|
Introduction
The theme of this book is evident from its title. Its purpose is to present
Islam as it is, drawing on its original sources rather than judging it by
the later day interpretations and commentaries or the practices of present
day Muslims in different parts of the world. A distinction is made between
Islam as presented by the Prophet Muhammad œ and his Companions (information
about which is available to us in the Qur’an and the sunnah) and Islam as
represented by later Muslim generations—both in theory and practice. This is
what we call the scientific approach.
We are living in the age of the media. Before the advent of the modern media
there were large numbers of people in the world who knew nothing of Islam.
With the invention of the printing press and now the electronic media it is
difficult to find today a single person who is unaware of it.
But there is a clear-cut difference. In previous ages it happened that
wherever Islam spread people were so impressed with it that most of them
accepted it as their religion. That is why today we find more than one
billion Muslims throughout the world. Strangely enough the present day
publicity given to Islam has produced only a negative effect. People are now
generally allergic to Islam rather than being interested in it.
In previous centuries when Islam was introduced, people used to say: Yes,
“Mr Islam welcome to you!” Now when Islam is presented to them they say: “No
thank you.” Why is there this difference? The answer is very simple. In
previous centuries Islam was introduced to the people of the world through
its scriptures, as it is—without the slightest change in its original
message. Whereas in modern times, Islam is being introduced through the
negative practices of certain Muslims as reported by the media.
There is a further and more severe problem that of selective reporting.
According to their own criteria the media is interested only in ‘hot’ news,
although so much ‘soft’ news is available about the Muslim people. Because
of their ingrained professionalism, they do not allow this ‘soft’ news to
find its way into their columns of their broadcasts.
Islam is the religion of nature. If it were to be presented in its original
form, people would turn to it quite naturally. For example, when a recently
converted American by the name of Gary Miller was asked why he had converted
to Islam, he replied: “I didn’t convert to Islam I have rather reverted to
my original religion.”
Unfortunately, a section of Muslims is engaged in violent and aggressive
activities, wrongfully indeed, in the name of Islam. It is such news as,
through the media, has a great impact upon the general public and creates
serious misunderstandings. People have come to take Islam as a militant
religion. Since modern man is in search of peace, he finds no appeal in a
religion which, as presented by the media, is one of hatred and violence.
This book attempts to introduce Islam as it is. It calls for a distinction
to be made between Islam and the practices of Muslims. Taking a scientific
attitude, you have to see Islam in the light of the Islamic scriptures and
not judge it by Muslim conduct. For surely, if you want to know what
democracy is, you will examine the ideology of democracy as established by
its champions. You will not form an opinion about the democratic system
merely on the basis of observing some self-styled democratic nation.
Everyone who wants to know what Islam is, should follow this scientific
method while trying to form his opinion on Islam.
We are living in an age of information. This is the age of the knowledge
explosion. Today, everyone wants to know more and more about everything,
including religion. The result is that, on the subject of religion, people
are far better informed than ever before. But there is a difference. About
other religions, people generally know what is enshrined in their religious
books. Whereas the case of Islam is the opposite. Their information about
Islam is derived from unauthentic sources. The reason for this lies with the
Muslims and not with anyone else. The Muslims of modern times are engaged in
violence everywhere in the name of Islam. Violence, however, is not limited
only to Muslims. It is found in every community and in every group. But
there is a basic difference between the two. When the adherents of other
religions engage in violence, they do not do so in the name of their
religion. But the violence engaged in by the Muslims is being done in the
name of Islam.
These violent activities of the Muslims reach the people through the media.
As modern media is a “hot news”-based industry, these violent events are
flashed in the media. For this reason, people come to regard Islam as a
religion of violence. It is only among Muslims that all violent activities
are carried out in the name of religion.
In practice, only a tiny minority of Muslims is engaged in such violent
activities. However, since other Muslims neither condemn these activities,
nor disown them outright, it is but natural for people to attribute their
violent propensities to their religion. But the scientific way of study is
to distinguish Islam from the deeds of Muslims, just as the ideology of
democracy is studied by distinguishing it from the acts of democratic
countries. The aim of this book is to present Islam as it is enshrined in
its sacred scriptures, so that it may be brought before the people in its
true form. The authentic source of information about Islam is the Qur’an.
The Qur’an, according to Muslim belief, was revealed by God to the Arabian
Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him. The second source of knowledge
about Islam is the sunnah, i.e., the words, deeds and sanctions of the
Prophet Muhammad œ. The lives of the companions of the Prophet provide
another later source. Then, there is a full stop in this matter. No other
person or historical record enjoys the status of source of Islam.
However, this book does not claim to be a comprehensive introduction to
Islam. That is something which can be had only by studying Islam directly
through its basic scriptures, that is, the Qur’an and Sunnah. This book thus
presents a fundamental introduction for those who want to understand Islam
as it is. Its aim is to provide a proper background in the light of which
the original sources of Islam may be studied.
I hope that this book will be useful for those who want to know about the
original Islam, as opposed to the “religion” represented by certain
self-styled Muslim leaders introduced to us by the media.
Search for Truth
Man is a born seeker—a veritable truth-seeking animal. Every human being
regards himself as incomplete until he has found that supreme principle by
which he can explain his existence in this world and discover the purpose
and meaning of his life.
Everyone is a seeker. True. But few are finders. Why? Because, where seeking
is instinctive, finding is the outcome of one’s own conscious effort.
In the pre-Islamic period, there were certain individuals in Arabia, called
hunafa. They were all truth seekers. Confining themselves to solitary
places, they would remember God and say: “O God if we had known how to
worship You, we would have worshipped you accordingly.”
This was due to their urge to come to grips with reality—an urge such as is
found in every human being, the difference between one individual and
another being only one of degree: in some, the urge is weak, in others it is
strong.
Then, there are some deviations. Some people take certain material objects
to be their goal in life and do their utmost to obtain them. But there is an
internal evidence that they do so mistakenly. Before obtaining these
material objects, they are highly enthusiastic about them. But as soon as
they have them in their possession their enthusiasm turns to frustration
for, with experience, they invariably find that what they have struggled for
so hard, has failed to give them the desired sense of fulfillment. All these
material things in this world are meant to fulfill only our physical needs.
They have nothing to do with the purpose of our lives. This purpose can be
only spiritual in nature, and not something material. To achieve this
purpose is the greatest quest in life. Everyone is motivated, consciously or
unconsciously, by this demand of human nature, everyone at one time or
another suffers from a sense of frustration, with or without sad
experiences. To make one’s life meaningful, therefore one has to discover
its purpose. One should be extremely sincere and honest in this respect.
Sincerity and honesty are an assurance of engaging oneself unremittingly in
this pursuit, and never giving-up, until one has discovered the real purpose
of human existence.
When a man succeeds in discovering this ideal, he becomes a person who is
fit to be called a complete man, one who has succeeded in making his life
purposeful, in the real sense of the word. Such a person has been called in
the Qur’an: al-nafs al-Mutmainna (89:27). This means a soul at rest, in
peace or in a state of complete satisfaction. That is, a man who
wholeheartedly follows the divine way of life and is always fully satisfied,
whether or not it is in consonance with his own desires. By showing such
total willingness to surrender his will to the will of God, he attains that
state of humanity which is at one with the creation plan of God. Such people
will be rewarded with eternal paradise in the world Hereafter. This will to
search for the truth is implanted in everyone. But it depends upon every
individual himself, whether or not he pursues this natural urge. Only
through sincere pursuit will he discover the truth and thus make his life
meaningful. For any kind of negligence or apathy in this regard, there is no
excuse, whatever the circumstances. Philosophy
Philosophy is the only discipline which, by its own definition, embodies the
quest for knowledge and understanding of the nature and meaning of the
universe as well as of human life. But after a long search of more than 5000
years, to which the greatest minds of human history have been bent, it has
failed to provide any definite answer to such questions.
Bertrand Russell was a great thinker of the present world, whose life
spanned almost a century. He spent almost his entire life in reading and
writing on philosophical subjects. But he failed to evolve any credible
ideology. Because of this failure, one of his commentators remarks that “he
was a philosopher of no philosophy.” This is true not only of Bertrand
Russell, but also of all other philosophers. Individually or jointly, they
have failed to produce any philosophical system which might have provided a
sound answer to the human dilemma.
The main concern of philosophy was to make a unified picture of the world,
including human life. But the long history of philosophy shows that this
still remains an unfulfilled dream. The Encyclopaedia Britannica in its
27-page article on philosophy and its history, admits that there seems to be
no possibility of philosophical unification. The article concludes with this
remark: In the contemporary philosophical universe, multiplicity and
division still reign. (EB, Vol. 14:274 [1984])
Why this failure? This failure is not of a chance or intermittent nature,
but seems to be a permanent feature of the philosophical approach to
reality. The Qur’an has drawn our attention to this fact, saying:
They put questions to you about the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is at the
command of my Lord and of knowledge you have been given only a little.”
(17:85)
This means that the problem stems from man’s own shortcomings. The
philosophical explanation of the world requires unbounded knowledge, whereas
man has had only limited knowledge bestowed upon him. Due to these
intellectual constraints man cannot uncover the secrets of the world on his
own. So it is not the lack of research, but the blinkered state of the human
mind, that stands as a permanent obstacle in the philosopher’s path to
reality. It is this human inadequecy which explains the unexplainable.
For example, suppose, in order to unveil reality and the law of life, the
enquirer starts from a study of human settlements. After a detailed survey,
he comes to the conclusion that since society is composed of human beings,
he had better focus on the individual, and so he studies human psychology.
But there he finds that, despite extensive research in this field it has
resulted in nothing but intellectual chaos.
He ultimately finds that no unified system emerges from psychology. In
despair of finding any solution to the problem, he turns to biology. His
in-depth study of biology leads him to the conclusion that the whole human
system is based on certain chemical actions and reactions, so, for a proper
understanding of the human body he begins to study physics and chemistry.
This study leads him to the discovery that, in the last analysis, man like
other things, is composed of atoms. So, he takes to the study of nuclear
science, only to arrive at the conclusion that the atom is composed of
nothing but incomprehensible waves of electrons.
At this point man, as well as the universe, are seen as nothing but, in the
words of a scientist, a mad dance of electrons. A philosopher ostensibly
begins his study from a basis of knowledge, but ultimately comes to a point
where there is nothing but the universal darkness of bewilderment. Thus a
5000-year journey of philosophy has brought the sorry conclusion that, due
to its limitations, it is simply not in a position to unfold the secrets of
the universe. It is evident from the several thousand year-long history of
philosophical inquiry, that philosophy has failed to give any satisfactory
answer to questions concerning reality. Moreover, there is a growing body of
evidence that philosophy is inherently incompetent for the task undertaken
by it. The need, therefore, is to find some alternative discipline that may
help us reach our desired intellectual goal.
Science
What is science? According to its definition “Science is a branch of
knowledge concerned with the material world conducted on objective
principles involving the systematised observation of, and experiment with
physical phenomenon.” Science has divided the world of knowledge into two
parts—knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. According to this
division, science has confined its study only to a part of the world and not
to the entire world. A scientist has rightly remarked that “science gives us
but a partial knowledge of reality.”
This means that science being confined in its scope to the physical aspect
of the world, has kept itself aloof from higher spiritual matters. No
scientist has ever claimed that science attempts to find out the absolute
truth. All scientists humbly submit that the “search for truth” is not their
target. They are simply trying to understand how the objective world
functions and not why it functions. For instance, the chemistry of a flower
may be chemically analyzed, but not its odour.
Chemistry can describe how water may be turned into steam power, but not why
a miraculous life-giving element such as water came to exist in our world.
Similarly, while science is concerned with the biological aspect of man, it
is not the aim of science to try to discover the secret of the strange
phenomena commonly known as the mind and spirit.
Science has never claimed that its objective is to discover the total truth
or absolute reality. The concerns of science are basically descriptive, and
not teleological. Although science has failed to give a satisfactory answer
to the quest for truth, it is not to be disparaged, for this has never been
its motivation. Many people had pinned their hopes on science providing them
with the superior life they had sought for so long. But after more than two
hundred years, it has dawned upon recent generations that science has fallen
very far short of fulfilling man’s hopes and aspirations, even in the
material sense. Now it has been generally acknowledged that, although
science has many plus points for human betterment, it has many minus points
as well.
Science gave us machines, but along with them it also gave us a new kind of
social problem: unemployment. Science gave us comfortable motor cars but at
the same time it polluted the air, making it difficult for human beings to
inhale fresh air, just as with the rise of modern industry, there came the
pollution of life giving water. Production may have been speeded up, but at
the cost of adversely affecting our whole social structure.
If the object of science was to provide man with the answer to his search
for truth it had obviously failed. If the search for truth was not within
the province of science, there was no reason for it to figure in such
discussions at all. In other words, science cannot be legitimately blamed
for not helping man to grasp the ultimate reality, for this was not
something expected of it. Indeed the reality lies far beyond the boundaries
of science.
Mysticism
What is mysticism? According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, mysticism is a
“quest for a hidden truth or wisdom.” The Fontana Dictionary of Modern
Thought, defines it thus: “Mysticism is the direct experience of the divine
as real and near, blotting out all sense of time and producing intense joy.”
Some people mistakenly think that mysticism is the answer to the search for
truth. In fact, mysticism, to be more exact, is a sort of escapism. It seeks
a refuge rather than the truth. According to the mystics, the final state
produced by mystical exercises is inner joy or spiritual bliss. The subject
of the present volume is the search for truth. So far as this subject is
concerned, mysticism is quite irrelevant to it.
1. The search for truth, by its very nature, is entirely an intellectual
exercise. Its findings too are intellectual in nature. It is succesful when
the seeker finds rational answers to the questions he poses about the
universe and his own existence. The search for truth is not a vague matter.
It begins from the conscious mind and also culminates there.
The case of mysticism is quite different. Mysticism, essentially based on
intuition, is not really a conscious intellectual process. As such, the
mystical experience is more an act of spiritual intoxication than an effort
to apprehend the truth in intellectual terms. A drug user undergoes an
experience of inner pleasure which is too vaguely and unconsciously felt to
be explained in comprehensible language. Similarly, what a mystic
experiences is a type of unconscious ecstasy, which does not amount to a
consciously sought after or properly assessable discovery. On the contrary,
the search for truth is an intellectual exercise from beginning to end.
2. Mysticism, as popularly conceived, makes the basic assumption that the
physical, material, and social needs of man act as obstacles to his
spiritual progress. Therefore, mysticism teaches him to reduce his physical
needs to the barest minimum; to renounce worldly and social relations; and
if possible to retire to the mountains or jungles. In this way, he will
supposedly be able to purify his soul. Thus, by giving up the world and by
certain exercises in self-abnegation, a mystic expects to awaken his
spirituality.
The educated community, however, does not find this concept of mysticism
acceptable. A seeker aims at a rational explanation of the world and
endeavours to discover a definite principle by which he may successfully
plan his present life. Mysticism, on the contrary, teaches man to abandon
the world itself; to depart from the world without uncovering its mystery.
Obviously such a scheme amounts only to an aggravation of the problem rather
than a solution to it.
3. The mystics can broadly be divided into two groups. Those who believe in
God and those who do not. Non-believers in God assert that there is a hidden
treasure in the centres of our souls. The task of the mystic is to discover
this hidden treasure. But this is only a supposition. None of them has ever
been able to define this hidden treasure or to explain it in understandable
terms. Tagore has thus expressed this claim made by the mystics:
“Man has a feeling that he is truly represented in something which exceeds
himself.”
But this is only a subjective statement unsupported by logical proofs. That
is why, in spite of its great popularity, no school of this mystical thought
has so far produced any objective criterion by which one may rationally
ascertain that the existence of such a hidden treasure within the human soul
is a reality, and not an illusion. On the other hand, no well-defined law,
or step-by-step practical programme, has been introduced by any individual
or group that might help the common man reach his spiritual destination
consciously and independently.
Moreover, mysticism makes the claim that the natural quest of man is its own
fulfillment. It does not require any external effort to arrive at the
perceived goal. In other words, it is like assuming that the feeling of
thirst or hunger in man contains its own satisfaction. A thirsty or hungry
person is not to trouble himself to search for water or food in the outer
world.
4. Those (of this school of thought) who believe in God interpret this
hidden treasure in terms of God. To them the inner contemplation of a mystic
is directed towards God.
This concept too is rationally inexplicable, for, if such mystic exercises
are a means to discover God, then, there should be genuine proof that God
Himself has shown this way to find Him. But there is no evidence that this
path has been prescribed by God. On the other hand, there is a clear
indication that this course separates the seeker from God’s creation and
leads him to a life of isolation. This makes it plain that God cannot enjoin
such a path to realization as would mean nullifying the very purpose of
creation.
5. The mystics hold that although the mystical experience may be a great
discovery for them, it is, however, a mysterious, and unexplainable
realization which can be felt at the sensory level, but which cannot be
fully articulated. According to a mystic: “It is knowledge of the most
adequate kind, only it cannot be expressed in words.” (EB/12:786)
This aspect of the mystical experience proves it to be a totally subjective
discipline. And something as subjective as this can, in no degree, be a
scientific answer to the human search for truth. Those who have attempted to
describe the mystic experience have chosen different ways of doing so. One
is the narrative method, that is, describing their point of view in terms
only of claims, without any supporting arguments. Another method is to make
use of metaphors. That is, attempt to describe something by means of
supposed analogies. From the point of view of scientific reasoning, both the
methods are inadaquate, being quite lacking in any credibility in rational
terms, and are therefore invalid.
Faith and Reason
It is through reason that man justifies his faith.
Rational justification strengthens his convictions. Rational argument is
thus an intellectual need of every believer. Without this he would not be
able to stand firmly by his faith. It is reason which transforms blind faith
into a matter of intellectual choice. History shows that man has employed
four kinds of argument to find rational grounds for his faith. Each of these
reflects different stages in his intellectual development.
Natural Argument
The first kind of argument is one based on nature. That is, on simple facts
or common experiences. This has been the most commonly used since ancient
times. Some examples of this kind are found in the Qur’an, one of which
relates to the Prophet Abraham. It is stated as follows in the Qur’an:
Have you not considered him (Namrud) who disputed with Abraham about his
Lord, because God had given him the kingdom? When Abraham said: ‘My Lord is
He who gives life and causes to die,’ he said: ‘I too give life and cause
death.’ Abraham said: ‘So surely God causes the sun to rise from the east,
then you make it rise from the west.’ Thus he who disbelieved was
confounded; and God does not give guidance to unjust people. (2:258)
We find another example of the argument based on natural reasoning in the
Qur’an:
Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, so that
he might become a firm believer. When night overshadowed him, he saw a star.
He said: ‘This is my Lord’. But when it set, he said: ‘I love not those that
set.’ Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when
it set, he said: ‘Unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who
go astray’. Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: ‘This is my Lord. This
is the greatest.’ But when it set, he said: ‘O my people! Surely, I am done
with what you associate with God.’ (6:75-78) Argument of this kind may
appear to be simple, but they are invested with deeper meaning. For this
reason, they have been engaged in as much in the past as today.
Philosophical Argument
The second kind of argument is that first propounded by Greek philosophers.
Based on pure logic, it was so popular in the medieval ages that Jews and
Christians and Muslims all incorporated it into their theological system.
Commonly known as First Cause, it may be summed up as follows:
The world man observes with his senses must have been brought into being by
God as the First Cause. Philosophers have argued that the observable order
of causation is not self-explanatory. It can only be accounted for by the
existence of a First Cause. This First Cause, however, must not be
considered simply as the first in a series of successive causes, but rather
as the First Cause in the sense of being the cause for the whole series of
observable causes. The Prime Mover or First Cause theory. Although obviously
very sound, it has constantly been under attack from secular circles, and
critics have raised a variety of objections. To begin with, they say that it
is only guesswork, and not an undeniable fact. Some critics also object that
the actions or free will of subatomic particles are uncaused; so, why not
also the world as a whole? Moreover, even if all things in the world are
caused, this may not be true of the world itself, because no one knows
whether the whole is sufficiently like its parts to warrant such a
generalization.
This is why some people think that the faith of Islam is not based on
rational grounds. They say that Islamic belief can be proved only through
inferential argument and not through direct argument. They assert that in
Islam there is only secondary rationalism and not primary rationalism. But
modern science has demolished this notion, as will be shown in the last part
of this chapter.
Spiritual Argument
Yet another argument is that which is based on spiritual experience. Some
people, who engage in spiritual exercises and have spiritual experiences,
say that when they reach the deeper levels of the human consciousness, they
find an unlimited world which cannot be described in limited language. They
insist that this limitless, unexplainable phenomenon is nothing but God
Almighty Himself. The critics say that even if this spiritual state is as
real as is claimed by those who enter it, it is still a subjective
experience; that it conveys nothing to those who have not experienced the
same spiritual state.
All the above arguments are in one way or another inferential in nature and
not of the direct kind. In view of this fact, the critics hold that all
faiths, including Islam, have no scientific basis. They contend that Islamic
theology is not based on primary rationalism, but on secondary rationalism.
However, these contentions appeared to be valid only by the end of the
nineteenth century. The twentieth century has closed the chapter on all such
debates. Now, according to modern developments in science, one can safely
say that religious tenets can be proved on the same logical plane as the
concepts of science. Now there is no difference between the two in terms of
scientific reasoning. Let us then see what modern scientific reasoning is
all about.
Scientific Argument
Religion, or faith, relates to issues such as the existence of God,
something intangible and unobservable, unlike non-religious things like the
sun, which has a tangible and observable existence. Therefore, it came to be
held that only non-religious matters might be established by direct
argument, while it is only direct or inferential argument which can be used
to prove religious propositions.
It was believed, therefore, that rational argument was possible only in
non-religious matters, and so far as religious matters were concerned,
rational argument was not applicable at all. That is to say, that it was
only in non-religious areas that primary rationalism was possible, while in
religion only secondary rationalism was applicable.
In the past, arguments based on Aristotelian logic used to be applied to
faith. By its very nature it was an indirect argument. Modern critics,
therefore, ignored such arguments as unworthy of consideration. That is why
religion was not thought worthy of being paid any attention by rational
people. This state of affairs presented a challenge not only to other
religions but to Islam as well. About five hundred years ago, with the
emergence of science, this state of affairs did not change. All the
scientists in the wake of the Renaissance believed that matter, in fact, the
entire material world was something solid which could be observed. Newton
had even formed a theory that light consisted of tiny corpuscles. As such,
it was possible to apply direct argument as an explanation of material
things. Similarly, even after the emergence of modern science, this state of
affairs prevailed. It continued to be believed that the kind of argument
which is applied to apparently tangible things could not be applied in the
case of religion.
But by the early twentieth century, specifically after the first World War,
this mental climate changed completely. The ancient Greek philosophers
believed that matter, in the last analysis, was composed of atoms. And the
atom, though very tiny, was a piece of solid matter. But with the breaking
of the atom in the twentieth century, all the popular scientific concepts
underwent a sea change. The theories about faith and reason seemed relevant
only while science was confined to the macrocosmic level. Later, when
science advanced to the microcosmic level, it underwent a revolution, and
along with it, the method of argument also changed.
So far, science had been based on the proposition that all the things it
believed in, like the atom, could be directly explained. But when the atom,
the smallest part of an element, was smashed, it was revealed that it was
not a material entity, but just another name for unobservable waves of
electrons. This discovery demonstrated how a scientist could see only the
effect of a thing and not the thing itself. For instance, the atom, after
being split, produces energy which can be converted into electricity. This
runs along a wire in the form of a current, yet this event is not observable
even by a scientist. But when such an event produces an effect, for
instance, it lights up a bulb or sets a motor in motion this effect comes
under a scientist’s observation. Similarly, the waves from an X-ray machine,
are not observable by a scientist, but when they produce the image of a
human body on a plate, then it becomes observable.
Now the question arose as to what stand a scientist must take? Should he
believe only in a tangible effect or the intangible thing as well, which
produced that effect. Since the scientist was bound to believe in the
tangible effect, he had no choice but to believe in its intangible cause.
Here the scientist felt that direct argument could be applied to the
tangible effect, but that it was not at all possible to apply direct
argument to the intangible cause. The most important of all the changes
brought about by this new development in the world of science was that, it
was admitted in scientific circles that inferential argument was as valid as
direct argument. That is, if a cause consistently gives rise to an effect,
the existence of the intangible cause will be accepted as a proven fact,
just as the existence of the tangible effect is accepted because it is
observable. In modern times all the concepts of science held to be
established have been proven by this very logic.
After reaching this stage of rational argument the difference between
religious argument and scientific argument ceases to exist. The problem
faced earlier was that religious realities, such as the existence of God,
could be proved only by inference or indirect argument. For instance, the
existence of God, as a designer (cause) was presumed to exist because His
design (effect) could be seen to exist. But now the same method of indirect
argument has been generally held to be valid in the world of science.
There are numerous meaningful things in the universe which are brought to
the knowledge of human beings, for which no explanation is possible. It has
simply to be accepted that there is a meaningful Cause, that is God. The
truth is that, without belief in God, the universe remains as unexplainable
as the entire mechanism of light and motion is without belief in electric
waves. Thus, the option one has to take is not between the universe without
God and the universe with God. Rather, the option actually is between the
universe with God, or no universe at all. Since we cannot, for obvious
reasons, opt for the latter proposition, we are, in fact, left with no other
option except the former, that is, the universe with God.
In view of the recent advancement in scientific reasoning, a true faith has
proved to be as rational as any other scientific theory. Reason and faith
are now standing on the same ground. In fact, no one can legitimately reject
faith as something irrational, unless one is ready to reject the rationality
of scientific theories as well. For, all the modern scientific theories are
accepted as proven on the basis of the same rational criterion by which a
matter of faith would be equally proved true. After the river of knowledge
has reached this advanced stage, there has remained no logical difference
between the two. |
