SCIENCE VERSUS MIRACLES — Authentication of Religious Truths

The fact is that there was little development of human knowledge in early ages. Hence, it was not possible to verify the authenticity of divine religion by means of human knowledge. That is why, in early ages, supernatural miracles were shown by the Prophets. These miracles were limited in nature, being restricted to the contemporaries of the Prophets. But with the revolution that came to this world after the Quran, there was a gradual and continuous development of human knowledge. Then it became possible that through human knowledge itself true religion could be verified and presented to the people. The argument that the evidence of design in this world proves there exists a designer, is a similar kind of argument as any scientific argument used in the material world. Another difference between these two periods is that, although the miracles were an experience of veneration for those who witnessed them, the aspect of conviction through reasoning was missing. In the later periods when it became possible for the verification of divine religion through human knowledge, it was natural that this type of verification in contrast was universal. It became possible for every human community to understand and acknowledge the message of the Prophet and accept it on its own rationality. Another natural outcome of this was that the numbers of people who would accept this message could potentially be much more from amongst the later periods. Ancient miraculous verification and modern scientific verification have a common feature wherein both use the inferential method to authenticate religious truths. In ancient times when the Prophets demonstrated sensory miracles, it was not such that the miracle was a mirror or a perfect representation through which the Prophets divine message became clear. If a human being has performed an act that is beyond human power, then it could be inferred that he is doing so with the help of God. Consequently, it could also be inferred that the message that he is presenting was also from God. It is the same matter with scientific arguments for religious truths. In scientific arguments, it does not happen that what is presented is the direct demonstrable proof for the premise. Here also, it so happens that the argument presented, indirectly provides the inference for the real premise to be understood or acknowledged. However, modern