AN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE
On March 30, 2008, I met with two British gentlemen. One was the famous journalist Mark Tully, and the other was a Christian scholar, Dr Richard Cheetham, Bishop of Kingston. They wanted to know about Islam, so we had a detailed conversation about different Islam-related subjects.
Mr. Tully said that belief in One God is fundamental in the Islamic belief system. He asked if this was just a religious belief or if there was also some scientific proof for God’s existence.
I said that in Islam, no article of faith is a mere dogmatic belief.
The belief system of Islam is based on the fixed and unchanging principles of Nature. This is what is called the ‘scientific basis’ today. A century ago, Newtonian mechanics prevailed in science, according to which the final unit of matter was the atom. At that time, the atom was considered indivisible and incapable of division. It was also believed that everything that exists is observable. That is why only arguments based on direct evidence or observation were considered valid in science. However, the atom was split due to new research in nuclear science. Now, wave mechanics and quantum physics have replaced classical physics. This impacted the principles of argument in science. This discovery strengthened the significance of the inferential argument. Scientists now accept that an inferential argument is as valid as a direct argument based on direct observation.
We can say that the history of scientific knowledge can be divided into two different phases—the classical science phase and the quantum physics phase. In the classical science phase, scientific knowledge was confined to that portion of the material world that was observable and measurable. And so, it was held that only those things had an actual existence that were physically observable by man, while anything that could not be so observed (like God, the soul, the Hereafter, etc.) had no actual existence. For proponents of this way of thinking, the only valid argument was the direct argument, which was demonstrable in material terms.
However, the situation changed after the atom split in the quantum physics phase. After the splitting of the atom, matter as a solid substance disappeared. The micro sub-atomic world replaced it beyond the atomic world, where everything was reduced to unseen waves (of electrons). These waves were themselves neither measurable nor observable. Only their effect (in the form of heat) could be observed and measured. This change in knowledge compelled scientists and thinkers to revise their logical criteria. It has now become accepted that an inferential argument is as valid as a direct one.
Present-day science includes many things in its ambit (such as electrons, the law of gravity, X-rays, etc.) that are non-material in nature. They cannot be observed by the human eye directly, but every scientist believes in their existence for the simple reason that although we cannot see these things directly, we can see their effects—for example, the heat of an electron, a falling apple, in the case of gravity, and a photo film, in the case of X-rays. We believe in the existence of all these things, not by direct observation but by their effects, or, in other words, by indirect knowledge or the inferential argument.
This change in human knowledge also changed the acceptance of the method of argument. It is now well established in science that the inferential argument is as valid as the direct argument. In the classical physics stage, people held that the concept of God pertained to the unseen world and that since no direct argument was available to prove it, belief in God was illogical. Since they were inferential, they considered all the relevant indirect arguments as scientifically invalid. But now the whole situation has changed. As nothing is observable, the existence of anything can be established only using the inferential argument, not the direct argument. If the inferential argument is valid concerning the unseen micro-world, it is also valid about the existence of God and other religious truths.
Following this change in the basis of scientific argument, proving the existence of God became as possible as proving the existence of the subatomic particle known as the electron. As is known, the presence of the electron is proved through the inferential argument or evidence. We cannot see the electron, but we can infer its existence by observing its effect in the form of heat. This same inferential argument was now available to prove the existence of God intellectually. We cannot see the Creator directly, but we can infer His existence—from the creation—in the form of the universe, which is observable all around us. The immense meaning, design, and fine-tuning in the universe is proof of the existence of a Designer of the universe or God. Bertrand Russel (d. 1970) described the argument from design as scientific. Russell admitted that the argument centred on design propounded by theologians seeking to offer evidence for the existence of God is scientifically valid. The fact is that when there is design, there must also be a designer. We see that our world is well-designed. This should lead us to believe that there is a Designer of it—God Almighty.
Then, Dr Richard Cheetham remarked that it was true that present-day physicists acknowledged that the immense meaningfulness of the universe testifies to the fact that the universe is the creation of some mind but remarked that biologists do not corroborate this.
I responded that his statement was true, but the biologists’ stance was not based on scientific reality. The opinion of biologists was based entirely on a mere theory. Charles Darwin (d. 1802) presented just a hypothesis in this regard in the form of the Theory of Evolution, and then everyone accepted it as true.
Darwin studied different forms of life and found considerable similarity in body structure between certain species. Thus, for example, there are certain similarities in the body structure of cats and tigers, goats and giraffes, and humans and monkeys. Based on these similarities, Darwin hypothesized that, according to natural selection, an evolutionary process had occurred through which one species was automatically transformed into another.
However, Darwin’s explanation of the similarities among different species was questionable. The fact is that these similarities indicate variety rather than affirming some hypothetical evolutionary process. Various life forms are visible to us, so the concept of variety is established independently. However, in contrast, we do not see one species turning into another, nor any intermediate species present in fossilized or any other forms. Thus, the Darwinian concept of the evolution of species is mere speculation; there is no solid proof supporting it. When I explained this to him, he agreed with me.
I concluded that now it is well-established in science that the inferential argument is as valid as the direct argument. As nothing is now observable in the scientific sense, the existence of anything can be established only using the inferential argument, not the direct argument. And if the inferential argument is valid about the unseen micro-world, it is also valid concerning the existence of God and other religious truths.
