Faith and Reason

It is through reason that man justifies his faith. And rational

justification produces conviction. Rational argument is an intellectual

need of every faithful; otherwise, he will not be able to stand firmly

on his faith. It is reason, which transforms a blind faith into an

intellectual choice. History shows that man has employed four ways of

argument to find a rational ground in favor of his faith. These four

ways reflect different stages in intellectual development.

The first way of argument is one, which is based on nature. That is,

simple facts or common experiences. This is the most commonly used

argument since ancient times. Some examples of this kind are found in

the Quran. There is one such argument related to Prophet Abraham. It is

stated in the Quran in these words.

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 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 the unjust people (2:258)

We find another example of the argument of this kind (natural

reasoning). This is narrated in the Quran in these words:

And thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens

and the earth and that he might be of those who are sure.

So when the night overshadowed him, he saw a star; said

he: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: I do not

love the setting ones. Then when he saw the moon rising

he said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: If

my Lord had not guided me I should certainly be of the

erring people. Then when he saw the sun rising, he said:

Is this my Lord? Is this the greatest? So when it set,

he said: O my people! Surely I am clear of what you

associate (with God). (6:75-78)

This kind of arguments may be called natural arguments. Though it

appears to be simple it is invested with deeper meaning. Due to this,

it has been prevalent in the past as well as today.

PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT

The second argument is that which was propounded by Greek Philosophers.

This argument based on pure logic was so popular in medieval ages that

Jews and Christians and Muslims all incorporated it into their

theological system. This argument commonly known as First Cause 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. The

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 continuing causes, but rather

as the First Cause in the sense of being the cause for

the whole series of observable Causes.

Prime Mover or First Cause theory. Although obviously very sound has

constantly been under attack from secular circles. They say that it is

only guesswork, not an undeniable fact. The critics have raised

different objections.

Some critics object that the actions or a free will of a subatomic

particles are uncaused; hence, 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 it parts to warrant such a generalization.

Due to this, some people think that the faith of Islam is not based on

rational ground. 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 the modern science has demolished this notion

as will be shown in the later part of this article.

Yet another argument is that which is based on spiritual experience.

Some people who undergo spiritual exercises and have spiritual

experiences have to say that when they reach the deeper level of human

personality, they find an unlimited world, which cannot be described,

in limited terms. They assert that this unlimited, unexplainable

phenomenon is nothing but God Almighty Himself.

About this argument the critics say that even if it is as real as

claimed by those who experience it, even then it is a subjective

experience. There is nothing for those who have not experienced it.

All the above arguments are in one way or another inferential in nature

and not an argument of the direct kind. In view of this fact, the

critics hold that all faith, including Islam have no scientific base.

That Islamic theology is not based on primary rationalism, it stands

only on secondary rationalism.

If there was any validity of these contentions, it was only by the end

of the nineteenth century. Twentieth century has closed the chapter of

all such debates. Now, according to the modern developments in science,

one can safely say that concepts of faith can be proved on the same

logical level as the concepts of science. Now there is no difference

between the two in terms of scientific reasoning. Let us, then, see

what the modern scientific reasoning is all about.

SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT

Religion or faith is related to things like the existence of God,

something intangible and unobservable. Whereas non-religious things

like the sun has a tangible and observable existence. Therefore, it

came to be regarded that direct argument is possible for establishing

non-religious things, only. Whereas, it is only indirect or inferential

argument which can be employed to prove religious propositions. Due to

this difference, it was believed that rational argument was possible

only in non-religious matters. 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 area that primary rationalism was

possible, in religion only secondary rationalism was applicable.

In the past, whenever any argument was applied to faith, it was,

according to Aristotelian logic. Practically it used to be indirect

rather than direct argument. The modern critics, therefore, ignored

such arguments as unworthy of consideration. So the situation continued

to prevail that religion was not worthy of being paid any attention by

a rational person. 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 modern science this

state of affairs did not change. All the scientists in the wake of the

Renaissance believe that matter was something solid which could be

observed. Newton had even formed a theory about light that it consisted

of tiny corpuscles. To all the scientists of this age the entire

material world was observable. As such, it was possible to apply direct

argument for the explanation of material things. Similarly, even after

the emergence of modern science this state of affairs prevailed. It

continued to be believed that argument, which is applied to apparently

tangible things, was not possible to apply in the case of religion.

But at the turn of the twentieth century specifically after the First

World War this state of affairs changed completely. The ancient

scientists had believed that matter, in the last analysis was composed

of atoms. And atom, though very tiny, but 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 up till science was confined to

the macrocosmic level. Afterwards when science made advance and entered

microcosmic level, science underwent a revolution, and the method of

argument too changed along with it.

So far science was based on the proposition that all the things it

believes in, like atom, can be explained directly. But when the atom,

the smallest part of an element exploded then it was revealed that atom

was not a material component, instead, it was another name for

unobservable waves of electron.

This discovery entailed that a scientist could see only the effect of a

thing and not the thing itself. For instance, the atom after changing

into waves is running into the wire in the form of electric current yet

this event is not observable to any scientist. But when such an event

produces an effect, for instance, it lights up the bulb or puts the

motor in motion, and then this effect comes into a scientist's

observation. Similarly the waves emitting from an x-ray machine, are

not observable to a scientist but when these waves produce the image of

a human body on a plate then this image becomes observable to a

scientist.

Now the question arose as to what stand a scientist must take? Should

he believe only in tangible effect or that intangible thing as well,

which produced that effect. Since the scientist was bound to believe in

the tangible effect, so he was compelled to believe in the intangible

cause (of that effect).

Here the scientist felt that direct argument could be applied to the

tangible effect but it was not possible at all to apply direct argument

on the intangible cause. The most important of all the changes brought

about by this new development in this world of science was that it was

admitted in the scientific circles that inferential argument was as

valid as direct argument. That is, if a cause shows continuous effect

then the existence of this intangible cause will be accepted as a fact

just as the existence of tangible effect is accepted as a proved fact.

In modern times all the concepts of science held to be established

concept have been proven by this very logic.

After reaching this extent of rational argument the difference between

religious argument and scientific argument is no longer exists.

Earlier, the problem was that religious realities could be proved only

by indirect argument, for instance, the existence of God as a designer

(cause) was proved by design (effect) now the same method of argument

has generally been held as valid argument in science as well.

There are numerous meaningful things in the universe which are brought

to the knowledge of human beings, of which no explanation is possible

except to believe in a meaningful cause, that is God, believe these

meaningful things. The truth is that without believing in God the

universe remains as in explainable as the entire mechanism of light and

motion becomes in explainable without believing in electric waves.

Thus, the option one has to make 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 later 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 the scientific theories as well. For, all

the modern scientific theories are accepted as proved theories by 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.