A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MODERN EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE IN RELATION TO ISLAMIC ULUM AT-TAJRIBIYAH
(As a background for understanding Islamic Cosmology and the Modern Theory of Creation)
Muin-ud-Din Ahmad Khan
At the advent of the third millennium, the old grounds of cosmological thinking have radically changed. Hence Islamic cosmology invites an updated doctrinal exposition. In view of the great advancement of experimental science during the 20th century and considerable retrogression of rational philosophy during the corresponding period, Islamic cosmology needs be reformulated and redrawn from the Qur’anic sources and its component prepositions be rearranged to match with the present situation. Because Islamic cosmology as formulated in Ilm al-Aqaid was based on rational philosophy has become out-dated.
Keeping the revisional objective in view, we may list the following items for general considerations, namely, (i) the doctrine of pair-creation; (ii) the doctrine of the durability of the realities of the material objects; and (iii) the flawless dynamic system of the universe, the uniformity of nature, and unity and eternity of Allah – the Creator, Sustainer and Providence of the universe.
The Doctrine of Pair-creation
Islamic cosmology begins with the challenging doctrine of pair-creation. The Holy Qur’an states that Allah has created everything in the universe in pairs of opposite kinds. Nothing could therefore be found in the universe, which is apart from pairs, or pair-less unitary and simple (basic), indivisibly single unit disjoining from its pairing counterpart. That is to say, everything in the universe is complex of contrarietic combination (murakkab), positive and negative, male and female, etc. As against the created universe, the creator Allah alone is unique one (ahad), absolutely single, un-complexed simple. Thus the uniqueness, unity, unitarian entityor as the Unitarian Christian Church also believes in the ‘Unitarianism of God’ (Oxford Dictionary), which in the Islamic parlance is called Tawhid, meaning Unity of Allah, is the primary characteristic of Allah. Hence Tawhid or perfect unity of Allah is the first article of faith in Islam. Tawhid or Unitarian concept of Allah is not, however, a novel device of Islam. Unitarian concept of Allah is, in fact, an Abrahamic construction of religious faith, which is closely followed by the Jewish religion as well as by the early Christians as illustrated by the faith of the
In the intellectual formulation, Tawhid or Unitarian faith is the counter part of pair-creation, the distinguishing trait between the creator and the created, between Allah and the creature, between God and the world. Let us posit the question as to how far the doctrine of pair-creation is acceptable to the scrutiny of experimental science.
The Doctrine of the Durability of the Realities of Material Objects
The material object, the physical entity, that which is called ‘shayy’ in Arabic and Quranic parlance meaning ‘thing’ as we say: ‘some thing’ and ‘nothing’. All that exists is a ‘shayy’, is a thing; the plural of ‘shayy’ is ‘ashya’ meaning things. In Arabic language reality is called ‘haqiqah’ and its plural is ‘haqaiq’. Our second doctrine propounds that ‘haqaiq-ul-ashya thabi-tatu’, the realities of things are enduring and firmly laid. To say the other way around, the things are fleeting and the realities are enduring; but realities being pair-wise are tagged with things; it also implies that the realities endure things or sustain material objects. In other words, the material objects are tagged with their respective realities and the realities sustain their respectively tagged objects. Reality and matter are two sides of a coin where matter reflects reality and reality sustains matter. Moreover, matters are being fleeting in nature, do not exist by themselves; their existence are dependent on their sustaining realities.
As a proposition, it is comparable with the philosophical concepts of ‘appearance and reality’, ‘quality and substance’ with the difference that the philosophical concepts are abstract ideas whereas material objects and their respective realities have concrete existence.
It may be further illustrated by comparison with the concepts of ‘phenomena and noumena’ as propounded by the renowned German philosopher Immanual Kant in his ‘Critique of Practical Reason’ wherein phenomena is tangible and noumena is intangible, underlying the phenomena. Herein again, the concepts of phenomena and noumena are ‘abstract ideas’ whereas our concepts of things and realities are concrete existence.
To elucidate further, it may be said that Kantian ‘noumena’ is a concept, and unioversal idea, not reality-in-itself or reality per se, which is the case with haqaiq. As such this doctrine directly contradicts the modern scientific ‘hypothesis of the conservation of matter and conservation of energy’. Because from the Islamic point of view, matter and energy are material objects, very much material entity, which is ever fleeting, ever changing and very much destructible until and unless it is endured by the reality tagged to it.
We are not actually challenging herein the proven fact of science. We would rather endeavour to demonstrate that ‘experimental science’ was born out of the scientific spirit of the holy Qur’an and that, the ‘experimental’ proof amounts to a Qur’anic proof which the Muslims could never reject. Yet, under the guise of experimental science, there may reside some superfluities and unproven portion wrapped together in an amalgam, which can be delineated and disentangled without substantially disrupting the proven truth.
The Qur’an however introduced a numerical symbolic system for counting its sentences as ayah, plural ayat meaning signs. The Qur’anic designation of its sentences as ayah and ayat meant sign, insignia, pointer to something, evidence, proof, etc.
The Qur’anic ‘ayah’ in fact, symbolizes the sign of the creation pointing to the creator. Curiously enough in early English Literature we come across the selfsame expression in the usage of the Christian priests in the form of pronouncement as the ‘science of God’ in the year 1340, 1420, 1728 A.D., meaning the divine sign of the creator God as cited in the Oxford English Dictionary [vol.ix, 1961, p. 221]. It cited also Shakespeare using the word ‘science’ to mean ‘mystrical sign’. To quote further, we find “For God of science is Lord” ‘[1340A.D.]’ “Scyence the height and deepness of ryches of the wysdome and science of God” [1426 A.D.] “Divine suppose three kinds of science in God. The first science of mere knowledge, second a science of vision, third, an intermediate science” [1728 A.D.]. It quotes Shakespeare saying, “Had not in natures mysterie more science than I have in this ring” [1610 A.D.].
In the European language up to 1728 A.D., rather up to the middle of the 19th century A.D. the term science was never applied to mean ‘natural science’ which was still called ‘natural philosophy’ (for detailed analysis, present writer’s book: A Challenging Encounter with the West: Origin and Development of Experimental Science, Dhaka, B.I.I.T., 1997, 92 pages).
‘Science’ is neither a Latin nor any Greek word nor even rooted in either. It seems plainly an English colloquial word used by the Biblical priests to mean ‘divine sign of God’. Let us put a big question mark to the linguistic researchers to explain as to how, why an when it came to be used for ‘experimental science’ in all the Western languages in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Leaving it aside for a while, let us proceed on.
Coming back to our earlier discourse, let us carefully note that, though the term ayah stands in the same ground as for English ‘science’ yet it was never used in Arabic and Islamic literature to mean science. Instead the word ilm bearing the same symbolic meaning of pointer to and of much wider connotation, is used in Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Urdu to identify modern western terminology of science, Ayah and (pl.) ayat are used for counting the sentences of the Holy Quran which is divided into 114 chapters (surah) and 6230 ayat, where it exactly means signs of Allah.
The word ilm in Arabic has a peculiar construction. That, science was an English translation of ilm, which covered the Latin terminology of ‘scientiae’. But let us take a pause to consider the construction of ilm. Ilm originally stemmed from alam which means sign; ilm means knowledge or to know by dint of sign, aalim means one who is learned by dint of sign. Hark! since ilm that is, Islamic knowledge which signifies science vis-a-vis the Greek conceptual ‘knowledge’, as such, both stand apart at an elbow’s length, splitting knowledge between particulars and universal, that is, concrete and abstract. Mark you! The word science or scyene as used in the earlier English parlance as illustrated above, carried abstract and theoretical meaning, whence then modern terminology of science acquired the concrete meaning of diction seems to have been generally accepted in all the European languages including Latin?
The Flawless Dynamic System of the Universe and the Uniformity of Nature
The holy Quran calls attention of the human beings to the flawless creation of the universe and its perfect organizational system, its exquisite beauty, dynamic regularity of its movement. It says: look at the world around you, to the ground, to the sky, to the trees, to the flowers, to the fruits, to the rivers, to the mountains, to the hump of the camel, to the ebb and flow at the rivers and the sea and to anything and everything; do you find any fault in the work of its creation (?), in its in its arrangement, organization, functioning? Look at it and look once again, your look shall reel back to you tired and utterly exhausted (LXVII: 3-4). This is a reference to what our scientists, call ‘Uniformity of Nature’ which is, indeed a proof less fundamental belief or hypothesis of the modern science, which cannot be proved, but without which science cannot move a step forward or backward! In the Quran, this is a doctrine, and not a mere hypothesis. In the Quran it is the God speaking.
The first Quranic revelation asked the Prophet to read, to decipher in the name of the creator Lord the divine technique (hiqmah), the science of creation – to decipher how the Providence Lord (rabb) created human beings from a zygote (alaq), ‘the conjugated pair of sperm and ovum stuck up hanging in the wall of the uterus’ (Quran: Surah Alaq: 1-5). The Prophet must have been shown the 14 creative steps in the process of child-birth, which were gradually revealed in the other surahs of the Quran later on (Ref. Maurice Bucaille: The Bible, the Quran and Science, n.d. and http://www.quranicstudies.com/printout83.html; for detail: Kaith L.Moore and V.N.Persoud: The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embriology, 5th Edn. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co.,
The Quranic revelation came down with the knowledge (ilm) of the divine technology of creation and then says that Allah is most high and honoured who taught human being the art of writing and through deciphering, writing and calculation, He taught human being ‘to know what he did not know’ (ibid). ‘The process of knowing the unknown’ was called ilm or knowledge in the Islamic cultural tradition. Here the Quran is beckoning to the decipherment of the science of the divine creation.
In Arabic language ilm stands for both knowledge and science. The plural of ilm is ulum which is generally used to mean ‘scientific knowledge’. The first Arabic scientific work which came to the notice of the medieval Latin translators were great Aristotelian philosopher and scientist, al-Farabi’s (870-950 A.D.) famous book Al-ihsa-ul-ulum, meaning “Emumeration of Sciences”. It was translated into Latin by Dominican Gundasalvi and Gerard of Cremona in 1175 A.D. under the title “De scientiis” [Ralph Lerner and Muhsin Mahdi ed. Medieval Political Thought: A Source Book,
The terminology of ‘scientia’ and its plural ‘scientiae’ brings us face to face to the greatest medieval European scientific mind, Roger Bacon (1214-1292 A.D.), who wrote his Encyclopedic work: Opus Majus pleading for a drastic change in the mode and methodology of theological education by providing more thorough grounding in scientific researches. In this voluminous work, he wrote a chapter on ‘experimental sciences’ in Arabic style and called it ‘scientiae experimentalis’ in exact translation of al-ulum at-tajribiyah (cf : Paul Edwards ed : The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967, vol. 1-2,pp.240-242).
Roger Bacon was an English man. His Opus Majus was described by later authorities as “an astounding, all comprehensive encyclopedia of what was known at his time concerning natural sciences.” The work was forwarded to Pope Clement in 1267 A.D. (ibid.). The latterly English wise man Francis Bacon was a worthy successor of him who gained considerable wisdom from Roger’s work. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: “Bacon’s frame until recently rested inter alia on his short section of writing on experimental science” (ibid). Other sources, however, allege that his movement for educational reform received a serious set back as the fanatical Christian theologians of his time, doubted him of Islamic leanings and religious heresy. Consequently his Opus Majus was bitterly opposed by Christian clergy and he was imprisoned for 14 years. (Ref. The Oxford English Dictionary, vol.9,p.221; World University Encyclopedia, Vol 2, 528-529).
Roger Bacon, however, preceded with another giant intellectual and unparalleled genius Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253A.D.) who was the first Lecturer of the
Nevertheless, factually considered, Roger Bacon (1214-1292) was the real progenitor of the scientific spirit and modernism of the West by dint of his exact translation of al-Ulum at-tajribiyah as ‘scientiae experimentalis’ which was latterly rendered into English as ‘experimental sciences’ and his advocacy of exchanging the existing ‘inferential system of education’ by ‘experimental scientific system’ and his insisting on adopting Arabic numerals and mathematics as the basic academic principle. Frank Thilly says that he was a “curious mixture of the medieval and modern scholar” and regarded him as the most original and independent figure amongst those who cultivated mathematical and physical sciences in
In the medieval arena of scientific knowledge Grossesteste shone like a morning star; yet Roger Bacon out-shone him like a rising sun, whose comprehensive planning of scientific education, sharp intellectual directives and clear grasp of distinction between philosophy and science as ‘inferential vis-a-vis experimental’ knowledge, marked a clear advancement over post Avicenna academics of the Muslimdom. Its adaption (by Muslims and Christians alike) as ‘the shared cultural heritage of mankind’, could have effected a clear advancement throughout the East and the West.
Roger’s coining the term ‘scientiae experimentalis’ that is ‘experimental sciences’ as the translation of ‘al-ulum at-tajribiyah’ and identifying real scientific knowledge with ‘experimental sciences’ which yielded objective and verified knowledge as opposite to the empirical conceptual, rational or inferential knowledge of philosophy, was a radical and revolutionary step which more than anything gave birth to the spirit of scientific modernism in the West. His splitting of substantive knowledge into inferential vis-a-vis experimental, was so important for modernism in medieval times as the splitting of atom was important in the 20th century for the emergence of nuclear science.
No doubt, chased by the fundamentalist fanatical Christian clergy’s charge of heresy, the devotees of scientific learning in the West hesitated, procrastinated, made dally-dilling and shally-shilling for long long centuries before they caught hold of the spirit of Roger’s ‘scientiae experimentalis’ in the name of ‘experimental sciences’ as late as the middle of the 19th century A.D. In the meantime, exciting debate went on as to the intention of Roger’s coining the terminology of ‘scientiae experimentalis’. Some tried to exonerate him by stating that he meant by ‘experimentalis’, experiential; that is, when he said “nothing can be known with certainty without ‘experimentalis’, he meant without ‘experience’. One Samuel Jeb even brought out a new edition of his ‘Opus Majus’ under the title of ‘Pus Majus’ in 1733 A.D. omitting the chapter on “Scientiae Experimentalis” therefrom with a view to providing his good intention. Nevertheless, in those days of Crusading struggle of the European Christians against Islam and in view of the intimate connection of experimental science with Muslim scholarship, the Westerners were reluctant to accept itfearing lest they should be contaminated with Islamic infidelity” (Paul Edwards ed: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1976, Vol. 1-2,pp.240-42; Frank Thilly: A History of Philosophy; pp.230-38; Joseph Laffan Morse ed.: Standard Reference Encyclopedia, New York, 1959, Vol-3, pp. 896-97). Consequently his clerical opponents succeeded in castigating him and imprisoning him for long 14 years (ibid). Notwithstanding, Nicholas Copernicus (1453-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Francis Bacon (1511-1626) and Galileo Galili (1564-1642) all came in his banner of experimental sciences in Europe but cautiously using the familiar philosophical terminology of ‘natural philosophy’ to mean ‘scientiae experimentalis’, till the middle of the 19th century. Even so, the scientists were looked at with suspicion and their life and honor were hardly secure. Copernicus was burnt alive on the stake and Galileo was kept under confinement for 36 years they could not their attachment to the Muslim authorities. At long last, they borrowed the priestly English terminology of ‘science’ and exchanged it with ‘scientiae’ and used ‘experimental science’ to serve their purpose. So, from the middle of the 19th century ‘scientiae experimentalis’ came to be popularly known as ‘experimental sciences’. Here lies the history of the promotion of English colloquial word ‘science’ to the status of ‘scientiae’, the experimental sciences.
‘Experimental science’ is now a days regarded as a Western brand of knowledge, originated, developed and flourished in the West. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Paul Edwards ed., Collier and Macm. UK, 1967, Vol. 7-8,p.339) states that John F. Herschell was the originator of the scientific analytical methodology, who, however, called his book, ‘Preliminary Discourse in the Study of Natural Philosophy’, instead of ‘natural science’ and the book was published from London in 1830 A.D. when the term ‘science’ has not come to scientific use in Western languages. So, this tendentious conception of origination of experimental science is beside the point.
Moreover the conjunctive use of ‘experimental’ with ‘science’ calls our attention to its functional implication. As distinct from subjective ‘experiential’ implication, ‘experimental’ carries an objective realistic meaning, which does not fit well with Western tradition of ‘conceptual’ and ‘empirical’ knowledge both of which smack a subjective aroma. It had created an embarrassing confusion in the learned circle of the West. One Mr. Wolter broached a long-drawn debate contending that by ‘scientiae experimentalis’, Roger Bacon meant knowledge through experience as opposed to inferential or rational knowledge (Joseph Lafan Morse ed. : Standard Reference Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, pp.896-97 and Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards ed., Vol. 1-2, pp. 240-42).
The most significant part of the Experimentalis, or tajribiyah however, lies in its affinity to the objective reality or haqiqah, which sustains materiality. It is comparable to the famous American philosopher of ‘love, chance and reason’, Dilthay’s concept of internalization and externalization of the truth. Accordingly, let us say, whenever the existence of material things is internalized, it turns into realities (haqaiq) and whenever the existence of realities is externalized, it turns into material things (ashya). However, in Dilthay’s philosophy, these are these are concepts and ideas and have no positive existence; whereas in the Islamic perspective, realities or haqaiq have real existence which also sustain the material existence of things tagged with them. Thus, in the Islamic perspective reality is a third higher category of existence and point to that knowledge which resides beyond the (i) perceptual and (ii) conceptual knowledge and is not bound by the categories of empirical knowledge.
This third category of haqaiq comprising both concrete existence and knowledge of realities, bring us back to our earlier dialogue on the Aristotelian concept of the eternity of matter and the modern Western postulate of indestructibility of matter and conservation of energy. In the Islamic perspective the haqaiq or reality is enduring, it sustains ashya or things; and matter and energy being material objects, must be sustained and made enduring by its corresponding reality or realities. So that, conservation is with realities and not with the matter. Matter being constantly changing, always changing, which cannot stand erect without fleeting, even for a split second, how can it conserve itself (?), is a big question. To justify the ‘conservation’ hypothesis, they call up another hypothesis of the ‘Uniformity of Nature’, neither being above the serious question of an interlocuter as the figment of the brain. None of these hypotheses can be scientifically proved.
Indeed, hypothesis cannot be equated with truth; it is approximation of truth. The fundamental basis of science being hypothetical, the modern scientists fall short of arriving at a firm ‘definition’ of science (Ref. John Woodburn: “Science Defined versus Indefinable, a personal attempt to define science”, The Science Teacher, Vol. 34, No. 8, Nov. 1967, pp. 27-30, UNESCO Journal). They adopt rather a working ‘description’ saying: Science is a dynamic knowledge, constantly changing knowledge, an evolving knowledge, is an accumulated and systemized learning, that 20th century science is displaying a trait of uncertainty in the runway of its dynamism, that, prove is a word that may be appropriate to mathematics or logic, but it is now usually out of place in science; that, scientist should be certain of only one thing that at the end everything he knows may turn out to be wrong, and so on. (Ref. UNESCO: Handbook for Science Teachers, Paris, 1980, p. 1 ff; James Hestings ed. : Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 252-58: “Science”; M. Akbar Ali: Science in the Quran, Dhaka., 1976, p. 14).
In fact, science goes by a set of methodology based on (a) observation (b) collection of data (c) experimentation and formulation of a general conception (d) adoption of a thesis (e) formulation of a law (f) build up a theory, and so on, yet in matter of definition, it is sharply critical and thoroughly skeptical. Science is gained by observation and by experiment, but also by reflecting on the data thus supplied.
Typically scientific knowledge is of such a kind that it can be verified by competent inquirers who repeat the observation and experiment. (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 1927).
At the final stage of our discourse on science, we should like to entreat our Western audience and readers to forget the etymological meaning of ‘science’ or ‘scyence’ which is irrelevant, as we have seen above, in the scientific arena and we would invite their reflective indulgence in considering the objective meaning and experimental significance of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment