The value of scientific statements is that they are, or aim to be, true from a scientific perspective, i.e., factual. They do so by rigorously and deliberately excluding all other values from their mode of operation, and their optimum form is an equation like 11 x 2 = 22. The ‘value’ here is in the ‘=’, which is what makes the statement a fact and not a mere notation like ‘22’.
The value of a fact is that it helps complete a factual system, part of the terrain of truth. But if I were to ask what the value is of that truth, or even all truth if human knowledge could some day encompass all knowable facts, the answer would inevitably turn to other values, such as ‘good’, ‘beautiful’, or ‘useful’. Just as the ‘value’ of one fact is that it fits into a greater array of facts that are non-contradictory, so the value of any one value, such as truth, is that it fits into a higher realm of values, each of which appraises and affirms the others. In other words, any value, including truth, always implies a grander whole. And, theologically speaking, grander wholes always imply AL-LAH, the Grandest and All-Embracing. He represents the intended End (Al-Akhir) of all values, which finally and mutually affirm one another only in Him.
When we ask, therefore, which frame – scientistic materialism or GOD as the Ultimate Framer – should we choose, we are really asking, which type of frame enhances values, and which one demeans them? Which framing system embraces ‘should’ and which one dismisses it?
I do not intend by this to slight the necessary rigour and focus of the physical sciences. They have their place, i.e., their value, in a true conception of what knowledge is and does. There is nothing wrong, for example, in discovering the physical and chemical ‘laws’ that explain precipitation. Such an explanation is not only true but also beautiful and useful. It enhances our wonder at GOD’s craftsmanship, precision, foresight, and care. His deliberate and passionate involvement – creative, coordinating, life-sustaining, and benevolent – is what makes it true that He sends rain to us, regardless of the physical laws that merely explain its occurrence. It is true that rain is part of an ever-larger complex of interactions that stretch back to the original miracle of creation and the purposiveness that has manifested itself in everything since. All that and more is confirmed by common, unscientific truths such as that rain is good for life, meaningful for poets, and refreshing for children to splash about in.
Materialist framing claims to exclude GOD, for methodological reasons that have since become ideological. But Divine framing includes science. Actually, a properly scientific framing does not exclude GOD from existence but rather from what is physically observable. We have long known that we should not be looking for a big hand in the sky pouring water onto the earth. Rather He is the First Cause and Final Cause, both of which are beyond the scope of science, and is the One Who gives meaning to rain in terms of what purposes it serves and what it represents. Religious thinkers of the past may have misunderstood what ‘creation’ and ‘providence’ meant and unwittingly set up a conflict with modern science. But GOD properly understood is absolutely scientific. He breathes life and all our other values (not just fire) into the equations.
Let us be clear, then, about how facts and values are related, and in what respects they differ. A fact is a particular form of truth in the realm of created being.
- Facts are particular. Their ideal form is that of a simple statement about what a thing is or does.
- Facts are derived from a value, truth, in a way that tends to insulate them from other values.
- Facts represent the created end of the continuum of reality, and so are (mistakenly) conceived of as value-free.
- Facts are created by GOD. They come into being by His Word; existence is loaned to them.
- Facts are partial recipients of His Being; although dependent, they mimic His Independence.
A value, by contrast, is a positive or negative uncreated quale* related to GOD’s Own Being.
* I realize that ‘quale’ (the plural form being ‘qualia’) is generally regarded as an incommunicable property of experience only, not things or facts. But 1) we can regard experiences as things or facts in their own right, or 2) we could argue that things or facts are nothing if not presented to us in the form of experiences.
I assert that values (e.g., ‘good’ or ‘unreliable’), unlike created qualia (e.g., ‘green’ or ‘massive’), are uncreated, i.e., either representing GOD Himself, as absolutes do, or some degree of non-existence, or (as is always the case with things) a combination of both. Many qualia involve a mixture of created and uncreated elements, as when we call something ‘solid’ by virtue not only of its physical properties but also of the approval that thing might attract from us.
The referents of this world, therefore, are neither all fact nor all value, but points or fields along a continuum that extends from the Ultimate Value (GOD) to the simplest equation or tiniest particle.
- Values are general, multiform, and necessarily indistinct. They culminate, as absolutes, in GOD.
- Values are derived from Him, and return to Him.
- Values represent the uncreated end of the spectrum of reality, and so are (mistakenly) conceived of as fact-free. Rather facts and values are in constant contact across a porous, fuzzy border zone between the actual and the ideal. A fact is a value with roots; a value is a fact with wings.
- Values are originally uncreated and timeless. They represent or express some aspect of Who GOD is (or is not).
- Values are also partial, and without the Light of GOD can appear contradictory or incompatible in particular situations.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has, by itself, a respectable scientific pedigree and method that deserve careful consideration by serious thinkers. Its scientistic offshoots, however, such as evolutionary ethics, have metastasized into something, for its most avid proponents, like a religion. The methodology of science, based on accuracy of measurement, reproducibility of results, and falsifiability, has been elevated into a multi-disciplinary critique whereby everything is either reducible to the facts of physics (or data) or else beyond the pale, i.e. unreal or irrelevant. This is, of course, a frame that does not sustain itself, but rests on an unfounded faith in what ‘everything’ is, what constitutes ‘facts’, what passes for ‘truth’, and what counts for ‘relevant’.
Many will argue that traditional religions have similar blind spots in their presupposed values, attachment to archaic glories, and reliance on unquestioning faith. They too are overreaching in their claims to truth, and merit similar scorn. How does the Qur’an respond to this depiction of religion as a flawed, outdated product of wishful thinking, incompatible with the demands of today’s rational, secular world?
The GOD You Already Know 