Ch 6 — God: Voice of Human Nature / Voice of Nature: From Denial to Acknowledgment
God And The Universe — Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Badges mark quoted or attributed material (Qur'an, hadith, another author, an opposing view). Unbadged passages are Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's own words.
Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe (b. 1939) is a Sri Lankan-born British mathematician, astronomer, and astrobiologist. He was a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, from 1963 to 1973, until he became a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at University College Cardiff. Later, he moved to the University of Buckingham as Director of the Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, University of Buckingham. In 2015, he was elected Visiting scholar at Churchill College, Cambridge, England. He spent many years working on the issue of the origin of life on Earth with noted British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (who served as the Director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and was President of the Royal Astronomical Society). The duo, regarded as among Britain’s most eminent scientists, published their research findings in a jointly-authored book, Evolution From Space (1981). p. 278
According to an article that was published in The Hindustan Times (September 6, 1981), when Hoyle, an agnostic of Christian background, and Wickramasinghe, an atheist Buddhist, began researching the origin of life, they believed that the notion of a Creator was inconsistent with science. But then something quite remarkable happened. “Today,” the article explained, they are “changed, men. They believe.” The article ‘Conversion to God’ mentioned above is
being reproduced. p. 279original + quote
Conversion to God p. 279
There wasn’t much to agree on when two of Britain’s most eminent scientists began researching life’s origin. But on one point they were both quite clear—that the notion of ‘Creator’ is inconsistent with science. Today, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, an agnostic of Christian background and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, an atheist Buddhist, are changed men. They believe. What convinced both men were the calculations they each did independently into the mathematical chances of life starting spontaneously. p. 279
Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were staggering—in mathematical jargon, ‘10 to the power of 40,000.’ If you write down the figure ‘1’, you have the figure and add 40,000 noughts after it. “That number is such an imponderable in the universe that I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth,” says Wickramasinghe, who has worked with Hoyle since 1962. “It is quite a shock,” says Wickramasinghe, Sri Lankan-born Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at University College, Cardiff. “From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it.” p. 280
They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were ‘10 to the power of 30.’ As they say in their book, Evolution From Space: “Once we see that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourite properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Wickramasinghe says: Fred was tending much more than I towards the higher intelligent Creator. I used to argue against it, but I lost every argument. I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. If I could have found an argument even a flimsy one—I wouldn’t have been party to what we wrote in the book. We used to have open minds; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation, not accidental random shuffling. I hope that one day I may return to favour a purely mechanistic explanation—I say ‘hope’ because I still cannot come to terms with my conversion. My being a Buddhist—albeit not ardent—was never a problem because it is an atheistic religion which doesn’t profess to know anything about creation and doesn’t have a creator built into it.’ But I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way to understand the precise ordering of the chemicals except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. “The two also believe that cellular life had already evolved to a high degree before the Earth was born, about three and a half billion years ago. “We received life with the fundamental biochemical problems already solved,” says Wickramasinghe: We were hoping, as scientists, that there would be a way round our conclusion—but there isn’t. Logic is still hopelessly against that.” (The Hindustan Times, September 6, 1981) p. 280unverified
From the above article, it can be seen that what convinced the two scholars were the calculations they each did independently, which led to the mathematical chances of life starting spontaneously to be minuscule. Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were staggering—in mathematical jargon, ’10 to the power of 40,000’ (that is, 1, followed by 40,000 zeroes). “That number is so imponderable in the universe that I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth,” Wickramasinghe stated. p. 281original + quote
“It is quite a shock,” the article quoted Wickramasinghe. “From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it.” p. 281other source
Both scientists independently calculated the mathematical probability of life beginning by chance based on the size and age of the universe. Their separate investigations converged on the same conclusion: the chance emergence of life is not mathematically possible. They calculated that if the probability of a random occurrence is considered “one,” the opposing probabilities are so numerous that to count them, forty thousand zeros would need to be written to the right of the ‘one’. “The number of existing volume and age (15 billion years) in the universe is so incomprehensibly vast that I am absolutely certain that life could not have started suddenly on our Earth,” Wickramasinghe said. p. 282original + quote
According to the article, Wickramasinghe remarked that Hoyle tended much more than he was towards the higher intelligent Creator. Wickramasinghe used to argue against it, but he lost every argument. “At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God,” Wickarmasinghe explained, adding that “the only logical answer to life is creation and not accidental random shuffling.” p. 282other source