NOTE: I have a Bachelor of Science degree. I’m not anti-science. I love science. I just recognize that it has limitations and flaws, as all human things do.

A “pro-science” atheistic person asked me what I would do if my religion washypothetically proven to be wrong. His agenda was to prove that religious people can't see things objectively. He meant to say that even if a religion is proven wrong, its followers would never admit to it because they blindly see life through the lens of their religion. He implied that only atheists or agnostics could be objective. I disagreed based on my own personal experience. I accepted Islam on the basis of reason, not blind following or tribalism.

In the interest of being objective, I personally wouldn't publicly endorse anything that I knew to be 100% false especially when it comes to making claims about God. Islam is not a religion that demands blind faith. The Qur'anprovides arguments to support its claims. It asks the believers to challenge disbelief. It claims to be a book for those who think.

Firstly, the question is problematic in the sense that not many things are truly "known" 100%, through direct personal experience and confirmation. Most of what we know is based on the conclusions of other people, such as the community of experts. The rest comes from word of mouth. There's also the problem of defining what constitutes conclusive "proof." Proof can be subjective because we all have different standards of proof.

Proving something wrong depends on the standard of proof. My standard of proof for a religion is not primarily scientific. My standard of proof for a religion is primarily based on that religion having a sensible belief system. This is how crucially important the six pillars of faith are in islam!

The true book must speak sense about:

1. God2. The prophets3. The angels4. The books5. Resurrection6. Predestination

It was the contamination of these pillars (#1, #2, and #3) which led me to reject Christianity as a child and allowed me to see the errors of Judaism (#2,#3, and #4) as an adult. As a child growing up not believing in the Christian beliefs about divinity, when I heard what Islam had to say about #1, I immediately accepted it.

That being said, science can’t possibly dictate a person’s standard of proof inreligion because virtually all religious miracles violate modern scientific theory, which has always been an incomplete attempt to describe the reality of the universe. Science hasn't ever claimed to "know" the reality of the universe conclusively. The day it does, discovery ends. Scientific theories are

never proven true, they are only proven false. What science believes today isonly valid until it is disproven tomorrow. It’s a very shaky foundation to place one’s faith in. Although science may be useful for practical purposes of living and getting by in the world, it can never be said to actually be reality. It is only man’s imperfect attempt to describe the seemingly infinite universe around us. A scientific theory may give us very accurate results under certain conditions, yet still be proven inaccurate under other conditions tomorrow. Notice that I’m focusing on the theory or the explanation of the data. I haven’t yet mentioned the inherent error that comes with all scientificdata.

In order to be thoroughly convinced of a scientific opinion, I would have to beable to run the experiment myself and completely understand the theory myself. I would have to be skilled and competent in the field. Due to my knowledge of my own imperfections, I am even slightly doubtful of myself within fields that I specialize in! I’m not always right. No human is. Therefore,where do I turn when I don’t know the answers? How can I completely trust any human’s conclusions when I can’t even trust my own?

If I didn’t test these theories myself, I would have to have faith in the scientists who ran the experiment instead of personal, certain knowledge. And isn’t faith is unscientific, according to the atheist? Which means that onecan only be totally convinced in fields one has expertise in according to the atheist.

After all, scientists don't have a flawless track record of being right. Their previous understanding of reality is proven wrong with every new discovery. On the contrary, Islam is a faith and the Qur'an has a flawless and unchanging track record. It's never been seriously threatened by any reasonable challenge. In fact, it presents multiple challenges to the universe,which still stand 1400 years later. The Qur’an has convinced me that it is definitely beyond human capabilities, being the speech of God Himself. Once a person has taken that position, what human, scientist or otherwise, can compete with it in its claim to accuracy?

If science wants to challenge religion, it should to acknowledge the accurate scientific descriptions the Qur'an gave that predated the human discovery and acceptance of these facts. The development fetus, the orbit of planets, the round shape of the earth, the light of the moon being reflected, the structure of mountains, etc.

If science wants to dismiss these description as too ambiguous or lucky guesses today, then it can't come back tomorrow to prove a statement in theQur'an as unscientific. You can’t have it both ways. Either the statements aretoo ambiguous to be scientifically accepted, or they're clear enough to be used as scientific evidence in favor of the Qur'an.

Therefore, science can't be the main standard of analysis for Islam as the truth. If it were, the scientific should have become Muslim by now.

As for a religious text, if it's speaking truth about something greater than theworld (God), then it must be truthful about the world too.

Science would say that miracles can't happen. I say science is wrong. They have happened and will continue to happen, and the Qur’an is the greatest of them.

The human soul isn't satisfied with the physical world alone. Nobody ever committed suicide because they didn't understand a scientific theory. It's spiritual emptiness that plagues us. And we find our purpose and answers in God’s word.

Words can be literal or figurative and can be interpreted correctly or incorrectly. They’re not math equations to be solved or a scientific theories tobe “proven.”

When you consider the fact that the Qur'an:

Reveals what man couldn't knowDoes what man couldn't doClaims what mancouldn't claim

Then what i know is enough to help me accept what I don't know.

When you combine the amazing elements of the Qur'an like:

WisdomPropheciesAccuracyHistoryRevelationCreationAfterlifeGuidanceLogicMemorizationLaws, Discipline, and RestraintsEconomicsSocial justiceDivine justiceSpiritualityLessonsExamplesSummary of prophethood

It's truly a collection of irresistible arguments that justify belief in the book and submission to your creator.

As for the atheist, I respond with a few questions of my own.

If a creator is necessary for the existence of the universe (which is the only logical conclusion), then would the creator not make Himself known to the Creation? Would He not correct the false concepts about Himself and the universe? That would be futility. That's not wisdom. Creation without a reason is vanity. That reason must be communicated. We expect that from anall-knowing all-wise creator. Alhamdulillah for the Qur'an which gives us answers to the questions.

Other interesting points:

“Peer reviewed” journals and the rampant lack of reproducibility of lab test results

The inherent error of scientific instruments

The fact that most currently popular scientific opinions are less than a century old

The social, political, and financial interests that influence scientific studies (funding)

The technological limitations of science

How the human being is spiritually “programmed” by God to recognize certain internal truths (Faith, common sense, morality, etc.)

To be continued…