Six Lectures on the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

What is the character and general structure of the universe in which we live? Is there a permanent element in the constitution of this universe? How are we related to it? What place do we occupy in it, and what is the kind of conduct that befits the place we occupy? These questions are common to religion, philosophy and higher poetry. But the kind of knowledge that poetic inspiration brings is essentially individual in its character; it is figurative, vague and indefinite. Religion, in its more advanced forms, rises higher than poetry. It moves from individual to society. In its attitude towards the ultimate reality it is opposed to the limitations of man; it enlarges his claims and holds out the prospect Es nothing less than a direct vision of R Reality. Is it then possible to apply the purely Yational method of philosophy to religion? The spirit of philosophy is one of free enquiry. It suspects all authority. Its function is to trace the uncritical assumptions of human thought to their hiding places, and in this pursuit it may finally end in denial or a frank admission of the incapacity of pure reason to reach the ultimate reality. The essence of religion, on the other hand, is faith; and faith, like the bird, sees its ‘trackless way’ unattended by intellect which, in the words of the great mystic poet of Islam, “only waylays the living heart of man and robs it of the invisible wealth of life that lies within.” Yet it cannot be denied that faith is — more than mere feeling. It has something like a Cognitive content, and the existence of rival parties—scholastics and mystics—in the history of religion shows that idea is a_vital element in religion. Apart from this, religion on its doctrinal ‘side, aS. defined by Professor Whitehead, is “a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended.” Now, since the transformation and guidance of man’s inner and outer life is the essential aim.of religion, it is obvious that~the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct. Indeed, in view of its function, religion stands in greater need of a rational foundation of its ultimate principles than even the dogmas of science. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore of experience and a justification « of the environment in which humanity finds itself. That is why Professor Whitehead has acutely remarked that ‘“ the ages of faith are the ages of rationalism.” But to rationalise faith is not to admit the superiority of philosophy over religion. Philosophy, no doubt, has jurisdiction to judge religion, but what is to be judged is of such a nature that it will not submit to the jurisdiction of philosophy except on its own terms. While sitting in judgment on religion, philosophy cannot give religion an inferior place among its data. Religion is not a departmental_affair; it is neither mere thought, nor mere feeling, nor mere action; it_is an expression of the whole man. Thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy must recognise the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective synthesis. Nor is there any reason to suppose that thought and intuition are essentially opposed to each other. They spring up from the same root and complement each other. The one grasps Reality piecemeal, the other grasps it in its wholeness. The one fixes its gaze on the eternal, the other on the temporal aspect of Reality. The one is present enjoyment of the whole of Reality; the other aims at traversing the whole by slowly specifying and closing up the various regions of the whole for exclusive observation. Both are in need of each other for mutual rejuvenation. Both seek visions of the same Reality which reveals itself to them in accordance with their function in life. In fact, intuition,.as Bergson rightly says, is only a higher kind of intellect.