The Method of Argument

It might be said that metaphysicians of the past have done something comparable to writing a dud cheque without adequate funds in the bank. They have used words without proper ‘cash’ to back them; they have been unable to give their words ‘cash-value’ in terms of states of affairs.

‘The absolute is incapable of evolution and progress’ is a grammatically correct sentence; but the words are like a dud cheque and cannot be ‘cashed’.

These statements, made by T.R. Miles in his book, Religion and the Scientific Outlook (p. 20), would appear to indicate that as religion belongs purely to the domain of faith, its claims are not based on valid arguments, and that if they are to be acceptable, they must be verifiable outside this domain. This implies that the intellectual processes by which scientific proofs are arrived at are in some way different from those, which lead to acceptance of religious phenomena. We shall see that this is true only in terms of observability, but not in terms of inferential procedures. For instance, if it is asserted that “the galaxies are not silver clouds, but a cluster of separate stars,” the acceptance of this statement may initially be a matter of faith, but when the claimant directs one’s gaze through a powerful telescope, what began as a belief becomes a reality which is observable by everyone.

Similarly, disputes about whether it is correct or not to say that water contains microorganisms are effectively terminated by placing a drop of water under a microscope, when it will immediately be observed that the said microorganisms are legion.

With little heed for logic, however, it has been assumed, conversely, that since the truths of religion cannot be materially demonstrated, the tenets of religion must, therefore, be dismissed as mere claims, matters of faith and belief—nothing more.

Let us now go beyond this particular assumption, whose main criterion for acceptance is that of observability, to consider phenomena, which are either invisible or only partially observable. Take the statement that ‘the earth is round.’ When we look around us, there is nothing to indicate that this is so. It is a fact arrived at by inference and we had to wait till the twentieth century for pictures taken from spaceships and satellites to demonstrate its truth. Yet, long before this inference was confirmed by observation, mankind had accepted the ‘fact’ that the world was round.

The statement that ‘the electron is invisible, but it exists,’ is quite another matter, for there is no way that its existence can be verified through observation even with the most sophisticated of modern devices. The electron is so tiny that it can neither be weighed nor seen through a microscope. Attempts to view it are considered even to alter its properties. Yet, in the world of science, the electron is a reality. Why? Because, although the electron itself is not visible, its effects are experienced, and for these, no other explanation is forthcoming except the existence of the electron. It is, therefore, on the basis of such indirect observation that science postulates its existence and, indeed, it is in this way that many of the concepts of nuclear science have gained general acceptance. Why then do scientists refuse to acknowledge that religious phenomena may be judged by the same intellectual procedures?

Moreover, broader-based studies have shown that this third criterion is far from being the final one. The truths ‘established’ by these means are mostly, as scientists would put it, ‘technical truths’; whereas the magnitude and complexity of the universe goes far and beyond this. To be precise, the most significant truths begin from the point where the technical truths end. For instance, biological and physiological studies of the human body certainly reveal a large number of truths, which are profoundly meaningful, but uppermost in the hierarchy of truths are those, which relate to the beginning and end of human existence, and here our traditional studies of biology and physiology do not help us. As a western scientist has so aptly put it: “The knowable is unimportant and the important is unknowable.”

To the list of criteria for acceptability, the modern mind has added that of there being no other explanation available, except that suggested by whatever aspects of the given phenomenon have come within our experience. That is, that method of argument is also valid in which although the real fact is not directly observable, some such aspect of it comes to our experience from which the existence of a reality can be supposed. What is arrived at in this way is a working hypothesis, which may be discarded when facts come to light, which are more consistent than the initial findings. But even into this category, the modern mind will not permit religion to enter. It is regarded not only as being incomprehensible, but as being wholly wrong and without foundation. In fact, this last criterion is one, which could be used in support of religion. But on a purely material basis, exactly the reverse has happened. That is, to explain religious phenomena, physical explanations are offered, but, where none can be produced, religion is rejected as fallacious.

The case made out in modern times against religion is, however, marred by a major contradiction. On the one hand, the modern mind says that since religion is a collection of beliefs whose truths are impossible to demonstrate, we cannot, in consequence, expect a general acceptance of them. It is purely a matter of personal faith. On the other hand, a host of philosophers and scientists now assert that modern discoveries have totally nullified religious beliefs leaving no question even of personal faith.

These statements would appear at first glance to have a certain consistency with each other, but in actual fact, they are mutually contradictory. If we concede that religion belongs to a domain, which lies outside the realms of logic, we must also grant that if its truth cannot be proved, then neither can its falsity. Antagonists of religion will not, however, see both sides of the coin. They insist on using the fact that religion belongs to a supra-rational sphere as if that were a scientific argument against it. Nor will they admit of any attempt on the part of religionists to make a positive rationalization of religion in scientific terms, again because they say scientific argument is simply not applicable to it.

This contradiction is not so much due to the fact that religion indeed belongs to a sphere in which scientific arguments cannot be applied to it, as to the fact that antagonists of religion do not want the same criterion, by which they have rejected religion, to be brought forward by religious people to affirm its truths. They should, in that case, be obliged to admit to the reasonableness of religion. They can be likened to a court in which the lawyer for the prosecution may perform his duties, but in which the accused may not engage the services of a lawyer to defend himself. The presence of the official lawyer shows that the government does agree in principle that to deal with a case, a lawyer is required, but when the culprit wishes to invoke the same principle, the government turns against him for fear that he may benefit from it.

If the operative principle is that it is only whatever comes under our observation and within our experience, which is factual, then the claim of the anti-religionists will be justified only when they have discovered directly through observation and experiment the baselessness of religion. It will be only when their observation has been so acute and exhaustive that they are able to say with finality that whatever exists in the world and outside it has all been observed down to the smallest detail, and without the smallest exception, that they will be able to claim that there is neither God nor angels, heaven nor hell. They may place themselves if they will, on a parallel with a man who walks all around a room, and, trusting to his normal eyesight, says that there are no elephants or tigers within the hundred cubic feet which make up the room.

Obviously, the anti-religionists are in no position to make observations of the extensiveness or subtlety required. They would not even know where to begin. Then precisely what is the principle, which has supplied them with the basis for an argument against religion? Whatever it is, it is not based on the direct observation of religion, but on an interpretation of certain observations. For instance, the discovery of gravitation in the universe lead them to believe that there is no God who is sustaining the universe, since the law of gravitation explains this phenomenon. Obviously, the observation on which this theory is based is not of the non-existence of God. That is, no telescope has definitively given us the news that this universe is God-free. Rather, it has been inferred on the basis of an external observation that there should be no God. That is, the observation or experience was not one of the non-existence of God, but of another event from which God’s non-existence had been inferred.

I contend that this method of argument, which in modern times has been considered sufficiently valid to reject religion, is actually the greatest proof of its veracity. The fault does not lie in the principle of the argument but in its application. When correctly applied, the result will be quite the contrary.

Now let us turn from the negative application of this criterion to the positive. This same criterion has been applied supportively to organic evolution, and the latter has been accepted so fully in the modern world that it has affected all branches of knowledge. The truth of organic evolution cannot be proved by the first, second or third criterion. The ‘proof of its truth can be based only on the fourth criterion, i.e., it is considered the best working hypothesis.

Yet in the eyes of the modern world, organic evolution is a ‘scientific fact’. The writers of Science of Life assert that ‘No one now denies the truth of organic evolution except for those who are ignorant, or biased or superstitious.’ The Modern Pocket Library in New York has published a series of books entitled The Man and the Universe, the fifth of which hails Darwin’s book Origin of Species as an epoch-making work.

‘Man has been making efforts for a long period to trace his geneology. No other concept has received as much religious opposition as that of Charles Darwin’s natural selection theory. Neither has any other theory gained as much scientific affirmation as this one.’

Another view expressed by a notable American scholar in The Meaning of Evolution, (New York, 1951, p. 127) is that Darwin was one of the greatest men in history, having made such a prominent contribution to the development of human knowledge. He gained this position because he proved quite finally that organic evolution was a fact and not a mere supposition set forth for the purpose of scientific research.

A. E. Mander writes:

The theory of organic evolution that the species and varieties of living things have undergone a process of evolution to ‘become’ what they are today as a result of a very long history of changes and developments—this theory has been proved by so many arguments that it can be called almost approximate certainty.

Writes R.S. Lull:

Since Darwin’s day, evolution has been more and more generally accepted, until now in the minds of informed, thinking men, there is no doubt that it is the only logical way whereby the creation can be interpreted and understood.

He goes on to say:

All scientists and most informed men are now convinced of the truth of evolution, both inorganic and organic: that out of simple beginnings, when in the course of ages,  the earth was fit for organic habitation, life began and by a continual unfolding process there have come all of the marvellously adapted forms of animal and plant life which we see today.

One can gauge the popularity of this theory by the fact that in his 700-page book, Lull has dealt with the concept of the special creation of life in just one page and a few lines, while the whole of the rest of the book is devoted to the concept of organic evolution. Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1958) devotes less than a quarter of a page to the concept of creationism, while fourteen pages have been devoted to the concept of organic evolution. In this article too, the evolution of life has been postulated as a fact and it is stated that after Darwin, this concept has received general acceptance among scientists and the educated elite.

What precisely are those arguments in favour of organic evolution, which have caused scholars of the modern age to accept the ‘truth’ of this concept? Here, in order to  analyze the nature of those arguments I shall deal with some of their more basic aspects.

1. The study of animal life shows that inferior and superior species exist. They range from the single-cellular to creatures with millions and billions of cells, as well as differing in the quality of their functional properties.
2. When this initial observation is linked with the fossils preserved in the various layers of the earth’s crust, it is shown that there is an evolutionary order relative to the point in time they appeared on earth. The fossils of the life forms that inhabited the earth millions of years ago are still extant, buried in the earth. These fossils reveal that in ancient times, the animal species living on earth were simpler in form, then gradually evolved into more complex and developed forms—meaning thereby that all of the present forms of life did not come into existence at one point in time, but that the simpler forms came first, and the more developed forms came at a later stage.
3. A salient point is that in spite of the obvious differences in the vast numbers of living creatures, the latter are marked by many resemblances in their biological systems. For instance, a fish resembles a bird; a horse’s skeleton resembles a man’s, and so on. It follows from this that all the living species are descended from the same family and have a common ancestor.
4. How did one species follow another? This becomes clear to us when we consider that when an animal gives birth to many offspring, the latter, far from being uniform, are quite different from one another. This difference further develops in the next generations and goes on developing from generation to generation according to natural selection. After lakhs of generations this difference increases to the extent that a small-necked sheep becomes a long-necked giraffe. This concept is considered so important that Haldane and Huxley, the editors of Animal Biology, have coined the term, ‘Selection of Mutation’, for evolutionary changes.

It is this fourth criterion, which is cited to ‘prove’ the concept of evolution. That is, the supposition, or its effects, need not have come within our direct experience, but such observations have been made as help us to make a logical inference of the truth of the supposition, or, in other words, to verify the truth of the hypothesis.

The advocates of the theory of evolution have not yet, however, carried out any observations of or experiments on the material bases of this theory. For instance, they cannot show in a laboratory how inanimate matter can give birth to life. The only basis they have for their claim is that the physical record shows that inanimate matter existed before life came into the universe. From this they infer that life came out of inanimate matter, just as a baby emerges from its mother’s womb. Similarly, the change of one species into another has not been experienced or observed. Experiments cannot be set up in a zoo to show how the mutation of a goat into a giraffe takes place. The inference that the species did not come into existence separately has been made purely on the basis of similarities between species and the differences that exist between siblings.

The belief, too, that intelligence has developed out of instinct, implies that man has also evolved from animals. But in actual fact, instinct has never been seen to develop into intelligence. This is also purely an inference based on geological research, which demonstrates that fossils of animals endowed with instincts are found in the lower strata, while those endowed with intelligence are to be found in the upper strata.

In all such arguments, the link between supposition and truth is one only of inference and not one of experiment or observation. Yet, on the basis solely of such inferential arguments, the concept of evolution in modern times has been considered a scientific fact. That is, to the modern mind, the sphere of academic facts is not limited only to those events, which are known by direct experience. Rather what logically follows from experiments and observations can be just as well accepted as established scientific facts as those facts, which come directly or indirectly under our observation.

This statement is, nevertheless, debatable. Sir Arthur Keith, who is himself a staunch supporter of organic evolution, did not regard the theory of evolution either as an empirical or as an inferential fact, but as a ‘basic dogma of rationalism.’

A reputed Encyclopaedia on science describes Darwinism as theory based on ‘explanation without demonstration.’

Why is it then that an unobservable, and non-demonstrable process is accepted as a scientific fact? A.E. Mander writes that it is because:

1. it is consistent with all known facts.
2. it enables scientists to explain vast multitudes of facts, which are otherwise inexplicable.
3. it is the only theory devised which is consistent with the facts facts. (p. 112)

If this line of reasoning is considered valid enough to bear out organic evolution as a fact, the same formula could well be used to establish religion as a fact. The parallel being evident, it seems paradoxical that scientists should accept organic evolution as a fact, while rejecting religion as having no basis in fact.

I am not concerned here with the truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution. What I am concerned with is the method of argument. It is common knowledge that whatever the criterion used to establish something, what has been ‘proved’ has the possibility of being right or wrong. The history of science shows that concepts have gone on changing, sometimes because greater minds have applied themselves to them, and sometimes because the field of scientific discovery has been widened by the increasing sophistication and rapid evolution of modern technology. Therefore, holding any given method of reasoning valid does not mean necessarily that the particular method must surely be right. And the possibility must always be kept in mind that the conclusions arrived at may be wrong. The validity of both criteria and conclusions are inevitably open to the challenge of subsequent discoveries.

Of the fourth method of reasoning, it can be said that there is no direct link between hypothesis and observation; it is solely inference which provides the necessary connection. Then why should it be taken for granted that our inference is necessarily correct? In making inferences it is quite possible to err, but this probability of error should not affect the validity of the criterion in question. If it is possible to doubt the validity of the criterion because of a perceived error in inference, then on the same grounds, other criteria will also be exposed to doubt. Consider that it is on this that the whole edifice of our modern science rests.

There is no question of all established scientific concepts having been the result of or having been confirmed by observation and experiment. Certain theories have been developed on the basis of a purely external approach. Here what links theory and observation is actually inference. When a scientist says, ‘Electricity means a flow of electrons,’ he does not mean that he has seen electrons flowing along an electric wire by means of a microscope. All he is actually doing is explaining an observed chain of events, which entails turning on the switch that makes the bulbs light up, the fans rotate, and the factories start functioning. Thus, what has come within his experience is simply an external phenomenon and is not by any means the inferred event. In this respect, all scientific concepts are inferences arrived at by applying the fourth method of reasoning.

The only difference, it would appear, between the third and fourth criteria, or methods of reasoning, is that according to the third, experiment or observation is directly related to hypothesis, while in the case of the fourth, there is no direct relation between hypothesis and observation or experiment. But this difference loses its importance when we consider that however related or direct an experiment may be, the object perceived is, in any case, a purely external manifestation of reality. It is in no way the reality itself which is under observation. It is similar to a telephone number bearing an obvious relation to the owner of the telephone, but in no way itself being the owner of the telephone. It is as if here, too, what connects a scientist’s observation and experiment to the reality is a thing, which exists only in his mind that is, the capacity to make inferences, and not his ability to observe, or carry out experiments. That is why a scientist says, ‘Theories are mental pictures that explain known laws.’

Thus, although the turning on of a switch indicates that there is a special relationship between the switch and the bulb, in spite of this demonstration, the real relationship is invisible. It is again our powers of inference, which connect the switch and the bulb with each other. Therefore, even after conceding this observed relationship between the switch and the bulb, whether or not the scientific hypothesis regarding this connection is true or false will still remain debatable. Just as such doubts and the probability of error do not prevent a scientist from regarding prima facie findings as correct, and basing theories upon them, which in turn are regarded by him as correct, so philosophers and religious scholars may take the knowledge which derives from revelation, base theories upon it, and consider them correct.