Badges mark quoted or attributed material (Qur'an, hadith, another author, an opposing view). Unbadged passages are Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's own words.
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY p. 138
Professor Paul Davies, a well-known American writer who is also Director of a research centre at Arizona State University, has written many thought-provoking books, one of which is titled ‘The Goldilocks Enigma.’ One of his research articles was published in ‘The Guardian’ and was reproduced in ‘The Hindu,’ in its June 27, 2007, edition titled: ‘The Flaw in the Creationists’ Argument.’ This article is reproduced below: p. 138other source
“We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith, divinity, or physical laws. The true meaning is to be found within nature. Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth—the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and unique features in the universe’s underlying laws that seem necessary for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them, and the result would be lethal. To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob, and you make all electrons a bit lighter; twiddle that one, and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. p. 138
It happens that you need to set 30-something knobs to describe the world about us fully. The point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned precisely, or the universe would be sterile. For example, neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms could not exist because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the Big Bang. There are no protons, then no atomic nuclei, and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear’s porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems just right for life. So what’s going on? Fueling the controversy is an unanswered question lurking at the heart of science—the origin of the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as “given,” elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth and fixed after that. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science. p. 139unverified
Illusory Impression p. 139
But the embarrassment of the Goldilocks enigma has prompted a rethink. The Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees, president of ‘The Royal Society,’ suggests the laws of physics are not absolute and universal but more akin to local bylaws, varying from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s eye view would show our universe as a single representative amid a vast assemblage of universes, each with its bylaws. Mr. Rees calls this system “the multiverse,” and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. A universe will rarely possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life within the variegated cosmic quilt. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe customized for habitation; we would hardly exist in one where life is impossible. The multiverse theory cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. p. 140original + quote
For a start, a physical mechanism must make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its laws or meta-laws. Where do they come from? p. 140
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its law-like order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better. This shared failure is unsurprising because the notion of physical laws originates in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that eternal laws govern the universe, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe. p. 140original + quote
Outdated Theory p. 141
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? I propose that the laws are like computer software: programs run on the fabulous cosmic computer. They emerge with the universe at the Big Bang and are inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker’s mark. Man-made computers are limited in their performance by finite processing speed and memory. So, too, the cosmic computer is limited in power by its age and the finite speed of light. Seth Lloyd, an engineer at MIT, has calculated how many bits of information the observable universe has processed since the Big Bang. The answer is one, followed by 122 zeros. Crucially, however, the limit was smaller in the past because the universe was younger. Just after the Big Bang, when the basic properties of the universe were being forged, its information capacity was so restricted that the consequences would have been profound. p. 141
Here’s why. If a law is a truly exact mathematical relationship, it requires infinite information to specify it. In my opinion, however, no law can apply to a level of precision finer than all the information in the universe can express. Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealization with no shred of real-world justification. The laws must be seriously fuzzy in the first split second of cosmic existence. Then, as the universe’s information content climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself. (Paul Davies is Director of Beyond, a research centre at Arizona State University, and author of The Goldilocks Enigma.) p. 142other source
Taken from: ‘The Flaw in the Creationists’ Argument,’ The Hindu, June 27, 2007 p. 142
Commentary p. 142
In the above article, Paul Davies notes, “Scientists are gradually reaching an inconvenient truth, that the universe is an exceedingly precise cosmos. Scientists have been studying the laws of nature that operate in the universe for the past forty years. This research points towards a conscious Being behind the universe. If any one of the laws of the universe is altered, the result would be catastrophic. The universe is so finely tuned that even a minor alteration in its current structure could lead to its unravelling. p. 142other source
Davies gives the example that the entire universe comprises atoms, and the nucleus of each atom is a combination of neutrons and protons. Neutrons are somewhat heavier, and protons are slightly lighter. This ratio is critically important. If it were reversed, meaning protons were heavier and neutrons lighter, atoms would cease to exist according to known laws. Without a nucleus, there would be no atom; without atoms, there would be no chemistry, and without chemistry, there would be no life. p. 143other source
This example suggests that current science faces insurmountable questions, like where the current laws of physics come from, why they maintain their current precise state, etc. Traditionally, scientists assumed that these laws were inherent in the universe. The search for the reality of the laws of nature was not considered the domain of science. But now, these questions are bothering scientists. p. 143original + quote
Davies further writes that Cambridge scientist Martin John Rees, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, suggests that the laws of physics are not absolute and universal but are parts of a more extensive cosmic system. Each part has its own rules. He calls this system the multiverse system. According to this research, our universe is one of those that carries bio-friendly laws. This implies that we find the universe in a form that exactly matches our needs. If this were not the case, human existence here would be impossible. Where did these precise laws that control the universe in such an organized manner come from? p. 143original + quote
According to modern thinkers, the cause of all these problems is that both religion and modern science, which provide a conception of the universe, demand an agency outside the universe that is managing the universe. However, acknowledging a designer who existed before the universe to account for the direction of the universe is not an explanation. This explanation immediately raises the question, ‘Who designed the designer?’ p. 144original + quote
If there is an ultimate meaning to life, as I believe, the answer should be found within nature itself, not outside of it. The universe could be a precise cosmos, but if so, it has made itself so.” p. 144
After analyzing the article, I would like to offer clarification. p. 144
In theology (ilahiyaat), the modern mind is a victim of severe confusion. We have an idea of this from this article by Professor Paul Davies. Atheist philosophers have been asking: if, according to religious belief, God made the universe, then who created God? But this question is illogical. It is a negation of logic. p. 144original + quote
Furthermore, this objection is based on an apparent contradiction in thinking. This is because the question comes from those who believe in the universe without a Creator, but so far as their belief in a Creator is concerned, they need a Creator of the Creator. Yet, if the universe’s existence is possible without a Creator, then the existence of the Creator, too, should be possible without a Creator. p. 144
In the above article, Paul Davies explores the fine-tuning in the universe and analyses the extraordinary balance of physical constants that allow life to exist. These bring existential questions about God’s existence and man’s place in the cosmos. p. 145original + quote