It is through reason that man justifies his faith.
Rational justification strengthens his convictions.
Rational argument is thus an intellectual need of
every believer. Without this he would not be able to
stand firmly by his faith. It is reason which
transforms blind faith into a matter of intellectual
choice.
History shows that man has employed four kinds of
argument to find rational grounds for his faith.
Each of these reflects different stages in his
intellectual development.
NATURAL ARGUMENT
The first kind of argument is one based on nature.
That is, on simple facts or common experiences.
This has been the most commonly used since
ancient times. Some examples of this kind are found
in the Qur’an, one of which relates to the Prophet
Abraham. It is stated as follows in the Qur’an:
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 too
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 unjust
people. (2:258)
We find another example of the argument based on
natural reasoning in the Qur’an:
Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of
the heavens and the earth, so that he might
become a firm believer. When night
overshadowed him, he saw a star. He said:
‘This is my Lord’. But when it set, he said: ‘I
love not those that set.’ Then when he saw the
moon rising, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But
when it set, he said: ‘Unless my Lord guide
me, I shall surely be among those who go
astray’. Then when he saw the sun rising, he
said: ‘This is my Lord. This is the greatest.’
But when it set, he said: ‘O my people! Surely,
I am done with what you associate with God.’
(6:75-78)
Argument of this kind may appear to be simple, but
they are invested with deeper meaning. For this
reason, they have been engaged in as much in the
past as today.
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT
The second kind of argument is that first
propounded by Greek philosophers. Based on pure
logic, it was so popular in the medieval ages that
Jews and Christians and Muslims all incorporated it
into their theological system. Commonly known as
First Cause, it 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. Philosophers have argued that
the observable order of causation is not selfexplanatory.
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 successive
causes, but rather as the First Cause in the
sense of being the cause for the whole series
of observable causes.
The Prime Mover or First Cause theory. Although
obviously very sound, it has constantly been
under attack from secular circles, and critics have
raised a variety of objections. To begin with, they
say that it is only guesswork, and not an
undeniable fact. Some critics also object that the
actions or free will of subatomic particles are
uncaused; so, 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 its parts to warrant such a
generalization.
This is why some people think that the faith of
Islam is not based on rational grounds. 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 modern science has demolished this notion, as
will be shown in the last part of this chapter.
SPIRITUAL ARGUMENT
Yet another argument is that which is based on
spiritual experience. Some people, who engage in
spiritual exercises and have spiritual experiences,
say that when they reach the deeper levels of the
human consciousness, they find an unlimited world
which cannot be described in limited language.
They insist that this limitless, unexplainable
phenomenon is nothing but God Almighty Himself.
The critics say that even if this spiritual state is as
real as is claimed by those who enter it, it is still a
subjective experience; that it conveys nothing to
those who have not experienced the same spiritual
state.
All the above arguments are in one way or another
inferential in nature and not of the direct kind. In
view of this fact, the critics hold that all faiths,
including Islam, have no scientific basis. They
contend that Islamic theology is not based on
primary rationalism, but on secondary rationalism.
However, these contentions appeared to be valid
only by the end of the nineteenth century. The
twentieth century has closed the chapter on all such
debates. Now, according to modern developments
in science, one can safely say that religious tenets
can be proved on the same logical plane as the
concepts of science. Now there is no difference
between the two in terms of scientific reasoning. Let
us then see what modern scientific reasoning is all
about.
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT
Religion, or faith, relates to issues such as the
existence of God, something intangible and
unobservable, unlike non-religious things like the
sun, which has a tangible and observable existence.
Therefore, it came to be held that only non-religious
matters might be established by direct argument,
while it is only direct or inferential argument which
can be used to prove religious propositions.
It was believed, therefore, that rational argument
was possible only in non-religious matters, and 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 areas that primary
rationalism was possible, while in religion only
secondary rationalism was applicable.
In the past, arguments based on Aristotlean logic
used to be applied to faith. By its very nature it was
an indirect argument. Modern critics, therefore,
ignored such arguments as unworthy of
consideration. That is why religion was not thought
worthy of being paid any attention by rational
people. 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 science, this state of affairs did not change. All
the scientists in the wake of the Renaissance
believed that matter, in fact, the entire material
world was something solid which could be
observed. Newton had even formed a theory that
light consisted of tiny corpuscles. As such, it was
possible to apply direct argument as an explanation
of material things. Similarly, even after the
emergence of modern science, this state of affairs
prevailed. It continued to be believed that the kind
of argument which is applied to apparently tangible
things could not be applied in the case of religion.
But by the early twentieth century, specifically after
the First World War, this mental climate changed
completely.
The ancient Greek philosophers
believed that matter, in the last analysis, was
composed of atoms. And the atom, though very
tiny, 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 while science was confined to the
macrocosmic level. Later, when science advanced to
the microcosmic level, it underwent a revolution,
and along with it, the method of argument also
changed.
So far, science had been based on the proposition
that all the things it believed in, like the atom, could
be directly explained. But when the atom, the
smallest part of an element, was smashed, it was
revealed that it was not a material entity, but just
another name for unobservable waves of electrons.
This discovery demonstrated how a scientist could
see only the effect of a thing and not the thing itself.
For instance, the atom, after being split, produces
energy which can be converted into electricity. This
runs along a wire in the form of a current, yet this
event is not observable even by a scientist. But
when such an event produces an effect, for instance,
it lights up a bulb or sets a motor in motion this
effect comes under a scientist’s observation.
Similarly, the waves from an X-ray machine, are not
observable by a scientist, but when they produce
the image of a human body on a plate, then it
becomes observable.
Now the question arose as to what stand a scientist
must take? Should he believe only in a tangible
effect or the intangible thing as well, which
produced that effect? Since the scientist was bound
to believe in the tangible effect, he had no choice but
to believe in its intangible cause.
Here the scientist felt that direct argument could be
applied to the tangible effect, but that it was not at
all possible to apply direct argument to the
intangible cause. The most important of all the
changes brought about by this new development in
the world of science was that, it was admitted in
scientific circles that inferential argument was as
valid as direct argument. That is, if a cause
consistently gives rise to an effect, the existence of
the intangible cause will be accepted as a proven
fact, just as the existence of the tangible effect is
accepted because it is observable. In modern times
all the concepts of science held to be established
have been proven by this very logic.
After reaching this stage of rational argument the
difference between religious argument and
scientific argument ceases to exist. The problem
faced earlier was that religious realities, such as the
existence of God, could be proved only by inference
or indirect argument. For instance, the existence of
God, as a designer (cause) was presumed to exist
because His design (effect) could be seen to exist.
But now the same method of indirect argument has
been generally held to be valid in the world of
science.
There are numerous meaningful things in the
universe which are brought to the knowledge of
human beings, for which no explanation is possible.
It has simply to be accepted that there is a
meaningful Cause, that is God. The truth is that,
without belief in God, the universe remains as
unexplainable as the entire mechanism of light and
motion is without belief in electric waves.
Thus, the option one has to take 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 latter 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
scientific theories as well. For, all the modern
scientific theories are accepted as proven on the
basis of 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.
--Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
( Ref - Search For Truth )
