Students Name: Muhammad Ali Hasnain

BPA 2K23

Course: HU 101 Islamic Studies

Instructor: Sir Yasir Mahboob

Reg.No: 469400

Topic: Islam vs Science: A Philosophy of Science

Perspective
Islam vs Science: A Philosophy of Science
Perspective
Abstract:
The general conception that we have in the world today is that science cannot survive with
religion. Because religions are dogmatic and they create a mentality of non-thinking, but
science requires curiosity. So the logic follows that we need to get rid of religion in order for
science to progress. But is it really true? Or we have to move towards a paradigm shift of
thoughts, and realize that our initial perception was wrong. I will be looking at this question
using philosophy of science. I will be using articles from Muslim philosophers to build my case,
because the objection I mentioned above is from secular forces hence we need to take into
account the religious account to understand the overall dynamics. From religion I mean Islam,
because building argument that support generally all religions is next to impossible given the
fact that they differ with each other so much. Also talking about religion generally require to
take into account a lot of socio-psychological perspectives and individual religious differences as
well, and doing such a dynamic analysis is beyond the scope of this article.

Possible Conflicts:
Initially I want to make the boundaries clear. What are the apparent conflicts between religion
and science? I think there are two main apparent conflicts between religion and science.
1-The idea that science leads to atheism.
2-The idea that if science conflicts with religious scripture we need to reinterpret the scripture,
hence showing that science is superior to scripture.
Now, if these two ideas can be proven to be wrong then there is no conflict between science
and religion and hence the initial perception that we described earlier is unjustified and false.
But if they are true then the general conception of the world is true. Now let us dive into these
ideas, exploring what is truth.

Does Science leads to Atheism:

Firstly many people think that science have disproved god but it is a ridiculous thought, as
science is a way of understanding how the world works and god is an explanation of why
anything exists in the first place. Also science can argue for or against things that are observable
but God, by definition, is unobservable. Hence science can never prove or disprove God. But it
can provide evidence that philosophers can use to argue for or against God. As Subboor Ahmed
states:

“The popular idea that evolution undermines the existence

of God is simply wrong. Science only deals with observable
phenomenon, and God by definition is unobservable” [1]

Second thought that many people have is that as scientists are not talking about God therefore
God must not exist. Because if he did exists then why scientists are not referring towards him?
This thought is just because of lack of knowledge of philosophy of science. Because the reason
why scientists are not referring towards God is because of the rule in science, which is
Methodological Naturalism, it means that God cannot be invoked in science. So, one cannot
jump from Methodological Naturalism to Philosophical Naturalism, which is the idea that only
physical stuff exists. Making use of the reason that scientists are not referring towards God to
conclude that God does not exist is the same as a person making the rule that no one can wear
red in his house, and as everyone is following the rule, now he concludes that look there is no
red to be found in this room hence Red do not exist. And that seems ridiculous because he first
removed all red color and then said that as I cannot see it therefore it does not exist. The
thought that some people have about God and methodological naturalism is the same. Despite
being an atheist, the philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci states:
 “The fallacy lies in the fact that most people-
Including, alas, prominent science popularizers
Such as Richard Dawkins-do not make the subtle
But crucial distinction between methodological
and philosophical naturalism” [2]

Thirdly many people have the idea that science is the only way of forming true conclusions
about reality, and as God do not have any scientific evidence to be proven, hence we cannot
believe in his existence. Hence science leads to atheism. But there are many problems with this
view. This view is known as scientism. Now scientism is self-defeating as the statement that
science is the only way to truth, have no scientific evidence. Hence how can we know that this
statement is true? Hence firstly this idea is self-defeating.
Other than that there are other roots of knowledge, which are totally legitimate. Like
testimony, logic. Science cannot prove these sources, it cannot even prove mathematics to be
true, on which it is based. Hence science is not the only source of knowledge, hence demanding
that we require scientific evidence only is absurd. Because there are other type of evidences
which are legitimate and epistemically justified sources of knowledge. Other than that science
cannot tell us what is morally good and bad. It can be part of an inter-disciplinary field and can
be used for making moral judgements but on its own it is morally neutral. As Hamza Tzortzis
mentions:
“Scientism, which is the view that the scientific
Method is the only way to form conclusions
About reality, is false. Scientism is self-defeating;
It cannot account for moral truths, logical and
Mathematical truths, and indispensable sources
of knowledge such as testimony. Science is
limited method of study that cannot answer
all the questions” [3]
Based upon above mentioned concepts it is clear that the idea that science leads to atheism is
false, as it is based upon some false assumptions which have been deconstructed using
philosophy of science.

Does we need to reinterpret Scriptures to fit modern scientific

theories:
The base principle is that we have to prefer the concept that have higher level of certainty over
the concept that have lower level of certainty. For example, if one person have made a
conclusion based upon 100 observations and other have based his conclusion on 100,000
observations. So, we will prefer latter over former in terms of epistemic weight. In fact the
latter holds much more epistemic weight than former.
Hence if we use this criteria then do we have good reasons to believe that Quran is the word of
God? The answer is yes we do, there is falsification test of Quran, which is enough to prove its
divine origin. Now going into the detail of that proof is beyond the scope of this article. As I
have to mainly focus on philosophy of science. For more detail on proof of Quran’s divine origin
you can check the book by Hamza Tzortzis, The Divine Reality.
Now we can look at whether or not science leads to certainty? Now, the answer to this
question is “No”. This may come as a surprise to many but that is a concept that philosophers
of science believe. Now, how that is the case? The thing is science is based upon induction.
Induction is the process in which you go from limited to unlimited. You observe a limited data
and you conclude for general world. For example you see 1000 swamps that are white, now you
conclude that all swamps are white. Now, science is based upon induction. Induction does not
reach the level of certainty as deduction. As someone might argue:
1-Humans are mortal
2-I am a human
2-Therfore I am mortal
Now, this is a deductive argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from its premises.
Now let’s see an inductive argument:
1-In Rawanda from last 10 years a leader from NLA party is winning
2-Therfore in next elections, a leader from NLA party will be winning
Now, this argument obviously do not reach the level of certainty as previous argument. Also,
the conclusion is not 100% certain if the premise is true. While in deductive argument
conclusion is 100% certain if premises are true.
So, as we have seen above that induction do not leads to 100% certainty. As science is based
upon induction therefore science does not leads to 100% certainty. As Karl Popper states:
“It is far from obvious, from a logical point of view,
that we are justified in inferring universal statements
from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any
conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to
be false: no matter how many instances of white swans
we may have observed, it does not justify the
conclusion that all swans are white” [4]

As I have made it clear above that science does not leads to certainty. So, religious scriptures
are in no need to be reinterpreted if a new scientific theory comes that conflicts with their
scripture. So, the second conflict that I mentioned previously also is unjustified.

Co-existence of Religion and Science:

From previous explanations it is clear that there can be only two conflicts between religion and
science. And we have also seen that both of them actually do not exist. They are just false
assumptions of people because of lack of understanding of basic philosophy of science.
Now, how can religion and science co-exist? The thing is that as science does not leads to
certainty. Hence it can be used to make progress. The scientific theory that is developed and is
dominant at the moment can be thought as the best available working model. And we don’t
need to consider it true in literal sense. As they are actually not.
As there are currently two views about scientific theories. One says that they give us literal
truth known as the realists. Others believe that they are merely tools for making predictions,
and they cannot give us literal truth known as selectionists. Now according to my
understanding selectionism is more logical. But even if you believe in realism, even then, you
cannot tell that whether the theory is absolutely true or not. That’s why they subscribe to the
idea that they are approximately true. But that means that they are work in progress models
and hence not 100% certain. [5]
So the same thing applies for both views. We have to consider theories as work in progress
models and keep the beliefs that our religious scripture provides us.

Summary:
In summary, I argued that there can be two possible conflicts between Religion and Science. By
using philosophy of science I showed that both of those conflicts actually don’t exists and they
come to people’s mind because of lack of understanding of basic philosophy of science. After
that I described that how religion and science can co-exist, and that was to accept scientific
theories as work in progress models and not take them as literal truths and use them to make
progress. So, the general perception present in the world about religion and science is totally
false and this is because of lack of understanding of philosophy of science. In reality there is no
such conflict that actually exist.

References:
1-Subboor Ahmed, 2021, Evolution Lends No Weight to Atheism, Article published at Subboor
Ahmed Google Website
2-Massimo Pigliucci, 2005, Science and Fundamentalism, Published at Science and Society
3- Hamza Tzortzis, 2018, Has Science Disproven God? Deconstructing False Assumptions, Article
published at Hamza Andreas Tzortzis Google Website
4-Hamza Tzortzis, What is Karl Popper’s View of Scientific Method? Is That View Satisfactory? ,
Article published at Hamza Andreas Tzortzis Google Website
5-Subboor Ahmed, 2023, Do Scientific Theories Give Us the Literal Truth, or Are They Merely
Useful Instruments for Making Prediction?, Article published at Subboor Ahmed Google
Website