Science versus Non-Science

Scientific truths are vitally different from the non-scientific truths (?). Scientific truths do not attain the status of truths until they have empirical support. Generally, even a neat and tidy scientific theory bound together with immaculate logic does not get published or if published does not receive acceptability until it is verified by actual observations or laboratory data. Exceptions are there but in due time the empirical evidence has to support such exceptions.

One of such exceptions was the theory of unification of the electro-magnetic and weak forces. Professors Salam, Weinberg, and Glashow won their Nobels in 1979 for the unification work although the final verification came in 1982 when the W and Z bosons predicted by the theory were actually detected at CERN. Another exception was the general theory of relativity which was published by Einstein in 1915 and the verification came in 1918. Although the theory had been verified by the data collected on the bending of the light rays in the vicinity of the Sun during the eclipse, and the theory was a great revolutionary advancement of the existing knowledge, Einstein was not given the Nobel for this work but for his work on specific heats.

For lesser scientists, it is extremely difficult to publish a scientific theory without the support of the empirical evidence. For this reason, the scientific truths are almost solid and free of dissent. Scientific theories are seldom absolutely wrong and if a wrong theory does get currency, it’s not for long. In due time, it’s shown to be wrong and replaced with the correct theory. The theories which are falsified are not necessarily proven wrong; they are replaced by more general theories which have wider applications than the falsified theories.

Non-science is generally metaphysical in character. Non-scientific truths are postulated largely on religious grounds, or on philosophical foundation which is grounded in pure reason without empirical support, or they are mystical, or mythological. Such formulations receive support from divine revelation, general beliefs, or mystical insights. Those who believe in divine revelation consider it infallible and if a factual discrepancy appears between science and revelation, many a time such discrepancy is marginalized as unimportant. If the discrepancy is of such a nature that cannot be ignored and put out of sight, it is argued that the divine revelation was misunderstood. It had different meanings metaphorically which were truly in conformance with the actual fact but were not correctly figured out.

An interesting example of such a discrepancy and metaphorical explanation is regarding the age of our planet, the Earth. Computations from the Biblical records indicated that God had created Earth in six days, some six thousand years ago. Quran also says that Allah created the Earth in six days although it is silent on the actual age of the Earth. This came in direct conflict with the age determined by the scientific methods. Initial estimates indicated broadly that the Earth was indeed much older than six thousand years. A great controversy raged between the theologians and the scientists. The theologians cast doubt on the age determining techniques and suggested that great errors had been committed in the age determination. The scientific techniques were approximate and this was recognized by the scientists also. Gradually, the techniques were refined and so were the estimates. There was more than one scientific technique used for such estimates. The latest estimate of the age of the Earth is 5-6 billion years. The discrepancy between six billion and six thousand is not small and could not be attributed to the computational inaccuracy. So the religionists were in a fix. The caveat of “our inability to truly comprehend the divine word” handily came to the rescue. It was suggested that the Biblical day is not necessarily the same as our common daily ‘day’. The Biblical day can in fact be as long as one billion years. The Bible says that God created the Earth in six days (and on the seventh, the Sabbath, He rested) – read six billion years for six Biblical days – and the discrepancy disappears. Bingo! The divine word is in good standing; it is vindicated by science.

If one has to keep both religion and science working for the humankind, the metaphorical interpretation is the key for peaceful symbiosis. It has been recommended by renowned religious scholars and philosophers. In Christianity, this is used routinely every now and then. For instance, recently Bishop Shelby Spong wrote books with the titles “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism – A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture,” “A New Christianity for a New World,” and “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” among several others. One of the very sensitive subjects that he attempted to rationalize and reconcile is the homosexuality. He was severely criticized by the readers whose beliefs he attempted to modify and appreciated by others who were concerned by the changing sociological patterns of the modern life. The important thing is that he attempted a fundamental reinterpretation and rethinking of the Scriptures, (see Note at the end). I had referred to another example in my article “Conflict of Science with Theocracy”, Chowk.com, September 2, 2003. In it, I had referred to the book, “Paths from Science towards God,” written by Arthur Peacocke, Canon in the Church of England and also a renowned scientist (winner of the Templeton Prize), in which he reinterpreted the Biblical story of Creation in the light the theory of evolution. There are many such other books written by the Christian clergy among numerous others of different calling, e.g., philosophers, scientists, sociologists, etc.

In Islam, although there is need for such reinterpretation of the Scriptures, it is seldom used. The dissenting discussion is muzzled by the application of the blasphemy law. Some slack is available to the Ulema and orthodox religious scholars who write Tafsirs and commentaries on Quran and Hadith mostly on the old traditional lines and are largely ineffective in building bridges between the facts of modern living and the dictates of the holy books. One of the reasons of their ineffectiveness is that most of them are not well-versed in science. They mostly disdain science.

There are several inordinate instances, which need reconciliation but are left largely alone and in limbo for fear of hurting sensitivities of the general orthodox believers and invoking fatwa of blasphemy. One of such instances is that of Prophet Muhammad’s Miraj and Ascension to Heaven. According to the opening verse of Sura 17 (Bani Israel) of Quran:

Glory to (God)
Who did take His Servant
For a journey by night
From the Sacred Mosque
To the Farthest Mosque
Whose precincts We did
Bless, _ in order that We
Might show him some
Of Our Signs: for He
Is the One Who heareth
And seeth (all things)

According to the popular belief, the Sacred Mosque and the Farthest Mosque in the Scriptures are the Ka’ba (Beit-al-Haram) and the Masjid-al-Aqsa respectively. This journey, if physical, took place in the short course of one night while the actual journey in those days needed some forty days, one way. That is the reason that this incident is miraculous and remains a topic of discussion and dissent. Many interpreters (like Abdullah Yusuf Ali of The Holy Quran) like to rationalize it by suggesting that the journey was spiritual and not physical. This seems to be a reasonable explanation and probably the only plausible explanation in view of Prophet Muhammad’s ascension to the remotest part of Heaven from Jerusalem and return from there in the same night, that is, the night of Miraj. The literalists (Maulana Maudoodi among them, Tafhim-ul-Quran, Vol. 2) however contend that the journey was physical and not spiritual. Since God is Omnipotent, He can do whatever He wants and He did carry the holy prophet physically to Heaven and brought him back in the same night. The mode of transport was Buraq, the winged horse. It is true, of course, that the spiritual journey is somewhat less lustrous and not the least miraculous, as was also commented by Maudoodi. And if the journey was indeed spiritual, why did it become so important that it was explicitly described in the holy book? The prophets are known to have spiritual experiences. Why should there be anything extraordinary or unusual about it?

Science does not have any room for miracles and divine intervention.

Discrepancy between philosophical concepts based on pure reason and empirical science does not have such a drastic impact on the sociology of mankind because there is usually more than one philosophical concept current at any given time, for a given phenomenon, a natural event or process. There is no finality and permanence about these concepts as is attached with divine revelation. If any contradiction occurs, it’s only a human concept which is demonstrated in error, which is not so earth-shaking as proving a divine injunction to be wrong.

One of the concepts about the intrinsic nature of matter, for example, was that of the atomicity of matter, which was postulated by Democritus more than two thousand years ago. It was shown to be correct in the twentieth century. In the intervening period of time, there were discussions and debates but nobody was bodily harmed in such a tug of war. Ludwig Boltzmann was probably the only exception who was mortified by the intellectually hostile attitude of the logical positivists.

Open discussion of a concept leads to further development of human thought and knowledge. Scientific knowledge expands in efforts of verifying or falsifying the existing theories. If the theories were sacrosanct like divine ‘word’ no development can possibly take place in science. This encourages the scientists to embark upon new experiments in the course of which new techniques and technologies are conceived and developed.

Science also has a unifying characteristic; it does not discriminate and differentiate scientists on national and religious grounds. A greater number of foreign scientists adulated and cherished, for example, Professor Salam’s work than his own countrymen. The International Center of Theoretical Physics, founded by Professor Salam in Trieste, was renamed as Abdus Salam International Center of Theoretical Physics, after Salam’s death. No such example exists in Pakistan, Salam’s native country.

Note

There is a consistency to the experience of God in every age. The inconsistency, indeed the fallacy, is in the words used to articulate the experience, for words are both limited and dated. Literalized words always distort experience, and if these words are frozen so firmly they cannot change with the times, then finally literal words will render inaccessible in another time the meaning they once conveyed. (John Shelby Spong, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,” p. 236).