Reconciling scripture and science
Arafat Fani
In my humble opinion there are two aspects of Quran, one is physical and the other is metaphysical. By physical aspect I mean the natural phenomena explained by Quran and by metaphysical aspect I mean the things lie outside the realm of science.
When we talk about reconciling Quran and science, we compare Quranic interpretation of natural phenomena with that of scientific explanation. If both agree, we then say Quran and science are compatible. But the metaphysical aspect of Quran has to do nothing with science. We believe in it solely on the basis of revelation i.e., existence of GOD, angels and Jinns etc.
However, we have plenty of supportive arguments indicating GOD’s existence but it is philosophical discussion not a scientific one. Science works within domain of space and time, while GOD is beyond space and time. So, science can neither directly prove nor disprove His existence.
Besides, integrating science and Quran one should have authentic knowledge of science as well as Hermeneutics, otherwise one will misinterpret either Quran or science. Let say, if a person is extracting string theory or multiverse theory from Quran to reconcile science and Quran, he is actually doing a claptrap because these theories are just hypothesis devoid of any empirical evidences.
Science itself is not claiming these theories to be proven facts so why do we claim? If later these theories were rejected by science what would one do with sacred unchangeable verses? As one of the well known Pakistani scholars said that seven heavens mentioned in the Quran are actually seven planets of our solar system.
Well, astronomers discarded pluto from solar system so we are left with seven planets apart from Earth, but what if they added or removed another planet in future? What he will do with the verse mentioning seven Heavens? We need to keep in mind these possibilities.
We may interpret Quran scientifically but considering it one out of many possible interpretations rather than ultimate and absolute explanation. At the same time keeping into consideration the paradigm shifts in science, we should tell our audience that if the contemporary scientific explanation of Quran turns out to be wrong it would not be a fault of Quran but of our understanding.
I would like to prefer epistemological pluralism a long term possible solution. In epistemological pluralism we have different spheres in a Great chain of being i.e., matter, life, mind, soul and spirit with their associated knowledge- physics, biology, psychology, theology and mysticism respectively.
Every sphere has its own specific associated knowledge which works within that domain. For example; in case of matter one should apply knowledge of physics but if one applied knowledge of second sphere i.e., biology to study matter, he would not get any useful results because biology lies outside the domain of matter.
It cannot tell you anything about constituents of matter i.e., quarks, leptons or different interactions. Similarly applying physics to the sphere of life associated with the knowledge of biology will never bring fruitful results because physics cannot tell you anything about the origin of life, first cell or biological evolution and same is the case of all other spheres in a Great chain of being. Hence, religion is based on revealed knowledge, verifying it on scientific ground may some time lead to contradictory conclusions.
Epistemological pluralism was a dominant world view of premodern culture but not anymore. It lost its value with the rise of modernity. The dominant world view of modernism is the scientific materialism/ imperialism which claim that science can be applied to all the spheres of Great chain of being. There is no need of division because science alone is trust worthy knowledge and all else is useless.
Therefore, I think the revival of epistemological pluralism is the need of the hour for long term integration of science and religion. Postmodernism is one of the contemporary movements which claim that science is not the knowledge of facts rather it is one out of many possible interpretations of the world no more worthy than art, poetry or religion. Science can never accept this degradation to stand in line with art, poetry and religion. The postmodernist narrative has not gotton universal acceptance yet, it is based on misinterpretation of Kuhnian paradigm shifts which Thomas Kuhn himself strongly rejected.
Seeing the growing influence of science, it seems that it will rule the universe for centuries. It may even one day take over the field of moral values looking at contemporary developments in different walks of life.
(The author is a student of Science, Philosophy and Theology)
