We have a book written in golden letters lying in front of us. The decoration of the pages is attractive and impressive.. the small diamonds that are spread out over the pages are so shiny.. the cover is attractive.. the pages are velvety like a rose.. the colors are lively and bright.. the letters have been written by a talented calligrapher and are so harmonious; each one is a work of art.. While one may be interested in the book and its material another will find understanding what has been written and its content more compelling…

We recognize and perceive that which exists and evaluate that which is happening around us by using our natural senses, intelligence, and experience; as a result we are able to make inferences about the world through methods of deduction or induction. Positivism claims that the only true and valid knowledge is that which is based on actual sensual experience. According to materialism, the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter. In general, in analyzing matter and physical phenomena the deterministic approach is employed; all events are thought to be unavoidable consequences of the preceding sufficient causes. Sometimes the deterministic descriptions and formulations may end up in chaos. Chaos theory deals with the chaotic character of such formulations qualitatively. The quantum theory could also be interpreted as a deterministic tool that describes physical phenomena, more specifically, the behavior of matter and energy, within a range of probabilistic likelihood.

Some philosophers tend to include other factors in the cognitive faculties and the means that shape human perception and cognition: for example, emotions and intuition (e.g. Kant, Bergson). This apparently is a diversion from materialism and the deterministic point of view. The human being is not only an elegant combination of atoms; we also have a part that is not a function of matter or time: and this is the soul. If we restrict ourselves only to the natural senses and matter, as the positivist and materialist approaches do, then severe limitations on human perception are imposed, as demonstrated below. In general, it is not possible to perceive the truth completely without using all of one’s cognitive faculties. The question is then, how can a new program of reasoning be systematized to combine the senses and mind along with the emotions and intuition in a coherent manner? This novel program, which is called qualitative inference, is defined in this article using examples; however, first there is a brief introduction to a related topic, known as qualitative reasoning.

Qualitative reasoning is a relatively new approach in the estimation of possible solutions to real-world problems through non-quantitative reasoning. This approach provides a program to reason about the behavior of physical systems, such as the physiology of the human body, automobiles, etc., especially in the case of inexact or incomplete data, or when there is a lack of the precise quantitative information that is required by conventional methods. Qualitative models are more able to express states of incomplete knowledge about continuous mechanisms than traditional models which have been developed for the analysis of physical phenomena, as the former guarantees the ability to find all possible behaviors consistent with the knowledge in the model.

To get a flavor of what is meant by qualitative reasoning, consider this everyday scenario: You are confronted with a water-filled pan on a lit stove. You can easily predict that the pan will warm up, which will warm the water. At some point, the water will start to boil, and the pan might eventually become empty. To make these predictions, the exact values of the variables involved, such as the amount of water, the temperatures of the stove and the water, or the boiling temperature need not be known.

Observing pouring rain and a river’s steadily rising water level is sufficient to make a prudent person take measures against possible flooding-without knowing the exact water level, the rate of change, or the time the river might flood.

Qualitative inference is a program of qualitative reasoning that extends inference to the non-physical aspects of physical information, including reason, the relation between subjects and objects, etc. The universe itself is a great set of information, but this may not be exact or complete enough for metaphysical inductions. Needless to say, any such possible inductions should be consistent with known physical information. Consequently, in qualitative inference, the two key points we are referring to, namely the use of incomplete or inexact data and consistency with physical knowledge, are crucial.

While the deterministic approach could be considered to be the interpolation of existing physical knowledge and information in order to justify what is known or to discover what is unknown, qualitative inference can provide a tool for the extrapolation of existing physical knowledge and information. It can be used to reach what is unknown, physically unobservable, or even impossible to validate, regenerate, repeat, comprehend, or completely embrace by using standard scientific techniques.

Qualitative inference

With some examples we will explain how qualitative inference can be applied to everyday, real life experiences for inferences and inductions that are beyond our physical world.

A coincidence or a gift?

Let us take the example of a package sent to a person in the mail. Let us specify that it is a shirt. Let us further specify that the color of the shirt is the favorite color of the receiver, it fits him very well, the design is his preference, and the brand and the fabric of the shirt are those that he generally chooses. Based on this information, as it is incomplete, it would be difficult to answer questions about the possible relationship between the sender and receiver, the purpose of this shipment, etc. from a positivist or deterministic point of view. Through qualitative inference one could conclude, however, that the sender is someone who knows and is close to the receiver, who would like to please him likely because the sender likes him, and that the shirt has been mailed as a gift. This inference is obviously consistent with the known information. If we were to exclude the sense of love, enjoyment, pleasure, and closeness between two people it would not be possible to make these conclusions.

The apple

The apple is one of the most abundant types of fruit on the earth. “An apple a day keeps the doctor away,” goes an old saying. Doctors in modern times agree that the apple is important as a nutrient. An apple with its skin includes about 4 grams of dietary fibers. Potassium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and selenium are minerals that can be found in an apple in different amounts. It also contains small amounts of iron, manganese, copper and zinc. The vitamins contained in an apple include vitamins A, C, E, and folic acid, which is an important nutrient during pregnancy. While eating an apple, one also strengthens the gingiva gums often without being aware that this is happening. The different colors of apples are very pleasant, as are their smell. How many artists have used the apple as their subject, due to its compelling beauty? It leaves a pleasant taste on the tongue and in the mouth. Many cuisines would be severely handicapped without the apple as an ingredient. The size is just right to grasp in the hand, and its flesh is succulent to bite. Different types of apples give the feeling of experiencing a new thing, yet remaining within the limits of our acquaintance. Apples are attractive and important sources of nutrients for animals as well. There is so much more to say about the apple and its importance to human and animal life, about how it is a very good source of nutrients that matches our needs, and addresses our tastes and pleasures.

With this information, the positivist perspective looks at the apple itself, its attributes, nutritional value, material properties, as well as the physical functions of the human being, and their need for the nutrients that are naturally included in the apple. This physical information, although valuable, is incomplete in understanding the perfect correlation between not only the need of the human being, but also our sense of taste and the apple, as we have briefly summarized above. Through qualitative inference, however, one could conclude that apple is a gift not only to the human being, but to most other living creatures, much like the shirt that was sent as a gift in the example above. This conclusion does not include any contradictions with the known, but incomplete, physical information. Although the sender of this gift is not known, one can infer that such a being exists and this being knows the human very well and is able to make and send this gift via the trees; this being possibly likes human beings and others who benefit from the apple, and likes to please them. However, without reference to the senses of love, enjoyment, and pleasure, it would not be possible to derive such conclusions.

Robot vs. mother

Now, we will consider another event, that in which a mother prepares food for her child. If she is feeding the baby with a formula, the steps she is likely to follow are sterilizing the bottle, boiling the water, refrigerating the water or waiting for the water to reach the appropriate temperature to mix the formula with the water, and stirring it carefully and thoroughly to make this a pleasant experience for her baby. From time to time, the order, attention of the mother, and duration of the steps may change without a clear difference in the underlying conditions. If one were to study this case scientifically, from a positivist perspective, then one would study the temperature of the water, the hygiene of the bottle, the actions of the mother, etc. for some possible inferences. But, these would be far from being a complete account of the situation and cannot reflect the entire picture or truth. The main point that a prudent person can derive from these scenes is clearly the mercy, compassion, and love of the mother towards her baby. This is the fact and main motivation that ensures that the mother take the actions mentioned above voluntarily, willingly, carefully, and repeatedly.

The Earth’s circulatory system

With this example in mind, let’s now review what we learned in high school about the earth’s circulatory system, a wonderful mechanism that purifies, cleans, and processes the water, the most important factor of the life. Human beings can survive for only a few days without water. Water is stored under the ground in natural reservoirs, whose formation alone is the topic for a series of scientific articles. Although the temperature increases as one approaches the center of the earth, sometimes the water comes to the surface at very cold temperatures; such cold clear water is the most desired substance on a hot, sunny day. Rain drops in their natural form are pure water and do not have a pleasant taste. These rain drops and the water used by people or animals is processed, that is, the water is cleaned, filtrated, and purified under ground. Minerals essential to human and animal life and some chemicals that naturally exist in the soil mix with the water. The addition of all these substances is good not only for the water’s nutritional value, but also creates a more pleasant taste. It is with these constituents that water becomes an essential nutrient for human beings and animals. Some of these additions are fluorine that strengthens the bones, fluoride, which is beneficial in low concentrations, sodium, potassium, and chloride, all of which play a role in the metabolism of the body. When the water comes to the surface as hot water, it can be used as a treatment for some diseases. The water is not processed only under the ground, as we have described here, but surface water is also atomized for the ultimate purification. When water evaporates, the vapor rises to a certain location in the atmosphere, accumulates there and forms clouds (which are a subject matter for poets, due to their beauty, especially when they appear on a sunny day). When water is condensed and catalyzed by the wind, the vapor returns to the earth as rain drops to complete the cycle.

Each step in the mechanism of circulatory system mentioned above can be analyzed scientifically, from a positivist perspective, to attain useful and important information. On the other hand, these results will never allow us to make inferences about the reason behind the perfect correlation between the needs of human beings and other living creatures and the availability of water in its most useful form as an essential nutrient with a pleasant taste, or the continuous availability of clean, fresh water for the living creatures who have no control over never-failing mechanism of the circulatory system, or the availability of water with the perfect chemical combination that allows coexistence of water in three different physical forms (ice, water, and vapor). On the other hand, using such incomplete physical information, namely the perfect match between the nature, properties, and availability of water, and the needs, the sense of taste of living creatures, a sensible person could easily infer that there is a hidden mercy and compassion acting behind the scenes, just as with the case of the mother preparing food for her baby. Without this qualitative inference, which is consistent with the known physical information and refers further to the sense of mercy and compassion, the entire picture of this phenomena and the truth can never be captured, regardless of scientific developments, the technology used in labs, or the computer systems that can carry out extremely complicated computations.

Conclusion

Qualitative inference leads us to arrive at conclusions about the non-physical or metaphysical aspects of physical phenomena. This program of reasoning considers physical phenomena and the universe as an incomplete source of information for understanding the metaphysical aspects of the physical world, helps us to make inferences that are consistent with this incomplete physical information, and to use all our cognitive faculties, including intelligence, senses, intuition, and even emotions, to arrive at non-physical inferences. Qualitative inference leads one to consider the apple as a gift and the availability of the fresh water through the natural water cycle as an indication of universal compassion and mercy for all living creatures; no living creature would be able to carry out such a process on their own. Without this reasoning, as exemplified above, only a very limited portion of natural phenomena can be understood sufficiently; the main points will always be missing or overlooked.

Through the same program of reasoning, a gift necessitates a loving sender, universal compassion and mercy requires a being that is compassionate and merciful. Just like the case studies presented above, all real life events have similar messages that can be understood by those who do not restrict themselves to physical nature. All physical events, for example, indicate a universal consciousness that implies the existence of someone who is conscious of everything. Such a being should be able to do all these things according to His will, so He is All Mighty… These examples shed light onto some of His attributes, such as His mercy, compassion, will, might, and consciousness. When other phenomena are analyzed in a similar manner, one can discover other essential attributes of this Supreme Being. As a result, qualitative reasoning not only proves the existence of the Supreme Being, it provides a useful tool in understanding His attributes.

Similarly, the rebirth of trees, insects, and the earth as a whole every spring after their death in the winter is a physical phenomena that we have all experienced. This information, through qualitative inference, can lead us to understand the Hereafter, that is, the resurrection of all human beings in another world. All the attributes of the Supreme Being mentioned above also support this inference. Mercy cannot be absolute and universal, for example, if the oppressed people and tyranny are treated the same; unfortunately, this is what seems to be happening in this world.

In brief, positivist and materialist approaches impose severe limitations on human perception. In reality, all the cognitive faculties of the human being play roles in our evaluation of our being, our position and role in this world, and our relation to others. The truth can only be obtained by a person through the systematic use of all such faculties. Qualitative inference suggests a program for doing so. While the positivist approach puts mankind into the position of being an observer of the things they can touch or see by invalidating all other sources of knowledge, qualitative inference allows one to address the non-physical or metaphysical aspects of the physical phenomena by freeing all of our cognitive faculties, and in particular allows to be a believer while observing the universe in a similar manner.

The way scientific prediction generally tends to approach matters is as follows: “do this and you’ll see that”. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, one of the early successes of physics, still remaining fresh even today, is a particularly nice example: In the nineteenth century, by observing the trajectories of the planetary motion of Uranus, the most remote planet in the Solar system at that time, astronomers discovered that its trajectory was not exactly the way it should have been. Taking into account the gravitational action of nearby planets did not help either. By that time, however, Newtonian mechanics had already gained enough authority so as not to be immediately abandoned. To circumvent the problem, instead of abandoning gravity altogether, scientists proposed that there must be a celestial body, hitherto unseen, that was disturbing the trajectory. After elaborate calculations were made, the astronomers were told to direct their telescopes at a specific time at a specific region of the sky and they would see a shiny dot. They did as instructed, and the dot was present exactly as calculated. Significantly, it does not matter who was actually sitting by the telescope. Under the same conditions, a famous scientist or a lay person should be able to see the same. This is an example of what is called “objective reality,” the shining star in this case. In general, objective reality may be defined as anything which exists independent of the observer, implying that if something objectively real is encountered by observer 1, then reproducing the conditions of the first experiment, observer 2 should see it as well.

“Objective reality” is the scope of science and the science is unbelievably successful when dealing with it. The agreement between theory and experiment in the case of the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” for instance, is to the order of 1 to 100,000,000,000. To give a sense of this truly mind-blowing degree of precision, one can say that it is like sending a rocket to the Moon and predicting its landing coordinates up to the nearest millimeter.

This shows us the might of science, but what makes science so effective also sets the limits for the range of its applicability. The key factor for the conventional scientific method is the reproducibility or the regularity of the event. Whatever does not fit this condition finds itself outside the circle of phenomena that are conventionally called “scientific.” For example, ghosts are not scientific, although there are many more people who claim to have seen them than there are those who routinely observe, for example, the fractional quantum Hall effect, which is absolutely real, despite its exoticism. The number does not matter in this case. There is a certain prescription of how the quantum Hall effect should be observed, whereas there is no such thing for spiritual contacts. One has to be careful to distinguish non-scientific phenomena from non-existent phenomena. The concept of reality and existence itself is a subtle question and has traditionally been a philosophical battlefield that is heavily dependent on definitions; in any case, whatever the truth is, the fact that there is no 100% guaranteed technique of, for instance, summoning the spirit of the long-deceased Genghis Khan does not present sufficient evidence to rule out its possibility.

To illustrate what has been said up to this point, and to look on the subject from a different perspective, the following story might be of some use.

The pond story

Imagine Mr. Smith is sitting by the pond. To study its content our researcher has a sieve that he can use to scoop the water and see what is left inside. After some time he is certain that there is ooze in the pond. Later that evening, by the fireplace, he tells his wife, Mrs. Smith, about what he’d seen during the day at the pond. On the next day, to make sure her husband had actually spent his day the way he said he had, she takes the sieve and goes to the pond. With the first scoop, she gets some ooze and on the evening of the second day the ooze is elevated to the level of an objective reality. It is unimportant who is scooping the water, Mr. or Mrs. Smith. From now on whenever they want to watch the ooze, they just scoop the water with the sieve, and they are guaranteed to get some. In addition to this important discovery, Mrs. Smith also tells Mr. Smith about some rapidly moving shiny longish objects that she saw from time to time in the muddy waters of the pond. However, none of these, unfortunately, have ever made their way into the colander. That evening Mr. Smith has trouble believing the confusing story of his wife, as she doesn’t have much evidence to support it. At the end of the day, the self-confident ooze pioneer has convinced the excessively susceptible scooper that she has had a hard day, and shiny objects won’t bother her anymore. And so they lived a long and happy life. Actually long after, Mr. and Mrs. Smith Jr. discovered that the silver objects also existed objectively, for that, however, a sieve had to be upgraded to a net. These are called fish. But that’s a whole other story.

The moral is obvious: the fish here symbolizes some phenomena that are unobservable with the available accessible technology, but which do actually exist in the pond, which represents the universe; it is solely the problem of the master of the colander, who is of course identified with a researcher, that his gear is not advanced enough. At this point, one should avoid falling into another extremity, that is, denying science altogether, for Mr. Smith was right to a certain extent. At that point the fish, or to be more precise, a fish dinner which would be the manifestation of the fish, was not real for him at all. And this being so there wasn’t much point in talking about it. He preferred to talk constructively of what he could do at anytime with, to some extent, guaranteed success, that is, of what was real for him. Though, again, one should keep in mind that they should not be so opinionated to deny the existence of anything they cannot trap or measure. These ideas should always be kept in mind when thinking about the compatibility of metaphysics with the conventional, quantifiable material world.

The fact that science is based on positive knowledge is very inconvenient for proving the absence of something as opposed to proving the existence of it. To perform the latter involves locating the object or giving a concrete example of it. On the contrary, to prove the absence of something, the whole range of possibilities must be exposed. The task grows ever more difficult as the generality of the statement grows, ultimately becoming impossible.

While thinking of the universe and the role of science which is so successful in understanding it, one should be aware of the fact that science deals with the idealized models of phenomena, describing them with a certain degree of success, not the phenomena themselves. A good model has a small error, poor ones have greater error. A nice example illustrating this matter is the electrical model of a mechanical oscillator. For those who are not familiar with electronics, we can say that the capacitor and the coil act as a spring and the mass, respectively. The charge is to be associated with the expansion of the spring, the electrical current with the velocity of the block.

In the first approximation everything goes well: if we want to determine what the position of the block of the oscillator would be after 3 seconds, instead of oscillating the whole system, we can build a model circuit with the capacitance and inductance adjusted properly, and measure the charge accumulated on the capacitor after 3 seconds. However, once we begin to demand higher precision, we begin to encounter one problem after another. The capacitor might be leaking, hence it no longer ideally represents the spring; the coil has resistance and so on. Even if we somehow get ideal electronics, the oscillator has some air drag, and the spring does not ideally follow Hook’s law) [Hook’s law states that the force the spring produces is directly proportional to the degree it was stretched or compressed to]. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to determine what the oscillator would do exactly without letting it run. However, there is no reason to fall into despair: generally we don’t need to know what it does exactly; depending on the particular case, a fairly good approximation is fine for most of the applications we might ever encounter.

This is how science works. No one has ever observed the “free bodies” moving on a “straight line with constant velocity” that are mentioned in Newton’s first law, the so-called “law of inertia.” What we actually do encounter are the almost free bodies, moving on an almost straight line, with almost constant velocity. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that Newton was wrong: as long as we don’t force his laws into the subatomic region where quantum physics dominates or try to use them nearby the black holes where Einstein’s general relativity takes over, they work unbelievably fine. The rockets we send using these very laws make it quite well to the Moon.

There is an interesting aphorism which is ascribed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent British astronomer: “The law of inertia is true as long as we believe in it.” Newtonian mechanics states that “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” However, since no one has ever seen bodies that are totally isolated from “an external and unbalanced force,” we just believe in this law. Now imagine that someone has nevertheless succeeded in shielding away all the external forces. Being given an initial velocity it is expected to maintain this; but what a disaster: the body doesn’t do so! What should be done in this case? One choice is to renounce Newton’s first law altogether, the other is to say “Hey, what if I did not eliminate the forces completely, what if there is some other force, unknown to me? Both ways are good, but in the latter one you save the ability to describe the world, whereas in the first you are left with nothing. We assume the law of inertia is true and the world becomes describable. Actually, this is what one has to do to understand anything. You have to begin somewhere. State an axiom and assume it is true. Infinite skepticism just doesn’t work. “Cogito ergo sum” was Descartes’ axiom which he had to accept to begin with.

This being so, modern science in the way it exists now does not provide the only model for the Universe; instead, it just realizes one of the possibilities. In the same way that one can use either electrical circuits or a special computer program to model a mechanical oscillator, there is more than one way to deal with the Universe. For example, how can we explain that the parameters of the planet Earth happened to meet the criteria needed to support organic life so ideally? One can say it just happened to be this way by coincidence and we are very lucky. We are very lucky, for instance, that the magnetic field of the Earth stops deadly solar winds, that the ozone layer stops destructive ultraviolet radiation, that the atmosphere is the most transparent for radiation in the yellow-green part of the spectrum, which just miraculously happens to coincide with the intensity peak of the Sun spectrum, which, in turn is the spectrum part plants use for photosynthesis and that to which the human eye is the most sensitive, etc, etc, etc. And though the probability is ridiculously low, low enough to rule it out in normal practice, it is still not impossible, although it is extremely improbable. Or one can say it was God Almighty who created the planet this way so that we can live here. And if it was God Who created the Sun, the Earth, the human eye and the plants then this set of coincidences does not seem so improbable any more. Is there a way to find out which approach is the truth? As long as both are self-consistent internally and do not contradict physical observations, the answer is no. There is no way to choose one version over the other using pure logic alone. However, there is an empirical rule usually called “Occam’s Razor” which states that in case there is more than one explanation for some phenomenon, the one which is the simplest is the true one. Well, the Universe with God in it is the simplest, isn’t it? 

Janibek Alpishev is PhD candidate at Stanford University.

Metaphors also play an important role in science. Cognitive scientists, who continue to research how language evolved and which tools the mind uses during this process, state that metaphors are widely used tools. Scientists use language, as well as graphs and equations, to explain their models. Therefore metaphors are essential in learning and teaching science. In this article, we will present a few examples of metaphorical thinking in science and how it guides science in new directions that could lead to breakthroughs. We will be concerned mainly with the machine metaphor that affected the way we picture the world.

A short history

Metaphor derives from the Greek verb methaphora (to transport or transfer). George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California”Berkeley, and philosopher Mark Johnson explain the essence of metaphor as understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. We generally use analogies to make less familiar things appear in guises that are more familiar to us. For example, we try to picture time by associating it with a river. Chemists extend their knowledge of a poorly understood compound by finding similarities with familiar compounds. Biologists use biological mechanisms found in organisms to understand similar mechanisms in others. Luigi Galvani associated the transmission of nerve pulses to an electric current.

Metaphor can be defined as the mapping of a source domain onto a target domain. Throughout the history of science, water waves were used prototypically for understanding light waves. People tried to understand light (target domain) in terms of water waves (source domain). This mapping forced scientists to search for a medium”ether”that could propagate light waves, for water waves were propagated in water.

According to the English physicist Norman Campbell, every scientific theory requires the use of models to understand theoretical terms. For example, in order to comprehend the kinetic theory of gas, we must resort to an analogue model gas behaving as if it were composed of point particles randomly moving in a vessel. Metaphorical models help to improve the scientific imagination. But for scientists to take a model seriously, it must be expressible in terms of mathematical equations.

Sometimes, the symbolic representation of a mathematical relation can lead to a metaphor. For example, the space is time metaphor has an interpretation in molecular biology where millions of years (time) are encoded and contained in DNA (space). In addition, metaphors offer insight into mathematical phenomena. The basic example is the number line, which is the result of imagining numbers as points on a line.

The machine metaphor

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, the dominant metaphor was the machine metaphor: The world is a machine. This connection was made by Galileo (d. 1642), Descartes (d. 1650), Boyle (d. 1691), and Newton (d. 1727). They imagined the universe as a static, predictable machine. This worldview influenced our beliefs and psyche, as well as the way scientists, philosophers, and other intellectuals thought. Scientists started to think of everything in terms of a machine. Muscles were considered to be force-generating machines, nerves to be electronic machines, and photosynthesis to be a solar-powered machine. Lord Kelvin (d. 1907) characterized the universe as a galactic heat engine.

The machine metaphor led to reductionism in philosophy: If we wish to understand how a machine works, we look into its component parts. Descartes’ analytical method of reasoning is based on the assertion that complex phenomena can be understood by reducing them to simple phenomena. Biologists tried to understand living organisms, as well as bodily motions and functions, by reducing them to their constituents. More research was devoted to understanding the nature of genes. Physicist reduced gases’ properties to the motion of atoms or molecules. Locke (d. 1704) attempted to understand society by observing the behavior of individuals.

With the picture of a perfect world-machine, belief in a Creator became a logical necessity, since the machine implies an engineer. Even children know, as a part of their personal experience of reality, that a house implies a builder and a watch a watchmaker. As they study the more intricately complex nature of the human body or the ecology of a forest, it is highly unnatural to tell them to think of all these systems as chance productions of irrational processes.

Theologian William Paley (d. 1805) expressed this creationist view on page 98 of his Natural Theology as: There cannot be a design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without a thing capable of arranging … Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. This Cartesian philosophy connoted the idea that The Hand of God had set the machine in motion at the beginning of creation. As everything had been determined by God already, nothing could be the result of chance. This view is known as determinism.

The computer metaphor

The computer, the current dominant machine, has become the modern era’s dominant metaphor. Visionary physicist Edward Fredkin characterizes the universe as a cosmological computer. The universe appears as a network of a dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated. Modern physicists do not consider the atom a basic building block; rather, it is a web of relations that includes human consciousness in an essential way. Modern biologists describe cells as distributive real-time computers. Making good use of the computer metaphor, they focus more on how neurons work together and how each cell interacts with its environment.

Sociologists study individuals and their social relationships. Psychologists and cognitive scientists use the analogy of a computer to understand the mind. Artificial intelligence is just one consequence of such modeling. The universe is no longer seen as a simple mechanical machine, but as a more complex high-tech computer system.

The computer metaphor supports the view of a dynamic universe more than Newton’s static universe. James Maxwell’s (d. 1879) electrodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and Darwin’s (d. 1882) theory of evolution all involve dynamic concepts. Entropy describes the evolution of inanimate matter and states that inanimate systems tend to go from order to disorder. Entropy is an increase in disorder became a root metaphor at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Biologists describe evolution as a movement toward increasing order and complexity. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of mutations by natural selection. One factor that makes Darwinian theory a naturalistic philosophy more than an empirical science is its claims that all of these dynamic processes are a result of random chance. Natural selection is introduced as the mechanism that minimizes the effect of chance. According to Darwinism, probability governs the universe and there is no need for God.

There are probabilities in the quantum world as well. However, probability and uncertainty show the unpredictability of the outcomes of quantum measurements from a human perspective. This probabilistic vision of universe, contrary to Darwinian theory, deepened the consequences of the machine metaphor: God not only set the machine in motion eons ago, but is still governing the process of creation and changing the probability pattern.

Metaphors and paradigm shifts

According to Thomas Kuhn (d. 1996), metaphorical thinking becomes crucial at periods of scientific revolution and gives way to a paradigm shift. Distant analogies are probably the most useful in times of scientific revolution: Newton’s metaphor of an apple is a moon is of this kind. However, this metaphor became literal after it was understood that the same gravitational force that holds the apple to Earth is the same one that holds the moon in its orbit around Earth.

Kuhn’s paradigm shift and use of metaphors can best be seen in the history of exploring the atom. The atom was conceived first by Democritus (d. c. 370 BCE) as an impenetrable sphere. This analogy was used to explain the behavior of matter until the nineteenth century. Spherical analogy was discarded in favor of Ernest Rutherford’s (d. 1937) analogy between the solar system and the hydrogen atom.

The following interpretations followed the planetary model: The nucleus is more massive than the electron (just as the sun is more massive than the planet), the nucleus attracts the electron, this plus the mass relation causes the electron to revolve around the nucleus, and so on. Object descriptions are disregarded, for there is no attempt to match the nucleus with the sun in color, size, or temperature. Then, the atomic nucleus was analogized to a drop of water instead of to a body like the sun.

Now, in quantum mechanics, every particle is considered to be a probability wave, which is an abstract mathematical quantity. Scientists have not yet been able to put these waves into a metaphorical pictorial model, which makes them difficult to comprehend.

Metaphors in revealed texts

The following Qur’anic verses illustrate the use of metaphors in the Qur’an. Speaking of hypocrites who do not believe in God but nevertheless claim to believe, it states: Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire, but when it had illumined all around him, God took away their light and left them in utter darkness”they do not see. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back. Or like abundant rain from the cloud in which is utter darkness and thunder and lightning. They put their fingers into their ears because of the thunder peal, for fear of death, and God encompasses the unbelievers. The lightning almost takes away their sight. Whenever it shines on them they walk in it, and when it becomes dark to them they stand still. If God had willed, He would have taken away their hearing and their sight. God has power over all things. O people, serve your Lord, Who created you and those before you so that you may guard (against evil) (2:17-21).

Conclusion

Logic and mathematics are not enough to understand science. We need internal mental pictures to grasp new phenomena. When trying to understand unfamiliar phenomena, the mind thinks of them in metaphorical terms. This not only helps to explore new realms for scientific theories, but also can change the view we hold of the world.

References

• Behe, M. Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biomedical Systems. InterVarsity Press, 1999.
• Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 307-358). New York: Academic Press.
• Hesse, Mary. Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press: 1966.
• Belal A. Baaquie and Lai Choy Heng, Department of Physics, National University of Singapore Method and Anti-Method in the Sciences: Metaphors and Scientific Creativity. http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natureslaw/methodology/anti_method/11.html
• Lakoff, G. and Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1995.
• Morris, Henry, ed. Scientific Creationism. 2d ed. Word Publishing: 1974.
• Paley, William. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Online at: www.hti.umich.edu.

An exact science is expressed in the highly sophisticated language of mathematics, whereas Sufism is based on meditation and insists that the Sufis’ insight cannot be verbalized. Reality, as experienced by Sufis, is completely indeterminate and undifferentiated. They do not see the intellect as their source of knowledge, but merely use it to analyze and interpret their personal experience.

The parallel between scientific experiments and Sufi experiences may seem surprising due to the very different nature of observation. Physicists perform experiments involving elaborate teamwork and highly sophisticated technology; Sufis obtain their knowledge purely through introspection, without machinery, and in the privacy of dhikr (meditation). Repeating an experiment in elementary particle physics requires many years of training; deep Sufi experience generally requires many years of training under an experienced master. The complexity and efficiency of the physicist’s technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by the Sufi’s consciousness, both physical and spiritual, while in deep dhikr. Thus scientists and Sufis have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature that are inaccessible to the layperson.

Dhikr

Dhikr seeks to silence the mind and shift awareness from the rational to the intuitive mode of consciousness. This is achieved by concentrating on one item, like breathing or focusing on the sound of Allah or la ilaha illa Allah. Even prayer, which is considered dhikr to silence the mind, leads to feelings of peace and serenity that are characteristic of dhikr’s more static forms. These skills are used to develop the meditative mode of consciousness.

In dhikr, the mind is emptied of all thoughts and concepts and thus prepared to function for long periods through its intuitive mode. When the rational mind is silenced, the intuitive mode produces an extraordinary awareness, for the environment is experienced without the filter of conceptual thinking. This meditative state’s main characteristic is the experience of oneness with the surrounding environment, a state of consciousness in which fragmentation ceases and fades into undifferentiated unity.

Insight into reality

Sufism is based on direct insights into the nature of reality; physics is based on observing natural phenomena in scientific experiments. In physics, models and theories are approximate and basic to modern scientific research. Thus Einstein’s aphorism: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (1) Whenever the intellect analyzes the essential nature of things, it must seem absurd or paradoxical. Sufis have always recognized this, but it has recently become a problem in science.

A great variety of natural phenomena belong to the scientists’ macroscopic environment and thus to the realm of their sensory experience. Since their language’s images and intellectual concepts are abstracted from this very experience, they are limited to describing natural phenomena. But since the atomic and subatomic worlds lie beyond our sensory perception, knowledge of them is no longer derived from direct sensory experience. Thus our ordinary language, with its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena.

As we penetrate deeper into nature, we have to abandon more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. By probing inside the atom and investigating its structure, science transcended the limits of our sensory imagination and thus could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense. Quantum physics provided scientists with the first glimpses of the essential nature of things. Like Sufis, physicists now deal with a nonsensory experience of reality and encounter the paradoxical aspects of this experience. As a result, the models and images of modern physics are akin to those of the Sufis.

The problem of communication

Scientists realized that our common language cannot describe atomic and subatomic reality. With the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, it became clear that this new knowledge transcends classical logic and cannot be described in ordinary language. Sufis have always realized that reality transcends ordinary language and were not afraid to go beyond logic and common concepts. The problem of language faced by both Sufis and physicists is the same: Both want to communicate their knowledge, but when they do so with words their statements are paradoxical and full of logical contradictions.

The duality of light

In quantum physics, many paradoxical situations are connected with light’s dual nature or, more generally, with electromagnetic radiation. Light produces interference phenomena, which is associated with waves of light. This is observed when two sources of light are used, for the end result is bright and dim patterns of light. On the other hand, electromagnetic radiation also produces the photoelectric effect: when short wave length light (e.g., ultraviolet light, x-rays, or gamma rays) strike the surface of some metals, they can knock off electrons from the surface. Therefore, the surface must consist of moving particles.

In the early stages of quantum theory, physicists were puzzled by how electromagnetic radiation could consist of particles (entities confined to a very small volume) and waves (which spread over a large area in space) simultaneously. Neither language nor imagination could deal very well with this kind of reality.

Sufism has developed several ways of dealing with reality’s paradoxical aspects. The works of Attar (d.1299), Hafiz (14th century), Ibn al-˜Arabi (d. 1240), Rumi (d. 1273), Bistami (d. 875), and others are full of intriguing contradictions. Furthermore, their compact, powerful, and extremely poetic language is meant to throw the reader’s mind off its familiar tracks of logical reasoning. Heisenberg once asked Bohr: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?(2)

Our sensory experiences, whose realm is the macroscopic world, allow us to draw images and intellectual concepts and express them in a language. This language was sufficient and adequate for describing natural phenomena. The Newtonian mechanistic model of the universe described the macroscopic world. In the twentieth century, physicists verified the existence of atoms and subatomic particles, the ultimate building blocks of nature, through experimentation. As these particles are beyond our sensory perceptions, our knowledge of them is no longer derived from direct sensory experience. Thus we face the problems mentioned earlier when dealing with the essential nature of things.

Modern physics

Sufis say that the direct mystical experience of reality is a momentous event that shakes the very foundations of one’s worldview, that it is the most startling event that can happen in the realm of human consciousness, and that it upsets every form of standardized experience. Some Sufis describe it as the bottom of a pail breaking through.

Physicists in the early part of the twentieth century felt much the same way when this new atomic reality shook their worldview’s foundations. They described it in terms that often were very similar to those used by Sufis. Thus Heisenberg wrote: Recent developments in modern physics can only be understood when one realizes that here the foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science.(3)

The discoveries of modern physics necessitated profound changes in such concepts as space, time, matter, object, and cause and effect. Since such concepts are so basic to our way of experiencing the world, those physicists who were forced to change them felt something of a shock. Out of these changes, a new and radically different worldview was born and continues to be formulated. Quantum theory implies the essential interconnectedness of nature, thus forcing us to see the universe not as a collection of physical objects but as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of a unified whole. This is how Sufis experience the world.

Space-time

Sufis seem to attain nonordinary states of consciousness that allow them to transcend the three-dimensional world of everyday life and experience a higher, multidimensional reality. In relativistic physics, if one can visualize the four-dimensional space“time reality, there would be nothing paradoxical at all. Sufis have notions of space and time that are very similar to those implied by relativity theory.

In Sufism, there seems to be a strong intuition for the space“time character of reality. Sufis experience a state of complete dissolution in which there is no distinction between mind and body, subject and object. In a state of pure experience, there is no space without time and no time without space, for they are interpenetrating. Physicists base their notion of space“time on scientific experiments, whereas Sufis base it on Sufism.

Modern physics’ relativistic models and theories illustrate the two basic elements of Sufism’s worldview: the universe’s oneness and intrinsically dynamic character. Space is curved to different degrees, and time flows at different rates in different parts of the universe. As our notions of a three-dimensional Euclidean space and time’s linear flow are limited to our ordinary experience of the physical world, they have to be abandoned when we extend this experience.

Sufis talk of extending their experience of the world in higher states of consciousness, and affirm that these states involve a radically different experience of space and time. They emphasize that they go beyond ordinary three-dimensional space in meditation, and, even more forcefully, that they transcend the ordinary awareness of time. Insteadof a linear succession of instants, they experience an infinite, timeless, and yet dynamic present. The spiritual world contains no time divisions such as past, present, and future, for they have contracted themselves into a single moment of the present, where life quivers in its true sense.

Mass“energy equivalence

Einstein showed mass“energy equivalence through a simple mathematical equation: E=mc2. Physicists measure a particle’s mass in the corresponding energy units. The discovery that mass is nothing but a form of energy forced us to modify our concept of a particle in an essential way. Hence particles are seen as quanta (bundles) of energy and as not consisting of any basic stuff. But energy is associated with activity and processes, which means that subatomic particles have an intrinsically dynamic nature and are forms in four-dimensional entities in space“time. Therefore they have both a space and a time aspect: their space aspect makes them appear as objects with a certain mass, and their time aspect makes them appear as processes involving the equivalent energy.

When subatomic particles are observed, we never see them as any substance. All we see is continuously changing patterns of one to the other, a continuos dance of energy. The subatomic world’s particles are not only active in the sense of moving very quickly, but are processes. Matter’s existence and activity cannot be separated, for they are only different aspects of the same space“time reality.

In their nonordinary states of consciousness, Sufis seem to be aware of the interpenetration of space and time at a macroscopic level. Thus they see the macroscopic world in a way that is very similar to physicists’ idea of subatomic particles. For Sufis, all compounded things are impermanent. The reality underlying all phenomena is beyond all forms and defies all description and specification. Hence it is formless, empty, void. Sufis consider the world’s phenomena to be nothing but illusory manifestations of the mind and as having no reality of their own.

Conclusion

Modern physics’ principal theories and models lead to a view of the world that is internally consistent and in perfect harmony with that of Sufism. The significance of their parallel views is beyond doubt. Both emerge when researchers inquire into the essential nature of thingsinto the deeper realms of matter in physics and into the deeper realms of consciousness in Sufismwhen they discover a different reality behind the superficial mundane appearance of everyday life. Physicists derive their knowledge from experimentation, whereas Sufis acquire their knowledge by meditative insight. Sufis look within and explore their consciousness at its various levels. In fact, the Sufi’s experience of his or her body is often seen as the key to their experience of the world.

Another similarity is that both groups’ observations take place in realms that are inaccessible to the ordinary senses: the realms of the atomic and subatomic worlds for physicists, and the nonordinary states of consciousness, in which the sense world is transcended, for Sufis. For both groups, these multidimensional experiences transcend the sensory world and thus are almost impossible to express in ordinary language.

Quantum physics and Sufism are two complementary manifestations of the human mind’s rational and intuitive faculties. Modern physicists experience the world through the rational mind’s extreme specialization; Sufis experience it through the intuitive mind’s extreme specialization. Both are necessary for a fuller understanding of the world. Sufism is necessary to understand the deepest nature of things, and science is essential for modern life. Therefore we need a dynamic interplay between Sufi intuition and scientific analysis.

Footnotes

1. Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, eds., Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1981); Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (New York: Bantam New Age Books, 1980), 27.
2. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1958), 42.
3. Ibid., 167.

References

1. Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston: Shambhala, 1980.
2. Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffmann, eds. Albert Einstein: The Human Side. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981.
3. Einstein, Albert. Essays in Science. New York: Philosophical Library, 1934.
4. . Out of My Later Years. New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.
5. Ernst, Carl. Shambhala Guide to Sufism. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1997.
6. Heisenberg, Walter. The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1958.
7. . Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1958.
8. . Across the Frontiers. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.
9. Karplus, Robert. Physics and Man. New York: W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1970.
10. Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan. Awakening: A Sufi Experience. New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1999.
11. Schrodinger, Ewin. My View of the World. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1964.
12. Schrodinger, Erwin and Roger Penrose. What is Life? Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
13. Wilber, Ken ed. Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists. Boston: Shambhala, 1984.
14. Zukav, Gary and David Finkelstein. The Dancing Wu-Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. New York: Bantam New Age Books, 1994.

We all know there are laws in creation and everyone can benefit from them. However, man has been given the freedom to interpret them as he wishes. What is wrong is not the laws or the benefit from them, but the materialistic interpretation of those laws – modern science is a materialistic interpretation of the laws and of phenomena. Indeed, it never alludes to God or His existence. The method of materialist science, the so-called scientific method, is deterministic. It is based on causality. That is, it claims that things are causally related to each other, i.e. that causes produce their effects. However, in order for a cause to produce an effect it has to be able to produce the whole universe in which that effect takes place. For, an effect cannot exist without the whole universe being there first to enable it. Materialist science speaks about causes as though they were creative agencies or ‘gods’. Belief in causality is the antithesis of the belief that ‘there is no god but God’, which is the core of the Qur’anic world-view.

In order to begin to develop an appropriate method of inquiry, we need first to define the general goals of the Qur’an, to understand how it instructs us in its basic aims such as the Divine Unity, prophethood and resurrection, and how it teaches us to look at creation.

The Qur’an does speak about the natural phenomena around us. For instance, it mentions water about 60 times, the heavens 310 times, and the earth 451 times. Drawing attention to the countless benefits and purposes in the creation of each entity, the Qur’an reminds us that such benefits and purposes can only proceed from absolute knowledge, will, power, and mercy.

While causes are adjacent to their effects, in reality causes and effects are both created. The Qur’an leads our attention from causes to the Creator of causes. It calls us to read the signs of His wisdom in the universe, leading us to knowledge of our Maker with all His Beautiful Names. In short, the Qur’an teaches us that none other than Him, no thing, no cause, can be an object of worship, that all thanks and praise are due to Him alone. It makes us understand that we have been created to be worshippers.

The aim of Islamic science, corresponding to the aims of the Qur’an, is to make known the Creator with all His Beautiful Names and to confirm Divine Unity, resurrection and prophethood.

Materialist science on the other hand studies entities for themselves, in order to master (and exploit) their properties. By contrast the Qur’an speaks only briefly of the nature of entities and their material properties, but dwells at length on their duties of worship, i.e. how and in what respect they point to their Maker’s Names there is nothing but extols His limitless glory and praise (17.44).

Indeed, when Muslim scientists, thinking Islamically, look at the universe around them, they understand that they are glorifying their Maker, reciting and revealing His Names, hidden behind the veil of causes.

Resisting epistemic tyranny

Muslims must choose either the Qur’anic method or the scientific method, since the two are incompatible. That does not mean reading the Qur’an and neglecting study of the universe. It means studying the universe under the guidance of the Qur’an and not studying it, as materialist scientists do, only under the guidance of unassisted human reason.

For strictly materialist scientists, any hypothesis that does not argue according to the scientific method and accept its authority is to be disregarded. The extreme version of this position, expressed in Eddington’s famous remark – ‘What my net won’t catch isn’t fish’ – is an attitude that can only be described as epistemic absolutism.

Muslim scientists should not submit to this tyranny; if they do, they are bound to become imitators of scientism. Muslims know that materialist science does not produce knowledge of God, yet they dare not question it. They proclaim that they accept revelation as the basis of knowledge but, in practice, they test it for consistency with the scientific method. They seem not to realize that a scientific method that does not yield knowledge of God cannot be acceptable to Muslims.

Only when we take Revelation as our point of reference and follow the Qur’anic method do we begin to see how biased and illogical the scientific method of justification is. Consider this example:

Take two plants, both exposed to normal sunlight. Water one regularly; do not water the other. After some time, we see that the plant which has not been watered wilts. This is supposed to demonstrate that water is one of the causes of normal plant growth. In fact all that we observed was this:

In the absence of water plants do not grow. This is altogether different from saying that water is among the causes that make plants grow. The growth of plants depends on innumerable factors. The absence of only one of these factors is enough for a plant not to grow. The experiment does show that plants do not grow in the absence of water. It is logically unjustifiable to leap from there to the conclusion that ‘water is an agent or cause of the growth of plants’.

This sort of reasoning reminds us of the incident in the life of the Prophet Abraham, upon him be peace, when he faced the tyrant Nimrod (Qur’an, 2.258). Nimrod argued with Abraham and claimed that he could give life as well as death. To prove his claim, he asked for two prisoners to be fetched, ordered the death of one and spared the life of the second. Nimrod’s reasoning was that if he had had the second prisoner killed, he would not be alive. Therefore, he had given him life. This is similar to how the scientists argue that if there is no water, plants will wilt and die: therefore water gives life to plants.

The reason is that materialists take the conjunction of events for causality. That is, if two events coexist, they imagine that one causes the other. And in their determination to deny the Creator they make claims like: water causes plants to grow. They never ask how water knows what to do, how it does it and what qualities it has that enable plants to grow.

Asking positive questions

The Qur’an teaches us to ask questions, to lift the veil of causes and investigate the reality behind. It asks us to look, for example, at the endless benefits found in water and in the growth of plants and food so vital for life. Then it instructs us how to ask positive questions like:

Does water possess the knowledge and power to grow plants? Does it know the laws and properties of the formation of plants? Does it know their structures and have authority over them? Indeed water acts in a masterly way in all living organisms. Without its help we would perish. Yet, how can we claim that water possesses such qualities as power, knowledge, will, compassion?

Water is an unconscious entity; it has no will, knowledge or power. It can only be the submissive servant of One who has the power to create it and all plants and food, who knows all living beings and their needs. That is, the Creator and Disposer of water knows everything and has control over everything. His mercy and compassion encompass all things. Water must be in the employ of the One whose knowledge, will, power and compassion are all- comprehensive, absolute.

Consider a flower. How does its beauty come about? Can the unconscious seed, or soil or sunlight produce it? Do they have the knowledge, the power or the will even to make a flower, let alone make it beautiful? A flower can only exist with the whole universe in place first: to produce one single flower, therefore, one must be able to produce the whole universe in which it exists, that is, have absolute power, knowledge and will, which are the attributes of God alone.

In short, when we ask positive questions like ‘Can water cause the growth of a plant?’, ‘Can soil or sunlight produce a flower?’ belief in causality collapses. From this, we conclude that the scientific, or rather the materialistic, paradigm of knowledge, does not constitute sound knowledge.

Qur’anic method: the staff of Moses

The efficacy of the Qur’anic method may be likened to the staff of Moses. It swallows all the deceptions of materialist science.

And (then) We inspired Moses, ‘Throw down your staff!’ And lo! It swallowed up all their deceptions: Whereupon the truth was established, and vain was proved all that they had been doing. (7.117-8)

Materialist scientific knowledge cannot meaningfully explain the phenomena around us. Rather, it conjures up the idea that, for example, water is a strange entity that can mysteriously achieve miraculous things. Such distorted descriptions cannot fulfil our need for knowledge and understanding. Indeed, to attribute absolute knowledge, will and power to an unconscious entity is nothing more than superstition.

By using technical words like photosynthesis, mitosis, etc., to describe events, materialist scientists ‘cast a spell’ on people’s minds so that they appear to have given them a wholly satisfactory explanation:

And when they threw down (their staffs), they cast a spell upon the people’s eyes and struck them with awe, and produced mighty sorcery. (7.16)

In fact, the ‘mighty sorcery’ of materialist science is no more than that: They follow nothing but surmise and their own wishful thinking (53.23).

Whereas materialist science seeks mechanical advantages over the phenomena of nature, knowledge following the Qur’anic paradigm seeks understanding and meaningfulness. It tells us about things in order to make known their Creator with His Attributes and Names. It produces new knowledge, the knowledge of God. As if a molecule of water were saying in its own way ‘Look! I am unconscious and powerless, but I perform infinite duties which require absolute knowledge and power. Do you not see that I am acting at the command of the Possessor of Absolute Knowledge and Power?’ For this reason, a Muslim scientist is not merely an expert, but essentially a worshipper, an ‘abd, one who should not imitate the modern-day sorcerers of the Pharaoh but say, instead:

‘God’ and leave them at play with their vain talk (6:91).

To Muslims, study of the universe is desirable and acceptable because (and if) it yields knowledge of God and belief in God.

An Islamic science must work hand in hand with Revelation and proceed under its guidance. Otherwise it will fail to explain anything; it will fail to produce sound knowledge. It must seek out the wisdom and mercy in the creation, and thereby improve human beings’ understanding of themselves, the universe and the Creator. Bare information about natural phenomena can be transformed, using the Qur’anic method, into knowledge of God and wisdom (hikma). In this way, the purpose of creation, which is the worship of God, is fulfilled:

And I have not created the jinn and men to any end other than that they worship Me (51 :56).

Like everybody else, you were settled in a safe, well-guarded place. The door of that place was closed immediately after you were admitted therein as a treasured guest. You began to develop in a certain direction. No one knew for certain that you would be able to come into the world, that you would develop into a male or female or exactly when and where you would be born, nor what you would be like, how long you would live, where or how you would spend your life, when and where you would die, and so on.

After you underwent certain stages of development, you entered into the world as a unique, living individual. Until then you had resembled every other embryo in the wombs of mothers. But once life was breathed into you, you entered a completely new, different stage of development. The food with which you were fed or the particles which entered your body from earth, air and water were in no way different from those which had been entering your body before, and which enter all other living bodies. But for all that sameness, out of all that sameness, you came into your individuality-distinguished in personality capabilities, ambitions, bodily characteristics down to your fingerprints and the lines on the palms of your hands.

The potential alternatives before you were only you were countless: whether you would be white or black or of some other complexion; what colour your eyes would be, what kind of hair you would have, and so on. And neither you nor your parents had any part in determining your sex, colour, date and place of your birth, and your nationality Also, no one and nothing had any part in arranging the immediate or general environment around you. Like everybody else, you found yourself in an environment suitable for sustaining your life: your physical belonging with the world had been arranged long before you or anyone else came into it.

Should you then not reflect on all these phenomena? Is it conceivable that you are quite unable to discern an absolute knowledge, an absolute will and an absolute power behind these phenomena? Is it possible for any power except one who knows all human beings in all the detail of the physical, biological, psychological and spiritual structures of each, who knows the whole of nature with all its parts from the minutest to the largest, to have brought you and your environment into existence? Is it conceivable that any being who lacks in an absolute will-power to determine every creature in all its aspects, every human being with all his or her characteristics, could have fashioned you and your environment? Does it befit one who has been granted some power of reasoning to attribute all these phenomena to other than one who disposes absolute power?