# Perspectives on Science and Religion

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Abdu'l-Bahá, Perspectives on Science and Religion, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION
> 
> Selected Extracts
> 
> Selections from the Writings and Talks of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
> 
> And among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is that religion must be in conformity with science
> and reason, so that it may influence the hearts of men. The foundation must be solid and must not
> consist of imitations.
> (Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, par. 227.10)                    [1]
> 
> The third teaching or principle of Bahá’u’lláh is that religion and science are in complete
> agreement. Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition.
> Religion must be reasonable. If it does not square with reason, it is superstition and without
> foundation. It is like a mirage, which deceives man by leading him to think it is a body of water.
> God has endowed man with reason that he may perceive what is true. If we insist that such and
> such a subject is not to be reasoned out and tested according to the established logical modes of the
> intellect, what is the use of the reason which God has given man? The eye is the organ of sense by
> which we view the world of outer phenomena; hearing is the faculty for distinguishing sounds;
> taste senses the properties of objects, such as bitter, sweet; smell detects and differentiates odors;
> touch reveals attributes of matter and perfects our communication with the outer world; yet after
> all, the circle and range of perception by the five senses is exceedingly limited. But the intellectual
> faculty of man is unlimited in its sphere of action. The eye views details perhaps a mile, but the
> intellect can perceive the far East and West. The ear may hear tone modulations at one thousand
> feet, but the mind of man can detect the harmonies of the heavenly spheres as they swing in their
> courses. Mind makes geological discoveries in subterranean depths and determines the processes
> of creation in the earth’s lowest strata. The sciences and arts, all inventions, crafts, trades and their
> products have come forth from the intellect of man. It is evident that within the human organism
> the intellect occupies the supreme station. Therefore, if religious belief, principle or creed is not in
> accordance with the intellect and the power of reason, it is surely superstition.
> (The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during
> His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912, rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í
> Publishing Trust, 1982, 2012), pp. 86–87)                                           [2]
> 
> The third principle or teaching of Bahá’u’lláh is the oneness of religion and science. Any
> religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition,
> for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore,
> the two must correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is
> human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the antithesis and opposite of
> knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance of man. If we say religion is opposed to science,
> we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises
> and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test.
> (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 148)                                         [3]
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                            15 September 2013
> Page 2
> 
> Another cause of dissension and disagreement is the fact that religion has been pronounced
> at variance with science. Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always been
> controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have proclaimed religion superior in authority
> to science and considered scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion. Bahá’u’lláh
> declared that religion is in complete harmony with science and reason. If religious belief and
> doctrine is at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man and not from God;
> therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real
> faith is impossible. How can man believe that which he knows to be opposed to reason? Is this
> possible? Can the heart accept that which reason denies? Reason is the first faculty of man, and the
> religion of God is in harmony with it. Bahá’u’lláh has removed this form of dissension and discord
> from among mankind and reconciled science with religion by revealing the pure teachings of the
> divine reality. This accomplishment is specialized to Him in this Day.
> (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 323)                                         [4]
> 
> Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created beings embody the
> potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific
> acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived
> of this potentiality and attainment. God has created or deposited this love of reality in man. The
> development and progress of a nation is according to the measure and degree of that nation’s
> scientific attainments. Through this means its greatness is continually increased, and day by day
> the welfare and prosperity of its people are assured.
> 
> All blessings are divine in origin, but none can be compared with this power of intellectual
> investigation and research, which is an eternal gift producing fruits of unending delight. Man is
> ever partaking of these fruits. All other blessings are temporary; this is an everlasting possession.
> Even sovereignty has its limitations and overthrow; this is a kingship and dominion which none
> may usurp or destroy. Briefly, it is an eternal blessing and divine bestowal, the supreme gift of
> God to man. Therefore, you should put forward your most earnest efforts toward the acquisition
> of science and arts. The greater your attainment, the higher your standard in the divine purpose.
> The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision, whereas he who is ignorant and
> neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the callous and
> indifferent mind is deaf and dead. A scientific man is a true index and representative of humanity,
> for through processes of inductive reasoning and research he is informed of all that appertains to
> humanity, its status, conditions and happenings. He studies the human body politic, understands
> social problems and weaves the web and texture of civilization. In fact, science may be likened to
> a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected. It is
> the very foundation of all individual and national development. Without this basis of
> investigation, development is impossible. Therefore, seek with diligent endeavor the knowledge
> and attainment of all that lies within the power of this wonderful bestowal.
> (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 67–68)                                   [5]
> 
> In such a country [the Arabian Peninsula], and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate
> Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes
> and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific
> facts.
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                            15 September 2013
> Page 3
> 
> Thus, you know that before the observations of modern times—that is to say, during the
> first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era—all the mathematicians of
> the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The
> famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the
> earth and the immobility of the sun.1 Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the
> world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered
> ignorant. Though Pythagoras, and Plato during the latter part of his life, adopted the theory that
> the annual movement of the sun around the zodiac does not proceed from the sun, but rather from
> the movement of the earth around the sun, this theory had been entirely forgotten, and the
> Ptolemaic system was accepted by all mathematicians. But there are some verses revealed in the
> Qur’án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is “The sun moves in a fixed
> place,” which shows the fixity of the sun, and its movement around an axis.2 Again, in another
> verse, “And each star moves in its own heaven.”3 Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of
> the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur’án appeared, all the mathematicians
> ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islám,
> when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged
> to explain them away.
> 
> It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years
> after Muḥammad, that a famous astronomer made new observations and important discoveries
> by the aid of the telescope, which he had invented.4 The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the
> sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses
> of the Qur’án agreed with existing facts, and that the Ptolemaic system was imaginary.
> (Some Answered Questions (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1984, 2009
> printing), pp. 22–24)                                                               [6]
> 
> … the signs and conditions which have been spoken of all have meanings, and are not to be
> taken literally. Among other things it is said that the stars will fall upon the earth. The stars are
> endless and innumerable, and modern mathematicians have established and proved scientifically
> that the globe of the sun is estimated to be about one million and a half times greater than the earth,
> and each of the fixed stars to be a thousand times larger than the sun. If these stars were to fall
> upon the surface of the earth, how could they find place there? It would be as though a thousand
> million of Himalaya mountains were to fall upon a grain of mustard seed. According to reason
> and science this thing is quite impossible. What is even more strange is that Christ said: “Perhaps
> I shall come when you are yet asleep, for the coming of the Son of man is like the coming of a
> thief.”5 Perhaps the thief will be in the house, and the owner will not know it.
> 
> It is clear and evident that these signs have symbolic signification, and that they are not
> literal. They are fully explained in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. Refer to it.
> (Some Answered Questions, pp. 111–112)                                            [7]
> 
> Copernicus.
> Cf. Qur’án 36:37.
> Cf. Qur’án 36:38.
> Galileo.
> Cf. 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10.
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                          15 September 2013
> Page 4
> 
> From Letters Written on Behalf of Shoghi Effendi
> 
> It is very easy indeed for him to understand how you, with your training, are often tested
> and irritated by your contact with some of the believers. But then you must remember that
> your advantages of a reasonable mind and a scientific education have not been given to all, and
> you cannot expect acceptance of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings to endow people with these things
> automatically! But think of the kind of human beings, if brought up in the society He
> envisages, and taught in homes, schools and universities which were the mirror and product of
> His teachings, which would be produced! There you would really have a new race of men.
> 
> Shoghi Effendi has for years urged the Bahá’ís (who asked his advice, and in general also)
> to study history, economics, sociology, etc., in order to be au courant with all the progressive
> movements and thoughts being put forth today, and so that they could correlate these to the
> Bahá’í teachings. What he wants the Bahá’ís to do is to study more, not to study less. The more
> general knowledge, scientific and otherwise, they possess, the better. Likewise he is constantly
> urging them to really study the Bahá’í teachings more deeply. One might liken Bahá’u’lláh’s
> teachings to a sphere; there are points poles apart, and in between the thoughts and doctrines that
> unite them. We believe in balance in all things; we believe in moderation in all things—we must
> not be too emotional, nor cut and dried and lacking in feeling, we must not be so liberal as to
> cease to preserve the character and unity of our Bahá’í system, nor fanatical and dogmatic. Very
> few people, as you as a psychologist know, have attained perfect equilibrium in their minds or
> their lives—their acts—the same is certainly true of the Bahá’ís, for anyone who believes in our
> teachings can become a Bahá’í and they represent all elements of the population.
> (From a letter dated 5 July 1947 to an individual believer)                         [8]
> 
> Considering that a century ago nobody knew the nature of matter, and couldn’t split any
> kind of an atom, it should not surprise the scientist that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that copper can be
> transmuted into gold.
> 
> There may come a time, for all we know, when the mass of many atoms can be changed
> by scientists. We have no way of proving, or disproving, at present the statement of ‘Abdu’l-
> Bahá. Just because we cannot demonstrate a contention in the Bahá’í Teachings does not mean
> the contention is not true.
> 
> The same holds true of the statement of Bahá’u’lláh in the Íqán, regarding transmutation
> of copper into gold after seventy years, under certain conditions.
> 
> We as Bahá’ís must assume that, as He had access to all knowledge, He was referring to
> a definite physical condition which theoretically might exist. Because we don’t know what this
> condition is in scientific terms does not refute Bahá’u’lláh’s statement at all.
> 
> The principle of faith is to accept anything the Manifestation of God says, once you have
> accepted Him as being the Manifestation. That is really the crux of the whole matter. It is a
> question of confidence.
> (From a letter dated 14 March 1955 to an individual believer)                     [9]
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                         15 September 2013
> Page 5
> 
> The Tablet to a Physician was addressed to a man who was a student of the old type
> of healing prevalent in the East and familiar with the terminology used in those days, and He
> addresses him in terms used by the medical men of those days. These terms are quite different
> from those used by modern medicine, and one would have to have a deep knowledge of this
> former school of medicine to understand the questions Bahá’u’lláh was elucidating.
> (From a letter dated 18 December 1945 to an individual believer)                [10]
> 
> From Letters Written by or on Behalf of the Universal House of Justice
> 
> The Guardian was meticulous about the authenticity of historical fact. One of the friends
> in Yazd wrote to him stating that the account given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in one of His Tablets about
> events related to the martyrdom of some of the believers in that place was in conflict with known
> facts about these events. Shoghi Effendi replied saying that the friends should investigate the
> facts carefully and unhesitatingly register them in their historical records, since ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
> Himself had prefaced His recording of the events in His Tablet with a statement that it was based
> on news received from Yazd.
> (From a letter dated 25 July 1974 written by the Universal House of Justice
> to an individual believer)                                                       [11]
> 
> We have been asked to say that there is nothing in the Bahá’í Writings to support the
> conclusion that the Revelation of a Manifestation of God is confined to an exposition of “values”
> or that the infallibility of the Prophets does not extend to and include the area of historical and
> scientific “fact”. On the contrary, in “Some Answered Questions”, p. 23, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá points
> out that when the Qur’án was revealed, it contained verses explaining the movement of the stars
> and planets in the universe. Because these statements disagreed with the established theories
> of the time, the verses were ridiculed by all the mathematicians who “attributed the theory to
> ignorance”. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá goes on to say that it was not until 900 years later, when the telescope
> was invented, that the validity of Muḥammad’s statements on this subject was proven.
> 
> Another clear reference to the scope of divine Revelation appears in “Some Answered
> Questions”, p. 218, where ‘Abdu’l-Bahá compares the “universal divine mind” of the Manifestation
> with the limited intellect of man. He states:
> 
> The intellectual power of the world of nature is a power of investigation, and by
> its researches it discovers the realities of beings and the properties of existences;
> but the heavenly intellectual power which is beyond nature, embraces things and
> is cognizant of things, knows them, understands them, is aware of mysteries,
> realities and divine significations, and is the discoverer of the concealed verities
> of the Kingdom. This divine intellectual power is the special attribute of the
> Holy Manifestations...
> (From a letter dated 7 August 1978 written on behalf of the Universal House
> of Justice to an individual believer)                                           [12]
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                          15 September 2013
> Page 6
> 
> With reference to your question about the “ether”, the various definitions of this word as
> given in the Oxford English Dictionary all refer to a physical reality, for instance, “an element”,
> “a substance”, “a medium”, all of which imply a physical and objective reality and, as you say,
> this was the concept posited by nineteenth century scientists to explain the propagation of light
> waves. It would have been understood in this sense by the audiences whom ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was
> addressing. However, in chapter XVI of “Some Answered Questions”, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá devotes a
> whole chapter to explaining the difference between things which are “perceptible to the senses”
> which He calls “objective or sensible”, and realities of the “intellect” which have “no outward
> form and no place”, and are “not perceptible to the senses”. He gives examples of both “kinds”
> of “human knowledge”. The first kind is obvious and does not need elaboration. To illustrate
> the second kind the examples He gives are: love, grief, happiness, the power of the intellect, the
> human spirit and “ethereal matter”. (In the original Persian the word “ethereal” is the same as
> “etheric”.) He states clearly that “Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics
> to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible.” In
> other words, the “ether” is a concept arrived at intellectually to explain certain phenomena. In
> due course, when scientists failed to confirm the physical existence of the “ether” by delicate
> experiments, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain the same phenomena.
> 
> In considering the whole field of divinely conferred “infallibility” one must be careful to
> avoid the literal understanding and petty-mindedness that has so often characterised discussions
> of this matter in the Christian world. The Manifestation of God (and, to a lesser degree,
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi) has to convey tremendous concepts covering the whole field
> of human life and activity to people whose present knowledge and degree of understanding are
> far below His. He must use the limited medium of human language against the limited and
> often erroneous background of His audience’s traditional knowledge and current understanding
> to raise them to a wholly new level of awareness and behaviour. It is a human tendency, against
> which the Manifestation warns us, to measure His statements against the inaccurate standard of
> the acquired knowledge of mankind. We tend to take them and place them within one or other
> of the existing categories of human philosophy or science while, in reality, they transcend these
> and will, if properly understood, open new and vast horizons to our understanding.
> 
> Some sayings of the Manifestation are clear and obvious. Among these are laws of
> behaviour. Others are elucidations which lead men from their present level of understanding to
> a new one. Others are pregnant allusions, the significance of which only becomes apparent as
> the knowledge and understanding of the reader grow. And all are integral parts of one great
> Revelation intended to raise mankind to a new level of its evolution.
> 
> It may well be that we shall find some statement is couched in terms familiar to the
> audience to which it was first addressed, but is strange now to us. For example, in answer to
> a question about Bahá’u’lláh’s reference to the “fourth heaven” in the “Kitáb-i-Íqán”, the
> Guardian’s secretary wrote on his behalf:
> 
> As to the ascent of Christ to the fourth heaven, as revealed in the glorious
> “Book of Íqán”, he [the Guardian] stated that the “fourth heaven” is a term used
> and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shí‘ih sect
> likewise held this belief. As the “Kitáb-i-Íqán” was revealed for the guidance
> of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.
> (Translated from the Arabic)
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                           15 September 2013
> Page 7
> 
> In studying such statements, however, we must have the humility to appreciate the limitations
> of our own knowledge and outlook, and strive always to understand the purpose of Bahá’u’lláh
> in making them, trying to look upon Him with His own eyes, as it were.
> (From a letter dated 3 June 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House
> of Justice to two individual believers)                                       [13]
> 
> With regard to the harmony of science and religion, the Writings of the Central Figures and
> the commentaries of the Guardian make abundantly clear that the task of humanity, including the
> Bahá’í community that serves as the “leaven” within it, is to create a global civilization which
> embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence. The nature and scope of such
> a civilization are still beyond anything the present generation can conceive. The prosecution of
> this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction between the truths and principles of
> religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities
> as a natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to
> limit science to any particular school of thought or methodological approach postulated in the
> course of its development. The challenge facing Bahá’í thinkers is to provide responsible
> leadership in this endeavour, since it is they who have both the priceless insights of the
> Revelation and the advantages conferred by scientific investigation.
> (From a letter dated 19 May 1995 written on behalf of the Universal House
> of Justice to an individual believer)                                            [14]
> 
> … the principle of harmony between religion and science, while it enables us, with the help of
> reason, to see through the falsity of superstitions, does not imply that truth is limited to what can
> be explained by current scientific concepts. Not only do all religions have their miracles and
> mysteries, but religion itself, and certain fundamental religious concepts, such as the nature of
> the Manifestations of God, are far from being explicable by present-day scientific theories.
> (From a letter dated 16 February 1996 written on behalf of the Universal
> House of Justice to an individual believer)                                       [15]
> 
> In academia, at the present time, the common ground of understanding in relation to all
> aspects of human behaviour is generally materialistic, and rules out of consideration many factors
> such as the reality and fundamental importance of divine revelation in the life and development of
> humankind. Within the Bahá’í community, by definition, the common ground of understanding
> is the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, and it is within this context that Bahá’ís pursue scholarship and
> freedom of discussion. How, therefore, is a Bahá’í academic to relate the two variant common
> grounds of understanding: the materialistic one which constrains his professional activity and
> the Bahá’í one which is the basis of his whole life?
> 
> The path followed by some members of other religions, is to divide their thinking into two
> watertight compartments: their religion and their science. A Bahá’í, however, firmly believes in
> the harmony between religion and science, and should resist all temptation to dichotomize his
> thinking. There are some areas of study, such as chemistry or mathematics, in which the problem
> scarcely arises. But in anything to do with human life, behaviour and history, it must affect that
> whole area of analysis, interpretation and explanation referred to above.
> Perspectives on Science and Religion                                           15 September 2013
> Page 8
> 
> A Bahá’í academic should, of course, pursue fearlessly the truth of any matter before him,
> but in the elucidation of the facts that he discovers, how can he propound explanations which
> are in flat contradiction to the fundamental teachings of Bahá’u’lláh? Either he is hypocritically
> presenting an explanation which he knows to be untrue, merely for the sake of following a
> particular academic authority, or, if he believes the academic explanation in contradiction to the
> Bahá’í teachings, he should logically conclude that the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh are in error; in
> which case he should courageously face up to the implications of such a conclusion, and think it
> through.
> 
> This dilemma lies before every Bahá’í academic, irrespective of the existence of Bahá’í
> review. It is the impression of the Universal House of Justice that most Bahá’í academics have
> been able to solve the problem with little difficulty, by a profound acceptance of the principle of
> the harmony of science and religion, and by the use of wisdom and understanding in the couching
> of their conclusions.
> (From a letter dated 24 March 1997 written on behalf of the Universal House
> of Justice to an individual believer)                                           [16]
> 
> Scholarly training and professional experience will have sensitized you to the implications for the
> study of religion of certain assumptions about human nature and the processes of civilization that a
> purely materialistic interpretation of reality has imposed on scholarly activity of every kind, at least
> in the Western world. A related paradigm for the study of religion has gradually consolidated itself
> in the prevailing academic culture during the course of the present century. It insists that all
> spiritual and moral phenomena must be understood through the application of a scholarly apparatus
> devised to explore existence in a way that ignores the issues of God’s continuous relationship with
> His creation and His intervention in human life and history. Yet, from a Bahá’í point of view, it is
> precisely this intervention that is the central theme of the Teachings of the Founders of the revealed
> religions ostensibly being studied.
> 
> As a result of this insistence, opinions that should have remained matters of learned
> speculation have tended to assume the character of dogma. Equally regrettable is an intolerant
> attitude toward other perceptions of reality, which too often characterizes the expression of these
> opinions. In the context of historical circumstance, this development is understandable. The rigid
> intolerance exhibited in the past by much of organized religion, together with the domination of
> scholarship long exercised by theological elites, could not but arouse strong negative reactions.
> From a Bahá’í point of view, however, bigotry is retrograde and unacceptable in whatever form it
> chooses to present itself.
> (From a message dated 20 July 1997 written on behalf of the Universal House
> of Justice to an individual believer)                                           [17]
>
> — *Perspectives on Science and Religion (Used by permission of the curator)*