Can science and faith work together? Can we reconcile experiment and observation with Divine wisdom?

Connecting what is experimentally observed/measured to the creations of the All-Wise One (meaning there is nothing by coincidence or meaningless) helps us interpret scientific facts with spiritual insights, offering a view that appreciates the connection between science, thought, and spiritual wisdom. Such interpretation would enrich both our knowledge and spirit. The price methods of Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE), which is a set of analyzing techniques in science and technology industries, offer us such a connection highlighting the wonders of creations by the Divine.

The journey to understanding through measurement

Measurement is a fundamental aspect of human curiosity and our quest to understand the world, going beyond simple tools like rulers or scales. It includes various testing and evaluation methods that uncover hidden details of our environment. For example, Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) is a technique used to check the safety of structures (e.g., bridges, airplanes, pipelines, etc.) by using special tools that look inside the structure without causing any damage. There are several common NDE methods, such as ultrasound, visual inspection, and electromagnetic techniques. Ultrasound NDE uses high-frequency sound waves to detect internal flaws. Visual inspection involves examining structures for flaws using the naked eye or optical aids. These methods ensure safety and reliability, connecting both the visible and invisible aspects of measurement. Our journey is not just about technical details; it is about linking the natural world with a deeper sense of purpose.

The philosophy of measurement in NDE

What do we measure? Every particle in the NDE field can give us important information as it moves. For example, ultrasonic NDE uses high frequency sound waves – outside the range of human hearing – to create images of an object’s interior. By tracking how the particles move (similar to how sound wave travels), we can determine important information based on specific rules of physics. This helps us better understand the data we collect.

Understanding the data from NDE methods is a challenging job. Think of it like when doctors use ultrasound to see inside a pregnant woman’s body. They send high-frequency sound waves into the body with the help of a gel, and by analyzing the echoes, they can see what is happening inside the patient.

Why do we measure? This question takes us back to the very essence of human inquiry. We measure to understand and predict in response to our material needs, but appreciating the complexity of creation often comes as another major outcome. Historically, scientific discoveries have sometimes conflicted with personal beliefs, like when people learned that the Earth orbits the sun. Measurement transforms subjective observations into objective data, bridging the gap between what we see and the deeper truths they reveal.

Similarly, the philosophy of measurement in NDE, one might think, is actually based on a similar search for truth, connecting, as it were, science with faith. When we observe something happening, it usually triggers a question about having a very wise and knowledgeable power behind it, the One who sets the rules of nature to make things work with such harmony and intelligence.

Let’s explore the most widely used method among electromagnetic NDE techniques – Eddy Current NDE. This method is based on a principle discovered by Michael Faraday. When you pass an electric current through a wire that keeps changing direction, it generates a changing magnetic field. This changing magnetic field can cause small loops of electric current, called eddy currents, to form in nearby metal objects. Tracking how these eddy currents flow helps us detect any defects or irregularities in the material. Early detection of these issues is important to ensure the safety and reliability of engineering structures.

Eddy Current NDE: A glimpse into the unseen

NDE is like a doctor’s gentle touch, diagnosing without cutting open. It uses technologies such as ultrasound and electromagnetic techniques to look into the heart of materials, detecting structural flaws that could lead to future failures. For example, Eddy Current Testing (ECT) uses electromagnetism to scan for irregularities, ensuring the reliability of metal components and aircraft parts without leaving a mark. ECT detects surface and near-surface flaws in conductive materials by inducing and measuring electrical currents (Mussatayev et al., 2024). Any flaws in the material disrupt the flow of eddy currents, which can be detected by sensor, as shown in Figure 1.

For example, when eddy currents flow through undamaged material (see Figure 1), the movement is smooth and shows no sign of disturbance. However, when a defect was present between 60 and 80 mm, the sensors picked up a clear, symmetrical change in voltage readings.

Recent advances in science and technology are making such measurements even more precise. For instance, new machines can automatically adjust themselves during composite manufacturing (Nguyen et al., 2023). Researchers have also shown that sound waves can lift, move, and spin tiny objects in the air—an innovation that could greatly improve how certain medicines are delivered in the future (Marzo et al., 2015).

The dance of particles: A reflection of Divine order

Every particle, wave, and pulse of energy in the NDE process reflects an underlying order. These particles move according to precise laws, hinting at a greater orchestration. It is a dance choreographed by the Creator, displaying creativity and direction that invites us to ponder the purpose behind existence.

Studying how particles move in NDE methods helps us understand their formation and behavior. Despite their many tasks, the movement of particles provides crucial insights in understanding the feature of interest in material under the test. Just like a tiny seed contains all the “program codes” for a huge tree, the systematic and repetitive movement of particles reveals information about the hidden aspects of the material world to engineers.

One can speculate three possible explanations as to why particles can perform so many functions:

• Each particle knows everything. In this case, it would need to have infinite wisdom and power. It would have to see everything, be aware of all things, and have control over everything.
• Each particle is made to serve a greater purpose. So, the particles that perform their roles in structures and bodies do so with the permission, command, knowledge, and will of an entity with complete wisdom.
• Particles move based on general rules without needing prior knowledge.

If we applied an NDE process to these particles, the most logical explanation would be that they are created by one Creator, designed with complexity to demonstrate His power and will. This implies that only the One who creates the flow of all particles can place each particle in its position. To uncover these “hidden treasures,” humans rely on curiosity and structured measurement (metrology) to explore the natural world.

Divine Wisdom and human innovation: Exploring the Creator’s influence

Advancements in technology show that humans are inspired by the order we see in nature, and we try to use these natural laws for our benefit. It’s as if the Creator gives us the ability to understand and control things to some extent in different scientific areas. While we can’t fully understand everything because God knows all, we can still learn and explore from the laws of nature.

These are introductory insights that warrant deeper exploration, yet they illustrate important concepts about the nature of knowledge and its boundaries. Empirical knowledge, while immensely valuable for understanding the natural world, has limitations. It provides evidence of order and design, hinting at an intelligent designer, but it cannot fully capture the essence or attributes of the Divine. The concept of an intelligent Creator aligns with the argument of design, as seen in nature’s intricate systems, yet the full scope of divine attributes lies beyond empirical reach.

This perspective is enriched by philosophical discussions about the self, the soul, and their connection to the material world. Take the idea of causality, for example, which explains the link between cause and effect. A cause produces a result not because it looks like the effect, but because it has a unique property that makes that result possible—like fire producing heat because of what it is, not because it resembles heat. This way of thinking highlights the careful design behind natural phenomena and points to divine wisdom and purpose.

“As a scientist, I can move a small particle a short distance (Marzo et al., 2015).” However, God manages all the cells in my body and everything in the universe continuously. This suggests that our ego can help us understand some of God’s attributes, such as being All-Wise and All-Compassionate, with limitless knowledge and power. Imagine an endless land without boundaries; it requires an imaginary limit to comprehend its vastness. Similarly, our ego acts like a reference point in geometry, setting a limit by saying, “I can control the movement of a particle up to this point; beyond that, God controls everything.” Although this limit does not physically exist, it helps us understand, much like a thermometer indicates temperature. In this way, through the lens of this perspective, an engineer can see the nature of the universe. With our limited knowledge, we catch a glimpse of the Creator’s power and authority over creation. But if the “I” believes it exists on its own and belongs only to itself, it ends up dividing God’s sovereignty between itself and other imagined causes.

In this context, the human capacity to reason, explore, and innovate mirrors aspects of divine knowledge and wisdom. Our ability to uncover the laws of nature serves as a reflection of the Creator’s infinite knowledge and deepens our appreciation of His dominion. When approached with humility, the pursuit of science becomes a way to honor the Creator, bridging the gap between human curiosity and divine majesty.

Integrating science and spirituality

Curiosity is something humans possess to understand how nature works and to contemplate what lies behind it as Divine wisdom. The philosophy of measurement leads to questions about existence and the Creator’s rule in the cosmos. When people measure things, it is to answer specific questions in different fields. Measurement is not only a tool for understanding the physical world but also a metaphor for seeking spiritual knowledge and wisdom. For example, someone might want to explore a natural event, and through new branches of science, we can learn measurable facts about the universe. These observations connect with what we already know about the things we measure.

Finally, experts make sense of the measurements through validation and assign meaning to the scores based on theory (Adcock and Collier 2001), as shown in Figure 2. As Nursi says, the Creator made everything with a purpose, and this is a way to inspire humans to find their purpose on Earth.

Over the centuries, a rift between science and religion has emerged, but understanding the order in particle behavior can help bridge this gap. Particles operate under divine laws, reflecting the Creator’s will and power. This perspective aligns with the view of a universe created with intent, where every element serves a purpose.

A need for balance

Considering different explanations for particle behavior, the idea that particles follow divine laws without inherent knowledge harmonizes scientific understanding and religious belief. This view suggests a universe created with intent, where everything has a purpose. Integrating scientific exploration into religious education can foster deeper understanding and respect among various traditions.

Conclusion: A call for unity

In summary, the dialogue between science and faith is ancient, with moments of conflict and reconciliation. Today, they can coexist, complementing each other in the search for truth. Measurement, in its purest form, honors the Creator by unraveling the mysteries of the universe. The Abrahamic traditions share a belief in purposeful creation, which could be the foundation for a future where science and faith walk hand in hand, fostering understanding and peace.

References

• Adcock, Robert, and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95(3):529–46. doi: 10.1017/S0003055401003100.
• Marzo, Asier, Sue Ann Seah, Bruce W. Drinkwater, Deepak Ranjan Sahoo, Benjamin Long, and Sriram Subramanian. 2015. “Holographic Acoustic Elements for Manipulation of Levitated Objects.” Nature Communications 6(May):1–7. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9661.
• Mussatayev, Meirbek, Qiuji Yi, Mark Fitzgerald, Vincent K. Maes, Paul Wilcox, and Robert Hughes. 2024. “Directional Eddy Current Probe Configuration for In-Line Detection of out-of-Plane Wrinkles.” Composites Part B: Engineering 268:111048. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111048.
• Nguyen, Duc H., Xiaochuan Sun, Iryna Tretiak, Mario A. Valverde, and James Kratz. 2023. “Automatic Process Control of an Automated Fibre Placement Machine.” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 168(November 2022):107465. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107465.
• Nursi, Said. 2023. “Sözler.”

In a March 11, 2021, interview with Philosophy Magazine, Karl Lauterbach, now Germany’s health minister, concluded, “Corona policy is covered by Rawls.” Lauterbach, who advocates for limiting freedoms in favor of health protection during the current pandemic, had studied with Rawls in the 1990s. John Rawls, who would have turned 100 in 2021, is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. His Theory of Justice was published 51 years ago.

Personal experiences may have contributed to the fact that Rawls devoted himself almost exclusively to the topic of justice (his second main work deals with international law). He came from a well-to-do family and enjoyed a private school education. He fell seriously ill twice in his childhood but survived while two siblings died. Rawls felt this was an undeserved privilege. In addition, he had personal experiences as a soldier in the war against Japan. He considered the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjust, as he believed the war would have been won even without them.

The ancient understanding of justice

Rawls’ conception of justice has little in common with ancient virtue ethics, such as that of Aristotle. Virtue here means something like fitness to achieve an end (télos) inherent in a thing. Who should get a flute? For Aristotle, it is just to give it to the person who plays it best, because the purpose of the flute is to be played well. The fact that people enjoy its sound and thus benefit from it is secondary. Rather, the idea of merit plays a role.

With Plato, justice (dikaiosýne) means that all soul forces (reason, courage, desire) fulfill the activity assigned to them in the correct measure given by reason and thus fulfill the virtues of wisdom, bravery, and moderation. But justice implies also having the “right” inner order of the soul forces, as there is a “right” outer order, the cosmos ruled by the logos. The goal of justice, taken for granted, is the attainment of happiness (eudaimonia).

Kant’s categorical imperative

Rawls’ thinking, on the other hand, bears certain similarities to that of Immanuel Kant. With the categorical imperative, Kant had formulated a general rule on the basis of which personal or collective (traditional) principles of action are to be examined: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This imperative demands the generalizing of the personal: my norm must apply to everyone. For example: you shall not kill or lie. The similarity with the golden rule, which is based on the reversibility of actions, is obvious: “Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.”

Kant is not a utilitarian or consequentialist—i.e., someone who focuses on benefits or consequences. He is not concerned with advantages for society nor with the consequences of an action, but solely with the internal consistency of a will that declares itself to be good.

The original position in Rawls

Whereas Kant’s imperative represents an (ethical) norm of the verification of real (moral) rules of conduct originating in the living world, Rawls assumes an “original position,” a primal situation in which a rational subject oriented to self-interest must decide on a social constitution. In this way, he joins the contractarian thinking of the modern era, whose best-known representatives are Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. This had led to very different results, ranging from the authoritarian state (Hobbes) to the liberal state with separation of powers (Locke) to a state oriented to the common good (volonté générale) in Rousseau.

While the classical contract theories wanted to justify the emergence and thus the legitimacy of states, Rawls is only concerned with their institutional configuration and, in particular, with how economic life (markets, wealth, and income) can be fairly regulated in them. For him, justice means fairness of the initial conditions. The point of his primal choice is that it takes place behind a “veil of ignorance.” This image is reminiscent of the allegorical representation of Justitia, who makes her legal judgment blindfolded—that is, “without regard to the person.” The blindfold thus ensures impartiality.

With Rawls, man in the primal situation does not know his future social position (class, standing), gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., but also personal characteristics and talents are unknown to him [1]. Furthermore, he also does not know how often certain positions in society will be occupied—for example how many rich, how many poor, and how many middle-class people there will be. His choice is therefore not made under risk but under uncertainty. In a sense, it is a lottery, not a chess game, in which one must consider the behavior of other participants and calculate the best possible outcome. This represents a major preliminary decision against utilitarianism, which was dominant in the Anglo-Saxon world in his time. One variety of this doctrine holds that a society is just if it maximizes total and, consequently, average, utility. Determining this maximum utility, however, is impossible under Rawls’s specifications, since it presupposes that one can form the product of social position and “wealth” (benefits of all kinds). At most, one could assume that each of the possible social positions is equally probable (here, 1/3). However, this implies the completely unrealistic assumption that the number of kings (billionaires) and the number of slaves (unemployed, low-wage workers) would be equal.

Behind the rejection of utilitarianism lies a genuine ethical principle. According to Kant, man possesses dignity insofar as he is never only a means (e.g., an employee working for a company), but always also an end (a moral subject whom I must not deceive, etc.). Utilitarianism in the sense of the greatest happiness of the greatest number would mean, however, to instrumentalize a human being for the common good if necessary—for example, to withhold rights from him, if the loss of freedom is (over-)compensated for by the good of others.

Two principles

Rawls holds that, given ignorance of themselves, people would choose the following two social principles on rational grounds (i.e., without being driven by envy):

First principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity [2].

In this context, the goods falling under the first principle, namely freedoms, are superior to those falling under the second—(a) income and wealth and (b) opportunities—and must not be impaired.

A rational person, Rawls argues, would decide according to the maximin rule in the face of complete uncertainty. He will not choose the state that promises him the most money, the most power (billionaire, king), but will take his orientation at the lower end and choose the state that grants the most rights, the best opportunities, and the highest income to the worst off. Not knowing what his future situation will be, he will seek to maximize the minimum because he shuns risk. As a loser in the lottery, he would eventually find himself homeless on the street.

With the first principle, Rawls specifies the freedoms of Western democracies (free elections, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.). It states that one must compare the situation of the respective worse off in a “system of rights.” For example, with regard to religious freedom, Rawls would argue that a fundamentalist who wants to establish a state religion is less disadvantaged in a secular state, where religion and state are separate, than a person who does not belong to the state church is in a “fundamentalist” state.

The second principle also involves organizing the state “to the greatest advantage” of the worst-off. Thus, it is not enough that the worst-off also have some benefit from the distribution of goods (for example, according to the trickle-down principle, which states that the money of the rich “leaks out” to the poor), but it must be the greatest in comparison with other distributions. Intergenerational equity (“consistent with the just savings principle,” no state may incur excessive debt at the expense of the next generation) must also be considered, with which Rawls already anticipated a debt brake. (However, he did not yet have the destruction of the environment in mind).

But there is a second side to the coin: differences, i.e., inequalities, are permissible if they improve the situation of the deprived. Rawls called this principle the “difference principle.” As another example, a market economy would be justified, despite all social and financial differences, if it provided the weakest in society with a higher income than an egalitarian state economy in which everyone pro forma owned the means of production (without ever being able to sell them). Whether this is actually so, however, is a matter for economists to decide.

Rawls is thus not fundamentally in favor of an equal distribution of goods. The situation is different for rights and freedoms, but also for opportunities, such as access to education and public office. Here, the state must intervene—for example, by increasing the supply of good schools or introducing universal health care (which still does not exist in the United States). However, for the most part it is not at all clear who the worst-off in a society are. During the Covid-19 pandemic, is it the elderly who get sick, or the children who can’t go to school or visit friends? Does data protection (e.g., tracking cases of illness via apps) beat health protection? Or health protection the right to physical integrity (vaccination), freedom of assembly and movement (lockdown, breaking up demonstrations)? Incidentally, Lauterbach argues for the latter, citing Rawls, by pointing out that securing life is a prerequisite for being able to make use of freedoms at all. Whoever dies from Covid no longer has liberties to use.

Criticism

Philosophical theories suffer from a lack of ultimate justification. As a rule, they contain assumptions—e.g., about the “nature” of man—which are empirically disputed by others, such as with reference to presumed scientific evidence, personal observation, or introspection. Rawls, for example, considers humans to be risk-averse, which a philosophical optimist would probably doubt.

Above all, however, the conception of a primordial situation has been criticized. From a liberalist point of view, it lacks the historical dimension. According to this view, property goes back to free actions of individuals and thus to rights of entitlement (taking of nature, exchange, inheritance, donation, etc.) and has nothing to do with distribution patterns of any kind. Thus, even in an egalitarian society, new distributions (injustices) will emerge very quickly (which can be well observed in the game of Monopoly), necessitating constant new interventions.

Communitarians, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of community. With the fiction of a primordial choice and a veil of ignorance, behind which is chosen according to the rules of a calculus, a tabula rasa is arbitrarily established, from which neither solidarity nor substantial justice can be derived. Rather, the individual is involved in socially established cooperative practices that have internal rules, virtues, and purposes. In the background of these considerations is Hegel’s concept of “Sittlichkeit” (ethical life). Sittlichkeit implies more than an abstract system of (moral) norms, as conceived by Rawls. It is the form of life passed on by a community, which also includes religions with their canons of values.

Finally, especially in Germany, there is the position of discourse ethics, whose most prominent representative is Habermas. It differs from Rawls’ original situation in that it is not an abstract calculation that decides on justice but a discourse free of domination—a deliberation in which everyone can participate as a speaker equally but in which, turned against communitarianism, traditional practices, discourses, and virtues can also be questioned. Even if such a discourse does not take place in reality, so the assumption goes, it is implicitly presupposed in every utterance insofar as it lays claim to validity. Where Rawls considers the maximin principle to be generally agreeable, Habermas believes in the “unconstrained compulsion of the better argument” and the self-commitment of speakers to truth and reason. However, in view of the testy public debates, especially those around fake news that we are currently experiencing, this position also seems doubtful. One might suspect that they are rather “monologues” for the assertion of interpretive power, which, moreover, do not end in agreement but in the audience’s exhaustion.

Notes

1. From a moral philosophical point of view, this assumption can be justified by the fact that neither genetic endowment (nature) nor environmental conditions such as education and social milieu (nurture) can be attributed to merit. From this it should follow that also “strength of will” and “weakness of will” and consequently the use I make of my abilities are morally arbitrary. Diligence, decisiveness, resilience, etc., which are crucial for developing talents, would thus also not be in the hands of the individual. However, Rawls seems to be reluctant to accept this consequence, since it would have far-reaching consequences for the punishment system, for example.
2. John Rawls (1999): A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 46, p. 266.

Philosophy is described as the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. The term philosopher, from ancient Greek, is a person who practices philosophy, especially one who deals with or learns philosophy as an academic discipline. Philosophy is also used in the sense of “wisdom” because when philosophers are mentioned more “wise” people come to our minds. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation [1, 2]. For centuries, philosophers have illuminated their own time as they shared their thoughts on the universe, life, and science.

However, this was not always the case: many thinkers and philosophers were killed because of their ideas, while some were exiled, and some had to leave their countries for their own safety. Between the two world wars many German scientists were forced to leave their country to save their lives and continued their services in exile for other nations. For instance many German academics who escaped from the chaotic environment of Germany in those years ended up in Turkey where they made great contributions to the university reform that started in 1933 [3]. Ironically, after 2016, many Turkish academic staff had to leave Turkey and migrated to Western countries such as Germany, Sweden, and England.

I am an academic who left his country and came to the United Kingdom in 2020. I recently read a biographical work about Fethullah Gülen. Among many aspects of his life, I was particularly impressed by the fact that Gülen, as an imam with supposedly a classical training, read both Eastern and Western classics and examined western philosophy during his youth.

David Hume, whose name I saw for the first time in the same book on Gülen, was one of the most important names of Western philosophy as a Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian who lived in the 18^th century [4]. Gülen, who read almost all the important western classics tried to get to know Shakespeare, Balzac, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Zola, Goethe, and also read Russell, Pushkin, and Tolstoy. Many philosophers and thinkers are identical with the nation or society in which they grew up. Greece comes to mind when they say Plato, and China when they say, Confucius. Shakespeare brings to mind England, Balzac France, and Goethe Germany. However, as in the example of Avicenna and Einstein, some philosophers or scientists also acquired a universal identity.

I was surprised that the names of David Hume, who lived in Scotland in the 18^th century, and Fethullah Gülen, who still lives in America, are on the “philosophers of religion list” together [5]. During my visit to Edinburgh, a statue of an imposing figure reclining in a chair on the Royal Mile further increased my curiosity about him. The Scottish philosopher David Hume was probably one of the most important philosophers of his time, known as the Age of Enlightenment. Since he was a historian, economist, librarian, and essayist as well as a philosopher, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism.

Although they have lived in different geographical and time periods, philosophers have always been influenced by each other. Albert Einstein, in 1915, wrote that he was inspired by Hume’s positivism when formulating his theory of special relativity. Similarly, Immanuel Kant credits Hume as the inspiration who had awakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers” [4]. Although some Western writers argue that Imam Ghazali declared war on philosophy with his work “The Inconsistency of Philosophers” (Tahafut al-Falasifa) and that’s why the environment of free thought has disappeared in the Islamic world; those who approach the subject more broadly and objectively state that Imam Ghazali influenced names such as Pascal and Enlightenment philosopher David Hume in the West [6].

Hume’s thinking showed the crucial importance of logic and evidence in deciding what conclusions could be reached within human understanding and pointed out its probable limits. According to him, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles [7]. Here are several quotes from David Hume [8]:

“Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”

“Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.”

“Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

“Custom is the great guide to human life.”

“Liberty of any kind is never lost all at once.”

David Hume’s philosophical works include A Treatise of Human Nature, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In addition, he wrote the massive six-volume The History of England, which became a bestseller and the standard history of England in its day. Being his very important philosophical achievement, A Study of Human Understanding and a Study of Moral Principles has been accepted as one of the most important in the history of Western philosophy. Hume is one of the world’s great philosophical voices and will remain an outstanding philosopher.

Fethullah Gülen, on the other hand, is an influential scholar from the Muslim world, and have inspired millions to take part in a movement of intercultural-interfaith dialogue and educational activism. Gülen movement represents novel approaches to the synthesis of faith and reason, education, spirituality, and peaceful co-existence in diverse societies [9]. In his writings he touches on a variety of disciplines from economics, philosophy, sociology, history, religion, to literature [10]. Although he also read Western philosophy, thought, and literature, his thinking is not governed or shaped by Western thought [11]. However, Gülen is effective in seizing upon the statements of philosophers critical of science, and the developments in modern science that contradict earlier discoveries or find agreement with the Islamic viewpoint. It has also been argued that in the mold of “new intellectuals,” Gülen combines the ideas of classical and modernist Islamic thought with references to secular thinkers like Albert Einstein, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. Remarkably, he is careful to choose sources and cite evidence in agreement with the Islamic interpretation of nature. He cites Hume, who argues that an event recurring repeatedly in the past does not necessitate its repetition in the future given similar circumstances. Gülen expands upon Hume’s argument to say that the forces of nature cannot be understood by reason alone and must be understood within a larger metaphysical context [12, 13].

His philosophy transcends commonly held dichotomies. He reconciles science and religion, sacred and profane, mind and heart, east and west, and modernity and tradition [14]. At the core of his philosophy lies the human being and their education. He argues that the right type of education and socialization plays a key role in bringing up loving, compassionate, and peaceful human beings. The core values of his thinking are “hospitality, wisdom, compassion, and charity … grounded in love” [15]. According to Gülen, science and knowledge should seek to uncover the nature of humanity and the mysteries of creation. Any knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is commendable especially if it sheds light on the mysteries of human nature and enlightens aspects of existence left in the dark. Again, according to him, “There are many scientists in many different countries in today’s world but even if they were to work all together they are not enough to establish a new, happy, and seamless world.” For this reason, he argues that there is a need for a new way of thinking, a new approach to science, a new life philosophy, and new educational institutions [16]. Gülen promotes trustworthiness, compassion, integrity, hard work, dedication, prudence, humility, and altruism and that these values must be taught by living a life that exemplifies them [17, 18].

In the philosophy of Gülen, education is a life-long process of transformation. Gülen’s philosophy for peace involves achieving inner and outer peace and is based primarily on transforming the individual. He argues that peace on earth can be achieved by peaceful individuals [19].

Jon Paul, the author of the first critical English-language biography of Gülen, says that although there are very distinguished thinkers who analyze, criticize and deconstruct phenomena and systems in today’s world, very few of them are still able to actively offer alternatives and implement their ideas; Fethullah Gülen can be considered among these very few intellectuals [20]. Indeed, Gülen was among the world’s top 100 intellectuals selected by “Foreign Policy” in 2008. It is understood that Gülen, who was influenced by the intellectuals of his age by reading both local and global philosophers, also greatly benefited from the intellectual legacy of the influential Sufi scholar and writer Bediüzzaman Said Nursi [21]. Like Nursi, who was forced to exile and isolation in his country and imprisoned for many years, a great portion of Fethullah Gülen’s life, especially the last two decades, have been spent in exile as he faces unbelievable accusations in his own country.

Conclusion

The example of Gülen and Hume being listed in the philosophers of religion inspires me to think how knowledge and wisdom are fruits of all humanity. Although the religion of Islam emerged in the Arabian Peninsula, the philosophy, logic, and systematicity that existed in its essence and spirit emerged in the Khorasan. German philosopher J. W. Goethe says that “Science and art belong to the whole world, and the barriers of nationality vanish before them.” According to French chemist Pasteur, “Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.”

References

1. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Philosophy”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Aug. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy. Accessed 28 July 2021.
2. “Philosopher” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher. This page was last edited on 18 July 2021.
3. Aras, Şükrü., Armutcu, Ferah., Dinç, Gülten. “In the history of Department of Biochemistry of Istanbul Medical Faculty (1933–1957) three German scientists; Werner Lipschitz, Felix Haurowitz and Zdenko Stary. Turkish Journal of Biochemistry 40;5 (2015) 423-430.
4. “David Hume” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume. This page was last edited on 25 July 2021.
5. “List of philosophers of religion” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia. This page was last edited on 5 October 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_religion.
6. “Al-Ghazali” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali. This page was last edited on 15 July 2021.
7. David Hume: An enquiry concerning human understanding. Edited by Millican Peter. Oxford University Press, July 10, 2008.
8. David Hume – Quotes. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/45726.David_Hume. Accessed July 11, 2021.
9. Gülen M. Fethullah. Pearls of Wisdom. Tughra Books, Abridged edition 2007.
10. Yucel, Salih. 2014. “Gulen as a spiritual leader in a global Islamic context.” In Salih Yucel & Ismail Albayrak (Eds.) The Art of Coexistence: Pioneering Role of Fethullah Gulen and the Hizmet Movement. Tughra Books.
11. Hermansen, Marcia. (2015) “Who is Fethullah Gülen: An Overview of His Life”. In Hizmet means service: perspectives on an alternative path within Islam, ed. Martin E. Marty. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
12. Yavuz, Hakan. “The Gülen Movement: The Turkish Puritans,” in Turkish Islam and the Secular State. Yavuz and Esposito, eds. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press), 2003.
13. Saritoprak, Zeki and Sidney Griffith. Fethullah Gülen and the ‘People of the Book.’ The Muslim World 2005; (95): 329-340.
14. Khan, Maimul Ahsan. The vision and impact of Fethullah Gülen. New York: Blue Dome Press, 2011.
15. Yaman, Adnan. 2020. “Addressing anti-foreigner sentiments in Europe: Fethullah Gulen’s philosophy of peace, Master’s Thesis, University of Jaume I.
16. Gulen M. Fethullah. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. The light, Inc. 3r impression New Jersey, 2006.
17. Gage, Tom. Gülen’s dialogue on education: A caravanserai of ideas. Seattle: Cune Press, 2014.
18. Conway, Trudy D. Cross-cultural dialogue on the virtues: the contribution of Fethullah Gülen. London and New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2014.
19. Esposito, John and Ihsan Yilmaz. Islam and peacebuilding: Gülen movement initiatives. New York: Blue Dome Press, 2010.
20. Pahl, Jon. Fethullah Gülen: A Life of Hizmet. New Jersey: Blue Dome Press, 2019.
21. Greg, Barton. Fethullah Gülen and Said Nursi “Muslim world in transition: Contributions of the Gulen Movement” 2007, London. https://www.gulenmovement.com/fethullah-gulen-and-said-nursi.html. Accessed July 28, 2021.

She began to question religious thought under the influence of philosophy she studied when she was eighteen. She searched for answers but failed to convince herself. Since her grandmother taught her to be “honest” all the time, she decided to end her connection with the church, stating, “I do not have the faith and I still continue to go to church; this is not right.”

One day, in the library of the Sorbonne University, she encountered a half page text describing the views of Rumi written by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal. She grew confused after reading the article. Either Rumi or the Greek philosophy which she had been reading up until that time was correct. She looked for publications regarding Rumi to investigate the matter comprehensively. But she failed to find any record related to the topic in the entire library. She read Muhammad Iqbal’s book called The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam in English, expecting she could reach the opinions of Rumi through him. She found many answers to her questions in this book. She became a Muslim in 1954, as a result of this enlightenment, and changed her name to Hawwa.

Hawwa was very impressed with the collections of Rumi, accepting him as a guide. She translated almost all of his and Iqbal’s works into French. She worked ten years to translate Rumi’s magnum opus the Mathnawi. She became the reason for many French intellectuals to discover and grow closer to Islam by her translations, radio speeches, and lectures. She made many visits to Turkey and attended Rumi programs.

In a live broadcast, Ms Hawwa gave the following long answer to questions such as, “Why did you choose Islam? What have you found in Rumi? Why Turkey and not another Islamic country?”

The Western media happens to have launched an attack against the religion of Islam. When you listen to French or German televisions and radios, you would hear awful statements regarding the Islamic religion. You would hear that Islam is about violence, jihad, fanaticism, etc. Despite these continuous attacks, there are scores of people in Western countries adopting Islam. I know many people who have accepted Islam in France, England, Germany, and Spain.

According to the data I have obtained from French authorities, many of the converts are intellectual people. They were seeking something and they found what they were searching and longing for in Islam. It is because their interpretations on creation and existence were not addressing these feelings anymore and also materialism disappointed them completely.

I have discovered a very different Islam than the one taught at the school or university, or depicted on newspapers and televisions. I am proud to say that the work of Rumi I last translated took ten years. This is an extraordinary book. In my opinion, the West was thirsty for spirituality. I also think this is very significant for our era. I go to Konya every year and love it there since it is the town of Rumi. I feel as if I am from Konya when I am there. I also love Turkey very much; since it represents my acquaintance with Islam, I am very happy there and I feel like a Turk. I found a religion in the Mathnawi that rejects radical religious ways, strict rulings, fanaticism, and conservative approaches; a religion which is entirely sincere, tolerant, and suitable to my beliefs.

The need for spirituality in our time is not satisfied. But I also do not think that humans can quench this by withdrawing from social life. In addition, scientific developments have demonstrated such an amazing universe. What is extraordinary of Rumi (which is not my reason for adopting Islam) is his projection and this impresses people, especially a young generation who has a passion for science. Consider that Rumi tells, ‘If you split an atom, you will find a solar system.’ He speaks of planets orbiting inside and outside of us, but also warns us to be careful. Since when these atoms open their mouths, they can eject a fire that can destroy the whole world. As seen, he talks about the dangers of the atomic bomb in the thirteenth century. It mentions the presence of nine planets, whereas modern science only proved this in the 1930s. Previously, seven planets were believed to exist. Number eight was found by a French researcher in the 1840s, and the ninth was discovered by an American scientist in 1930. However, Rumi already knew that there were nine planets back in his era. While the sun was believed to orbit earth in the West, Rumi tells that earth, like other planets, is a small planet that revolves around the sun. He also mentions other extraordinary things.

I often receive frequent phone calls, usually from intellectuals, even professors, authors, and journalists, and they tell me that, ‘Do you know Madam, I have accepted Islam and this was possible via Rumi.’

I now have translated all of his books including, ‘Majales-e Sab’a (Seven Sessions), Fihi Ma Fihi (In It What’s in It).’ The most important one is the Mathnawi. I am truly happy. Furthermore, I think that the time is very suitable for the publication of such works. This is because our world is being devastated by wars, conflicts, hatred, and aggression. However, Rumi’s works are full of love, peace, and tolerance, which are essential messages for today. True Islam is a universal religion with a perfect message of tolerance. The teachings of the prophets before Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, are accepted as valid. Therefore, Islam provides satisfying answers to people seeking clearer, universal and general answers compared to their own religions. Yet I am repeating once more that conversions are totally different from each other. For instance, I know people who adopted Islam suddenly. These people experienced something, saw something, and joined Islam. Some people like me, however, adopted Islam after doing many investigations, passing through many stages, completing PhD work on Islamic philosophy, but the goal as a result is the same. Spain was Muslim for 800 years; right next to it was France, and Spain was decidedly more advanced, intellectual, and civilized than France and the rest of Northern Europe.

I only assess the situation with a Western point of view and I do not mention either Turkey or Arabia. I am talking about the West. I am talking about such a tolerance in Spain, where ministers were Jewish, doctors were Christian, and Caliphs were Muslim. In this country governed by Muslims, business was advancing much faster than other countries. This was a great threat to Christian countries, kingdoms, and the Papacy. As you know, in order to get rid of something disturbing, it must be put down. The West did that. It started imperialism wars by putting down Islam. They expanded their propaganda and misinformation campaigns against Islam. For example if you ask someone in the street, ‘What do you think of Buddhism?’ They would answer, ‘I do not know,’ but when it is about, ‘the religion of Islam,’ they would reply with phrases such as, ‘Ah, yes, marrying four women, keeping them at home, having a tent.’ As you see, there is a type of partial lack of information present, there are clichés found on televisions and in newspapers; concrete symbols exist and all of these distort Islam entirely.

Today Islam is not known very well and people have gotten completely inaccurate ideas. Unfortunately, I think that these arise from failing to generate the necessary image about Islam by Muslim countries. In addition, the misinformation planted as the result of the wars of imperialism contributed to this. Unfortunately there are fractions observed among Muslim countries and this hinders the solutions needed for this and many other issues. Muslims have the same Book, the Prophet and his tradition, culture, and the Qur’anic language, which is Arabic. Yet these countries fight frequently and do not pay attention to this common heritage. In my opinion, the main reason for Westerners not to accept Islam is the lack of unity among Muslims. In fact, this is a separate issue. Islam as a religion should not be adopted through political and social reasons, but through the point of views and paradigms that it brings to the Creator, life, humans, and the universe.

In order to describe Islam as is, it is essential to read Rumi, Ibn Arabi, and briefly, the works of all the great Islamic thinkers. People get very surprised. The other day, I went to the doctor; they are very educated people. His wife, who called me in the evening, asked me ‘what are you doing now?’ I told her that I had just completed the translation of the Mathnawi. She asked what that was. I then told her that the Mathnawi mentions nuclear break down, the atomic bomb. They did not believe. As you see, people do not know the main reason of scientific developments in the middle ages.

The first medical school was established by Arabs in France. The greatest doctor of the era was in Spain. There were many successful scientists who were very ahead of their times, but nobody is aware of this. While I was doing my doctorate on Islamic philosophy at the Sorbonne University, I discovered Islam, but while studying at the university before starting my doctorate on Rumi, nobody taught us about Muslim thinkers. They were teaching German, English, Latin, and Greek philosophers.

There is a long way to go, so much to do. Now there are intellectuals who love and embrace Islam. These people should announce what lies at the essence of Islam to the world.

In her will, written to her spiritual stepson, Prof. Dr. Abdullah Ozturk, Ms Hawwa asked to be buried near the tomb of Rumi, in Konya. After she walked to the horizon of her soul on July 24, 1999, Dr. Ozturk went to great efforts to fulfill this will and she was buried at the Ucler Graveyard, near the tomb of Rumi, on December 17, 2008, exactly the time of “Seb-i Arus” the wedding day, as Rumi described death.

Faith, especially in the form of religion, refers to a heavenly-inspired system that leads people to goodness, but on the condition that they believe wilfully.

Religion is a divine system or a corpus consisting of systems. The most eminent feature differentiating it from human systems is that it is ordained by God, based on scripture, the good example of the Messenger that it was revealed to, and on how scholars have interpreted both. Arriving at goodness by means of religion is an absolute blessing by God; yet every human contributes to it by his or her choices.

Wisdom, on the other hand, has been decribed in many forms. In the case of Islam, the Qur’an states that wisdom has been bestowed to the Prophet in addition to the Book.1 Because of this fact, many interpreters have said that wisdom and the Book are not one and the same. It is decreed in another ayah that, “whoever is granted the Wisdom has indeed been granted much good.”2 Since the Prophet’s sunnah – his traditions, including his words and silent approvals – specifies the general issues of the Book, generalizes the specific points, and restricts its absolute topics by particular conditions and clauses, it is a great and abundant fountain of goodness. Therefore, some hadith scholars thought it was the Sunnah that “Wisdom” was actually refering to. Besides, the details of daily prayers, fasting, and hajj were determined by the Sunnah.

At the same time, as pointed out by Bediuzzaman, wisdom has been interpreted as the attainment of certain truths of faith and the universe, which have been concealed behind material veils, through spiritual inspiration and discoveries. All we see are a door, some windows, and four walls around us; however, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, decrees that, “I see what you do not see, and hear what you do not hear. The sky has resonated in such a way that you would laugh less and cry more if you saw what I see and knew what I know.” In this regard, reaching the veiled knowledge about the realm behind the physical world has also been considered wisdom.

This cognisance may take place through intuition or an expansion of the imagination, or through divination or direct witness. Whatever we know through rational deduction and certainty of knowledge (ilm al-yaqin) is endorsed by seekers of truth – first inwardly, in their consciences, and then outwardly, in their practices. This is another sign of abundance of goodness.

However, some have heaped the meaning of philosophy upon wisdom. There is a conflictual history between Islamic scholars and positivist philosophers. The struggle of Islamic scholars like Imam Ghazzali against philosophical deviance has become legend. Scholars like Ghazzali and Bediuzzaman used reason, logic, and other methods of philosophy to contest philosophers; so, if their efforts will be considered a part of philosophy, then it is certainly within the domain of wisdom.

One dimension of this conflict had to do with the literalists who interpreted all commandments exclusively and conducted them without question, even though this may have led to contradictions with other rules. Philosophers reacted to this movement, yet drifted to another extreme, where they went so far as to deny the essentials of faith. What we consider “wisdom” would be one that embraces rationality and logic in accordance with positive sciences and humanities, but is also in line with the overall message of the scripture as understood and practiced by the Messenger.

Searching for an accord between laws in nature and the regulations and laws of human life, and sensing and eliciting the concordance between the divine message and universe, are also considered within the territories of wisdom. Such a search for harmony between these dynamics is a key for success and serenity, both in this world and in the life to come after death. The science of jurisprudence in Islam and its applicative branches may be regarded as a vital manifestation of this correspondence and union. This science has been successful because it has been open to analogical reasoning and interpretation. Under current conditions, where such reasoning is missing, it is impossible to govern even the smallest district in any country.

After religion and wisdom, comes power. Unless the laws of wisdom and principles of faith and state are equipped with power, everything shall remain on paper and cannot evoke any sort of influence on people. Without power, how can the wisdom in minds and souls, and the piles of books in the libraries, transform into daily practice? As a matter of fact, we have been witnessing that it is not transformed, since those representatives of brute force who have turned their backs on scientific knowledge and absolute truth, and believe that they can sort out everything by power, have not let it be so; and it seems that they will not, either. In this regard, if a nation does not attach as much importance to power as as it does to wisdom, much of the performance of that nation in the name of national and religious values shall be uncertain. Besides, all three elements of religion, wisdom, and power must work together and in alliance. Otherwise, power not guided by faith and wisdom shall be a mere tool of cruelty and suppression; wisdom without faith shall be a wheel of intrigue; and faith not supported by legitimate power shall become just a mere “issue of conscience.” That is, the raison d’etre of faith and communicating it to people shall not be fully realized.

Notes

1. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/129, 151, 231; Surah Âl-i Imrân, 3/164; Surah An-Nisâ, 4/113; Surah Al-Jumu’ah, 62/2.
2. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/269.

The Fountain organized a three-day conference in Istanbul featuring scholars and academics from diverse disciplines to convene and discuss some philosophical themes The Fountain covers. Aspiring to be a platform for peaceful exchange of ideas, invigorating discussions on the big questions of life, and to generate more of those questions, The Fountain invited 12 international speakers and a dozen intellectuals from within Turkey to participate in this conference. The Fountain, now distributed and read worldwide, has its origins in Turkey which started as an offshoot of global initiatives by renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement that grew out of his inspiring ideas.

The themes that were covered in this conference were as follows:

• Fethullah Gülen and The Fountain Worldview
• Cross-cultural Dialogue, Media, Pluralism, Spirituality
• Scientific Thought, Faith, and Philosophy

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.

Ibn ‘Arabi was such a determined one. He is a strong milestone in the history of mysticism. His heritage goes beyond Muslim identity and encompasses a following from diverse traditions. In this issue, Brenda Pletcher explores Ibn ‘Arabi’s mystical legacy as a firm foundation for interreligious dialogue. For Pletcher, Ibn ‘Arabi’s philosophy of “diversity within unity,” as symbolized by his vision of a Universal Tree surrounded by four mystical birds, reveals dialogues “of life, of study, of prayer, and of spirituality, all of which, if followed in an atmosphere of mutuality, will have the potential to facilitate people toward the dialogue of action—an action bringing forth a vision of justice for all.”

Just as these great messengers enrich our spirits, so do fruits enrich our bodies.. We love their taste and smell, and are aware of their health benefits. However, a great majority of us do not consume fruits when we should – we are not even aware of when we should. “When To Eat Fruits” explains reasons why fruits should not be consumed right after a meal, and why we should eat them at least an hour before the main course, or two hours after. It is a very useful read on the right consumption of one of the most important components of our daily diet, which we wrongfully substitute with industrially processed juices.

Like eating well, recycling has become integral to our daily lives. We collect the food remains in our kitchen and the leaves in our backyard. We separate paper from plastic, all in the hopes of making our planet’s body healthier.. But were you aware that recycling has always been a part of our body’s survival mechanisms? Abdullah Acar says there are recycling centers in our cells which “have the duty to help with the digestion of cellular trash (i.e. damaged cellular organelles, misfolded proteins, toxic loads) so that energy can be generated and raw material obtained for the construction of new cellular units.” Named autophagy (i.e. self-eating), this recycling phenomenon “is primarily activated or enhanced via fasting or food deprivation.”

The Fountain is bringing scholars from different disciplines and traditions together in Istanbul on November 5-7 for a three-day workshop to have “Conversations on Life, Knowledge, and Belief.” The purpose is to pave the way for The Fountain to be a platform of thoughtful discussions on cross-cultural dialogue, scientific thought, faith, and philosophy. We will keep you posted about the event.

Ethics in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy

In Ibn Bajja’s philosophy, beings are created in order to achieve a goal. This goal, if achieved, will lead them to happiness. One who realizes this goal is, thus, happy.⁴ This goal is to know God and to worship God properly. Continuous pleasure can only be attained by the intellectual knowledge of the Eternal One.5 In Ibn Bajja’s own words:

“The one, who knows God (the only one God, with no partners) truly, knows that the greatest suffering is in God’s displeasure and being away from Him, and that the greatest happiness is in God’s pleasure and being close to Him. To be close to God can only be achieved through knowing ones own self.” ⁴

According to him, one should be considered a human to the extent that he or she differs from other beings (animals, plants, etc.). Among different kinds of animate beings, only humans can perform actions through free will.⁶ This is possible only through using their intellect, and controlling corporeal pleasures, instead of being controlled by them or banishing them totally.⁴ Actions are human in nature insomuch as they lead to this goal. For example, eating is an animal action if it is done to fulfill desire. On the other hand, it is a human action if it is done to preserve strength to achieve spiritual blessings.² When someone breaks a stone only because they were hurt by it, this is an animal action. If they do the same action in order to prevent somebody else from being hurt, this is a human action.⁶

Ibn Bajja believes that reaching happiness is not obtained by sudden leaps but through gradual steps.4 One should give priority to spiritual forms over corporeal forms, and if possible, should not socialize with pure materialists or those who mix their spiritual form with the corporeal one, except in some indispensable situations. Otherwise, as in the case of today’s materialistic world, one can easily be distracted from thinking about critical questions that would normally come to each and every individual’s mind, such as who we are, where we come from, where we are going , why we exist, and how to know about God. Secondly, one should go beyond the spiritual forms to reach the intellectual level, and socialize with those who also seek intellectual forms.³

Rule of the “solitary individual”

The “solitary individual” (tadbeer al-mutawahhed) holds an important place in Ibn Bajja’s thought. The term “tadbeer” or governance in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy means the actions done towards an end. On the other hand, al-Mutawahhed means a solitary individual who lives in a society, but who is different, intellectually, from his or her peers.1 They are, thus, alone in their thoughts within the society.⁴ Al-Mutawahhed is free and active when exposed to various influences, and they achieve the highest moral virtues: a balance between spiritual and material aspects of life.⁴ Unvirtuous people, on the other hand, are passive under various influences, and make decisions under the influence of their corporeal pleasures or animal desires, but not through using their intellect, which is what makes them human beings.

Ibn Bajja classifies cities before he gives a recipe to the solitary individual on how to achieve happiness. The cities are classified as stressing the moral values of the society. The perfect or ideal city is based on love. The citizens of this city do not quarrel at all. All views are true and all actions are right. They eat properly. Hence there is no need for doctors or judges. Ibn Bajja supports his claim with the question, “Cannot the healthy body rouse itself to resist diseases whose obscure causes come from outside?”6 On the other hand, if there is any contention in a city, it results in the need for a judge who can establish justice. Similarly, if people get harmful foods, they will need a doctor who has knowledge of treatments. So in an imperfect city, there is need for a doctor and a judge. As Ibn Bajja puts it: “The more a city needs them, the more honorable is the rank of both these classes.” ⁶

The imperfect city, being based on temporary corporeal pleasures, is not suitable for the metaphysical essence of humanity. Still, the imperfect city inherits a way to a virtuous society through solitary individuals.4 If one is in an imperfect city which does not supply any method to obtain knowledge, and is morally corrupted, and if there exists a perfect city, one should migrate to it; thus, they can gain knowledge.¹ If there is no such option, he or she should protect themself from the corruptions of their present society, and simultaneously build a social project which will provide happiness to individuals, and begin converting the society into a virtuous one.¹ The solitary individual is in a state of transition. During this state, they continue their personal education, and at the same time help convert an imperfect city into a perfect one.⁴

Contemplative seclusions

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, provides a great example of a “solitary individual.” Before he started receiving revelations, he would retreat to the mountain cave of Hira. He continued these retreats later on, especially during Ramadan, the month of fasting, when he went into seclusion for ten days, and spent time in prayer. This tradition, or itiqaf, is still being observed throughout the Muslim world. We can argue that these seclusions and contemplative retreats paved the way for him to transform a an “imperfect city” (Mecca), that was mired in ignorance, paganism, violence, and immorality, to a community of believers who exceled in ethics, learning, and peace; this was the perfect city of Medina. Yet, the Prophet was not just a solitary individual. He engaged with society in all possible ways during and before his prophethood, as a tradesman in caravans, as a social activist in a league dedicated to protect and support the distressed (Hilf al-Fudul), as a peacemaker among tribes, and as a husband and father.

Conclusion

Ibn Bajja’s philosophy on the governance of a solitary individual finds perfect embodiment in Prophetic practice. Personal education and social life are two processes that co-exist, whether in a perfect or an imperfect city, and the Prophetic practice of seclusion is a perfect way of linking the two. The construction of a perfect city joins these two processes after a period of personal education which leads to personal perfection. The solitary individual is always on the way: he or she is reading, contemplating, observing and acting constantly, and he or she does this independently of the status of the society within which they live.

References

1. Köroğlu, Burhan. 1996. “Ibn-i Bacce’nin Ahlâk ve Siyaset Düşüncesi,” (The Ethical and Political Thought of Avempace), Divan, 1, 45-46.
2. Sharif, M. M. 2004. “A History of Muslim Philosophy,” Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 3, 508-526,. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html
3. Al-Allaf, M. 2003. “The Solitary Being (al-Mutawahhed): Definitions and Dimensions of Ibn Bajja (Avempace) Philosophy,” The Essence of Islamic Philosophy, ILC-Classic.
4. Aydınlı, Y. 1997. Ibn Bacce’nin Insan Görüşü, (The Human in the Thought of Ibn Bajja), Marmara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ibn Bajja, http://plato.stanford.edu/
6. Dunlop, D. M. 1999. Ibn Bajjah’s Tadbiru’l-Mutawahhid (Rule of Solitary), Ibn Bajja Texts and Studies II, Islamic Philosophy (77), Strauss Offsetdruck.
7. Sahih Bukhari, 3, 33(260).
8. http://www.lastprophet.info/en/chronology/index.php

Today, many grade-school children do not know that milk comes from cows and eggs come from chickens. They think it all comes from the refrigerator. And if it is not there, it comes from mom—and she brings it home from the car. The Texas Nature Project in Mason, Texas, is a program initiated to help such students develop a better relationship with nature and understand that bounties do not come from mom’s small kitchen but rather, the generous kitchen of the All-Merciful and All-Providing, one as broad as the earth. Kelli Angelone interviewed Dr. Sherra Theisen on this project. Since locating to the 100-acre Northpoint Ranch in June of 2006, the project has provided hands-on programming for over 10,000 college students and their families on site, and over 100,000 young Texans through outreach programming. Dr. Theisen also has a book published online The Thoughtful Child’s Book of Rhymes with Reason that guides caregivers in helping their children aged 3-12 or so, to work through the kinds of moral dilemmas they already face. Book proceeds support programming for Texas Nature Project. Poetry by Jan Schultz, Illustrations by Sherra Theisen.

“Oak trees always make acorns. How do they know? They don’t have to know, but somebody does!” Dr. Sherra Theisen gestures to the landscape just a few hundred yards away. The two of us lounge on the porch behind her big country home in Mason, Texas. My travelling companion drifts comfortably back and forth in Dr. Theisen’s porch swing and our photographers alternate between exploring the property and photographing our conversation. Millie the Beagle can’t decide whether she should lie in Dr. Theisen’s lap or continue making friends with the photographers traipsing around in her yard.

Millie’s yard is big enough for all of us. It extends for a hundred acres, and she need not worry that the nice young men might ruin the grass. Most of her ‘yard’ is forested land, with rocks, a stream, cactus, and even a herd of deer that pop in every evening, right behind the fence that separates the house from the wilderness. Dr. Sherra Theisen, doctor of philosophy, is a one-woman (pacifist) army out on the front lines of the war between community and apathy, justice and chaos.

She and Ms. Jan Schultz organized the Texas Nature Project in Mason, Texas, a program through which they help high school and college students to have a better relationship with nature. They live in a house on the edge of Texas wilderness, inviting students to visit and learn about nature and, by extension, about themselves. The Texas Nature Project was born out of the Saint Augustine Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas. After designing and implementing the St. Augustine Program to introduce incoming freshman to nature, God, philosophy, and service learning, Jan and Dr. Theisen realized they could be offering a more intensive program that reached out to students of all ages. In addition, they hope the Texas Nature Project will soon be able to offer college credits.

As a former student of Dr. Theisen’s, I was thrilled to learn about her new program and the philosophy behind it, which was surely similar to the St. Augustine Program, but much more exciting in the wilderness setting. The University of St. Thomas is located in the middle of Houston, Texas—not quite as breathtaking as the beautiful scenery around us in Mason.

K.A: What do you hope students will take away from the Texas Nature Project in relation to the environment?

DR. THEISEN: Can you imagine thinking that we don’t need trees? Thinking that planting trees is some kind of luxury, or something childish? More than 50% of Americans live in urban areas. And that means that they don’t have experiences like people my age took for granted. If you didn’t live in the country, you always knew somebody who had a farm. So you would spend some time [there], and you knew how to milk cows and you knew how to pick up eggs…

Today, grade-school kids—many of them don’t know that milk comes from cows or eggs come from chickens. They think it all comes from the refrigerator. And if it’s not there, where does it come from before that? From mom. Where does mom get it? She brings it in from the car. I’m serious. This is what I do when I go to do the outreach programming [for Texas Nature Project]—letting the parents see that the kids do not know that they are natural beings themselves, that their health depends on the health of the whole planet.

Americans now spend 4% of their time outdoors. Four percent in outdoor activities. Because they’re terrified, terrified of the outdoors… Kids are more and more two-dimensional. And they have computers everywhere they go, technology everywhere they go, cell phones, video games, big screen televisions, computers, but it can have an alienating effect because what you can learn on the computer is about rainforests and everything else, and that you have no power to effect any change. So it can be overwhelming. And that’s why we’re focusing on ethics of place.

K.A: Who wants to go outside when they think their air is bad, when there is ozone depletion and it’s dangerous to go outside?

DR. THEISEN: [That] could be, but if you’re afraid, the thing is that the fear comes from what we don’t know. Like how healthy it is for us to be outdoors.

At the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university, the mission was to try to connect and educate the entire human person. So, at the Augustine program that you were a part of, that was the goal. We knew that everything is integrated, that what it means to be a human person is to be an incredibly complex reality, a totality that has an intrinsic relationship to self, to others, to nature, and to the Divine, we would highlight each of those aspects in the readings, but also in the service.

What we found again and again was that it was the experiences in nature that were the most powerful and effective for absolutely everyone. And that is where people found themselves! Suddenly, instead of being very egocentric, students became aware of something larger than themselves that they don’t have complete control over. They encountered the world, the universe in its vastness. And that humility lets them find out who they are in relation to an entire universe, the need for more than one person in the universe.

Really understanding of the land and conversation with it, working together, that co-creative act and then [the students] start to see the Divine in just the vastness and the beauty and the order, the purposefulness, the intelligence…the evidence is suddenly overwhelming for it. From a philosophical standpoint it’s that St. Thomas approach where he says “It’s impossible to deny the existence of God, if you just pay attention.” ‘There’s this whole world—I didn’t make it, I can’t make it, I can barely understand it, but something does, and it’s bigger than me.’ And that’s opening up to the Divine.

K.A: How is the program run? Why bring it to Mason, Texas?

DR. THEISEN: That experience, [the Augustine program] after four years, was incredibly successful and continues to be: people like yourself continue to come back. We’ve developed these long-term friendships and associations, and people’s lives have changed to service-lives. What we decided to do was to do [the same program] in a more directed and serious and intensive way.

Jan was the co-creator of that program and then co-runner. Hers is more administrative and student development, mine is more academic and service maybe. And that’s the origin of Texas Nature Project.

We want to make this available to all Texas college students instead of just the ones that happen to be at ‘this’ university, we want to do it year-round, we want to be able to do it for every major, which is really a critical thing too. We don’t leave it to the experts—we recognize that there’s purposefulness in every single human life. If we didn’t need 7 billion people, they wouldn’t be here.

K.A: Do you hope to do that with the Texas Nature Project also (as was done with the St. Augustine Program)—bring in people of different faiths and different backgrounds?

DR. THEISEN: It’s about the shared experience of, well, there’s just this one planet (laughs). That we share our common humanity, that we share the planet, and people relax in nature, that’s the other beautiful thing—every architectural structure is somehow inculcating culture, right? And you have presuppositions about what is an appropriate activity that occurs in this space or that space. When you get outdoors, it’s open. And everybody kind of relaxes and breathes, and they can warm up, and it is a place to share everything in a safe way.

K.A: What role does science play in your curriculum?

DR. THEISEN: Science has a really important role. Now again we’re operating from a trans-disciplinary viewpoint. What that means to say is that it’s interdisciplinary, but frequently the idea of interdisciplinary is [the thought that] maybe I can connect 3 or 4 disciplines, but what we mean to say by transdisciplinary is (and I didn’t make up the word, it was Vartan Gregorian that introduced the word. He was president of the Carnegie Foundation) that we recognize everything is connected.

But, education has come so far with specialties and sub-specialties and sub- sub-specialties that it becomes more and more fragmented in practice. And if somebody is going to specialize in biology, they can’t even do that. It’s got to be microbiology or macrobiology or plant biology.

K.A: That’s what I’ve found with my own career.

DR. THEISEN: Yes, and what you need now is a specialist who’s a generalist as a speciality. That’s what a philosopher’s always been, so perfectly natural. But, so what you do is you specialize in the connections.

Scientifically, we’re working with the LCRA, which is the Lower Colorado River Authority, in doing monthly water testing of the Llano River. So we have on this property a live spring and two seasonal creeks, and they feed into Comanche Creek, and Comanche Creek feeds into Llano river, and the Llano River feeds into the Colorado River which means that you’re serving millions of people in Texas with water.

Then you get a sense of the whole, how land use is filtering into the water that people are drinking a hundred miles away. And so again you’re seeing the interconnectedness instead of doing chemistry just in a classroom where you test a sample that you picked up somewhere.

K.A: What other philosophical leaders, or founders, thinkers, not even necessarily philosophical thinkers, have you based this program on?

DR. THEISEN: In some ways what we’re doing is not brand new. A somewhat influential philosopher in the West—Plato, [she says with a grin] in the Republic, his most mature work, says, “All education begins at birth, and it starts with a noble lie. And the lie is: The earth is your mother. And the rest of your formal education, until you are 35 years old, or 50 if you intend to be a leader, will be based on that: The earth is your mother.”

It’s noble because if you don’t understand it, you will not live in the right ways. You will not be able to defend and protect your mother earth, right? And so you get your nobility from your recognition that the earth is your mother. It’s a lie because the earth is not your biological mother and of course you have a biological mother, but so much more is the earth your mother because she is a means of providing you with food and shelter throughout your entire life, and your biological mother does not and cannot.

Up until that time, 15-1600s, everybody who went to college was a philosopher because it meant you had to know everything. In order to answer any question you had to have a view—a universal view—of how your specialty fit in. It was all philosophy, all PhDs—that’s why it’s called a Ph.D.—a doctor of philosophy. So for the last 400 years though, now we’ve got these specializations, sub-specializations, so literature is still a Ph.D., but they don’t get that they need a bigger view. So the economist, it’d be a PhD but they don’t get that they need the bigger view, and the biologist is getting a Ph.D., but they don’t get that they need the bigger view because they’re working so hard on their own specialty.

K.A: There needs to be a connection to the bigger picture?

DR. THEISEN: [She nods] Our program is integrative, trans-disciplinary. Not just integrating disciplines, but integrating theory and practice. Connecting learning and life, so what we’re connecting is people to other people, people to their communities, learning to other learning, and all learning to life—not just the practical life and theoretical life, but the day to day living. I’m sure you know that service learning is kind of a new idea, maybe a decade old in universities, because students were reporting again and again that they found their education irrelevant.

As soon as they graduated they didn’t know why they spent all that time just to get a piece of paper. They didn’t see how it connects to their life. You need to be more deliberate in not just talking about how it connects but day to day showing people. That was what the Augustine program was about, day in and day out a community of research and of education and discussion and getting the connections. ‘Interdisciplinary’ in getting the connections between, but in the end you get a universal so you always know how you fit in. And so that ethics of place is: how do I live given this is my ecosystem?

K.A: So, is there an inherent connection here between philosophy and environmental science?

DR. THEISEN: Absolutely. The number one overriding concern of philosophy and philosophers is justice. Justice is the achievement of the good for everything and everyone. And what we’re always trying to do is bridge the gap, but there is no gap. It’s one place. It’s your home. It’s all about what is the right way to live? What is a good way? A worthwhile—not ‘right’ in the oppressive way but what’s a worthwhile way for human beings to live? The worthwhile way is that I work hard to achieve your good because your good is my good.

You can find more information about the non-profit Texas Nature Project at: www.texasnatureproject.org. The website contains information regarding the program’s curriculum as well as contact information for Dr. Sherra Theisen and her co-founder, Jan Schulz. The Texas Nature Project is currently accepting donations through its website to further its goals of nature education and community involvement.

Kelli Angelone is a former student of Dr. Theisen’s. She currently works as an Air Quality Planner in the Houston area, managing grants and conducting outreach. Kelli is also working on her Master of Liberal Arts in English at the University of St. Thomas, where she previously received her Bachelor’s in Environmental Studies and minors in Creative Writing and Philosophy.