There is one example which will make this point clear. In
ancient times, the atom was considered the last indivisible
particle. So the theory was formulated that “truth is something
which is measurable.” But the researches conducted by the
German scientist Albert Einstein (d.1955) revealed that the atom
could be split, thus producing nuclear fission, i.e. the
spontaneous or impact-induced splitting of a heavy atomic
nucleus, accompanied by a release of energy.
One aspect of this nuclear fission was that the energy it
released was extremely powerful. Some made negative use of
this energy, by producing the atomic bomb and the nuclear bomb
— the most dangerous of all weapons, because they were so
destructive.
But there was a great positive aspect to this nuclear fission.
Prior to this development, the atom being regarded as the last
unit of matter led to the theory that reality is something which
can be observed. And that something which does not come
directly under man’s observation is not reality. After the splitting
of the atom, this perspective was no longer valid. It was revealed
that there are realities beyond the atom which do not come under
observation, but which have their own existence. These realities
came to be known only through their effects and it was in this
way that inferential argument came to be held valid. In scientific
circles it was then accepted that inferential argument was as
valid as direct argument.
This development had a tremendous impact upon theology.
The arguments used by the philosophers and theologians of
ancient times to prove the existence of God were based on
indirect or inferential argument, for instance, the argument from
design. But these arguments put forward by them were rejected
by the atheists, who dismissed them as being unscientific. But
now science itself, in the wake of atomic fission, has accepted
that inferential arguments are scientifically valid. And with that,
theology has entered a new phase—a phase in which theological
arguments are taken to be as acceptable as any known scientific
argument.
Two aspects of the scientific revolution
43
