Talk Islam

aziz

• 10:15:08 pm on June 22, 2008 | # | |
  Tags: atheism, science

  Razib fleshes out an important distinction between theism and Creationism, and explains why the distinction matters to science:

  http://tinyurl.com/4jstq2

   

• Tag this post

Comments

• 

  aziz 10:20 pm on June 22, 2008 | #

  I don’t have much to add to your argument, Razib, aside from noting that Creationism as you’ve defined it is inherently the American evangelical version (though it’s been exported to Turkey, as you’ve noted many times). As a scientist myself, I *would* define myself as a (small-c) creationist, and even a believer in (again, small i, small d) intelligent design, as a matter of logical extension from my status as a theist. But I am just adding nuance which ultimately detracts from your main point, with which (as a scientist) I am in complete and hearty agreement. Theism is not a cancer upon science the way that Creationism (and more specifically, ID) is. The mark of a healthy, science-compatible theism is that it doesn’t seek to appropriate scientific terminology (in cargo cult fashion) to lend itself legitimacy. Honest theism is quite comfortable existing in the realm of simple assertion of belief. Or, as Douglas Adams put it, “proof denies faith“.

• 

  Willow 12:42 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  Razib, the following will just drive you nuts, so don’t feel obligated to read it. I’m simply building off of Aziz’s comment.

  If we accept God as Al Ahad, the intelligence is the design, because the intelligence and the design are inseperable. The wrestling match between Christianity and western science occurs largely–at least as it appears to my observation–because modern western Christianity views God as a distinct entity (distinct meaning God has boundaries). Anything bounded cannot participate in random events; its actions are definite and limited. Hence the closest Christianity could get to evolution was “God the watchmaker”; a diety that defined the laws of the universe and then “stepped back”. (Ah anthropomorphism.)

  Al Ahad implies absolute and uncontested unity. A God that is present both in the formation of an embryo and in the environmental stresses that work to kill it can participate in evolution. I’m frankly baffled that anyone could see the journey of stardust and sludge to something as complex as a human eye and not immediately drop to his knees and profess some religion or other. To me that is far more awesome an example of divine power than the rather withered and hellenistic view of God as Magician. (And then there were animals n stuff and suddenly POOF out of nowhere there were humans OMFG!!)

  This in defense of certainty, Mr. Adams notwithstanding.

• 

  razib 1:10 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  “because modern western Christianity views God as a distinct entity (distinct meaning God has boundaries).”

  theology is fraught with really weird terms. for example, some theologians (especially catholics from what i know) explain that evil is the lack of good, and not positively something in and of itself. therefore, god did not create evil, since god as the font of goodness would seem a contradictory creator of evil.

  with that preamble out of the way, i would note

  1) that dualism between creator and created is often given as a reason for why science flourished among a monotheistic culture (as opposed to the pantheistic models of the east).

  2) as a point of fact though stylistically there is a difference between the conception muslim and christian conceptions of god, both are omni-deities. various christian groups may hedge this with roles played by free will or satan, but at the end of the day god is where the buck stops. additionally, calvinist theology is basically like sunni islam in the major ways we are discussing here.

  3) therefore, the argument you present later is not unknown to christians, it is very the argument that many catholics make. see this review of a creationist book by a catholic cleric.

  4) there is one form of christianity which basically adheres to the outline you present above; mormonism. in mormonism god is a bounded physical being resident on the planet kolob who can not engage in contradictory actions is not is omnipotent or omniscient.

• 

  Omar 7:14 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  Maybe you should read the section on tawhid in the book, The Vision of Islam, and then you’ll have a better grasp of how God is understood in Islam. Islamic theology is simply one mode of discourse, and it has its limits. Anyways, you should check out the book. The section on good & evil (from a tawhid perspective) will interest you.

  http://tinyurl.com/3glbwp

• 

  Omar 7:16 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  … was addressing Razib there.

• 

  aziz 7:47 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  (Omar, i cleaned up your long URL a bit)

  Willow,

  I’m frankly baffled that anyone could see the journey of stardust and sludge to something as complex as a human eye and not immediately drop to his knees and profess some religion or other

  Here’s where I argue the other side. I can fully accept that there is a worldview in which that astounding journey is simply explained by physics, biology, entropy, and nonlinear dynamics (ie, emergent proprties of “chaotic” systems). In other words, there are valid buzzwords in the buzzword soup which adequately “explain” it without any technical need for a Creator. However, I personally find that such an interpretation, which omits an intelligence and a design, to require no less a leap of belief (if not faith) than outright faith. I draw a distinction between belief (which is, a conviction that things must have turned out a certain way, no matter how improbable it seems instinctually) to faith (a specific belief, in a specific something, as the causative agent).

  Omar, how about summarizing the point instead of asking us to read the book?

• 

  Omar 9:53 am on June 23, 2008 | #

  Well, the book explains tawhid in terms of the Names of God, Koranic verses, and other things to put something together that’s very coherent. The book (authors, William C. Chittick and Sachiko Murata) is a product of teaching Islam in universities for over 20 years.

  But I’d like to explain more, which I might do later. Reviews can be read at the Amazon page as well.

• 

  Willow 1:20 pm on June 23, 2008 | #

  Sachiko Murata is an INCREDIBLE intellect. Anyone who hasn’t read her book The Tao of Islam should.

  She’s studied with some of the highest-ranking mullahs in Qom. I’d love to meet her.

Join the Discussion