The relationship between experimental science and religion

Dr. Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Rakaf

Religion and experimental sciences constitute two of the most important aspects of life around us, and with the advancement of experimental sciences - which are: sciences that seek to discover natural laws, through experiment and observation, and relying only on material evidence - some opinions have emerged that say that there are two views of the world; The first: the world view of religion, and the other: the world view of experimental science. Then it was built on this theory that religion and science are two different things. Then each group decided its view of the relationship between them according to its vision of each of them, and since the view of experimental science is considered a prominent feature of our time; Some people have imagined that the only source of knowledge is experimental science, and have neglected the rest of the sources. We have previously stated that knowledge construction is not complete except with a balance between the sources of knowledge, without neglecting or marginalizing any of them at the expense of the other.

The statements on the issue of the relationship between science and religion can be summarized as follows:

The first: the distinction between science and religion. So that each one of them specializes in matters that do not fall within the field of competence of the other, and each of them is independent from the other at different levels.

Second: The contradiction between science and religion. B Where the conflict occurs between them, they are in conflict.

Third: Integration between science and religion. So that science complements religion, they are in agreement, even if some of them think they contradict each other.

The third is correct; For three things:

1- Experimental science cannot be distinguished from true religion. Because one of the characteristics of the true religion is that its teachings include the demands of religion and the world, for it is the ruler over all, and experimental science is one of the demands of the world.

2- Experimental science cannot contradict true religion. Because the true religion is a revelation from God Almighty, and experimental science is an examination of the universe that God created, and it is impossible for the words of God Almighty to contradict His creation. They are both from God.

3- The integration between science and religion here does not mean that experimental science is derived directly from religion. Rather, what is meant is that knowledge is governed by religion and does not contradict it or deviate from it, but rather religion encourages it.

What do we do when we find a conflict between empirical science and religion?

Four things must be noted here:

1- The first matter: It is necessary to liberate the concept of “religion and science,” between which the illusion of opposition occurred. What is meant by religion: is revelation in the Book and the Sunnah, and as for science, what is meant by it is: the material field based on the experimental method based on sensory experience, and its goal: learning about nature and its laws.

2- The second matter: that both religion and experimental science include partial issues that are not of the same degree of definiteness and strength, but rather they vary in that; Some of them are definitive in their proof or meaning, some are less than that, and some are speculative in which there can be disagreement regarding their proof or meaning.

A text with definitive meaning is something that indicates a specific meaning that can be understood from the text, and does not carry any other meaning. Such as the Almighty’s saying: “And for you is half of what your spouses leave behind, if they have no children” [An-Nisa’: 12]. This is a definite indication that the husband in this case imposed half and nothing else. As for the text, the conjectural meaning: it is what indicates a meaning, but it is possible. To divert from this meaning and intend it to mean something else; Such as the Almighty’s saying: “And divorced women should wait for themselves three menstrual periods” [Al-Baqarah: 228]. The word “menstruation” in the language has two meanings: it is used to refer to purity, and to menstruation. Accordingly, the text may mean that what is meant by it is: three purifications, and it may also mean that it means: three menstrual periods, so it is not definitive in indicating one of the two meanings. That is why scholars differed regarding its meaning.

Such disparity is more severe in experimental science. There are: opinions, hypotheses, theories, explanatory models, and scientific facts. Indeed, even scientific facts have different interpretations, and the conclusiveness in experimental science only applies to what was based on definitive sensory data, which can be described as a conclusive scientific fact - and the conclusiveness here is derived from the senses - and as for the human endeavor to provide explanatory models for the phenomena he sees, it is without This is at the level, and experimental science is constantly correcting itself in these areas.

3- The third matter: We must differentiate between: experimental natural science and the philosophy of experimental science. Experimental science reveals natural laws, while the philosophy of science represents the personal positions and opinions that are built on these theories and discoveries, and thus visions and perceptions are built, which depend greatly on subjectivity, not objectivity.

4- The fourth matter: The nature of experimental science is mostly variable, and people’s conclusions based on it change according to data, circumstances and experiences. No matter how much they reach, they will remain within the framework of the prevailing belief, and the history of science clearly proves that its nature is constantly renewed, and that it is inescapable approaches.

After that, we come to the central question: Can a conflict occur between revelation and experimental science, or not?

As for the conflict between the certainties of religion and the certainties of experimental science, it cannot occur; Because the transmission is a revelation from God Almighty, who created the universe and what is in it, and He is the All-Knowing, Glory be to Him, of the details of the conditions of the world and its laws and the Creator of them, so the revelation cannot come in a way that contradicts any of the certainties of knowledge derived from the laws of the world; This is due to the perfection of God Almighty’s knowledge and wisdom.

But if there is something that creates the illusion of a contradiction between them: this is due to a defect in the perception of the nature of religion or the nature of science. This requires scrutiny of them, and identifying what was stronger, so it should be given in advance: the transmission may not be correct in terms of proof - such as: a weak hadith, or a fabricated one - or it may not be definitive in terms of connotation - that is: the transmission does not have one meaning that cannot be other. - If scientific knowledge is definitive here, then this transfer is subject to no problem, and vice versa. If the transmission and its significance are definite, then the problem must be in what is claimed to be a scientific fact, but if the significance of each of them is speculative, then it requires something that weighs in favor of one over the other.

However, the source of the problem here usually begins with the exaggerated tendency in experimental science that limits knowledge within its framework. It has been mentioned that the sources of knowledge are multiple, and limiting it to an experimental source only may lead it to deny the necessary intelligibles that are based on reason, and the certain information that some of them are based on. Transferring and denying it causes the collapse of scientific systems. Because relying on the experimental source only may eliminate the rest of the other sources, the integration of which no knowledge system - or even scientific one - can only be based on.

The conclusion that we must be aware of is that opposing revelation with experimental sciences arises from a misunderstanding of the revelation, or a misunderstanding of science, and we must know the correct legal methodology in the relationship between them, and that when it is applied correctly; All problems related to this section have been removed.

Click here to access the full book page.

Click on the image to access the image version (pdf), which can be downloaded and published.