Science is meant for us to use it as a yardstick for understanding of our universe through reasoning, experiments, hypothesis and observations. however if we were to use this yardstick to prove God’s existence we would commit many fallacies and ignoring the true nature of science and how does it work. Hence it necessitates us to understand how science works and to know its limitations. Every learned human being would conclusively concede that science has limitations and we can only take observable things as scientifically proven which in fact all scientific theories are based on the limited available data which scientists have in their hands. Nevertheless, science can never unravel ontologically the reality of metaphysical concepts . it would be so neglectful of us to debunk God’s existence through science. These two are largely nuanced . however I do not make the claim of scientific theories or facts as being invalid no never but on the other hand we need not to ignore the fact that all scientific facts are not considered to be true in absolute terms. This is the beauty of science which is dynamic . It has postulated and actualized things in the past which now with the enhancement of more scientific methods and technology they are shattered. so therefore science has its limitation which I am going to address succinctly some of them.
Firstly Science is based on observation by this I mean that scientists can conclude to some scientific facts and theories using their available data which they have in their hands for instance they have a limited set of observation. Take for instance I collect a sample of 100 rabbits and do an experiment on them would I be able to conclude that this experiment is true for all rabbits in this world ? the answer is No. On the other hand we cannot derive conclusions from observable things to unobservable things.
Secondly science can never describe any phenomenon morally whether is it right or wrong for instance feelings such as suffering,anger ,love. Science can describe things through physical processes thus concepts such as moralities are not inborn within these things for those who believe in objective morality so it cant prove why is it evil or good through these non-rational , lifeless physical process.
Thirdly metaphysical realities still are the hard problems for science such as existence of subjective conscious experiences, or the soul, the concept of morality, the fine-tuning of universe etc. therefore science falls short of these things.
Fourthly , there are other sources of knowledge beside empiricism such as testimony; for instance if I were to tell you how do you know your parents are your parents and you haven’t done any DNA test yet well the answer is obvious through testimony or for example the roundness of earth you haven’t seen it by your eyes but rather based on others’ testimony you accept it which means you didn’t empirically prove it and many more examples like this.
Fifth science can never prove to us why things happen or the meaningfulness of this universe or all phenomena around us. Since many atheists or philosophical naturalists claim that everything can be explained via physical processes then this concept of purpose is absurd. However, they neglect the fact that even their sentence which they are saying is meaningless since if the universe with great complexity has no purpose so by the time they write their book or make their claims they are all meaningless as well.
Sixth, science can not prove some necessary truths such as deductive reasoning and arguments. How logically we reach the conclusions from premises without even testing the assumptions or knowing how they work? .It logically follows the premises without testing because we have that inborn innate dispositions which atheists deny it. The problem of induction as well which science fell short of that. How you can reach the premises from conclusion? for instance saying this; john’s dog is friendly therefore all dogs are friendly this is an inductive argument which does not make rational sound. Therefore science is sometimes based on inductive arguments which it cant solve its bafflement by itself.
However Quran and science can never be compared and we can use both as it is mentioned before that science is always mutable and dynamic it changes by the time passes. But Quran is a divine work so if today there are things which science and quran contradict in ; we shouldn’t neglectfully ignore Quran and take science nor we should ignore science and we believe that God is the cause of all these wonders in the globe so he wants his servants to seek and unravel more about his creation through advancement of science and I admit that quran doesn’t talk about every scientific theory or phenomenon in fact if anyone takes this notion by saying that quran is a book of science he/she had failed to know the truth because quran is a book of signs as Hamza tzortzis mentions in his book so there are things in quran which science was in conflict with until recent discoveries ( 20th century) and later it was admitted as true as what quran demonstrated 14 centuries ago. For instance the eternity of this universe based on Newtonian law was common until beginning of 20th century which Einstein proved that universe is not eternal and had beginning later on with the discovery of big bang theory. Therefore science as we witnessed from examples it’s always in a state of dynamic and change it might disprove things in the future which now it assumes them as true.
so we humans must go and seek knowledge/ science and reason on its every assumptions and not disregarding the divine book of Allah which he enjoins us in quran that we should seek through the earth and learn about his signs and reflect upon his creation. Quran is just a book of guidance for us the rest is our duty to learn about every aspect of this universe and every physical and non-physical phenomenons.
Enlightened with the impeccable work of Hamza Tzortzis :- The Divine reality ,God Islam and the mirage of atheism
