Is it 2009 again? Salon has run yet another 2009ish article ranting about HitchensHarrisDawkins and their misunderstanding of the science-religion debate. Oy.
Sana Saeed, the author, lets us know that she spent her childhood loving science and also loving religion. Then she lets us know she was the same way as a teenager.
It never once occurred to me during those years, and later, that there could be any sort of a conflict between my faith and science; to me both were part of the same things: This universe and my existence within it.
And yet, here we are today being told that the two are irreconcilable; that religion begets an anti-science crusade and science pushes anti-religion valor. When did this become the only conversation on religion and science that we’re allowed to have?
When? Hm, let me think about that.
Never.
It never became the only conversation on religion and science that we’re allowed to have. The opposite conversation is all over the place, along with lots of conversations somewhere between the two.
Next she explains that Christianity is not the only religion. Got it. Then she explains why there is no conflict between religion and science.
The absence of a centralized religious clergy and authority in Sunni Islam allows for individual and scholarly theological negotiation – meaning that there is not, necessarily, a “right” answer embedded in Divine Truth to social and political questions. Some of the most influential and fundamental Islamic legal texts are filled with arguments and counter-arguments which all come from the same source (divine revelation), just different approaches to it.
In other words: There’s plenty of wiggle room and then some. On anything that is not established as theological Truth (e.g. God’s existence, the finality of Prophethood, pillars and articles of faith), there is ample room for examination, debate and disagreement, because it does not undercut the fabric of faith itself.
Ummmmmm…that’s a very large exclusion. There is is ample room for examination, debate and disagreement on everything except God’s existence, the finality of Prophethood, pillars and articles of faith…which is a fuck of a lot of except.
That except is, not least, a giant bias built in to every kind of examination, debate and disagreement, as well as inquiry and investigation and all the rest of it. If you have to defend the assertion that something you call “God” exists before you can even get started, how free can your inquiry really be?
Someone should ask her if she accepts the reality of evolution. If she doesn’t, that same someone should ask her why, and I guarantee you the answer would be because of her religion. (Of course, if that question doesn’t get her, there are nearly infinitely many more questions that could.) When two different systems of thought both make claims about the nature of reality, those systems will necessarily conflict whenever those claims differ. That many people can entertain both systems does not disprove their competition.
That may be true in Sunni Islam. However the Wahhabis, the Iranian mullahs, Boko Haram and other Muslim fundamentalists have completely different ideas about “right” answers embedded in Divine Truth. We just have to look at the recent efforts to enforce gender segregation at various British university functions to see the “right” answer embedded in Islamic Divine Truth.
What fundies understand, and what “liberal” christians/muslims/devil worshippers do not, is that faith and science have mutually exclusive paradigms. Methodological naturalism does not allow exclusions for pillars of faith, or existence of god(s), or “finality” of anything.
And “non-overlapping magisteria” doesn’t help. Eventually, “faith” will make an statement subject to empirical scrutiny (including something as basic as “God created the universe”), and faith will fail. In fact, it already fails
What about questions pertaining to the natural world? I imagine negotiating with fossils, galaxies, and atoms would be rather difficult.
“On anything that is not established as theological Truth (e.g. God’s existence, the finality of …”
Or actually, anything the ruling theocrats decide is ‘truth’.
The author is either remarkably naive or a propagandist, if Islam is such as she claims, why are majority Moslem countries such as they are, conservative and oppressive.
Another futile attempt at squaring the circle, or perhaps, deceiving the Kaffirs.
Given the number of things claimed to be pillars and articles of faith- essentially everything said in the quran- by muslims, there’s actually very little wriggle room. For example, even if human evolution is accepted then the article of faith that man was created separately and in heaven not on earth must somehow be fitted with it.
And what has this to do with science anyway?
From Saneed’s article:
“In my own religious tradition, Islam, there is a vibrant history of religion and science not just co-existing but informing one another intimately. Astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, alchemists, surgeons, psychologists, geographers, logicians, mathematicians– amongst so many others – would often function as theologians, saints, spiritual masters, jurists and poets as much as they would as scientists. Indeed, a quick survey of some of the most well known Muslim intellectuals of the past 1,400 years illustrates their masterful polymathy, their ability to reach across fields of expertise without blinking at any supposed “dissonance.””
What she fails to point out is that the brilliant Islamic polymaths died out 6 or more centuries ago and Islamic progress ceased when the all-powerful caliphs and Islamic clergy decided to insist on a Qur’an-based requirement in order to standardize society and perhaps save their empire from splintering. Islamic society predictably plunged into darkness and barbarism, apparently an acceptable sacrifice to the powerbrokers to keep ahold of their empire.
It splintered anyway. And to this day, the lights remain out.
So what’s going on with brilliant Islamic scientists today, you might ask? There’s Pakistani Muslim nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood, who has been working on a project since the early 1980s to harness djinn energy to solve Pakistan’s energy crisis. “Djinn” is a supernatural being (pl. “djinni”) that we in the West know of as “genies.” And not of the “I Dream Of Jeannie” sort, either.
Here’s how his rationale goes: The Qur’an contains God’s truth. Thus, everything in the Qur’an is true. The Qur’an says that djinni exist. That means that djinni exist. And the Qur’an says that djinni have a “fiery nature.” A “fiery nature” indicates energy, which, since we know it exists because Qur’an, means that, if we simply elevate our…thinking or something, we’ll be able to…um…convince them to…share their magic fire with us…or…something.
No djinn engines have yet been developed, despite this project having been started over 30 years ago O_O
Some articles describe “Islamic science” as “a weird hybrid of scientific terminology and Islamic lore.” Apparently this Mahmood guy is something of a celebrity in Pakistan’s scientific and religious circles for his skill in drawing up a scientific-sounding interpretation and tying it to the Qur’an. He’s well-educated. From an 1988 interview:
“I think that if we develop our souls, we can develop communication with them,” Mr. Bashiruddin Mahmood said about djinni in The Wall Street Journal. “Every new idea has its opponents,” he added. “But there is no reason for this controversy over Islam and science because there is no conflict between Islam and science.”
Really. No conflict. How about the fact that djinni don’t exist? Does THAT count as a conflict??
But, don’t they have magic lamps and things?
@8
Blanche, I agree completely, I noticed that Saneed didn’t provide any examples of those remarkable Islamic “polymaths” and their achievements.
Science is a Western invention and the reason that there is no Islamic science is that Moslems were never able to separate superstition from rational inquiry, Saneed seems to consider that is a virtue. The description of Moslem scholars as ‘scientists’ is ridiculous–‘astrophysicists’? ‘alchemists’?
An example of the sterility of Islamic culture is the inability of majority Moslem societies to engage with, and learn from Western industrial nations in the 19th century.