This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
Religion and science debates frequently encounter the fundamental question: “What is ilm, what is science?” The nature of the relationship between these two concepts is not merely a terminological issue but directly affects how humans approach the universe knowledge and truth. The concept of ilm predominantly appears in classical and religious texts while the concept of science comes to the forefront in modern literature. This situation can create the impression of an inevitable opposition between the two concepts. However when their etymological origins and historical contexts are considered it becomes evident that their relationship is more complex and layered.
A Visual Reflecting the Relationship Between the Concepts of Ilm and Science (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)
The term “ilm” derives from the Arabic root ilm (عِلْم) and encompasses meanings such as knowledge insight wisdom and the act of knowing. In this usage ilm includes not only empirical or observation-based knowledge but also embraces a broad framework that incorporates metaphysical moral and meaning-related knowledge. In contrast science in its modern definition refers to the entire set of disciplines that investigate phenomena through experiment and observation using systematic methods. At this point the notable feature is that ilm constitutes a broader overarching concept that includes science. In this context the statement “every science is ilm but not every ilm is science” can be regarded as a fundamental principle summarizing the relationship between the two concepts.
To understand this distinction properly the historical context in which these concepts emerged must also be considered. Ilm has an ancient heritage while science is a concept that took shape particularly in the modern era. Science in the sense of “science” acquired its current content from the 19th century onward. In the ancient tradition of ilm the act of knowing is not limited to answering the question “how?” but also encompasses the question “why?” In Greek Indian and Islamic intellectual traditions research into the universe aims not only at explanation but also at understanding. In contrast modern science primarily focuses on the question “how?” and seeks to explain the workings of the universe through quantitative data.
These differing orientations are also evident in the domains they cover. Ilm includes human and spiritual fields such as history philosophy theology and sociology while science is largely confined to empirical disciplines such as physics chemistry and biology. This situation demonstrates that modern science is grounded primarily in a positivist epistemology. In the classical period no clear distinction was made between physics and metaphysics but in the modern era a sharp boundary has been drawn between these two fields.
The emergence of the modern understanding of science was decisively shaped by intellectual transformations in the 16th century. Descartes’ distinction between res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance) ontologically separated mind and body and paved the way for a new mode of knowing. This distinction laid the groundwork for the differentiation between sciences concerned with mental processes and those concerned with nature.
Rene Descartes (Library of Congress)
In this process experiment and observation became the legitimate sources of knowledge. The geocentric cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy was replaced by Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Qualitative distinctions such as sublunar and superlunar realms gave way to a more homogeneous conception of the universe. This transformation was not merely astronomical but also represented an epistemological rupture.
The conception of the human being also transformed in this context. While the idea of a soul independent of the body was widespread in ancient traditions in the modern era the human being began to be regarded primarily as a material and physical entity. Thus the metaphysical dimension of knowledge was pushed to the background while the experimental method came to the forefront. Thomas Kuhn’s concept of “scientific revolution” provides an important framework for explaining this transformation. According to Kuhn scientific progress is not linear but occurs through paradigm shifts. This signifies the transformation of knowledge (knowledge/Scientia) into science in the modern sense.
However at this point one must be cautious of anachronism. Referring to Islamic Greek or Indian traditions as “science” in the modern sense ignores their historical context. Although the activities carried out in these traditions do not correspond exactly to modern science they share a similar motivation in their pursuit of truth and understanding of nature. In those periods ilm presented a holistic structure that addressed both physics and metaphysics together.
In the modern era the detachment of science from metaphysics is one of the primary causes of tension between religion and science. While religion centers metaphysical principles in its interpretation of the universe modern science has chosen to exclude metaphysics from its methodology. This has narrowed the scope of knowledge reducing it exclusively to measurable phenomena.
Today physicists focus on the question “how?” while theologians raise both “how?” and “why?” The question “why?” inevitably evokes metaphysics. In ancient traditions these two questions were not disconnected. Thinkers such as Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi examined the universe through both physical and metaphysical dimensions. The Mu’tazili theologian Al-Jahiz also argued that a scholar must engage not only with religious sciences but also with natural sciences. These approaches can be regarded as classical examples of the idea of unity among the sciences.
The separation of science from metaphysics is not merely an epistemological issue but also carries moral consequences. Metaphysics provides a framework that nurtures human awareness of responsibility toward the universe and nature. The exclusion of this framework may lead humans to view nature merely as an object to be dominated. The human being defined as Homo faber (the making human) gradually transforms into a being that consumes nature.
The contributions of science to human life cannot be denied. However rigid adherence to the scientific method can also push humans into an ethically irresponsible position. Artificial intelligence the search for new domains of life and the destruction of natural resources are contemporary examples of this problem. If science completely severs its connection with metaphysics it will produce a conception of knowledge that focuses solely on technical progress while neglecting meaning and responsibility.
The distinction between ilm and science is not merely a conceptual difference but a fundamental issue that determines how humans perceive the universe and position themselves within it. In ancient traditions there was unity between physics and metaphysics but in the modern era this unity has been fragmented. This fragmentation has narrowed the scope of knowledge while enhancing its technical power. The question that must be revisited today is this: Should knowledge make humans merely powerful or should it also make them responsible? The answer to this question will determine how ilm and science relate to each other in the future.
The Transformation of Knowledge into Science: From Knowledge to Science
The Separation of Physics from Metaphysics
Consequences of the Exclusion of Metaphysics
Conclusion