Yangi Ufq (New Horizons) NASA kosmik kemasining Plutoning suratlari yaqinda e'lon qilinganida, internetdagi ko'plab odamlar: "ILM-FANNI SEVAMAN!" degan e'lonlar bilan, ilm-fan qanchalik ajoyib, hayratlanarli va maqtovga loyiq ekanligini yozib javob berdilar. Ilm-fanni qadrlash, hatto uni sevish ham o'z-o'zidan noto'g'ri emas. Lekin odamlar Plutonni ilm-fan yaratmaganini tushunadimi? Plutonning mavjudligiga ilm-fanning hech qanday aloqasi yo'qligini bilishadimi?

When the NASA New Horizons pictures of Pluto were recently published, many people online reacted with declarations of: “I LOVE SCIENCE!” and of how amazing, awe-inspiring, and praiseworthy science is. There is nothing inherently wrong about appreciating science, loving it even. But, do people realize that science did not create Pluto? That science has nothing to do with the existence of Pluto?

Sizda bu hodisa, ya'ni odamlarning fan sevgisini e'lon qilishi, shirk bilan hech qanday aloqasi yo'q va butunlay zararsiz, degan fikr paydo bo'lishi mumkin. Ko'p hollarda men ham bunga rozi bo'lardim. Ammo bizning madaniy sharoitimizda, odamlar tobora dindan yuz o'girib, agnostik va ateist bo'lib, Allohning ahamiyatini va qudratini umuman inkor etayotgan bir paytda, bunday so'zlarning chuqurroq ma'nosi bor.

You might think that this phenomenon of people declaring their love of science has nothing to do with shirk and is absolutely harmless. And in many cases, I would agree. But in our cultural circumstance, where people are increasingly leaving religion, becoming agnostic and atheist, and generally denying the relevance and power of God, these statements are not without a deeper significance.

Универсальная человеческая реакция при виде возвышенных чудес природы — благоговение, оцепенение перед великолепием природного мира. Также универсально и то, что человек ощущает: за этим великолепием стоит некий деятель, что оно не возникло из ничего и не сотворило себя само, — и тогда он восхваляет и ценит этого деятеля. Тем, кто не верит в Бога, эти непроизвольные чувства нужно куда-то направить. Поэтому люди переносят свои возгласы восхищения на науку или «Мать-природу» и т.п. Очевидно, что эти люди не верят в существование какой-либо реальной сущности или божества по имени Мать-природа. И они не верят и не могут верить, что наука ответственна за создание или сохранение природных явлений (ведь у науки нет ни деятельной силы, ни воли). Так в каком же смысле при виде Плутона должна возникать такая радость, восторг, восхищение, волнение и любовь к созданной человеком академической дисциплине? Или, иначе говоря: если люди проявляют столько любви и признательности к науке за её способность создавать изображения природного мира или открывать подробности о нём, то что тогда сказать о Творце этих подробностей и о предметах, запечатлённых на этих изображениях?

The universal human response upon seeing the sublime wonders of nature is to be in awe, to be dumbfounded with the splendor that is the natural world. Also, universally it is human to feel that someone, some agent, is responsible for this splendor — that it did not just come from nothing, that it didn’t just create itself — and then to praise and appreciate that agent. For those who do not believe in God, these involuntary sentiments have to be directed somewhere. So people divert their declarations of adoration to science or “Mother Nature,” etc. Obviously, these people do not believe that there is an actual entity or deity of Mother Nature. And they do not and could not believe that science is responsible for the creation or preservation of natural phenomena (science does not have agency or will, after all). So in what sense should the sight of Pluto elicit that kind of glee, joy, adoration, excitement, and love toward a man-made academic discipline? Or put another way, if people show this much love and appreciation toward science for its ability to produce images of or to discover details about the natural world, then what about the Creator of those details and the objects of those images?

Insoniyatning tabiatdagi narsalarni ko'rib, fanni maqtashi, aslida o'z aqlini maqtashi demakdir, Yaratuvchining mavjudligi ehtimolini hech bo'lmaganda tan olmasdan turib, bu qanchalik ahmoqona va ma'nosiz! Tasavvur qiling, tabiatga hech qanday qadr-qimmat bermaydigan bir odam bor. Unga Plutonning suratlarini ko'rsatasiz, eng go'zal quyosh botishiga olib borasiz va u shunday deydi: "Nima bo'pti? Nima katta gap? Bular hech narsaga arzimaydi." Bunday munosabat aqlan izchilroq bo'lardi. Undan ham izchilroq bo'lardi o'sha Plutonning o'zini maqtash va sevish. Tarix davomida tabiatga sig'inish aynan shu bo'lgan. Quyosh tizimidagi barcha sayyoralarning yunon va rim xudolarining nomi bilan atalishi bejiz emas. Ammo zamonaviy materializmga ko'ra, kosmosdagi jonsiz, ongsiz toshni maqtash, sevish yoki unga sig'inishning ma'nosi kam, demak, bu yo'l ham yopiq. Shuning uchun odamlar buning o'rniga fanni maqtaydilar, go'yo bunda biron ma'no bordek.

How utterly stupid and senseless is it for humans to praise science for what they see in the natural world, in essence praising their own minds, without at least acknowledging, if not being certain about, the possibility of a Creator? You could imagine a person who does not show any appreciation for nature. You show him these pictures of Pluto, take him to see the most beautiful sunset, etc., and he says, “So what? What’s the big deal? These are not impressive.” That would be a more intellectually consistent attitude. Also, more intellectually consistent would be to praise and love Pluto itself. And that is what nature worship throughout history has been. It is no coincidence that all the planets in our solar system have the names of Greek and Roman gods. But since, according to modern materialism, it would make little sense to praise, love, or show devotion to a lifeless, unconscious rock in outer space, that option is also closed. So people praise science instead, as if that makes any sense.

Qolganlarimiz esa hayron bo'lib qolamiz: Yaratuvchini inkor etib turib, yana fanni maqtash qanchalik ahmoqlik! Fan, eng ko'pi bilan, bir linzadir. Agar siz ovqat fotosuratlari yoki me'moriy loyihalar haqidagi blogni o'qib, undagi narsalardan qattiq taassurot olgan bo'lsangiz, fotografni maqtab, oshpazni yoki me'morni e'tiborsiz qoldirarmidingiz? Bu tamomila mantiqsiz bo'lardi. Agar siz oshpaz yoki me'mor yo'q, taom yoki me'moriy mo'jiza o'z-o'zidan paydo bo'lgan deb hisoblasangiz ham, unda nega biror narsani maqtash kerak? Fotograf yoki umuman fotografiya suratga olinayotgan narsaga hech qanday aloqasi yo'q. Agar sizni hayratga solayotgan narsa fotografiya bo'lsa, fotografiya haqida kitob o'qing. Agar haqiqatan ham maqtovga sazovor bo'lgan narsa fan bo'lsa, Nyutonning "Principia" asarini o'qing. Kosmik suratlarni varaqlab, fan qanchalik hayratlanarli ekani haqida hayajon bilan gapirmang.

And the rest of us are left wondering, how idiotic to deny a Creator but also praise science. At most, science is a lens. If you were to read a food photo blog or architectural design blog and were particularly impressed with what you saw therein, you wouldn’t gush over the photographer and ignore the chef or the architect, would you? That would be completely illogical. And if you believe that there is no chef or architect, that the cuisine or the architectural marvel built itself, then, still, why praise anything? The photographer or photography in general has nothing to do with the object of the photograph. If photography is what is spurring this adoration, read a book on photography. If science is what is really praiseworthy, go read Newton’s Principia. Don’t browse space photos and spurt on about how mindblowingly amazing science is.