SCIENCE-RELIGION DIALOGUE
Summer 2002
 
 

 

 

 

 


Back | Home | Next


Religion and Science: Some Important Aspects

ABDUL MAJID*

In this article:

 

 

WAYS OF RELATING RELIGION AND SCIENCE

There can be at least four ways in which science and religion can be related to each other. Dr. John Haught gives four ways as:

(1) Conflict (2) Independence (3) Dialogue (4) Integration. (1)

  1. Conflict: The claim that religion is utterly opposed to science or that science invalidates religion or both are fundamentally irreconcilable.
  2. Contrast: The approach that there can be no real conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions. According to this approach, religion and science are both valid, but they are so different from each other that conflict between them is logically impossible. Ian Barbour in his important book Religion and Science: Some Historical and Contemporary Issues called this approach as independence . (2)
  3. Contact: This type argues that although religion and science are distinct, science always has implications for religion and vice versa. Science and religion necessarily interact, and so religion and theology must not ignore new developments in science. So there should be interaction, dialogue, and possible consonance between science and religion. Dr. Ian Barbour calls this type as Dialogue but Dr. Haught names it contact.
  4. Confirmation: As the name implies, this approach emphasizes the ways in which religion positively support the scientific adventure of discovery, it looks for those ways in which religion, without in any way interfering with science paves the way for some of the ideas and even gives a special kind of blessing. Similarly science in many ways, according to this approach, confirms some basic realities of religion. We will discuss briefly  the four approaches for relating religion and sciences in Christian perspective and then we will concentrate on point that whether there is (was) such conflict or contradiction between Islam and Science or not.

The most obvious example of conflict of Science and religion in Christian world is that of the church’s persecution of Galileo (1564-1642). The famous trial of Galileo before panel of cardinals was held in 1632, and he was condemned by a vote of seven to three for violating an injunction sent to him in 1616 requiring him not to hold, teach ,or defend in any way what so ever that the earth moves. He recanted and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Although, Galileo in his letter to Grand Duchess Christina in 1615, set forth two principles of interpretation to be used when scientific theories seem to be in conflict with a literal interpretation of scripture.

  1. INDEPENDENCE: In some passages, Galileo claims that science and scripture have different goals and are irrelevant to each other. He cites Augustine’s assertion that scripture does not teach us about matters that are not relevant to our salvation. He also quotes Cardinal Bronius “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes. This is the version of independence model of the relationship of science and religion.
  2. POTENTIAL CONFLICT: In other passages, Galileo asserted that a metaphorical interpretation of scripture is acceptable only when a literal interpretation would conflict with a scientific theory that can be proved with certainty. Scientific theories that cannot be irrefutably demonstrated should be rejected in favour of a literal interpretation of a scripture.(3)

 

Similarly many other scientists like Bruno, Copernicus, Kent were given the punishment of imprisonment and death. Courts were framed to resist the new trends of learning and philosophy in France and Italy, persecuting more than 10,000, others were put to jail. Many research books were thrown into fire under pretence of protecting the religion represented by the priests. (4)

Under such torture, science had suffered a lot, and conflict started between science and religion due to irrational and wrong attitude of the church. Perhaps it was a reaction of this hostility and persecution that science in the West during the last four centuries became Godless and anti-religion. However, due to reformation movement, attempts were made from time to time to bridge the gulf between science and religion. The second Vatican council (1960 — 65) made it clear in its message to thinkers and scientists stating, “since after a long conflict between Faith and Science”, the highest authorities of the catholic church has proclaimed, “Today, as never before, perhaps, thanks to God, there is a clear possibility of profound agreement between true science and true faith, both of which are servant of one and only one Truth”. (5)

In 1984, a commission appointed by Pope John Paul II to re-examine the events which led to the conflict of science & religion acknowledged that “Church officials had erred in condemning

Galileo” (6).

In 1992 the Pope reviewed the commission’s findings. He said that “there are two realms of knowledge and that by failing to distinguish them, theologians had been led to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question that is in fact pertained to scientific investigation.” (7)

Back to Top

ISLAMIC VIEWPOINT ABOUT SCIENCE

When we turn towards Islam, we see no such hostility and clash in the Muslim world with science. Islam has never been prejudiced towards science and knowledge. Even western historians and writers acknowledge that the early period of Islam was a period of great scientific and technological advancement, negating any conflict between faith and science. In this connection, Briffault writes in The Making of Humanity: “Science arose in Europe as a result of new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.” (8)

The Muslim scholars laid the foundation of several sciences and generally cultivated a “Cordial union” between the two. Islamic ethos based on the Glorious Quran and Sunnah of the prophet, took scientific enterprise with positive value and overall picture was radically different from the corresponding Euro-Christian scenario which presented them as mortal enemies. The Holy Quran invites mankind to study closely the heavens and the earth, the diversity of animals, the diversity of tongues and colours of humans, system and scheme of creation of the heavens and earth, wonders of nature, developmental stages of the human, the balance and perfection in the universe. In short, according to Islam, there is no worship like reflection on God’s creation and according to Hazrat Ali, the reflection on God’s creation is the best of worship. Similarly according to a Hadith: An hour of meditation (tafakur) is better than sixty years of act of worship. (9) Furthermore, it is mentioned in the Quran that enough of God’s signs in the nature and in our body (souls) are going to be revealed to ensure the humans that God is the Truth: “We shall soon show them our signs in the universe and in their own bodies (soul) so it becomes clear unto them that He is in-deed the Truth (41:53). The main purpose behind reflection and seeking of natural sciences is to acquaint one self with the signs of God in the universe.

ISLAMIC MEANING OF KNOWLEDGE: In the Quran, the word ilm (knowledge) is used both for the science of nature and other kinds of sciences and the study of nature is recommended for the sake of discovering the patterns of God in the universe. According to Islam, observing with open heart, Allah Almighty’s creation both in the universe and in human sphere with a view to better appreciating Allah’s glory and comprehending His great power and wisdom is a great worship.

In Islamic world view, every thing revolves around God and the main purpose of this reflection and Tahqiq should be to arrive at Haqq. (The word tahqiq comes from the same root as Haqq, which is a verb, a noun and an adjective carrying the meaning of reality, rightness, properness, appropriateness and justness. As Haqq, God is the Real or the Reality, the Truth and the Right and the Just. When the word is used in relation to creatures, it does not simply mean their truth and their reality. Rather it also designates the just and proper demands that the creature make upon human beings. The main Tahqiq (to reach at haqq) is to know the Unseen Being who is behind all creation and who is responsible for their existence. In the words of Sh.Saadi Sherazi:

A tiny green leaf speaks volumes of God’s ingenuity (mahrifa to those who can perceive. Another poet rightly said:

The knowledge which does not guide to the right path is actually  an ignorance.

Back to Top

 

 

QURANIC WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING NATURE:

    Quran invites people for Tafaquh to Tadabbar, Tafakur and Taaqul in its various verses.

By Tafaquh the correct idea and concept of things and their different features can be visualized. Tadabbur means knowledge of how to utilize them and how to acquire them. The third term Tafakur unfolds the ways how things have come to existence and to find out their characteristics, properties, and lastly by Taaqul we are to put the things to their right and proper use in every day life. It was the meditation i.e. Tafakur and Taaqul, that gave birth to different kinds of scientific research among the early Muslims and it was through Tafaquh and Tadabbur, that they discovered harmony in all the manifestations of nature. (9) In short, according to the Holy Quran, the study of natural phenomena teaches us some important lessons about the following subjects:

  • The origin and the evolution of the world.
  • The presence of order and harmony in the universe.
  • The presence of telos to the universe.
  • The significance of humanity. The Quran honours humanity and talks about all kinds of possibilities provided for the humans in the heavens and the earth.
  • The possibility of resurrection.
  • Argument on the unity of God (Tawhid) from the unicity of nature. (10-A)

The study of nature can lead to these results only if one has already some faith in God or intends to arrive at reality (Haqq). As the Quran says “Say, consider what is it that is in the heavens and the earth and signs and warners did not avail and benefit a people who would not believe (10:10). Thus, if a scientist approaches nature with faith in God, his faith may be fortified by his scientific activity. Otherwise, the study of nature by itself cannot necessarily lead to God. This is because scientific activity is always accompanied by metaphysical presuppositions of scientist, though one may not be aware of them. Thus, it can lead one to God if one’s metaphysical framework in sound.(10-B)

The celebrated Muslim scientist al-Bairuni put it as: Sight connects what we see to be the signs of Divine wisdom in creation and deduces the existence of the Creator. Levy explains the outlook of those Muslims scientists elegantly:

“Apart from a small number of investigators inspired by Greek philosophic ideas, the Muslim who engaged in the pursuit of science did so in order to discover, in the wonders of nature, the signs or tokens of the glory of God.”(11)

According to Islamic teachings the goal of both the revealed and acquired knowledge is to discover God’s signs, attributes and to reach at reality (Haqq).

Scope of Religion and Science: By  revealed knowledge we mean religion which applies to some thing which is above all not the construction of human mind, but is, on the contrary, of divine origin, so that it can be said supernatural, revealed, mysterious, and its purpose is to provide an effective link between the world and God.

Sir Syed Ahmad khan described the purpose of the Quran as “The Quran does not prove that the earth is stationary, nor does it prove that the earth is in motion. Similarly it can not be proved from the Quran that the Sun is stationary. The Holy Quran was not concerned with these problems of astronomy; because the progress in human knowledge was to decide such matters itself ---- the real purpose of a religion is to improve morality. I am fully convinced that the work of God and the Word of God can never be antagonistic to each other.”(12)

On the other hand, the acquired knowledge, the one aspect of which is called science, deals with observations and experimentation and deriving inferences from them or it is a body of knowledge about the natural order based on empirical inquiry which concerns itself only with verifiable date attained through sense knowledge. (13)

Moreover, science is a process and is subject to change where as religion is based on verities and principles that are immutable. John Haught describes elegantly the different fields of science and religion in this way:

“The ‘ game’ science plays is one of examining the natural world empirically, while religion’s is that of expressing the ultimate meaning that transcends (lies beyond) the empirically known world. Science is concerned with how things happened in nature, religion with why there is any thing at all rather than nothing. Science is about causes, religion about meaning. Science deals with solvable problems, religion with unsolvable mystery. Science answers specific questions about the working of nature, whereas religion expresses concern about the ultimate ground of nature. Science is concerned with particular truths; religion is interested in explaining why we should seek truth at all.”(14)

Gould says that science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and to develop theories that coordinate and explains these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different realm of human purposes, meanings and values. (15)

 

Back to Top

 

WHY THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION TODAY

If scientists keep the above difference in mind, then there can be no conflict or contradiction between religion and science but those limits are not kept in mind and usually science is conflated with a belief system of their own, which is not theism, but rather scientism. Scientism may be defined as the belief that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It is the assumption that science is the only appropriate way to arrive at the totality of truth. Scientism is a philosophical belief (Strictly speaking an epistemological one) that enshrines science as the only completely trustworthy method of putting the human mind in touch with “objective “reality. (16)

When and how scientism evolved, Ferris speaks that :“Scientism flourished briefly in nineteenth century, when a few thinkers impressed by such triumphs as Newtonian dynamics and the second law of thermodynamics, permitted themselves to imagine that science might soon be able to muster the sophistication to recognize such claims as hyperbolic. Scientism today is advocated by only a tiny minority of scientists” (17)

This conflation of science with scientism as John Haught observes “lies at the root of most modern opposition by scientists to religion.” He further says “without usually being aware of it, scientific skeptics have uncritically fused the scientific method with scientism ,a belief system that assumes, without any scientific demonstration, that science is the only appropriate way of looking at things.”(18)

The supporters of scientism believe that sensory data are the only source of knowledge. Thus, they are of the opinion, that science has to get rid of meta-physical concepts because they are not rooted in sense experience. Since the second half of the nineteenth century, various forms of empiricism, such as positivism, existentialism and operationalism emerged. The common factor between all these schools of thought was their limitation of knowledge to sense based data and their denial of metaphysical. In their view, sense based knowledge is the only way to get to the truth, and the truth is equivalent to what can be acquired through this source. This outlook affected all circles of the first half of the twentieth century and we still witness its influences in the academic circles in the form of scientism, scientific materialism and reductionism.

Reductionism implies any apparently higher levels, such as life, mind and religious ideas of “God”, can all be fully explained in terms of the lower level sciences of chemistry and physics. (19)

Meta-physical reductionism means that scientific analysis is the only way to grasp what things really are. It insists that knowledge of the molecular make-up and activity of living cells, or neurophysiological comprehension of the human brain, is all we need to understand what life or mind really is. In Crick’s terms there is no need for any other kind of explanation than that provided by pure science since there is no other kind of reality other than the purely physical.

Francis Crick, who with James Watson discovered the double helix of DNA, presents an Astonishing Hypotheses.

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you, your joys, your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”. Crick further says that as Lewis Carroll Alice might have phrased it.

“You are nothing but a pack of neurons”. This hypothesis is so alien to the idea of most people alive today that it can be truly called astonishing.

Crick goes on to say “only scientific certainty “(with all its limitations), can in the long run rid us of the superstitions of our ancestors. It is the result of that scientific materialism that Crick maintains that the “majority of neuroscientists believe that the idea of the soul is a myth.”(20)

Such scientists give prime importance to matter and only matter. They are of the opinion that mind is nothing more than an expression of the brain and brain is, to put it indelicately, essentially a piece of meat, though a highly complex one. (21)

Daniel Dennett, who proudly calls himself a materialist, put this concept in his widely acclaimed book, Conscious Explained, ---- there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter — the physical stuff of physics, chemistry and physiology — and mind is some how nothing but a physical phenomenon. (22)

The materialist scientists even explain the belief in morality in terms of natural evolutionary plane.

 Wilson and Michael Ruse explain:

As evolutionists, we see no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproduction ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will... in an important sense ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate (so that human genes survive). (23) Due to this over confidence in matter, Francis Crick declares “The Knowledge we has already makes it highly unlikely that there is any thing that cannot be explained by physics and chemistry. (24)

But during the last several decades many distinguished scholars have challenged the view that consciousness is explainable by the physical sciences. Kurt Gödel, one of the leading figures in the mathematical logic, wrote in his 1971 letter to H Wang:

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanisms can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple and not mechanical. (25)

Wielder Penfield, the great Canadian brain surgeon, believes in the duality of mind and brain.

“Because it seems to me certain that it will always be impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems to me that mind develops and matures independently throughout an individual’s life as though it were a continuing element, and because a computer(which the brain is) must be programmed and operated by the agency capable of independent understanding, I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements mind and brain as two semi-independent elements (26).

“We have acknowledged” says Professor Eddington, “that the entities of Physics can from their very nature form only a partial aspect of the reality” how are we to deal with other part? It can not be said that other part concerns us less than the physical entities. Feeling, purpose, values, made up our consciousness as much as sense impressions. (27)

 

Back to Top

 

THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE

By conflating Science to Scientism, materialism and reductionism, a general view emerged which according to Nasr is,

“it would reduce spirit to mind, mind to the external aspects of psyche, the external aspects of psyche to organic behaviour and organisms to molecular structure and as a result Science emerged as “an epistemology that aims relentlessly at control rules out the possibility of transcendence in principal”. By reducing all reality to what is observable and verifiable, this three headed ideological monster (comprised of science, materialism and reductionism, as John Haught calls it (29)] advocated a single layered view of reality. Traditionally, reality, rather Reality, was believed to be multi-layered. Metacosm and Macrocosm had many levels from terrestrial to infinite and so had microcosm i.e. man who had corresponding levels of self, from corporal to spiritual. (30)

For a true understanding of nature, both human and  infra-human levels should be considered  and viewpoint of the modern science has to be corrected as Iqbal rightly says, “If an outlook beyond physics is possible (in fact possible), we must courageously face the possibility, even though it may disturb or tend to modify our normal way of life and thought. The interests of truth require that we must abandon our present attitude. (31)

Before closing my discussion let us discuss the limitations of the modern empirical science which is supposed to be the sole arbitrator of all matter pertaining to knowledge and which is supposed to give answers to every question. According to Huston Smith, there are four domains that science cannot handle. (32)

1- Existential and Global meanings and ultimate questions: Science itself is meaningful throughout but on existential and global meanings it is silent. As human beings, scientists can invest themselves in these questions but their science will not help them to answer them. Global meanings are of the sort, what is the meaning of life? Does life make sense? What is the meaning of it all? How did everything begin? In the words or Peter Medawar:

 “there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer… It is not to science, therefore but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.” (33)

Anna Harrison the former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, puts the matter very elegantly:

“It is my impression that some time in the past, either the scientific community oversold or the public over bought science and technology. There are questions that science cannot address and things that science and technology cannot accomplish”. (34)

In short, questions about various kinds and different levels of existence are beyond the capacity of science. Similarly, response to questions about God, spirit, morality of soul and human free will cannot be explained through science. Similarly, science raises some questions that are relevant to its subject matter but whose explanations are beyond science’s capacity. Mehdi Gulshani, an eminent Iranian Physicist cites a few examples viz;

Where do the laws of Physics come from?

Why can we comprehend the laws of Physics?

Why should there be a universe in which such laws exist?

He further says, “the explanation of the foundation of science and the reasons for its success is to be sought outside of Physics.” (35)

2- Purpose: Science does not look for final causes: Science has no business of talking about purpose. It does not fall within its province either to affirm or to deny it. According to John Haught, cosmic Pessimists argue that it is scientific knowledge that justifies their skepticism about cosmic purpose, they are going beyond science itself, implicitly forcing science to answer a question for which it is naturally unqualified. (36)

The final cause of something is its purpose or the goal for which it is intended (purpose means oriented towards a goal or toward a value. A process is purposeful and teleological if it tends toward the realization of some goal, rather than just meandering blindly about (37)). To understand something fully, the final cause is of utmost important i.e. answer to the question of “why” something existed or exist? And this applies also the universe as a whole. So answer to the question of “why” or to describe the purpose of the universe and humans is not the task of science but of religion.

 3-Values in Their Final and Proper Sense:

Bertrand Russell acknowledged that “the sphere of values lies outside science except insofar as science consists in the pursuit of knowledge”. (38)

Science can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones. If health is valued over immediate somatic gratification, smoking is bad, but intrinsic values that conflict (health versus pleasure) science can not weigh.

4-Invisible: Science can deal with invisible that can be logically inferred from observable effects. But if there are invisible that do not impact matter thus demonstrably, science gets no wind of them.

Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea slips through the nets of fishermen. The physical and biological sciences do not reveal to us all aspects of nature. With the net of these sciences, only certain things could be hunted. More delicate objects are beyond this net. Sir Arthur Eddington likened sciences to casting a net into the sea. A three centimeter net ineffective in catching creatures in the sea smaller than three centimetres. (But it does not mean that there are no creatures smaller than three centimetres, there are, but those are not in the range of net.) (39)

 

Back to Top

 

THE PRESENT NEED

In fact, there are many ways of looking at the world and each perspective shows certain aspect. Huston Smith rightly says: “Taken in its entirety, the world is not as science says it is; it is as science, philosophy, religion ,the arts and every day speech say it is not science but the sum of man’s symbol system, of which science is but one, is the measure of things.” (40)

Thus, we can say that the present day science has to be framed within a suitable metaphysical matrix, which can accommodate all levels of human knowledge and   experience, as George Ellis put it”             We should use broad Criteria that take into account the whole range of human experience and not just that part which can be scientifically described.”

Islam as well as other Heavenly religions emphasize that we should believe in the existence of supra- sensible realties,”

The Holy Quran says:

This book, there is no doubt in it, is guide to those who fear God. Those who believe in the unseen (ghayab) and keep up prayer and spend of what we have given them: those who believe in what is revealed to thee (O Prophet Mohammad) and in what that has been revealed before thee (they believe in them) and they believe firmly in the life Hereafter (which is also unseen) (2:1-3)

 

Back to Top

 

REFERENCES

  1. John F. Haught, Science and Religion: from Conflict to Conversation (New Yourk: Paulist Press, 1995), P.9.
  2. Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Some Historical and Contemporary Issues (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers) P.84 Barbour discussed these four ways in chapter 4 of the aforesaid book.
  3. Ibid. pp. 13-14
  4. A. Rauf Nowshervi, Muslims: The Pioneers of Modern Science (Peshawar: Academy of Science, University Town), p. 47.
  5. Ibid. 1
  6. Ian G. Barbour, p.15
  7. Ibid
  8. Briffault, The Making of Humanity (quoted in Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam (Lahore: Iqbal Academy) p.104
  9. A. Rauf Nowshervi, pp.22-23
  10. A) Mehdi Gulshani, Islam and Sciences of Nature: Some Fundamental Questions Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 39:4 (2000) p.599

10. B) Ibid. p.601

12. Pervez A. Hoodbhoy, Muslims and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Struggle for Rationality (Islamabad: Vanguard Books Ltd, 1991), p.81

  1. Lord Northbourne, Religion in the Modern World (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1999), pp.45-57 and Naumana Amjid, Discourse between Islam and Science: a way out, Islamic Studies (Islamabad)
  2. John. F. Haught, p.15
  3. Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2001) pp.70-71
  4. John F. Haught, p.16
  5. Ibid;
  6. John F. Haught, p.17
  7. Ibid, p.73
  8. Ibid, p.72
  9. Ibid p.77
  10. Ibid, p.77
  11. Ibid, p.78
  12. Mehdi Golshani, p.604
  13. Ibid
  14. Ibid
  15. Quoted in Iqbal’s Reconstruction Of Religious Thought in Islam.
  16. S. H. Nasr, Traditional Islam in Modern West (Lahore: Sohail Academy, 1996), p. 110
  17. John F. Haught, pp. 74-75
  18. Naumana Amjid, Discourse between Science and Religion in Islamic Studies, 39:1 (2000) p.95
  19. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Lahore: Iqbal Academy)
  20. Huston Smith, pp.197-199 and Forgotten Truth (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1999), pp.14-17
  21. Peter Medawar, The Limits of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p.66
  22. Anna Harrison, Reflection on Current Issues in Science and Technology quoted in Islamic Studies; 39:4 (2000)
  23. Mehdi Golshani, p.606
  24. John F. Haught
  25. Ibid.
  26. Quoted in Huston Smith’s Forgotten Truth, p.14
  27. Quoted in Islamic Studies, 39:4 (2000) p.610
  28. Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth, p.16
  29. George Ellis, Before the Beginning, (London: Boyars Bowerdeam, 1993), p. 83 quoted in Islamic Studies, p.608.

 

* Assistant Professor of Zoology, Govt. Postgraduate College, Mansehra, NWFP, Pakistan.

Back to Table of Contents
 

  
 

Copyrights © 2001-2004 | All rights reserved