Untitled Document

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