Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

This is Sheikh Wahiduddin from God Arises. I will continue with more excerpts.

God through Reason#1

Today, the understanding of reality is through observation and experiment, but since religious beliefs concern the supernatural sphere of existence, they are thus considered unverifiable. Arguments in their favor are based entirely on assumption and inference: this being so, they are declared to have no acceptable scientific basis. Arguments against religion are there because the claims of religion are unfounded as they are neither based on any valid argument, nor scientifically demonstrable; religion belongs strictly to the domain of faith, and reality is considered verifiable.

But this case against religion has itself no basis in fact. It should not be forgotten that the modern method of reasoning does not insist that only those things which can come under direct observation have a real existence. A scientific supposition which is based on direct observation can also be as much a fact as the result of scientific experiment.

For instance, the electron is unobservable. It is so tiny that neither can a microscope show it, nor a weighing scale weigh it. Yet, in the world of science, the existence of electron is considered a reality. This is because although an electron itself is not visible, some of its effects repeatedly come within our experience, and no explanation can be found for them other than the existence of a system like that of the electron. The electron is a supposition, but since the basis of this supposition is indirect observation, science must concede that it exists.

Science does not, and can not claim that reality is limited only to what enters directly into our experience through the senses. We can see with our own eyes that water is liquid, but the fact that each molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen is something which escapes us, because these atoms are not visible. The way to arrive at this conclusion is by inference. For instance, we apprehend water by direct perception of its appearance. But it is only by INFERENCE, and not by direct observation that I can grasp the fact that each molecule of water is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.

From the above discussion, it becomes quite clear that it is not proper to regard religion, on the one hand, as being based on faith in the unseen, and treat science, on the other hand, as being based on observation. It must be admitted that science just like religion, is ultimately a matter of having faith in the unseen.

An atom provides an irrefutable example of scientists’ faith in the unseen. An atom has never physically been observed. Yet it is the greatest established truth accepted by modern science. A scholar has rightly defined scientific theories as ‘mental pictures that explain known laws.’ In the field of science, the notion of so-called ‘observed’ facts are not so in the strictest sense of the word: they are simply interpretations of certain observations.
(Our observations of nature are used to derive conclusions.) The greatest evidence of God before us is His creation. (We INFER from the superb organization and the very existence of the universe that there has to be a creator just as a scientist infers from certain observations that there are atoms.)

Hasn't there just been a mammouth debate on this topic also in this forum.