dentures specifically are, a knee is not designed for movement, but knee arthroplasty delicately is? Consider another example; that of an injured Bald Eagle. Scientists have recently devised a prosthetic beak for this poor helpless eagle in the picture below.
According to atheistic Darwinian evolutionists, Dawkins et al, the original beak was not designed; it only has the appearance of design. However, the manmade imitation of the original, which can never look and function as good as the original, has been designed. What an incredibly irrational, and hence unscientific claim.
The whole biomimicry industry revolves around the copycat design of what nature does best. The creative capacities of nature and the whole of the universe are mind-boggling. Indeed, Dawkins makes an absurd arbitrary distinction.
So, the origin of a watch is with a watchmaker who is supplied with the parts. The origin of anything is with its originator, this is not rocket science. Dawkins erroneously assumes that every self-proclaimed believer in “God” is a mindless fundamentalist fool. His arguments often lack rational muscle. He aims but fails to convince a thinking person that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it isn’t a duck. Yup, sure.
If this assertion is true, then, Mr. Dawkins, you, Darwin and all other atheist evolutionists, your brains, thoughts, views, writings, etc. are not valid and true, or a concomitant result of a free intellectual inquiry. They are mere products of a blind, unconscious, automatic, mindless and mechanical process. For a man who argues: “the basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe,” would that “anything else in the universe” not include his own brain, all his academic postulation the product of that brain being void of purpose, thoughts, design and intelligence.
Further, let’s assume the processes of cosmic and earthly Natural Selection from when it all started until the end of time is blind. That means it also has to be blind to the future, not aware of the outcome of a chain of events 15 billion years later. From the Big Bang to the present we can assume that the evolutionary processes involved were unguided and totally blind, but we cannot assume that they were not goal-oriented. The passage of time confirms this to be a fact. A goal-oriented process is not blind, cannot be blind, it ought to see and recognize the goal to aim at it. It ought to constantly stay on track. As physicist Freeman Dyson puts it: “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” Therefore, if the processes involved were goal-oriented with foresight, they could not have been blind as Dawkins assumes. It is no surprise that he dismisses the notion of purpose in design as a silly notion. The atheists are unable to tackle this issue using science or any other tools. No scientist can argue that the outcome of creation, from the Big Bang origin meant to be anything other than what it is now without deviating from the realm of empirical science. This would lead me to my next thought.
If you put all the necessary groceries in a fully equipped kitchen with high-tech appliances, the meal still will not be prepared in a zillion eons if there is no chef with a recipe who is willing to cook. For sake of argument let’s stretch our imagination, suppose in the morning you wake up and see your favorite omelet and coffee is ready just on time for your consumption without anyone preparing them. You don’t need to drive yourself crazy to figure out who prepared this meal; you are spared the agony to resolve the mystery. There is indisputable evidence on how did this happen, a convincing note on the table saying:
Good Morning Darling,
Enjoy your favorite breakfast, I will be back on time to fix your most desired supper.
Love & Hugs,
The blind wavering, but caring and dying to please forces of physics
P.S. You can call me Natural Selection
Well, blind forces or not, where did these forces come from? Where did the law that if you apply heat to meat or egg it will be cooked come from, what if it did evaporate or disintegrate instead? We would then have had a completely different universe. Why is there cause and effect, why action and reaction, why stimulus and response, why harmonious order as opposed to chaos? Why is there something as opposed to nothing? Why is there “Natural Selection” at work as opposed to “unnatural rejection”? Where did evolution and inescapable domination of the principle of evolvability come from? Who sets the rules and safeguards them? Where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from? How did consciousness popped into the picture with matter and energy? Would any materialist evolutionists dare to tackle these core relevant questions? The point is, the so-called “Natural Selection”, if it exists at all, is not a conscious process, acting on its own volition. It operates based on existing pre-determined laws. Anyone who attributes order and fine-tuning of the universe to the natural physical laws of nature has said absolutely nothing, so long as he or she has no sound explanation and proof for the original source of regularities and applied physical laws. The term law denotes regular orderly operation, not an ad hoc procedure. The explanation offered begs the question when it ignores the Regulator and Lawgiver. Therefore, evolution (process) is not a challenge to the notion of the Creator, because a process must have a cause. Interestingly enough the materialist atheists question who created God, but never pose the question of who designed and created the Darwinian mutating replicator.
Further, if “Natural Selection” is indeed responsible for feeding us every day and is the underlying reason for the survival of all species, shouldn’t we be so grateful to this process, rather than constantly trivializing the intelligence behind this mechanism. If there is no God, but “Natural Selection”, we should then start to worship “Natural Selection” as our sustainer, a worthy god to worship. That would be a good first step in the right direction.
Denying or covering a causal/intelligent factor in the creation of the universe is like attempting to suck the air out of existence, an impossible task to achieve. The intelligent factor keeps on popping up somewhere else down the line. The scientists who dismiss intelligent design behind the universe/nature are indeed far more dogmatic and fanatical about their belief than those religious zealots who worship rats and cows or drink their own urine for longevity. More is expected of those who should know better, yet they advocate magic wrapped in a science package. To quote Molière the 17th-century French writer, “A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.” The irony of it is these arrogant atheists are under the illusion that they are the intellectual elite of the society. They cannot comprehend that those individuals who seek the Truth and are obsessed with certainty would never settle with the “hope of the hopeless.” The ancient Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero said: “If anyone cannot feel the power of God when he looks upon the stars, then I doubt whether he is capable of feeling at all. From the enduring wonder of the heavens flow all grace and power. If anyone thinks it is mindless then he himself must be out of his mind.” (On the Nature of the Gods, Penguin Classics, 1972, 2.55)
Christopher Hitchens in an interview before his death said that when he was a kid, he once heard from his elementary school teacher that among all colours in the world, blue and green have the most calming effect on the human psyche. The teacher concluded that this is perhaps why God picked the colour of blue for the sky and green for vegetation. Hitchens laughs at the teacher’s inference, since according to Darwinian evolutionists our liking of blue and green is all because of our adaptation to these colours. So, if the sky was pink and vegetation happened to be bright yellow, red or black we would still have felt just the same way. Imaging saying or hearing: “What a lovely gorgeous day today, just look at the beautiful pinky sky and that pretty black park in sight.” Well, this is an interesting theory, but is there any proof anywhere. Did our scientists suddenly forget that an explanation is not a proof? Or, is it all matter of a giant leap of faith in the all-mighty “Natural Selection”, and it must be true, because the Imam Richard Dawkins et al. have said so. Even if the offered explanation is valid, where did I get this handy, convenient and effortless ability to adapt to whatever is above and around? How can anyone skip this pivotal question? Why human species after 400,000 years or so still cannot adapt to the irritating sound of their own baby’s cry, but easily get use to any given colour? It seems that some desired adaptations are unachievable. Hitchens’ attitude is an example of a faulty, off-tuned receiver not detecting primordial broadcasted signals. He and other materialists persist to observe the universe by looking at the wrong end of the telescope. Their arrogant attitude reminds me of the repeated verse in chapter 55 (Al-Rahman) of the Quran: where after a marvelous example similar to the above is given, then It asks: “Which one of the favours of your Lord do you deny?”
On this trip to South America, I also intend to visit the roughest neighborhoods in Lima and Quito to sense the real social fabric of these societies, although I have been warned not to. I will see, it cannot be worse than parts of Sao Paulo or Mexico City. I like to observe the socio-economic ills in faraway lands. I just hope I do not run into some of those criminals that I barred or deported from Canada over the years whom may recognize me. “Hey Señor Policia, it is payback time.” If in trouble, I guess my best defense would be my well-known Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry imitation that should scare off all those South American punks.
I hope to stay healthy throughout this trip; I am a bit concerned about how my body would handle high and low altitudes, the humidity of the rainforest, etc. So much for being healthy and strong, a tiny mosquito (malaria) bit can knock me down for good. If that happens, God willing not, I recognize mosquito’s rights to life and procreation.
I have to go now, they are boarding. In the name of God, the Beneficent and the Merciful, let the journey unfold, see what it will teach and where is it going to take me to. I may not be able to update my log regularly as I will certainly have no, or limited access to the Internet. “Ya Haque” and God willing “hasta luego”.
Part Two: During and After
Life on our unique planet is the manifestation of something truly extraordinary. Things that appear so “insignificant” have substantial properties and purpose(s). The existence of things such as mankind that are distinct in every sense of the word must have the utmost significant purpose, after all we appear to be so special compared to other species. I am trying to comprehend the dynamics of life, first and foremost my own life. Every experience in life has a purpose. My existence must have a reason and purpose; my personal experiences good and bad must have reasons behind them. I want to know what that purpose is. I do not want to be a passive observer of life, which I get to live it only once. The unfinished quest for awareness is driving me outside libraries, books and the Internet to the various parts of the globe. I am anxiously looking for the Divine that my intellect verifies Its existence.
The British atheist Peter Atkins, one of the most arrogant and closed-minded atheists in the world while reclining in the comforts of his academic ivory tower claims: “only those with a lazy mind would believe in God.” In a God which he defines as “the hope of the hopeless”. “The real thinkers” would come to believe in what he believes: in a self-created accidental universe. All my adult life as well as partial childhood I have tormented my mind to figure out what is the Truth. It seems like a never-ending exhaustive task. For a real thinker, in my opinion, the zest to understand the nature of the universe gets greater and greater as one accumulates more experience and knowledge, as one gets closer and closer to death. “A priori” reasoning (justification independent of experience by sole usage of reason alone) no longer quenches my insatiable thirst. Now in my early 50s, I have come to appreciate “a posteriori” knowledge (discovering after experience) far more than I used to. I want to see, I want to feel, want to touch, want to experience. I am not willing to settle for mere rational cognitive analysis. Experience should support what reason dictates; it is like a double-locking method to feel really secure. Obsessive-compulsive disorder may be a better sarcasm to use than calling people like me “lazy”, an obsession with certainty and Truth. The mind that settles with the explanation that: “the laws of physics did it”, without preceding to the next question: “where did the laws of physics come from is indeed the one with a lazy mind. The laws of physics is just another term for the universe. The cause of the universe cannot be within the universe.
I arrived in Lima at night, there was a “G Adventure” driver waiting for me in the airport’s arrivals area with my name written on a placard. He took me from the airport to my hotel located in an affluent part of Lima known as Miraflores. On the way to the hotel, I noticed the barbwires and broken bottle glasses on the walls of almost all houses. Further, I was very surprised to see so many casinos in Lima. The driver told me that all casinos in Lima are privately owned and runned. I would say there are more casinos in Lima as there are mosques in Isfahan. The next morning when I took my first walk around Miraflores I noticed there were 2 or 3 fully armed police officers in front of each bank and ATM machine. I had the intention to go and take a look at the impoverished areas of the city, but I realized that these observations alone are sufficient to provide me with a good sense of the real social fabric of Peru. It is a place where one has to constantly look at one’s back. I realized that here I don’t have to look for trouble, if not careful trouble will come to me.
As careful as I was, in my first day in the city of Cusco located near the Andes I was pickpocketed. I left the hotel to exchange some money. The exchange place was not far from the hotel. After exchanging money I was followed without knowing. In a crowded area, in split-second two men made body contact with me, one coming from the front and another from behind. One of them stole my wallet with about $500 cash, all my IDs and credit cards in it. I instantly realized what really happened, but it was too late. They both disappeared into the crowd.
Naturally, I was very upset, could not stop wondering why among all those tourists this should happen to me. The incident caused considerable difficulties for me and put a bitter taste in my mouth right at the onset of my journey. I was incredibly excited about this trip for so long and now this. I had my scuba diving license in my wallet without which could not dive in the Galapagos. How can I go on with this trip without having enough cash or credit cards? The wallet itself was gifted to me with some personal items in it. The wallet had a great sentimental value to me. I felt violated, cursed the two thieves and demanded justice. This experience was the epitome of when something unexpectedly goes wrong in life. Often a horrible accident at the worst possible time, leaving one with no choice, but to bitterly accept what has happened. Everything is fine and dandy, in a split second, things can change to a nightmare that may overshadow everything in one’s life and future. You had it all along, now you don’t, be that a loved one, good health, beauty or basic worldly possessions.
It took me a couple of days to get over this and tried not to allow this unfortunate incident to ruin my trip. However, in the next few days, I got even more disturbed by realization of my own deficiencies. Far from being a God-seeking poster boy, it seemed to me that I am just too phony. I should have looked at this incident from a much broader perspective, but failed to. Could this not have happened for a reason, which may unfold in the future? Maybe there was wisdom behind this incident, which time will reveal. I kept telling myself: “You are full of it”, “You are as fake as Ahmadinejad”, …. I criticized myself for becoming revengeful. Why did I curse the two thieves? Why did I get angry beyond a couple of hours? I suddenly realized a huge gap between my ideal self and the real self. My conscience started to really bother me that I could not be a little bit forgiving. You may not understand why, but I myself know the reasons well. Let me try to explain these reasons.
First, I should have been grateful that the damage was not worse, it could have been much worse. I still had my passport and some cash left. Back on the eve of Christmas 2004, many people went on a vacation of a lifetime and never returned. They were suddenly washed away into the sea by a massive Tsunami as they were walking on the calm beautiful resort beaches of Thailand, Indonesia, etc. On that fateful day, over 250,000 people died in 14 countries, one-third of them were children. What is my loss compared to theirs? People go to Hajj to get closer to the Divine, some would not make it back. Every year so many pilgrims die due to heat exhaustion, disease, or accident, i.e. stampede or fire. Indeed, I failed to be a bit considerate and thankful in the realm of things.
Secondly, back in 1978, I saw a powerful movie titled “Les Miserables” based on Victor Hugo’s famous novel. By the passage of time, I almost forgot about the plot and the main story in the movie, only 10 minutes of the movie always stayed fresh in my mind and left an everlasting impression. The movie is about an impoverished jobless man during a bad economic time in France who steals a loaf of bread because he and his family are hungry. He is caught and the court unjustly sentenced him to prison for 5 years, which later extends to 20 years, until he escapes. This helpless fugitive on run is so bitter about life and angry with God for what he went through, until destiny crossed his path with a God-conscious wiseman who created a turning point in this man’s life. The wise man that I always envied to be. The wise man who had a much better understanding of life and the Divine than I ever had. Indeed, how rich are those who have the proper understanding of life and man’s place/role in it.
(I recommend watching the whole movie or please watch from minute 26 to 35).
A few years ago while watching the following CBC News this sentiment once again rejuvenated in me:
Once again I remembered the 1978 movie and wondered how would I react if I ever found myself in the same situation as that bishop or store owner. Well, in Cusco I did find myself in that situation, and found out that I deserved a big fat “F”. The experience was a disappointing lesson in self-actualization. But is the self-actualization not what life is all about? Is this not why God puts man in tests and tribulations? Life is full of unpleasant surprises. What is the purpose of learning and accumulating knowledge if that knowledge does not manifest itself in one’s behaviour and conduct? So in this sense, I learned a valuable lesson worth more than $500 that was long overdue.
When I returned to Toronto, I looked for the movie which I watched back in the late 1970s, and have watched the said part several times. Each time it brings tears to my eyes and shame to my heart.
Andes
I began my journey from the small village of Sernanp, Piscacuch and followed the Inca trail to Machu Picchu. The starting point was the Huascaran National Park. We entered the park by crossing the Urubamba River on an old suspension bridge, gradually gaining altitude towards Machu Picchu. For five days I walked for about 85 Kilometers going up and down through the stony mountains of Andes, climbed as high as 4,200 meters above the sea level. Often the altitude was high enough for us to walk through the clouds and surpass them. Luckily, the high altitude had no effect on me, however, I walked and climbed at a very slow pace, often too busy taking pictures and enjoying the view. I took about 1000 pictures during my trip, and actually wrote this diary paragraph by paragraph in my mind on the route as I witnessed and experienced life in high and low places.
From the top of a high mountain, looking down at valleys below and other mountains on the horizon makes one feel how insignificant (size-wise) one is on this vast planet. On the way, one can also enjoy seeing various neon butterflies, centipedes, millipedes and herds of llamas. On a clear night, I could see one of the things that I actually came to see: millions of stars. Unfortunately throughout the night sky was often foggy.
In some parts, I came across what would appear like pigeonholes in the mountains from far away. Once we got closer we were told that the holes in the mountains are actually graveyards where Inca people used to bury their mummified deads.
The local tour guide kept talking about the greatness of the Inca Empire. I certainly could see the greatness of their civilization, but on my mind, it was those amazing neon butterflies, which I saw while climbing not on the big civilization that used to live in these mountains some millennium ago. The Machu Picchu only verified to me the Quranic verses, which state that there were people and advanced civilizations before us, but are no more.
“Have they not traveled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than themselves and greater in strength and in impression on the land, but they were not availed by what they used to earn. And when their messengers came to them with clear proofs, they [merely] rejoiced in what they had of knowledge, but they were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.” Quran (40: 82-83)
Where are those Inca people today? None left. Machu Picchu ruins is a reminder that big and powerful civilizations or the whole of humanity for that matter may not last forever.
Up in the Andes, it can get really cold at night, particularly if you are not moving and it is raining or snowing. You may get dizzy at times and experience difficulties in breathing. You have to be very careful and avoid slippery edges on steep mountains or you may fall to your death. Just a week before I got there an American tourist died after falling 300 meters into a ravine. Mountains are beautiful but inhospitable for city dwellers. Yet, some of the most inhospitable places on earth are home suit homes for some species, life cannot be any better elsewhere.
At the end of the trail we reached the beautiful town of Aguas Callientes. From there we took the train back towards Cusco. The train ride was through the mountains at the base level. I was thinking that the trip to the Andes as valuable as it was, it did not really provide me with a sense that Allah is indeed closer to me than my jugular vein. I had the fear that may be I am just chasing my own tail, trying to experience the impossible, something that my brain is not even able to handle. That is, the nature of the Deity Itself is not subject to the human experience. If I know that very well, then what am I looking for? After over an hour and half of the train ride, deep in my own thought, I suddenly noticed that we just passed that suspension bridge over the Urubamba River. I could not believe that I had actually walked that far over the mountains. The trip brought me to a literal realization of the famous Chinese proverb that “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step.” It encouraged me to be patient and keep on searching on this long journey which may very well go beyond this trip and next.
Amazon
Rainforest is an excellent place to study the interconnectivity of the ecosystem and the fine-tuning of the universe. Amazon is a vast region functioning as the earth’s lungs and the world’s icon of biodiversity. One cannot help not to notice the wisdom behind everything one observes. A week in Amazon could surely persuade most visitors that the Power behind nature is an Intelligent Designer, an Educator, a superb Engineer, a talented Artist, a Choreographer, a music Composer, a Gardner, a skilled Medicineman, a Mathematician and…. When you walk through the rainforest, it is like you are walking through an art gallery, a popular concert venue, a pharmacy, an industrial engineering trade fair on advanced biotechnology, and the greatest recycling facility on earth where absolutely nothing goes to waste. To grasp all these features, you only need to fully open your mind otherwise all your eyes detect is just a huge leaf depot in a worthless place better suited for reckless and abusive human pastime. Particularly its most favorite one, that is habitat destruction to accumulate wealth.
IMAX Amazon HD
On my previous trip to the Amazon in Brazil, I stayed in a large treehouse built on the top of big tall trees. In Peru, I stayed in a cabin-like eco-lodge built a couple of feet above the ground, yet various animals were still able to get in. I had frequent visitors every night. Aside from mosquitoes, bats were flying in and out of my cabin all night. I slept in a net bed for protection and cautiously avoided walking without my shoes. Hookworm can be contracted through the soles of feet if one walks barefooted on infected soil. Psychologically, I was more concerned about scorpions and snakes than invisible hookworms. At the same time, I also did not want to give any excuses to the likes of Attenborough to become agnostic.
The best part of my Amazon trip was the night walks throughout the jungle, encountering night-shift animals and insects living in harmony. Witnessing profuse lifeforms on the forest floor, on the branches of trees, in the sky, with plenty of resources for everyone. One night after we walked about 1.5 Kilometers away from the lodge, the local tour guide asked us to turn off our flashlights and keep silent for 5 minutes. He said just try to look at the starry sky blocked by the branches of the trees, look for stars through the holes in the canopy of the forest and listen to the forest’s peaceful melodies. It was like a symphony of music performed by insects, amphibians, monkeys, etc. in a total darkness with shining stars that one could detect above the canopy. Florescent fireflies glowing in the dark lighting up the forest like flashing dim lights in a discotheque. Five minutes of therapeutic serenity that one never encounters in a manmade urban setting.
Daytime walks through the jungle were completely a different experience, seeing different species. Humidity is usually much higher during the day. The area that I went to is known to be the habitat for giant anacondas. Regrettably, I did not see any. It is amazing to see one while having its meal. The average adult anaconda is about 25 to 40 feet long, could weigh around 230 Kg, and can easily devour a prey 3 to 4 times wider than the size of its mouth without the need to chew it. It is no surprise that I did not see one during my weeklong stay in Amazon. Anaconda is usually hiding in the water to ambush its prey, only its eyes and nostrils are above the surface water level. They are known to hold their breath and can submerge underwater for about 20 minutes. Our guide told us that a week ago he spotted one in the same area. He even showed us the film that one of the tourists took of him while he was wrestling with that big snake.
The great thing about being in the Amazon is that one can get to see so many different animals. Every animal and insect is fascinating in its own way. As strange as it may seem to the reader, I spontaneously conversed with every animal that I closely encountered, sometimes even with other life forms. I called each a brother, a fellow teammate in the finite universe of time and space. The team of mortal carbon-based lifeforms. I would say the best species that I encountered and got close enough to take pictures was the beautiful owl butterfly, colourful hamming birds and boisterous macaws, piranhas. As well as having encountered a jaguar from the opposite side of the riverbank.
The owl butterfly particularly interests me so much because the theory of evolution fails to explain its appearance and defense mechanism. This butterfly as its name suggests resembles an owl. It has eyespots on the lower part of both sides of its both wings. When a predatory bird or lizard approaches, the butterfly turns itself upside down and closes and opens its wings quickly which makes it look like an owl winking its eyes. It sends out a strong warning message to the approaching bird or lizard. The message is: I know what you are thinking. Do you really want a piece of me? Well, do you, punk? If you dare, go ahead, make my day. I am an owl, well capable of making a meal out of you. You are better to keep off. The trick effectively fools all predators.
Well, how this tiny insect is fully aware of the details of its own physical appearance? She certainly could not have learned this from looking at herself in a mirror. How does this so fragile insect know that she looks like a bird of prey that its very own predators are afraid of? How does the insect know that in order to mimic an owl she has to first turn upside-down otherwise the trick would not work? I encountered several owl butterflies and got so close to them to take pictures. In fact, I deliberately got too close for comfort, hoping that the butterfly performs its usual trick on me. But they knew that I was no existential threat to them, thus none performed its defensive act. Finally, when they had enough of me, they just moved on to another tree. How did evolution equip this insect with ingenious conscious awareness to come up with complex imitations as a defense mechanism? I submit that it could not have.
The whole thing in this case is nothing short of an empty bluff in a face-off. What is most amazing about this bluff is the butterfly’s remarkable confidence level that this trick is always effective. Butterfly has to have enough inside information about its predators’ “IQ level” to be able to pull it off and deceive them. After millions of years of evolutionary processes to finally have an insect look and mimic a bird of prey, now what is left for this trick to pay off, is that the butterfly’s predators have to be fearful of owl, as well as so naïve. Otherwise, this impersonation defense approach has been a huge waste of evolutionary time. Further, they must never realize that their opponent is just a paper tiger and cannot withstand challenge. This vital secret must never leak out. When you are bluffing you better make sure that your opponent never picks up the slightest clue that you are defenseless, or else that would cost you your life. The owl butterfly seems to have a guaranteed insurance policy in this respect. When a deadly predator approaches, she never seems to be too concerned, for her it all seems like just another boring day at the office.
Well, is this a coincidence that the butterfly’s predators are cognitively inept at identification as they ought to be? Intelligent predators would easily put this species on the verge of extinction since it has no other means to defend itself. For natural selection to claim responsibility for this defense strategy is to acknowledge that natural selection was equally responsible for, first the butterfly to evolve to have such an appearance and the know-how. Secondly, its predators ought to simultaneously and deliberately evolved to be ignorant. But according to the rationale behind evolution, this cannot be so. The evolutionists deny that evolution is designed or is pursuing an intention. These are two distinct separate categories of species, one is insect the other is either bird or reptile. Secondly, why should a species, which preys on owl butterflies evolve towards a direction, which does not contribute to its increased survivability? It seems that it is doomed to remain in a relative sense “stupid” in the ecological food web. However, this is contrary to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Examples like this are overwhelming in nature, in which one species could only survive at the expense of the naiveté of another species. For instance, cuckoo birds do not bother building their own nest or raise their own family. Perhaps they do not know how to, or not programmed for that task. Female cuckoo birds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds like warblers, sparrows or robins. She has the ability to alter the appearance of her egg, make it look similar to that of the host. When the nest owner returns she does not realize that one of her eggs had been replaced by a cuckoo egg. She does not come to this realization, not even when the eggs are hatched that this is not my chick, not even when the chick grows several times bigger than Mom and Dad. In order to get the maximum parental care and attention; the imposter chick instinctually immediately dumps all the unhatched eggs or the other chicks off the nest. Did the biological mom coach the chick to do that? The unsuspecting foster parents are totally unwary of the murder committed raises this brood parasite just as their very own offspring, ensuring the survival of another species rather than their own. This evolutionary trick would only work if the foster parents are both “stupid” enough not to suspect a thing all the way until the cuckoo chicks have reached maturity, “stupid” from the human perspective.
To me the explanation that there is an Intelligent Creator who designed this defenseless butterfly this way, and her predators that way makes more sense that a farfetched idea of self-regulated processes of blind natural selection. Natural selection cannot account for the creative directional changes in species – for these are tied to something much larger, which involves the whole system of nature wherein camouflage for deception and specialized structures that fit in with the environment within each genera are there to ensure the total systemic balance. Let’s not overlook that if these thoughtful systems are not in place the interconnected food web will be disrupted. This requires Design with a Capital D and teleology with a capital T. This smacks of not blind processes, but an instigator of the processes that must be imbued with intelligence; one that oversees the processes from outside, as it were. Indeed the Watchmaker is not blind. It is a witnessing All-intelligent Watch-evolver aware of the interconnectivity of that which is unknown to mankind. Consider an iPhone for instance, most people admire this “smartphone” and its practical functions, praise the genius who came up with the idea and design, but the same attitude is totally missing when it comes to examining the real complexity, i.e. the universe and natural world within.
One of the most incredible things that I saw in the Amazon which had no idea it even existed is what commonly referred to as “walking tree” (Socratea exorrhiza). I had seen this tree before in the Costa Rican rainforest, but did not pay much attention to until I questioned its peculiar shape. It occurred to me that if there is a difference in design, then there must be a difference in function. Hence I begun to wonder why this tree unlike any other tree is not monolithic, but looks like a huge tripod, more accurately multiplepod. So I learned that, Socratea exorrhiza a tree that can gradually move around in order to obtain the highest possible sunlight and nutrients. It moves by developing additional roots in the direction that it “wishes” (if I can use this word) to end up, and kills its own roots where it wants to move away from. That is to say, if you circle where a “walking tree” is located in January and check it out again at the end of December, you can see that a year or so later it has moved out of the circle. It moves, if and only if the sunlight and nutrients outside the circle are better-off.
I knew about plants, which are carnivorous and plants which are amazingly able to communicate with each other by sending off chemical messages through the air, warning of hungry predators approaching, but for me a “walking tree” was unheard of.
According to natural selection theory, the reason that a “walking tree” moves to a better location is because it extensively contributes to its survival. This implies that at one time a “walking tree” was just a regular tree, pretty much stationary and did not employ such a genius strategy – but gradually came up with the “idea”. Likewise, carnivorous plants, the flesh-eating vegetation at one point in the evolutionary history were just regular plants that somehow deviated from botanical norms and “decided” to take a drastically different path to increase their survivability. The same goes for “talking plants” which evolved to possess abilities to communicate and mobilize themselves against predators. However, such a ridiculous evolutionary claim can never be empirically tested as it is required by scientific standards. There is definitely a scientific problem here when scientific principles are not upheld, yet still, theories are propagated as though they are established facts. Empiricism is supposedly that which fundamentally distinguishes science from non-science, i.e. it refutes the existence of God. God’s existence cannot be empirically verified as some scientists propose, therefore it cannot exist. Moreover, nor does natural selection explain if a tree can “learn” why and how to shift its position, or how to communicate with other plants, or in the case of a carnivorous plant what to consume, why other trees and vegetation lack this handy quality.
Furthermore, if an animal behaves in an intelligent manner, biologists are often quick to attribute the intelligent element to an instinctual reaction. Obviously, the presence of consciousness and intelligence in the above case cannot be attributed to an unconscious living organism like a tree which even lacks instinct. So, who or what should then be credited with consciousness and intelligence involved in this case? This is a headache for the materialist evolutionists who dismiss intelligent design. They are unable to satisfyingly explain these questions. Thus, based on a single paper published in 2005 by a Costa Rican biologist Gerardo Avalos in the Journal Biotropica, they have started to argue that although Socratea exorrhiza keeps on growing new roots to replace the old ones, it actually does not walk. The notion of a “walking tree” is mythical. Well, no kidding. Of course, a tree cannot wander around on the forest floor the way animals and humans do. No one ever claimed that this particular tree could walk from Peru to Ecuador. Why appeal to the “Red Herring” fallacy and caricature reality?
Socratea exorrhiza shifts to where there is a better access to sunlight and nutrients, just the same way as any tree branches out, moves up higher above all other neighboring trees and vigorously competes with adjacent trees for sunlight. The new roots of Socratea exorrhiza are not developed where the old roots are located and are still alive. The slight gradual change in the location of this tree is due to its unusual rooting system which causes what can be best described as re-location, shifting or adjusting its position. The tree does not develop new roots at its center, but is always at the edge. For Socratea exorrhiza not to shift at all, its new roots ought to develop precisely at the same pinpoint location as the old one, which is logically impossible. Imagine a chair that it constantly replaces its own legs by death and re-birth of new legs, obviously by the passage of time the chair is not going to remain at its initial spot. There must be a reason in the first place for that chair to possess such a quality, i.e. it is designed that way and is pursuing a goal. Likewise, the Socratea exorrhiza invariably shifts as it grows. The point is, the fascinating feature of a Socratea exorrhiza is its unique ability to grow horizontally as well as vertically for a specific reason. And further, its unusual ability to develop new roots driven by its capability to identify more sunlight and nutrients in its surroundings. What is amazing for a tree is to have an unlike-tree characteristic, be that flesh-eating or ability to communicate, or ability to shift its roots. It has become a career for atheist evolutionists to argue against intelligence in design. For them, typically there is no limit into skepticism, things that are amazing and complex always just appear to be amazing and complex, or just happen by sheer chance without any cause. Our existence is just a glorious accident. If intelligence in design cannot be denied, the other option would be to belittle it.
Galapagos
There are so many different species of birds in the Galapagos, different in size, shape and colouration. Galapagos is a paradise for birdwatchers. There, you don’t really need a binocular, as one can get so close to them without scaring them away. They fly right above you, take off and land near you. If you walk on the edge of a cliff, you can see so many birds almost motionless above the ocean that are suspended up in the air only by having their wings opened without absolutely doing anything else. They patiently remain almost still in the air for a long period of time. When a fish is spotted, their brain quickly and accurately calculates the deflection of light from two different mediums (water & air) to precisely locate the position of that fish, then they shrink their body and make a sudden sharp plunge into the water to catch that fish. It is so easy to notice how they expand and counteract their body size to suit their needs. Wind and their bodily design combined with simple laws of aerodynamic keep them up like a weightless kite held by a long string, and when they dive, it is just like a bullet being fired off. I spent hours and hours watching and admiring the physical law by which an object of a few kilos or heavier can so effortlessly be suspended in the air without any support. By achieving zero buoyancy birds defy gravity. They demonstrate that within the physical law, there is a law to beat the law. Indeed, what a breathtaking beauty to witness such defiance. Unlike human’s actions of defiance, the bird’s defiance enhances the environment rather than diminishing it.
One fascinating feature to notice about all birds, in general, is that their “engine” and “landing gear” does not make noise during flight, take off or landing. You compare this feature with a turbine engine of any aircraft, which the level of noise generated is deafening. The reason why a flying metal makes so much noise is because its engine is not efficient, thereby it wastes so much energy by creating heat and noise. For instance, compare the design of an Albatross with a manmade bird-like Concorde. Back in the 70s, after spending 2.5 decades of research and development the top aerospace engineers from France and the UK introduced the first supersonic commercial aircraft: Concorde. At the time it was assumed that Concorde for centuries to come would remain as state-of-the-art aircraft in the aerospace industry, an engineering marvel, an everlasting aviation icon. The Americans not wishing to fall behind their European counterparts initiated their own project. However, the expectation was premature, as many major international airports around the world would not give landing rights to Concorde due to the loud noise generated. From 1976 to 2003 this aircraft ruled only the sky over the Atlantic connecting just a few major capitals. Yet despite billions of dollars spent in gradual modifications finally, Concorde had to go for an early retirement due to increasingly identified flaws in the design, poor safety record, environmental hazards and above all high maintenance cost. The failure of Concorde made Boeing to abort their Boeing 2707 project, a supersonic aircraft similar to Concorde developed by the best U.S. engineers. At the time, Boeing had 120 pre-paid orders from 26 airlines to manufacture this aircraft.
No bird has ever experienced such a tragic destiny. The decision made by the British, French and American authorities coined a new terminology in social philosophy and economics discourses known as the Concorde fallacy. It refers to attempts that may lead to bad decisions, a notorious shortsighted theoretical error made by business executives and governmental policymakers alike. It amounts to investing further in a bad project, product, etc. simply because one has already heavily invested in it and feels that cannot back off, rather than because of potential future return on the investment. In short, once one realizes that one is in a quicksand, it is best to cut one’s losses and get out as quickly as possible before it is too late. My point is that “Nature” has never committed a Concorde fallacy in its 4 billion years history of the so-called evolutionary “trial and error”. How is that possible in a system that is said to have evolved based on a “trial & error” and random mutation? Where was the error? There has never been such a thing as “bad design” or “a failure” in nature. We cannot even refer to extinct species as a “bad design”. Many species did not survive due to natural causes than manufacture’s defect. Mass extinctions meant to happen, we can never conclude that dinosaurs did not survive because they were poorly designed. Further, humans are largely responsible when some species of flora and fauna become extinct, endangered or threatened. It is due to our harmful activities and interference with the natural processes i.e. with the climate, expansion of urban areas, commercial overfishing, overhunting and poaching that threaten many habitats resulting in the extinction of species.
Those who study biomimicry attest that when it comes to design and manufacturing, the best of human technology does not even come close to what nature can produce. Materialists tend to easily overlook this fact. For instance, atheist physicist Leon Leaderman once remarked that give me matter and motion, and I will construct a universe for you! Some evolutionary biologists have also made similar proclamations that all they need is a living cell to create life from scratch. According to their view, God is totally unnecessary, a superfluous obsolete concept to explain the universe and how it was created. Oh, really? Talk about condescension, the degree of arrogance displayed here is colossal. Gentlemen, wake up, you are dreaming again. Forget about creating a universe with complex life forms, you fellows cannot even produce a basic toaster from scratch.
Suppose that after all you do create a universe with various life forms, well then thank you very much, you have just made a solid case for intelligent design.
Compare this conceited attitude with that of tribal Iranian carpet weavers. After working on a fine handmade Persian rug for a couple of years, the weaver initially feels that his silk rug is a perfect masterpiece. A small rug that can be auctioned in Sotheby’s or Christie’s for well over $25,000. This humble craftsman with no formal education thinks twice about his feelings. Upon reflection, he concludes that I am a fallible mortal human being incapable of creating perfection. I should know better where my place is in this universe, for perfection comes only from the Divine. So it is that he deliberately introduces an obvious noticeable flaw into his work, either in the use of colours or in the designed pattern. This act of meekness resulting in a conscious error is known as “Persian Flaw”. Do you see such a humility in Leon Leaderman, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, PZ Myers, Dan Barker, Sam Harris, or in any other hotshot gurus of atheism, the pioneers of “Bright Movement”? On the contrary, the noticeable common feature among all of them is sheer arrogance with a self-inflated ego.
These materialists act like ambitious entrepreneurs with no money and connections yet wishing to create a business empire from scratch. Suppose that the Divine provides them with matter and energy, as well as with a living cell, suppose that they do even create a fine and dandy universe profuse with life in a separate manmade time and space dimensions. So what? Having done that, do they then want to claim the credit for their “achievements” to discredit God? What did they do here that gives them a sense of “accomplishment”? Matter and energy are the two essential ingredients in the creation of the universe plus the physical laws, which turn matter and energy into an expanding universe. Matter, energy and living cell are no trivial components, they are everything there is. Nevertheless, having them is pointless without the governing physical laws that initiate the process from zero to completion. Since the beginning of recorded history for atheists to resolve the origination problem, has always been a headache for which there is one and only unique solution exists, the rest being escapism.
Further, if this hypothetical manmade universe is somehow created, it would be Leon Leaderman who triggered the process. He is the one who had the intelligence and know-how to construct a functioning universe. Let’s say with the help of an intelligent biologist complex life is also installed in this universe programmed to evolve from a single cell to a variety of higher life forms. By the same logic, who then triggered the construction of our universe, which gives birth to his? Where did the essential matter, energy and the first living cell required in this exercise come from? Surely, I cannot be the only one who sees a clear case of paralysis of analysis in the atheists’ view.
Moreover, consider this example, to incubate an egg all needed is the egg. However, what would you do with that egg and a high-tech electronic incubator if there was no physical law to turn the egg into a chicken. Has the factory-farming industry been able to eliminate the notion of God because chickens are now massively and mechanically hatched? I suppose for an atheist it has.
One sunny morning during our group hike in the uninhabited island of Española, I accidentally found a 1998 Canadian penny in the middle of nowhere. Paley’s argument immediately came to my mind. The only rational conclusion anyone can make out of this, is that a tourist coming from Canada must have dropped this penny. We all agree with the old adage that money does not grow on the trees. Canadian pennies do not evolve in the Galapagos and “Natural Selection” cannot be responsible for this penny being there. Therefore evolution must follow precise rules that allow simple organic compounds to evolve into complex forms, but prevents bacteria and algae to evolve into Canadian pennies. If we agree with this, then we should ask the next questions who set these guidelines?
One afternoon we were moving on our yacht from one island to another. As I was enjoying the ocean view from the top deck, I noticed two flies approached the yacht one after another and landed on a vertical beam next to where I was sitting. Without any hesitation they immediately started mating which lasted a few minutes, then they left separately. It appeared to me that a consensual agreement about copulation was already reached prior to arrival. The issue left for the two to resolve was to find a mating ground.
During my trip, I witnessed mating rituals and the sex act of several species, i.e. turtles in the water, llamas in the mountains, birds but this one was the most extraordinary one. I was puzzled that how a fly in the middle of the ocean first finds a promising mate and then a hard surface to engage in the act of mating. This certainly requires intelligence and a know-how to find both just at the right time, which apparently tiny flies are well equipped with.
Lying down on the deck provided me with the opportunity to observe several species of birds, which were constantly following the yacht to fish. For hours these birds were cruising like a glider behind us at the speed of 35–55 mph without flapping their wings. How is that for energy efficiency? A cheetah would never stop chasing a gazelle if it could run at no cost. Thanks to the wisdom in nature, there is a reason why most predators are conscious of their fuel expenditure, it has to do with the conservation of shared resources and predator-prey ratios. In order to maintain the intricate balance of nature, different rules are applied in different niches. For a cheetah too, it is not worth the extra drive if the price of gas is more expensive than the price of food obtained. So the cost efficiency of hunting is calculated before each attack.
Once at night and once early morning, I saw several species of sharks circling the yacht when it anchored. There was something attractive about our yacht to the fish. Maybe the kitchen’s wastes. Sharks came so close for the fish. I encountered sharks face to face several times during snorkeling, they seemed totally indifferent to human presence. Jellyfish, on the other hand, would sting easily whenever came into contact with swimmers. It is pretty fascinating to see a jellyfish closely, a transparent creature with no bone, blood or brain which is %98 made of water. If a dead jellyfish washed up on the beach, its carcass will disappear as the water quickly evaporates. I wonder what this beautiful creature uses for its eyes or brain. They look like bizarre extraterrestrial creatures from out of deep space.
In the Galapagos most animals, do not have predators, therefore they only die from natural causes, i.e. old age. In the case of baby seals, if the mother is killed by sharks, the baby dies too since the mother is no longer there to feed him/her. You can see the carcasses of many dead animals on the trail during any hike. One can witness that the death of one animal ensures the survival of another. It is also a reminder that even in this earthly paradise death is an inescapable end result of life for all.
The best part of my Galapagos Island tour was the visit to Bartolomé Island, one of the youngest Islands in the Galapagos collection. A major part of this Island is covered by volcanic lava plates roughly from 150 years ago laid down on top of the existing lava from over a million years ago. The relatively recent lava is like a black layer of rock covered the surface of fertile land. The old lava is all red already turned into stiff clay. It really resembles the surface of Mars. The black lava is orderly formed into a beautiful geometric pattern as it erupted and flattened on the surface. The contrast is fascinating, it seems like you are walking on a different planet. The red part hosts life while the black part is a barren wasteland.
During my hike on the black lava, I came across a few weeds and lava cactuses here and there, a sign of life coming back to this part of the Island. Seeing a cactus growing in a most inhospitable place was like witnessing life evolving on earth back a few billion years ago. The function of this unique plant is to pave the way for other vegetation and animals to grow. Somehow I felt that cactus was telling me: “Hey kid, come closer and take a good look at me. I am alive and growing on a lifeless solidified lava rock, hardly needing any water or nutrients, yet I supply both to others. Am I not a miracle enough? Am I not what you came here to see? This is as close as you are ever going to get to the Divine. Is this not close enough? You cannot remove the barrier between the human and the Divine. Praise your Lord.” Indeed I praised Him. How could I not? I saw one of the ubiquitous signs designed in nature and ironically one does not require a high definition vision or magnification to detect these prodigious signs. This observation reminded me that I myself used to be stardust evolved into a living organism with the ability to feel, to grow, to think, to learn, to love, to laugh, to die and finally to turn into dust again. All these signs indicate the Creator’s close and tangible presence. It felt just like what Moses could have experienced on Mount Sinai, an experience within everyone’s reach. The message that I picked up from this cactus is the same universal message that one would receive from the jellyfish, “walking tree”, owl butterfly that I encountered, the same message, which I had already received from a feather, dust particles and a grain of sand.
At the end of my trip, I was able to reconfirm what I had already learned in my previous trips elsewhere. It seems that the universe is not only more amazing than what we know so far, but even more than what we can ever suppose! Everything in the Andes, Amazon and the Galapagos points to and glorifies the Creator of life, be that a jellyfish, butterfly or lava cactus. They are all a sign from the Creator. If you can connect with animals, you then connect with the whole of nature, thereby are able to connect with the Creator of nature. You can testify that every species involuntarily follows a certain law, every species except humankind. A man may wish to exercise his free will and voluntarily follow this pattern just like the rest of the earth’s co-inhabitants. Or, he may shut off his faculties and follow his whims, a choice that each one of us has to make.
I learned that the earth and the whole of the universe cannot be a remarkable place if it is a product of a giant accident, if its remarkablity has just the appearance of the design, but is not at all designed. How can anyone be deeply moved by looking at the Milky Way through a telescope, be impressed by the beauty of a butterfly, or by the smell of a rose, if all you observe and experience is an outcome of a sheer accident, or at the most work of blind forces at large?
As for Mecca or the Galapagos, which of the two can bring one closer to the Divine. It should make no difference, if one can see the Divine signature in a minute speck of dust, in a grain of sand, in the fabric of a bird’s feather or in the geometric patterns of a snowflake. The Divine can be found everywhere. I yearn to be able to re-visit both places at least once more.
I have learned to be more thankful for everything that I have and understand that there is a reason for losing everything that I once had, or could never have. Life is a trial full of ups and downs, requires knowledge, patience and appreciation. Those who understand this are truly the successful ones. We are living in a universe where galaxies and solar systems are constantly colliding. Yet this horrifying phenomenon has never happened to our galaxy, life on earth is so peaceful. I do not recall that I personally have ever expressed gratitude to the Power responsible for not allowing this so common destructive occurrence to happen to our galaxy. Only if one stays focused, one can then bear witness that this is no accident, and we all have so much to be thankful for. To be mindful of this fact, is to realize that the Power responsible is indeed closer to us than our jugular vein. When you think of it, no one cannot thank this Power enough.
My discovery/confirmation journey will soon continue on another continent. I am preparing for my next trip to Africa, destinations: Etosha, Kalahari, Kruger and Serengeti.
May the Divine cast His endless mercy on all of us, and guide the seekers closer to the Truth.
Abstract: Atheism is fond of putting itself on a high pedestal and flaunting itself as a superior scientific viewpoint. It is time to expose that not only this Emperor has no clothes, but also he has a severely deformed body. The author makes a strong case against the atheists’ campaign strategy that pretending to be open-minded, does not validate their arguments or to say the least, make them look rational and sophisticated intelligencia. He asserts that ideological quarantine is a good indicator of who is truly intolerant and dogmatic, and concludes that atheism is just another form of false theism.
Centuries ago, a Medieval European King, Fredrick II was curious to know if no one ever spoke to a baby, what language that baby would naturally acquire when he or she grows up. Fredrick was wondering: could that language be a foreign tongue i.e.: Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Persian, etc. To satisfy his curiosity, he ordered a certain number of babies to be brought to a controlled nursery and kept in isolation. Their mothers were only allowed to come to breastfeed and bathe their babies, then leave immediately. Mothers were strictly prevented to converse with their own infants.[1] As it happened, the expected longitudinal study unpredictably did not last very long, for within a few months all babies forced to participate in this experiment died one after another. The cause of death was later identified to be a lack of care and interaction with the babies. In short, they all died from parental mallove. The tragedy is that Fredrick did not really need to conduct such a cruel empirical study; common sense would have sufficed to depose the proposed thesis.
Similarly, the above billboard sponsored by the Minnesota Atheist Organization suggests a parallel absurd hypothesis with respect to theism and the nature of belief surrounding the acceptance of the notion of the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. Proponents of atheism seem to propose that if parents and the social environment abstain from talking to children about the notion of such a Creator or “religion” in general, then the children would all grow up to be atheists. That is to say, they will somehow intrinsically end up believing in an accidental or uncaused eternal universe assembled by mindless self-guided cosmic processes of natural selection. Atheists erroneously assume that for children’s sake ideological quarantine is the best protection to immunize children against the “religion” virus. Daniel Dennett, one of the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism”, goes one step further; he believes parents’ teaching their own children their faith in God is a form of psychological abuse.[2] One may wonder: would he not teach his own atheistic belief to his own children, and if so, how is that not a form of psychological abuse?
Interestingly enough, the empirical data that some scientists demand to be so essential to prove the existence of the Uncaused Cause, is already there to disprove the above atheist’s unscientific assertion. Here, the atheist’s assertion, far from being intelligent, is indeed nonsense upon stilts, or in this case upon billboards.
The idea of not telling children what to believe and then examining their beliefs is nothing new. Such an experiment has been spontaneously conducted historically and cross-culturally over and over and over again, the result has consistently proven to be otherwise. Anthropological studies clearly show, for instance, what the isolated people in Papua New Guinea, the Capalco tribe of Pappara, the aborigines in Australia, the native North American Indians, and the African bushman believed before the European explorers or the colonialist conqueror landed at their foot door and started telling them what to believe. It was certainly not atheism; but theism of one form or another, a belief in one self-sufficient God, a non-personified creator, the sustainer and the cherisher of the universe who is not subject to aging, etc.[3] For example, the indigenous Maasai tribe in East Africa still believes in one supreme God, whom they call Ngai. Ngai is said to be neither male nor female. Ngai is the Creator of everything on the earth and in the sky.
Moreover, other indigenous people or ancient civilizations may have believed in an anthropomorphic god or multiplicity of gods like the Aztecs and Mayans. These two of the oldest civilizations are notorious for building magnificent pyramid shape temples all over South and Central America where they worshiped their gods. Some other primitive cultures believed in animal figure gods. The Greeks and Romans believed in a multiplicity of demi-gods, some mortal and some immortal. The Inuits of the Arctic worshiped nature; and Sedna, the goddess of the sea, depicted as an old woman, was their main deity. The ancient Chinese worshiped and made supplications to their ancestors. The pre-historic novice homo-sapiens of the Neolithic era who could not put two and two together were still cognizant of a power above themselves. They realized that they are not always in control. When they found themselves helpless, some tribes worshiped the sun, others the moon, or manmade idols, to show devotion performed the ritual animal sacrifice, etc.
An extensive £1.9 million research involving 40 separate studies conducted over 3 years in 20 countries with a diverse range of cultures, concludes that human beings are predisposed to believe in a supreme deity and the afterlife. Dr. Justin Barrett, an anthropologist and psychologist at Oxford University claims that in some cultures children believe in a God even when religious teachings are totally withheld from them.[4] Barrett provides compelling arguments against atheism as the natural state of the human mind.
Ironically, all atheists would tell you, for instance, “I became an atheist at the age of” 17, 21, 30 or whatever, meaning they used to believe in X, then converted to atheism. No one is born an atheist. It seems that atheism too is picked up somewhere along the way just like any other ideology that one may adhere to. X may have very well been an irrational prevailing doctrine with a nonsensical concept of God, but the irrationality of X does not justify a new belief in a mindless Eternity or that the universe is self-made; something just as irrational as X.
All these cases overwhelmingly suggest that Man is innately a worshiping species, and has the propensity to pose deep existential questions and search for meaning. While the object of worship may have varied from culture to culture, the act of worship has been nevertheless universal. On the contrary, anthropologists cannot find any culture, not even a single tiny subculture where people ever believed in atheism, agnosticism or in the notion that the universe came to exist out of nothing by a grand lottery-style game of random chance. Even in the present Western world where atheism is predominantly being flourished and systematically exported abroad, the atheists have recognized the vital need for something to be divinely cherished to replace the notion of God, i.e. the almighty god of materialistic scientism.
The atheists, consciously and subconsciously, transformed the supposedly simple rational empirical human investigation into an entity akin to some tribal primitive religions where nothingness actually exists before the universe and this nothingness was somehow capable of creating the universe! But, if one looks at this universe just at a casual glance, one can easily observe that this universe functions based on one and only one fundamental law. That is the inescapable and ubiquitous law of ‘cause and effect’. We can see this law present everywhere in both natural and social domains. Scientists should know better that in this physical universe nothing ever haphazardly just pops in and out of existence without any apparent or yet to discover cause(s). Now, we are told by atheist scientists who are experts on explaining the interrelationships between various aspects of ‘cause and effect’ that the universe of cause and effect had uncharacteristically no cause, that is, it is only the effect of a “no cause”. This explanation is contrary to elementary science and is so absurd as to be beyond comprehension, yet somehow it seems so widely accepted and promoted by atheist scientists in ivory towers that purport to shower scraps of knowledge to the masses below.
Furthermore, empirical science is being smoothly changed into a hybrid of science-fiction and conjectures, where filling the gaps with impossible-to-conceive speculations is seen as a necessity to neutralize the potential gains of credible theistic positions! For example, credible science and academic journals are full of articles promoting theories of multiple universes without empirical observational data, and farfetched stories of nonexistent causes causing the universe to spring into being from nothingness! Thus, in what is promoted under contemporary institutionalized science there is constructed, thanks to the ardent atheist-scientist, anti-science of the like, who unscientifically claim: causes do not need to ontologically exist to cause effects! In the absence of empirical data and logic, science seems to be emptied out to join the ranks of gods that satisfy the social needs of a particular community. This one is for the community of atheist scientists, secular humanists and their fans, disciples, institutions and associations. Do these atheist scientists, gurus and their staunch disciples not realize that by turning science into a new god on the block, and atheism/humanism into a new religion, they are actually making, quite ironically a strong case for theism?
The 20th century American philosopher, Paul Tillich argued that one’s god is indeed the ultimate concern of that individual.[5] For a Muslim, it is Allah, everything a Muslim does is to please Allah. For a Christian, it is the person of Jesus Christ. For some else it may be fame, for others it could be money and power. For evolutionists, it is the higher principle of natural selection, which constitutes as the Absolute. We owe our existence to this higher principle alone. When the belief “there is no god” or scientism becomes the ultimate concern, as it has become for many atheists, to the extent that their whole life and career revolve around this central issue, then they too end up having faith and religious beliefs involving a total act of acceptance and surrender to the ultimate concern.
Irrational Foundation of Atheism
Atheism advocates that our universe may not be anything complex, special or significant. Furthermore, something can indeed spontaneously evolve from nothing with no external agency. For them, the universe with such intertwined multifaceted life support systems on Earth is a prime case in point.[6] Therefore, the self-created universe out of absolutely nothing makes the notion of God a redundant fairytale.
The universe is said to be like this image, self-created. Is this sculpture self-created? For the universe to create itself, it must have existed prior to its creation to create itself. The cause of the universe cannot be within the universe.
Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist calculated that the probability of life developing on earth after the Big Bang by sheer chance is 1 followed by 10123 successive ‘0’s.[7] Apart from an impossible probability, for something to be created spontaneously and absolutely out of nothing, if possible at all, you got to have conducive conditions to allow this phenomenon to happen. There must be a physical law to allow self-creation to spontaneously start, and systematically evolve. Thus, the atheist refutation in itself is a form of argument from design, which requires a Designer and a Facilitator. A Being must have came up with the idea to create the universe in this fashion and set the prerequisites, this Being is the very same God that is being refuted. Consequently, if we accept that the cause of the universe was accidental and a self-starter, and all the processes involved are also accidental, self-designed, self-guided and everything from the Big Bang to the present time was accidentally put on automatic-pilot, this still does not prove that there is no God. Because a crucial question remains ignored, that is: who came up with the idea that the universe can be spontaneously created out of nothing, who came up with the idea of what and how the processes of this accidental universe should be, both at micro and macro levels? Who came up with the idea that for instance, fire burns, water wets and not the other way around if there is no purpose involved? When there is an idea, there ought to be a mind that produces that idea. “I think, therefore I am”, Descartes asserted against radical skeptics, where he concluded that the act of thinking firmly proves the existence of the thinker. Likewise, one can be as skeptical as one could be, and argue that the existence of this majestic universe, this miraculous physical universe is totally inconclusive to prove that it has a Creator. However, the idea of creation out of nothing in any shape and form alone proves that there is a “Mind” behind it who came up with the idea to create and set the mechanism for its evolutionary development. The greatness of this creation directly correlates with the greatness of the “Mind” of this Entity.
Astronomer Carl Sagan says: “In many cultures, it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask [the] next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”[8]
There are many atheists like Sagan who have a problem with the claim that the Being who created the universe always existed and has no creator. However, they seem to have no problem believing that His creation, the universe, always existed and is eternal. If one can think that it is possible to conclude that the universe always existed, then why not take one step further and conclude the Creator of this universe always existed. Or, if you are not certain about the former, how can you be certain about the latter. Is this position not so inconsistent? Atheists have a problem in believing in an uncreated God, but they have no problem in believing in a non-conscious, un-originated universe. Furthermore, if one assumes that the Uncaused Cause must too have a cause behind it, then the question would be, what was the cause of the uncaused cause, etc., thereby leading to a black hole of infinity with no end to reach. The reality is that one of the two options, either God or the universe must have always existed. The atheist choice of the universe, a finite physical reality over God is not based on empirical evidence and moreover leaves the question of consciousness and intelligence ingrained in the processes of the universe completely unanswered.
Although, in criticizing an all-open concept of “religion”, atheists may throw some good punches where it deserves, in defense of atheism they are utterly helpless to justify their own belief. They often mix sense with nonsense, the end result being multiple nonsense. Further, it appears that atheists cannot scientifically validate their own claims and depend on assumptions and blind faith. Their ubiquitous claim of rational superiority is hollow and often more disingenuous than the competition.
Moreover, in criticizing opponents, the atheist ideology suffers from the glass-house syndrome, as atheism too is being propagated by indoctrination, peer pressure and propaganda and not merely by free inquiry, for otherwise, why would anyone bother setting up such a big billboard? What is the purpose of it? Who pays for the billboard and why? Who is speaking here for that neutral child in the picture? Judging from the poster above and below, who is really appealing here to sneaky indoctrination tactics and effective advertising schemes?
To have the upper hand, the game plan is to manipulate the masses in order to make them think that the debate between atheism vs. theism is polarized. Science and reason are exclusively on the atheist side, and sheer blind faith with violent tendencies on the theist side, while, in reality the truth could be quite the opposite. Or, at least the atheists could be as intransigent about their own pseudo-scientific views as the religious people they so badly despise. Each of them can be the obverse and converse of the same coin. Atheists always superciliously and bullishly portray that whoever believes in theism in general, is an intolerant religious fanatic fundamentalist, a gullible fool, a stupid close-minded loser. Surely some theists are, but it is absurd to generalize that all theists are as described as such. Conversely, whoever believes in atheism is an independent hardcore critical thinker with ‘scientific objectivity’ at his or her disposal. If this campaign strategy is not deliberate, it is then puzzling, as to what is indeed the basis of this arrogant and unsubstantiated assumption that they alone have sound intellect, and what makes them to think that their own conviction is not a product of subtle or direct indoctrination? If belief concerning the Uncaused Cause is only a product of indoctrination, not an individual rational investigation and verification, then logically the belief in atheism is not immune to this criticism either. Thereby, the allegation made with respect to all religions would also apply to atheism. One can argue, all children should be protected from indoctrination of all kinds, including from this new organized faith-based secular religion called atheism. In the above case, the indoctrination seems to have been sponsored by the Minnesota Atheist group, an identical church-like organization in the USA competing for the market share in the business of follow-me. The difference between the two is, this organization is mass promoting the view that they do not believe in God, a veritable fairytale which does not exist. God is put in the same category as Santa Claus, vampires, mermaids and unicorns; however, this is the only fairytale that its unbelievers need to form a community and persistently brag about their disbelief.
Just like other religions, organized atheism too has different denominations, i.e. agnosticism, secular humanism, Darwinian evolutionary atheism, dialectic materialism, etc. Similarly, they have their own priests and imams; they have their own congregations and conventions. What is the difference between a man who claims he knows better just because he is a well-known scientist, with another man who acts like he knows it all, because he is the Pope or the Grand Ayatollah?
Each atheist sect engages in missionary work to persuade theists to give up their theistic belief, tries its best in recruiting more members, and appeals to propaganda like the ostentatious approaches adopted by the group calling themselves: “The Thinking Atheist”.[9] Or, the Atheist Alliance International, is a global umbrella organization of atheist groups around the world committed to promoting atheism and the eradication of religion for a secular world.
What if to avoid falling behind, the competition uses the same pretentious and effective PR campaign, which seems now imperative. Perhaps all churches in Minnesota should call themselves the Minnesota theists group/organization or Assembly of Trinitarians (AOT). This approach not only may not raise an eyebrow, it could, to the contrary, totally polish up their tarnished theocratic image and beat the atheists at their own game. Cosmetic surgery is costless in theology, likewise other groups can adopt the same makeover approach. For instance, a Hindu temple can be called: the House of Vegetarian Polytheists (VHP), a mosque can be called, the Center for Believers in the First Cause (CBFC), a synagogue can be referred to as Society for the Privileged “Chosen People” (SPCP), etc.
Furthermore, it is puzzling, if the message of the above billboard would have been, for instance, there is no god, but the God, it is indoctrination. However, if the message is: there is no God whatsoever, it is then considered to be a bright thought or critical thinking. Thus, the difference between critical thinking and indoctrination is not in the process or methodology by which one arrives at a conclusion, but in the final Finish line. The difference seems arbitrary and has nothing to do with science or the assertion of a dogma; it is all about the preferred or un-preferred belief. To truly protect children against indoctrination is not to prevent them from exposure to the opposing ideas i.e. the intelligent design and restrict them merely to a particular favoured theory i.e. evolution. It is to create a free healthy environment for them to explore all the existing ideas and let them decide freely on their own. Let the chips fall where they will. This would be the real intellectual freedom, and the exercise and development of true critical thinking.
The fact is, Truth, whatever it is, needs not to be manufactured or to be subject to modes of indoctrination, it must, rather be sought and discovered irrespective of what everyone around us thinks it is, irrespective of the desires, the inclinations and prejudices including the seekers and discoverers themselves. As a wise man once said, Truth with the capital T is not for the complacent who makes no efforts, it is for the genuine seeker who questions and earnestly separates facts from myth.
Mehran Banaei is a freelance writer and author with a Master’s Degree in Social Philosophy from York University. He has no “religious” axe to grind; his area of keen interest is to look for the Divine signature, from snowflakes and feathers to the distant galaxies.
References:
[1] Shattuck, Roger (1994), The Forbidden Experiment, Kodansha International Ltd., Chapter 2.
[2] Dennett, Daniel C. (2006), Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Penguin Group, page 326.
[3] Hammond Atlas of World Religions (2009), Langenscheidt Publishing Group.
Hinnells, John R. (1997), Dictionary of Religions, Penguin Books.
[4] Barrett, Justin L. (2011), Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief, Free Press.
[5] Tillich, Paul (1957), Dynamics of Faith, Harper Torchbooks.
[6] Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012), A Universe From Nothing, Free Press.
[7] Penrose, Roger (1989), The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, page 445.
From the emerging dawn of human civilization, Man has always reflected on the origin of the universe. He has marvelled at the beauty and the order manifested in it. Like an earnest child asking inquisitively why the canopy of the sky has the hue of blue, mankind, in general, has always sought answers to such seemingly perplexing questions, having to do with the origins and destiny of the whole of existence. In a state of deep yearning, he stares at a starry sky and wonders: where does this universe start, where does it end? Does it have an actual edge, and if so what lies beyond it? He wonders: why does nature behave the way it does? As he contemplates, he sees the pattern of birth and death in the animate as well as in the inanimate world. In addition, he knows that his own body is not immune to this scheme either. But, what about this universe as a whole? Did this vast universe have a beginning in time, and if so would it ever finally come to an end?
With the progression of scientific knowledge in this century, we have been able to gain a better understanding of the immensity of the cosmos. We have become privileged witnesses to the beginning of creation. It is now well established that space is rapidly expanding as all the countless galaxies, which are sprinkled in the stretching fabric of space are receding from each other at tremendous velocities approaching that of the speed of light. This would mean that once, the entire universe had been a single dimensionless point where there was absolutely no space and absolutely no time, for these were originated in a flashing instant when that singular point exploded to form space and time. For beings like us, who have always been engulfed within the dimensions of space and time, it is indeed difficult to visually conceptualize that somehow space and time were simultaneously brought into existence from oblivious non-existence.
Further knowledge confirmed this astonishingly unique event, when it was detected on a radiowave antenna that a constant background radiation permeates the whole of space. This background noise was no doubt the primeval remnant of that explosion which took place less than 15 billion years ago, commonly referred to as the Big Bang — the singular moment in the creation of the totality of the universe.
But from this explosive expansion, it was not disorder which resulted, but rather a deep penetrating order. Unlike any explosion that results in destruction, this explosion resulted in the construction, of an imaginable scale –- the universe. Through the course of time, as the universe cooled, many structures arose: galaxies were formed that were comprised of immensely dense clusters of stars, flowing relentlessly across a vast cosmic ocean of space. In time, planets formed and subtle processes came into effect which allowed the emergence of life on earth. Subsequently, biological life developed due to the vital presence of the water-cycle and similar processes, producing a great diversity of plants and animals. Without water, there would have been no life springing from the dry earth. Remarkable balances between the living and non-living components of our planet allowed for the preservation, sustenance and continuation of life. The nurturing rays of the sun provided growth for life. Plants started to give off oxygen, which was necessary for all breathing beings, and animals returned carbon-dioxide which was necessary for the plants. Furthermore, each animal arose to be specialized and functioned to maintain the balances in nature. Without these processes, life would not have been possible.
By reflecting on the interpenetrations of origins and destiny, we may fully appreciate that so many are the celestial bodies that permeate space that they remain countless within its ever-expanding horizon. Yet even within this cosmologically stretching fabric, strewn with innumerable galaxies, we have not, thus far, conclusively been able to empirically determine the existence of any other ecosystems and extraterrestrial life.
It was with the advent of these biological processes on earth, that there came a time when the most complex organism arose: the human being. Yet in essence, a human being, within his own lifetime, issues from the very processes inherent within the vastness of cosmic order. Human life begins with conception, and then, in just nine months, a nearly microscopic fertilized egg-cell is transformed through a truly remarkable process into a human infant, possessing a heart, brain, eyes, muscles, lungs, and all the biological systems needed for survival outside the mother’s womb. It is indeed amazing to envisage that in the combination of such a tiny, minuscule part of a drop of male semen and a female egg there exist specific parts responsible for the development of our complex body, mind and social being. In just a few years after birth, this newborn baby has grown into a human being well capable of learning a multitude of languages, of familiarizing himself with his environment, and has the capacity to be creative, learning to interact with others of his own kind and other species.
As this human being is maturing and aging, the process of intellectual development and questioning continues actively, and as a sense-making creature, he ponders on his origins and about his place in the universe. He becomes aware of the fact that the omnipresent face of death is an inescapable consequence of life. He also becomes aware of the rapidity with which the dead body deteriorates, when in time, it will be turned into nothing but a pile of rotting bones, and then face a further reduction from bones to dust — dust to dust … under the dust to lie. This appears to be our common heritage and unavoidably our common destiny, the transition of man from birth to death, the journey of mankind from noble extraction to a hopefully noble extinction. He came from nothing and, finally, will merge back into nothingness, for in nature, just as things began, so too will they end. He knows that he is residing on this earth for only a short while and once he is departed, shall return no more. Thus, he curiously looks up at the starlit sky, seeking to know if there is anything beyond his death.
Just as our sun had its own birth billions of years ago, so too is it eventually destined to extinguish itself into a shrunken, collapsed dead star and with it our earth will be rendered devoid of life, where once it had been so profuse. Life on earth is crucially dependent on the sun; indeed, had the earth’s orbit been even slightly offset in either direction, water and the resulting forms of life would not have emerged. Yet, our sun is only one tiny speck of light amidst an ordered scattering of billions upon billions of objects distributed throughout the vast reaches of space in time, which are all experiencing the same patterns of birth and death in the cosmos.
But will the universe, which had its birth with the emergence of space and time, also have its fate sealed with the end of space and time? It is now well established that depending on the density of the universe, it will either fade away into an infinite void as the stars disintegrate into a sea of obsolete radiation, or conversely, it will collapse into a Big Crunch as it reaches the limits of its expansion. In the Big Crunch, the overwhelming density of matter and energy would have the effect of contracting the universe back into one singular point due to immense gravitational forces. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome is, it appears certain that the universe will end up either in the emptiness of space, where time will not be significant, or in the nothingness of absolutely no space and time, just as it was in the beginning. This is not an obscure fantasy nor is it far-fetched science-fiction. It is derived from facts and scientific knowledge, even though it is not visually conceptualizable that space and time will simply vanish into the Nothingness of Nowhere.
We have seen that this universe has originated from the non-existence of space and time. The emergence of life into the intelligent consciousness of man has been facilitated and is dependent on the unfolding of time by precisely arranged, intelligently structured laws of nature. We have also seen that the universe will eventually devolve into a realm of nothingness. But why did it originate in the first place? And then why should it disappear again? From nothing to something and then from something to nothing with no meaningful purpose and no purposeful end? Is this a cosmic joke? Is this all there is?
This article was published in The Journal of Islamic Thought and Scientific Creativity, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1992.
Mehran Banaei 