Evaluation of the Educational Approach and the Philosophy of Science of Medresetüzzehra
This article text is some parts of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
In this presentation, we would like to share with you our striking analysis which has the characteristics of the precursory and the intellectual basis of an utterly different approach of education and science and the Civilization of Quran which will give fresh new hope to humanity. We will also present some of our findings as to how to introduce an educational approach which accepts the existence of a Creator, by contributing to the formation of the philosophy of science for “Medresetüzzehra Education Approach”, which is the special name given by Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, at the beginning of last century, for a project of innovational educational program: teaching of rational and religious sciences together, their reconciliation and integration as well as our views on the production of scientific models, interpretations and approaches that can be accepted as alternatives to the existing scientific approaches.
This presentation is part of our target of presenting “Quranic Truths in Risale-i Nur works, with a modern presentation in a comprehensible way, to academic staff and “intelligentsia” and promoting them to be read by this section of the society. It is already submitted in some educational activities and it is also presented to academic staff and management. I would like to direct your attention to the fact that here our analysis does not aim to prove the existence of a creator. Our detailed work and evidence-based proofs are presented to the attention of the academic world in our book entitled “A Journey of Discovery for an Extraordinary Treasure: Risale-i Nur (The Treatise of Light) Training Program”. On the other hand, the part related to the first and the most important pillar of the six pillars of faith, that is the belief in Allah was presented with seven seminars, which we call as The New Perspectives from Treatise of Nature with visual supports, the videos of these seminars were released and E-books were brought to the benefits of the users free of charge. Now, we continue with our subject.
Modern Positive Science represents an accumulation of knowledge which is interested in determining and explaining the relationship among the events introduced to us by our senses and experiences and the laws by which these events come into being. Unfortunately, it confines itself just to this area. On the other hand, we see that an interpretation of the scientific data made by a scientist in order to express his philosophical views are mixed up with the science itself and these interpretations are accepted as science. And the scientists, who do not abstain from presenting their own subjective views to the people as science, are the cause of this anomaly.
If an approach whose absolute accuracy is not proven and which does not have experimental data, has correct logical inferences which are supported by researches based on serious rational evidence, it can be accepted as an alternative scientific model and based on this model, research can be carried out.
Such scientific approaches cannot be considered as a subjective intellectual approach or cannot be categorized as philosophy as they have the characteristics of the scientific working model. A model of the universe, which is accepted to be created, constructed and controlled by a single creator cannot be considered as non-scientific because it is possible to verify it by logical evidence and to prove the necessity of the model with logical analysis which are conclusive at the level of necessity. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that it is not appropriate to evaluate the theory of evolution and similar approaches within the category of science as they have the fictional characteristic.
What can be expected from a product, which is presented in the name of science? How should its value be measured? What should it provide human-beings with and with what content should it be presented so that, in real terms, it could be considered valuable as a scientific product?
We wonder, what characteristics should the science, our companion in better understanding the universe, have so that it could take us to higher levels in our personal development during our exchange of information with it? In our opinion, the modern age’s philosophy and science, which are working in order to discover the formation of the matter and the laws of its working, and very skilful in finding out the specifics and the principles in this regard, are far from making any contribution to the elevation of human spirit and his personal development. Because the information provided by them is soulless, dull, gloomy and meaningless. The scientific data and the mass of information which are not meaningfully interpreted could give a person nothing but the feeling of fear, dread and quandary.
Although at times it is claimed that science has a target of correctly interpreting the universe and making meaningful deductions; the shallowness of the methods used in this respect and narrowness of the perspective shows that the modern philosophy of science has a suspicious character far away from being sincere and credible.
Let’s have a look at how does our “smart aleck” science explain the incessantly burning of stars in the space without oxygen for billions of years?
But first of all, in order to create awareness for you, we will draw your attention to the following: The answer given by the science is not more meaningful than those expressions “The sun burns because it burns; a star shines as it is a star”. Please have a look at these words: “When we go up into the space we see that there is no oxygen. Then, how does this happen? The answer is so easy (?!). The sun produces its own energy. Heat and pressure levels are very high in the sun. We can call it a giant store of hydrogen. It contains hydrogen and helium atoms. The essence of the matter is the reaction of hydrogen and helium atoms. The reaction of these two atoms produces an enormous amount of energy. This energy is heat. Also, as a result of this reaction, stars shine.
Now, we will watch an impressive video: “Sun Animation” (To open the video please click here or below)
Having seen these scenes, could you say, “We are really enlightened and amazed” about the statement made above? Are you aware that nothing has been said that could have some value other than the event itself and the way it functions?
Even more interesting, if you pay attention to the style of expression, an event with such magnificence that worth being admired anew every day is presented in an ordinary and simplified way. Here is ungodly science, such nonsense without truth! Don’t be fooled! You should know with certainty that it is only Quran that teaches us the true essence of the matter. And it says that “He has made the sun a lamp for you…” This is the real wisdom…
Now, again let us give another clear example. A discipline of science investigating the physical characteristics of the soil could easily calculate that it is a very low probability to have such a “fine-tuning” in the soil which enables it to be soft enough so as to be suitable for farming and at the same time firm enough so as to have construction over it.
When we look at the works that are presented to us as “scientific”, we see that the soil’s most detailed characteristics are described, it is classified in most detailed manners whereas the questions as to why the earth is suitable for the formation of human civilization and what is the meaning and the value of this fact for our civilization and humankind and what this information would mean in our journey of making sense out of our universe and
What kind of power is behind this miraculous structure, “which is clearly understood to be presented to our usage on purpose” and how we should thank for such a miraculous help, are left outside the context of the science. This situation deprives the humanity of the spiritual and moral ascent and the science of being a meaningful information activity.
Now we will watch a wonderful video showing us that “From earth’s characteristics, it is clearly understood that the earth is presented to our use deliberately.”
Video: “Magnificent Earth”
In the face of what we have seen, we are asking: isn’t it necessary, due to respect to science and to the human mind, to admit sincerely the real meaning of the scientific data that has been obtained?
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?
The expressions such as “We act as if there is no creator, science is neutral”, which are introduced as the philosophy of science are far from being credible.
They claim to be neutral, but they do not behave accordingly. Always and under every condition, they behave as if there is no creator; everything is told with assumptions based on the non-existence of the creator. They say: “Flower does…”, “Nature does that…” and even they claim, “Nature creates…”.
Don’t we have to ask what kind of neutrality is this? In our opinion, this style of presentation is not real impartiality. Certainly, it is not even science at all. We think that it is nothing but promoting as science what you fictionalize in your mind.
Indeed, the reason that leads many people to such a mistake, is the feeling of being obliged to reject the idea of a non-material creator who creates and manages this universe and even if it is forceful, to try to find out another answer except this one. As you know, rejecting from the very beginning is called prejudice.
In fact, this is also contrary to scientific thinking technique. These are all shameful attitudes in the name of science: to make the scientific thinking an instrument of this erroneous thinking in order to impose personal preferences and conditioning in the name of scientific thinking; to present this conditioning as a necessity of scientific thinking; and to establish restrictive rules in this area by claiming that assuming the existence of a creator or assuming his existence as probability are all against scientific thinking.
Nobody, who claims that he is doing science, could dare to impose such a rule. He simply cannot. In the face of the probability of a creator, such rule is incredible. How can one call this as “scientific thinking technique”? In fact, this is an unscientific thinking technique.
The attitude which is really against scientific thinking is, in the face of the probability of the existence of the creator, behaving as if there is no such probability, basing all principles and rules upon this wrong assumption and narrating and interpreting the working of the universe as if there is no creator, and being disturbed even by the idea of the existence of a creator. Yes, this disturbance is pronounced by some advocates of atheism and they say they don’t see thinking the plausibility of the existence of a creator as consistent with science and scientific thinking.
But, why shouldn’t the idea of the existence of a creator be consistent with science? To the contrary, it can be even more consistent with science.
Now let us go on with the same example:
which one is more logical and scientific: thinking that the computer before us came into existence on its own or making a research over the probability that it could be created by an engineer and by a factory?
Which one could be considered as more consistent with the scientific thinking technique?
Therefore, trying to explain these visible objects with the laws of nature, which are nothing more than the rules of invention and operation of these objects; is a meaningless effort and it is not different from trying to explain the making of a computer, its built-up and working just with its operating system without taking into account its designing engineer and producing factory.
It is storytelling, a baseless science-fiction, and nonsense. It is not being scientific.
We have to make a clear determination that explaining the formation of the mater/objects with a creator is more compatible with scientific thought and more logical; a reasonable and acceptable way, an alternative possibility comprising many facilities, almost at the level of certainty, if there is a model worth being accepted as scientific, this model deserves more being accepted as scientific than any other.
At that point, we need to clarify some concepts.
What do we understand when we say “proving”? What does “proving” mean? What does it mean if a claim has conclusive evidence? What is the difference between mental evidence and the concrete reality?
First of all, even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it could still be possible to prove it with logical evidence. “Proving” means showing crystal clear the trueness of a claim by giving evidence.
Now, in matters related to the existence of a creator, there is no such evidence that can be held in your hands and seen by your eyes. Nevertheless, it would be a great injustice to reality and a wrong judgment to say that these matters are not rational and that there are no accurate logical evidences just because this is the case.
The example we will be giving here is a well-known one. However, it is very useful in understanding the essence of the matter and its basic logic. That’s why we think that it should be highlighted.
Should we think that, the picture is done by the paint and brush just because the painter is out of our sight?
Hence, this situation makes us look for a painter with an ability to make art and it makes us accept his existence as if we have seen him.
Let us ask you this: According to this example, is it possible to have a visual and material evidence of the existence of the painter? Of course, it is not and It can’t be.
Because there is someone who is influencing/affecting and he is out of your area of observation and experimentation.
But, just because this is the case, accepting that the work is done by objects which are visible but which do not have the capability to do that work is not more scientific than accepting that there is a dexterous painter behind the curtain, who is capable of doing artistic work.
The art over the matter/objects is a nonmaterial abstract reality, which is invisible to the eye but can only be known and appreciated by the heart.
Even though we do not have material and visual evidence, the existence of the piece of art seen by our material eye is a strong and definite enough evidence for the existence of the painter. And seeing the existence of the work, that is, the piece of art, as a “scientific evidence” for the trueness of the existence of the painter and using that in evidencing the existence of the painter are acceptable logical evidence whose truth can be seen by the eye of the mind.
As you see, the rational evidence about the existence of a creator, which is formed on the basis of “the transition (making an inference) from the piece of art to the existence of its Artist/Master” have the same characteristics.
They are both very strong and their consistency with mind and logic is absolute; they also have the quality of proving at the level of certainty. This is what we say and claim. The truths of religion are basically theoretical, but in terms of their results, they are conclusive realities, which have logical and theoretical evidence, giving support to each other and with their soundness not giving any possibility to opposite ideas.
In our opinion, the appropriateness of inductive logical inferences related to the existence of a creator with scientific thinking and their inclination to scientific evidencing are beyond any doubt.