Ina shaidar Allah? Ina shaidar gaskiyar Musulunci? Akwai shaida, shaida mai yawa. Amma abin da ake ɗauka a matsayin shaida ya dogara da abubuwa da yawa. Wannan gaskiya ce ta asali game da yadda hankali da tunani ke aiki, kuma ta yi daidai da da'awar addini kamar yadda take da da'awar kimiyya (ko lissafi). Ka yi tunanin kai masanin kimiyya ne da ke rayuwa a duniyar da ta ƙi kimiyya sosai. Ana koyar da talakawa tun suna ƙanana su yi taka-tsantsan da kimiyya, su raina masana kimiyya, kuma su kalli kimiyya kanta a matsayin nuna-karya a mafi kyau, ko kuma ƙungiyar mutuwa mai tashin hankali a mafi muni. A cikin wannan duniyar, babu koyar da kimiyya a tsari na hukuma. Yawancin mutane ba su taɓa samun ilimin kimiyya a aji ba tun suna girma. Wannan yana haifar da ƙarancin ilimin kimiyya sosai a tsakanin jama'a. Amma jahilcin ya fi haka zurfi, domin ko jami'o'i suna adawa da kimiyya. Yawancin malaman jami'a da masana a duniya baki ɗaya suna kallon kimiyya da raina mai cike da izgili. Hanya ɗaya tilo da za a yi nazarin kimiyya ita ce a ƙananan makarantu masu zaman kansu, marasa kuɗi da malamai kaɗan, warwatse a sassan duniya. Karatu a irin waɗannan makarantu yana buƙatar babbar sadaukarwa ta kai da ta kuɗi daga ɗalibai, wanda ke nufin ƙalilan ne ake horarwa a matsayin masana kimiyya na gaskiya idan aka kwatanta da girman al'umma.

Where is the evidence for God? Where is the evidence for the truth of Islam? There is evidence, lots of evidence. But what counts as evidence depends on a lot of factors. This is a basic truth about the way reason and rationality work and it is just as true about religious claims as it is about scientific (or mathematical) claims. Imagine you are a scientist living in a world that is bitterly anti-science. The masses are taught from a very young age to distrust science, to look down on scientists, and to view science itself as charlatanism at best, a violent death cult at worst. In this world, of course, there is no institutionalized science education. The vast majority of people have zero exposure to science in the classroom growing up. This results in a severe lack of scientific literacy in the general population. But the ignorance runs deeper than that because even universities are anti-science. The vast majority of university professors and the cognoscenti worldwide view science with snarky contempt. The only way to study science is in small, underfunded, understaffed independent schools scattered around the world. To study at those schools requires great personal and financial sacrifice on the part of students, which means that very few legitimate scientists are trained relative to the size of the population.

Ga yadda duniya take tunanin cewa kona dazuzzuka yana da amfani ga yanayin duniya. A matsayina na masanin kimiyya, na san cewa hakan ba gaskiya ba ne. Ina gaya wa mutane cewa kona dazuzzukan duniya zai haifar da bala'in muhalli. Yawancin mutane suna dariya suna watsi da duk abin da nake fada, suna ganin ni kawai malamin kimiyya ne mai ra'ayi na musamman. Wasu kuma suna girmama ni, suna cewa ina da 'yancin yin imani da duk abin da nake so, muddin ba zan tilasta wa wasu su karɓi imanina ba, misali ta hanyar nace cewa su gaskata cewa gaskiya ne. Amma akwai kuma wasu masu shakkar kimiyya waɗanda ke jin daɗin ba da wahala ga masana kimiyya. Sai su fara tattaunawa da ni, suna neman shaida. Suna tambaya: Ta yaya kuke sanin cewa kona dazuzzuka zai haifar da bala'i? Ina shaidar?

Now, for some reason in this world, the public believes that burning forests is great for the world’s climate. As a scientist, you know better. You tell people that actually burning the world’s forests will cause environmental disaster. Most people laugh at you and ignore everything you have to say given that you are just a kooky scientist. Others are more respectful and tell you that you have the right to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t try to impose your beliefs on others by, for example, insisting that they are true beliefs. But there are also some science skeptics who enjoy trolling scientists. So they start a dialogue with you. And they demand evidence. How do you know burning forests will lead to disaster? Where’s the evidence?

Yanzu, za ka yi tunanin bayyana musu game da iskar gas mai gurbata yanayi. Amma, tabbas, waɗannan mutane ba su san komai ba game da ilimin sinadarai ko ilimin kimiyyar zahiri ko ilimin halittu. Za ka iya ƙoƙarin bayyana musu yadda CO2 ke kama zafi, amma ba su san menene sinadarai ba, balle CO2. Za ka iya gaya musu yadda bishiyoyi ke kama CO2 suna kuma fitar da iskar oxygen, da kuma yadda rayayyun halittu kamar mutane ke buƙatar oxygen, amma sai su tambaye ka hujjar duk waɗannan. Don haka za ka iya ƙoƙarin bayyana wasu ginshiƙan ilimin sinadarai, amma tabbas hakan bai isa ba, domin a ƙarshe ilimin sinadarai a matsayin jigon ilimi na gwaji ya dogara ne akan kimiyyar zahirin ƙwayoyin halitta. Don haka sai ka bayyana tare da tabbatar da dalilin da ya sa hakan abin dogaro ne ta fuskar ilimi. Kuma idan ana maganar fahimtar kimiyyar zahirin ƙwayoyin halitta, ana buƙatar ingantaccen ilimin kimiyyar nukiliya ma har ma da ilimin injiniyoyin ƙwayoyin zarra, kuma haka dai ana ci gaba.

Now, you might be inclined to explain to them about greenhouse gases. But, of course, these people know absolutely nothing about chemistry or physics or biology. You could try to explain to them how CO2 traps heat, but they have no idea what chemical elements are, let alone CO2. You could tell them about how trees trap CO2 and give off oxygen and how living things like humans need oxygen, but then they would ask you for the evidence of all that. So you might try to explain some basic chemistry, but of course, that is not enough because ultimately chemistry as a body of empirical knowledge relies on molecular physics. So you would have to explain and justify why that is epistemically reliable. And when it comes to understanding molecular physics, a working knowledge of nuclear physics and even quantum mechanics is required, and on and on.

A bayyana cewa waɗannan masu shakka ba za su fahimci abu kaɗan daga cikin abin da za a iya bayyanawa ba, balle su ɗauka cewa abin da ake faɗa gaskiya ne. Bayan haka, waɗannan mutane sun yi shakka game da da'awar farko da ka yi a matsayinka na masanin kimiyya. Babu wani abu da zai sa su rage shakka game da kowace da'awa ta gaba da za ka yi game da kimiyyar tallafi da ke tabbatar da wannan da'awar ta farko.

Obviously, these skeptics are going to understand very little of anything you might explain, let alone assume that what you are saying is true. After all, these people had doubts about your initial claim as a scientist. There is nothing that would make them less doubtful about any of the other claims you would have to make about the supporting science that justifies that initial claim.

Yanzu za ka iya gaya musu: Duba, idan kuna son sanin tabbas yadda na sani cewa kona dazuzzuka abu ne mara kyau, dole ne ku sami cikakken ilimin kimiyya, sannan ku yi wasu gwaje-gwaje na asali, sannan ku shiga manyan karatu, da sauransu, da sauransu, sannan za ku sami shaidar da kuke bukata. A nan ne masu shakka ke dariya sosai.

Now you might tell them: Look, if you want to know with certainty how I know burning forests is a bad idea, you need to get a thorough science education and then do some basic experiments and then go onto advanced studies, etc., etc., and then you will have the evidence you need. To which the skeptics laugh uproariously.

Darasin da ake son koyarwa a nan shi ne cewa abin da ake ɗauka a matsayin shaida, wato shaida mai ƙarfi da ke tabbatar da imani, yana buƙatar wani babban tarin ilimin asali na mahallin. A tattaunawa kan kimiyya, ana ɗaukar wannan tarin ilimin asali a matsayin tabbatacce saboda ikon hukuma na kimiyya. Mutane suna amincewa cewa masana kimiyya sun san abin da suke magana a kai, don haka ba sa matsa musu sosai don su tabbatar da kowane abu dalla-dalla. Amma idan irin waɗannan mutane suka yi magana game da Allah, shakka tasu takan ƙaru sosai, domin addini ba shi da wata hukumar ilimi ko ta hujja a duniyar boko da muke rayuwa a cikinta. Akwai shaida mai yawa ga wanzuwar Allah, shaida mai ƙarfi, daidaituwa, da kuma "ta haƙiƙa" fiye da duk abin da ke cikin kimiyyar gwaji. Amma abubuwa biyu suna hana mutane gane wannan.

The lesson here is that what counts as evidence, i.e., compelling evidence that justifies belief, requires a gigantic body of contextual knowledge. In discussions about science, that body of contextual knowledge is simply assumed on the basis of scientific authority. People trust scientists to know what they are talking about, so they won’t press them too far to justify every single thing. But when those same people talk about God, the skepticism is turned up to a whole different level because religion has no intellectual or epistemic authority in the secular world we live in. There is plenty of evidence for God, evidence far more compelling, consistent, and “objective” than anything in empirical science. But two things impede people from recognizing this.

Da farko, ilimin asali ba ya nan. Ilimin Musulunci babu shi ga yawancin duniya, har da Musulmi. Maimakon haka, Musulmai a ko'ina cikin duniya suna samun ilimi ta hanyoyin ilimi na boko. Hakan babu shakka zai shafi ikon Musulmai na isa ga yarda da wanzuwar Allah da gaskiyar Musulunci ta hanyar hankali. Kuma ga abin da bai isa ba, abu na biyu da ke hana shi shi ne wani karfi mai aiki na adawa da addini da Musulunci wanda ke yaduwa a cikin al'adu, kafafen watsa labarai, jami'o'i, da sauransu. Yanayin imani da gamsuwar Musulmai a fadin duniya yana shafar sosai saboda wadannan abubuwa biyu.

First, the contextual knowledge is not there. Islamic education is nonexistent for most of the world, including Muslims. Instead, Muslims worldwide are educated through secular models of learning. Obviously, that will impact Muslims’ ability to intellectually arrive at conviction in the existence of Allah and the truth of Islam. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the second impeding factor is a very active anti-religion, anti-Islamic current that permeates the culture, the media, the academy, etc. The state of iman and conviction of Muslims around the world is severely impacted by these two factors.

Shaidar Allah da gaskiyar Musulunci sun fito daga hanyoyi daban-daban wadanda kowanne yana karfafa daya. Haka duk wani ilimi yake aiki, har da ilimin kimiyya, kamar yadda misalin da ke sama ya nuna. Mai shakka zai iya raunana kowace hujja ta musamman a cikin ilimi, amma yana iya yin haka ne kawai saboda rashin sanin yanayin ko tsarin fahimta da ya fi girma, ko abin da ake kira paradigm, episteme, plausibility structure ko web of belief (ko duk wani sunan falsafa ko zamantakewa da kuke so a yi amfani da shi).

The evidence for Allah and the truth of Islam comes from different sources that mutually reinforce each other. This is the way any body of knowledge works, including scientific knowledge, as the example above was meant to show. A skeptic can undermine any specific point of knowledge, but he can do this only in virtue of an ignorance of the larger context or paradigm or episteme or plausibility structure or web of belief (or whatever other philosophical/sociological term you want to use).