It is often argued that scientific work has no Eastern or Western, Islamic or non-Islamic character—that science possesses its own specific method, namely experimentation, theorization, and the comparison of experience with a theory’s predictions. We hear this claim not only from critics of religion, but also from some religious individuals who subscribe to this view. Consequently, both groups regard speaking of “Islamic science” as meaningless or fundamentally futile.
In our view, such understandings of the relationship between science and religion, and of religious (Islamic) science, arise from a restrictive conception of religion, from neglecting the limitations of science, and from treating as objective all that is taught under the name of science. Those who are not closely involved in scientific activity tend to regard everything found in scientific textbooks or discussed by scientists as genuine scientific findings and to consider them definitive, while overlooking the role that ideologies and philosophical orientations have played—and continue to play—in scientific inquiry and in the interpretation of empirical data. If scientists were merely concerned with explaining empirical findings, there would be no problem with respect to this issue, and distinctions between religious and non-religious, or Eastern and Western, would be rendered irrelevant.
The problem, however, is that great scientists have always sought to explain the entirety of the natural world and have attempted, by generalizing from their limited findings, to construct universal theories—theories that extend far beyond the domain accessible to them. It is precisely here that religious, philosophical, and ideological predispositions enter the picture.
We maintain that one can be successful in scientific work both with a secular outlook and with a theistic outlook. The difference between these two kinds of science, however, becomes apparent in two respects:
(a) in the construction of universal theories (through the use of different metaphysical presuppositions);
(b) in the applied orientations of science (different ideologies and philosophical worldviews can impose constraints on the applications of science or direct them toward particular ends).
On this basis, our view is that religious science is meaningful and, in terms of its outcomes, far richer than secular science. For it not only meets humanity’s material needs, but also renders the world meaningful for human beings.
At this point, we emphasize that by “religious science,” or more specifically Islamic science, we do not mean that scientific investigations should be carried out in some novel, unconventional manner; nor that one should consult the Qurʾan and Hadith in order to conduct research in physics, chemistry, or biology; nor that emphasis should be placed on discovering so-called scientific miracles in the Qurʾan; nor, for example, that scientific work should be performed using tools from a thousand years ago; nor, finally, that the immense theoretical and practical achievements of science over the past few centuries should be set aside (which would be neither possible nor desirable).
Rather, what is intended is that, in order to avoid the pitfalls of science and to enrich it as much as possible, a theistic worldview should govern the scientist—one that regards God as the creator and sustainer of the universe, does not confine existence to the material world alone, ascribes purpose to the universe, and affirms the existence of a moral order.
From Secular Science to Religious Science, pp. 1–3.
