Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

13) Russell's “Arguments”

Why I Am NotA Christian is a collection of Bertrand Russell's essays and papers “on religion and related subjects.” Professor Paul Edwards, the editor of the book, says that these essays are “perhaps the most moving and the most graceful presentation of the free-thinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.” This statement, coupled with the name of Russell, was enough to compel one to study the book with high expectation of scholarly and logical discourses on the subject of religion. Whether those expectations were justified will be seen from a few comments appended below:- The first thing which comes before the eyes is the inconsistency of the arguments. Russell called himself afree-thinker , and during a debate with Rev. F. C.Copleston he said that he was not an atheist but an agnostic.

The position of atheists is that non-existence of Godcan be proved . The agnostics, on the other hand,say that “man does not andcan not in the nature of things know anything about a spiritual existence, either of God or man or of any after-death state.” Theyassert that “man's only cognition can be of the phenomenal world (that is, the world which may be perceived by one of the five senses)”. According to them, it does not mean that there may not be anoumenal entity (that is, an entity known through intellectual institution only) or soul behind the phenomenal world.

The agnostics repudiate even atheism or materialism on the ground that these theories are dogmatic. They say that if you cannot know a thing, you have no right to reject it. An agnostic's one and only answer to all questions concerning soul, God or spiritual existence is that “we do not know and there are so far no reasonable grounds for believing that we shall ever know. In other words, man, being finite, can never comprehend Infinite.”

Rev.Copleston had asked Russell at the beginning of their debate (in 1948): “Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?” Russellreplied: “No, I should not say that; my position is agnostic.”

If Russell believed in agnosticism, then his only answer about all questions concerning God, or life after death should have been “I do not know.” Instead, he declares right on the jacket of the book, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.” Another example: Russell says at the beginning of the preface: “I think all the great religions of the world -Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity,Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmful.

It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true.” After this statement, one would expect him to look at each of the above religions in turn to prove why even one of them was not true.But he did not feel obliged in any of his essays to bring this argument to its logical end. He just said that, “since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true,” and then arbitrarily concluded that not even one of them was true!

This type of inconsistency goes on from essay to essay; and one finishes the book with a feeling that if these essays would have been written by a lesser being thanRussell , the publishers would not have designed to publish them.

The first article Why I Am NotA Christian was delivered as a lecture in 1927; Russell has tried in this lecture to repudiate the arguments of Church for the existence of God. Hesays: “Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained thatevery thing we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) …

I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of 18, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography and I there found this sentence: `My father taught me that the question, `Who made me?' cannot be answered since it immediately suggests the further question, `Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.”

Now, Russellhas, perhaps unwittingly, misquoted the arguments of believers. To refresh the memory, the readeris advised to read again Chapter 2 and 3 of this book. There he will find, inter alia, the following sentences: “Asevery thing in this universe falls under the category of `mumkinu'l-wujud ' (Transient), it has equal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist; sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore, there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to terminate their existence.”

And then comes the important point which Russell has missed. The point is that that source or cause should not itself be justTransient .Otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to bring it into existence.And this chain of cause and effect must stop on a cause which needs no outside source or cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause of this universe must be 'Self-existent'. If one compares the Islamic version of the argument of `The First Cause' (as given in this book) with the version of the Church as presented by Russell at the beginning, one finds two important differences.

Hesaid: “Everything we see in this world has a cause.”But he should have said: “Everything we see in this world is transient and as such must have a cause for its existence.” Again, hesaid: “As you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause.” But he should have said:” You must come to a Cause which is not transient, which is Self-existent (whose very essence is the existence itself).” Read his version with these amendments, and see how his objections loose every weight. Russell thought it sufficient to scoff at this argument off-handedly. “I can illustrate what seems to me (the believers') fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother and it seems to me (their) argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother.”

It seems tome that it is Russell who is indulging in fallacy. He has failed to note that the believers do not say that `every transient thing has a transientcause, therefore, the whole universe should have a transient cause.' Our argument is that, as all the components of the universe are transient, and as a collection of billions of transient things is still transient, the whole universe is still transient, and as such must have an external cause to bring it into existence.And that cause must beSelfexistent .And as He is Self-existent, the question, `Who made God?' doesn't arise.

14) Creation by Chance? Without a Creator?

Russel furtherwrote: “If there can be anything without a cause it may just as well be the world as God.”

The reason why the world could not have existed or come into being without aCause, is that its componentssome times exist andsome times cease to exist.So there is nothing in their essence, in their nature, to demand existence. If they exist, it must be because of ahand which tilted the scale infavour of existence; if they cease to exist it must be because that hand has now tipped the scale towards nonexistence. Russell: “Nor there is any reason why it (the world) should not have always existed.” The claim that the world may have always existed is refuted by allprevalant theories of science: This is quite apart from the fact that a collection of transient things could notexist ” always”.

The reader should read Chapter 7 again, where he will find that whatever view one takes, matter cannot be provedto be eternal (without beginning and without end).

Again he says: “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause.”

Before commenting further on this sentence, let me quote his words (from the same article) where he refutes the idea that there is any “natural law”.

He writes: “There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only once in thirty six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time, we should think that there was design.”

Here Russell admits that if events appeared in the same sequenceagain and again it would be a proof that there was design. Now, one wonders why he did not spare a few moments looking at the well-planned andsuperbly-executed movements of the galaxies, stars, planets and moons? Let us supposethat there is someone in outer space who has never heard about earth or human beings . Then one day he sees aspace-ship streaking past and after some time another one, and then another one. Of course, their paths are not the same, and the gap between their appearances is not systematic so that itmight be measured and estimated in advance . But he knows that eachspace-ship contains thousands of parts which are well connected to each other and together they form a superblyeffecient apparatus.

What wouldRussel think of him if he were to declare that thosespace-ships had come into being without a creator?

And how strongly would he have condemned the arrogance of that inhabitant of outer space, if all the space-ships would have been well regulated in their paths and frequency?And , remember that those space-ships have no connection with each other. Compare that with this universe of uncounted millions of galaxies, each having millions of solar systems, eachsystem containing numerous planets, and the planets having their various moons etc.And all of them “bound” together in the chain of gravity, each influencing itsneighbour , and in turn being influenced by it.And then think that Mr. Russell says that it was not proof of any design.

Frank Allen, former professor of Biophysics in University of Manitoba, Canada, writes in hisarticles: The Origin of the World: By Chance of Design: “If in the origin of life there was no design, then living matter must have arisen by chance. Now chance, or probability as it is termed, is a highly developed mathematicaltheory which applies to that vast range of knowledge that are beyond absolute certainty. This theory puts us in possession of the soundest principles on which to discriminate truth from error, and to calculate the likelihood of the occurrence of and particular form of an event.

“Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,oxygen andsulphur , with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in Nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish this task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, CharlesEugen Guye1 , has made the computation and finds that the odds against such anoccurence are 10 ^ 160 to 1, or only one chance in 10 160, that is, 10miltiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words2 .

The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions( 10 243 ) of years3 .

“Proteins are made from long chains called amino acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrongway they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J. B.Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (1048 ) .4

It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.”But there are incalculable billions of molecules of protein in only one human body, let alone the whole earth. Theyare created systematically and still Russell clings to his theory of chance Frank Allen goes on to say: “But proteins as chemicals are without life. It is only where the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only Infinite Mind, that is God, could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.”

Russell hasendeavoured to challenge this argument in these words: “You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, itis argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot.I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nosewas designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearlyso wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environmentwas made to be suitable to them, but they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaption. There is no evidence of design about it. ”

Let us suppose, for the time being, that the living creatures adapted themselves to their environment.But was Russell really blind to the fact that longlong before the “living creatures” came on this earth, this earth, its atmosphere, its whole structure, together with its relations with sun and other planets and moon had been “made” in such a way that the life became possible at all. Does he want us to believe that the living things, that is, the animals and man, before their own existence, influenced the whole system of universe in general, and that of this earth in particular, so that they might be born here untold millions of year in future?

Frank Allen writes in the samearticle: “The adjustments of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance. First, the earth is a sphere freely poised in space in daily rotation on its polar axis, giving the alternation of day and night, and in yearly revolution around the sun. These motions give stability to its orientation in space, and, coupled with the inclination (23 degrees) of the polar axis to the place of its revolution (the ecliptic), affords regularity to the seasons, thus doubling the habitable area of the earth and providing a greater diversity of plant life than a stationary globe could sustain.

Secondly, the atmosphere of life-supporting gases is sufficiently high (about 500 miles) and dense to blanket the earth against the deadly impact of twenty million meteors that daily enter it at speeds of about thirty miles per second. Among many otherfunctions the atmosphere also maintains the temperature within safe limits for life; and carries the vital supply of fresh water-vapour far inland from the oceans to irrigate the earth, without which it would become a lifeless desert. Thus the oceans, with the atmosphere, are thebalancewheel of Nature.

“Four remarkable properties of water, its power of absorbing vast quantities of oxygen at low temperatures, its maximum density at 4 degrees `C' above freezing whereby lakes and rivers remain liquid, the lesser density of ice than water so that it remains on the surface, and the power of releasing great quantities of heat as it freezes, preserve life in oceans, lakes and rivers throughout the long winters.“ The dry land is a stable platform formuch terrestrial life. The soil provides the minerals which plant life assimilates andtrans forms into needful foods for animals. The presence of metals near the surface renders the arts of civilization possible.

“The diminutive size of the earth compared with the immensity of space is sometimes disparagingly referred to. If the earth were as small as the moon, if one-fourth its present diameter, the force of gravity (one sixth that of the earth) would fail to hold both atmosphere and water, and temperatures would be fatally extreme. If double its present diameter, the enlarged earth would have four times its present surface and twice its force of gravity, the atmospherewould be dangerously reduced in height, and its pressure would be increased from 15 to 30 pounds per square inch, with serious repercussions upon life. The winter areaswould be greatly increased and the regions of habitability would be seriously diminished. Communities of people would be isolated, travel and communication rendered difficult or almost impossible.

“If our earth were of the size of the sun, but retaining its density, gravity would be 150 times as great, the atmosphere diminished to about four miles in height, evaporation of water renderedimposssible , and pressures increased to over a ton per square inch. A one-poundani - mal would weigh 150 pounds, and human beings reduced in size to that of say, a squirrel. Intellectual life would be impossible to such creatures. “If the earth were removed to double its present distance from the sun, the heat received would be reduced to one-fourth of its present amount, the orbital velocity would be onlyonehalf , the winter season would be doubled inlength and life would be frozen out. If its solar distance were halved, the heat received would be four times as great, the orbital velocity would bedoubled, seasons would be halved in length, if changes could even be effected, and the planet would be too parched to sustain life. In size and distance from the sun, and in orbital velocity, the earth is able to sustain life, so that mankind can enjoy physical,intellectual and spiritual life as it now prevails.”

15) The Safest Course for Agnostics

As was mentioned earlier, Russell claimed to be an agnostic. If we take that claim on itsface-value , then the best and safest course for him would have been to believe in a Creator and Day ofJudgement .

Here is a tradition of ImamJa'far as-Sadiq (p. b. u. h.)

Ibn Abi al-`Awja ' andIbn al-Mugaffa ` were sitting inMasjidu'l-haram at the time of pilgrimage, with some of their fellow atheists. (They pretended to be Muslims just to save their skins; but were always openly arguing against the belief in God.)Ibn al-Mugaffa ` said pointing towards the space aroundKa'bah : “Do you see this mob? There is none among them whomay be called human being except that old man (that is, ImamJa'far as-Sadiq -p.b.u.h .). As for the others, they are just tattles and animals.”Ibn Abi al-`Awja ' asked how could he say such athing?

Ibn al-Mugaffa ` said: “Because I found with him (the virtues and knowledge)which I did not find anywhere else.”

Ibn Abi al-`Awja ' said: “Now it is necessary to test whether what you say is true.”Ibn al-Mugaffa ` tried to dissuade him from it.But Ibn Abi al-`Awja ' went to the Imam.lie came back after sometime and said: “O'Ibn alMugaffa `, he is not just human being. If there were in this world a spiritual thing . which becomes a body if wishes so, and turns into a spirit if wants so, then it is he.”

Ibn al-Mugaffa ` said: “How-come?”Ibn Abi al-`Awja ' said: “I sat near him. When all others went away, he started talking( without my asking anything) and said ` If the fact is as they believe and it is as they (that is, the pilgrims) say, then they would be saved and you would be in trouble. And if the fact is as you (atheists) say, and not as they say, then you and they both would be equal (and no harm would come to anybody)' “I said: `May Allah have mercy on you, what is it which we say and what is it which they say?My belief and their belief is but one.' “Imam said: `How could your belief and their belief be thesame ? They say that there is to be resurrection, and reward and punishment; and they believe that there is a God.' ” (And you do not believe it).

Imam meant that if there was in reality no God and no Day ofJudgement , asIbn Abi al-`Awja ' said, then the believers andnon believers will be in the same position after death. Both will perishfor ever and nobody would suffer for his belief ordis -belief. On the other hand, if thereis a God and a Day ofJudgement , as the believers say, then after death the believers would be saved and would be blessed, while the atheists and non-believers would have to suffer. Therefore, it is the dictate of wisdom to have Faith and Belief in God and Day ofJudgement , to save oneself from the possibility of disgrace and eternal punishment. The reader should also see the chapter “Pascal's Bet” in Need of Religion.

16) Universe: Witness of One God

A unique pattern of the universe is emerging with the advent of science. There was a time when the earth was consideredto be the centre of the universe; and the universe was confined within nine skies. Our fifth Imam, Muhammad al-Baqir (p.b.u.h .) explained to his companions that there wereinumerable worlds besides what they knew about.But , strangely, the Muslims ignored his teachings and followed the pagan philosophers, like Ptolemy, who thought and taught that the earth was stationary and the heavenly bodies revolved around it. Consequently, the gate of knowledge remained shut against them for more than one thousand years. Then came a time when the people explored the Solar system by the help of telescopes.So , they gave the Sun the pride of place. Now we know that our Solar system is but an insignificant family of Planets placed at the edge of the hugegalaxy which we call Milky Way.

We see the moon rotating around the earth, like a happy child dancing brightly around its mother. There are eight other planets, besides our earth, in the solar family; and five of themhave got satellites of their own. Mars and Neptune have two moons each;Jupitor has twelve moons and satellites; Saturn has nine and Uranus five moons. All the moons and satellites rotate round their planets.And all these planets, in turn, rotate round the sun, which may be called the Head of Family.

Now, let us trace back our steps, before going further.

All these stars,planets and satellites are made of atoms.And atom itself is just a miniature solar system. Formerly itwas believed that atoms were immutable entities, that is, they could not be divided. Now the atomsare known to have so many particles; the belief in their indestructibility has been shattered away. Atoms consist of a nucleus and a number of electrons. The nucleusis built from simple particles: neutrons and protons. The nucleus is located at the centre of the atom andis surrounded by electrons.

It should be mentioned here, to make the picturemore clear , that the nucleus of an atom is a particle of very small radius, but of exceedingly great density. In plain words, all the atomic mass (except a negligible fraction) is concentrated in the nucleus, while the size of the nucleus is less than one hundred thousandth of the size of atom.And don't forget that more than 100,000,000 atoms can be put side by side in onecentimetre . Now, as we have stated earlier, the atom is a world in itself. The Protons and Neutrons behave as though they were rotating around their own axis, like rotating tops. Their spin suggests the idea of an internal rotation.

Thus, we see that there is a single pattern of operation, right from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the mighty solar system.But this is not the end of the story. As we have known, the sun, together with its family,is placed on the brink of the Milky Way. “If we could view the Milky Way from a vast distance and see it as a whole, we should observe a rather flat wheel of stars with spiral arms -something like the sparks of a Catherine wheel.” It consists of many millions separate stars like our sun.This system of stars is physically connected by gravitational forces and moves through space as a whole . Itis called a Galaxy. If we think that our solar system is a family of stars, a galaxymay be called a very big tribe consisting of millions and millions of such families.

Themultitude of galaxies were unknown in the past. By about1920 it was thought that there were at least 500,000 galaxies. Now, with the advent of the powerful telescopes this number rose to 100,000,000, andis being increased further day by day.So far as the eyes of cameras and telescopes can see, there are clusters and clusters of galaxies.

Human knowledge, at present, is in its infancy. Nobody knows what is beyond these galaxies. Nor we know much about the nature of their movement. Qur'an says that

“Allah has decorated the nearest sky with these lamps” (that is, the stars) (67: 5).

So we know that until now, we have not seen the end of even the first sky.And who knows what wonders are hidden beyond the first sky!

“You have not been given knowledge but a little”( Qur'an , 17:85)

So, let us confine our talks to the little we know about. We know that the particles of atoms are rotating around their axis; satellites arero tating around their planets; planets are rotating around their stars; and stars along with their dependant families, are rotating in the galaxies. Our faith in the Unity of God is the purest in the world. We have given countless proofsI'm our belief in the last fourteen centuries. Now the science has opened a new path, which, also, leads to the belief in the Unity of God. Itmay be described briefly, in these words: “The uniform pattern of the universe is an indisputable proof that all this has been made by one, and only one, Creator.”

When we see two identical watches, weneed not be told that they are made in the same factory. On the same ground, when we see all the universe woven into a single entity; all its components governed by the same laws, all its parts operated on the same pattern, our natural instinct guides us to believe that it is created, made and controlled by One and only One Creator.

And there is a great difference between the watches and the universe. Watchesmay be imitated or duplicated by imposters andforgerers .But , as the scientists say, “by definition there is only one universe. One cannot repeat itor do experiments with it.”So , we need not bother ourselves with thought of any imitation-gods. If the universe - the thing made -cannot be more than one, how Allah - the Maker - can be more thanOne ?

Now we should have a look at living things. There also we see the same uniformity of design in bone-structure. It is quite amusing to see the atheists use this uniformity to prove that there is no God. They say that “Because all the living beings are developed systematically and because, for instance, the skeletons of Gibbons, Orange, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, andman are quite similar in construction, it is proved that they have not been made by any Creator.”

Suppose there had been no system in the universenor in the structure of living beings and they had used that lack of method against the existence of any Creator, it could have made sense.But astonishingly enough, they are using the unique and perfect system of the universe and the living beings against the Omniscient and Omnipotent God.Any body can see the absurdity of this argument. Because the perfectness of the universe is an irrefutable proof that it has notbeen made by a blind and senseless nature. Ironically enough, they are using anargument which is basically against their claim.

Darwinists may use this single and uniform pattern of Creation against those who believe that different thingswere created by different gods. They may use it against those who say that, for instance,cow was created by a good-natured creator and snake was made by anotherbadnatured god.But how can they use it against the belief of One Creator Who created all the things according to His own systematic plan? It isquite obvious that Darwin failed in drawing the conclusion. He could not see the Eternal Truth, which his evidence was pointingat . The evidence, gathered by him, is crying out loudly that all the universe, living or without life, has been created byOne and only One, Allah, Who is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

17) Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God

(This article of Mr. A.Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the Reader's Digest [January 19481 ; then on recommendation of Professor C. A.Coulson , F.R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the Reader's Digest [Novermber , 1960]. It shows how the science compels the scientists to admit the essential need of a Supreme Creator.)

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the ninety years sinceDarwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God.

Formyself , I count seven reasons for my faith:

First: By unwavering mathematicallaw we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again.Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in hundred; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in properrelation ship by chance.

The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this “eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off onlyone half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, givesus our seasons; if it had not been so tilted,vapours from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice . If our moon was, say, only fifty thousand miles away instead of its actual distance our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away.If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day, would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere.

Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water,land and air, mastering the elements, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.

Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, andcolours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life. Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparentmistlike droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and asaltless sea could not meet the necessary requirements. “Who, then, has put it here?”

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river, and travels up the very side of the river into which flows the tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If youtransfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere those from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean - all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water, nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parents came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eelhas ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters.

Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing impulseoriginate ?

A wasp overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed; to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies away and dies; she never sees her young.Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniquescannot be explained by adaption; they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct – the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need tobelabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of universe intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed inphenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny arethese genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultramicroscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human,animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However, the facts are beyond question. Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small place? Here evolution really begins - at the cell, theentity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultramicroscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence – no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, weare forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry.

Many yearsago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon begun a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking adefence , the entomologists scoured the world;finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else.

It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia.So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have beenuniverselly provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes.But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body.Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check.

If this physical checkhad not been provided , man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact thatman conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of godrises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as manis perfected imagination becomes a spiritual reality. He may discern in all the evidence of design and purpose the great truth that heaven is wherever and whatever is; that God is everywhere and in everything, but nowhereso close as in our hearts. It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true; in the words of the psalmist: “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmamentsheweth His handiwork.”

Part 2: Oneness of God

18) Meaning of "One"

Now that our talk is going to be centered on the theme “God is One,” let us clarify what we mean by “One” in this sentence.

The word “one” in our daily conversation conveys any of the following meanings:

1. “Man” and “Horse” are one (because both are mammals). Here `one' describes that both man and horse belong to the same genus.

2. “Bakr ” and “Smith” are one. `One' here shows that both are of the same species.

3. You say pointing to two carpenters that they are one. Here `one' means that both have the same profession, or the same adjectivecan be used for both.

4. Churchill was an orator, writer,soldier and statesman. You may say that his oratory, penmanship,soldiership and statesmanship were one, because they were combined in one person.

5. One pint milk andone pint water are ` one', because both have the same quantity.

6. Hot milk and hot water are `one', because both are in the same condition.

7. John and Smith are standing. You may say `They are one', because both are in the same position.

8. Khalid has two sons,Bakr and `Umar .Bakr and `Umar are one, because they have the same relation with Khalid.

9. A human-body or a chair is one because its components or partsare joined together. (But if the parts are disjoined or disintegrated, this `one' will become millions.)

10. The beginning of countingis called ` one', as the beginning of theoretical line is called point.This `one' is followed by countless numbers .

11. A matchless or unique person or thingis called one, as, for example, we may say that the sun within our solar system is ` one' because it has no equal within this system.

But all these meanings of `Unity' carry the idea of `duality' or `plurality', because meanings nos. 1 to 9 show that `two' or `more' things are `one' in some respect.So `two' or ` more' are always present in these meanings. ` One' as beginning of number or count presupposes more than one thing.

A unique thing may be called one, but it is just a metaphorical use which has no relation with reality, because that unique thing, being made of matter, has millions of parts - is not one. When we say `God isOne ', we take none of these meanings in consideration. Unity of God means that He has no parts, no body; He is not divisible even in imagination.