The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

Allow me to pick up from where I left off in my book, ‘The Atheist Militia’… In 1966, the American news magazine Time published a cover story titled Is God Dead? The reason for this provocative title was a strong sentiment that the sciences and their superior explanatory powers were in the ascendency, leading to the abandonment of the existence of God as an explanation for phenomena and the masterful nature of the universe. The paradox was that even though the sciences were on the rise, there was an increasing number of cases of people stating their need for the Lord – during their daily living, work, and professional environment. During that same year, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan announced two fundamental components for the existence of a planet that is habitable:

1. The presence of an appropriate type of star. 2. A planet at an appropriate distance from the star.

That is all. When we understand that the number of stars in the known universe is more than one octillion (1027 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), then the number of habitable planets should be a septillion (1024 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). This gigantic number of habitable planets triggered massive hope within the scientific community that humankind was on the cusp of finding life somewhere in the wide universe. As such, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) was founded, with huge sums of money dedicated to the project, matched only by the huge expectation of finding life in the wider cosmos. For a long time, scientists tried to look out for any sign of life in space. However, space was silent. It remained silent until Congress shut down the project in 1993. Private companies took the mantle and continued their search for life beyond Earth. To this day, space remains silent and has not uttered even a letter. What happened? In a nutshell, what happened was that, in spite of our advanced knowledge and science, we found that there are more components to life than the two elements mentioned by Sagan. We discovered that a habitable planet for any sort of life – let alone intelligent life – is more complicated than was first thought. The required parameters increased from two to ten, then to twenty, then to fifty…and it goes on. The number of potentially habitable planets dramatically decreased, and it continues to decrease to this day. Peter Schenkel, a supporter of the SETI project, wrote the following in an article that was published in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, ‘Early SETI efforts were marked by overly optimistic estimates of the 201

probable number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest and to take a more down-to-Earth view. Earth may be more special, and intelligence much rarer, in the universe than previously thought.’ He added: ‘In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest…We should quietly admit that the early estimates…may no longer be tenable.’362

In brief, we have more than 200 parameters today for a planet to be considered habitable. Each parameter must perfectly meet a stringent set of criteria; otherwise the habitability of the planet would collapse in totality:

• There must be a large planet nearby, to the tune of Jupiter, which pulls away meteors and protects the candidate planet; otherwise the candidate planet would become a target for meteors and life would be destroyed.

• The size of the candidate planet must be appropriate. If it is too big, its gravitational pull would be too strong, which would pull in toxic ammonia and methane gas. If it is too small, its gravitational pull would be too weak and would negatively impact the amount of water there.

• The size of its moon must also be appropriate. Our Moon protects the rotation and orbit of the Earth. Were it not for the Moon, the axis of Earth would tilt far beyond its normal tilt and the desired stability would be lost.

• The ozone layer of the candidate planet must be suitable. If it is too thick, it would impact the amount of oxygen in its atmosphere. If it is too light, volcanic activity and earthquakes would frequent the planetary surface.

These facts and others have revealed that our existence on this planet is truly a miracle. The possibilities of life not succeeding anywhere in the universe appear to be extremely high, compared to the possibility of its success. Yet here we are; in fact, we are speaking about this phenomenon right now. How did that happen? Was it all a coincidence? To what extent can we rely on the coincidence argument? When can we start to safely assume that the coincidence theory is implausible?

Leave aside everything that has preceded. The complexities of having a habitable planet can never be compared to the complexities in the very existence of the universe. All the cosmic forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force) have been measured to one millionth of a second after the Big Bang. Any foul play in these forces in relation to each other 362 https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/05/22164609/p26.pdf 202

– even by the very slightest – would lead to the collapse of the entire system of the universe:

• If the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force were to become imbalanced by even a hair’s breadth, the stars and the multitude of chemical elements would not have formed. • If the gravitational force was strengthened by even the slightest amount, the universe would have immediately contracted after the Big Bang. If it was made slightly weaker, matter in the universe would have scattered indefinitely, resulting in no galaxies, stars, and planets being formed.

One only has to look at the cosmological constant and its extreme precision that has left everyone bewildered – even atheists. The unbiased mind would instinctively rule that the existence of all these conditions by sheer coincidence is impossible, and that there is a special providence behind the astonishing orderly construct of the universe. The idea that all of this cosmic data came about as a result of coincidence is just like tossing a coin and having it come up as heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Can this really be ascribed to coincidence? The atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle said, ‘Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery.’ At the end of his life he wrote, ‘A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.’Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’. The uncompromising atheist Christopher Hitchens said, ‘Without question the fine-tuning argument was the most powerful argument of the other side.’ The theist mathematician John Lennox said, ‘The more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator…gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.’363

However, is the existence of Allah merely an assumption, and simply just the best explanation out there for the universe? Of course not. The aforementioned rational proofs are definitive and conclusive. They emphasise and reveal the requirement of fiṭrah that Allah  placed in the hearts of His servants. So long as man does not accept what his fiṭrah tells him and does not submit to it, he will lose everything – his knowledge, his cognition, his will, and in fact his humanity. Nothing has meaning without His existence. Man and the world with everything in it are dependent on Him. Purpose is drawn from Him. Without Him, our universe would drown in the darkness of purposelessness.

Moonlight can disappear. Sunlight can be extinguished. The light across existence in the universe can die. But His light? Never.