Human behaviour depends
partly on their inherent constitution, partly on acquired experiences and
partly on communication with others. Human beings are also capable of deliberate
conscious thinking. Human behaviour, unlike that of animals, in so far as it is
not mechanical owing to instinct, conditioning or habit, is also governed by
beliefs. But beliefs may arise due to social or environmental conditioning, on
the basis of wishful thinking, fantasy, prejudices, accidental associations,
justification of habits of thought, rationalisation of greed, vanity, laziness,
likes and dislikes, and other emotional factors, or because of defects in the
faculties. These create false beliefs. We acquire our knowledge through the
three faculties of sensation, feeling and thought and we do so deliberately by
conscious attention, action, motives, and reasoning. The self-conscious human
being, therefore, must cast a critical eye not only on the data of experiences,
but also on the ideas communicated to him and on his own inner processes. He
must question his assumptions, motives and actions.
A
distinction is assumed between knowledge, belief and opinion. This distinction,
it is supposed, corresponds to the distinction between science, religion and
ordinary thinking. Knowledge must always be true. That is, it must be based on
experiences which conform to a reality which exists apart from human opinion,
motivation and action. It, therefore, requires a belief in an objective world
greater and beyond man as well as the belief that human beings can experience
it accurately, and think about and describe it. Truth is established if there
is incontrovertible evidence or proof, and this reduces to the consistency of
experiences in contact with reality, which, in turn, depends on the capacity
for experiencing it. Beliefs are ideas held as true by human beings, but can be
true, false or partly true and false in the objective sense, and are
assumptions necessary for motivation and action. Nothing, however, can be a
belief which is not thought to be true, and knowledge is futile if it does not
inform motives and actions. Religions, therefore, see themselves as bodies of
knowledge and the Sciences are also systems of belief. Beliefs can be negated
by experience but knowledge cannot. Opinion refers to ideas based on partial
knowledge which are held by people as having some probability of being true or
becoming true, and often refer to their feelings, intentions or actions. They,
too, depend on assumptions which can be negated. Opinions which are reinforced
by a consistency of ideas become beliefs. Beliefs, however, in so far as they
are ideas, cannot become knowledge until they are confirmed by experience.
In the modern
age many people are not satisfied with mere statements, they want physical
proof. Sometimes they want logical proof or even experiential proof. More
rarely they want the techniques by which they can enhance their capacities for
consciousness. Islam, too, requires that the individual should prove everything
for himself in order to make it into his own.
“O man, follow
not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the
heart - of each of these it will be asked ( to give an account ).” 18:36
Three
questions may be asked about beliefs:- what do they consist of; how are they
arrived at; and what are their effects, functions or purpose.
The
purpose of belief cannot be other than that it does, or ought to, facilitates
human beings to adjust themselves to reality. If it does not then those who
hold them will eventually be destroyed together with their belief. A belief may
be required for three reasons:- because it is true, or because it is good in
being beneficial to the person, or because it is useful for some other purpose,
economic, social or political.
Valid
Beliefs arise in three ways:-
(a) The
accumulation of experiences. But these will depend on intensity of attention,
and the kind and relative frequencies of the experiences which describe
particular situations and will vary with them. They create several levels of
belief. The carpenter, for instance, has experiences about himself, those
relating to carpentry which is different from that in other trades, but also
relating to life in his local community which differs from those living in
other communities. He also has experiences relating to the larger environment
of the country he lives in, the economic, political and ideological conditions
of the nation, the common experiences of humanity on this planet, and probably
also some which relate to the processes and structure of the Universe, such as
sunlight, heat, gravity and so on. All these create different levels of belief.
(b)
Deliberate, conscious observation, experimentation and thought. The results
will depend on the assumptions made, the motives, aims or interests, and the
kind of activities performed. Reasoning may be done about the environment,
about people or about oneself. Facts are not enough. They must be interpreted.
This is usually done with reference to a framework of ideas, such as the
scientific. The framework depends on the purpose one has in mind, or what the
society or some group in it provides.
(c) The
arising into consciousness of inherent processes. Human beings are made of the
same materials, processes and laws which govern the rest of the Universe, or
derive from them, and they have arisen in interaction with and adaptation to
it. Their genetic make up gives them certain temperaments, abilities and ways of
seeing and doing things. They are self-aware to various degrees.
To
illustrate:- Sense experience tells us that the sun rises in the East and sets
in the West. Reason tells us that it is the earth which is rotating. Our senses
tell us that the person we are talking to has a particular structure and set of
physical characteristics. Reason tells us that his behaviour is governed by
certain electrical processes in his brain and chemical activities of the
endocrine system and so on. But the consistency of our experiences tells us
that we are speaking to another conscious human being like ourselves with whom
we can have relationships such as friendship.
Religious
belief, like others, may arise because of reasoning about existence, the inner
experiences a person has, or because he has met someone he admires as a
superior human being because of his qualities, his achievements, life, ability,
compassion, wisdom, inner strength, stability, self-control, and adjustment to
reality. The success of the Prophets, the founders of religions, was mainly due
to their own qualities, but also because they created an awareness in people of
their own deeper nature as well as raising the ideas, life and experiences of
people to a new stage in the evolution of humanity.
Truth refers
to how things are in themselves, in relation to everything else, apart from our
opinions about them. In so far as our experiences are limited and our
perception is selective then that which we consider to be true is uncertain and
changes as knowledge expands. We do not have truth at any given time. We can
only approach it gradually using appropriate techniques. If it does not modify
the individual and is not applied then it may also be considered futile. If it
benefits a person by giving him greater awareness, understanding and control
over his behaviour, and helps him to adjust to reality, then it is good. In so
far as we cannot see ‘things-in-themselves’, but only their effects
on us, then ‘truth’ is often defined in this way - as the
‘good’. But this definition depends partly on our attitudes and the
way we perceive and formulate it. Many different ideas and formulations may be
good, and to various degrees. The most common attitude, however, is the
utilitarian one - that if something can be applied and produces observable
external results then it is regarded as true. These three forms of belief
correspond roughly to the religious, philosophical and scientific attitudes.
There are, in general, three ways in which we arrive at a belief:- through
sensory experience, reasoning and faith.
What we
see with our eyes or other senses is regarded as proof. However, it is a well
known fact that the senses are limited and can deceive us. The apparent is not
the same thing as the real. Sensory experiences give us only limited knowledge.
We also have to interpret, relate and organise knowledge into a consistent
system. Proof implies obtaining an experience consistent with this system. But,
though this usually means an external experience which can be confirmed by others,
there is no reason why it should not also mean an inner experience which can
also be confirmed by others. In either case the experience itself is a private
matter. Reasoning is a deliberate, purely intellectual way of doing this. It is
also often purely verbal and depends on understanding a language. Something is
proved when it fits into a system of ideas such as that of science, mathematics
or logic. Reason, too,, is often defective, otherwise we would not need to test
it by experiment. It neglects feeling and action which are also human faculties
and affect each other.
Faith, if
it is not mere prejudice or fantasy, consists of the digestion, assimilation
and integration of inner and outer experiences (of thought, feeling and
actions) into a unified system which becomes part of ourselves. All our
actions, opinions and feelings flow from it. This process is usually
unconscious and may occur to various degrees. The word ‘proof’ is
not usually associated with faith. But it is clear that if the capacity for experience
is developed, appropriate experiences are provided, and the process of
integration and assimilation is undergone, then we have a much more organic,
supra-lingual way of proving something. Faith is not regarded here as blind
belief as rationalists assume. Religions, therefore, provide us not merely with
doctrines, but also with motives and practices. We accept something when it is
consistent with this system, and this consistency is its proof. If, however,
consciousness is disintegrated and we have complexes, fixations and prejudices,
then consistency with these sub-systems leads to false beliefs, and this state
is regarded as a disease in Islam. In this situation Reason becomes necessary
since it consists of rules by means of which attempts are made to overcome
these defects. But Reason requires only local, manageable consistency. However,
it still requires some faith. Every argument depends on a set of assumptions or
axioms which are themselves unproved, regarded as established in other disciplines,
or taken as self-evident. We must, for instance accept that there is a real
objective world, that the objects in the world exist, that we can experience
and describe them accurately, that we have all relevant information, and that
the framework of reference in which we interpret facts and the reasoning
process are valid.
Deductive
reasoning can only proceed from wholes to parts or from universals to
particulars, not the other way round. It presupposes such wholes or universals
and these are arrived at by inspiration, communication, perception or
guesswork. Thus the existence of God cannot be rationally proved. We must
either experience God, and this implies the capacity for doing so or the
possibility of developing it, or we can make an assumption that there is an
ultimate Whole, an Absolute, and then make deductions from it. The more these
are found to be correct the more certain is the assumption. We may have to
modify our idea of this Universal in order to accommodate all the facts of
experience, inner, social and outer, as they become known. We cannot ever
suppose that we know all its aspects. The ultimate aim of Science is also to
find such a Unified Theory which will explain all things, but this will only
apply to physical facts, not to meaning and values which are also part of life.
Here we
will consider some basic assumptions.
I. The
following assumptions underlie all thinking, whether scientific, religious,
philosophical or otherwise, and may be regarded as fundamental articles of
faith:-
(1) That
there is an objective reality apart from ourselves and our opinions of it.
(2) That
this Reality is a Unity.
(3) That
the Universe is ordered, and therefore things are knowable and predictable.
(4) That
it is not static but creative - things change, some things die out and some new
things arise and grow. Things can be other than they are.
(5) That a
change requires causes.
(6) That
we exist and are part of this reality.
(7) That
it is accessible to our minds - we can know it and it is possible for us to
cause changes in it.
In fact
all 7 derive from a single fact that we are aware, and this requires three
inter-dependant factors:- namely, that (a) we as conscious entities exist (b)
the external world exists (c) we interact with it - the observer, the object
and the experience exist. We cannot include our bodies in the first category
but only in the second.
It seems
fairly obvious that a view of total reality is not possible unless all three
factors are taken into consideration.
II. We
will, firstly, assume that a person is described wholly by spirit, mind and
body. Here Spirit refers to consciousness, conscience and will; mind to
thinking, motivation and action; and body to the materials, energy and
organisation. They are different categories of experience and equally real.
Books can
sometimes arouse awareness, conscience and will, and can deal with thoughts as
in philosophy and sciences, induce motivation as in the case of inspiring
literature, or produce action as through instruction manuals, but their direct
affect is only on thought. And this is all that will be claimed for this work.
Motives and action require additional techniques and when all three are
coordinated then we will define this as a religion.
We will assume next that for thought
there are three kinds of procedures and proof:-
(a) The facts or data of experience, both inner
(psychological), social (those conveyed to us by others) and outer (which come
to us through the senses).
(b) Reason or rational procedures.
(c)
Insights, inspiration or revelations. This is claimed by all the founders of
religion and there are millions of people who believe them on the basis of
faith and many through similar insights and inspiration. It is also the basis
of much of the achievements of scientists, philosophers, mystics, artists and
others responsible for human progress. It is a social truth if not a rational
or experiential one.
In this
work we will use all three methods. That is, we will appeal to experience, use
rational and logical arguments, and cite the revelations as recorded in
scriptures. There will, therefore, be a three-pronged discussion as follows:-
(1) Many
facts will be mentioned of common and uncommon experiences as reported by many people
in many places throughout history, some of which can be verified directly by
inner and outer observation.
(2) We
shall try to (a) prove rationally, (b) work out the implications of, and (c)
apply the following propositions:-
(i) That Reality, all things in the Universe, matter,
energy, order, life, mind and consciousness are, derive from and return to, a
single whole, a Unity which transcends any of these single features separately.
We call this God, the Absolute or Allah.
(ii) That the whole is more than the sum of the parts and
cannot be described by means of characteristics which apply to the parts.
(iii) If the whole is not known then we cannot know what
other parts there may also be. We will call this the principle of Ignorance.
(iv) The parts can have no existence or meaning apart from
the whole to which they belong.
(v) Consciousness applies to the relationship of parts to
the whole while reason refers to the relationship between parts. It is not the
same as consciousness but pre-supposes it.
(vi)
Whereas reason may refer to the circuitry in the nervous system, making it like
a computer, consciousness requires the existence in man more than this since it
requires the merging of the data of experience into a unity.
(vii) Without consciousness we cannot know either the
external world or ourselves - both are meaningless.
(vii) Evolution is a progressive increase in consciousness
and knowledge.
(viii) Human psychological, social and environmental
problems have become so complex that they have become insoluble by the limited
human mind, and the institutions created by them have become so powerful that
they evolve by their own momentum.
(ix) Human beings cannot solve their problems unless they
develop and apply techniques for deliberate further psychological evolution.
(ix) In order to do this they will have to undergo an
ideological and social change.
(x) The
techniques for development and for ideological and social change are already
inherent in religious teachings when properly understood.
(3) A (a)
description, (b) explanation and (c) application of the religious teachings
will be given and it will be proved that
(i) They contain a common truth, goodness, beauty and
usefulness.
(ii) That religions have degenerated owing to
misunderstanding.
(iii) That
they can be revived and unified.
III. Human
beings find themselves in a Universe in which they arise, on which they are
dependent and to which they have to adjust. Religion is a comprehensive and
unified method of doing this. Religion, therefore, has three aspects:-
(1) A Cosmology to make sense of existence.
(2) A system of values, ethics and goals based on the
cosmology.
(3) A set
of practices to facilitate adjustment and development. These correspond to the
three human faculties of thought, motivation and action.
It is
assumed by many that the rise of science and the technologies associated with
it, has brought conflict with religion, that science has won and should now
replace religion. But the conflict is only in the realm of Cosmology and
thought, and Science does not provide the Ethics and the Practices. It is,
therefore, inadequate, nor is there always a conflict because many scientists,
including the great ones such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein were
and are also religious people. Many religious people, including Priests made
contributions to Science.
The
difference between religion and science are said to be as follows:-
Religion
is based on revelation to the few, on faith and dogmatism which makes it
arrogant, authoritarian, intolerant and static. It has failed from the ethical
point of view because it has opposed the development of truth, human
independence and progress, and has led to much corruption, superstition,
persecution and wars.
Science,
on the other hand, is based on careful investigation by a great number of
people, on reason and exact mathematics and its results can be confirmed by
all. It has created technologies which have transformed the world and solved
many human problems such as those of poverty, disease and ignorance. It has
avoided the intervention of value judgements and emotional factors in its
pursuit of truth. The scientist is humble in that he is willing to change his
opinion. There have been no wars due to scientific conflicts. It has brought
tolerance and the possibility of peace. Science is, therefore, progressive and
evolutionary.
It can,
however, be shown that science is just as remote and obscure from ordinary
people as theology, that scientists have been authoritarian, intolerant and
arrogant and that their theories as well as their inventions, both industrial
and military, have resulted in much moral corruption, social turmoil,
environmental destruction and even greater slaughter and insecurity. This
argument is refuted by some scientists on the grounds that Science is a neutral
instrument and not responsible for the use made of it by people. But this is an
argument which applies to religion also. Religion cannot be held responsible
for the corrupt behaviour of people who misuse it. On the contrary, religions
unlike science exist to improve people but if they refuse to apply it this
cannot be the fault of religion. If science avoids value judgements and is
neither based on values nor provides any, then it must be regarded as a futile
pursuit. In fact, however, science is pursued because it is thought to be a
good thing to do and its direction of development depends on motives and
interests. The kind of facts it gathers, the way it interprets and organises
them all depend on its value system. There are certainly conflicts between
scientists with different interests. Science also has certain practices and
procedures though these are designed to create and test theories, not to
facilitate human adjustment. The progress of science depends also on the
inspiration received by only a few of the great scientists who construct the
revolutionary theories such as those of Evolution and Relativity. On the other
hand there is also gradual progress in the Theology, Ethics and Practices in
Religions. And Knowledge was developed and preserved originally in monasteries
and other religious institutions.
We shall,
therefore, dismiss these assumptions regarding the difference between Religion
and Science. The pursuit of Knowledge is an integral part of Religion, at least
in Islam. But the pursuit of ethics and developmental practices is not
deliberately an integral part of science, though it has the tendency to affect
these to a limited extent. Both depend on the quality of human beings.
IV. In
order to live and adjust to Reality, human beings need (1) Knowledge, but since
they must process this and also act, they also need (2) Values and (3) Ability.
These
three are inter-dependent. Knowledge depends on the values they pursue and by
which they interpret facts and also on what they do to elicit a reaction from
the environment. What they do and their skills depend on knowledge and values.
Their values depend on what they know and what and how they do things.
Knowledge may be divided into the knowledge of facts, of values and of how to
do. These are three different kinds of knowledge and they relate to the three
human faculties of thinking, feeling and action.
The word
“Knowledge” should really be used for something which coordinates
these three faculties and prevents one from interfering with the functioning of
the other. Knowledge is a link between Object and Observer. Three states of
knowledge should be recognised:-
(1) Conscious Knowledge, which is probably only possible
for human beings,
(2) Subconscious Knowledge (which becomes conscious knowledge only when
we direct concentrated attention on it). Living things like animals and perhaps
plants may have this kind of knowledge. Human beings generally live at this
lower state and this leads to illusions owing to partial knowledge.
(3) Unconscious knowledge. We are not normally capable of awareness of
the genetic information within us, the processes within our bodies and all the
forces which affect us. Dead matter has this kind of knowledge. The word
“Information” is used in science to refer to this. The word
“Knowledge” should really be used only for the first category.
There are numerous states between these and people differ as to the extent of
these three capacities. The world, therefore, must also be divisible into these
three categories.
Knowledge
depends on three factors:-
(1) The capacity for consciousness in the observer. This
depends also on the quality of their three faculties of intellect, feelings
(including motivation) and actions. All human experiences affect these and are
utilised by them in all behaviour.
(2) The nature of the object.
(3) The
nature of the interactions which has three forms:- (a) Interaction between the
observer and object. (b) Interactions between observers - knowledge is a social
phenomena in that the concepts used derive from the culture in which a person
exists. (c) Interaction between objects. We learn about things by comparing
their characteristics and observing their relationships and interactions.
However, we are not conscious of everything that affects us.
As to the nature of the
object, we may have experiences which we regard as:-
(a) External to us, and these may be experienced by others.
(b) Within our bodies such as pain, pleasure or other
feelings which are not normally experienced by others except indirectly through
empathy. A person experiences his own physical reactions associated with his
physiological state and on observing a similar physical reactions in others
feels the associated physiological state.
(c) Within
our minds such as thoughts, images, planning, intention, analysis, synthesis,
association, reasoning. These could be experienced by others if some kind of
link is established between one brain and another or between one mind and
another. This is done indirectly through language and gesture by which ideas
are transmitted. It is also done sub-consciously through behaviour. It could be
that it is also done more directly but unconsciously through direct
transmission via electromagnetic or other radiations.
Generally
speaking there must be some kind of link between the object and the
consciousness of the person.
(1) We do not generally have direct experience of the
object, though it is possible that objects or observers may have the capacity
to directly modify each other through a type of resonance.
(2) When an object is part of a system or is itself a system having
parts such as an organism composed of cells then there is some kind of affect
which the part has on the whole and the whole has on the part. Some kind of
information is passing between them.
(3) In general the link in the case of external objects is provided by
(a) the sense organs, (b) the nervous system which is also dependent for its
functioning on the rest of the body and (c) the brain. In the case of
physiological experiences the external sense organs are not required, and in
the case of mental experiences the brain alone is the link. But even here the
brain cannot act independently since it depends on nutrition from the rest of
body through blood circulation and the activating agents provided by the
hormones of the endocrine system.
Knowledge
could be communicated in three ways:-
(a) Ordinarily, it is
not possible to know an object except by the effects it has on some medium such
as light, which then causes changes in our nervous system and these effects
must be translated into conscious experiences. There must be some kind of
correspondence between all these stages. The end result, however, is not the
same thing as the original. Nor are we always passive to the same degree with
respect to an experience. We contribute something of our own to it. Thus what
we call the objective world is an interaction.
(b) Most of our
knowledge comes via communication with others through words. This requires that
words are associated with experiences in the same way in the speaker or writer
as they are in the listener or reader. The words should then transmit and
introduce experiences. But this assumption fails because a verbal statement
abstracts only a small part of an experience, people do not associate the same
word with the same experiences, and the capacity for experience differs between
the transmitter and the recipient. Different kinds, amounts and depths of
experience can be encoded in words, but people may extract or understand it
quite differently.
(c) It is, however,
also possible that because an object modifies the gravitational, electrical or
quantum field in which it exists, an observer could directly perceive these
modifications because this field also modify him.
Through
the sense organs we receive only raw data in the form of qualities such as
colour, hardness, shape, roundness etc. But these are already mental
interpretations. The colour red, for instance is not the same thing as the particular
frequency of electromagnetic radiation which gives rise to the experience of
redness. However, forces may also affect the body directly or the brain
directly and provide the same data. Or we may use the same qualities to
represent events in our body or mind. This raw data has to be interpreted.
An
examination of the dictionaries shows us that we recognise seven types of
things:-
(a) We
distinguish between external, physiological and mental experiences. The notions
of matter, life and mind are connected with these. In general matter is
recognised by its inertia or the fact that it offers resistance to change by
the mind and determines what we experience. It is, therefore, the same for
everybody, and such experiences are repeatable and confirmable. Physiological
experiences such as pain and other sensations are private and cannot be
confirmed by others. The mind, it is supposed can conjure up anything freely.
But these assumptions are incorrect. Experiences in the mind offer great
resistance to change by the subject, while the so called external world is also
seen differently by different people. They are also private experiences.
Moreover, changes can be brought about by the mind in the external world to
various degrees, including in what other people experience. The ability to feel
the pain of others is not an unusual experience either. There is, therefore, no
absolute distinction between these three forms of experience.
(b)
Qualities. External senses give us qualities such as colours, size, shape, hardness,
odours, tastes etc. We can also feel pain, emotions and other sensations from
within our bodies, and images, intentions and thoughts from within our minds.
(c)
Objects which are combinations of qualities such as stones, tables, trees,
animals, stars, concepts.
(d) The
notion of objects leads to ideas such continuity, discontinuity, number and
quantity, relationships, causation, interaction, substances which underlie
different objects.
(e)
Actions, processes, interactions such as work, energy, motion, walking, eating
etc.
(f)
Dimensions such as space and time which connects things together. But since we
can concentrate more or less of something in the same space and time we ought
also to recognise another dimension that of intensity. It is usually supposed
that an object must have a definite location and extension in space and time
separate from others, and also a set of qualities and a structure
distinguishable from others. But this is not so. Things do change - e.g a
person from an embryo to baby, child and adult. We recognise the object by its
continuity. Objects may interpenetrate each other. The species
“dog” is an object in so far as dogs interact and breed. But they
are mixed together with all kinds of other species. Bees form a hive, but the
individual bees may fly off to great distances from the centre. The fundamental
particles known to Quantum physics do not have an exact location or extension.
(g) Types
of order or pattern such as natural laws, political and economic systems,
government, civilisation, cricket, language, beauty, symphonies, novels,
science, religion.
Interpreted
sensations are called percepts, and these have to be organised into concepts
which have to be organised into ideas and then into system. In general, systems
affect the nature of ideas which affect and are affected by concepts and these
affect and are affected by percepts. There is always a triad in which the
middle term is affected by the higher and the lower.
Knowledge
may be perverted by mistaking the different categories of experience for each
other, and by misinterpretations and faulty organisation at the various levels.
The
objects we see can exist in three states:-
(1) As a random mixture or set e.g. a pile of stones or
bricks.
(2) As a structure e.g. a house or a machine. The structure
may be in space or time.
(3) As an
organisation such a compound or an organism composed of cells. The whole is
greater than and more than the sum of the parts owing to the organisation. The
study of the parts will not reveal the behaviour of the whole.
The organised object can be divided into:-
(a) The collection of parts and we may call this its
material aspect.
(b) The interactions between the parts. We may refer to
this as life.
(c) Its wholeness caused by the order. We may refer to this
as its mind.
(d) The
organised entity may also have a centre of integration and control through
which it controls the parts to various degrees. This requires that information
from all parts reach this centre. The centre, however, need not be a physical
one but merely a characteristic of its organisation. We may call this
it’s Self or Soul.
The
notions of mass, energy and order in science may be thought of as connected
with the first three. There is an analytical view, a dynamic and a holistic
view of things.
We note
that there are a great many levels of materiality within our experience. We see
stars, planets, large objects such cities, forests, rivers on earth, organisms
such as trees, animals, rocks etc. These are composed of cells or crystals,
though cells and crystals can also exist independently. There are also
molecules and atoms and sub-atomic particles, and electromagnetic radiations
and fields such as the gravitational. And we may also postulate the existence
of some ultimate substance called spirit which may or may not be the same as
what used to be called ether or is now called space-time or the quantum field.
At each of these levels we can have materials, structures or organisations of
various kinds. Thus stars form galaxies, trees form forests, houses form
cities, cells form tissues, animals form herds, bees form colonies and so on.
There are structures in the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
It may be
supposed by some people that the idea of soul is the same as mind and that it
is old fashioned and unrealistic to think of these as “the ghost in the
machine” where the word “ghost” is regarded as some
insubstantial thing without meaning. It must, therefore, refer to the order or
organisation. But this is not necessarily the case. An entity may consist of
several levels of materiality just as a solid may be permeated by a liquid
which is itself permeated by a gas and all these may be organised separately as
well as together. Thus mind or soul need not be insubstantial. It should be
pointed out that Light or electromagnetic fields are said to have energy but
little mass. It may well be that some things have order but little energy. As
matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, it may be that order can
also be converted into energy or matter and vice versa. But this is yet to be
ascertained.
V. All
Religions are based on similar assumptions. The Islamic assumptions are as
follows:-
1. That
there is an Absolute, Unitary Reality, independent of, and vaster than our
experiences, opinions or descriptions of it. Since it is partly outside our
experiences we cannot make any assumptions about it. However, we note that
materiality, energy, order, intelligence, life and consciousness exist, are
inter-dependant and are, therefore, attributes of Reality. We call the ultimate
reality ‘Allah’.
2. That
we, and all things, derive from and are dependant on this Reality.
3. That
people differ in their capacities to experience and to know Reality. Those with
the highest capacities arise only rarely in the history of mankind. That those
with lower capacities can learn from the guidance of those with higher
capacities. The progress of humanity depends on this.
4. That
some of those with the highest capacities are inspired to undertake the
enlightenment and guidance of the rest of mankind. They are referred to as
“Prophets” or “Messengers” since they convey the
‘message’ from Reality to mankind.
5, That
the Prophet Muhammad was one of these. Other religions base themselves on other
founders, but Islam recognises them also. (Quran 16:36 3:81,144 4:163,164 5:48 10:48)
6. That a
distinction has to be made between the ordinary, lower or subjective
experiences, behaviour, statements and teachings which come from prejudice,
habits, fixations conditioned reflexes, partial knowledge, fear, fantasy and
rationalisation of narrow self-interest on the one hand, and those which are
objective and come from the higher capacities for consciousness on the other.
The Islamic assumption is that the Quran, as presented by the Prophet Muhammad,
is an objective work, a revelation.
7. That
ordinary human beings can accept and verify these teachings because they are
consistent with their sub-conscious experience and find resonance with their
inherent nature in so far as access to these is not obstructed by subjective
factors.
It follows, therefore,
that we cannot judge the Quran by applying some other standards. Other things
have to be judged by it. If we find some contradictions between it and other
experiences, opinions or knowledge then either:-
(a)
these other ideas are incorrect or
(b)
we have misunderstood the Quran or
(c)
both are correct but refer to different aspects, contexts in time, place or
people, or frames of reference or
(d) Something from a lower or extraneous source has entered into our
interpretation of it.
Accepting
the Quran also implies accepting the other assumptions since they are part of
the teachings of the Quran. But as the series of assumptions form an argument,
the acceptance of the Quran follows from a particular view of what Reality is
like. However, the first three assumptions can be derived from common
experience. The fourth is intermediate between the first and second set of
three. It is a matter of definition. The last three need to be proved by
everyone to their own satisfaction by consulting the consistency of their
knowledge. It is a mistake to suppose that one person can prove anything to
someone else. There are always disputes between different observers, between
the adherents of different faiths, as well as between scientists, philosophers
and logicians. Proof requires the previous acceptance of a common language,
procedure, experiences, frameworks of reference and values. Mere verbal
acceptance, moreover, is valueless in life or religion. It does not change
behaviour, much less the being of an individual.
The
acceptance of an idea depends (a) partly on the quality and authority of a
teacher or leader, (b) partly on personal insight, and (c) partly on the
relevance of the idea in facilitating adjustment to the real world. These three
reinforce each other, and each by itself is not normally sufficient, though the
third is most important and the focus for the other two. This fact is presented
in religion as a triad, namely God, the Prophet (or Messenger) and the Spirit
within man, an Objective Cosmic, a Social and a Psychological factor. In
Christianity and Buddhism the three are unified in a Trinity because religion
is seen in Christianity as having mainly a social function and in Buddhism as
mainly having a psychological function, but in Islam, which emphasises the
Cosmic factor, the final goal and judge, no such identity is recognised. We are
dependant on the Universe and its forces and not the other way round. God
transcends this triad, being a creator of it.
Science
differs from Philosophy in recognising that you cannot rely merely on logical
arguments since these could be mistaken in two ways:- the correctness of the premises
and the reasoning process. We may also add a third factor that the result will
depend on what premises are selected. The results, therefore, have to be tested
by experiment, that is, by experience of the actual world. Religion also
provides methods by which statements can be verified. But it differs from
science in asserting that the results will also depend on the capacity for
experience, correct motivations and abilities. It is these which have to be
cultivated.
----------<O>----------
For a rational being
religion presents three main puzzles:-
1. Religion is
certainly a Universal phenomena - it is found among all peoples at all times,
continues to exist in modern times, and new ones also continue to arise. Yet
there are certainly differences between the various religions. And there are
also quite obvious falsehoods and malpractices in all of them. How can we
distinguish between them, particularly as all are based on the same thing,
namely faith. There appear to be only the following alternatives:-
(a) That they are all
false - but this cannot be the case since nothing can arise, multiply and
persist that has no evolutionary value.
(b) One of them is
true and the others false. This cannot be the case either for the same reason
and the fact that each arises at a particular time. Can those which existed
before be false?
(c) They all contain
partial truths. Some of their teachings are true and others false. But this
presents the same problem - how to distinguish the true from the false.
(d) That religions
deal with experiences rather than facts, and their language is symbolic not
literal, and even this may have several levels.
(e) They are all true
but they see the truth from different angles, formulate it differently
according to the times, the place, the culture and the nature and state of
development of the people. In that case a particular formulation will be more
or less true according to the context in which it is seen.
(f) Each is founded
by a superior being but his less developed followers add, subtract and corrupt
and misunderstand his teachings. A distinction must, therefore, be made between
genuine religion and various sects and cults founded by lesser men.
(g) Perhaps the
religions form a progression so that each raises the human developmental level
to a higher stage and the succeeding one introduced more of the truth.
(h) Perhaps it is not
a question of truth only but of goodness, beauty or usefulness also.
(i) Perhaps none of
these apply and religions are phenomena like the sun and stars, or other human
characteristics which merely exists, have to be accepted and taken into
consideration. They have a cosmic function.
(j) Perhaps the
criteria we are using, the assumptions we have made, are not correct. It is
observable that the word faith is commonly used to refer to sentimental
attachments, prejudices or fantasies and beliefs based on rationalization of
self-interest, desires and fears. This cannot yield truth or goodness. It is
not faith, commonly understood as “blind belief” which is the basis
of religion, but faith understood as confidence based on insight, on spiritual
discernment – that is, on consciousness, conscience and will.
2. Can it really be
the case that the truth as understood by a religion must be absolutely, exclusively
and eternally true as claimed by most religions? Human beings and their
capacities and knowledge, do progress and evolve. They do, however, also
degenerate. This question has already been answered by the above
considerations. The truth must be everywhere the same, but there is a
distinction between the truth itself and how it is understood, formulated and
applied. These can vary.
3. What is religion,
its cause, function and purpose? To answer this question is the purpose of this
book. Hopefully, it will be shown that religion, even when not recognized, is a
characteristic of human beings integral to their nature which connects them
with the rest of existence. Religion refers to the wholeness of this
relationship as the word “I” refers to the wholeness of the
individual and the word “Universe” refers to the wholeness of the
physical world, and the word “God” refers to the ultimate wholeness
of everything, all subjective, objective and inter-active phenomena.
Proof implies three
things:- that there is something already known, accepted and assumed as true,
that there is something new needing proof, and that the second is related and
consistent with the first. There are, however, three kinds of knowledge and
three kinds of proof.
1. We may hear
something and we have to establish the consistency of it with some verbal
formulation.
2. We may see or
experience something and we must establish its consistency with the rest of
experience.
3. Or we may
establish the consistency of something with reality as distinct from
experiences of it. The notions used to describe the alignment of experiences
with reality are rapport, empathy, adjustment, adaptation and resonance. The
words faith, insight, inspiration and revelation are connected with this and
are a third source of knowledge, the other two being sense data and reason. In
fact, it is prior to sense experience which is prior to reason.
This means three
things:- to expand experiences by greater interaction with reality, to expand
consciousness, to use a broader framework of reference with respect to which
experiences are interpreted. Since not only verbal statements but also
experiences are known to be deceptive, truth ultimately means consistency with
reality. If it is not consistent with reality then our experiences will tend to
contradict each other and we will suffer due to maladaptation. The fundamental
assumptions arise from the fact of existence and the consistency of experiences
with respect to it.
Life is a learning
process. We proceed as follows: - We have a number of experiences, and we need
to make sense of them in order to deal with them. We make certain assumptions
in order to explain them. If these assumptions lead to results which contradict
experience then we have to discard or modify the assumptions. However, we often
form attachments to certain assumptions from force of habit or because of some
hidden motive. Our experiences are limited, and since different people can have
a different set of experiences, it is possible to explain each set by means of
different assumptions. It is also possible to explain different sections of
experience in the same person by different assumptions. These assumptions may
exist in the subconscious mind or they may be verbally formulated. The same verbal
formulations may be understood differently and more or less comprehensively by
different people. People, within a community interact with each other, thereby
creating common assumptions. There ought to be a set of assumptions which will
explain the totality of all human experience.
We not only need to know facts, but also
to interpret experiences, to relate things to each other and to ourselves, we
need meanings. And we must act, and this requires a value system. To live and
deal with experiences in the world requires the establishment of a consistency
between facts, meaning and values. In general, our experiences fall into three
broad categories - the physical world in general, the human world and the world
of inner experiences. These three must also be related into a consistent
system. We cannot merely rely on our own experiences and faculties, nor can we
ignore them.
We can start with one
of three assumptions:-
1. That truth exists
apart from ourselves, and that our experiences and faculties are adequate for
its discovery.
2. That truth is
whatever a person arrives at through his own faculties, experiences and
actions. There are, therefore, as many different truths as there are people.
3. That there are
people who are more conscious, intelligent and with wider and deeper
experiences who are in a better position to see the truth.
The first of these, experience shows, is
false, since we constantly rely on what others, experts, scientists etc, tell
us. The second does not conform to our definition of Truth, and knowledge
advances over the centuries and the faculties evolve. The third presents us
with a problem. We cannot know whether others are more or less conscious,
intelligent or experienced than us. If there are people who are more conscious
than us then, being less conscious, we cannot understand them and we cannot
distinguish between the different, often conflicting, ideas presented to us. We
have to arrive at the truth indirectly in three ways, namely:-
(a) By testing the ideas in practice. To determine whether
they lead to the results claimed for them.
(b) By trying to understand them through study of their
self-consistency.
(c) By developing the
appropriate faculties for ourselves.
The first generally
dependant on the second and the second on the third. These are the procedures
on which the thesis in this book is justified.
----------<O>----------
Contents