Dr. Hossam Badrawi Official Website
I once had a fascinating experience meeting five people I had never known. We were not allowed to get to know each other in advance.
The experiment occurred in a completely dark environment, where the sense of sight was absent. We met and introduced ourselves without seeing each other, moving from room to room.
Each room contained objects we could touch and feel with our hands while overlapping sounds filled our consciousness. Over time, we became familiar with one another in this new context.
After thirty minutes, we arrived at a space where we could order drinks and talk. Then, as the experiment concluded, our sense of sight was restored, and we saw each other for the first time. The revelation was surprising — each of us had formed a completely different mental image of the others.
This raises an intriguing question: Is truth tied to our senses, which are inherently part of us? If so, does that mean our perception shapes the entire universe? In their absence, would the universe remain the same in form and essence?
What, then, is truth?
Truth is neither a fixed idea nor an entirely mutable one but rather a complex blend of the absolute and the relative.
Absolute truth may exist, but our awareness of it is always relative. This is the philosophical and existential challenge that humanity faces.
As new theories emerge, what seems like an absolute truth at a given historical moment may later become an approximate model.
Gravity once considered an “absolute truth” in Newton’s time, was reshaped by Einstein and now faces new challenges within the framework of quantum mechanics. This demonstrates that physical truth is relative, not absolute — yet it moves closer to the absolute as scientific knowledge advances.
Truth in human development
This article also delves into the intricate relationship between religious narratives of human creation and scientific theories, particularly Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Believers take religion as an absolute truth, and traditional religious views, which many adherents of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) interpret their sacred texts to mean that humans were created in their current form by a divine act. Is that true?
This perspective often conflicts with scientific findings, suggesting a more gradual life development over billions of years.
Darwin’s theory of evolution posits that species evolve over long periods through natural selection. This theory challenges literal interpretations of religious creation stories, leading to debates about the origins of humanity.
Over time, some religious scholars and communities have re-examined their scriptures, considering symbolic or allegorical interpretations of creation narratives.
This approach allows for a reconciliation between religious beliefs and scientific evidence.
• Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), passed exclusively from mothers to their offspring, has been instrumental in tracing human ancestry truth. Studies indicate that all humans share a common maternal ancestor, often referred to as “Mitochondrial Eve,” believed to have lived in East Africa approximately 150,000 years ago.
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve does not imply that only two individuals (a single pair) were the sole progenitors of all humans. Instead, it suggests that while many women lived during her time, only her mtDNA lineage has persisted to the present day. This underscores the complexity of human ancestry and genetic inheritance — truth.
Genetic studies suggest that maintaining genetic diversity requires a minimum effective population size. Estimates indicate that early human populations needed at least 500 individuals to preserve genetic variation and avoid issues like genetic drift.
Considering factors like reproductive rates and survival, some estimates propose that the ancestral human population consisted of approximately 2,500 individuals.
• Timeline: fossil records and genetic data suggest that modern Homo sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago in Africa, evolving from earlier hominid species.
Conflict between science & religion
The apparent conflict between scientific findings and religious narratives has prompted diverse responses.
• Literal interpretation: some individuals maintain a strict, literal interpretation of religious texts, rejecting scientific theories that contradict these views.
• Symbolic interpretation: others adopt a more metaphorical understanding of religious stories, viewing them as symbolic teachings rather than literal historical accounts. This perspective allows for harmonization between faith and empirical evidence. It creates a wide range of relativity between perceptions of the truth about our existence.
Reflecting on the vast timeline of the universe (approximately 14 billion years) and Earth’s history (about four billion years), the emergence of modern humans represents a relatively brief moment. This perspective can be humbling, challenging anthropocentric views that place humans at the centre of existence.
The dialogue between religious beliefs and scientific understanding is complex and multifaceted. While scientific evidence provides insights into the mechanisms and timelines of human evolution, religious narratives offer meaning and context to human existence. Recognizing the value can lead to a more nuanced and enriched understanding of our origins and place in the universe.
