Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
PART 3
THE QUR’ANIC REVELATION
Chapter 1
THE
Qur’ân: A REVEALED BOOK
THE CLAIM TO REVELATION:
The Holy Prophet Muhammad (in whom God’s Blessings and Peace
abide!) was un-lettered, not knowing how to read and write, because he had
received no formal education in any degree from anyone. The historical
testimony in this respect is complete and thorough, even as the Qur’anic
Revelation contains the proclamation addressed to him and meant to emphasize to
his opponents the Divine source of the profound Wisdom that was flowing from
his sacred lips:
“And you (O Muhammad!) did not recite
any book before this (i.e., knew not how to read), nor were you (able) to
transcribe one with your right hand (i.e., knew not the art of writing).
Otherwise, indeed, those who talk baseless things (against your Divine Mission)
could have (some excuse for having) doubted (the revealed character of the Qur’an).”
(39:48).
The Holy Prophet’s sole teacher was
God, and no one else:
“. . . and Allah has revealed to you
(O Muhammad!) the Book and the Wisdom, and has taught you what you knew not;
and Allah’s Grace unto you is immense.”
(4:113).
Thus, the Holy Qur’an is not the product of the Holy
Prophet’s speculation and thinking. Rather, every word of that Book is the Word
of God which was communicated to him through the process of Revelation:
“(This is) the revelation of the Book
(i.e., the Qur’an in which there is no (ground for) doubt,—(a Book) from the
Lord of the Worlds. Will they say: ‘he has forged it’? Nay, it is the Truth
from your Lord …” (32:2).
“Blessed is He (i.e., Allah) Who sent
down the Criterion (i.e., the Qur’an) to His servant (Muhammad), that he may be
a Warner to all the creatures.” (25:1).
“Say (O Muhammad!): The (Qur’an) has
been sent down by Him Who knows the Mystery (that is) in the heavens and the
earth…” (25:6).
“But A11ah bears witness that what He
has revealed to you (O Muhammad!) He has revealed from His (own) Knowledge; and
the angels bear witness (also); but enough is Allah for a witness.” (5:166).[1]
Indeed, the
Holy Qur’an calls itself the “Speech of God” (9:6) and the “most excellent
Discourse”, “sent down gradually by Allah” (39:23), communicated to the Holy
Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on him!) not as mere ‘inspiration’ but as the
“Arabic Qur’an” (12:2)—as Recitation
“in plain Arabic language” (24:195), through the process of Prophetic
Revelation (42:7; etc.) which was the
same as in the case of the previous Divine Messengers from Adam to Jesus (Peace
be upon nature them!) (42:3), and which descended upon the “heart” of the Holy
Prophet not metaphorically but literally, namely, in the form of language in
which it was subsequently transcribed by the Scribes.
Being the
revealed Word of God, it imparts knowledge which is immune from all
possibilities of doubt (2:2), all types of crookedness (17:1), every form of
discrepancy (4:82), and the faintest taint of evil (26:210). On the positive
side, it is the embodiment of Truth and the Balanced Thought together with the
Balanced Way of Life (42:17); it is Blessed (with Holiness) (6:155), it is the
Light that is Manifest (4:174), whose function is to lead forth humanity from
the spiritual and moral darkness into the light of the achievement of human
destiny (14:1), it is the Healing which cures the very basis of spiritual and
bein moral ailments (10:57); it is Mercy and Glad Tidings to those who follow
it faithfully (16: 89); and it is the Criterion which distinguishes clearly the
right from the wrong, the good from the evil, the true from the false (2:185);
it is the Guide for all humanity (2:185), which imparts detailed and
comprehensive guidance in all matters wherein human reason can possibly fail in
any measure and in any manner (6:114; 16:89); and, imparting new knowledge as
it does (2:151), it emphasises that all unbiased persons dedicated to knowledge
are bound to uphold its truth at the time of its revelation (34:6), and to
attest it, in later ages, as the horizons of human knowledge expand further and
further (41:53).
THE PHENOMENON OF PROPHETIC
REVELATION:
The Prophetic Revelation has nothing to do with the natural
mental processes that relate to the human brain. It does not consist even of
intuitional flashes like those experienced by certain eminent scientists and
thinkers in respect of the discoveries of certain facts of knowledge. It is not
just an inspiration of notions and ideas. Namely, it is not merely an
‘internal’ and subjective fact with no ‘external’ and objective dimension.
Rather, it is a concrete objective phenomenon— though, of course, supernatural
or metaphysical in character. It is ‘God’s Speech’ communicated at the highest
level.
Of course, God’s Speech (kalÉm) is not of the same nature as
the human speech. For, God is Transcendent in His Being, so also in the nature
of His Attributes (30:27). That does not imply, however, the impossibility of
communication between Him and His creatures. Rather, to the contrary. Because,
it is He Who alone is the Fountainhead: not only of existence but also of
guidance for every particle of the cosmos:—as the One Who, ‘encompasses all
things’ (41:54), and Who is, in the case of Man, ‘closer to him than his
jugular vein’ (50:16).
God’s Speech is communicated to different things in Creation
in the form suitable to their function, the goal being the guidance of those
things (8:12; 16:68; 41:12; 99:5). Human beings, not belonging to the category
of the Prophets and Messengers, have also been the beneficiaries of this Divine
blessing in the form of a subjective guidance in terms of inspiration (5:3;
20:38; 28:7). In their case, however, it was purely a personal affair.
It appears as if the higher the calibre and the function of
anything in the cosmos, the higher, in the sense of more explicit, is the form
of manifestation or expression for God’s Speech, and the lower the calibre of
anything the less its capability to accommodate that manifestation of the
Divine Speech which relates to a higher level. Thus, the Speech of God may
express itself to an inorganic object or a plant in the form of ‘sensation’
appropriate to it, to an animal in the form of inner ‘perception’, to a human
being not falling under the category of a Prophet and a Messenger in the form
of ‘conception’. But in the case of those human beings who were chosen by God
to be His Prophets and Messengers and whose function consequently was, not to
obtain stray guidance for themselves, but to be the recipients of a
full-fledged philosophy of life and a comprehensive code of practical guidance
for establishing the Divine Order in the life of humanity, reason leads us to the
truth that the Speech of God should have expressed itself through the highest
medium—the medium of language, and not through implicit and vague media of
inner ‘sensation’, ‘perception’ and ‘conception’. Thus, although none of the
human languages is the ‘language of God, the Speech of God has expressed or
manifested itself in all the human languages through the Divinely-inspired
Teachers who arose in all the communities of the world, in one era or the
other, since the time of the Holy Prophet Adam to the advent of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad—who came as the last and the final—(May God’s Blessings be on
all of them!) (14:4). There is nothing, in fact, in literal Revelation to the
Divine Messengers that may discount it philosophically or scientifically as impossible
or even as improbable, provided we do not reduce that phenomenon to the
category of the natural phenomena.
[1] We have quoted here just a few verses off-hand. Actually, the Holy
Qur’ān is replete with statements that proclaim explicitly that it is, in its
entirety, the revealed Word of God.
Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
3. DIVINE REVELATION
The plausibility of the claim of Religion to answer our
ultimate questions consists in the source of knowledge. Among the various
religions of the world, Islam agrees with us that the human faculties of sense
and reasoning are, in their very nature, incapable of arriving at accurate and
sure knowledge of the ultimate facts both through logical reasoning and
mathematical reasoning. But side by side with that it gives us a message of
hope and imparts to us a very plain and convincing guidance in that behalf. That
guidance may be stated as follows:
There are two factors in every act of knowledge, namely, the
Subject and the Object. As regards the process of knowledge, it is possible in
two ways, namely: (1) the subject may embrace the object with the instruments
of knowledge which, in the case of man, are senses and reason; and (2) the
object may reveal itself to the subject.
The usual path of knowledge is the first one, and it is this
which Science and Philosophy employ. And because the finite cannot embrace the
infinite, the attempts of Science and Philosophy at solving the ultimate
problems end in failure.
The second path of knowledge is the path of Revealed
Religion. That this path is a matter of experience in the scientific field also
is known to all scientists. For instance, there are planets which are far away
from the farthest horizon that the most advanced instruments of astronomy have
been able to penetrate. Those planets enter that horizon only for a while after
very long periods of time. Thus, instead of the powers of the astronomical
instruments going out, so to say, to embrace them, they themselves reveal their
existence by moving for a while into their embrace from a position where their
existence cannot be known, and after that revelation they again disappear into
the Unknown. Those whose gaze is fixed and whose instruments of observation are
focussed on that horizon see them and know them, while others affirm their
existence afterwards only on the basis of authority, because verification
through observation does not remain possible after the disappearance of those
planets.
This much about the physical world—the world of sense
experience—the world which in quality as well as quantity is only a part of the
Unknown and Infinite Universe. But it brings home to us an important fact. The
farther removed a thing is qualitatively (i.e., as regards its difference from
us in its nature and constitution and function) or quantitatively (i.e., in
Space or Time), the greater becomes the necessity for the first path of
knowledge to give place to the second path, i.e., Revelation.
Islam emphasises this all-important fact of Revelation. It
affirms the existence of God and says that He is the Creator and Cherisher of
the Universe. Also, that He is All Powerful, All-Knowing and Omnipresent. He
possesses perfect knowledge of the origin, the constitution and the function of
everything, and His knowledge comprehends the past, the present and the future.
And He not only possesses that knowledge but has also revealed to humanity the
correct guidance on the ultimate and intricate problems which defy correct and
sure solution by means of senses and reason. His Revelations came, much like
the distant planets mentioned in the foregoing scientific argument, through the
Spiritual Luminaries who appeared on the horizon of humanity from time to time.
Those Spiritual Luminaries included men like Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the
last among them being Muhammad (Divine Peace and Blessings be with him and all
other Messengers of God); and the last Revealed Book is the Holy Qur’an.
Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
II. PHILOSOPHY
All Philosophy may be broadly classified into four schools,
namely: one, Formal Rationalism; two, Empiricism; three, Criticism; and
four, Empirical Rationalism. Of these
four, two and three do not deserve consideration in the background of our
present problem and that for very definite reasons. No. two, namely,
Empiricism, holds that the only source of obtaining knowledge is
sense-experience. It means that the empirical philosopher cannot even aim at
trying to understand the whole of Reality, because in their very nature the
human senses are very limited in their scope and also liable to error, as we
have already seen in the section on Science. Indeed, the only natural and
logical consequence of Empiricism is Scepticism, namely, that we cannot know
Reality. In other words, the philosophy of the Empiricist school itself asserts
the incompetence and the failure of philosophical endeavour to answer the
ultimate questions. As regards no. three, namely Criticism, it says that both
Reason and Senses are sources of knowledge but that both are very limited
sources. Hence, the knowledge of the world which we can get through them can
only be very limited in its scope as well as character. In other words,
according to this school of Philosophy, philosophical effort can succeed only
in knowing a part of Reality. This, in its turn, means that comprehensive and
sure knowledge, which is the necessary condition for solving the ultimate
questions successfully, cannot be obtained from Philosophy. Thus there remain
only two schools of Philosophy, namely, Formal Rationalism and Empirical
Rationalism where the belief is found that Philosophy can discover the Ultimate
Truth, which alone, therefore, deserve our consideration in connection with the
present discussion. Let us examine the validity of their claim.
Formal Rationalism holds that human Reason, unaided by
anything else, is capable of knowing the ultimate facts of life and the
world.
Empirical Rationalism holds that Reason and Sense Experience
should combine to enable human beings to find out the Ultimate Truth and that,
through this combination of the sources of knowledge, Philosophy can solve the
ultimate problems and guide humanity in that behalf.
Formal Rationalism depends wholly on Logic. Its method is to
choose a hypothesis as the starting point of its investigation and on that
hypothesis to build up a whole world of philosophical thought by using the
instrument of Logic.
Empirical Rationalism may be better named as “Philosophy of
Science”. Its method is to collect and arrange the facts discovered by Science
and to endeavour, by using the instrument of Reason, to form an integrated
picture of the world as a whole and thereby to answer the ultimate questions.
If we evaluate Formal Rationalism, we find that, on the face
of it, it is incapable of giving us any sure and accurate knowledge of the
ultimate problems. This is so, because its starting point is always a
hypothesis, which is nothing more than a supposed idea or at best an
observation based on common sense, and it has always been chosen by every
philosopher arbitrarily. Now, every hypothesis, especially in the realm of abstract
thought, is, in the very nature of the case, unverifiable. In other words, it
is uncertain. And if it is uncertain, the thought structure built upon it and
the conclusions arrived at must also be uncertain. That is, the knowledge of
ultimate problems given by Formal Rationalism cannot be sure and accurate.
As regards Empirical Rationalism, its starting point consists
in the scientific facts, namely, sensorial observation, and its method is to
reason out the ultimate problems on their basis. But, as we have already seen
in the discussion of the Scientific Method, scientific facts are at best
workable hypotheses or working material on the scale of observation or the
system of reference with which they are connected. Hence, for ultimate
problems, they have neither finality, nor perfect accuracy, nor absolute
certainty. This means that if the starting point and the working material of
Empirical Rationalism lack accuracy, certainty and finality, the conclusions
arrived at will also suffer from the same shortcomings. In other words, a
solution of the ultimate problems on the basis of sure knowledge is impossible
even for the Empirical Rationalist school of Philosophy.
An eminent scientific thinker of modern times admits this
truth in the following words: “Many people wrongly think that logical
mechanisms are ‘standard’ and that logical reasoning, and all the more so
mathematical reasoning, are inevitably ‘true’. This is not always the case. We
must beware of the process of human thought because, in the first place, the
starting point is often a sensorial observation (therefore of doubtful value)
or an observation based on common sense. Now common sense cannot be trusted. It
is common sense that leads us to think that the earth is flat; that two plumb
lines are parallel (they are both directed toward the centre of the earth and
consequently form an angle); that motion in a straight line exists, which is
absolutely false as we have to take into consideration not only the motion of
the earth around its axis and around the sun, and that of the entire orbit of
the earth, but also the motion of the whole solar system toward the
constellation Hercules, etc. As a result, a bullet or an aeroplane, which seems
to move in a straight line with respect to the earth, for a certain length of
time, in reality follows a trajectory more closely resembling a kind of
corkscrew with respect to a vaster system of reference, the nearest stars for
instance. Common sense tells us that the edge of a razor blade is a continuous
straight line, but if we examine it under a microscope it resembles a wavy line
drawn by a child. Common sense tells us that a piece of steel is solid; X-rays
show us that it is porus, and the modern theories of matter teach us that it is
in reality made up of trillions of animated, miniature universes having
extraordinarily rapid movements and no contact with each other.
“If, therefore, the
starting point, the premises of a reasoning is false, the conclusion will
necessarily, logically, be false.
“As we have no other means of knowing and describing nature
but those given us by our senses and our faculties—i.e., by our brain cells—we
must be extremely cautious and never forget the relativity of the picture which
we construct—a relativity with respect to the recording instrument, man.”
(Lecomte du Nouy: Human Destiny, pp.5, 6).
The competence of Science and Philosophy in unraveling the
mysteries of the ultimate problems can be examined through another argument
also. As stated in the foregoing, the ultimate problems refer to three main
heads, namely: Man, Universe and God. Let us take here the case of Man himself.
Can Science or Philosophy, or both combined, provide us true and accurate knowledge
of the ultimate problems which refer to Man? If we consider this question cool mindedly
and dispassionately, we find that neither the origin nor the constitution nor
the functioning of man can be reasonably conceived to exist in a vacuum.
The
individual human being is a part of the human race. The human race, in its
turn, is part of a larger whole, namely, the animal world. The animal world, in
its turn, is part of a larger whole, namely, the organic world (which includes
plant life). The organic world, in its turn, is part of a larger whole, namely,
the Earth, (which includes both the organic world and the inorganic world). The
Earth, in its turn, is part of a larger whole, namely, our solar system. Our
solar system, in its turn, is immediately part of a galaxy of unknown number of
solar systems and ultimately a part of the entire Universe which is unknown to
us as a whole thing and which, according to Modern Science, should be termed as
virtually infinite both in Space and Time, and is, therefore, incapable of
being grasped in knowledge by our finite powers of perception and reasoning,
both logical and mathematical. Thus, the human individual is ultimately part
and parcel of a universe which, in its origin, constitution and purpose, is
unknowable as a whole thing.
Now, if we wish to obtain true, accurate and comprehensive
knowledge of the fundamental laws which govern the existence of the human
individual, we find that just as the human individual does not exist in a
vacuum the laws also which govern his existence do not exist in a vacuum. For,
the system of laws which governs the existence of the human individual is part
of a larger and higher whole, namely, the system of laws which governs humanity
as an entity. This larger and higher system of laws is, in its turn, part of
another system which is higher and larger than it; and this series goes on—the
levels of laws rise higher and higher, tier after tier, until we reach the
level where we are confronted with the laws which govern the entire universe as
an entity and fundamentally.
We are now heading towards the conclusion. To know the nature
and destiny of the part we must know the nature and destiny of the whole.
Hence, to know the nature and destiny of the human individual we must know the
nature and destiny of the whole of which it is a part. As we have already seen,
immediately, it is part of the human race. But the human race itself is not the
final whole. Rather, it is a part of a larger whole, and that larger whole is
part of a still larger whole, until, if we were to stop even at physical
concepts only, we reach the final whole which is known as the Physical
Universe. This means that unless we know the nature and destiny of the
universe, we cannot know the nature and destiny of anything which forms part of
it, including the human individual.
All the above discussions lead us positively to the
conclusion that neither Science nor Philosophy can ever be capable of giving
accurate answers to our ultimate questions on the basis of sure knowledge. And
those answers which they have been giving, or might give in future, have been,
and shall always be, at best approximations in the nature of partial truths
and, in most instances, what the following verse of the Holy Qur’an calls
“conjectures”:
“But they have no knowledge thereof. They follow nothing but
conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.” (53:28).
The question now is: If Science and Philosophy fail in
guiding us on ultimate problems, is that the end of the road, or is there a way
out? The answer is: Yes, there is a way—the way of Religion.
Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
Chapter 2
SOURCE OF
GUIDANCE—WHAT?
There are three claimants in the field of guidance and
everyone of them claims that it can guide humanity in the ultimate problems of
life. These claimants are:— (1) Science; (2) Philosophy; (3) Religion. We might
take them up one by one and examine the validity of the claim of each.
1. SCIENCE
Modern Science entered the
field of human
thought as the
all-solving branch of knowledge and the rival of religion towards the
middle of the 18th century. The reason of this new attitude of Science was not that
Science had found out some such unerring methods or instruments of knowledge
that could authorise it to make the claim. Rather, it was purely a sentimental
affair.
Science came to the modern West from the world of Islam. It
was the Muslims who, after the conquest of certain parts of Europe, specially
Spain, established the first universities, scientific observatories,
laboratories and libraries on the soil of Europe, and the first Christian
scientists who, after centuries of darkness and ignorance, lit the torch of
scientific knowledge in England, France, Germany and so on, were pupils of
Muslim masters.64 Christianity, as distinct from the original
Message of the Holy Prophet Jesus (Peace be on him!), had been anti-Science
and anti-reason from the very start. Indeed, it was Christianity which
extinguished whatever light of knowledge was to be found in Greece, Egypt and
Syria when it became politically powerful.65 Besides, as already
stated, Science came to the modern West through Muslims whom the Christians
regarded as their deadliest enemies. Hence, the Christian Church persecuted the
scientists, burnt them at the stake and hanged them on the gallows.66
64 The facts
referred to are known to all the scholars of history and have been stated by
the most eminent authorities of the West and the East. For instance, the
renowned British Orientalist, Marmaduke Pickthall, says:
“The Qur’ān undoutedly gave a great impetus to learning,
especially in the field of natural science: and, if, as some modern writers
have declared, the inductive method, to which all the practical modern
discoveries are chiefly owing, can be traced to it, then it may be called the
cause of modern scientific and material progress.
“The Muslims set out on their search for learning in
the name of God at a time when Christians were destroying all the learning of
the ancients in the name of Christ. They had destroyed the Library at Alexandria, they had
murdered many philosophers, including the beautiful Hypatia. Learning was for
them a devil’s snare beloved of the pagans. They had no injunction to ‘seek
knowledge even though it were in China’. The manuscripts of Greek and Roman
learning were publicly burnt by the priests.
“……..the revolving terrestrial globe happened to be
part of the educational equipment of the Spanish Muslim universities at the
time when the learned Bruno was burnt at a slow fire by the Inquisition for
upholding the Corpernican theory of the Earth, and before the even greater
Galileo was forced by persecution to recant and sign a solemn declaration that
the Earth was fixed immovably as the Bible said it was. He is said to have
murmured under his breath, as he put his name to the lie: E pur se Muov (“And
yet it moves”). It was from the teaching of the Spanish Muslim universities
that Columbus got his notion that the world was round, though he too was forced
by persecution to recant it afterwards. When we remember that the Spanish Muslim
universities in the time of the Khalifa Abdur Rahman III and the Eastern Muslim
universities in the time of Al Ma’mun—I mention these two monarchs because it
is specially recorded of their times—welcomed Christian and Jewish students on
equality with Muslims; not only that, but entertained them at the Government
expense: and that hundreds of Chiristian students from the South of Europe and
the countries of the East took advantage of the chance to escape from
ecclesiastical leading strings; we can easily perceive what debt of gratitude
modern European progress owes to Islam, while it owes nothing whatsoever to the
Christian Church, which persecuted, tortured, even burnt the learned.” (Islamic
Culture. pp. 64, 67, 68).
The learned author of Islam
in the World says (pp. 142-149):
“The influence of the powerful movement of Islamic
culture in Spain rapidly made itself felt throughout Europe. Petrus Alfonsi (b.
1602) who studied at the Arabian medical schools, came to England from Spain as
Physician to King Henri I and, in 1120, collaborated with Walcher, Prior of
Malvern, in the production of a translation of Alfonsi’s astronomical treatise,
based upon Arabian sources. In England their united effort represents the first
impact of Arabian learning. Its effect was rapid, for immediately afterwards
Adelard of Bath earned the distinction of being the first prominent European
man of science, outside Spain, to come to Toledo and make a special study of
Arabian learning, The cultural links thus formed between England and Muslim
Spain were destined to produce important results. They stimulated in England
the desire for the new philosophical and scientific learning and led to the
achievements of Michael Scot (C.1175/1232) and Roger Bacon
(1214-1294).
“Scot proceeded to Toledo in order to gain a knowledge
of Arabic and of Arabian philosophy. At Oxford, Roger Bacon achieved brilliant success as an exponent
of the new Arabian-Aristotelian philosophy. In the library of the Dean and
Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral is a late thirteenth century illuminated
manuscript, ‘Vetus Logica’, the earliest known commentary on Aristotle’s Logic
produced in England following the Arabian ‘renaissance’ of Aristotelian
philosophy. Amongst those scholars who came to Spain from Britain were Robert
of England (flourished 1143), first translator of the Quran, Dental Morley
(flourished 1170), etc. Roger Bacon’s work ‘Optics’ was based on Alhazen’s
‘Theraurus opticae’. The alchemical teachings of Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber) and
other Arabian writers, are apparent in the work of Albert Magnus, Vincent of
Beauvais, etc.
“In a recent study made by the ‘Madrid School of
Spanish Arabists’, (a school which is concerned with the study of Islamic
civilisation in Spain and its influence on Christian civilisation in the
Iberian Peninsula as well as in the rest of Europe), Julian Ribera demonstrates
that many of the institutions of Christian Spain were nothing but a copy or an
imitation of similar institutions of Muslim Spain. He discovered Arabic sources
for the doctrines of certain thinkers and certain poetic forms of songs of the
Middle Ages, and for the mediaeval Andalusian music and songs of the troubadours,
trouveres and minnesingers. Don Miguel Asin Palacios, in studying the origins
of philosophy in Spain, traces the influences of such Arabian thinkers as
Avempace, Averroes, Abenarabi, Abenmasarra and others. He also establishes the
point that, one should seek the key of the Divine Comedy of Dante in the
Islamic legends of the nocturnal voyage of Muhammad . It is further shown that
historiographers, mathematicians
and lexicologists, etc., owe much to their Muslim predecessors of Spain.”
“Emmanuel Deutsch says. ‘By
the aid of the Qur’ān the Arabs conquered a world greater than that of
Alexander the Great, greater than that of Rome and in as many tens of years as
the latter had wanted hundreds to accomplish her conquests; by the aid of which
they, alone of all the Semites, came to Europe as kings, whither the
Phoenicians had come as tradesmen, and the Jews as fugitives or captives. They
came to Europe to hold up the light to Humanity; they alone, while darkness lay
around, to raise up the wisdom and knowledge of Hellas from the dead, to teach
philosophy, medicine, astronomy and the golden art of song to the West as well
as to the East, to stand at the cradle of modem science, and to cause us late
epigoni for ever to weep over the day when Grenada fell’.”
That violent persecution made the Western scientists the
enemy not only of the Christian Church but of all Religion, and because religion concerns itself basically
with the ultimate problems of human life and demands the loyalty of human
beings on that score, the scientists entered the field of ultimate problems and
started in the name of scientific facts to oppose the teachings of Christianity
concerning such problems as the origin of man, the origin of the world, the
existence of the supernatural world and the existence of God.
Thus, for
instance Darwin sought to show that man was not a superior being as taught by
religion, that he was not a being created in the ‘image’ of God, but just an
animal among animals—merely a higher variety of apes! Indeed, he tried to trace
the origin of human beings to the lowest form of life, namely, the amoeba, and
said that the species had evolved through the process of transmutation, and
that the position of man as the strongest of all animals was just due to chance
and not because of any Divine decree. His entire thought was actually
anti-religious, and others who came after him added to the list of the mistakes
of Christian teaching in the name of scientific facts.
But the question remains: “Is Science really capable of
answering the ultimate questions on the basis of sure knowledge?”
The answer to
this question lies in the analysis of the Scientific Method. The scientific method of obtaining knowledge consists in observation
and experiment. We shall have to examine the validity of observation in order
to find out as to how far it can help us in solving with any certainty the
ultimate problems.
Scientifically viewed, every observation is made up of three
factors, namely: (1) the Observer; (2) the Object which is observed; (3) Conditions under which the
observation is made. Let us examine these factors and find out whether they are
variable or stable, in order to understand if we can arrive at sure knowledge
of ultimate things on the basis of Observation.
The first factor is the observer. Now, observation is bound
to vary from observer to observer, because different human beings do not have
similarly sharp and accurate powers of observation either as regards their
physical senses of sight, smelling, hearing, taste and touch or as regards the
intellect which co-ordinates the reports that the brain gets through the
physical senses. For instance, a person may be colour-blind or myopic and as
such his observation will always differ from the observation of those who have
what is called normal eyesight. Similarly, a person may be hard of hearing, or
may have lost the smelling sense or the discrimination of taste or the sense of
touch, or he may be an idiot or a lunatic. It is thus a well-established fact
that the first factor in every observation is a variable factor, which means
that different observations can vary on the basis of this factor.
The second factor is the object which is observed. It does
not require much deep thought to realise that the more immediate, the more
concrete and the more comprehensible an object is, the more is the possibility
of the observation being correct; and the more remote, the more subtle and the
more ungraspable an object is, the less possibility is there for anything like
correct observation—nay, even for observation itself. For instance, if we have
to find out the chemical properties of Sodium Chloride or of Calcium Carbonate,
it is something easily available in its standard form. Also, it is something
which is concrete and it is something
which can be examined in a test-tube. But even in immediate objects if we turn
to Atomic Physics and try to observe the behaviour of the atom, it is bound to
be a most difficult task, although the atom concerned may be one of Sodium, or
of Calcium, or of Carbon. Going to remote objects and trying to observe them is
a different matter altogether. For instance, if we try to observe the
interplanetary strata, there are bound to be different opinions, even as they
are there already. As a matter of fact, even in the case of an object like the
moon which is observed and enjoyed even by the child, scientific observation
begs for accuracy. For instance, till sometime back scientists had agreed on a
certain calculation of the distance between the earth and the moon. But now
they say it was a miscalculation and that the real distance is more than what
had been believed in.
Coming now to the third factor, namely, the conditions under
which an observation is made, we find that it also is a variable factor. For
instance, if we take a straight rod and dip a portion of it in water, thereby
placing one part of it in the medium of water and keeping the other part in the
medium of air, we observe that the straight rod appears tilted at the point
where air and water meet, although when we view it only in one medium, which
may be air or water, it always appears straight. This normal change in the
appearance of the shape of the rod is due only to change of conditions of observation
and not due to any change in the structure of the rod. Another common instance
is that where the distance of an object varies. For instance, when we view a
sandy waste in the sultry heat of the sun from a distance, it appears to us as
if it is a huge expanse of water—the common phenomenon in the deserts known as
mirage. The false nature of this observation becomes known to us only when we
approach that supposed lake of water. This means that if we become contented
with the first observation, we would always remain in misunderstanding about
the supposed lake of water.
We have seen In the foregoing that all the three factors
which constitute a scientific observation, are variable. In other words, any
and every scientific observation liable to vary in its accuracy according to
any one or two or all of these factors. The margin of this possibility of error
in scientific observation becomes wider and wider as the objects observed
become more subtle and more distant. This means that physical science can be a
good guide and source of knowledge only in our immediate, and mostly physical,
problems— although even there it is not immune from error. Indeed, it has been
making lot of mistakes, as is well known to every student of the history of
science. As regards the ultimate problems, which comprehend within themselves
the entire universe and all aspects of existence, it should be very plain, even
to a person of ordinary intelligence, that it would be extremely unscientific
and even foolish to expect sure and accurate solutions from physical science.
We have said in the foregoing that physical science cannot
give us sure knowledge in all cases even as regards the immediate physical
objects. We might illustrate this fact by instances. The human body is the most
immediate physical object of observation for a scientific observer. But, in
spite of the fact that physical science is carrying man to the moon, it has not
succeeded so far even in mastering thoroughly the mysteries of the human body.
For instance, the Allopathic system of Medicine and the Homoeopathic system of
Medicine are both virtually equally successful in treating human diseases. But
the conceptions of human nature on which they are respectively founded are
diametrically opposed. This clearly means that neither of them has yet
succeeded in grasping the mysteries of human nature (even in its physical
aspect) truly and comprehensively. Also, we
must bear in mind that if Medical Science, which is a part of Physical
Science, had genuinely succeeded in knowing with certain, accuracy and
thoroughness the physical aspect of human nature and the medicines needed for
the cure of the different human diseases, the margin of failure in the cure of
diseases would have become zero,—which is not the case at present. As regards
the details of the human body, here again the same lack of accuracy and
finality exists. For instance, there was a time when the scientists of the
Allopathic school of medicine were of the opinion that the appendix and the
tonsils were useless things and that they could be cast out of the body even as
a precautionary measure. The scientific belief about the appendix was so
vehemently stated that it gave rise even to an English proverb, namely: “as
useless as an appendix”. But medical thought is now directed more and more to
keeping the organs intact.
We may also give an instance concerning the ever-changing
character of scientific conclusions as regards the ultimate problems. We might
leave out here the per-Newtonian scientific thought, in order to be more
charitable, and consider only the era starting with Newtonian Physics, which is
considered to be the era of the maturity of Science. But what situation do we
find here too? Sir Isaac Newton affirmed and proclaimed to the world that the
universe was three-dimensional and that Space and Time were two different and
independent entities. The entire scientific progress after him proceeded on
this assumption. It was held by scientists to be an infallible truth, which
they defended and by which they swore day in day out. But then came Einstein
who proved, again scientifically, that Newtonian physics was all wrong in its
foundations, that the universe was not three-dimensional but four-dimensional,
that Time was the fourth dimension of Space and not an independent entity, that
instead of immutability (on which Materialism had thrived) there was
indeterminacy in the universe (which renders the scientific affirmation of the
existence of God possible),—and Science has proceeded since then to show that
Matter itself is unreal. Who knows that tomorrow another great scientist may
come and explode the Physics of Einstein also?
