Contents
Introduction
Importance of Logic
What Modern Science can tell us
Religion and Deductive Proofs
Religion and Scientific Investigation
Theories are not absolute facts
Certainty in Science and Religion
Traditional Religious Approach
The way out of the Fog
Last note
Introduction
In my mid
twenties, I became interested in Philosophical writings, mostly Traditional
Arabic and also to a lesser extent Indian and Far Eastern. With traditional
Arabic works, I had to have some background in ancient Greek philosophy and its
terminology. Afterwards, when I turned to modern western philosophy, modern Science caught my attention more than any thing else. It is because my focus was on Science that I did not read much about religious issues in the west let alone reading about Atheism or Agnosticism. While reading about science and modern logic, Russell’s name was one of those that kept frequently popping up. I think many would agree that he was a person with important contributions and high moral values.
One day (early nineties) in a public library, I saw his book on the history of western philosophy, and I said to myself “let’s see what the great logician had to say about other philosophers”. I was especially interested in his opinion on Greek philosophy, since I was already familiar with it.
Upon reading that part, I was surprised to discover a couple of things, probably not unrelated. First, that Russell was not a believer. Second, I felt that there was a remarkable difference between the picture Russell had about Greek philosophers (especially Socrates, Plato and Aristotle), and the picture earlier Arabs had. Later, I found that Russell was not alone in this regard. Having relied on Arabic texts on Greek philosophy in my readings, I noticed that, compared to early Arabs’, modern perception of the philosophy typically discounts or, at least, does not give appropriate weight to the spiritual experiences, based on which, as I understand, the Greeks thought, wrote and taught. The Greek philosophers were quite venerated by generations of European and Arab philosophers, and I think that was not without a reason. Personally, when it comes to Greek philosophy, if I have to select between the perception of earlier philosophers and the perception that appears in modern writings I am aware of, I would pick the former as the more accurate one. (That's about perceiving Greek philosophy. As for opinion, Sufis like Al-Ghazali, who was concerned mainly with the Metaphysics, expressed disagreement with several of Aristotle's views adopted by Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi).
Regarding the information that Russell was not a believer, to be frank, before reading his views, I knew very little about arguments that non-believers use. Religion is just so taken for granted in the environment I lived in all my life that while I did not mind reading about other religions, I did not have any interest to find out why non-believers do not believe in God. When accidentally I would come across text on religion by a non-believer, I would ignore the text or skip through it quickly and continue my way. Honestly, I used to think it is a waste of time to read what non-believers have to say about religion. There were rare exceptions however. I remember one time, in my late twenties, when I read an article critical of religious beliefs, I thought about it for few days, then said to myself: “that writer sounds like somebody insisting on keeping his eyes closed then asking for a proof that the sun exists, and an answer like ‘open up your eyes and see for yourself’, is not good enough for him. Suggesting that he can at least feel the heat and the bright light of the sun is met with all kinds of assumptions and theories on what could the source of the heat and light be, other than that there is a sun. How can someone help a person in such a situation?”.
Anyhow, given Russell’s case and my respect that he had already earned as a logician, a humanitarian and an honest thinker, I became curious, for the first time, to find out how did such an intelligent person reach his conclusions about religion. In the first part of comments on Russell's article on mysticism, I tried to comment on specific points mentioned in his article. In this article, I shall try to explain certain points within a wider context.
Importance of Logic (top)
It is probably one of man’s most prized assets, to have as clear an understanding of the universe as possible. How is one able to pursue such a goal?Thinking logically, stepping forward only on a basis of previously established steps, using available information, streamlined inference methods and sufficient tests. That is how Modern Science is progressing and that is why it is so widely accepted by people from various backgrounds. The practical usefulness of such an approach is apparent.
Yet, Logical thinking itself has to stand on something. One just cannot imagine previously established steps going back infinitely. Logicians, as smart and meticulous as they are, have to have a starting point. That is something recognized and described with some elaboration in Logic texts. The critical point is that the basis, on which such a starting point is selected, is “the good judgment of knowledgeable people”. That is it.
Once there is widespread acceptance of these basic assumptions of Logic, they will be used to determine the validity of later steps. What I think is often overlooked, however, is that “selected” basic assumptions can also draw the frame defining the limits of what is acceptable and what is not, and more importantly, what can be taken into consideration and what can be ignored.
Basic selected assumptions, in any scientific endeavor (theoretical or
applied), have to be involved. Subjectivity, however faint it might be or even overlooked
or ignored, is present from the beginning, and all along research
steps, and up to reaching conclusions. The whole process can not but be colored
by subjectivity. There is general good judgment, but the process cannot be
described as purely objective. As far as I can tell, that's how human rational
effort is, and that's how it will always be.
What Modern Science can tell us (top)
Many honest and sincere people believe in science (or at least seem to be treating science) as being a “rock solid” basis or an “absolutely” robust foundation on which anything and everything can be explained. To me, that view is unrealistic, since Science does not stand on anything “solid” without some assumptions about it, otherwise, without assumptions, what we see and experience stands on undefined and unknown ground. Now, logicians and scientists do not claim that the assumptions in use are exhaustive or can ever be exhaustive (they would not be assumptions if every aspect of the unknown ground is perfectly known). So, there is probably a concern, then, about how much of the unknown ground do selected assumptions cover and how much do they leave? I am not aware of a clear answer to this question. Scientists and Logicians are just satisfied with repeated successful use of the inference process. Therefore, even when Scientists acknowledge that no number of repeated successful positive tests is enough to take a theory for granted (since it is impossible to assert that a theory shall work in all possible conditions) as long as successful tests continue, there is probably little reason to invest in rethinking about the assumptions of a theory, let alone the basic assumptions of Logic itself.I do have respect for modern science as it is; what I do not have is complete faith and unreserved trust that I see some people have about science. As I see it, some people are too impressed by science and the process of scientific progress, enough to relegate weaknesses of science to theoretical discussions. Others seem to behave as if the scientific approach is all they've got to rely on.
My feeling is that, building on what have been achieved already, we can go beyond the current status of science, as good as it is. However, some courage is needed for that leap.
I do not think it is an unconstructive attitude, to be careful about what science says, since books on scientific methods do warn against having convictions in science, even though they do not often mention how much doubt one can have. Scientific findings seem to lie somewhere between reasonable confidence and reasonable doubt. There is always that space in which current state of scientific knowledge, about a certain subject, can be limited or even at error. There is always that vulnerability that scientists are aware of. That is why the cautious statements all over modern scientific literature. Logicians and scientists are just unable to speak without defining clear limits at every step. And while non-scientists can be overwhelmed with science and its achievements, scientists are very aware of so many constraints, restrictions, and limits everywhere one cares to look. I don't recall reading anywhere that scientific findings are immune to surprises. More than that, there do not seem to be any clues about the size of a surprise or its possible impact, since nobody really has any idea about the size of the unknown ground that is not covered by assumptions that "look good", so far. All we can do is to try to expand our knowledge and keep watching.
Scientific knowledge does expand and we should know more about a certain subject as time goes by and research efforts continue. However, due to the selectivity of basic assumptions, there is a certain screening environment through which every new scientific finding has to go. In this environment, I think it is possible for information that can be important, to be rejected or ignored, and the only reason for that would be that the current scientific mindset is not ready to accept it.
Coming back to Russell, it appears that the nature of modern science is what is behind Russell’s preference to adopt an agnostic stance rather than a purely atheist one. I think it is a position that is in line with a scientific mentality. He did not see a good evidence that proves God does exist, and that did not mean he can conclusively dismiss the idea altogether. Scientists avoid categorical statements, hence Russell’s careful wording and prudent position on the subject. I find it quite acceptable the way an honest person, who was unable to see what others claim to see, has conducted himself toward the subject. I think I understand how an agnostic can base his position on modern science, but I have yet to be convinced that a purely atheist position can be based on modern science.
What I would like to say is that to understand Russell’s position, I think one needs to consider modern science first. And, instead of trying to find faults in his position, one probably should notice the points of strength and weakness in modern science, what science is and what it is not. Russell appeared to be an honest and a strong believer in modern Science including the methods and the findings. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is a shortcoming in my view to confine one’s scope of beliefs to what modern science can tell us and to what logical arguments can lead to. That is the only weakness I noticed in his position. I am sure there are people who might not see it so.
Personally, I would certainly consider what science and logical arguments could tell me, but not blindly. And I would not confine my awareness to just that source of information. Because, if man can develop such logical tools to enhance his knowledge, existence that contains man is apparently far more complex than whatever a man or an entire civilization with all its branches of thought can figure out about it given any period of finite time. It is interesting to note that most people don't rely on purely quantifiable and rational measures. Expressions like "It is part science and part art" or "one has to think rationally but sometimes one has to go with his gut feeling", show that we generally know that there is much more to life than what science can tell us about it.
I believe that a scientist is right when he calls for caution about what is perceived, but I don't think anyone can say that what one has already perceived satisfactorily is all that can be perceived. Hence, if one has a problem accepting perception of others that he is unable to verify for himself, can he say that such a perception is unacceptable because it is unverifiable according to the set of assumptions and rules some smart people have, up to a certain point in time, been able to arrange and he is just satisfied with? I think, to say yes would be unscientific and might not be fair. A scientifically minded person has the right to ask for a proof though, yet I just wonder how ready such a person would be to accept modifications to scientific methods and obtaining proofs?
Religion and Deductive Proofs (top)
Russell did not find logical proofs of God’s existence (laid out so carefully by religious scholars) to be a good reason to establish a belief in God. By the way, Muslims did not accept the Greek versions of logical proofs as they were. They introduced some modifications to reflect the Islamic beliefs. Details can be found in books on Ilm Al-Kalam.Russell and others thought there were logical flaws and inconsistencies in what was supposed to be the heart of rationalizing a religious belief system. That was enough for him to opt to stay away from religion. One can probably say that, in his case, those particular logical proofs have backfired.
Regardless of how correct his reasoning would seem to different people, dependence on pure rational thinking in matters of religion, is something many Sufis believed can never be sufficient to 'know things as they are'.
As far as I can tell, Russell built his conclusion about religion based on what appeared to him, regarding the 'flawed' or 'inconclusive' logical proofs. He saw the limits of logical arguments regarding God's existence. But as it appears, he was satisfied with the logical tools at hand, so there was probably no need to consider the possibility of his conclusion having any relation with the limits of logical thinking itself. He probably didn't know or was not interested in what mystics knew since ancient times, regarding what lies next, after realizing the limits of analytical thinking.
What I understood about Sufis is that they recognized logical thinking but recognized its limits too. Al-Ghazali's approach to teach religion, was to avoid logical and mystical issues when teaching young children or people with limited literacy. Next, for those who showed aptitude, logical arguments (Ilm Al-Kalam) were introduced. At higher levels, when a Sufi's awareness 'outgrows' logical arguments, and as I understand that stage is eventually reached, then comes mystical insight, or what Sufis call 'Tastes' (Firsthand experiences of deep concepts). There is no room for human-structured thought frameworks (simple or sophisticated alike) at such levels, since they would be 'obstructing the Truth'. Instinctive mystical realization, sets in instead. (Interestingly, as I understand, in Zen Buddhism there is a special training a student goes through specifically to break through one's logical and analytical faculty.)
A long time before the Renaissance and modern Logic, many Sufis “instinctively realized” that logical proofs, no matter how elaborate or intricate they can get, were ultimately unsuitable for proving God's existence.
As I understand, to at least some Sufis, it is “self-evident” that deductive arguments can never be an appropriate basis for explaining deep spiritual concepts. Sufi writers like Ibn-Ajeeba used many times phrases like “Proof Seekers” (as compared to 'instinctive mystic realization'). He and other Sufis expressed pity towards people who insisted on using logical arguments. Ibn-Arabi, talking about the well-known philosopher and rational thinker Ibn-Rushd (Averroes), said that no one who depends on mental reasoning alone could reach much “height” when it comes to “knowledge”. In another place in the Fusoos he said something to the effect that it is a false perception to think that mental reasoning can help in the path of Sufis. Another Sufi, Shaiban Al-Ra-ee in a letter to another rational thinker, Ibn Seena (Avicenna), wrote that to be content with looking at oysters is different from finding pearls. In other words, according to Shaiban, a famous philosopher like Ibn Seena was busy pondering about shells rather than obtaining the important substance inside.
It seems, from a Sufi point of view, that mental reasoning, while appropriate for certain things, does not have enough power for a liftoff from the plane of emotions and sensuousness to the plane of tranquil and cool awareness. Or for a switch from collecting measurable information and attempts to figure out observable relationships to deep insight about existence. Or for a movement from a foggy place where things look hazy to a place with bright light and clear skies where things are seen so clearly. What Sufis are probably trying to communicate, is that the distance is vast between a state of awareness they claim is possible for a human to reach and what mental reasoning is capable of delivering.
It is common nowadays to see non-religious writers challenging religious people to provide convincing arguments that God does exist, etc. What non-religious writers are doing is specifying the ground and the rules (those of modern science and logic) that can be used. Many religious people would try hard at the terms specified, without significant gains. Having followed some debates (in various venues including TV/ Radio/ Internet), it seems that there is a presumption (implicitly accepted by both parties) that modern logic and scientific methods are the only way based on which such a discussion can happen. I think that the common case is that a religious person is doing it because he does not know of any better way to engage in a discussion with a scientifically minded person, otherwise a clear warning about the shortcomings of such an approach would have been mentioned.
In my opinion, scientific methods are acceptable as they are, and a person who uses them as a foundation to stand on, cannot be easily faulted using the same foundation to find faults. However, I think it is confining to view such a foundation as all that can be considered, whether to present religion or to contribute to an enhanced view for science and the process of scientific progress. But, going beyond current foundation, probably needs exploring realms beyond the physical one, and that in turn might require to have a good look at available methods and how to extend them.
Religion and Scientific Investigation (top)
These days, many religious personalities are convinced that rationalizing and logic are viable approaches in matters of establishing belief in God. However, while deductive proofs are not as popular as they used to be, inductive reasoning in the form of modern scientific investigation receives quite an attention. There are two points that might be worth considering:Theories are not absolute facts
The trend these days is to seek scientific support for this or that of religious matters or concepts. In my view, such attempts (as sincere as they are) suffer from the same shortcomings of deductive proofs, and I think that they have the potential to backfire too.
Modern scientific findings are based on theories. A theory represents a level of understanding about a certain phenomenon. That understanding is never considered final or static. What if scientific support (based on a certain theory) was found for a certain religious concept, and later on a new or an improved theory revealed how the previous theory actually was not reliable or sufficient, and eventually it was replaced with a better explanation. Would the development and its potentially new consequences have an effect on how the religious concept is seen? Unless there is a clear statement about the unchangeable nature of (at least some) religious concepts and that the way science works, the picture we have is always approximate at best and that there is no guarantee it will not change, there is a chance some people might get the wrong implication.
Certainty in Science and Religion
Modern Science is based on what can be directly sensed, tested repeatedly, and logically explained (given the general modern understanding that there is nothing absolute about Logic). While religion is based on unwavering belief in certain concepts even if there is no material evidence to support the belief. Scientists are always cautious, never absolutely certain about anything. A Scientific investigation starts from assumptions about something and questions it tries to answer as much as possible, it does not recognize such thing as a final answer. While religion starts from affirmations about final answers and urges behavior that helps one to realize and see what is affirmed. A proper scientific investigation starts with doubt, it tries to eliminate as much of the doubt as possible, but eliminating doubt altogether is simply unthinkable.
So, can a purely modern scientific approach as it is be used in matters of
faith? If I understand both approaches correctly, the answer appears to be
negative. Religion is based on firm beliefs in God, the Hereafter, the Angels,
the Prophets and the Messages from God to mankind, Paradise and Hell and the
Preordainment of events. It does not seem to be a religious approach to start
from assumptions, let alone doubts about such matters. Science is about testable
theories and religion is about realizable assertions.
However, it might be worth noting that the Religious view stresses the limits
of man's knowledge. There is certainty about the final reality, and a certainty
about the natural limits of man's knowledge. It appears that the same vagueness
regarding complete information about existence can be interpreted differently,
depending on the angle selected to look at the universe.
Narrowing the Gap
However, the two approaches need not be seen as opposing each other. From a
religious view, the concepts in religion that are to be taken for granted are
not so because they are imposed on mankind, but because mankind cannot hope to
fully figure them out or be able to check them out (with mere “human” effort
including scientific methods), that’s why such concepts are “revealed” to fine
and trustworthy humans rather than reached at deductively or inductively. And
science already recognizes that there will always be an area not covered by
science no matter at what point of space-time. In other words, science does
leave a room for the unexplainable by scientific means on hand at any certain
space-time point.
I think that using findings of science and methods of science in order to
discuss concepts beyond what those methods were designed for, is asking too much
from science and scientists of the time. A better approach is in, either using
methods geared for religious concepts (traditional methods) or at least trying
to expand scientific methods to include some of what science has so far,
resisted to address. After all, the limits of science exist only because there
is a sort of an unwritten agreement that there should be such limits and not
because it is impossible to transcend those limits. Once there is a) an
understanding that boundaries can be expanded, b) the area coverable by science
is redefined, and c) some assumptions and methods are added/modified without
breaking current working models, then I don’t see why not try to use scientific
methods in some areas traditionally covered by religion. But before that
actually happens I don’t expect much fruit coming out of attempts to link
science with religion. I think it is fair to let the possibility be examined.
Ignoring the special traits of religion and science as they are today, and
trying to link them anyway, might sound like a literal summation of concepts, or
a mix of two distinctly structured items. The homogeneity is just not there.
As for, where an endeavor to mesh the two, probably could start from, I believe
there are plenty of resources in humanity’s heritage to give us a start. In many
earlier philosophical writings, there is a sense of smoothness and continuity
between the metaphysical and the physical. I am not sure taking them as they are
can be readily useful today, but a close examination could be a good start.
It should be noted that attempts to narrow the gap between religion and science
are not aimed at “revealing” religious concepts that are probably not so clear
to some scientifically minded persons. If I understand correctly, no matter how
advanced the relationship between science and religion, there will always be the
need for a “leap” in awareness to a different level to “see” literally, what
mystics mean in their writings. The attempt to mend the relationship is merely
an attempt to push matters towards that realization instead of the current
situation of the relationship that does not help much in this regard. It is an
attempt to improve awareness about existence, a secondary effect of which could
eventually translate into an improvement in man’s total well being, as it is
generally the case with any improvement of awareness from a certain point to a
better one.
Traditional Religious Approach (top)
If logical and scientific means, as they are, cannot be relied upon when it comes to deep religious concepts, then how is a religious person to base his beliefs? What is the traditional way to establish faith?As I understand, it is Instinctive Realization that Sufis talk about, consistently, in their writings. A realization that simply “shows itself”, “comes up from within”, to humans with pure hearts, clear consciousness, and sincere and selfless desire to seek the truth. One cannot plan to have it. One can only prepare oneself for such a realization to ‘materialize’. At a very high stage of preparation and realization, there is no need to be told to believe in such and such; one just realizes it, just as one realizes his own being does exist without having a need to prove it. A clean and clear heart is what is essential. After which of course come the carefully prescribed methods by experts on “the path” (call them prayers, meditations, zikr etc.) that enlighten and by the grace of God lead to a very fulfilling state. Inner purification and special acts of worship represent the traditional way towards a religious experience. No two persons are similar in the efforts exerted or the depth of the experience reached. Yet consistently, whether seen across various ranks of experience in a certain population at a certain time or across time, there seems to be an indication of the presence of such an experience. By comparison it seems that, the presence of disbelief, or even just doubt, while constantly there throughout time (in other words it might have nothing to do with a modern way of looking at things), has been and still is representing the view of the minority.
No wonder then that religions give so much importance to high moral values, righteousness, patience, forgiveness, etc. Inner cleanness is being emphasized. However, as important as inner cleanness is in itself and for a positive and constructive social life, it appears also to have a crucial role in preparing the ground for the much more important goal of Realization. While humanists might stop at this stage, probably satisfied with being civilized and moral people, Mystics appear to have used this stage as a sort of leverage to help them reach the realm of Realization.
The cleaner one’s inside is, the better positioned and the more ready he or she is to “sense” and “see”. So, is it possible for a non-believer who is an honest thinker and has high moral values to sense finer spiritual aspects? I am not sure, but as far as I can tell, it seems that some such non-believers have inadvertently touched on deep aspects without figuring out what they actually are or to where they can lead. Unsatisfactory experiences with general religious atmospheres and unfamiliarity with mysticism were probably the reasons why they never realized the nature of what they were sensing.
The way out of the Fog (top)
If a person has lived all his life surrounded with fog, no matter how intelligent he is, perhaps all he can do is to try to sense his way around and try to live with the situation, since he doesn’t have much clues on what else to seek or where to head and why.If the same person was given information about a place with plenty of sunshine and clear weather, and not only that, but he was also given a map showing the path out of the fog and a compass to help him along the way. Would not he be in a better position than before? Since now, there is a goal to seek, a destination to reach, and there is a map showing how to move from where he is and get to that destination, and a compass to help in treading the path.
I think that religious guidelines are pointers on a roadmap to a better state.
However, the person who lived all his life surrounded with fog can say, “Hold on! Where did you get the idea that there is such thing as plenty of sunshine and clear weather? And how do you know this map actually leads to such a place and not to some ditch?” An answer like “follow the map and you shall see” (typical conventional religious answer) may or may not sound very convincing to such a person. Could an answer like “I have been there and back, and that’s why I can testify to the validity of the map” (typical mystical answer), make him inquisitive? It may sound like a huge claim, at least to some people in the fog. What if more than one person, independently, and using different roadmaps, said pretty much the same thing? Would that shake things a little and raise suspicion that there is probably something in that claim, after all, that warrants serious consideration?
Russell noted that several unrelated mystical schools seemed to agree on certain basic concepts. However, it appears that he used that information in trying to cover a number of them using a single set of arguments. I just wonder what could he have discovered had he been seriously interested in why such an agreement exists.
Last note (top)
I am interested in, and I think many people are serious about how to be at a better position regarding understanding existence with its vastness, and to have an enhanced awareness of reality as it is. I will try to read and understand what people from different backgrounds have to say, and if I find any help in this regard, even from someone I do not agree with on every issue, I shall appreciate that help. The Prophet said "Wisdom is what the Believer seeks, wherever he finds it, he picks it". I do acknowledge that I found help from modern science, but that help is limited considering my total agreement with the view that existence is far more than what science seems to be interested in or can ever tell us about. I feel that only when the spiritual aspect is considered that there is a chance of having a better and a fuller picture.Approaching Reality as it is, is no doubt what every living being is concerned about. That approach can happen in different ways, Religion and Science are two popular approaches towards Reality. Each is perhaps more interested in certain aspects. However, the two aspects can meet, and a proper mix of elements in the two systems should not sound so strange. Actually, the ancients were particularly adept at using scientific and religious terms in a unified context. Sometimes, I feel they never anticipated that Science could be separated from Religion. We have already seen and still witnessing how the two approaches are going their separate ways. Could bringing them closer to each other help in some way? Would that be of any benefit these days? Can we at least consider the possibility?
I would like to say that I do not have satisfying or clear answers for many questions in this regard. What I have is a feeling that there is a ground that has long been abandoned and is worth exploring again. There are interesting arguments and questions about the whole issue.
