For any individual, whether a common
man or a scholar, one question that usually confronts him during his life
is about the true source of his knowledge in different spheres of life.
How we determine reliable knowledge is often a great problem for
everybody whether he addresses the issue seriously or takes it into consideration
subconsciously. In the beginning, an ordinary person absorbs ideas and
notions about different things from the surroundings and environment in
which he lives. He embraces many concepts from his family, friends, and
relatives and so on. But then he comes to face a different reality. He
discovers that all the ideas and concepts he revered and held dear are
not agreed upon by all people. He sees people arguing for different
position on a certain issue. This is the very juncture where his uneasiness
starts. He begins to question the ways through which people obtain knowledge;
he initiates his quest for true and correct knowledge; he endeavours
to know the right way or the criteria to judge and evaluate a particular
piece of information. This question is common for an ordinary individual
as well as a scholar of any discipline; difference may be of the approach
and level at which each addresses it. Like in any other field, our knowledge
of religion is often subjected to the certainty test. If we limit
our discussion to basic religious concepts, we can term religion to stand
for the essential concept of God, the Hereafter and established moral values.
For the western and Muslim societies, this triad of concepts is the very
basis of their religious feeling. Anybody who believes in these concepts
enters the realm of religion. But an all important question arises as to
what really is the basis of our belief. Why do we believe in God when we
haven’t seen Him? How can we ascertain that God is there when He is beyond
our sensory experience? What is the correct method to approach knowledge
is the question that concerns us in our religious journey. How can we be
certain that what we believe in is the truth? In the backdrop of the aforementioned
discourse, we would try to analyze what philosophers have argued for or
against religion. We refer to philosophers because they are the group of
intellectuals in history who made it a subject to study the basic questions
of our existence and knowledge objectively and without the aid of divine
revelation.
These questions also kept preying
the philosophers throughout the centuries of human intellectual journey.
Philosophy, a non-religious discipline, in finding the answers to the ultimate
questions of our existence and this whole universe, addresses this issue
quite comprehensively. Among the Greeks, Aristotle endeavoured to lay down
the basic principles of correct reasoning. He established the principles
of logic and argument. It essentially involved forming basic premises and
thereby deriving conclusions from them. Aristotle tried in his capacity
to form the guidelines of correct argument regarding propositions in different
aspects of life. His work remained influential throughout the later centuries
till today. But intellect wanted more to get satisfied in its quest for
reliable knowledge. The philosophers’ search for knowledge took a quantum
leap with the beginning of modern science. Starting with Copernicus and
taking a leap ahead with the help of Galileo’s discoveries, it assumed
its enduring shape in the form of Newtonian laws and methods. Newton was
the person who gave a certain scientific outlook to our view of
the world. John Locke and others spelt out the underlying implications
of Newton’s work which had to shape the course of our intellectual knowledge
in the ensuing three centuries. What his discoveries vehemently stress
is the scientific way to address knowledge. It meant that only scientific
evidence, in the form some laboratory test, some observation or any sensory
experience, can make something certain for us to know. Therefore questions
like ‘what is your evidence for that?’ or ‘what is the proof for that?’
thereby formed the basis of philosophers’ evaluation of various concepts
including religious ones. The consequences of all this for traditional
thought-structures and authorities were cataclysmic. There began a rapid
spread of disbelief in the existence of God that conspicuously characterizes
the West over the following three centuries.
In the coming centuries after Newton,
his approach towards knowledge remained central to the understanding of
the world. Rationalist philosophers, like Descartes and Spinoza, and the
renowned empiricists, like John Locke and Hume, all favoured this style
of reasoning in addressing the issue of true and correct knowledge. Scientific
rigour was considered the essential ingredient of reliable information
or statements, over and above other logical arguments that Aristotle worked
on. At the turn of the twentieth century, the attraction for scientific
evidence remained convincingly attractive for the intellectuals. Patronized
by Bertrand Russell and refined by the Vienna Circle of intellectuals,
Logical
Positivism was the dominant force in arriving at the correct knowledge.
It rejected traditional philosophy insofar as it did not possess scientific
rigour. Metaphysical, ethical and religious pronouncements were branded
meaningless because their truth or falsity was unverifiable. Religion was
under fire because of this terrible onslaught.
If we accept the principles of Newtonian
science and the rules advocated by logical positivists, we can see for
ourselves whether religion can answer the questions raised against it or
not. In this regard, it is not the Muslims only who pleaded their case
for the truth of basic religious concepts. There were also many great non-Muslim
intellectuals who attempted to put forward logical arguments for their
position as believing religious people. For example, in case of the concept
of God, different arguments have been put forward in support for the existence
of God. The most important among these is the teleological argument
which argues that since the whole universe exhibits certain design so every
design must have a designer behind it, and since there exists certain purpose
behind everything in this universe, so God is the grand purpose. The other
one, called cosmological argument, says that the very existence
of this universe per se means that someone must have created it – it could
not just have come into existence all by itself, out of nothing. Still
another, termed ontological argument, stressed that the greatest,
most perfect possible being must exist, who is none other than God. In
all such arguments, the line of reasoning behind was the same. It either
tried to find some scientific evidence or attempted to lay the foundations
on deduction or induction. (Although criticized for their limited application,
the principles of deduction and induction remained attractive for intellectuals,
parallel to the scientific evidence in discovering true knowledge.) Despite
all these arguments for religious concepts, these could not settle the
argument with the philosophers because of the criticism on these arguments
and the fact that these are devoid of instances of observation or sensory
experience.
From the Muslim circles, the scholars
also fought the case with great effort but in doing this, the underlying
principle for reliable knowledge remained the same which was either
to base their conclusions on certain established premises or look for some
scientific evidence behind their beliefs. But despite their considerable
efforts, they could not change their image in the deigning eyes of the
contemporary philosophers. Their futile efforts resulted in the doctrine
of blind faith. Religion, be it Islam or Christianity, began to be seen
more as a matter of faith than of beliefs supported by reason. Masses were
called upon, in an apologetic fashion, to have faith in their religion
and not to find reasons behind that.
In the backdrop of all this discussion,
the question of reliable knowledge in the sphere of religion is an astronomical
one. It is the query which, if not replied to convincingly, can
shatter the very foundations of our belief. On the face of it, there seems
to be a genuine reason to get skeptical if our religious beliefs cannot
be verified. If the existence of God cannot be verified, then it is high
time that we got rid of this belief. This is what our subconscious says
in such a situation. However, one thing we can do in the wake of so popular
reasoning style of positivism is to look for some convincing arguments
in our Holy Book, the Qur’an. When the criteria for reliable knowledge
seem so correct apparently, not only to us but to a range of giant
philosophers of the centuries, then a book which is firmly attributed to
God must have the most valid and solid arguments in support of the existence
of God and other age-old religious concepts. But much to our surprise,
this exercise of referring to the Qur’an or other so-called divine
scriptures will not do any good. The most unfortunate and stunning thing
in such a situation for a Muslim or a Christian will be to find no such
argument, in the accepted reasoning style, in support of religious
concepts. Unlike popular philosophers, the Qur’an nowhere establishes
certain premises and draws conclusions from them. It nowhere mentions observation
or sensory experience behind the beliefs it asks of its followers to rekindle.
In the face of so powerful an endorsement of certain criteria for reliable
knowledge by philosophers, and in the absence of any existence of such
reasoning in the divine scriptures, an ordinary believing human, particularly
Muslim, sees himself in a great dilemma. On the one hand, he believes in
certain concepts from his very birth and cherishes them throughout his
life, but on the other, he finds no proof behind them. His restlessness
remains there even if he discards all his cherished beliefs because the
question of his very self and its purpose of creation, the question of
this universe and the question of his future do not disappear; these thoughts
continue to prevail and perplex him after renouncing the religion. The
most tragic thing is that philosophers only question his religious beliefs;
they do not provide satisfying answers to his fundamental questions. Even
the greatest scholastic Muslim philosopher, Imam Razi, could not
satisfy himself on religious concepts, after arguing in the western style,
and instead uttered on the death-bed that all his efforts to find the scientific
argument behind his beliefs were meaningless and he was dying on the belief
of his mother. In such a situation, an ordinary individual finds himself
in a maze of perplexing notions and ideas.
Going through this philosophical journey
and the feelings of a common man in his quest for religious truths, we
may find ourselves in a labyrinth of existence. We come across no ray of
hope to change our direction in its light. But studying all this, we can
see that the real problem is the line of reasoning that we are so accustomed
to. We are not willing to think of any other method of approaching correct
knowledge, On the contrary, if we just change our lenses and study the
Qur’an
and divine scriptures for their own particular style and method of reasoning
behind the beliefs they profess, we may get out of this upheaval we have
just experienced. If we study the Qur’an with changed lenses and
attempt to find answers to our mind-boggling questions, it will come to
our utter surprise that the wonder-filled divine scripture not only reasons
for its concepts and premises but its line of reasoning and method is totally
different from the one we are aware of and which the philosophers have
urged us to use. It is not the logical positivism on which the Qur’an
lays the foundations of correct knowledge, but a combination of tradition
and true criticism. It does not favour the notion of accepting or believing
a statement which is proven correct. On the contrary, it asks us to believe
in the tradition we have and continue to believe and act according to it
till
it is proven wrong. It implies that scientific evidence is not the
cause of the development of knowledge but it is true criticism – the criticism
that is done to evaluate certain traditional statement – which fosters
the development of human knowledge. The true source of our knowledge is
the tradition we inherit - tradition in religion or tradition in science.
And the true reason behind the development of knowledge is the criticism
– the evaluation, the appreciation – that is levied on the tradition we
start our lives with. In the light of premises laid by the
Qur’an,
let’s evaluate how weak or strong is the argument of the divine book.
If we study the whole system of our
society and the various disciplines in which human beings make their efforts
and work, we will come to know that the entire fabric of our existence
rests on one thing and that is called tradition. Whatever we teach
in our schools, whatever we perform at our workplace, whatever we do in
a scientific laboratory, all takes its footing on a certain tradition.
It is the mere confidence in tradition – confidence in traditional knowledge
–
in a particular sphere which drives us in our daily routines. We continue
to believe in these traditional thought-structures and act according to
them until these are proven wrong. We never ask for evidence behind everything
we do in our life whether at home or at the workplace. What we do is to
continue to believe in the tradition we inherit from our forefathers. Even
in a scientific laboratory, we continue with the traditional knowledge
in a scientific discipline and perform our daily functions with a confidence
on the scientific principles which our forerunners had outlined until some
new discovery proves them wrong. We never perform our duty by disregarding
all the current principles because we have yet not discovered the scientific
evidence behind them by ourselves. It is crystal clear that doing this
will jeopardize the entire fabric of our existence. We will have nothing
to do if we get skeptical on every concept we inherit, whether scientific
or religious. The notion that gaining scientific evidence is the real basis
of the development of knowledge is incorrect per se because this
never happened throughout the centuries of human history. The actual source
of knowledge is the tradition that we inherit, whether in the field of
astronomy or social sciences; physics or religion. And the real basis of
the development and refinement of our knowledge is the criticism
on the tradition we cherish. If the tradition withstands the criticism,
it gets established. If it is shown fallacious and proven wrong, it results
in a new discovery. The role of our sensory experience, observation or
solid logical argument comes into play when we criticize a certain tradition.
The world was breathing in the Ptolemaic concepts of astronomy for centuries
until these were proven wrong by later astronomers and scientists. Medicines
which were prescribed some fifty years ago with great confidence by physicians
were proclaimed dangerous for human health by later researchers because
of certain facts, which came to surface and recommendation of these medicines
was checked. The world was run by the monarchs in our history because monarchy
was the popular form of political arrangement. But today democracy reigns
supreme as the much more improved form of government. The real tragedy
occurred in philosophy when the great philosophers encouraged a certain
criteria for reliable knowledge in religion which they never used in any
other discipline. In all the other spheres, they started their lives with
traditional ideas and kept criticizing for any flaw in them, but for religion,
they set a different criterion. Instead of finding any flaw in the concept
of God, the hereafter and moral values, they got rid of them right at the
very outset, because they would not accept them unless proven correct.
They however would still continue to accept premises of other disciplines
until proven wrong.
Having assimilated the underpinnings
of true criticism, let’s see what meaningful criticism basic religious
concepts have faced in the centuries of intellectual thought. Regarding
the concept of God, firstly, the Qur’an says that all the human
souls, before coming to this world, were made to pledge an oath before
their Lord that He is their Lord and the Creator; secondly, it pronounces
that our ultimate progenitors, Adam and Eve had the very sensory experience
of their Lord; and thirdly, it argues that God is the Light of the heavens
and earth – His concept gives meaning to this otherwise elusive and fleeting
world – He has made this world for testing them and all souls have to return
back to Him one day for justice. This is the very tradition with which,
the Qur’an says, humans were sent to this world. And this is the
very tradition that has been shared throughout the centuries by mankind.
Now what the Qur’an essentially welcomes is the search for any flaw
in this tradition, any criticism that makes it meaningless, any scientific
fact that comes up with more improved light than the concept of God, any
discovery that proves that God does not exist. But despite all the efforts
during the centuries of human existence, nothing meaningful could be presented
against these concepts and the challenge of the Qur’an remains unanswered.
The Qur’an and other divine scriptures didn’t need to bring arguments
for the existence of God because it was an established concept. It was
for people to evaluate this tradition and come up with something contrary
to the tradition – the way they came up to refute the concepts of Ptolemy
in the field of astronomy. What the Qur’an did was to refute the
concept of polytheism and brought arguments against it, but it didn’t present
any support for the existence of God or monotheism because it was already
a cherished tradition, free from any criticism.
This magic formula of true criticism,
which unfolds the mystery of certainty of what we know, may look like an
ordinary concept in the first place, but it will come as a stupendous fact
for a student of philosophy that it took an Einstein to prove its importance
and validity. At the turn of the 20th century a scientific genius came
on the scene who was comparable to Newton, a German Jew called Albert Einstein
and he produced theories incompatible with Newton’s. Not surprisingly,
these theories were highly controversial at first; but virtually nobody
who was knowledgeable in the field could deny that they deserved the most
serious consideration. And the fact in itself had disconcerting implications
because if Einstein was right then Newton was wrong – and in that case
the whole method of reasoning for correct knowledge was objectionable.
Crucial experiments were devised to adjudicate between the two sets of
theories; and as the empirical evidence mounted, it unmistakably favoured
Einstein. The consequences of this for philosophy were earthquake-like.
Ever since Newtonian science gained popularity, Western man believed that
he had found the methods by which that knowledge was carefully codified
and it guaranteed the validity of reliable knowledge. And yet now it turned
out that his premise was utterly inaccurate. All this presented an absolutely
baffling situation. It meant that the very method to evaluate knowledge
which philosophers had been endorsing for centuries was not reliable. In
such a situation, a renowned philosopher, Karl Popper carried out the task
and built on the Einsteinian revolution to answer the confusing minds all
around the world. He impressed upon the fact that criticism is the
chief means by which we do in fact make progress. He further highlighted
that we can test general statements by searching for contrary instances.
He even accepted the reality, in his non-religious fashion, that the existence
of God cannot be falsified. He realized the flaw in the line of reasoning
that had been following since centuries. In short, he almost professed
the same principle which the Qur’an was depicting for centuries.
The time demanded a complete surrender before established religious teachings.
Now when we have traversed this mind-blowing
journey of philosophical quest for the certainty of knowledge, we can well
imagine how confident we can be on our religious tradition which is in
fact the tradition of whole mankind. The real problem occurred, on the
one hand, when Western philosophers disregarded the very principle, which
had given the West a tremendous development in every discipline of life,
while examining the religious truths. And on the other hand, Muslim societies
had generally regarded criticism as something negative for their religious
feeling. For them every religious tradition, whether true or untrue, should
remain sacred and stand over and above any true criticism. And that is
the very reason that made them apologetic in their stand against Western
onslaught. Intellectually, they still love to cherish the mythical notion
that earth is standing on the horns of a bull despite the stupendous discoveries
in the field of astronomy. |