Infallibility and Scientific Knowledge of Abdul Baha!!

`Abdu’l-Bahá must have kept in touch with the popular accounts of science in his time, at least occasionally. For instance, he was aware of Maxwell’s aether hypothesis:

… the nature of ether is unknown, but that it existence is certain by the effects it produceth, heat, light and electricity being the waves thereof. By these waves the existence of ether is thus proven.

—Bahá’í World Faith; Tablet to August Forel

If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.

—Some Answered Questions, pg. 190

Of course this logic was rejected by Albert Einstein, who pointed out that Maxwell’s equations were the only explanation necessary for electromagnetism (including light). The ether was an unnecessary concept. The only reason that Maxwell ever invoked the concept was so that electromagnetic radiation would not propagate in a void. Why did he need an ether? Because he needed a mechanistic medium for electromagnetic radiation to propagate through. Einstein rejected this mechanistic thinking because (1) it was superfluous and scientifically useless, and (2) it contradicted the principle of relativity and the experimental evidence thereof.

`Abdu’l-Bahá was limited by classical mechanistic thinking, even though he lived in Einstein’s time. Of course `Abdu’l-Bahá wasn’t really “thinking” in a creative sense; he was simply mimicking a defunct scientific argument that had been made a half century before, as a means to his metaphysical end.

The ether was not the only example of `Abdu’l-Bahá’s outmoded mechanistic thinking. Here’s another:

Scientific philosophy has demonstrated that a simple element (`simple’ meaning `not composed’) is indestructible, eternal. The soul, not being a composition of elements, is, in character, as a simple element, and therefore cannot cease to exist.

– Paris Talks

Physics may yet discover a truly fundamental particle, but the atoms that `Abdu’l-Bahá refers to are continually destroyed, not only in Nuclear bombs and power plants, but in natural radioactive decay. Not long after the discovery of radiation, Einstein described that any matter can be transformed into energy.

It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.

– Albert Einstein

After several Nobel Prizes had been awarded for these breakthroughs, `Abdu’l-Bahá was still thinking in terms of the science of the previous century.

Bahá’ïs respond in different ways to this problem. Some say that `Abdu’l-Bahá was not infallible regarding matters of science, and claim that he never claimed to be. These Bahá’ïs fail to recognize the obvious. `Abdu’l-Bahá almost always spoke as an absolute authority on matters of science; he spoke with absolute conviction that he was correct with respect to the facts. Shoghi Effendi reaffirms his grandfather’s confidence, while addressing some controversial claims to historical knowledge made by `Abdu’l-Bahá:

Historians cannot be sure Socrates did not visit the Holy Land. But believing as we do that `Abdu’l-Bahá had an intuitive knowledge quite different from our own, we accept His authority on this matter….

– Shoghi Effendi, Arohanui (1946)

I can’t quite see what a special “intuitive knowledge” would have to do with knowing whether Socrates visited Israel and learned about God from rabbis. That’s not intuition, but something nearer to omniscience.

Notwithstanding this “official” pronouncement of his infallibility, there is an unofficial account of `Abdu’l-Bahá denying such infallibility. Nevertheless, `Abdu’l-Bahá spoke with unshakable confidence on these matters, so there is ample implicit evidence that he wanted to give the impression that he was indeed infallible.

Some hope that Einstein and modern physics are somehow mistaken, and hence follow every pseudo scientist that claims to have evidence thereof. Some Bahá’ïs claim that `Abdu’l-Bahá was speaking metaphorically, but fail to present a metaphor.

Infallibility, especially when applied to the real world of science and history, is a dead-end street.

6 Comments on “Infallibility and Scientific Knowledge of Abdul Baha!!”

  1. peace says:

    The infallibility was in regards to Baha’u’llah’s writings not scientific knowledge. He was still a human with gaps in his knowledge. Plus, even more egregious are supposedly uttered by Christ if the red letter text is his words. About the nature of the earth and astronomy.
    If as Christians say Jesus is God then how can he be wrong on anything?

    • bahaisects says:

      Finally You accepted that Bahaullah is not Manifestation of God.

      Because if he was really divine he should have knowledge of nature,earth and astronomy

      • peace says:

        No your being silly we were talking about Abdul Baha. Abdul Baha isn’t a Manifestation of God. Baha’u’llah is. You were talking about Abdul Baha being wrong and when not specifically refering to Baha’u’llah’s writing he can be.

  2. bahaisects says:

    Again you are wrong Mr. Peace,
    I replied to your comment in which you accepted that Bahaullah had ‘gaps in his knowledge’.

    My objection is valid, if he was really a manifestation of God, then How could there be gaps in his knowledge ??

    Regarding Abdul Baha you said : He is not a manifestation of God. Then kindly tell me y his writings are considered Holy by the Bahais???!!!

    In facts you bahais are yourself confused about the knowledge and status of Abdul Baha and Bahaullah ( Son and Father )

    • peace says:

      this shows how either stupid or dishonest you really are. I used the word he before I said Baha’ullah. Which to any one with a smattering of English means i was talking about the subject of your rant. Which was Abdul Baha not Baha’u’llah. Abdul Baha writings are considered sacred in the same way the gospels are considered sacred. No one considers the Disciples equal to Christ yet their writings are sacred and we don’t even know if the disciples wrote them. As matter of fact it is pretty well established they didn’t.
      Abdul Baha is man whom whom Baha’u’llah entrusted with interpretation of his writings.
      But, Abdul Baha’s writings aren’t considered scripture. If you can’t tell the difference between scared and scripture then there is there is no hope for you because you would be the dumbest person on earth. But, i expect instead you are deceptive instead believe its ok to like distort and fabricate as long as it fits your agenda.

      • bahaisects says:

        When you are unable to answer how a manifestation of God have ‘gaps in his knowledge’ , you started talking about gospels and its writers. What we are talking here is not about Christianity and who are the writers of Bible.
        what we are trying to know is how Abdul baha( Abbas Affendi ) writings are sacred when there are so many differences in the writings of Abdul Baha and Bahaullah.
        Bahaullah had 3 wives while Abdul Baha propagates monogamy.Whom should be believe???
        I have many more examples to prove that there are conflicts in the writings of Father and Son.
        Bahais must decide who is more reliable !!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s