There are in general three way of arriving at truth or ideas:- the science, philosophy and religion. But the methods employed by these systems are not completely distinct. There is a difference in emphasis. Science depends on observation and experiment, philosophy on pure reason and religion on consciousness (on insight, inspiration or revelation. Experiential data is required also in Philosophy and Religion, Reason in Science and Religion, and inspiration in Science and Philosophy. Science deals in facts, philosophy in meanings and religion in values, but facts, meanings and values are also interdependent and require for the process of living. Science differs from philosophy in that it asked questions of nature and require answers from nature as made by Allah, and abhors speculation based on man made rules. The proper function of Philosophy is or should be as Socrates demonstrated the analysis of the meanings, of the connotation and denotation of concepts, their relationship and the self-consistency of thought. Religion deals with the process of living. A such it ought to include Philosophy as well as Science.

Originally, when man became aware, the relationship between him and the Cosmos was formulated as Religion where thinking, motivation and action were combined. As life became more complex owing to the accumulation of the products of human efforts, a differentiation took place corresponding to the three faculties into crafts and industry, administration, and philosophy. Philosophy later differentiated in the same way into several subjects, one of which was natural philosophy which became science. There is today a movement towards recombination of all these divisions, which will certainly lead back to Religion at a higher level, forming a single Unitary Comprehensive Conscious, Self-consistent Way of Life.

Science is regarded by Muslim as perfectly compatible with Islam, and may even be regarded as part of Islam. But this idea needs to be understood correctly. It is the attitude and methodology, which is under consideration though some of the results of scientific research also find parallels in the Quran or can be interpreted as such, though expressed in another conceptual system. The difference lies in this that the Quran endeavours to induce experiences directly, to make us conscious, philosophy tries to make us understand through intellectual argument, while scientific text books deal in the practical. However, the Quran also presents arguments and provides practical instructions which when followed produce the experiences which prove the thesis.

Science is a study of Creation, not of the Creator and not of Reality as a whole. According to the Principle of Objectivity, on which science is based, a separation is made between the observing mind and the thing observed which is regarded as material. Therefore, everything that is studied is assumed as material even before a study begins. The observer is to be left out of it. Consciousness is ignored, though without it there is no knowledge. But it is clear that there cannot be any knowledge also unless there is a third category, observation or experience E, which is an interaction between the observer or subject S and the things observed O. Without it both the others are also meaningless. In order to know reality it is necessary to get beyond this duality and the hidden trinity. Reality A is a unity that transcends the triad SEO.

From the Islamic point of view Objectivity means that ideas, motives and actions should conform to Allah, the source of all existing things and that it refers to living which refers to the function of an entity or organism and its interactions with the rest of the world, and ultimately with Allah. It is this function which is the cause of its arising and welfare and fate and its interactions. This interaction involves perception, thinking, motivation and action and these are also inter-dependent.

From a strictly Islamic point of view, the first thing we must do when considering any subject is to establish its relationship to Allah, and, therefore, to the whole of existence. This is because Existence is One. That is, all parts of it exist in interaction and are inter-dependent. All things have a function with respect to the whole and arise because of that function. Anything outside this system cannot affect it and cannot be known. A thing taken out of this context is nothing, certainly not the thing we wish to know about.

Even within the known universe much takes place which is unpredictable. It is wise to accept Allah as the ultimate whole because this concept includes all that is known K, all that man can know and may be possible P and all that is unknowable and unpredictable U. A= K+P+U .

Man is part of this world, inter-dependent and in interaction with it. He receives an input from it, transforms this, and produces an output. He is acted upon and acts on it. Life consists of knowledge, which requires facts, action, which require values, and motives, which must have meaning. Life is this process of interaction, and Religion deals with life in a conscious unified manner.

The first thing to notice is that knowledge of which science is only a part, is itself a part of life. The second thing to notice is that all knowledge including Science is human knowledge. It depends on human faculties for consciousness.

Science requires that everything should be provable. But this also means provable to man and that depends on the quality of the human mind. In general man uses three faculties - (a) Sensory experiences. (b) Reason, which includes logic and mathematics but is not confined to these. (c) Insight, intuition, inspiration. These three are inter-dependent. Science progresses by the use of all three. Each by itself can mislead - sense impressions can be illusions or hallucinations, a rational argument can be directed by a prejudice and may be a delusion, and an idea which is inspired can turn out to be a fantasy and needs to be tested by reason. Sense impressions are tested by the requirement that they should be repeatable and confirmable by many people. Unlike Philosophy, Science regards not the process of reasoning as establishing the truth, but the experimental or observational evidence. In fact, however, this does not prove that the idea so established is true, independent of the nature of the observers. There are several reasons for this:-

(1) One always has to start with an assumption which is taken for granted and self-explanatory X. All explanations consist of relating R the thing to be explained F, to X. We must assume for, instance, that Reality exists. Science depends on the laws of motion or change as defined by Newton. According to this: All motions continue in the same speed and direction until a force acts to change this. It is an assumption that things are constant - Assumption A. Therefore, when experience shows that things change - Event E. We have to explain this. This requires another assumption, that of force - Assumption F. How do we know that forces exist? We measure them by change of motion. We explain E by two assumptions. But where does F come from? It must be part of the original Reality. The Laws of motion or change also require that every reaction have an equal and opposite reaction - Assumption -F. Therefore, we have +F and -F which together equal 0. This leaves A intact. But we still need to explain how the creation or separation of +f and -F took place. We could have called this original self-existing reality Allah, and attributed to change to His creativity. We could have assumed that the fundamental condition is dynamic and constantly changing rather than uniform. We could also have assumed that objects do not always require an external force to change them, but that changes are inherent in them. And this can be proved by observation. We notice also that this appears to describe how consciousness works. A stimulus that consists of a contrast is required to arouse consciousness and action. The purpose of this action is to restore the original constancy by finding a reconciling factor. Therefore, these assumptions are not independent of the observer.

(2) Consider the following purely logic argument:-

Drinking gin and orange juice causes drunkenness.

Drinking rum and orange juice causes drunkenness.

Drinking vodka and orange juice causes drunkenness.

The only common factors are orange juice and drunkenness.

Therefore, drinking orange juice causes drunkenness.

Obviously purely logical arguments can lead to absurdities. Scientific investigation leads one to analyze gin, rum, vodka and orange juice and each of these is tested.

Mathematics depends on an argument such as the following:-

We assume the existence of a unit and denote it by 1. We derive all the other numbers by addition. Thus only two notions are required One and Addition, which is an activity. We could regard this as implying Allah and His creativity. We define 2 as 1+1 and 3 as 1+1+1. Then we deduce that 2+1=3. This is because (1+1)+1=1+1+1

It is obvious that we are dealing with definitions not realities. Whereas 2 apples plus 1 apple do make 3 apples, it is true that a three meter wide river can be spanned by a 2 meter plank of wood plus a 1 meter plank of wood. Something else has to be introduced to make it true.

In a scientific experiment when we relate one variable to another one has to introduce a constant which can only be established by experiment. That is, it is not a purely logical argument.

In fact, the acceptance of the validity of logic depends ultimately on faith, which depends on the capacity for perception. If we wish to establish the validity of logic using logical arguments then one is trapped in a vicious circle.

(3) The above argument also shows that we might have a single concept for something, which is really a mixture of different things. If we argue that "All A is B", therefore "This A is B", then it might well be that A is not always the same thing, nor is B. All cats, for instance, are not alike. If we examine a particular cat and arrive at a conclusion of the form "Cats have characteristic A", this does not necessary apply to other cats. Even in science this is often ignored. Things may look the same under certain conditions and to a set of observers because their senses or instruments cannot distinguish between small differences beyond a certain threshold.

(4) We can argue that from "All A is B" it follows logically that "This A is B". But it does not follow from "This A is B", "That A is B" and so on that "All A is B". We would have to know all As to establish this. It follows that one experiment or observation can falsify an idea or Theory but any number of observations cannot establish them with certainty. However, the probability that the idea or theory is true increases. It is necessary to describe a theory in such a way that it is falsifiable by experiment or observation. If it passes the test then it may be true.

(5) One way out of this difficulty is to define A as including B. Then if we find an A which is not B, we will have to call it something else. We can build a theory by selecting things that fit into it, and another theory for other things that fit into that, and so on. In this case everything depends on our concepts. Truth no longer refers to something apart from observers. Obviously, a great number of different systems of thought can be built which will all apply to the same field. It is possible also to create theories that are more comprehensive than others. Thus, Einstein's replaced Newton's Theory of Gravity.

(6) Even if something is repeatable and confirmable by numerous observers, this may be because all the observers have something in common. They all have undergone the same scientific discipline and use the same conceptual systems and do their observing under the same conditions in laboratories or in the field. The same can be said about a religious sect or politicians etc. People brought up under a particular culture might have the same kinds of experiences and agree on something. But the agreements may be confined to only certain fields that they have in common. All human beings are composed of the same materials, forces and laws and have arisen in the same way over a long evolutionary history in adjustment to the environment. There is, therefore, something that they hold in common which may be quite different from what an intelligent creature from another planet may understand.

(7) An act of observation is always a result of the interaction between observer and the thing observed. It depends on the nature of both the observer and the observed and the relationship between them e.g. distance, and conditions or context.

It follows that things as they exist apart from observers cannot be known. There cannot be any proof, for instance, that things are material in nature. All we know is the contents of our consciousness which depend partly on our own nature, M, and partly on the nature of Existence, A, of which we are part, and our relationship with it, R. We need to know A, R, M. We have immediate access only to ourselves. This is where real knowledge must begin. This knowledge is higher than what is usually known as science.

We experience three categories of things - thoughts, feelings and sensations from which we derive the notions of information, energy and matter. We also get the notions of internality (within us), externality (outside us) and interaction (between the other two). Materiality simply means inertia, that things have resistance with respect to each other or persistence against change. We can also distinguish within our experience between (a) the separate parts individually (b) the whole system or pattern (c) relationships between the parts, of the part with the whole, and of the whole with the parts.

A human beings can be said to have three levels or faculties - a physical, a mental and a spiritual. This causes him to interacts with the world in three ways and this creates three kinds or aspects of the world:-

(a) He experiences, and interacts with the world directly through his physical senses. This constitutes the world of daily life

(b) He forms concepts and interacts with the world through his intellect. Science belongs to this world. Concepts such as points, triangles, gravity, specific heat, refractive index, economic systems, democracy, utility, beauty, truth etc. though derived from sensory experience are abstractions from them. The world described by Science using these concepts does not resemble the world as directly experienced by the senses.

(c) He experiences and interacts with the world spiritually through consciousness, conscience and will. There are feelings and motives such as compassion, love, hope, faith, despair, anger, greed, etc. This is the world of religion, which is described by symbolism, though religion also contains the other elements.

It is evident that the world as described by science is not like the world experienced or like the world described by religion, which is also not like the world experienced. It has to be understood that merely knowing the laws of nature does not really tell us much about the world of experience. All the laws operate together to form a complex system. There is a difference between knowing the chemical elements and their interactions in the controlled conditions of a laboratory and the complexity created by millions of different atoms and molecules in the real world.

Some people suppose that science deals in facts and religion in values, therefore, the two are independent and require different procedures. Science, it is thought, requires reason that can establish truths but not values. Religion requires revelation that can establish values but not facts. These two should, therefore, be kept separate, not encroaching on each other's domain, though both are useful.

This is not the Islamic view. Islam creates a unitary worldview. In fact, science cannot establish truth either, but only descriptions which are useful and which are taken as true through faith. Yet the desire to seek the truth which drives science is a value. Science is also based on faith in the harmony and lawfulness of the Universe, in the scientific method, in logic and mathematics, in their conceptual system, and in the human ability to obtain and recognize the truth. Science depends on certain in-built categories of thought and frameworks of reference or paradigms. The concepts it uses are inventions that are conveniences rather than facts of nature. Science requires observation. But motives and circumstances determine where attention goes, what is selected, how it is interpreted, organized and applied. It requires inspiration to create theories giving them order, and it is only after these have been created that they are tested through observation and reason.

Reason can be used both in science and religion. There are a great number of other facts which are not recognized in science and human inventions are constantly creating new facts. There are also other ways of selecting, interpreting and describing facts and for different purposes. Religions also provide facts though these are normally symbolic or analogical. Even a novel can be true to life without being literally true. The truth lies at a higher level and a particular event can stand for a more general truth. This is like Algebra where a letter may stand for any number. Language can be used in many ways apart from conveying a sensory impression. It can be used to express a concept, an idea, a feeling, a command, an instruction, or an appeal. It can be used to establish a friendly relationship, to tell a joke and make people laugh, to make them cry, to stimulate, insult, produce an impression or some other affect. All these are experiences.

It is necessary to distinguish between three ways of conveying a truth:-

(b) Objects and events can be named and these names are known to the speaker and listener. Objects and events O must first be translated into experiences E. The experience of the speaker is translated by him into words or descriptions D. These words are translated back into experience by the listener. O E and D are not the same thing and may not correspond. The words have meaning in that they refer to the experience and the experience has significance in so far as it refers to events. When it comes to abstract ideas things are bit more complex. Concepts are used which are abstractions of common elements from many experiences. The words acquire different meanings according to the different experiences of different people. In science the various concepts are also inter-dependent. It is necessary that the whole conceptual system be learnt by ensuring that the same experiences are provided in the same conditions e.g. in a laboratory where the same events are created. Communication between religious people also requires this. Experiences are, of course, always personal and it is not usually possible to experience the experiences of others. The agreement between scientists is, therefore, not about experiences but about words. A scientist might argue that in order to understand a scientific truth, then speculation, guesswork or argumentation is futile. You must undergo the same discipline and learn the same language or conceptual system and do the same experiment under the same conditions then you will have the same experiences and interpret them in the same way as the scientist does. But this is exactly what a religious man can also say.

(c) But religion differs from science in that the experiences of the person do not refer to something external, but are within the person. Here, communication, though it uses language, has the function of attempting to transfer or induce an experience. Religious ideas are advanced in order to produce psychological effects. The truth lies in the effects produced rather than in the meaning of the statement. It is essential that this be fully understood, otherwise religious ideas are rendered useless, and even reduced to superstition.

The induction of experience can only take place through a kind of resonance or empathy. This may be facilitated by providing suitable surroundings such as mosques or objects that have a particular set of associations. It also requires the cultivation of receptivity through enhanced consciousness.

Religious experiences and ideas are not like scientific or logical ones where connections and relationships are set up between one item and another. They consist of patterns so that an item has meaning with respect to the pattern as a whole. The ability to see this requires a faculty other than reason. It is known as insight, inspiration or revelation. Even science requires this in order to arrive at its theories.

Science has for many people become a religion, but a rather inadequate one. This is because it ignores values consciously. Therefore, values enter into it sub-consciously. The direction of research depends on what is regarded as valuable by the scientist or the people who fund it. The scientist has to evaluate the data within his conceptual system and assumptions. Application also depends on values. Science is driven by commercial and political motives, by the desire for power, to make profits, for prestige and fame, to create a technology, to do what someone thinks is good or to satisfy whims. But it has also produced the possibility, desire and devotion to remove disease, poverty, ignorance and to free people from drudgery, enhance human capabilities, to control the environment, to travel in to Space, expand, conquer, modify and inhabit the rest of the Cosmos. But as long as human beings retain their various limitations and defects by reason of which they suffer psychological misery, create social conflicts and pollute and disrupt the environment, they gain nothing for themselves.

Science, like religion, does recognize the existence of a world beyond normal sensory experiences. It accesses this world not only through instruments, computers and machines that are extensions of human sensory, motor and computing powers. It also does so through a world of ideas. The world as described by Relativity Theory or Quantum Theory is a different world from the one described by ordinary experiences. But Science tends to assume that the human mind and consciousness is already perfect and capable of comprehending all aspects of reality. It is, however, evident that evolution doe take place and that science advances because there have been brilliant people with greater awareness, powers of comprehension and insight than others. No provision is made in science, apart from intellectual education, for human evolution.

Science can only become a religion if:- (i) Objectivity is defined in the Islamic sense. (ii) It creates an objective value system. It should be possible to make an objective study of what is objectively beneficial and harmful and apply this - a Scientific Ethics. (iii) The purpose of Science becomes human welfare and development rather than fulfillment of subjective desires and whims. (iv) It makes a study of how human beings really perceive and think and so create a Scientific Logic rather than the speculative philosophical Logic currently employed. (v) The Science of Psychology advances to a sufficient degree and transcends what might be called psycho-mechanics. (vi) Theology becomes a Science. The possibility of this can probably be best understood if we look at the series of sciences. We have six sciences;- Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology. Though it is possible to some extent to reduce the things studied in each science to things studied in the previous science, each of these sciences has its own concepts. One could reduce the study of cells to the study of the constituent molecule and these to the study of the physical forces involved. But this would make things overwhelmingly complex. Nor is such a reduction completely possible. A cell is more than the combination of molecules owing to its organization. A multi-cellular organism is more than a combination of cells. It is not possible to predict the arising and behaviour of molecules from a study of physical forces alone, or that of cells from the study of molecules and atoms. To this series one could add Theology as the seventh science which studies reality as a whole, what is common to all other sciences, and all phenomena which are ordinarily excluded or ignored. (vii) People accept it, understand it and devote themselves to it.

In a sense Religion can be called a science if it is understood as consisting of the study of the processes and techniques for spiritual development, where the word "spiritual" refers to consciousness, conscience and will.

When these modifications have been made to the notions of Science and Religion then the two become identical and, having becoming consistent with what Islam (Surrender to the ultimate Objective Reality) requires, then both also become identical with Islam.

----------<O>----------