Article Series of “Science Approach of Creation Model”-2
Article Title: Why are We So Persistent in Being Scientific?
Sub Headings: Why is it Important to Establish the Scientific Compliance of the Creator? How Should the Scientific Criteria Be Questioned? What is the Right Training Method and Strategy?
A Curious Question May Come to Mind such as: You argue that the acceptance and proof of the existence of a creator are considered as scientific in nature and that the examination of the existence of a creator is the subject of science. But why are you so persistent in being scientific, even though you have stated that the scientific criteria accepted in the scientific community are flawed?”
Here is the answer:
Because everything worthy of being accepted for truth must be in line with reason and science. Why?
Because: since science is described as “organized and consistent knowledge, and the way of knowledge to the truth and laws based on the reality by examining the universe, the facts and events in the universe with various methods and experiments” and “methodical and systematic information obtained by method and verified by practice, bearing the characteristics of validity and certainty anytime and anywhere”,
And at some point, it is in the form of“information obtained as a result of correct and mental thinking”,
Of course, “the truth of the existence of the creator, which must be seen as a necessity of its righteousness, to be achieved as a result of correct and mental thinking”needs to be in compliance with reason and science, which are parallel with it.
And the necessity and importance of this compliance to be demonstrated academically on the basis of science is similarly very clear.
Here is a point that can come to mind after our explanations:
“If the method of doing science is wrong, then the scientific method itself should be questioned. In fact, the formations and observations are clear and obvious. Only there are problems in comments made in response to them. And that is called faith. We just say and prove that our interpretation is more rational and logical.”
Yes, the method of doing science, or rather existence of scientific criteria, has been defined in a narrow space than it should be, and this is wrong. Therefore, of course scientific criteria should be questioned. However, how this should be done and what the strategic method will be is an issue as important as this awareness. Following are our evaluations and application methods that we deem appropriate:
It is possible to handle these issues in a more understandable and holistic (including proof beyond rejection) and natural way, like a hot knife through butter. We have also presented concrete examples of this. Everybody understands and accepts that computer example. (This example is given below. It is two paragraphs below.) This method has a very serious importance. Facts are revealed easily and comfortably as if you are mentioning a fact, which is known and can be acceptable easily by everybody; not like you destroy some unquestionable acceptances and bring something forward very exotic and striking. Strategically, this method is similar to that Ustad Bediuzzaman put forward with Risale-i Nur. Please be careful.
Ustad Bediuzzaman does not wage war on science anywhere in Risale-i Nur. He even takes science as his supporter. Most obvious example of that is the famous words in Meyve Risalesi (Fruits of Belief):
In Kastamonu a group of high-school students came to me, saying: “Tell us about our Creator, our teachers do not speak of God.” I said to them: “All the sciences you study continuously speak of God and make known the Creator, each with its own particular tongue. Do not listen to your teachers; listen to them.
So there is no need to shake the ground on this level. That is what we are saying. Why shatter the minds when we can achieve more of the same goal in a much more convenient and effective way?
The computer example that demonstrates the scientific compliance of accepting the existence of the creator is as follows:
It is said that: “Thinking of a God is not serving the scientific purpose. Even thinking of that possibility does not fit with being scientific.” Then, why is this so? For what reasons is it against being scientific to think that this computer we have here, is produced “by a computer engineer who we have never seen” or “by a factory whose detailed properties we never know”? Even when there is no scientist who can claim this; and even when saying that “The parts of that computer came together and created it on their own” is not more in line with being scientific; then thinking that living things which are much more perfect, speaking, smiling, being sad or this orderly universe are created by a logical consciousness, that is, by a mindful creator or making an inference in that direction is “against being scientific”? And claiming that such wonders of design come together and are formed on their own is “being scientific”? Is that so? What kind of logic is this? Could anyone who respects science believe in such a thing?
Let us be clear, we are also opposed to flawed approaches, but we put much more importance to producing and revealing our own truths and assumptions, approaches, definitions and concepts. It is necessary to question science at one point. But the real truth and what is necessary is to show the correct form of science instead of opposing it. Focusing on opposing science and the scientific method is a wrong approach. Instead, if you say “this is our accepted scientific approach and it should be like this”, it means the same. In this way, you build both without breaking everything down (meaning unnecessarily shattering the minds).
This is the right, healthy and easy, effective training and training method. It penetrates your mind and soul perfectly and permanently. It is not like painful surgery, it is similar to outpatient treatment. This method of training, which recited Qur’an in Risale-i Nur, transforms people quicker and more easily. The secret of this is that it is innate, meaning suitable for the mindset of human beings. Creation easily accepts the innate without difficulty.
Journeys of Discovery The Risale-i Nur Training Program courses show clearly the wrong and flawed approach without causing any confusion. It also points out the required right approach with its rationales, rules, concepts and definitions, and basic rules and approaches based on evidence and logical analysis.
Here, now this is mind-building. The alternative is the shattering of the mind (that is, being limited only to rejections and flawed approaches).
Nevertheless, it is of course a stepping-up and a higher order to point out the truth that the scientific criteria are a flawed approach. (Of course it is if your addressee does not lose all his way on the back alleys until he finds the truth, and if he manages to reunite his shattered mind correctly.)
The thing all sciences basically try to achieve is to try to understand the function in and the purpose of the universe. Really, whichever lover of truth scientists you ask about it, you will have the same answer. Some people say: “No, the science does not have such a purpose.” And we reply: How come not? Is this what you understand from science? Is it science a meaningless activity? It is so obvious that, science is an informative activity aimed at explaining. There is no need to make an explanation about that. Claiming that the end point of the science is not the purpose of science, means being unaware of the purpose of the science and calling a purposeless informative activity as science. Even if it may not be obvious in detail, when you look at all sciences above from a distance with a wider perspective, this fact can be seen obviously. If you do not accept that, you would be slandering the science by saying that it is a purposeless informative activity.
Contemporary positive science: It expresses the accumulation of knowledge, which is interested in determining and explaining the relationships between events that are introduced to us by our senses and by our experiences/experiments and unfortunately, it only confines itself to this specific area.