HOW do we look at the causes of floods? Are they the wrath of God (anger or retributory punishment for an offence or a crime) due to human sins, or do they occur as part of the divine scheme of things? These questions arise because of two competing perspectives: one pertains to sacred texts and the picture of flooding and earthquakes occurring due to evil behaviour. The other view, that of the scientists, is that these are a natural phenomenon, unrelated to human good or evil.

Often, talk shows are held on these two positions. In the talk shows, the points of view of the ulema are juxtaposed with those of the scientists, both arguing for their respective positions. These discussions, though enlightening, tend to be polemical, leading to almost a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ because both speak different ‘languages’ with different disciplines, epistemologies (sources of knowledge) and methodologies of production of knowledge.

When students of religion want to confirm a truth, the sources of authority they refer to are: belief, tradition, revelation, syntax and textual analysis. In addition, sacred texts use a symbolic and an equivocal language, lending themselves to multiple interpretations. On the other hand, when students of science want to confirm a truth, they refer to, for example, a critical analysis of existing data, doubt, scepticism, experimentation, evidence, the study of cause and effect.

Moreover, religion, very generally, in terms of its approach, takes a deductive approach, whereas science adopts an inductive one. The methodologies of explaining a phenomenon, such as floods, are vastly different in both disciplines. Religion tries to see metaphysical causes; science tries to see only the physical causes. These two realms of knowledge tend to require different types of evidence, mindsets and training. They are like our ears and eyes, which function differently and generate different data, but are coordinated in the mind. So, we need to acknowledge that despite both being different, both aid humans to understand and interpret the world from different angles.

The deeper one digs, the finer the meanings that may emerge.

Science, for example, tells us that “earthquakes can strike any location at any time, but history shows they occur in the same general patterns year after year, principally in three large zones of the earth. The world’s greatest earthquake belt, the circum-Pacific seismic belt, is found along the rim of the Pacific Ocean, where about 81 per cent of our planet’s largest earthquakes occur”.

A World Bank policy research working paper by Evan Charles (2009) provides eye-opening details about the death and destruction caused by earthquakes, mostly in the developing countries every year. He reports (in his abstract) that, “every year, around 60,000 people die worldwide in natural disasters, majority deaths caused by building collapse in earthquakes, occurring in the developing world”. The author laments that engineering solutions do exist that can almost completely eliminate the risk of such deaths, but due to many reasons, they are not adopted.

The Quran describes the destruction of many erring or arrogant communities through earthquakes or floods; how are we to understand these and interpret them? Well, first it does not say ‘all’ floods or ‘all’ earthquakes are caused by the sins of people. So, some floods or earthquakes might have been caused because of this reason, which may be accepted based on the sacred text. Second, in order to understand such verses, we may have at least two approaches: literal and metaphorical exegesis. While the majority adopts a literal approach, many thinkers prefer a more sophisticated approach. They, based on the Quran itself, argue that the divine mode of communication is subtle, metaphorical, symbolic and coded, therefore, its hermeneutics (science of meanings) need to be unfolded, deco­ded and interpreted by enlightened minds and enriched souls that the Holy Book calls “ulul al-bab” (3:7) or “rasikhoona fiI ‘ilm” (3:7). If the Quran were so simple and literal, everybody would have understood it without any difficulty. Then, why would it ask to reflect, ponder, contemplate?

Because the Quran speaks through many codes, they have to be decoded with wisdom and reflection. It is like a mine of meanings; the deeper one digs, the finer the meanings that may emerge. In his book The Bible, The Quran and Science, Maurice Bucaille argues that, as time goes by, it is the scientists, more than clergy, who will be able to better understand the divine message, because a scientist might find clues in those messages to the secrets of the universe which, for members of the clergy, may not be that easy.

In sum, while the sacred texts may convey deep secrets of the universe, science helps us to explore them from their physical angle. Both enrich us from different perspectives, using different lenses, like our eyes and ears.

The writer is an educationist with an interest in the study of religion and philosophy.

Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2022