تبصره
پچھلي صديوں ميں يه سمجھ ليا گيا تھاكه خدا كا وجود محض ايك ذاتي عقيدے كي چيز هے۔ اس كا علمي طرزِ فكر سے كوئي تعلق نهيں۔ مگر دوسري جنگ عظيم كے بعد مسلسل ايسے شواهد مل رهے هيں كه انسان يه ماننے پر مجبور هورها هے كه خدا كا وجود ايك علمي وعقلي نظريه هے نه كه محض ايك بے دليل عقيده۔
مگر سائنسي مطالعه آدمي كو صرف اس مجرد حقيقت تك پهنچا رها هے كه خدا كا وجود هے۔ اس كے آگے يه سوال هے كه خدا جب هے تو اس كا انسان سے كيا تعلق هے۔ مگر سائنس اس كے بارے ميں هميں كوئي معلومات نهيں ديتي اور نه دے سكتي۔ يه دراصل وه مقام هے جهاں سے مذهب كي سرحد شروع هوجاتي هے۔ اصولي طورپر تمام مذاهب اس سوال كا جواب هيں۔ مگر مذاهب كي موجوده صورت بتاتي هے كه اسلام كے سوا كوئي مذهب اپني اصلي حالت ميں محفوظ نهيں۔ كوئي مذهب اس ليے باطل قرار پاتا هے كه اس ميں سرے سے خدا كا تصور هي موجود نهيں۔ كسي كا حال يه هے كه وه كئي خداؤں كا مدعي هے۔ حالاں كه تمام علوم يه ثابت كررے هيں كه خدا اگر هوسكتا هے تو ايك هوسكتا هے۔ كئي خدا كا هونا ممكن نهيں۔ كسي مذهب كے نظام ميں ايسے نظريات جگه پاگئے هيں، جن كو انساني ضمير كبھي قبول نهيں كرسكتا۔ مثلاً انسانوں كے درميان رنگ اور نسل كي بنيادپر فرق۔ اسي طرح دوسري باتيں۔
علمي حقائق انسان كو خدا تك پهنچا رهے هيں اور خدا كو ماننے كے بعد اسلام كو ماننے كے سوا كوئي چاره نهيں۔ جب علمي مطالعه يه بتا رها هو كه اس دنيا كا ايك خدا هے تو بے خدا مذاهب اپنے آپ باطل ثابت هوجاتے هيں۔ جب كائناتي تحقيق يه بتائے كه اس كا پورا نظام ايك وحدت كے تحت چل رها هے تو ايسے مذاهب بے معني هوجاتے هيںجو كائنات كے كئي خدا مانتے هوں۔ ايسي حالت ميں آدمي مجبور هے كه وه اسلام كو اپنا مذهب بنائے جو نه صرف خدا كے صحيح تصور پر مبني هے بلكه واضح طور پر يه بھي بتاتا هے كه خدا اورانسان كے درميان كس قسم كا تعلق هونا چاهيے۔
CONVERSION TO GOD
There wasn’t much to agree on when two of Britain’s most eminent scientists began researching into the origin of life. But on one point they were both quite clear — that the notion of 'Creator' is inconsistent with science. Today, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, an agnostic of Christian background and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, an atheist Buddhist are changed men. They believe. What convinced both men were calculations they each did independently into the mathematical chances of life starting spontaneously. Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were staggering - in mathematical jargon ‘10 to the power of 40,000.’ If you write down the figure 'l' and add 40,000 noughts after it, you have the figure. “That number is such an imponderable in the universe that I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth,” says Wickramasinghe' who has worked with Hoyle since 1962. “It is quite a shock,” says Wickramasinghe, Sri Lankan born Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at University College, Cardiff. “From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it.” They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were ‘10 to the power of 30.’ And as they say in their book, Evolution From Space: “Once we see that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourite properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Wickramasinghe says: Fred was tending much more than I towards the higher intelligent Creator. I used to argue against it, but I found myself losing every argument. At the moment I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. If I could have found an argument even a filmsy one — I wouldn’t have been party to what we wrote in the book. We used to have open minds; now we realise that the only logical answer to life is creation, and not accidental random shuffling. I still have a hope that one day I may go back to favour a purely mechanistic explanation — I say 'hope', because I still cannot come to terms with my conversion. My being a Buddhist — albeit not an ardent one—was never a problem, because it is an atheistic religion which dosen’t profess to know anything about creation and doesn't have a creator built into it.' But I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of the except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. “The two also believe that cellular life had already evolved to a high degree before the Earth was born, about three and-a-half billion years ago. “We received life with the fundamental biochemical problems already solved.” says Wickramasinghe: We were hoping as scientists, that there would be a way round our conclusion— but there isn’t. Logic is still hopelessly against that. (The Hindustan Times, September 6, 1981)
