Early Writings — Page 34
34 THE our own explanations to describe the wisdom of God. Secondly, since the cause I have put forth is hypothetical, the conclusion I have drawn from it is also purely hypothetical and the laws of nature reject this proposition. This is the reason why in the first example just as our conclusion is contrary to facts, inasmuch as man does not have two extra eyes at the back of the head; simi- larly, in the second example also, despite the fact that hundreds of ships have been destroyed in the sea and hundreds and thousands of people have lost their lives in such disasters, God, to this very day, has never sent any angel to the captain of a ship informing him of an imminent disaster. Hence, we can say that in both cases the reasoning constructed by us in relation to 'need' were not in accordance with the wisdom of God or the laws of nature, therefore the conclusions we drew from them also proved to be contrary to the laws of nature, as they were at odds with the wisdom of God, and proved to be nothing more than hypothetical. Evidently, the argument you have put forth in favour of the need for revelation is quite similar to the arguments I have put forth above. You state: If man is unable to protect himself from error merely by his own knowledge and judgement and if we accept that God too (Who is Gracious and Merciful and free of every error and fault, and is the Knower of the truth of every matter) does not help His servants through His true revelation, then how can we, who are His helpless servants, emerge from the veils of ignorance and misguidance, and gain deliverance from the calamities of doubt and misunderstanding? Hence, based on my firm and considered view, I would invite you to accept