Cosmology is defined as:

The study of the universe as a whole, of the contents, structure, and evolution of the universe from the beginning of time to the future.

It is indeed a very interesting scientific and philosophical area of study, especially in regards to today’s environment of secular science. As today’s society continues to polarize itself into the ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’ camps, it becomes ever more important to take note of the congruencies present with religion and science.

Consider the example of George Ellis, professor of applied mathematics and cosmology at the University of Cape Town. An accomplished academic, he is a winner of the Templeton Prize and has co-authored work with Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous cosmologists of today.

On the origin of the universe George Ellis has some interesting viewpoints. He demonstrates in numerous ways the idea that the key factors, constants, and laws which defined our universe are unusually set at values which support the creation of life.

One thing which must be kept in mind is that, according to cosmologists, when the universe was first forming the constants and laws which we take for granted today were very much flexible. This means that during the “Big Bang” many numbers could have easily been set at values which would have created a universe with too little matter, too much matter, too much gas, or too strong an affect of gravity. The current set of constants is “unusual” because given the vast possibile values for these constants and laws, it is odd that we live in a universe where everything is set ‘just right’ for life. It is clear that even the smallest changes to certain variables would have resulted in a universe where there were no galaxies, no stars and no planets.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Before it seems we begin to repeat the Intelligent Design (ID) argument, it is important to realize that there are specific questions raised in analysis of the Big Bang that are not raised in the ID argument with evolution. Of course, there are still possibilities and explanations that atheists can stick to (religously?) for each of the questions and concerns raised by theistic cosmologists, but there is something else I found in George Ellis’s approach which was most fascinating.

Not only does Professor Ellis discuss the possible explanations for such precision (parallel universes, an unknown theory, God), but he does take it a step further to by emphasizing the importance of ethics in relationship to the universe.

As a scientist, he raises the interesting question: were ethics, aesthetics, and “meaning” something hard-coded into the universe, just as some of these cosmological constants have been? If so, they seem to be well outside of science’s boundaries of collection, examination, and definition (much less experimentation). This is, George Ellis says, the very important place for religion and it’s sciences.

It is in defining treatment of man to his fellow man, and living in a congruency with the universe that we find a place for religion. And is this not the Shariah and Islam itself?

Although Ellis takes an extremely pluralistic approach to this topic (regarding various religions), I found the discussion to have special consequences for Muslims. Specifically, I find the concept that ethics and “meaning” are hardcoded into the very definition of the universe (gravity) as directly Islamic. Is it not our belief that the natural state of man is to recognize God and know the generalities of right and wrong? Ellis notes the combined understanding of ethics from all three major faiths to be extremely similar, another pointer to the idea that we have all been receiving the same information. For Islam this is simply a manifestation of the continuing communication between God and man.

The topic itself brings up the interesting point of how society without religion would define ethics, if it even could. It seems clear that even today’s atheists struggle with an ethical standard imposed by cultural and legal limits. It should be made abundantly clear that such vague ethical standards have strong religious roots, owning to centuries of religious influence on their surrounding environment. As atheists become further distanced from those roots we will see new and strange ethical standards become adopted (or could they end up with no ethics at all?)

Having changing ethical standards has many consequences. For example, what does this mean to the moral standards of our forefathers? Can we excuse slavery, apartheid, the holocaust because we begin to define morality for each society, for each generation? Indeed, what does it mean to the morals of any generation if they can simply be superseded by the next? In a godless, ethically malleable society, will the only recognition of our forefathers be of scientific accomplishment, and not of their moral steadfastness? If we can already assume that our ethics are not necessarily universal, then do we have to be ethical at all?

Interesting questions indeed. Of course for the Muslim, awareness that the proper, ethical. way to live has been transmitted to us is a comforting notion.

It is even more comforting (for this Muslim) is knowing that God created every single thing, from all these scientific laws to the laws of right and wrong.

George Ellis is the co-author of “On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology & Ethics“

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010511.html

“Intelligent Design (ID) is a term that implies creation. The universe and life are not products of blind forces of nature, ID holds, but show evidence that they were designed by an intelligence. The ID Movement has deliberately chosen not to specify the identity of the Designer. Through science you can demonstrate convincingly that there is a designer, but you can’t go further without invoking theology. Everybody has the right to believe in a Designer according his own theology. What makes the movement effective is its emphasis on solid scientific evidence. “

Evolution and Causality

To continue the conversation it is essential to examine what current Muslim thought on the theory of evolution. The first thing to recognize, as Sheykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller does in “Evolution and Islam”, is that Muslims believe Allah is the only source of causality in this world. While this is somewhat of an advanced topic of Islamic doctrine, it is important to precede any conversation about “Why?” and the nature of the question within Islam with this doctrinal response. When Muslims say “such-and-such did this”, Muslims recognize that at the heart of the matter God allowed and caused such thing to occur in both cause and effect.

In other words, from a doctrinal point of view, physics or other sciences are simply the study of the pattern of cause and effect which Allah has followed thus far. That being said, Muslims are able to figuratively speak regarding most things in life, so that when saying something such as “my knife cut the apple”, it should be interpreted with the general understanding that God is the ultimate source of all causality. Evolution, which ascribes much of its final causality to randomness and chance (without any figurative interpretation), is therefore considered anti-Islamic at it’s fundamental level.

However, Sheykh Nuh considers that one could accept evolution as an Islamic concept if one suggested that evolutions causality is sourced in God, but only in those cases where Divine revelation has not contradicted it. While the creation of the wide range of beasts and creatures on earth could therefore be accounted for, Islamically, with this adjusted form of evolution, would the same apply to mankind? The answer is not in favor of the the evolutionists. Due to the specific account of the creation of man in the Quran it would be considered a matter of unbelief to hold that evolution is the source of man’s creation. So, it seems that Muslims won’t be found in the evolutionary camp anytime soon.

Intelligent Design, an alternative?

Where evolution stops short, Intelligent Design may pick up the pieces. Intelligent Design however, does not solve the issue with the direct creation of man, rather it simply implies that some designer might have been involved anywhere along line, either an evolutionary method or in direct creation.

ID certainly does seem appealing on the forefront to the average Muslim as an idea to begin to introduce the concept of God, but it is important to remember that Intelligent Design itself has been very intelligently designed. Carefully crafted by Christian evangelists such as Phillip E. Johnson, Intelligent Design’s specific goal is to create doors of opportunity for further Christian preaching:

“Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. … The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.” Phillip Johnson. “Keeping the Darwinists Honest”, an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.

Due to the extreme congruency between the evangelical church and the vocal proponents of the Intelligent Design message, ID is having great difficulty holding water in the scientific community. This evanglical relationship makes this complicated for Muslims as well, as evangelical Christians have generally been openly hostile to Muslims and Islam.

The second problem with ID, within the scientific community, is that it seems to be a formalization of existing teleological-type (“the complexity of the watch implies a watchmaker”) arguments that have been used by philosophers for hundreds of years. As noted in Br. Akyol’s article, the Quran also uses what may be understood as teleological arguments as to why humanity should worship God.

However, I believe the brother needs to be reminded that this is not the only argument that is used in the Quran for matters of belief.

In Islam, the true understanding of belief and faith is that belief comes from God as something innate within human beings, and that belief is -from- Allah, Most High. According to Islam those whom God wills to remain unguided will remain in that state, and those whom God chooses to guide, nothing will be able to stop their belief. So do Muslims need the help of ID in schools to firm their children’s belief? If this is the goal, then it seems the answer is a definitive “No!”. The ID movement’s goal to introduce itself into schools and as such, it is really just the doorway into bringing the very hostile evangelical message into schools. Such a confusing message of creationism and science is not what our children need to learn to become firm believers.

Discussing whether Islam supports “irreducible complexity” or other Intelligent Design concepts, is really another way of Muslims conceding again to be classified as into neatly defined Western categories. What Muslim proponents of Intelligent Design need to remember is that, while Muslims of course support the fact that we are a matter of creation, we do not necessarily fall neatly into the “evolutionists” and “ID” camps that exist in the West. As Muslims, our examination of our belief should be sufficient for our children to realize that we are neither evolutionists nor creationists nor “ID’ists” in the Western understanding of the terms. We have our own complex understanding of the natural processes, and therefore we are unbounded by the restrictions of either ‘camp’, but rather bounded by the understanding of the Quran and Hadith on the subject.

While Muslims can concede that some level of evolution may be possible for parts of creation, Christians in their ‘Intelligent Design’ packaging do not. Furthermore, opening the door for the Christian doctrine of creation which involves intricate beliefs about man and dinosaurs living during the same time, the age of man, and original sin (a concept totally foreign to Muslims) is not at all helpful in raising of our children.

And as far as Intelligent Design, Muslims believe in qadr (destiny). That fact alone means that we believe all aspects of our life have been designed by Allah Most High, not just our beginning. We cannot look to Intelligent Design to teach that.

I had a rush of thoughts come to my mind when I heard it, the first was an immediate feeling of embarrassment. That comes about mostly because I hold the title of Sufi pretty high and I am a pretty poor mureed. If I am the example that my friends are taking of the sufi teachings, then all I got to say is that they desperately need more exposure.

The next feeling is that of slight frustration, since I often feel that in discussions with friends the term Sufi is used dismissively. I get the feeling the term is brought up more in-line with “Bah, what’s that crazy Sufi talking about today?” I believe I feel this way because I’m usually not discussing Sufism at the time, as I tend to keep my spiritual practices extremely personal. On the other hand I often am found discussing matters of Islamic history or fiqh, so my first response is “What does Sufism have to do with it?”

The association with Sufi and Sunni fiqh (Madhabs, etc) is an interesting one, and although one is confidently able to say that most of the great fuqaha were Sufi’s of one form or another, the culture of today seems to see a disconnect. A great majority of those unexposed to some form of Sufism associate it with something new-age and without basis in Law, rather than something which is intertwined and inseparable from fiqh. Even if they understand that sufism and the Shariah are inseparable, it seems that many just understand it at the surface level.

This is terribly frustrating for one such as myself trying to get a message across of simple Sunni fiqh and the traditional methodology surrounding fiqh since an instant barrier of cautiousness comes up in the ‘other’ due to the cloud of Sufism.

Although, most probably if I was a better mureed in the first place, I wouldn’t need to indulge myself in conversations such as this in the first place.

–

The other topic is one of relationships, since I actually do agree with the initial comment. I find that many people engaged in the technological sciences are attracted to the Sufi sciences. Pondering over that brought me to realize what it is about spirituality that attracts me. Maybe it is the duality present within people.

Spending time solving technological/mind problems daily is one that provides a much needed intellectual satisfaction. So, is this draw to spirituality and cleansing one’s heart of hypocrisy a bipolar-sort of a reaction to a day spent in the tombs of logic?

Yes, I created some exquisite and elegant code (under much stress and fatigue) and the feeling of a job-well-done is quite powerful. But at the end of the day (hour, week, or month) the feeling of achievement leaves and one realizes the meaningless of such things, as it has only succeeded in making one just a slightly bit haughtier, prouder, and more of a show-off. The power of ones mind becomes an expression of his superiority, and this leads one down the dangerous rocky road of a life whose happiness is dependant, in a large part, to the strength of his ego.

So maybe my drive towards spirituality is a reaction/response to that danger. In a way I find it similar to those who absolutely -need- to exercise after a day of sitting in front of a computer or book. No one would consider this exerciser to be an extreme reactionary but simply someone who is trying to -even- his day out or -even- his physical state from the unnatural state he forced it in for most of the day. In fact, when taken as a whole, one might say that the exerciser is simply creating moderation and creating a healthy dynamic.

In exactly the same fashion, I enjoy spending time with mental, physical and even spiritual exercises to even out and create moderation within myself.

And hence we have Mind, Body, and Soul.

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/09/09/1336253.shtml?tid=128&tid=154

Now if anyone recalls their high-school physics class, they may remember very simple equations involving gravity and acceleration, mass etc. This is obviously very elementary, and physicists have gone much further in trying to explain other aspects of our reality which fall outside of the scope of such basic physics.

Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, has been a monumental work in understanding certain astronomical as well as some larger scale phenomenon we see on earth today. The studies of his theories has created interesting relationships between space, time, speed, gravity.

But again, the above has all been at the larger scale of physics, when you get to the ultra-microscopic level things change. Hence, a new science was born, “Quantum Physics”. Quantum physics is essentially the study of the properties of matter at the ultra-microscopic scale. One of the troubling aspects of Quantum physics is that things at the quantum level behave very, very strangely. At the quantum level, particles go through one another, or seemingly teleport from one place to the next without any effort.

Physicists are searching today for a theory that explains the observeable behavior at the quantum level as well as at the larger levels where relativistic physics apply. They are looking for a unified theory which can bring together the big and the small.

Superstring theory is one very exciting idea that may be used to bring together these two worlds, mathematically. One of the interesting aspects of this theory is the concept that all matter is made of a type of vibrating string. In the way that our vocal chords vibrate and make noise, these strings manifest different particles of nature by their vibration.

Although it is still just a theory it is quite beautiful in concept, that all matter (and hence, all of our bodies) are really, in a way, a chorus of melodies.

Recommended Reading: The Elegant Universe

Also: The Nova Special inspired by the book.

There have been so many writings about Islam and science that one would think Islam is more akin to biology and astronomy than it is to spirituality. The list of writings and books is so endless, that it seems obvious that Muslims find it extremely comforting to read about the congruencies within Islam and science. Many verses are used to demonstrate that scientific concepts that our Prophet(Peace be upon him), could not have known of in his day and age.

“(God is) the One Who created the night,and day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion.”
–sura 21, verse 33

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?”
—sura 41, verse 11 (Cited in relationship to the Big Bang and the fact our bodies are mostly made of water)

There are many more verses that are used in terms of embryonic studies to show that the Quran describes, in detail, the formation of a human being from a sperm and egg cell. I’ll quote them later on. Although I find them remarkable, it’s especially important to realize the problems that come about when trying to relate specific scientific principles to prove the Quran’s authenticity.

It seems that in today’s age, science has become the validator of religion. This is unfortunate, because it reflects the strongly held beliefs by todays common-man that reality as we experience it is something that is fixed and results can be expected by obvious mathematic principles. Modern man has found his comfort and satisfaction, not in knowing the future fate of his soul, but in the reliability that 2+2 will always equal 4.

This type of thought only shows a lack of awareness over how little science really knows. Current scientific theories and debates are struggling to describe repeatable events that break every physics rule we know of. The engaging field of quantum physics has created some theories which require as much faith as religion.

For example, Scientific American recently ran an article on the theory of the Holographic Universe, where our reality might actually be a projection of quantum fields onto a sort of canvas. This and other theories are attempting to define what they have demonstrated as gaps in the theories of relativity and newtonian principles at subatomic levels. In such a theory, matter does not exist except as information! These are ideas which question the fundamentals of our reality, this to me is quite significant as a Muslim.

It seems that knowing the paltry laws of physics and of biology is similar to spending a lifetime learning great detail about the Mona Lisa, while ignoring the brilliant life of Leonardo. By burying ourselves in the beauty of the insignificant, we have forgotten all about the creator. Indeed, with another stroke, the Mona Lisa could have changed but the nature of the Leonardo as a human being with a brush would not.

With such basic questions floating about, it seems obvious that science cannot be used, yet, to describe our reality as a whole. What is reality except what we can percieve with our eyes, our hands, our ears, or our brains?

The great Muslim Philosopher, who is titled Hujjat-al Islam (The Proof of Islam), Imam Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), ran into special problems with relying on rationality and sense-perception to understand reality. This is an excellent excerpt from an article on his philisophical issues:

——————————————————————–
Such was the courage of al-Ghazālī to know. He was free from the parochialism of the dogmatic theologians of his day who would rather consign the books of the atheists and philosophers to flames than read them. But prepared though he was to listen to every creed and doctrine, he would accept none and doubt all. For one thing, he came to the conclusion that the greatest hindrance in the search for truth was the acceptance of beliefs on the authority of others and blind adherence to the heritage of the past. He remembered the traditional saying of the Prophet: ?Every child is born with a sound disposition (fitrah); it is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian?18 and he was anxious to know what that sound disposition was before it suffered the impress of the unreasoned convictions imposed by others. Indeed, he wanted to reconstruct all his knowledge from its very foundation and was led to make the following reflections: ?The search after truth being the aim which I propose to myself, I ought in the first place to ascertain what are the bases of certitude. In the second place I ought to recognize that certitude is the clear and complete knowledge of things, such knowledge as leaves no room for doubt, nor any possibility of error.?19 As one might foresee, this proposed test for certitude only led him to a series of doubts. No part of the knowledge he had acquired {588} hitherto could stand this rigorous test. He further observed, ?We cannot hope to find truth except in matters which carry their evidence in themselves, i. e., in sense-perception and necessary principles of thought; we must, therefore, first of all establish these two on a firm basis.? But he doubted the evidence of sense-perception; he could see plainly as Descartes did later that they so often deceive us. No eye can perceive the movement of a shadow, still the shadow moves; a small coin would cover any star yet the geometrical computations show that a star is a world vastly larger than the earth

Al-Ghazālī?s confidence in sense-perception having been shaken, he turned to the scrutiny of what he called the necessary principles, but he doubted even these. Is ten more than three? Can a thing both be and not be at the same time or be both necessary and impossible? How could he tell? His doubt withregard to sense-perception made him very hesitant to accept the infallibility of reason. He believed in the testimony of senses till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason. Well, perhaps there is above reason another judge who if he appeared would convict reason of falsity and if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent it does not follow that he does not exist.

Al-Ghazālī then considers the possibility that life in this world is a dream by comparison with the world to come; and when a man dies, things may come to appear differently to him from what he now beholds.20 There may be an order of reality different from this spatio-temporal order which may be revealed to a level of consciousness other than the so-called normal consciousness such as that of the mystics or the prophets. Such was the movement of al-Ghazālī?s thought, which though formulated a little artificially in the Munqidh was dramatic enough to make out a case for the possibility of a form of apprehension higher than rational apprehension, that is, apprehension as the mystic?s inspiration or the prophet?s revelation.
——————————————————————–

Imam Ghazali went through such a phase of doubt that he had actually made himself physically sick over the problems that rationality and perception proposed. Could he trust his eyes, his ears, his mind? How he came out of this riddle of philosophy was acknowledging that God is the author of this and any other reality.

Though I’ve spent some time discussing the problems with relying on science alone, Islam has nevertheless established a dynamic relationship with the scientific process, not one of confrontation that has existed with Christianity. In fact, Islam, by abstracting reality itself, never created barriers with which science cannot cross. For example, although Quranic verses exist which hint that the Earth is a round sphere, no one would have been accused of committing heresy by asserting that it is flat. We are free to use our minds and senses to come to conclusions about the world which we inhabit.

Furthermore, Islamic religious scholars have never relied on ‘secret knowledge’ in coming to conclusions, the scientific method has been applied to all aspects of Islamic Law. Fatwa’s (legal declarations) are often riddled with proofs from the various traditions of the Prophet (S) and the Quran.

The only difference between today’s scientists and the great Islamic astronomers, philosophers, and scientists of yesterday is that they devoted themselves to understanding the painting, as well as developing a personal relationship with the Artist.

I’ll update this later on, depending on feedback. I already wrote a lot!