Science and Religion: Sources of Tension and Can we Live without God?

[vinod]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21800

This article is a long read but it is quite detailed in capturing the sources of tension between science and religion. It does not try to moralize about the relationship science and religion. But it merely examines the phenomena wherein one affects the other. It also mentions the beneficial effects of belief in God. However, the author is also candid about his bias towards atheism. But a point worth appreciating is that the author is not dogmatic about atheism.

I'm not very sure about what the article has to say about Imam Ghazali. I could use a Lumumba there.

The second part of the article talks about living life without belief in God. I thought the following paras were beautifully put like never before.

I'm not going to say that it's easy to live without God, that science is all you need. For a physicist, it is indeed a great joy to learn how we can use beautiful mathematics to understand the real world. We struggle to understand nature, building a great chain of research institutes, from the Museum of Alexandria and the House of Wisdom of Baghdad to today's CERN and Fermilab. But we know that we will never get to the bottom of things, because whatever theory unifies all observed particles and forces, we will never know why it is that that theory describes the real world and not some other theory.

Worse, the worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions. At our best we live on a knife-edge, between wishful thinking on one hand and, on the other, despair.


.....

Living without God isn't easy. But its very difficulty offers one other consolation—that there is a certain honor, or perhaps just a grim satisfaction, in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking—with good humor, but without God

[lumumba_s]

What you have is an Atheists reading of a theological belief that Imam al-Ghazali was neither the first nor the last to hold. The belief of the vast majority of scholars in Islam and I imagine quite a few Christian thinkers is that things themselves do not cause effects, but rather God causes the cause, the effect and conventionally joins the two together. Laws of "nature" most certainly were reconciled by Islam, they were considered the sunna of God. More importantly, there are some contemporary theoretical physics and philosophers who have come to similar conclusions. The problem quite frankly is that the entire scientific method is based upon causality, which in essence is deductive reasoning and as every philosopher and logician knows, deductive reasoning cannot produce certainty.

Additionally, Imam al-Ghazali did not attack science or medicine. It could be argued that Imam al-Ghazali himself was a physician. Rather, what Imam al-Ghazali attacked was the foundations of foreign philosophy which came to conclusions which could not be substantied by the Qur'an and Sunna. Imam al-Ghazali as of late seems to be the scapegoat for the decline and eventual fall of the ummah. Rather, what caused the decline in scientific and medical advancement was the decline in patronage of scientific and medical colleges. That had nothing to do with Imam al-Ghazali. The Philosophers definately ranked among the scientists, but they by no means made up the entire population. Imam Abul Hasan al-Shadhili, the great Moroccan Sufi master, was himself a chemist in his private life.

I find it odd how Imam al-Ghazali's weaking the grip of Aristolean philosophy is identified as the begin of the decline of science in Islam, and in the same breath, Thomas of Aquinas doing the same is praised. Especially when you consider that much of the Christian defense of their faith against philosophy borrowed heavily from the Ghazalian tradition - including direction adoption by none other than Thomas Aquinas. What Imam al-Ghazali said was that Philosophy was not a means to reach the ultimate Truth. And the author of this article acknowledge that Aristotelian philosophy is ill-suited to base physics upon.

A Muslim scholar exposing the flaws of the Aristotelian system is the reason that Pakistani scientists only seem able to master practical application of scientific discovery. But his European pupil doing the same is the reason why people like Richard Dawkins exist. It of course has absolutely nothing to do with the billions upon billions of dollars that Harvard, Yale, Princeton are given yearly and the billions upon billions of dollars Muslim governments keep mostly to themselves. Something is awry... and it isn't Ghazali's genius.

Is that what you were looking for?

[lumumba_s]

A brief Google search turned up the following:

As the works of Islamic rationalsits, chiefly Ibn Rushd, reached medieval Europe, they even threatened the "liquidation of Christian theology" (Durant, 954). Thus, relying heavily on Al-Ghazali's synthesis, "St. Thomas was led to write his 'Summas' to overcome that thread" (Durant, 954). And, "since Ghazali placed science, philosophy and reason in a position inferior to religion and theolgy, the Scholastics accpeted his views, which became characteristic of most medieval philosophy" (Myers, 39-40). Thus, "Europe as well as the Muslim East felt the impact of Al-Ghazali's teaching. Echoes of his voice are heard in the reflections of Blaise Pascal, and his work was paralled by Thomas Aquinas in the discourse on Christian doctrine and in other portions of Summa Theologica" (Jurji, Collier's Encycolpedia, 1979, 13:312-13). His "teaching is quoted by St. Thomas and other scholastic writers" (O'Learly, 208); and it is generally kkonw St. Thomas' Christian synthesis which "was deeply influenced by Muslims philosophers, chiefly al-Ghazali" (Sarton, 914; see also Copleston, 181; Myers, 42; Reshcer, 156).

Further, the Spanish Dominican monk, Raymond Martin directly benefited from Al-Ghazali's texts in his books entitled, 'Pigio Fidei' and "Explanation Symboli'; and "the arguments have been taken exactly as they were in the originals" (Sharin, 1361). And, St. Thomas used some texts of Al-Ghazali in 'Contra Gentiles', either directly or through the mediation of Raymund Martin. St. Thomas, who had received his eduation from the Dominican order in the University of Naples, had known al-Ghazali's philosophy well, using his arguments in attacks on Ibn Rushd and his Aristotelian commentaries. This univeristy was established in 1224 by Frederick II (1194-1250), chiefly to assimilate Islamic philosophy and science.

Dialogue of Civilisations: Medieval Social Thought, Latin-European Renaissance, and Islamic Influences, 6 -7.

So it is up to Mr. Weinberg to explain how the very same man is credited with destroying the East by demonstrating the veracity of theology over philosophy and saving the West whose scholars demonstrated the same, which he himself ultimately credits with the eventual rise and dominance of scientism.

In what world does that make sense?

[ihsan]

So it is up to Mr. Weinberg to explain how the very same man is credited with destroying the East by demonstrating the veracity of theology over philosophy and saving the West whose scholars demonstrated the same, which he himself ultimately credits with the eventual rise and dominance of scientism.

In what world does that make sense?

Actually, the article you have linked to gives more credit to ibn Rushd, the 'enemy' of Al-Ghazali, in saving the West than anybody else. What the article speaks about is how thinkers like Aquinas resorted to Imam Ghazali to counter-act the 'naturalism' of ibn Rushd.

[lumumba_s]

The influence of Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus saved the philosophy of Aristotle for Europe, and with it the idea of laws of nature. But although Aristotle was no longer condemned, his authority had been questioned—which was fortunate, since nothing could be built on his physics. Perhaps it was the weakening of Aristotle's authority by reactionary churchmen that opened the door to the first small steps toward finding the true laws of nature at Paris and Lisieux and Oxford in the fourteenth century.

Thomas Aquinas was Ghazalian and was one of the major figures who attacked Aristotelian philosophy and actually wrote a European response to Ibn Rushd's reply to the Tuhafat al-Falsafa. Ibn Rushd was indeed highly influential, and Imam al-Ghazali in many circles was mistaken as a philosopher due to his Tuhafat not being accessible to everyone. Historians say that Imam al-Ghazali's Maqasid was ironically used to teach philosophy in many universities. I do not deny Ibn Rushd's role, but the above quote makes it clear that the very same weaking of Aristotelian philosophy that is condemned at the hands of Imam al-Ghazali, is praised at the hands of Thomas Aquinas. In essence, when Imam al-Ghazali exposed the flaws in Aristotle's philosophy and subsequent scientists failed to move on and adapt, his is blamed. But when Thomas Aquinas using the very same arguments did the same and European scientists did move on and adapt, he is praised.

There is a lot more to the picture than pure academics and this is not the first contemporary writer that I have seem blame the decline of the Muslim empire on Hujjat al-Islam. The above quote is all the more significant when you consider that Imam al-Ghazali upheld Aristotelian philosophy to be closer to the truth than the other Greeks and in many places of his Ihya, seems to have re-stated Prophetic wisdom in Aristotelian terms.

[ihsan]

Point understood regarding Imam Ghazali.

And the contention of the writer is actually wrong. It was the work of ibn Rushd that opened the door to the 'first small steps towards finding the true laws of nature', because it was through ibn Rushd's views on reason that allowed for the questioning of religion. It was Averroism that created reactionary churchmen.

[lumumba_s]

Agreed. After the introduction that Imam al-Ghazali gave to philosophy through his minor works, I believe the detailed mastery of Aristotelian and Platonic logic came mostly through Jewish translations of Ibn Rushd and al-Farabi's commentaries on classical Greek works. That then provoked the necessary response from the scholastic churchmen who saw that much of what the Philosophers were attacking in general theology had already been addressed by Imam al-Ghazali. So both of those two men, rightfully, became the perhaps the two most important foundational intellectual figures in the scholastic legacy of Europe at the time.

And I find the whole contention of Imam al-Ghazali being at fault even more absurd when you consider that in the Muslim world, Ibn Taymiyyah was the one who ultimately gave the second response to Ibn Rushd and subsequently delivered the death blow to the influence of philosophy in the mainstream Muslim world after Abu Hamid had sufficiently wounded her. Yet Ibn Taymiyyah is never blamed. Allah have mercy upon all of them.

[vinod]

Wait..you both actually agreed. That's cute.

Lumumba, it was sort of obvious that the author of the article had not done the research himself on that topic of Imam Ghazali and was simply regurgitating the work of other scholars. Anway, to me, that point is a minor point in his article. However, I liked the ensuing discussion that followed between you and Ihsan on that point. It's going to help me in my Jurisprudence course, although I'm not giving that paper in my exams.

I actually wonder whether philosophers can have such a big influence on an entire civilization. Could the work of a philosopher influence a whole generation of thinkers, scientists included? Could someone enlighten me on that? I didn't expect philosophy to be so damn imfluential.

[Ron]

There is a saying that the East followed Ghazali and the West followed Ibn Rushd and that's why we are where we are...can anyone expound on this?

Also Lumumba said:

Imam al-Ghazali as of late seems to be the scapegoat for the decline and eventual fall of the ummah.

Actually, I do not believe that this is a case of "as of late" but has been case in the Arab world for quite some time. Is he truly to blame (obviously not totally but his role significant enough) but we're too possessed by our icon-isms that we cannot venture to critique great men if they erred?

Regards

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

Oh, well. Maybe I'm just late in this discussion . I don't recall this thesis being made, but maybe that's because I tend to read books based off of recommendation.

What exactly was the error of Imam al-Ghazali? He did not attack science, he did not attack rationalism. And I find it odd that the same man who we had such a lively debate about the religious utility of logic is accused of these sorts of things. Rather, what Imam al-Ghazali did was make a scholarly defense for the supremacy of revelation and scholarly (usuli) interpretation over pure rationalism. The Ash'aris are usually the ones blamed for distorting the interpretation of the texts of the Qur'an and Sunna. So this whole discussion to be seems to be completely contradictory in the larger scheme of things.

The Philosophers certaintly were amongst the leaders in science and rational disciplines, but they were not exclusively so. I personally think that any analysis of what happened to the Muslim world that places blame squarely on the shoulders of academics, having nothing to say about macroeconomic fluctuations and shifts in the power global power balance, is severely lacking. What Imam al-Ghazali did was demonstrate the incapabiltiy of Greek Philosophy with religious knowledge, given the insistence of the Philosophers towards the metaphysical conclusions of Aristotle, Plato and others.

This is a pretty good summary of what the Tuhafat al-Falasafa is about. If you read Imam al-Ghazali's Deliverance of Error, you can see what the backdrop of his scholarly endeavors were. At the time, the debate was raging as to who or what was able to bring one to reach the Ultimate Truth, Philosophy, Scholastic Theology, Batinism or Sufism. His Tuhafat is ultimately his explanation as to why he believed Philosophy was not. What exactly could the eclipse of the Muslim world be blamed on?

What happened is that the oppression and suppression of the Church as a governing body was counteracted by the new knowledges that had come from the Muslim world. The intellectual state of Europe as a whole was far below that of the Muslim world. The introduction of their former wisdom brought about a scholastic revolution. This coincided with the re-formulation of Europe as a cohesive culture and military threat to mostly Ottoman dominance. As scholasticism begin breaking the grip of the Church, colleges and the like where funded by the wealth that Europe was acquiring, while the Ottomans were placing large amounts of resources into their military complex, but stopped just short of financing the Andalusian invasion of Western Europe - which had nothing to offer at the time. The period of internal peace relative to previous ages of intercontinential European conflict, enabled them to progress and define themselves vis-a-vis the Muslim empire and divert their funds into more productive social endeavors. In a European context, I am quite sure that Ibn Rushd's popularity faciilitated the rise of rationalism in Europe, which became the basis for scientific advance.

But this rationalism already existed in the Muslim world. Imam al-Ghazali, for instance, initally learned philosophy from Imam Juwayni. And Imam Juwayni at the time was perhaps the leading theologian of his age, until Imam al-Ghazali eclipsed him.

During my European history studies, I was going through my own little thing, but here, European history was always Eurocentric. In sha Allah, I hope to change that one day, so I am sure if anything I said was incorrect, Ihsan will correct me. But I believe the notion that the West followed Ibn Rushd and the East followed Ghazali and that is why we are where we are, is based on the typical superficial parallel between Islam and Christianity that so colors our view of the pre-modern world. The East followed Ghazali because he was able to demonstrate the veracity of Sunni Orthodoxy.

It seems to me that the implicit contention of articles like the above is that religion itself is ill-equipped to run society and therefore, theology itself is outdated and useful for only private morality. If Ibn Rushd was unable to adequately respond to Imam al-Ghazali, why is that Ghazali's fault? I still stand by my assertion that the reading and subsequent relevance the Ash'aris denial of inherent causality of objects is an Atheist reading of the position. There is most certainly and insistence upon Divine Immanence, and this Divine Immanence is seen as translated into the "sunna of Allah' in the natural world. So the assertion that theological-oriented Muslims were uninterested in discovering how the world works merely because they recognized it as a perpetual creation of God, in my opinion, comes from the false parallel between Islam and Medieval Christian ignorance about the natural world. Muslims were not cutting off people's heads because they dared to suggest that the earth was not the center of our universe. The rise of science in Europe must be seen against the backdrop of Church repression and the subsequent excitement that the shift in orientation (and wealth which with to finance it) offered.

[ihsan]

I actually wonder whether philosophers can have such a big influence on an entire civilization. Could the work of a philosopher influence a whole generation of thinkers, scientists included? Could someone enlighten me on that? I didn't expect philosophy to be so damn imfluential.

Sustenance is what drives civilization, and this is why the Quran is primarily concerned with the implementation of social and economic justice. While freedom of thought is part and parcel of the Quranic ideology, it does not tolerate social injustice from a non-Muslim, let alone Muslim. We know God ALmighty through the blessings he has bestowed upon us. The Quran is quite clear that idol-worship is rooted in a fear of losing one's sustenance. Allah states about Satan, that he threatens men with poverty.

The Europeans were infatuated with the practical applications of Muslim civilization, and it was this infatuation which led them to study Muslim works to identify the root causes of why they progressed materially as they did. The Muslim world is infatuated with the practical applications of Western civilization, and are now trying to study Western works to identify the root causes of how they progressed. The West is essentially anti-classical and anti-Greec, just as the Muslim world was.

Philosophers come after civilization has already started. They piggy-back off people rooted in the world. Prophets beget civilization.

BTW, History was written by those that were an elect few, those that were educated, of which many were philosophers. With this in mind, it is obvious that we get a somehow distorted view of what was allegedly 'raging' on in society at a particular moment in time.

[vinod]

But this rationalism already existed in the Muslim world. Imam al-Ghazali, for instance, initally learned philosophy from Imam Juwayni. And Imam Juwayni at the time was perhaps the leading theologian of his age, until Imam al-Ghazali eclipsed him.

I did not understand how the example you gave illustrates the point that rationalism was present in the muslim world. Pls explain.

[vinod]

Philosophers come after civilization has already started. They piggy-back off people rooted in the world. Prophets beget civilization

Thank you Ihsan for attempting to answer my question. The above is a bold statement and I personally like the sound of it. While Prophets do indeed beget civilizations, can philosophers have a moulding and directing influence on the course of it?

The West is essentially anti-classical and anti-Greec, just as the Muslim world was.

what are you referring to as the 'classical' in the reference to muslims being anti-classical? If the West today is so similar to the way the muslim world was, why is muslim orthodoxy today so revulsed by the West and anything Western? How do you explain that ?

Regards

[ihsan]

I did not understand how the example you gave illustrates the point that rationalism was present in the muslim world. Pls explain.

It doesn't....

The argument isn't about rationalism, because the Greeks were very 'rational'. It is essentially rationalism versus empiricism. The Muslim philosophical world-view was primarily rooted in empiricism, while European thought, particular that of Greece was primarily rational. It was the Muslim world that developed a systematic view of this philosophy which ultimately impacted European thought.
In Greek thought, such as that of Plato, the idea was that reality is the world of perfect form and symmetry, which only exists in pure reason, not experience. What this essentially meant over time, stripped of all the gibberish, is that what we perceive us as the objective world, is not real but an allusion. This thought heavily influenced approaches towards understanding reality. Much of the Muslim attacks on Greek philosophy was aimed at this type of rationalism.

Avicenna developed a systematic approach to the idea of mind, i.e. it is essentially a blank slate upon which knowledge is attained through sensual perception. Abstract concepts are formulated from observation. ibn Tufail, the Spaniard, is famous for his story of Hayy ibn Yaqdhan. A man, stranded on an island, outside of civilization, can, through observation round him, come to the conclusion that God exists. Imam Ghazali attacked this rationalism as well and was pretty successful. But in doing so, he somewhat killed the idea that God can be realized through reason. This is why he ultimately ended up a mystic, i.e. he drew a line between intuition and reason. As Iqbal points out, Ghazali failed to see that intuition and thought stem from the same source and there differences are a result of how the self approaches the issue of time. Iqbal always points out that the Muslim world was always essentially anti-classical and the responses of people like Ashaari, Ghazali, ibn Taymiyya and ibn Hazm are systematic developments of this progression. The Muslim world was essentially ridding itself of these influences through time.

[vinod]

Thanks Ihsan, for that useful tidbit. But I'd still like to hear what Lumumba has to say. It was, after all, his point that I was seeking clarification on.