Acha nikuendeleze pale nilipoishia katika kitabu changu, ‘The Atheist Militia’… Mwaka 1966, jarida la habari la Marekani Time lilichapisha makala ya jalada yenye kichwa Is God Dead? Sababu ya kichwa hiki cha kuchochea ilikuwa hisia kali kwamba sayansi na uwezo wake bora wa kueleza mambo ulikuwa ukipanda, na hivyo kusababisha kuachwa kwa imani kwamba Mungu yupo kama maelezo ya matukio na ya utukufu wa ulimwengu. Kinachoshangaza ni kwamba, ingawa sayansi ilikuwa ikiendelea kukua, kulikuwa na idadi inayoongezeka ya watu waliotangaza kuhitaji Mungu katika maisha yao ya kila siku, kazini, na katika mazingira yao ya kitaaluma. Katika mwaka huo huo, mwanaastronomia maarufu Carl Sagan alitangaza vipengele viwili vya msingi kwa ajili ya kuwepo kwa sayari inayoweza kukaliwa:

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. Uwepo wa aina sahihi ya nyota. 2. Sayari iliyo katika umbali unaofaa kutoka kwenye nyota.

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

Tunaelewa kwamba idadi ya nyota katika ulimwengu unaojulikana ni zaidi ya oktilioni moja (10^27 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), basi idadi ya sayari zinazoweza kukaliwa inapaswa kuwa septilioni moja (10^24 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Idadi hii kubwa ya sayari zinazoweza kukaliwa ilisababisha matumaini makubwa ndani ya jumuiya ya kisayansi kwamba wanadamu walikuwa karibu kugundua uhai mahali fulani katika ulimwengu mpana. Kwa sababu hiyo, Mradi wa Kutafuta Akili za Kigeni (SETI) ulianzishwa, huku fedha nyingi zikitengwa kwa ajili yake, na matarajio makubwa ya kupata uhai katika ulimwengu mzima yakiwa sawa na fedha hizo. Kwa muda mrefu, wanasayansi walijaribu kutafuta dalili yoyote ya uhai angani. Hata hivyo, anga lilibaki kimya. Lilibaki kimya hadi Bunge lilipofunga mradi huo mwaka 1993. Kampuni binafsi zilichukua jukumu hilo na kuendelea kutafuta uhai nje ya Dunia. Hadi leo, anga bado ni kimya na halijatoa hata herufi moja. Kilichotokea ni nini? Kwa ufupi, licha ya maarifa na sayansi yetu ya hali ya juu, tuligundua kwamba kuna vipengele zaidi vya uhai kuliko vile viwili vilivyotajwa na Sagan. Tulibaini kwamba sayari inayoweza kukaliwa na aina yoyote ya uhai, achilia mbali uhai wenye akili, ni ngumu zaidi kuliko ilivyofikiriwa awali. Vigezo vinavyohitajika viliongezeka kutoka viwili hadi kumi, kisha hadi ishirini, kisha hadi hamsini… na orodha inaendelea. Idadi ya sayari zinazoweza kukaliwa ilipungua kwa kiasi kikubwa, na inaendelea kupungua hadi leo. Peter Schenkel, mfuasi wa mradi wa SETI, aliandika yafuatayo katika makala iliyochapishwa katika jarida la Skeptical Inquirer: ‘Juhudi za mwanzo za SETI ziliwekwa alama ya makadirio yaliyokuwa na matumaini kupita kiasi ya…

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

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

Kwa kifupi, leo tuna vigezo zaidi ya 200 vya kuifanya sayari iwe inayoweza kukaliwa na viumbe. Kila kigezo lazima kiafikie kwa usahihi seti kali ya masharti; vinginevyo, uwezo wa sayari kukaliwa ungeporomoka kabisa.

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:

• Lazima kuwepo na sayari kubwa karibu, kama Jupiter, ambayo huvuta mbali vimondo na kuilinda sayari inayotarajiwa; vinginevyo sayari hiyo ingekuwa shabaha ya vimondo na uhai ungeangamizwa.

• 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.

• Ukubwa wa sayari inayowezekana lazima uwe unaofaa. Ikiwa ni kubwa mno, nguvu yake ya mvutano ingekuwa kali sana, ambayo ingevuta gesi yenye sumu ya amonia na methane. Ikiwa ni ndogo mno, nguvu yake ya mvutano ingekuwa dhaifu na ingeathiri vibaya kiasi cha maji yaliyopo humo.

• 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.

Ukubwa wa mwezi wake pia lazima uwe wa kiasi kinachofaa. Mwezi wetu unalinda mzunguko na obiti ya Dunia. Kama si mwezi, mhimili wa Dunia ungeinama mbali zaidi ya mwelekeo wake wa kawaida na utulivu unaotakiwa ungepotea.

• 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.

• Safu ya ozoni ya sayari inayotarajiwa lazima iwe inafaa. Ikiwa ni nene mno, ingeathiri kiasi cha oksijeni katika angahewa yake. Ikiwa ni nyembamba mno, shughuli za volkano na matetemeko ya ardhi zingekuwa za mara kwa mara kwenye uso wa sayari.

• 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.

Ukweli huu na mwingine umebainisha kwamba kuwepo kwetu katika sayari hii ni kweli muujiza. Uwezekano wa uhai kutofanikiwa mahali popote katika ulimwengu unaonekana kuwa mkubwa sana, ukilinganishwa na uwezekano wa mafanikio yake. Lakini hapa tulipo; kwa kweli, tunazungumza kuhusu jambo hili hivi sasa. Hilo lilitokeaje? Je, yote haya yalikuwa bahati tu? Tunaweza kuitegemea hoja ya bahati kwa kiasi gani? Ni lini tunaweza kuanza kudhani kwa usalama kwamba nadharia ya bahati haiwezekani?

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?

Achana na kila kilichotangulia. Utata wa kuwa na sayari inayoweza kukaliwa na viumbe hauwezi kamwe kulinganishwa na utata wa kuwepo kwa ulimwengu wenyewe. Nguvu zote za kikosmiki (mvutano wa dunia, nguvu ya sumakuumeme, nguvu kubwa ya nyuklia, nguvu dhaifu ya nyuklia) zimepimwa hadi sekunde moja ya milioni baada ya Mlipuko Mkuu. Kasoro yoyote katika nguvu hizi kuhusiana na nyingine 362 https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/05/22164609/p26.pdf 202

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

– hata kwa kiasi kidogo kabisa – kungeweza kusababisha kuanguka kwa mfumo mzima wa ulimwengu:

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

• Ikiwa nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu (strong nuclear force) na nguvu ya sumakuumeme (electromagnetic force) zingepoteza uwiano wake hata kwa kiasi kidogo kabisa, nyota na wingi wa elementi za kemikali zisingeundwa. • Ikiwa nguvu ya mvutano (gravitational force) ingeongezeka hata kwa kiasi kidogo sana, ulimwengu ungejibana mara baada ya Mlipuko Mkuu (Big Bang). Ikiwa ingepunguzwa kidogo, mata katika ulimwengu ingetawanyika bila mwisho, na hivyo hakuna magalaksi, nyota wala sayari zingeundwa.

• 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.

Unaweza kuangalia tu kipimo cha mara kwa mara ya kosmolojia na usahihi wake wa ajabu ambao umewaacha kila mtu katika mshangao – hata wasioamini Mungu. Akili isiyo na upendeleo kwa silika ingehukumu kwamba kuwepo kwa masharti haya yote kwa bahati tu hakuwezekani, na kwamba nyuma ya muundo wa ajabu wa mpangilio wa ulimwengu kuna utunzaji maalum wa Mwenyezi Mungu. Wazo kwamba data yote hii ya kikosmolojia ilitokea kwa sababu ya bahati tu ni sawa na kurusha sarafu na kupata upande wa kichwa mara bilioni kumi kwa mfululizo. Je, hili kweli linaweza kuhusishwa na bahati tu? Mwanaastronomia asiyeamini Mungu Fred Hoyle alisema, ‘Hakuna kitu kimenitikisa kama ugunduzi huu kunivyotikisa kutoka kwenye kutokuamini kwangu.’ Mwishoni mwa maisha yake aliandika, ‘Tafsiri ya kawaida ya ukweli inapendekeza kwamba superintellect (akili kuu) imeingilia fizikia, pamoja na kemia na biolojia, na kwamba hakuna nguvu zisizo na mwelekeo zinazostahili kutajwa katika maumbile.’ Mwanafizikia wa kinadharia Paul Davies amesema kwamba ‘dalili ya kubuniwa ni kubwa mno’. Mwanafalsafa mkali asiyeamini Mungu Christopher Hitchens alisema, ‘Bila shaka hoja ya usahihi wa kurekebishwa (fine-tuning) ilikuwa hoja yenye nguvu zaidi upande wa wapinzani.’ Mwanahisabati mwenye imani John Lennox alisema, ‘Kadiri tunavyojua zaidi kuhusu ulimwengu wetu, ndivyo dhana kwamba kuna Muumba…inavyopata uzito kama maelezo bora ya kwa nini tupo hapa.’363

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

Je, kuwepo kwa Allah ni dhana tu, na ndiyo maelezo bora zaidi yaliyopo kwa ulimwengu? Hakika sivyo. Hoja za kiakili zilizotajwa hapo juu ni thabiti na zisizo na shaka. Zinasisitiza na kudhihirisha haja ya fiṭrah ambayo Allah (SWT) aliiweka katika nyoyo za waja Wake. Mradi mtu hakubali anachomwambia fiṭrah yake na hajinyenyekezi kwake, atapoteza kila kitu: elimu yake, uwezo wake wa kufikiri, mapenzi yake, na hata ubinadamu wake. Hakuna kitu kinachokuwa na maana bila kuwepo Kwake. Mwanadamu na dunia pamoja na kila kilichomo vinamtegemea Yeye. Kusudi hutokana na Yeye. Bila Yeye, ulimwengu wetu ungezama katika giza la kukosa kusudi.

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.

Mwanga wa mwezi unaweza kutoweka. Mwanga wa jua unaweza kuzimwa. Mwanga ulioenea katika uwepo wa ulimwengu unaweza kufa. Lakini nuru Yake? Kamwe.

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