Proving
Question:-
Why do scientists
and others attack religion and the concept of God? They say that there is no
proof for the existence of God, but then there is no proof for the
non-existence of God either.
Comment:-
This is an error of
thought. They have assumed that there is no God – they have not tried to
prove or disprove His existence. Though they would admit that understanding
science requires a person to undergo a discipline, they have generally made no
effort to understand religion. They have misunderstood the concept and then
tried to demolish their own fantasy. Nor have they realised that no proof is
required when something is seen, experienced or understood, but that, on the
contrary, all proof depends on these. Does one need proof that one exists or
that the world exists? But they do not know what the cause is of the Big Bang
from which the Universe arose. Nor do they know the cause of the emergence of
life or the cause of consciousness. They cannot, therefore, know what the
nature of the fundamental force of existence or even of knowledge is.
In fact, it is
impossible for them to know this by means of the thought processes they employ.
This is because these are products of the laws and processes that describe the
Universe and it is by adaptation to the world that these faculties have
developed. They are twice removed from cause of the Universe. Their own
Mathematicians and Logicians ought to have told them that it is not possible to
describe the whole of something by means of parameters that describe the parts.
The laws and rules that describe the Universe and make it recognisable must
emerge from a sphere of existence that transcends those laws and rules. They
restrict the infinite possibilities to a finite set; making predictable and
controllable what otherwise is not. The rule maker, therefore, always
transcends the game or the world made by the rules.
It is necessary to
understand that there is a difference between information, understanding and
consciousness. Information refers to separate units of facts. Understanding
refers to organised facts such that each has a meaning or function with respect
to the pattern. Consciousness refers to awareness and the relationship of
things to oneself and oneself to things and concerns values. Most people are
satisfied with information. There is also a distinction between description,
experience and truth. The experience of something is not the same thing as the
reality of the thing and does not necessarily correspond to the thing because
experience also involves the minds of the observers which vary. And
descriptions that are usually verbal refer to certain selected aspects of
things and can be understood differently by different people. Most people are
satisfied with description.
The fundamental
Reality is, therefore known by a different faculty than that which deals with
the created world. It must consist of the same fundamental force that brought
the world into existence. The fundamental Unity and the pattern cannot be seen
when the mind is concentrated on the parts. Consciousness must transcend the
contents of consciousness. But this faculty of existential awareness is weak
and tends to atrophy or be suppressed when human attention, motives and
activities are focused on exercising and training the ordinary faculties that are
concerned with physical and mental life. A different set of ideas, motives and
practices are required to regenerate this much more fundamental general faculty
from which the others mot probably differentiate. In order that this discipline
should be established it must also be embedded harmoniously in an appropriate
social and cultural environment. It is the function of Religion to provide this
alternative way of life. But this has gradually eroded owing to the numerous
and overwhelming distractions modern life provides.
Religion can be
defined as a way of life based on certain fundamental ideas, values and
practices about existence and life. From this point of view everyone has a
religion, even scientists. The criticism of religion by scientists is simply a
criticism based on one religion by one based on another. But people can be
conscious of their religion to various degrees and they can be mixtures of
truth and subjective factors such interests, fantasy, expediency and
self-interest to various degrees. Or they can be objective, comprehensive and
self-consistent to various degrees. Islam, as the Religion of Truth, requires
that religion should be a progressively conscious, objective, comprehensive and
self-consistent.
Religion depends on
three interdependent concepts that differ from those of science – namely
God, Spirit and Purpose. God is the fundamental self-existing reality. Purpose
refers to order and direction and called the Word or Will of God. Given the
whole of existence, so that there cannot be anything outside it by definition,
then all changes in it are due to intention. Cause and purpose at this level is
the same thing. Spirit refers to the fundamental substance in contrast to the
created particles of which the Universe is constructed. It carries the Word of
God and produces consciousness, conscience and will.
These are simply
verbal definitions the reality to which they refer must be understood. But
human beings have different capacities for understanding and Religions, in so
far as they refer to human beings, will differ accordingly. But their purpose,
when genuine, is to provide the discipline that will expand understanding and
development. People differ also in how well they apply them. Those who
understand and apply them better may criticise the religion of those who
understand or apply them less or vice versa.
Question:-
Is there a rational
argument for the existence of God?
Answer:-
Purely rational
arguments do not work. They can be refuted by using different concepts and
premises. It is a matter of insight. One could argue as follows:-
The world we see is
a world of limitations. All experiences, descriptions and discussions depend on
concepts that are distinguished from one another and linked. Our knowledge is
Relative. That is: (i) We are able to distinguish between things because they
have limitations. If they did not then we would see a homogenous continuity.
These limitations imply that (ii) something is included and others are
excluded, that there are similarities and dissimilarities and that (iii) things
are related to other things.
We could ask: How
do these limitations come about? The answer could be three fold.
(1) If originally
we have an Unlimited, a Homogenous continuity without limitations, then
creation requires a creative impulse which is already a spontaneous limitation
of that Homogeneity. That creative impulse must be inherent in the Homogeneity.
There is an original, fundamental Reality from which all things arise and into
which they return.
(2) The world we
see depends on the limitations of our minds. There is an inherent tendency in
the mind to differentiate. There are certain inbuilt categories of thought such
as cause and effect, quantities, qualities, space and time, goodness, power and
so on which we impose on what we experience in order to understand and make
life possible. For the new born child that is becoming conscious there is at
first a Homogenous continuity and it gradually begins to distinguish things. It
is like coming out of a fog. The world is being created in consciousness. This
can be attributed to the efforts made by every child. Again the creative
impulse is inherent in the homogeneity.
(3) The child, the
conscious entity, interacts with the environment of which it is part and it is
this interaction that creates the world. But before the child learns to
distinguish between itself and the environment or anything in it or within
itself, there is a homogeneity and the creative impulse that leads to the
differentiation is inherent in that homogeneity.
The nature of the
perceiving mind can be attributed to the fact that it arises from the same
materials, forces and laws that are responsible for the Universe or that it
arises by a process of evolution, of gradual adaptation to the world. On the
other hand it can be argued that the Universe is seen the way it is because of
the nature of the mind. Or it can be asserted that that fundamentally there is
no difference between the factors responsible for the mind and the Universe
– the Universe is like a brain that is an electrical instrument and
quantum computer and has a Universal mind associated with it. And Total Reality
is likely to be much greater than this Universe.
The fact that we
can distinguish between the limited and the homogenous is itself part of the original
mystery. It is neither or both homogenous and limited. Whereas all knowledge is
relative, Relativity itself is relative to the Absolute.
It is supposed by
some Scientists that they can get rid of the concept of God as a cause of the
Universe by postulating that there is a Multiverse consisting of all kinds of
Fundamental Rules - Constants, Forces and Laws -. so that the problem of why
our Universe has just the Rules discovered by Science disappears. But it does
not. The mystery why the Fundamental Rules exist still remains. In fact, it is
an integral part of the concept of God that He is Infinite and can make any set
of Rules. Suppose Total Reality is
a Multiverse. Then if creatures arose according to a certain set of Fundamental
Rules, they would be adapted to recognise phenomena that conformed to the same
set of rules. All those phenomena would be their Universe. This Universe is
recognisable by human beings because the rules that describe it are built into
them. There may be other creatures based on other rules that see other
Universes. They are not necessarily separate in Space but may
inter-penetrate. But a distinction
certainly arises at the most fundamental level between the Known and the
Unknown, the Manifest and the Hidden. There may, of course, be many
Multiverses. As the Quran says, there are 7 heavens, the lowest of which
contains the stars that constitute our Universe.
Question:-
There are many
critics of the Quran and Islam as there are supporters of it. How is this to be
understood? Is the truth something between the two?
Answer:-
We know that there
are opponents, supporters and neutrals with respect to any subject whatever.
People have various amounts of partial knowledge, various kinds of experiences to
which they are addicted or conditioned to various degrees. They have various
interests and motives and undertake various kinds of actions and amounts of
efforts. All this makes their opinions and behaviour diverse.
In general there
are seven different attitudes to a Religion, System or Discipline. (1) There
are those who live by it; (2) those who accept it in thought but not much in
practice; (3)those who are interested in it, and wish to know it and make some
effort to understand it; (4) those who are indifferent to it; (5) those who do
not wish to be associated with it; (6) those who are hostile to it and
undertake actions to oppose it; (7) those who seek to subvert it and
deliberately behave in a manner opposite to that advocated by the religion.
It has been pointed
out several times that the view of the non-Muslim critic of Islam, especially
when it is hostile, is not the same as that of Muslims. Because Islam is what
Muslims understand, accept and practice, the non-Muslim view cannot be regarded
as relevant to Islam or for Muslims. The Quran tells us:-
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture,
who read it with a right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in
it, those are the losers." 2:121
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation
in the hearts of those who are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our
revelations save the wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"And We reveal in the Quran that which is a
healing and a mercy for believers, though it increase the evil doers in nothing
but ruin." 17:82
"This is indeed a noble Quran in a Book kept
hidden which none touches save the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the
Worlds." 56:77-80
"When you see those who plunge deeply into vain
discussion of Our Signs (revelations), turn away from them until they discuss
another topic. It may be that Satan makes you forget, but sit not, after you
have remembered, with the congregation of the faithless (or unjust or
wrong-doers)." 6:68
We note that some
critics like Robert wish to compare their own scripture and the Quran by
interpreting them in opposite ways to suit their own biases - a positive
interpretation of their own scripture with a negative one of the Quran. Has it
not occurred to them that the opposite can be easily done by others - one could
compare a positive interpretation of the Quran with a negative one of the New
and Old Testaments? This is neither intelligent nor rational or moral justice.
In fact it is downright perverse. In particular, people who do not understand
their own scriptures, but admit that they speculate about its meaning, how can
they understand the Quran.
In order to know
something it is necessary to have sufficient information, the desire to
understand and make the adequate and appropriate efforts to study and practice the
discipline. The fact is that the critics do not have sufficient knowledge about
Islam to make any comments, but nevertheless are driven by hate to speculate
and make pronouncements about it. The result is that they tell us nothing about
Islam but only about the nature of their own mentalities.
Apart from the fact
that the critic is conditioned by his culture and also the religion he accepts,
he is also driven by negative motives to reject whatever appears to contradict
his prejudices. This filters and gives him selective perception. He chooses
bits of the religion he can interpret in a negative manner and ignores all
parts that would contradict such an interpretation. Many critics have been
thoroughly discredited for opinions based on this defect, but unashamedly
persist. This is because they ignore answers to their criticisms. They do not
wish to know. Answering the critic, therefore, tends to be a futile waste of
time. Those who really want to know but find something difficult to understand
would ask those who had knowledge. But the critic is satisfied with his own
hostile assertions based on ignorance. One wonders what the motive for such
attacks could be. It is obviously fear. It could be that they regard their own
precarious prejudices or beliefs on which they depend to be vulnerable. Or that
they are under threat of deprivation of what is familiar and comfortable, or of
wealth, power, prestige, privileges, pleasure or justification for
self-indulgence. In particular that which arouses guilt feelings is vigorously
attacked in order to suppress them and destroy the source of the suffering
caused by attack on the egotistic self-image. The attacks tend to be
proportional to the inadequacy of the person who mounts it. Saints, Prophets
and the virtuous have been persecuted just for this reason. This is quite
obviously an erroneous negative reaction to the problem that merely perpetuates
and compounds it. The objective course would be to confront and resolve the
inner contradiction that produces the guilt.
Critic:-
On a number of
occasions I have remarked upon the absence of the critical study and debate of
Islam in Muslim countries, and the effects of this on intellectual and cultural
standards in those countries. Bernard Lewis has a telling paragraph on this
subject in an essay, 'In search of Islam's past' (1991) in the volume
"Muslim History and Historians" (p113). "The
critical study of Jewish and Christian scripture and sacred history has almost
entirely been the work of Jewish and Christian scholars. The critical study of
early Islam has overwhelmingly been undertaken by non-Muslims. For that reason
special interest attaches to the small number of recent Muslim scholars,
writing in Arabic, who have contributed to this discussion and have raised
questions of a kind now commonly accepted among contemporary theologians and
Biblical scholars in the West, but not yet heard in Muslim
debate….”
Comment:-
This kind of
criticism is based on Western prejudices and on ignorance.
There has been a
great amount of study of the Quran and Hadith, but it is not widely known in
the West. Pronouncements made on the basis of ignorance or selectivity cannot
be regarded as valid.
The critic does not
understand that Islam is not in favour of armchair guesswork and speculation by
persons who have no experience of the religion and have no intention of taking
up its disciplines. They are worse than the non-scientist who criticise
science, though he has done none himself; or those who judge the quality or
nutritional value of food by opinions about the literary value of a textbook on
it. There is a difference between (i) opinion, (ii) scholarship and (iii) truth
and between knowledge based on (i) information, (ii) experience and (iii)
truth, and between (i) knowing, (ii) understanding and (iii) consciousness. It
is not sufficient simply to have some data about a subject, or even to study it
intellectually, it is necessary to develop the capacity to comprehend and apply
it through an appropriate discipline. One learns not just by (i) observing, but
also by (ii) thinking and by (iii) doing.
The Quran for
Muslims is the criterion by which things are judged. It is something that has
to be studied, understood and applied. It is wholly absurd to judge it by
external criteria – where would such criteria come from? What would
justify them? Clearly they would arise accidentally by cultural conditioning or
personal prejudices. This kind of thinking is to be wholly rejected.
Critic:-
Recent scientific
research (see New Scientist for Feb7 2009) shows that the religious tendency is
genetically built-in in man – it is hardwired. This, it is said gives
people a tendency to imagine all kinds of things. It is certainly no proof that
there is truth in any religion though it may be useful as a means for comfort
in times of trouble or for creating social solidarity.
Answer:-
Religion is a
Universal Phenomena. Scientific research certainly shows that human beings are
pre-disposed to have religious beliefs, motives and behaviour owing to inherent
factors, but particular religious beliefs are socially acquired and modified
also by personal efforts at thinking and practice. Biologists, though admitting
that human behaviour depends on two factors, the inherent and the acquired, do
not usually differentiate between what people acquire from the environment they
live in and what results from their own efforts. But this certainly constitutes
a third factor. We are born with many kinds of characteristics and faculties,
but though some are strengthened by exercise, others atrophy by neglect,
specially in these days of specialisation.
Scientists, like
other people, tend to seek, select and interpret facts according to their
interests and presuppositions. If they do not understand religion or do not
wish to see any truth in religion then they will interpret their findings as a
predisposition to fantasy and superstition – superstition being that
which others believe and they do not. But in reality, what they have found is
that human beings are born with inherent faculties for certain kinds of
experiences, motives and behaviour, and these are certainly useful and
certainly refer to something real. But as they develop they strengthen some of
these by exercise and others progressively weaken with neglect. Certainly,
experiences can be misinterpreted and we need to make efforts to seek the
truth.
Research has
established that even small children can differentiate between physical and
mental phenomena, not just in themselves but also in other people. They know
the distinction between a dead body and a living organism that has motives and
self-initiated behaviour. They know about the inner mental life of thought,
motive and intention. Not only do they perceive the difference but they have
correspondingly different sets of behaviour. But Biologists have not yet
differentiated between the mental and the spiritual, which constitutes a third
level. They have not understood the difference between consciousness and
thinking, between conscience and ordinary motivation and between will and voluntary
action. Yet these spiritual faculties are prior to thought and knowledge. In
what way can it be said that Scientific activity is a good or legitimate thing
to do, or that its results are really useful or give us any kind of truth? For
someone who is not conscious nothing can exist, not even himself. The question
is:- How is it that the mental and spiritual aspects have come into existence,
if it is denied that they are fundamental phenomena. Are they epi-phenomena?
But so is physical matter. It can be regarded as local eddies of energy, which
consists of bundles of information. There is no justification for believing
that they are not universal phenomena. All three are potentialities in whatever
is fundamental.
It seems much more
reasonable to suppose that when human beings became conscious then they needed
to understand the nature of existence, themselves and their relationship with
the rest of Reality and to adjust to it. That is what gave rise to religion as
a comprehensive and conscious way of life as opposed to an automatic
unconscious one. It is the degree of consciousness that determines the
sophistication of the religion and the less conscious who have a vaguer
experience of Reality try to follow the more conscious, but the limitations of
the various mechanisms of the mind and body tend to interfere.
Critic:-
As far as I
understand it, the scientific view is that because evolution is proved, the
concept of God is redundant and irrelevant. But it is also the case that the
scientific view of evolution is that it is merely a series of changes and not
that there is any development or ascent as that would involve moral judgements.
The popular view of evolution is that there is constant progress. That is
unlike the religious or Islamic view. In fact from the Islamic point of view
processes in nature are cyclic and that man has even degenerated.
Answer:-
Yes that seems to
be true.
The fact, however,
is that owing to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, natural processes involve
increase in entropy (disorder) so that there is progressive degeneration,
probably because of the constant expansion of the Universe. This implies that
the Universe must have started from a state of maximum negentropy (order or
information) and that evolution in the Universe takes place by a constant introduction
into it of information. The source of that is the ultimate mystery.
It is true that the
Quran sees the processes of nature as cyclic and there is a descent and an
ascent . (Quran 2:28, 2:164, 6:6, 6:96, 25:47, 65:12, 34:2, 9:10-12, 57:4,
57:20). It is also true that Islam sees man as having fallen or degenerated
(See Quran 2:35-39, 95: 4-6, 32:7-9, 56:10-14, 33:72). There is a
disease in the hearts of human beings. (For Modern scientific research that
confirms this view see “Left in the Dark” by Graham Gynn and Tony
Wright. www.leftinthedark.org.uk.)
But the same verses
also tell us that human beings have the potential for development. We are
required to develop and that is the whole point of religion. (See Quran
91:7-10, 84:19, 87:14-17, 8:24, 20:76).
As verses 32:7-9
indicate, Islam is concerned mainly with the spirit or soul, the seat of
consciousness, conscience and will and not with the body, the vehicle, or even
the mind (the instrument) except in so far as they affect the soul. The
degeneration of man is, therefore, a degeneration of the soul. It is seldom
understood, but it is absolutely necessary to understand that this means that human
beings in general are not conscious of reality and do not know the truth, and
that they are not motivated by conscience and do not distinguish between real
good and evil, and do not act objective and purposefully from will but mostly
automatically and impulsively. Or rather that these faculties are weak to
different degrees in different people. But human beings owing to arrogance
attribute these faculties to themselves and, therefore, live in a World of
Illusions and that is the reason for their suffering and threatens their
destruction. According to the Prophet Muhammad, all human beings are born
Muslim (in surrender to Allah as mentioned in Quran 30:30-32), but it is the
society that makes them into something else. That is also the reason why we are
told that in the beginning, though a person might accept Islam for various
reasons or owing to various causes and profess to believe it (or disbelieve and
reject it or any other ideas), the fact is that they do not have faith in it,
but such faith comes only later with practices that produce appropriate
experiences. (See Quran 49:14-15 and also 9:99-101 – though it speaks
about the wandering Arabs, it can be seen as applying more generally.)
The cause of this
disease is the Way of life humanity has set up and the ideological, cultural,
social and physical environment they have created. There appear to be three
sources of the illusion. (1) Mentally, instead of being able to perceive
reality they think in terms of words and concepts that carry presuppositions and
prejudices – the left side of the brain has taken the dominant position.
Language, though useful as a medium of communication and transfer of
experiences has also trapped them in slogans and selective perception. They
first translate experiences in their minds into words and later it is words
that direct attention and interpret experiences. There is a vicious circle that
traps people, particularly intellectuals. (2) Socially, people are trapped by
institutions and conventions that define behaviour patterns. (3) Economically,
the illusion is caused by money when it is regarded as a commodity instead of a
means of exchange as is the case in Usury.
The point of
religion is to provide the teachings, the motives and the techniques to cure
the disease and free man from the trap he is in.
The following
points need to be understood:-
Allah is both
within a person and in the external world. (Quran 50:16, 32:9 and 40:62, 15:85,
8:47, 11:92) He is the Hidden and the Manifest (Quran 57:3-4, 6:109). He is
the Real (22:62-64).
The existence of
the Spirit of Allah in man refers to his dormant potentialities.
As has been
indicated before, if we draw a line R, representing the whole of Reality, then
we can place a point P on it which divides the area Known K from the area
unknown U. Then K is a small part of R and the unknown is the difference
between R and K. K < R and U = R-K. It also shows a
distinction between the Manifest and the Hidden. M < R and H = R-M
R =
<--------K----------->P<-----------------------U------------------------------------->
A
The same model can
be used about the reality of a human being – There is a distinction
between the Actual and the Potential, between his conscious self and his
unconscious self. This distinction also corresponds to the distinction between
knowledge and reality. The fact is that the world, universe reality we see R(m)
depends on our state of consciousness. It is not the same as the Real or
Absolute World R(A) of Allah. It is only by expansion of consciousness that we
can approach R(A). P must move
towards A. This requires special techniques.
----------<O>----------
Contents