Xudo haqida dalil qayerda? Islomning haqiqatligiga dalil qayerda? Dalil bor, juda ko'p dalil bor. Lekin dalil deb nimani hisoblash ko'p omillarga bog'liq. Bu aql va mantiqning ishlash tarzi haqidagi asosiy haqiqatdir va bu diniy da'volar uchun ham ilmiy (yoki matematik) da'volar uchun bo'lgani kabi to'g'ridir. Tasavvur qiling, siz dunyoda ilmga shiddat bilan qarshi bo'lgan muhitda yashaydigan olimsiz. Omma yoshligidan ilmga ishonmaslikka o'rgatiladi, olimlarni past ko'radi va ilmning o'zini eng yaxshi holda shorlatanlik, eng yomon holda zo'ravon o'lim kultiga o'xshatadi. Bu dunyoda, albatta, institutsional ilm ta'limi yo'q. Aksariyat odamlar voyaga yetayotganda sinfda ilm bilan deyarli tanishmaydi. Bu esa umumiy aholida ilmiy savodxonlikning keskin yetishmasligiga olib keladi. Lekin jaholat bundan ham chuqurroq, chunki hatto universitetlar ham ilmga qarshi. Dunyodagi professorlarning va ziyolilarning ko'pchiligi ilmga istehzo bilan, mensimay qaraydi. Ilmni o'rganishning yagona yo'li dunyo bo'ylab sochilgan kichik, kam mablag' bilan ta'minlangan va xodimlari yetarli bo'lmagan mustaqil maktablardir. Bunday maktablarda o'qish talabalardan katta shaxsiy va moliyaviy qurbonliklarni talab qiladi, shu sababli aholi soniga nisbatan juda kam sonli haqiqiy olimlar tayyorlanadi.

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.

Ahora, dunyoda kimdir sabab bilan o‘rmonlarni yoqish dunyo iqlimi uchun foydali, deb ishonadi. Olim sifatida men buning aksini bilaman. Men odamlarga dunyo o‘rmonlarini yoqish atrof-muhit falokatiga olib kelishini aytaman. Ko‘pchilik meni kulgiga oladi va menga quloq solmaydi, chunki men shunchaki g‘alati olimman, deb o‘ylashadi. Boshqalar esa hurmat bilan javob berib, men istagan narsaga ishonishga haqqim borligini, lekin o‘z e’tiqodimni boshqalarga majburlamasam, masalan, bu e’tiqodlar to‘g‘ri deb talab qilmasam, bo‘lishini aytishadi. Lekin ilmiy bahslarni yoqtiradigan, olimlarni trollash bilan shug‘ullanadigan ba’zi ilm-fanga shubha bilan qaraydiganlar ham bor. Ular men bilan suhbat boshlaydi va dalil talab qiladi. Siz o‘rmonlarni yoqish falokatga olib kelishini qanday bilasiz? Dalil qayerda?

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?

Endi, siz ularga issiqxona gazlari haqida tushuntirmoqchi bo'lishingiz mumkin. Lekin, albatta, bu odamlar kimyo, fizika yoki biologiya haqida hech narsa bilmaydi. Siz ularga CO2 qanday qilib issiqlikni ushlab qolishini tushuntirishga urinishingiz mumkin, lekin ular kimyoviy elementlar nima ekanligini, CO2 ni esa bilmaydi. Siz ularga daraxtlar CO2 ni qanday ushlab qolib, kislorod chiqarishini va odamlar kabi tirik mavjudotlarga kislorod kerakligini aytib berishingiz mumkin, lekin shunda ular bularning dalilini so'raydi. Shuning uchun siz ba'zi asosiy kimyoni tushuntirishga urinishingiz mumkin, lekin bu yetarli emas, chunki kimyo empirik bilim sifatida oxir-oqibat molekulyar fizikaga tayanadi. Demak, siz bunga epistemik jihatdan ishonchli ekanligini tushuntirib, asoslashingiz kerak bo'ladi. Molekulyar fizikani tushunish uchun esa yadro fizikasi va hatto kvant mexanikasini amaliy darajada bilish talab etiladi va shu kabi davom etadi.

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.

Shubhasizlarning hech qaysi tushuntirishimizni tushunishi qiyin bo‘ladi, u haqiqat deb qabul qilinishi esa undan ham mushkul. Axir, bu odamlar sizning dastlabki da’voingizga olim sifatida shubha bilan qaragan edilar. Dastlabki da’voni asoslaydigan ilmiy ma’lumotlar haqidagi boshqa da’volaringizning birortasini ham ular kamroq shubha bilan qabul qilishlari uchun hech narsa yo‘q.

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.

Endi siz ularga shunday deyishingiz mumkin: Agar siz men qanday qilib o'rmonlarni yoqish yomon fikr ekanligini bilishimni aniq bilmoqchi bo'lsangiz, sizga chuqur ilmiy ta'lim olish, so'ngra oddiy tajribalar o'tkazish, keyin esa ilg'or tadqiqotlarga o'tish va hokazo kerak bo'ladi, shundagina kerakli dalillarga ega bo'lasiz. Bunga shubhalanuvchilar qahqaha urib kulishadi.

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.

Bu darsning mazmuni shundaki, dalil sifatida nimani qabul qilish, ya'ni ishonchni oqlaydigan kuchli dalil nima ekanligi, ulkan hajmdagi kontekstual bilimni talab qiladi. Ilmiy munozaralarda bu kontekstual bilim ilmiy obro'ga tayanib, shunchaki nazarda tutiladi. Odamlar olimlarning gaplarini tushunishiga ishonadi, shuning uchun har bir narsani isbotlashni ularga juda qattiq qo'ymaydi. Lekin o'sha odamlar Allah haqida gapirganda, skeptiklik butunlay boshqa darajaga ko'tariladi, chunki bizning dunyoviy jamiyatimizda dinning intellektual yoki epistemik obro'si yo'q. Allah uchun empirik fandagidan ham kuchliroq, izchilroq va "obyektivroq" dalillar mavjud. Lekin odamlarning buni tan olishiga ikki narsa to'sqinlik qiladi.

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.

Birinchidan, kontekstual bilim yetarli emas. Islom ta'limi dunyoning ko'p qismida, jumladan musulmonlar orasida ham mavjud emas. Buning o'rniga musulmonlar butun dunyoda dunyoviy ta'lim modellari orqali tarbiyalanmoqda. Albatta, bu musulmonlarning Allohning borligiga va Islomning haqligiga aql bilan yetib, ishonch hosil qilish qobiliyatiga ta'sir qiladi. Bundan tashqari, ikkinchi to'siq factor sifatida madaniyat, ommaviy axborot vositalari, akademiya va boshqa sohalarga singib ketgan, juda faol dinga va Islomga qarshi oqimdir. Dunyo bo'ylab musulmonlarning iymoni va e'tiqodining holati ana shu ikki omil bilan jiddiy ravishda ta'sirlanmoqda.

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.

Allohning borligi va Islomning haqligiga dalillar bir-birini mustahkamlaydigan turli manbalardan keladi. Bu har qanday bilim tizimi, jumladan ilmiy bilim qanday ishlashining o'zidir, yuqorida keltirilgan misol ham aynan shuni ko'rsatish uchun mo'ljallangan edi. Shubhalanuvchi har qanday alohida bilim nuqtasini zaiflashtirishi mumkin, ammo bunga faqat kengroq kontekstni, paradigmani, episteme yoki ishonchlilik tuzilmasini, yoki e'tiqodlar tarmog'ini (yoki boshqa falsafiy-sotsiologik atamalardan qaysi birini ishlatmang) bilmaslik tufayligina erisha oladi.

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).