❖ Introduction: The Modern Case Against Religion
The modern critique against religion claims that the advancement of science has led to a superior method of understanding reality—one based on observation and experiment. Religious doctrines, by contrast, are considered unscientific because they deal with the unseen and cannot be verified through empirical methods. Thus, they are labeled speculative or unscientific.But does this assertion hold up under scrutiny?
❖ Observation vs Inference: Two Sides of Knowledge
It is inaccurate to say that only observable phenomena constitute truth. In fact, modern science accepts both observation and rational inference as sources of knowledge. Just as observation can be flawed, inference can lead to valid truths as well.Example: Iron Ships and Faulty Experimentation
In the past, people believed only light materials like wood could float. When someone claimed iron ships could float, skeptics threw an iron horseshoe into water to disprove it. But the experiment was faulty. Had they used a shaped iron vessel, the result would have affirmed the claim.Example: Galactic Clouds and Stronger Telescopes
Early telescopes saw cloudy celestial bodies, assumed to be gas. Later, powerful instruments revealed them to be distant star clusters—not gases. Science corrected its own observations.❖ Limits of Empiricism
Scientific facts are often explanations of phenomena—not direct observations. Concepts like gravity, energy, and force are not visible but inferred.🗨 Dr. Alexis Carrel noted:
“The mathematical universe is a web of assumptions and abstractions held together by symbolic equations.”
(Man the Unknown, p.15)
🗨 A.E. Mander stated:
“Facts we know through direct sense experience are sensory facts, but the truths we can know are not limited to them.”
(Clearer Thinking, 1949, p.49)
❖ Gravity and Invisible Forces
Gravity, a cornerstone of physics, is not directly observable. Even Newton admitted:“It is inconceivable that inanimate matter should, without mediation, affect other matter.”
(Works of W. Bentley III, p.221)
Gravity is accepted not because it's visible, but because it explains observable motion.
❖ Evolution: A Rationalist Creed
The theory of evolution is widely accepted, though no one has observed it in action due to the vast timescales involved. 🗨 Sir Arthur Keith even called it:“A basic dogma of rationalism.”
(Revolt Against Reason, p.112)
Still, it is accepted because it aligns with known facts and offers logical coherence—even though it's a belief in the unseen.
❖ Comparative Reasoning: Science and Religion
If evolution, a theory based on inferred truths, is accepted as scientific, then why can't religion, which also explains unseen truths, be granted the same intellectual respect?Both fields rely on rational consistency, not just observation.
❖ Science’s Hidden Belief in the Unseen
Science rests on faith in the unseen when it deals with the essence of things. 🗨 Sir Arthur Eddington remarked that a scientist's lab table has:“One table that is solid and touchable, and another constructed entirely of abstract scientific concepts.”
(The Nature of the Physical World, p.7–8)
❖ The Role of Scientific Theories
Scientific theories are mental models to explain facts. If a theory explains observable reality effectively, it is deemed valid—even if it isn't observable itself.🗨 J.W.N. Sullivan wrote:
“A valid scientific theory is essentially a successful working hypothesis.”
(The Limitations of Science, p.158)
❖ Religion's Permanent Truth vs Scientific Flux
Religion, like science, draws on rational inferences and long-term observation of human experience. Unlike scientific theories, which evolve or are replaced, religious truths have remained consistent over millennia.Religious truths provide not only explanation, but also meaning, purpose, and moral direction—facets beyond the reach of empirical science.
❖ Conclusion: Faith and Fact in Harmony
Science and religion are not contradictory, but complementary.- Religion addresses the "why"; science addresses the "how".
- Both fields rest upon rational inference and sometimes even faith in the unseen.
- To dismiss religion on the basis that it is not empirically observable is to misunderstand the foundations of scientific knowledge itself.
Thus, the belief in God and the truths of revelation remain rational, enduring, and meaningful—a different lens, but not a lesser one.
وَاللهُ أَعْلَم، وَعِلْمُهُ أَحْكَم!
