← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
Is science neutral regarding the existence of Allah, neither proving nor disproving it? Can you scientifically say that there is a God based on the sciences we have built over the past 400 or 500 years, or even before that, which are based on experiments and observations? You cannot scientifically prove Allah's existence.
Science itself, as pure science, observational and experimental science, does not prove the existence of Allah nor does it disprove it. Let us address the topic in detail.
Science is observational and experimental science. Observation includes the study of phenomena, observing their mechanisms, exploring the world of cells and atoms to stars and galaxies, and discovering laws. Experimentation includes formulating hypotheses and conducting experiments according to scientific methodologies.
Therefore, when we say "science" in this context, we mean both types: experimental and observational, with a focus on the observational, which is the foundation of experimentation. You observe phenomena and relationships, formulate hypotheses based on them, and experiment to verify them.
Alright, does observational and experimental science, as defined here, prove or disprove the existence of Allah? Can the existence of Allah be proven experimentally? The answer is no, but experimentation is not everything in science. Science includes the observation of phenomena and observations and the derivation of laws as we have mentioned.
Alright, can the existence of Allah be proven observationally? Observing His essence, glory be to Him, is not possible. So, does this mean that observational and experimental science does not indicate Allah? The answer is: it does indicate Him decisively, without a doubt or hesitation, not only His essence but also His attributes.
How? We say, dear respected audience: we have proven in previous episodes that science (observational and experimental science) is based on a system of four sources that collectively and interactively produce science. Science is not limited to sensory inputs. Man is not just a camera that captures an image and the name of the image becomes science, or records a sound and the recording becomes science.
Sense alone, dear respected audience, does nothing; the use of reason, axioms, and information from researchers whose evidence has proven their truth is an indispensable part of the definition of observational and experimental science as we have detailed. And when the British Scientific Council defined science, which was the first official definition, it defined it as: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world, through the pursuit of a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Knowledge, understanding, methodology, evidence, all of these terms include the use of reason. Science (observational and experimental science) relies on reason. Allow me here to rebuild the diagram, highlighting the role of reason and clarifying its relationship with other sources of science on one hand and with science on the other.
Reason starts from axioms (intellectual necessities such as causality), and from the conviction of the existence of order in the universe, builds on the scientific information of researchers, analyzes sensory inputs and connects them, and employs all of this to produce science. Reason plays a central role in this system, and science is one of the forms of knowledge that relies on reason.
Knowledge is not just science. There are other things that the wise agree are knowledge, even if they are not included in the definition of science. Such as: the science of mathematics, which is a science that relies on reason, and is not experimental or observational, but many experimental and observational sciences rely on it.
Historical news that agree on the existence of civilizations such as the Pharaohs, the Persians, and the Romans, whose remains have testified to them, and the agreement of books on parts of their biographies in addition to their existence. The claim of the existence of these civilizations in the past is knowledge, even if it does not enter the definition of science.
But in your daily life, you know certain knowledge about the existence of things that you have not observed or experimented with, but the news of others about them has agreed in a way that leaves no room for doubt about forgery or error in them. So, knowledge is a broader circle, and science is one of its forms, and all these forms of knowledge are built on intellectual operations. Mathematics is intellectual, accepting news based on verifying its evidence is an intellectual operation, and science is built on intellectual operations. What is outside the circle of knowledge is ignorance, illusion, conjecture, and false information.
Alright, this reason which is the basis of knowledge, if we use it in the observations of science, to what will it lead? Let me remind you, dear respected audience, of observations that we have detailed in previous episodes, and I am not here to speak in detail about these observations, for we have detailed them in complete episodes, and we only refresh their threads to call them from your memory, and with them what we have expanded from their beauty and wonder and precision and answer the question that we raise every time: Are these observations indicative of absurdity and nihilism and randomness and blindness and chance? Or of will and knowledge and wisdom and predestination?
These are just a few examples from the world of biology, which, as we have said, every point in it is charged with examples of perfection and precision. And we have not even spoken about the earth and its layers and its crust and its elements, and the cosmos and galaxies.
Would any sound mind, free from obstacles and psychological influences, rule that all of this is evidence of chance, randomness, and blindness? Or is it evidence of knowledge, wisdom, power, and intention? Will the mind conclude that all of this is the work of non-existence (nothingness)? Or that it is the act of an actor?
This actor, characterized by what observations of science indicate in terms of knowledge, wisdom, power, and greatness, is the one whose name in the Islamic system is "Allah" - glory be to Him and exalted is He. We do not assume the existence of Allah, but rather, the mind that we used in observational and experimental science is the same one that, through this science, in another form of knowledge, concludes the knowledge of the Creator and His attributes.
If we discard the mind, science falls with it. And if we use it, it guides us to the greatest conclusion about the Creator and His attributes. Either you accept the mind and what results from it, or you discard it and what results from it. The relationship is inevitable, and it is not a scientific or rational position to use the mind in producing observational and experimental science, then prevent the mind from taking an additional step to conclude from this science the existence of the Creator and His attributes. This is an unwarranted selectivity.
You are not required to conclude the existence of Allah from an additional source of knowledge that you did not use in building science, but rather, it is your own mind. All that is required of you is not to prevent it from taking a step forward in concluding the existence of the Creator and His attributes. All that is required of you is not to be narrow-minded.
Science is not just captured images, sounds, or bare numbers, and man is not a deaf machine that captures an image, then has no mind, analysis, or conclusion. Science is knowledge, and as long as we say the word "knowledge," then there are mental operations, and as long as the mind is involved, it cannot but submit to the existence of a Creator.
Good, what has materialism specifically done? First: Materialism has prevented the intellect from inferring the Creator and His attributes through science, claiming that this does not fall under the realm of tangible material science. It has manipulated language, making science confined to science, and then considered everything outside of science as ignorance, blind faith, and superstitions.
After materialism confined science to science, it used the fallacy known as the false dichotomy: either science—which science has been confined to—or ignorance. If a scientist wants to go beyond the boundaries that materialism has imposed on science, then materialists describe him as someone who has started to abandon scientific thinking and is moving towards emotions and superstitions... they describe him as not being scientific.
Materialism has exempted certain sciences from this binary division, which it practically recognizes, even though they do not fall under the circle of science, such as mathematics and documented history, which materialists give great importance to and document. And we should ask: What is the justification for this selectivity? Why has materialism dealt with the existence of the Creator and His attributes differently than it has dealt with other matters that are proven by reason rather than science, such as mathematics and history, for example?
When reason and innate nature insist on asking about the explanation of the origin of the universe and life, and the explanation of the state of perfection, precision, and order, materialism has assumed explanations such as random evolution, a self-created universe, infinite universes, and the intelligence of microbes. It has forced these explanations into the realm of science, even though they are not sensory and reason does not point to them, but rather contradicts them. Therefore, they are not part of science in any way and do not fall within its realm; rather, they are ignorance and superstitions. And yet, materialism has made these explanations a substitute for the existence of the Creator, who is a known entity that reason points to.
This, brothers, is in addition to what we have clarified that materialism negates all sources of knowledge on which science is based. Therefore, do not be surprised, brothers, when I insist on mentioning the word science when summarizing; either I say: experimental observational science, or if I want to shorten it, I say: science and do not say knowledge; because the beginning of falling into the trap of materialism is confining knowledge to (science).
When we understand that the matter revolves around this system and the centrality of reason in it, then we realize that indicating the Creator is knowledge... knowledge supported by evidence, including science. The one who infers the existence of the Creator from science is a person who has rejected the imaginary boundaries that materialism has imposed and has allowed his reason to rise to a higher level in knowledge, higher than confining oneself to the tangible. The matter is not a leap of faith, faith not supported by evidence, but a mental leap, a rational, scientific, evidentiary, and inferential act.
We have already clarified to you that the sources of knowledge, including experimental observational science, are not reliable except in the methodology of faith in the Creator. And notice, honorable ones, that here we are talking about one of the evidence of the existence of Allah that is related to science specifically, which is: the evidence of perfection and precision. Otherwise, we have previously detailed the evidence of creation and existence, which is rational evidence, and we have also detailed the natural evidence of the existence of Allah.
May Allah have mercy on Ibn Taymiyyah when he said: "The more people are in need of something, the more generous the Lord is with it." The servants are in the greatest need to know their Creator and His attributes; so He has placed the evidence of Him in the cosmic verses, minds, and innate nature.
Alright, if science conclusively proves God and His attributes, then why did many scientists not believe? Is it as one of them says: "Hawking, Stephen Hawking, is an exceptional scientist, an extraordinary scientist, but he is not a philosopher. I know what I'm saying, and he is not a great theologian. And science itself - brothers! - science as science alone, does not prove the existence of God nor does it deny the existence of God. Do you know why? Because science is not metaphysics. Science does not concern itself with what is beyond nature if it believes in it at all. Science is only concerned with the observable world. Therefore, all scientific facts can be used as premises in logical reasoning - brothers! - in thinking, in arguments that prove what? Things... and perhaps prove their opposites... depending on what? Depending on the philosophical, theological, or metaphysical stance that the scientist holds."
Regardless of the intention behind this statement, some may understand it as if scientific observations in themselves do not indicate anything, that they are neutral and only take shape and change according to the scientist's philosophy, because the scientific fact itself is subject to multiple philosophical interpretations. The believer uses it to prove his faith, and the atheist uses it to prove his atheism, as if the believer's mind led him to the existence of God, while the atheist's mind led him to deny the existence of God.
So we say - brothers! - the mind cannot lead to something and its opposite. The mind cannot judge something and its opposite, judge that this universe is a result of wisdom, knowledge, and greatness, and at the same time judge that the universe is a product of randomness, chance, and ignorance. He who reaches the denial of the Creator, his philosophy cannot be called scientific, and it is not the mind that led him to this conclusion, but this conclusion negates the mind.
Good, these scholars appear to be intelligent, they are not insane, but rather they are wise. So what led them to where they have reached? What caused their minds to fail in reaching the Creator and His attributes? There are many reasons that we have proven in past sessions:
That a person is a scholar in his field does not necessarily mean that he is neutral or trustworthy. It is not our concern to analyze the reasons for the atheism of those who have become atheists. The important thing is not to rent our minds to anyone, be impressed by their titles and achievements, and to know that their use of scientific observations to prove their atheism does not mean that these observations are inherently suitable for this use, or that they are neutral, but rather they indicate to the rational person who is free from obstacles, they indicate to him conclusively the Creator and His attributes.
Therefore, our work in the journey of certainty is to present to you the scientific facts, bare and clear, so that you do not rent your mind to us or to the atheists, and that you do not imitate us or them, but rather we leave the judgment to your minds. Do these facts and natural observations indicate randomness, coincidence, blindness, and non-existence? Or do they indicate a wise, powerful, knowing, great Creator?
We explained to you what the bacterium Escherichia coli did in the process of copying the gene it needs, and placing the copy in the appropriate place in its genetic material, to be able to capture and digest citrate in steps of extreme precision, similar to genetic engineering. We explained to you how they completely reversed its meaning and made it an example of beneficial randomness, and how they made examples of the greatness of creation in the network of the eye, the wings of the penguin, and the posterior bones of the whale, examples of design errors and useless members, and how they responded to all the wonder and perfection in the cell by saying that perhaps extraterrestrial beings sowed the seed of life on earth, and the logical fallacies and the distortion they use in all of this.
So does their behavior prove that these scientific facts are subject to different interpretations? Or does all of this prove that, as Allah the Almighty said: "Say, 'Look at what is in the heavens and the earth.' But the signs and warnings avail not a people who do not believe" [Yunus:101].
You will say to me: You argue with Quranic verses, assume that I do not believe in the Quran. I say to you: Rather, I bear witness to you with reality about the truth of the Quran, I bear witness to you with reality about the truth of the Quran. I have shown you in past sessions the scientific facts to tell you: Now that you have seen the wonder of these observations, what description is there for those who take them as evidence of denying the Creator, except what the Quran described them with when it said: "And none deny Our signs except the wrongdoers" [Al-Ankabut:49].
So the reality bears witness to the truth of the Quranic verses in describing them, and to the extent that you understand the scientific facts, you realize the truth of the Quran's description of those who denied them as disbelievers, meaning those who covered up the truth. We have clarified the facts to you so that when you see someone denying their indication of the Creator, but rather taking them as evidence of atheism, you know that he is a liar and a betrayer of the trust of science, as Allah the Almighty said: "And none deny Our signs except every treacherous denier" [Luqman:32], meaning a traitor who denies the blessing. So your determination arises not to leave natural science to these people, but rather to learn it so that you may be trustworthy over it.
After this speech to the general public with rational evidence, we address the Muslims who may have been affected by the notion that natural science is neutral, meaning it neither indicates nor denies the existence of Allah. At the same time, they do not realize the extent of the contradiction between this belief and the Quran, which they believe in. We say to them: Most of what the Quran focuses on in proving and demonstrating the realities of faith is the observable cosmic phenomena, which is observational science. Modern observational science is an in-depth exploration of these observable phenomena, revealing more of their beauty, wonder, and splendor.
If you say that the observations of modern science do not indicate the Creator, then the meaning of that is: "Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?" [Al-Ghashiyah:17] does not indicate anything, and all that the Quran says about these observations: "Indeed, in that are signs..." are not signs. Consider, for example, the endings of the verses in Surah Ar-Rum after speaking about scientific observations in the souls and the horizons: "Indeed, in that are signs for a people who think." [Ar-Rum:21] "Indeed, in that are signs for those who know." [Ar-Rum:22] "Indeed, in that are signs for a people who reason." [Ar-Rum:24].
The indication of the observable and detailed scientific phenomena, which natural science has elaborated, their indication of the Creator is the greatest of cosmic realities and the most fundamental of rational necessities. The Quran argues from cosmic observations not only for the existence of the Creator, but also for His uniqueness in the order of His kingdom, His greatness, wisdom, mercy, sustenance, and power over resurrection and return. The argument is for these things, and it is a conclusive argument. Imagine if someone makes the scientific observations not indicative, not even of the existence of the Creator Himself... Imagine the loss and misguidance of those who say, "Do not bring faith into science!"
You, my brother, are commanded by the Sharia to contemplate observational science - the signs of Allah in the cosmos - to strengthen your faith. And it is obligatory upon you as a Muslim not to fall into the framework that separates them from Allah, and not to limit your intellect at the imaginary boundaries that materialism has set, so that you are deprived of benefiting from the cosmic signs of Allah and also from the verses of the Quran that direct you to benefit from these cosmic signs. Perhaps, as a perfection of Allah's justice and mercy, every time time progresses and people move away from the era of prophecy, these scientific evidences double to be new arguments for us, which we enjoy and the earlier generations did not enjoy, who saw the Prophet or were close to his time.
Allah says: "Say, then to Allah belongs the conclusive argument." [Al-An'am:149] The problem is not a lack of evidence and clarity, but it is convincing and subjugating to the sound intellect, the sound heart. Therefore, when we see that many of the natural scientists are materialists, this should not make us doubt the strength of the evidence that Allah has established. Some of them are intelligent scientists in their fields, but this has no relation to the soundness of the heart, which if it is absent, the ability of this scientist to benefit from his intellectual capacities is disabled, and he completely excludes the acknowledgment of Allah and believes instead of that in theories that are extremely foolish. "So their hearing, sight, and hearts availed them not when they denied the signs of Allah." [Al-Ahqaf:26].
Those who deny the Creator, according to the Quranic description, do not reason even if they work their intellects in science and excel in it; they do not reason because they have disabled their intellects from benefiting from science and arguing from it to the greater knowledge of the existence of the Creator and His attributes. Allah says: "Do they not look at the earth, how many types of noble pairs We have produced therein? Indeed, in that is a sign, but most of them are not believers." [Ash-Shu'ara:7-8]. This is observational science, and modern observational sciences have revealed to us more details and wonders of it. "Indeed, in that is a sign... Indeed, in that is a sign..." Emphasis upon emphasis... Indeed... is a sign... So, science in it is indicative without a doubt.
Okay, so where is the problem then? Follow the verse: They do not have a readiness for faith. If someone is blind and you say to him: What is your opinion about this beautiful natural view? He says to you: I do not see the beauty that you are talking about. Is this a problem with the view or a problem with the blind? Do we say: The matter is relatively true, the natural view exists in relation to the seer and is beautiful in relation to the seer, but it is non-existent and not beautiful in relation to the blind? No, but it is certainly existent and certainly beautiful, but the problem is with those who do not see it and do not perceive its beauty. It is no wonder that the Quran often describes these people as blind and that their blindness is a blindness of the heart and insight, for the blind of sight may compensate for the loss of sight with hearing, intellect, and innate disposition and be rewarded for his patience. As for these people:
In conclusion, if we are asked: Does science indicate the existence of God? The answer is: Science does not indicate to the rational human being anything as it indicates to the existence of God and the attributes of God. For the individuals of science and its diverse observations each indicate parts of the truths separately, and all of them together indicate a great, wise, all-sustaining, all-knowing, most benevolent Creator who perfects everything He creates, "The work of Allah, by which He has perfected everything; indeed, He is Knowing of what you do" [An-Naml:88].
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.