Question: “There is no greater title and position than servanthood to God. Even if there is, it must be freedom, which is actually another dimension of this servanthood.” In our age when everybody talks about freedom, what is freedom, from a believers’ perspective?

Answer: A person who becomes a true servant to God is freed from all types of servanthood which might sometimes even make them knock every door like a beggar and resort to mean ways. That person will similarly not be a slave to passing fancies and desires.

Obstacles to freedom

As for people who fail to be servants to God in the true sense, they may sometimes become slaves to their desires and lust and thus lead a bohemian life. Sometimes they give in to their greed and engage in different speculations for the sake of amassing wealth, without caring whether it is lawful or not. Sometimes, they give in to a desire for worldly status and titles and thus seek to allocate the people’s wealth for themselves by abusing their position.

People who do not lead their life with a profound consciousness of servanthood sometimes become slaves to their envy and cannot even tolerate people dedicated to good acts who try to conquer hearts. Because of this intolerance, they burn with a desire to sabotage their work. However, they actually do the greatest harm to themselves. As they eat their hearts out before the accomplishments of the people they envy, they also ruin their own deeds with respect to the Hereafter. Note that the noble Prophet stated that malicious envy consumes one’s good deeds, like fire consumes wood (Abu Dawud, Adab 44; Ibn Majah, Zuhd 22).

Fame is another pitfall for those who are not true servants to God. Seekers of fame try every means for the sake of being the center of attention and for receiving applause and appreciation. If such poor ones make the slightest achievement or make the slightest degree of sacrifice, they immediately expect some others to say, “the entire country is proud of you.” They do not talk without applause, and do not give anything without receiving compliments. They go through fits of delight and are enraptured in the face of applause. Such people with egotistic souls actually become servants and slaves to fame.

Other than that, there are also people who become slaves to ease and comfort, to money and wealth, to benefits and opportunism… Such unfortunate ones who fail to savor and appreciate the worth of the servanthood to God keep running after their own ambitions, greed, desires, passions, and addictions. They knock all doors and try every possible reference. However, they cannot feel satisfied nor find true happiness in any way. Actually, what lies in the root of idolatry is weakening of the feeling of servanthood to God. Since idolaters cannot properly be servants to God and cannot savor the delight of servanthood, they resort to different means in order to satisfy this hunger of theirs. With the added influence of some devilish considerations, they, for example, posted a stick on the ground hoping to make rain fall; they resorted to beseeching those in the grave for realizing some other wish; they wanted to realize their goals by means of pieces of cloth or candles they left in tombs; but they gradually fell into the pitfall of associating partners with God.

Some others objected to servanthood to God, claiming that this—God forbid—goes against human dignity. They claim that a person who observes servanthood to God becomes accustomed to servanthood and might be a servant before the created also. Namely, they mistook servanthood to God as contradictory to freedom. Actually, attaining true human freedom depends on this very point. A person can be freed from other servanthood only by becoming a servant to God. It firstly needs to be acknowledged that a person chooses faith with free will and believes in the essentials of faith with free will. The person similarly observes worship with free will. In short, a person observes servanthood to God out of free will.

In this respect, there is a very close relation between freedom, worship, and profound devotions. While those unable to throw off the shackles around the neck imposed by fame, hedonism, and the like cannot ever be free, they can neither be servants to God in the true sense. Namely, as freedom is crucial for the sake of thorough servanthood to God, attaining real freedom depends on being a servant to God in the true sense.

Given that God Almighty endowed humanity with a very significant dynamic like free will, it matters where and how we use it. One must aim for great wishes and demands with free will. Seeking simple worldly delights and pleasures would hurt human honor and dignity; running after trivial things would be a bad investment for the capital of a lifetime. What suits a proper human being is not to be captivated by physicality and carnal desires; instead, they should fear only God and no one else, never bow to this or that person like beggars, but bow only when necessary – namely, in the presence of God.

While this is the meaning of giving free will its due, it is the only way for real freedom. Only people who get rid of negative feelings like greed and envy, worldly expectations and fears are the ones who attain inner peace and relief. Since they are ready to leave this world as they came, they do not bend to any worldly power.

Is freedom in an absolute sense possible?

Some understand freedom as absolute liberty without any restrictions or conditions whatsoever. However, such liberty has never existed anywhere in the world to date. Neither in capitalist systems nor in liberal or communist ones, have people lived as they wished with unrestrained liberty. All systems sanctioned some rules to restrain freedom. For example, although communist systems broadened the limits of what is permissible and came up with an understanding alluring to passing fancies and desires, when it came to fidelity to the system, they acted strictly and tyrannically. They deprived people of their property rights, they killed the freedom for personal enterprise, and banned many actions that contradicted human nature and reason.

Likewise, although some states in our time have given much freedom to their citizens, they never allow any ideas that contradict the official ideology. They bring certain limitations regarding what they term as freedom of thought and conscience: they impose heavy sanctions when certain ideas that disagree with their worldview are voiced. No matter how much they refer to freedom, they cannot forbear the slightest degree of opposition to their own system.

A society’s general welfare and harmonious continuity necessitate adopting certain disciplines. If freedom is perceived and practiced as unlimited satisfaction of all desires and fancies, then this will cause corruption of lineages, breaking up of families, and degeneration of society. Likewise, although “freedom” might seem to allow it, we cannot approve of acts like profanity against the sacred, verbal abuse against religion, and making fun of the nation’s values, for allowing these will cause all moral values to be ruined. It is similarly not possible to accept as lawful, acting against the country or nation under the name of freedom, for in such a case the concepts of nation and country will lose importance, and it will become difficult for society members to co-exist.

On account of all these reasons, almost all legal systems have passed laws to provide shelter for the essential rights of religion, life, lineage, property, and reason; they imposed heavy sanctions against any crimes posing a threat to these. Namely, all states felt the need to draw a frame for freedom through certain laws and regulations. In fact, even while describing freedom, it is pointed out that your freedom ends where the limits of others’ freedom begins. In other words, although all citizens own certain rights and freedoms, they extend to the limits where others’ rights and freedoms begin. If we take the issue from a believer’s perspective, we can express this fact that God and faith too have some rights upon the individual, and they set certain limits for them.

In this respect, the notion of unrestrained freedom does not exist even among animals. They have certain limitations and boundaries, and there are consequences when they are violated.

Animals lead their life with astonishing solidarity and mutual assistance. Take penguins in the Antarctic: we feel dizzy before their system. Had people been able to establish such a system among themselves, all of us would live in peace.

God instilled certain rules in the brains of animals to let them live in an orderly fashion. However, humans possess reason and free will. We can even say that these are the most essential and indispensable human qualities. A human is neither a pile of wood, nor a sunflower stem. In this respect, for the sake of being able to live with others in an orderly and harmonious fashion, a person is supposed to comply with certain rules by means of reason and willpower. This is very important in terms of giving free will its due.

By giving willpower its due, humans will not only live harmoniously together but will even surpass angels. The noble Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who used his free will to the best of his capacity, left the archangel Gabriel behind during his journey on the night of Ascension. Therefore, things like bidding for Paradise and being blessed with the honor of seeing God all depend on using one’s free will properly. On this path it might be necessary to sacrifice some aspects of freedom and to accept certain disciplines by means of free will.

Freedom is a great blessing God bestowed on people. If some people have lost such a divine blessing on account of their neglect and laziness, namely if they failed to retain their freedom, they will be held responsible before God. Furthermore, if they are not aware of being dominated by other ideologies, and not even endeavoring to be saved from this by refusing to regain certain opportunities they have lost, then they are not only betraying their freedom, but also their faith.

In this respect, appreciating the value of the freedom God granted us, upholding it and using it in the right way, are very important. In this respect, every nation needs to know well their era, have plans and projects for the future, and take promising steps as much as their cognition and circumstances allow.

Free thinking and science

Scientific thought has been shaped in the last few centuries by ideas based on positivism, materialism, and naturalism.

Scientific terminology has developed so extensively with these ideas that we are not able to think differently. And with these ideas we cannot reach the truth about our lives. For this reason, it is necessary for believing scientists to re-adopt free thinking as a principle and revise all their scientific conclusions. While doing this, they must be freed from attachment to the status quo and question everything, for it is not possible to establish something new without questioning. To this end, we need to consider that there is a possibility of being mistaken—be it a slight one—about the data we find before us. For example, a doctor specializing in medicine should be able to re-evaluate everything he or she has learned and re-test whether these are correct or not.

This surely is not an easy endeavor; it demands a very serious love for knowledge, research, and truth. Furthermore, it requires being able to dedicate a lifetime to this cause, to undertake very serious troubles and make serious sacrifices. If an industrial revolution happened in the West and serious distances were covered in science and technology, it happened thanks to the people who dedicated their lives to this issue. Some dedicated their lives to studying animal life, some to discovering the secret of historical relics, and some to decoding the tongue of natural phenomena. However, these studies of theirs ended up with materialism and naturalism. It is necessary to overcome this present situation and relate every truth about sciences to the One beyond existence and things. Like unweaving a sweater and re-weaving it with a new pattern, everything must be de-constructed and then re-constructed. While doing this we might sometimes be correct and sometimes err; we might take certain issues further than their present state and walk along with others at certain issues, and we even refer to their help.

However, these are not things to be realized by ordinary people. They require very serious resoluteness. But without such a struggle, it is not possible to be freed from dualism and to eliminate the contradiction between science and religion. Actually, while the origin of the Qur’an is Divine Speech, the Universe is similarly another divine book to be studied, as originated by His power and will. Given that these two books come from the same origin, it is not possible for there to be any contradiction between them.

Pursuing science under domination is no less painful than living under the rule of others’ domination. Merely quoting others but not being able to coming up with any new and original ideas should only be the growls of lowly souls surrendered to domination. Here I am saying like the poet Mehmed Akif did, “I have lived free and do live free for eternity/Who is to dare bring me under chains, I surprise, so crazy!” Actually every believer must possess this honor. They must look at their glorious past, turn to their spiritual roots, and then consider the present wretched condition and ask themselves whether or not it is shameful. Afterwards, they must absolutely set about being saved from these shames by building up their own world.

As souls under domination will not be able to realize such a revival, there is the absolute need for free thoughts. Actually, freedom begins in thinking. It is not possible to talk about freedom concerning people whose thoughts are dominated others.

Zeno of Elea was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher of southern Italy and a member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides. He argued that an object in motion can never pass from one position to another, because between the two there is always an “infinity” of other positions, however close, that must be successively traversed in the course of the motion, and this “infinity” can never be exhausted. David Hilbert is a German mathematician who postulated a hypothetical hotel with “countably infinitely” many rooms, all of which are occupied. Since the hotel has “infinitely” many rooms, we can move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3, and so on, and fit a newcomer into room 1. By repeating this procedure, it may be argued that it is possible to make room for any finite number of new guests, although every room of this hotel initially contains a guest.

The following two quotations from two contemporary authors may provide more substance about the nature of the problem:

On the other hand, involvement with the infinite brings with it a huge range of difficulties. In particular, there are the many puzzles and paradoxes that have been outlined in the pages of this book. Moreover, there are the many quite fundamental problems that arise for such apparently simple notions as counting, adding, maximizing, and so forth. Because we are so firmly wedded to limit notions-“best,” “first,” “greatest,” “maximum,” and so forth-that do not sit easily with the infinite, it is very hard to see how we can make our peace with the infinite.

The infinite has always been a slippery concept. Even the commonly accepted mathematical view, developed by Georg Cantor, may not have truly placed infinity on a rigorous foundation.

In the present article, we attempt to summarize Rene Guenon’s (1886-1951) alternative way of thinking on the idea of infinite from the perspective of the traditional metaphysical science. Much more detailed presentation of his perspective can be found in his (1886-1951) valuable study The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus from which we will extensively quote here.

Guenon considered mathematics as providing a particularly proper symbolism for the expression of metaphysical truths to the extent that they are expressible. However, he states that “in order for this to be so it is above all necessary that these sciences be rid of the various errors and confusions that have been introduced by the false views of the moderns.” To follow Guenon’s paradigm it is necessary to start with the metaphysical notion of the universal-All which comprehends all possibilities, the non-manifested as well as the manifested Universe, that is, the cosmos. The universal All leaves outside itself only the impossible that is a pure nothing. A determination is to define a certain domain of possibilities in relation to all the rest which is expressed by Spinoza (1632-1677) as omnis determinatio negatio est (all determination is a negation). The first of all determinations is Being itself. “Number is only a mode of quantity, and quantity itself only a category or special mode of being, not coextensive with it, or more precisely still, quantity is only a condition proper to one certain state of existence in the totality of universal existence.” Number, space, and time are all determined conditions.

The Infinite, understood in its true, metaphysical sense, has no limits since its opposite, finite is synonymous with limited. Therefore, according to Guenon,

… one cannot correctly apply this term to anything other than that which has absolutely no limits, that is to say the universal All. Furthermore, there can obviously be only one Infinite, for two supposedly distinct infinities would limit and therefore inevitably exclude one another.

He further states, “The Infinite, in its true sense, can have neither opposite nor complementarity.” The scholastic distinction between “the infinite in a certain respect” and “the absolute infinite” cannot be accepted. If a thing is not limited in a certain sense or in a certain respect than one can legitimately conclude that it is limited in no way at all, and since a determined thing does not include every possibility, as such it can only be finite.

Given any number, one can form the next by adding a unit gives the sequence of numbers to us. Therefore, we cannot actually reach its limits. However, the impossibility of reaching the limits of certain things in the manifested Universe should not cause the illusion that these determined things have no limits at all. In order to replace the false notion of “determined infinite,” Guenon introduces, the idea of the indefinite, which is precisely the idea of a development of possibilities the limits of which we cannot actually reach; and this is why we (Guenon) regard this distinction between the Infinite and the indefinite as fundamental to all questions in which the so-called mathematical infinite appears.

According to Descartes (1596-1650), the indefinite is that of which we do not perceive the limits, and which in reality could be infinite. On the contrary, Guenon affirms that

(T)he indefinite cannot be infinite because it always implies a certain determination, whether it is a question of extension, duration, divisibility, or some other possibility; in a word, whatever the indefinite may be, and according to whatever aspect it is considered, it is still of the finite and can only be of the finite.

The idea of an “infinite number” understood as “the greatest of all numbers,” or “the number of all numbers” is contradictory. The impossibility of an “infinite number” can be established by various arguments:

(T)o every whole number (integer) there corresponds another number equal to its double, such that one can make the two sequences correspond term by term, with the result that the number of terms must be the same in both; but there are obviously twice as many whole numbers as there are even, since even numbers alternate by twos in the sequence of whole numbers; one thus ends up with a manifested contradiction.

Guenon insists that number, despite its indefinitude, is by no means applicable to all that exists and the multitude of all numbers cannot constitute a number, which, moreover, is finally only an application of the incontestable truth that what limits a certain order of possibilities must necessarily be beyond and outside that which it limits.

On the other hand, the idea of multitude, contrary to that of number, is applicable to all that exists which allows one to speak of the multitude of divine attributes for example, or again of the multitude of angels, that is, of beings belonging to states that are not subject to quantity, where, consequently, there can be no question of number.

Number itself can also be regarded as a species of multitude, but on the added condition that it be a “multitude measured by the unit” according to the expression of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

The term “indefinite” consists of something unfinished. The “non-measured” is that which has not yet been defined, which is only incompletely realized within manifestation. The multitude of all numbers is “innumerable” or “non-measured,” which is not to say they are infinite, but merely that they are indefinite.

Guenon calls whole number as true number or pure number. He accepts that the numbers other than whole numbers can be considered as the extensions or generalizations of the idea of number. However, he adds that these extensions are also distortions. According to Guenon, numerical quantity has a discontinuous character, whereas spatial or temporal magnitudes, for example, are continuous quantities. “Between these two modes of quantity is a difference of nature such that a correspondence between the two cannot be perfectly established.” He distinguishes the arithmetical unit from the “units of measurement,” which are magnitudes of another sort than number, notably geometric magnitudes. He defines a continuous quantity as an extension-however small it might be that will always remain indefinitely divisible.

Guenon is against atomism, which necessarily implies the discontinuity of all things. He argues extension cannot be composed of indivisible elements, for these elements would have to be extensionless to be truly indivisible, and a sum of elements with no extension can no more constitute an extension than a sum of zeros can constitute a number, that is why points are not the elements or parts of a line; the true linear elements are always distances between points, which latter are only their extremities. Points multiplied by any quantity at all can never produce length, since, rigorously speaking, they are null with respect to length; the true elements of a magnitude must always be of the same nature as the magnitude, although incomparably less: this leaves no room for indivisibles.

Further,

The point, which, being indivisible, is by that very fact without extension, that is, spatially null, but which, as we (Guenon) have explained elsewhere, is nonetheless the very principle of all extension.

For Guenon, Zeno of Elea’s arguments are against atomism and indeed, they prove that without continuity there would be no possible motion.

It is this very conception of motion that is in error, for it amounts in short to regarding the continuous as if it were composed of points, or of final, indivisible elements, like the notion according to which bodies are composed of atoms; and this would amount to saying that in reality there is no continuity, for whether it is a question of points or atoms, these final elements can only be discontinuous.

And, “The possibility of motion presupposes the union, or rather the combination, of both temporal and spatial continuity.”

We consider Guenon as an important and prominent example of thinkers who tried to remind people of the traditional metaphysical ideas. This metaphysical perspective does not share the modern tendency to attribute more importance to the practical applications of science than to science itself. This perspective attempts to link science back to principles of a higher order so that a particular science can be used as a support for elevating oneself to a higher knowledge.

To some it brings bliss, to others perdition

Suddenly shows up at an unexpected location

Beyond which is Paradise or the pit…

The spirit is anxious to flee this world,

Breaths dying down in gasps

Everyone broods by the cold corpse;

The steps of the Angel of Death echo all around

Lonely lives reach death alone

Falling, standing and crawling in this abyss

Horizons stalked by nameless fears

In the end, buried in the void within

For the believer, calls are heard from the beyond,

They may fall, but like a drop, they still reach the sea,

Transcending the limits, extending to infinity

Free from the narrow confines of the mortal abode.

They step into the garden of spirits,

Walking under arches like rainbow,

Showers of joy, springs of bliss overflow,

A life-long journey unfolds its mystery.

Eternia is the land of eternity, the land where there is no end to anything. I learned it from an animated cartoon named He-man. At that young age, I did not really feel what it meant to be eternal, because I was not in search of it. For me, what mattered was the excitement I felt in catching the cartoon on time every week. Once the episode was over, the unknown and unexpected adventures of the next episode used to keep my excitement active until then. Today, as I age into maturity, the unknown outcomes of the events in my life and the uncertainties about the possible realizations of my dreams keep me in a state similar to that which I experienced in my childhood. But this time, I am the hero, and the world around me replaces Eternia. I am the one who is going through troubles to gain inexhaustible satisfaction and joy. If you follow me, I will tell you the “sesame” f o r m u l a that opens the doors of Eternia. “It was the fall of 1977. The corridors of the hospital reverberated with the cries of a newborn. His delayed birth was taking place at a later time of the day, due to his mother’s reluctance and fear to deliver him.” Given this very same start, a thousand people could come up with a thousand different stories. You can go further and specify an end to this story, such as “As the sun fell below the horizon, he permanently closed his eyes with tears and a deep smile on his lips.” Still, there will be an infinite number of possible ways of moving from the given start to the given end.

The existence of infinite possible ways of life results in our inability to accurately predict the future. Here are some actual examples to further our thoughts. Lincoln, who finally had great political success, lost so many times in his past enterprises. Without seeing the final point, it is impossible to tell if he was an idealist destined to success, or a loser with an obsession. Similarly, in the case of Einstein, it was impossible to tell at first whether he would be a famous and successful scientist despite his awful start in education, or a dropout student due to his non-conformity and academic inadequacy.

These examples show that we are not only unable to penetrate into the future but also ignorant of the true nature of events. The reason for our both shortcomings is the uncertainty inherent between two points in the time line. Exactly the same thing can be seen in geometry. There are infinite number of curves that pass through a given pair of points, which means there are infinite number of equations that can describe the distribution of a pair of points. The concept of infinite number of curves is enabled by the uncertainty about the path connecting the two points. Are there other instances linking uncertainty to infinity?

What is the size of the universe anyway? Many people have been dazzled by this question throughout history. Studies were done to see if the universe had limits, and if so, to determine its size. Still, we do not have an established answer to this question. Simply, we say the universe is infinite. The reason behind this unproven conclusion is the uncertainty about the limits of the universe. In effect, our ignorance of them translates into the conclusion of an infinite universe. Once more, we see the strong relationship between uncertainty and infinity.

Why is a prison a prison? Is it because you cannot get out of an area whose borders are visible? Or, is it because you are only allowed to certain number of actions there? Both can be part of the answer. Now, help the inmates and make the area of the prison larger so that they cannot see the borders anymore. Let us make their building larger as well. Does it not sound like our situation within the borders of a country? What is happening is that you are introducing a significant amount of uncertainty into the limits of the prison area, which induces a feeling of infinite land for the inmates.

Although we like uncertainty when it gives a flavor of infinity to pleasures, we usually do not like it when it is present in fears and losses. The fear of losing1 and not knowing the limits of the loss are two killers of all pleasures. Uncertainty induces a fear of infinite loss. Try to remember a rendezvous with a friend for which he/she was late. Until the time your friend showed up, the uncertainty of the time of arrival triggered a feeling of infinite waiting time, which made you impatient. When you are sick, not knowing the time you will recover also puts a lot of burden on your soul.2

Another example is found in male-female relations, especially in the western world. By not marrying each other and continuing with dating, individuals introduce uncertainty into their relationship, which gives them a sense of infinite freedom of action in their couple life. The comfort of infinite freedom of action due to uncertainty transforms into selfish moves in the long run. Then, insincere attitudes fostered by infinite freedom trigger an ever-growing mistrust within the couple due to the uncertainty about the individuals’ fidelity to each other, and the pair disintegrates.

Similarly, the uncertainty of the moment of death triggers a feeling of infinite life.3 Our lack of vision of God and the angels induces an infinite level of freedom of action. Human beings, especially youth, are challenged by this hypothetical infinity of life and their supposed freedom of action. However, the actual coming of death permanently removes the uncertainty about the angels and God. Thus, uncertainty serves as a means of eliminating the permanent residents of paradise from the permanent residents of hell.4

To conclude, this world is a land of uncertainties except for two things: birth and death. Although their qualities and actions are uncertain, whoever comes to this land definitely leaves it one day. By exercising our free will here, we weave our deeds, as everyone else does, between the same start and end, i.e. birth and death. However, the uncertain nature of this world tempts us with a hypothetical infinity embedded in its pleasures and burdens. Maybe this supposed infinity is a manifestation of two eternal lands, i.e. paradise and hell, whose existence is uncertain for us. Then, we, as humans, need a Helper to survive under the uncertainties of this world, a merciful Omnipotent Being who can convert these uncertainties into the infinite bliss of the actual Eternia-paradise in the company of our Creator.

Notes

1. Hadith: “Remember death very frequently, the spoiler of pleasures.”
2. Nursi, S., The Flashes, 25th Flash, 11th Remedy.
3. Nursi, S., The Flashes, 21st Flash, 1st Means of Attaining Sincerity.
4. He Who has created death and life, so that He may try you (and demonstrate to yourselves) which of you is better in deeds… (Mulk 67:2)

These “interpretations” attempt to show that there is no such thing as a miracle and that everything in the world obeys the immutable laws of nature. According to such a view, all miracles narrated by the Holy books either must be reinterpreted, or if this is not possible-rejected.

The use of science as an argument against the possibility of the extraordinary acts of God is conceptually incorrect; today’s science starts from the assumption of the impossibility of miracles. In other words, scientists believe that miracles are impossible. Yet, a belief in the opposite is no less a legitimate position to adopt. Therefore, science’s statement that miracles are impossible is based on the assumption that they are impossible; this is not a logically acceptable argument.

There is a need to prepare the ground for such arguments by considering the definitions of science and its method. We have to realize the limits of the scientific method that is based on observations and experiments. The reliability of the human mind and its perception and the relativity of time are some of other issues that need to be considered.

Whatever happens around us is normally bound to a time scale. Billions of living creatures are born every day; some by cell division, others through the long process of pregnancy. Since these events abound in nature we consider them to be normal, nothing extraordinary. On the contrary, if we were to witness a child being conceived and born in one minute, as if someone had pressed the fast forward button, we would be amazed. In this case, a miracle would have occurred, not by the violation of the cause and effect principle, but rather from a change in time scale. Thus, our familiarity with phenomena is very important in distinguishing between a miracle and a non-miracle.

Science is based on what we can observe and what is understood from these observations by making generalizations. First of all, we cannot observe every moment and every place in the universe. Our experiments are limited in space and time. For example, if all experiments done by us confirmed Newton’s second law, F=ma, we still would not be able to rigorously prove that this law still holds true in some distant galaxy. We could not even prove that it were true for Earth throughout all of its history; it is not possible to say that that things happened in such and such way simply because they happen in that way today! However, at this point the scientific method with all its pros and cons comes into play to assert that this law is true for all of the Universe, for all of its past and future. This fact alone is enough to demonstrate that science has its limits.

Many miracles of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, happened in the presence of many of his followers or enemies. The splitting of the Moon, walking trees, and talking stones were just a few. One could try to explain these by saying that the people who witnessed them had undergone hypnosis or were having dreams; however there are miracles that resulted in people being able to drink water from his fingers or plenty of food emerging from a small amount. It is impossible to deceive one’s friends with a small lie even for a short time (the cold fusion scandal of 1989 should be a good example!); how could somebody possibly deceive thousands of enemies for fourteen hundred years? Thus, it is impossible to deny the authenticity of the miracles of Prophet Muhammad.

Before the advent of positivism, miracles were used as a powerful means to convince people in the truth of religions. Prophet Jesus was born without a father, Prophet Moses parted the sea and crossed it without drowning, Prophet Abraham emerged unharmed from the fire and Prophet Muhammad split the Moon and ascended to the Heavens; these are among the most prominent examples of miracles.

However, nowadays because of scientific “terror” people are afraid even to mention miracles. People have been so affected by scientific dogma that everything unusual is categorized as being nothing more than a “fairy tale.” The reason for this historical error is the inability of science to draw a demarcating line between observations and interpretations to date.

Positivism has its roots in the 16th century and thus all religions were affected by its destructive dogma. Before that time, people made explanations for natural phenomena, saying “a seed starts to evolve to produce a tree, it rains because the tree needs water, and the tree produces fruit because people need to eat,” or other simplistic explanations.

The realization of the fact that the same phenomenon can be interpreted in several ways brought up the question of what the mechanism was that lay behind the process. This in turn lead people to discover the cause and effect relationship inherent in nature. As a result, ordinary events were interpreted as happening without any interference from God, leaving the concept of God to be found only in the realm of miracles. However, the next century was to come with even more destructive dogmas, presented under the guise of science.

The modern usage of the term “laws of nature” was first coined in the 17th century. Scientists of the time believed that physical and biological systems were self-regulating and God was only “the first cause” capable of changing the laws of nature. However, Locke and Hume argued on the basis of Newton’s physics that the natural laws were unchangeable and hence miracles were impossible. In the 17th century, with its notion of an impotent God, the foundation of religious beliefs was shattered, but not to the same extent as happened in the 19th century.

In the 19th century, developments in quantum physics brought about new points of view. The already existing notion of an impotent God made people suppose that Divine Power was limited to conducting probabilities. When it was discovered that particle motion and interactions were based on probability, they began to think that God’s power was limited at the micro level, as well as believing that He was unable to change physical laws or work miracles.

Nowadays, the biologic uncertainty that was produced by molecular biology and “the exploratory journeys” into the depths of the cell has caused a significant debate, particularly in the discipline of sociobiology. In biology, you can arrive at a decision based on statistics. However, it is impossible to reach a result that is as precise and universally accepted as a formula in physics; this is because living systems maintain their lives in a continuously changing, but stable dynamic equilibrium. For example, we cannot say that there are 763 pores on the leaf of an apple tree, or that there are 5,891,633 erythrocytes in a cubic millimeter of blood, but we can express some relations based on some approximations and averages.

Having said this, we cannot tie the situation of miracles to the principle of uncertainty; in an inorganic physical world there is a much stronger determinacy than there is in biology. For instance, an apple that is separated from the tree falls to the ground because of gravity. However, we encounter large uncertainty when we get to the level of subatomic particles. Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty states this very clearly. Therefore, if we were to descend to the subatomic level for miracles like the splitting of the Red Sea or the division of the Moon that were witnessed in the inorganic world, we come across an indeterminacy of physical laws rather than a determinacy. In fact, it may not be correct to call this uncertainty, because although it may be uncertain for us, it is not uncertain for the Creator; therefore, it may be better to call this determinacy based on the knowledge, will, power, and free choice of the Creator.

In order to form a common ground or argument against miracles, it would be necessary to say that all rumors are incorrect and to refuse to believe all the people who claimed that they had witnessed these miracles. However, scientists have concluded that the rumors are false only because they think that miracles are impossible; namely, they remain in the same vicious circle. Yet, according to the main principle of logic, just one confirmation against thousands of denials is enough to be a proof. For example, if one person were to find a black swan, even if one million people claim that there is no such thing as a black swan and even if they say that they have searched the entire world, all these claims about the nonexistence of the black swan will be refuted. The miracles of the prophets took place for the most part in front of large crowds and have been transmitted to us as centuries as real events, not just rumors that can be disproved.

Hume’s point of view attacking miracles has been shown to be lacking valid support as well. According to Hume, every event has a unique cause and the event can be explained if this unique cause is known. Logically this is an erroneous view. One event may have multiple causes; in particular, causes that influence the events that occur in the dimension belonging to the different layers of living beings do not have to be confined to material events. Causes that are of a different nature that affect the same object may produce different outcomes; the same causes, on the other hand, may generate different outcomes because of a hidden characteristic of the object that is beyond the range of our knowledge. These elements are not controversial; on the contrary, they complement each other. By the same reasoning, it does not go against being “scientific” to explain miracles as being a product of Divine Power rather than a result of an incorrect observation or an unknown cause. Moreover, such an interpretation does not need a cause and effect relationship that will continue as a chain.

Medawar points out precisely that scientific understanding has limits “. . . The last questions of Karl Popper are even now being asked by children. How did everything begin? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Rigid and fanatical positivism did not consider these questions as real questions or neglected them. According to positivism these questions are only asked by the stupid, and only charlatans dare to answer them. However, the avoidance of these questions does not satisfy people because they are meaningful both for the people asking them and for the ones trying to answer them. It is a universally accepted fact that it is not in the realm of science to provide answers to such questions. As a matter of fact, the scientific approach has some definite limits.”

When we consider miracles, we can apply this approach as follows: it is impossible to verify or refute the miracles based on scientific measures. Moreover, the fact that we understand the mechanism behind a miracle does not prevent it from being a miracle.

In conclusion, it is easy to deny the possibility of miracles by finding scientific interpretations for them. However, to go down the opposite road is more profitable. Realizing that the refutation of miracles is no more scientific than the acceptance of them and that there is considerable evidence in their support will urge us to understand the limits of science and its methods.