DOES GOD exist? My answer to this question is in the
affirmative. Based on my study and my experience,
I can say with full conviction that God exists. There
is no doubt about it. When I say that God exists, I
say this in the scientific sense and not in the popular
sense.
People generally believe that they are in a position
to prove or disprove anything. But this is not the
scientific position. According to modern science,
you cannot prove or disprove anything, You can
only arrive at a probability, rather than a certainty.
If there is sufficient data to show that this or that
thing probably exists, then one can make the
statement that this or that thing exists.
The present question of whether God exists itself
raises another question. Studies in anthropology,
that is, the science of man, have established that the
concept of God is ingrained in human nature. Belief
in God runs in our blood. Every man and woman is
a born believer. Everyone undergoes this experience
at one point of time or the other. Especially in times
of helplessness and in crisis, we discover that there
is a Supreme Being. Every man and woman has
experienced this natural fact at least once in his or
her life.
Then why this question? If the concept of God is
present in our flesh and blood, why does one
question the existence of God? The reason is very
simple. People want to know whether there is a
rational basis to their inner belief, whether there is
some scientific proof in favour of their inner
feelings.
I must emphasise that there is certainly a scientific
basis for belief in the existence of God. But people
generally fail to discover it for the simple reason
that they try to apply a criterion which they
wrongly believe to be scientific. They want a proof
in terms of observation, whereas this is neither the
scientific method nor the criterion by which to
judge. If you apply the right criterion, you will find
that God is a proven fact.
Here I recall an incident which took place in 1965,
when I was living in Lucknow. I happened to meet
a gentleman, who was a Doctor of Philosophy and a
great admirer of Bertrand Russell.
Of course, he was an atheist. During our
conversation about God he asked: “What criterion
do you have to prove the existence of God?” I
replied: “The same criterion which you have for
proving the existence of anything else.” The
dialogue ended there. There was no question and
no answer after this.
Why did this learned man fall silent? The reason is
very simple and well known. My answer was to
him a kind of reminder. I reminded him of the fact
that we are living in a world where inferential
argument is as applicable to the concept of God as
to any other concept.
In our modern times scientific knowledge has
increased to an unbelievable extent. But, according
to the Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, “increase in
knowledge has only increased our ignorance.” One
scientist has rightly said: “We know more and more
about less and less.” Now it is an established fact
that science gives us but a partial knowledge of
reality.
Human knowledge has two different phases—the
pre-Einstein period and the post-Einstein period. In
the pre-Einstein period, knowledge was confined to
the macro or material world, which was observable
and measurable. So, it was generally held that
everything, which has a real existence, should also
be observable. Anything which could not be
observed had no real existence. This meant that
only the seen world was real and what was unseen
was unreal, or some kind of fiction.
This concept created the theory which is generally
called logical positivism. It means that the only
valid logical argument is one which is demonstrable
in material terms, otherwise it is simply a baseless
claim, and not a valid argument.
But, in the post-Einstein period, in the early years of
the 20th century, when the atom was split, the
whole situation changed. After the splitting of the
atom, matter as a solid substance, disappeared. It
was replaced by the micro world, beyond the
atomic world, where everything was reduced to
unseen waves, neither measurable nor observable.
After this revolution in knowledge, logical or
rational argument also changed drastically. This
changing situation compelled the philosophers and
the scientists to revise logical criteria. It has now
become an accepted fact that inferential argument is
as valid as direct argument.
In the post-Einstein era, it was discovered that even
so-called observable matter was unobservable. Now
everything was waves, and waves were not
observable.
Present-day science includes so many things, like
electrons, the law of gravity, x-rays, etc., all of
which are non-material in nature. They cannot be
observed, but every scientist believes in their
existence, for the simple reason that, although we
cannot see these things directly, we can see their
effect. For example, a falling apple, in the case of
gravity, and a photograph, in the case of x-rays. We
believe in the existence of all these things, not by
observation but by their result; in other words, by
way of indirect knowledge.
This change in human knowledge also changed the
theory of logic. Now it is well established in science
that inferential argument is as valid as direct
argument. (For details, see Human Knowledge, by
Bertrand Russell)
In the pre-Einstein era, unbelievers held that the
concept of God pertains to the unseen world. And
since no direct argument was available to bear this
out, belief in God was held to be illogical and all the
relevant indirect arguments were considered
scientifically invalid, since they were inferential in
nature.
But now the whole situation has changed. Nothing
is observable. So the existence of anything can be
established only by means of inferential argument,
rather than by direct argument.
If inferential argument is valid with regard to the
unseen micro world, it is also valid with regard to
the existence of God.
Bertrand Russell, in his book, “Why I am not a
Christian”, has admitted this fact. He says that the
argument centering on design, propounded by
theologians to prove the existence of God, is
scientifically valid.
Since ancient days, theologians have argued that
when there is a design there must also be a
designer. As we see that our world is well designed,
it compels us to believe that there is a designer.
When we reflect deeply about our world, we find
that all over the universe there are clear signs of
planning, design and intelligent control. These signs
lead us to believe that there is a Creator of
creatures, there is a Designer of designs, and there
is a Mover of all movements.
No other explanation presents itself. Here I would
like to refer to some of these universal signs.
--Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
( Ref - In Search of God)
