Mwanafizikia wa Uingereza Paul Davies ana kitabu cha kuvutia kinachoitwa The Goldilocks Enigma. Kitabu hiki kinajaribu kufichua jambo la ajabu linalohusu asili ya ulimwengu tunamoishi, yaani jinsi ulivyo kamili na wenye usawa kwetu, kana kwamba ni ulimwengu wa Goldilocks. Kama inavyojulikana kwa yeyote anayefahamu neno hili, jina hili limechukuliwa kutoka kwenye hadithi maarufu ya watoto, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Kwa muhtasari, msichana aitwaye Goldilocks anakuta nyumba ya dubu msituni. Kila dubu ana chakula chake, kiti chake na kitanda chake. Akijaribu kila kimoja, Goldilocks anakuta kuwa mawili kati ya matatu (vya baba na mama) hayamfai kwa sababu ni ya moto mno na baridi mno (chakula), ya juu mno au ya chini mno (viti), na ngumu mno au laini mno (vitanda). Kile anachokiona kinamfaa yeye ni cha dubu mdogo tu. Mfano huu unafanana na ulimwengu tunamoishi kwa kuwa umeumbwa kwa ustadi mkubwa: umerekebishwa kwa kiwango cha juu sana kiasi kwamba, kama ungekuwa tofauti hata kidogo, usingeweza kuhimili uhai. Kutokana na hili, hoja ya kiteleolojia (ya kusudi) inajengeka. Hoja hii imetumiwa katika dini zote na katika kila zama na kila eneo. Kwa mfano, Rāzī alisema: Fiṭrah inashuhudia kwamba kuonekana kwa nyumba iliyoandikwa maandishi ya ajabu na kujengwa kwa usawa mzuri kwa hekima na manufaa hakuwezi kuwepo bila mwandishi mwenye ujuzi na mjenzi mwenye busara. Inajulikana kwamba dalili za hekima katika ulimwengu wa juu na wa chini ni nyingi zaidi kuliko udhihirisho wa hekima katika nyumba hiyo ndogo. Kwa kuwa fiṭrah ya awali ni ushahidi kwamba maandishi yanahitaji mwandishi, na jengo linahitaji mjenzi, ushahidi huu utakuwa na nguvu zaidi katika kesi ya ulimwengu huu wote kuhitaji Muumba anayetenda kwa hiari na hekima.243

The British physicist Paul Davies has an interesting book titled The Goldilocks Enigma. The book attempts to uncover a curious issue pertaining to the nature of the universe that we live in, in terms of how it is perfectly suitable and balanced for us, as if it were a Goldilocks universe. As is known to anyone familiar with the term, this title is borrowed from a famous and popular children’s story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In summary, a girl by the name of Goldilocks finds a bear house in the forest. Each bear has its own food, chair, and bed. Sampling each, Goldilocks finds that two of the three (belonging to the father and mother) are not suitable for her because they are too hot and too cold (food), too high or too low (chairs), and too hard or too soft (beds). The only one she finds suitable for herself are the ones belonging to the small bear. The similitude here is that the universe in which we live has been made in a masterful manner: It has been fine-tuned to such a great degree that, had it been any other way, it would not have been able to support life. From this, the teleological argument takes shape. The argument has been used right across the religious spectrum and in all eras and geographies. For example, Rāzī said, Fiṭrah testifies that the appearance of a house inscribed with unusual inscriptions and built in a finely balanced manner with wisdom and benefit cannot be possible without a knowledgeable scribe and a prudent builder. It is known that the signs of wisdom in the upper and lower worlds are far more than the manifestations of wisdom in that small house. Given that the original fiṭrah is a testament to the inscription needing a scribe, and the building needing a builder, this testament would be all the more so in the case of this entire world needing a maker that acts with choice and wisdom.243

Ibn al-Qayyim alisema, Allah amewafanya viumbe Wake – hata wanyama – kupenda kuweka kila kitu mahali pake panapostahili, kutekeleza mambo kwa wakati wake unaofaa, na kupata vitu kwa namna inayotakiwa. Pia amewafanya wachukie kinyume chake na kwenda kinyume na njia hizo zilizotajwa. Ya kwanza inaonyesha ukamilifu, elimu, uwezo na umahiri wa mtendaji; kinyume chake kinaonyesha upungufu wake mwenyewe na upungufu wa elimu, uwezo na utaalamu wake. Hii ni fitrah ambayo watu hawawezi kabisa kuiacha. Inajulikana kwamba yule aliyewafanya hivi na kuweka uwezo huu ndani yao anastahiki zaidi sifa hizi za kusifiwa kuliko wao. Allah huweka mambo mahali pake pastahili. Huwafanya kuwa wa pekee kwa kuwapa sifa, maumbo, mpangilio na ukubwa kwa namna Yeye anayoijua zaidi ya mwingine yeyote. Huyatoa wazi – na hilo pia katika wakati pekee unaowafaa. Yule mwenye uchambuzi sahihi na fikra timamu, anayetafakari kama inavyopasa, atashuhudia hilo katika anayoyaona na kuyajua. Atatumia alichokishuhudia kama ushahidi wa yale yaliyofichika. Kila kitu ni katika uumbaji wa Mwenye hekima, Mjuzi wa yote. Ili kuonyesha hili, inatosha kujua hekima iliyo nyuma ya kuumba wanyama, viungo vyao, sifa zao, maumbo yao, faida inayoweza kupatikana kutoka kwao, na kwamba kwa hakika wanawakilisha hekima inayotakiwa ndani yao. Allah aliwausia waja Wake kufanya hivi: “…kama zilivyo ndani yenu. Je, hamwoni?”244; na “Je, hawatafakari juu ya ngamia – jinsi walivyoumbwa kwa ustadi…?”245 Vivyo hivyo, mtu akitafakari kwa kina na kuangalia viumbe Vyake vyote vya juu na vya chini na vilivyo kati yake, atakuta vyote vimebuniwa na kuzungukwa na hekima kubwa. Angalia, angeweza kusoma hekima iliyochorwa ndani yake na kusema: "Hii ni kazi ya Mwenye ujuzi wote na Mwenye hekima, na ni amri ya Mwenye nguvu na Mwenye ujuzi wote. Ikiwa akili zinaweza kupata kitu kinachofaa zaidi kuliko hiki, na zipendekeze; ikiwa zinaona kitu kizuri zaidi kuliko hiki, na zikilete na kukionyesha. Hiyo ndiyo kazi ya 'Yule aliyeumba mbingu saba, moja juu ya nyingine. Hutaona kasoro yoyote katika uumbaji wa Mwingi wa Rehema. Basi angalia tena: je, unaona nyufa zozote?'"246 Yeyote anayeitazama dunia hii na kuitafakari kama inavyopaswa, angejua kwamba Muumba wake aliibuni kwa ustadi mkubwa na kuiimarisha. Anapoitafakari, ataiona kama nyumba ambayo vifaa vyake vyote vimeandaliwa. Anga limeinuliwa kama paa, Ardhi imetandazwa kama zulia, nyota zimepangwa kama taa, na ustawi umehifadhiwa humo kama hazina. Kila kitu ndani yake kimebuniwa kwa ajili ya jambo linalokifaa. Mwanadamu ni kama mwenye nyumba ambaye amepewa haki ya kuimiliki. Aina mbalimbali za mimea zimeandaliwa kwa madhumuni yake. Wanyama mbalimbali wanatumiwa kwa manufaa yake. Baadhi yao ni kwa ajili ya kukamuliwa maziwa, kuzaliana na chakula tu; baadhi ni kwa ajili ya kupanda na kusafirishia tu; wengine ni kwa uzuri na mapambo; na wengine ni kwa mambo haya yote, kama ngamia, ambao tumbo lao ni hifadhi ya vinywaji, chakula, dawa na tiba. Kuna funzo ndani yao kwa wale wanaotaka kutazama, na ishara kwa wale wenye busara. Na miongoni mwa ndege – pamoja na aina zao mbalimbali, maumbo, rangi, idadi zao, faida wanazotoa, nyimbo zao, mabawa yao yakiwa yamekunjuliwa au yamekunjwa, na mienendo yao ya kuhama na kukaa – kuna funzo kubwa na dalili wazi ya hekima ya Muumba, Mwenye ujuzi wote.

Ibn Rushd alieleza hoja hii kwa ufasaha mkubwa. Alisema: Kuhusu njia ambayo dini ilifuata katika kuwaelimisha watu wa kawaida juu ya ulimwengu kuwa ni kitendo cha Allah, zingatia kwamba inapotafakariwa aya zinazobeba maana hii, njia hii inaweza kuonekana kuwa ni njia ya utoaji wa riziki na malezi. Ni njia moja ambayo tumeeleza kuwa inaonyesha kuwepo kwa Muumba. Zaidi ya hayo, mtu anapotazama kitu kinachoonekana kwa macho na kukuta kimetengenezwa katika umbo fulani, ukubwa fulani na mpangilio fulani, na yote haya yakiwa yanaelekea kwenye manufaa na lengo ambalo mtu angetarajia kutoka kwake (hata hivyo kwamba lazima akubali kwamba manufaa hayo yasingepatikana kama kingetengenezwa katika umbo, mpangilio au kiwango kingine chochote), atakuwa na hakika kwamba kitu hiki kina mtengenezaji aliyekitengeneza. Hii ndiyo sababu umbo lake, mpangilio wake na ukubwa wake vinaelekea kwenye manufaa yake. Pia ndiyo sababu isingewezekana kwa mambo haya yote kukutana kwa bahati tu kwa ajili ya manufaa hayo. Kwa mfano, mtu anapoona jiwe chini, na akakuta limeumbwa kwa namna inayolifanya lifae kukaliwa, na vilevile akakuta mpangilio wake na ukubwa wake ni hivyo, atajua kwamba jiwe hili lilitengenezwa kuwa kiti na mtengenezaji aliyelipanga na kulitengeneza mahali hapo. Lakini pale anapokosa kuona aina hii ya mpangilio wa kukaa, atakuwa na uhakika kwamba jiwe kuonekana mahali hapo na katika hali hiyo ni jambo la bahati tu, bila mtu yeyote kulliweka hapo. Jambo hilo hilo linatumika kwa ulimwengu wote. Mwanadamu anaweza kutazama humo na kuona Jua, Mwezi na nyota, ambavyo ndivyo chanzo cha majira manne ya mwaka, usiku na mchana, mvua, maji, upepo, sehemu za ardhi kukaliwa na watu na wanyama wa nchi kavu kupatikana humo, maji kuwa yamehifadhiwa kwa ajili ya viumbe wa majini, na hewa kufanywa inafaa kwa viumbe wanaoruka. Anaweza kuona kwamba ikiwa mojawapo ya maumbo na miundo hii itavurugwa, viumbe vilivyomo hapa vyote vitavurugika. Hivyo basi, angejua kwa uhakika kamili kwamba haiwezekani sehemu zote za dunia kukutana kwa bahati tu kwa ajili ya binadamu, wanyama na mimea; bali hilo lilikuwa kwa mpango wa mmoja aliyelitaka. Huyo ni Allah. Mtu pia angejua kwa kujiamini kabisa kwamba dunia imeumbwa, kwa sababu kwa silika yake angejua kwamba haiwezekani kupata mkusanyiko wa namna hiyo kwa bahati tupu bila muumba yeyote. Aina hii ya ushahidi ni thabiti na rahisi, kama inavyoonekana wazi kutokana na yale tuliyoandika hapa. Msingi wake unategemea kanuni mbili ambazo kila mtu anazikubali. Ya kwanza ni kwamba dunia, pamoja na sehemu zake zote, imepangwa kwa ajili ya kuwepo kwa binadamu na wanyama wote wanaoishi humu. Ya pili ni kwamba kitu chochote, pamoja na sehemu zake zote, kinachoelekezwa kwenye tendo moja na lengo moja lazima kichukuliwe kuwa kimetengenezwa. Kanuni hizi mbili zinaleta matokeo haya dhahiri: Dunia imeumbwa, na ina muumba. Hoja ya utoaji (ya kupangwa kwa riziki na mahitaji) inaonyesha mambo haya mawili kwa wakati mmoja. Ndiyo sababu ni hoja inayothaminiwa zaidi kuliko zote kwa ajili ya kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Muumba.248

Moja ya hoja zilizosambaa zaidi na kujulikana sana katika ulimwengu wa Magharibi kwa hoja hii ni mfano wa kuvutia wa William Paley katika kitabu chake Natural Theology: ‘Nikivuka nyika, nikadhani nimejikwaa kwa jiwe, nikaulizwa jiwe hilo limefikaje hapo, ningeweza labda kujibu kwamba, kwa kadiri ninavyojua, lingeweza kuwa limekaa hapo milele; wala haingekuwa rahisi sana kuonyesha upuuzi wa jibu hilo. Lakini nikidhani nimekuta saa chini, na ikaulizwa saa hiyo imefikaje mahali hapo, singefikiria sana jibu nililotoa awali, kwamba, kwa kadiri ninavyojua, saa hiyo inaweza kuwa imekuwepo hapo siku zote. Lakini kwa nini jibu hilo lisitumike kwa saa kama lilivyotumika kwa jiwe?’249

One of the most famed and widespread passages for this argument in the Western space is the fascinating analogy by William Paley in his book Natural Theology: ‘In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?’249

Jibu ni dhahiri. Muundo changamano wa saa huashiria kwa silika kuwepo kwa mtengenezaji wake. Paley alitaka kutoa mfano wa ulimwengu kutokana na saa, jambo linalolazimu kuwepo kwa mtengenezaji wa saa. Ni kutokana na hapa ndipo mfano huu umejulikana sana kama ‘mfano wa mtengenezaji wa saa’, kama sitiari ya kwamba dunia inahitaji Muumba Mwenye Hekima na Ujuzi wa Kila Kitu.

The answer is obvious. The complex composition a watch contains instinctively reveals the existence of its maker. Paley wanted to draw an analogy for the universe from the watch, which necessitates the existence of a watchmaker. It is from here that this example has become famously known as the ‘watchmaker analogy’, as a metaphor for the world needing a Wise, Omniscient Maker.

Muundo wa hoja hii unafanana na muundo wa hoja ya uumbaji kwa kuwa nao pia unategemea: a) data za kihisia na zinazoonekana, na b) dhana za asili na silika. Hii ndiyo inayoipa hoja nguvu yake. Hoja hii ni rahisi kuelewa na kuifikiria; haina ugumu wowote. Kwa mfano, mtu anapotazama Grand Canyon, ambalo ni bonde lenye kuta zenye mteremko mkali lililopo Arizona, kisha akalinganisha na Mount Rushmore huko South Dakota, ambako sanamu kubwa ya marais wanne wa Marekani imechongwa kwenye uso wa jiwe la mlima huo, au sanamu na michongo nyingine iliyofanywa na binadamu, ataona kuna tofauti dhahiri. Ingawa ni rahisi kuelewa kwamba ile ya kwanza ilisababishwa na mmomonyoko wa upepo na mto, huenda asiweze kuamini kwamba mambo hayo hayo yanaweza kutengeneza ya pili. Hata kama hajawahi kuona zikichongwa na kuchorwa kwa macho yake, bila shaka atajua kwamba kuna watu waliofanya kazi hiyo. Ukitafakari zaidi juu ya jambo hili na kujaribu kutambua sababu ya tofauti hiyo, itakuwa ni kwa sababu tu ya asili ya muundo na ugumu wa umbo, jambo linalofanya usanifu wa kibinadamu uonekane wa kuaminika zaidi. Hii inaeleza kwa nini hoja hii imeenea sana katika matumizi yake ya kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Allah. Kama mtangulizi wake, ni mojawapo ya hoja zinazotumiwa zaidi katika mijadala ya kidini na kifalsafa, na inaifanya uumbaji kuwa mada yake, ambako hoja za kimantiki na dhana za kiakili zinatumika kuuchunguza. Wakati hoja ya uumbaji inatumika kuthibitisha kwamba lazima kuwe na muumbaji wa viumbe, hoja hii inatumia asili iliyopangwa kwa usahihi wa viumbe, jambo linalodokeza kuwepo kwa Muumbaji Mwenye Hekima, Mjuzi wa Kila Kitu. Hoja ya kwanza inachota mantiki yake kutoka wakati halisi wa uumbaji; hoja hii inachota mantiki yake baada ya uumbaji kuwepo. Sehemu ya mwisho pia inajitokeza kwa kuwa inaleta sifa nyingine za Muumba, kama vile uwezo wake kamili, mapenzi yake, elimu yake, hekima yake, na nyinginezo.

The composition of this argument is similar to the composition of the argument from creation in that it also relies on: a) sensory and perceptible data, and b) innate and instinctive concepts. It is what gives the argument its strength. This argument is easy to comprehend and conceptualise – it has no difficulty to it. For example, when a person looks at the Grand Canyon, which is the steep sided canyon found in Arizona, and then he compares this to Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, where a colossal sculpture of four American presidents is carved into the granite face of the mountain, or other man-made sculptures and carvings, he would perceive that there is an obvious distinction to be made. Although it is understandable that the former was caused by wind and river erosion, he may not be able to believe the same are capable of the latter. Even though he would not have seen them being carved and sculptured in person, he would most certainly know that there were people who did this. If you contemplate on this point further and try to identify the reason for this distinction, it would simply be down to the nature of the composition and complexity of the structure that would make man made design to be more plausible. This explains why this argument is so widespread in its usage to prove the existence of Allah. Like its predecessor, it is one of the most used arguments in religious and philosophical circles, and it makes the creation the subject matter, where reasoning and rational concepts are applied to them. Whereas the argument from creation is leveraged to prove that there must be a creator for the creation, this argument leverages the finely-tuned nature of the creation, which suggests there is a Wise, Omniscient Creator. The first argument draws its reasoning from the actual moment of creation; this argument draws its reasoning after creation comes into existence. The latter also stands out insofar as it introduces further attributes of the Creator, such as His perfect power, will, knowledge, wisdom, and others.

Kwa kuwa hoja hii inatumiwa sana, zimekuwepo istilahi mbalimbali za kuielezea, ingawa zote zinarejelea maana moja: hoja ya mpangilio (argument from systemisation); hoja ya kurekebishwa vizuri (argument from fine-tuning); hoja ya usanifu (argument from design, teleological argument); hoja ya utunzaji wa Mungu (argument from providence); hoja ya lengo (argument from purpose); na hoja ya upangaji (argument from planning).

As this argument is used extensively, there have been various terms to describe it, though they all refer to the same meaning: argument from systemisation; argument from fine-tuning; argument from design (teleological argument); argument from providence; argument from purpose; and argument from planning.

Kutokana na kuangalia wahyu, mtu anaweza kuona matumizi mengi ya hoja hii kama ushahidi wa kuwasaidia waja kudhihirisha ukuu wa Mola na ujuzi Wake kamili, nguvu Yake, na hekima Yake. Inachochea silika ya asili ya mwanadamu, inayomwalika kuhusisha udhihirisho huu wa ujenzi wa kiufundi wa hali ya juu na Mtendaji Mwenye Hekima na Mwenye Kutaka. Soma, kwa mfano, kauli hizi za Allah: • '{Wale wasioamini Akhera wana sifa mbaya zote, na Allah ana sifa bora kabisa. Naye ni Mwenye Nguvu, Mwenye Hekima.}'250

Looking at revelation, one can find many usages of this argument as evidence to assist servants in revealing the greatness of the Lord  and His perfect knowledge, power, and wisdom. It stimulates man’s innate predisposition, that invites him to ascribe these manifestations of masterful construction to a Wise and Willing Doer. Read, for example, the following statements of Allah : • ‘To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.’250

"Ni Allah ambaye ameinua mbingu bila nguzo – kama mnavyoona – kisha akatawala juu ya Kiti cha Enzi. Amewatiisha Jua na Mwezi, kila moja likienda katika muda uliowekwa. Yeye ndiye anayeendesha mambo yote. Anazifafanua ishara wazi ili mpate kuwa na yakini ya kukutana na Mola wenu."251

• ‘It is Allah Who has raised the heavens without pillars – as you can see – then established Himself on the Throne. He has subjected the Sun and the Moon, each orbiting for an appointed term. He conducts the whole affair. He makes the signs clear so that you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.’251

Ingawa aya hizi zipo katika muktadha wa kuthibitisha kwa nini Mola peke yake anastahili kuabudiwa – na ushahidi ukiwa ni kwamba washirikina walikiri kwamba Yeye peke yake ndiye Mola wa mamlaka kamili252 – pia zinadokeza kwa lazima kwamba Mwenyezi Mungu yupo. Ukweli ni kwamba aya zinazoweza kutolewa kuhusu jambo hili ni nyingi mno kiasi cha kutoweza kuorodheshwa zote.253 Hizo ni aya zinazowaamrisha waja kutumia nguvu zao za kutafakari, kutafakari uumbaji wa mbingu na ardhi, kubadilishana kwa mchana na usiku, na jinsi nyota, mawingu, upepo na matukio yote ya kimaumbile yanavyotiwa uangalizi, ambayo ni dalili za ukuu wa Muumba wao. Mbali na hizo, zipo aya zinazozungumzia maajabu ya Mwenyezi Mungu katika ufalme wa wanyama na mimea. Hata mwanadamu mwenyewe hajatengwa na mchakato huu wa kutafakari – yeye ni wa kuangalia na pia ni kitu cha kuangaliwa kwa wakati mmoja. Ndiyo maana Mwenyezi Mungu amesema: “Na katika ardhi kuna dalili nyingi kwa wenye yakini.”254

Though these verses are in the context of proving why the Lord  alone is worthy of worship – the proof being that the polytheists affirmed that He  is alone in absolute Lordship252 – they also necessarily imply that Allah exists. The fact is that the verses that can be presented in this regard are too numerous to be all listed.253 They are the verses that instruct servants to animate their powers of contemplation to ponder over the creation of the heavens and the Earth, the alternation of day and night, and the care given to the stars, clouds, winds, and all natural phenomena that are indicative of their Creator’s magnificence. This is in addition to those verses that speak of the wonders of Allah  in the animal and plant kingdoms. Man himself is not precluded from this process of contemplation – he is to observe and be the subject of observation at the same time. This is why Allah  said, ‘There are countless signs on Earth for those with sure faith.’254

Hakuna shaka kwamba hoja hii imekuwa na athari kubwa katika mjadala unaozunguka suala hili. Imekuwa na nguvu hadi imewalazimu wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa Mungu wengi kukiri nguvu yake; kwa kweli, imewafanya baadhi ya watu wao maarufu kuacha kabisa kutoamini kuwepo kwa Mungu. Mwanafalsafa wa Uingereza Antony Flew, aliyekuwa mtu maarufu aliyewahi kuwa mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu, ambaye hapo awali alikuwa ameandika karatasi kadhaa za utafiti zinazounga mkono kutokuwepo kwa Mungu na kushiriki katika mijadala mingi, alijikuta akikiri kuwepo kwa Muumba Mwenye Hekima na Mjuzi wa yote aliyeumba ulimwengu. Katika kitabu chake *There is a God*, alieleza athari kubwa ambayo hoja hii ilikuwa nayo kwake binafsi, iliyomfanya aache kutoamini kuwepo kwa Mungu: ‘Ingawa nilikuwa nikikosoa vikali hoja ya usanifu, tangu wakati huo nimekuja kuona kwamba, inapoelezwa ipasavyo, hoja hii ni ushahidi wenye mashiko wa kuwepo kwa Mungu. Maendeleo katika maeneo mawili hasa yamenifikisha kwenye hitimisho hili. La kwanza ni swali la asili ya sheria za maumbile na maarifa yanayohusiana nayo kutoka kwa wanasayansi mashuhuri wa kisasa. La pili ni swali la asili ya uhai na uzazi.’255 Hoja hii imewalazimu hata wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa Mungu kwa ukaidi mkubwa kukubali kwamba ni mojawapo ya hoja bora zaidi zinazotolewa na wanaoamini kuwepo kwa Mungu.

There is no doubt that this argument has had a huge impact in the debate surrounding this issue. Such has been its sway that it has forced many atheists to acknowledge its power; in fact, it has caused some of their most famous figures to abandon atheism altogether. British philosopher Antony Flew, a famous ex atheist who had previously written a number of pro-atheism research papers and participated in numerous debates, ended up affirming the existence of a Wise, Omniscient Creator who made the universe. In his book There is a God, he expressed the deep impact this argument had on him personally, which led him to abandon atheism: ‘Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God. Developments in two areas in particular have led me to this conclusion. The first is the question of the origin of the laws of nature and the related insights of eminent modern scientists. The second is the question of the origin of life and reproduction.’255 This argument has forced even the most ardent of atheists into admitting that it is one of the best polemics offered by theists.

Hoja ya kiteleolojia inategemea mapendekezo yafuatayo:

The teleological argument is based on the following propositions:

• Pendekezo la kwanza: Ulimwengu tunaouona na tunaoishi ndani yake umeumbwa kwa ustadi mkubwa na kwa ukamilifu. Dalili za utunzaji na upangaji wa Mwenyezi Mungu zimo ndani yake, na ziko wazi.

• First proposition: The universe we see and live in is masterfully made and consummate. The signs of care and providence therein are apparent.

• Pendekezo la pili: Umahiri huu kamili unaashiria kuwepo kwa Mtendaji Mwenye Hekima na Mjuzi wa kila kitu aliyeuumba kwa namna hii.

• Second proposition: This consummate mastery suggests that there is a Wise, Omniscient Doer who created it in this manner.

Hitimisho: Allah ndiye Mwenye Hekima, Mjuzi wa yote, Muumbaji aliyeuumba ulimwengu.

• Conclusion: Allah  is the Wise, Omniscient Creator who created the universe.

Hoja inaweza pia kujengwa juu ya mchakato wa kuondoa: kwanza orodhesha uwezekano wote, kisha ondoa zile zisizo na mantiki. Kauli hapa ni kwamba ulimwengu umeumbwa kwa ustadi mkubwa na ukamilifu. Uwezekano wa hili kuwa hivyo ni matatu.

The argument can also be based on an elimination process: list all the possibilities first, then remove the implausible ones. The statement here is that the universe is masterfully made and consummate. The possibilities for this being the case are three:

i. Ilionekana kutokana na uamuzi wa sababu (causal determinism). ii. Ilionekana kutokana na bahati nasibu (coincidence).

i. It appeared out of causal determinism. ii. It appeared out of coincidence.

iii. Ilitokea kwa shukrani kwa Muumba Mwenye Hekima na Mwenye Kupenda.

iii. It appeared thanks to a Wise and Willing Creator.

Kwa kuondoa chaguo mbili za kwanza (jambo ambalo litajadiliwa kwa undani zaidi hivi karibuni), chaguo pekee lililobaki ni la tatu.

By dispelling the first two options (which is to be discussed in more detail soon), the only option remaining is the third.

Mtu anapofikiria kuhusu jambo la ustadi uliopo katika ulimwengu huu, na anapotazama udhihirisho wake mzuri na picha zake, ataona kwamba hoja hii inaweza kupatikana kwa wingi katika dunia tunayoishi. Ulimwengu umejaa matukio ya ajabu ya uzuri, ukuu na ustadi. Mwanafizikia asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu, Steven Weinberg, alisema: ‘Ni lazima nikiri kwamba wakati mwingine maumbile yanaonekana kuwa mazuri zaidi kuliko inavyohitajika kikamilifu.’256 Inatosha kusema kwamba, lau uzuri huu na ustadi huu visingekuwepo kwa wingi kiasi hicho, tungekuwa katika ulimwengu tofauti kabisa – na dunia yetu ingekuwa mahali pagumu pa kuishi.

When a person thinks about the phenomenon of the mastery that exists in this universe and looks at its wonderful manifestations and imagery, he would see that this argument can be found abundantly across the world that we live in. The universe is laden with amazing scenes of beauty, grandeur, and mastery. The atheist physicist Steven Weinberg said, ‘I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary.’256 Suffice it to say that, had this beauty and mastery not been in such abundance, we would have been in a totally different universe – and our world would have become a hard place to live.

Wingi huu wa ushahidi wa ujenzi wa hali ya juu wa ulimwengu umekuwa na athari kubwa katika kuenea kwa hoja ya kiteleolojia na urahisi wa kuitumia. Kwa hakika, wingi huu unaifanya inafaa kwa aina mbalimbali za watu, kwa sababu watu wanaweza kutofautiana sana katika uwezo wao wa kuelewa na kutafakari alama za muundo wa makusudi katika uumbaji. Hii pia ni kwa sababu watu hutofautiana katika uzoefu wao wa kiakili na maarifa yao. Pale zana za kiakili zilizo ndani ya mtu zinapokuwa nyingi zaidi na zimekomaa zaidi, atapata mtazamo wa mbele juu ya undani wa ujenzi usio na dosari ambao mtu asiye na zana hizo hangeweza kuupata. Kiini cha uwezo huu kinapatikana kwa watu wote mradi fiṭrah yao na hisia zao ziko salama. Zaidi ya hayo, wanaweza kutofautiana katika kiwango cha kutumia tafakari – ambayo ni ibada – kama vile wanavyoweza kutofautiana katika athari ambayo tafakari hiyo inaweza kuwa nayo juu yao. Katika maandiko ya kimapokeo, katika kutafuta kumfahamu Muumba na kuongeza ujuzi wa mtu juu Yake na sifa zake kamilifu, kuna mwitikio unaotegemea imani unaozungumzia tafakari. Mojawapo ya maandiko bora juu ya hili ni yale aliyoandika Imam Ibn al-Qayyim katika vitabu vyake Shifā’ al-ʿAlīl na Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, ambapo alifanya utafiti wa kina juu ya suala hili akitafuta hekima ya Allah katika mambo mengi ya uumbaji Wake, akidhihirisha ujuzi Wake wa kila kitu katika udhihirisho wa ujenzi wa umahiri na ukamilifu uliomo katika uumbaji. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī pia ana risala juu ya suala hilo hilo, iliyopewa jina al-Ḥikmah fī Makhlūqāt Allah.

This abundance of evidence for the masterful construction of the universe has had a huge influence in the teleological argument’s spread and the simplicity of its application. In fact, this abundance makes it suitable for a wide range of people, as people can differ vastly in terms of their ability to comprehend and contemplate the signs of intelligent design in the creation. This is also because people differ in terms of their cognitive experiences and knowledge. Whenever the intellectual tools inside a person are in greater abundance and maturity, he would gain a foresight into the subtlety of an immaculate construction that someone without these tools would not be able to acquire. The essence of this capability is found in all people so long as their fiṭrah and senses are uncorrupted. Beyond this, they can vary in terms of the extent they can exercise reflection – an act of worship – just as they can vary in terms of the impact that reflection can have on them. In traditional writings, in the pursuit of understanding the Creator  and to deepen one’s knowledge of Him and His perfect attributes, there is a faith-based response that speaks to reflection. One of the best writings on this is what Imam Ibn al-Qayyim  wrote in his books Shifā’ al-ʿAlīl and Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, where he extensively researched this issue in the search of Allah’s wisdom in many aspects of His creation, revealing His omniscience in the manifestation of masterful and consummate construction embedded in the creation. Abū Ḥāmid al Ghazālī  also has a treatise on the same issue, titled al-Ḥikmah fī Makhlūqāt Allah.

Dhana ya kwanza: Upangaji makini wa ulimwengu.

First concept: The fine-tuning of the universe.

Dhana moja ya kisayansi inayoweza kutumiwa kufichua muundo uliokamilika kwa kina wa ulimwengu inajulikana kama urekebishaji makini (fine-tuning) wa ulimwengu. Wazo hili lilianza kuonekana kwa mara ya kwanza katika karatasi iliyoandikwa na mwanafizikia Brandon Carter mwaka 1974, iliyopewa kichwa ‘Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology’. Kazi iliyofuata kuhusu jambo hili ilikuwa ya Bernard Carr na Martin Rees mwaka 1979 iitwayo ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, ikafuatiwa na kazi ya kawaida ya kiensaiklopidia The Anthropic Cosmological Principle ya John Barrow na Frank Tipler mwaka 1986. Baadaye, maandishi mengi kuhusu suala hili yalitokea, yote yakiwa na msingi uleule.

One scientific concept that can be leveraged to uncover the deeply consummate construct of the universe is known as the fine-tuning of the universe. This idea first surfaced in a paper written by the physicist Brandon Carter in 1974, which was titled ‘Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology’. The next work to appear on this was by Bernard Carr and Martin Rees in 1979 called ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, followed by the classic encyclopaedic work The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in 1986. Subsequently, many writings on this issue appeared, all of which carry the same premise.

Dhana kuu ni kwamba tunapotafakari ulimwengu, tunaona kwamba kuna sheria na thamani za mara kwa mara zilizowekwa kwa usahihi wa hali ya juu ili uhai uweze kuwepo; kwa hakika, baadhi ya sheria hizi zimesawazishwa kwa usahihi mkubwa hivi kwamba kuwepo kwa ulimwengu mzima kunategemea hilo, na kwamba kasoro yoyote katika mojawapo ya thamani hizi ingeleta uharibifu kamili. Umahiri unaoonekana katika uumbaji wa ulimwengu haukomei kwa viumbe hai pekee au sayari hii ya ajabu tunamoishi. Umahiri huu unaenea hadi kwenye sheria na thamani za mara kwa mara zinazotawala ulimwengu huu. Thamani hizi ni seti ya data za kinambari ambazo zimechaguliwa kwa uangalifu mkubwa, kiasi kwamba iwapo zingepotoka kidogo tu kutoka kwenye namba hizo, mfumo mzima wa uhai, na kwa hakika ulimwengu wenyewe, ungetoweka. Kuwepo kwa ulimwengu kumefungamana moja kwa moja na namba hizi muhimu. Stephen C. Meyer, mwanzilishi na mkurugenzi wa Discovery Institute, anafafanua jambo hili kwa mfano: ‘Fikiria kwamba wewe ni mtafiti wa anga za mbali ambaye amejikwaa tu hadi kwenye chumba cha udhibiti wa ulimwengu mzima. Huko unagundua "mashine ya kuumba ulimwengu" yenye safu nyingi za vipimo, kila kimoja kikiwa na mipangilio mingi inayowezekana. Unapochunguza, unajifunza kwamba kila kipimo kinawakilisha kigezo fulani ambacho lazima kiwekwe kwa thamani sahihi ili kuumba ulimwengu ambamo uhai unaweza kuwepo. Kipimo kimoja kinawakilisha mipangilio inayowezekana ya nguvu kali ya nyuklia, kingine cha mvutano wa kidunia, kingine cha kigezo cha Planck, kingine cha uwiano wa uzito wa nyutroni kwa uzito wa protoni, kingine cha nguvu ya mvutano wa sumakuumeme, na kadhalika. Wewe, mtafiti wa anga za mbali, unapokichunguza vipimo hivyo, unaona kwamba vingeweza kwa urahisi kuwekwa katika mipangilio tofauti. Zaidi ya hayo, kwa hesabu makini unabaini kwamba iwapo mpangilio wowote wa kipimo ungebadilishwa hata kidogo tu, uhai ungekoma kuwepo.’ Hata hivyo, kwa sababu fulani kila kipimo (dial) kimewekwa katika thamani sahihi kabisa inayohitajika ili kuendesha ulimwengu. Unadhani nini kuhusu asili ya mipangilio hii iliyorekebishwa kwa usahihi wa hali ya juu?

Tunapotafakari juu ya mvuto wa Dunia, udhibiti wake juu yetu, na jinsi unavyotuvuta chini kuelekea yenyewe, tunahisi kwamba kuna nguvu kubwa ambayo hakuna njia ya kuikwepa. Hata hivyo, ikilinganishwa na nguvu nyingine za kimaumbile, inaonekana kuwa dhaifu sana. Kwa kweli, ni dhaifu mara 1036 kuliko nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu. Udhaifu wa mvuto ikilinganishwa na nguvu nyingine za kimaumbile ni kipengele muhimu katika urekebishaji sahihi sana wa ulimwengu kwa ajili ya uhai. Katika jarida la New Scientist, katika makala yenye kichwa ‘Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?’, imeandikwa: ‘Udhaifu wa mvuto ni jambo ambalo tunapaswa kushukuru kwalo. Kama ungekuwa na nguvu kidogo tu zaidi, hakuna hata mmoja wetu angekuwepo hapa kuudharau asili yake dhaifu.’258

When we ponder over the Earth’s gravitational pull, its control over us, and how it pulls us back down to itself, we feel that there is a mighty force from which there is no escape. However, when compared to other natural forces, it appears to be very weak. In fact, it is 1036 times weaker than the strong nuclear force. The weakness of gravity compared to other natural forces is a key element in the extremely precise fine-tuning for life. In the New Scientist magazine, in the article titled ‘Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?’, it states, ‘The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.’258

Mvuto wa ulimwengu wenye mvuto wa ulimwengu (gravitational constant) umepangwa kwa usahihi wa ajabu sana – lau ungetofautiana hata kwa 1060, basi sisi tusingekuwepo. Ili kuelewa 257 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, uk. 57.

The gravitational constant of the universe has been incredibly and precisely tuned – had it been off even by 1060, we would not have existed. To understand 257 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, p. 57.

jinsi safu hii ya kuruhusu uhai ilivyo nyembamba sana. fikiria una kifaa cha kurekebisha vizuri au kipimo cha kupima (dial). kisha ukagawanya digrii za kipimo hicho kwa 10^60 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

how exceedingly narrow this life-permitting range is, imagine you have a fine tuning machine or a calibrating dial. Then you divided the degrees of the dial by 1060(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Kwa sababu hiyo, wangu, ukiangalia tu idadi hizi bila maelezo yoyote ya mtu, unaweza kuona hali ambapo kila kitu hakiko sawa. Mfano mwingine ni huu: unachukua chombo cha kupimia kama rula, unapima ulimwengu kutoka upande mmoja hadi mwingine, kisha unapima nguvu ya mvuto ya Dunia na kuweka thamani hiyo kwenye ile rula. Ukikosea hata kwa inchi moja tu, ingeweza kuleta janga kubwa. Hivyo basi, kwa kuwa idadi hii iliyopangwa vizuri imehusika, ingekuwa na mantiki zaidi kuamini kwamba hili lilitokana na elimu, na kwamba haliwezi kuwa ni bahati tu.

Nguvu hii ndiyo inayohusika na uthabiti wa maada kwa kushikilia pamoja protoni na nyutroni za kiini cha atomu, hivyo kuunda viini vya atomu. Protoni zote, kama tunavyojua, hubeba chaji chanya; kinachoziwezesha kubaki imara ndani ya kiini cha atomu – na zisifukuzwe – ni nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu (strong nuclear force). Ni kama jaribio la kulazimisha sumaku mbili za nguzo moja kushikana – kufanya hivyo kungeleta kurudishana. Hata hivyo, ikiwa nguvu inayojaribu kuziunganisha ina nguvu zaidi, inawezekana kushinda kurudishana huko. Nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu pia imesawazishwa kwa usahihi wa hali ya juu. Lau ingekuwa dhaifu kwa 2%, atomu za hidrojeni zingerudishana na zisingeweza kamwe kuungana na kemikali nyingine, na hivyo ulimwengu ungebaki katika hali ya kuwa na atomu za hidrojeni tu zinazozunguka-zunguka. Kinyume chake, lau nguvu hii ingekuwa na nguvu zaidi kwa 2%, atomu za hidrojeni zingeungana haraka sana hadi zote zingegeuka kuwa heliamu, ambayo ingekuwa kipengele cha kemikali kinachotawala kwa kiasi kikubwa kote ulimwenguni. Kuna usawa mzuri katika nguvu hii: Baadhi ya atomu za hidrojeni huungana kuwa atomu za heliamu, ilhali hidrojeni iliyobaki hubaki kuunda vipengele vyote vingine vya kemikali, kama vile kuungana na oksijeni kuunda maji. Ingekuwa vigumu kuwazia uhai wowote bila usawa huu kamili katika nguvu hii. Yaliyosemwa kuhusu nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu yanatumika vilevile kwa nguvu ya nyuklia dhaifu (weak nuclear force), pamoja na nguvu ya sumakuumeme (electromagnetic force). Pamoja na mvutano wa dunia (gravity) na nguvu ya nyuklia yenye nguvu, hizi ndizo nguvu nne zinazodhibiti ulimwengu. Zote nne zimesawazishwa kwa usahihi mkubwa kiasi kwamba, kama yoyote kati yake ingebadilika hata kidogo sana, uhai usingeweza kuwepo. Mifano inayoonyesha usawazishaji huu wa kina ni mingi mno kuweza kuitajwa. Zinaweza kuchunguzwa na kuonekana katika vitabu vinavyohusu jambo hili la ajabu. Baadhi ya kazi zinazokuja akilini kuhusiana na hili ni Just Six Numbers cha Martin Rees, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life? cha Rodney Holder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom cha Gerald Schroeder, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology cha Alister McGrath, The Goldilocks Enigma cha Paul Davies, na God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science cha Neil Manson. Kwa kweli, maandishi mengi ya Magharibi yaliyochunguza hoja hii yanaonyesha mifano mbalimbali ya kuthibitisha asili iliyorekebishwa kwa usahihi ya ulimwengu, sheria zake, na vipimo vyake vya kudumu. Lile la ajabu kuhusu hali hii ya kurekebishwa kwa usahihi ni kwamba, kama baadhi ya nguvu hizi zingekuwa si mahali zilipo hasa, ulimwengu ungekuwa umeacha kuwepo kwa muda mrefu katika umbo tunalolijua. Baadhi ya nguvu zimesawazishwa kwa namna iliyoruhusu kuendelea kwa nyota, sayari, na maada. Nyingine zimesawazishwa kwa usahihi mkubwa hivi kwamba ziliwekwa tu ili kumkaribisha mwanadamu. Hoja ya mwisho ndiyo inayojulikana kama kanuni ya kibinadamu (anthropic principle). Kuna seti ya data inayohusiana na asili ya ulimwengu huu ambayo ingeufanya usifae kwa uhai kama ingekuwa tofauti. Mwanafalsafa wa Kiingereza Antony Flew alichora kwa ustadi picha ya hoja hii katika kitabu chake There is a God.

Kwa upande wa mtazamo wa wasioamini kuwepo kwa Mungu, kwamba ulimwengu ulikuwa – inadaiwa – siku zote unakwenda kufikia hali ilivyo sasa, hilo si lazima liwe hivyo. Huu ndio msimamo ambao wanafizikia wengi wanaukubali, kama vile Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, George Ellis, na wengine. Kwa mfano, Davies anasema: ‘Nadharia ya kweli ya kila kitu lazima ieleze si tu jinsi ulimwengu wetu ulivyoanza kuwepo, bali pia kwa nini ni aina pekee ya ulimwengu ambao ungeweza kuwepo – kwa nini kungeweza kuwa na seti moja tu ya sheria za kimaumbile.’264

As for the atheist viewpoint that the universe was – supposedly – always going to come to a point where it is now at, then that is not necessarily the case. This is the stance that most physicists adopt, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, George Ellis, and others. For example, Davies states, ‘A genuine theory of everything must explain not only how our universe came into being, but also why it is the only type of universe that there could have been – why there could only be one set of physical laws.’264

Msimamo wa kiamua (determinist) unaodai kwamba konstanti hizi zilikuwa lazima zijitokeze unaleta msimamo kwamba isingewezekana ulimwengu wowote kuja kuwepo usio na uhai, na kwamba kuwepo kwa ulimwengu kwa namna hii finyu na inayofaa kulikuwa kumepangwa na daima kungetokea. Hili linapingana na uhalisia: Data zote zinaonyesha kwamba uwezekano wa ulimwengu – kama wetu – unaoweza kusaidia uhai ni mdogo mno ukilinganishwa na uwezekano usio na kikomo wa ulimwengu usio na uhai. Hakuna hata dalili ndogo inayopendekeza kwamba konstanti hizi lazima ziwe daima kwa namna hii. Kwa kweli, baadhi ya wanasayansi wanazungumzia nadharia ambayo haijagunduliwa hadi sasa. Inaitwa 'nadharia ya kila kitu' (TOE). Inajaribu kutoa nadharia inayopanga nguvu nne za asili kuwa sheria moja, jambo ambalo lingerahisisha sana vipengele vingi vya fizikia. Juhudi za kutafuta nadharia hii zilianza tayari kwa Einstein, aliyesema, 'Kinachonivutia kweli ni kama Mungu angeweza kuuumba ulimwengu kwa namna tofauti.' Bila shaka, juhudi zake katika hili hazikuzaa matunda. 'Nadharia ya nyuzi' (string theory) ni mwendelezo wa jaribio la kutafuta TOE. Jaribio maarufu zaidi leo – ambalo liko mstari wa mbele katika mijadala hii na ndilo nadharia inayoongoza – ni kile kinachojulikana kama 'M-theory', ambacho kinajaribu kuunganisha matoleo yote thabiti ya nadharia ya nyuzi chini ya kanuni moja. Dhana kama hizi ndizo mwelekeo chaguomsingi wa baadhi ya watu wanaotaka kueleza kwa nini sheria na konstanti za ulimwengu ziko kama zilivyo. Victor Stenger anasema, 'Wanafizikia wengi wanatarajia kwamba hatimaye nadharia ya kila kitu (TOE) itagunduliwa ambayo itajumuisha hesabu ya vigezo vyake vyote. Katika hali hiyo, hakutakuwa na kitu cha kurekebisha vizuri.'265

Tunamwachia Weinberg jibu la swali hili:

We leave the answer to this to Weinberg:

Sio tu dhana ya kubahatisha. Nadharia ingeweza kuwa ya kubahatisha, lakini hatuna nadharia ambayo ubahatishaji huo unathibitishwa kihisabati, ndiyo. Lakini ni uwezekano. Maelezo mengine pekee ni kwamba hayo si maelezo hata kidogo, kwa sababu hatuna nadharia inayoweza kuwa mgombea. Lakini maelezo pekee yanayoonekana kufanya kazi ni kwamba hili ni mojawapo ya mambo yanayotofautiana kutoka sub-universe hadi sub-universe, kutoka Big Bang hadi Big Bang. Katika Big Bang nyingi, nishati hiyo ni kubwa zaidi kuliko tunavyoona. Na katika Big Bang hizo, hupitia kwa sababu nishati hii inaendesha upanuzi wa ulimwengu kulingana na kama ni chanya au hasi. Katika ulimwengu unaolipuka kwa kasi kubwa, hakuna muda wa galaksi au nyota kuundwa, au unajikunja au kuporomoka tena kwa kasi kiasi kwamba hakuna muda wa uhai kuundwa baadaye, ndiyo. Kwa hiyo lazima iwe ndogo ili uhai uwepo, na ni karibu kiasi hicho hasa. Ni jambo la kuvutia kwamba si ndogo sana kuliko ingepaswa kuwa ili kuruhusu uhai kutokea… na lazima iwe angalau 10^56, au kama unadhani una wazo kuhusu mabadiliko-badiliko katika umbali mfupi zaidi, nadhani ungesema angalau 10^120. Kwa kweli, hilo linasumbua kidogo.271

I mean it's not only a speculation. The theory would be speculative, but we don’t have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized, yeah. But it’s a possibility. But the only other explanation is that is not even an explanation because we don’t have a candidate theory. But the only explanation that seems to work is that this is just one of those things that varies from sub-universe to sub-universe, from Big Bang to Big Bang. In most of the Big Bangs, it’s much larger than what we observe. And in those Big Bangs, they go through because this energy drives the expansion of the universe depending on whether it’s positive or negative. In the universe that blows up so rapidly, there’s no time for galaxies or stars to form, or it crunches or re-collapses so rapidly again there’s no time after life to form, yes. So it has to be small for life to exist, and it’s about as small as it as in fact that’s interesting it’s not much smaller than it would have to be to allow life to arise…and it must be at least 1056, or if you think you have some idea about fluctuations in even shorter distances I think you would say at least 10120. In fact, that's a little disturbing.271

Alexander Vilenkin anasema, Kupotoka kidogo kutoka kwenye nguvu inayohitajika husababisha janga la kikosmolojia, kama vile mpira wa moto kujiporomoka chini ya uzito wake yenyewe au ulimwengu kuwa karibu tupu… Hii ndiyo kesi maarufu na yenye utata zaidi ya urekebishaji laini (fine-tuning) katika fizikia. Leonard Susskind, mwanafizikia wa nadharia ya nyuzi (string theory) asiye wa kidini, kama alivyo Vilenkin, anaandika katika makala yake, Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant, kwamba isipokuwa kipimo hiki kingerekebishwa vizuri, "matukio ya kimiujiza kitakwimu" yangehitajika ili ulimwengu wetu uwe unaoruhusu uhai. Anapendekeza kwamba, kwa kuzingatia hili, huenda wakala asiyejulikana ndiye aliweka hali za awali za ulimwengu tunaouona leo.272

Dhana moja ya kitaalamu iliyobuniwa na mwanabiolojia Dkt. Michael Behe wa Chuo Kikuu cha Lehigh huko Pennsylvania ni ‘irreducible complexity’. Aliandika hili katika kitabu chake maarufu Darwin’s Black Box, katika sura iliyopewa jina lake. Irreducible complexity ni wazo kwamba matukio changamano yanayojumuisha sehemu zinazohitaji kufanya kazi kwa pamoja kwa upatano lazima yalitengenezwa hivyo hivyo mara moja; kama mojawapo ya sehemu hizo ingechelewa katika mageuzi, mfumo mzima wa matukio kama hayo ungeanguka. Hii inathibitisha kwamba lazima kulikuwepo mbunifu aliyeyaunda matukio hayo mara moja. Ili mfumo wowote wa kibiolojia ufanye kazi ipasavyo, lazima uwe na vipengele vitatu:

One piece of jargon coined by the biochemist Dr. Michael Behe at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania is ‘irreducible complexity’. He wrote this in his famous book Darwin’s Black Box, in a chapter titled after it. Irreducible complexity is the idea that complex composite phenomena that require component parts that work in mutual harmony must have been made as thus in one go; if any lagged behind in evolution, the entire system of such phenomena would have collapsed. This proves that there must have been a designer who fashioned these phenomena in one go. So that any biological system can function properly, it must have three elements to it:

1. Sehemu zake zote zinazounda lazima ziwepo.

1. All its constituent parts must be present.

2. Sehemu zake zote zinazounda lazima ziwepo kwa wakati mmoja.

2. All its constituent parts must be present simultaneously.

3. Sehemu zake zote za msingi lazima zifungamane na kila moja kwa namna sahihi na yenye upatanifu. Msimamo unaodai kwamba ulimwengu ni jambo la kubahatisha unakabiliwa na njia yenye matuta makubwa kabla ya kuweza kupata masharti haya matatu. Hili kiotomatiki linapaswa kumaanisha kwamba kuna mbunifu aliyeyaumba matukio haya kwa mpangilio na usahihi ule ulioyafanya, na kwamba hayakubadilika kupitia kile wasioamini Mungu wanachokiita sheria za kipofu za maumbile, mabadiliko ya kijenetiki ya kubahatisha, au michakato ya uteuzi wa asili kutoka aina za awali hadi yakawa viumbe changamano walivyo. Msimamo kama huo unaelekea kwenye upunguzaji na urahisishaji kupita kiasi, jambo linalopingana na nadharia ya mageuzi inayodhani kwamba mfumo wowote changamano wa kibiolojia ungebadilika hatua kwa hatua kutoka aina rahisi zaidi na rahisi zaidi, hadi kurudi kabisa kwenye umbo lake la kwanza na rahisi zaidi. Ikiwa matukio yangekubali urahisishaji wa namna hiyo, ingemaanisha kiotomatiki kwamba yote yaliumbwa mara moja. Kwa kuzingatia hili, msimamo wa mbunifu ndio jibu lenye mantiki zaidi kwa swali la jinsi tulivyoingia katika kuwepo. Katika kitabu chake, Behe alitaja mifano 286 kutoka ulimwengu wa asili kwa matukio haya. Mfano maarufu na wa kuvutia zaidi wa ugumu usioweza kupunguzwa ni flagellum ya bakteria. Bakteria huyu ana injini ya kimolekuli inayozunguka, jambo linalomwezesha kusogea majini kwa urahisi mkubwa. Mkia wake umeundwa na sehemu 40 tofauti za protini; ikiwa mojawapo kati ya hizo haingekuwepo wakati wowote, bakteria angekosa kufanya kazi. Hili linaonyesha kwamba ni kiumbe chenye ugumu usioweza kupunguzwa ambacho hakingeweza kupitia mageuzi, bali kiliingia katika maumbile mara moja. Mifumo kama vile flagellum ya bakteria ingeeleweka kwa urahisi zaidi na kwa busara kwa kuwa ilikuja kuwepo kupitia Mbunifu mwenye mapenzi na uchaguzi aliyeibuni kuwa hivyo, si kwamba ilibadilika polepole kwa uteuzi wa asili au mabadiliko ya kijenetiki ya taratibu kama inavyodaiwa na mfano wa msingi wa Darwin. Huu ni mfano mmoja tu. Kuna mifano mingine mingi. "Kwa mfano, mwaka 1998 jarida maarufu la Cell lilichapisha toleo maalum lenye kichwa "Macromolecular Machines". Mashine za Molekuli ni vifaa vya ajabu vyenye ugumu mkubwa ambavyo seli zote hutumia kuchakata taarifa, kujenga protini, na kusogeza vitu kuvuka utando wake huku na kule. Bruce Alberts, Rais wa Chuo cha Taifa cha Sayansi, alitambulisha toleo hili kwa makala iliyoitwa "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines". Ndani yake, alisema hivi: 'Daima tumekuwa tukidharau seli... Seli nzima inaweza kuonekana kama kiwanda kinachojumuisha mtandao tata wa mistari ya uzalishaji iliyounganishwa, ambapo kila mmoja unaundwa na seti ya mashine kubwa za protini... Kwa nini tunaziita mkusanyiko mkubwa wa protini unaosimamia kazi za seli mashine za protini? Hasa kwa sababu, kama mashine zilizobuniwa na binadamu kushughulikia dunia ya kawaida kwa ufanisi, mkusanyiko huu wa protini una sehemu zinazosogea zilizoratibiwa kwa kina.'287" Seli ni ulimwengu unaojitegemea, uliojaa mifumo na taratibu mbalimbali. Kila moja imetengenezwa kwa namna maalum na hutekeleza kazi yake. Kwa jumla, mifumo hii na taratibu hizi zina nafasi katika uhai wa seli hii.

Wakati James Watson na Francis Crick walipogundua muundo wa hesi-mbili (double helix) wa DNA, walifanikiwa kutatua fumbo moja la uhai. Hata hivyo, ugunduzi huo ulizaa fumbo jingine. Asili ya data iliyomo katika msimbo wa kijenetiki lilikuwa fumbo lililowasumbua wanasayansi. Wengi walijaribu kueleza kiasi cha ajabu cha taarifa za kibiolojia zilizomo ndani ya seli kwa kutumia mtazamo finyu wa kimaada juu ya ulimwengu, ambao hautambui maelezo mengine yoyote yaliyo nje ya upeo wake. Kwa hakika, inaonekana kuwa vigumu kwa usayansi-kupindukia (scientism) kueleza jambo hili. Kupitia ugunduzi wao wa muundo wa msimbo wa kijenetiki, Watson na Crick waliweza kufichua hazina kubwa ya data ndani ya DNA, ambayo inajidhihirisha kupitia besi nne na herufi nne za kemikali: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) na thymine (T). Besi hizi nne zimepangwa katika maumbo maalum, ili kuhifadhi na kusambaza orodha ya maagizo ya kijenetiki ya kutengeneza protini na vimeng'enya vingine ambavyo seli zinahitaji ili ziendelee kuishi. Mwaka 1955, Crick alidhania kwamba vipengele vya kemikali vilivyomo katika DNA hufanya kazi kwa namna inayofanana na herufi za lugha katika kujenga sentensi, au jinsi msimbo unavyofanya kazi katika kuunda programu za kompyuta. Kwa maneno mengine, kama vile programu za kompyuta zinavyopangwa kutekeleza kazi maalum, vivyo hivyo mfuatano huu unapangwa katika nukleotidi ili kutekeleza majukumu maalum, jambo linalojulikana kama mpangilio wa kiprogramu (programmed sequencing). Cha kushangaza, Dawkins alikiri: ‘Msimbo wa mashine wa jeni unafanana kwa kushangaza na wa kompyuta. Isipokuwa tofauti za msamiati, kurasa za jarida la biolojia ya molekuli zingeweza kubadilishwa na zile za jarida la uhandisi wa kompyuta.’ Kauli hii iliungwa mkono na Bill Gates, mwanzilishi mwenza wa Microsoft: ‘DNA ya binadamu ni kama programu ya kompyuta, lakini ni ya hali ya juu zaidi, zaidi sana kuliko programu yoyote iliyowahi kutengenezwa.’291

When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix of DNA, they were able to solve a mystery of life. However, it led to another mystery. The nature of the data present in the genetic code was a mystery that puzzled scientists. Many tried to explain the incredible amount of biological information embedded within cells through the narrow lens of the materialistic outlook on the universe that does not recognise any other explanation outside its remit. Indeed, it would appear to be difficult for scientism to explain this. Through their discovery of the make up of the genetic code, Watson and Crick were able to reveal a huge data mine inside DNA, which is expressed through four bases and four chemical letters: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are organised into particular shapes, in order to store and disseminate the list of genetic instructions for making proteins and other enzymes for cells to remain alive. In 1955, Crick theorised that the chemical components in DNA work similar to the letters of a language in constructing sentences, or how code operates in creating computer programmes. In other words, just like how computer programmes are put together to undertake specific tasks, likewise this sequence is put together in the nucleotides to perform specific duties, referred to as programmed sequencing. Significantly, Dawkins admitted: ‘The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.’290 This was echoed by Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: ‘Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.’291

Baada ya kuhitimisha majadiliano juu ya dalili ya pili ya kiakili ya kuwepo kwa Mwenyezi Mungu – hoja ya mpangilio na ukamilifu usio na dosari – sasa tunawasilisha pingamizi kuu zilizotolewa dhidi yake. Pingamizi hizi zimelenga pande zote mbili, yaani hoja zake za msingi na hitimisho lake.

Having concluded the discussion on the second rational indicator for Allah’s existence – the argument from systemisation and immaculateness – we now present the most salient objections that have been made to it. These objections have targeted both its propositions and its conclusion.

Hoja ya kwanza: Ukuu ni makadirio tu Hii ni hoja ya ajabu. Nimekutana na wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa dalili za ukuu na ubora katika ulimwengu huu, kila mmoja kwa kiwango chake na kwa visingizio mbalimbali. Baadhi yao wana shaka kama ulimwengu umeumbwa kwa ustadi kabisa tangu mwanzo, wakiamini kwamba dai hilo ni makadirio ya kibinafsi juu ya anga. Wanadai kwamba jinsi tunavyousoma ulimwengu hutupa udanganyifu huu, ingawa hauna maana ya kiusawa ndani ya ulimwengu. Kwa maneno mengine, ustadi wote unaotuzunguka haumaanishi lazima kwamba kulikuwepo mchakato wa ujenzi wenye ustadi wenyewe. Kwa mfano, tunapoona sanamu ya binadamu, tunaweza kuthamini namna ilivyojengwa. Baada ya yote, sisi tunaotazama tukio hili pia ni binadamu. Kama ingedhaniwa kwamba kiumbe fulani hakuwahi kumwona binadamu maishani mwake, anaweza kupita karibu na sanamu hiyo bila kuona sifa yoyote ya ustadi ndani yake; pengine angefikiri ni jiwe la kawaida tu, au jiwe lililomomonyoka kidogo, bila kuwa limeguswa na uingiliaji (yaani uchongaji) wa mtendaji mwenye nia. Vivyo hivyo, mtu akiona herufi za lugha na hati asiyoielewa, anaweza kudhani ni michoro ya nasibu tu. Kwa hiyo, kuona sifa yoyote ndani yake kungekuwa makadirio juu yake. Nilikuwa nikifikiri kwamba aina hizi za mitazamo zilikuwa zimezuiliwa kwenye kauli za wanafalsafa wa pembezoni – kama zile za mwanafalsafa mwenye msimamo wa kutoamini Mungu Baron d'Holbach (d. 1789) – na hazikuwa zikizunguka katika falsafa ya kisasa ya kutoamini Mungu. Haikuwa mpaka nilipoisoma baadhi ya haya katika maandiko ya kisasa, pamoja na mijadala na mikutano niliyopitia binafsi, ndipo nilipogundua kwamba hoja hii bado inatumika sana. Ukweli ni kwamba hoja hii ni ya ajabu sana, kwani inajumuisha ukaidi mkubwa na kosa la kushangaza. Kwa kweli, mifano yenyewe iliyotolewa hapa ndiyo inayofichua kosa hilo. Uchongaji wa jiwe na mwigizaji mwenye hiari, pamoja na seti ya herufi na maandishi yanayohusu lugha fulani, huonyesha umahiri kama hakika ya lengo katika mambo haya; utambuzi na maarifa ndiyo yanayoongoza kugundua hakika hii. Kwa hiyo, kila muundo wa kimahiri uliopo katika ulimwengu, ungeendelea kuongeza uzoefu wetu na maarifa yetu. Mchakato huu wa ugunduzi utaendelea mradi tu uzoefu na maarifa vinaendelea kutoa. Aina hii ya fikra bila shaka humwongoza mtu kukataa hakika zote za lengo. Ukiwa na shaka kama mchanganyiko tata unaweza kutoa maarifa, halafu ukajiepusha na aina hii ya dhana kwa kisingizio cha kwamba hukumu yoyote kama hiyo ni ya kinisbi, na kwamba haina hakika ya lengo ndani yake, utajikuta ukiwa na shaka juu ya kila kitu kinachokuzunguka, kwani inawezekana kwamba kila kitu pia ni makadirio tu, hakina thamani ya lengo inayojitenga nawe. Hili huondoa thamani yoyote ya lengo kutoka kwa dhana za kibinadamu, na badala yake kuzirejesha kwenye utambuzi wa kinisbi tu unaokabiliwa na shaka, jambo linaloweza kumwingiza mbeba falsafa kama hiyo katika aina ya ulaghai wa kimantiki. Ukweli ni kwamba wenye shaka hawa wenyewe hawaenendi hivyo katika maisha yao ya kila siku, kwa kuwa hilo ni kinyume kabisa cha fitra salama ya kibinadamu, na pia kwa sababu matokeo yake yangeharibu msingi wowote wa kuugundua ulimwengu na kushirikiana nao.

Kitabu muhimu kwa Wanatheisti Wapya (New Atheists) katika mjadala kuhusu suala la ulimwengu kuwa umepangwa kwa usahihi wa hali ya juu ni kitabu cha mwanafizikia mwenye msimamo wa kutoamini Mungu, Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Yeye pia ndiye mwandishi wa God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, ambacho ni kitabu kikuu katika harakati za New Atheism. Dhana iliyo nyuma ya kitabu The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning inaonekana wazi kutokana na jina lake. Kinajaribu kupinga wazo lililoenea kwamba ulimwengu una sifa ya kupangwa kwa usahihi wa hali ya juu, hata katika kiwango cha viwango vya ulimwengu (cosmological constants) na matukio yake, na kwamba kuwepo kwetu kungekuwa hakuwezekani kama usawazishaji huu sahihi usingekuwepo. Wazo hili limeenea katika kazi za wanasayansi wengi, wanaoamini Mungu na wasioamini. Kwa kweli, Stenger mwenyewe anasema, ‘Hata wanafizikia wasioamini Mungu wanaona vigumu kueleza kwa njia ya kawaida kile kinachoitwa “anthropic principle”, na wengi wanafikiri wanahitaji kuita ulimwengu mwingi ili kulieleza.’298

An important book for the New Atheists in the debate over the issue of the universe being precisely calibrated is by the atheist physicist Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. He by the way is also the author of God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, which is a key text in New Atheism. The concept behind the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning is obvious from its title. It attempts to refute the prevailing notion that the universe is characterised by a high level of fine-tuning – even at the level of its cosmological constants and events – and that our existence would have been impossible were it not for this precise balancing. This notion is widespread across the works of many scientists, both theists and atheists. In fact, Stenger himself states, ‘Even atheist physicists find this so-called “anthropic principle” difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so.’298

Ukweli ni kwamba orodha ya watu wanaoamini katika usahihi wa mpangilio wa ulimwengu ni ndefu na inajumuisha majina mengi, ambao wana njia mbalimbali za kueleza jinsi jambo la usahihi wa mpangilio lilivyotokea. Watu hao ni: Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, na wengine wengi.299 Katika kitabu chake, Stenger anachagua baadhi ya vifungu kutoka kwa wanasayansi wanaoonyesha mshangao wao kuhusu jambo hili la usahihi wa mpangilio mkamilifu.

The fact is that the list of people who believe in the fine-tuning of the universe is lengthy and comprises of many names, who have a variety of ways in expressing how the phenomenon of fine-tuning came about. These people are: Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, and many others.299 In his book, Stenger selects a number of passages from scientists who express their amazement at this phenomenon of precise fine-tuning:

Msimamo mmoja unaoonyesha aina fulani ya kukataa — ingawa si kukataa kabisa — hoja ya urekebishaji laini (fine-tuning) ni ule unaokubali kwamba ulimwengu umesawazishwa kwa usahihi, lakini kwamba sehemu hiyo ni ndogo sana ndani ya ulimwengu mpana, ambao sehemu kubwa mno yake haifai kwa uhai. Wanadai: ‘Inawezaje kuwa sahihi kwetu kusema kwamba ulimwengu umepangwa kwa makini na kurekebishwa kwa usahihi wakati 99.9999999999% ya dunia hii ni tupu na haifai kwa uhai?’ Huu ni upinzani ambao mara nyingi nimesikia kutoka kwa Christopher Hitchens. Kwa kweli, Richard Dawkins alipokubali, katika mahojiano yake maarufu katika video ya The Four Horsemen, kwamba hoja ya urekebishaji laini ndiyo hoja imara zaidi ya wanaoamini Mungu, Hitchens aliingilia na kutoa upinzani huo huo. Richard Carrier anaeleza jambo hili kwa kusema: ‘Kwa hakika, tukiweka utupu wote mbaya wa anga za juu uliojaa mionzi hatari ndani ya eneo lenye ukubwa wa nyumba, hutaweza kupata kipande kidogo sana cha eneo kinachodumisha uhai (kingekuwa kidogo kuliko protoni moja).’314

One position that expresses a denial of sorts – though not a complete denial – of the argument from fine-tuning is the one that acknowledges that the universe is finely balanced, but that it is miniscule amid the expansive universe, the overwhelming majority of which is not suitable for life. They claim: ‘How is it accurate for us to say that the universe has been carefully and finely-tuned when 99.9999999999% of this world is empty and unsuitable for life?’ This is an objection I frequently heard from Christopher Hitchens. In fact, when Richard Dawkins, in his famous sit down in The Four Horsemen video, admitted that the argument from fine-tuning is the strongest argument of theists, Hitchens interjected and offered this same objection. Richard Carrier depicts the topic by saying, ‘In fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton).’314

Kuna mambo mawili yanayopaswa kuzingatiwa wakati wa kujibu pingamizi hili. Kwanza, namna hii ya kuwasilisha pingamizi ni ya kupotosha. Wazo la kurekebishwa vizuri kwa ulimwengu (fine-tuning) linamaanisha kwamba ulimwengu tuliomo una uhai, licha ya uwezekano wa kuwepo kwa ulimwengu mwingine mwingi usiofaa kwa uhai, hata kama ni mdogo kama chembe ndogo sana ndani ya nyumba. Hii ni nafasi ya kipekee sana, kwa kukiri kwa wanafizikia wenyewe, kutokana na mifano wanayotoa. Ni nafasi inayostahili kutambuliwa kama hivyo, na chanzo chake kinapaswa kuchunguzwa. Kwa hiyo swali hapa si kwa nini kuna ombwe kubwa katika ulimwengu, bali ni kwa nini uhai unapatikana katika ulimwengu licha ya uwezekano mkubwa kwamba usingeweza kupatikana. Hivyo basi, kuwepo kwa kiwango hiki cha kurekebishwa vizuri, hata kama ni kidogo ikilinganishwa na sehemu nyingine ya ulimwengu, kunatosha kuthibitisha dalili inayohitajika ya kuwepo kwa Mungu, hata kama kiwango hiki hakipo mahali pengine. Ni kama mtu anayewaamuru watoto wake wapange na kusafisha nyumba iliyochafuka sana na majani yaliyotapakaa. Akirudi, anakuta sehemu ndogo tu ya nyumba imepangwa. Je, itawezekana kukataa kwamba sehemu hiyo ndogo haikupangwa na mtu yeyote, kwa sababu tu sehemu nyingine ya nyumba bado ilikuwa fujo?

Pingamizi moja lenye shaka linalojaribu kutia shaka usahihi na mpangilio mzuri wa ulimwengu ni kwamba tumeshuhudia tu ulimwengu tulio ndani yake; kwa hiyo, hatuna njia ya kufanya ulinganisho baina ya ulimwengu wetu na ulimwengu mwingine ili kubaini kwa ufundi kiasi gani – au la – zimeundwa. Victor Stenger anasema, ‘Wakati huo huo, sioni sababu ya kujaribu kufikiria ulimwengu wenye “sheria” tofauti, kwa kuwa hakuna sheria kama hizo tunazoweza kuzifikia sisi binadamu. Isipokuwa ufunuo, yote tunayojua ni yale tunayoyaona, na jambo bora tunaloweza kufanya ni kujenga miundo ya kuelezea uchunguzi huo.’316

One dubious objection that attempts to throw doubt on the precision and finely tuned nature of the universe is that we have only experienced the universe we are in; therefore, we have no way of conducting a comparison between our universe and other universes in order to ascertain how masterfully – or not – they have been made. Victor Stenger says, ‘At the same time, I see no reason to try to imagine a universe with different “laws”, since there are no such laws that we have access to as humans. Barring revelation, all we know is what we observe, and the best we can do is build models to describe those observations.’316

Ukweli ni kwamba pingamizi hili linaonyesha kiwango fulani cha ukaidi au ujinga kuhusu asili ya ubobevu tunaozungumzia – na ujinga kuhusu wingi mkubwa wa mifano ya urekebishaji laini (fine-tuning) inayoweza kuonekana katika ulimwengu wetu. Kuhusu hili, mwanafizikia John Barrow alisema, Chukua karatasi na uweke juu yake nukta nyekundu. Nukta hiyo inawakilisha ulimwengu wetu. Sasa badilisha kidogo moja au zaidi kati ya vigezo vilivyorekebishwa kwa uangalifu na wingi wa kimaumbile ambavyo vimekuwa lengo la umakini wetu. Matokeo yake tunapata maelezo ya ulimwengu mwingine, ambao tunaweza kuuwakilisha kama nukta mpya karibu na ile ya kwanza. Ikiwa seti hiyo mpya ya vigezo na wingi inaelezea ulimwengu unaoruhusu uhai, ifanye kuwa nukta nyekundu; ikiwa inaelezea ulimwengu ambao hauruhusu uhai – ifanye kuwa nukta nyeupe. 316 The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, uk. 234.

The fact is that this objection demonstrates a degree of obstinance or ignorance vis-à-vis the nature of the mastery we are talking about – and an ignorance of the sheer number of examples of observable fine-tuning in our universe. On this, the physicist John Barrow said, Take a sheet of paper and place upon it a red dot. That dot represents our universe. Now alter slightly one or more of the finely-tuned constants and physical quantities that have been the focus of our attention. As a result we have a description of another universe, which we may represent as a new dot in the proximity of the first. If that new set of constants and quantities describes a life-permitting universe, make it a red dot; if it describes a universe that is life- 316 The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 234.

Pingamizi hizi zinatokana na wazo kwamba udhihirisho wa umahiri na ukamilifu katika ulimwengu huu si lazima umetokana na Mtendaji Mwenye Ujuzi wa Yote, Mwenye Mapenzi, na Mwenye Uwezo wa Yote. Pingamizi hizi zinadai kwamba inawezekana udhihirisho huu ulitokea kwa sababu za kimaumbile na kimaada badala yake. Ikiwa tutaangalia zaidi ya masuala ya bahati nasibu na kuamuliwa kimapema kama majibu mawili yanayofaa kueleza jambo hili la ugumu wa ulimwengu, kwa sababu zilizoelezwa hapo awali, tutaona kwamba kuna mapendekezo mengi ya wanaoamini kwamba Mungu hayupo yanayolenga kueleza umahiri huu. Mapendekezo haya mbadala yanawakilisha pingamizi muhimu zaidi, na baadhi yake yameelezwa hapa chini.

Objections here are based on the notion that the manifestations of mastery and immaculateness in this world do not necessarily mean that they emanated from an Omniscient, Willing, and Omnipotent Doer. These objections assert that it is possible that these manifestations came about as a result of natural and material causes instead. If we look beyond the issues of coincidence and determinism as two suitable answers to explain this phenomenon of the universe’s intricacy for the reasons outlined before, we will see there are many proposals by atheists to explain this mastery. These alternative proposals represent the most significant objections, with some of them being outlined below.

Nadharia hii inatawala biolojia. Kwa kweli, ushawishi wake unafika katika matawi mengi ya itikadi na ya utambuzi. Akionyesha asili ya utambulisho wa kitamaduni wa Magharibi wa leo, Dkt. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Masīrī alisema kuwa ni 'usasa wa Kidarwin'. Uwakilishi bora wa mageuzi unaopinga wazo la muundo wa busara uliojengwa ndani ya viumbe hai ni nadharia iliyotolewa na Richard Dawkins katika kitabu chake Climbing Mount Improbable. Nadharia hiyo inaeleza hivi: Fikiria tuko kwenye mlima mrefu. Upande mmoja una mteremko mkali sana na hauwezi kupitika. Upande wa pili una mteremko mkali kiasi lakini si kiasi cha kuwakatisha watu tamaa ya kutembea kupanda hadi kileleni. Kwa hiyo tunaweza kujaribu kufika kileleni kutoka upande wenye mteremko mkali sana ingawa ni mfupi, au tunaweza kupanda kutoka upande mwingine kwa urahisi zaidi. Hata hivyo, tungelazimika kuchukua njia ndefu zaidi kufika kileleni. Katika mfano huu, tuchukulie kwamba mifumo tata ya kibaiolojia ndiyo kileleni. Uwezekano wa kufikia mifumo hii kwa njia fupi ni mgumu sana, kwa sababu kujiunda kwa taratibu kwa mifumo kama hiyo kungekuwa hakuwezekani. Hata hivyo, mifumo hii inaweza kujiunda yenyewe kupitia uteuzi wa asili kwa kuhifadhi zile sifa zitakazohakikisha kuishi kwake na kuiwezesha kubadilika hadi hatua inayofuata, na vivyo hivyo kwa hatua zijazo, hatua kwa hatua, hadi tufike kileleni.

This theory dominates biology. In fact, its influence stretches to multiple ideological and cognitive branches. Highlighting the nature of the contemporary Western cultural identity, Dr. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Masīrī stated it is ‘Darwinist modernism’. The best representation of evolution that opposes the idea of intelligent design built into living beings is the thesis offered by Richard Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable. The thesis goes like this: Imagine we are on a high mountain. One side is extremely steep and cannot be negotiated. The other side is somewhat steep but not enough to put people off from walking up to ascend to the summit. We can therefore try to reach the summit from the extremely steep side even though it is shorter, or we can ascend from the other side in easier fashion. However, we would need to take the longer route to reach the summit. In this example, let us assume that the complex biological systems are the summit – the possibility of reaching these systems from the short way is very hard, because any gradual self-composition of such systems would be impossible. However, these systems can self-compose through natural selection by way of retaining those characteristics that will ensure their survival and allow them to evolve to the next phase, and likewise for future steps – step by step – until we reach the summit.

Nilikumbuka nikijadili jambo hili mara moja na baadhi ya vijana waliokuwa wameathiriwa na itikadi ya kutoamini kuwepo kwa Mungu. Mmoja wao alitoa pingamizi ambalo lilichochewa waziwazi na hoja iliyotangulia. Baada ya mjadala mrefu, alikubali kwamba bahati nasibu haifai kuwa maelezo ya udhihirisho wa ugumu, mpangilio na umahiri katika uwepo wetu. Aliniambia: "Ugumu tunaouona leo katika ulimwengu na viumbe hai haungeweza kweli kuja kuwepo kwa ghafla tu kwa sababu ya bahati nasibu. Lakini vipi kama yote haya mwanzoni yalikuwa rahisi, kisha kwa kupita kwa wakati yakabadilika hadi kuwa michanganyiko changamano tunayoiona sasa? Ingekuwa haiwezekani kwa mwanadamu, kwa mfano, kuibuka ghafla kutoka majini kwa sababu ya athari za kikemikali zisizo na mpangilio; lakini seli iliyoibuka kwa bahati ingekuwa ya kuaminika zaidi, ambayo kisha ikaanza kubadilika polepole hadi viumbe hai mbalimbali – ikiwemo mwanadamu – vikaibuka." Bila kujadili maelezo ya kama kulikuwa na seli rahisi hapo awali, jinsi ilivyokuwa inawezekana kwa uwepo kutokea kwa bahati, au kama ilikuwa mwanzo wa uhai wote, wazo la msingi la mageuzi ni wazi sana. "Wazo Hatari" (kama alivyolieleza Daniel Dennett katika kichwa cha kitabu chake) la nadharia ya Charles Darwin ni kwamba mifumo changamano inaweza kujitokeza polepole kwa kipindi kirefu cha wakati – si lazima ije kuwepo kwa ghafla moja.

Pingamizi hili linatokana na dhana kwamba ulimwengu wetu si ulimwengu pekee uliopo, bali kuna idadi isiyo na mwisho au isiyoweza kupimwa ya ulimwengu. Idadi hii kubwa ya ulimwengu ingeeleza jinsi ulimwengu wetu ulivyo sahihi na umepangwa vizuri, bila haja ya kudhani kwamba kulikuwepo mtendaji mwenye hiari aliyeuumba ulimwengu wetu. Kwa maneno mengine, miongoni mwa idadi kubwa mno ya ulimwengu, lazima kuwepo na mmoja uliowekwa kikamilifu kwa ajili yetu. Ni kama bahati nasibu: nafasi ya mtu mmoja kushinda zawadi ya mabilioni ni ndogo sana; lakini nafasi ya angalau mtu mmoja kushinda ni kubwa. Ili kufafanua mtazamo wao zaidi, wanatoa mfano huu: Fikiria mtu mmoja alipelekwa kunyongwa. Alipofikishwa kwenye kitanzi, kabla macho yake hayajafungwa, aliona mbele yake wapiga risasi mahiri mia moja, wote wakiwa wameelekeza bunduki zao kwake. Akafumba macho, kisha akasikia sauti ya risasi zikifyatuliwa. Alishika pumzi akidhani anakaribia kufa, lakini hakuhisi chochote. Alijichunguza mwili wake na kugundua kwamba hakuna risasi hata moja iliyompata. Je, inawezekana hili lilitokea kwa bahati tu? Kumbuka kwamba wapiga risasi walikuwa mahiri, na haiwezekani sana kwamba wote wangekosa. Akaanza kufikiri: 'Labda walipanga kutokumuua, au labda kuna mtu aliwahonga wote wakose, au labda kuna sababu nyingine.' Kisha kitambaa cha macho kikaondolewa. Ikaonekana kwamba alikuwa miongoni mwa watu wengine mia moja, na idadi ya watu waliopaswa kunyongwa ilikuwa 101. Kwa hakika, katika kisa hiki, mmoja angebaki hai. Hii ndiyo namna ya kuona iliyopendekezwa na Stephen Hawking katika kitabu chake *The Grand Design*, alichoandika pamoja na Leonard Mlodinow. Kinasema: 'Marekebisho madogo madogo katika sheria za maumbile yanaweza kueleweka kwa kuwepo kwa ulimwengu nyingi. Watu wengi katika zama zote wamemhusisha Mungu uzuri na utata wa maumbile ambayo katika zama zao yalionekana kutokuwa na maelezo ya kisayansi. Lakini kama vile Darwin na Wallace walivyoeleza jinsi muundo unaoonekana kama wa kimiujiza wa viumbe hai ungeweza kutokea bila uingiliaji wa kiumbe mkuu, dhana ya multiverse inaweza kueleza urekebishaji mzuri wa sheria za kimaumbile bila haja ya Muumba mwenye wema aliyeuumba ulimwengu kwa manufaa yetu.’333 Pia ndiyo wazo kuu ambalo Dawkins alilitegemea katika kitabu chake The God Delusion alipojibu hoja ya wanaoamini Mungu kutokana na urekebishaji mzuri (fine-tuning).

This objection is based on the notion that our universe is not the only universe in existence, but there are rather an infinite or an immeasurable number of universes. This large number of universes would explain how our universe is precise and finely turned, without the need to assume there was a willing doer who created our universe. In other words, within the gargantuan number of universes, there is bound to be one which is conditioned perfectly for us. It is like the lottery: The chances of a person winning the billionaire prize is extremely low; however, the chance of at least one person winning is high. To clarify their view further, they offer this example: Imagine a man was presented for execution. When he was brought to the gallows, and before his eyes closed, he saw a hundred expert snipers in front of him, all of whom had trained their rifles on him. He shut his eyes, and then heard the sound of fire as the rifles were shot. He held his breath as he thought he was about to die, but he felt nothing. He felt his body and noticed he had not been impacted by even one bullet. Is it possible that this could have occurred by accident? Note that the snipers were experts, and it is highly unlikely they could have all missed. He started to think: ‘Perhaps they conspired not to kill me, or perhaps someone bribed them all to miss, or perhaps there was some other reason.’ The blindfold was removed from him. It turned out he was among a hundred other people, and the number of people to be executed were 101. Of course, in this case, one would still be alive. This is the view Stephen Hawking proposed in his book The Grand Design, which he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow. It reads: ‘The fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.’333 It is also the central idea that Dawkins relied upon in his book The God Delusion as he responded to the theists’ argument from fine-tuning.

Hoja hii inategemea kulinganisha dalili za umahiri na kuthibitisha kwamba zinaashiria kuwa ni kazi ya Mtendaji Mjuzi wa yote na Mwenye Kupenda, kwa kulinganishwa na vitendo vya binadamu. Kama waumini, tunapoona kitu katika maumbile kilichotengenezwa kwa umahiri, mara moja hujitokeza akilini mwetu kwamba hiki ni kitendo cha mtendaji. Ikiwa hatuwezi kuhusisha utengenezaji huu na binadamu, tunahusisha moja kwa moja na mtendaji mwingine. Hoja hii inasema kwamba mlinganisho huu si sahihi. Kuona kwetu kazi ya umahiri ya binadamu ndiko kunakotuongoza kuamini kwamba utengenezaji wake unamhusu yeye. Kuhusu maumbile na ulimwengu, hatujaona jinsi yalivyoumbwa, wala hatukuona jinsi dalili za umahiri zilivyojitokeza ndani yake. Kwa hiyo, hatuwezi kutoa hukumu juu ya jambo ambalo hatukuwepo kushuhudia.

This objection is based on analogising the manifestations of mastery proving they constitute the doing of an Omniscient and Willing Doer to that of man’s deeds. As theists, when we see something in nature that is masterfully made, it would automatically come into our minds that this was the making of a doer. If we are unable to ascribe this making to a human, we would automatically ascribe it to some other doer. This objection states that this analogy is incorrect. Our observation of man’s masterful work is what suggests to us that his making is to be ascribed to him. As for nature and the universe, we have not seen how they were made, nor did we see how the manifestations of mastery took shape therein. Therefore, we cannot pass judgement on what we were not there to witness.

Although this objection is relatively ancient, the one who systematised it was David Hume, through his characteristic scepticism regarding the principle of causality. This scepticism has been absorbed by atheist thought to a large degree, giving rise to a multitude of problems. Hume commented extensively on this objection, especially in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The presence of this objection among atheists has become increasingly conspicuous, especially when they debate proponents of intelligent design or creationists. They claim that masterful construction in itself does not necessarily mean that a deliberate maker exists. This illusion that we sense in ourselves comes from observing the masterful works of man, so it appeared to our minds that the will of a doer is the cause of mastery. This is a non sequitur. This is why one line of objection to Paley's famous watchmaker argument holds that it is improper to analogise mastery in the universe to mastery in a watch. Although the construction of a watch comes from a willing maker, this does not have to be the case for the universe. The most that can be said is that some manifestations of mastery can be ascribed to a doer, on the condition that this rests on observation and induction. Our judgement that watches have a maker is based on seeing the first watch being made, the second watch being made, and so on. As for the universe, we cannot see or comprehend that it has a maker, let alone comprehend that the maker may have made a second or third universe. Therefore, it is not proper to jump to this kind of conclusion, namely that the universe has a maker, based merely on the fact that both the universe and watches are masterfully constructed. This objection surfaced during the debate between Dr. ʿAmr Sharīf and Bassām al-Baghdādī on the Misr 25 satellite channel, moderated by Eng. Fāḍil Sulaymān over three episodes. Eng. Fāḍil alichukua glasi mkononi mwake na kumwuliza Bassām, "Kuna glasi hii mbele yako. Je, kuwepo kwake si ushahidi wa kuwepo kwa mtengenezaji aliyeitengeneza glasi hii?" Bassām: "Sisi tunajua kwamba kikombe hiki kipo, na tunajua kiwanda kilichokitengeneza. Je, umeona kilichoumba ulimwengu tulio ndani yake? Je, umeona ulimwengu mwingine ili uulinganishe na huu?"

Pingamizi la kwanza: Nani aliweka viwango?

First objection: Who set the standards?

Mtu ninayemsikia zaidi akirudia pingamizi hili ni Richard Dawkins. Pingamizi hili ndilo hoja kuu katika kitabu chake The God Delusion. Kwa ufupi, pingamizi hili linasema kwamba ikiwa Mungu ndiye Aliyeweka viwango vya ulimwengu, basi ni nani aliyeweka viwango hivyo mwanzoni? Kwa maneno mengine, ikiwa Mungu aliumba ulimwengu kwa ukamilifu alioufanya, basi ni nani aliyemuumba Mungu? Kiini chake, pingamizi hili limejengwa juu ya swali maarufu la wanaoamini kutokuwepo kwa Mungu – 'Ni nani aliyemuumba Mungu?' Tumelijadili kwa kina katika sehemu ya hoja ya uumbaji inayothibitisha kuwepo kwa Allah. Ndani yake mna majibu ya vipengele vingi vya pingamizi hili. Asili ya pingamizi hili analolitoa Dawkins ni, kwa kweli, toleo lililobadilika la pingamizi alilolitumia mahali pengine, lile la hoja ya mpangilio wa kimfumo wa ulimwengu na muundo wake wa kibingwa. Ikiwa swali la 'Ni nani aliyemuumba Mungu?' ni pingamizi kuu kwa hoja ya uumbaji, basi pingamizi kuu kwa hoja ya mpangilio wa kimfumo wa ulimwengu na uumbaji wake wa kibingwa ni 'Ni nani aliyeweka sawa Mtengenezaji wa mpangilio?' na 'Ni nani aliyebuni Mbuni?' Mabadiliko haya ya hoja yanaongeza pingamizi la ziada juu ya swali la 'Ni nani aliyemuumba Mungu?', kama Richard Dawkins anavyosema: 'Mungu, au wakala yeyote mwenye akili, anayefanya maamuzi na kuhesabu, angelazimika kuwa wa uwezekano mdogo sana kwa maana ile ile ya kitakwimu kama vitu anavyodaiwa kuvielezea.' Hoja anayotaka kuitoa kupitia pingamizi hili ni kwamba, ikiwa tunataka maelezo ya muundo na ugumu uliopo katika uumbaji wa kibingwa wa Allah, basi Allah Mwenyewe ni changamano zaidi na mgumu zaidi kuliko ulimwengu; kwa hiyo tunaongeza ugumu zaidi tu kwa kudhani kwamba Allah yupo kama suluhisho la tatizo lililo rahisi zaidi kuliko pendekezo kwamba Yeye yupo. Dawkins aliingia katika makosa kadhaa hatari.

The person I have heard repeating this objection the most is Richard Dawkins. This objection forms the central argument in his book The God Delusion. In brief, this objection states that if God is the One Who set the standards of the universe, then who set those standards in the first place? In other words, if God created the universe in the consummate manner that He did, then who created God? At its core, this objection is based on the famous atheist question – ‘Who created God?’ We have discussed it in detail, in the section of the argument from creation that denotes the existence of Allah . It contains answers to many elements of this objection. The nature of this objection that Dawkins raises is in fact an evolved version of the objection that he adopted elsewhere, which was his objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful construct. If the question ‘Who created God?’ is a central objection to the argument from creation, then a central objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful making is ‘Who tuned the Tuner?’ and ‘Who designed the Designer?’ This evolution in the argument carries an additional objection on top of the ‘Who created God?’ question, as Richard Dawkins puts it: ‘God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain.’360 The point he wants to make from this objection is that if we want an explanation for the composition and complexity that is present in the masterful construct of Allah, then Allah Himself is far more composite and more complicated than the universe; therefore, we are only adding further complexity by assuming that Allah exists as a solution to the problem that is less complicated than the proposal that He exists. Dawkins landed himself into a number of dangerous errors:

Kwa kifupi, mawazo yaliyo nyuma ya pingamizi hili ni haya: ‘Tukidhani, kwa hoja tu, kwamba ushahidi kweli unaashiria kuwepo kwa mtendaji mwenye mapenzi aliyeumba dunia kwa ustadi tunaouona, ni nani aliyekuambia kwamba huyo ni Mungu?’ Pingamizi hili lilivunjwa tulipojadili hoja ya uumbaji. Hoja halisi ya mzozo na wasioamini Mungu ni kama ulimwengu uliumbwa na mtendaji mwenye mapenzi au la. Iwapo itathibitishwa kwamba kiumbe huyu yupo, inaweza kudhaniwa kwa usalama kwamba ni Allah, na kwamba hoja ya mpangilio wa kimfumo wa ulimwengu inaashiria baadhi ya sifa za Allah {SWT}. Kwa kweli, ushahidi wa hili ni wazi sana, kwani unatuongoza kwenye ukweli kwamba mtendaji huyu mwenye mapenzi ana sifa za mapenzi, uwezo, elimu, hekima, uhai, rehema, na sifa nyingine zinazohusishwa kwa kawaida na Allah {SWT}. Ninahitimisha hoja hii kwa kufafanua asili ya mantiki ya wasioamini Mungu wanapojadili masuala ya aina hii, kwa kueleza kwamba mantiki yao imejengwa kwa namna tata inayowazuia kamwe kuzingatia hoja yoyote inayounga mkono kuwepo kwa Allah {SWT}. Mmoja wa wasioamini Mungu wa Kiarabu alisema kwamba hata kama angemwona Mungu na kumkubali, hilo bado lisingethibitisha kwamba Yeye ndiye Muumba wa ulimwengu; hata kama Angeumba kitu mbele yetu, ‘hilo bado lisingekuwa ushahidi kwamba Yeye ameniumba mimi’. Huo ndio ukaidi unaoonyesha pengo kati yetu na wao, pengo ambalo karibu haliwezekani kuzibwa tunapojadili mada hii na watu wa aina hii. Baada ya yote, uongofu u mikononi mwa Allah {SWT} – Humwongoza amtakaye na Humpoteza amtakaye.

In brief, the thought process behind this objection is this: ‘Assuming, arguendo, that the proof does indeed point to the existence of a willing doer that made the world in the masterful manner that we see, who told you that it is God?’ This objection was dismantled when we discussed the argument from creation. The actual point of contention with atheists is whether the universe was created by a willing doer or not. If it is affirmed that this entity exists, it would be possible to safely assume that it is Allah, and that the argument from the systematic nature of the universe is indicative of some of Allah’s attributes. In fact, the evidence for this is extremely clear, for it guides us to the fact that this willing doer has the characteristics of will, power, knowledge, wisdom, life, mercy, and other attributes that are typically associated with Allah. I conclude this point by clarifying the nature of atheist logic when dealing with these types of issues by pointing out that they are composed in such a complex manner that disallows atheists from ever considering any argument in support of the existence of Allah. One Arab atheist states that had he even seen God and embraced Him, that would still not prove that He is the Creator of the universe; were He to create something in front of us, ‘that would still not be proof that He created me’. That is the type of stubbornness that reveals the chasm between us and them, which is virtually impossible to be bridged when discussing this topic with these types of people. After all, guidance is in the Hand of Allah  – He guides whom He wishes and He leads astray whom He wishes.