The Need for Revelation in the Modern Scientific Age

Objection:

In this era of modernity and scientific advancement, revelation and divine teachings have become obsolete and impractical. The fundamental principle of science is that for discovering truths, only those matters are credible which stand the test of reason, experience, and observation. Since revelation, angels, and metaphysics relate to the unseen, which cannot be proven in a laboratory, it is impossible to accept these things on the basis of pure reason. Therefore, in today's scientific age, the concept of revelation is irrational, and there is no longer any need for it.

Response:

This objection is not actually a scientific fact but a specific philosophical and epistemological fallacy.

The Limits of Epistemology and the Five Senses:

The scope of science is limited to empiricism and the five senses. A fundamental principle of epistemology is that every branch of knowledge has a specific domain and source. Where the limits of the senses end, the function of reason begins; however, pure reason is not limitless either; it too has an ultimate boundary. What is the ultimate purpose of the universe, and what is the will of the Creator? These are purely metaphysical questions. Exactly where the limits of human reason and science end, the epistemological need for "revelation" begins. Revelation is not opposed to science; rather, it fills the void in human knowledge where material instruments cannot reach.

Non-Observation is Not Proof of Non-Existence:

The claim that "only that reality is acceptable which can be proven in a laboratory" does not meet its own established standard, because this claim itself cannot be proven in any laboratory. Revelation is essentially a transcendental system of communication between the Creator and the universe. To deny facts related to the unseen merely because they cannot be physically grasped is an illogical attitude. It is a scientific principle that the inability to observe a thing does not negate its existence. Therefore, declaring revelation to be irrational is a deviation from the very principles of reason.

The Metaphysical Foundations of Science:

The impression that science and revelation are in conflict is a baseless assumption. The entire system of science itself rests on a few metaphysical assumptions—such as the presence of a meaningful order in the universe, the uniformity of the laws of nature, and the capacity of human reason to comprehend these laws. When science itself is established on non-material and rational foundations, using scientific progress as a guise to deny metaphysics and the unseen is a clear academic contradiction.

The scientific age has not rendered revelation obsolete; rather, modern philosophy has clarified the limits of science, thereby further consolidating the rational need for revelation. Science only explains the method of how the physical universe operates (How), while revelation provides knowledge about the ultimate purposes of existence (Why). Therefore, the domains of both are different, and both are indispensable in their respective places for human guidance.