God's Power and Logical Absurdities - The Necessity of Logical Principles While Discussing God

 The Necessity of Logical Principles Before Discussing God

Before we even begin discussing God and His actions, we must recognize an important truth: logical axioms and first principles are the foundation of reality.

The law of non-contradiction (something cannot exist and not exist at the same time).

The law of identity (a thing is itself and not something else).

The principle of sufficient reason (everything that exists has a reason for its existence).

These principles are not human inventions. They are the very structure of reality itself. Without them, we cannot make sense of anything. Words, sentences, and even thoughts would lose their meaning.

Now, if someone says:

> “God transcends these principles, so He can do things that break logic.”

This creates a huge problem:

If logic doesn’t apply, then reality itself becomes unintelligible.

Words like “God,” “power,” “create,” and “exist” stop meaning anything because they depend on logical coherence to make sense.

Even asking a question about God like “Can God do X?” becomes impossible because the framework needed to ask and understand the question has already collapsed.

In other words:

> If reality is no longer grounded in logical principles, then asking about God’s nature or actions is meaningless.

Questions like:

“Can God create a stone He cannot lift?”

“Can God cease to exist?”

“Can God make 2+2=5?”

…are not just strange, they are nonsense. They attempt to discuss something while simultaneously destroying the very conditions that make discussion possible.

If reality itself could change arbitrarily, if square circles and existing/non-existing simultaneously were possible, then all reasoning, language, and knowledge would collapse. In that case, the discussion about God wouldn’t just be difficult; it would be impossible.

God's Power and Logical Absurdities

God's actions being bound by logical rules does not limit His omnipotence. Rather, logical consistency is part of God's nature, not a constraint outside Him.

Why This Is Not a Limitation

Logical contradiction is not a "thing" to be done:

Surah al-Baqarah 2:106: "Indeed, Allah is over all things competent."

Omnipotence means God can do all "things". But logical contradictions are not "things" at all. They are not a real entity to begin with. For example:

"Creating a square circle"

"Making 2+2 equal 5"

"Existing and not existing at the same time"

These are not tasks—they are meaningless combinations of words, a linguistic illusion. So, not doing them is not a limitation on His omnipotence. They're like asking: “Can God make blue smell louder than justice?”

It is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done than to say that God cannot do them, because they are not properly ‘things’. 

You can’t say: “Can God draw a square circle?” or “Can God make Himself cease to exist?”

That’s not a test of omnipotence, it’s a misuse of language.

Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with the words ‘God can.’

Because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Analogy:

Suppose someone says:

"Can the most powerful painter paint a color that is not a color?"

That’s not a limitation of the painter. It’s just a nonsense request.

 So, God not doing the logically impossible is not a weakness; it’s a reflection of the coherence of His nature.

Misunderstanding 'Power':

"Can God create another god?" or "Can God cease to exist?" is a false question because it involves denying God's necessary nature, which is irrational and not possible.

The idea that God’s power is ‘limited’ because He does not do impossible things is a misunderstanding of what power means.

Because, logical contradictions are not "entities" (ashya’) for power to act on. They don't exist, so power doesn't apply to them. 

He is called omnipotent because He does what He wills, not because He suffers what He does not will.

For the things that cannot be ascribed to His actions are those that are not signs of power but of weakness and hence incompatible with God.

Limitation implies a higher standard:

Saying God is limited by logic only makes sense if logic is outside or greater than God. But theologians argue:

Logic is grounded in God’s nature.

God doesn’t conform to logic; rather, logic flows from His own rational, perfect essence.

So, God is not under logic—He is the source of rational order.

----------

Here’s a simplified rational proof common in kalām theology:

 Premise 1: Omnipotence (al-qudra) is the capacity to bring about things (ashyā’).

 Premise 2: A thing (shay') must be conceivable (maʿqūl) and not self-contradictory.

Example: A square circle is not a “thing”; it is a contradiction in terms.

 Premise 3: Logical contradictions are not real things, because their very definitions negate themselves.

"Can God create a rock He can’t lift?" is like saying:

“Can God be weak and strong in the same sense at the same time?”

→ This is not a "thing" but a linguistic illusion.

 Conclusion:

God’s power applies to all things (kulli shay’ mumkin), but logical contradictions are not “things”, so not doing them does not limit God.

--------

Effects on the Concepts of Reality and Existence

If one believes that God can do illogical things, it has profound and complex effects on the concepts of reality and existence, primarily by challenging the foundational role of logic in understanding the universe. Basing on the above discussion, here's a breakdown of the implications:

1. On the Nature of Reality (Metaphysics):

 * Undermining Universal Laws: If God can defy logic, then the very laws of nature and the principles governing existence become contingent and potentially arbitrary. For instance, if God can make a square circle, then the concept of a square or a circle, and the mathematical principles that define them, lose their inherent meaning.

 * Arbitrary Creation: A God who can do illogical things implies a reality that isn't necessarily coherent or understandable through reason. The universe could operate on principles that are unfathomable to human intellect, or it could change in unpredictable, illogical ways. However, from what we know about the world, this isn't the case. 

2. On the Nature of Knowledge (Epistemology):

 * Limits of Human Reason: If God's actions are not bound by logic, then human reason becomes inherently insufficient to comprehend the reality God created. Our logical frameworks, which are the basis of science and philosophy, would be revealed as limited or even fundamentally flawed when applied to the ultimate nature of existence.

* Skepticism and Nihilism: If reality itself can be illogical, it could lead to profound skepticism about the possibility of any meaningful knowledge. If "anything goes," then the pursuit of understanding through consistent principles might seem futile, potentially leading towards nihilism.

3. On Ethics:

* An "illogical God" could command contradictions (e.g., "always tell the truth and always lie"). This would make ethical reasoning impossible.

In essence, believing God can do illogical things will render meaningless how we understand reality, existence, knowledge, and truth and make them all arbitrary leading to Ontological and Epistemological chaos. Hence it's important to keep in mind logical principles while discussing God and His actions.

(The first section on 'The Necessity of Logical Principles Before Discussing God' was added by Dr. Asim sb)

How reliable is "scientific research"

Those who put all their faith in "scientific research" and hence question Islam based on those "research studies" need to wake up from their 'scientism'....

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/#pmed-0020124-b6

"There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims."

The above is also the problem with lots of medical "research".
See this article titled:
'There is a worrying amount of fraud in medical research'
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research

"In 2009 PLOS ONE published a round-up of 18 surveys of scientists, mostly in America, that had asked about fraud. Though only 2% of respondents admitted falsifying data themselves, 14% said they knew someone who had. Similarly, a third of those asked confessed to other questionable research practices, such as dropping inconvenient data points based on “gut feeling”, or making important changes to a study’s protocol while it was in progress. But they pointed the finger at 72% of their colleagues."

Also see this article in the reputed journal 'Nature' titled:
Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02299-w
"How many studies are faked or flawed?
Investigations suggest that, in some fields, at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up, warn some researchers.
By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust"

Preserving the Ideological Gains of Ramadan: How Ramadan Impacts our World View

-Dr Habeeb Haris

Ramadan is not only a time of spiritual reset but also of ideological reset. It provides an antidote to the poisonous effects of modernity that are destroying our Aqeeda, Iman and ideology and are corrupting our world view.

It's important to note that ideology and spirituality are both dependent on one another. A change in one impacts the other too.

Modernist world view:

-Revolves around fulfilling the desire for food and sex, making man a slave of his stomach and genitals.

-Encourages a culture of instant gratification.

-Reduces the human being to just his physical body and it's needs while ignoring or suppressing his Soul and it's needs (Materialism over Spirituality).

-Teaches anthropo-centrism and sidelines God.

Ramadan's effects on world view: 

-Frees the Muslim from slavery of his desire for food and sex.

- Strengthens the Soul and makes it the master over his body and it's pleasures.

-Teaches patience and delaying gratification for higher purpose.

-Fights materialistic and naturalistic tendency by enhancing belief in the Unseen and strengthening Spirituality. 

-Takes a person from anthropo-centrism to Theo-centrism and from being Duniya-oriented to Akhirah-oriented.

We need to protect this ideological purity gained in Ramadan by safeguarding our world view from modern ideologies and dominant societal trends and by continuing to strengthen our Spirituality.

Counselling the Patients who Cannot Fast in Ramadan:

Dr. Habeeb Haris

Proper counselling of Muslim patients for whom fasting is contraindicated is important to ensure compliance.
Doctors / family members should console the patients for whom Ramadan fasting is contraindicated that they should not feel guilty about it as they are not doing anything sinful by not fasting. They can tell the patients that Allah has excused them and they will be rewarded inshaAllah for accepting His will with Sabr. 

The Prophet (SAWS) said: “When a slave falls ill or travels, he gets a reward similar to that which he gets for the good deeds he usually performs when at home [not travelling] and in good health." (Bukhari)

Imam Ibn Hajar writes in Fath Al-Bari, the authoritative commentary of Sahih Bukhari: “This applies to the one who is used to performing acts of obedience, but he was prevented from it, while his intention was to do it had he not been prevented.”
And the rewards of the missed Ramadan fasts can be acquired by observing the Qadha Fasts after they recover, or by offering the Fidya if they are terminally sick patients. Moreover, these patients can do all other acts of worship in Ramadan to compensate for the spiritual gains they think they are missing out by not fasting. 

Ultimately, Allah sees our intentions and rewards accordingly.

Dates in Ramadan - The Diabetic Dilemma

- by Dr Habeeb Haris

Dates in Suhoor and Iftar:

It is sunnah to eat dates in Suhoor and Iftar.
“The most excellent pre-fasting meal of the believer is dates.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 1399, Grade: Sahih)

The prophetic wisdom of eating dates at Iftar and Suhoor is the ideal biological decision, as fructose (the sugar in dates) maximizes rates of liver glycogen restoration. 

[Conlee RK, Lawler RM, Ross PE. Effects of glucose or fructose feeding on glycogen repletion in muscle and liver after exercise or fasting. Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):126-32. doi: 10.1159/000177259. PMID: 3592616.]

But the Prophet (ﷺ) would break the fast with water if dates were not available.

Anas bin Malik (RA) narrated:

"The Messenger of Allah would break the fast with fresh dates before performing Salah. If there were no fresh dates then (he would break the fast) with dried dates, and if there were no dried dates then he would take a few sips of water." (Tirmidhi: 696)

The Prophet (ﷺ) even stopped his companions from taking dates when they were sick.

"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) entered upon us, and with him was Ali bin Abu Talib, who had recently recovered from an illness. We had bunches of unripe dates hanging up, and the Prophet (saw) was eating from them. Ali reached out to eat some, and the Prophet (saws) said to Ali: 'Stop, O Ali! You have just recovered from an illness.' I made some greens and barley for the Prophet (ﷺ), and the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Ali: 'O Ali, eat some of this, for it is better for you.' [Sunan Ibn Majah, The Chapters on Medicine, Hadith No: 3442]

So, there is no problem if Physicians ask their patients to cut down dates intake in Ramadan to limit the calories. The sunnah can be achieved by taking a single date or even a small part of it. Diabetics can choose dates that are lower in sugar content like the Ajwa or the Deglet Nour or the Barhi (semi-dry). 

If it is proven that a patient will more likely get harmed due to eating dates, it is perfectly fine from a shariah perspective to advice him against taking it. 

But any such advice should be done based on a proper scientific analysis by taking the following thinks into consideration:

-The glycemic index (GI) of dates varies according to the variety of dates and the stage of their ripening. 

-Generally people do not eat only dates at Iftar. The effect on blood glucose will vary if other foods are taken with dates. Proteins, fats and fiber intake will all alter and decrease the glycemic effect.

-Brisk walk after Iftar to the masjid for Maghrib Salah will also decrease the blood glucose spike. That's what most people do.

-Also the extent of diabetes control of the person will affect his body response to dates intake.

Any good study has to take all these things into consideration before giving any blanket recommendations.

Moreover there are many studies which actually say that dates may not be that harmful for diabetics after all.

For example:

'Effect of dates on blood glucose and other metabolic variables: A narrative review'

by Sachdev Meenakshi and Anoop Misra says:

"The glycemic index (GI) of date varieties ranges from 42.8 to 74.6, and glycemic load (GL) 8.5–24. 

The glycemic indices of various stages of dates are; Rutab (semi-ripe), 47.2; Tamer (fully ripe, traditionally sun-dried), 45.3, and Tamer (commercial), 35.5. 

Glucose tolerance-based studies and cross-sectional studies show no significant changes in glycemic indices or association with glycemic worsening with intake of dates. Few randomized controlled trials (RCT) also showed no change in glycemia and weight in the intervention groups consuming dates."

Glycemic indices of five varieties of dates in healthy and diabetic subjects

By Juma M Alkaabi (Nutr J. 2011 May 28;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-59)
“The results show low glycemic indices for the five types of dates included in the study and that their consumption by diabetic individuals does not result in significant postprandial glucose excursions.”

‘Glycemic indices of dates “Ramadan Symbolic Food” in patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring system’

By Samir Assaad Khalil (Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Volume 172, February 2021)

Can People with Diabetes Eat Dates?
by Lisa Wartenberg, MFA, RD, LD  (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dates-for-diabetes)
“If you have diabetes, consider eating dates alongside a source of protein, such as a handful of nuts, which supports your body digesting the carbs a bit more slowly, further helping prevent blood sugar spikes.”

“dates generally have a low GI, between 44 and 53, which may differ slightly depending on the type of date”
 “they have a low GI and medium GL, those living with diabetes can enjoy dates in moderation.”. 

There are many other such studies and articles from different countries. What is needed is more RCTs (randomized controlled trials) pertaining to the glycemic index of different date varieties in different amounts and in combination with different traditionally taken Iftar meals in our homes and different levels of patient physical activity post Iftar. This will enable the Physicians to give proper evidence based and personalised advise to each patient.

Meanwhile it's ok to caution the patients to limit calorie intake through dates and other fruits in a nuanced way to avoid both dates-overindulgence and dates-phobia.

Human Intelligence V.S. Artificial Intelligence in Islamic Paradigm

Human knowledge is divided into necessary and speculative or deductive. Necessary knowledge is knowledge that cannot be doubted and speculative knowledge is ‘acquired’ by deduction from necessary knowledge and sense perception. The Islamic theologian ‘Adud al-Din al- ‘Iji (d. 756/1355) stated that humans are gifted with innate reason, necessary knowledge and the capacity for speculation and deductive reasoning. The purpose of these faculties is to reflect on revelation and creation to come to the realisation of the existence of God and they extend beyond the realm of sense perception to the metaphysical or spiritual realm, as well as the microcosmic and macrocosmic, as mentioned in Qur’an 41:53, which states: “We shall show them Our portents on the horizons and within themselves.”

Reason and rationality thus have a cosmological dimension and are related to the very nature of the universe, which was created with an intrinsic order and intelligibility. This view of reason and rationality stands in contrast to the reductive logic of means–ends forms of rationality that instrumentalise means in the pursuit of narrow utilitarian ends and is the type of rationality that is embodied by computers, and especially AI systems, which are trained to optimise their parameters based on ‘reward functions’ given by their designers.

It is important to note that a bifurcation between discursive and intuitive modes of thinking never occurred in Islamic thought as it did in Western metaphysics. Instead, the intellect comprises both functions of logical analysis and intuitive knowledge. Empirical, rational, conceptual, moral and spiritual modes of thought are all united in Islamic thought.

There is, therefore, a correspondence between reality and the intellect in terms of the intelligibility of reality and the registration of signs in the intellect and their signification. Hence, rather than meaning being superimposed by the mind, as in the case of a Kantian agent, the function of the intellect is to discover the universal principles and intrinsic intelligibility of the cosmos, and to participate in this intelligible order itself by doing so.

This opens the question of whether the multidimensional nature of the human mind and intelligence in Islamic thought implies a limit to what can be achieved in the quest for artificial general intelligence (AGI). From an Islamic perspective, AI research takes place in a context that is twice removed from reality as it is. The first veil is materialism or physicalism, which circumscribe what can be known about reality to what can be described quantitatively in mathematical terms. The second is that AI agents exist in a digital realm that is a further abstraction of the material world into a digital format. AI research works from behind this second veil and problems such as common sense and abstraction with limited data remain insurmountable challenges.

There are various attempts to provide a formal definition of intelligence in mathematical terms. In contrast to the interrelation between intelligence, consciousness and life in Islamic thought, a significant and often unstated presupposition held by AI researchers is that intelligence can be decoupled from consciousness, and indeed the phenomenon of life. In Islamic thought, on the other hand, intelligence, consciousness and life are unified through the existence of the soul.

The modern word ‘algorithm’ is derived from the Latinisation of al-Khwarizmi (c. 780–850 ce) whose work on algebra in the early ninth century influenced the development of European algebra. Al-Khwarizmi produced his mathematical works with the aim of aiding legal scholars in issues such as property relations, trade, calculating inheritance and wills according to Islamic law. It is an ironic turn of history that today’s algorithms are more often associated with surveillance, discrimination and dispossession in the logic of surveillance capitalism.

The vast Islamic intellectual tradition, which remains relatively unexplored in relation to AI, can be the source of crucial insights to resist the dehumanising tendencies of a mechanistic, materialistic and techno-scientific study of the mind and intelligence.

- Taken from Dr. Yaqoub Chaudhary’s article entitled "Islam and Artificial Intelligence" published in ‘The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence’

Scientific Method and it's Limitations

 Scientific method and it's limitations

- Subboor Ahmed (Taken from his Sapience Institute’s course on Darwinism)

 We need to understand the actual science and what is the function of the scientific method so the first thing we all need to get to grips with is what is science? Science is a beautiful method, it's the application of reason to the natural world. There's actually a lot of discussion about what is science? what is the method of science? what are the various ways that science can actually function?

I don't want to get into deep philosophical discussions about the different ways that philosophers can actually define science. Sufficient is for us to understand the generally accepted idea of Science and how darwinian evolution is a product of that scientific method and so we will be able to understand the limitations and the beauty of science itself.

What is science? Well, the generally accepted method of science that we all learn at school is the following: you ask a question, you do the background research, you construct a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis as an experiment, you analyze the results if the hypothesis is true or if the hypothesis is false, you will have to report the results and either try again or you will come up with a theory. That is the basic method of science that we all learn and that is sufficient for us to understand what is going on when it comes to any particular scientific theory.

Now one important note to keep in mind here is that this basic method of science is being used all across the world but apart from this scientific method there are presuppositions and limitations to science which are seldom discussed and that is what we're going to be getting into next.

1. The first thing to note is that Science is based upon Induction. Induction is the process by which we make generalizations based upon past experience. Think of the following example: there is a scientist in Wales who wants to find out what color swans are. So the scientist goes out and observes 10 swans by the lake. He notes that these swans are white. Over the coming weeks and months he notes more and more that all of the swans that he has seen are white. Say after 10 years he's seen maybe 10,000 swans. So based upon the fact that he's seen 10,000 swans, he makes the generalization that all swans are white or the next swan that I will see is going to be white. This is induction.

Now obviously there is a problem with this process and this problem was highlighted by David Hume and others and that is you can always have a new observation that can challenge your previous conclusion. For example, you can always observe a Black Swan or a red Swan and that means your previous conclusion, your previous theory, your previous hypothesis is wrong. So this general problem of induction is something which is inescapable. It means no scientific conclusion is graven in stone, all scientific conclusions can be revised.

Now this limitation is beautiful because it means that future scientists can actually come up with theories radically different to the theories we currently hold. So this is the first limitation of science and it's known as the problem of induction.

2. The second problem or limitation with science is known as Underdetermination. Now, underdetermination is a very interesting concept. In essence what it says is the following: the observations are not enough for someone to warrant an inference which is going to be conclusive. let me give you a very basic example to drive this point home. Imagine you are given $5 and you know that you can go to the market and buy an orange or an apple for $1 each. So you're given $5 and you are told to go to the market and buy apples and oranges. So you have to buy both apples and oranges and you have to spend the entire $5. When you are sent, the only information that you are given is what's been mentioned which is you have to spend the $5 and you have to buy oranges and apples and they both cost $1 each. Now when you come back with the bag, someone has to guess what you have in the bag. Now they can assume that you bought one orange and four apples or two oranges and three apples or three oranges and two apples and so on.

Therefore we have the problem of underdetermination, we simply cannot determine what is in the bag for sure.

There are obviously some inferences which are possible, the ones which I outlined, but we don't know for sure. So the data is not sufficient for us to warrant a conclusion which is going to be certain. That is the problem of underdetermination, we cannot be sure that this conclusion is certain because other things are possible.

Another way to think about it is a scattergraph. So you have a y- axis and an x- axis and you have dots. Someone can ask you can you please draw a line to infer the rest of the data. Now you can draw something linear, you can draw something exponential, you can draw something inverse. The way the data is scattered, many different types of inferences are possible many different graphs can be drawn. So again, the data is not enough to warrant one conclusion. So this is the problem of underdetermination and the consequence of this problem is that whenever there is a scientific theory which explains the data it doesn't mean that that theory is necessarily true because it is possible that many other interpretations, many other theories can explain the data just as well. Other scientific theories can explain the data just as well as the previous theory can. So this is the problem of underdetermination. We cannot be sure that the theory that we currently hold is the right one.

3. The Third limitation or problem with the scientific method is the problem of Unconceived Alternatives. This is a very interesting issue. What it simply states is the following: there may be solutions or theories that we can infer from the data but those have not been inferred because they are unconceived, meaning, they haven't been thought of. A classical example of this is the shift between Newtonian mechanics and the Einsteinian worldview. There were clear problems with the Newtonian model and these problems were explained away by ad hoc rationalizations. But these problems could have been explained by general relativity, the idea that Einstein pushed in the future. So general relativity could have explained those anomalies but nobody thought of it until Einstein did. So, general relativity as a theory was unconceived.

Therefore what we learn from this is there are always possibilities out there that we simply have not thought of or we simply do not have the tools to actually uncover them. So the problem of unconceived Alternatives means the same thing as the problem of underdetermination and the problem of induction which is we cannot be sure that the theory that we currently hold is the right one.

4. The fourth problem or limitation with the scientific method is Theory ladenness. What this basically means is the following: you cannot go out there as a scientist and collect data without a theory in mind. Now, that doesn't sound like a bad thing. But there are some issues with this. If you already have a theory in mind, that theory is going to color the data, it's going to color what data you believe to be relevant and what you believe to be irrelevant. So there is a confirmation bias and it's incredibly difficult to come out of that theory ladenness.

Again going back to the massive shift between Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian worldview, what we found is that the people who were looking at the world from a Newtonian point of view would look at certain things as relevant and certain things as which were anomalous they could explain those away through ad-hoc rationalizations. So theory ladenness is a real issue and you have to have a theory in mind in order to look at data. The way Darwin explained this is if you don't have a theory then you might as well go to the Quarry and count Pebbles.

The issue here is the following: if you have a theory in mind, that theory is going to continuously confirm itself by telling you what is out there. So you're never looking at the world purely objectively, you are always colored by the theory and that means that your theory that you generate is always the victim of confirmation bias.

5. The fifth problem or limitation with the scientific method is methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply means that when scientists are studying scientific phenomena they can only refer to matter and natural processes they cannot refer to anything Supernatural, they cannot refer to anything which is immaterial, they cannot refer to the mind, they cannot refer to God, they cannot refer to anything beyond the material world, beyond naturalism.

Now, as an assumption in the scientific domain this is something that has recently been introduced. A way of thinking about this is the following example: imagine you are invited to walk into a room and when you are invited you see on the front door it says the color red is not allowed that means if you're wearing something red you have to take it off. So everybody that enters that room is not wearing anything red and the room itself has been stripped away of anything that resembles the color red. Now when you are in the room and you're sitting amongst a group of people someone says the color red doesn't exist as I can't see it anywhere. Now there's a problem with this. Obviously the color red does exist but at the front door there was a sign saying you cannot come in with the color red - so you cannot make a rule to rule out the color red and later on conclude the color red is not there. This is the problem with methodological naturalism leading to philosophical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is telling you at the front door of the scientific lab you cannot refer to God and when you're inside you're referring to everything naturally and then a scientist may turn around and say therefore there is no God because God is is not amongst our discussion. The problem with that is the same problem with the example of the color red - you cannot conclude there is no God you cannot conclude philosophical naturalism by the assumption of methodological naturalism and this is something that often happens.

This fallacy of linking methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is something we see happening in the scientific discourse and it leads to a lot of issues and something we have to keep in mind is methodological naturalism limits the answers that are possible to a scientific theory. So in this case if we come across something in the biological

domain which looks designed, which looks like it couldn't have come about by natural random processes then apriori meaning before we even have the evidence, because of methodological naturalism, is the rule that ‘God has to be ruled out and there has to be a naturalistic explanation’. So this is the fifth problem or limitation with the scientific method and this is the problem of methodological naturalism.

To summarize, there are five distinct problems or limitations with the scientific method. The first is the problem of induction, the second is the problem of underdetermination, the third is the problem of unconceived alternatives, the fourth is a problem of theory ladenness and the fifth is the problem of methodological naturalism.

Keep these in mind because any scientific theory regardless of how successful it is, it is still limited by these five problems. So if we were to counter the darwinian challenge, if there was a darwinist who said: Darwinism is true, therefore there is no God, Darwinism is true therefore what your religious book says about Adam and Eve is false or Darwinism is true therefore a purpose to our lives is false; we can simply point out to the philosophy of science and to these five limitations and say how can you use a theory to challenge anything when this scientific theory has these limitations and so it's not set in stone, it's not something absolute?  This is the quickest way to dismantle the darwinian claims against theism and religion in general.

It's important to note here that someone may ask what about direct observations? Direct observations obviously don't change. We can see a fossil. We can see that water is H2O. How are these things going to be affected by the five issues that I pointed out. Here I want to point that this contention is misplaced. A direct observation in itself is simply a direct observation. It is not science. It is not something that's gone through the scientific method. It is simply a direct observation and a direct observation is not giving you a theory. A fossil is not giving you the theory of Darwinism. It's something that you can use to infer Darwinism or infer neo-Lamarchism or something else. But in and of itself the observation is not science. So this contention that because observations are certain therefore science is certain is actually a fallacy of equivocation.

The reason why we love science is because it does phenomenal things but like I mentioned there are limitations and there are problems. Which is why no scientific theory, regardless of how successful it is, can be said to be true. Just because the theory is successful doesn't mean it's true. Now this is counterintuitive but this is true. We know that science cannot lead to certainty because of the philosophy of science, because of the issues I mentioned. But in the history of science we actually have very good examples to show that a theory may be extremely successful but it doesn't mean it's true.

A classic example of a theory that was successful but was not true is the Newtonian model of the universe. Newton's theory was immensely successful and was used for a long time and it was making predictions which were confirmed time and time again. If you were to use Newton's Theory to make a prediction for where a planet is going to be 6 months from now and you went out after 6 months to look at the planet you would have found it precisely where the theory predicts. So this theory not only helped us understand the world it actually made the world a better place and many inventions were based upon this theory. This theory has helped Humanity immensely but it doesn't mean this theory is true because Einstein came about and he showed a complete paradigm shift. He moved us away from the Newtonian model to general relativity.

So what was the major shifts when it comes to the Newtonian model moving towards the Einsteinian model - gravity is a pushing force, the definition of mass changed, time and space was assumed to be fixed according

to Newton and according to Einstein time and space is flexible like fabric. So there is a huge difference between the Newtonian model and the Einsteinian model, yet the Newtonian model worked well for a long time. This is perhaps the best example in the history of science to show that scientific theory can be immensely successful but it can fundamentally be based on assumptions which turn out to be false and the theory itself can be superseded by a radically different theory.

Scientific theories work even when they are wrong. Another good example of this is the theory of phlogiston turned out to be false however it helped us discover nitrogen. Likewise, the Newtonian Theory turned out to be wrong but we can technically go to the Moon based upon Newton's Theory. So it doesn't matter even if a theory turns out to be false it can give us information and lead to results which are true.

Now here's another interesting point, theories work even when they contradict each other. Like I mentioned, general relativity is successful, it replaced the Newtonian model, yet quantum mechanics fundamentally contradicts general relativity. However, quantum mechanics is immensely successful and general relativity is immensely successful. So they both cannot be true, they both cannot be true descriptions of the world, yet are scientifically successful. What does that teach you? It teaches you something I've been saying quite a few times now -  success, scientific success, doesn't mean it's true. Scientific success simply means you have a good model. So if this is the case then even if darwinian evolution is

immensely successful it doesn't mean it's true.

What I'm saying about the history and the philosophy of science is not controversial. This is well known. There is a huge difference between the popular understanding of science and the academic understanding - and the academic understanding is that science doesn't lead to certainty. An excellent book to understand this is Thomas Kuhn's ‘The structure of scientific Revolutions’. In that book he mentions the shift from Newtonian model to general relativity and goes over some very interesting points about the history and the philosophy of science.

Picking up any book on the philosophy of science you will find the evidence to show that philosophers of science doubt this very simplistic understanding of science that many people in the public domain hold. For example, in the book ‘Philosophy of science a very short introduction’ by Oxford University, it says that historically there are many cases of theories that we now believe to be false but that were empirically quite successful. In another publication ‘Philosophy of science a new introduction’ by Oxford University, it says that science is revisable hence talk of scientific proof is dangerous because the term fosters the idea of conclusions that are graven in stone.

So it is not controversial to say that science can change and philosophers of science understand this and it's not surprising that those same philosophers try and reach out and grab the public's attention and tell them that this science that you believe to be immutable and graven in stone, that is not the case. Because if you think about it, if science really did work the way that some people think, and the way that certain people try and push it to be, then science would never change. A scientific theory from 100 years ago wouldn't be radically different to a theory today. It would just be a slight

adjustment.

The problem is that the scientific limitations are seen as something bad and the people pointing them out are seen to be pointing out problems with science when actually this is the beauty of Science and pointing out these limitations shows why science is beautiful and why we can have radically different theories in the future which are very different to the ones in the past.

So learning about the philosophy of science, learning about the limitations of science is not in any way undermining science. If anything, it is actually uplifting the status of science. Charles Darwin in ‘The Origin of Species’ says something very interesting in relation to what we've been discussing about the philosophy of science. Darwin said, “I am well aware there is scarcely a point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be produced often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question and this cannot possibly be done here”. What Darwin is saying here is in essence under -determination. The same data that he has he's admitting someone can come up with something radically different to him using the same data.

Often the data is seen as decisive. The data is seen as something which cannot possibly be explained by any other theory, as if there's no other way of understanding it and this is the only way that is certain and that obviously is not something which makes any sense, if we know the philosophy of science. Charles Darwin was more sophisticated than the people who are frankly simpletons when it comes to the philosophy of science and who want to push the idea that science leads to this type of certainty which they crave. I was surprised to find that even a well-known darwinist who has been pushing Darwinism as truth literally has admitted to what Darwin admitted to. Richard Dawkins in his book says, “we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the 21st century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition”. That's quite a statement! In essence he's speaking about the problem of induction. But the same can be said for the other issues. He is saying it could be that Darwinism is modified beyond recognition or replaced by something else. So he obviously is aware of some of the philosophical issues when it comes to science.

So anybody who wants to speak about Darwinism with certainty needs to face the philosophy of science and understand that no scientific theory - including Darwinism - can be said to escape the problems and limitations which we know through the philosophy of science.

Facets of Relationship Between Allah and Man: Need for Balance in Activism

There are many different aspects of relationship between Allah and Man.

- It begins with Knowledge of Allah and His attributes which is a cognitive/intellectual relationship.

- After knowing about Him comes belief and submission - that is Imaan (firm belief).

- After knowing and believing in Allah, one begins to establish an emotional - spiritual relationship with Him, like love of Allah, His fear, hope in His mercy, trust and dependency on Him, etc.

- After Imaan, ritualistic worship becomes obligatory on him.

- Relationship with Allah also demands Itaat (non-ritual obedience in all affairs of life).

Itaat is of two types- outer and inner.
The outer itaat is again divided in to individual and collective acts.

Activism (Political, social, etc.) comes under outer collective itaat and is one among many other aspects of Deen, even if it is an important one. Focusing solely on activism at the cost of the other aspects of one's relationship with Allah is a grave mistake and a modern biddah which distorts the understanding and practice of Deen and creates intellectual, spiritual and practical imbalances in the person. 

Such an approach is actually a product of modernity where state and politics dominate all aspects of modern life and society and all focus is on the outward and material manifestations of things.