Not only has secularism failed to continue its steady global march but countries as varied as Iran, India, Israel, Algeria and Turkey have either had their secular governments replaced by religious ones, or have seen the rise of influential religious nationalist movements. Secularisation, as predicted by the social sciences, has failed.

To be sure, this failure is not unqualified. Many Western countries continue to witness decline in religious belief and practice. The most recent census data released in Australia, for example, shows that 30 per cent of the population identify as having ‘no religion’, and that this percentage is increasing. International surveys confirm comparatively low levels of religious commitment in western Europe and Australasia. Even the United States, a long-time source of embarrassment for the secularisation thesis, has seen a rise in unbelief. The percentage of atheists in the US now sits at an all-time high (if ‘high’ is the right word) of around 3 per cent. Yet, for all that, globally, the total number of people who consider themselves to be religious remains high, and demographic trends suggest that the overall pattern for the immediate future will be one of religious growth. But this isn’t the only failure of the secularisation thesis.

Scientists, intellectuals and social scientists expected that the spread of modern science would drive secularisation – that science would be a secularising force. But that simply hasn’t been the case. If we look at those societies where religion remains vibrant, their key common features are less to do with science, and more to do with feelings of existential security and protection from some of the basic uncertainties of life in the form of public goods. A social safety net might be correlated with scientific advances but only loosely, and again the case of the US is instructive. The US is arguably the most scientifically and technologically advanced society in the world, and yet at the same time the most religious of Western societies. As the British sociologist David Martin concluded in The Future of Christianity (2011): ‘There is no consistent relation between the degree of scientific advance and a reduced profile of religious influence, belief and practice.’

The story of science and secularisation becomes even more intriguing when we consider those societies that have witnessed significant reactions against secularist agendas. India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru championed secular and scientific ideals, and enlisted scientific education in the project of modernisation. Nehru was confident that Hindu visions of a Vedic past and Muslim dreams of an Islamic theocracy would both succumb to the inexorable historical march of secularisation. ‘There is only one-way traffic in Time,’ he declared. But as the subsequent rise of Hindu and Islamic fundamentalism adequately attests, Nehru was wrong. Moreover, the association of science with a secularising agenda has backfired, with science becoming a collateral casualty of resistance to secularism.

Turkey provides an even more revealing case. Like most pioneering nationalists, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish republic, was a committed secularist. Atatürk believed that science was destined to displace religion. In order to make sure that Turkey was on the right side of history, he gave science, in particular evolutionary biology, a central place in the state education system of the fledgling Turkish republic. As a result, evolution came to be associated with Atatürk’s entire political programme, including secularism. Islamist parties in Turkey, seeking to counter the secularist ideals of the nation’s founders, have also attacked the teaching of evolution. For them, evolution is associated with secular materialism. This sentiment culminated in the decision this June to remove the teaching of evolution from the high-school classroom. Again, science has become a victim of guilt by association.

The US represents a different cultural context, where it might seem that the key issue is a conflict between literal readings of Genesis and key features of evolutionary history. But in fact, much of the creationist discourse centres on moral values. In the US case too, we see anti-evolutionism motivated at least in part by the assumption that evolutionary theory is a stalking horse for secular materialism and its attendant moral commitments. As in India and Turkey, secularism is actually hurting science.

In brief, global secularisation is not inevitable and, when it does happen, it is not caused by science. Further, when the attempt is made to use science to advance secularism, the results can damage science. The thesis that ‘science causes secularisation’ simply fails the empirical test, and enlisting science as an instrument of secularisation turns out to be poor strategy. The science and secularism pairing is so awkward that it raises the question: why did anyone think otherwise?

Historically, two related sources advanced the idea that science would displace religion. First, 19th-century progressivist conceptions of history, particularly associated with the French philosopher Auguste Comte, held to a theory of history in which societies pass through three stages – religious, metaphysical and scientific (or ‘positive’). Comte coined the term ‘sociology’ and he wanted to diminish the social influence of religion and replace it with a new science of society. Comte’s influence extended to the ‘young Turks’ and Atatürk.

The 19th century also witnessed the inception of the ‘conflict model’ of science and religion. This was the view that history can be understood in terms of a ‘conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought – the theological and the scientific’. This description comes from Andrew Dickson White’s influential A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), the title of which nicely encapsulates its author’s general theory. White’s work, as well as John William Draper’s earlier History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), firmly established the conflict thesis as the default way of thinking about the historical relations between science and religion. Both works were translated into multiple languages. Draper’s History went through more than 50 printings in the US alone, was translated into 20 languages and, notably, became a bestseller in the late Ottoman empire, where it informed Atatürk’s understanding that progress meant science superseding religion.

Today, people are less confident that history moves through a series of set stages toward a single destination. Nor, despite its popular persistence, do most historians of science support the idea of an enduring conflict between science and religion. Renowned collisions, such as the Galileo affair, turned on politics and personalities, not just science and religion. Darwin had significant religious supporters and scientific detractors, as well as vice versa. Many other alleged instances of science-religion conflict have now been exposed as pure inventions. In fact, contrary to conflict, the historical norm has more often been one of mutual support between science and religion. In its formative years in the 17th century, modern science relied on religious legitimation. During the 18th and 19th centuries, natural theology helped to popularise science.

The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future. Secularisation theory failed at both description and prediction. The real question is why we continue to encounter proponents of science-religion conflict. Many are prominent scientists. It would be superfluous to rehearse Richard Dawkins’s musings on this topic, but he is by no means a solitary voice. Stephen Hawking thinks that ‘science will win because it works’; Sam Harris has declared that ‘science must destroy religion’; Stephen Weinberg thinks that science has weakened religious certitude; Colin Blakemore predicts that science will eventually make religion unnecessary. Historical evidence simply does not support such contentions. Indeed, it suggests that they are misguided.

So why do they persist? The answers are political. Leaving aside any lingering fondness for quaint 19th-century understandings of history, we must look to the fear of Islamic fundamentalism, exasperation with creationism, an aversion to alliances between the religious Right and climate-change denial, and worries about the erosion of scientific authority. While we might be sympathetic to these concerns, there is no disguising the fact that they arise out of an unhelpful intrusion of normative commitments into the discussion. Wishful thinking – hoping that science will vanquish religion – is no substitute for a sober assessment of present realities. Continuing with this advocacy is likely to have an effect opposite to that intended.

Religion is not going away any time soon, and science will not destroy it. If anything, it is science that is subject to increasing threats to its authority and social legitimacy. Given this, science needs all the friends it can get. Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism.

By Peter Harrison, published in Aeon, September 7th 2017.

Peter Harrison is an Australian Laureate Fellow and director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He is the author of The Territories of Science and Religion (2015), and the editor of Narratives of Secularization (2017).

Photo Credit

Ahmed Mater’s Magnetism.

By “we” let us mean the typical, ordinary human in typical, ordinary human environments. For the sake of discussion, take “born believers” to mean “born with such propensities that under ordinary developmental conditions—biological, social, and cultural—belief will typically arise.” This use of “born” parallels the colloquial way in which we may talk about someone as a “born musician” or “born athlete”—not actually coming out of the birth canal performing music or doing sports but having strong natural propensities to attain mastery in a particular area. Let us take “God” to mean an intentional being or agent with mental states and a will, who can and does act in the natural world. Let us also understand “God” to designate such an agent who has played some role in designing or ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about what is the case in the world, and is immortal. With these definitions in mind, then, the big question is: Are typical humans born with such propensities that, under ordinary developmental conditions, belief will likely arise in the existence of at least one God (i.e., an intentional agent who has played some role in ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about the world, and is immortal)? If that is our question, then we have reason to think the answer is yes.

To reach such a conclusion one must understand that children’s minds are not generic, all-purpose learning devices that treat all information the same. Selective pressures appear to have led to a mind that has natural dispositions to attend to some information over other and process information in particular ways to solve specific problems in navigating the world in which we live. To take one example, studies by Andrew Meltzoff and M. Keith Moore show that newborns—less than 24 hours old—can already pick out human faces in their environment and imitate facial expressions. Human minds have evolved in such a way as to render this task automatic and easy for newborns, perhaps because of how important it is for a hyper-social species such as ours to “read” each other’s attention, intentions, desires, and feelings from each others’ faces. Face detection, recognition, and imitation is only one example of the many subsystems of the human mind that appear to develop as a normal part of human maturation—what philosopher Robert McCauley has termed ‘maturationally natural’ cognition. Because these maturationally natural subsystems are a product of biological predispositions and environmental regularities, these systems are largely constant within and across cultures. These subsystems structure human interactions with their environment and subsequent learning and conceptual development. Consequently, they serve to inform and constrain cultural expression, including religious beliefs.

These maturationally natural cognitive subsystems encourage belief in at least one God, by creating a conceptual space that is most readily filled by such a God concept. That is, rather than the idea of a God being hard-wired into our cognitive systems, we are naturally inclined to reason about the world in such a way that a God concept fits like a key in a lock: God sits well with many of our natural intuitions such that belief in a God makes sense of how we conceive of the world and many events in our lives. I do not mean that we reflectively, rationally consider aspects of the world (such as its mere existence, apparent design or purposefulness, apparent coherence, etc.) and conclude that the existence of a God best accounts for these observations, though some people do. Rather, our naturally developing, untutored, conceptual equipment leads us to find the existence of at least one God intuitively attractive even absent any argumentation on the matter.

The primary culprits for our natural receptivity to believe in God appear to be the cognitive subsystems that we use to understand intentional agents, minds, and features of the natural world. From the first few months of life babies distinguish between those objects that move themselves in goal directed ways from all other objects. Before long they begin attributing rudimentary mental states such as goals and desires. On this foundation they build sophisticated understandings of how percepts inform beliefs, which guide the agent to act on desires leading to positive or negative emotional states. These ‘mindreading’ abilities are unparalleled by any other species. Importantly, the system that picks out intentional agents from other objects and things does not require a human body or even a three-dimensional form to be activated. Indeed, even three- and four-year-olds commonly have invisible companions with which they interact and converse, a demonstration of how facile humans are with agent and mind-based reasoning even without the aid of physical bodies, facial expressions, and other material data from which to work. Gods, then, pose no special problems.

Further, and more importantly, when children reason about agents (seen or unseen), they appear to err on the side of over-attributing access to information or knowledge in many situations. That is, preschool-aged children tend to think others know what is true of the world (at least as the child knows it), can perceive what is really there (even under conditions of darkness or occlusion), and can remember things that the child cannot remember.  Indeed, research by Bradley Wigger and Nicola Knight suggests that these attributions of superhuman information access may be especially true of unseen agents, including gods and invisible companions. Further, research by Emily Burdett and others shows that the idea of a being that lives forever appears to be acquired earlier by children than the idea that humans will eventually die. The idea of a being that is god-like on these dimensions appears to be easier for preschoolers to reason about than a human being.

These observations speak to the readiness for children to conceptualize a God, but not the motivation for them to do so. Some of the most intriguing research concerning explanatory motivation comes from Deborah Kelemen’s research team. Kelemen has shown that children naturally interpret features of the natural world as having purpose. Animals, plants, and even rocks and rivers are the way they are for a function external to themselves, and that is why they are here. Kelemen has also shown that this perception of purpose or function is closely related to supposing that the natural thing in question was created by someone. Preschoolers know that function is best explained by an intentional being bringing it about. This link between perceived functionality and intentionality creates a conceptual space for a designer or creator: who did it? Contrary to what Jean Piaget argued in the early 20^th century, children do not assume that humans account for the design they perceive. They recognize the need for someone(s) mightier. Enter a God.

Other scholars such as Scott Atran, Jesse Bering, Pascal Boyer, Stewart Guthrie, Robert McCauley, and Ilkka Pyysiainen have identified additional factors that may make belief in some kind of God relatively natural. Further, Ara Norenzayan and Dominic Johnson have each argued that belief in some kind of morally interested, watching deity may also be part of an adaptive gene-culture complex that then is selectively reinforced. Belief in a super observant moral police may make us more trustworthy and generous community members, leading to better fitness. Note that none of these scholars argue for the naturalness of theistic belief from any theological conviction. They recognize that the growing body of research in this area points to the typical human being naturally drawn to belief in something like a God by virtue of the way their minds develop in early childhood.

By Justin L. Barrett, published in Big Questions Online, March 5th 2013.

The video popped up after the release of two series of breath-taking images of ground-breaking astronomical observations that also created a buzz: the close-up images taken by the ESA Rosetta probe and the landing of Philae on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in November 2014, and the first fly-by of Pluto by the NASA probe New Horizons in July 2015. In both cases, sophisticated devices reached their very distant targets, after about a ten year travel through the solar system, on the strength of elaborate calculations of the motions of bodies in gravitational fields that involved not only the Galilean law of inertia that our sheikh seems to have forgotten (if possibly he has been taught it), and the laws of Newton, but also the trajectory corrections based of Einstein’s General Relativity. The probes reached their destinations with exquisite precision, and transmitted images of these distant lands. The knowledge utilized by modern scientists about the world and the position of this Saudi cleric posed a striking contrast.

Sheikh Bandar’s video is another example of the difficult and chaotic relationship of many Muslims, whether clerics or laymen, to modern science. We could cite many examples that have had a much greater impact on Muslims than this short clip. If one searches the phrase “Islam and science” on Google, many of the top sites that are returned claim to refute the theory of the Big Bang with arguments that show the superficiality of the knowledge of the field.  Other sites accept the Big Bang theory, that is, cosmic and geological evolution, but deny any type of biological evolution.  Still other sites claim that modern science is consistent only with Koranic revelation and not with the Bible, and that the Big Bang theory is proven by the text of the Koran.  Countless low-cost books and brochures on the same topics can be found in Islamic libraries.

I can assess the impact of such messages through the lecture courses I give in various parts of the Islamic world, and to various kinds of audience, including Muslim clerics, university students in science or in theology, and high-school teen-agers.  What strikes me most is not so much the attempts to discuss scientific theories or to propose philosophical interpretations of those theories, but rather the scientific and philosophical illiteracy of these discussions and interpretations, as well as the presumptuous tone with which they are proposed.  Unfortunately, by attempting to refute science with (poor) religious proofs, or to support religion with (poor) scientific proofs, and with so little scholarly apparatus, Muslims do much damage not only to the way their readers could understand science, but to their ability to understand the spiritual meaning of revelation, and to build a solid theological reflection on all of the knowledge at our disposal.

Sheikh Bandar would have upset ‘Ali Qushi, the astronomer of the 15th century who worked in central Asia and later in Istanbul, and who discussed Aristotle’s classical arguments against the motion of the Earth, disproved them, and was led to the conclusion that the motion of the Earth through space was possible. If ‘Ali Qushji was able to do so, it was because he was sceptical about the power of Aristotelian philosophy to describe nature, and he was willing to consider arguments from empirical data and from philosophy separately. During the Middle Age –the golden period of Islam–, Muslim thinkers, and especially theologians, criticized the Aristotelian version of causality in which effects happen necessarily when the natural causal antecedents are present.  These Muslim critics of Aristotle argued that God creates the world anew at each instant and thus viewed regularities in nature as a consequence of God’s will rather than the powers of natural substances.  On this view, the human mind can contemplate natural phenomena as God’s signs and reflect upon them and their meaning.  In spite of, or perhaps because of, their theological commitment to God’s presence as the “first cause,” they could see secondary causes as a tribute paid to the perfection of a renewed creation: “No want of proportion will you see in the creation of the Most Gracious. So turn your vision again: do you see any flaw?” The contribution of Muslim astronomers to science has been recently submitted to a revised evaluation by internationally-renowned scholars. The translation into Arabic of almost all non-literary texts during the period of the early Abbassid caliphate at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries, was due to a strong appetite for all kinds of knowledge, according to the saying of Prophet Muhammad: “Seek for knowledge even in China”. For Dimitri Gutas, “the Graeco-Arabic translation movement of Baghdad constitutes a truly epoch-making stage, by any standard, in the course of human history. It is equal in significance to, and belongs to the same narrative as, I would claim, that of Pericles’ Athens, the Italian Renaissance, or the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”. Muslim scientists corrected the errors in the original manuscripts, accumulated astronomical observations, made catalogues of all kinds of objects, and invented new technical instruments as well as new mathematical tools to describe the world.

So why don’t Muslims just continue on this way, and pursue the quest for knowledge in all its aspects, that is, not only religious knowledge, but also knowledge of the world, as they are prompted to do so by so many Koranic verses and sayings of the Prophet, and by the examples of their forefathers? When I talk with imams and young Muslims to whom I give lecture courses to make them more familiar with these topics, I frequently get the following response: there is a prejudice according to which modern science as it is currently practiced would necessarily lead to atheism.

It is true that “atheists” may use science to support an updated version of philosophical ideas that originally developed in Greece more than 25 centuries ago. Maybe one of the most striking examples of this use of science is given by Stephen Hawking’s book, The Grand Design, where this famous scientist proposes a complete worldview allegedly based on physics, in which science, after having taken the place of philosophy, concludes that there is no place for God. In a nutshell, according to Hawking, the laws of physics are able to explain why the universe appeared out of nothing, without the need for a Creator. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”. This book was welcomed by Richard Dawkins, another famous author, who uses evolutionary biology to promote atheism. But, it was largely criticized too, by many scientists who considered that contemporary science is not able to provide a complete and consistent account of reality, by philosophers who criticized Hawking’s philosophical naivete, and by religious thinkers who underlined Hawking’s theological illiteracy. If we assume that the universe actually appeared from the law of gravity and Quantum Mechanics, where does the law of gravity and Quantum Mechanics, as well as the quantum vacuum, which are not nothingness, come from?

In his essay Al-Munqidh min-ad-Dalal, in which he examines the various ways towards knowledge, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, one of the most famous Islamic thinkers in the history of Islamic theology, philosophy and spirituality, condemned “those who believe they defend Islam by rejecting the philosophical sciences”, and “actually cause much damage to it.” However he also identifies two risks in the practice of  rational inquiry: On the one hand, because philosophers are too proud, and too sure of themselves, they often venture beyond the field where reason applies, making statements about God and religious matters which are not sound. On the other hand, common believers, after seeing the excesses of these philosophers, are led to reject rational knowledge indiscriminately. These considerations were written almost one thousand years ago about philosophers, but they are still applicable today when it comes to the work of scientists such as Hawking or Dawkins, who venture to affirm final statements about the “grand design”.  

Muslim thinkers could easily be inspired from the lessons of the past, and, as Al-Ghazali did for the knowledge of his times in the 11th century, engage and indeed provide leadership in contemporary sciences in order to discriminate between theories, speculations, philosophical interpretations, and the oversimplifications so common in public discourse. The answer to those who attempt to hijack science in order to support a given philosophical worldview is not ignorance or contempt, but knowledge of science and philosophy that will help us develop sound theological reflections by combining the reading of the naql, that is, the holy texts that are the spiritual legacy of Islam, with the practice of the ‘aql, that is, the rational inquiry which is mindful of reasons limits.   Indeed science has identified fundamental limits of the rational inquiry from within itself. The theorems of incompleteness proposed by Gödel, Turing or Chaitin, are probably the most striking examples of the power of science that is able to prove that some mathematical statements are neither provable nor disprovable. And last but not least, the failed attempts by scientists (such as S. Hawking or R. Dawkins) to provide a full and final explanation for the universe and its workings, are lessons on the power and limits of the human mind to grasp a reality that unveils and veils itself. All that is of great interest for a religious thinker.

It is true that science challenges some of the traditional interpretations of the holy texts. But Muslim theologians have to consider these challenges as a purification of the ideas we have about God’s action in Creation. God does not cease to act, but not as other created agents act. He is different from His creatures and His absolute transcendence makes His presence in the world possible without any alteration of His transcendence. “There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees”. From the dialogue between science and faith, we can address fundamental issues on metaphysics, and question our views on ontology.

There are also more practical incentives that would encourage the interest in science. Science influences societies through technology, and gives birth to new things and new possibilities, as well as to new ethical issues that theologians have to address. We cannot live in a modern society without understanding how things work. Considering technical devices are mere black boxes that make our lives simpler is not a good attitude. It is just “magic thinking”. We collectively need to become more educated, so that we can develop reflective ethical positions on whether a given technology is really useful for society.

In this context, the dialog between science and religion is a way of renewing the interfaith dialogue, by prompting us to talk together not only on the majesty and beauty of the Creator appearing from the beauty and majesty of His Creation, but also on our common patrimony, our planet Earth now endangered by severe environmental issues. These issues are discovered and identified by science, with its ability to measure and model complex systems, and are connected to technology, whose improper use produced the current unbalance, but whose proper use might help solve the issue. As a matter of fact, in their deep origin, environmental issues are intimately linked to spirituality. The outer desertification process parallels the inner deserts that harm our hearts. What is at stake is our vision of the cosmos as created by God, and our responsibility as God’s “vice-regents on Earth”. These fundamental Koranic teachings are recalled by the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change issued by a group of Muslim scholars that echoes the recent encyclical Laudato Si’ published by Pope Francis.

As a conclusion, it is imperative that Muslims participate in the dramatic challenges of the 21st century.  We thus must set the foundations of a renewed dialogue between science and religion in the Islamic thinking, inspired by the lessons of the past. Of course, this endeavour, because of its technicalities, has to be a collective effort, in which scientists and theologians, in their field of expertise, talk and work together with respect and modesty. And, for sure, it would seem highly desirable that the agenda and the topics for this revived dialogue should be fixed “by Muslims, and for Muslims”. But there is here a strong caveat: what is at stake now is simply the survival of the human-kind during the 21st century, in a context of growing environmental threats, resource exhaustion, loss of biodiversity, pollution of lands and soils, and increase of population, as it is reminded in the above-mentioned Christian and Islamic references. Contemporary philosophical and theological reflections should now be made with this challenge in mind. Problems are worldwide and solutions have to be worldwide. Here again, any initiative that would not converge into a collective effort to address this daunting challenge would be of little use. So Muslims should rather open their minds, and work with all the people of good will.

In the current state of the world, there is no easy way to be taken in order to reach this goal, neither theoretically, nor practically. We have to avoid self-pride and vainglory in front of the problems, and we must start with humility. The situation seems to be difficult, but there is also a great hope that the current turmoil may provoke a new awareness. Wa-Llahu a’lam.

By Bruno Abd-al-Haqq Guiderdoni,

Astrophysicist, Director of the Lyon Astrophysical Research Centre (University of Lyon, France), Director of the Islamic Institute for Advanced Studies.

By Ehsan Masood

Writer, thinker, scholar, theorist, broadcaster, critic, journalist and futurist; Muslim, British, Pakistani, South Asian. Ziauddin Sardar has many occupations and more than one identity. Indeed, many of his critics complain that he deliberately cultivates ‘a carefully calculated ambiguity’ projecting several things at once, yet none of them on their own. He wants to be seen simultaneously as both traditionalist and modernist – while at the same time being a severe critic of both.

Sardar’s evolution into a polymath began with a much more defined intellectual range: the modernisation of traditional societies, particularly those with predominantly Muslim populations. It is his extensive writings on this theme that form the core of How Do You Know: Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations. The book is intended as a companion volume to Islam, Postmodernism and Other Futures: a Ziauddin Sardar Reader, which is concerned largely with Sardar’s writings on postmodernism and futures studies.

Some of the essays in this new volume are drawn from Sardar’s earliest books, written in the late 1970s and the 1980s, such as Explorations in Islamic Science and Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come. This was also the formative period of his own ideas and position. During the 1970s and 1980s he travelled and wrote prodigiously about science, technology, international development, Islam and the environment. Part of the aim of How Do You Know is to introduce Sardar’s ideas that were formed in that period to a generation of English-speaking readers who have come to know him largely from his columns in the New Statesman, his contributions to newspapers like the Independent and the Observer, popular science writing, and television and radio appearances.

The question that Sardar has always asked is: how do you know? For Sardar, the answers we get from using particular methods – such as the scientific method – provide at best partial answers. He says that a great deal depends on who ‘you’ are: how you look at the world, how you shape your inquiry, the period and culture that shapes your  outlook and the values that frame how you think. In Islam, Sardar insists, knowing is always accompanied by shaping: to know the world is to interact with it, to shape it and understand it according to the principles, values and worldview of Islam. Much of his work on Islam seeks to combine theory with practice. Indeed, Sardar and his network of intellectuals, the Ijmalis, pioneered concepts – such as definitions of knowledge (ilm in Arabic) and public interest (istislah) – as analytical tools that can be used to develop practical policies from theoretical work

Ehsan Masood, Introduction to How Do You Know? Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations

Al-Khalili advocated the values of the European Enlightenment, arguing that ever since the “Age of Reason” took hold during the 18th century, Humanists have looked to science instead of religion to explore and comprehend the world. Sardar upheld the view that it is the combination of faith and reason that offers a fuller understanding of the world, maintaining that it was this worldview that enabled the development of science in the Islamic golden Age.

A practising Muslim, Sardar is on an independent mission to promote rational, considered thought in interpreting the Qur’an. He explained that when he came to the UK from Pakistan, he found comfort in the familiar language of mathematics, which set him on a trajectory to train as a physicist: “God doesn’t need me, I need him. It makes me a better person and a better scientist”, he said.

He described the way in which, as a child, his dissatisfaction with rudimentary religious guidance at home instilled a strong urge for self-enquiry: “Science forces you to ask questions. The more you think, the [fewer] answers you find”.

Sardar asserted that religion and reason are two sides of the same coin and feels that conflict between the two is deliberately manufactured. He argued that problems arisewhen Muslims adopt a narrow, reductionist interpretation regarding the holistic concept of ilm – whereas in fact there are many facets to knowledge.

In Sardar’s view, the Qur’an is much more sophisticated than a simple rulebook: “it is the beginning of the adventure, not the end.” He also believes in the value of perpetual interpretation: “God is not an accountant. He didn’t give us everything on plate and leave with us with nothing to do. He created us with the agency and freedom to think. God likes a good argument. He doesn’t give full answers, things have been deliberately left hanging for us to explore further.”

In short, Sardar’s view is that although human knowledge at times converges with the Qur’an, the text should certainly not be treated as a scientific encyclopaedia. In support of this view, Sardar lamented the emergence of the I’jaz movement, which insists the Qur’an contains descriptions of modern scientific phenomena ranging from quantum mechanics to accurate descriptions of the stages of embryology and geology. In Sardar’s opinion, this stems from insecurity and a personal need to vindicate Islam to others.

Jim Al-Khalili agreed that ascribing literal meanings to religious texts can be perilous and that these verses should be interpreted more metaphorically. Likewise, when Einstein famously said “God does not play dice” he was using a figure of speech to acknowledge that there are things we don’t yet understand but this shouldn’t stop us from trying to find out more.

Whilst Al-Khalili is a staunch atheist, he is agnostic when it comes to the existence of God and adopts what he describes as an “accomodationist” approach: “I don’t think people who believe in God are irrational, I just don’t see a need to believe there is a purpose for why things are the way they are.” Born in Bagdad, Al-Khalili grew up in Iraq. His mother was Christian and his father was Shia, but he never heard them quarrel about religion. By the time he reached his teens he felt that he had distanced himself from needing any form of spirituality and his subsequent scientific training cemented this worldview. He asserted that his core values are empathy, humility and respect, without being driven by a reward in an afterlife: “It’s not just people of religious faith that have a moral compass – morality is what makes us human.”

Al-Khalili is a prolific advocate of the Islamic golden age of science: he has authored a book on the topic and has just finished presenting a new TV series about it on Al-Jazeera. Although Al-Khalili questioned if some of the major scholars were culturally religious rather than devout followers, he acknowledges the clear interconnection between faith and science during the medieval period. In support of this his cited Simon Schaffer’s thesis on the subject: once a belief in a single God was established there was an impetus to understand the nature of his creation and discover how things work using the brains He equipped us with. For instance, as the Islamic empire expanded to other lands, Muslims in these new territories were required to know the direction of Mecca for prayer, which led to leaps in map-making and trigonometry, along with a better understanding of geography. The need to establish the schedule for daily prayers, and to forecast the precise timings of sunset and sunrise for fasting during Ramadan, spurred major advances in astronomy by perfecting instruments such as the astrolabe. The importance of cleanliness, coupled with the urge to heal the sick, were incentives for major advances in medicine.

“So why we have forgotten the vast contributions of Islamic scientists and thinkers?”, Al-Khalili pondered. Whilst we champion the work of Galileo, Kepler and Newton we still need reminding about earlier influencers such as Al-Biruni, Al-Tusi and Ibn Al-Shatir who had an impact on the work of Copernicus. Similarly, Ibn al-Haytham articulated the scientific method long before Descartes, Al-Khalili emphasised.

Whilst Al-Khalili confessed that science could be regarded as a form of ideology, he argues science is substantiated through the mechanisms of experimentation and reproducibility rather than relying on “blind faith”. Whilst individual scientists may carry personal bias, dogma or have vested interests, the process of science itself is self-correcting. He admitted this isn’t always the case when it comes to daily practice. For example, string theory is still a mathematical game rather than a bona fide theory as we don’t yet have a testable way to verify it. In his opinion, we should keep searching for answers – it is intellectually lazy to not investigate further.

And what if science proves religious dogma to be incorrect? The heliocentric theory and understanding of evolution have already made previous concepts about the world redundant. “If science conclusively proves something to be true then the preceding religious dogma would have to change”, Sardar conceded .“But the point is, science doesn’t necessarily come up with final answers. Much like religion, science is open to constant revision and reinterpretation”, he argued.

Sardar is alarmed by non-rational Islamists advocating worldviews that go against the grain of science. “I find the dawn of creationism in the Muslim world astonishing: historically Muslims were never creationists,” he lamented, referring to the work of Al-Jahiz and Ibn Tufail who wrote extensively on spontaneous generation and pre-Darwinian concepts.

Sardar presented the notion that the early Muslim community had enough self-conviction to co-exist successfully in a plural society, but that over time this self-confidence became eroded as a more rigid form of Islam took hold. “Dogmatic people dislike uncertainty” observed Sardar, who further suggested that the outlawing of ijtihad (critical reasoning) spelt the end of Islam’s Golden Age. Al-Ghazali was portrayed as the main party-pooper: he launched a devastating attack on Aristotelian rationalism following a personal crisis of faith. Ironically, this came after being upheld as the beacon of philosophical thought in his earlier years. Caliphs who were initially great patrons of scholarship gradually became increasingly conservative and closed their gates to free thinkers.

As Sardar described it, the final nail in the coffin was falling into clutches of western colonialism. This was enabled by European seafaring nations who discovered new territories in 1492 CE and thereby secured unlimited access to human and mineral resources. This provided the cash flow to fund scientific research back home in Europe. Whilst Al-Khalili suggested that having a spirit of adventure and engaging in quests to uncover the unknown could be seen as virtues, Sardar was unconvinced, and argued that the values of western Enlightenment had disastrous effects for the people in the “New World”, who were not encountered with mutual respect: “We must not forget that most philosophers of the Enlightenment were deeply racist and perceived alien cultures, including Islam, as inferior.”

Historians currently conclude the Islamic golden age of science began to decline during the 12th Century but this stance ignores the major contributions made during the Ottoman Empire up until the 14th Century. In Sardar’s opinion, Ibn Khaldun was the last great scholar of the age; he died in 1406 CE.

But what is the state of contemporary science in the Islamic world today? Al-Khalili acknowledged we need to be concerned about the rise of anti-scientism in certain parts of the world. Whilst some are suspicious of science as a form of authority, there is also a universal race to be world-class leaders in science and innovation. However, Sardar believes such initiatives in the Arabian Peninsula rely on imported labour and imitate research already happening in the west. On highlighting developments in the Gulf in particular, Sardar warned that having “money and no brains” is a dangerous combination: it’s easy to order new buildings and research labs, but unless these are accompanied by a sustained spirit of rational enquiry this kind of movement is vulnerable to crumble.

Sardar sees himself as part of a vehicle trying to recreate rational discourse in Islam. Through hosting fellowship programmes and publishing the Critical Muslim journal via the Muslim Institute he founded, Sardar is endeavouring to cultivate a critical mass of freethinkers who can influence positive change. While this may be feasible in Britain, it’s much harder for those living in Muslim nations today to ask intelligent questions without major repercussions. Al-Khalili hopes to see debates on evolution happening in the Middle East, which would signal a genuine rekindling of rational thought. A previous debate on evolution in the UK did generate some groundbreaking discussion, but this initiative has not been sustained on the same scale.

Rather than indulging in adversarial polemics, the event succeeded in facilitating lively yet complex dialogue to a riveted audience of 400 Humanists and Muslims. During the three years of Al-Khalili’s presidency of the BHA, he has proved himself to be an effective agent of intercultural dialogue. I hope the next president will continue on this track.

By Yasmin Khan, published in The Guardian, November 6th 2015.

Yasmin Khan is the producer of Sindbad Sci-Fi. Follow her on Twitter @Ya5min_BL

Firstly, such an environment can only be created if you put in the work and deal with the problems as they arise. It’s not something that you can just dream up while sitting at your desk. Secondly, to make it sustainable, management needs to be accountable for its actions. Unfortunately, this is not always the case here. Without these two elements, no money in the world will allow science to progress and develop.

There is an abundance of minds and creativity in the Arab world. However, most of them drain into the West because there is a well-established support system for research.

So, what is the solution? The solution is freedom; freedom of opinion, being able to come to a decision through questioning, unhindered contemplation, institutional accountability, democracy and human rights.

Freedom will ultimately lead to progress and development not only in science but in all aspects of life in the Arab world.

Freedom will ultimately lead to progress and development not only in science but in all aspects of life in the Arab world. Freedom of opinion starts at home, with children given the opportunity and encouragement to question, challenge and form their own opinions.

This should further be fostered in schools, where teachers encourage students to ask questions. If teachers don’t have the answers, they should say so honestly and without covering up gaps in their knowledge by stifling the student. Children can learn to form their own opinions if they are taught reasoning and deduction and are granted the space to practise those skills. That is what our children need and that is what is missing in the Arab world.

University students have not been able to form independent opinions reflecting their original thinking. The day my students wrote essays expressing themselves was the day they felt human. One student told me that he was finally Someone – with a capital S.

The day I listened to a student explain her opinion was the day she could give me a big smile and tell me it was the first time she felt respected. It is such individuals who build our communities and nations, who will make a difference, who will take us into the twenty-first century with confidence.

How do we achieve this goal? I believe the only effective way is to instil a love of reading in our young ones, so that they can learn from other people’s experiences across time and space and see and respect other ways, other narratives, that are equally justified. I have developed a programme called We Love Reading to do that throughout the Arab world by training women to read aloud to children in their neighbourhoods.

By Rana Dajani.

This blog first appeared in nature.com

Dr. Rana Dajani teaches molecular biology and is the Director of the Center for Studies at the Hashemite University of Jordan. She is also the founder of the initiative We Love Reading, which aims to encourage children in the Arab world to read for pleasure. Dr Rana Dajani, who took part in the Belief in Dialogue conference on 21-23 June, blogs about what’s needed for science to flourish.

The conference was organised by the British Council in partnership with the American University of Sharjah and in association with the International Society of Science and Religion.

I begin this address by pronouncing the traditional sentence “in the name of God the Compassionate the All-Merciful”. With this formula, the Muslims initiate all the ritual acts of their religious life, and also all the important acts of their everyday life which consequently acquire a sacred value. Before each act, I should always ask to myself:  Will I truly act in the name of God the Compassionate the All-Merciful? And if this act does not manifest God’s Love and Mercy, it is better that I refrain from performing it. This formula is written at the beginning of each chapter of the Koran, one hundred and fourteen times, so that it appears as a key principle for reading and interpreting it. Unfortunately we, human beings, are sinners, and we do not often live, in the name of God the Compassionate the All-Merciful, the core of the spiritual quest that founds our human dignity.

I am a scientist and I am a believer. As a scientist, my interest goes to the cosmos. I try to unravel the puzzles of the physical reality. As a believer, my interest goes to God and to his action within the human. I try to accept the mystery of the ultimate reality and the multiple ways it appears in the human condition. I feel deeply concerned by our 21st century. The terrible events of September 11 cast a dark shadow on it. Do we have reasons to hope again? Can we prepare seeds for the future? Do we still believe in the human?

We are looking for peace. But we have first to understand that peace will never be possible without justice. How is it possible for me to live quietly when my neighbor, on the other side of the street, is hungry, thirsty and cold? But why should I help my neighbor? Because we share the same human nature that requires this type of charity. We thus have to understand that we shall never have justice if we do not consider the truth that defines our human condition.

According to many theologians, the two challenges of the 21st century deal with the nature of scientific truth and the nature of religious truth. Both of them are linked to the human condition.

Let me address first the nature of scientific truth. As you probably know, it is difficult to define scientific truth. What we know is the method that leads to the growth of knowledge, the trial-and-error method of scientific experiments and observations. The development of scientific knowledge has been spectacular during the 20th century, and it will still be more dramatic in the 21st century, if the human kind survives the temptation of its own destruction.

Probably the most interesting outcome of the science of the 20th century is the fact that science has identified its own limits from within science itself: Goedel’s meta-mathematical theorem, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the existence of phenomena which are not predictable, or the fundamental limits of astronomical observations are examples of the horizons of our scientific knowledge. It is not just a transient stage that will be overcome in the future. We now know that science cannot explore and monitor the whole of reality. It leaves space for other approaches that can also address the issue of meaning. We understand that the acquisition of scientific knowledge is an open process, and that we should travel on the path towards truth with great humility.

Maybe we should also recover the two-fold dimension of human intelligence. During the Middle Ages, the Jews, Christians and Muslims knew that the human intelligence has two sides: on the one hand, the syllogistic power, on the other hand the contemplative power. We do not have only the ability to make algorithms, to produce new true statements from previous true statements. We also have the ability to capture and contemplate truth. We can understand much more than what we can conceptualize. We are more than sophisticated computers. Being human is keeping this two-fold dimension of human intelligence, by trying to get a balance between reason and contemplation, between striving to solve puzzles and sitting to contemplate mysteries.

Let me come now to the nature of religious truth. There has been so much misunderstanding between the believers of the various religions. Each civilization has tried to propagate its own views. However, we must admit that, in spite of all the so-called “holy wars” and the durable efforts of many generations, the diversity of religions still remains. And we all have to live together on an earth that is smaller than ever because of the development of the communication and transportation means.  Let us accept it is God’s will. Maybe it is time now to uproot the elements of religious exclusivism that are present in our interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, and to include the diversity of religions within our theological views.

As you know, the holy scriptures speak the language of myths and parables to tell us something about the meaning of our lives. Let me tell you a brief, but very profound myth that I find in the Koran (chapter 7, verse 172). It takes place in a metaphysical locus that the Islamic tradition calls “pre-eternity”, a level of reality before the creation of time. I quote the Koran: “Your Lord brought forth descendants from the loins of Adam’s children, and made them testify against themselves. He said: Am I not your Lord? They replied: We bear witness You are.”

The brief story of the Primeval Covenant between God and the human has three fundamental consequences on the human condition. First, all the human beings have the same God, the God of all the human kind, who is known through many names in the various revelations, and describes Himself with many different aspects and qualities.

Second, as far as the human beings have answered the same unique question, they share a unique spiritual nature. According to this view, the human nature is not defined by its genome, which is not so different from the chimp’s one. The human is not only an animal which has reason, as Aristotle had put it, nor an animal that possesses the ability to speak. The human is the creature which is able to know God. This common nature gathers all of us by the tight links of a brotherhood which is even more than Adamic: it is metaphysical. Once this spiritual nature is recognized in any of us, how is it possible to bring violence to the other?

Third, since there is a unique God for all the human kind, and a unique spiritual nature, there is also a unique religion, very much as a single straight line can be drawn between two different points. This unique religion is known from the Islamic tradition as the “immutable tradition”. How is it possible? We see so many religions on earth, maybe too many religions for the spiritual needs of the human. The Koran explains that the spiritual nature of the human is unique, but the peoples are very different, because the historical and geographical circumstances in which they live are different. God does not cease to reveal the same spiritual message under the veils of the words and symbols which fit the needs of the peoples.

I read in the Koran (Chapter 5, verse 48): “Had god pleased, He could have made of you one community:  but it is His wish to prove you by that which He has bestowed upon you. Vie with each other in good works, for to God you shall all return and He will resolve for you your differences.”

Would it be possible to understand the religious truth as follows: All the religions are true as far as they can lead their believers on the path to the Truth, which is one of God’s most beautiful names? The dogmas and rituals of my religion apparently differ from the dogmas and rituals of the religion of my neighbor. But the aim of religions is to prepare us to accept the Truth that stands beyond our minds’ grasp. The acquisition of religious knowledge is also an open process, and we should travel on the path towards the Truth with great humility.

What does it mean to be human? Let me finish by another myth: the story of God’s creation of Adam, as it can be found in the Koran (for example in chapter 2, verses 30-34, and chapter 7, verses 11-18). God says to the Angels: “I am placing on the earth one that shall rule as my Deputy.” The Angels reply: “Will you put there one that will do evil and shed blood, when we have for so long sung your praises and sanctified Your name ?” God says: “I know what you know not”. God ordains that the Angels prostrate themselves before Adam. All of them obey, accept Iblis who becomes “the Adversary”. Iblis is limited by the idea he has about God. He is so full of pride with himself that He is sure that God is making a mistake by giving such a responsibility to Adam. Iblis asks God for the possibility to show him that Adam is not able to fulfill his duty. Because God believes in the Human, He gives this possibility to Iblis.

The fundamental issue we have to address is clear: Do we believe in the human as much as God believes in the human?

Let me close this address by giving you the traditional salutation:

“May God’s Peace, Love and Blessing be upon you”.

Wa-s-salamu alaykum wa rahmatu-Llah wa barakatuh

The reverse exercise, to try to convince scientists and other educated people that religion should be taken seriously, is much more difficult, for several reasons. First, there is an intrinsic asymmetry in the relationship: science, in addition to being a methodology and a discovery process, is able to ascertain a vast array of results and present whole swaths of established knowledge. Today, no one can doubt that matter is made of atoms and particles, that life evolved and produced a vast tree of species, or that the universe has expanded from a singularity and is today made up of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each made up of hundreds of billions of stars, many/most of which have planets around them, etc.

On the other hand, “religion” (I’ll get to definitions shortly), while having developed branches of knowledge, with methodologies and references, cannot claim to present realms of established knowledge. Still, “religion,” in some forms and from some perspectives, can present an ensemble of highly respectable and beneficial ideas that even hardline scientists can appreciate and find useful, for humanity if not for themselves.

In attempting to explore this issue, a problem of definitional clarity presents itself right away. If the concept of “science” is more or less understood, at least by well-educated people, the notion of “religion” is far from evident and agreed upon. To make things clear, I’ll define science as a rigorous and systematic process of discovery about the world (in all its fields and features, physical, biological, psychological, etc.), a process which is able to ascertain its results through confirmatory procedures (which involve testing, peer reviewing, etc.). Modern science is not a foolproof process, but it is as close to a robust system for reaching factual and objective knowledge (independent of the subject) as we have been able to construct.

In attempting to define “religion,” however, one must distinguish “faith”, “spirituality”, and “religion.” “Faith” is the belief in something or some things (a creator, a divine force, a spirit, life after death, revelation, etc.) without being able to prove that in any objective way. (“I had a vivid, personal experience” is wholly subjective.) “Spirituality” is a feeling that there is some activity within us that is not purely material or at least happens at a higher plane than our simple bio-psychological phenomena. “Religion” relates to an organized system of beliefs (theology), practices (rules and rituals), and relations, at both individual and communal levels (church, community, society, etc.).

Recently, social scientists such as Elaine Ecklund have highlighted the importance of differentiating between “spirituality” and “religion;” indeed, Ecklund has found that among academic atheists, 22 percent describe themselves as “spiritual;” it has also been reported that 10 percent of Danish atheists call themselves “religious.” To understand “spiritual atheists,” one must keep in mind that “spiritual” for many scientists and academics refers to a feeling of awe, wonder, and mystery about the world and about all of existence. And to make sense of “religious atheists,” one must recall that some religions (e.g. Buddhism) do not have God or theism as part of their belief systems…

This brings me to the concept of “religion.” The history of western religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, have produced an image of irrational beliefs, rigid dogmas, tough rules, authoritarian systems, and sometimes rejection of scientific facts, whereby one cannot question, much less deviate from, the views of the high clergy or the statements found in the holy books.

But scientists, academics, and discerning people must not confine their ideas to such simplistic and cartoonish views of religion. Most religions, western and eastern, have developed rather advanced and sophisticated theologies. And that is what all of us, believers and non-believers, must encourage and deal with: refined, “cultivated” religion.

In my view, all religions must evolve, now much more than in the past, due to the fast advancement of human thought and knowledge. Some religions, or branches of them, have already presented very attractive, “updated” theologies, what are sometimes referred to as “liberal theologies.” One of the first criteria, or even litmus tests, for such “updated” theologies is their degree of compatibility with modern science, a sine qua non condition.

Now, assuming that one is dealing with such an advanced, open-minded, open-ended, and “updated” theology or religion, should scientists take it seriously? What is there to gain in doing so; wouldn’t science and liberalism be sufficient for the progress of humanity?

Recently, more and more, science and its practitioners have sought to claim as large and unbounded a space of investigation and explanation as possible, including all human life and society. This is generally labeled as “scientism” (often considered a rather pejorative term). This tendency is partly due to the propensity of human societies, despite modern critiques, to place scientists on a pedestal, thereby implying that they possess deeper understandings of the whole world and thus should be entrusted with all our issues to address.

But even scientists with this kind of imperialistic proclivity know that our view of the world (nature, human life, society) cannot be limited to the scientific perspective. Indeed, art has always existed and no one has sought to get rid of it simply because a rainbow can easily be explained by physics or a music tune can be recorded as 0’s and 1’s. Likewise, philosophy is not about to disappear even as some of its topics of old have been taken over by science. Similarly, religion addresses a dimension of human life and thought that can rarely be illuminated by science.

When we ask “believers” (very widely, as their “beliefs” span a huge spectrum) what religion brings to them, we usually hear the following: a personal purpose and meaning to one’s life, a perspective on things, a sense of identity, an emphasis on love as the most important factor in life, a communal bonding and support, moral guidance and compass, and a greater ability to cope with death and disasters.

From believing scientists, we also hear ideas such as “a unified worldview,” whereby the universe “makes more sense.” As I mentioned above, the feelings of awe, wonder, and mystery are also shared by “spiritual atheists;” however, what believers find in religion is a harmonious explanation for all of existence, with its physical and metaphysical dimensions, mental, spiritual, relational, and communal. And it unifies the ideas of life and death.

The universe is mysterious and perplexing, and while one must not fill our inability to comprehend some aspects of it by postulating ad hoc beliefs, it is still a reasonable approach to consider some worldview that is able to not just give meaning to the phenomena that one observes (unimaginable vastness, layers upon layers of complexity, staggeringly intricate effects stemming from a handful of simple laws or principles) with the rest of human life and history.
Many religious academics and scientists have also indicated that their beliefs help them deal with the question of what it means to be human. Again, due to the large spectrum of beliefs that people hold, “what it means to be human” can range from “being in the image of God” to “having a spirit” or even just “a higher level of consciousness.” In any case, one can see that such personal beliefs, whether constructed for oneself or taken from the teachings of one’s religion, can be helpful in this matter.

Moreover, a number of religious scientists have stressed that their beliefs provide them with stronger ethical principles in their lives in general as well as in their scientific practice. The question of ethics in science is a vast issue that has been discussed at length by a variety of thinkers and organizations, but what higher principle must be set in order to derive ethical regulations and standards has never been obvious. And so here as in the question of humanness, believers state that their religiosity constitutes a frame of reference and a set of guiding principles to help them derive rules of practice.

To conclude, science, at least in the parts that one must regard as established, must be accepted and upheld by all, believers and non-believers, particularly educated persons. Faith, spirituality, and religion, on the other hand, are optional sets of ideas that one may choose to carry or not, in one version or another. However, educated and discerning people in particular, must strive to make faith, spirituality, and religion, as sophisticated, open, and updated as possible. Once the above two caveats are effected, science and religion can have much to bring to one another and to humanity.

At the very least, non-believing scientists – and science in general – stand to gain by understanding the religious public in order to better communicate their work and their findings, something that we all must strive to achieve, for the betterment of humanity.

It may be obvious that we cannot ignore science, with its methods and results. But it would also be beneficial to humanity if science and scientists not only refrained from trying to erase all that religion can provide and insisting on purely rational behaviors but also gleaned some of the positive contributions that it can make to humanity. There is more to the world than science can see…

By Nidhal Guessoum, published in BIG QUESTIONS ONLINE, August 19th 2013.

From 21 to 23 June 2011, a big conference was held at the American University of Sharjah (AUS) in the UAE, jointly organised by the British Council (BC) in partnership with AUS and in association with the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR). The conference forms part of the British Council’s “Belief in Dialogue” initiative, which is intended to foster closer inter-faith dialogue on matters of common cultural interest, including religious belief and the place and significance of the sciences in various worldviews.

Belief In Dialogue Conference at AUS

The conference was titled “Belief in Dialogue: Science, Culture and Modernity”.  In addition to plenary lectures and discussions, parallel sessions were devoted to the exploration of three broad themes running through the conference:

• Science and Religion: Two Cultures?
• Cultures of Belief in Modern Societies
• Ethical Values and Human Responsibility. This theme will explore ethical issues in relation to the environment, to questions of sustainability and to problems arising from new technologies – including such controversial matters as stem-cell research.

AUS holds Belief in Dialogue Conferenc

Over 40 of the world’s leading thinkers from across 10 countries have convened at AUS for the conference, including HE Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Turkish scholar who is currently the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who gave the opening keynote speech, Tariq Ramadan, the well-known scholar of Islam and Philosophy, and many others from around the world.

A list of plenary speakers also included Paul Davies, Ziauddin Sardar, Munawar Anees, Andrew Briggs, John Hedley Brooke, Philip Clayton, William Grassie, Nidhal Guessoum, Salman Hameed, Aref Nayed, Jean Staune, Mehdi Golshani, and Ronald Numbers.

Call for increased dialogue between journalists and science community

The Middle East’s first Belief in Dialogue: Science, Culture and Modernity conference

His Excellency Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called on Islamic countries to reform the higher education sector and increase their focus on science and technology, at the opening ceremony of the Middle East’s first Belief in Dialogue: ‘Science, Culture and Modernity’ conference, organised by the British Council in conjunction with American University of Sharjah (AUS) and held under the patronage of Highness Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Mohammad Al Qassimi, Supreme Council Member, Ruler of Sharjah and Founder and President of AUS.

From the opening plenary session: From left to right – Nidhal Guessoum, Paul Davies, Mark Rush and John Hedley Brooke.

Professor Ihsanoglu urged member-states of the OIC-an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states- to commit to becoming a community that values knowledge and is competent in advancing science and technology to enhance the socio-economic well-being of the Muslim world.

“With the advent of the 21st century, the position of Islam towards science has developed more in the direction of achieving advance knowledge and know-how in a rather pragmatic way. The importance of scientific enterprise became more prominent and the need for excellence in research is felt in more advanced Muslim countries,” said Professor Ihsanoglu.

Professor Ihsanoglu added that “from the perspective of the OIC, there is a need to reform the higher education sector and priority given to science and technology while emphasising the tolerant and moderate understanding of the religion of Islam. We have urged member states to strive for quality education that promotes creativity and innovation and to increase their expenditure of research and development.”

Professor Ihsanoglu personally proposed that the leading countries of the OIC should reach 1% of their expenditure of GDP on research and development. As a result of the OIC’s efforts, average expenditure on research and development among member states has recently doubled -growing from 0.2% of GDP in 2005 to 0.41% of GDP today.

Professor Ihsanoglu’s speech opened the ‘Science, Culture and Modernity’ conference, organised as part of the by the British Council’s global Belief in Dialogue programme that explores how people all over the world can live peacefully amidst growing diversity. He travelled to Sharjah immediately from an official visit to the U.K. where he had held meetings with Prime Minister David Cameron, and Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Dr. Peter Heath, Chancellor of American University of Sharjah, speaking at the opening ceremony said, “It is fitting that this conference on ‘Belief in Dialogue: Science, Culture and Modernity’ be held at AUS not only because it concurs with our university’s vision and mission, but also because there are few universities in the world where one encounters such social, national, and religious diversity. The 5,250 students of this university represent over 80 nationalities; its faculty and staff comprise over 40 nationalities. AUS is coeducational, with its student body almost equally divided between women and men.

“It is an essential part of the mission of AUS, as with any great university, to offer opportunities for its own community and for members of the general public to consider, discuss, and investigate the great issues of the day,” he added.

“In the region of the Middle East, there are certainly enough events occurring currently for us to observe and discuss. In many of the countries of North Africa and the Levant, historic social and political changes are taking place, changes whose nature and implications we still see unfolding,” he said. “Whatever course such transformations take in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, or Syria, the issues that this conference raises will still be of great relevance. In the long term, they may be even more pertinent than some of the short-term political tides that ebb and flow during the next few years.”

Patrick Brazier, Regional Director, MENA, British Council, addressed the opening ceremony on behalf of the British Council, “It is important that the discussions that take place here in Sharjah do not end here. That is why we at the British Council, with our international networks, are committed to ensure that the dialogue continues.”

“We will be running further events in different places around the world. And with our partners from the BBC World Service, we will be making sure that the conversations continue, over the airwaves and over the internet.”

A debate hosted by the BBC World Service on Wednesday, June 22nd is set to be a conference highlight and will invite a global audience to participate in the spirited exchange that will take place over the course of the event.

Science and Culture in Islam debate

Dr. Mark Rush, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at AUS, said AUS and the UAE, provide an ideal venue to discuss themes of science, culture, and modernity. “This region is also the epicentre of a civilization that stretched from the Atlantic to India. One of the shining lights of the civilization was the culture of Al Andalus which boasted an intimate, intense, and peaceful intermingling of cultures and philosophies that gave rise to astonishing advances in science and learning. The spirit of common inquiry that characterized Al Andalus brings us together today,” said Dr. Rush.

“The themes and issues we will discuss over the next three days all address the intersection of science, religion, ethics, public policy and the extent to which the development and accumulation of more knowledge about these topics will promote common cause amidst diversity or simply fan the flames of disagreement and division,” he added.

Over 40 of the world’s leading thinkers from across 10 countries have convened at AUS for the conference, which is part of the British Council’s global Belief in Dialogue programme.

The confirmed line-up of speakers at the conference include Patricia Fara: a historian of science at the University of Cambridge; Tariq Ramadan: Swiss Muslim intellectual, philosopher, and writer, currently Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University; Qanta Ahmed: author and Associate Professor of Medicine at the State University of New York; Ziauddin Sardar: writer and cultural-critic who specializes in the future of Islam, science and cultural relations and Dr. Nidhal Guessoum, Professor of Physics, AUS.

BBC Panel (Picture taken by Julia Vitullo-Martin)

The Middle East’s first Belief in Dialogue: Science, Culture and Modernity Conference ran June 21st-23rd, 2011 at American University of Sharjah. For more information on the programme and speakers please visit:

http://www.aus.edu/conferences/BIDAUS2011/index.php.

“As a Muslim scientist,” he writes, “I spend much time and expend much energy trying to convince Muslims and other believers to take modern science seriously, with all its methodology and results – and its limits.”

But:

“The reverse exercise, to try to convince scientists and other educated people that religion should be taken seriously, is much more difficult, for several reasons. First, there is an intrinsic asymmetry in the relationship: science, in addition to being a methodology and a discovery process, is able to ascertain a vast array of results and present whole swaths of established knowledge.  Today, no one can doubt that matter is made of atoms and particles, that life evolved and produced a vast tree of species, or that the universe has expanded from a singularity and is today made up of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each made up of hundreds of billions of stars, many/most of which have planets around them, etc.

On the other hand, “religion” (I’ll get to definitions shortly), while having developed branches of knowledge, with methodologies and references, cannot claim to present realms of established knowledge. Still, “religion,” in some forms and from some perspectives, can present an ensemble of highly respectable and beneficial ideas that even hardline scientists can appreciate and find useful, for humanity if not for themselves.”

I’ve been a little surprised that his essay hasn’t gotten more attention in the science blogosphere, as his last sentence is one that –in some quarters–usually prompts strongly negative responses.*

Guessoum is a professor at the American University of Sharjah, in the United Arab Emirates. While his argument that science and religion are not fundamentally irreconcilable may not sway many scientists on this side of the Atlantic, he does raise some interesting questions.

For example:

“Should “Religion” and “Science”  just be considered as totally separate “magisteria” (as in Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘NOMA’, the Non-Overlapping Magisteria) or should one attempt to relate the two in some way?

Will “wonder and awe” come to replace “religion and spirituality” in the future, or does “religion” have some core values that will always be attractive to people?”

To the extent that religion is defined by a set of practices, customs and rituals, I think the answer to the second question is almost certainly no. From an anthropological perspective, the religious impulse seems to have been hardwired from the beginning.

As for Gould’s NOMA, it was never a very compelling model for an accommodation between science and religion, either for scientists deeply skeptical about the value of religion’s influence in society, or for theologians skeptical of the notion that science has nothing to contribute to our understanding of moral and philosophical questions.

*Author’s disclosure: The Templeton Foundation sponsors the Big Questions blog, and formerly sponsored a religion and science journalism fellowship, of which I was a beneficiary in 2010.

By John Farrell.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to my Vimeo Channel.

Even those who most disagree with the tenor of this book will have to acknowledge that it is an exciting time to be reading and reflecting on the implications of the sciences. Only in a few periods of the history of modern science—the Renaissance and the birth of modern science, the early responses to Galileo and Newton, the heated responses evoked by Darwin, and the early reactions to relativity theory and quantum physics—has there been such a clear opening for connecting science and the transcendent. And at no other point in the history of modern science have so many distinct debates converged upon a few central questions:

• Is the world studied by science the only reality, or does it point to a deeper reality?
• Is nature a random and chance process, or a project with a purpose?
• Can humanity be fully understood in terms of the natural sciences, or is there a transcendent dimension to human existence?

Edited by Jean Staune, foreword by Philip Clayton.

Download full article here – Courtesy of Jean Staune

Source: http://philipclayton.net/

Presentation of my academic work

AbdelMadjid Benhabib

In my work I am focusing now, on the events that brought together Noah and his people in the Qur’an, in relation to “Al-Taqāwul” between them. The origin of “Al-Taqāwul” [1] is the Arabic linguistic root (QWL) which refers to movement. The first root meaning of (Q W L) is: speaking «which refers to the speed and movement. That is to say, that the mouth and the tongue are implementing a rapid movement in the use of speaking » according to Ibn Jinni. From that point of view, we can notice the dynamic aspect within the act “to speak”. Also according to Sibawayh, the meaning of the speech does not apply to the word itself but the whole statement. We refer here to the theme (as a topic of verbal exchange) and the rheme (as comments on the theme). The rheme must be related to the theme and follows and complements it. The exchange of the subject’s words (the theme) requires the appearance of the rheme, which responds to the statements posed (That serves to specify how and why elaborate the theme). For instance we see in the verbal exchange between Noah and his people a common theme (Allah) but different rhemes between two parties (Monotheism vs Polytheism). Furthermore, in our corpus of texts related to Noah in the Qur’an we isolate the passages that refer to the act of Inter-Speaking. Therefore, the concept of “Al-Taqāwul” appears here (that is the exchange of speaking) when the activity of speaking is carried out by Noah and his people -an exchange between two parties, who are antagonists. The speech of Noah to his people requires from them -an answer- to the demand that they worship Allah alone. The reason why Noah started to use “el-qāwl” (because it is not the current belief for the people of Noah) and he implemented “el-qāwl” more than his people (for counterbalancing the weight of representations of polytheism –as a worldview– for his people). In response, the speech of the people to Noah expresses their resistance to his “qāwl” (since they come back to their Gods and they focused on Noah as human being and on the worst people who “follow” him… instead his call to oneness Allah and to be as “believers” who are “with Noah” as the messenger Noah characterized them). For this purpose the leaders of the people of Noah did not accept Noah as a messenger; which means they refuse his “qāwl” and through several ways of their “qāwl” (verbal rejection, ordered the rest of the people to act effectively against him, to rebuke him…).

The importance & the goal of this research

During the current era we live linguistic paradigm (through some theories: theory of dialog; theory of conversation, theory of communication, etc.). From this perspective, we take in account the important presence of the word “qāwl” in the Qur’an: Quantitatively speaking, the word “qāwl” is one of the most important word in the Qur’an. It appears, nearly, 1635 times through its various morphological formulas. Also qualitatively speaking, the word cited is important cross various interaction showed by the Qur’an (both in Present Life & Last Day: between prophets & their people; between believers & unbelievers; between Allah & prophets, between Allah & people, etc.). From this point we focused, essentially on the verbal exchange between prophets and their people. That we are pointing out on the main tool which shows to us the intend of Allah, through his messengers, to convince people for moving them from Polytheism to Monotheism when the latter did not worship Allah alone.

From the point cited and as an instance we see, across the story of Noah & his people, that the prophet Noah use only enunciation for arguing on worshiping Allah alone. Therefore “uttering” is at stake when the messenger Noah became in front of his people for reminding them: worshiping ALLAH alone. We see the same thing in other Qur’anic stories on prophets who tried to convince their people for the same Noah’s purpose: worshiping Allah alone (with few differences: e.g. Moses added staff to his enunciation, etc.).

In conclusion, through “taqāwul” we can improve a serious awakening on how Qur’anic characters (messengers & their people) in stories, used “el-qāwl” toward each other. And what this “taqāwul” shows to us in terms of mind representations (psychological, cultural, social, etc. meanings and goals) from the viewpoint of each character in present time, means through their direct speech.

By Abdelmadjid Benhabib, PhD student, Social Sciences Department -Tlemcen University-Algeria – CSRS & Department of History- University of Victoria-Canada

[1] As a translation of this concept, I chose INTER-SPEAKING: I translate it from French language where I found an interesting meaning: In French INTERPARLER: “interparler quelque chose à quelqu’un “Objecter quelque chose à quelqu’un” (See : DMF : Dictionnaire du Moyen Français, version 2010. ATILF – CNRS & Université de Lorraine. Site internet : http://www.atilf.fr/dmf). In English this becomes: Interspeak something to someone “To object something to someone”. This is the main purpose when Noah started to speak to his people. Having said that, I transformed the word a little because I put INTER-SPEAKING; firstly it’s an activity, where we find two common points (partial common belief and common language) but the source and the purpose of speaking, among interlocutors, are different. In this context I put a hyphen between INTER and SPEAKING: because INTER means between and/or among people: here we are in front of a mutual influence (Noah & his people, etc.). SPEAKING means this interaction is through language. Finally the symbol (-) hyphen means there is a difference between what is common and the speech act, because we are in front of a gap. It is from there that we understand the meaning of the implementation of speech among interlocutors: speech quoted goes beyond what is common (it focuses mainly on the issue of difference and ends by this same issue).