The pyramid of science, philosophy and religion: the end of the conflict
Introduction
In western culture, there is a long history of schism between science and philosophy (Lindberg, 2007). This schism largely stems from the discrete sources of knowledge of empiricism and rationalism (Markie, 2013). While the source of knowledge in philosophy is perceived to be reason (rationalism) and rationally critical thinking (Quinton, 1995), perception (empiricism) through observation and experiment is the source of knowledge in science (Prothero, 2009).
In addition, Islamic history also witnessed a strong controversy between philosophy and religion. This has been evident since Al-Ghazali’s (1058-1111 A.D.) “Incoherence of the Philosophers”, and Averroes’ later work (1126-1198 A.D) entitled “The Incoherence of the Incoherence”. However, some contemporary Islamic thinkers argue that Islamic thought accepts several sources of knowledge based on the teachings of the religion of Islam. Thus, Islam defines religion as the belief in a God worthy of obedience and worship and forms a mentality that accepts four sources of knowledge: the senses, the mind, the heart (referring not to the anatomical heart, but representing the human’s inner knowledge; i.e. inborn instinctive knowledge, inspirational knowledge and the knowledge of dreams, it being the soul’s window to the body), and the revelation (Tarhini, 2014).
The schism between science, philosophy and religion
Philosophy derives from the Ancient Greek term “philosophia”, which means “the love of wisdom”. In the Greek and Latin world, it was the art that brought answers to most questions regarding existence and the world (Griffin, 2001).
Over time, it was realised that it was not possible for one art of knowledge to answer all questions, and natural questions gained prominence over mental ones. Thus, the branch of philosophy that studied nature and was interested in answering “How?” came to be known as “natural philosophy” (Lindberg, 2007). For instance, in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton used the term “natural philosophy” to describe the principles of mathematics in his book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”. This term has been changed to “natural sciences” in order to refer to the modern natural sciences as we know them today and is termed “science” versus “philosophy”.
The natural sciences not only were a branch of philosophy, but also many philosophers themselves were great scientists. Greek philosophers discovered many of the natural principles that are fundamentally valid today. Moreover, Arabic and Islamic philosophers played an essential role in saving the Greek philosophical heritage and developing it, alongside developing the natural sciences (Kalin, 2014).
Today however, science has continued to develop and become specialised in an enormous number of sophisticated subfields, whilst philosophy was neglected as an art to explain nature, and indeed was even blamed for previous misconceptions of western culture about the world (Hawking, 2010). However, the role of philosophy was never to answer “How?” It always interpreted the “How?” that was provided by science in the earliest days (the term itself did not yet exist). The philosophers’ interpretation of any subject has always been based on the dimensions of their knowledge. For instance, if a philosopher living before the time of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543AD) was attempting to explain why the sun was moving around the earth, he was explaining a scientific fact at that time and does not take responsibility for the misconceptions of his era about how nature does work. Unfortunately, contemporary scientists have accused philosophers of the previous failure of human knowledge, some even declaring the death of philosophy and the victory of natural science in the matter of explaining existence (ibid).
Philosophy has to be understood as an art of “love of knowledge”, including natural science. Philosophy as an expression of “love of knowledge” and searching for “Why?” was the motive that pushed humans towards natural science, and philosophy today is needed to see deeper than science can. Human knowledge is like building blocks one above the other, a concept I observed expressed perfectly in one saying of Isaac Newton at his house in Woolsthorpe (where he lived, grew up and where the apple tree still stands), which states; “I have seen further...it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” The role of science is to explain “How?”, and the role of philosophy is to explain “Why?”, and to use the grand reason as an expression of “love of knowledge.”
In addition to the above remains the question of religion, both historically and today. Of course, it is beyond the purpose of this article to present all the tortuosity of the curve of religion’s history in western culture. In principle, western culture has been thoroughly intertwined with Christianity since the Emperor Constantine declared it as his religion in the year 313 AD. Although Christianity cohabited with philosophy from its early years with the works of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) and developed significantly in the works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD), the beginning of its relationship with science was more divergent and remains controversial to this day (Russell, 2008).
The epistemology pyramid
Medicine today recognises that the human thinking process follows an external prompt consisting of six levels: sensation, perception, decoding, evaluation, decision and action (Preston, 2005). However, human action is not always preceded by all of the five levels; it can be launched from any level or even take an opposite route; it can be a response to an internal route. A modern model of explaining human behaviour is the neuro-logical levels model of neuro-linguistic programming theory, which suggests six different levels that shape our relationship and interaction with the world. Those levels are found to correspond to the six fundamental “W” questions (Dilts, 2014):
1- Environment: Where? When?
2- Behaviour: What?
3- Capability: How?
4- Beliefs and values: Why?
5- Identity: Who?
6- Spirituality: Whom? For what?
Therefore, human behaviour is shaped externally by the environment and internally by human capability, values-beliefs, identity and spirituality. The neuro-logical level theory also links those levels to the five levels of learning suggested by Bateson (Dilts, 2014).
The key element is the understanding of science as a question of ‘How?’ by observation and experiment, the philosophy as question of ‘Why?’by reasoning and critical thinking, and the religion as questions of ‘Who? Whom? For what?’ by spirituality.
Quranic logical levels
The comparison of those levels with the methodology of the text of the Noble Quran reveals a certain model of revelation that encourages humans to use various sources of knowledge and logical levels and act upon them. It is beyond the purpose of this essay to look at all the texts of the Noble Quran relating to this topic. This research looks to the model of text that uses the negative interrogation by the term᾿afalā (افلا), which means ‘will not then?’ That is always followed by a certain verb to form a negative question, which urges humans to respond by using various mental processes or performing certain behaviours. The findings will be used to see if it is possible to link those actions to the neuro-logical levels and the epistemology pyramid.
The use of the search engine at ‘www.holyquran.net’ to find the Arabic word ᾿afalā (افلا) in the Noble Quran resulted in finding it 46 times. On one occasion it is contained in a quotation of a Pharaoh and hence is excluded from this research. In the other verses it is used as a direct instruction from Allah or as an indirect instruction by quoting the speech of prophets. Analysing the verbs that followed the word ᾿afalā resulted in differentiating 14 root verbs as follows:
- Look (naẓara): will they not then look (᾿afalāyanẓurūna) (Quran 88:17).
- See (ra᾿á): will they not then see (᾿afalāyarawna) (Quran 20:89, 21:44).
- Perceive (başara): will they not then see (perceive) (᾿afalāyubşirūna) (Quran 32:27), will they not then perceive (᾿afalātubşirūna) (Quran 51:21, 28:72).
- Hear (şamiᶜa): will they not then hear (᾿afalātasmaᶜūna) (Quran 28:71), will they not then hear (᾿afalāyasmaᶜūna) (Quran 32:26).
- Know (ᶜalima): will they not then know (᾿afalāya`lamu) (Quran 100:9).
- Remember (dhakara): will they not then remember (᾿afalātatadhakkarūna) (Quran 6:80, 32:4), will they not then remember (᾿afalātadhakkarūna) (Quran 10:3, 11:24, 11:30, 16:17, 23:85, 37:155, 45:23).
- Reason (ᶜaqala): will they not then reason (᾿afalātaᶜqilūna) (Quran 2:44, 2:76, 3:65, 6:32, 7:169, 10:16, 11:51, 12:109, 21:10, 21:67, 23:80, 28:60, 37:138), will they not then reason (᾿afalāyaᶜqilūna) (Quran 36:68).
- Think (fakkara): will they not then think (᾿afalātatafakkarūna) (Quran 6:50).
- Reflect (dabbara): will they not then reflect (᾿afalāyatadabbarūna) (Quran 4:82, 47:24).
- Believe (Āmana): will they not then believe (᾿afalāyu'uminūna) (Quran 21:30).
- Repent (tāba): will they not then repent (᾿afalāyatūbūna) (Quran 5:74).
- Forgive (ghafara): will they not then ... and seek His forgiveness(᾿afalā... wayastaghfirūnahu) (Quran 5:74).
- Thank (shakara): will they not then thank (᾿afalāyashkurūna( (Quran 36:35, 36:73).
- Preserve (waqá): will they not then preserve themselves (piety) (᾿afalātattaqūna) (Quran 7:65, 10:31, 23:23, 23:32, 23:87).
Further analysis of those root words resulted in grouping them into 3 groups at the mental processing level and one group at action level, as follows:
- Behaviour (action): repent, forgive, thank, and preserve.
- Recognition (mental process): look, see and perceive represent vision process, hear represents listening process, know, and remember that represent recollection of a recognized element of knowledge. Because memory has preservative rather than a generative role in knowledge (Audi, 2005).
- Thinking (mental process): reason, think, and reflect.
- Belief (mental process): belief (spirituality).
The links between those levels and the neuro-logical levels and the pyramid of epistemology are evident. Behaviour is linked to the behaviour and human motion in the environment; recognition is linked to the capability and natural science; thinking is linked to the values and philosophy, and belief is linked to identify and spirituality. The belief term in Quranic levels is different to the belief term in neuro-logical levels. In the Noble Quran it is connected strongly to the religion and spirituality, whilst in the neuro-logical levels it is related more to the deeply accepted concepts in all life dimensions and not necessarily the spiritual one.
Conclusion
Science, philosophy and religion are terms that contest if placed horizontally, but in fact support each other if placed vertically in the epistemology pyramid. Those levels are influenced one by the other in both ways; our belief influences our behaviour and our environment influences our spirituality.The ignorance or enlightenment in one of those levels project ignorance or enlightenment in the other levels.
The humans are equal one, their thoughts also is one, and the knowledge is one, regardless of the road that a human might take to the One. This, I hope, forms the reader’s conclusion as well.
References
• THE NOBLE QURAN (Online available from: www.holyquran.net). (Arabic)
• AUDI, ROBERT (2005) ‘The Sources of Knowledge’, in P.K Moser (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 92.
• DILTS, ROBERT (2014) ‘A Brief History of Logical Levels’ (Online available from: http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/LevelsSummary.htm).
• GRIFFIN, JASPER, BOARDMAN JOHN, and MURRAY, OSWYN (2001) ‘The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 140.
• HAWKING, STEPHEN (2010) ‘The Grand Design’ (New York: Bantam Books), 10.
• KALIN, IBRAHIM, AYDUZ, SALIM, and DAGLI, CANER (2014) ‘The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• LINDBERG, DAVID C. (2007) ‘The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context’ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), Second edition.
• MARKIE, PETER (2013)‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Online available from: plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/rationalism-empiricism).
• MASLOW, ABRAHAM H. (1943) ‘A Theory of human motivation’ (Online available from: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm)
• PRESTON, PHYLLIS (2005) ‘Testing Children: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Assessment of Mental Development in Infants and Young Children’ (Germany: Hogrefe), 107-109.
• PROTHERO, DONALD R., DOTT JR., ROBERT (2009) ‘Evolution of the Earth’ (New York: McGraw-Hill).
• QUINTON, ANTHONY (1995) ‘The ethics of philosophical practice’, in T. Honderich (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 666.
• RUSSELL, ROBERT JOHN (2008)‘Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega’ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
• TARHINI, MUHAMMAD HASSAN (2014)‘The Greatness of Islamic Religion’ (Beirut: Dar AlkitābAlᶜarabi), 39. (Arabic)