|
submit
articles |
| Faith and Reason Maulana Wahiduddin Khan In its issue no. 134 (1992), the journal,
Faith and Reason, published from Manchester College, Oxford (England),
brought out an article titled, ‘The Relationship between Faith and
Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham. Paul Badham is a Professor of Theology and
Religious Studies at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of
Wales. His paper in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the
Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in
November 1991. Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be
called thought-provoking, and as such, is worth reading, but he has made
certain points with which I do not agree. He states that philosophical
certainty should not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: As a
philosopher of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could
never be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’
(p. 6). On the contrary, I feel that faith and belief can be placed on the
same level of certainty as scientific theory. At least, in the twentieth
century there is no real difference between the two. Knowledge is composed of two kinds of
things, Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge of things and knowledge of
truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as well as in science. For
instance, to the scientist who regards biological evolution as a
scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered. One is related to
the organic part of species and the other relates to the law of evolution
which is inherently and covertly operative in the continuing process of
change among the species. When an evolutionist studies the outward
physical appearance of species, he may be said to be studying
‘things’. Whereas when he studies the law of evolution, he deals with
that aspect of the subject which is termed the study or knowledge of
truths.’ Every evolutionist knows that a basic
difference between the two aspects. As far as the study of things or the
phenomena of evolution is concerned, direct evidence is available. For
instance, because the study of fossils found in various layers of the
earth’s crust is possible at the level of observation, working
hypothesis may be based thereon. On the contrary, as far as facts about the
law of evolution are concerned, due to the impossibility of objective
observation, direct argument world’s strength, skill, beauty is not
possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in the organs is
entirely based on assumptions rather than on direct observation. In the
case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause, that
is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all the
evolutionists make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as
inferential argument. The concept of mutation forms the basis of
the theory of evolution. However there are two aspects to the matter. One
comes under observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It
is only by making use of the principle of inference that this second part
of evolution may be included in the theory of evolution. It is a commonplace that all the offspring
of men or animals are not uniform. Differences of one kind or another are
to be found. In modern times this biological phenomenon has been
scientifically studied. These studies have revealed spontaneous changes
suddenly produced in the fetus in the mother’s womb. It is these changes
that are responsible for the differences between children of the same
parents. These differences between offsprings are
observable. But the philosophy of evolution subsequently formed on the
basis of this observation is totally unobservable and is based only on
inferential argument. That is to say that the ‘things’ of evolution
are observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from observation are
unobservable. Now, what the evolutionist does is put a
goat at one end and a giraffe at the other. Then taking some middle
specimens of the fossils he forms a theory that the neck of one of the
offspring of the earlier generation of the goat was somewhat taller. Then
when this particular offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this
tallness for generations over millions of years ultimately converted the
initial goat with a taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its
advanced stage. Charles Darwin writes of this change in his book The
Origin of Species: "…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary
hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe" (p. 169). In this case, the existence of differences
between the various offspring of a goat is itself a known fact. But the
accumulation of this difference, generation after generation, over
millions of years resulting in a new species known as ‘giraffe’ is
wholly unobservable and unrepeatable. This conclusion has been inferred
from observation only; the whole process of mutation developing into a new
species has never come under our direct observation. Exactly the same is true of the subject of
religion. One aspect of the study of religion is the study of its history,
its personalities, its injunctions, its rites and its rituals. The above
division (knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) amounts to a study
of the ‘things’ of religion. In respect of religion, objective
information is likewise available. As such, the study of religion too can
be done on the basis of direct observations exactly as is done in the
study of biological evolution. The second aspect of the study of religion
is what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining to the unseen world.
These are the beliefs that are beyond our known sensory world. That is,
the existence of God and the angels, revelation, hell and heaven, etc. In
this other aspect of religion direct observations do not exist. The study
of religion must, therefore, be done in the light of that logical
principle called inference on the basis of observation, that is, the same
logical principle which the evolutionists employ in the second aspect of
their theory. Looked at in the light of this principle,
both religion and science are at a par. Both have two equally different
parts. One part is based on such scientific certainty as permits direct
argument. The other part is based on scientific inference, to prove which
only the principle of indirect argument may be used. Keeping this logical
division before us, we can find no actual difference between the two. The unnecessary apologia for religious
uncertainty made by Professor Badham is occasioned by his inability to
consider this difference, and his confusing one area of study with
another. Making the error of false analogy, he is comparing the first part
of science to the second part of religion and looking at the second part
of religion in the light of the first part of science. This meaningless
comparison is responsible for the ill-considered conclusions he has
arrived at in his article. Had the worthy Professor compared the first
part of science to the first part of religion and the second part of
science to the second part of the religion, his inferiority complex (as a
man of religion) would have ceased to exist. He would have felt that,
purely as a matter of principle the wrong parallels had been drawn. The
argument used in the first part of science is equally applicable to the
first part of religion. Similarly the argument applied to the second part
of science is equally applicable to the second part of religion. This is a truth which has been acknowledged
even by a staunch and leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the
beginning of his book Why I am not a Christian he has set forth what he
considers a valid argument. He points out that in his view all the great
religions of the world—Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and
Communism—were all untrue and harmful, and that it is not possible to
prove their validity from the logical point of view. Those who have opted
for one religion or the other have done so, according to Russell, under
the influence of their traditions and environment, rather than on the
strength of argument. However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this
fact when he says, "there is one of these arguments which is not
purely logical. I mean the argument from design. This argument, however,
was destroyed by Darwin." He intends here to say that the existence
of God is proved by the argument that in his world where there is design,
there should be a designer. He admits that this method of argument in its
nature is the same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However,
even after this admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has
been destroyed by Darwinism. This is, however, a wholly baseless point,
as Darwin’s theory is related to the Creator’s process of creation
rather than to the existence of Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism
state that the various species found in the world were not separate
creations but had changed from one species into separate species over a
prolonged period of evolution by a process of natural selection. It is obvious that this theory is not
related to the existence or non-existence of God. It deals with the
process of Creation instead of the Creator. That is to say, if it was
hitherto believed that God created each species separately, now after
accepting the theory of evolution it has to be believed that God
originally created an initial species which was invested with the
capability of multiplying into numerous species. And then He set in motion
a natural process in the universe favorable to such multiplication. In
this way, over a long period of time this primary species fulfilled its
potential by changing into innumerable species. To put it another way, the
theory of evolution is not a study of the existence of God, but simply of
how God has displayed in the universe his power of creation. That is why
Darwin himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with
these words: There is grandeur in this view of life,
which its It is true that the new facts regarding the
universe discovered Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of
the solar system, discovering laws governing the revolution of planets
around the sun. His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies,
which can be called the macro-world. It is possible in the macro world to
weigh and measure things. As a result of the immediate impact of these
discoveries, many began to think along the lines that reality was
observable, and that proper and valid argument was one based on
observation. It was under the influence of this concept that the
philosophy generally known as positivism came into being. However the discoveries made in the first
quarter of the century shook the very foundation of their preliminary
theories. These later discoveries revealed that beyond this world of
appearance, a whole world was hidden, which does not come under
observation. It is only indirectly possible to understand this hidden
world and present arguments in its favor. That is, by observing the
effects of something, we arrive at an understanding of its existence. This discovery altered the whole picture.
When the access of human knowledge was limited to the macro-cosmic world,
man was a prey to this misapprehension. But when human knowledge
penetrated the micro-world, the academic situation changed on its own. Now it was revealed that the field of
direct argument was extremely limited. New facts which came to the
knowledge of man were so abstruse that indirect or inferential argument
alone was applicable. For instance, The German scientist, Wilhelm Konrad
Roentgen found in 1895 during an experiment that on a glass before him
some effects were observable, despite the fact that there was no known
link between his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an
invisible radiation which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per
second. Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Reontgen named it
X-rays (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 19/1058). The twentieth century has seen the
discoveries of a number of things like X-rays, which do not come under
direct human observation. However due, to their effects having come to
knowledge of man, it was not possible to deny their existence. As a result
of modern research, not only were different departments of science
revolutionized but the science of logic too saw basic changes. Now inferential reasoning was also accepted
as a valid method of reasoning, for, without this discoveries like X-rays,
the scientific structure of the atom, the existence of Dark Matter, etc.,
could not have been explained. After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times, argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic which was employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Now differences in the criterion of logic have vanished. Answer to a Question: At the end of his article Professor Badham writes: And I have to acknowledge that the existence of so much evil and suffering in the world counts against any vision of an all-powerful and loving God (p. 7). Here I have to say that evil is a relative
world. An evil is an evil so long as it cannot be explained. A doctor
performs surgery on the patient’s body, a judge sentences a criminal to
be hanged. All this appears to be injustice, cruelty. But we do not call
it so, simply because we have a proper explanation to give for the acts of
the judge and the doctor. The same is true of the evil pointed out by the
article writer. The first point is that the evil existing
in human society is not spread over the entire universe. Leaving aside the
limited human world, the vast universe is perfect, par excellence. It is
entirely free of any defect or evil. Now the question arises as to why there is
evil in the human world. To arrive at an understanding of this we shall
have to understand the creation plan of the Creator. The certain plan of
God provides the only criterion by which to judge the nature of the
matter. The creation plan of God as revealed to His
Prophet is that this world is a testing ground, where man’s virtue is
placed on trial. It is in accordance with the records of this trial period
that man’s eternal fate will be decreed. It is for the purpose of this
test that he has been granted freedom. In the absence of freedom, the
question of life being a test would not arise. The present evil is, in fact, a concomitant
of this freedom. God desires to select those individuals who, in spite of
being granted freedom, lead a disciplined and principled life. For
individuals to prove their worth an atmosphere of freedom must be
provided. Undoubtedly, due to such an atmosphere, some people will surely
misuse this freedom and perpetrate injustice. But this is the inevitable
price to be paid for such a creation plan to be brought to completion. No
better creation plan can be envisaged for this world. The present world appears meaningless when
seen independently, that is, without joining the Hereafter with it. But
when we take this world and the Hereafter together, the entire matter
takes a new turn. Now this world becomes extremely meaningful and
extremely valuable For details regarding the method of
argument refer to the book ‘Religion and Science’ by the author. (pp.
9-21) Source: |