Mushahada (observation) means using insight to see in Divine Acts the Divine Names that give existence to them, and to become aware, in the manifestation of the Names, of the All-Holy One Who is called by those Names. In oth­er words, observation denotes that those favored with Divine near­ness reach the horizon where they leave the corporeal realm behind and observe things like bright mirrors reflecting God’s Oneness.

Observation is seeing with insight or with the eye of the heart, and is therefore different from seeing. In his Sharh-i Muhammadiya (“The Exposition of Muhammadiya”), Ismail Haqqi Bursawi stresses this difference: Observation, a great Divine gift, is seeing with insight, not with the eyes. What is seen with the eyes is the shadow and manifestation of the Divine Light. As for what is seen with insight or observed, it is the truth of the Divine Light and the observation of the Ultimate Truth Himself, seen with the eye of the heart, beyond all concepts of modality.

Observation is also different from disclosure. Disclosure is that an initiate acquires familiarity with certain meanings and abstract truths; the object of observation is beings themselves, though not, of course, the Divine Being, Who absolutely cannot be comprehended. In other words, when the term “observation” is used with respect to the Divine Being as the object of observa­tion, it means turning to Him with one’s illumined and with illu­mining insight in such a way that one attracts Divine attention to oneself, while disclosure is the state in which one feels and expe­riences the Divine Names and Attributes.

Observation is made possible by a vigorous heart with keen sight and hearing. These senses are highly sensitive and receptive, completely connected to the realms beyond, and conducive to per­fect concentration. The verse (50:37), Surely in this is a reminder for one who has a heart or give ears having a full capacity of see­ing, can be interpreted as referring to this fact.

One favored with knowledge of God transcends His signs and the pieces of evidence provided by creation and, melting away in the originality of the Divine Names and Attributes, attains the observation of God’s Oneness beyond His Acts, Names and Attributes.

Like disclosure, there are degrees of observation. One can think of these degrees as observatories assigned to different capacities in order to observe the truth. Everyone is favored and honored with observation from these observatories according to the depth of their belief, the strength of their certainty, and the capacity of their heart. The lowest of these degrees is observation through knowledge of God supported by knowledge and belief. Initiates who have reached this point feel that by virtue of their strong certain­ty, they feel in their conscience that the lights of Divine Existence pour on the horizon of their perceptions in the form of knowledge of God. Such persons begin to walk with a deep yearning to the point where they will see everything annihilated in God.

The second degree of observation is so clear that it is as if one were seeing with one’s eyes. One favored with knowledge of God who has reached this point transcends His signs and the pieces of evidence provided by creation and, melting away in the originality of the Divine Names and Attributes, attains the observation of God’s Oneness beyond His Acts, Names and Attributes, which provide His signs and evidence in existence. Conscious of the fact that one’s existence is only shadowy, the seeker fixes his or her eyes on Him exclusively. Concerning this station, the author of Mizanu’l-‘Irfan (Mustafa Fevzi bin Nu’man) says:

Discovering the (Divine) Being is an elevated station,
where the currency of speech is not valid nor in demand.
Whoever attempts to knock on the door at that station,
always receives the answer, “You will never be able to see Me!”
If he is shown a sign like that resembling the one shown to Moses,
it will be only a single manifestation of His Majesty.

The third degree is observing everything as being annihilated in God. Those perfected ones favored with knowledge of God and who have attained this highest degree annihilate their material being and feel attracted by the All-Existent One with the All-Beau­tiful Names and All-Sacred Attributes by virtue of belief and a certainty that has been transformed into observation. With a sight that has gained the keenness that it will have in the Hereafter where the veils over the eyes will be removed, they know fully Who their Creator, Lord, Originator is, and the One Who has endowed them with the light of existence and Whom they worship. They are freed from any connection with all else save Him.

Junayd al-Baghdadi describes this station as the manifestation of the Unseen, which is perceived by means of the Divine lights in the time when hearts overflow with rejoicing. The author of Mizanu’l-‘Irfan says concerning the same point:

If the absolutely Sovereign Being manifests Himself,
the existence of the universe is no longer felt.
If the Truly Beloved One manifests Himself,
will any trace be left of the shadow of darkness?
However, this point leads some to confusion;
they take His lightning-like manifestation for the Being Himself.

What the author of Mizanu’l-‘Irfan is reminding us of is not to confuse the original with the shadow, and to take an observation from the conscience and the heart in a state of pleasure for the observation of the Ultimate Truth Himself. The following verses are only a few drops from the essence of such confusion:

If you have been given two eyes to know the Ultimate Truth,
then see the two worlds—this and the next—filled with the Friend!
Though we are each a drop, we are drowned in the ocean;
though we are each an atom, in fact we are the sun.

O God! Show us the truth as being true and enable us to fol­low it, and show us falsehood as being false and enable us to refrain from it. And bestow blessings and peace on Your Mes­senger, the pure, chosen one, and on his Family and Compan­ions, esteemed, appreciative and faithful.

Science is the systematic study of the behavior of certain phenomena (that is, regularities, uniformities) in the physical universe. Scientific study is based on observation, experimentation, measurement, and the formulation of universal laws that describe these facts and phenomena in general terms and enable prediction.

The process of describing regularities (i.e. things that happen in a particular way) is incomplete and never exhaustive because regularities are not exact and deterministic. There is actually quite a lot of approximation and simplification involved in this process. If an exact equation is desired, then these scientific laws, which are useful for prediction, must be formulated in mathematical terms; this represents the whole business of science.

The huge popularity of science is due to its practical results, such as the previous technological examples stated previously. Science is about studying regularities in the material world and describing those regularities in order to make predictions and to make possible the technology that we use daily possible.

It is important to stress that describing and making use of science is not about explaining, but rather using it to make sense of something; here, description is not to be confused with explanation. Therefore, science is about describing, not explaining. The moment a scientist talks about the meaning behind a law or regularity in nature and our ability to benefit from it, he is no longer talking science and he is venturing into the realm of metaphysics and the philosophy of science. Just because someone is a great scientist, it does not mean that he has a deeper insight into the meaning of the laws of the physical world and universe.

What science seeks to explain

Science does not answer questions of meaning or questions of agency (like, who is doing what for what reason? What is responsible for a given regularity?) and we cannot criticize science for not dealing with these questions. They may be important questions but it’s not the responsibility of the field of science to answer these questions. For example, consider the Law of Gravity. We drop a pen and it falls. Why did it fall? Because of gravity.

We observe that, without exception, the pen always falls when we lift it and drop it. Then we call the conjunction between performing an action and its regularity the law of gravity. This means that the law of gravity is simply the name we have given to this regularity; however, it does not mean that the pen is falling because of gravity. Gravity is the name given to the process, not an explanation for it, but in our minds both the name and the explanation for the phenomenon have become one and the same.

The question arises: Is it logically justified to explain an experience through a causal law that is derived through the same experience?

In the beginning, when scientists started asking these questions, it was unclear what the difference was between description and explanation. For a long time science was thought to be a venture competing with religion in providing answers for life.

Regarding natural laws, 19th century American philosopher Charles Peirce stresses on the point that natural laws serve as a description of natural events, not as explanations of these very events: “no law of nature makes a stone fall, or a Leyden jar to discharge, or a steam engine to work.”¹

A law of nature left to its self would be quite analogous to a court without a sheriff. A court in that predicament might probably be able to induce some citizen to act as sheriff; but until it had so provided itself with an officer who, unlike itself, could not discourse authoritatively but who could put forth the strong arm, its law might be the perfection of human reason but would remain mere fireworks. Just so, let a law of nature – say the law of gravitation – remain a mere uniformity – a mere formula establishing a relation between terms – and what in the world would induce a stone, which is not a term nor a concept but just a plain thing, to act in conformity to that uniformity?²

The law of gravity is just a formula, just a name. It cannot make a stone act in accordance to it.

It is important to note that the notion of law is closely related to issues of agency and also to the affinity of the human mind to perceive natural phenomena and the possibility of finding patterns in nature beyond science (i.e. how is it that we are so in tune to what is happening in the world that we can pick up all these regularities?). These issues announce the “greatness” of science. When it comes to the affinity of the human mind to realize recurrent patterns in the universe, Peirce says:

. . . the mind of man is strongly adapted to the comprehension of the world; at least, so far as this goes, that certain conceptions, highly important for such a comprehension, naturally arise in the mind; and, without such a tendency, the mind could never have had any development at all.³

Therefore, there would be no science if one could not grasp the regularities.

In our scientific inquiry, it is reasonable for us to be searching out these regularities and hoping that they will remain stable, but we cannot assume that we have explained how or why such regularities or laws are in effect. It may also be reasonable to say that there are regularities and we hope that these regularities and so-called universal laws will come into effect in the future so that technology can be made from predictions. There can only be hope, and not certainty, because science is based on observation and there may be some instances where the same observation may not occur.Even though science is based on exactitude, there is still a measure of hope and faith involved.

A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature. How do we come to the conclusion that we have a scientific law? Several events occur, (not just to the researcher) that hold to certain regularities, according to a certain pattern, and a generalized statement is formed. The process of generalization from a limited number of observations to form a universal statement or law is called the process of induction, or looking at a certain number of events and saying that things are going to happen all the time. The assumption under the process of induction is that the more observations made about a particular phenomenon, the more it will reinforce the law.

There is only one way for such an assumption to be true, and it has nothing to do with the number of observations. We assume a relationship or connection between the object and what occurs, the cause and effect. The assumption is that there is a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. One must be able to explain this connection in a logical way, not as something that depends solely on observation but something that necessitates the event. If this is unable to be done, if it is only based on observations, then induction is a problem. In formulating a scientific law, generalizations made through the method of induction are problematic.

Because of induction, the basic application of our inductive reasoning is twofold: firstly we think we can describe what we have seen by the use of universal laws, and secondly, that we can use these established laws in predicting what we will see. There is, however, a problem with the mechanics of the inductive process. Are we justified in formulating these universal laws simply on the basis of a discrete number of past observations that have been made?

For example, based on the scientific observation of planetary motion, we could suggest that “the sun will rise every day.” However, just because the sun has risen in the past, it does not mean that it will continue to do so either tomorrow or the next day. So the induction based on the number of occurrences of a particular phenomenon is illogical. There is no guarantee that we will ever see the sun rise again. The sense of faith we have in the scientific laws of planetary motions is based on the supposition that some kind of necessity has caused the sun to rise in the past and will therefore continue to cause the sun to rise in the future. We assume that the connection between the cause and the effect are necessarily related. To use another common example, everyone in Europe thought the statement “All swans are white” was true because every swan that they had ever seen was white. However, when travelers came back from Australia and New Zealand, they reported having seen black swans, thus providing a real life example of how induction can falter. This observation negated the previous generalizations.This brings us to the issue of causality.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. In relation to one another, induction only has to work sometimes whereas causality always has to work. It has little to do with the number of occurrences; it has to work for each cause-effect relationship. The consequence of this model of the world is that empirical knowledge is connected to the causal relations between objects and events. According to this view, the logic of scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, it infers universal laws from particular statements.

The logic of induction proceeds as follows: First, it conjectures that induction is valid, and then concludes that causation is true. Whereas, from the point of view of logic, it is just the other way around; induction can be justified only by proving that causation is logically valid i.e., that the relation between cause and effect is necessary. Induction is therefore logically not a justified method to attain universality. As the Australian-British philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper observes, scientific induction is “logically inadmissible,” that scientific “theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable.”⁴

Can we count on the laws of nature? It depends. We can have faith in them; we can hope that they will continue to hold in the future but there exists no logical certainty. But we cannot prove that they will remain true because we cannot observe something that will occur in the future (the dogma of the experiment).

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell calls the dogma of induction, the “biggest scandal of philosophy.” He provides the example of a farmer and his chicken. The chicken notices that the farmer comes every day to feed it. It predicts that the farmer would continue to bring food every day. According to the principle of induction, each feeding event added justification to its prediction. Then one day the farmer came and wrung the chicken’s neck. Russell’s point is that induction cannot justify any conclusions!

Critical problems with the method of induction have been in discussion long before the more recent debates, and are often connected with the concept of causality. The same issue was also at the center of a heated debate among Muslim philosophers and theologians as early as the 12th century. This critical problem with the method of induction was also pointed out earlier by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume stated that when we observe two events to be causally related, say a seed (a) resulting in the growth of a shoot or tree (b), what we in fact observe is only a contingent conjunction of two events. That is, the causation that we think we perceive is not actually “out there in the world” for us to observe. When we see two events and judge them to be causally related, it is merely through a habit of the mind, something we project onto the world. A necessary causal link, as such, is not guaranteed. Hume writes:

Were any object presented to us, and were we required to pronounce concerning the effect, which will result from it, without consulting past observation; after what manner, I beseech you, must the mind proceed in this operation? It must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it.⁵

This means that causal laws of nature are not true logically and there is no concrete evidence that these will continue to hold in the future. We simply cannot postulate universal laws that tell us the way the world irrefutably is and will always be unless we have some good reason to trust such generalizations. And even if we could trust such universal laws as “the sun will always rise,” it is not clear how many times we would need to see the sun rise in order to justify proposing this law. Scientific observation, although detailed and informative, has no claim to being the irrefutable truth of the matter.

The solution

Sir Karl Popper offered a potential solution to this problem by thinking about the way we do science in a new light. Popper turned science on its head by claiming that we are looking at science in the wrong way. Instead of looking to science to provide us with theories that are definitive and true, Popper said that we should be looking to science to provide us with theories that we have failed to prove false for a very long time. This approach to science is referred to as “Falsificationism.” Less of a solution and more of a shortcut, it is a tool which we are allowed to use in the game of science. He describes the Falsification approach by noting that for the scientific method to be rational, it must make claims to knowledge that is logically sound. That is, science is not about making grand universal laws, but about the examination of individual observations. According to the model of falsification, science is concerned with evaluating and refining. What we commonly think of as scientific claims to knowledge, are only hypotheses that we accept till they are proved wrong.

Fundamentally, Popper accepts that science can never provide us with complete 100% certainty, but he claims that this is not really a problem because it is not actually science’s job. The purpose of science is to provide us with a theory that is likely to be true based on the fact that we haven’t yet managed to prove it wrong. One unfortunate consequence of this, however, is that you can only ever be certain of the things that you have proved wrong. We know, for example, that the world definitely is not flat. The problem with this fact is that, although certain, it is not particularly useful to know that something is definitely false. For Popper, the best we can hope for is that a given claim is corroborated at one instance in time and if we presume otherwise, we are begging the question of the uniformity of nature: that what has always been, will (for apparently no good reason) continue to be.

To recapitulate, science does not deal with explanation; this is the realm of metaphysics. How we explain things depends on our beliefs and world view.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

Footnotes

1. Online Past Masters text, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (University of Virginia E-text Center), 1.323. (The online texts is drawn from The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958).
2. Ibid., 5.48.
3. Ibid., 6. 417.
4. Popper, Karl. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published in 1935).
5. Hume, David. (1772). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Co.

According to truth-seeking scholars, yaqin means certainty or conviction of the truth expressed in the essentials of faith, including primarily one’s doubt-free belief in God’s Existence and Unity. It is also defined as reaching that conviction through observing or experiencing the essence or truth of those essentials in which regular people believe, and discerning or penetrating the realms beyond this material one.

Certainty may also be regarded as a point, final in one respect and initial in another, reached by using all sources of knowledge and ways of observation and discernment. A traveler who has reached this point frequently sails for what is eternal, realizing ascension in his or her heart and reaching the horizon of: His sight swerved not, nor did it go wrong (53:17). He or she travels amidst Divine manifestations in the material and immaterial realms, and is favored with a tongue to speak, eyes to see, and ears to hear the truths contained in the Supreme Sign.¹ That is, repeated observation and study of the book of the universe, of the things and events contained in it, allows the traveler to eternity to perceive the meanings of the inimitable signs special to God.

By repeatedly observing and reflecting on the scenes presented for study in the outer world, as well as those in his or her inner world, truths beyond the visible realm are unveiled to the traveler. Also, by living in the brilliant, mysterious climate of Divine Revelation, namely the Qur’an and the Sunna, and the inspirations coming from the worlds beyond, one feels the manifestation of the Hidden Treasure in his or her heart. The believer becomes aware of and experiences the tokens and signs issuing from the prism of his or her conscience, which reflects the rays of Divine gifts coming from the outer world, his or her inner world, and the Divine Revelation, and sends them to his or her senses and faculties. Certainty, in this meaning and degree, is a gift with which God favors those near to Him.

Even in its least degree, certainty is so strong that it fills the heart with light, removes the mist of doubt from the mind, and causes breezes of joy, satisfaction, and exhilaration to blow in one’s inner world. As pointed out by Dhu’n-Nun al-Misri, certainty causes the heart to overflow with the desire to reach eternity. This engenders the desire to live an austere life, for asceticism allows one to think and speak with wisdom. One who takes the wing of asceticism and flies to the realm of wisdom never forgets what the end will be, always thinks of the afterlife, and always feels God’s company, even when with other people.

In the early steps of certainty, the veil between the material and immaterial sides of existence begins to be removed and, a few steps further, the traveler discerns the realm beyond this material world. With his or her heart filled with Divine manifestations, which result in the attainment of peace and satisfaction, the believer is freed absolutely from all doubt about the truths of faith. Like ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him, some who have attained this degree of certainty have declared: “Even if the veil between the seen and the Unseen were to lift, my certainty would not increase.”² A few steps further on is the station where one journeys in the pure realm of Divine gifts, which eyes have never seen, ears have never heard, nor have minds ever conceived.

To gain certainty, an initiate beginning the journey must try to do what is necessary to reach certainty. However, one can only reach this station when God bestows it as a blessing and gift. Without acquiring due knowledge of God, one cannot reach certainty. Knowledge of God is acquired through a correct view of and perspective on objects and events; the ability to think in a correct and balanced manner; purity of intention; the study of the signs of God’s Existence and Unity; and finally knowledge of God is required through reflection on His Acts and the manifestations of His Names and Attributes. Knowledge of God is a light illuminating the initiate’s inner and outer worlds, a light shining from all corners of existence. Under the rays of this light, the initiate sees everything as it really is and, being freed from the confines of multiplicity (of objects and events), discerns Divine Unity and is enraptured with indescribable spiritual pleasure.

Although an initiate may feel uneasy during the early stages on the way to certainty, he or she will be lost in inconceivable pleasure and peace in the end. Those who cannot distinguish between what is felt in the beginning and what is experienced in the end wrongly conclude that certainty is risky; however, those who constantly feel God’s company and the resulting spiritual delight enjoy peace and security from all spiritual trouble and possible deviation. Uneasiness and trouble are felt only in the beginning. As for certainty being risky, all stations confront the traveler with some degree of risk. Even the Prophet himself, upon him be peace and blessings, declared: Even I could not be saved (from Hellfire or God’s punishment through my own actions), if God did not embrace me in His mercy.³ As for being secure from trouble and deviation and gaining peace, these are the fruits that God causes certainty to yield.

As referred to in some verses of the Qur’an, Sufis classify certainty in three categories:

– Certainty coming from knowledge: Having a strong, firm belief in or conviction of all the essentials of faith, primarily in God’s Existence and Unity, acquired through correct observation and study of the relevant signs and evidence.

– Certainty coming from direct observation or seeing: Having an indescribable degree of certainty and knowledge of God acquired through unveiling and observing the immaterial truths invisible to ordinary believers and on which the essentials of belief are based.

– Certainty coming from direct experience: Being favored with God’s constant company, without any veils and in a way that only the one receiving this favor can perceive. Some have interpreted this as self-annihilation in God and gaining subsistence by Him. These three degrees of certainty can be summed up in the following examples: A person’s knowledge of death (before he or she dies), acquired by observing or studying the body in a biological context, can be an example of certainty coming from knowledge. Witnessing some metaphysical phenomena, such as seeing the angel who has come to take one’s soul and catching glimpses of the intermediate world of the grave, may be regarded as a kind of certainty coming from direct observation. The certainty gained by actually experiencing death is a certainty coming from direct experience.

Certainty about abstract truths such as God’s Names and Attributes, which arise from vision or experience, pertains to one’s personal experience. It is therefore beyond my ability to explain this.

O God! Show us the truth as being true and enable us to follow it, and show us falsehood as being false, and enable us to refrain from it. And bestow blessings and peace on him who has the perfect certainty—our master Muhammad, the noblest one, and on his Family and Companions, all of them.

1. “The Supreme Sign” is a Qur’anic expression that is generally held to be the greatest or most comprehensive sign by which God is known most clearly. It can be reached after physical or mental or spiritual or both physical and mental and spiritual travel throughout or an overall study of the whole universe and spiritual vision of God with His Acts, Names and Attributes. What God’s Messenger saw during his Ascension was the Supreme Sign (53:18). Everyone can reach it according to their own capacity. (Tr.)
2. Abu Nu’aym, Hilyatu’l-Awliya’, 10: 203; ‘Alliyu’l-Qari, al-Asraru’l- Marfu’a, 193.
3. al-Bukhari, “Riqaq,” 18; Muslim, “Munafiqun,” 71–78.

The Qur’anic approach is to arrive at a position through observation and reason from which the intellect clears the obstacles for faith, allowing it to take hold in one’s heart and preparing the way for dedicated worship of one God. After faith takes hold of one’s heart, there will be many elements of creed as well as principles of personal and social life which may or may not be suitable for verification through scientific means. In such cases, it is sufficient that such beliefs and rules of conduct do not contradict observation or reason. Hence, the Qur’anic style combines philosophy, theology, and “all dimensions of our being.” In the following I will give examples from the exegeses of Maududi, Yazir and Nursi that, in my opinion, support this view. Unless marked otherwise, the English rendering of verse meanings will be from the Maududi exegesis translated by Ansari.

Nursi: KNOW, O FRIEND, that out of the purposes for things’ existence, the Qur’an sometimes mentions those related to humanity. This does not mean, however, that humanity was created only for the purposes mentioned. Rather, it draws our attention to their benefits, to the order and harmony they display, and thus to their Maker’s Names. We only pay attention to and prefer that which is related to us, even if it is microscopic, in preference to a “sun” with which we have no relation. For example: And the moon: We have determined stations (phases) for it (36:39), that you might know the number of years and the reckoning (10:5). This is only one of the moon’s thousands of purposes, and it is mentioned because it is the most evident one for humanity⁵

Yazir comments on the role of such verses in encouraging humanity to discover the laws of nature, which are indeed works of God, and through them to discover the purpose of human life, developing a methodology for a type of scientific acquisition of knowledge along the way:

Yazir: Indeed, the source of the notion of time is movement, a continuity and change that underlies the order in which these created objects exist. Indeed, the way to the true sciences is reflection on the heavens and the Earth, the day and the night, creation and change and their perception by intelligence.

Yazir also narrates a report of Prophet Muhammad’s reception of this verse. Aisha told that the Prophet asked permission to worship. She said, “He then stood up, made ablution with a little water and stood for prayer. He was reciting the Qur’an and crying. I even saw that his tears wet the floor. Then Bilal came and informed him of the congregation for morning prayer. Upon seeing that the Prophet was crying, Bilal asked: ‘O Messenger of God, did not God forgive your previous as well as future sins? Why would you cry?’ The Prophet then responded: ‘O Bilal! Under these circumstances, should I not be a thankful servant? Why should I not cry, God Almighty revealed this verse tonight, (and recited the verse) Woe on those who recite this verse and do not reflect on it.’”

Thanksgiving

He set the earth for all creatures, with all kinds of tasty fruits in abundance and palm-trees with sheathed fruit, and a variety of corn with husk as well as grain. So, O jinn and men, which of your Lord’s blessings will you deny? (Rahman 55:10-13)

Maududi begins his commentary with a discussion of the term alaa’ which has traditionally been understood to mean bounty.

Maududi then indicates another meaning of the term, that is, power and the wonders of power, which is based on the famous exegesis of Ibn Jarir Tabari. He continues to comment on how the observation of these objects of need and desire come not only with benefits, but also with the qualities that satisfy the various lofty human senses. He describes in what ways humans deny the bounties of God: By out right rejection of a creator, by associating partners with God, by disobeying the commands of their Creator or by simply not offering thanksgiving, which he calls denial by practice.

Nursi comments on the importance of thanksgiving based on the observation of the universe, the Earth, the living beings, including the human, and how the latter are cared for and sustained:

Nursi: Indeed, both the All-Wise Qur’an shows thanks to be the result of creation, and the mighty Qur’an of the universe shows that the most important result of the creation of the world is thanks. For if the universe is observed carefully, it is apparent that all things result in thanks in the way each is arranged within it; to a degree each looks to thanks and is turned towards it. It is as if the most important fruit of the tree of creation is thanks and the most elevated product of the factory of the universe is thanks.

Nursi then details the picture that emerges when one carefully observes the relationship of the universe, the inanimate beings, the living beings, and humans.

Nursi: We see in the creation of the world that its beings are arranged as though in a circle, with life as its central point. All beings look to life, and serve life, and produce the necessities of life. That is to say, the One Who created the universe cares for life in it.

Then we see that He created the animal kingdom in the form of a circle and placed the human at its center. Simply, He centered the aims intended from animate beings on the human, gathering all living creatures around him (the human), and subjugating them to him…Then we see that the world of human, and the animal world too, are formed like circles, with sustenance placed at their centre.

We can draw a picture based on Nursi’s description:

Nursi then continues to comment on the relationship of sustenance with thanksgiving:

Nursi: He has made mankind and the animals enamored of sustenance, has subjugated them to it, and made them serve it. What rules them is sustenance. And He has made sustenance such a vast and rich treasury that it encompasses His innumerable bounties. Even, with a faculty called the sense of taste, He has placed on the tongue fine and sensitive scales to the number of foods, so that they can recognize the tastes of the many varieties of sustenance. That is to say, the most mysterious, richest, most wonderful, most agreeable, most comprehensive, and most marvelous truth in the universe lies in sustenance. Now we see that just as everything has been gathered around sustenance and looks to it, so does sustenance in all its varieties subsist through thanks, both material and immaterial and this is offered by word and by state; it exists through thanks, it produces thanks, it shows thanks.

We can summarize Nursi’s commentary as follows: When a human observes the universe, they will notice that all inanimate beings serve life, plants and animals serve humans, and humans are in need of sustenance. In addition to satisfying the needs of life, sustenance carries other qualities that satisfy the higher senses of the human. It shows signs of mercy, care and love from the Creator. Therefore, all of these observations ought to lead a person to be thankful to their Creator.

The signs of resurrection

Just see the Signs of Allah’s Mercy, how He brings back to life the dead earth. Likewise, He will bring back the dead to life: He has power over everything. (Rum 30:50)

Does not man see that We created him from a sperm-drop, and yet he stands forth as a manifest adversary? Now he strikes out likenesses for Us and forgets his own creation. He says, “Who will give life to these bones when they are rotten?” Tell him, “He Who created them in the first instance will give them life again: He is skilled at every kind of creation. (Ya-Sin 36:77-79)

The basic argument in this verse, repeated elsewhere in the Qur’an, can be summarized as follows: When you observe the coming to life of living beings, the coming back to life of plants and animals after a period of inactivity, which resembles death and other similar phenomena, you should have no doubt that the Creator and Sustainer of the universe is capable of bringing humans back to life after their death. The coming into existence of the first living being and that of first human being, the coming back to life of their various traits through their progeny, the preservation of their qualities in their seeds and sperms should all make it easy for the intellect to accept the possibility of resurrection. In other words, after observing all of these phenomena, one should not reject the idea of resurrection simply because it does not occur for individual humans before their eyes:

Against this, the Qur’an employs a basic argument which is not difficult to accept rationally, equating two similar feats: the power that can accomplish something once can do it again. From the fact that human beings now exist, it is clear that divine power was not incapable of making them: why should it be assumed that such power will be incapable of doing for a second time what it achieved the first (50:15)? Indeed, a second creation is easier than a first one (30:27).

Commenting on 36:77-79, both Maududi and Yazir relate an account of the occasion of revelation which illustrates the disbeliever’s attitude:

Yazir: It is related that Ubey b. Halef came to the presence of God’s Messenger (upon whom be peace and blessings) with a decayed bone and crushed it. He then asked, “Would you say that God could give life to this after it has perished as such?” The Messenger answered: “Yes indeed! He resurrects you and places in hellfire.” And God knows every aspect of His creation. In other words, He knows every detail of every part of His creatures, their situations, quantities and qualities. He knows all forms of creation, material and immaterial, with instruments or without instruments, with archetypes and without archetypes, unbounded by time. And this concludes the matter.

The entire chapter entitled the 10th Word in Nursi’s book The Words, consisting of over sixty pages, is dedicated to the issue of belief in resurrection and life in the hereafter. After discussing in detail of various forms of signs and similitudes of resurrection, Nursi concludes with an appeal to the reader’s conscience:

Nursi: Can you not see the numerous designs made by God as signs, similitudes, or analogies of resurrection? He has placed them in every era, the alteration of day and night, even in the coming and going of clouds. If you imagine yourself a thousand years in the past and then compare past and future, you will see as many similitudes and analogies of resurrection as there are centuries or days past. If, after this, you still consider corporeal resurrection improbable and unacceptable to reason, there is something seriously wrong with your powers of reasoning .

Maududi comments that in addition to being a sign of resurrection, there is a moral lesson in the example of rain bringing life to the Earth in the spring. In addition to being reminded about the resurrection, human beings are reminded about the life-giving nature of divine guidance:

Maududi: There is a subtle allusion in the mention of the Prophethood and the rain, one after the other, to the reality that the advent of a Prophet is a blessing for man’s moral life even as the coming of the rain proves to be a blessing for his material life. Just as the dead earth awakens to life by a shower of the rain from the sky and starts blooming and swelling with vegetation, so is the morally and spiritually desolate human world quickened to life at the coming down of Divine Revelation and starts blossoming with moral excellences and virtues. This is the disbelievers’ own misfortune that they show ingratitude, and regard the blessing of Prophethood as a portent of death for themselves instead of a good news of life.

In this verse we once more see an example of the Qur’an’s appeal to observation and reasoning based on some intuitive premises shared by humanity due to their innate nature: Reflect on the first living being. How did it come to existence? Reflect on your own existence. How did your forefather come into being? Observe the winter and spring. How did these plants and animals that look as if they are dead in the winter come back to life in the spring? In particular the trees which show no sign of life suddenly take on a completely new form and color after the rain wets their skirts and the sun warms them? Remember your own ability to memorize events and people. How you are able to reconstruct a virtual scene based on your memories? What do these actions tell you with respect to the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Whose power is not limited and Whose knowledge is infinite?

Conclusion

The narrative style of the Qur’an is sometimes described as a river that makes turns but flows toward and end. The basic themes of the Qur’an have generally been recognized: the Unity of God and the necessity that humans acknowledge and worship God; the phenomenon of the messengers and revelations of God and the finality of God’s revelation to Muhammad in the form of Islam; resurrection after death and life in the hereafter, and the principles of social justice. The Qur’an makes it clear that it addresses intelligent beings that are capable of observation and reason. It does not ask its readers to suspend their critical faculties in embracing the faith. On the contrary, it expects them to make careful observations, relate their experiences from social life, and draw logical conclusions that eliminate intellectual obstacles to faith’s taking hold in one’s heart. In the meantime, the Qur’an also exposes the invalidity of the false arguments of those who reject its message out of ulterior motives such as greed, habit, pride or fear of material disadvantage. The approach of the Qur’an to observation and reason in relationship to faith is one of balance. The use of observation and reason helps build faith on sound foundations. There is no room for bigotry or fanaticism. However, the Qur’an also praises those who believe in the unseen (2:3). Hence, believers are still expected to have faith in matters that are beyond direct observation; however, this faith is now grounded on a foundation of observation and reason. In this paper I have presented interpretations from three popular works of exegesis: Nursi, Yazir and Maududi. In each of these commentaries, we can see the Qur’an’s appeal to observation and reason as expounded by their respective authors. It should be noted that there was little to no interaction among these authors. Although Nursi and Yazir were contemporaries, their works were written in parallel, while Nursi was in exile and his works not widely available. Since translations of the complete works of neither Yazir nor Nursi were available in Urdu and English at the time of Maududi, it is safe to assume that either text had little or no impact on Maududi. Therefore, the resonant comments on the paper’s basic premise reflected in these commentaries should be considered independent support for my thesis.

Finally, what about the persons who use their observation and reason as the Qur’an encourages, but reach different conclusions about metaphysical phenomena? The basic premise of the Qur’an is that if the human intellect and conscience are not influenced by other motives, such as persistent wrongdoing or the pursuit of material interests, then the God-created human nature should yield the same result for everyone, at least as far as the pillars of faith are concerned. Whether this very premise is valid or not has to be left to human conscience.

Notes

1. Irving et al., The Qur’an: Basic Teachings, London: The Islamic Foundation, 1979, p. 35.

2. Fethullah Gulen, in Ali Unal Foreword, The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, New Jersey: The Light Inc., xviii., 2006.

3. Yazir does not provide a commentary on this verse.

4. Said Nursi, The Letters, Twentieth Letter, Addendum to the Tenth Phrase. Sozler Publications, Istanbul, 2001, p. 306.

5. Nursi, Al-Mathnawi al-Nuri: Seedbed of The Light, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2007, p. 304.

6. Nursi, The Letters, Twenty-eighth Letter, On Thanks. Sozler Publications, Istanbul, 2001, p. 428.

7. Nursi, The Letters, 28th Letter, London: Truestar, 1995.

8. Muhammad AbdelHaleem, Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style, London: I.B. Tauris, 1999, p. 85.

9. Nursi, The Words, Tenth Word, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2005, p. 97.

10. See, for instance, Robert Hunt, Muslim Faith and Values: What Every Christian Should Know, New York: GBGM Books, 2003, p. 81; Abdel Haleem ibid., Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1989; Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur’an: the early revelations. Ashland, Oregon: White Cloud Press, 1999; Unal ibid., x.

11. Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World, London: Granta Publications, 2006, p. 103.

References

• Bucaille, Maurice The Bible, The Qur’an and Science, Indianapolis: North American Trust Publications, 1978.
• El-Fandy, Muhammad J. On Cosmic Verses in the Qur’an, Cairo: Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, 1961.
• Hunt, Robert. Muslim Faith and Values: What Every Christian Should Know, New York: GBGM Books, 2003.
• Khalifa, Rashad. Miracle of the Qur’an, St Louis: Islamic Productions International, 1973.
• Khan, Maulana W. Religion and Science, New Delhi: Al Risala Books, 1988.
• Kiyimba, Abasi. “Islam and Science: An Overview,” in Islamic Perspectives on Science, Izmir: Kaynak A.S., 1998.
• Irving, Thomas B., Khurshid Ahmad, and Muhammad M. Ahsan, The Qur’an: Basic Teachings, London: The Islamic Foundation, 1979.
• Maududi, Sayyid Abul A’la. Towards Understanding the Quran. Trans. of Tafheem al-Qur’an by Zafar I. Ansari. London: The Islamic Foundation, 2007, available online at http://www.tafheem.net/main.html.
• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study, Chicago: Kazi, 2007.
• Nursi, Said. The Words, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2005.
• Nursi, Said. The Letters, 28th Letter, London: Truestar, 1995.
• Nursi, Said. Isarat-ul I’caz, Istanbul: Yeni Asya, 2001.
• Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1989.
• Sells, Michael. Approaching the Qur’an: the early revelations. Ashland, Oregon: White Cloud Press, 1999.
• Shafiq, Muhammad. Growth of Islamic Thought in North America: Focus on Isma’il Raji al Faruqi, Amana Publications, 1994.
• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2006.
• Yazir, Elmalili Muhammed Hamdi. Hak Dili Kur’an Dili, Istanbul: Zehraveyn, 1991.

When we look at the current situation, those who study science are required to have a philosophical background of secular concepts and judgments; all the scientific activities and the required methods to be carried out by this person are to be built on this secular basis.

The method of scientific research

In the course of history scientific methods developed first in Mesopotamia, the cradle of humanity and the prophets, then in Central Asia and Andalusia, and finally in Western Europe, with efforts to make use of science so that human life would be easier. Nowadays these methods have a universal character and they include observation, experimental observation, experimentation, measuring, statistics, definitions along international standards, analogy, development of theories, antitheses and others.

Surely, this is not the only way to learn about the universe, life, and humanity. Furthermore, the true source of information is the One Who created everything that is studied by science-all the world of existence and the physical laws-that is God, the Almighty, the All-Wise. The Lord of the worlds created causes as a thin veil over His divine power and He has given the universe to the use of humanity. He gave us consciousness, intellect, reasoning, and curiosity to explore, and then He sent us messengers to convey His commands. In this way He always invited us to reflection and to use our mind. So, one of the means of satisfying our inherent curiosity to explore, of benefiting from what has God given us, and of reaching the truth-the knowledge of God-has been the methods of modern science which are always open to criticism and reform.

Observation

One needs to fulfill certain standards in order to obtain reliable information about the subject that is being observed and to compare this information with the results of other observations. These standards require that the measurements (distance, time, atmospheric conditions, the quality and sensitivity of the tools of observation, etc.) be recorded and correctly evaluated. The observation-watching the objects in the sky or following the life of a lion family in the savannah for instance-might seem to be a passive and objective study at the beginning. When there is conscious human intervention, however, the time of observation, the experience of the observer, their attentiveness, the accuracy of their devices, and their purpose of study bears importance in terms of the outcome. In addition, different observers in theoretically equal conditions may come up with different results. In short, the observer is an indispensable part of what they observe and measure. According to Einstein the assumption that there is an outer world abstracted from the perceiver is common to all natural sciences. On the other hand, perception only through the senses provides indirect information about the outer world, and we can only understand physical reality through reasoning. As a result, our knowledge of the physical reality can never be conclusive.

Experiment, measurement, and universal statement

All experiments are a scientific study where the experimenter contributes actively (as a determining factor). The drawbacks which occur for observation also occur for experiments to an even greater extent. The conditions of the experiment may not be always under strict control and there could be some factors that have been overlooked which affect the outcome.

Like observation, minimizing the mistakes of an experiment and expressing it in a universal statement depend on how much place has been given for standard measurements, mathematics, and common terminology. From the local environment to the world scale, the findings of scientific activity that has not been shared with others cannot be an inspiration for other original studies (science is a common value of humanity). Therefore, the developmental level of a science is understood from that science’s ability to use standard measurement techniques and mathematics, and then state the findings in internationally accepted ways.

In its broadest sense, measurement means numbering objects and events in accordance with certain rules. In any case, it should not be forgotten that these numbers represent those objects in only some aspects, not completely. The records taken during an observation or an experiment, particularly mathematical measurements, impose certain systematical limitations on the data and turn them into comparable values which give way to statistical analysis. Therefore, they pave the way for classification and generalization.

Generalization and induction

Classification and generalization are important schematic steps for they facilitate identifying the objects and events in the physical world, defining them, and understanding their function. The next step is to analyze things and events individually and this constitutes a reliable way of defining general rules, discovering the principle of the “system” that exists in the whole universe, and then obtaining complicated knowledge of the world around us. The deduction principle of Aristotle, which prevailed in Europe and the Muslim world during the Middle Ages, was replaced by this new understanding, namely the induction method. Induction is an analytical approach which studies events separately in order to reach a certain synthesis (an idea about the whole) for the sake of understanding nature and the universe. Particularly in natural sciences, generalizations require every thing and event to be tested one by one and then to be compared with the general rule; this way, important advancements have been made (e.g. after having tested all metals, the resulting principle was “all metals expand when they are heated”). However, the notion of accepting these generalizations as definite and unchangeable principles lost its reliability after Popper.

Theory, but how?

According to Popper, the verification of a scientific theory does not mean that it has been proven. Actually, what matters is not whether a theory is veritable or not, but whether a theory is disprovable or not. So to say that a theory is not open to criticism, that it cannot be disproved or tested is not scientific.

When we apply this to a concrete example, the theory of evolution, which is defined as a biological phenomenon that took place in the geological time scale, we find that it is not open to observation or experiment. Therefore, it cannot be proven in terms of natural sciences. More importantly, theory of evolution is not scientific, as it seems impossible to prove the opposite of what this theory suggests. We are not saying that we cannot prove the opposite; the theory is built in such a way that we have no chance to prove the opposite, and it is just not scientific.

Scientific data is accepted as an agreed value of humanity. The neutrality of science, or the neutrality of a scientist to be exact, suggests that things and events existing in the universe are all beyond personal and subjective judgments and they should be dealt with accordingly. Neutrality is in a way an honest attitude that has been adopted for seeking for truth with a skeptical approach while trying to reach a sound result. In any case, we need to keep in mind that in some branches of science we cannot remain absolutely neutral and our worldview may have an effect as well. Just as in daily life, our perception tends to be selective about what is happening around us in scientific activities as well. So neutrality in science cannot always be accepted as an absolute, but rather is something that is open for discussion.

The human conflict

The position of mankind presents a dual nature in the world which points to its Creator and the paths that lead to Him from every direction. Mankind has been created in a planet of negligible size in comparison to the vastness of the universe. We are just impotent guests. The sphere of our power is awfully narrow. On the other hand, our Creator gave the universe for our use, and He protects the planet where humans live against dangers in advance. He has bestowed upon us mental ability and the power to reflect upon the world, to explore, and to benefit from it. He has created all the living or non-living things and the physical laws for the sake of humanity. As mentioned before, we continue to explore the world around us and give this activity a name: “science.”

In spite of being feeble creatures, we human beings in time have taken the abilities granted to us, the scientific advancements, the achievements we made and the power brought by them as our own work and we have idolized our own bodies and mind. Then we claim that science is the ultimate reliable source, in spite of its being an activity with its own weaknesses. We began to see science as a separate being, independent from us, even from the Almighty Lord, and finally we take science as a conscious superior being that is able to explain everything, the only source of information, and a “sacred” concept, together with its methods. This outrageous ingratitude and rebellion against our Creator shakes the spiritual values of societies and causes them to degenerate by confusing minds, leading to the use of science against humanity in an uncontrolled way, like a dangerous weapon.

After Darwin, evolutionists began to explain the facts about all species in nature through the presumption of “evolution by natural selection.” However it is not correct to take natural selection as being deterministic. There is some partial truth in it; but it is not an ever-valid essential rule. The criterion of weakness for a species or an individual being cannot be clearly defined. Evolutionists had overlooked the fact that the species created in different structures and capacities in order to perform different functions in the system of nature could not be evaluated for a criteria of common weakness. So the natural selection mechanism they suggested was seemingly attractive, but a rough and over-generalizing assumption, chalk and cheese, were mixed together.

Seeing nature as an arena of struggle is another mistaken approach adopted by those who use scientific studies as a tool for denial which threatens the moral value of humanity (the mistake of adopting excessive approaches was constantly repeated through the history of Western philosophy). Nevertheless, the admiration we feel for nature shows how beautifully it has been created and kept alive. Being a perfectly working system with all its faculties, where solidarity and a cooperative balance play the major role, nature appeals to our heart and inspires aesthetically. In the physical or social systems we establish we try to imitate the examples nature presents us. Millions of different species, countless living things live in different habitats, in different ecosystems. All of them-big or small- are parts of a smoothly running system. Discovering and making detailed analyses of the micro or macro biological mechanisms that contribute to the system only became possible in the 20th century thanks to scientific developments. In any case these discoveries have not raised any metaphysical excitement among the scientists whose hearts were hardened by their denial.

Unfortunately, the cost of the damage we caused to ourselves and to the entire world have been great. Again, we forgot the (small) lesson we learned in a short time and could not help but originate chronic evils that revealed the harm we caused to people and nature in the long run.

Humanity needs to ponder on such pictures and possible ones of the future. They need to be somehow introduced to the divine message God sent us through His Messengers. They need to discover the revelation of the True Owner of the universe, realize the miracle of creation, acknowledge their own impotence, and understand the conditions of the balance-material and spiritual-of being human. They should give up their mistaken struggle in opposing their Creator which harms themselves and the world. All people who believe in the vital importance of the matter should act in accordance with the responsibility brought by this emergency and keep in mind that faith is of ultimate worth before God. As believers, we should pray to this end, with our actions as well.

These and similar questions have occupied philosophers, scientists, and people of faith since the Renaissance. If religion were the ‘opiate of the masses,’ we could not expect an inquisitive mind to adopt any religion. But countless critical thinkers and scientists believe in a God that hears and responds to their prayers.(1)

What we mean by religion and science affects how we answer such questions. Therefore we must agree on common definitions. A study of the scientific method, where and how it is applied, is likely to shed light on the perceived conflicts between science and religion.

Science and Scientism

In broad terms, science is a systematic way of exploring the universe. The scientific method helps us discover facts that can not be directly observed. As described in SGNA: ‘Though we may be unable to observe an aspect of the universe directly, we may deduce its existence and its properties by observing the effect that it has on those phenomena that we can observe. In other words: by explaining the observed aspect of the universe, we go one step beyond that of mere observation, and we gain knowledge about something that we have not observed directly. This is the whole point: we gain information from sources other than direct observation. Use of the scientific method ensures that this information is accurate, and not influenced by the subjective points of view of a single researcher or the use of inaccurate instruments.'(2)

But there is a difference between accepting the scientific method’s discoveries and accepting as truth only what science discovers. The latter, which Huston Smith called scientism, is ‘the belief that no realities save ones that conform to the matrices science works with ‘space, time, matter/energy, and in the end number’exist.'(3)

The successes of science and technology, and their applications, have created a kind of utopia where science, especially positive science, has become the source of all knowledge and wisdom. In the views of positivist philosophers like Hume, Locke and Berkeley, anything that cannot be measured does not exist. But closer examination reveals the oversimplistic nature of this view.

Many contemporary scientific theories talk about subjects that cannot be directly measured. Take the atom. Physics textbooks are full of diagrams depicting it as consisting of a nucleus with and orbiting electrons. The diagrams may be quite sophisticated, and the explanation of how the system works can be quite detailed. Yet nobody has ever seen an atom. The closest we have come is seeing their positions via a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. But this has not prevented us from discovering the details of an atom’s inner workings.

The Scientific Method

When we want to discover new information about a subject, we first use direct observation, which has the highest degree of certainty. The scientific method establishes guidelines and procedures for objective, accurate, and systematic observation. The most dependable direct observation is the one that can be repeated and has known parameters. By repeating the observation under the same parameters, other scientists can verify a statement’s truthfulness.

When direct observation is not possible or insufficient, the thought process steps in. We infer and deduce based on observation. We hypothesize and look for exceptions. Such verification is where the scientific method really shines: It brings an objective mechanism for testing hypotheses to the discovery process. It helps us decrease the degree of uncertainty regarding that which cannot be observed directly.

Controlled and repeatable experiments are the next best techniques, for they enable us to obtain objective and sound knowledge. While we cannot control, we still can observe and infer. However, our degree of certainty and accurate knowledge decrease as we move further away from direct observation.

The scientific method’s main purpose is to decrease such uncertainty and to ensure that it is not affected by individual bias or equipment error. Our level of control while observing a phenomenon determines the level of our knowledge’s certainty. While the media or popular culture label certain statements scientific, their scientificness depends on the nature of the verification process. Some so-called scientific facts are direct observations; others are theories that require a thorough testing.

Not all scientists agree on what constitutes the scientific method. Some describe it as the collection of all means and methods scientists use to investigate a phenomenon. Since this definition is too broad, we will focus on a narrower one accepted by most scientists: The scientific method consists of the following:

1. Defining the problem and making repeated observations to collect information

2. Forming a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon

3. Testing the hypothesis by matching it against other observations

4. Developing a theory consistent with your observations

5. Using it to make predictions

6. Testing predictions by repeated, preferably controlled experiments and/or further observations

7. Modifying the theory as indicated by your results

8. Repeating steps 5 through 7 as necessary

9. Reporting the research notes and results for professional review.

These steps can be summarized into three stages: observing, theorizing about underlying causes, and verifying through more observations. Theorizing is the key step. The other steps require hard work and can be done by any competent, knowledgeable worker. Developing a theory, however, requires an flash of insight, sometimes called intuition.

Coming up with new ideas is part of what makes a great scientist. Despite its being the basis from which all scientific work proceeds, we cannot study or explain this scientifically. We may call it a gut feeling, hunch, inspiration, or insight, but we still do not know its source and cannot schedule it. We can encourage and stimulate it, but we cannot control it. The scientific method helps us ensure that what comes out of intuition is sound and objective, but does not how we come up with the idea. So the scientific method really is about verification.

Limitations

The main mechanism of verification is experiment and observation. While a powerful tool, verification is limited by its definition: If we cannot control a phenomenon or make proper observations, we cannot develop an idea into a scientific theory.

How do we establish a proper experimentation environment? First, we must set up a controlled experiment to control all the factors involved, except for the two factors whose relationship we are investigating. This involves a control and an experimental group. The control group is normal (basis for comparison), while the experimental group differs from the control in only one area.

We then allow for the experimental variable, defined as the one area of difference between the two groups. If we set up two groups of subjects with only one difference and our observation confirms a correlation between this factor and a result, we can safely say that that factor is a cause of that result. If we cannot establish two identical groups, the next best option is to try to average out the differences by selecting the group’s members so that no factor is represented disproportionately. This is usually possible only when working with inanimate objects.

It is extremely difficult to control all involved factors, as well as to conduct repeatable experiments, when the subjects are people. Since all people and societies are unique, it is very hard to repeat any psychological or sociological experiment. Also, observing people often causes behavior modification. Thus, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology, and others, are really sciences.

Several essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena: ‘Questions about the origin of thought, about the origin of intuition or about creativity often lead into the realms of philosophy, if not existentialism. What makes the human mind work? Where does sentience come from? What is the ‘I’ that seems to live three or four inches behind my forehead and thinks it is me? And how are we ever going to apply the scientific method to answer these questions?'(4)

This leaves us with a dilemma: What should we do when confronted with an idea that is hard or impossible to verify scientifically? As noted in SGNA: ‘In modern science, the ‘scientifically correct’ approach in that case is usually to reject the idea. As long as we can’t prove that the idea is correct, it must be assumed to be incorrect. But that approach ignores the fact that the scientific method cannot be used to answer all questions.'(5) Science can tell us almost everything about our body-except Why? Why am I here? Who am I? What is the universe and why was it created? According to SGNA: ‘Science has never really dared to tackle these subjects. The questions are labeled ‘existentialism’ or ‘philosophy’ and ‘appropriately filed.”(6)

The Nature of the Conflict

Now we begin to realize the nature of the perceived conflict between science and religion: The humanities contain issues that the scientific method is ill-suited to answer and yet is taken as the ultimate source of knowledge. Most religious commands and prescriptions deal with an individuals personal and social life that do not tolerate experimentation. The risk associated with failure in such experiments is too high. We can tolerate the loss of some inanimate objects during experimentation, but not the loss of even one person. This is where the scientific method is at its weakest, and where religious directives are numerous, comprehensive, and direct. Where the scientific method is at its strongest, as in matters related to physical laws and inanimate objects, religious assertions are fewer, indirect, and serve the main purposes of faith. The perceived conflict in these areas is minimal and usually due to misinterpretation of religious sources. Before discussing another aspect of the relationship of science and faith, lets review some additional factors that contribute to the friction. In its pure form and when applied properly, the scientific method is a very powerful tool to establish a theorys truth or falsity. However, objectivity can be compromised by a scientists own humanity, for no one is completely free of bias, prejudice, ideological or political concerns, or peer pressure when it comes to income, belonging, fame, and high social status. Even though scientists pride themselves on their objectivity, cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism abound.(7) Sometimes community prejudices and biases make scientists resist new theories and findings for unscientific reasons. The scientific community at first laughed at some of the greatest theories of the twentieth century. Peer review may hinder advancement, and theories and perspectives may go in and out of fashion. It is hard to oppose the whole society to defend new theories and findings. History is full of accounts where unscientific factors have affected scientific work.

The Limitations of Logic

Human logic is a limited truth-seeking device, a machine with a mechanism, inputs, and outputs. Assuming the mechanism works perfectly, the output depends on the input. Hence two persons with different sense-related inputs may reach different conclusions by using the same logical mechanism. The logical mechanism may not always work perfectly. There are many examples of logical fallacies, among them wrong inference, improper generalization, false assumptions, and false analogies.(8) So when a religious jurisdiction is perceived as illogical and hence unscientific, it could very well be because of a limitation in the logical inference mechanism or in the subject knowledge. Philosophical reasons often cause friction between science and religion. Asa Gray, a faithful colleague of Darwin, was puzzled by Darwins atheistic proposals in the Theory of Evolution, for certainly God could use evolution to create diverse life forms. Darwin indicated that he had problems reconciling suffering with a merciful God, among other difficulties, and so had adopted an atheistic perspective.(9) Thus, he proposed an atheistic theory due to his philosophical problem with religion. But this is not the only relationship between science and faith. There are others, such as: Do science and religion live in orthogonal spaces? Do they present mutually exclusive views of the universe, thereby making themselves incompatible? But first of all, what is the role of reason in establishing ones faith?

The Worlds of Faith and Reason

By definition, religious faith implies belief in the Unseen. For many, belief is the culmination of a mental and spiritual effort transcending reading the Scripture and blind faith. Many religions command us to use our intellect. The Quran, in particular, emphasizes the use of reason in hundreds of verses. The pillars of Islam are shown to be evident truths for those who have intellect. Believers are encouraged to observe nature, reflect, and draw conclusions. To show how a logical process may lead people to believe in God or confirm their belief by reason, lets look at three pillars of major monotheistic religions: the Creator, life in the Hereafter and Messengers. Just like a work of art displays the artists skills, the universe can be seen as a huge collection of art by the Eternal Artist. The universe, as well as each human being, contains countless signs of organization and order. The human brain is immeasurably more complex than the most sophisticated computer. Since we could not attribute even the simplest computer to pure chance, how can we attribute the design of the human brain to a random process? These signs point to an all-knowing and powerful Creator. The human soul yearns for eternity and is not satisfied with any earthly pleasure. While all of our desires potentially can be fulfilled on Earth, leaving this critical desire for eternity unfulfilled would be a contradiction. Hence there must be an eternal life. It only makes sense for the Creator and Sustainer of this universe to communicate with the creatures who possess the most advanced intellect and the ability to communicate with language. Hence Messengers and revealed Scriptures make perfect sense.(10) This method of basing ones beliefs on observation and logical inference is essentially the scientific method without direct observation. A person whose belief is thus established can claim to be as scientific as a person studying anthropology or fossil zoology, for both deal with the available (indirect) evidence and logical conclusions. Although their objectives and foci differ, faith and science help us discover what is not directly observable. Sciences primary area of interest is the physical laws of the universe; faith is concerned with the personal and social principles that lead persons and societies to happiness in this life and the hereafter. Both appeal to our intelligence and our ability to observe. Believe suggests something not directly observable; Theory (in science) implies something not directly observable. If everything religion tells us were directly observable everybody would be a believer or, more accurately, an observer. If everything we needed to know were directly observable, the scientific method and scientists would be unnecessary. Nevertheless, non-believers may object by pointing out that having established their faith scientifically, believers may have to submit to religious directives that they may not understand or question. Inquiry is the basis for scientific advancement, while submission is an essential tenet of any religion.

Inquiry and Submission

The only sources that have satisfying answers for such questions as asked above are the major monotheistic religions. Science does not attempt to answer purpose or why questions, mainly because these questions imply an intelligent, wise Being behind creation. Since most scientists are reluctant to accept such an implication, they do not necessarily think that there should be a reason for existence other than a lucky accident. When people question the source of knowledge and become sure of its authenticity, and if they still have difficulty understanding, they must choose between their limited, imperfect logic and a source in which they have confidence. They do not stop questioning; rather, they change the nature of their investigation. Instead of rejecting immediately, they accept and investigate the underlying wisdom. So, believing scientists first base their belief on observation and reason and then explore the wisdom behind the Divine sentiments.

Conclusion

We live in an age ruled by science and positivism. The scientific method is considered the most reliable source of knowledge in almost every aspect of human life. In its moderate form, this worldview reduces superstitions and prejudices that have chained human reason in many societies. However, it also has the unscientific generalization of completely rejecting all other sources of knowledge and hence limiting inquiry into a purely material and quantifiable form. While friction among scientists was the norm for past centuries, harmony among moderates is establishing itself as we enter a new millennium. Today, it is possible to find scientists from reputable institutions who are willing to use the scientific method to explore subjects considered taboo for centuries, such as the role of prayer in physical healing. They do so despite the risk of being labeled as charlatans by their colleagues.11 This encourages us to think that one day the scientific method of inquiry could be used to investigate such essential questions as the purpose behind creation and signs of an eternal life without necessarily rejecting all religious doctrines. Open-minded and believing scientists are poised to show us that religion can coexist and is compatible with reason and science, which know their limitations.

Footnotes

1. National Institute for Healthcare Research: http://www. nihr.org.
2. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age: Limitations of the Scientific Method: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/ sgna_5.html.
3. Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the Worlds Religions (San Francisco: Harper, 1993).
4. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael W. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Westview Press: 1998); H. M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998); David J. Miller and Michel Hersen, Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences (John Wiley & Sons: 1992).
8. Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (Prometheus Books: 1987); T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth: 1995); S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Bedford Books, 1994).
9. Frederick Burkhart, Charles Darwins Letters: A Selection 1825-1859 (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998).
10. For extensive essays on this subject, consult Said Nursi, The Words (Truestar: 1997) and The Flashes (Sozler: 1996).
11. Alphonse Williams, Healing and Faith, The Fountain 3:30 (April-June 2000): 8-14.