Epigraph

We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them without truth, a true purpose (or mathematics). (Al Quran 15:85)

الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ طِبَاقًا ۖ مَّا تَرَىٰ فِي خَلْقِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ مِن تَفَاوُتٍ ۖ فَارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ هَلْ تَرَىٰ مِن فُطُورٍ

ثُمَّ ارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ كَرَّتَيْنِ يَنقَلِبْ إِلَيْكَ الْبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَهُوَ حَسِيرٌ

He is the Mighty, the Forgiving; Who created the seven heavens, one above the other. You will not see any flaw in what the Lord of Mercy creates. Look again! Can you see any flaws? Look again! And again! Your sight will turn back to you, weak and defeated. (Al Quran 67:3-4)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

The majority of the top scientists today are atheists. But do they reach a well-founded conclusion or merely a personal bias?

Steven Weinberg was also an atheist but of the best kind. He was not militant, he was pluralistic and unlike neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris did not worship science.

In this video he says several useful things but does not answer the actual question that he was asked. He had unlimited time the moderator was not going to interrupt him.

Steven Weinberg (May 3, 1933 – July 23, 2021) was a distinguished American theoretical physicist whose work profoundly influenced our understanding of fundamental forces in the universe. Born in New York City, Weinberg’s early fascination with science was nurtured by his father, leading him to pursue physics at Cornell University, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1954. He continued his studies at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and obtained his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1957. ​

In 1967, while at Harvard University, Weinberg published a seminal paper proposing the unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces into what is now known as the electroweak theory. This groundbreaking work, developed independently alongside contributions from Sheldon Glashow and Abdus Salam, earned the trio the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. ​

Beyond his research, Weinberg was a prolific author, penning several influential books aimed at both scientific and general audiences. His 1977 work, “The First Three Minutes,” offers a compelling account of the early universe post-Big Bang, making complex cosmological concepts accessible to readers. Throughout his career, Weinberg received numerous accolades, including the National Medal of Science in 1991, and was a member of esteemed institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. ​Wikipedia

Weinberg’s legacy extends beyond his scientific achievements; he was also a vocal advocate for rationalism and secularism, often engaging in discussions on the interplay between science and religion. His contributions have left an indelible mark on the field of physics and continue to inspire future generations of scientists. Weinberg was renowned his candid perspectives on religion and its intersection with science. Throughout his career, Weinberg maintained a critical stance on religious belief, emphasizing the importance of scientific inquiry and rational thought.​

When we truly try to tackle the question of where did the laws of nature come from, we have to consider whether they are contingent or necessary as a brute fact. Where did they really come from?

The atheists sometimes evade the question, sometimes declare them a brute fact and occasionally give us optimism that we will know better in decades or centuries to come.

Contingent or Necessary Reality

The nature of ultimate reality has been a fundamental question in philosophy, theology, and metaphysics. One of the central debates in this discussion is whether everything that exists is contingent or if there must be at least one necessary being that underpins all existence. If reality consists only of contingent beings—things that depend on something else for their existence—does this lead to an infinite regress, or does it necessitate the existence of a necessary being? This article explores the philosophical implications of a reality composed solely of contingent beings.

Understanding Contingent and Necessary Beings

Before addressing the question, it’s essential to define key terms:

1. Contingent beings: These are entities that exist but could have failed to exist. Their existence is dependent on external factors. Examples include people, animals, planets, and even the universe itself.
2. Necessary being: A necessary being is something that must exist and cannot not exist. It is independent and self-sustaining, meaning its existence is not contingent on anything else.

The question at hand is whether everything in reality can be contingent, or if there must be at least one necessary being to explain existence.

The Problem of Infinite Regress

One of the primary issues with an ultimate reality composed solely of contingent beings is the problem of infinite regress. If every being is contingent, then each one depends on something else for its existence. If this dependency stretches infinitely backward, we never arrive at a fundamental cause or explanation for existence. This raises key philosophical concerns:

1. Unresolved explanation: If every being is contingent, then we never get a complete explanation for why anything exists at all. There is always another cause behind a contingent thing, leading to an endless chain of explanations.
2. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): This principle, championed by philosophers like Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, states that everything that exists must have an explanation. If an infinite regress of contingent beings exists without an ultimate necessary cause, then reality lacks a final explanation.

Many philosophers argue that infinite regress is problematic because it postpones an ultimate answer indefinitely. Thus, they propose that a necessary being is required to terminate the regress.

The Argument for a Necessary Being

If an infinite regress of contingent beings is unsatisfactory, then there must be something that explains its own existence—something that is not contingent. This is what classical theists and metaphysicians refer to as a necessary being. Arguments in favor of a necessary being include:

1. Leibniz’s Contingency Argument: Everything that exists has an explanation, either in necessity or contingency. If everything were contingent, then the whole of reality would lack a final explanation, which contradicts the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
2. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument: St. Thomas Aquinas argued that since all things in the universe are contingent, there must be a being that necessarily exists to sustain everything else. Otherwise, nothing would exist at all.
3. Existence from Nothing?: If only contingent beings exist, then where did everything originate? Without a necessary being, we face the paradox of existence emerging from nothing.

Can Reality Be Contingent Without a Necessary Being?

Despite these arguments, some philosophers argue that reality could consist solely of contingent beings without requiring a necessary being. Some proposed explanations include:

1. Brute Fact Hypothesis: Some thinkers, like Bertrand Russell, argue that the universe simply exists as a brute fact, without needing an explanation. In this view, contingent beings may exist without requiring an ultimate necessary being.
2. Infinite Causal Chains: Some philosophers suggest that an infinite series of contingent beings can exist without an ultimate necessary cause. If time is infinite, and reality is self-sustaining, there may be no need for a necessary being.
3. Multiverse Theories: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics and cosmology propose that multiple universes exist as part of an eternal process, making existence a function of physical laws rather than necessity.

Conclusion

The question of whether ultimate reality can consist solely of contingent beings or laws of nature remains one of the most profound debates in philosophy. While some argue that an infinite regress of contingencies is possible, many believe that the existence of a necessary being is required to ground reality and provide a final explanation. Whether one subscribes to the necessity of a self-existent entity or accepts contingency as an ultimate fact depends on one’s philosophical inclinations and interpretations of metaphysical principles.

Atheism does not stand on some profound analysis of reality, merely a personal bias and a commitment to an ideology.

Archives