Material CausesDo they really ‘cause’ anything?

Material CausationBediuzzaman, like Imam Ghazali before him, took the position

that matter is impotent to actually cause anything. He saw causes as being merely a veil to the hand of Allah’s Power

But importantly, he advocated that we should not ignore the study of material phenomena and apparent causal relationships, since these are ‘signs’ that when ‘read’ in the way the Quran instructs, make known to us the Names and attributes of Allah, through their ‘harfi’ meanings

(See Redha abi’s article with Yamine Mermer: Beyond the Modern: Said Nursi’s view of Science for more on this point)

Some questions for modern science…What explains the existence of even the most basic 'things' in

the universe like atoms and molecules, let alone that of larger bodies, or more complex things like living beings? What keeps them in existence?

Why don’t these objects just disperse, so that we have a featureless universe, where quarks are just evenly distributed everywhere?

In other words, how is it that sub-atomic particles have the ability to come together, seemingly acting wisely and in concert, to produce objects like atoms, heavy elements, stars and even complex living beings?

Can material causation explain these things?

Bediuzzaman repudiates material causation in many parts of the Risale

Some examples follow

Readings“A group of the people of misguidance… attribute some of the

All-Glorious One’s works to nature.

However, it is demonstrated with conclusive proofs in numerous places in the Risale-i Nur that nature is a divine art, and cannot be the artist. It is a dominical book, and cannot be the scribe… It is a law, and cannot be the power…” Ismi Qayyum – Thirtieth Flash

ReadingsThe universe is like a magnificent palace, a well-ordered

factory. a well-planned city, all of whose elements or parts work together for great purposes. Elements hasten to help each other, even over long distances, when they are needed and do not get lost. Those who discern this truth see how some parts help other parts to meet their needs. It is as if they respond to each other’s requests for help and, in close cooperation and obedience to a single manager, work in orderliness and serve living beings for specific purposes.

Look at this principle of mutual helping and cooperation. The sun and the moon, day and night, and summer and winter work with plants to help animals and to convey their food to them, which they take from the treasury of Mercy… Mathnawi

Readings“…the All-Glorious and Self-Subsistent One bestows on the

innumerable heavenly bodies within ethereal matter a stability, permanence, and continuance within the utmost order and balance through the mystery of Self-Subsistence…

The particles of all beings also exist, like the stars, through the mystery of Self-Subsistence, and are permanent and continue through it. ” Ismi Qayyum – Thirtieth Flash

Readings“…bear in mind that atoms carry out numerous functions and

duties. Indeed! Doesn’t it travel in the sensing nerves of the eye, in the veins, and the arteries, and is involved in the operations of visualizing, and intercepting visuals and many more bewildering activities like these?  Seeing this wonderful and precise work, this orderly and adorned sculpting, this profound and far-reaching wisdom one is left with the following question:

Either every atom and every compound in creation are the origin, and the source for these comprehensive, and perfectly consummate attributes, or else they are the locus and mirrors to… the manifestations of the ‘Pre-eternal Sun’ to whom appertain these Attributes. The first consideration entails difficulties by the number of atoms and their compounds in the world.” Mathnawi (cited in Beyond the Modern)

Central criticismFrom the foregoing, we can see that a large part of

Bediuzzaman’s critique of causation centers on the view that unconscious matter lacks the power, will and knowledge needed to create balanced, orderly effects that have wise benefits

How do these unconscious, impotent atoms sustain themselves in existence? How do they work together so well, to produce objects full of art and wisdom?

The opposing view – material causationThe opposing view of these affairs is that everything can be

attributed to the ‘laws of nature’ – which is really just a metaphor for the so-called ‘fundamental forces’

On this view, there are certain forces of attraction and repulsion – or more simply, of ‘motion’ – in the universe, that mould sub-atomic particles into larger objects and keeps them that way (at least for a while)

For example, the ‘strong force’ brought quarks together to form protons and neutrons.

The opposing view – material causationThe ‘electromagnetic force’ holds atomic nuclei and their

electrons together, as well as bringing whole atoms together to form molecules

And at the macro level, gravity brings matter together to form larger objects, and so on…

Some problems with material causation There a host of problems with material causation (like the

‘problem of induction’). Today, I hope to touch only on some of the following:

1. The inexplicability of the motion of matter

2. The ‘contingency’ of matter

3. The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants (a fancy way of saying ‘how matter moves’)

So in short, we will ask why matter moves, why it moves the way it does, and why it exists in the first place…

Motion cannot be explained Note firstly that positing ‘forces’ of nature to explain things

really just amounts to saying, ‘matter does it,’ since the ‘forces’ are a function of matter, as follows:

The main forces are actually ‘carried’ by particles of matter

Gluons carry the strong force

Photons carry electro-magnetism

W and Z bosons carry the weak nuclear force

Motion cannot be explainedAnd while a successful theory of quantum gravity has yet to

be formulated, it is suspected that a particle called the ‘graviton’ carries gravity.

It is the exchange of these fundamental particles that is said to cause the motion of atoms and all things

But notice that force or rather, ‘motion’, is being explained only by reference to other motion. What explanation is there for the motion of gluons, photons, W and Z bosons or gravitons?

Motion cannot be explainedThe fact is that these ‘laws’ are merely a description of how

we observe matter routinely behave. They are not prescriptive – the laws don’t ‘cause’ anything

If the motions of particles are just dependent on the motions of other, still smaller particles, which are themselves contingent, where does all the motion come from? This leads us to the next problem…

Contingency of matterAs Bediuzzaman says, ascribing things like the stars, living

beings or the eye to material causes, requires us to give matter God like attributes. One such attribute is ‘necessary existence’

In order for matter to be able to explain its own existence, and its own properties, such as the ‘forces’ it carries, it needs to exist ‘necessarily’ as opposed to contingently

Contingency of matterFor if matter doesn’t exist necessarily, but contingently, then

it owes its existence and its properties to something else

But matter clearly does not exist as a necessity of its own nature. Matter is changing, temporal and has not always existed

Since all matter is contingent, the material world needs an immaterial, non-contingent Being to explain its existence and properties

Contingency of matter “The most remarkable and surprising thing is this: the Necessarily

Existent One possesses necessity, which is the firmest level of existence; absolute isolation from matter, which is the most immutable degree of existence; absolute freedom from space, which is the state of existence furthest from cessation; and unity, which is the soundest quality of existence and the one remotest from change and non-existence.

And yet they attribute pre-eternity and everlastingness, which are the Necessarily Existent One’s most particular qualities and are necessary and essential to Him, to things like ether and particles, which are matter that is material, unbounded and numerous, is the least stable level of existence and the least tangible, the most changing and the most varying and the most dispersed through space; they ascribe pre-eternity to them and fancy them to be pre-eternal; and some of them even suppose that it is out of them that the divine works arise. It has been demonstrated through cogent arguments in many places in the Risale-i Nur how contrary to truth and reality, how unreasonable and absurd, is this idea.” Ismi Qayyum – Thirtieth Flash

Fine-tuning of the constantsAlthough the previous matters are probably sufficient to

refute material causality, the problem for material causation gets worse still

Not only can materialism not explain the existence of matter, or the motions of matter, it also cannot account for the properties of that motion – the so-called ‘fine-tuning’ of the fundamental constants (a matter we have discussed previously). In other words, it can’t explain why matter moves the way it does

Fine-tuning of the constants The fundamental constants are just mathematical descriptions for

the values of the forces. In lay terms, in relation to gravity for example, the ‘gravitational constant’ can be thought of as the ‘strength’ of gravity

Scientists have noted that had these values been slightly different, or had the ratios between the values for different forces been any different, we could not have had the kind of universe we see today

For example, if the strong force was 2% stronger, all hydrogen would have quickly converted to heavier elements. This would mean no long-living stars, no water and no life. If it was 2% weaker, there would be no elements apart from hydrogen, resulting in a featureless universe. (See for e.g. Carter, 1974, Davies, 1988 or Tipler & Barrow, 1986)

Underlying Problem of InductionYet another matter that we haven’t touched on

is the underlying problem of induction.

In addition to Bediuzzaman, this problem has been raised in the past by persons such as Ghazali, Hume and Karl Popper (see Beyond the Modern)

In summary, the scientific method relies upon induction. It looks at particular instances of something occurring and tries to draw a universal principle from these

Underlying ‘Problem of Induction’E.g. When I put my hand in fire, my hand burns. Therefore,

fire must cause burning, and the next time I put my hand in fire, it will again burn

On this reasoning (known as induction), if B always follows A, then A must be the efficient cause of B

But how do we justify induction? Only by using induction. But this sets us off on an infinite regress

Thus, induction, hence material causation, can never be proved

Underlying ‘Problem of Induction’The implication is that there is no firm proof for the efficiency

of material causes just from repeated past observation of certain effects always following particular ‘causes’

None of this undermines causality, however. It is only an argument against material causation. Things are definitely caused by something…

It’s just that we can’t prove that material thing A, causes material effect B, just because we always see one follow the other