THE FAITH OF
SCIENCE AND FAITH ON SCIENCE
Saidul
Islam
There are people, mostly in the atheist club, who tend to marginalize
religion, especially Islam, saying that Islam is based on “faith”, not
“facts”, and being a rational and objective human being, we need to reject
“faith-based dogma” and revert to “fact-based reality”. And people with
little or no knowledge on science and Islam and their philosophical
foundations, often get misled. The question is nothing but a con-trick. Let’s
discover why.
They
will say, it is “scientific investigation” that can provide us with “facts”;
the image and existence of “GOD” cannot be proven by “scientific
investigation”, and hence the existence of “GOD” is not a “fact”, rather a
“fiction” alone. Our primary questions are: why do they think that “science”
has the sole authority to generate facts, while the realm of science is only
“physical”? Certainly it’s their “belief” or “faith”. There are proofs that
the reality is two-fold: material/physical, and metaphysical which is beyond
physical realm. The boundary of science is only “physical” as science is
concerned with things that is publicly observed and tested. Why do they want
to use “science”, whose realm is only physical, to prove something (e.g., the
image of God) that is in the metaphysical realm? Because, they “believe” that
science can generate the facts. But there is a need to keep in mind that
science has its own limitations, it CANNOT generate all facts, and whatever
“scientific facts” it generates, we cannot say they are “absolute”, but they
are only “relative”! Yet, many people in the atheist club will persistently
insist that “it is science that will give us all the facts and reality”, and
that’s an absolute form of dogmatism. Qutb (1968) states the dogmatism and
fatal mistake of these people:
"Half
of the inhabitants of the world today remain idol-worshippers. India, China,
Japan and a great many other parts of the world are instances in view. The
other half is engaged in the worship of a new found deity whose corrupting
influence on man’s thoughts and feelings is no less significant. The deity is
styled as Modern Science. Science is a powerful instrument to help us
increase our knowledge of the world around us. As such it has an impressive
record of achievements to its credit. All these brilliant achievements were, however,
vitiated by one fatal mistake of the westerners: they installed science as
supreme God, declaring that it alone had the right to claim the adoration and
submission of man to it".
These
people also claim that they are “free-thinkers” (“Muktomona”). This is
another form of myth. How can they be “free-thinkers” while their beliefs and
the realm of thinking is imprisoned by the physical reality, the ‘relative
reality’ that science provides, and have no penetration in the absolute
metaphysical realm? These so-called “fact-based” people do not disclose the
fact that their facts are only relative, not absolute:
The
function of science is to solve problems. It cannot discover absolute truths.
The facts of science are just facts: they may be right, and may be wrong. But
they must be distinguished from truths. Scientific theories are true in the
sense that they work within a given framework, a set of equations, a dominant
paradigm. Change in framework, the equations, the paradigm, and the theories
change too! (Ibrahim 1990: 3).
The
point that I am trying to make here is that the people of the atheist club
always try to marginalize and reject “faith-based Islam” as opposed to their
claim of “fact-based reality”. Unfortunately their claim is severely flawed,
because, first, their claim of “facts” is not free from faith, a faith that
they have on science. Secondly, science has its own limitation, as it cannot
go beyond physical realm, and hence has noting to say about metaphysical
reality or facts. Thirdly, their so-called “facts”, generated by science, are
only relative, hence can change anytime. There is no absolute fact in
science. Therefore the state of their so-called “facts” is always shaken and
tumultuous. Finally, and most importantly, they are rejecting faiths by
juxtaposing it to “facts”, but their facts are based on scientific
investigation, and scientific investigation is unfortunately based on certain
faiths that are UNPROVED and UNPROVABLE. I will elaborate them here.
The
methodology of Science is deeply rooted in the western scientific approach,
and the scientific approach is grounded on a set of fundamental
faiths/assumptions that are “unproved” and “unprovable” (Nachmias 1992). They
are necessary prerequisites for the conduct of scientific discourse and
represent those issues in an area of philosophy of science that is termed
'epistemology' -the study of the foundations of knowledge. By examining these
assumptions/faiths, we can better understand the scientific approach and its
claim for superiority over other approaches of knowledge. The faiths are:
1. Nature is orderly and regular: The basic assumption of the scientific
approach is that there exists a definite regularity and order in the natural
world, events do not occur haphazardly. Even within a rapidly changing
environment, it is assumed that there is a degree of order and regularity and
that change itself displays patterns that can be understood. The concept of
nature does not refer to omnipotent or supernatural forces. In science nature
denotes all those “empirically observable” objects, conditions and phenomena
that exist independently of human intervention but include the human being as
biological system. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but rather describe,
what actually is happening. Furthermore, order and regularity in nature are
not necessarily inherent in the phenomena. For example, there is no logically
compelling reason why spring should follow winter; winter follows autumn,
autumn follows summer, summer follow spring. But they do, and this regularity
underlines observable conditions and phenomena, such as growing seasons.
2.We can know nature: The assumption that we know nature is no more
probable than is the assumption/faith that nature is orderly and that there
are laws of nature. It expresses a basic conviction that human beings are
just as much part of nature as other natural objects, conditions, and
phenomena and that, although we possess unique and distinctive
characteristics, we can nevertheless be understood and explained by the same
methods by which we study nature. Individuals and societal phenomena exhibit
sufficient recurrent, orderly and demonstrable patterns to be amenable to
scientific investigation. The human mind is not only capable of knowing
nature, but also knowing itself and the minds of others.
3. Knowledge is superior to ignorance: Closely related to the assumption
that we can know nature and ourselves is the idea that knowledge should be
pursued both for its own sake and for perfecting human conditions. The
contention that knowledge is superior to ignorance does not mean that
everything in nature can or will be known. Rather, it assumed that scientific
knowledge is tentative and changing. Things that we did not know in the past
we know at present, and current knowledge might be modified in the future.
Truth in science is relative to the evidence, the methods, and the theories
employed. The contention that relative knowledge is superior to ignorance is
diametrically opposed to the ideologies based on absolute truth. As Gideon
Sjoberg and Roger Nett (1968:1) put it, Certainly the ideal that human
dignity is enhanced when man is restless, inquiring, and “soul searching”
conflict with a variety of beliefs systems that would strive towards a closed
system, one based on absolute truth. The history of modern science and its
clash with absolute system bears testimony to this proposition. True
believers already “know” all that there is to know. Scientific knowledge
threatens the old ways of doing things; it is detrimental to tranquility,
stability and the status quo. And, in exchange, the scientific approach can
offer only tentative truth that is relative to the existing state of
knowledge. These are both the strength and weakness of the scientific
approach: It is strength in the sense that rational man in the long run act
to correct his own errors. It is a weakness in that scientists, not being so
confident of the validity of their own assertions as is the general public,
may, in those frequent periods when social crises threaten public security,
be overturned by absolutists. Science is often temporarily helpless when its
bastions are stormed by overzealous proponents of absolute system of belief
(Gideon Sjoberg and Roger Nett, 1968:26).
4. All natural phenomena have natural causes: The assumption that all
natural phenomena have natural causes epitomizes the scientific revolution.
It has placed the scientific approach in opposition to fundamentalist
religion, on the other hand, and spiritualism and magic on the other. The
assumption implies that natural events have natural causes or antecedents. It
rejects the counter-assumption that forces other than those found in nature
operate to cause the occurrence the natural events. Moreover, until scientist
can account for the occurrence of phenomena in natural terms, they reject the
argument that some other supernatural argument is necessary. The main
function of this assumption is to direct scientific research away from
omnipotent supernatural forces and towards regularities and order that
underline natural phenomena. Once delineated, such regularities can serve as
evidence for cause-and-effect relationships.
5. Nothing is self-evident: Scientific knowledge is not self-evident;
claims for truth must be demonstrated objectively. Tradition, subjective
beliefs, and common sense could be exclusively relied upon the verification
of scientific knowledge. Possibilities of error are always present, and even
the simplest notions call for objective verification. It is not incidental,
therefore, that scientific thinking is skeptical and critical.
6. Knowledge is derived from the acquisition of experience: If science is
to tell us anything about the real world, it must be “empirical”; that is, it
must be on perceptions, experience, and observations. Perception is a
fundamental tenet of the scientific approach, and it is achieved through our
senses: Science assumes that a communication tie between man and the external
universe is maintained through his own sense impressions. Knowledge is held to
be a product of one’s experiences, as facets of the physical, biological and
social world play upon the senses (Gideon Sjoberg and Roger Nett, 1968: 26).
This
assumption should not be interpreted in the narrow definition of the five
senses- touch, smell, taste, hearing and seeing. Many phenomena cannot be
directly experienced or observed. Observation is not “immediately given” or
entirely detached from scientific terms, concepts, and theories. As the
British philosophers of science Sri Karl Popper (1961) wrote: The naïve
empiricist … thinks that we begin by collecting and arranging our
experiences, and so ascend the ladder of science … But, if I am ordered:
"Record what you are experiencing" I shall hardly know how to obey
this ambiguous order. Am I to report that I am writing; that I hear a bell
ringing; a newsboy shouting; a loudspeaker droning; or am I to report,
perhaps, that these noises irritate me? … A science needs points of view, and
theoretical problems (p. 106).
Still,
from a historical perspective, the assumption that scientific knowledge
should be based upon empirical observations was a reaction against the belief
that knowledge is innate in human beings or that “pure reason” alone is
sufficient to produce verifiable knowledge. So ‘science’ precedes before
so-called “facts” and faith precedes before science. Faith comes first before
science and facts.
[The
readers should not be confused that Science and Islam are always rival
contender. In fact, there is a great harmony between Islam and Science, and
both are complementary to each other. The conflict occurs only when some
rationalists or scientists claim something which is beyond its realm.]
REFERENCE:
Ibrahim,
Anwar (1990). "Towards a Contemporary Philosophy of Islamic Science",
in The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, vol. 7, No. 1.
Nachmias, Chava Frankfort & David
Nachmias (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London:
Edward
Arnold. Nett, Gideon Sjoberg (1968). A Methodology of Social Research. New
York: Harper & Row.
Popper,
Karl (1961). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Science Editions
Qutb,
Muhammad (1968). Islam: The Misunderstood Religion, Kuwait: International
Islamic Book Centre.
TO BE
CONTINUED……
---
Md.
Saidul Islam Ph.D.
Candidate
Graduate Programme in Sociology
York
Universitiy 2060 Vari Hall, 4700 Keele Street
Toronto,
ON, Canada M3J 1P3
Tel:
(416) 650-2143 Fax: (416) 736-5730
Source:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dahuk/message/3248
|
